Major dredging scheme for Southampton gets go ahead

Southampton Docks

Southampton Docks

First published in Hampshire Business
Last updated
Andover Advertiser: Photograph of the Author by , Shipping & Heritage Reporter

Southampton has finally been given the go-ahead for a major dredging scheme, which will ensure the city's long term future as one of the world's major sea ports.

Consent from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) for the extensive dredge is one of the most important and significant developments as far as the port is concerned in recent years.

It's the second piece of good news in 24 hours for the port, which is set to benefit from last night's announcement of £1.5bn of government money being invested into Southampton and Portsmouth.

Associated British Ports (ABP), owners and operators of Southampton Docks, has been waiting for more than four years for the green light to start the extensive programme of dredging.

The long wait is the result of the highly complex nature of the operation, concerns over the environment and European Union regulations.

The dredging, in Southampton Water and the Solent, is part of a programme of investment centred around improving the capability of the port to receive the largest vessels in the world long into the future.

The MMO's consent marks the final piece in the jigsaw of licences, consents and permissions to complete the scheme.

ABP Port Director Southampton, Doug Morrison, said: “This is fantastic news for the long-term future health of the port, for the 12,000 people reliant on it for work and for our customers who can be assured that we will continue to welcome their vessels to the port in the years to come.”

The work will see the main navigational channel used by commercial shipping deepened from a current minimum depth of 12.6m, at various points along its length of 25 nautical miles. The channel will also be widened to 100m in some areas to allow vessels to pass one another as they enter and exit the port.

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:51pm Tue 19 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news.
As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Tue 19 Feb 13

sotonboy84 says...

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.
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. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Tue 19 Feb 13

freefinker says...

.. suppose southy will tell us to expect more landslips on either side of Southampton Water.
.. suppose southy will tell us to expect more landslips on either side of Southampton Water. freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. suppose southy will tell us to expect more landslips on either side of Southampton Water.[/p][/quote]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. southy
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news.[/p][/quote]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. southy
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Stillness says...

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.
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. Stillness
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Tue 19 Feb 13

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. suppose southy will tell us to expect more landslips on either side of Southampton Water.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote].. 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. freefinker
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Tue 19 Feb 13

J.P.M says...

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.
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. J.P.M
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Tue 19 Feb 13

J.P.M says...

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
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]J.P.M[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. southy
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Tue 19 Feb 13

southy says...

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
[quote][p][bold]J.P.M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Tue 19 Feb 13

J.P.M says...

Southy - thanks.

What are the foundations / building remnants about half a mile upstream (where the pedestrian level crossing is)
Southy - thanks. What are the foundations / building remnants about half a mile upstream (where the pedestrian level crossing is) J.P.M
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Tue 19 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]J.P.M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]Are you one of the idiots that cross over the live railway line to reach the dive zone? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Tue 19 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Tue 19 Feb 13

J.P.M says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.P.M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]Are you one of the idiots that cross over the live railway line to reach the dive zone?[/p][/quote]No. I swim across from the reeds. J.P.M
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Stillness says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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? Stillness
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Tue 19 Feb 13

forest hump says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Tue 19 Feb 13

J.P.M says...

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???
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Say again??? J.P.M
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Brusher Mills says...

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
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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 Brusher Mills
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Tue 19 Feb 13

MGRA says...

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 ???
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news.[/p][/quote]LOL !!! do you KNOW what dredging actually is ??? MGRA
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Tue 19 Feb 13

st1halo says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Tue 19 Feb 13

forest hump says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude. forest hump
  • Score: 0

1:32am Wed 20 Feb 13

Dan Soton says...

I know dredging stinks and noisy but happy :)
I know dredging stinks and noisy but happy :) Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

4:23am Wed 20 Feb 13

stay local says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. stay local
  • Score: 0

4:24am Wed 20 Feb 13

stay local says...

Sorry posted by accident before editing!!!
Sorry posted by accident before editing!!! stay local
  • Score: 0

9:10am Wed 20 Feb 13

freefinker says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: Sorry posted by accident before editing!!![/p][/quote].. 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. freefinker
  • Score: 0

9:53am Wed 20 Feb 13

Big Mac says...

"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?
"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? Big Mac
  • Score: 0

11:12am Wed 20 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: As long as it doesn't mess the ecology of the two rivers Test and Itchen this can only be good news.[/p][/quote]LOL !!! do you KNOW what dredging actually is ???[/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:19am Wed 20 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Wed 20 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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! kingnotail
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Wed 20 Feb 13

st1halo says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Wed 20 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

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?!
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]Southampton had a beach?! kingnotail
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Cyber__Fug says...

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.
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. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Cyber__Fug says...

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)
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]Southampton had a beach?![/p][/quote]Still have..... well kind of.... Weston Shore ;o) Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Wed 20 Feb 13

st1halo says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]Southampton had a beach?![/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Wed 20 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Wed 20 Feb 13

allsaintsnocurves says...

I was dredging this news...
I was dredging this news... allsaintsnocurves
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Wed 20 Feb 13

st1halo says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. st1halo
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Wed 20 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

Still waiting for MRGAs thesis on dredging, will the greater depth encourage different fish into the area? Maybe a bonus for anglers?
Still waiting for MRGAs thesis on dredging, will the greater depth encourage different fish into the area? Maybe a bonus for anglers? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Wed 20 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Wed 20 Feb 13

phil maccavity says...

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
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Wed 20 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]... and Saints wouldn't be in the Premier and Pompey would be the Pride of the South! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

11:34pm Wed 20 Feb 13

st1halo says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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. st1halo
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Thu 21 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Hogwash. You are living by the precautionary principle. That is dangerous! Continue and we will all regress and live in caves. Very selfish attitude.[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]Erm..that's all it is. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree