2,000 docks jobs to be secured by £150m plan (From Daily Echo)

MisterGrimsdale wrote:
If only Doug Morrison had talked to Southy first. Southampton is going to be downgraded to a feeder port. Southy said so.
All that money wasted. Southy could have told DP World about the EU's strategic plans to build a new container port near Avonmouth. It's a secret known only to Southy and the bloke who works behind the bar who told him.

loosehead wrote:
Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden.
Well done ABP

Cyber__Fug wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden.
Well done ABP

Totally agree and then Southampton will be able to take Maersks new generation of 18000 teus that are currently being built.

If it hadn't had been for the nimbys then Maerrk wouldn't have pulled out in the first place.

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?

southy wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?

Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.

southy wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden.
Well done ABP

Totally agree and then Southampton will be able to take Maersks new generation of 18000 teus that are currently being built.

If it hadn't had been for the nimbys then Maerrk wouldn't have pulled out in the first place.

They pulled out because they got cheaper berthing and operations cost else where, Shipping will go in the end where they can make the most profit and the smallest in costs

southy wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?

Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

Torchie1 wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.

Torchie1 wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?

Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.

Southy, earlier in this thread you stated:

"And being a feeder port do not mean its not going to be busy, it could end up being more busier than a hub port"

Now, only a few hours later, you are claiming that feeder ports are definitely always busier than hubs.

I think you're confusing yourself.

loosehead wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.

Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port.
many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted.
They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?

loosehead wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.

Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port.
many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted.
They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

southy wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?

Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.

You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton.

The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".

Torchie1 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.

Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port.
many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted.
They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?

I think a thirteen month public enquiry at which anyone could speak gave all interested parties an opportunity to express their opinion. For every one complaining that it was the wrong result, there's another that is happy with the verdict of the report that came out nine years ago. The report in its entirety is still available on the internet if some points have become a bit cloudy with time.It would be a dull place if everybody agreed with every decision and there would be no point in looking at the posts on this site.

southy wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.

Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port.
many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted.
They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?

What you know as the New Forest now days was not the same as the one William I knew and created.

The reclaim land is only meant for Port Related work, that do not mean a port of any kind, when they stop pumping silt onto that reclain land in the 80;s, it then lost its port related work, for reclaiming it was the port related work, some where to dump the silt out of the river channel.

southy wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.

Double tides also go against us, by having a double tide our high water is a lot lower than any where else in the country, our tidel range is very shallow we only get a 5 meter max difference between low water and high water on spring tides, where as neaps tides are even worse there can be less than 1 meter between low water and high water. really there is no added avantage of having a double tide.

southy wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

southy wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?

Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.

You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton.

The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".

You need to do more research, these new ships are wider not longer, the longest Container ships have never called into Southampton and never will they are to long for this port.
And if ships get any wider then they to will not be able to off load here, not with out renewing all the cranes.

loosehead wrote:
Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden.
Well done ABP

loosehead wrote:
Why was there no public enquiry about the Hythe Marina? was it because the snobs ( would be) who now live in what was a wildlife area don't want the docks next to them? With the new planning laws ABP will be back & you've got a docks even if you don't want it. I personally think they should restore the bay & then no employer in the city limits should employ anyone from the waterside giving any jobs to city dwellers first

southy wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.

Double tides also go against us, by having a double tide our high water is a lot lower than any where else in the country, our tidel range is very shallow we only get a 5 meter max difference between low water and high water on spring tides, where as neaps tides are even worse there can be less than 1 meter between low water and high water. really there is no added avantage of having a double tide.

southy wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

southy wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?

Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.

You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton.

The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".

You need to do more research, these new ships are wider not longer, the longest Container ships have never called into Southampton and never will they are to long for this port.
And if ships get any wider then they to will not be able to off load here, not with out renewing all the cranes.

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

azcaz wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.

loosehead wrote:

azcaz wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.

Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down.
so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this?
Have you seen the area that's sold for housing?
that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships

azcaz wrote:
Had ABP got their way & houses built on the Dibden Bay land, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.................

....!!

Torchie1 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

azcaz wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.

Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down.
so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this?
Have you seen the area that's sold for housing?
that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships

From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?

Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

azcaz wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.

Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down.
so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this?
Have you seen the area that's sold for housing?
that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships

From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?

Yes but Torchie that means nothing. There's never a massive campaign to support an individual's proposal or a company's plans for expansion. Life doesn't work that way. I bet there was no massive public campaign to support the new Tescos at Applemore though there was a noisy campaign against it at the time yet most people tacitly supported it because you can't move in there on Fridays or weekends. You just don;t get mass public support for things like the new power station or the docks expansion but try a vox pop in the street and you find a goof proportion of people positive about the jobs aspect and ar worst most people are indifferent. Re Dibden Bay I was suspicious of the enquiry and closeness of the Inspector to certain individuals in the RADBP organisation. When a rumour started that it was about to be approved the chairman of RADBP was extremely vociferous and confident that the rumours were entirely false and that in fact the opposite was true. What was the basis for his unnatural hubris? It was never explored. I'm not suggesting corruption but I am suggesting that the inspector was weak and did a poor job and even cabinet politicians have also expressed this view.

Torchie1 wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

azcaz wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)

The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.

Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down.
so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this?
Have you seen the area that's sold for housing?
that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships

From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?

Yes but Torchie that means nothing. There's never a massive campaign to support an individual's proposal or a company's plans for expansion. Life doesn't work that way. I bet there was no massive public campaign to support the new Tescos at Applemore though there was a noisy campaign against it at the time yet most people tacitly supported it because you can't move in there on Fridays or weekends. You just don;t get mass public support for things like the new power station or the docks expansion but try a vox pop in the street and you find a goof proportion of people positive about the jobs aspect and ar worst most people are indifferent. Re Dibden Bay I was suspicious of the enquiry and closeness of the Inspector to certain individuals in the RADBP organisation. When a rumour started that it was about to be approved the chairman of RADBP was extremely vociferous and confident that the rumours were entirely false and that in fact the opposite was true. What was the basis for his unnatural hubris? It was never explored. I'm not suggesting corruption but I am suggesting that the inspector was weak and did a poor job and even cabinet politicians have also expressed this view.

Did you explore the possibility of 'underhand behaviour' at the time, no of course you didn't. Like every election which people don't bother to vote at but are always first to complain about the result. The Dibden Bay Inquiry ran for thirteen months with plenty of publicity beforehand which allowed both objectors and supporters to make their points. Organised objectors who felt strongly enough made certain their concerns were raised but everyone was given the chance to air their views and the evidence presented showed only a tiny number of people in favour. Moaning is a British pastime and objectors to the outcome feel hard done by, but the feeling never seems to be strong enough at the time when their efforts could have affected the outcome.

loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?

phil maccavity wrote:

loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?

Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind.
In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'.
To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight.
The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance.
However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently.
My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.

southy wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?

Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.

loosehead wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?

Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind.
In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'.
To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight.
The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance.
However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently.
My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.

Could they move the airport there?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
" The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance"
Phil - agree and glad you picked up on this as well. I am surprised it was never challenged by ABP. The summation by the inspector was simply too equivocal. As I said in a previous post the chair of RADB (forget his name now) was far too confident of the outcome beforehand. I believe he knew more than he should or was entitled to know. Personal phone records would have been very revealing imho.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

loosehead wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?

Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind.
In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'.
To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight.
The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance.
However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently.
My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.

Could they move the airport there?

Only if they used VTOL aircraft.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

loosehead wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?

Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind.
In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'.
To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight.
The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance.
However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently.
My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.

Could they move the airport there?

Only if they used VTOL aircraft.

Or maybe bring back Aquila Airways with its flying boats.

Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured

pantsanon wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured

NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..

loosehead wrote:

pantsanon wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured

NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..

Exactly where did you get that Info from?
I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?

pantsanon wrote:

loosehead wrote:

pantsanon wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured

NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..

Exactly where did you get that Info from?
I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?

The information is correct i know because we have friends beside themselves with worry as to whose next . redundancy's are a direct result from DPWorld .I dont care what you have watched on tv unless you work there you dont know . i suggest you think or atleast research THE TRUTH before you comment. jobs are being lost as we speak....

pantsanon wrote:

pantsanon wrote:

loosehead wrote:

pantsanon wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured

NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..

Exactly where did you get that Info from?
I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?

The information is correct i know because we have friends beside themselves with worry as to whose next . redundancy's are a direct result from DPWorld .I dont care what you have watched on tv unless you work there you dont know . i suggest you think or atleast research THE TRUTH before you comment. jobs are being lost as we speak....

DPWorld have had to cut their wage bill so they can put more money into London gateway, as we all know Southampton is only seasonal busy and no fake crane numbers per hour will change the fact that southampton is on its way to becoming a feeder port.As new customers arrive in Southampton they leave just as quick because DPWorld cannot sustain the fake teu 's per hour suggest sir you are talking out of you arse if you believe Southampton will become anything more than it is SEASONAL. That is why DPWorld employees only work 6 months of the year,( 4 on 4 off)

pantsanon wrote:
Do you directly know someone in these redundancy consultations that are going on? because if you did then you would be concerned as many are that as a direct instruction from DPWorld to lower wage bill men are being made redundant . I dont know why the echo reported new jobs for docks when clearly this situation of men being forced up the road is happening now . I am not being offensive i get angry that only part of the story is being told.You commented about secured jobs which i took umbridge too as this was not correct information. many families are at this present time worried , they have morgages and kids to think about.This situation has arose directly because of DPWorld actions . I apologise if you think im being offensive these men are hard workers and some have been for as long as 15 years . im sure the tax payer doesnt want these families on social security and claiming from the government purse.Phone DPWorld and ask them the question if you dont believe me men are being made redundant from their direct instruction to lower wage bill. also ask them if their men work 4 on 4 off i.e 6 months of the year . i wawit you apology after you have done that .

pantsanon wrote:
I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of

pantsanon wrote:
I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of

loosehead wrote:

pantsanon wrote:
I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of

This is the heading of this article.
2,000 jobs at Southampton docks to be secured by £150m container ship plan