Ford closure: Donate factory site to city, demands MP

Ford closure: Donate factory site to city, demands MP

Southampton Test MP Alan Whitehead

Ford closure: Donate factory site to city, demands MP

Business minister Michael Fallon

First published in Ford Transit Factory Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Politics and business reporter

FORD has been urged to donate its Southampton Transit factory site to the city if it presses ahead with its closure plans.

Speaking during a Westminster debate Southampton MP Alan Whitehead said it would be a “slap in the face” if Ford were to sell off its Swaythling plant for development after receiving state handouts in recent months.

The Labour MP called for the site to be “donated to the community and the city that has put so much into Ford in the past and has been such a pivotal part in making that site work over so many years."

Commercial property experts estimate that the 52-acre industrial site would be worth between £10m and £15m.

Dr Whitehead said it would be “some reparation” for what he said seemed to be a "very grubby episode as far as the future of Ford manufacturing is concerned."

He was speaking during an Westminster Hall debate this morning secured by Caroline Nokes, Tory MP for Romsey and Southampton North.

The local MPs, including Southampton's John Denham and Eastleigh's Chris Huhne, were demanding answers on Ford’s plant closure plan and what the Government was told and when.

Ford announced nearly two weeks ago that it plans to close the plant in July, with the loss of more than 500 jobs.

The MPs questioned the awarding of a £9.3m Government grant just days before the announcement was made and a £80m (€100m) loan from the European Investment Bank (EIB) signed off for Ford Otosan's sprawling Turkish Transit plant in July, which will take over Southampton’s work.

Michael Fallon, a minister from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, said the department was told by Ford in September it would continue to produce the chassis cab variant of the Transit in Southampton in 2013, adding “we had no reason to question what they told us.”

He said Ford only revealed their closure plans to the department the evening before the announcement was made to the world.

Mr Fallon said he was “disappointed they chose not to engage with us until the day before the announcement.”

He said the EIB loan was approved for the retooling of Ford’s Turkish plant to make the next generation of the Transit and was “not based on the cessation of production in Southampton.”

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:59am Tue 6 Nov 12

Lone Ranger. says...

So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:04am Tue 6 Nov 12

Sovietobserver says...

All the decisions will be made by the American Imperialists in Detroit.
They count British politicians as having zero influence over their businesses.
All the decisions will be made by the American Imperialists in Detroit. They count British politicians as having zero influence over their businesses. Sovietobserver
  • Score: 0

11:07am Tue 6 Nov 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

will go to the airport for a very hefty sum.
will go to the airport for a very hefty sum. arthur dalyrimple
  • Score: 0

11:20am Tue 6 Nov 12

Portswoodfoke says...

Alan Whitehead is a waste of space, when real people contact him for him he does not even bother to reply...

This is usual PR bull from a career MP interested in votes not working people, pathetic.
Alan Whitehead is a waste of space, when real people contact him for him he does not even bother to reply... This is usual PR bull from a career MP interested in votes not working people, pathetic. Portswoodfoke
  • Score: 0

11:22am Tue 6 Nov 12

Over the Edge says...

I don't think Fords will donate the site.
I don't think Fords will donate the site. Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

11:22am Tue 6 Nov 12

Totton Ric says...

Like BAT donated there sports ground in Totton to the Totton people (NOT), LOL, they will want to make a maximum profit like BAT did to the sale of the land to linden homes
Like BAT donated there sports ground in Totton to the Totton people (NOT), LOL, they will want to make a maximum profit like BAT did to the sale of the land to linden homes Totton Ric
  • Score: 0

11:31am Tue 6 Nov 12

one in a million says...

Perhaps Eastleigh Council can build those 1000's of houses here rather than on the greenfield land as they are proposing? right near the motorway, railway and airports...ideal!
Perhaps Eastleigh Council can build those 1000's of houses here rather than on the greenfield land as they are proposing? right near the motorway, railway and airports...ideal! one in a million
  • Score: 0

11:48am Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease. southy
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Tue 6 Nov 12

georgetheseventh says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Dont be so 'stupid'....Ford is a 'business' not a charity...this is the usual Southampton MP's baying and naying in the house.
I thought you lot were staunch Tories ?.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Dont be so 'stupid'....Ford is a 'business' not a charity...this is the usual Southampton MP's baying and naying in the house. I thought you lot were staunch Tories ?. georgetheseventh
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Tue 6 Nov 12

peenut81 says...

Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure.
That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start...
Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure. That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start... peenut81
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Alan Whitehead deserves appreciation for coming up with some decent idea which could at least save something out of this disaster.

But to expect Ford to do something decent is like expecting a vulture giving the meat away from its beak. If Ford had any such conscience they would not have closed the plant in the first place.

These mega businesses are driven by pure greed, consideration for humanity and communities is hardly likely to appear on their radars.
Alan Whitehead deserves appreciation for coming up with some decent idea which could at least save something out of this disaster. But to expect Ford to do something decent is like expecting a vulture giving the meat away from its beak. If Ford had any such conscience they would not have closed the plant in the first place. These mega businesses are driven by pure greed, consideration for humanity and communities is hardly likely to appear on their radars. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Lone Ranger. says...

georgetheseventh wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Dont be so 'stupid'....Ford is a 'business' not a charity...this is the usual Southampton MP's baying and naying in the house.
I thought you lot were staunch Tories ?.
Staunch Tories ......... How dare you.
.
Its a Labour Council ... again thankfully. and its a Labour area in Parliament .... until you get to the outlying areas and its ToryDem area
[quote][p][bold]georgetheseventh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Dont be so 'stupid'....Ford is a 'business' not a charity...this is the usual Southampton MP's baying and naying in the house. I thought you lot were staunch Tories ?.[/p][/quote]Staunch Tories ......... How dare you. . Its a Labour Council ... again thankfully. and its a Labour area in Parliament .... until you get to the outlying areas and its ToryDem area Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Brock_and_Roll says...

Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it?

This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef!

As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal.

With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.
Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it? This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef! As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal. With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment. Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

peenut81 wrote:
Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure.
That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start...
In reality the Crown owns all the land even freehold land, and freeholders are only guardians of the land for the crown.

But the Transit van was going to be built in the Docks where American Dump was that is now part of the container port, When plans change in the 60's, the Ford Transit went to Langley plant first on a temp base while a new location was found, and where it is now is where they use to build planes, but because of demilitarization of the British war machine was still going on this plant stop production and became vacant and thats when Fords moved in 1972 I think, it was only let out as a lease, Which the Tax payers paid for, when Fords first moved in there they was still using the machinery that produce planes to build the Transit van, retooling and replacing the old machinery was also paid by the Tax payers.
[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure. That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start...[/p][/quote]In reality the Crown owns all the land even freehold land, and freeholders are only guardians of the land for the crown. But the Transit van was going to be built in the Docks where American Dump was that is now part of the container port, When plans change in the 60's, the Ford Transit went to Langley plant first on a temp base while a new location was found, and where it is now is where they use to build planes, but because of demilitarization of the British war machine was still going on this plant stop production and became vacant and thats when Fords moved in 1972 I think, it was only let out as a lease, Which the Tax payers paid for, when Fords first moved in there they was still using the machinery that produce planes to build the Transit van, retooling and replacing the old machinery was also paid by the Tax payers. southy
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
georgetheseventh wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Dont be so 'stupid'....Ford is a 'business' not a charity...this is the usual Southampton MP's baying and naying in the house.
I thought you lot were staunch Tories ?.
Staunch Tories ......... How dare you.
.
Its a Labour Council ... again thankfully. and its a Labour area in Parliament .... until you get to the outlying areas and its ToryDem area
More to the point Lone is that Fords is a business that gets every one else to pay for every thing while they just take the pure profit with out any out-lay
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]georgetheseventh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Dont be so 'stupid'....Ford is a 'business' not a charity...this is the usual Southampton MP's baying and naying in the house. I thought you lot were staunch Tories ?.[/p][/quote]Staunch Tories ......... How dare you. . Its a Labour Council ... again thankfully. and its a Labour area in Parliament .... until you get to the outlying areas and its ToryDem area[/p][/quote]More to the point Lone is that Fords is a business that gets every one else to pay for every thing while they just take the pure profit with out any out-lay southy
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Tue 6 Nov 12

ohpoppycock says...

Can I bagsy a robotic arm and controller unit?
Can I bagsy a robotic arm and controller unit? ohpoppycock
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it?

This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef!

As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal.

With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.
They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it? This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef! As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal. With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.[/p][/quote]They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name. southy
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Hdg end mo says...

44 acre site...., somehow I can't see fords giving it away for free I'm sure already there in discussions with parties for the future sale of the site.
44 acre site...., somehow I can't see fords giving it away for free I'm sure already there in discussions with parties for the future sale of the site. Hdg end mo
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Tue 6 Nov 12

owen_thesaints says...

southy wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it?

This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef!

As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal.

With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.
They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.
Are you for real? Call it a Fraud instead of Ford?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it? This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef! As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal. With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.[/p][/quote]They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.[/p][/quote]Are you for real? Call it a Fraud instead of Ford? owen_thesaints
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Tue 6 Nov 12

loosehead says...

I have a good friend who works at the Ford plant.
he said a while ago the biggest problem Ford's had they didn't own the site it was leased from the Airport owners so they needed a new pant shop to guarantee it's survival but as they didn't own the site Ford's would not invest in a new paint shop.
Now I never worked there or new/now exactly who owns it but as all political parties were meeting to find out what happened I think this is nothing but politicking by Whitehead.
Did he actually find out who owns the site?
Or did he want people to say "Look Whiteheads fighting for us?
All parties are fighting for us or is the Echo wrong?
I have a good friend who works at the Ford plant. he said a while ago the biggest problem Ford's had they didn't own the site it was leased from the Airport owners so they needed a new pant shop to guarantee it's survival but as they didn't own the site Ford's would not invest in a new paint shop. Now I never worked there or new/now exactly who owns it but as all political parties were meeting to find out what happened I think this is nothing but politicking by Whitehead. Did he actually find out who owns the site? Or did he want people to say "Look Whiteheads fighting for us? All parties are fighting for us or is the Echo wrong? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Tue 6 Nov 12

acid drop says...

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Alan Whitehead is a waste of space, when real people contact him for him he does not even bother to reply...

This is usual PR bull from a career MP interested in votes not working people, pathetic.
couldnt have said it better myself
[quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] wrote: Alan Whitehead is a waste of space, when real people contact him for him he does not even bother to reply... This is usual PR bull from a career MP interested in votes not working people, pathetic.[/p][/quote]couldnt have said it better myself acid drop
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Just another reader says...

The council already owns parcels of land and property around the city that is either not in use or an eyesore. The land that New York New York sits on for example, and Monks Brook playing fields. What on earth are they going to do with a huge former industrial site? I'd rather see Ford sell it to someone that will use the site for business, and hopefully bring jobs back to the city. The site has perfect infrastructure links being next to the m27 and airport.

Gutted that Ford are going, but at least give the city a chance to recoup some much needed jobs.
The council already owns parcels of land and property around the city that is either not in use or an eyesore. The land that New York New York sits on for example, and Monks Brook playing fields. What on earth are they going to do with a huge former industrial site? I'd rather see Ford sell it to someone that will use the site for business, and hopefully bring jobs back to the city. The site has perfect infrastructure links being next to the m27 and airport. Gutted that Ford are going, but at least give the city a chance to recoup some much needed jobs. Just another reader
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Cyber__Fug says...

southy wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it?

This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef!

As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal.

With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.
They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.
yawn.... no you cant..... or something like that.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it? This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef! As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal. With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.[/p][/quote]They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.[/p][/quote]yawn.... no you cant..... or something like that. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Tue 6 Nov 12

sarfhamton says...

Good idea and they donate me a new Ford Focus an all
Good idea and they donate me a new Ford Focus an all sarfhamton
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Tue 6 Nov 12

MGRA says...

And labour wonder why they were dumped out of power ? yes thats right Alan in the fluffy world you live in , loss making car companies just "give away" land. What a total and utter fool this man is....
And labour wonder why they were dumped out of power ? yes thats right Alan in the fluffy world you live in , loss making car companies just "give away" land. What a total and utter fool this man is.... MGRA
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Cyber__Fug says...

MGRA wrote:
And labour wonder why they were dumped out of power ? yes thats right Alan in the fluffy world you live in , loss making car companies just "give away" land. What a total and utter fool this man is....
and the further left they go the more stupid they get !
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: And labour wonder why they were dumped out of power ? yes thats right Alan in the fluffy world you live in , loss making car companies just "give away" land. What a total and utter fool this man is....[/p][/quote]and the further left they go the more stupid they get ! Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Tue 6 Nov 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
Fords acquired the site in 1953.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.[/p][/quote]Fords acquired the site in 1953. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Tue 6 Nov 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it?

This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef!

As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal.

With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.
They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.
All is not lost. Southy will be along to nationalise Fords, rebadge the Transit, probably call it the 'Southy Bulls++t' of which there may also be the
Turbo charged version.
Each model will come with a detailed history of the Bildenberg meetings of 1945, a copy of the Mormon code and confirmation that Turkey has been refused entry to the EU, and will do so again shortly.
His Sikh friend, Rahit Maryada will be in charge of production
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it? This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef! As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal. With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.[/p][/quote]They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.[/p][/quote]All is not lost. Southy will be along to nationalise Fords, rebadge the Transit, probably call it the 'Southy Bulls++t' of which there may also be the Turbo charged version. Each model will come with a detailed history of the Bildenberg meetings of 1945, a copy of the Mormon code and confirmation that Turkey has been refused entry to the EU, and will do so again shortly. His Sikh friend, Rahit Maryada will be in charge of production hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Tue 6 Nov 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

MGRA wrote:
And labour wonder why they were dumped out of power ? yes thats right Alan in the fluffy world you live in , loss making car companies just "give away" land. What a total and utter fool this man is....
That would go against every Tory Capitalist ethos, getting something for nothing.
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: And labour wonder why they were dumped out of power ? yes thats right Alan in the fluffy world you live in , loss making car companies just "give away" land. What a total and utter fool this man is....[/p][/quote]That would go against every Tory Capitalist ethos, getting something for nothing. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Tue 6 Nov 12

bazzeroz says...

Whatever SCC build there it will be a waste of time because about 10 years down the line they'll close it and sell it! O c e a n V i l l a g e comes to mind. I KNOW, BUILD A ICE RINK!
Whatever SCC build there it will be a waste of time because about 10 years down the line they'll close it and sell it! O c e a n V i l l a g e comes to mind. I KNOW, BUILD A ICE RINK! bazzeroz
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

Cyber__Fug wrote:
MGRA wrote:
And labour wonder why they were dumped out of power ? yes thats right Alan in the fluffy world you live in , loss making car companies just "give away" land. What a total and utter fool this man is....
and the further left they go the more stupid they get !
You mean the more right wing they get, Labour as beeing moving slowly more to the right in economics and political policy.
[quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: And labour wonder why they were dumped out of power ? yes thats right Alan in the fluffy world you live in , loss making car companies just "give away" land. What a total and utter fool this man is....[/p][/quote]and the further left they go the more stupid they get ![/p][/quote]You mean the more right wing they get, Labour as beeing moving slowly more to the right in economics and political policy. southy
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it?

This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef!

As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal.

With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.
Well if you walk to the site or look across you will see several businesses very close by.
.
Airways Optical, Magna Seating, Regus etc...... So a business park is possible
[quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it? This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef! As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal. With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.[/p][/quote]Well if you walk to the site or look across you will see several businesses very close by. . Airways Optical, Magna Seating, Regus etc...... So a business park is possible Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
Fords acquired the site in 1953.
No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine.
The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.[/p][/quote]Fords acquired the site in 1953.[/p][/quote]No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine. The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys southy
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Cyber__Fug says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
Fords acquired the site in 1953.
No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine.
The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys
There you go again..... you have jumped straight in and are wrong !
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.[/p][/quote]Fords acquired the site in 1953.[/p][/quote]No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine. The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys[/p][/quote]There you go again..... you have jumped straight in and are wrong ! Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it?

This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef!

As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal.

With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.
They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.
No, they couldn't Peter.

You are the King of Silly Ideas but not solutions, but this is bad, even for you.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it? This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef! As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal. With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.[/p][/quote]They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.[/p][/quote]No, they couldn't Peter. You are the King of Silly Ideas but not solutions, but this is bad, even for you. Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
Fords acquired the site in 1953.
No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine.
The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys
In 1953 Ford acquired Briggs, and hence gained control of the 630,000 square feet Southampton plant.

The first version was the 'FK 1000' in Germany in 1953.

In 1961 it was renamed Ford Taunus Transit, until 1965. This was the first Ford Transit.

The Ford Taurus is a saloon car.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.[/p][/quote]Fords acquired the site in 1953.[/p][/quote]No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine. The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys[/p][/quote]In 1953 Ford acquired Briggs, and hence gained control of the 630,000 square feet Southampton plant. The first version was the 'FK 1000' in Germany in 1953. In 1961 it was renamed Ford Taunus Transit, until 1965. This was the first Ford Transit. The Ford Taurus is a saloon car. Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Tue 6 Nov 12

middlestream says...

Youll find the cost of reinstatement of the land from heavy industrial use to land with development potential..to be quite expensive..it might be worth ford to just give it away to southampton...leavin
g all their rubbish onsite...theyve got deadlines to meet in turkey now..they wont be interested in making swaythling a green and pleasant land again..
Youll find the cost of reinstatement of the land from heavy industrial use to land with development potential..to be quite expensive..it might be worth ford to just give it away to southampton...leavin g all their rubbish onsite...theyve got deadlines to meet in turkey now..they wont be interested in making swaythling a green and pleasant land again.. middlestream
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 6 Nov 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
Fords acquired the site in 1953.
No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine.
The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys
http://www.factoryto
ur.co.uk/southampton
/

This must be another website that is wrong then.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.[/p][/quote]Fords acquired the site in 1953.[/p][/quote]No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine. The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys[/p][/quote]http://www.factoryto ur.co.uk/southampton / This must be another website that is wrong then. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
Fords acquired the site in 1953.
No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine.
The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys
http://www.factoryto

ur.co.uk/southampton

/

This must be another website that is wrong then.
why don't you read "This website is not associated with any factories or manufacturers."
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.[/p][/quote]Fords acquired the site in 1953.[/p][/quote]No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine. The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys[/p][/quote]http://www.factoryto ur.co.uk/southampton / This must be another website that is wrong then.[/p][/quote]why don't you read "This website is not associated with any factories or manufacturers." southy
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Tue 6 Nov 12

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
Fords acquired the site in 1953.
No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine.
The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys
http://www.factoryto


ur.co.uk/southampton


/

This must be another website that is wrong then.
why don't you read "This website is not associated with any factories or manufacturers."
I never said it was associated. But the info it contains is relevant.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.[/p][/quote]Fords acquired the site in 1953.[/p][/quote]No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine. The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys[/p][/quote]http://www.factoryto ur.co.uk/southampton / This must be another website that is wrong then.[/p][/quote]why don't you read "This website is not associated with any factories or manufacturers."[/p][/quote]I never said it was associated. But the info it contains is relevant. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Linesman says...

Portswoodfoke wrote:
Alan Whitehead is a waste of space, when real people contact him for him he does not even bother to reply...

This is usual PR bull from a career MP interested in votes not working people, pathetic.
If you make as much sense in a letter to him as you do in your first sentence, then is it any wonder that you get no response?
[quote][p][bold]Portswoodfoke[/bold] wrote: Alan Whitehead is a waste of space, when real people contact him for him he does not even bother to reply... This is usual PR bull from a career MP interested in votes not working people, pathetic.[/p][/quote]If you make as much sense in a letter to him as you do in your first sentence, then is it any wonder that you get no response? Linesman
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
Fords acquired the site in 1953.
No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine.
The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys
In 1953 Ford acquired Briggs, and hence gained control of the 630,000 square feet Southampton plant.

The first version was the 'FK 1000' in Germany in 1953.

In 1961 it was renamed Ford Taunus Transit, until 1965. This was the first Ford Transit.

The Ford Taurus is a saloon car.
The Taurus are also small vans about the size of a estate car, the transit was a med size class van, the same range as the Bedford CA and the BL J4 vans, the first name Transit was used at langley plant in the sixtys, the ford taurus van that was made in germany model design was indeed the FK 1000, and was the about same size as the VW beetle camper van, smaller than the CA and J4. Briggs use to make army chassis and had the use of a side building.
Fords did not aquire any land only leases, check with the land registery in weymouth, first lease was registered in the 50's at langley after that next was Daginham, the Transit plant was the last lease to be taken up 1970/71
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.[/p][/quote]Fords acquired the site in 1953.[/p][/quote]No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine. The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys[/p][/quote]In 1953 Ford acquired Briggs, and hence gained control of the 630,000 square feet Southampton plant. The first version was the 'FK 1000' in Germany in 1953. In 1961 it was renamed Ford Taunus Transit, until 1965. This was the first Ford Transit. The Ford Taurus is a saloon car.[/p][/quote]The Taurus are also small vans about the size of a estate car, the transit was a med size class van, the same range as the Bedford CA and the BL J4 vans, the first name Transit was used at langley plant in the sixtys, the ford taurus van that was made in germany model design was indeed the FK 1000, and was the about same size as the VW beetle camper van, smaller than the CA and J4. Briggs use to make army chassis and had the use of a side building. Fords did not aquire any land only leases, check with the land registery in weymouth, first lease was registered in the 50's at langley after that next was Daginham, the Transit plant was the last lease to be taken up 1970/71 southy
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters.
.
Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City
Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.
Fords acquired the site in 1953.
No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine.
The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys
http://www.factoryto



ur.co.uk/southampton



/

This must be another website that is wrong then.
why don't you read "This website is not associated with any factories or manufacturers."
I never said it was associated. But the info it contains is relevant.
Info was put up by some one like your self, check with the land registery at weymouth.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So it does appear that Fords do own the site ........... despite all of our business and property expert posters. . Not a bad idea for Fords to give the site to the City[/p][/quote]Thats just it Fords do not own the site, Fords was giving the money from tax payers money to lease the site, the original plan was for the ford factory to be in the docks, when plans changed and this site came up for lease.[/p][/quote]Fords acquired the site in 1953.[/p][/quote]No they did not, the the van was first called taurus and made in Germany, the name Transit came in a meno from Germany and the head of uk fords jump on the name and that was in the 60's, when production started on the first transit vans they was made in Langley plant and had a Perkins engine, the last Transits made in Langley had a Perkins 4/108 engine. The land that they was filling in around Tanners brook (and I sure Loosehead knows where I mean) American dump, was ear mark for Fords to build there new plant, in the late 60's, But plans change in the 60's and this land became part of the container port, and the reason why Transits was first built in Langley and not southampton, The new location came up when the old Moons family plane manufators stop making planes because of the government cutting back on prop planes, what also did not help was the plans for the M27 motorway and Fords acquired the site in the very early seventys[/p][/quote]http://www.factoryto ur.co.uk/southampton / This must be another website that is wrong then.[/p][/quote]why don't you read "This website is not associated with any factories or manufacturers."[/p][/quote]I never said it was associated. But the info it contains is relevant.[/p][/quote]Info was put up by some one like your self, check with the land registery at weymouth. southy
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Tue 6 Nov 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it?

This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef!

As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal.

With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.
They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.
No, they couldn't Peter.

You are the King of Silly Ideas but not solutions, but this is bad, even for you.
Yes they could, for Fords to be able to stop it they need to of paid and own every thing, but thats not how Fords operate unless they are force to, Fords gets every one else to pay for them Mainly Governments so fords only gets pure profits with no out laying costs.
And like I pointed out before, its the British tax payers that own the building the land and the tools and machinery with in that plant, You try and get back the money given to
Fords by the Government it will amount into the £billion plus.
When this plant finally close Fords production of Vehicles production will come to an end, Daginham is only a component factory, and an Import docks for Fords, and there are plans to close Daginham down in 2014 to 2016
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it? This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef! As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal. With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.[/p][/quote]They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.[/p][/quote]No, they couldn't Peter. You are the King of Silly Ideas but not solutions, but this is bad, even for you.[/p][/quote]Yes they could, for Fords to be able to stop it they need to of paid and own every thing, but thats not how Fords operate unless they are force to, Fords gets every one else to pay for them Mainly Governments so fords only gets pure profits with no out laying costs. And like I pointed out before, its the British tax payers that own the building the land and the tools and machinery with in that plant, You try and get back the money given to Fords by the Government it will amount into the £billion plus. When this plant finally close Fords production of Vehicles production will come to an end, Daginham is only a component factory, and an Import docks for Fords, and there are plans to close Daginham down in 2014 to 2016 southy
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Tue 6 Nov 12

loosehead says...

I watched Whitehead on BBC local news.
What he said there compared to this article weren't the same thing.
on Telly he said it wouldn't go down to well if after getting grants from the government & the EU.
Ford then sold this land for a large amount.
or words very similar to what I've put forward.
Maybe the Airport can buy it if they don't already own a chunk of it &* turn the airport & runway around close the road & make the runway longer & become an International Airport with all the extra jobs that would bring?
Soon have the Anti expansion brigade out wouldn't it?
Maybe a Helicopter port?
I watched Whitehead on BBC local news. What he said there compared to this article weren't the same thing. on Telly he said it wouldn't go down to well if after getting grants from the government & the EU. Ford then sold this land for a large amount. or words very similar to what I've put forward. Maybe the Airport can buy it if they don't already own a chunk of it &* turn the airport & runway around close the road & make the runway longer & become an International Airport with all the extra jobs that would bring? Soon have the Anti expansion brigade out wouldn't it? Maybe a Helicopter port? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Tue 6 Nov 12

ox69ful says...

an ideal location for a Snow Dome I think.
an ideal location for a Snow Dome I think. ox69ful
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it?

This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef!

As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal.

With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.
They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.
No, they couldn't Peter.

You are the King of Silly Ideas but not solutions, but this is bad, even for you.
Yes they could, for Fords to be able to stop it they need to of paid and own every thing, but thats not how Fords operate unless they are force to, Fords gets every one else to pay for them Mainly Governments so fords only gets pure profits with no out laying costs.
And like I pointed out before, its the British tax payers that own the building the land and the tools and machinery with in that plant, You try and get back the money given to
Fords by the Government it will amount into the £billion plus.
When this plant finally close Fords production of Vehicles production will come to an end, Daginham is only a component factory, and an Import docks for Fords, and there are plans to close Daginham down in 2014 to 2016
Yes Peter, it's an idealistic IDEA or a theory. That's all you have.

But never a workable or realistic solution.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brock_and_Roll[/bold] wrote: Just assumung that Ford did donate the land what exactly would the City do with it? This has the potential for some kind of public-money swallowing white elephant project! a la Boscombe surf reef! As for housing, the site is much closer to the motorway than any other developments nearby so not ideal. With proximity to the airport, some kind of aviation related use looks the obvious choice in terms of generating wealth and employment.[/p][/quote]They could carry on making vans there of the same design but with a different name.[/p][/quote]No, they couldn't Peter. You are the King of Silly Ideas but not solutions, but this is bad, even for you.[/p][/quote]Yes they could, for Fords to be able to stop it they need to of paid and own every thing, but thats not how Fords operate unless they are force to, Fords gets every one else to pay for them Mainly Governments so fords only gets pure profits with no out laying costs. And like I pointed out before, its the British tax payers that own the building the land and the tools and machinery with in that plant, You try and get back the money given to Fords by the Government it will amount into the £billion plus. When this plant finally close Fords production of Vehicles production will come to an end, Daginham is only a component factory, and an Import docks for Fords, and there are plans to close Daginham down in 2014 to 2016[/p][/quote]Yes Peter, it's an idealistic IDEA or a theory. That's all you have. But never a workable or realistic solution. Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Tue 6 Nov 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

southy wrote:
peenut81 wrote:
Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure.
That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start...
In reality the Crown owns all the land even freehold land, and freeholders are only guardians of the land for the crown.

But the Transit van was going to be built in the Docks where American Dump was that is now part of the container port, When plans change in the 60's, the Ford Transit went to Langley plant first on a temp base while a new location was found, and where it is now is where they use to build planes, but because of demilitarization of the British war machine was still going on this plant stop production and became vacant and thats when Fords moved in 1972 I think, it was only let out as a lease, Which the Tax payers paid for, when Fords first moved in there they was still using the machinery that produce planes to build the Transit van, retooling and replacing the old machinery was also paid by the Tax payers.
And the " Crown " is The City of London corporation ,yours ,mine and everyone elses status is corporate slave ,check out your STRAWMAN.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure. That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start...[/p][/quote]In reality the Crown owns all the land even freehold land, and freeholders are only guardians of the land for the crown. But the Transit van was going to be built in the Docks where American Dump was that is now part of the container port, When plans change in the 60's, the Ford Transit went to Langley plant first on a temp base while a new location was found, and where it is now is where they use to build planes, but because of demilitarization of the British war machine was still going on this plant stop production and became vacant and thats when Fords moved in 1972 I think, it was only let out as a lease, Which the Tax payers paid for, when Fords first moved in there they was still using the machinery that produce planes to build the Transit van, retooling and replacing the old machinery was also paid by the Tax payers.[/p][/quote]And the " Crown " is The City of London corporation ,yours ,mine and everyone elses status is corporate slave ,check out your STRAWMAN. arthur dalyrimple
  • Score: 0

5:31pm Tue 6 Nov 12

middlestream says...

Alan whitehead wants ford to donate the site to the city.
Alan whitehead wants ford to donate the site to the city. middlestream
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Tue 6 Nov 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
peenut81 wrote:
Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure.
That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start...
In reality the Crown owns all the land even freehold land, and freeholders are only guardians of the land for the crown.

But the Transit van was going to be built in the Docks where American Dump was that is now part of the container port, When plans change in the 60's, the Ford Transit went to Langley plant first on a temp base while a new location was found, and where it is now is where they use to build planes, but because of demilitarization of the British war machine was still going on this plant stop production and became vacant and thats when Fords moved in 1972 I think, it was only let out as a lease, Which the Tax payers paid for, when Fords first moved in there they was still using the machinery that produce planes to build the Transit van, retooling and replacing the old machinery was also paid by the Tax payers.
Usual mish mash of Southy picking up on a few snippets on information and oming out with erroneous 'facts'
1. Fords never had a plan for a Transit factory in the Docks (however,apparently, Fords did try to buy some land off the Barker Mill estate at Millbrook in the 1920's to develop a car plant with the intention of moving from Trafford Park in Manchester where they first built cars in the UK)
2. Fords bought out the Briggs Vehicle Body Company in 1953 and acquired the Factory site. (it once had an onsite football field where Briggs Sports played)
3. Before Briggs took over the factory it was operated by Cunliffe Owen, a plane manufacturer
3. Transit production started in 1965 so Fords did not 'move in' in 1972
.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure. That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start...[/p][/quote]In reality the Crown owns all the land even freehold land, and freeholders are only guardians of the land for the crown. But the Transit van was going to be built in the Docks where American Dump was that is now part of the container port, When plans change in the 60's, the Ford Transit went to Langley plant first on a temp base while a new location was found, and where it is now is where they use to build planes, but because of demilitarization of the British war machine was still going on this plant stop production and became vacant and thats when Fords moved in 1972 I think, it was only let out as a lease, Which the Tax payers paid for, when Fords first moved in there they was still using the machinery that produce planes to build the Transit van, retooling and replacing the old machinery was also paid by the Tax payers.[/p][/quote]Usual mish mash of Southy picking up on a few snippets on information and oming out with erroneous 'facts' 1. Fords never had a plan for a Transit factory in the Docks (however,apparently, Fords did try to buy some land off the Barker Mill estate at Millbrook in the 1920's to develop a car plant with the intention of moving from Trafford Park in Manchester where they first built cars in the UK) 2. Fords bought out the Briggs Vehicle Body Company in 1953 and acquired the Factory site. (it once had an onsite football field where Briggs Sports played) 3. Before Briggs took over the factory it was operated by Cunliffe Owen, a plane manufacturer 3. Transit production started in 1965 so Fords did not 'move in' in 1972 . phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Torchie1 says...

peenut81 wrote:
Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure.
That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start...
The only time a piece of land must be put on the Land Registry by law is when it is sold. Unregistered land can be voluntarily put on the Land Registry but when land changes hands within families or under the terms of a Will, there is no requirement to do anything. Would you sleep more soundly knowing who owned the fields you drive past on your way to work?
[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: Opens up the wider question of why we are not allowed to know who owns what land in this country, there is no compulsory register and no method of forcing disclosure. That should be changed. Be interesting to see how much the Royal Family still actually own for a start...[/p][/quote]The only time a piece of land must be put on the Land Registry by law is when it is sold. Unregistered land can be voluntarily put on the Land Registry but when land changes hands within families or under the terms of a Will, there is no requirement to do anything. Would you sleep more soundly knowing who owned the fields you drive past on your way to work? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Tue 6 Nov 12

wilson castaway says...

Living directly behind Fords im really interested in what the plans are for the site once it closes.If it is demolished for homes they would also need to build a new primary school as the closest is over subscribed with no room to expand.Secondly how would expanding the airport impact on our new development of level 6 zero carbon homes? Im no nimby, just curious.
Living directly behind Fords im really interested in what the plans are for the site once it closes.If it is demolished for homes they would also need to build a new primary school as the closest is over subscribed with no room to expand.Secondly how would expanding the airport impact on our new development of level 6 zero carbon homes? Im no nimby, just curious. wilson castaway
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Tue 6 Nov 12

Sovietobserver says...

Just noticed to-day Ford are running an intense advertising campaign for the Transit on Russian TV / Radio.
They are evidently endeavouring to take advantage of their forthcoming extra output / capacity from their Turkish plant in nearby markets in Eastern Europe and beyond, in competition, especially with Iveco and MAZ before they take any lucrative trade from some of the ex-USSR central Asian states that are booming at present.
The Southampton closure could be part of this grand plan of making economies and investing in new territorial sales tactics.
Just noticed to-day Ford are running an intense advertising campaign for the Transit on Russian TV / Radio. They are evidently endeavouring to take advantage of their forthcoming extra output / capacity from their Turkish plant in nearby markets in Eastern Europe and beyond, in competition, especially with Iveco and MAZ before they take any lucrative trade from some of the ex-USSR central Asian states that are booming at present. The Southampton closure could be part of this grand plan of making economies and investing in new territorial sales tactics. Sovietobserver
  • Score: 0

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