Our waterfront should be left well alone

Our waterfront should be left well alone

Our waterfront should be left well alone

First published in Readers' Letters
Last updated

THERE have been a lot of views about Dibden Bay lately.

What we must not forget is that Dibden Bay was once a place for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl and other types as a first stopover before continuing on their way, from small waders to all types of geese.

The laws were easily bypassed by big business in those days and it was quite easy for the docks board to build a dyke and fill in the bay with the dredgings from the main channel. Not so easy nowadays.

When I was a very young boy, my father would row us across the water to net for the fish in the shallow waters of the bay, the sky and the marsh was filled with every bird you could think of, but it was not long before it was all gone.

Big business has done enough damage to this country and the bay is now filled with another type of wildlife, I say leave it alone to flourish.

Besides, the docks are now owned by foreign companies and there may be an initial influx of work to cover it in concrete, but after that it will be a minimal amount of employees to run it.

And what would they do with all the millions of tonnes of dredged mud to let the ships in?

Maybe they have their eye on another piece of marsh to take away from the waterfront. This mud and sedge also contains its own ecosystem, and mother nature needs it.

The bay should never have been filled in, in the first place. It was also a nesting ground for every type of British water bird imaginable, all gone and we won’t get it back.

There are still a few turnstone and others nesting on a hereditory basis in isolated pieces of grass inside of Dock Gate 4. This is now happening in Dibden Bay, but they have more room. Leave them alone.

On another note, the docks board waited for years to find a tangible excuse to stop the anglers from using the docks, they now use Dibden Bay waterfront and a few other isolated spots. This will be stopped.

We must think of what happens to the water in the upper stretches of the Test. Before all this dredging the water was held back to a degree by the mass of water in the lower stretches. Now at low tide, the water pours out of the river and falls into a hole.

The river empties faster and becomes lower than it has done in ages. I can remember reed islands that have disappeared completely since the main channel was dredged.

Leave our waterfront alone!

JAMES WYATT, Lordshill, Southampton.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:11pm Tue 28 Jan 14

loosehead says...

some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times?
but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it?
Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat?
then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?
some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times? but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it? Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat? then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city? loosehead
  • Score: -4

12:35pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times?
but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it?
Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat?
then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?
Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton.

The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton.

The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council.

To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense.

Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times? but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it? Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat? then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?[/p][/quote]Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton. The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton. The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council. To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense. Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult. Linesman
  • Score: 2

6:17pm Wed 29 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times?
but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it?
Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat?
then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?
Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton.

The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton.

The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council.

To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense.

Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult.
look who replies to my post? The ANTI Southampton yet PRO Labour council supporter?
But as I tried to get through that muddled brain of your just because Dibden comes under New Forest Council doesn't mean it's in the New Forest as I've shown you on other posts Lordshill is divided between several wards but does that mean theres no such area as Lordshill? do we all live in either Redbridge or Coxford no we live in Lordshill.
As for the material dredged from the river or should I say SOUTHAMPTON WATER it was dredged & used to fill in the bay so the reclaimed land could be used for Dock Land or is that to much information for an old man to take in?
You say my suggestions aren't worthy of an adult? I use to spend my summer holidays at either Western Shore or Millbrook point & I don't remember any one kicking up about there loss to the people of Millbrook & Freemantle so the new container port could be built or a new road for people coming from the west/Totton New Forest & the waterside can you?
I was about 18 when Millbrook road (new) was built & I use to go to the Esso club Disco's & most of that side was either old villages or the start of the new estates & again I can't remember any New Forest residents kicking up about Southampton overspiulls can you? When Soiuthampton Council built Calmore did Totton residents kick up about Southampton residents moving into Totton? As a council tenant my parents were offered a move to Southamptons Calmore estate.
so I really find it hypocritical of those in the new estates or Hythe Marina to oppose ABP & you being a so called socialist is a joke
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times? but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it? Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat? then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?[/p][/quote]Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton. The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton. The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council. To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense. Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult.[/p][/quote]look who replies to my post? The ANTI Southampton yet PRO Labour council supporter? But as I tried to get through that muddled brain of your just because Dibden comes under New Forest Council doesn't mean it's in the New Forest as I've shown you on other posts Lordshill is divided between several wards but does that mean theres no such area as Lordshill? do we all live in either Redbridge or Coxford no we live in Lordshill. As for the material dredged from the river or should I say SOUTHAMPTON WATER it was dredged & used to fill in the bay so the reclaimed land could be used for Dock Land or is that to much information for an old man to take in? You say my suggestions aren't worthy of an adult? I use to spend my summer holidays at either Western Shore or Millbrook point & I don't remember any one kicking up about there loss to the people of Millbrook & Freemantle so the new container port could be built or a new road for people coming from the west/Totton New Forest & the waterside can you? I was about 18 when Millbrook road (new) was built & I use to go to the Esso club Disco's & most of that side was either old villages or the start of the new estates & again I can't remember any New Forest residents kicking up about Southampton overspiulls can you? When Soiuthampton Council built Calmore did Totton residents kick up about Southampton residents moving into Totton? As a council tenant my parents were offered a move to Southamptons Calmore estate. so I really find it hypocritical of those in the new estates or Hythe Marina to oppose ABP & you being a so called socialist is a joke loosehead
  • Score: -1

10:59pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times?
but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it?
Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat?
then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?
Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton.

The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton.

The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council.

To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense.

Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult.
look who replies to my post? The ANTI Southampton yet PRO Labour council supporter?
But as I tried to get through that muddled brain of your just because Dibden comes under New Forest Council doesn't mean it's in the New Forest as I've shown you on other posts Lordshill is divided between several wards but does that mean theres no such area as Lordshill? do we all live in either Redbridge or Coxford no we live in Lordshill.
As for the material dredged from the river or should I say SOUTHAMPTON WATER it was dredged & used to fill in the bay so the reclaimed land could be used for Dock Land or is that to much information for an old man to take in?
You say my suggestions aren't worthy of an adult? I use to spend my summer holidays at either Western Shore or Millbrook point & I don't remember any one kicking up about there loss to the people of Millbrook & Freemantle so the new container port could be built or a new road for people coming from the west/Totton New Forest & the waterside can you?
I was about 18 when Millbrook road (new) was built & I use to go to the Esso club Disco's & most of that side was either old villages or the start of the new estates & again I can't remember any New Forest residents kicking up about Southampton overspiulls can you? When Soiuthampton Council built Calmore did Totton residents kick up about Southampton residents moving into Totton? As a council tenant my parents were offered a move to Southamptons Calmore estate.
so I really find it hypocritical of those in the new estates or Hythe Marina to oppose ABP & you being a so called socialist is a joke
You appear to be under the misunderstanding that the New Forest is covered in trees, which is not the case.

Similarly, Lordshill is not populated by members of the upper house, or owned by them.

In your post you AT LAST agree that Dibden Bay is administered by the New Forest District Council, so you appear to be making a bit of headway.

To say that I am Anti-Southampton is simply ridiculous. Just because I support the Dibden Bay cause does not mean that I am anti-Southampton. There is considerably more to Southampton than ABP and its shareholders.

Silt dredged from Southampton Water was used to reclaim land between Calshot and Fawley, and that area is also administered by the New Forest District Council.

There may have been a HOPE that the reclaimed land at Dibden Bay may be used as a port facility, but for that to happen, it would have to get planning permission from the local planning authority, which is the |NFDC.

So the residents of Millbrook and Western Shore did not protest when the areas were developed. In that case, it would indicate that they were happy for it to happen, so good luck to them.

The local residents of Dibden Bay do not want the area to concreted over, so good luck to them.

So Fawley and local areas took over-spill from Southampton. They were NOT forced to move there, and must have gone by choice. Having settled there, they like the area and would appear to not want to move back to Southampton, and also, do not want Southampton moving to them by building docking facilities on Dibden Bay.

Makes me chuckle when you bring in politics in your last sentence.

I suggest you check out the political make up of the local parish councils in those local areas and also that of the NFDC.

You have so much to say about things you appear to know nothing about. I doubt that you have ever spent much time in the New Forest, and by some of your comments, doubt you even know where it is or its boundaries.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times? but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it? Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat? then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?[/p][/quote]Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton. The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton. The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council. To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense. Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult.[/p][/quote]look who replies to my post? The ANTI Southampton yet PRO Labour council supporter? But as I tried to get through that muddled brain of your just because Dibden comes under New Forest Council doesn't mean it's in the New Forest as I've shown you on other posts Lordshill is divided between several wards but does that mean theres no such area as Lordshill? do we all live in either Redbridge or Coxford no we live in Lordshill. As for the material dredged from the river or should I say SOUTHAMPTON WATER it was dredged & used to fill in the bay so the reclaimed land could be used for Dock Land or is that to much information for an old man to take in? You say my suggestions aren't worthy of an adult? I use to spend my summer holidays at either Western Shore or Millbrook point & I don't remember any one kicking up about there loss to the people of Millbrook & Freemantle so the new container port could be built or a new road for people coming from the west/Totton New Forest & the waterside can you? I was about 18 when Millbrook road (new) was built & I use to go to the Esso club Disco's & most of that side was either old villages or the start of the new estates & again I can't remember any New Forest residents kicking up about Southampton overspiulls can you? When Soiuthampton Council built Calmore did Totton residents kick up about Southampton residents moving into Totton? As a council tenant my parents were offered a move to Southamptons Calmore estate. so I really find it hypocritical of those in the new estates or Hythe Marina to oppose ABP & you being a so called socialist is a joke[/p][/quote]You appear to be under the misunderstanding that the New Forest is covered in trees, which is not the case. Similarly, Lordshill is not populated by members of the upper house, or owned by them. In your post you AT LAST agree that Dibden Bay is administered by the New Forest District Council, so you appear to be making a bit of headway. To say that I am Anti-Southampton is simply ridiculous. Just because I support the Dibden Bay cause does not mean that I am anti-Southampton. There is considerably more to Southampton than ABP and its shareholders. Silt dredged from Southampton Water was used to reclaim land between Calshot and Fawley, and that area is also administered by the New Forest District Council. There may have been a HOPE that the reclaimed land at Dibden Bay may be used as a port facility, but for that to happen, it would have to get planning permission from the local planning authority, which is the |NFDC. So the residents of Millbrook and Western Shore did not protest when the areas were developed. In that case, it would indicate that they were happy for it to happen, so good luck to them. The local residents of Dibden Bay do not want the area to concreted over, so good luck to them. So Fawley and local areas took over-spill from Southampton. They were NOT forced to move there, and must have gone by choice. Having settled there, they like the area and would appear to not want to move back to Southampton, and also, do not want Southampton moving to them by building docking facilities on Dibden Bay. Makes me chuckle when you bring in politics in your last sentence. I suggest you check out the political make up of the local parish councils in those local areas and also that of the NFDC. You have so much to say about things you appear to know nothing about. I doubt that you have ever spent much time in the New Forest, and by some of your comments, doubt you even know where it is or its boundaries. Linesman
  • Score: 1

6:58am Thu 30 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times?
but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it?
Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat?
then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?
Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton.

The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton.

The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council.

To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense.

Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult.
look who replies to my post? The ANTI Southampton yet PRO Labour council supporter?
But as I tried to get through that muddled brain of your just because Dibden comes under New Forest Council doesn't mean it's in the New Forest as I've shown you on other posts Lordshill is divided between several wards but does that mean theres no such area as Lordshill? do we all live in either Redbridge or Coxford no we live in Lordshill.
As for the material dredged from the river or should I say SOUTHAMPTON WATER it was dredged & used to fill in the bay so the reclaimed land could be used for Dock Land or is that to much information for an old man to take in?
You say my suggestions aren't worthy of an adult? I use to spend my summer holidays at either Western Shore or Millbrook point & I don't remember any one kicking up about there loss to the people of Millbrook & Freemantle so the new container port could be built or a new road for people coming from the west/Totton New Forest & the waterside can you?
I was about 18 when Millbrook road (new) was built & I use to go to the Esso club Disco's & most of that side was either old villages or the start of the new estates & again I can't remember any New Forest residents kicking up about Southampton overspiulls can you? When Soiuthampton Council built Calmore did Totton residents kick up about Southampton residents moving into Totton? As a council tenant my parents were offered a move to Southamptons Calmore estate.
so I really find it hypocritical of those in the new estates or Hythe Marina to oppose ABP & you being a so called socialist is a joke
You appear to be under the misunderstanding that the New Forest is covered in trees, which is not the case.

Similarly, Lordshill is not populated by members of the upper house, or owned by them.

In your post you AT LAST agree that Dibden Bay is administered by the New Forest District Council, so you appear to be making a bit of headway.

To say that I am Anti-Southampton is simply ridiculous. Just because I support the Dibden Bay cause does not mean that I am anti-Southampton. There is considerably more to Southampton than ABP and its shareholders.

Silt dredged from Southampton Water was used to reclaim land between Calshot and Fawley, and that area is also administered by the New Forest District Council.

There may have been a HOPE that the reclaimed land at Dibden Bay may be used as a port facility, but for that to happen, it would have to get planning permission from the local planning authority, which is the |NFDC.

So the residents of Millbrook and Western Shore did not protest when the areas were developed. In that case, it would indicate that they were happy for it to happen, so good luck to them.

The local residents of Dibden Bay do not want the area to concreted over, so good luck to them.

So Fawley and local areas took over-spill from Southampton. They were NOT forced to move there, and must have gone by choice. Having settled there, they like the area and would appear to not want to move back to Southampton, and also, do not want Southampton moving to them by building docking facilities on Dibden Bay.

Makes me chuckle when you bring in politics in your last sentence.

I suggest you check out the political make up of the local parish councils in those local areas and also that of the NFDC.

You have so much to say about things you appear to know nothing about. I doubt that you have ever spent much time in the New Forest, and by some of your comments, doubt you even know where it is or its boundaries.
sorry residents of western shore? you really don't know Southampton do you?
There's Weston Shore hence the area called Weston & then there was the Western Shore or American Dump no one lived in the Western Shore but Freemantle & Millbrook were right by it & unlike you & some watersiders considered giving up said land for jobs a good thing as many remembered the thirties.
Oh! try looking at this link
.http://www.google.c
o.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&
q=solent%20city%2Cpr
oposal&source=web&cd
=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url
=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.da
ilyecho.co.uk%2Fnews
%2F3783860.call_to_d
itch_solent_city_pla
n_in_parliament%2F&e
i=tPbpUsfSCcyS1AWKsY
CwBg&usg=AFQjCNErKB9
5jDh85i7VV_mJCJni1sd
MfA&bvm=bv.60444564,
d.d2k.
or go to google type in Solent City Proposal & you'll see there was such a thing okay?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times? but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it? Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat? then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?[/p][/quote]Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton. The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton. The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council. To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense. Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult.[/p][/quote]look who replies to my post? The ANTI Southampton yet PRO Labour council supporter? But as I tried to get through that muddled brain of your just because Dibden comes under New Forest Council doesn't mean it's in the New Forest as I've shown you on other posts Lordshill is divided between several wards but does that mean theres no such area as Lordshill? do we all live in either Redbridge or Coxford no we live in Lordshill. As for the material dredged from the river or should I say SOUTHAMPTON WATER it was dredged & used to fill in the bay so the reclaimed land could be used for Dock Land or is that to much information for an old man to take in? You say my suggestions aren't worthy of an adult? I use to spend my summer holidays at either Western Shore or Millbrook point & I don't remember any one kicking up about there loss to the people of Millbrook & Freemantle so the new container port could be built or a new road for people coming from the west/Totton New Forest & the waterside can you? I was about 18 when Millbrook road (new) was built & I use to go to the Esso club Disco's & most of that side was either old villages or the start of the new estates & again I can't remember any New Forest residents kicking up about Southampton overspiulls can you? When Soiuthampton Council built Calmore did Totton residents kick up about Southampton residents moving into Totton? As a council tenant my parents were offered a move to Southamptons Calmore estate. so I really find it hypocritical of those in the new estates or Hythe Marina to oppose ABP & you being a so called socialist is a joke[/p][/quote]You appear to be under the misunderstanding that the New Forest is covered in trees, which is not the case. Similarly, Lordshill is not populated by members of the upper house, or owned by them. In your post you AT LAST agree that Dibden Bay is administered by the New Forest District Council, so you appear to be making a bit of headway. To say that I am Anti-Southampton is simply ridiculous. Just because I support the Dibden Bay cause does not mean that I am anti-Southampton. There is considerably more to Southampton than ABP and its shareholders. Silt dredged from Southampton Water was used to reclaim land between Calshot and Fawley, and that area is also administered by the New Forest District Council. There may have been a HOPE that the reclaimed land at Dibden Bay may be used as a port facility, but for that to happen, it would have to get planning permission from the local planning authority, which is the |NFDC. So the residents of Millbrook and Western Shore did not protest when the areas were developed. In that case, it would indicate that they were happy for it to happen, so good luck to them. The local residents of Dibden Bay do not want the area to concreted over, so good luck to them. So Fawley and local areas took over-spill from Southampton. They were NOT forced to move there, and must have gone by choice. Having settled there, they like the area and would appear to not want to move back to Southampton, and also, do not want Southampton moving to them by building docking facilities on Dibden Bay. Makes me chuckle when you bring in politics in your last sentence. I suggest you check out the political make up of the local parish councils in those local areas and also that of the NFDC. You have so much to say about things you appear to know nothing about. I doubt that you have ever spent much time in the New Forest, and by some of your comments, doubt you even know where it is or its boundaries.[/p][/quote]sorry residents of western shore? you really don't know Southampton do you? There's Weston Shore hence the area called Weston & then there was the Western Shore or American Dump no one lived in the Western Shore but Freemantle & Millbrook were right by it & unlike you & some watersiders considered giving up said land for jobs a good thing as many remembered the thirties. Oh! try looking at this link .http://www.google.c o.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& q=solent%20city%2Cpr oposal&source=web&cd =1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url =http%3A%2F%2Fwww.da ilyecho.co.uk%2Fnews %2F3783860.call_to_d itch_solent_city_pla n_in_parliament%2F&e i=tPbpUsfSCcyS1AWKsY CwBg&usg=AFQjCNErKB9 5jDh85i7VV_mJCJni1sd MfA&bvm=bv.60444564, d.d2k. or go to google type in Solent City Proposal & you'll see there was such a thing okay? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:58am Thu 30 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times?
but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it?
Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat?
then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?
Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton.

The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton.

The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council.

To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense.

Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult.
look who replies to my post? The ANTI Southampton yet PRO Labour council supporter?
But as I tried to get through that muddled brain of your just because Dibden comes under New Forest Council doesn't mean it's in the New Forest as I've shown you on other posts Lordshill is divided between several wards but does that mean theres no such area as Lordshill? do we all live in either Redbridge or Coxford no we live in Lordshill.
As for the material dredged from the river or should I say SOUTHAMPTON WATER it was dredged & used to fill in the bay so the reclaimed land could be used for Dock Land or is that to much information for an old man to take in?
You say my suggestions aren't worthy of an adult? I use to spend my summer holidays at either Western Shore or Millbrook point & I don't remember any one kicking up about there loss to the people of Millbrook & Freemantle so the new container port could be built or a new road for people coming from the west/Totton New Forest & the waterside can you?
I was about 18 when Millbrook road (new) was built & I use to go to the Esso club Disco's & most of that side was either old villages or the start of the new estates & again I can't remember any New Forest residents kicking up about Southampton overspiulls can you? When Soiuthampton Council built Calmore did Totton residents kick up about Southampton residents moving into Totton? As a council tenant my parents were offered a move to Southamptons Calmore estate.
so I really find it hypocritical of those in the new estates or Hythe Marina to oppose ABP & you being a so called socialist is a joke
You appear to be under the misunderstanding that the New Forest is covered in trees, which is not the case.

Similarly, Lordshill is not populated by members of the upper house, or owned by them.

In your post you AT LAST agree that Dibden Bay is administered by the New Forest District Council, so you appear to be making a bit of headway.

To say that I am Anti-Southampton is simply ridiculous. Just because I support the Dibden Bay cause does not mean that I am anti-Southampton. There is considerably more to Southampton than ABP and its shareholders.

Silt dredged from Southampton Water was used to reclaim land between Calshot and Fawley, and that area is also administered by the New Forest District Council.

There may have been a HOPE that the reclaimed land at Dibden Bay may be used as a port facility, but for that to happen, it would have to get planning permission from the local planning authority, which is the |NFDC.

So the residents of Millbrook and Western Shore did not protest when the areas were developed. In that case, it would indicate that they were happy for it to happen, so good luck to them.

The local residents of Dibden Bay do not want the area to concreted over, so good luck to them.

So Fawley and local areas took over-spill from Southampton. They were NOT forced to move there, and must have gone by choice. Having settled there, they like the area and would appear to not want to move back to Southampton, and also, do not want Southampton moving to them by building docking facilities on Dibden Bay.

Makes me chuckle when you bring in politics in your last sentence.

I suggest you check out the political make up of the local parish councils in those local areas and also that of the NFDC.

You have so much to say about things you appear to know nothing about. I doubt that you have ever spent much time in the New Forest, and by some of your comments, doubt you even know where it is or its boundaries.
sorry residents of western shore? you really don't know Southampton do you?
There's Weston Shore hence the area called Weston & then there was the Western Shore or American Dump no one lived in the Western Shore but Freemantle & Millbrook were right by it & unlike you & some watersiders considered giving up said land for jobs a good thing as many remembered the thirties.
Oh! try looking at this link
.http://www.google.c

o.uk/url?sa=t&rc
t=j&
q=solent%20city%2Cpr

oposal&source=we
b&cd
=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA
&url
=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.da

ilyecho.co.uk%2Fnews

%2F3783860.call_to_d

itch_solent_city_pla

n_in_parliament%2F&a
mp;e
i=tPbpUsfSCcyS1AWKsY

CwBg&usg=AFQjCNE
rKB9
5jDh85i7VV_mJCJni1sd

MfA&bvm=bv.60444
564,
d.d2k.
or go to google type in Solent City Proposal & you'll see there was such a thing okay?
As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: some one from Lordshill going on about the waterside? Easy let the docks take away the restored land build up more land on this side & lets see how flooded that side gets in the winter times? but hey the waterside has been restored hasn't it? Whilst they're at it lets knock down the Hythe marina & all the houses & restore the natural habitat? then maybe the residents of Millbrook ( not green park estate) can get the Western Shore & Millbrook point back? it just means ripping up the main road into the city it just means destroying the sea wall & getting rid of the container Port but hey why should that area have lost all the waterfront plus a nature reserve/reclaimed land to create jobs or make it easier for watersiders to drive into the city?[/p][/quote]Yes, Southampton Water was dredged, but what was dredged up did NOT (repeat) NOT belong to the City of Southampton. The area where it was dumped, was NOT (repeat) NOT within the boundary of the City of Southampton. The area of reclaimed land is NOT (repeat) NOT administered by Southampton City Council. To think that, because silt dredged from Southampton Water, and dumped in an area that is under the administration of the New Forest District Council, makes that reclaimed area part of the City of Southampton, is the same as saying that any rubbish collected in the City of Southampton, and taken to a land-fill site outside of the city's boundary, makes that land-fill site part of the City of Southampton, which is, of course, nonsense. Your suggestions about Hythe Marina and Millbrook are not worthy of comment, and are not what I would expect to see written by an adult.[/p][/quote]look who replies to my post? The ANTI Southampton yet PRO Labour council supporter? But as I tried to get through that muddled brain of your just because Dibden comes under New Forest Council doesn't mean it's in the New Forest as I've shown you on other posts Lordshill is divided between several wards but does that mean theres no such area as Lordshill? do we all live in either Redbridge or Coxford no we live in Lordshill. As for the material dredged from the river or should I say SOUTHAMPTON WATER it was dredged & used to fill in the bay so the reclaimed land could be used for Dock Land or is that to much information for an old man to take in? You say my suggestions aren't worthy of an adult? I use to spend my summer holidays at either Western Shore or Millbrook point & I don't remember any one kicking up about there loss to the people of Millbrook & Freemantle so the new container port could be built or a new road for people coming from the west/Totton New Forest & the waterside can you? I was about 18 when Millbrook road (new) was built & I use to go to the Esso club Disco's & most of that side was either old villages or the start of the new estates & again I can't remember any New Forest residents kicking up about Southampton overspiulls can you? When Soiuthampton Council built Calmore did Totton residents kick up about Southampton residents moving into Totton? As a council tenant my parents were offered a move to Southamptons Calmore estate. so I really find it hypocritical of those in the new estates or Hythe Marina to oppose ABP & you being a so called socialist is a joke[/p][/quote]You appear to be under the misunderstanding that the New Forest is covered in trees, which is not the case. Similarly, Lordshill is not populated by members of the upper house, or owned by them. In your post you AT LAST agree that Dibden Bay is administered by the New Forest District Council, so you appear to be making a bit of headway. To say that I am Anti-Southampton is simply ridiculous. Just because I support the Dibden Bay cause does not mean that I am anti-Southampton. There is considerably more to Southampton than ABP and its shareholders. Silt dredged from Southampton Water was used to reclaim land between Calshot and Fawley, and that area is also administered by the New Forest District Council. There may have been a HOPE that the reclaimed land at Dibden Bay may be used as a port facility, but for that to happen, it would have to get planning permission from the local planning authority, which is the |NFDC. So the residents of Millbrook and Western Shore did not protest when the areas were developed. In that case, it would indicate that they were happy for it to happen, so good luck to them. The local residents of Dibden Bay do not want the area to concreted over, so good luck to them. So Fawley and local areas took over-spill from Southampton. They were NOT forced to move there, and must have gone by choice. Having settled there, they like the area and would appear to not want to move back to Southampton, and also, do not want Southampton moving to them by building docking facilities on Dibden Bay. Makes me chuckle when you bring in politics in your last sentence. I suggest you check out the political make up of the local parish councils in those local areas and also that of the NFDC. You have so much to say about things you appear to know nothing about. I doubt that you have ever spent much time in the New Forest, and by some of your comments, doubt you even know where it is or its boundaries.[/p][/quote]sorry residents of western shore? you really don't know Southampton do you? There's Weston Shore hence the area called Weston & then there was the Western Shore or American Dump no one lived in the Western Shore but Freemantle & Millbrook were right by it & unlike you & some watersiders considered giving up said land for jobs a good thing as many remembered the thirties. Oh! try looking at this link .http://www.google.c o.uk/url?sa=t&rc t=j& q=solent%20city%2Cpr oposal&source=we b&cd =1&ved=0CCwQFjAA &url =http%3A%2F%2Fwww.da ilyecho.co.uk%2Fnews %2F3783860.call_to_d itch_solent_city_pla n_in_parliament%2F&a mp;e i=tPbpUsfSCcyS1AWKsY CwBg&usg=AFQjCNE rKB9 5jDh85i7VV_mJCJni1sd MfA&bvm=bv.60444 564, d.d2k. or go to google type in Solent City Proposal & you'll see there was such a thing okay?[/p][/quote]As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about. Linesman
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Linesman says...

As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about.

Solent City

Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written.
Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.'

If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire.

From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken.

I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.
As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about. Solent City Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written. Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.' If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire. From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken. I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact. Linesman
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Thu 30 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about.

Solent City

Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written.
Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.'

If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire.

From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken.

I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.
there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife .
There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about. Solent City Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written. Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.' If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire. From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken. I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.[/p][/quote]there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife . There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts? loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:12pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about.

Solent City

Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written.
Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.'

If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire.

From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken.

I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.
there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife .
There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts?
As I stated in the first sentence of my post, the land at Western Shore would have been owned by someone or some company, there would have been provision for them to object to the planning application.

You call it 'Solent City Plan' but no plans were ever submitted.

A suggestion was made, and a feasibility study was carried out, and that was it.

We now appear to be covering this subject on Two sites.

I suggest that, if you wish to continue, just use one.

The other one is the most recent, so will not be lost as quickly as this one.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about. Solent City Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written. Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.' If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire. From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken. I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.[/p][/quote]there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife . There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts?[/p][/quote]As I stated in the first sentence of my post, the land at Western Shore would have been owned by someone or some company, there would have been provision for them to object to the planning application. You call it 'Solent City Plan' but no plans were ever submitted. A suggestion was made, and a feasibility study was carried out, and that was it. We now appear to be covering this subject on Two sites. I suggest that, if you wish to continue, just use one. The other one is the most recent, so will not be lost as quickly as this one. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Thu 30 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about.

Solent City

Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written.
Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.'

If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire.

From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken.

I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.
there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife .
There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts?
As I stated in the first sentence of my post, the land at Western Shore would have been owned by someone or some company, there would have been provision for them to object to the planning application.

You call it 'Solent City Plan' but no plans were ever submitted.

A suggestion was made, and a feasibility study was carried out, and that was it.

We now appear to be covering this subject on Two sites.

I suggest that, if you wish to continue, just use one.

The other one is the most recent, so will not be lost as quickly as this one.
Western Shore as such was owned partly by the council partly by ABP the same ABP that owns Dibden Bay's land.
I know that houses were compulsory purchased to build the new road.
You just don't listen or even try to look at the truth.
I know you'll think this is story telling but my old neighbour is 70 my next door neighbour is 75 & they both remember plans to set up a Solent City were proposed so really I'd rather believe these people & my old headmaster who also said that manual work was going to become less & less & we should get a skill or train on computers was he right on that?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about. Solent City Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written. Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.' If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire. From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken. I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.[/p][/quote]there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife . There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts?[/p][/quote]As I stated in the first sentence of my post, the land at Western Shore would have been owned by someone or some company, there would have been provision for them to object to the planning application. You call it 'Solent City Plan' but no plans were ever submitted. A suggestion was made, and a feasibility study was carried out, and that was it. We now appear to be covering this subject on Two sites. I suggest that, if you wish to continue, just use one. The other one is the most recent, so will not be lost as quickly as this one.[/p][/quote]Western Shore as such was owned partly by the council partly by ABP the same ABP that owns Dibden Bay's land. I know that houses were compulsory purchased to build the new road. You just don't listen or even try to look at the truth. I know you'll think this is story telling but my old neighbour is 70 my next door neighbour is 75 & they both remember plans to set up a Solent City were proposed so really I'd rather believe these people & my old headmaster who also said that manual work was going to become less & less & we should get a skill or train on computers was he right on that? loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about.

Solent City

Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written.
Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.'

If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire.

From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken.

I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.
there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife .
There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts?
As I stated in the first sentence of my post, the land at Western Shore would have been owned by someone or some company, there would have been provision for them to object to the planning application.

You call it 'Solent City Plan' but no plans were ever submitted.

A suggestion was made, and a feasibility study was carried out, and that was it.

We now appear to be covering this subject on Two sites.

I suggest that, if you wish to continue, just use one.

The other one is the most recent, so will not be lost as quickly as this one.
Western Shore as such was owned partly by the council partly by ABP the same ABP that owns Dibden Bay's land.
I know that houses were compulsory purchased to build the new road.
You just don't listen or even try to look at the truth.
I know you'll think this is story telling but my old neighbour is 70 my next door neighbour is 75 & they both remember plans to set up a Solent City were proposed so really I'd rather believe these people & my old headmaster who also said that manual work was going to become less & less & we should get a skill or train on computers was he right on that?
He was right about less manual work, which is what I have been saying all along when you have been claiming that the development of Dibden Bay by ABP would mean more jobs.

The docks are mechanised and computerised, because that is the way to save money. The work-force is the expensive part of the set-up because they go sick, want holidays and only work a certain number of hours per day/week.

The construction of the site would cause a TEMPORARY boost to employment, but once completed, it would be run by someone sat behind a computer in an office in Southampton Docks, with a few crane drivers and a crew to tie up the container ships.

No big dent in the unemployment figures, but a massive boost the share-holders dividend, and gigantic bonus payment to the directors of ABP.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about. Solent City Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written. Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.' If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire. From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken. I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.[/p][/quote]there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife . There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts?[/p][/quote]As I stated in the first sentence of my post, the land at Western Shore would have been owned by someone or some company, there would have been provision for them to object to the planning application. You call it 'Solent City Plan' but no plans were ever submitted. A suggestion was made, and a feasibility study was carried out, and that was it. We now appear to be covering this subject on Two sites. I suggest that, if you wish to continue, just use one. The other one is the most recent, so will not be lost as quickly as this one.[/p][/quote]Western Shore as such was owned partly by the council partly by ABP the same ABP that owns Dibden Bay's land. I know that houses were compulsory purchased to build the new road. You just don't listen or even try to look at the truth. I know you'll think this is story telling but my old neighbour is 70 my next door neighbour is 75 & they both remember plans to set up a Solent City were proposed so really I'd rather believe these people & my old headmaster who also said that manual work was going to become less & less & we should get a skill or train on computers was he right on that?[/p][/quote]He was right about less manual work, which is what I have been saying all along when you have been claiming that the development of Dibden Bay by ABP would mean more jobs. The docks are mechanised and computerised, because that is the way to save money. The work-force is the expensive part of the set-up because they go sick, want holidays and only work a certain number of hours per day/week. The construction of the site would cause a TEMPORARY boost to employment, but once completed, it would be run by someone sat behind a computer in an office in Southampton Docks, with a few crane drivers and a crew to tie up the container ships. No big dent in the unemployment figures, but a massive boost the share-holders dividend, and gigantic bonus payment to the directors of ABP. Linesman
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about.

Solent City

Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written.
Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.'

If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire.

From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken.

I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.
there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife .
There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts?
As I stated in the first sentence of my post, the land at Western Shore would have been owned by someone or some company, there would have been provision for them to object to the planning application.

You call it 'Solent City Plan' but no plans were ever submitted.

A suggestion was made, and a feasibility study was carried out, and that was it.

We now appear to be covering this subject on Two sites.

I suggest that, if you wish to continue, just use one.

The other one is the most recent, so will not be lost as quickly as this one.
Western Shore as such was owned partly by the council partly by ABP the same ABP that owns Dibden Bay's land.
I know that houses were compulsory purchased to build the new road.
You just don't listen or even try to look at the truth.
I know you'll think this is story telling but my old neighbour is 70 my next door neighbour is 75 & they both remember plans to set up a Solent City were proposed so really I'd rather believe these people & my old headmaster who also said that manual work was going to become less & less & we should get a skill or train on computers was he right on that?
He was right about less manual work, which is what I have been saying all along when you have been claiming that the development of Dibden Bay by ABP would mean more jobs.

The docks are mechanised and computerised, because that is the way to save money. The work-force is the expensive part of the set-up because they go sick, want holidays and only work a certain number of hours per day/week.

The construction of the site would cause a TEMPORARY boost to employment, but once completed, it would be run by someone sat behind a computer in an office in Southampton Docks, with a few crane drivers and a crew to tie up the container ships.

No big dent in the unemployment figures, but a massive boost the share-holders dividend, and gigantic bonus payment to the directors of ABP.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: As the majority of residents of Millbrook would have owned, or were buying their own homes, and Western Shore would have been owned by someone, or a company, the principle remains the same. Residents, even those renting, and owners, are able to object to a planning application, whether it be a large development, or small, such as someone putting up an extension. That's what democracy is all about. Solent City Once again, I think that it is a case that you have not understood what has been written. Chris Huhne MP used the term "Solent City" in the House of Commons in 2008, in response to the Government stated that it wanted 83,000 houses built in the area. He claimed that if this 'Vast Urban Sprawl' went ahead it could result in 'Solent City.' If you check out Wikipedia, you will see that. 'South Hampshire of Solent City is a term used mainly to refer to the metropolitan area formed by the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, a their suburbs and commuter towns in Southern Hampshire. From both pieces, I can see no evidence that there was a proposal to create a 'Solent City', but saw evidence that Chris Huhne had warned that this could happen if care were not taken. I can quite understand it that, for reasons of convenience, the area could be given, for what of a better term, the 'nick-name' "Solent City" to cover a certain area, but as said, it would be for convenience for officialdom, but it was never planned to take place as a fact.[/p][/quote]there are/were no residential housing on the Western Shore the land was as at Dibden reclaimed land & it was left to nature & wildlife . There is another article on GOOGLE showing this proposed Solent City Plan was in 1965 or didn't you get that in one of my posts?[/p][/quote]As I stated in the first sentence of my post, the land at Western Shore would have been owned by someone or some company, there would have been provision for them to object to the planning application. You call it 'Solent City Plan' but no plans were ever submitted. A suggestion was made, and a feasibility study was carried out, and that was it. We now appear to be covering this subject on Two sites. I suggest that, if you wish to continue, just use one. The other one is the most recent, so will not be lost as quickly as this one.[/p][/quote]Western Shore as such was owned partly by the council partly by ABP the same ABP that owns Dibden Bay's land. I know that houses were compulsory purchased to build the new road. You just don't listen or even try to look at the truth. I know you'll think this is story telling but my old neighbour is 70 my next door neighbour is 75 & they both remember plans to set up a Solent City were proposed so really I'd rather believe these people & my old headmaster who also said that manual work was going to become less & less & we should get a skill or train on computers was he right on that?[/p][/quote]He was right about less manual work, which is what I have been saying all along when you have been claiming that the development of Dibden Bay by ABP would mean more jobs. The docks are mechanised and computerised, because that is the way to save money. The work-force is the expensive part of the set-up because they go sick, want holidays and only work a certain number of hours per day/week. The construction of the site would cause a TEMPORARY boost to employment, but once completed, it would be run by someone sat behind a computer in an office in Southampton Docks, with a few crane drivers and a crew to tie up the container ships. No big dent in the unemployment figures, but a massive boost the share-holders dividend, and gigantic bonus payment to the directors of ABP. Linesman
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree