40-metre high Spitfire statue plans to go before planners

An artist's impression of the statue

An artist's impression of the statue

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

PLANS for a giant statue in Southampton to celebrate the iconic Spitfire aircraft will go before planners tomorrow.

The proposed site of the 40-metre high monument has switched from Trafalgar Dock to Mayflower Park due to the £450 million Royal Pier development.

And if the plans go through, it is hoped the statue will tower over the city’s waterside within two-and-a-half years.

As previously reported by the Daily Echo, plans for an eye-catching tribute to the iconic aircraft designed in Woolston that helped to win the Second World War have been in the pipeline for years.

But plans to make Trafalgar Dock its home had to be scrapped after the site emerged as the new home of the Red Funnel ferry terminal in the Royal Pier development.

Mayflower Park then emerged as the new home for the statue, and a new charity is being established to see the project through, called the National Spitfire Project.

If the plans are approved at the city council’s planning panel, the charity has to raise £3.5 million for the statue after all the funds raised for the first statue were spent on studies for the original site.

John Hannides, a Conservative city councillor and member of the team behind the plans, said raising funds would take up to 18 months, while construction work could last for a further 12 months.

Speaking ahead of the planning meeting, said: “It’s clearly a very important stepping stone towards realising our ultimate ambition of paying tribute to the Spitfire, the designers and the people that flew, built and maintained it, and I very much hope that we will get the desired outcome with the planning application so we can press on with raising the £3.5 million.

“There is much to do, the greatest challenge is in front of us, but the planning application is clearly a prerequisite for the project to proceed.

“Mayflower Park is the perfect location, it already has good public access and it can be seen from large areas of the city centre, the sky and by cruise passengers.”

Councillors in the planning panel have been recommended to approve the planning application.

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:50am Mon 23 Jun 14

Bagamn says...

How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?
How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke? Bagamn
  • Score: 0

11:01am Mon 23 Jun 14

skeptik says...

How to waste money - the army taught me to identify the aim (the task) plan to achieve the aim with the resources available to me. If you involve Uncle Tom Cobley and all - the process reverses - from planning to achieve the aim to a talking shop aiming to achieve a plan. Easily done when expenses and salaries depend upon it lasting a while.
How to waste money - the army taught me to identify the aim (the task) plan to achieve the aim with the resources available to me. If you involve Uncle Tom Cobley and all - the process reverses - from planning to achieve the aim to a talking shop aiming to achieve a plan. Easily done when expenses and salaries depend upon it lasting a while. skeptik
  • Score: -8

12:02pm Mon 23 Jun 14

allsaintsnocurves says...

Well this has been in the pipeline for a long time and I for one would like to see it happen. It would provide something of interest to cruise ships to see when they come in and tourists who visit the city. The city Skyline needs something like this as I'm not convinced by the buildings in the Mayflower park development are going to really have the WOW factor.

They could raise the money by lottery tickets with 1 big draw and half the money going out in prizes and the rest on the project.
Well this has been in the pipeline for a long time and I for one would like to see it happen. It would provide something of interest to cruise ships to see when they come in and tourists who visit the city. The city Skyline needs something like this as I'm not convinced by the buildings in the Mayflower park development are going to really have the WOW factor. They could raise the money by lottery tickets with 1 big draw and half the money going out in prizes and the rest on the project. allsaintsnocurves
  • Score: 15

12:14pm Mon 23 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

Bagamn wrote:
How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?
Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity.

Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.
[quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?[/p][/quote]Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity. Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 13

12:28pm Mon 23 Jun 14

dwarfer32 says...

It would be nice to see this in Southampton, but shouldn't it go the Woolston side of the water as the Spitfire has a Woolston connection? Just a thought.
It would be nice to see this in Southampton, but shouldn't it go the Woolston side of the water as the Spitfire has a Woolston connection? Just a thought. dwarfer32
  • Score: 11

12:48pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Ciaran says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?
Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity.

Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.
It doesn't imply that at all.

Granted, they should say how much money was wasted (although there is a link in the story to the previous story which does say how much), but it doesn't suggest £3.5m has been wasted - that's just you leaping to conclusions and has nothing to do with how its written.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?[/p][/quote]Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity. Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.[/p][/quote]It doesn't imply that at all. Granted, they should say how much money was wasted (although there is a link in the story to the previous story which does say how much), but it doesn't suggest £3.5m has been wasted - that's just you leaping to conclusions and has nothing to do with how its written. Ciaran
  • Score: -4

1:34pm Mon 23 Jun 14

AngryAleMan says...

If the plans are approved at the city council’s planning panel, the charity has to raise £3.5 million for the statue after all the funds raised for the first statue were spent on studies for the original site.

It totally implies that.
If the plans are approved at the city council’s planning panel, the charity has to raise £3.5 million for the statue after all the funds raised for the first statue were spent on studies for the original site. It totally implies that. AngryAleMan
  • Score: 4

2:23pm Mon 23 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

About bloody time too! This is needed and will help give us our identity. However a few things about this are an absolute disgrace such as the following: How can you waste £100,000 on 'feasibility studies'? It's a landmark, yes a real landmark so just get on and do it. Why can't it be included as part of the Royal Pier Development? If someone has got £450 million to spend doing it up then £2-3.5 million for a Spitfire Memorial seems like peanuts. Why can't a heritage grant help pay for it?

Also, this is another example of Southampton City Council caring more for commercial profits than it does for promoting the City. If the preferred site was Trafalgar Dock then surely it could have been incorporated into the scheme? This needs to really stand out and be visible for everyone to see.
About bloody time too! This is needed and will help give us our identity. However a few things about this are an absolute disgrace such as the following: How can you waste £100,000 on 'feasibility studies'? It's a landmark, yes a real landmark so just get on and do it. Why can't it be included as part of the Royal Pier Development? If someone has got £450 million to spend doing it up then £2-3.5 million for a Spitfire Memorial seems like peanuts. Why can't a heritage grant help pay for it? Also, this is another example of Southampton City Council caring more for commercial profits than it does for promoting the City. If the preferred site was Trafalgar Dock then surely it could have been incorporated into the scheme? This needs to really stand out and be visible for everyone to see. 03alpe01
  • Score: 3

2:39pm Mon 23 Jun 14

garlic says...

I don't much like it, would prefer a modest, tasteful tribute like the Titanic memorial by the cenotaph. Think it would be nothing more than an embarrassing eyesore.

Is the best thing the city has to shout about really that it used to manufacture an airplane 60 years ago? If only these sums of money where invested in something that would actually make the city a nicer place to visit and live in.

If campaigns and efforts like this actually went into preserving heritage in the city then it would be a much nicer place.
I don't much like it, would prefer a modest, tasteful tribute like the Titanic memorial by the cenotaph. Think it would be nothing more than an embarrassing eyesore. Is the best thing the city has to shout about really that it used to manufacture an airplane 60 years ago? If only these sums of money where invested in something that would actually make the city a nicer place to visit and live in. If campaigns and efforts like this actually went into preserving heritage in the city then it would be a much nicer place. garlic
  • Score: -11

2:46pm Mon 23 Jun 14

sparkster says...

I too hope this happens, I see nothing wrong with it at all, Ive seen worse in the way of statues, there are those who will think it an eyesore but I hope it gets the go ahead
I too hope this happens, I see nothing wrong with it at all, Ive seen worse in the way of statues, there are those who will think it an eyesore but I hope it gets the go ahead sparkster
  • Score: 8

2:55pm Mon 23 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

garlic wrote:
I don't much like it, would prefer a modest, tasteful tribute like the Titanic memorial by the cenotaph. Think it would be nothing more than an embarrassing eyesore.

Is the best thing the city has to shout about really that it used to manufacture an airplane 60 years ago? If only these sums of money where invested in something that would actually make the city a nicer place to visit and live in.

If campaigns and efforts like this actually went into preserving heritage in the city then it would be a much nicer place.
you have no idea.
[quote][p][bold]garlic[/bold] wrote: I don't much like it, would prefer a modest, tasteful tribute like the Titanic memorial by the cenotaph. Think it would be nothing more than an embarrassing eyesore. Is the best thing the city has to shout about really that it used to manufacture an airplane 60 years ago? If only these sums of money where invested in something that would actually make the city a nicer place to visit and live in. If campaigns and efforts like this actually went into preserving heritage in the city then it would be a much nicer place.[/p][/quote]you have no idea. 03alpe01
  • Score: -7

3:26pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Ozmosis says...

It's just a shame the statue can't be taller than the Spinnaker Tower! ;-)
It's just a shame the statue can't be taller than the Spinnaker Tower! ;-) Ozmosis
  • Score: 13

3:32pm Mon 23 Jun 14

robich says...

£3.5 million is to be raised by charity to build this hopefully by the end of 2016!
How has the term "charity" become so misused?
I chair a charity that is trying to raise just 1/100th of that sum by mid 2016 for equipment to save life! - That's what charities do - help others, not build projects that should be funded from whoever will benefit from this.
IF the city will benefit, it should be paid fro from local revenue. IF private business will benefit, private business should pay for it.
BUT do we need it? We've lasted 70 years without a memorial of this kind.
£3.5 million is to be raised by charity to build this hopefully by the end of 2016! How has the term "charity" become so misused? I chair a charity that is trying to raise just 1/100th of that sum by mid 2016 for equipment to save life! - That's what charities do - help others, not build projects that should be funded from whoever will benefit from this. IF the city will benefit, it should be paid fro from local revenue. IF private business will benefit, private business should pay for it. BUT do we need it? We've lasted 70 years without a memorial of this kind. robich
  • Score: -3

3:39pm Mon 23 Jun 14

shirlski says...

dwarfer32 wrote:
It would be nice to see this in Southampton, but shouldn't it go the Woolston side of the water as the Spitfire has a Woolston connection? Just a thought.
The Titanic didn't sail from the Civic centre but that's inexplicably where the god awfully dull Sea City is. Woolston does have it's lovely concrete block to R.J Mitchell and the Feather is supposed to mimic a Spitfire Wing so don't be greedy! If this monument ever actually goes up then Mayflower Park is the obvious place for it to go.
[quote][p][bold]dwarfer32[/bold] wrote: It would be nice to see this in Southampton, but shouldn't it go the Woolston side of the water as the Spitfire has a Woolston connection? Just a thought.[/p][/quote]The Titanic didn't sail from the Civic centre but that's inexplicably where the god awfully dull Sea City is. Woolston does have it's lovely concrete block to R.J Mitchell and the Feather is supposed to mimic a Spitfire Wing so don't be greedy! If this monument ever actually goes up then Mayflower Park is the obvious place for it to go. shirlski
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Gristy says...

I so hope that this tribute to the brave airmen and their Spities does succeed. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Spitfires and Hurricanes whizzing overhead hunting the Hun. The sound of those Merlin engines will be with me until I kick the bucket. Wonderful brave lads and brilliant British engineering.
By putting up this 'statue' it will perhaps jog the memories and drive home the point what those brave Lads did for us.
I so hope that this tribute to the brave airmen and their Spities does succeed. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Spitfires and Hurricanes whizzing overhead hunting the Hun. The sound of those Merlin engines will be with me until I kick the bucket. Wonderful brave lads and brilliant British engineering. By putting up this 'statue' it will perhaps jog the memories and drive home the point what those brave Lads did for us. Gristy
  • Score: 6

4:16pm Mon 23 Jun 14

likewatchingbrazil says...

Gristy wrote:
I so hope that this tribute to the brave airmen and their Spities does succeed. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Spitfires and Hurricanes whizzing overhead hunting the Hun. The sound of those Merlin engines will be with me until I kick the bucket. Wonderful brave lads and brilliant British engineering. By putting up this 'statue' it will perhaps jog the memories and drive home the point what those brave Lads did for us.
nice thought but it will probably just be climbed on by some drunken tool trying to look cool.
[quote][p][bold]Gristy[/bold] wrote: I so hope that this tribute to the brave airmen and their Spities does succeed. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Spitfires and Hurricanes whizzing overhead hunting the Hun. The sound of those Merlin engines will be with me until I kick the bucket. Wonderful brave lads and brilliant British engineering. By putting up this 'statue' it will perhaps jog the memories and drive home the point what those brave Lads did for us.[/p][/quote]nice thought but it will probably just be climbed on by some drunken tool trying to look cool. likewatchingbrazil
  • Score: 1

4:21pm Mon 23 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

Gristy wrote:
I so hope that this tribute to the brave airmen and their Spities does succeed. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Spitfires and Hurricanes whizzing overhead hunting the Hun. The sound of those Merlin engines will be with me until I kick the bucket. Wonderful brave lads and brilliant British engineering.
By putting up this 'statue' it will perhaps jog the memories and drive home the point what those brave Lads did for us.
Exactly. What the Spitfire (and Hurricane) did for us will never die and is a part of who we all are today. They rightfully deserve their place in our history. There is more to Southampton's history and heritage than just the Titanic and this is often what gets left off. Why is the Solent Sky Museum in a completely neglected and run down area of town? Do we need this? **** right we do! Will do far more for us than any casino, cinema or restaurant ever will!
[quote][p][bold]Gristy[/bold] wrote: I so hope that this tribute to the brave airmen and their Spities does succeed. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Spitfires and Hurricanes whizzing overhead hunting the Hun. The sound of those Merlin engines will be with me until I kick the bucket. Wonderful brave lads and brilliant British engineering. By putting up this 'statue' it will perhaps jog the memories and drive home the point what those brave Lads did for us.[/p][/quote]Exactly. What the Spitfire (and Hurricane) did for us will never die and is a part of who we all are today. They rightfully deserve their place in our history. There is more to Southampton's history and heritage than just the Titanic and this is often what gets left off. Why is the Solent Sky Museum in a completely neglected and run down area of town? Do we need this? **** right we do! Will do far more for us than any casino, cinema or restaurant ever will! 03alpe01
  • Score: 8

4:33pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Linesman says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?
Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity.

Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.
I seem to recall being told that the Sea City Museum would not cost the Council (the council tax payers), but it did not turn out that way.

I wonder whether this statue will ever get off the ground - no pun intended.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?[/p][/quote]Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity. Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.[/p][/quote]I seem to recall being told that the Sea City Museum would not cost the Council (the council tax payers), but it did not turn out that way. I wonder whether this statue will ever get off the ground - no pun intended. Linesman
  • Score: -1

5:14pm Mon 23 Jun 14

derek james says...

looks like it's been copied from the soviet space flight monument in moscow
looks like it's been copied from the soviet space flight monument in moscow derek james
  • Score: -2

6:00pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Sort that Scrap out first re the Royal Pier a total shambles!
Sort that Scrap out first re the Royal Pier a total shambles! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 4

6:29pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Linesman wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?
Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity.

Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.
I seem to recall being told that the Sea City Museum would not cost the Council (the council tax payers), but it did not turn out that way.

I wonder whether this statue will ever get off the ground - no pun intended.
Not that i am one to go on about the money used for the Sea Museum being taxpayers ........ but ........ believe the write up or not ..... But many peoples concerns about the money used is fully confirmed on Wikipedia !! ...... there for all to see
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?[/p][/quote]Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity. Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.[/p][/quote]I seem to recall being told that the Sea City Museum would not cost the Council (the council tax payers), but it did not turn out that way. I wonder whether this statue will ever get off the ground - no pun intended.[/p][/quote]Not that i am one to go on about the money used for the Sea Museum being taxpayers ........ but ........ believe the write up or not ..... But many peoples concerns about the money used is fully confirmed on Wikipedia !! ...... there for all to see Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

7:56pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Linesman says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Linesman wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?
Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity.

Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.
I seem to recall being told that the Sea City Museum would not cost the Council (the council tax payers), but it did not turn out that way.

I wonder whether this statue will ever get off the ground - no pun intended.
Not that i am one to go on about the money used for the Sea Museum being taxpayers ........ but ........ believe the write up or not ..... But many peoples concerns about the money used is fully confirmed on Wikipedia !! ...... there for all to see
Thank you for pointing me in that direction.

So much for 'a certain person' who claimed that it had cost the city Nothing.

The City Council will have to be very careful with the way that this venture is managed.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?[/p][/quote]Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity. Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.[/p][/quote]I seem to recall being told that the Sea City Museum would not cost the Council (the council tax payers), but it did not turn out that way. I wonder whether this statue will ever get off the ground - no pun intended.[/p][/quote]Not that i am one to go on about the money used for the Sea Museum being taxpayers ........ but ........ believe the write up or not ..... But many peoples concerns about the money used is fully confirmed on Wikipedia !! ...... there for all to see[/p][/quote]Thank you for pointing me in that direction. So much for 'a certain person' who claimed that it had cost the city Nothing. The City Council will have to be very careful with the way that this venture is managed. Linesman
  • Score: 1

8:09pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Linesman wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Linesman wrote:
WalkingOnAWire wrote:
Bagamn wrote:
How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?
Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity.

Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.
I seem to recall being told that the Sea City Museum would not cost the Council (the council tax payers), but it did not turn out that way.

I wonder whether this statue will ever get off the ground - no pun intended.
Not that i am one to go on about the money used for the Sea Museum being taxpayers ........ but ........ believe the write up or not ..... But many peoples concerns about the money used is fully confirmed on Wikipedia !! ...... there for all to see
Thank you for pointing me in that direction.

So much for 'a certain person' who claimed that it had cost the city Nothing.

The City Council will have to be very careful with the way that this venture is managed.
If the money is collected "cleanly" via a charity then the charitable donations would be fully traceable, ..... unlike the Tory ego trip where the use of smoke and mirrors was used to fool some people !!
.
THe worrying thing is that Hannidides still has a finger in it
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagamn[/bold] wrote: How do you waste over 3000000 pounds of Council money just on planning a project? I think this should be investigated as it hints of a misdemeanour. The project has been suspect since the first design competition was found to be faulty and a fit-up. How are they going to find this excessive amount of cash at this time when we are supposedly broke?[/p][/quote]Firstly, it's not council money - it's being raised through a charity. Secondly, this is misleading reporting (again) from the Echo. The amount spent on the original studies was £100,000, not £3.5m as the wording implies here.[/p][/quote]I seem to recall being told that the Sea City Museum would not cost the Council (the council tax payers), but it did not turn out that way. I wonder whether this statue will ever get off the ground - no pun intended.[/p][/quote]Not that i am one to go on about the money used for the Sea Museum being taxpayers ........ but ........ believe the write up or not ..... But many peoples concerns about the money used is fully confirmed on Wikipedia !! ...... there for all to see[/p][/quote]Thank you for pointing me in that direction. So much for 'a certain person' who claimed that it had cost the city Nothing. The City Council will have to be very careful with the way that this venture is managed.[/p][/quote]If the money is collected "cleanly" via a charity then the charitable donations would be fully traceable, ..... unlike the Tory ego trip where the use of smoke and mirrors was used to fool some people !! . THe worrying thing is that Hannidides still has a finger in it Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Alan Reynard says...

The planning panel is drawn from the western edge of Southampton, this is a project that if it involves any area it shoild be Woolston, in reality it should comprise members from both west and eastern Southampton, or are the dice loaded.
Personally I believe the site should have been on the Weston shore itself , and close to the Woolston sailing club the view is far greater and passing liners would see it for a much longer period, in view of its association "The Museum" with flying boats as well, the opportunity is lost to have a living museum with visiting Flying boats parked near by.

More over at this site visitors would have the opportunity to make a whole day out with its closeness to Netley Victoria Park and the associated Weston shore.
As for its view from the liners it is much longer and all "yes all" of the cruise liners using the port would share the view, with the passage of time the skyline will be so high at the Mayflower park that ultimatly it visiblity will be severtely restricted.
In short I believe the site to be ill concieved and rushed.

Alan Reynard
The planning panel is drawn from the western edge of Southampton, this is a project that if it involves any area it shoild be Woolston, in reality it should comprise members from both west and eastern Southampton, or are the dice loaded. Personally I believe the site should have been on the Weston shore itself , and close to the Woolston sailing club the view is far greater and passing liners would see it for a much longer period, in view of its association "The Museum" with flying boats as well, the opportunity is lost to have a living museum with visiting Flying boats parked near by. More over at this site visitors would have the opportunity to make a whole day out with its closeness to Netley Victoria Park and the associated Weston shore. As for its view from the liners it is much longer and all "yes all" of the cruise liners using the port would share the view, with the passage of time the skyline will be so high at the Mayflower park that ultimatly it visiblity will be severtely restricted. In short I believe the site to be ill concieved and rushed. Alan Reynard Alan Reynard
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Datarater says...

I get it. We are Sea City so we put up a monument to an airplane. Clever!!
I get it. We are Sea City so we put up a monument to an airplane. Clever!! Datarater
  • Score: -4

9:13pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Positively4thStreet says...

If the propeller really turned,it could double up as a wind turbine too,thereby paying for itself.
If the propeller really turned,it could double up as a wind turbine too,thereby paying for itself. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 4

9:23pm Mon 23 Jun 14

AndyAndrews says...

Alan Reynard wrote:
The planning panel is drawn from the western edge of Southampton, this is a project that if it involves any area it shoild be Woolston, in reality it should comprise members from both west and eastern Southampton, or are the dice loaded.
Personally I believe the site should have been on the Weston shore itself , and close to the Woolston sailing club the view is far greater and passing liners would see it for a much longer period, in view of its association "The Museum" with flying boats as well, the opportunity is lost to have a living museum with visiting Flying boats parked near by.

More over at this site visitors would have the opportunity to make a whole day out with its closeness to Netley Victoria Park and the associated Weston shore.
As for its view from the liners it is much longer and all "yes all" of the cruise liners using the port would share the view, with the passage of time the skyline will be so high at the Mayflower park that ultimatly it visiblity will be severtely restricted.
In short I believe the site to be ill concieved and rushed.

Alan Reynard
The most accessible place for residents and tourists must be Mayflower Park. Location at Weston would expose it to all the local vandals who have wrecked the seaside shelters and zip wire in the playground etc
[quote][p][bold]Alan Reynard[/bold] wrote: The planning panel is drawn from the western edge of Southampton, this is a project that if it involves any area it shoild be Woolston, in reality it should comprise members from both west and eastern Southampton, or are the dice loaded. Personally I believe the site should have been on the Weston shore itself , and close to the Woolston sailing club the view is far greater and passing liners would see it for a much longer period, in view of its association "The Museum" with flying boats as well, the opportunity is lost to have a living museum with visiting Flying boats parked near by. More over at this site visitors would have the opportunity to make a whole day out with its closeness to Netley Victoria Park and the associated Weston shore. As for its view from the liners it is much longer and all "yes all" of the cruise liners using the port would share the view, with the passage of time the skyline will be so high at the Mayflower park that ultimatly it visiblity will be severtely restricted. In short I believe the site to be ill concieved and rushed. Alan Reynard[/p][/quote]The most accessible place for residents and tourists must be Mayflower Park. Location at Weston would expose it to all the local vandals who have wrecked the seaside shelters and zip wire in the playground etc AndyAndrews
  • Score: 4

9:36pm Mon 23 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

Datarater wrote:
I get it. We are Sea City so we put up a monument to an airplane. Clever!!
You have no idea about this City's history do you?
[quote][p][bold]Datarater[/bold] wrote: I get it. We are Sea City so we put up a monument to an airplane. Clever!![/p][/quote]You have no idea about this City's history do you? 03alpe01
  • Score: 4

9:36pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Alan Reynard says...

A fair comment how ever this situation is brought about because of the lack of night activety in the area, this would change with the increased use of the site and bearing in mind the huge increase occuring at the moment in the Woolston population on the near shore line,with that developement other activeties such as a restuarent etc will inevitably be drawn into the area, remember I am not talking of the Weston Lane end which is totally isolated at night, this a green field sight that could have restuarants and other associated activety involved in a new social schene that Woolston badly needs!
A fair comment how ever this situation is brought about because of the lack of night activety in the area, this would change with the increased use of the site and bearing in mind the huge increase occuring at the moment in the Woolston population on the near shore line,with that developement other activeties such as a restuarent etc will inevitably be drawn into the area, remember I am not talking of the Weston Lane end which is totally isolated at night, this a green field sight that could have restuarants and other associated activety involved in a new social schene that Woolston badly needs! Alan Reynard
  • Score: -1

10:23pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Stubs says...

Someone is getting a back hander.
Someone is getting a back hander. Stubs
  • Score: -2

10:59pm Mon 23 Jun 14

garlic says...

03alpe01 wrote:
garlic wrote:
I don't much like it, would prefer a modest, tasteful tribute like the Titanic memorial by the cenotaph. Think it would be nothing more than an embarrassing eyesore.

Is the best thing the city has to shout about really that it used to manufacture an airplane 60 years ago? If only these sums of money where invested in something that would actually make the city a nicer place to visit and live in.

If campaigns and efforts like this actually went into preserving heritage in the city then it would be a much nicer place.
you have no idea.
Why do I have no idea? I was stating my opinion. I don't like the design, I think it looks naff. No disrespect to whoever designed it, but the competition was done on the cheap, the one thing you need to spend money on for something like this is an intelligent, and original design and that costs time and money. I don't see how it will enhance the city in any way. It will simply be a ugly white elephant.

Simply throwing a load of money and misguided sentiment at a civic project doesn't make it good.

It's great that the city was able to play it's role in WWII, why people think this hideous thing is needed is beyond me.
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garlic[/bold] wrote: I don't much like it, would prefer a modest, tasteful tribute like the Titanic memorial by the cenotaph. Think it would be nothing more than an embarrassing eyesore. Is the best thing the city has to shout about really that it used to manufacture an airplane 60 years ago? If only these sums of money where invested in something that would actually make the city a nicer place to visit and live in. If campaigns and efforts like this actually went into preserving heritage in the city then it would be a much nicer place.[/p][/quote]you have no idea.[/p][/quote]Why do I have no idea? I was stating my opinion. I don't like the design, I think it looks naff. No disrespect to whoever designed it, but the competition was done on the cheap, the one thing you need to spend money on for something like this is an intelligent, and original design and that costs time and money. I don't see how it will enhance the city in any way. It will simply be a ugly white elephant. Simply throwing a load of money and misguided sentiment at a civic project doesn't make it good. It's great that the city was able to play it's role in WWII, why people think this hideous thing is needed is beyond me. garlic
  • Score: 0

12:11am Tue 24 Jun 14

sparkster says...

If it wasnt for the brave men who fought and lost their lives we wouldnt be here today so Im sorry but I dont know how anyone can call it hideous, ive seen far worse hideous things and this isnt one of them
If it wasnt for the brave men who fought and lost their lives we wouldnt be here today so Im sorry but I dont know how anyone can call it hideous, ive seen far worse hideous things and this isnt one of them sparkster
  • Score: 1

12:23am Tue 24 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

garlic wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
garlic wrote:
I don't much like it, would prefer a modest, tasteful tribute like the Titanic memorial by the cenotaph. Think it would be nothing more than an embarrassing eyesore.

Is the best thing the city has to shout about really that it used to manufacture an airplane 60 years ago? If only these sums of money where invested in something that would actually make the city a nicer place to visit and live in.

If campaigns and efforts like this actually went into preserving heritage in the city then it would be a much nicer place.
you have no idea.
Why do I have no idea? I was stating my opinion. I don't like the design, I think it looks naff. No disrespect to whoever designed it, but the competition was done on the cheap, the one thing you need to spend money on for something like this is an intelligent, and original design and that costs time and money. I don't see how it will enhance the city in any way. It will simply be a ugly white elephant.

Simply throwing a load of money and misguided sentiment at a civic project doesn't make it good.

It's great that the city was able to play it's role in WWII, why people think this hideous thing is needed is beyond me.
The design may not suit everybody but you cannot deny it its place. It will be our landmark as well.. And has been pointed out before if it was not for the men and women who were involved with the Spitfire when it mattered then our lives would be very different today. Of course it's needed, this City has never made a good enough memorial to it and that's embarrassing and a total disgrace. This will finally readdress that.
[quote][p][bold]garlic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garlic[/bold] wrote: I don't much like it, would prefer a modest, tasteful tribute like the Titanic memorial by the cenotaph. Think it would be nothing more than an embarrassing eyesore. Is the best thing the city has to shout about really that it used to manufacture an airplane 60 years ago? If only these sums of money where invested in something that would actually make the city a nicer place to visit and live in. If campaigns and efforts like this actually went into preserving heritage in the city then it would be a much nicer place.[/p][/quote]you have no idea.[/p][/quote]Why do I have no idea? I was stating my opinion. I don't like the design, I think it looks naff. No disrespect to whoever designed it, but the competition was done on the cheap, the one thing you need to spend money on for something like this is an intelligent, and original design and that costs time and money. I don't see how it will enhance the city in any way. It will simply be a ugly white elephant. Simply throwing a load of money and misguided sentiment at a civic project doesn't make it good. It's great that the city was able to play it's role in WWII, why people think this hideous thing is needed is beyond me.[/p][/quote]The design may not suit everybody but you cannot deny it its place. It will be our landmark as well.. And has been pointed out before if it was not for the men and women who were involved with the Spitfire when it mattered then our lives would be very different today. Of course it's needed, this City has never made a good enough memorial to it and that's embarrassing and a total disgrace. This will finally readdress that. 03alpe01
  • Score: 0

1:39am Tue 24 Jun 14

BeyondImagination says...

The whole royal pier development will doubtless take sway the last waterside parking spaces in Southampton. Thousands of people enjoy this facility, particularly disabled people who do not enjoy the basic luxury of being able to walk far.
The whole royal pier development will doubtless take sway the last waterside parking spaces in Southampton. Thousands of people enjoy this facility, particularly disabled people who do not enjoy the basic luxury of being able to walk far. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 2

10:16am Tue 24 Jun 14

garlic says...

sparkster wrote:
If it wasnt for the brave men who fought and lost their lives we wouldnt be here today so Im sorry but I dont know how anyone can call it hideous, ive seen far worse hideous things and this isnt one of them
The way I understand it this 'memorial' is only representative to those who built the spitfire, servicemen from the city who died in the war are honoured on and around the cenotaph.

There is a spitfire memorial at Southampton Airport, where I think some of the planes were based. Although that memorial isn't the most accessible.

Just because something is done with good intensions, it doesn't mean that it's good. Mohammed Al Fayed thought it was apt to erect a statue of Michael Jackson outside Craven Cottage, the statue was terrible and the sentiment misguided. Too many times this city (especially post WWII) has been scarred and left with a legacy of badly designed buildings, infrastructure, and now it seems - monuments.

When this ends up looking rubbish it will be too big and expensive to simply melt down and start again like with the Ted Bates statue. Quality, professional designers and architects should have been consulted from the start in order to create something of genuinely quality, which is what you'd want for something that's supposed to be a landmark.

Still I think there are so many better ways to improve the city, and a massive spitfire memorial is not one of them, I don't care what nationalist sentiment people throw out there. Southampton certainly played it's part in WWII, that I know. I just don't agree with this small townesque obsession with the spitfire and the titanic.
[quote][p][bold]sparkster[/bold] wrote: If it wasnt for the brave men who fought and lost their lives we wouldnt be here today so Im sorry but I dont know how anyone can call it hideous, ive seen far worse hideous things and this isnt one of them[/p][/quote]The way I understand it this 'memorial' is only representative to those who built the spitfire, servicemen from the city who died in the war are honoured on and around the cenotaph. There is a spitfire memorial at Southampton Airport, where I think some of the planes were based. Although that memorial isn't the most accessible. Just because something is done with good intensions, it doesn't mean that it's good. Mohammed Al Fayed thought it was apt to erect a statue of Michael Jackson outside Craven Cottage, the statue was terrible and the sentiment misguided. Too many times this city (especially post WWII) has been scarred and left with a legacy of badly designed buildings, infrastructure, and now it seems - monuments. When this ends up looking rubbish it will be too big and expensive to simply melt down and start again like with the Ted Bates statue. Quality, professional designers and architects should have been consulted from the start in order to create something of genuinely quality, which is what you'd want for something that's supposed to be a landmark. Still I think there are so many better ways to improve the city, and a massive spitfire memorial is not one of them, I don't care what nationalist sentiment people throw out there. Southampton certainly played it's part in WWII, that I know. I just don't agree with this small townesque obsession with the spitfire and the titanic. garlic
  • Score: -3

11:30am Tue 24 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
If the propeller really turned,it could double up as a wind turbine too,thereby paying for itself.
Yes, it should only take about a million and a half years.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: If the propeller really turned,it could double up as a wind turbine too,thereby paying for itself.[/p][/quote]Yes, it should only take about a million and a half years. From the sidelines
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Tue 24 Jun 14

lowe esteem says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Datarater wrote:
I get it. We are Sea City so we put up a monument to an airplane. Clever!!
You have no idea about this City's history do you?
You keep repeating that people have no idea, so I will try and enlighten without sounding patronising.

The Spitfire evolved from the Supermarine which was created in conjunction with the Schneidder Trophy, mainly in between the two World Wars, in what must have been a spectacular event for fast and amphibious aeroplanes and was based at the Itchen end of the Solent.

This pioneered the Spitfire production in Woolston, Hamble and Eastleigh, amongst other places.

A visit to the Solent Sky Museum is worthwhile -I will be returning soon.

Tangmere airfield near Chichester also conjures up what it must have been like waiting in Blighty for the signal to go up for another sortie with Gerry.
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Datarater[/bold] wrote: I get it. We are Sea City so we put up a monument to an airplane. Clever!![/p][/quote]You have no idea about this City's history do you?[/p][/quote]You keep repeating that people have no idea, so I will try and enlighten without sounding patronising. The Spitfire evolved from the Supermarine which was created in conjunction with the Schneidder Trophy, mainly in between the two World Wars, in what must have been a spectacular event for fast and amphibious aeroplanes and was based at the Itchen end of the Solent. This pioneered the Spitfire production in Woolston, Hamble and Eastleigh, amongst other places. A visit to the Solent Sky Museum is worthwhile -I will be returning soon. Tangmere airfield near Chichester also conjures up what it must have been like waiting in Blighty for the signal to go up for another sortie with Gerry. lowe esteem
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

,,

I'd be all for if it was 200-metres high and had a bungee jump out over Southampton water..


Otherwise from a distance it looks like a sad mantelpiece ornament that got binned 30 years ago..




,,
,, I'd be all for if it was 200-metres high and had a bungee jump out over Southampton water.. Otherwise from a distance it looks like a sad mantelpiece ornament that got binned 30 years ago.. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree