Major dredging scheme gets go ahead (From Andover Advertiser)

As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news.

Great. Let's reclaim even more of the water until we have to jump on a train to see it!

Bad idea in the 30's, bad idea now.

.. suppose southy will tell us to expect more landslips on either side of Southampton Water.

freefinker wrote:
.. suppose southy will tell us to expect more landslips on either side of Southampton Water.

For some who lives in the area you don't take much notice how the land rise up wards, mind you there is a hint of it when they refere to the area as Test Valley.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news.

That is bound to happen, the last dredging screwed up the river for 5 years, while up river the river banks are beening eroded a lot faster than they should be, (like at Nine Elms the bank as eroded over 20 feet in places and 10 feet in others) the Regent Bridge at Redbridge as a large crack in the supporting wall, the embankment along side the road bridge as been wash away, and all this as been done in the last 25 years. 300 years of erosion and damage in 25 years.

No one can drop an "H" quite like you Peter. There are quite a few missing from your post, I guess they are hiding away along with the facts to support your "300 years of erosion and damage in 25 years" statement.

southy wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. suppose southy will tell us to expect more landslips on either side of Southampton Water.

For some who lives in the area you don't take much notice how the land rise up wards, mind you there is a hint of it when they refere to the area as Test Valley.

.. well that's rather unintelligible.

Mind you so was the reasoning on another story. A small supporting wall collapses in Weston and: -
southy says, 3:02pm Sun 28 Mar 10: -
‘could this be the results of making southampton shipping channel to deep, the under laying ground bed is slipping down the hill to try and fill in the over deep man made channel, if it is then there's going to be more things like this happening’.

Stand by for landslips everwhere.

OK, Southy does type b4 engaging at times: however, he is not the culPRAT who typed -

"As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news"

So - Southy aint the worst.

Stillness wrote:
No one can drop an "H" quite like you Peter. There are quite a few missing from your post, I guess they are hiding away along with the facts to support your "300 years of erosion and damage in 25 years" statement.

Well if you walk the river as much as I do then you would know that have been measuring the erosion for the last 20 years, above the Bridges at Redbridge, White stakes hammered into the ground. the other damage you can go and see for your self, the prof is all there, The crator inbetween the pack and pass bridge and road bridge was only about 12 feet deep at low water now its over 20 feet deep at low water. and the bankment next to it being wash away.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
No one can drop an "H" quite like you Peter. There are quite a few missing from your post, I guess they are hiding away along with the facts to support your "300 years of erosion and damage in 25 years" statement.

Well if you walk the river as much as I do then you would know that have been measuring the erosion for the last 20 years, above the Bridges at Redbridge, White stakes hammered into the ground. the other damage you can go and see for your self, the prof is all there, The crator inbetween the pack and pass bridge and road bridge was only about 12 feet deep at low water now its over 20 feet deep at low water. and the bankment next to it being wash away.

The crater is quite welcome however. When I go diving off the roadbridge in the summer, it is good to know I won't hit the riverbed

J.P.M wrote:
OK, Southy does type b4 engaging at times: however, he is not the culPRAT who typed -

"As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news"

So - Southy aint the worst.

Last time they had a major dredge, there was a layer of silt, killing shellfish, mud dwelling marine life, silt could be found as far up river at the Green Bridge (Iron Bridge) on the Flood plains.
So yes it will mess up the ecology of the river, if its to cloudy it will stop Salmon, Sea Trout and Grayling migrating up river, and if its done at the wrong time of the year like now it will kill the kelps returning back to the sea.

J.P.M wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
No one can drop an "H" quite like you Peter. There are quite a few missing from your post, I guess they are hiding away along with the facts to support your "300 years of erosion and damage in 25 years" statement.

Well if you walk the river as much as I do then you would know that have been measuring the erosion for the last 20 years, above the Bridges at Redbridge, White stakes hammered into the ground. the other damage you can go and see for your self, the prof is all there, The crator inbetween the pack and pass bridge and road bridge was only about 12 feet deep at low water now its over 20 feet deep at low water. and the bankment next to it being wash away.

The crater is quite welcome however. When I go diving off the roadbridge in the summer, it is good to know I won't hit the riverbed

Well that what I been saying for awhile you will not touch the bottom at high tide. if you jump of the road bridge at the apex of the arch

Southy - thanks.

What are the foundations / building remnants about half a mile upstream (where the pedestrian level crossing is)

J.P.M wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
No one can drop an "H" quite like you Peter. There are quite a few missing from your post, I guess they are hiding away along with the facts to support your "300 years of erosion and damage in 25 years" statement.

Well if you walk the river as much as I do then you would know that have been measuring the erosion for the last 20 years, above the Bridges at Redbridge, White stakes hammered into the ground. the other damage you can go and see for your self, the prof is all there, The crator inbetween the pack and pass bridge and road bridge was only about 12 feet deep at low water now its over 20 feet deep at low water. and the bankment next to it being wash away.

The crater is quite welcome however. When I go diving off the roadbridge in the summer, it is good to know I won't hit the riverbed

Are you one of the idiots that cross over the live railway line to reach the dive zone?

One thing for sure, is that Mother Nature given a fair chance will sort itself out in time, it may not be what is there now, but something else will adapt and flourish in its place.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

J.P.M wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
No one can drop an "H" quite like you Peter. There are quite a few missing from your post, I guess they are hiding away along with the facts to support your "300 years of erosion and damage in 25 years" statement.

Well if you walk the river as much as I do then you would know that have been measuring the erosion for the last 20 years, above the Bridges at Redbridge, White stakes hammered into the ground. the other damage you can go and see for your self, the prof is all there, The crator inbetween the pack and pass bridge and road bridge was only about 12 feet deep at low water now its over 20 feet deep at low water. and the bankment next to it being wash away.

The crater is quite welcome however. When I go diving off the roadbridge in the summer, it is good to know I won't hit the riverbed

Are you one of the idiots that cross over the live railway line to reach the dive zone?

No.
I swim across from the reeds.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
No one can drop an "H" quite like you Peter. There are quite a few missing from your post, I guess they are hiding away along with the facts to support your "300 years of erosion and damage in 25 years" statement.

Well if you walk the river as much as I do then you would know that have been measuring the erosion for the last 20 years, above the Bridges at Redbridge, White stakes hammered into the ground. the other damage you can go and see for your self, the prof is all there, The crator inbetween the pack and pass bridge and road bridge was only about 12 feet deep at low water now its over 20 feet deep at low water. and the bankment next to it being wash away.

Nothing to do with the millions of gallons of water that have flown down the river in the last 20 years running in to the bank on the outside of the bend then? Surely you must be able to remember that 40 years ago we could get away with a shorter rope tied to the tree each year and still jump off in to the river?

So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

Say again???

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

Now that sounds great, be good to remove all the reclaimed land as much as possible. Give the people a waterfront back, like it did when it used to reach God House Tower.

Stop the dredging now

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news.

LOL !!! do you KNOW what dredging actually is ???

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I know dredging stinks and noisy but happy :)

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
No one can drop an "H" quite like you Peter. There are quite a few missing from your post, I guess they are hiding away along with the facts to support your "300 years of erosion and damage in 25 years" statement.

Well if you walk the river as much as I do then you would know that have been measuring the erosion for the last 20 years, above the Bridges at Redbridge, White stakes hammered into the ground. the other damage you can go and see for your self, the prof is all there, The crator inbetween the pack and pass bridge and road bridge was only about 12 feet deep at low water now its over 20 feet deep at low water. and the bankment next to it being wash away.

So you have looked at white sticks. These people have look at the following reference's ABP, 2000a, Beneficial use of dredged material, ABP Southampton: Dibden Terminal,
Associated British Ports, Southampton, Report No: TS/ME3, 1-22.
ABP, 2000b, Changes in the physical environment of Southampton Water, ABP
Southampton: Dibden Terminal, Associated British Ports, Southampton, Report No: TS/ME2,
1-40 + 3 App +7 Anx.
ABP, 2000c, Characterisation and modelling of dredging and disposal operations, ABP
Southampton: Dibden Terminal, Associated British Ports, Southampton, Report No: TS/ME1,
1-46.
ABP, 2000d, Dibden Terminal: Environmental Statement, Associated British Ports,
Southampton.
ABP, 2000e, Habitat creation design: intertidal creek, ABP Southampton: Dibden Terminal,
Associated British Ports, Southampton, Report No: TS/ME4, 1-35.
ABP, 2000f, Habitat creation design: Intertidal recharge to the Hythe to Cadland foreshore,
ABP Southampton: Dibden Terminal, Associated British Ports, Southampton, Report No:
TS/ME5, 1-54.
ABP, 2000g, Marine environmental thresholds, ABP Southampton: Dibden Terminal,
Associated British Ports, Southampton, Report No: TS/ME6, 1-22.
ABP, 2002, Agreed Statement on the morphological impacts of the proposed Dibden
Terminal, Dibden Terminal. Topic 5: Erosion and deposition of sediment, ABP,
Southampton, 1-14.
ABP Research, 1995, ABP Southampton, Impact of dock development in Southampton
Water and River Test on adjacent saltmarshes and mudflats, ABP Research & Consultancy
Ltd, Southampton, UK, Report No: R.508.
ABP Research, 1997, An investigation into the furrows on the bed of Southampton Water,
ABP Research & Consultancy Ltd, Southampton, UK, Report No: RN.721.
ABP Research, 1999, Southampton Water geomorphological study, ABP Research &
Consultancy Ltd, Southampton, UK, Report No: R.716, 1-48.
ABPmer, 2001, Review of Change Analysis, Dibden Terminal, Marine Environment:
Changes in the physical environment of Southampton Water, ABP Marine Environmental
Research Ltd, Southampton, Report No: CD/GEN/14, 1-65.
Allen JRL, 1990, The Severn Estuary of southwest Britain: its retreat under marine
transgression, and fine sediment regime, Sedimentary Geology, 66, 13-28.
Blackman DL, Graff J, 1978, The analysis of annual extreme sea levels at certain ports in
Southern England, Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, 65(Part 2), 324-339.
Collins MB, Ansell K (Eds), 2000, Solent Science - A Review, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
© ABPmer, 12/05/2008, V1.0
A Conceptual Model of Southampton Water
A6Supporting Document
Coughlon J, 1979, Aspects of reclamation in Southampton Water, In: Knights B, Phillips AJ
(Eds.), Estuarine and coastal land reclamation and water storage, EBSA, Saxon Hose, pp.
99-124.
Dyer K, 1980, Sedimentation and sediment transport, The Solent Estuarine System, An
Assessment of Present Knowledge, NERC Publications Series C, Report No: 22.
Dyer KR, 1973, Estuaries: A Physical Introduction, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester.
Edwards RA, Freshney EC, 1987, Geology of the country around Southampton, HMSO,
London.
Flood RD, 1981, Distribution, morphology and the origin of sedimentary furrows in cohesive
sediments, Southampton Water, Sedimentology, 28, 511-529.
Goodman PJ, 1957, An investigation of 'die-back' in Spartina Tonsendii H & J Groves,
University of Southampton, 1-259.
Harris JM, Araújo I, Townend IH, 2006, Long-term variations in tidal range, In preparation.
Ippen AT, 1966, Estuary and Coastline Hydrodynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Kragtwijk NG, Stive MJF, Wang ZB, Zitman TJ, 2004, Morphological response of tidal basins
to human interventions, Coastal Engineering, 51, 207-221.
Long AJ, Scaife RG, Edwards RJ, 2000, Stratigraphic architecture, relative sea-level, and
models of estuary development in southern England: new data from Southampton Water, In:
Pye K, Allen JRL (Eds.), Coastal and Estuarine Environments: sedimentology,
geomorphology and geoarchaeology, Geological Society, London, pp. 253-280.
Lucas CA, Hirst AG, Willaims JA, 1997, Plankton dynamics and Aurelia aurita production in
two contrasting ecosystems: Comparisons and consequences, Estuarine Coastal and Shelf
Science, 45, 209-219.
McLaren P, 1987, Sediment transport and contaminant dispersal in Sullom Voe and
Southampton Water, Report for Oil Pollution Research Unit, GeoSea Consulting,
Cambridge, 1-81.
NERC, 1980, The Solent Estuarine System, An Assessment of Present Knowledge, NERC
Publications Series C, Report No: 22.
Pugh DT, 1990, Is there a sea-level problem?, Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers,
88(Part 1), 347-366.
Pugh DT, 2004, Changing sea levels: effects of tides, weather and climate, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Reed D, 1988, Sediment dynamics and deposition in a retreating coastal salt marsh,
Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, 26, 67-79.
Shennan I, Long AJ, 1999, Holocene sea-level changes in the Humber estuary, Humber
Estuary Geomorphological Studies - Stage 2, Interim Report, Environment Agency, Leeds,
Report No: Annex No 1, 1-9.
© ABPmer, 12/05/2008, V1.0
A Conceptual Model of Southampton Water
A7Supporting Document
Shi L, 2000, Development and application of a three-dimensional water quality model in a
partially-mixed estuary, Southampton Water, UK, University of Southampton, 1-228.
Stive MJF, Capobianco M, Wang ZB, Ruol P, Buijsman MC, 1998, Morphodynamics of a
tidal lagoon and adjacent coast, In: Physics of Estuaries and Coastal Seas: 8th International
Biennial Conference on Physics of Estuaries and Coastal Seas, 1996, A A Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 397-407.
Townend IH, 2006, Surface area changes in the Humber, ABPmer, Southampton, Report
No: Internal Research Note, 1-24.
Townend IH, Pethick J, 2002, Estuarine flooding and managed retreat,
Phil.Trans.R.Soc.Lon
d.A, 360, 1477-1495.
Townend IH, Wang ZB, Rees JG, 2006, Millennial to annual volume changes in the Humber
Estuary, In preparation.
Tubbs CR, 1980, Processes and impacts in the Solent, The Solent Estuarine System, An
Assessment of Present Knowledge, NERC Publications Series C, Report No: 22, 1-6.
Tubbs CR, 1999, The ecology, conservation and history of the Solent, Packard Publishing
Limited, Chichester, England.
van Goor MA, Zitman TJ, Wang ZB, Stive MJF, 2003, Impact of sea-level rise on the
morphological equilibrium state of tidal inlets, Marine Geology, 202, 211-227.
Velegrakis AF, 2000, Geology, geomorphology and sediments of the Solent estuarine
system, In: Collins MB, Ansell K (Eds.), Solent Science - A Review, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. -22.
Velegrakis AF, Collins MB, 2000, Expert analysis of an impacted estuary: Southampton
Water, Estuary Research Programme, Phase 1: Modelling Estuary Morphology and Process;
Final Report, HR Wallingford, Wallingford, Report No: Paper 16, 103-115.
Wang ZB, Karssen B, Fokkink RJ, Langerak A, 1998, A dynamic-empirical model for
estuarine morphology, In: Dronkers J, Scheffers MBAM (Eds.), Physics of Estuaries and
Coastal Seas, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 279-286.
Webber NB, 1980, Hydrography and water circulation in the Solent, Publications Series C,
National Environmental Research Council, Report No: 22, 25-35.
West IM, 1980, Geology of the Solent estuarine system, The Solent Estuarine System, An
Assessment of Present Knowledge, NERC Publications Series C, Report No: 22.
Woodworth PL, 1987, Trends in UK mean sea level, Mar.Geodesy, 11(57), 87.
they have observed, measured, modelled, predicted, surveyed and so forth but you have failed to look at in and prefer your sticks.
we all know for your previous claptrap that you think earthquakes are caused by the moon or the wobble of the earth, and when challenged fail to give any supporting evidence, but may throw in another piece of irrelevant information ,are your political aspirations as equally useless? I guess having heard for you about a needs budget the are.

Sorry posted by accident before editing!!!

stay local wrote:
Sorry posted by accident before editing!!!

.. but your list is all 'tailored' information designed to give the result ABP wanted. Only white sticks can tell you the true position. It's obvious, southy said so.

Meanwhile I'm double checking the landslip and heave clauses in my house insurance.

"Well if you walk the river as much as I do"
Are we to assume that you refer to walking 'on' rather than 'in' Southy?

MGRA wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news.

LOL !!! do you KNOW what dredging actually is ???

Well I admit I am no expert, no doubt you are, like you are so on so many other subjects, I suspect more damage is done by agents upstream dumping effluent and chemicals in to the freshwater streams, than dredging in the sea water channels further down, but please enlighten me with your infinite wisdom.

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

I agree more attention should be made for public use of the waterfront, I am sure a compromise can be reached in the planning stages to accomodate some leisure facilities, combined with proper provision for the natural to survive. Too many people are ready to automatically gainsay anything that causes change, but it doesn't always have to be negative.

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

So true. Try finding a coastal/waterside city with a less attractive waterfront than Southampton. You won't. Regeneration and redevelopment is needed so badly!

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Southampton had a beach?!

Southy..... Did the government and ABP not consult with you over the £1.5b of investment, the 1000's of job being created and now the derdging ?

It seems like they are doing a lot of work just to become a feeder port as you have told us on so many occasions.

kingnotail wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Southampton had a beach?!

Still have..... well kind of.... Weston Shore ;o)

kingnotail wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Southampton had a beach?!

Exactly! It could be argued what you never had, you never miss, but I have many beautiful photos of the beach between the pier and millbrook that existed before it was all filled in the name of "progress" in the 30's, and is now an area filled with barbed wire docks and hideous buildings like Ikea. I would certainly have preferred to inherit the previous landscape from our forefathers than what we have now.

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Just how long ago was Southampton a Tourist Magnet? It once was a Spa Town, we still have some major assetts that should be used to attract Tourists but years of neglect over our Heritage means much of its historic sites are not accessible or used to their best advantage. These have nothing in common with the waterfront which is mostly reclaimed land. It is time to step into the future but we must not neglect the past. We also used to host some really decent Shows, including the Balloon Festival, all we seem to have going for us these days is the over Commercialised Boat Show.

I was dredging this news...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Just how long ago was Southampton a Tourist Magnet? It once was a Spa Town, we still have some major assetts that should be used to attract Tourists but years of neglect over our Heritage means much of its historic sites are not accessible or used to their best advantage. These have nothing in common with the waterfront which is mostly reclaimed land. It is time to step into the future but we must not neglect the past. We also used to host some really decent Shows, including the Balloon Festival, all we seem to have going for us these days is the over Commercialised Boat Show.

Indeed it was a spa town and between the mid 18th and mid 19th centuries would attract people from all over the country, once being described as "one of the prettiest and healthiest towns in England boasting many fine buildings". The advent of the dock expansion from the 1840's onwards has primarily overseen the decline of the city into the mess it is today. It would appear we still haven't learned from past mistakes. I'm all for progress but imo this should be tempered with care in the legacy we leave. We are only custodians after all.

Still waiting for MRGAs thesis on dredging, will the greater depth encourage different fish into the area? Maybe a bonus for anglers?

st1halo wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Just how long ago was Southampton a Tourist Magnet? It once was a Spa Town, we still have some major assetts that should be used to attract Tourists but years of neglect over our Heritage means much of its historic sites are not accessible or used to their best advantage. These have nothing in common with the waterfront which is mostly reclaimed land. It is time to step into the future but we must not neglect the past. We also used to host some really decent Shows, including the Balloon Festival, all we seem to have going for us these days is the over Commercialised Boat Show.

Indeed it was a spa town and between the mid 18th and mid 19th centuries would attract people from all over the country, once being described as "one of the prettiest and healthiest towns in England boasting many fine buildings". The advent of the dock expansion from the 1840's onwards has primarily overseen the decline of the city into the mess it is today. It would appear we still haven't learned from past mistakes. I'm all for progress but imo this should be tempered with care in the legacy we leave. We are only custodians after all.

Some would say decline, others would disagree, we cannot expect progress to be halted just because it isn't aesthetically pleasant on the eye. This nation would die without commerce and the reason the location was chosen for Docklands was simply because it was the best place for it for many reasons. If you beaches and beauty there is plenty around not too far away.

st1halo wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Just how long ago was Southampton a Tourist Magnet? It once was a Spa Town, we still have some major assetts that should be used to attract Tourists but years of neglect over our Heritage means much of its historic sites are not accessible or used to their best advantage. These have nothing in common with the waterfront which is mostly reclaimed land. It is time to step into the future but we must not neglect the past. We also used to host some really decent Shows, including the Balloon Festival, all we seem to have going for us these days is the over Commercialised Boat Show.

Indeed it was a spa town and between the mid 18th and mid 19th centuries would attract people from all over the country, once being described as "one of the prettiest and healthiest towns in England boasting many fine buildings". The advent of the dock expansion from the 1840's onwards has primarily overseen the decline of the city into the mess it is today. It would appear we still haven't learned from past mistakes. I'm all for progress but imo this should be tempered with care in the legacy we leave. We are only custodians after all.

How do you measure progress or decline?
If you measure progress by the increase in population after a given event then at every stage of port develipment there has been a consequential increase in the city's population.
Most of us would not be here if it wasn't for the economic benefit the port has brought and this is the case in similar port/cities around the world.
If the Docks hadn't been developed from thbe late 1830's it is highly likely that Southampton would be a back water town ie a slightly larger Weymouth without the beach

phil maccavity wrote:

st1halo wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Just how long ago was Southampton a Tourist Magnet? It once was a Spa Town, we still have some major assetts that should be used to attract Tourists but years of neglect over our Heritage means much of its historic sites are not accessible or used to their best advantage. These have nothing in common with the waterfront which is mostly reclaimed land. It is time to step into the future but we must not neglect the past. We also used to host some really decent Shows, including the Balloon Festival, all we seem to have going for us these days is the over Commercialised Boat Show.

Indeed it was a spa town and between the mid 18th and mid 19th centuries would attract people from all over the country, once being described as "one of the prettiest and healthiest towns in England boasting many fine buildings". The advent of the dock expansion from the 1840's onwards has primarily overseen the decline of the city into the mess it is today. It would appear we still haven't learned from past mistakes. I'm all for progress but imo this should be tempered with care in the legacy we leave. We are only custodians after all.

How do you measure progress or decline?
If you measure progress by the increase in population after a given event then at every stage of port develipment there has been a consequential increase in the city's population.
Most of us would not be here if it wasn't for the economic benefit the port has brought and this is the case in similar port/cities around the world.
If the Docks hadn't been developed from thbe late 1830's it is highly likely that Southampton would be a back water town ie a slightly larger Weymouth without the beach

... and Saints wouldn't be in the Premier and Pompey would be the Pride of the South!

phil maccavity wrote:

st1halo wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Just how long ago was Southampton a Tourist Magnet? It once was a Spa Town, we still have some major assetts that should be used to attract Tourists but years of neglect over our Heritage means much of its historic sites are not accessible or used to their best advantage. These have nothing in common with the waterfront which is mostly reclaimed land. It is time to step into the future but we must not neglect the past. We also used to host some really decent Shows, including the Balloon Festival, all we seem to have going for us these days is the over Commercialised Boat Show.

Indeed it was a spa town and between the mid 18th and mid 19th centuries would attract people from all over the country, once being described as "one of the prettiest and healthiest towns in England boasting many fine buildings". The advent of the dock expansion from the 1840's onwards has primarily overseen the decline of the city into the mess it is today. It would appear we still haven't learned from past mistakes. I'm all for progress but imo this should be tempered with care in the legacy we leave. We are only custodians after all.

How do you measure progress or decline?
If you measure progress by the increase in population after a given event then at every stage of port develipment there has been a consequential increase in the city's population.
Most of us would not be here if it wasn't for the economic benefit the port has brought and this is the case in similar port/cities around the world.
If the Docks hadn't been developed from thbe late 1830's it is highly likely that Southampton would be a back water town ie a slightly larger Weymouth without the beach

I agree that the development of the docks has contributed to the population of the city, although natural growth has attributed it's fair share and I'm not saying that the docks shouldn't have been developed. My point is where do you draw the line. Where do you stop sacrificing in the name of progress. A population needs amenities and in the last 50 years they have dissappeared fast to the point where there is hardly any access to the waterside, not to mention all the other facilities that have been lost within the city.
Along with the dredging comes the bigger ships, then comes the infrastructure required to transport, then the damage to the environment on all fronts. At some point you have to say the bad is outweighing the good or at least enough is enough.

phil maccavity wrote:

st1halo wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:

st1halo wrote:

forest hump wrote:
So, wise people! Why do we not simply stop the dredging. Constrain the port's operation until no large ships can safely manage the channel. That way, we can lay off thousands of people and eventually shut the port down. It does not matter that we render people unemployed and deny our children opportunity. But hey! dirty old river banks will thrive and greyling can procreate 'til the cows come home.

We rendered people unemployed and denied our children opportunity when we signed the Lisbon Treaty!
Personally, I resent the fact that, apart from the pokey Mayflower Park there is hardly a single place between Redbridge and Northam where you can enjoy being by the water. Children will always be able to find opportunity, unfortunately it's your attitude that takes away something that just can't be replaced.
Less than 5% will gain from this, the rest of us lose.

Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.

I beg to differ, your "progress at any cost" is the selfish attitude and the reason the world is in the mess we have created. You may think that the expanding of the docks brings prosperity but it rarely benefits the local community.
Southampton used to be a tourist magnet, when they filled in the beaches and cordoned off the docks, they exported that tourism to other areas like Weymouth, Bournemouth etc.
We are no more than a bus stop in the nation's trading now, some will have gained but most of us lost. The beach, promenade, the pier, all gone, but hey, never mind, think of all the container lorries we have gained!

Just how long ago was Southampton a Tourist Magnet? It once was a Spa Town, we still have some major assetts that should be used to attract Tourists but years of neglect over our Heritage means much of its historic sites are not accessible or used to their best advantage. These have nothing in common with the waterfront which is mostly reclaimed land. It is time to step into the future but we must not neglect the past. We also used to host some really decent Shows, including the Balloon Festival, all we seem to have going for us these days is the over Commercialised Boat Show.

Indeed it was a spa town and between the mid 18th and mid 19th centuries would attract people from all over the country, once being described as "one of the prettiest and healthiest towns in England boasting many fine buildings". The advent of the dock expansion from the 1840's onwards has primarily overseen the decline of the city into the mess it is today. It would appear we still haven't learned from past mistakes. I'm all for progress but imo this should be tempered with care in the legacy we leave. We are only custodians after all.

How do you measure progress or decline?
If you measure progress by the increase in population after a given event then at every stage of port develipment there has been a consequential increase in the city's population.
Most of us would not be here if it wasn't for the economic benefit the port has brought and this is the case in similar port/cities around the world.
If the Docks hadn't been developed from thbe late 1830's it is highly likely that Southampton would be a back water town ie a slightly larger Weymouth without the beach

Erm..that's all it is.