Today's most viewed
Commerce backing plans for VT site
CONTROVERSIAL plans to
build 1,650 new homes on
the former VT site in
Southampton have received
enthusiastic backing from
Southampton's business
leaders.
Click here for a gallery of the development
The support comes just days after
Woolston residents staged a march
opposing the plans through the city
centre.
Many locals oppose the number of
homes on the site, fearing traffic and
social problems will result from the
influx of up to 4,000 people.
Captain Jimmy Chestnutt, director
general of Southampton Chamber of
Commerce, said: "The chamber has
noted that the two planning applications
submitted for the Woolston site
indicate the provision of not only the
800 jobs from Palmer Johnson, but also
over 350 further jobs within the Crest
scheme.
"This makes a total of 1,150 jobs,
which is more than envisaged in the
earlier planning application. The
Chamber also accepts it would have
been difficult to attract such a key
employer as Palmer Johnson without
the supporting infrastructure that the
Crest application provides.
"Transport issues are, of course, a
major concern in any development of
this size but shift working and new
homes next to new jobs should result in
less congestion.
"As well as the parking provision provided
in various places within the
development, other measures will help
alleviate congestion, such as a travel
plan with car sharing, bike storage
facilities, a bus from the Woolston
train station to the site and the possibility
of a water taxi connection.
Click here for previous Woolston Riverside stories
Furthermore, the National Cycle
Network NCN 2 will traverse the site,
providing direct and safe cycle links to
and from the area.
"On the basis of information provided,
the Chamber is satisfied that the
two schemes together will achieve a
truly mixed-use redevelopment of the
whole Woolston site and provide an
economic boost to the Southampton
City region in line with its maritime
heritage.
"The revitalised waterfront, marine
quarter and residential-led development
create a vibrant community and
commercial offer. These have already
attracted inward investment that is
dependent upon all aspects of the
scheme going ahead."
Sally Lynskey, chief executive of
Business Southampton, said:
"Business Southampton broadly welcomes
the development at Woolston. As
an organisation that aims to further
Southampton as a major city of excellence
for business and economic
growth we believe that the mixed
usage on the site is good news. The
development is positive for the city and
will benefit the rich maritime industry
in the area."
Superyacht builder Palmer Johnson,
which is to create 800 jobs by creating a
luxury boat-building facility on the
site, now named Centenary Quay, also
backed the residential plans.
A spokesman said: "Palmer Johnson
is pleased to be working alongside
SEEDA and Crest Nicholson in the
regeneration of the old Vosper
Thorneycroft site in Woolston.
"The integration of the employment
quarter and the residential area is
intended to complement each other.
Palmer Johnson hopes that this combined
approach will help to extend the
current Woolston town centre, so that
it can be enjoyed by employees of
Palmer Johnson and residents alike."
11:08am Tuesday 20th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: john, southamtpon on 11:39am Tue 20 May 08
what a crock, what they are bassically saying is they expect everyone who is going to be employed by Palmer Johnson to live in the new flats which clearly isnt going to happen.
cycle routes, water taxi's, and busses might help with peak hours traffic but the fact is that virtually everyone living there will still own a car for their personal life!
what a crock, what they are bassically saying is they expect everyone who is going to be employed by Palmer Johnson to live in the new flats which clearly isnt going to happen.
cycle routes, water taxi's, and busses might help with peak hours traffic but the fact is that virtually everyone living there will still own a car for their personal life!
Posted by: elvis on 11:42am Tue 20 May 08
Sadly, I think the people of Woolston are being hoodwinked. There are too many people being squeezed into the area. All being done in the name of profit.
When the director general of Southampton Chamber of Commerce answers peoples' complaints by pointing out the number of jobs created you know you are in trouble. My question to him would be this, what about Woolston after the jobs have gone when people will be living on top of each other?
My interest in this? I'd like to return to Woolston one day
Sadly, I think the people of Woolston are being hoodwinked. There are too many people being squeezed into the area. All being done in the name of profit.
When the director general of Southampton Chamber of Commerce answers peoples' complaints by pointing out the number of jobs created you know you are in trouble. My question to him would be this, what about Woolston after the jobs have gone when people will be living on top of each other?
My interest in this? I'd like to return to Woolston one day
Posted by: Gilmore, Shirley, Southampton on 11:56am Tue 20 May 08
This is hoodwinking of the highest order! The "parking provision", it has already been established, is not high enough (0.8 cars per space, was it?). Car sharing? Bike storage? The good Cap'n Chestnutt just seems to be hoping that residents will dig the Chamber of Commerce out of this mess by promising to find alternatives to driving their cars.
It's the Council's duty to ensure sufficient transport facilities are provided in the first place. Attempting to instill nice green congestion-easing habits into the residents should be secondary.
This is hoodwinking of the highest order! The "parking provision", it has already been established, is not high enough (0.8 cars per space, was it?). Car sharing? Bike storage? The good Cap'n Chestnutt just seems to be hoping that residents will dig the Chamber of Commerce out of this mess by promising to find alternatives to driving their cars.
It's the Council's duty to ensure sufficient transport facilities are provided in the first place. Attempting to instill nice green congestion-easing habits into the residents should be secondary.
Posted by: Mac, Woolston on 12:31pm Tue 20 May 08
I would love to see something that rivals Gunwharf, surprise, surprise this will not be it!!
The commercial element is welcome and positive, but that level of high density housing is just a recipe for an area nobody will want to live and it is self eveident that houses, not endless flats are the real requirement here!
I suspect the business leaders who are all for it will be quick to profit from the development, but will they actually put their money where their mouth is and live there?
Mehthinks not!!!
I would love to see something that rivals Gunwharf, surprise, surprise this will not be it!!
The commercial element is welcome and positive, but that level of high density housing is just a recipe for an area nobody will want to live and it is self eveident that houses, not endless flats are the real requirement here!
I suspect the business leaders who are all for it will be quick to profit from the development, but will they actually put their money where their mouth is and live there?
Mehthinks not!!!
Posted by: Family Man, Bitterne on 1:09pm Tue 20 May 08
Many of the earlier comments in previous articles referred to the local residents as "NIMBYs" in the most derogatory fashion. If being a NIMBY is protesting about development that will stretch the local infrastructure and detrimentally affect local living conditions, then I suggest most people would be NIMBYs when their own living circumstances are so affected. And whilst jobs being created is generally a good thing, the comments by the Chamber of Commerce, a unelected body when compared with the Woolston Residents Association (my apologies but the actual name escapes me..)come across as the exact opposite of NIMBY-ism. By that I mean that this over-development (from a residential point of view), by being in Woolston, is without doubt NOT in the residential backyard of the members of the Chamber of Commerce but is seen as benefitting business in general by increased opportunities and profits. It will however not affect their residential circumstances as they undoubtedly live elsewhere.
I find it quite hypocritical to support a development "in someone else's backyard", when sure as hell, I would not want it in mu own!!!
Many of the earlier comments in previous articles referred to the local residents as "NIMBYs" in the most derogatory fashion. If being a NIMBY is protesting about development that will stretch the local infrastructure and detrimentally affect local living conditions, then I suggest most people would be NIMBYs when their own living circumstances are so affected. And whilst jobs being created is generally a good thing, the comments by the Chamber of Commerce, a unelected body when compared with the Woolston Residents Association (my apologies but the actual name escapes me..)come across as the exact opposite of NIMBY-ism. By that I mean that this over-development (from a residential point of view), by being in Woolston, is without doubt NOT in the residential backyard of the members of the Chamber of Commerce but is seen as benefitting business in general by increased opportunities and profits. It will however not affect their residential circumstances as they undoubtedly live elsewhere.
I find it quite hypocritical to support a development "in someone else's backyard", when sure as hell, I would not want it in mu own!!!
Posted by: Common Sense on 1:29pm Tue 20 May 08
Why do people keep bringing up the so called parking problem.
As someone commented on a previous article, these are new flats. Nobody HAS to buy them. Why would someone who NEEDS a parking pace buy/rent a flat that doesn't have one ? They won't, they'll buy/rent in areas that do.
Common sense really
Why do people keep bringing up the so called parking problem.
As someone commented on a previous article, these are new flats. Nobody HAS to buy them. Why would someone who NEEDS a parking pace buy/rent a flat that doesn't have one ? They won't, they'll buy/rent in areas that do.
Common sense really
Posted by: Bagman, Southampton on 1:36pm Tue 20 May 08
I think the Council have got the wrong idea of the plans for the VT site. All the major construction companies are cutting back on their building sites as they can't sell housing already built. The biggest construction company in the country has cut back by 60% and rest rest are following. They just can't get the money from the banks to pay for it. The Boat Constructors can build their own site from their own cash. Too many flats will not be sold, people will not be able to move them on when their families grow.
Houses built on this site would be a better option after the site is cleaned up. Has anyone done a soil check on the site yet? 90 years of ship production leaves quite a mess in the sub soil.
I think the Council have got the wrong idea of the plans for the VT site. All the major construction companies are cutting back on their building sites as they can't sell housing already built. The biggest construction company in the country has cut back by 60% and rest rest are following. They just can't get the money from the banks to pay for it. The Boat Constructors can build their own site from their own cash. Too many flats will not be sold, people will not be able to move them on when their families grow.
Houses built on this site would be a better option after the site is cleaned up. Has anyone done a soil check on the site yet? 90 years of ship production leaves quite a mess in the sub soil.
Posted by: Paul K, Southampton on 1:40pm Tue 20 May 08
Whilst the creation of these 800 jobs is of course to be welcomed, I'm concerned that SEEDA seem to have gone for the big headline in attracting an American company to occupy the site. There are many local companies who have been queueing up for such an opportunity as this for years yet they seem to have been brushed aside in favour of a postive media story.
Surely one of the principle objectives of a regional development agency is to develop the existing business community offering them the chance to develop and expand. Whilst inward investment is to be welcomed I wonder what the long term commitment of PJ is and what will be left should they decide to pull out.
I can't help but feel their occupation of the site in Hythe is only short term following which the site would once again be left vacant.
This opportunity comes once in a generation and it seems that SEEDA have missed a huge opportunity to develop and support local businesses. I hope that the PJ investment is succesful but fear the results should it not be so.
Whilst the creation of these 800 jobs is of course to be welcomed, I'm concerned that SEEDA seem to have gone for the big headline in attracting an American company to occupy the site. There are many local companies who have been queueing up for such an opportunity as this for years yet they seem to have been brushed aside in favour of a postive media story.
Surely one of the principle objectives of a regional development agency is to develop the existing business community offering them the chance to develop and expand. Whilst inward investment is to be welcomed I wonder what the long term commitment of PJ is and what will be left should they decide to pull out.
I can't help but feel their occupation of the site in Hythe is only short term following which the site would once again be left vacant.
This opportunity comes once in a generation and it seems that SEEDA have missed a huge opportunity to develop and support local businesses. I hope that the PJ investment is succesful but fear the results should it not be so.
Posted by: mike, eastleigh on 1:44pm Tue 20 May 08
they know what we all know. its a great development and vital for the ongoing improvements to southampton. there is so little waterfront that isnt just docks that its crucial high quality projects like this are created. a few NIMBY's (and i mean a very small amount of complainers on the scale of things) shouldnt cut the legs off southampton!
they know what we all know. its a great development and vital for the ongoing improvements to southampton. there is so little waterfront that isnt just docks that its crucial high quality projects like this are created. a few NIMBY's (and i mean a very small amount of complainers on the scale of things) shouldnt cut the legs off southampton!
Posted by: Plum Pudding, Swamptown on 2:18pm Tue 20 May 08
[quote][bold]mike[/bold] wrote:
they know what we all know. its a great development and vital for the ongoing improvements to southampton. there is so little waterfront that isnt just docks that its crucial high quality projects like this are created. a few NIMBY's (and i mean a very small amount of complainers on the scale of things) shouldnt cut the legs off southampton![/quote] Actually I would beg to differ, there is little of the waterfront that isn't flats... And they are cutting off Southampton from what was it's roots!
And as for NIMBYs, my experinece is that it is a generic stereotypical terms from someone who is unaffected by something about people who are fighting against something that they have every right to protest about...
mike wrote:
they know what we all know. its a great development and vital for the ongoing improvements to southampton. there is so little waterfront that isnt just docks that its crucial high quality projects like this are created. a few NIMBY's (and i mean a very small amount of complainers on the scale of things) shouldnt cut the legs off southampton!
Actually I would beg to differ, there is little of the waterfront that isn't flats... And they are cutting off Southampton from what was it's roots!
And as for NIMBYs, my experinece is that it is a generic stereotypical terms from someone who is unaffected by something about people who are fighting against something that they have every right to protest about...
Posted by: OVboy, Ocean Village on 4:04pm Tue 20 May 08
Don't worry people of Woolston, they haven't even finished building Ocean Village yet and they still can't sell the flats they have built so I think you will be safe before they start building at VT for a few years at least! A word of advice about parking, all the surrounding streets near OV are already full of the OV flats residents cars .... so beware as thats what will happen in Woolston if parking is insufficent for the new occupiers. The idea of a water taxi really has not been thought about by a grown up... Remember Soton Council nearly closed the Hythe ferry and that saves quite a car journey and do you really think folk will travel in a boat when it's quicker road!
Don't worry people of Woolston, they haven't even finished building Ocean Village yet and they still can't sell the flats they have built so I think you will be safe before they start building at VT for a few years at least! A word of advice about parking, all the surrounding streets near OV are already full of the OV flats residents cars .... so beware as thats what will happen in Woolston if parking is insufficent for the new occupiers. The idea of a water taxi really has not been thought about by a grown up... Remember Soton Council nearly closed the Hythe ferry and that saves quite a car journey and do you really think folk will travel in a boat when it's quicker road!
Posted by: Wewullywinky on 4:28pm Tue 20 May 08
The infrastucture in and out of woolston is not man enought to support any major development, during and after.
Hamble lane is a nightmare to go through as it is during rush hour, there are frequent accidents along Portsmouth rd, Woolston bridge doesn't have the capability to keep traffic flowing and most summers we are told to preserve water, so how are we meant to cope if more and more flats are added to an already overstretched service.
These over paid fat cats only see £ signs not the real impact.
The infrastucture in and out of woolston is not man enought to support any major development, during and after.
Hamble lane is a nightmare to go through as it is during rush hour, there are frequent accidents along Portsmouth rd, Woolston bridge doesn't have the capability to keep traffic flowing and most summers we are told to preserve water, so how are we meant to cope if more and more flats are added to an already overstretched service.
These over paid fat cats only see £ signs not the real impact.
Posted by: Woolstonite, Southampton on 8:23pm Tue 20 May 08
I HOPE THE DEVELOPMENT GOES AHEAD AND THE VOCAL MINORITY DON'T GET LISTENED TO.
I HOPE THE DEVELOPMENT GOES AHEAD AND THE VOCAL MINORITY DON'T GET LISTENED TO.
Posted by: another woolston resident, Woolston on 11:12pm Tue 20 May 08
What a refreshing change to hear some discussion of the issues rather than intemperate slagging off of anyone who might have a different opinion.
Referring to Woolstonite's comment, most people want the development to go ahead, but in a form that will actually benefit Woolston residents and traders. There does seem to be an awful lot of people in this "vocal minority" who think this current scheme will be pretty disastrous though, doesn't there?
Good point by OVboy about the overflow parking from Ocean Village - shows we're not just scare mongering: it's happening now in lots of other developments large and small. If there's not enough parking on the site, then surrounding roads WILL be used, and we'll all suffer.
I don't think a water taxi to Ocean Village and a few bike sheds are going to cure the congestion problem either.
I hope the Council listens to reason and scales the development back to something that we can all support, and which will - at long last - rejuvenate Woolston, which has been suffering from the planners' blight for too far long.
What a refreshing change to hear some discussion of the issues rather than intemperate slagging off of anyone who might have a different opinion.
Referring to Woolstonite's comment, most people want the development to go ahead, but in a form that will actually benefit Woolston residents and traders. There does seem to be an awful lot of people in this "vocal minority" who think this current scheme will be pretty disastrous though, doesn't there?
Good point by OVboy about the overflow parking from Ocean Village - shows we're not just scare mongering: it's happening now in lots of other developments large and small. If there's not enough parking on the site, then surrounding roads WILL be used, and we'll all suffer.
I don't think a water taxi to Ocean Village and a few bike sheds are going to cure the congestion problem either.
I hope the Council listens to reason and scales the development back to something that we can all support, and which will - at long last - rejuvenate Woolston, which has been suffering from the planners' blight for too far long.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
