Features
Anger grows over Woolston development plans
Click here to see a gallery of what the development will look like
RESIDENTS are
preparing to
fight a £500m
riverside regeneration
project
described as a "menace
on the skyline".
They will argue proposals for
1,650 flats and houses on the former
Vosper Thornycroft site at
Woolston Riverside will cause
traffic chaos because too many
homes are crammed in.
Their battle against the huge
development begins as the
detailed planning application
for the site was made public.
Under the proposals as many
as 3,000 people are expected to
live there by 2018, raising the
prospect of a traffic nightmare
that, it is claimed, road planners
have yet to solve.
An environmental impact
assessment predicts long queues
of more than 1,150 cars over the
Itchen Bridge by 2020, including
200 from the development, if
nothing is done.
It says there are likely to be
about 400 extra trips during
rush hours and warns: "There
will be a significant increase in
traffic in the area."
The development section of
Woolston Community
Association will meet tonight to
discuss the objections.
Chairman Andrew Middleton,
said: "It's going to have a knock-on
effect for miles around. I reckon
the rush hour is going to increase
by more than half an hour."
He added: "The biggest problem
is there is virtually nothing
they can do about it.
"Lots of extra cars are going to
want to go across a single lane
bridge."
The development could also
force existing Woolston residents
to pay to park outside
their homes as the council
extends residents' parking
schemes to prevent parking
overspill, Mr Middleton said.
The city council wants less
than one parking space for each
residential unit - just 1,402 residential
spaces are planned.
Developer Crest Nicholson
says it will encourage use of
bicycles, buses and car sharing
clubs. It will offer residents
incentives such as interest free
loans and subsidies for bus season
tickets.
But Mr Middleton said the
traffic problem stemmed from
the number of homes. Just 148,
or nine per cent, will be houses.
"It's vastly overcrowded with
flats. Almost to the point of
being ludicrously so," he added.
He said residents were also
particularly concerned about
three landmark apartment towers,
rising up to 25 storeys (82m),
that have been pulled ashore but
retained from an earlier vision
by world-famous architect
Richard Rogers.
"People really hate those tall
towers. I've not heard anyone
say they are elegant. They are
just going to be a menace on the
skyline," Mr Middleton said.
Labour ward councillor
Richard Williams said he would
also be objecting to what he
described as "edge of town
cramming" and its impact on
transport and parking.
"I cannot see how that site will
accommodate that amount of
extra units without extreme
detrimental affect on residents,"
he said.
Pointing to a ten per cent
increase in homes from an earlier
plan he added: "My fear is it's
developers wanting to squeeze
extra money out of the site."
After a five-year wait, Crest
Nicholson submitted plans for
the 30-acre site last month.
It said it was planning to tackle
transport issues with various
junction improvements and traffic calming measures, a new
gyratory traffic system around
Woolston, two new bus routes,
and it said it was also exploring
the possibility of a water taxi to
Ocean Village and a park-and-ride
in Windhover.
Deborah Aplin, managing
director of Crest Nicholson
Regeneration, said: "A lot of
work has been undertaken in
relation to the transport and
other physical regeneration
aspects of the development.
She also welcomed the arrival
of super-yacht manufacturer
Palmer Johnson, which has
announced widely welcomed
plans to move into the marine
business quarter, bringing up to
800 jobs.
The firm intends to build a
20,000 square metre facility to
construct vessels up to 100-
metres long.
Business and civic leaders had
been worried that the space
available for marine businesses
had been slashed by almost half
from the Rogers masterplan.
The shipbuilder VT once
employed 4,500 people.
Southampton City Council
made the plans publicly available
last week after spending
four weeks "processing" them.
The deadline for representations
has been extended by
almost a month to May 16.
9:47am Tuesday 15th April 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Condor Man, Southampton on 10:30am Tue 15 Apr 08
Typical socialist planning policies "we'll encourage bike use" and all that crap. Because the Quango SEEDA are dealing with the development there is no accountability either.
Typical socialist planning policies "we'll encourage bike use" and all that crap. Because the Quango SEEDA are dealing with the development there is no accountability either.
Posted by: Spin Dr, everywhere and nowhere baby on 11:17am Tue 15 Apr 08
[quote]quote[/quote] [quote]quote[/quote] Is the glass half empty for a change? Surprise surprise. This is great news for the City region – I admit that it may need some tweaking but it’s about time that Southampton’s residents started celebrating change. It bet the population of Portsmouth wouldn’t be quite so negative, but then they don’t suffer from this City’s low self esteem.[quote]quote[/quote]
quote
quote
Is the glass half empty for a change? Surprise surprise. This is great news for the City region – I admit that it may need some tweaking but it’s about time that Southampton’s residents started celebrating change. It bet the population of Portsmouth wouldn’t be quite so negative, but then they don’t suffer from this City’s low self esteem.
quote
Posted by: gorf, soton on 11:43am Tue 15 Apr 08
maybe they should get the floating bridge back out or build another bridge?
maybe they should get the floating bridge back out or build another bridge?
Posted by: Wewullywinky on 11:50am Tue 15 Apr 08
Of course councillors will give permission to build this project as it will generate £138,000 extra revenue from woolston bridge.
The road system in and out of Woolston is not man enough to withstand such extra traffic. For one Hamble lane and Portsmouth Road will need to be widened to cope with the extra traffic.
It's projects like this that make our councils hippocrites when they force us to recycle, conserve fuel and water yet they build large housing projects which encourages more useage fuel and water.
The land can be used for something more productive and environmentally friendly to the area.
Of course councillors will give permission to build this project as it will generate £138,000 extra revenue from woolston bridge.
The road system in and out of Woolston is not man enough to withstand such extra traffic. For one Hamble lane and Portsmouth Road will need to be widened to cope with the extra traffic.
It's projects like this that make our councils hippocrites when they force us to recycle, conserve fuel and water yet they build large housing projects which encourages more useage fuel and water.
The land can be used for something more productive and environmentally friendly to the area.
Posted by: Mr E, used to live in Woolston on 11:52am Tue 15 Apr 08
tower blocks full of Flats nobody weants
Roads nobody can drive down
Not enough parking spaces
Iffy underground car parks
It is plain that whoever designes these modernd day Hell Holes will not be liveing in them
tower blocks full of Flats nobody weants
Roads nobody can drive down
Not enough parking spaces
Iffy underground car parks
It is plain that whoever designes these modernd day Hell Holes will not be liveing in them
Posted by: john, Soton on 12:42pm Tue 15 Apr 08
[quote][bold]gorf[/bold] wrote:
maybe they should get the floating bridge back out or build another bridge? [/quote] Water taxis - the new floating bridge?
gorf wrote:
maybe they should get the floating bridge back out or build another bridge?
Water taxis - the new floating bridge?
Posted by: StEmmosFire, Woolston on 12:52pm Tue 15 Apr 08
The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)
The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)
Posted by: Zardy on 1:42pm Tue 15 Apr 08
£500 Million development and no ice rink. What a disgrace
£500 Million development and no ice rink. What a disgrace
Posted by: ice ice baby on 1:49pm Tue 15 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Zardy[/bold] wrote:
£500 million redevelopment and still no ice rink![/quote] Now that's what I call an Echo!
Zardy wrote:
£500 million redevelopment and still no ice rink!
Now that's what I call an Echo!
Posted by: Zardy on 1:56pm Tue 15 Apr 08
Did i say it twice... did i say it twoce.
Well i feel so strongly about it i want to shout it from the roof tops! I have to drive miles to do my figure skating
Did i say it twice... did i say it twoce.
Well i feel so strongly about it i want to shout it from the roof tops! I have to drive miles to do my figure skating
Posted by: Greeno on 2:36pm Tue 15 Apr 08
Surely rising sea levels will prove all arguments defunct? The tower blocks will be only thing above water level and their residents will commute to work at the civic office in boats ;)
Surely rising sea levels will prove all arguments defunct? The tower blocks will be only thing above water level and their residents will commute to work at the civic office in boats ;)
Posted by: hulla, baloo on 3:05pm Tue 15 Apr 08
Considering this is on his doorstep,King Mush is decidedly quiet.
Maybe he is involved in the planning and is now off sunning himself from the proceeds of a brown envelope.
Considering this is on his doorstep,King Mush is decidedly quiet.
Maybe he is involved in the planning and is now off sunning himself from the proceeds of a brown envelope.
Posted by: Woolston Mike, Woolton Strangely on 3:53pm Tue 15 Apr 08
Too many flats, not enough houses, traffic issues, agreed. But what are the plans to build the community? Are they going to make Victoria road pedestrian only? What are the other facilities? Is the library going to get moved? New health clinic for Woolston? Dentists?
Too many flats, not enough houses, traffic issues, agreed. But what are the plans to build the community? Are they going to make Victoria road pedestrian only? What are the other facilities? Is the library going to get moved? New health clinic for Woolston? Dentists?
Posted by: City Dweller, Southanmpton on 4:27pm Tue 15 Apr 08
Why not sell the land to A.B.P so that they can build the new Container Port there.Or how about a Ice Rink and Speedway Track.
Why not sell the land to A.B.P so that they can build the new Container Port there.Or how about a Ice Rink and Speedway Track.
Posted by: Dowayne Neufville, Southampton on 4:37pm Tue 15 Apr 08
I live in merry oak and my two children go to nursery on portsmouth road. Traffic is heavy during morning and evening rush hours in woolston at itchen bridge. Sometimes i cycle over the bridge or drive if i have to drop kids off. i support the woolston project but would like to see it rival gunwolf quays, rather than being a mass housing and marine development there should be more to attract tourist.root-top Viewing platforms, Small arena for concerts etc. also why not have a light rail system that goes from site onto woolston station then round to ocean village and along to town quay ,leisure world and then to central station by going round the back of mcdonalds and hotels. this will make traveling in and out of the area easier and put woolston on the map. this will create more jobs and opportunities in the area...
I live in merry oak and my two children go to nursery on portsmouth road. Traffic is heavy during morning and evening rush hours in woolston at itchen bridge. Sometimes i cycle over the bridge or drive if i have to drop kids off. i support the woolston project but would like to see it rival gunwolf quays, rather than being a mass housing and marine development there should be more to attract tourist.root-top Viewing platforms, Small arena for concerts etc. also why not have a light rail system that goes from site onto woolston station then round to ocean village and along to town quay ,leisure world and then to central station by going round the back of mcdonalds and hotels. this will make traveling in and out of the area easier and put woolston on the map. this will create more jobs and opportunities in the area...
Posted by: Dowayne Neufville, Southampton on 4:55pm Tue 15 Apr 08
...The contrast between the old woolston with council tower blocks dominating the skyline and the new development with inspire generations to come. Southampton needs to think out of the box and take a risk (Portsmouth took a risk and now they are benefiting from it).I really think the echo could push this story with different scenario's from around the world, because the fact that traffic and over crowding are the main objections shows that people are thinking about this in the wrong way.
...The contrast between the old woolston with council tower blocks dominating the skyline and the new development with inspire generations to come. Southampton needs to think out of the box and take a risk (Portsmouth took a risk and now they are benefiting from it).I really think the echo could push this story with different scenario's from around the world, because the fact that traffic and over crowding are the main objections shows that people are thinking about this in the wrong way.
Posted by: Just Get On With It, Woolston on 5:13pm Tue 15 Apr 08
As usual, whatever is proposed the NIMBYs start to complain.
When will the "local residents" wake up to the fact that virtually very local retailer in their community is simply hanging on, waiting for the people that will be living in this development to replace the customers they have lost over the years to out of town superstores. If it drags on much longer the locals wont have a community to support, where will they shop then.? Further afield no doubt, adding their own traffic problems to someone elses area.
How many times have "local residents" complained about the tower blocks because of their size - have they already forgotten how big the shed was that used to be there ? !!!
This is a fantastic opportunity for the whole area - don't let the NIMBYs spoil it.
Just get on and build it. IF - and I mean IF - traffic does become a problem ( and I can't see it will, remember how many workers used to drive to and from Vospers, the roads coped ) it can be dealt with then.
As usual, whatever is proposed the NIMBYs start to complain.
When will the "local residents" wake up to the fact that virtually very local retailer in their community is simply hanging on, waiting for the people that will be living in this development to replace the customers they have lost over the years to out of town superstores. If it drags on much longer the locals wont have a community to support, where will they shop then.? Further afield no doubt, adding their own traffic problems to someone elses area.
How many times have "local residents" complained about the tower blocks because of their size - have they already forgotten how big the shed was that used to be there ? !!!
This is a fantastic opportunity for the whole area - don't let the NIMBYs spoil it.
Just get on and build it. IF - and I mean IF - traffic does become a problem ( and I can't see it will, remember how many workers used to drive to and from Vospers, the roads coped ) it can be dealt with then.
Posted by: Davee, Woolston on 5:28pm Tue 15 Apr 08
[quote][bold]StEmmosFire[/bold] wrote:
The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)[/quote] So you move the queue to central bridge and the round-a-bout the other side of the Itchen Bridge.
It is one of the main arteries into Southampton and Central Southampton cannot cope with traffic flow as it is. It is pointless doing the work you suggest.
The development needs to be rethought - I notice that Councillor Cuneo has spent years rejecting smaller developments in the Woolston, Sholing area and yet put through an application two turn her house into two or four flats or at least her husband did. The whole planning process is a screwed up sham.
StEmmosFire wrote:
The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)
So you move the queue to central bridge and the round-a-bout the other side of the Itchen Bridge.
It is one of the main arteries into Southampton and Central Southampton cannot cope with traffic flow as it is. It is pointless doing the work you suggest.
The development needs to be rethought - I notice that Councillor Cuneo has spent years rejecting smaller developments in the Woolston, Sholing area and yet put through an application two turn her house into two or four flats or at least her husband did. The whole planning process is a screwed up sham.
Posted by: davee, Woolston on 5:34pm Tue 15 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Just Get On With It[/bold] wrote:
As usual, whatever is proposed the NIMBYs start to complain. When will the \"local residents\" wake up to the fact that virtually very local retailer in their community is simply hanging on, waiting for the people that will be living in this development to replace the customers they have lost over the years to out of town superstores. If it drags on much longer the locals wont have a community to support, where will they shop then.? Further afield no doubt, adding their own traffic problems to someone elses area. How many times have \"local residents\" complained about the tower blocks because of their size - have they already forgotten how big the shed was that used to be there ? !!! This is a fantastic opportunity for the whole area - don\'t let the NIMBYs spoil it. Just get on and build it. IF - and I mean IF - traffic does become a problem ( and I can\'t see it will, remember how many workers used to drive to and from Vospers, the roads coped ) it can be dealt with then. [/quote] I suspect very few used to drivwe compared to the amount that worked there.
The usual complainants are Williams and Cuneo who manage, with great glee, to get any redevelopment in Woolston canned.
However there is a limit, 1500 extra cars in Woolston will ensure nobady comes near the place, it will be like driving around Portsmouth at rush hour permanenetly.
Just Get On With It wrote:
As usual, whatever is proposed the NIMBYs start to complain. When will the \"local residents\" wake up to the fact that virtually very local retailer in their community is simply hanging on, waiting for the people that will be living in this development to replace the customers they have lost over the years to out of town superstores. If it drags on much longer the locals wont have a community to support, where will they shop then.? Further afield no doubt, adding their own traffic problems to someone elses area. How many times have \"local residents\" complained about the tower blocks because of their size - have they already forgotten how big the shed was that used to be there ? !!! This is a fantastic opportunity for the whole area - don\'t let the NIMBYs spoil it. Just get on and build it. IF - and I mean IF - traffic does become a problem ( and I can\'t see it will, remember how many workers used to drive to and from Vospers, the roads coped ) it can be dealt with then.
I suspect very few used to drivwe compared to the amount that worked there.
The usual complainants are Williams and Cuneo who manage, with great glee, to get any redevelopment in Woolston canned.
However there is a limit, 1500 extra cars in Woolston will ensure nobady comes near the place, it will be like driving around Portsmouth at rush hour permanenetly.
Posted by: Ray Mead, Banister Park on 5:41pm Tue 15 Apr 08
I agree that there always seems to be negativity expressed whenever new developments are discussed. People respond in a negative way because it's easy to do so; what isn't so easy is to back these projects but make sure they deliver what's needed to the city. otherwise our uproar dilutes the development with comprmise after compromise and, hey presto, we end up with another useless camel.
Southampton DESPERATELY needs a landmark development, a DESTINATION that offers more than just shopping; a place where we can enjoy our waterfront (the fact that we currently cannot is frankly an embarrassment). I agree that the danger here is that the developers are squeezing more flats and sacrificing retail and mixed use space - let's stop them, but we can only do that by agreeing on what we want instead. Gunwharf Quays has been a triumph for Portsmouth, Ocean Village has been a(nother) enbarrassing failure for Southampton. Let's build something to beat the Gunwharf - it wouldn't be hard, it just takes a bit of vision and soul. After all, it's only a cut-price retail park with some waterside restaurants. We have the opportunity to build something similar but with soul.
I agree that there always seems to be negativity expressed whenever new developments are discussed. People respond in a negative way because it's easy to do so; what isn't so easy is to back these projects but make sure they deliver what's needed to the city. otherwise our uproar dilutes the development with comprmise after compromise and, hey presto, we end up with another useless camel.
Southampton DESPERATELY needs a landmark development, a DESTINATION that offers more than just shopping; a place where we can enjoy our waterfront (the fact that we currently cannot is frankly an embarrassment). I agree that the danger here is that the developers are squeezing more flats and sacrificing retail and mixed use space - let's stop them, but we can only do that by agreeing on what we want instead. Gunwharf Quays has been a triumph for Portsmouth, Ocean Village has been a(nother) enbarrassing failure for Southampton. Let's build something to beat the Gunwharf - it wouldn't be hard, it just takes a bit of vision and soul. After all, it's only a cut-price retail park with some waterside restaurants. We have the opportunity to build something similar but with soul.
Posted by: city boy, southampton on 6:30pm Tue 15 Apr 08
those tower blocks will blend in nice with all the other tower blocks on the car parks being sold off,more council tax for their gold plated pensions.[bold]bold[/bold]
those tower blocks will blend in nice with all the other tower blocks on the car parks being sold off,more council tax for their gold plated pensions.
Posted by: ex so'ton, Abingdon on 7:34pm Tue 15 Apr 08
Do not worry about the extra traffic, in these days of financial difficulties (for some) these appartments will not be lived in 24/7, they will be bought by the high financiers from around Surrey and will be used as second or third homes for dirty weekends, bought with fat bonuses, nothing here for ordinary city folk! This site would be better used for public recreation purposes used by Joe Citizen for his health and well being. Come on ye good citizens of Southampton and Woolston go tell the Labour/Communist Politbureau at the Civic Centre what should be done here, do not lose time and opportunity and remember to vote the Labour/Communist rabble out in the May council elections.
Do not worry about the extra traffic, in these days of financial difficulties (for some) these appartments will not be lived in 24/7, they will be bought by the high financiers from around Surrey and will be used as second or third homes for dirty weekends, bought with fat bonuses, nothing here for ordinary city folk! This site would be better used for public recreation purposes used by Joe Citizen for his health and well being. Come on ye good citizens of Southampton and Woolston go tell the Labour/Communist Politbureau at the Civic Centre what should be done here, do not lose time and opportunity and remember to vote the Labour/Communist rabble out in the May council elections.
Posted by: StEmmosFire, Woolston on 10:16pm Tue 15 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Davee[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]StEmmosFire[/bold] wrote: The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)[/quote] So you move the queue to central bridge and the round-a-bout the other side of the Itchen Bridge. It is one of the main arteries into Southampton and Central Southampton cannot cope with traffic flow as it is. It is pointless doing the work you suggest. The development needs to be rethought - I notice that Councillor Cuneo has spent years rejecting smaller developments in the Woolston, Sholing area and yet put through an application two turn her house into two or four flats or at least her husband did. The whole planning process is a screwed up sham.[/quote] Yep, thats right, move the traffic into town, aslong as it's not in Woolston :-)
Davee wrote:
StEmmosFire wrote: The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)
So you move the queue to central bridge and the round-a-bout the other side of the Itchen Bridge. It is one of the main arteries into Southampton and Central Southampton cannot cope with traffic flow as it is. It is pointless doing the work you suggest. The development needs to be rethought - I notice that Councillor Cuneo has spent years rejecting smaller developments in the Woolston, Sholing area and yet put through an application two turn her house into two or four flats or at least her husband did. The whole planning process is a screwed up sham.
Yep, thats right, move the traffic into town, aslong as it's not in Woolston :-)
Posted by: Old Git, Southampton on 11:52pm Tue 15 Apr 08
[quote][bold]StEmmosFire[/bold] wrote:
The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)[/quote] No, the traffic queues aren't caused by the toll; they're the result of the bridge being a bottleneck. Woolston needs a one-way system of some kind as well as traffics lights on the roundabout. And punishment for those ‘smart’ f*ckers who abuse the roundabout and hold up the traffic flow, because they’re so much more important than everyone else. If you want to take the 1st exit to get on to the bridge, get in the first lane and wait your f*cking turn, d*ckheads! But even then, it’s unlikely that the proposed redevelopment works with present infrastructure.
StEmmosFire wrote:
The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)
No, the traffic queues aren't caused by the toll; they're the result of the bridge being a bottleneck. Woolston needs a one-way system of some kind as well as traffics lights on the roundabout. And punishment for those ‘smart’ f*ckers who abuse the roundabout and hold up the traffic flow, because they’re so much more important than everyone else. If you want to take the 1st exit to get on to the bridge, get in the first lane and wait your f*cking turn, d*ckheads! But even then, it’s unlikely that the proposed redevelopment works with present infrastructure.
Posted by: Chav free zone, Swaythling on 7:22am Wed 16 Apr 08
we are having a much smaller but non the less still devistating development enforced on us in swaythling. 15 houses in a small road that can't cope now being swamped by a tower block and 135 flats. only enough parking for half that number and traffic chaos is assured. at present 1 car can get into our road per traffic light cycle and thats dicing with death.
the planners will not listen.
we are having a much smaller but non the less still devistating development enforced on us in swaythling. 15 houses in a small road that can't cope now being swamped by a tower block and 135 flats. only enough parking for half that number and traffic chaos is assured. at present 1 car can get into our road per traffic light cycle and thats dicing with death.
the planners will not listen.
Posted by: Thomas Downes, Southampton on 8:31am Wed 16 Apr 08
What is this development going to do for the people of the city, absolutely nothing. ; it's sole purpose is to line the pockets of those involved in the deal. "ex so'ton, Abingdon" has it right, it'll be overpriced waterfront apartments with a smattering of social housing squeezed in there. What use is a water taxi to Ocean Village, that's just another metropolis of water front apartments? The character of this city has been eroded over the years and there is less facilities now for the people, all for a quick buck.
What is this development going to do for the people of the city, absolutely nothing. ; it's sole purpose is to line the pockets of those involved in the deal. "ex so'ton, Abingdon" has it right, it'll be overpriced waterfront apartments with a smattering of social housing squeezed in there. What use is a water taxi to Ocean Village, that's just another metropolis of water front apartments? The character of this city has been eroded over the years and there is less facilities now for the people, all for a quick buck.
Posted by: The Great Julio Julio and his Talking Cogs, Woolston, with my Digger on 12:22pm Wed 16 Apr 08
Funny how whoever is charge at the time always getts blamed for decisions of the previous lot in charge.
Seen this happen for the last 30 years.
People complain in an instant but spend sod all attention to what goes on 360 days of the year then make knee jerk reactions.
USeful.
Years ago it was
Labour being blamed for the tories mistakes/decisions in Soton. Then the Libs got blamed for the Lab mistakes/decisions. Now Lab are getting blamed for the Libs mistakes/decisions.
Weeee, a veritable roundabout of the blame-from-the-hip culture that predominates in our great city.
Debate isn't dead, it just deserves to be put out of its misery.
Funny how whoever is charge at the time always getts blamed for decisions of the previous lot in charge.
Seen this happen for the last 30 years.
People complain in an instant but spend sod all attention to what goes on 360 days of the year then make knee jerk reactions.
USeful.
Years ago it was
Labour being blamed for the tories mistakes/decisions in Soton. Then the Libs got blamed for the Lab mistakes/decisions. Now Lab are getting blamed for the Libs mistakes/decisions.
Weeee, a veritable roundabout of the blame-from-the-hip culture that predominates in our great city.
Debate isn't dead, it just deserves to be put out of its misery.
Posted by: StEmmosFire, Woolston on 12:48pm Wed 16 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Old Git[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]StEmmosFire[/bold] wrote: The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)[/quote] No, the traffic queues aren't caused by the toll; they're the result of the bridge being a bottleneck. Woolston needs a one-way system of some kind as well as traffics lights on the roundabout. And punishment for those ‘smart’ f*ckers who abuse the roundabout and hold up the traffic flow, because they’re so much more important than everyone else. If you want to take the 1st exit to get on to the bridge, get in the first lane and wait your f*cking turn, d*ckheads! But even then, it’s unlikely that the proposed redevelopment works with present infrastructure. [/quote] Ummm yes they are! The one's in Woolston are definetely caused by the toll, just ask my mum.
Old Git wrote:
StEmmosFire wrote: The que's are caused because of people having to stop to pay for the bridge. Introduce a number plate recognition system so people can pay in the comfort of their own home. Take out the cycle lanes and paths and add another lane. Build a smaller pedestrian/cycle bridge next to the current bridge. Job done. As for people complaining, people always complain, they just dont like change. Bring on the Palmer Johnson yacht builders :-)
No, the traffic queues aren't caused by the toll; they're the result of the bridge being a bottleneck. Woolston needs a one-way system of some kind as well as traffics lights on the roundabout. And punishment for those ‘smart’ f*ckers who abuse the roundabout and hold up the traffic flow, because they’re so much more important than everyone else. If you want to take the 1st exit to get on to the bridge, get in the first lane and wait your f*cking turn, d*ckheads! But even then, it’s unlikely that the proposed redevelopment works with present infrastructure.
Ummm yes they are! The one's in Woolston are definetely caused by the toll, just ask my mum.
Posted by: King Mush, Woolston on 5:38pm Wed 16 Apr 08
[quote][bold]hulla[/bold] wrote:
Considering this is on his doorstep,King Mush is decidedly quiet. Maybe he is involved in the planning and is now off sunning himself from the proceeds of a brown envelope.[/quote] lol
You may be closer than you think!
If this project goes ahead it will curtail my posts in here as I will be far too busy.
I guess that you will all now start the petition, sit-down protest, sabotage etc?
hulla wrote:
Considering this is on his doorstep,King Mush is decidedly quiet. Maybe he is involved in the planning and is now off sunning himself from the proceeds of a brown envelope.
lol
You may be closer than you think!
If this project goes ahead it will curtail my posts in here as I will be far too busy.
I guess that you will all now start the petition, sit-down protest, sabotage etc?
Posted by: Steve, Woolston resident on 11:43am Thu 17 Apr 08
Tell Crest Nicholson to consult with local resident's associations, mutually agree to traffic managment changes and pay the cost of them before any development work commences. This will ensure the increased traffic flows are handled without undue impact on local residents/current council tax payers, and the increased heavy vehicle movements needed to build the development have suitable roads to travel over. If they won't then don't let them build.
Tell Crest Nicholson to consult with local resident's associations, mutually agree to traffic managment changes and pay the cost of them before any development work commences. This will ensure the increased traffic flows are handled without undue impact on local residents/current council tax payers, and the increased heavy vehicle movements needed to build the development have suitable roads to travel over. If they won't then don't let them build.
Posted by: Concerned, Woolston on 2:03pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Ten people that I know of have had their credit cards cloned, used in Malaysia and had their bank accounts cleared out. All of these people have recently used their cards in the Shell petrol station in Portsmouth Road. Coincidence? I think not. Please tell everyone you know.
Ten people that I know of have had their credit cards cloned, used in Malaysia and had their bank accounts cleared out. All of these people have recently used their cards in the Shell petrol station in Portsmouth Road. Coincidence? I think not. Please tell everyone you know.
Posted by: Marilyn, Woolston on 2:38pm Sat 19 Apr 08
Do none of the "interested parties" care that, while arguments drag on about the development of the old VT site, the Woolston shopping centre is dying?! Long-established businesses, who benefited from the large workforce at Vospers, are suffering and several have already closed because not enough local people support them. Local businesses might appear to be more expensive than the out of town stores but probably are not, dpending on the business, when one takes into account travelling costs and time, the free support, advice and delivery from local shops.
The VT site offered a superb opportunity for an area of attractive housing, leisure facilities and work opportunities to be developed on this side of the Itchen but, as usual, we see the needs of the community being overridden by greed, thus causing dispute and delay. Incidentally, I think an open space on the waterfront featuring a large, model Spitfire would be eyecatching and very appropriate for the area. We need somewhere pleasant to sit, overlooking the water.
Do none of the "interested parties" care that, while arguments drag on about the development of the old VT site, the Woolston shopping centre is dying?! Long-established businesses, who benefited from the large workforce at Vospers, are suffering and several have already closed because not enough local people support them. Local businesses might appear to be more expensive than the out of town stores but probably are not, dpending on the business, when one takes into account travelling costs and time, the free support, advice and delivery from local shops.
The VT site offered a superb opportunity for an area of attractive housing, leisure facilities and work opportunities to be developed on this side of the Itchen but, as usual, we see the needs of the community being overridden by greed, thus causing dispute and delay. Incidentally, I think an open space on the waterfront featuring a large, model Spitfire would be eyecatching and very appropriate for the area. We need somewhere pleasant to sit, overlooking the water.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
