Send pictures to us
Send us your pictures and video by text, email or by uploading. Click here to find out how. »
|
|
|
|
Dibden Bay Watch
9:33am Sunday 3rd August 2008
Comments (60)
IT was one of the biggest and most expensive planning battles ever fought in the UK. Countryside campaigners clashed with Associated British Ports (ABP) over proposals to build a massive dock development at Dibden Bay, a heavily protected part of Southampton Water.
The battle ended four years ago when the Government rejected the £600m scheme after a 13-month public inquiry.
ABP's application to construct a huge container terminal on reclaimed land between Hythe and Marchwood appeared to be dead in the water.
But the controversial issue is refusing to go away.
Alarm bells started ringing on the Waterside once again this week after ABP confirmed that it still harboured hopes of building a new port.
It was the latest in a series of indications that campaigners could find themselves sailing into battle for a second time.
Two years ago local residents were warned to be on their guard after a controversial High Court ruling on the future of Dibden Bay.
Politicians spoke out after ABP blocked an attempt by New Forest District Council to limit the size of any future development on the land.
Councillors altered the District Local Plan amid fears that ABP might make another attempt to obtain permission for the proposed port. They inserted a clause that said the amount of land used for any scheme should be "minimised" to safeguard the strategic gap between Hythe and Marchwood.
However, council chiefs were forced to back down after ABP successfully challenged the clause in the High Court.
The company said it was not planning to submit a new application and went to court only because an important legal principle was at stake.
But ABP's chief executive, Bo Lerenius, later forecast that the proposed port would be built at some point in the future. He said: "I find the reasons for Dibden Bay's refusal confusing and I am pretty convinced that there will be a terminal there one day."
The issue surfaced again this week at the Port City Futures conference attended by marine minister Jonathon Shaw.
Port director Doug Morrison received a rapturous round of applause after revealing that ABP still wanted to forge ahead with the scheme.
Mr Morrison said: "The history of Southampton is one of reclamation and development. That has proved to be a legacy for the city. The question is how can I, as port director, leave a legacy for future generations. I finish with one point, Dibden Bay."
His remarks have been met with incredulity and derision by some of the objectors who attended the public inquiry.
Referring to transport minister Tony McNulty's subsequent decision to reject the scheme, New Forest East MP Dr Julian Lewis said: "What part of no' do these people not understand?"
Other campaigners claimed that nothing had changed since the minister made his ruling.
Phil Henderson, who was vice-chairman of the pressure group Residents Against Dibden Bay Port, argued that the controversial scheme was dead and buried.
"It was dismissed on all counts by the inspector who chaired the inquiry and it would be ridiculous if ABP tried again. They'd have to do something quite extraordinary to protect the environment," he said.
But others are less sanguine and point to potential threats lurking in the shadows.
Despite Mr McNulty's decision to uphold the inspector's ruling, there is always the possibility that a future government might look kindly on any new application.
Worried environmentalists say a proposed shake-up of Britain's planning system could make it easier for controversial projects to get the go-ahead.
Major decisions will be handed to an independent panel of experts who will be guided by national policy statements setting out the country's key infrastructure requirements.
ABP regards Dibden Bay as vital to the future of Southampton docks and is doubtless hoping that a potential avenue will open up.
Totton councillor George Dart, former chairman of the town council's planning and transport committee, described Mr Morrison's remarks at the conference as "very disturbing".
He warned that any new application would result in another avalanche of objections.
"A massive development in a sensitive area on the edge of the New Forest would be both unsustainable and undesirable," said Cllr Dart.
However, any fresh proposals are likely to be welcomed by Southampton City Council, one of the few organisations that supported the original scheme.
The council's QC, John Hobson, told the inquiry that Southampton was ideally placed to meet the needs of major international shipping companies.
Mr Hobson said government policies encouraged the provision of new port facilities and added: "It's the role of operators such as ABP to respond and ensure that provision is made.
"In promoting the new terminal at Dibden, ABP's proposals are consistent with national policy guidance."
The inquiry closed at the end of 2002 and the decision to reject the 500-acre scheme was announced more than a year later.
Leading wildlife grounds praised the government's decision, saying the proposed development would have destroyed a vital feeding area used by thousands of birds.
However, rival ports elsewhere in the UK have since been given permission to expand in a move that could result in business being taken away from Southampton.
An ABP spokesman said it had "absolutely no plans" reapply for permission to develop Dibden Bay but admitted that managers were keeping their options open.
"We need to safeguard the land in case we ever want to proceed with any future development," he said.
Meanwhile, the site itself continues to stand idle - an unspoilt but unused monument to the success of people who fought and won the Battle of Dibden Bay.
Plans to build houses were rejected in the 1980s and any similar application in the future is also likely to be refused.
Experts say Dibden Bay is likely to remain rough grazing land - just as it has been for the past 50 years.
Dibden Bay timeline
- 1940s: Reclamation of Dibden Bay begins.
- 1967: The reclaimed land is bought by ABP's predecessor, the British Transport Docks Board, and safeguarded for future port use.
- 1995: ABP begins a public consultation exercise on the future of the 500-acre site.
- 1997: Plans to build a massive container terminal at Dibden Bay are formally unveiled.
- 2002: ABP submits its planning application to the government.
- 2001: Start of 13-month public inquiry into the scheme.
- 2003: Michael Hurley, who chaired the inquiry, recommends that the application be refused.
- 2004: Transport minister Tony McNulty rejects the ABP application.
- 2006: Bo Lerenius, ABP's chief executive, forecasts that the port will be built "one day".
- 2008: Port director Doug Morrison says the scheme is vital to the future of the docks.
Your Say YourThis is Hampshire
Charlady, Southampton says...
10:28am Sun 3 Aug 08
ABP Whistleblower, Southampton says...
10:48am Sun 3 Aug 08
southy, redbridge says...
11:44am Sun 3 Aug 08
Marchwood Boy wrote:its not just the birds,the environment impact in much greater than that,the lost of sea life to,this ground is all so a breeding,nursery and feeding ground for bass,founders,place,
Dibden Bay was made to be a port, it should be a port.
Build it.
The area needs to grow. The waterside is an industrial area, anyone who says otherwise is deluded. Jobs and providing sustainable industry and commerce for future generations outweighs saving a handful of birds who will just move a few hundred yards anyway.
Common sense must prevail. Build Dibden Bay.
eels,mullet,dab,sole and many more diffrent types of fish,if you lose the all the diffrent types of shellfish and worms and other living life in the mud and sand,the water poulution will raise,and start to become smelly again,like last time when they built on millbrook point and took a number of years to level out,then there is the job loses when they built the new container port on millbrook point there was over 2000 jobs loses in the fishing industry,for what the 500 people it employs now.
Marchwood boy, says...
12:05pm Sun 3 Aug 08
southy, redbridge says...
12:10pm Sun 3 Aug 08
there is also another problem,every port has its limits on the size of ships it can take,the world largest containter ship will never come to southampton its to risky to get into southampton waters,has container ships are going to get longer and wider they to will not come to southampton ports
wild bill, millbrook hous est says...
12:49pm Sun 3 Aug 08
southy, redbridge says...
12:57pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Docker, says...
2:07pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Southy, you seem to be someone who is interested in the marine industry, so why wouldn't you welcome it's expansion in the area?
Sheitma Pance, Soton says...
2:18pm Sun 3 Aug 08
ABP Whistleblower wrote:If the rumours coming out of the port are true, everything apart from the cruise terminal are to be sold off.
Dibden Bay is on hold until a change in government. One question that must be asked though, what plans do ABP have on selling off prime and valuable port estate to developers? How much of the existing docks will be sold off once Dibden Bay is up and running? It's not all expansion.
If ABB *really* wanted to expand, they wouldn't have sold off huge tracts of the port for housing, would they?
Put simply, ABB realise that the land they are sitting on is worth vastly more than the land a Dibden. They could either re-develop the existing docks at great expense or move to Dibden. They'd effectively get a new port, covered by the revenue of selling of the old one..
southy, redbridge says...
3:22pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Docker wrote:because it be a waste of time,southampton will only become a coastal port has ships get larger,you be better off setting things up to be a costal port than to waste money on trying to becomes an open ocean port.
I have no recollection of Southampton ever having a fishing industry of that size! Even if it did, the container port had nothing to do with it\'s demise. The national fishing fleet has shrunk because it\'s simply a dying industry, nothing at all to do with other forms of marine industry.
Southy, you seem to be someone who is interested in the marine industry, so why wouldn\'t you welcome it\'s expansion in the area?
southampton use to have 4 major fish markets kemps fish buyers use to send all there local fish to billingate,and tudor pulled out of southampton in 1968-69 whitch left ross and another company they finaly went in the late mid to late 1980's
southy, redbridge says...
3:34pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Cap'n Squid, the salty sea dog says...
3:45pm Sun 3 Aug 08
I cant wate to get noi ands on a big slippery cod peese
Docker, says...
3:54pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Sheitma Pance wrote:And you think the amount of money that ABP would get from selling land for housing, outweighs the profit it makes from the current docks and the money it would spend on Dibden Bay? You really are a bit thick arn't you?
ABP Whistleblower wrote: Dibden Bay is on hold until a change in government. One question that must be asked though, what plans do ABP have on selling off prime and valuable port estate to developers? How much of the existing docks will be sold off once Dibden Bay is up and running? It's not all expansion.If the rumours coming out of the port are true, everything apart from the cruise terminal are to be sold off. If ABB *really* wanted to expand, they wouldn't have sold off huge tracts of the port for housing, would they? Put simply, ABB realise that the land they are sitting on is worth vastly more than the land a Dibden. They could either re-develop the existing docks at great expense or move to Dibden. They'd effectively get a new port, covered by the revenue of selling of the old one..
ABP want to expand the docks because Southampton is such a good port. Anywhere else in the world this would be great news! Not round here though, because we have just too many selfish old biddies with nothing better to do with their tired old lives than to try and block developments.
Docker, says...
3:57pm Sun 3 Aug 08
southy wrote:No doubt if you had been around at the time when the docks were being reclaimed from the sea, you would have said a similiar thing? "No point building a container port here".
Docker wrote: I have no recollection of Southampton ever having a fishing industry of that size! Even if it did, the container port had nothing to do with it\'s demise. The national fishing fleet has shrunk because it\'s simply a dying industry, nothing at all to do with other forms of marine industry. Southy, you seem to be someone who is interested in the marine industry, so why wouldn\'t you welcome it\'s expansion in the area?because it be a waste of time,southampton will only become a coastal port has ships get larger,you be better off setting things up to be a costal port than to waste money on trying to becomes an open ocean port. southampton use to have 4 major fish markets kemps fish buyers use to send all there local fish to billingate,and tudor pulled out of southampton in 1968-69 whitch left ross and another company they finaly went in the late mid to late 1980's
Perhaps you would have preferred Southampton to have stayed a fishing port (in your own mind) because that's an industry that is doing so well these days eh?
I presume you yourself must be a multi-millionaire? You appear to think you know more about ports and the shipping business than ABP.
southy, redbridge says...
4:08pm Sun 3 Aug 08
the dock broad then was told dont build the container port on millbrook point has the passager ships was declining in numbers,but was told to change western docks (new docks) into the container port ABP dont care they are just greedy i know i work for them often enough,they also know that new container ships will not come up southampton waters they will be to big and its be to risky.thats why they sold up there intrest in the container port here and put there money in the river thames.
Artful Dodger, Millbrook says...
4:26pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Rich, Southampton says...
4:30pm Sun 3 Aug 08
southy wrote:See another arrogant post. ABP own UKD, one of the biggest dereging companies. The draft that is in use currently will will be made bigger for the current SCT project that ABP are funding £250m for. The new SCT / DP project will enable the terminal to berth the biggest ships in the world anyway
no, not that long ago 1968. there is also another problem,every port has its limits on the size of ships it can take,the world largest containter ship will never come to southampton its to risky to get into southampton waters,has container ships are going to get longer and wider they to will not come to southampton ports
Charles, Marchwood says...
4:37pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Artful Dodger wrote:The is more money in containers and berthing fees than a bloody marina. I have lived here for 40 odd yrs, and have always know even on our deeds it syas "future port development"
ABP want the go-ahead for Dibden Bay, with initial plans for a container port, but once planning permission to develop has been granted, will be changed to a yachting marina. That is where they see the money being made, without the cost of the other infrastructure, like road and rail links. Once built, how many jobs do you think that will create? How many security guards would be required to watch out for the yachts? It's a big con by a 'loads of money' business.
It will be great for the city and area. The new forest is big enough for a nature reserve!
Get over it
ABP have my backing
southy, redbridge says...
4:37pm Sun 3 Aug 08
rich you dont know alot do you.abp might own a ukd but the dregers that will be needed is owned by westminster dregging,and like i said before its not the depth that the problem.its the channel entrance to southampton water theres not enough room for steerage of the large ships,you see the largest ships that can come into southampton saftly all ready,all ports has its max limit on size of ships it can take and southampton reach that along time ago,
Andy, Locks Heath says...
5:20pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Derek, Waterside Resident, Langdown, Hythe says...
5:29pm Sun 3 Aug 08
echo reader, says...
5:31pm Sun 3 Aug 08
It is ABPs land. They own it. They will develop it. ABP will simply adopt a different strategy to get their port built.
The Conservation Brigade need to find another cause to hitch their wagon to. They are losers. They don't live in the 21st Century. Big Business runs the show. This may be unpalatable and not how things should be but it is reality.
southy, redbridge says...
7:00pm Sun 3 Aug 08
i still say abp wants it for some thing else maybe cars.
Pikey Betron, On the Heath says...
7:01pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Eddie the Celtic Fan, Cardiff says...
7:46pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Charles wrote:If that's the case then you should go to Cardiff or Ipswich. The jewel in the crowm for ABP is up north at Immingham. They don't care about the other ports Boyo.
Artful Dodger wrote: ABP want the go-ahead for Dibden Bay, with initial plans for a container port, but once planning permission to develop has been granted, will be changed to a yachting marina. That is where they see the money being made, without the cost of the other infrastructure, like road and rail links. Once built, how many jobs do you think that will create? How many security guards would be required to watch out for the yachts? It's a big con by a 'loads of money' business.The is more money in containers and berthing fees than a bloody marina. I have lived here for 40 odd yrs, and have always know even on our deeds it syas "future port development" It will be great for the city and area. The new forest is big enough for a nature reserve! Get over it ABP have my backing
northy, N Baddesley says...
8:20pm Sun 3 Aug 08
That said, I do sympathise to some extent with waterside residents (with the possible exception of those who moved into the area knowing full well that Dibden was zoned for port development ie all those buying into the area post 1967)
Rather than take entrenched poitions perhaps a sensible dialogue could be entered into to ensure any development at Dibden will not only improve infrastructure/job opportunities/local economy etc but take into account reasonable concerns of the opponents.
Perhaps a more mixed port development could be considered for Dibden rather than the dedicated container facility previously on the table.
southy, redbridge says...
9:10pm Sun 3 Aug 08
this makes more sence but even this will only have a limited amount of time,but it will not answer the job loses on people in the fishing industry,and the lost of marine habitat,has most people know the deeper the water the less life there is,has this river is known has a colour water river (chalky)that marine life will not be so deep
David Harrison, Totton says...
9:11pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Dibden Bay is part of the New Forest District, on the edge of a National Park. It has far greater potential as an important amenity space for visitors, one where wildlife can co-exist. Tourism is the really big earner in this area. It's possible to boost the economy and protect our environment for future generations to enjoy. It just depends on people now recognising the true value of what it is we have got.
Andy, Locks Heath says...
8:25am Mon 4 Aug 08
David Harrison wrote:David you are factually incorrect and curiously biased. The land at Dibden Bay is reclaimed tidal mudflat, not part of the Forest. It was not even "land" to speak of until recently. With the true New Forest avaialable on the doorstep why would anyone choose or want to go to this fairly desolate piece of reclaimed wasteland that faces another industrial area? In its current state Dibden Bay has no additional role to play in the tourism industry here - it would not add a single new visitor or job to the region without further development of some sort. Would you be happy to see a giant hotel or campsite on Dibden Bay, because if so you are losing any possible argument against the traffic iconsequences. Can you articulate your opposition to a Port development? - ABP own the land, and stated over 40 years ago what they wanted to do with it. They aren't asking you or any other resident to help pay for it so why is it any of your business? they aren't asking you to move there, and to nail one persistent RADBP myth, housing generates more traffic per hectare than an industrial equivalent so did you or any other Totton Councillor ever once raise any objection to the massive housing development around Hythe and Dibden? If not, why display such opposition now? I have frequently driven the A326 and the ratio of cars to artics is between 10:1 and 20:1 and growing. THis is just selfish industrial snobbery for no purpose or benefit, but with a massive economic risk to the region. Any policician opposing this sort of opposrtunity would be the laughing stock of anywhere else in Britain or Europe.
I'm afraid I can't agree with all those who think that the Waterside is simply an industrial area and that developing Dibden Bay for port use in some way represents "inevitable progress".
Dibden Bay is part of the New Forest District, on the edge of a National Park. It has far greater potential as an important amenity space for visitors, one where wildlife can co-exist. Tourism is the really big earner in this area. It's possible to boost the economy and protect our environment for future generations to enjoy. It just depends on people now recognising the true value of what it is we have got.
Seapix, Auckland, NZ, ex-Southampton says...
11:16am Mon 4 Aug 08
Andy wrote:No wonder Independence of the Seas got into Southampton with no hassles. Her draft at 8.53m is just over half that of Emma Maersk which is 397m loa with a draft of 15.5m.
Southy, your posts are a delightful mixture of one part fact, one part complete fiction and two parts conjecture. Regarding vessel siz and length, do you think ABP a) might have thought carefully about the Thorn Channel in making the business case for Dibden Bay over the next twenty years or b) duh, completely forgot about it. Yes me too. So why do you keep talking about width and steerage through the Thorn channel as though it's a factor that has been overlooked in the port planning? That's RADBP nonsense being regurgitated. The channel is already going to be dredged down to 14.5M as part of the plan and that's the minimum depth at low water. Emma Maersk at 380m is less than 50m longer than Independence of the Seas which managed to get in with no trouble at all, so let's just assume that ABP know about the channel and move on eh?
Andy, Locks Heath says...
11:19am Mon 4 Aug 08
northy, Baddesley says...
12:42pm Mon 4 Aug 08
Like Andy I am surprised,and rather perturbed by Councillor Harrisons view that Tourism is the major economic generator in the Waterside. Whilst not wishing to belittle any industry, Tourism is seasonal and generally offers low wage opportunities.
I do hope that Councillor Harrison will be able to take a more pragmatic view of possible Dibden development and consider all angles not the entrenched view of the antis.
southy, redbridge says...
1:03pm Mon 4 Aug 08
but basic the EA will be recommending that no dregging between iow and main land,and that the millbrook channel be allowed to fill back up to 9 meters at low water, due to heavy erodion above redbridge,they going to use the coastal protection act,if abp applys for permission to dreg out side there limits
Andy, Locks Heath says...
1:55pm Mon 4 Aug 08
southy, redbridge says...
2:06pm Mon 4 Aug 08
Lionel, Southampton says...
2:38pm Mon 4 Aug 08
Northy, baddesley says...
3:28pm Mon 4 Aug 08
If Soton is doing so badly explain why the volume and value of trade handled by Soton port has risen consistently for the past 10 years or more and vessel calls are at record levels.
I have experience in working in European ports. Some are good others appalling. My experience of UK ports, especially Soton, is that they are all well managed and honest which is not something I can say about some European ports where backhanders have to be paid to get things done. Also UK ports are more regulated than most (and as a nation we toe the line unlike others!!) plus there are no subsidies given to port operators in the UK whereas in some European ports (France for example) they tap into local or regional, or more likely EC funding packages. So if you are a taxpayer you contribute to port operations which isnt the case in the UK.
southy, redbridge says...
3:43pm Mon 4 Aug 08
Andy, Locks Heath says...
4:43pm Mon 4 Aug 08
southy, redbridge says...
5:11pm Mon 4 Aug 08
northy, Baddesley says...
5:38pm Mon 4 Aug 08
southy wrote:Southy, I am surprised at you.
northy m8 lionel right in a way when you look back to pre mid 60's,them days there was at lease 10 uk mn ships in every day,unlike now where you be lucky to see 3 uk mn ships in a day the norm at the moment is only 1 week, the rest that come here are under countrys flags, but even they dont amount to 10 a day more like 3 at the most.
You will be well aware that in the 1960's (ie pre containerisation) a Union Castle ship, for example, would discharge say 6,000 tonnes inbound at 104 berth and then move down to 102 berth to load exports.
This operation would take at least a week.
In comparison a container ship working 5 cranes at 20 boxes per hour x 15 tonnes per box can move 12,000 tonnes in 8 hours!!!
Ships only make money when they are at sea so it doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out that mechanisation has improved port productivity immensely allowing ships to increase in size and spend less time in port.
I know why dont we suggest that the incompetent marine and port managers return to the good old days of sail. Then we could have hundreds of ships tied up 3 to 4 abreast for weeks waiting to be worked.
As someone who is proud of our port and marine heritage I really despair at the negativity of some posters on here. Unfortunately whingeing seems to be a national trend nowadays!!
northy, Baddesley says...
5:53pm Mon 4 Aug 08
southy wrote:Southy you obviously know some outline details about marine matters but you are so often wrong in the detail.Are you saying that some car carriers have capacity for 14/18000 cars?
france will never be better than us,spain could if they ever get there act together.whitch,i hoping they never do.ro-ro ships the largest ones are only part(6000 cars on and off out of a possable 14000 to 18000) turn around,after leaving southampton most will head for bristol docks,to filled right up.apart from the uacc boats but the are not that big,the newer ones can take a 1000 cars where has the older ones take only 600 cars
You work in the Docks. When did a ship ever load/discharge 6,000 cars?
Most of the UK ship volumes are around the 2-3,000 maximum because there is insufficient room on the quay to accommodate any more and Soton is generally first port in to Europe and/or last port out.
Name the car carrying lines that REGULARLY leave Soton to top up in Bristol.Not WWL/Hoegh/Eukor/NYK or K Line. Grimaldi and UECC both call Bristol but on separate services.
Incidentally what do Spanish ports have to do 'to get their act together?'
southy, redbridge says...
5:55pm Mon 4 Aug 08
tell you what that would be some thing to see just the old square riggers like it was in my grandads day when he sail before the mast
southy, redbridge says...
6:19pm Mon 4 Aug 08
when they do a 6000 car turn round the cars when they come off are put in lanes check right away then pick up and taken else where and when it getting near the end of off loading the cars start turning up to be loaded and now they got that multi car park there its made the job easyer than it was before.i can remeber loading up the jinsun mariu here in southampton then getting home and there was a phone call for me to go to bristol docks to help load up the same ship.
if spainish ever thought about.they could use the port of bilbo in a big way by off loading there then a train ride across spain to the med ports or they could use the northern train route though europe,but they need to get there act together and think about it.
northy, says...
6:28pm Mon 4 Aug 08
southy wrote:Southy
most of the ships that came here pre mid 60's 90% passenger ships 5% mix cargo passenger and 5% just cargo. tell you what that would be some thing to see just the old square riggers like it was in my grandads day when he sail before the mast
You have no hard evidence to back up these claims. According to the well respected port historian, Bert Moody, in 1962 there were 515,137 passengers moving through the port and 1.34m tonnes of cargo.
Assuming an average passenger ship (smaller in those days) could take 1,000 per turnround this equals 515 passenger ships per year.
So by your reckoning the remaining 10% of cargo vessels (= 55 ships)would have taken the 1.3m tonnes of cargo at an average of 23,000 tonnes per ship which was not possible at the time as the cargo ships were relatively small.
So basically you have come up with some guesswork which doesnt bear close scrutiny.
southy, redbridge says...
6:57pm Mon 4 Aug 08
northy, baddesley says...
8:34am Tue 5 Aug 08
Entertaining post but factually incorrect as always.
In the 1960's the original QE/QM were not fully loaded as jet travel was beginning to affect loadings. At the time the number of 'general cargo' ships were relatively high. Union Castle were running regular services to S Africa and the 'R' boats brought in summer fruit. There were South American meat boats calling at 109 Cold Store and there were still regular PX shipments to US bases in the UK.
Timber was coming into Montague Meyers. This is just a small snapshot of what the port handled at the time. However compare this to current days when passenger numbers are closer tothe million mark and tonnage around 10 million. This belies earlier posts which suggest that the port is moribund!!
southy, redbridge says...
12:36pm Tue 5 Aug 08
es,dates and also nuts,while most veg was going into the old bristol docks and london,
109 cold store(armours shed) was to supply ships with meat that closed down when seven seas took over because they had a warehouse just out side dock gate 2,it was the grange ships that bought meat in from south america and they never call into southampton (apart from a rare occasion)they use to go to liverpool and london.
Montague Meyers timber use to come in on the road from northam yard,and before they was there,that use to be the over seas mail shed and sorting office,they moved from to new buildings in the late 60's
southy, redbridge says...
12:58pm Tue 5 Aug 08
northy, baddesley says...
1:06pm Tue 5 Aug 08
I worked in the 109 Cold Store where sides of frozen meat (mainly from South America, so you are definately wrong there)were regularly discharged onto the outside verandahs to be run away into the cold store chambers. The cold store eventually closed as meat became containerised not due to competion from other stores.
I can also recollect timber ships from the Baltic being discharged in the western Docks and cargo moved to Montague Meyer.
I think you will find that Shoreham was (and still is)a timber port. Newhaven used to deal with the odd fruit ship which didnt go up to London.
You must learn to deal in facts not supposition!!
southy, redbridge says...
1:54pm Tue 5 Aug 08
northy, baddesley says...
5:54pm Tue 5 Aug 08
It closed in June 1981 due to refridgerated cargoes being containerised. The store you refer to was situated in West Bay Road and was fairly small in comparison.
Montague Meyer had regular ships unlaoding in the port when Ray Brent was their MD.
Union Castle vessels I readily recollect are-
Windsor/Edinburgh/Pr
etoria/Stirling/Sout
hampton/Pendennis plus Safmarine SA Vaal (previously Transvaal Castle)
There were more but cant remember them easily.
Last ship on the service(Soton Castle) sailed in 1977, 120 years after the service started.
southy, redbridge says...
7:18pm Tue 5 Aug 08
Safmarine was container ships forum in 1996
vaal was apassenger ship cargo hold for luggage and personal belongings the same has the following ships Pendennis Stirling Balmoral Capetown Durban Edinburgh Good Hope kenya Reina Del Mar Rhodesia Tintagel Windsor the only odd onr out off the union castle lines was the southampton castle she was the only passenger cargo ship that called here,the rest of the union castle went to london bristol liverpool and there was a few that never even came to the uk
northy, baddesley says...
11:10pm Tue 5 Aug 08
southy wrote:As usual some right info some wrong.Agree Ferries went to France and Spain plus occasional ones to Portugal and Morocco but never to Holland or Belgium. Certainly not every hour. Can you remember the names of the Ferry Companies?
and dont forget the ferries that use to run out of southampton to holland belguim france spain and portugal,one use to leave here every hour.
southy, redbridge says...
12:48am Wed 6 Aug 08
northy, baddesley says...
3:46pm Wed 6 Aug 08
Ferry Services out of Soton to the continent originally started with British Rail to the Continent and Channel Isles. These were subsequently replaced by Townsend Thoresen & P&O (as you rightly say) plus Normandy/Southern (which were taken over by P&O). All of these went to France.
Swedish Lloyd also ran services to Spain and there was also a service to North Africa which didnt last long.
Seagull Ferries also ran a summer sevice to the Channel Isles from 49 berth in the mid 60's but this was also short lived.
Stena operated out of 30 berth for 6/7 years in the 1990's to Cherbourg.
There have been no passenger ferries from Soton to Belgium/Yarmouth/Rot
terdam nor has there been any passenger ferry trains out of
Soton. You may be confused with the Golden Arrow service out of Dover or further back the temporary military train service during WW2 which operated from a temporary pier adjacent to Mayflower Park.
Final correction LD Lines (Louis Dreyfus) have never operated out of Soton. However they did start a service out of Portsmuff two years ago to Le Havre and recently started ops from Newhaven to Dieppe.
Hope this helps correct your inaccuracies.
southy, redbridge says...
5:13pm Wed 6 Aug 08
ld lines use to run from town quay up near the end.british rail only ran the channel island.it was a french company that ran to main land europe that was only because they had the right ship to do so on the french side.the belguim holland ran was more the militry stop operating in 1966.
oh there was no 49 dock has this would of been a dry dock entrance and on the other side off the dry dock was the flying boats terminal and back of them was hms wessex.
northy, baddesley says...
9:18pm Wed 6 Aug 08
1. No Passenger Ferries ever ran from Town Quay apart from Red Funnel/Hythe Ferry services
2.On the 9th May 1964 British Rail ended their service to Le Havre and on the 27th September 1964, the service to St Malo was wirthdrawn. So wrong again Southey!!
3. Go down to 49 Berth,you will see a redundant linkspan adjacent to the No 6 Dry Dock gate. This linkspan, adjacent to 49 Berth is where Seagull Ferries went from.
The Flying Boat Terminal (the 50 Berth)eventually became the home of HMS Wessex before the bulding was demolished.
Sorry but I am now tired of giving you a port history lesson. You must really try and get your facts correct!!
southy, redbridge says...
10:08pm Wed 6 Aug 08
red funnel use to run from the royal pier,was not till much later did they run from town quay,blue funnel,hythe ferry) and the cracknor harbour ferry use to run from the steps,BR did not have the right ship to take the ferry trains this job was done by the french company, it was the only one that could alter its rail ramps and not need floating quays,50 or 51 berth was the sea planes berth when the last sea plane left it was never used again till a few years ago.go down to the next berth that was where hms wessex was where the RN has been for at since ww2.
alot of books say that the first docks was in 1843 this in fact is wrong southampton docks had wooden docks at lest back to henry viii when he moved the what was to become the royal navy to porthmouth.
In this section
- Teenage boy seriously hurt after "free running"
- Court told of bloody scene following stabbing at party
- Bogus workmen steal OAP’s cash
- Car dealer denies £500K VAT fiddle
- Detectives given more time to quiz murder suspects
- Leading union leader visits Andover
- Splashing achievement
- Thousands descend on city for annual Hat Fair
- Owner of giant dog spoken to by police
- Allotment land solution to burials
Sponsored Links
|
|
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Marchwood Boy, says...
9:40am Sun 3 Aug 08
Build it.
The area needs to grow. The waterside is an industrial area, anyone who says otherwise is deluded. Jobs and providing sustainable industry and commerce for future generations outweighs saving a handful of birds who will just move a few hundred yards anyway.
Common sense must prevail. Build Dibden Bay.