When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
4:40pm Wednesday 16th September 2009 in Royal Pier & Casino
By Peter Law, Feature Writer
A £325M vision to transform Southampton’s waterfront into a world class “marine basin” with a giant promenade has been unveiled.
Developers yesterday revealed plans for a development that would reshape and dramatically increase the size of the Royal Pier district.
The latest scheme would see the derelict pier demolished – at a cost of £3m – and in its place a new promenade would stretch from Mayflower Park across the water to Town Quay.
But last night those behind the scheme were warned that the people of Southampton must not be left with any more “broken promises” over plans for the waterfront.
Taking inspiration from Sydney and Cape Town, the site would become a circular basin with sweeping views of Southampton Water.
Interactive map of the waterfront development plan
To create much-needed space, Red Funnel’s ferry terminal would be relocated to either the end of Mayflower Park, adjacent to berth 101, or to the Town Quay marina.
The latest ideas were yesterday put forward by Scottish developers Kilmartin, who are one year into an 18-month exclusivity agreement with the council.
However, many specific details were still lacking from a briefing for business bosses and even Southampton City Council leaders admit that construction would not begin for at least two years.
The boss of the PSP Southampton Boat Show said that redevelopment of the waterfront was vital for its future.
Shops, restaurants, hotels and offices make up the bulk of the new proposal, but a major tourist drawcard – such as an arena, heritage attraction or casino – has been made a priority.
Kuti’s Royal Thai Pier restaurant would remain untouched, as would Mayflower Park.
Colin Banyard, the Kilmartin chairman, said that the Royal Pier scheme was the most complex he had worked on.
“We believe that this site has the potential to provide a world class waterfront venue akin to Darling Harbour in Sydney or the Victoria and Albert Docks in Cape Town,” he said.
“In many of these examples we have this same mix of an active port, busy ferry services and yet the mix provides an exciting and vibrant waterfront that is a main attraction in these cities.”
Central to the new plan is the need to accommodate the boat show, which pumps about £11m into the economy each year.
Mr Banyard said that additional space would be created to allow more exhibitors on both the water and land.
The relocation of the Red Funnel marshalling yard would free up space, while permanent marina facilities – as well the boat show’s own temporary marina – would allow the likes of Sunseeker to show off more of its floating fleet.
Andrew Williams, chief executive of National Boat Shows, said: “The redevelopment will give us the space, location, access and facilities to make us the best show in the world again. If the development does not happen then we will keep going backwards.”
Councillor Royston Smith, Cabinet member for economic development, said that the council was under no obligation to take Kilmartin’s proposal forward.
He said that the site would be marketed to developers in February and he was hopeful of appointing a firm by the end of the year. Planning approval would probably take another 12 months, by which time it is hoped the economic slump will have lifted.
“This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
If we do not get this one right we will have failed,” Cllr Smith said.
“I would rather see it take ten years rather than it being a second-rate development in this location.”
Previous plans to redevelop Royal Pier were scrapped two years ago because of the £20m cost of land reclamation to increase the size of Mayflower Park.
Mr Banyard said that land reclamation would most likely still be needed, but only at the northern end of the park at a cost of about £12m.
Heavy-bearing piers and bridges would connect the extended park with Town Quay, which Mr Banyard said would also be given a new lease of life. He said: “We strongly believe that any reclamation or pier structure needs to connect to Town Quay to revive its fortunes.”
Another reason the waterfront has laid dormant for so long is ABP’s objection to high-rise apartment blocks being so close to its port operations – a stance port director Doug Morrison reiterated.
“ABP desperately wants to see a world class front here, but we will not allow any residential in this area,” he said.
In 2007 a proposal for at least 1,000 flats rising on the pier and a vast swathe of reclaimed land failed.
Mr Banyard – whose proposal will go out to public consultation in the new year – said that any new homes would be built to the north of the site, close to the De Vere and Holiday Inn hotels.
EXACTLY how the new waterfront and Red Funnel relocation would be paid for remains unclear. Last night the ferry company was unavailable for comment, but it is understood that it would not be expected to pay for its move.
Colin Banyard, chairman of developers Kilmartin, said that the sale and lease of space for offices, shops, hotels and restaurants would generate “significant income”, but that there would need to be other development to cover any shortfall.
As previously reported by the Echo, this could include a large casino or 10,000-seat indoor arena, but where either of these huge buildings would be located remains a mystery.
Mr Banyard also revealed that almost every hotel operator in the UK had expressed an interested in building on the site.
But last night the council was issued with a stark warning over the proposals.
Liberal Democrat city councillor John Slade said: “Any investment in the city is good, but we don’t want to end up with more empty promises.
“All too often we see schemes which are put on the table and then they don’t materialise any further.”
Comments(49)
jammyswine
says...
11:08am Wed 16 Sep 09
mr tein wrote:I was at the meeting and I'm afraid you are wrong. Although, as the story says, it is too early for detailed plans, the vision is for a waterfront area that is accessible and envied by similar ports around the world. I am not connected to the development, nor am I Southampton born & bred but I did think the ideas that are being put forward are exciting for the city.
So the only decent waterfront park we have will be destroyed so we can have a few more shosps and restaurants. This city has no idea.
jammyswine
says...
11:10am Wed 16 Sep 09
Duncan Disorderly
says...
11:34am Wed 16 Sep 09
James May For PM
says...
11:50am Wed 16 Sep 09
southy
says...
11:53am Wed 16 Sep 09
MaxxieO
says...
11:55am Wed 16 Sep 09
Zeo
says...
11:59am Wed 16 Sep 09
News Fanatic
says...
12:02pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Sulaiman Al Fahim
says...
12:08pm Wed 16 Sep 09
News Fanatic wrote:Dixons has never been empty - it just rebranded as Currys, and West Quay has around 85 to 90% occupancy, I believe.
With so many shops and offices empty in the city, what is the point of building even more? East Street and Bargate Shopping Centres are almost deserted; the Marlands has empty shops, particulary on the first floor and some of the shops that closed when WestQuay opened are still empty (eg Dixons). This sounds to me like yet another pipe-dream.
Saintbob
says...
12:13pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Lone Ranger
says...
12:18pm Wed 16 Sep 09
News Fanatic wrote:You wont need to worry......it will take years to get off the drawing board and a few years to build. By the time this getys built we will be on West Quay 6...and Southy will be Prime Minister !! now there's a thought
With so many shops and offices empty in the city, what is the point of building even more? East Street and Bargate Shopping Centres are almost deserted; the Marlands has empty shops, particulary on the first floor and some of the shops that closed when WestQuay opened are still empty (eg Dixons). This sounds to me like yet another pipe-dream.
southy
says...
12:25pm Wed 16 Sep 09
timjim
says...
12:33pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Brite Spark
says...
12:45pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Rudd Gillett
says...
1:15pm Wed 16 Sep 09
c p
says...
1:32pm Wed 16 Sep 09
southy
says...
1:47pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Rudd Gillett wrote:the problem is that they been wanting to build on this ground for years, because it would cost very little, one it was the docks after it, and they probley still do. now it the developers want to get there hands on it, i would rather see the boat go and to lose this ground to the public. and that will happen, look at the promises that was made to the local people of southampton, ocean village 6 mooring was promise to allocated to the local people,at a price they could afford, it never happened, the removal of public deep water mooring at the royal pier, city public hard sold off to private ownership, locals can no long use it free. crosshouse you lost ground here, and only a very small area remains, a promise to the locals fisherman that there would be a new public hard, slipway and boat yard above the container port, it never happen, and now the last part of water frontage. dont belive what they tell you about the public will keep it excess, because they will not keep it. the park needs to stay the way it is, open to all and not just a few.
They always trot these things out when "The Worlds Greatest Boat-Show" hits town...come November it will all be forgotten and consigned to the rubbish bin. Southampton is the biggest "IF" city in the world, If we had done that, IF we did built that, IF WGS stayed and so on!
Ben Doone
says...
2:12pm Wed 16 Sep 09
jammyswine wrote:I met someone yesterday who was also at the meeting. They too were impressed with the outline plans, which would reclaim more space from the sea around the old Pier site and provide far more recreational space for locals and visitors. I am sure this must be a good thing. As I understand it the covenants on Mayflower Park have to be respected although the area may actually increase in size. The Port does not want any residential building and this has been accepted.
mr tein wrote: So the only decent waterfront park we have will be destroyed so we can have a few more shosps and restaurants. This city has no idea.I was at the meeting and I'm afraid you are wrong. Although, as the story says, it is too early for detailed plans, the vision is for a waterfront area that is accessible and envied by similar ports around the world. I am not connected to the development, nor am I Southampton born & bred but I did think the ideas that are being put forward are exciting for the city.
mr_lee_white@hotmail.com
says...
3:26pm Wed 16 Sep 09
goard
says...
3:52pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Ben Doone
says...
4:03pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Mac Ince
says...
4:40pm Wed 16 Sep 09
jammyswine
says...
4:47pm Wed 16 Sep 09
jammyswine
says...
4:49pm Wed 16 Sep 09
ex plodicus
says...
6:10pm Wed 16 Sep 09
News Fanatic
says...
7:51pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Sulaiman Al Fahim wrote:You did not read my post correctly. Dixons' old shop on the corner of Above Bar and Commercial Road is still empty about eight years after WestQuay opened.
News Fanatic wrote:Dixons has never been empty - it just rebranded as Currys, and West Quay has around 85 to 90% occupancy, I believe.
With so many shops and offices empty in the city, what is the point of building even more? East Street and Bargate Shopping Centres are almost deserted; the Marlands has empty shops, particulary on the first floor and some of the shops that closed when WestQuay opened are still empty (eg Dixons). This sounds to me like yet another pipe-dream.
East Street and Bargate are doing poorly because they offer nothing different/better to what West Quay can - and thus are being redeveloped to try and rectify that problem.
Oh and Southy, Mayflower Park is to be untouched in these plans, so please stop with the paranoid conspiracy theories.
News Fanatic
says...
7:55pm Wed 16 Sep 09
News Fanatic wrote:Sorry, that should have read Above Bar and Civic Centre Road.
Sulaiman Al Fahim wrote:You did not read my post correctly. Dixons' old shop on the corner of Above Bar and Commercial Road is still empty about eight years after WestQuay opened.
News Fanatic wrote:Dixons has never been empty - it just rebranded as Currys, and West Quay has around 85 to 90% occupancy, I believe.
With so many shops and offices empty in the city, what is the point of building even more? East Street and Bargate Shopping Centres are almost deserted; the Marlands has empty shops, particulary on the first floor and some of the shops that closed when WestQuay opened are still empty (eg Dixons). This sounds to me like yet another pipe-dream.
East Street and Bargate are doing poorly because they offer nothing different/better to what West Quay can - and thus are being redeveloped to try and rectify that problem.
Oh and Southy, Mayflower Park is to be untouched in these plans, so please stop with the paranoid conspiracy theories.
I am aware that Dixons rebranded and is now Currys.
southy
says...
8:13pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Pobinr
says...
8:22pm Wed 16 Sep 09
Ben Doone
says...
8:53pm Wed 16 Sep 09
southy wrote:Southy
jammyswine, SouthamptonAlso,siad "there will be NO residential on the site as ABP will not allow it." ABPJ dont own mayflower park, even lo they wish that they did. but they do own red funnel ferry, and the royal pier, interesting enough, is that they would be all for this sort of thing, but block the rebuilding of the royal pier to some thing near its former glory. ummm i wonder why that is, maybe its some thing for there jersey friends and not the locals
southy
says...
10:14pm Wed 16 Sep 09
BrixtonSaint
says...
9:22am Thu 17 Sep 09
freemantlegirl2
says...
9:23am Thu 17 Sep 09
Ben Doone
says...
10:33am Thu 17 Sep 09
BrixtonSaint wrote:Brixton
Sorry, is no one aghast at the loss of the Royal Pier? I thought a study a few years back found the old girl was still structurally sound and the timbers as tough as titanium. WTF is going on here? SCC once again is allowing the already depleated stock of architectural heritage to be stripped again. I seriously wonder if Hitler had as much of a detrimental effect on our city's skyline as city planners in the 50 odd years since. For crying out loud, what is there if we can't look at something which gives an idea of where we came from. The demolishing of the Pier should be halted forthwith and plans put in to reverse the sitauation and a pavillion restored to its rightful place. This is a disgrace and should be fought. Look here www.davidstjohn.co.u k/royalpier.html , for a bit of history about the place. We should be wallowing in our heritage whilst being a vanguard for all that is new and forward thinking to make the city an icon worldwide. Sadly it seems we're left with a load of chumps who's only interest is their own.
freemantlegirl2
says...
11:17am Thu 17 Sep 09
Ben Doone wrote:Two great, and informative posts! I'm off to look at the website too (waiting in for Sky person to arrive, should have been here two hours ago... ho hum)..... this has really piqued my interest! thank you! :)
BrixtonSaint wrote:Brixton
Sorry, is no one aghast at the loss of the Royal Pier? I thought a study a few years back found the old girl was still structurally sound and the timbers as tough as titanium. WTF is going on here? SCC once again is allowing the already depleated stock of architectural heritage to be stripped again. I seriously wonder if Hitler had as much of a detrimental effect on our city's skyline as city planners in the 50 odd years since. For crying out loud, what is there if we can't look at something which gives an idea of where we came from. The demolishing of the Pier should be halted forthwith and plans put in to reverse the sitauation and a pavillion restored to its rightful place. This is a disgrace and should be fought. Look here www.davidstjohn.co.u k/royalpier.html , for a bit of history about the place. We should be wallowing in our heritage whilst being a vanguard for all that is new and forward thinking to make the city an icon worldwide. Sadly it seems we're left with a load of chumps who's only interest is their own.
Thanks for the link to David StJohns site. Certainly brought back many memories for me walking on the Pier as a youngster with my parents and then as a teenager in the Dance Hall (wasn't there an old Supermarine Speed record plane on display by the entrance once?)
It would be interesting to know how secure the Pier foundations are. I have been told they are not safe but I guess there needs to be definitive information from a structural engineer.
Personally I am torn between two emotions here. Firstly I agree it would be great to see the Pier reinstated to its former glory. However looking at this from a commercial perspective I can't see any way this could work financially. So I would throw my hat into the ring with some sort of waterside development,as successfully achieved in many port cities around the world, which gives more public access to the waterfront.
The Kilmartin scheme seems to be on the right track (without knowing all the details)
However as has been pointed out many times, funding will be a major challenge and it investment cash on this scale won't become available for a few years yet.
Meanwhile whilst I understand people's frustration with the local Council.
All the Council can really do is encourage commercial interests to invest in the city and these commercial interests will only do so for a return on their investment ie the nasty word 'profit'
The Council can invest part of their own income of course (which reduces money for basic services which is unacceptable), or take out commercial loans (as Portsmouth did to part finance the Spinnaker Tower or as Eastleigh are doing to assist development of the Rose Bowl) but again there would have to be some 'profit' element.
The third option is to obtain some EU or UK grant aid. Portsmouth did this with the Spinnaker Tower (Millenium Fund) and northern cities are awash with EU funding. However the so called 'prosperous' southern cities have no chance of qualifying.
Unfortunately out of all this I can only see the current disappointing shambles around Royal Pier continuing for a few years yet.
Optimistically (and as a ship lover) may be by 2025 the Soton Waterfront will be developed into a major attraction with views over to a vibrant port extension at Dibden Bay.
Shame I wont be around to see it!!
confused of kingsland
says...
12:32pm Thu 17 Sep 09
jammyswine
says...
2:19pm Thu 17 Sep 09
confused of kingsland wrote:Ocean Village was a mainly residential development, Waterfront will be different. In the briefing, they did actually specifically reference Ocean Village as an example of what will not be built.
Look what happened to Ocean Village! Be afraid...be very afraid!!
southy
says...
2:49pm Thu 17 Sep 09
jammyswine
says...
3:49pm Thu 17 Sep 09
Ben Doone
says...
4:01pm Thu 17 Sep 09
southy
says...
4:34pm Thu 17 Sep 09
southy
says...
5:00pm Thu 17 Sep 09
veracity
says...
7:28pm Thu 17 Sep 09
southy wrote:...portsmouth has a better repouation than southampton for looking after locaL peoples needs..???
the sun was the name of the pub.
yes there was a slot for coins in the mine, it was for to help the up keep of the pier.
they kept all there public hards and slipways in portmouth, only thing that they lost was the 1 public boat yard, that never got handed back after the war, but the other one was made larger, and was not far away from the other one. the difference between southampton and portmouth is any thing that was lost on the water front it was replace. maybe why portsmouth has a better reputation than southampton, for looking after local people needs, and boy that really gets my goat a bit, they realise that they are a working town/city, and more or less kept it that way. locals come first and tourist come second, where has here its the other way round, well in southampton case local's come last, unless your well off.
think about it a bit more on this spot ben, where are they going to have more room, they are talking about a marina in side the wall, filled with boats that will be there most of the time, what are they going to do with those boats when the boat show is on moor them else where temp or put the pontoons on the outter wall where they be sticking out into the shipping channel, are they going to in fill some of it for new buildings. ect ect ect i can see loads of problems with this idea and not just short term long term to. like i have said above. all so need to remember those people thing the idea likes most dont live here and are only seen once or twice in the area.
southy
says...
10:35pm Thu 17 Sep 09
Redback
says...
8:27am Fri 18 Sep 09
Bowmore
says...
8:22pm Fri 18 Sep 09
Redback wrote:The same is true with the comparison with Capetown which is great but about 10 times larger than this scheme and is lively even on a wet Tuesday morning. Its Victoria and Alfred Docks in Capetown BTW not Victoria and Albert. I do hope this scheme does go ahead as it may just be the seed that starts to make Southampton waterfront a place worth visiting.
Comparisons to Sydney are ridiculous.
.
None of it will ever happen of course. Cllr John Slade is absolutely spot on.
southy
says...
9:08pm Fri 18 Sep 09
Bowmore wrote:what you dont relise cape town has a lot more water frontage than southampton, and the locals have lost 90% of it to private ownership on the river test, where has cape town still has a good 80% that is open, if we had the room for this sort of thing then there properly be no problem, but we dont.
Redback wrote:The same is true with the comparison with Capetown which is great but about 10 times larger than this scheme and is lively even on a wet Tuesday morning. Its Victoria and Alfred Docks in Capetown BTW not Victoria and Albert. I do hope this scheme does go ahead as it may just be the seed that starts to make Southampton waterfront a place worth visiting.
Comparisons to Sydney are ridiculous.
.
None of it will ever happen of course. Cllr John Slade is absolutely spot on.
Ben Doone
says...
10:51pm Fri 18 Sep 09
southy wrote:According to the Soton City Council Local Plan CLT 10 there are 8 public slipways in Soton ie
gunwharf or port solent there not a public hard or slipway or boat yard, and never has been has far i know, i i belive there is a private in those location that people can use. but the public hard and boat yard and slip way at longhorns way is still there, has is public slip way on eastern road, northend of london road slipway and public hard, and again on the other side of london road, there's 2 or 3 on tipner lane, another near whale island, and the one in hard road that was turned back to the public after the war, and sure theres one down on the south east corner cumbrian road, i think i miss out a few to, they have more public hards, public boat yards and public slipways on protsmouth island, then we have on the whole of the tidal reaches on southampton waters and the rivers. better think again, and i know that all those public slipways, hard, boatyards are all still there, on southampton test side they have all gone, apart from the one public slipway but you have to argue to before you can use it. there use to be more public slipways plus boat yards, hards, there not one left now, and where have they all gone, docks tooks most of them and did not replace them, and a private marina,
Search for jobs with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Find the right person for you with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for homes with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for cars with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
mr tein says...
11:03am Wed 16 Sep 09
This city has no idea.