Call for Dibden Bay to be made part of the National Park (From Daily Echo)

I remember messing about at Goatee Beach as a kid, catching eels opposite the docks, and going to the sweet shop near the tide mill. I'm not too familiar with the next stretch at Dibden Bay, is it worth a visit? Is it worth saving? My great gran remembers the other side of Southampton Water before the new docks were built, she says it was lovely and green and full of wildlife, birds and fish and bison, then the new docks sadly wiped it all off the face of the earth. Not many salmon there now.

Quote: 'Mr Scrivens said: “Dibden Bay should never have been excluded from the National Park in the first place. It includes an area of special scientific interest and has always been a prime candidate for inclusion.”'

Well it was obvious as soon as the NP boundaries were released wasn't it? Lymington and Dibden Bay left out....mmmmmm...wond
er what the reasons were for that then? perhaps the mega money to be made out of the Webbs site, followed by ditching the train line to dredge further up the river?!?

I have no doubt in my mind that in a good few years when Lymington has been completely destroyed by developers, that we will then find out that we will also join the NP.

These people must think we are all daft or something, Dibden has and will always be primed up for development and all the money boys will happily take the backhanders much like the developers in Lymington area.

Rant over

I am probably a pariah now thanks to the moderator. However, if Dibden Bay must be developed then I would prefer that it be a marina rather than an extension to the docks. The infrastructure over this side of the water is hardly perfect, so a marina with the addition tax base may improve the situation (yes, I know, I’m just fooling myself with that statement)! :-)

these councillors are playing to the gallery they might has well add the power stationto the national park has well,
its gone to happen thats why it was left out the local plan ,
andthet are useing the national interest to get it built plan which i said would happen 2 years ago,its only a matter of when it will be built now.

NewForestStu wrote:
Quote: 'Mr Scrivens said: “Dibden Bay should never have been excluded from the National Park in the first place. It includes an area of special scientific interest and has always been a prime candidate for inclusion.”'

Well it was obvious as soon as the NP boundaries were released wasn't it? Lymington and Dibden Bay left out....mmmmmm...wond

er what the reasons were for that then? perhaps the mega money to be made out of the Webbs site, followed by ditching the train line to dredge further up the river?!?

I have no doubt in my mind that in a good few years when Lymington has been completely destroyed by developers, that we will then find out that we will also join the NP.

These people must think we are all daft or something, Dibden has and will always be primed up for development and all the money boys will happily take the backhanders much like the developers in Lymington area.

Rant over

you are spot on with that rant . it stands out a mile what is happening.

Dibden Bay should be a part of the New Forest National Park.
Lymington should have been a part as well but they sure as h**l made sure that it wasn't.
Greed and backhanders
rule but you try and prove it.
They'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
Nothing changes.

why make it part of the national park, would be better if turned into common land than be part off the national park.

National Park used to sound nice, till the authorities started showing their real colours i.e. various ideas to one way or another keep ordinary people out of it. Rather than a national park I suspect they are trying to turn it into a paradise for rich people only. Should we really be subscribing to that?

Yes to start with, as somebody has already pointed out, strangely some places were left out of the NP. But I do not remember Lib-Dems like Brian Dash complain at the time. They are fully aware how difficult it can be to add more areas to the existing NP. So yes it is a good stunt, but will it work?

Paramjit Bahia e-mail me, its about awaaz.

Brite Spark wrote:
I remember messing about at Goatee Beach as a kid, catching eels opposite the docks, and going to the sweet shop near the tide mill. I'm not too familiar with the next stretch at Dibden Bay, is it worth a visit? Is it worth saving? My great gran remembers the other side of Southampton Water before the new docks were built, she says it was lovely and green and full of wildlife, birds and fish and bison, then the new docks sadly wiped it all off the face of the earth. Not many salmon there now.

I too have wonderful memories of Goatse Beach. It was always a hole lot of fun.

We are told how much the docks brings the city in work, jobs and money but it also holds alot back. We are the largest city on the South Coast but we cant get to the water because the docks is the way of most of it. What would our city have to offer if the docks werent developed? I think it would have been a beautifull place to live. If Dibden Bay is developed, we will never again regain that natural environment, no commercial venture is worth that.

You Fr!ggin NIMBY's give me the Hump!
For god’s sake get real, wake up and pull yr heads out of your Buttz.
The land has been re-claimed! If this wasn’t done by the developers/docks it would be nothing but friggin water. It was re-claimed as land for future development.
Furthermore, it is Development that is needed for our great City to compete and more importantly survive. Southampton has already lost: Pirelli’s Vospers, BAT, Cinzano, Fords (More or less) and loads more. The city was established as a Commercial port and for those of you to stupid to realize, A “Port” it still is!
If you nobbs are so worried about a rare batch of outer Mongolian wag-tailed newts, then get the same people that have been tasked by the London Olympic committee to find them and re-locate them to a nice home!
If you are not satisfied with the wonderful New Forest that is on your doorstep, or don't like the fact that you live in a PORT are not comfortable with that very glaring fact. Then P..s off to Dartmouth, Bodmin, Lake dist, Yorks Dales or a million other very nice and full of wild life places that our country already has to offer!!

'Big Boy' just got his account suspended. He's rather irritated, but now knows how to irritate the moderator. Claran you spout some inane drivel yourself. However, I hope the sucking up to the moderator pays off for you.

Big Boy is lucky he doesnt live in Iran, else he would be lined up for a stoning after Friday Prayers.

It will be inevitably be developed, so let’s not waste any more time on the NP proposal or wasteful appeals.

The MINBYs are the ones shouting the loudest – alright to enjoy prosperity this port city have brought them over the years.

DBay can site nicely along side the old tar works, just down from the incinerator, power station, army port, chemical works, chemical works, refinery, power station etc. – all industry that has made the waterside prosper.

Do we honestly need further expansion of the port? I think that there would probably be more money to be made out of leisure activities.

DB in the National Park, don't make me laugh. This land was always earmarked for dock development. Blame NFDC for letting the urban waterside get as close as it has to DB ABP will get permission to build, this time or next, but it will happen. Hope the protesters have another meeting in Dibden Parish Hall and fill it with the retired C.E.G.B, Esso and other retired workers from industry that have profited from working in this area. I do hope ABP wins this time. Fingers crossed.

If you dont want the container terminal then let put it back to it's former glory..... its nothing but reclaimed land, so lets hand it back ! let tidal erosion take it toll and then get rid of the all the moaning nimby's. OR back the DB project to safeguard the future of the local area and the local economy !!

what happens over in dibden bay is up the the people off marchwood, hythe and the NFDC, and not up to people of southampton or its councilor any where else. abp and dwp have plenty off space all it means is to move those empty containers to one off there other ports, the area seems to be a dumping ground for empty containers.

Remo Williams wrote:
'Big Boy' just got his account suspended. He's rather irritated, but now knows how to irritate the moderator. Claran you spout some inane drivel yourself. However, I hope the sucking up to the moderator pays off for you.

Ha! Cyber warrior! Brilliant. This should be quite funny. There's nothing quite like threats on an internet message board!!!

And I'm sure you're not the same person as Big Boy.

Nope, not at all, no-siree Bob.

thesaint wrote:

NewForestStu wrote:
Quote: 'Mr Scrivens said: “Dibden Bay should never have been excluded from the National Park in the first place. It includes an area of special scientific interest and has always been a prime candidate for inclusion.”'

Well it was obvious as soon as the NP boundaries were released wasn't it? Lymington and Dibden Bay left out....mmmmmm...wond


er what the reasons were for that then? perhaps the mega money to be made out of the Webbs site, followed by ditching the train line to dredge further up the river?!?

I have no doubt in my mind that in a good few years when Lymington has been completely destroyed by developers, that we will then find out that we will also join the NP.

These people must think we are all daft or something, Dibden has and will always be primed up for development and all the money boys will happily take the backhanders much like the developers in Lymington area.

Rant over

you are spot on with that rant . it stands out a mile what is happening.

Yes, if you are convinced that this country is run like an episode of Howards Way then I expect you are right, but as we are past the 18.00 Watershed and the children are getting ready for bed we should have a more adult assessment instead of the usual idiots who assume that nothing hapens in business unless wads change hands in the back of chauffeur driven limos. But if you think it stands out a mile you should have no trouble telling us who is paying, who is receiving, and why. What's the deal? Come on we're dying to know.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
National Park used to sound nice, till the authorities started showing their real colours i.e. various ideas to one way or another keep ordinary people out of it. Rather than a national park I suspect they are trying to turn it into a paradise for rich people only. Should we really be subscribing to that?

Yes to start with, as somebody has already pointed out, strangely some places were left out of the NP. But I do not remember Lib-Dems like Brian Dash complain at the time. They are fully aware how difficult it can be to add more areas to the existing NP. So yes it is a good stunt, but will it work?

In what way is the New Forest any more or any less a "paradise for rich people" than it was before? If you think that, shouldn't you start with Sandbanks first, where all the capitalist toffs like the Redknapps look down on us poor workers while lighting cigars with fivers

I'm sure if I filled in all the right paperwork and gave the right greeny a few quid, I could make my backside an "area of special scientific interest".

Means nothing. Dibden Bay is wasteland, it's only purpose is the future place of dock expansion.

All these NIMBYS are just wasting everyone's time as usual. Sadly, taxpayers will foot the bill of any legal fights, because you know for certain the likes of Dash and Co won't put their hand in their pockets on behalf of the "greater good".

This is the only area in the world right now that would block major investment and jobs for the sake of 17 seagulls and a newt.

No no no new forest is big enough

The argument is that it will provide jobs!
Garbage!
How many are employed in the docks now compared to 50 years ago?
Everything is automated and computerised. ABP does not instal automation and computerised handling just to employ more people, they do it to reduce the number they employ because people are expensive, want tea breaks, meal breaks, paid holidays and pensions!
All of the industries along the western shore of Southampton water have done this, and ABP will not be no different!

Lets keep some green fields and open spaces!

Linesman wrote:
The argument is that it will provide jobs!
Garbage!
How many are employed in the docks now compared to 50 years ago?
Everything is automated and computerised. ABP does not instal automation and computerised handling just to employ more people, they do it to reduce the number they employ because people are expensive, want tea breaks, meal breaks, paid holidays and pensions!
All of the industries along the western shore of Southampton water have done this, and ABP will not be no different!

Lets keep some green fields and open spaces!

You used that argument before Linesman but you still don't understand. For every directly employed stevedoring job you can reckon on at least 10 jobs either supporting the industry directly (drivers, artificers, shipwrights, maintenance oontractors, programmers, engineers, builders), and then secondary and tertiary jobs supporting those workers (cleaners, healthcare workers, shopworkers, teachers etc etc). This is common knowledge. Why does Esso with only around 1400 personnel support a Wateside population in excess of 25,000? If you want green fields and open spaces what kind of a dork would go to Dibden Bay (which as everyone knows is actually an ugly empty barren flatland) when they could go to the New Forest next door? What kind of imbecile would set up a picnic for their family there when they could be down at Lepe or on the Forest? Have you actually seen it? It's another rubbish RADBP myth now being quoted as fact. It's like going to Stockton on Tees for your holidays FFS!

Sunny Saint wrote:
You Fr!ggin NIMBY's give me the Hump! For god’s sake get real, wake up and pull yr heads out of your Buttz. The land has been re-claimed! If this wasn’t done by the developers/docks it would be nothing but friggin water. It was re-claimed as land for future development. Furthermore, it is Development that is needed for our great City to compete and more importantly survive. Southampton has already lost: Pirelli’s Vospers, BAT, Cinzano, Fords (More or less) and loads more. The city was established as a Commercial port and for those of you to stupid to realize, A “Port” it still is! If you nobbs are so worried about a rare batch of outer Mongolian wag-tailed newts, then get the same people that have been tasked by the London Olympic committee to find them and re-locate them to a nice home! If you are not satisfied with the wonderful New Forest that is on your doorstep, or don't like the fact that you live in a PORT are not comfortable with that very glaring fact. Then P..s off to Dartmouth, Bodmin, Lake dist, Yorks Dales or a million other very nice and full of wild life places that our country already has to offer!!

NIMBY? Don't think so. Dibden Bay as far as i am concerned is needed in a country with import culture like ours. I am afraid Britains day as a major manufacturing nation is over. If people don't want Dibden Bay i would like to know where they purchase all their electrical goods and cars from.

As for Lymington, yes i might be a bit of a NIMBY, but then i have had the developers next door running amock. All i pointed out was that it was plain to see why the two were not included in the NP.

Andy (Locks Heath), whilst there is no proof that backhanders go on something is fishy do you not think? Lymington now have a hospital not where the building is not even owned solely by the NHS yet what happened to the land they owned on the original hospital site? Sold for peanuts to developers (about a couple of million, and that was for the infirmary, Hillcroft etc which was worth a lot more). Why was this not placed in a public auction? Surely the NHS could have developed the land themselves which would have easily paid for a state of the art hopsital that was owned outright?

What about the Ferry NIMBYS? bet they won't whine if the top of the river ever needs dredging!!

Southampton Port must expand to add to the countries infrastructure. The population countinues to grow, but too many people refuse to let the infrastructure grow be cause of their overt NIMBYism.

We're talking about reclaimed land... therefore what is the problem with reclaiming more land elsewhere that won't be needed in a port network.

Dibden Bay is no more part of the New Forest than my house in Totton is. The Dibden Bay expansion by APB has my support for what it's worth. Was there any outcry when the oil refinery's were built or when the recently built incinerator was built next to Dibden Bay ? The container Port will fit in nicely with the rest of the industry the good people of Southampton have to look at on the other side of the water. BUILD ON THE MUD FLATS, I mean the Bay !

Reclaimed land in the last 40 years, unemployment at its highest in 25 years, I think jobs are more important now !!!!

Totton Ric wrote:
Reclaimed land in the last 40 years, unemployment at its highest in 25 years, I think jobs are more important now !!!!

As with Esso and the subsidiary plants, the employment was there for construction, but on completion, those employed on operation have decreased with automation. Dibden Bay would be no different.
Maintenance of the equipment would be done by contractors, called in as and when needed rather than full-time employees. ABP are not there for the benefit of the community but to pay a dividend to their shareholders. What they have done to Southampton docks has certainly not been done for the benefit of the city or its residents, but just to make a fast buck for their investors. It has not worked wonders for Harry Ramsden's workers!

Linesman is still talking the same rubbish after being corrected twice previously. (hint - contractors are employed - does it matter whether it is by ABP or not? it's immaterial) tip - all this pseudo socialist tripe about companies only doing it for their shareholders - who are their shareholders exactly? If you look at the UK around 95% of any PLC is owned by you and me through our pension funds, ISAs investment trusts and savings accounts. The idea that it is some kind of shadowy limo driving masterclass is the invention of people like Southy for the consumption of the ill informed and gullible) There must be some kind of red card that puts Linesman out of his misery. (tip - read previous posts) Cue Southy now coming on here to correct me and tell me that Dubai Ports is actually owned by an offshore sovereign investment fund and I will answer "how much profit did our shareholder pension funds make on their stockholdings when DP bought them out?" Nobody made them sell - it was a good deal) The world is much simpler and more boring than conspiracy theorists can believe.

Andy LH:

"If you think that, shouldn't you start with Sandbanks first, where all the capitalist toffs like the Redknapps look down on us poor workers while lighting cigars with fivers"

Usually agree with Andy but Redknapp is hardly a 'capitalist toff'



He is just a very very lucky man - a byproduct of the insanity of the overpaid, over-hyped 'beautiful game'

He has probably made shedloads of money by investing much of his ill gotten gains in the past? Perhaps Andy is alluding to this?


Sandbanks property values have rocketed but not all of the mansions have the much sought after view.

Many homes are quite unremarkable but the fatcat developers are just knocking them all down for the crazy land values. Will some of these pirates crash soon?


Anyway - a view of Dibden is much nicer.........

Sunny Saint wrote:
You Fr!ggin NIMBY's give me the Hump! For god’s sake get real, wake up and pull yr heads out of your Buttz. The land has been re-claimed! If this wasn’t done by the developers/docks it would be nothing but friggin water. It was re-claimed as land for future development. Furthermore, it is Development that is needed for our great City to compete and more importantly survive. Southampton has already lost: Pirelli’s Vospers, BAT, Cinzano, Fords (More or less) and loads more. The city was established as a Commercial port and for those of you to stupid to realize, A “Port” it still is! If you nobbs are so worried about a rare batch of outer Mongolian wag-tailed newts, then get the same people that have been tasked by the London Olympic committee to find them and re-locate them to a nice home! If you are not satisfied with the wonderful New Forest that is on your doorstep, or don't like the fact that you live in a PORT are not comfortable with that very glaring fact. Then P..s off to Dartmouth, Bodmin, Lake dist, Yorks Dales or a million other very nice and full of wild life places that our country already has to offer!!

I don't live in a port. I live in a place that happens to be opposite a port.

Dibden Bay - No Way!

Night Mare wrote:

Sunny Saint wrote: You Fr!ggin NIMBY's give me the Hump! For god’s sake get real, wake up and pull yr heads out of your Buttz. The land has been re-claimed! If this wasn’t done by the developers/docks it would be nothing but friggin water. It was re-claimed as land for future development. Furthermore, it is Development that is needed for our great City to compete and more importantly survive. Southampton has already lost: Pirelli’s Vospers, BAT, Cinzano, Fords (More or less) and loads more. The city was established as a Commercial port and for those of you to stupid to realize, A “Port” it still is! If you nobbs are so worried about a rare batch of outer Mongolian wag-tailed newts, then get the same people that have been tasked by the London Olympic committee to find them and re-locate them to a nice home! If you are not satisfied with the wonderful New Forest that is on your doorstep, or don't like the fact that you live in a PORT are not comfortable with that very glaring fact. Then P..s off to Dartmouth, Bodmin, Lake dist, Yorks Dales or a million other very nice and full of wild life places that our country already has to offer!!

I don't live in a port. I live in a place that happens to be opposite a port. Dibden Bay - No Way!

So you would rather live with high unemployment in this area ?, not to keen on the idea myself of them building there but have to move with the times & if in creates jobs then good, people of marchwood who lived there for 40 years or more new one day they would build there. We protested about lindens building on BAT sports club in Totton, we didn’t want it but its going to happen as there is need for more housing, just like there’s a need for More local jobs. If they don’t build here chances are that we will lose trade in the docks, build it elsewhere in the country & will lead to more local unemployment !

MORE JOBS,YES PLEASE

As automation comes through there are going to be less jobs available not more. Even with a significant increase in capacity ABP will not employ more people. They will just swing the existing jobs from Southampton over to Dibden Bay.

UP THE WORKERS!

I was being ironic in referring to Redknapp KM. It just throws a spanner into the stereotyping of the rich as "toffs".
As for Harold - in 1930 there was little automation compared to today, yet today there are three times more jobs than there were then. Automation (by which you really mean efficiency) actually creates more jobs.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Linesman is still talking the same rubbish after being corrected twice previously. (hint - contractors are employed - does it matter whether it is by ABP or not? it's immaterial) tip - all this pseudo socialist tripe about companies only doing it for their shareholders - who are their shareholders exactly? If you look at the UK around 95% of any PLC is owned by you and me through our pension funds, ISAs investment trusts and savings accounts. The idea that it is some kind of shadowy limo driving masterclass is the invention of people like Southy for the consumption of the ill informed and gullible) There must be some kind of red card that puts Linesman out of his misery. (tip - read previous posts) Cue Southy now coming on here to correct me and tell me that Dubai Ports is actually owned by an offshore sovereign investment fund and I will answer "how much profit did our shareholder pension funds make on their stockholdings when DP bought them out?" Nobody made them sell - it was a good deal) The world is much simpler and more boring than conspiracy theorists can believe.

Just because my opinion is opposed to yours, does not make mine rubbish, and to calim to 'correct' me is the height of arrogance from someone who is blinkered in their views and self-opinionated.
You ask who the share-holders are.
As I mentioned ESSO refinery, I think that I would not be far from the truth if I said that the majority were on the other side of the Atlantic, as would be the companies associated with the oil industry that sprang up in the late 50's.
While it is true that ISAs and investment trusts may have a stake, they are also administered by banks, and banking is International and not necessarily British owned - some having sold out to both German and Spanish banks!
'The idea that there is some kind of shadowy limo driving masterclass is the invention of people like Southy!'
Coul Southy be correct, having had the salaries and bonuses revealed of these 'bankers' who you claim are the custodians of our ISAs and pensions etc? The ones whose Ivory Towers came crashing down through an International financial failure that had its beginnings in the United States.
If ABP in its wisdom, or lack of, had redeveloped the Old Docks, that already had its transport links in place, instead of opting for the quick buck by opting for a marina, then that would have shown the importance that they placed on the container part of their business.
If a similar eyesore and rape of the environment were planned for Locks Heath, offering all the jobs and benefits to our ISAs and pension funds that you claim Dibden Bay would provide, my betting is that you would be one of the banner-holders leading the local residents in a protest march!
OK in someone else's back yard, but not in yours!

Andy, I'm sorry, but I can not see where you get the idea that there were less dock workers in the 1930s than there are now. Do you have a link where I could find this information? I would also be interested in any information you have which shows that efficiency creates jobs.

Harold
I think Andy was trying to say that, depite automation, there are now more people employed (in total)in the UK than in the 1930's. If he was being specific to the port industry then he would be wrong as thousands of Dock workers were required to manhandle goods and this obviously had an impact on price of goods via the transport chain.
Mechanisation has lowered logistic costs around the world.
I'm afraid Linesman's arguments against mechanisation remind me of a book I have just read on the subject which catalogues the various disputes/riots by farm, mill workers/drapers etc etc in relation to updated methods of workings. There was even one dispute in Southampton in the 1840's. Soton was a major centre for the manufacture of stage coaches and the coming of the railways interfered with this.There were lots of protests about all this but ironically the new method of transport provided employment for thousands when the Eastleigh Rail Works was opened

The IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) declares a national park to be an area where one or several ecosystems are not materially altered by human exploitation, which contain a landscape of natural beauty, or where visitors are allowed to enter for educative, cultural and recreative purposes.

The case in question is Dibden Bay, which removed a plethora of marine wildlife during the process of reclaimation, is now an expanse of grassland (and a few trees) which is home to a minimal amount of wildlife and isn't open to the public, bar a few perimeter walkways.

Sorry, but am I missing something here?

Beer Monster, by this definition then the New forest shouldn't be a national park either! When I was at school we were taught that William the Conqueror had it created as his own private hunting preserve. I would stress the word created in that last sentence.
If there must be developement, does it have to be the docks!

Dooody wrote:
Dibden Bay is no more part of the New Forest than my house in Totton is. The Dibden Bay expansion by APB has my support for what it's worth. Was there any outcry when the oil refinery's were built or when the recently built incinerator was built next to Dibden Bay ? The container Port will fit in nicely with the rest of the industry the good people of Southampton have to look at on the other side of the water. BUILD ON THE MUD FLATS, I mean the Bay !

out cry of the oil refinery, you need to go back in to history, reason why no out cry, there was a small refinery there before the out break off WW2, by the end off WW2 all what was left was storage tanks, after the war there was a need for a bigger and better refinery, and work started on it in the late 1940's, the population back then was a lot more lower than it is now and has grown a great deal over the years, esso use to be the biggest employer in this part off the area, where it use to employ a few thousand directly it dont any more that number has drop down to a few hundred if that, most off the work out there now is contracted out.
the incinerator is not next to dibden bay you have hythe marina to the south and marchwood military camp to the north, and at the back is 2 farms 1 owned by abp and the other is privately owned.

Linesman wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Linesman is still talking the same rubbish after being corrected twice previously. (hint - contractors are employed - does it matter whether it is by ABP or not? it's immaterial) tip - all this pseudo socialist tripe about companies only doing it for their shareholders - who are their shareholders exactly? If you look at the UK around 95% of any PLC is owned by you and me through our pension funds, ISAs investment trusts and savings accounts. The idea that it is some kind of shadowy limo driving masterclass is the invention of people like Southy for the consumption of the ill informed and gullible) There must be some kind of red card that puts Linesman out of his misery. (tip - read previous posts) Cue Southy now coming on here to correct me and tell me that Dubai Ports is actually owned by an offshore sovereign investment fund and I will answer "how much profit did our shareholder pension funds make on their stockholdings when DP bought them out?" Nobody made them sell - it was a good deal) The world is much simpler and more boring than conspiracy theorists can believe.

Just because my opinion is opposed to yours, does not make mine rubbish, and to calim to 'correct' me is the height of arrogance from someone who is blinkered in their views and self-opinionated.
You ask who the share-holders are.
As I mentioned ESSO refinery, I think that I would not be far from the truth if I said that the majority were on the other side of the Atlantic, as would be the companies associated with the oil industry that sprang up in the late 50's.
While it is true that ISAs and investment trusts may have a stake, they are also administered by banks, and banking is International and not necessarily British owned - some having sold out to both German and Spanish banks!
'The idea that there is some kind of shadowy limo driving masterclass is the invention of people like Southy!'
Coul Southy be correct, having had the salaries and bonuses revealed of these 'bankers' who you claim are the custodians of our ISAs and pensions etc? The ones whose Ivory Towers came crashing down through an International financial failure that had its beginnings in the United States.
If ABP in its wisdom, or lack of, had redeveloped the Old Docks, that already had its transport links in place, instead of opting for the quick buck by opting for a marina, then that would have shown the importance that they placed on the container part of their business.
If a similar eyesore and rape of the environment were planned for Locks Heath, offering all the jobs and benefits to our ISAs and pension funds that you claim Dibden Bay would provide, my betting is that you would be one of the banner-holders leading the local residents in a protest march!
OK in someone else's back yard, but not in yours!

I've already proved my anti Nimby credentials by backing the case for gravel extraction at Chilling - which you might call my "back yard" (though I don't even though it's closer to me than DB is to Dibden Purlieu) so you are wrong. You are also wrong about the suitability of the Eastern docks for modern deep sea and intermodal port operation. You only have to look at an aerial picture of the operation at Southampton Container terminal, Felixstowe or Tilbury compared to what is available at Eastern Docks to see its obvious unsuitability. Your opinion is not rubbish because it is opposed to mine - it is simply because it is rubbish, and not thought through. BTW Everyone lost out through the greed of the banks, not least industry such as ABP.Have you not heard about the problems industry has right now because of the lack of liquidity? ABP like all companies have to grow and adapt to survive. Any industry that stands still soon declines and dies. You have magically described industry and banks as if they are one single functioning organism simply on the basis that they are all big businesses - which is a bit like saying that an elephant and a minesweeper are related because they are both grey! Dibden Bay is just a piece of commercial enterprise from a company doing what it has always done - seeking to increase its market share Any problem with that?

andy before you say any more may i suggest that you go over to this location and have a good walk round, echo putting up old pictures off the place is not showing what nature has done over the many years.
before the docks can move over there they should be force to buy back all the docks that have been sold, and bring all that back on line first.
has for local employment this will not be the case what will happen will be the docks will bring in overseas work force, like whats happening in the docks to day, when people leave they are not being replace by local poeple but being replace by a cheaper work force from over sea.
its only office workers that want this to happen over the side off the river test, what will happen in the end there will be no water front for local people, it will end up all dock land then most off it sold off for things like private marinas and homes just for the rich, and what you get is some thing like balitmore in the usa, where you got the haves and the have nots.
another thing the people who wants this location to be docks, will not talk about the higher number off jobs lost, to the rate of jobs made over the long term. IE:- amomo baits would would lose 300 people though out the uk, there be a lot more in the fishing industary it would effect the whole off the centre off the south coast, losing the mud flats would kill the best feeding ground (nursery) for young fish, most marine life is in the tidal range and the first few metres off water below the lowest spring tides.
theres alot off propaganda about the container port going to be a hub container port this is not true, southampton container port is only going to be a feeder port for the future. this is all due the fact that future container ships will be longer and wider than the emma whitch is the biggest container ship in the world to day, and she dont call into southampton, main reason why is the westernly cross winds and having the smallest tidal range in the country, ship off this size needs to be facing in to the wind or going with the wind to keep 90% controll off the ship at all times.

SOuthy you are being ridiculous. 1) If,say the new container port is built at Bathside Bay instead then according to your made up impact assessment will this "devastate" most of East Anglia? No. Ditto ThamesHaven? No. According to you any port development will devastate bait and breeding for miles around? Will it? Well It will have a short term inpact but nothing as permanent as you say, and we can all see this because there have been two huge dock developments in Southampton already and guess what? The ecology adapted. 2) you keep banging on about the Thorn channel when anyone can see that getting far larger ships up the Scheldt the Waal and the Mass channels (also with sidewind problems) is no problem to our Benelux skippers and pilots , who even have a big successful container port as far inland as Antwerp (which has a far more attractive hinterland than Dibden Bay will ever have by the way and welcomes the economic prosperity). They stand to gain most from watching the silly English panic over some marine worm or mollusc rather than actually building their country's future wealth.
3) The case for a hub is not lost because most deep sea ships sail past Southampton to get to Felixstowe and the east coast ports. The big lines need guaranteed berths and quick turnaround - the width and depth of the approach channel is not an issue. Ask Maersk or Hapag Llloyd.

southy wrote:

Dooody wrote: Dibden Bay is no more part of the New Forest than my house in Totton is. The Dibden Bay expansion by APB has my support for what it's worth. Was there any outcry when the oil refinery's were built or when the recently built incinerator was built next to Dibden Bay ? The container Port will fit in nicely with the rest of the industry the good people of Southampton have to look at on the other side of the water. BUILD ON THE MUD FLATS, I mean the Bay !

out cry of the oil refinery, you need to go back in to history, reason why no out cry, there was a small refinery there before the out break off WW2, by the end off WW2 all what was left was storage tanks, after the war there was a need for a bigger and better refinery, and work started on it in the late 1940's, the population back then was a lot more lower than it is now and has grown a great deal over the years, esso use to be the biggest employer in this part off the area, where it use to employ a few thousand directly it dont any more that number has drop down to a few hundred if that, most off the work out there now is contracted out. the incinerator is not next to dibden bay you have hythe marina to the south and marchwood military camp to the north, and at the back is 2 farms 1 owned by abp and the other is privately owned.

As usual some of South's stuff is correct with with other bits factually incorrect.
Ironically I met up with an ex senior Exxon man the other day who provided me with the following detail
Fawley was first developed in 1921 by a joint venture company Atlantic Gulf and something (my notes are not clear on the latter)
Interestingly Fawley was chosen for two reasons i) availability of land and ii)proximity to the port of Southampton to supply the ocean liners which had moved over to oil propulsion from coal (so the port was even more responsible for the economic well being of this area than I had previously thought!!)
Esso took over in 1925 and substantially extended the site from 1951
Currently the site covers over 3,000 acres and injects somewhere in the region of £80m into the local economy.
Aprrox 20-25m tonnes of crude is delivered in each year and approx 15% of the UK's oil is supplied from Fawley.
85% of this is moved by pipeline (there is a direct Kerosene supply to Heathrow for example), 10% by sea and 5% by road and rail.
The Terminal handles around 2,000 ship movements a year with large tankers up to 350,000Dwt able to access, although most ships nowadays tend to be smaller due to restrictions at loading ports or in the North Sea.
Finally to correct Southys point, there are often up to 3,000 workers on site at busy times.
However the core labour force is currently around 900 (which is nearer than a thousand than a few hunded indicated by Southy)with an additional 500 on short term contracts. The latter figure will, of course rise,at times of peak demand