Dibden Bay back on the agenda? (From This is Hampshire)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Government expected to issue policy statement on ports in the South
11:11am Saturday 19th September 2009 in News
Dibden Bay back on the agenda?
A HUGE container terminal at Dibden Bay could be given the green light by the end of the year, the Daily Echo can reveal.
A national policy statement on the future of Britain’s ports is expected to be made by the Government in the next three months.
Planning experts say the document could call for major port expansion in the south.
If that proves to be the case, any new proposal for a massive dock development at Dibden Bay is almost certain to be approved.
Associated British Ports (ABP) wants to build a £600m terminal employing 3,000 people and able to accommodate the biggest ships afloat.
Comments(72)
southy
says...
12:04pm Sat 19 Sep 09
if it do go a head there will be more jobs lost, this ground keeps people employed. and when finished it will only be employing agency causal workers, about 300 max, maybe even less. a fully automated container port dont employ that many people.
then you need to take into account the marine environment that would be destroyed, and the knock effect it would have, like the river unable to keep up with the river pollution, and you end up with a smelly river, in whitch turn that would have a knock on effect by keeping the visitors away from the area including southampton, southampton would end up with a bad nick name. need to be though about the long term effects it could have. for the whole area, on both sides of the river.
Andy Locks Heath
says...
12:12pm Sat 19 Sep 09
southy wrote:His economics are wrong, his understanding of indirect job creation is zero, his environmental arguments are bizarre, his concept of mutual strategic benefit is nonexistent. And needless to say his evidence has all come from a bloke who works down the docks who told him all this. This is such a flawed and ignorant note it's difficult to know where to begin really. Anyone else want to have first go this time?
it could also mean, that this ground could be giving to the local district council.
if it do go a head there will be more jobs lost, this ground keeps people employed. and when finished it will only be employing agency causal workers, about 300 max, maybe even less. a fully automated container port dont employ that many people.
then you need to take into account the marine environment that would be destroyed, and the knock effect it would have, like the river unable to keep up with the river pollution, and you end up with a smelly river, in whitch turn that would have a knock on effect by keeping the visitors away from the area including southampton, southampton would end up with a bad nick name. need to be though about the long term effects it could have. for the whole area, on both sides of the river.
bumblysaint
says...
12:14pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Brite Spark
says...
12:18pm Sat 19 Sep 09
southy
says...
12:24pm Sat 19 Sep 09
andy you do have a clue what knock on effects it could have, please go and do some study on marine life, and what it do, how it reacts with one another, i can under stand you not knowing about marine life, because you not had much to do with the water. there are some very good marine boligists who being saying the same thing just of late. the marine damage that would be done, was not known 40 years ago. and its only just come to light the problems there is, like they now know that over fishing is not the main cause of fish stocks going down, it just did not help, and compound the problem even worse, after a 20 year long study that is still going on, theres a connection between lost of tidal grounds and the local fish stock falling, its part of the marine food chain system, so less of you rubbishing and present a good agument will you.
Nothing to say
says...
12:25pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Nothing to say
says...
12:26pm Sat 19 Sep 09
freemantlegirl2
says...
12:27pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Brite Spark wrote:You spotted my yacht then BSpark? ;)
Across the water from Dibden at the boat show yesterday there was a lovely yacht called 'Brite Spark' I was well impressed! And it was great to see Mayflower Park looking so full of life for once, and when The Queen Victoria sailed by at 1700 the boat show pontoons allowed the public to get up close and see the liner in all its splendour. Come on Southampton Council, at least leave a bit of the pontoon there after the boat show has finished so that we can see the cruise liners like this more frequently. A pontoon could be left there whilst the council spend another 20 years pontificating over what to do with Mayflower Park. Why is it so difficult to do this?
Don't forget the Council probably won't allow it permantenly on 'ealth and safety' grounds but it would be a great idea I agree :)
southy
says...
12:29pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Southampton Cruiser
says...
12:34pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Paramjit Bahia
says...
12:43pm Sat 19 Sep 09
st_mary's_on_sea
says...
1:06pm Sat 19 Sep 09
I was one off those people that was all for a container port, At Dibden Bay, I even agrue for it in the pass, But after what Southy said about the tidal ground, Made me look into it more, And there is more to this, Than fish swimming around in water, It be worth while for every one to look into it, And not just think about the few jobs that it will come about, Their will be more jobs on line, Than it will make in the long term.
Andy Locks Heath
says...
1:49pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Southampton Cruiser wrote:You are allowed to have more than one growth area.
They're going about this the wrong way. Felixstowe will continue to get container business regardless of what we do so they will remain empty most of the time and be a huge eyesore. Car carriers are using cruise terminals due to lack of space, including the new one. Even ABP know that. Yet they keep harping on about containers. Snore! Our growth area is cruising. Build a couple of cruise terminals and take the no 1 European port title away from Barcelona! It will also relive some of the strain on the infrastructure in the city when there are 3+ ships in.
Condor Man
says...
1:56pm Sat 19 Sep 09
southy
says...
2:14pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Southampton Cruiser wrote:i under stnd in what your saying, what is need is to get rid of all those empty containers, we will never be able to fill them all up, our export industry have gone, that disapered in the 1980's, we come an import mainly country, buy back all the docks that was sold off, and have a big rethink on how to lay up the docks, and where to place things so the docks can be more mangerable.
They're going about this the wrong way. Felixstowe will continue to get container business regardless of what we do so they will remain empty most of the time and be a huge eyesore. Car carriers are using cruise terminals due to lack of space, including the new one. Even ABP know that. Yet they keep harping on about containers. Snore! Our growth area is cruising. Build a couple of cruise terminals and take the no 1 European port title away from Barcelona! It will also relive some of the strain on the infrastructure in the city when there are 3+ ships in.
heres an idea that could be done, rebuild town quay and turn it into a passenger terminal, lose the private marina.( even move it across a little bit towards eastern docks ) this could then have 2 passenger ships, you could even make another passenger berth along side the eastern dock wall where hms wessex use to be (on the other side of 49 berth) all the docks need is some that knows how to plan the lay up.
southy
says...
2:16pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Condor Man wrote:and where is it flawed, in your view and an expert.
We need to maximise our maritime potential to stay in the pack with places like Felixstowe. The environmental arguments are flawed at best.
Forest Resident
says...
2:22pm Sat 19 Sep 09
goard
says...
3:08pm Sat 19 Sep 09
goard
goard
joenice
says...
6:01pm Sat 19 Sep 09
OSPREYSAINT
says...
6:36pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Duncan Disorderly
says...
6:43pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Forest Resident
says...
6:56pm Sat 19 Sep 09
OSPREYSAINT wrote:With all due respect if this was being built on your doorstep and you stood to be tens of thousands out of pocket, you'd hardly be thrilled, who then would be the nimby? As for putting 'Southampton' back on the map, Dibden Bay isn't even in Southampton! The views of New Forest District Council and it's residents MUST come before Southampton City Council and anyone else who is merely an outsider and obviously swayed by the capitalist ambitions of ABP.
What good are Numpty Nimbys to the local economy? The Felixstowe traffic will return eventually, they will remember the benefits of the double tide, and given a decent pricing deal, they will generate more business. Make the reparation of the Royal Pier part of the deal, the recession won't last for ever. Lets put Southampton back on the map, the mating habits of a few newts should not get in the way of progress.
MrGMan
says...
7:34pm Sat 19 Sep 09
OSPREYSAINT
says...
7:38pm Sat 19 Sep 09
I work in transport and so I can appreciate what more employment will come from the development. Commerce is the life blood of the nation, this is not the time to be stifling it.
southy
says...
8:05pm Sat 19 Sep 09
OSPREYSAINT wrote:OSPREYSAINT, being logical about it all,
What good are Numpty Nimbys to the local economy? The Felixstowe traffic will return eventually, they will remember the benefits of the double tide, and given a decent pricing deal, they will generate more business. Make the reparation of the Royal Pier part of the deal, the recession won't last for ever. Lets put Southampton back on the map, the mating habits of a few newts should not get in the way of progress.
1/ ships are going to get bigger, because its cheaper to transport goods. the worlds largest container ship dont come up here any way, it has all way by-pass southampton, the tide and weather conditions have to be perfect, for her to temp to come here, whitch it rarely is, and ships of this size or bigger when they get built, are not going to hang around in the english channel waiting for the conditions to be right.
2/ problems with southampton port, the island is in the way, the cross winds, all those stack up containers on top of the decks act like a sail, its happen in the pass with smaller containers ships getting gounded,
having a double tide only means the water stay near high for a little while longer, the down side of this is that the tidal range between low water and high water is a lot less than any where else, so other ports the channel is a lot deeper than it is here naturally. plus the time it takes to get to the same level has southampton end up about the same, so there's no real gain here.
there is a multi million pound industry. that would be destroyed by a new container port at the bay. and that is the stanswood oyster company, plus the other types of fishing industry that would be destroyed,
so people needs to think again how many jobs that would be lost in to how many would be gain in the long run.
Brite Spark
says...
8:42pm Sat 19 Sep 09
southy wrote:Between us - me, you, FMG, Andy LH and King Mush, we could sort it our ourselves and have something in place by the end of the month. The council sadly, will take much, much longer.
Brite Spark, Stubbington would it not be better, if an order was giving to rebuild the pier for people to use, may be even put it in the hands of the people of southampton, and not abpj.
NB Perhaps we should leave FMG out of it she would want to paint things pink and put play furniture all over the place :-)
Bartonian
says...
8:45pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Ben Doone
says...
8:50pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Forest Resident wrote:Forest Resident
As a local resident I am completely against this proposal. If it is forced through, I and many others who live on the waterside will cumulatively lose millions on our property values leaving us in almost certain negative equity. How on earth is this "good for the local economy"?
I think your concern is one that is shared by many in the immediate vicinity of Dibden Bay altho not all are prepared to be honest about it and would rather hide behind more facile arguments.
If it is of any consolation I have a good friend whowas a senior partner in a local Estate Agency at the time of the last Dibden enquiry. His view was there would be no adverse affect on property values on adjoining property if Dibden Bay was developed. You can make of that what you will bearing in mind there is unlikely to be any significant devlopment in the area for at least 10 years in my view.
Just out of interest how long have you lived on the Waterside?
southy
says...
9:10pm Sat 19 Sep 09
ben my mate can i point out to you, that house prices drop back in the early 70's, along redbridge road, brookwood and parkside avenue because of the container port, they only lost about a quarter of there value
Brite Spark
says...
9:20pm Sat 19 Sep 09
BS
Ben Doone
says...
9:22pm Sat 19 Sep 09
southy wrote:Southy
OSPREYSAINT wrote: What good are Numpty Nimbys to the local economy? The Felixstowe traffic will return eventually, they will remember the benefits of the double tide, and given a decent pricing deal, they will generate more business. Make the reparation of the Royal Pier part of the deal, the recession won't last for ever. Lets put Southampton back on the map, the mating habits of a few newts should not get in the way of progress.OSPREYSAINT, being logical about it all, 1/ ships are going to get bigger, because its cheaper to transport goods. the worlds largest container ship dont come up here any way, it has all way by-pass southampton, the tide and weather conditions have to be perfect, for her to temp to come here, whitch it rarely is, and ships of this size or bigger when they get built, are not going to hang around in the english channel waiting for the conditions to be right. 2/ problems with southampton port, the island is in the way, the cross winds, all those stack up containers on top of the decks act like a sail, its happen in the pass with smaller containers ships getting gounded, having a double tide only means the water stay near high for a little while longer, the down side of this is that the tidal range between low water and high water is a lot less than any where else, so other ports the channel is a lot deeper than it is here naturally. plus the time it takes to get to the same level has southampton end up about the same, so there's no real gain here. there is a multi million pound industry. that would be destroyed by a new container port at the bay. and that is the stanswood oyster company, plus the other types of fishing industry that would be destroyed, so people needs to think again how many jobs that would be lost in to how many would be gain in the long run.
Couple of comments here
1. I don't forsee any development at Dibden Bay for several years. However I feel sure that development will only proceed if ABP are able to obtain confirmed term business from Shipping Lines. These customers will not commit unless all their requirements can be met, including the ability to service their ships.
So, according to your view the opponents to Dibden Bay need not worry as big container ships will not be able to access the port
2. Always keen to learn new facts about the Solent. Was aware there were some Oyster beds around Stansore Point but never heard of a 'multi million industry' headed up by the Stanswood Oyster Company. They certainly keep a low profile and certainly don't remember them being mentioned in the previous Dibden Bay enquiry.
southy
says...
9:23pm Sat 19 Sep 09
Brite Spark wrote:you forgot ben now come on and add him :-)
Erm ... ... ... Southy, I compiled the list!
BS
southy
says...
9:45pm Sat 19 Sep 09
but oysters from stanwood end up all over europe, its a very big market, and worth a very lot of money, lucus, puffin and rose deal with the fishermen locally in the cleaning and shifting them on to the market place, i am not sure what the total tonnage catch is now days per boat but there use to be 30 boats working the bay, and there use to be 2 seasons a year when they could dredge oysters, but your right on stanwood keeping a low profile on things thay all ways have done.
has for the development it may not even be southampton how many miles is there along the south coast, it might even be exeter, plymouth or any where, we dont really know yet, and when you hink like the government in the south means any where below the river thames across to the river avon.
OSPREYSAINT
says...
10:11pm Sat 19 Sep 09
southy
says...
10:40pm Sat 19 Sep 09
OSPREYSAINT wrote:winds coming up from the south yes, but winds from west south west round to south west its wide open and winds from east round to east south east its wide open again and winds from north west round to north east. leaves the it wide open,
I disagree about "the island is in the way" it has long protected us from the ravages of the weather, and I hate Oysters
the island is in the way it means shipping has to go round it, that means that will need to take into acount the wind speed and direction, it was a east south east wind that gounded a container ship on calshot spit back in the 80's and this was a much smaller container ship than you get today, QE2 ran agound did it not on brambles bank and we had northerly winds that day. again a ship with a lot less wind catchment area.
Ben Doone
says...
10:47pm Sat 19 Sep 09
southy wrote:I am keen to learn on new subjects and fortunately know a few people able to assist so had a chat with someone I know who is in the Fishing Business.
abp paid out a lot of money to stanwoods back in the 90's where they dredge down to 11 metres the slit killed a high volume of oysters, and breeding oysters had to be bought in, to restock, that slit killed a lot of marine life mainly shellfish. black musseles have only just returned back up by the railway bridge in the last 2 years. but oysters from stanwood end up all over europe, its a very big market, and worth a very lot of money, lucus, puffin and rose deal with the fishermen locally in the cleaning and shifting them on to the market place, i am not sure what the total tonnage catch is now days per boat but there use to be 30 boats working the bay, and there use to be 2 seasons a year when they could dredge oysters, but your right on stanwood keeping a low profile on things thay all ways have done. has for the development it may not even be southampton how many miles is there along the south coast, it might even be exeter, plymouth or any where, we dont really know yet, and when you hink like the government in the south means any where below the river thames across to the river avon.
Apparently the average catch of oysters taken from the area around Stansore Point/Beaulieu River is around 1,000 tonnes per year. However this can vary and as far back as 1865 a survey said the oyster stock was much depleted so there are natural variations which cant be blamed on modern port development.
Normally there is one season altho this is at the discretion of the Regulatory Authorities.
Thee current price/tonne is approx £1,500 so the business is 'worth' about £1.5m, the comparative annual value of 1 cruise ship to the local economy which perhaps puts it into perspective!!
Most oyster boats work out of Lymington and Poole altho' some boats come from Falmouth and Colchester as these are prime oyster producing areas and they gather stocks for relaying along the River Fal and the East Coast.
Altho the oyster business is not quite the 'Multi Million Pound Business' you state, I am sure it is important enough to be considered should the port development plan be progressed.
thesaint
says...
10:58pm Sat 19 Sep 09
southy
says...
11:13pm Sat 19 Sep 09
why the docks paid out to the oyster company was because it was proven where the slit came from, it was only a thin layer but enough to kill oysters, mind you the dock could not argue about it, they broke the rules on the dredging, there was slit all the way up to the iron bridge (greenbidge aka bell crossing) on the spring tides flood plain
Forest Resident
says...
12:29am Sun 20 Sep 09
Ben Doone wrote:I've been a resident of the waterside for near on 30 years now, and my family for another 60+ years previously, certainly long enough to call myself a true local! I appreciate the fact that I may be labelled a 'nimby' for the fear of losing my investment in the property I have worked hard to own, but who else in the same shoes would argue with my fears? If indeed your friend in estate agency is correct then that would certainly reduce some of my concerns, but ABP still has a very long way to go to convince New Forest residents of the real term benefits for those who will potentially become the immediate neighbours of Dibden Bay.
Forest Resident wrote:Forest Resident
As a local resident I am completely against this proposal. If it is forced through, I and many others who live on the waterside will cumulatively lose millions on our property values leaving us in almost certain negative equity. How on earth is this "good for the local economy"?
I think your concern is one that is shared by many in the immediate vicinity of Dibden Bay altho not all are prepared to be honest about it and would rather hide behind more facile arguments.
If it is of any consolation I have a good friend whowas a senior partner in a local Estate Agency at the time of the last Dibden enquiry. His view was there would be no adverse affect on property values on adjoining property if Dibden Bay was developed. You can make of that what you will bearing in mind there is unlikely to be any significant devlopment in the area for at least 10 years in my view.
Just out of interest how long have you lived on the Waterside?
Terry Nutkins
says...
8:42am Sun 20 Sep 09
The poor management of the original inquiry by ABP showed that they didn't really have an idea on how to go about daily port operations and were beaten by a group of amateurs. They need to look at the operations of the other much larger ports around the world to see that they can make better use of their current facilities and technology.
What happens when they run out of space at Dibden? Knock down West Quay to put empty containers on it?
southy
says...
11:36am Sun 20 Sep 09
""I've been a resident of the waterside for near on 30 years now, and my family for another 60+ years previously, certainly long enough to call myself a true local! I appreciate the fact that I may be labelled a 'nimby' for the fear of losing my investment in the property I have worked hard to own, but who else in the same shoes would argue with my fears? If indeed your friend in estate agency is correct then that would certainly reduce some of my concerns, but ABP still has a very long way to go to convince New Forest residents of the real term benefits for those who will potentially become the immediate neighbours of Dibden Bay.""
i would if i was you take a look at the value of the private house's along millbrook road, and redbridge road, in the early 70's when they finished the first part of the container port, the house prices drop about a 1/4 of there price, but dont take my word for it go and check it for your self, and take a look a round other parts of the country at there house prices that are near a container port.
Ben Doone
says...
11:49am Sun 20 Sep 09
I have been involved in shipping/port matters for more years than I would like to admit.
You may not believe me but I actually think the Port of Southampton (like most UK ports I have to say) is pretty well run. It has a balanced portfolio of trades which allows for occasional blips in trade as is happening with the downturn incontainer and car business at the moment. However the upsurge in cruises and bulk seems to be balancing this out and container trades will revive and grow in future years post recession.
Of course,with hindsight every business can be criticised for the way it operates, the banking industry is a prime example. However the port had the foresight to pay for the reclaimation of Dibden Bay in the 1960's and they are now saying they may wish to develop the land in 10 or 20 years ...if trading conditions permit..
If it is of any further consolation, even if permission for Dibden is given, I do not see
all of the area being developed as the area is almost the same size as the current port so the port management would really have to go some to attract sufficient trade to fill it all.
Of course in 10/20/30 yrs time Exxon may not be operating on the same scale at Fawley and , if so,then employment (and possibly alternative use of the refinery site) will need to be considered.
I have consistently argued that a balanced view on the proposal should be the order of the day
Ben Doone
says...
12:05pm Sun 20 Sep 09
southy wrote:Southy
you for got about on that list BS, he do bring up some good points at times. ben my mate can i point out to you, that house prices drop back in the early 70's, along redbridge road, brookwood and parkside avenue because of the container port, they only lost about a quarter of there value
As usual you dig your self a big hole by not checking your facts.
Parkside Ave and Brookwood Rd (adjacent to Redbridge School) are part of the SO16 post code.
This area recorded the following average sale prices according to the Land Registry
1970 £4,842
1975 £14,571
1980 £24,936
1985 £32,064
So the facts don't reveal any 25% drop in value caused by development of the container terminal.
southy
says...
12:15pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Terry Nutkins wrote:what they more than likely do, is start taking over other areas of the river on that side, make no misstakes about ABPJ who own the docks now, the owners dont care about southampton or the areas around southampton, they are big business men, and are only in it for them selfs,
The biggest problem here is ABP and the mish mash way of the way they handle their current operations. They have a lack of foresight and ingenuity and can only see the way forward is having more land rather than making better use of what they have now.
The poor management of the original inquiry by ABP showed that they didn't really have an idea on how to go about daily port operations and were beaten by a group of amateurs. They need to look at the operations of the other much larger ports around the world to see that they can make better use of their current facilities and technology.
What happens when they run out of space at Dibden? Knock down West Quay to put empty containers on it?
when the docks was privatize they lost a lot of rights, you see southampton docks has a charter fix to it, one of those things is it cant have control pass the city boundry. and the approach channels, they are acting like if they are still a state owned docks, when dibden bay was reclaim and handed over to docks by the dredging company, the docks at the time was nationalised, so this made the land state owned, so now you got this problem do abpj really own this land or do the state, if the state owns it then it belongs to the local council and is under there control and not the docks, if you remember it was the docks that was privatise and not the land that was tied into it from when it was state owned, there are more cases like this in docks. like SWA land deeds say they own down to the tidal mark (crown tidal land), the moment state owned land was privatise it reverts back to the deeds to when it was first nationalised and not what was gained during the period while it was nationalised, theys going to be some very interesting times coming up, over what the docks do own and what they think they own.
Ben Doone
says...
12:16pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Forest Resident wrote:Forest resident
Ben Doone wrote:I've been a resident of the waterside for near on 30 years now, and my family for another 60+ years previously, certainly long enough to call myself a true local! I appreciate the fact that I may be labelled a 'nimby' for the fear of losing my investment in the property I have worked hard to own, but who else in the same shoes would argue with my fears? If indeed your friend in estate agency is correct then that would certainly reduce some of my concerns, but ABP still has a very long way to go to convince New Forest residents of the real term benefits for those who will potentially become the immediate neighbours of Dibden Bay.Forest Resident wrote: As a local resident I am completely against this proposal. If it is forced through, I and many others who live on the waterside will cumulatively lose millions on our property values leaving us in almost certain negative equity. How on earth is this "good for the local economy"?Forest Resident I think your concern is one that is shared by many in the immediate vicinity of Dibden Bay altho not all are prepared to be honest about it and would rather hide behind more facile arguments. If it is of any consolation I have a good friend whowas a senior partner in a local Estate Agency at the time of the last Dibden enquiry. His view was there would be no adverse affect on property values on adjoining property if Dibden Bay was developed. You can make of that what you will bearing in mind there is unlikely to be any significant devlopment in the area for at least 10 years in my view. Just out of interest how long have you lived on the Waterside?
Dont worry about being called a Nimby. You have expressed an honest concern which needs to be addressed.
I think one of the tangible benefits IF the Dibden proposal proceeds, will be the much needed upgrade of the Marchwood By Pass. Occasionally I have to go out to Fawley and amazed at the volume of traffic heading into Soton in the morning and out in the evening
It just goes to show that there is a very close relationship between Southampton and its hinterland altho' some residents of the Waterside seem to distance themselves from this fact.
Just out of interest, I presume your house search 30 yrs ago (1979 ish)would have indicated that Dibden Bay was set aside for future port development?
Ben Doone
says...
12:31pm Sun 20 Sep 09
southy wrote:Southy
Terry Nutkins wrote: The biggest problem here is ABP and the mish mash way of the way they handle their current operations. They have a lack of foresight and ingenuity and can only see the way forward is having more land rather than making better use of what they have now. The poor management of the original inquiry by ABP showed that they didn't really have an idea on how to go about daily port operations and were beaten by a group of amateurs. They need to look at the operations of the other much larger ports around the world to see that they can make better use of their current facilities and technology. What happens when they run out of space at Dibden? Knock down West Quay to put empty containers on it?what they more than likely do, is start taking over other areas of the river on that side, make no misstakes about ABPJ who own the docks now, the owners dont care about southampton or the areas around southampton, they are big business men, and are only in it for them selfs, when the docks was privatize they lost a lot of rights, you see southampton docks has a charter fix to it, one of those things is it cant have control pass the city boundry. and the approach channels, they are acting like if they are still a state owned docks, when dibden bay was reclaim and handed over to docks by the dredging company, the docks at the time was nationalised, so this made the land state owned, so now you got this problem do abpj really own this land or do the state, if the state owns it then it belongs to the local council and is under there control and not the docks, if you remember it was the docks that was privatise and not the land that was tied into it from when it was state owned, there are more cases like this in docks. like SWA land deeds say they own down to the tidal mark (crown tidal land), the moment state owned land was privatise it reverts back to the deeds to when it was first nationalised and not what was gained during the period while it was nationalised, theys going to be some very interesting times coming up, over what the docks do own and what they think they own.
Another 5 mins of my life to be spent correcting your incorrect postings
When BTDB was converted to ABP in 1982 all existing rights were transferred, including those relating to Dibden Bay and foreshore/shipping channel governance etc.
Incidentally for a number of years the Govt held a % of ABP shares but as the value of ABP soared post privitisation these were sold off to bump up the public purse.
Of course if you have any facts to prove otherwise (rather than your rather fanciful opinions) I am always happy to be proved wrong and learn by my mistakes.
Btw in relation to your post on oysters. I have never heard of a 'private' website. I thought the principle of a website is to promote a message worldwide, hence the term www. etc. Ah well they say you learn something everyday.
southy
says...
12:32pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Ben Doone wrote:thats a price quote for the whole of the so16 area, and dont point out a price drop in the smaller local part ie just a few roads, that reasonably close to the road, so16 covers rownhams across to bassit and down to the river test, there are well over 100,000 homes in the so16 area. so any one living to close to this if or maybe container port, and those living on route to it, will see a price drop in there homes value, those that have a bit of a distance away from the port and route in to it should be ok.
southy wrote:Southy
you for got about on that list BS, he do bring up some good points at times. ben my mate can i point out to you, that house prices drop back in the early 70's, along redbridge road, brookwood and parkside avenue because of the container port, they only lost about a quarter of there value
As usual you dig your self a big hole by not checking your facts.
Parkside Ave and Brookwood Rd (adjacent to Redbridge School) are part of the SO16 post code.
This area recorded the following average sale prices according to the Land Registry
1970 £4,842
1975 £14,571
1980 £24,936
1985 £32,064
So the facts don't reveal any 25% drop in value caused by development of the container terminal.
Derek of Dibden Purlieu
says...
12:55pm Sun 20 Sep 09
southy
says...
12:59pm Sun 20 Sep 09
here one such fact, two nationalise industrys, before they was nationalise, owned land for use of there type of operation. one owns down to the water mark, and later on the other needs to extend its water frontage, after both was nationalised so they extend there frontage along the water, because they are both a nationalise industry there no money passed over because they both are there for the state intrest, then they get sold off to private ownership, who owns what and where, SWA have all ready won a case of this nature with the electic board, the judge revert to the deeds just before nationaliseion the electic board done what the docks are have done and that was to persume that they owned it had new deeds drawn up and reg them, but theres a problem with this, a judge will only look at them has squaters and will only give them squaters rights, if some one comes up with deeds that predates and it can not be proved that money was handed over, then a judge will revert back to the deeds to where money was handed over, has the owner of the land, and the people that are using it will become tennants, and will be subject to land lord rules and the local council.
but like i said before and people need to remember this there is only one true owner of all the land and thats is the crown. they own it all out right even when you got freehold deeds.
southy
says...
1:20pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:yes well i know familys that saw this price drop in there home, when the container port was built, even one of my ex-school teachers, who live near tanners brook, saw his house price drop. can be easy check take two houses that are the same have the same amount of land, and look at the price difference, then look at the deeds back dated and see why theres a big difference between the 2, and look to see when this happened, you cant take an whole area like so16 it is very big to judge the house prices because its an average of the whole area and not just a mirco part of the area.
It's pointless debating a subject with someone who has opinions but no knowledge.
freemantlegirl2
says...
2:07pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote:Whilst I don't deny that this will affect the price of some housing in Dibden.... you've all missed the point that it's Estate Agents, and things like school catchment areas, now near to rail stations, city centres (for people to commute to work) off road parking etc that set house prices so it may balance itself out in other ways.....location, location, location....
It's pointless debating a subject with someone who has opinions but no knowledge.
I would like to see expansion of the Port but believe Dibden residents shouldn't be walked over either. The road systems also need drastically improving. Paramjit makes a good point about the PI and waiting for the government's announcement.
BS, I can't stand pink - purple is my colour ! ;) why don't we turn it into a giant tellytubby land? oh I forgot that's just been done with the mini-golf in the City centre ! :p
Ben Doone
says...
2:32pm Sun 20 Sep 09
southy wrote:Southy
Derek of Dibden Purlieu wrote: It's pointless debating a subject with someone who has opinions but no knowledge.yes well i know familys that saw this price drop in there home, when the container port was built, even one of my ex-school teachers, who live near tanners brook, saw his house price drop. can be easy check take two houses that are the same have the same amount of land, and look at the price difference, then look at the deeds back dated and see why theres a big difference between the 2, and look to see when this happened, you cant take an whole area like so16 it is very big to judge the house prices because its an average of the whole area and not just a mirco part of the area.
You now worry me in more ways than one.
So the deeds you, me and other posters have on our houses have no relevance, the land belongs to the Crown and the Royal Family can come along one day and cast us out??
If, and its a massive if, you are correct on the 25% reduction on a small proportion of Millbrook residents presumably you put all of it down to the Container port and nothing to do with the widening of Redbridge Rd or the building of the M271 link which was far closer than the container port and happened at the same time.
And if it is any consolation to both you and Forest Resident, my Estate Agent friend tells me that there are no problems selling the flats at Magazine Close over at Marchwood which look directly out on the Container Port. I don't think you can get much closer to the container port than that!!
Bowmore
says...
2:53pm Sun 20 Sep 09
"there are well over 100,000 homes in the so16 area"
There you go again with your opinions not facts. According to the last census there were only 91217 in the whole of Southampton
southy
says...
3:14pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Bowmore wrote:bowmore so16 is not just a big part of southampton it also includes area's out side of southampton.
southy wrote:
"there are well over 100,000 homes in the so16 area"
There you go again with your opinions not facts. According to the last census there were only 91217 in the whole of Southampton
please try again.
Ben Doone
says...
3:23pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Bowmore wrote:Actually heard that Southy is now working as a one legged window cleaner.
southy wrote: "there are well over 100,000 homes in the so16 area" There you go again with your opinions not facts. According to the last census there were only 91217 in the whole of Southampton
That's why it's 'all a matter of a pinion' as far as he is concerned.
You may groan at this attempt at subtle humour but at least it's clean. unlike South's upstairs windows!!
southy
says...
3:36pm Sun 20 Sep 09
the widen of millbrook and redbridge road came before the container port was built and had no or very little effect, and the building of the m271 came after the first stage of container port was finished, and it was at the time of the building of the new port when prices drop.
the new flats at Magazine lane you need to note that they was built after the container port was there, and there prices would reflect accordenlly, those houses on millbrook road was built well before the container port was even though off, you just cant compare the 2.
clausentum
says...
3:45pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Ben Doone wrote:"Groan" ;-)
Bowmore wrote:Actually heard that Southy is now working as a one legged window cleaner.
southy wrote: "there are well over 100,000 homes in the so16 area" There you go again with your opinions not facts. According to the last census there were only 91217 in the whole of Southampton
That's why it's 'all a matter of a pinion' as far as he is concerned.
You may groan at this attempt at subtle humour but at least it's clean. unlike South's upstairs windows!!
Mocking days may be over soon, after he doffs his cloth cap and hops to the cinema to watch Michael Moore's soon-to-be-released documentary: "Capitalism-A Love Story."
Then his Marxist posts are likely to be even more 'pinionated!
'-)
http://www.capitalis
malovestory.com/
clausentum
says...
3:57pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Bowmore wrote:Give him a break. His Abacus is old and worn out and missing a few beads
southy wrote:
"there are well over 100,000 homes in the so16 area"
There you go again with your opinions not facts. According to the last census there were only 91217 in the whole of Southampton
southy
says...
7:44pm Sun 20 Sep 09
so forest resident, marchwood, dont take any notice of the BS that some on here will give you, your best bit would be to find out more, and the tended route of the transport on the roads, and make your own decision on the matter.
forest hump
says...
8:41pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Ben Doone
says...
8:52pm Sun 20 Sep 09
To be fair to you the SO post code does include some areas outside of Soton which come under Test Valley Borough Council (not Romsey as you state!!).
However Bowmore at least did some research before posting.
You state that there are more than 100,000 houses in the SO post code area. From where did you obtain this info, so we can check, or are you assuming?
btw what are suggesting needs to be checked with Humberts
Ben Doone
says...
8:52pm Sun 20 Sep 09
To be fair to you the SO post code does include some areas outside of Soton which come under Test Valley Borough Council (not Romsey as you state!!).
However Bowmore at least did some research before posting.
You state that there are more than 100,000 houses in the SO post code area. From where did you obtain this info, so we can check, or are you assuming?
btw what are suggesting needs to be checked with Humberts
Forest Resident
says...
9:07pm Sun 20 Sep 09
forest hump wrote:Rather than just resort to name calling I invite you to show me some hard evidence that this proposed development will provide long term tangiable benefits for those it will cause immediate misery for. My primary concern is protecting my investment in the form of the value of my home. What real term benefits will Dibden bay offer my family and I for the likely loss of tens of thousands of pounds? Yes i'm being selfish but why should I keep quiet when ABP are simply looking to cash in at my expense?
All of you people who disagree are totally selfish. Not NIMBYS but BANANAs.... Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Never Again! This is critical for jobs, progression and a proper A-326. All of you anti-Dibden Bay lobbyists are probably the in the same genre who beleive in Anthropogenic Global Warming. Go move to the Moon!
southy
says...
9:32pm Sun 20 Sep 09
humberts is where the crown estate office is located ben, ask mr butterfield who really owns all the land in england, and he will tell you its the crown, every one else that holds any kind of deeds&leases are just the keeper for the crown.
Pobinr
says...
9:53pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Docks, especially container handling areas, are unnattractive & better if located in deserted mud flats like Dibden Bay away from people rather than encroaching into people's lives in cities. That way cities become nicer & less industrial places to live in.
Gunwarf key in Portsmouth puts Southampton waterfront to shame.
If docks were allowed to expand into Dibden Bay perhaps we could see more public access to Southampton waterfront. Perhaps a couple of the births next to Mayflower Park could be developed into waterfront restaurants etc.
For those that love muddy marshes there's plenty that will remain in Eling & Testwood. In the end the quality of life for thousands of people plus the need for more dock space is more important than a few mud dwelling creatures in Dibden Bay.
southy
says...
11:09pm Sun 20 Sep 09
Ben Doone
says...
9:06am Mon 21 Sep 09
southy wrote:Southy for your info certain parts of the land in the Uk and the foreshore up to 12 miles off the UK coast is owned by the Crown but the Monarchy has no jurisdication to sell or raise money from the land. George 111 gave away this right in exchange for a yearly income granted by Parliament ie the Civil List payment.
the whole of the test constituency is so16 post code and look how big that is 11 wards at the last election, 9 at the next, add all those up, then look at the numbers of the area that not in southampton but is covered under the so16, its large, to large and need to broken down more, you can do a rough adding up start with 1aa to 60zz some codes will be missing but then again there is more than one door number to one code like my code contains 26 houses with the same postal code, treat that 100,000 has a estinmate, i not going to try and work it out how many homes there really is in so16 area, its to big, and there no site on the internet that tells you the number, humberts is where the crown estate office is located ben, ask mr butterfield who really owns all the land in england, and he will tell you its the crown, every one else that holds any kind of deeds&leases are just the keeper for the crown.
Certain rights to foreshores are granted to organisations, such as Ports, on long term leases by the Crown Estate.
Also you may be interested to learn that something like 15/20% of the land in England is still owned by the relatives of the noblemen who came over with William the Conqueror in 1066 and were given certain estates to reward them for their loyalty
btw you are wrong to say that the whole of SO16 is the Test constituency.
Soton Test includes a number of other SO post codes in the western wards.
Also those SO16 areas just outside Soton City boundaries come under Romsey constituency and pay Rates to Test valley.
phil maccavity
says...
10:57am Mon 21 Sep 09
Forest Resident wrote:But if you have moved in to the area since the early 60's when the port acquired Dibden bay, surely you would have known about this potential development via the search your Solicitor made on potentail development?
forest hump wrote:Rather than just resort to name calling I invite you to show me some hard evidence that this proposed development will provide long term tangiable benefits for those it will cause immediate misery for. My primary concern is protecting my investment in the form of the value of my home. What real term benefits will Dibden bay offer my family and I for the likely loss of tens of thousands of pounds? Yes i'm being selfish but why should I keep quiet when ABP are simply looking to cash in at my expense?
All of you people who disagree are totally selfish. Not NIMBYS but BANANAs.... Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Never Again! This is critical for jobs, progression and a proper A-326. All of you anti-Dibden Bay lobbyists are probably the in the same genre who beleive in Anthropogenic Global Warming. Go move to the Moon!
southy
says...
2:18pm Mon 21 Sep 09
yes i know parts of so16 are out side southampton i pointed it out, and yes there rates and taxes go else where, but the over all point was that you took the whole of so16 has a guide line to house prices, whitch only gives you an average of the whole aera, and not just a small part of the whole area on what prices are doing, and like i said before so16 is way to big it need to be broken down into smaller bits, that way you get a closer idea how house prices are really moving and where.
""relatives of the noblemen who came over with William the Conqueror in 1066 and were given certain estates to reward them for their loyalty""
this is true but you for got to say, they where giving this land in the name of the king to look after and collect taxes for them selfs and a share to go to the crown, has long they gave a share to the crown they could look after the land in the name of the king.
and the same applyed with george iii, the over all owership still remained the belonging to the crown. he did give some rights away is right, but not total owership to the land. like i said give mr butterfield call. and ask him who is the total out right owner of all the land in england, and he will tell you the same.
Ben Doone
says...
4:04pm Mon 21 Sep 09
Best place to find out info on Crown Estates is by contacting their Head Office at 16 New Burlington Place in London Tele: 0207 851 5000.
Suggest you give them a ring. Interesting stuff.
I found out the the Crown only owns just ove 50% of the country's foreshore, not all as I first thought
thor_at_valhalla
says...
10:39pm Fri 16 Oct 09
Cyber-Fug says...
11:46am Sat 19 Sep 09