IT WAS the most controversial
development proposal in
Southampton's recent history.
A £500m plan to build 1,620
new homes on the derelict
waterside shipyard in Woolston
that had lain empty for five years
since Vosper Thornycroft walked
away.
Yet the regeneration vision for the prime
location, renamed Centenary Quay, attracted a
whopping 1,639 objections - a total exceeding
even the complaints received over the St
Mary's Stadium plans almost a decade ago.
But after a marathon six-hour planning
meeting - and to the audible anger of the 80
residents that filled the specially hired
Central Hall in St Mary's - the city council's
planning panel voted to pass the plans.
It marked a victory for the developers Crest
Nicholson and landowners Seeda, a regional development agency, who can now
start work to build 160 of the proposed homes,
a 100-bed hotel and superstore.
The decision also gave the seal of approval to
the masterplan for the whole site, which
includes the prospect of up to 1,300 jobs -
about half for locals - a public plaza,
cafes/restaurants, shops, a health facility, and
a new shipyard for luxury US boat-builder
Palmer Johnson.
Yet today campaigners have vowed to continue
their fight to thwart the housing plans
which have provoked strong feelings and
prompted two noisy demonstrations through
the city centre streets.
Andrew Middleton, chairman of the development
section of the Woolston Community
Association, which has led the battle, said:
"We are not giving up by any means. Everyone
is determined not to give up.
"We will take advice from the professionals.
There are lots of details that have got to be
approved. Stage by stage we will have a go at
them where we can."
Architects for Crest Nicholson earlier hailed
the plans as a "fantastic, unique development"
that would not only "revitalise Woolston,
create jobs and restore the high street" but
also "create a real identity and lasting legacy
for Southampton".
Architect Pankaj Patel promised a
"memorable place for people to live, work and
visitors to come."
The city's chamber of commerce - among
just six supportive representations - backed
the "truly mixed-use development".
It opened the floor for about a dozen objectors
to launch a ferocious attack on the plans
for 1,472 flats and just 148 town houses - with
11 per cent of the homes dubbed "affordable".
The objectors warned that the scheme tried
to cram too many homes on to the 17.5-acre site, that it would lead to traffic
congestion from the 3,000 people
expected to live there and that less
than one parking space per home
was "grossly inadequate".
They also savaged plans for
three waterfront apartment towers
rising up to 25 storeys high
as "monstrous" and totally out of
character, and branded the consultation
of residents a "farce".
Labour ward councillor
Warwick Payne said the density
was "eye-wateringly" high and
campaigner Jane Foster warned:
"It will be the largest planning
disaster Southampton has ever
seen."
Cabinet member for economic
development Councillor Royston
Smith backed residents' concerns
over the number of homes
and parking, while Itchen MP
John Denham faxed in a last
minute objection after prompting
from constituents.
Sport England, critical of the
lack of sports pitches and recreation
space, and the Co-op, worried
about a drop in trade from
proposed competition over the
road, had also made objections.
But councillors on
the planning
panel voted by a
majority of
four to two to
approve the
scheme.
They said
they were
largely constrained
by
the principles
established by
an earlier vision
for the site by
world-famous architect
Richard Rogers,
which was approved two
year ago.
That was of higher density and
had fewer family homes. Other
improvements and changes, such
as a hotel and supermarket, with
proposed road junction improvements,
had made the latest
scheme acceptable, panel chairman
Councillor Matt Dean said.
Councillors agreed extra conditions
to explore the retention of
a historic crane and boost the
number of parking spaces to one
for every home with more than
one bedroom - an extra 195 residential
spaces on top of the 1,361
originally proposed.
Debbie Aplin, managing director
of Crest Nicholson Regeneration,
said she was "relieved"
the plans had been passed after
more than two years' work.
She said the site would be
transformed into a
"vibrant, cohesive
development" suitable
for all ages
with a quality of
buildings that
would be "exemplary
for
the area".
Responding
to criticism
over the consultation
she
said: "We really
did listen to
the community".
And she has
promised further
consultation over the
materials and landscaping
detail still to be worked out.
The whole site is scheduled to
be completed by 2018.
See today's Daily Echo for the full story
2:13pm Tuesday 19th August 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Woolston Resident on 8:48am Tue 19 Aug 08
I'm not sure the Echo are being even-handed in the reporting of these "protestors". You keep talking about these "noisy rallys" but fail to inform readers they were attended by only a couple of dozen people.
The decision has been made. The development will be built. I believe that many people in Woolston are glad it is progressing. Just happens that people in favour don't go courting publicity like the WCA do.
And anyway, what have the WCA ever done for Woolston? Please could they tell us what facilities they have improved in the area?
I'm not sure the Echo are being even-handed in the reporting of these "protestors". You keep talking about these "noisy rallys" but fail to inform readers they were attended by only a couple of dozen people.
The decision has been made. The development will be built. I believe that many people in Woolston are glad it is progressing. Just happens that people in favour don't go courting publicity like the WCA do.
And anyway, what have the WCA ever done for Woolston? Please could they tell us what facilities they have improved in the area?
Posted by: Looking from the outside on 8:54am Tue 19 Aug 08
I find it funny that those against the plans think the Echo is exaggerating the benefits of the development at those who are for the plans think the Echo is given too much exposure to the protesters.
I find it funny that those against the plans think the Echo is exaggerating the benefits of the development at those who are for the plans think the Echo is given too much exposure to the protesters.
Posted by: lionel on 9:01am Tue 19 Aug 08
Hmm, 80 objectors at the meeting, so where were the other alleged 1500+ ? Sounds like a phony war to me.
Hmm, 80 objectors at the meeting, so where were the other alleged 1500+ ? Sounds like a phony war to me.
Posted by: nimby hater, Woolston on 9:04am Tue 19 Aug 08
Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision.
The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom.
I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article.
Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision.
The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom.
I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article.
Posted by: Fred on 9:09am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]lionel[/bold] wrote:
Hmm, 80 objectors at the meeting, so where were the other alleged 1500+ ? Sounds like a phony war to me.[/quote] The Echo is saying because it doesn't know how many of those 80 are not even related to Woolston by where they work or live. Rent a mob more like.
lionel wrote:
Hmm, 80 objectors at the meeting, so where were the other alleged 1500+ ? Sounds like a phony war to me.
The Echo is saying because it doesn't know how many of those 80 are not even related to Woolston by where they work or live. Rent a mob more like.
Posted by: To be fair on 9:12am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]nimby hater[/bold] wrote:
Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article. [/quote] 20 or 30 people at a demonstration is not non existant is it? He didn't state numbers, just said that the demos were noisy.
I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due to your feelings about the subject.
I don't see how Matt's article is grossly inaccurate
nimby hater wrote:
Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article.
20 or 30 people at a demonstration is not non existant is it? He didn't state numbers, just said that the demos were noisy.
I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due to your feelings about the subject.
I don't see how Matt's article is grossly inaccurate
Posted by: I and I on 9:14am Tue 19 Aug 08
Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum?
Watch this space
Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum?
Watch this space
Posted by: Matthew, Woolston on 9:16am Tue 19 Aug 08
Mr. Middleton, I think it's time you did one of two things. Either step down and let this one be or work [italic]with[/italic] the developers rather than against them to ensure this development is executed in the best manner possible.
You clearly have worked very hard to this point and are passionate about the subject but I feel your efforts would now be better spent on ensuring this development as good as it can be rather than wasting energy on something which cannot be overturned.
Mr. Middleton, I think it's time you did one of two things. Either step down and let this one be or work
with the developers rather than against them to ensure this development is executed in the best manner possible.
You clearly have worked very hard to this point and are passionate about the subject but I feel your efforts would now be better spent on ensuring this development as good as it can be rather than wasting energy on something which cannot be overturned.
Posted by: Fred on 9:16am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote:
Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space[/quote] Plans are already well developed around the UK for the Government to step in and buy up all sorts of flats to a) help the building firms, b) spend out of recession and c) secure votes from the underclass who will be promised these flats for their votes at the General Election.
I and I wrote:
Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space
Plans are already well developed around the UK for the Government to step in and buy up all sorts of flats to a) help the building firms, b) spend out of recession and c) secure votes from the underclass who will be promised these flats for their votes at the General Election.
Posted by: Fred on 9:19am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Matthew[/bold] wrote:
Mr. Middleton, I think it's time you did one of two things. Either step down and let this one be or work [italic]with[/italic] the developers rather than against them to ensure this development is executed in the best manner possible. You clearly have worked very hard to this point and are passionate about the subject but I feel your efforts would now be better spent on ensuring this development as good as it can be rather than wasting energy on something which cannot be overturned.[/quote] Perhaps he should be offered a seat on the Board of the development company?
Matthew wrote:
Mr. Middleton, I think it's time you did one of two things. Either step down and let this one be or work with the developers rather than against them to ensure this development is executed in the best manner possible. You clearly have worked very hard to this point and are passionate about the subject but I feel your efforts would now be better spent on ensuring this development as good as it can be rather than wasting energy on something which cannot be overturned.
Perhaps he should be offered a seat on the Board of the development company?
Posted by: I and I on 9:20am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Fred[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won\'t sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space[/quote] Plans are already well developed around the UK for the Government to step in and buy up all sorts of flats to a) help the building firms, b) spend out of recession and c) secure votes from the underclass who will be promised these flats for their votes at the General Election.[/quote] I assume by 'underclass' you mean Pikey Scum? ;-)
Fred wrote:
I and I wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won\'t sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space
Plans are already well developed around the UK for the Government to step in and buy up all sorts of flats to a) help the building firms, b) spend out of recession and c) secure votes from the underclass who will be promised these flats for their votes at the General Election.
I assume by 'underclass' you mean Pikey Scum? ;-)
Posted by: You are an idiot on 9:24am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote:
Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space[/quote] Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.
I and I wrote:
Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space
Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.
Posted by: The Coup, Woolston on 9:36am Tue 19 Aug 08
I think all those in support should overthrow Andrew Middleton and all those NIMBYS that form WCA...
I for one would like to see WCA work with the developers to make the site something to be proud of! Also I think a community association should be looking to take the lead in improving the area e.g. improving play facilities, better youth facilities, tackling anti-social behaviour and developing community pride....
Anyone want to join me in a coup to overthrow them?
I think all those in support should overthrow Andrew Middleton and all those NIMBYS that form WCA...
I for one would like to see WCA work with the developers to make the site something to be proud of! Also I think a community association should be looking to take the lead in improving the area e.g. improving play facilities, better youth facilities, tackling anti-social behaviour and developing community pride....
Anyone want to join me in a coup to overthrow them?
Posted by: Comrade Commie, Communist UK on 10:23am Tue 19 Aug 08
Of course it was going to get passed. It was written in stone way before any objections. I was in Woolston yesterday and the work was going on then. YOU won't stop it. Greed is at work here and the greedy b'stards won't let you get in the way. IT SUCKS!!
Of course it was going to get passed. It was written in stone way before any objections. I was in Woolston yesterday and the work was going on then. YOU won't stop it. Greed is at work here and the greedy b'stards won't let you get in the way. IT SUCKS!!
Posted by: I and I on 10:37am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]You are an idiot[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space[/quote] Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.[/quote] sorry, I'm not pikey scum.
What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It's because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with 'chip-eaters'.
I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting.
You are an idiot wrote:
I and I wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space
Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.
sorry, I'm not pikey scum.
What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It's because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with 'chip-eaters'.
I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting.
Posted by: Mr E, Eastleigh on 10:58am Tue 19 Aug 08
Who is going to fork out for an executive flat with a panoramic view of woolston sewage farm?
Who is going to fork out for an executive flat with a panoramic view of woolston sewage farm?
Posted by: You are an idiot on 11:04am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]You are an idiot[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space[/quote] Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.[/quote] sorry, I'm not pikey scum. What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It's because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with 'chip-eaters'. I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting. [/quote] Just a racist idiot then.
I and I wrote:
You are an idiot wrote: I and I wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space
Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.
sorry, I'm not pikey scum. What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It's because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with 'chip-eaters'. I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting.
Just a racist idiot then.
Posted by: Anon, Southampton on 11:06am Tue 19 Aug 08
Nice to see Southampton City Council listens to it's residents.
Perhaps we shoulds all stop paying our council tax. All 1,639...
I'm sure they'd quickly change their minds then!
Nice to see Southampton City Council listens to it's residents.
Perhaps we shoulds all stop paying our council tax. All 1,639...
I'm sure they'd quickly change their minds then!
Posted by: Bob444, Southampton on 11:10am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote] a whopping 1,639 objections - a total exceeding even the complaints received over the St Mary's Stadium plans almost a decade ago.[/quote]
The planners ignored the People's wishes then, too. What's the point of us expressing our objections when those planners (who are supposed to be out servants, and are paid by us) just bow down to big business.
a whopping 1,639 objections - a total exceeding even the complaints received over the St Mary's Stadium plans almost a decade ago.
The planners ignored the People's wishes then, too. What's the point of us expressing our objections when those planners (who are supposed to be out servants, and are paid by us) just bow down to big business.
Posted by: ern, southampton on 11:14am Tue 19 Aug 08
Peartree green, Millers pond & Weston shore are all former council Landfill sites.
Southampton has been dumping its rubbish this side of the river ever since it absorbed it in 1920.
Nothing has changed.
Peartree green, Millers pond & Weston shore are all former council Landfill sites.
Southampton has been dumping its rubbish this side of the river ever since it absorbed it in 1920.
Nothing has changed.
Posted by: Osama Bin Laden, A Cave far far away on 11:15am Tue 19 Aug 08
Rupert Lowe Is Behind This
Rupert Lowe Is Behind This
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 11:19am Tue 19 Aug 08
well all woolston can do now is to blockade the entrance, you son see how much support they have then.
well all woolston can do now is to blockade the entrance, you son see how much support they have then.
Posted by: mr.southampton, Southampton on 11:36am Tue 19 Aug 08
whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the development, after all something has to be built there (and calls for 'family homes' translates as a call for homogenous, middle class suburbia rather than those rough people who live in flats, take drugs or as another commentator puts it 'eat chips') but I do feel the benefits to Woolston as a whole have been overplayed.
There are a lot of parrallels with the Docklands development in London, 20 or so years ago where a large chunk of land, previously occupied by a major employer of people from the adjacent working-class neighbourhood which had grown around the docks had become disused.
Unfortunately aside from what is now a flash middle class enclave the neighbouring community on the Isle of Dogs has seen little benefit in terms of jobs, education or living conditions.
Permission for this deveopment has now been granted so it's time for the locals who opposed the development to start to figure how the plans can be made to deliver real improvements to Woolston in employment, healthcare, opportunities etc.
I guess developers and Government have learnt lessons from Docklands (incidentally Janet Foster's book is a great view on how the community missed out on the 'regeneration' and a good starting point for any local campaigner) but it's up to the community to make sure that elected officials are serving their interests.
whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the development, after all something has to be built there (and calls for 'family homes' translates as a call for homogenous, middle class suburbia rather than those rough people who live in flats, take drugs or as another commentator puts it 'eat chips') but I do feel the benefits to Woolston as a whole have been overplayed.
There are a lot of parrallels with the Docklands development in London, 20 or so years ago where a large chunk of land, previously occupied by a major employer of people from the adjacent working-class neighbourhood which had grown around the docks had become disused.
Unfortunately aside from what is now a flash middle class enclave the neighbouring community on the Isle of Dogs has seen little benefit in terms of jobs, education or living conditions.
Permission for this deveopment has now been granted so it's time for the locals who opposed the development to start to figure how the plans can be made to deliver real improvements to Woolston in employment, healthcare, opportunities etc.
I guess developers and Government have learnt lessons from Docklands (incidentally Janet Foster's book is a great view on how the community missed out on the 'regeneration' and a good starting point for any local campaigner) but it's up to the community to make sure that elected officials are serving their interests.
Posted by: mr s, soton on 11:43am Tue 19 Aug 08
i am very happy that these proposals have now been given the green light. woolsten residents need to wake up. this developemtn will completely rejuvinate the whole area.
well done the council. very smart move.
i am very happy that these proposals have now been given the green light. woolsten residents need to wake up. this developemtn will completely rejuvinate the whole area.
well done the council. very smart move.
Posted by: john cook, woolston on 11:46am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Anon[/bold] wrote:
Nice to see Southampton City Council listens to it's residents. Perhaps we shoulds all stop paying our council tax. All 1,639... I'm sure they'd quickly change their minds then![/quote] well done to the council, now we get rid of the woolston ghetto. no doubt most people who live in southampton will be for this development. why should we listen to a minority of whingeing nimbys.
Anon wrote:
Nice to see Southampton City Council listens to it's residents. Perhaps we shoulds all stop paying our council tax. All 1,639... I'm sure they'd quickly change their minds then!
well done to the council, now we get rid of the woolston ghetto. no doubt most people who live in southampton will be for this development. why should we listen to a minority of whingeing nimbys.
Posted by: In the know on 12:03pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Anon[/bold] wrote:
Nice to see Southampton City Council listens to it's residents. Perhaps we shoulds all stop paying our council tax. All 1,639... I'm sure they'd quickly change their minds then![/quote] The Police are about to check those 1639 signatures to see if any fraud took place.
Anon wrote:
Nice to see Southampton City Council listens to it's residents. Perhaps we shoulds all stop paying our council tax. All 1,639... I'm sure they'd quickly change their minds then!
The Police are about to check those 1639 signatures to see if any fraud took place.
Posted by: I and I on 12:06pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]You are an idiot[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]You are an idiot[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space[/quote] Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.[/quote] sorry, I'm not pikey scum. What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It's because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with 'chip-eaters'. I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting. [/quote] Just a racist idiot then.[/quote] Wrong again. 'Chip eaters' are not a race.
I would accept you calling me a snob though (if you need a hand to get it right)
You are an idiot wrote:
I and I wrote: You are an idiot wrote: I and I wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space
Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.
sorry, I'm not pikey scum. What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It's because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with 'chip-eaters'. I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting.
Just a racist idiot then.
Wrong again. 'Chip eaters' are not a race.
I would accept you calling me a snob though (if you need a hand to get it right)
Posted by: Another Nimby Hater, Woolston on 1:44pm Tue 19 Aug 08
The biggest surprise in all this is that for once SCC have actually made a sensible decision !!!! The very vocal protesters are very much in the minority locally, I guess the council gauged public opinion properly.
The remaining local businesses now have a straw to hold onto that Woolston still has a future for them - who knows, maybe the WCA might actually visit the "community" it claims to represent and use some of them now and again .
The biggest surprise in all this is that for once SCC have actually made a sensible decision !!!! The very vocal protesters are very much in the minority locally, I guess the council gauged public opinion properly.
The remaining local businesses now have a straw to hold onto that Woolston still has a future for them - who knows, maybe the WCA might actually visit the "community" it claims to represent and use some of them now and again .
Posted by: fed up with snobbery, .... on 1:45pm Tue 19 Aug 08
wow betide any of the classist idiots on this site that ever get into any financial issues and end up with reposession of the middle class suburb house that are so loved. The way this economy is going it is highly likely that some WILL end up on council estates that are so despised and will also be branded as chip eating scum by the snobby people you aspire to be. It will be interesting to see how you react to the torrent of abuse given then. It smells of racism, like it or not and is disgusting, bigoted behaviour.
wow betide any of the classist idiots on this site that ever get into any financial issues and end up with reposession of the middle class suburb house that are so loved. The way this economy is going it is highly likely that some WILL end up on council estates that are so despised and will also be branded as chip eating scum by the snobby people you aspire to be. It will be interesting to see how you react to the torrent of abuse given then. It smells of racism, like it or not and is disgusting, bigoted behaviour.
Posted by: SAvewoolston, Woolston-Southampton on 1:54pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Woolston Resident[/bold] wrote:
I'm not sure the Echo are being even-handed in the reporting of these
"protestors". You keep talking about these "noisy rallys" but fail to
inform readers they were attended by only a couple of dozen people.
The decision has been made. The development will be built. I believe
that many people in Woolston are glad it is progressing. Just happens
that people in favour don't go courting publicity like the WCA do.
And anyway, what have the WCA ever done for Woolston? Please could they
tell us what facilities they have improved in the area?[/quote] I was at the meeting yesterday and two things became very apparent. The Chair felt he was about to loose the case, so he called in Palmer Johnston to basically explain that. " We might pull out of the whole deal if you do not let this go ahead." So the debate is not really about just the housing development it is about regenerating the whole area. And no one wants to stop the commersial side because the reality is we do need the regeration the whole of the WCA development section wants that.
Personally I blame the council planners for bad planning. Kevin Westgate should have had the balls to turn around and say yes I think there is an issue with the roads- perhaps Crest you should consider building less housing. The Design girl was shaddy and even though realising that shading and public space was an issue she never said- perhaps Crest you should build less houses. I am ofe with Crests work and I applaud you for Bristol- you did well. But buy the land and dont build that amount of housing please...our future is in your hands.
Woolston Resident wrote:
I'm not sure the Echo are being even-handed in the reporting of these
"protestors". You keep talking about these "noisy rallys" but fail to
inform readers they were attended by only a couple of dozen people.
The decision has been made. The development will be built. I believe
that many people in Woolston are glad it is progressing. Just happens
that people in favour don't go courting publicity like the WCA do.
And anyway, what have the WCA ever done for Woolston? Please could they
tell us what facilities they have improved in the area?
I was at the meeting yesterday and two things became very apparent. The Chair felt he was about to loose the case, so he called in Palmer Johnston to basically explain that. " We might pull out of the whole deal if you do not let this go ahead." So the debate is not really about just the housing development it is about regenerating the whole area. And no one wants to stop the commersial side because the reality is we do need the regeration the whole of the WCA development section wants that.
Personally I blame the council planners for bad planning. Kevin Westgate should have had the balls to turn around and say yes I think there is an issue with the roads- perhaps Crest you should consider building less housing. The Design girl was shaddy and even though realising that shading and public space was an issue she never said- perhaps Crest you should build less houses. I am ofe with Crests work and I applaud you for Bristol- you did well. But buy the land and dont build that amount of housing please...our future is in your hands.
Posted by: SAvewoolston, Woolston-Southampton on 2:01pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]nimby hater[/bold] wrote:
Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the
grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision.
The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most.
There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and
the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless,
it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to
get there 15mins. of stardom.
I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced
article.
[/quote] Okay so lets get started then. Debbie Aplin and the slimy guy from seeda...I personally invite you to our WCA Development section meeting tonight or in a fortnight from 20.00pm with stickers that say 20mph for all of us to put on our dustbins and help the community start getting to grips with the 20mph speed restrictions that you want to impose.
Then tell us in real terms how we can work together and please then have the courtesy to listen... we are the best source of knowledge you have here
nimby hater wrote:
Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the
grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision.
The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most.
There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and
the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless,
it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to
get there 15mins. of stardom.
I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced
article.
Okay so lets get started then. Debbie Aplin and the slimy guy from seeda...I personally invite you to our WCA Development section meeting tonight or in a fortnight from 20.00pm with stickers that say 20mph for all of us to put on our dustbins and help the community start getting to grips with the 20mph speed restrictions that you want to impose.
Then tell us in real terms how we can work together and please then have the courtesy to listen... we are the best source of knowledge you have here
Posted by: Jane Foster, Woolston-Southampton on 2:03pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Woolston Resident[/bold] wrote:
I\\\\\\\'m not sure the Echo are being even-handed in the reporting of these
\\\\\\\"protestors\\\\\\\". You keep talking about these \\\\\\\"noisy rallys\\\\\\\" but fail to
inform readers they were attended by only a couple of dozen people.
The decision has been made. The development will be built. I believe
that many people in Woolston are glad it is progressing. Just happens
that people in favour don\\\\\\\'t go courting publicity like the WCA do.
And anyway, what have the WCA ever done for Woolston? Please could they
tell us what facilities they have improved in the area?[/quote] I was at the meeting yesterday and two things became very apparent. The Chair felt he was about to loose the case, so he called in Palmer Johnston to basically explain that. " We might pull out of the whole deal if you do not let this go ahead." So the debate is not really about just the housing development it is about regenerating the whole area. And no one wants to stop the commersial side because the reality is we do need the regeration the whole of the WCA development section wants that.
Personally I blame the council planners for bad planning. Kevin Westgate should have had the balls to turn around and say yes I think there is an issue with the roads- perhaps Crest you should consider building less housing. The Design girl was shaddy and even though realising that shading and public space was an issue she never said- perhaps Crest you should build less houses. I am ofe with Crests work and I applaud you for Bristol- you did well. But buy the land and dont build that amount of housing please...our future is in your hands.
Woolston Resident wrote:
I\\\\'m not sure the Echo are being even-handed in the reporting of these
\\\\\\\"protestors\\\\\\\". You keep talking about these \\\\\\\"noisy rallys\\\\\\\" but fail to
inform readers they were attended by only a couple of dozen people.
The decision has been made. The development will be built. I believe
that many people in Woolston are glad it is progressing. Just happens
that people in favour don\\\\'t go courting publicity like the WCA do.
And anyway, what have the WCA ever done for Woolston? Please could they
tell us what facilities they have improved in the area?
I was at the meeting yesterday and two things became very apparent. The Chair felt he was about to loose the case, so he called in Palmer Johnston to basically explain that. " We might pull out of the whole deal if you do not let this go ahead." So the debate is not really about just the housing development it is about regenerating the whole area. And no one wants to stop the commersial side because the reality is we do need the regeration the whole of the WCA development section wants that.
Personally I blame the council planners for bad planning. Kevin Westgate should have had the balls to turn around and say yes I think there is an issue with the roads- perhaps Crest you should consider building less housing. The Design girl was shaddy and even though realising that shading and public space was an issue she never said- perhaps Crest you should build less houses. I am ofe with Crests work and I applaud you for Bristol- you did well. But buy the land and dont build that amount of housing please...our future is in your hands.
Posted by: Jane Foster, Woolston-Southampton on 2:14pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]To be fair[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]nimby hater[/bold] wrote:
Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the
grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The
demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is
overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider
community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers
to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there
15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and
write a balanced article. [/quote] 20 or 30 people at a demonstration
is not non existant is it? He didn't state numbers, just said that the
demos were noisy. I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due
to your feelings about the subject.
I don't see how Matt's article is grossly inaccurate[/quote] Why are you so pathetic?
Matt Smith is an absolutely brilliant journalist!
Matt works in Southampton and certainly must know and understand the ill feeling about the density of housing on this estate. He reflected public feeling and animosity in a very truthful light all the way through. He lives in Southampton.
Seeda who will (I pray) will be out after the next election anyway- have had no regard throughout for the community and callings of concern about the construction aspects of the site or the density, congestion and parking problems, they have been too obsessed with money and greed. When never considering in reality maybe this is not what the taxpayers wants or that it won`t work.
Crest is`nt silly they will buy the land and build according to demand. By then hopefully this country will have a new government that cares about the local community and treats them as kowledgeable professionals that they are and not a bunch of noisy idiots!
I must say...I am pleased this is all over and look forward to working with Crest to achieve their goals- especially the ones that are non-greed based
To be fair wrote:
nimby hater wrote:
Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the
grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The
demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is
overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider
community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers
to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there
15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and
write a balanced article.
20 or 30 people at a demonstration
is not non existant is it? He didn't state numbers, just said that the
demos were noisy. I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due
to your feelings about the subject.
I don't see how Matt's article is grossly inaccurate
Why are you so pathetic?
Matt Smith is an absolutely brilliant journalist!
Matt works in Southampton and certainly must know and understand the ill feeling about the density of housing on this estate. He reflected public feeling and animosity in a very truthful light all the way through. He lives in Southampton.
Seeda who will (I pray) will be out after the next election anyway- have had no regard throughout for the community and callings of concern about the construction aspects of the site or the density, congestion and parking problems, they have been too obsessed with money and greed. When never considering in reality maybe this is not what the taxpayers wants or that it won`t work.
Crest is`nt silly they will buy the land and build according to demand. By then hopefully this country will have a new government that cares about the local community and treats them as kowledgeable professionals that they are and not a bunch of noisy idiots!
I must say...I am pleased this is all over and look forward to working with Crest to achieve their goals- especially the ones that are non-greed based
Posted by: I and I on 2:51pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]fed up with snobbery[/bold] wrote:
wow betide any of the classist idiots on this site that ever get into any financial issues and end up with reposession of the middle class suburb house that are so loved. The way this economy is going it is highly likely that some WILL end up on council estates that are so despised and will also be branded as chip eating scum by the snobby people you aspire to be. It will be interesting to see how you react to the torrent of abuse given then. It smells of racism, like it or not and is disgusting, bigoted behaviour.[/quote] I hate pikey scum regardless of whether they are Black or White. I don't have any problem with people that live on council estates, just the ones that are anti social, fraudulently claiming benefits and bringing down the areas in which they live. When this developments starts getting filled up with them you will hate them too.
When will you and this government realise that this country is going down the toilet because of the pandering to the above types?
Britain is a mess because of it's lazy, ignorant, scrounging chav underclass.
Go and get your second portion of chips
fed up with snobbery wrote:
wow betide any of the classist idiots on this site that ever get into any financial issues and end up with reposession of the middle class suburb house that are so loved. The way this economy is going it is highly likely that some WILL end up on council estates that are so despised and will also be branded as chip eating scum by the snobby people you aspire to be. It will be interesting to see how you react to the torrent of abuse given then. It smells of racism, like it or not and is disgusting, bigoted behaviour.
I hate pikey scum regardless of whether they are Black or White. I don't have any problem with people that live on council estates, just the ones that are anti social, fraudulently claiming benefits and bringing down the areas in which they live. When this developments starts getting filled up with them you will hate them too.
When will you and this government realise that this country is going down the toilet because of the pandering to the above types?
Britain is a mess because of it's lazy, ignorant, scrounging chav underclass.
Go and get your second portion of chips
Posted by: To be fair on 2:53pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Jane Foster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]To be fair[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]nimby hater[/bold] wrote: Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article. [/quote] 20 or 30 people at a demonstration is not non existant is it? He didn't state numbers, just said that the demos were noisy. I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due to your feelings about the subject. I don't see how Matt's article is grossly inaccurate[/quote] Why are you so pathetic? Matt Smith is an absolutely brilliant journalist! Matt works in Southampton and certainly must know and understand the ill feeling about the density of housing on this estate. He reflected public feeling and animosity in a very truthful light all the way through. He lives in Southampton. Seeda who will (I pray) will be out after the next election anyway- have had no regard throughout for the community and callings of concern about the construction aspects of the site or the density, congestion and parking problems, they have been too obsessed with money and greed. When never considering in reality maybe this is not what the taxpayers wants or that it won`t work. Crest is`nt silly they will buy the land and build according to demand. By then hopefully this country will have a new government that cares about the local community and treats them as kowledgeable professionals that they are and not a bunch of noisy idiots! I must say...I am pleased this is all over and look forward to working with Crest to achieve their goals- especially the ones that are non-greed based[/quote] I thought I was sticking up for Matt??? was that not clear?
Jane Foster wrote:
To be fair wrote: nimby hater wrote: Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article.
20 or 30 people at a demonstration is not non existant is it? He didn't state numbers, just said that the demos were noisy. I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due to your feelings about the subject. I don't see how Matt's article is grossly inaccurate
Why are you so pathetic? Matt Smith is an absolutely brilliant journalist! Matt works in Southampton and certainly must know and understand the ill feeling about the density of housing on this estate. He reflected public feeling and animosity in a very truthful light all the way through. He lives in Southampton. Seeda who will (I pray) will be out after the next election anyway- have had no regard throughout for the community and callings of concern about the construction aspects of the site or the density, congestion and parking problems, they have been too obsessed with money and greed. When never considering in reality maybe this is not what the taxpayers wants or that it won`t work. Crest is`nt silly they will buy the land and build according to demand. By then hopefully this country will have a new government that cares about the local community and treats them as kowledgeable professionals that they are and not a bunch of noisy idiots! I must say...I am pleased this is all over and look forward to working with Crest to achieve their goals- especially the ones that are non-greed based
I thought I was sticking up for Matt??? was that not clear?
Posted by: what truth? on 2:55pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]You are an idiot[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space[/quote] Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.[/quote] sorry, I'm not pikey scum.
What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It's because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with 'chip-eaters'.
I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting. [/quote] How are you stating the truth? You're giving us your prediction of what might happen. You said "who wants to bet...". You didn't even claim it was a truth at the time, so why defend it as if it was after the fact? Silly boy! (but not idiotic)
I and I wrote:
You are an idiot wrote:
I and I wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won't sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space
Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.
sorry, I'm not pikey scum.
What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It's because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with 'chip-eaters'.
I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting.
How are you stating the truth? You're giving us your prediction of what might happen. You said "who wants to bet...". You didn't even claim it was a truth at the time, so why defend it as if it was after the fact? Silly boy! (but not idiotic)
Posted by: King Mush, Woolston on 3:06pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote:
Who is going to fork out for an executive flat with a panoramic view of woolston sewage farm?[/quote] Me
Mr E wrote:
Who is going to fork out for an executive flat with a panoramic view of woolston sewage farm?
Me
Posted by: keep lookin behind you, ha ha on 3:19pm Tue 19 Aug 08
Build and keep building, the masses will always whine about something,cant wait to see it done myself. Just hope they dont put a bus route to it
Build and keep building, the masses will always whine about something,cant wait to see it done myself. Just hope they dont put a bus route to it
Posted by: mattb, Woolston on 3:42pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]mr.southampton[/bold] wrote:
whilst I don\'t necessarily disagree with the development, after all something has to be built there (and calls for \'family homes\' translates as a call for homogenous, middle class suburbia rather than those rough people who live in flats, take drugs or as another commentator puts it \'eat chips\') but I do feel the benefits to Woolston as a whole have been overplayed. There are a lot of parrallels with the Docklands development in London, 20 or so years ago where a large chunk of land, previously occupied by a major employer of people from the adjacent working-class neighbourhood which had grown around the docks had become disused. Unfortunately aside from what is now a flash middle class enclave the neighbouring community on the Isle of Dogs has seen little benefit in terms of jobs, education or living conditions. Permission for this deveopment has now been granted so it\'s time for the locals who opposed the development to start to figure how the plans can be made to deliver real improvements to Woolston in employment, healthcare, opportunities etc. I guess developers and Government have learnt lessons from Docklands (incidentally Janet Foster\'s book is a great view on how the community missed out on the \'regeneration\' and a good starting point for any local campaigner) but it\'s up to the community to make sure that elected officials are serving their interests. [/quote] You can hardly compare Woolston 2008 to the Isle of Dogs 1981. IOD had tenements and about 15% unemployment.
There are however some similarities with the [italic]process[/italic] and response to the proposals. Whilst the LDDC didn't listen to what the Isle of Dogs community were saying, likewise the community put the barriers up as soon as any change was suggested ("Yuppies out" and all that). Ironically here it is the other way around ("Chip-eaters out"?).
You can blame the Council as much as you want, but whatever is eventually built on the VT site is reliant on the community's acceptance of it to make it work.
Otherwise it will become a standalone community resulting in no benefit to existing people whatsoever.
The problem that has blighted Woolston as a neighbourhood centre over the past decade, and perhaps since the floating bridge closed, is that it has no passing trade. No one needs to pass through it and local people can bypass it to get into town or out to Tescos. As a result retailers struggle to reach critical mass and start to close down.
Waterside Park helped to a certain degree by creating some more passing trade through woolston, but the further increase in local population as a result of this new development will increase local spend and help the local centre.
Sure, there are transport issues which will need to be addressed, but there always are. The new road layout should work well and protect existing residential streets from congestion.
All in all I am delighted that this has been approved, and am looking forward to watching this being developed, and woolston becoming the more vibrant neighbourhood centre it should be.
mr.southampton wrote:
whilst I don\'t necessarily disagree with the development, after all something has to be built there (and calls for \'family homes\' translates as a call for homogenous, middle class suburbia rather than those rough people who live in flats, take drugs or as another commentator puts it \'eat chips\') but I do feel the benefits to Woolston as a whole have been overplayed. There are a lot of parrallels with the Docklands development in London, 20 or so years ago where a large chunk of land, previously occupied by a major employer of people from the adjacent working-class neighbourhood which had grown around the docks had become disused. Unfortunately aside from what is now a flash middle class enclave the neighbouring community on the Isle of Dogs has seen little benefit in terms of jobs, education or living conditions. Permission for this deveopment has now been granted so it\'s time for the locals who opposed the development to start to figure how the plans can be made to deliver real improvements to Woolston in employment, healthcare, opportunities etc. I guess developers and Government have learnt lessons from Docklands (incidentally Janet Foster\'s book is a great view on how the community missed out on the \'regeneration\' and a good starting point for any local campaigner) but it\'s up to the community to make sure that elected officials are serving their interests.
You can hardly compare Woolston 2008 to the Isle of Dogs 1981. IOD had tenements and about 15% unemployment.
There are however some similarities with the
process and response to the proposals. Whilst the LDDC didn't listen to what the Isle of Dogs community were saying, likewise the community put the barriers up as soon as any change was suggested ("Yuppies out" and all that). Ironically here it is the other way around ("Chip-eaters out"?).
You can blame the Council as much as you want, but whatever is eventually built on the VT site is reliant on the community's acceptance of it to make it work.
Otherwise it will become a standalone community resulting in no benefit to existing people whatsoever.
The problem that has blighted Woolston as a neighbourhood centre over the past decade, and perhaps since the floating bridge closed, is that it has no passing trade. No one needs to pass through it and local people can bypass it to get into town or out to Tescos. As a result retailers struggle to reach critical mass and start to close down.
Waterside Park helped to a certain degree by creating some more passing trade through woolston, but the further increase in local population as a result of this new development will increase local spend and help the local centre.
Sure, there are transport issues which will need to be addressed, but there always are. The new road layout should work well and protect existing residential streets from congestion.
All in all I am delighted that this has been approved, and am looking forward to watching this being developed, and woolston becoming the more vibrant neighbourhood centre it should be.
Posted by: clair, VT on 3:57pm Tue 19 Aug 08
When one reads most of the blogs it will only decide the Government that we are losing our heads. just what they want - a big man on a white charger decides for us all. that is how we are controlled.
clair
When one reads most of the blogs it will only decide the Government that we are losing our heads. just what they want - a big man on a white charger decides for us all. that is how we are controlled.
clair
Posted by: wheres the breaks?, southampton on 4:38pm Tue 19 Aug 08
i suspect the long term plan is to knock down the weston flats to rehouse there,and build luxury marina and flats at weston.[bold]bold[/bold]
i suspect the long term plan is to knock down the weston flats to rehouse there,and build luxury marina and flats at weston.
Posted by: chaos magick, the vatican on 4:53pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]keep lookin behind you[/bold] wrote:
Build and keep building, the masses will always whine about something,cant wait to see it done myself. Just hope they dont put a bus route to it[/quote] nonse.[bold]bold[/bold]
keep lookin behind you wrote:
Build and keep building, the masses will always whine about something,cant wait to see it done myself. Just hope they dont put a bus route to it
nonse.
Posted by: Finlay, Des Moines, Iowa on 5:01pm Tue 19 Aug 08
The area adjacent to VT had been developed some years ago. On the closure of VT it was already decided it would be good for housing and the people of Woolston were offered to view proposals.
An author wrote on this forum correctly that VT had 5000 people a day going to work at the site and now considerably less were going to live there but the people are squinnying at this. Most odd!
The developer has a major headache afore them in decontaminating the site first - Next they have the responsibility of achaelogical responsibilites as the banks of the Itchen were sites of the oldest inhabitants to these shores ever and then produce a skyline that says "WOW!" to all the affluent land and sea visitors with the money to afford the homes.
It will be a big project to get right and the envy of many. Ocean Village changed a scumbag zone of the city and now a $million wont get you in the place. Woolston is next.
...unless you like the minging views of the derilect site like the NIMBY's posting here are trying to protect.
The area adjacent to VT had been developed some years ago. On the closure of VT it was already decided it would be good for housing and the people of Woolston were offered to view proposals.
An author wrote on this forum correctly that VT had 5000 people a day going to work at the site and now considerably less were going to live there but the people are squinnying at this. Most odd!
The developer has a major headache afore them in decontaminating the site first - Next they have the responsibility of achaelogical responsibilites as the banks of the Itchen were sites of the oldest inhabitants to these shores ever and then produce a skyline that says "WOW!" to all the affluent land and sea visitors with the money to afford the homes.
It will be a big project to get right and the envy of many. Ocean Village changed a scumbag zone of the city and now a $million wont get you in the place. Woolston is next.
...unless you like the minging views of the derilect site like the NIMBY's posting here are trying to protect.
Posted by: Wewullywinky on 5:08pm Tue 19 Aug 08
Well lets hope this up and coming resession puts a quash on these plans.
Well lets hope this up and coming resession puts a quash on these plans.
Posted by: Neale, Woolston on 5:34pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]You are an idiot[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]You are an idiot[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won\'t sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space[/quote] Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.[/quote] sorry, I\'m not pikey scum. What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It\'s because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with \'chip-eaters\'. I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting. [/quote] Just a racist idiot then.[/quote] Wrong again. \'Chip eaters\' are not a race. I would accept you calling me a snob though (if you need a hand to get it right) [/quote] You two will be getting your handbags out in a minute!
I and I wrote:
You are an idiot wrote: I and I wrote: You are an idiot wrote: I and I wrote: Who wants to bet the flats won\'t sell, the council will get hold of them and will fill them with Pikey scum? Watch this space
Look on the bright side, at least it will mean a place for you and your family to live.
sorry, I\'m not pikey scum. What is idiotic about stating the truth? It happens with developments all over the country. Why else would developers be keen to build flats knowing they will be hard to sell given the current state of the economy? It\'s because they know they can be bailed out by the councils who will then fill them with \'chip-eaters\'. I feel sorry for the Woolston residents and suspect that is the REAL reason they are objecting.
Just a racist idiot then.
Wrong again. \'Chip eaters\' are not a race. I would accept you calling me a snob though (if you need a hand to get it right)
You two will be getting your handbags out in a minute!
Posted by: paul gadd, southampton on 5:36pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]chaos magick[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]keep lookin behind you[/bold] wrote: Build and keep building, the masses will always whine about something,cant wait to see it done myself. Just hope they dont put a bus route to it[/quote] nonse.[bold]bold[/bold] [/quote] hello,hello,good to be back in the company of nonces like me.[bold]bold[/bold]
chaos magick wrote:
keep lookin behind you wrote: Build and keep building, the masses will always whine about something,cant wait to see it done myself. Just hope they dont put a bus route to it
nonse.
hello,hello,good to be back in the company of nonces like me.
Posted by: Andrew, Southampton on 6:15pm Tue 19 Aug 08
The days of developers selling daft people "luxury flats" has gone banks just wont back new build in Southampton.
If banks wont lend people will have to put more of their own money in and why do this as a 2 bed here is clearly not even worth £100,000.
Crest will have a job suckering people into put large amounts of their own cash in now lenders wont lend on more than a couple of new builds in a block.
Why would a investor buy one? As even £100,000 needs 20% down leaving £80,000 to be funded, leaves a buy to let mortgage of about £420pcm and a service charge of around £100 a month which makes £520 a month.
Then rent it for £600 and pay a 10% agents fee leaving you £540per month and tyou make a whopping £20 per month!!! This proves this will not happen.
Ocean village has flats for £120,000 and Chapel for £90,000 now . I am sure it costs more to build in Woolston than what the end product is worth.
The days of developers selling daft people "luxury flats" has gone banks just wont back new build in Southampton.
If banks wont lend people will have to put more of their own money in and why do this as a 2 bed here is clearly not even worth £100,000.
Crest will have a job suckering people into put large amounts of their own cash in now lenders wont lend on more than a couple of new builds in a block.
Why would a investor buy one? As even £100,000 needs 20% down leaving £80,000 to be funded, leaves a buy to let mortgage of about £420pcm and a service charge of around £100 a month which makes £520 a month.
Then rent it for £600 and pay a 10% agents fee leaving you £540per month and tyou make a whopping £20 per month!!! This proves this will not happen.
Ocean village has flats for £120,000 and Chapel for £90,000 now . I am sure it costs more to build in Woolston than what the end product is worth.
Posted by: Robert Foster, Highfield on 6:42pm Tue 19 Aug 08
This is what's going to happen in Woolston.
http://www.itvlocal.
com/border/news/?pla
yer=BOR_News_15&void
=223725
This is what's going to happen in Woolston.
http://www.itvlocal.
com/border/news/?pla
yer=BOR_News_15&void
=223725
Posted by: David, Dibden Purlieu on 7:25pm Tue 19 Aug 08
As it was originally an industrial site, and the local residents did not want it to be used for housing, surely the answer would have been to have dredged the channel and used it as an overflow Container Port.
As it was originally an industrial site, and the local residents did not want it to be used for housing, surely the answer would have been to have dredged the channel and used it as an overflow Container Port.
Posted by: DENZIL, Chilworth on 10:50pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Jane Foster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]To be fair[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]nimby hater[/bold] wrote: Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article. [/quote] 20 or 30 people at a demonstration is not non existant is it? He didn\'t state numbers, just said that the demos were noisy. I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due to your feelings about the subject. I don\'t see how Matt\'s article is grossly inaccurate[/quote] Why are you so pathetic? Matt Smith is an absolutely brilliant journalist! Matt works in Southampton and certainly must know and understand the ill feeling about the density of housing on this estate. He reflected public feeling and animosity in a very truthful light all the way through. He lives in Southampton. Seeda who will (I pray) will be out after the next election anyway- have had no regard throughout for the community and callings of concern about the construction aspects of the site or the density, congestion and parking problems, they have been too obsessed with money and greed. When never considering in reality maybe this is not what the taxpayers wants or that it won`t work. Crest is`nt silly they will buy the land and build according to demand. By then hopefully this country will have a new government that cares about the local community and treats them as kowledgeable professionals that they are and not a bunch of noisy idiots! I must say...I am pleased this is all over and look forward to working with Crest to achieve their goals- especially the ones that are non-greed based[/quote] The very fact Matt works at the echo contradicts you're claim he is a brilliant journalist.
He may support your cause, but a brilliant journalist, no. He covered an ongoing story, nothing more.
Jane Foster wrote:
To be fair wrote: nimby hater wrote: Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article.
20 or 30 people at a demonstration is not non existant is it? He didn\'t state numbers, just said that the demos were noisy. I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due to your feelings about the subject. I don\'t see how Matt\'s article is grossly inaccurate
Why are you so pathetic? Matt Smith is an absolutely brilliant journalist! Matt works in Southampton and certainly must know and understand the ill feeling about the density of housing on this estate. He reflected public feeling and animosity in a very truthful light all the way through. He lives in Southampton. Seeda who will (I pray) will be out after the next election anyway- have had no regard throughout for the community and callings of concern about the construction aspects of the site or the density, congestion and parking problems, they have been too obsessed with money and greed. When never considering in reality maybe this is not what the taxpayers wants or that it won`t work. Crest is`nt silly they will buy the land and build according to demand. By then hopefully this country will have a new government that cares about the local community and treats them as kowledgeable professionals that they are and not a bunch of noisy idiots! I must say...I am pleased this is all over and look forward to working with Crest to achieve their goals- especially the ones that are non-greed based
The very fact Matt works at the echo contradicts you're claim he is a brilliant journalist.
He may support your cause, but a brilliant journalist, no. He covered an ongoing story, nothing more.
Posted by: SAvewools101, Woolston-Southampton on 12:17am Wed 20 Aug 08
But an extremely important claim,,,the density and type of housing is unsustainable...ever
y councillor agreed to that... we are not in this for finger pointing, We have a very important governmental claim, to raise!
But an extremely important claim,,,the density and type of housing is unsustainable...ever
y councillor agreed to that... we are not in this for finger pointing, We have a very important governmental claim, to raise!
Posted by: True Blue, Fareham on 8:23am Wed 20 Aug 08
[quote][bold]DENZIL[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Jane Foster[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]To be fair[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]nimby hater[/bold] wrote: Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article. [/quote] 20 or 30 people at a demonstration is not non existant is it? He didn\'t state numbers, just said that the demos were noisy. I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due to your feelings about the subject. I don\'t see how Matt\'s article is grossly inaccurate[/quote] Why are you so pathetic? Matt Smith is an absolutely brilliant journalist! Matt works in Southampton and certainly must know and understand the ill feeling about the density of housing on this estate. He reflected public feeling and animosity in a very truthful light all the way through. He lives in Southampton. Seeda who will (I pray) will be out after the next election anyway- have had no regard throughout for the community and callings of concern about the construction aspects of the site or the density, congestion and parking problems, they have been too obsessed with money and greed. When never considering in reality maybe this is not what the taxpayers wants or that it won`t work. Crest is`nt silly they will buy the land and build according to demand. By then hopefully this country will have a new government that cares about the local community and treats them as kowledgeable professionals that they are and not a bunch of noisy idiots! I must say...I am pleased this is all over and look forward to working with Crest to achieve their goals- especially the ones that are non-greed based[/quote] The very fact Matt works at the echo contradicts you're claim he is a brilliant journalist. He may support your cause, but a brilliant journalist, no. He covered an ongoing story, nothing more.[/quote] If that is Dozey Denzil's 'considered opinion', then, with his track record, I would have to agree with you Jane.
To sum up Denzil's post, 'A Mutt's opinion on Matt!'
DENZIL wrote:
Jane Foster wrote: To be fair wrote: nimby hater wrote: Is this balanced journalism. Matt Smith should be ashamed of the grossly inaccurate reporting of events running up to the decision. The demonstrations were non-existent….20 or 30 people at the most. There is overwhelming support for the scheme from both residents and the wider community. I’m not sure where the anger was vented, unless, it refers to a couple of NIMBYs who have their own agendas and need to get there 15mins. of stardom. I know it is the silly season, but please try and write a balanced article.
20 or 30 people at a demonstration is not non existant is it? He didn\'t state numbers, just said that the demos were noisy. I feel you are unfairly criticising his article due to your feelings about the subject. I don\'t see how Matt\'s article is grossly inaccurate
Why are you so pathetic? Matt Smith is an absolutely brilliant journalist! Matt works in Southampton and certainly must know and understand the ill feeling about the density of housing on this estate. He reflected public feeling and animosity in a very truthful light all the way through. He lives in Southampton. Seeda who will (I pray) will be out after the next election anyway- have had no regard throughout for the community and callings of concern about the construction aspects of the site or the density, congestion and parking problems, they have been too obsessed with money and greed. When never considering in reality maybe this is not what the taxpayers wants or that it won`t work. Crest is`nt silly they will buy the land and build according to demand. By then hopefully this country will have a new government that cares about the local community and treats them as kowledgeable professionals that they are and not a bunch of noisy idiots! I must say...I am pleased this is all over and look forward to working with Crest to achieve their goals- especially the ones that are non-greed based
The very fact Matt works at the echo contradicts you're claim he is a brilliant journalist. He may support your cause, but a brilliant journalist, no. He covered an ongoing story, nothing more.
If that is Dozey Denzil's 'considered opinion', then, with his track record, I would have to agree with you Jane.
To sum up Denzil's post, 'A Mutt's opinion on Matt!'
Posted by: fed up with the snobbery, ..... on 12:33pm Wed 20 Aug 08
[quote][bold]I and I[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]fed up with snobbery[/bold] wrote: wow betide any of the classist idiots on this site that ever get into any financial issues and end up with reposession of the middle class suburb house that are so loved. The way this economy is going it is highly likely that some WILL end up on council estates that are so despised and will also be branded as chip eating scum by the snobby people you aspire to be. It will be interesting to see how you react to the torrent of abuse given then. It smells of racism, like it or not and is disgusting, bigoted behaviour.[/quote] I hate pikey scum regardless of whether they are Black or White. I don't have any problem with people that live on council estates, just the ones that are anti social, fraudulently claiming benefits and bringing down the areas in which they live. When this developments starts getting filled up with them you will hate them too. When will you and this government realise that this country is going down the toilet because of the pandering to the above types? Britain is a mess because of it's lazy, ignorant, scrounging chav underclass. Go and get your second portion of chips [/quote] Your obvious lack of intelligence is disturbing and doesnt even warrant a comment, except to say that i stand by my original comment and that I too also have issue (not hate) with people that abuse the system however this is not confined to council estates as you seem to suggest. go grow a brain.
I and I wrote:
fed up with snobbery wrote: wow betide any of the classist idiots on this site that ever get into any financial issues and end up with reposession of the middle class suburb house that are so loved. The way this economy is going it is highly likely that some WILL end up on council estates that are so despised and will also be branded as chip eating scum by the snobby people you aspire to be. It will be interesting to see how you react to the torrent of abuse given then. It smells of racism, like it or not and is disgusting, bigoted behaviour.
I hate pikey scum regardless of whether they are Black or White. I don't have any problem with people that live on council estates, just the ones that are anti social, fraudulently claiming benefits and bringing down the areas in which they live. When this developments starts getting filled up with them you will hate them too. When will you and this government realise that this country is going down the toilet because of the pandering to the above types? Britain is a mess because of it's lazy, ignorant, scrounging chav underclass. Go and get your second portion of chips
Your obvious lack of intelligence is disturbing and doesnt even warrant a comment, except to say that i stand by my original comment and that I too also have issue (not hate) with people that abuse the system however this is not confined to council estates as you seem to suggest. go grow a brain.
Posted by: an outside observer, South Coast on 2:03pm Wed 20 Aug 08
The Woolston development appears to have lost the plot.
First priority is to provide jobs for the existing residents of the area. There is a big backlog to make up before more housing is built to bring in more people. Woolston will import and house more people than jobs created so despite the numbers promised the overall result will be a step backwards.
The water's edge providing decent quay access is far too valuable an asset to be wasted providing housing. It is space that should be used for jobs and earning money for the local economy for many years, not a quick buck for a property developer. Waterfront industry can move large quantities in an out by sea without cluttering up or overcrowded roads with wide loads.
We need to maintain a solid industrial base, without it there are no foundations for "High Tech" to survive. High tech survival relies upon successive layers beneath of progressively lower tech industry that politicians would rather not talk about. Without that base our higher tech industries will be steadily eroded by China etc until there is nothing let in the UK beyond a Banker and a Property Developer. Then who is left to keep them in business?
So the nature of the Woolston development is completely wrong. It should be 100% industry creating jobs on the site and securing jobs in the local companies such as machine shops who are currently struggling to survive. When the backlog of desperately needed jobs is eliminated then and only then should exotic hosing developoments be considered. But unfortunately that only gives prosperity to the poor and does not line the pockets of get rich quick property developers and their hangers on.
The Woolston development appears to have lost the plot.
First priority is to provide jobs for the existing residents of the area. There is a big backlog to make up before more housing is built to bring in more people. Woolston will import and house more people than jobs created so despite the numbers promised the overall result will be a step backwards.
The water's edge providing decent quay access is far too valuable an asset to be wasted providing housing. It is space that should be used for jobs and earning money for the local economy for many years, not a quick buck for a property developer. Waterfront industry can move large quantities in an out by sea without cluttering up or overcrowded roads with wide loads.
We need to maintain a solid industrial base, without it there are no foundations for "High Tech" to survive. High tech survival relies upon successive layers beneath of progressively lower tech industry that politicians would rather not talk about. Without that base our higher tech industries will be steadily eroded by China etc until there is nothing let in the UK beyond a Banker and a Property Developer. Then who is left to keep them in business?
So the nature of the Woolston development is completely wrong. It should be 100% industry creating jobs on the site and securing jobs in the local companies such as machine shops who are currently struggling to survive. When the backlog of desperately needed jobs is eliminated then and only then should exotic hosing developoments be considered. But unfortunately that only gives prosperity to the poor and does not line the pockets of get rich quick property developers and their hangers on.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
