Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Derek Flint]

27 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No, it wasn’t. It became unavailable after the alterations to the link spans to accommodate the e-flexer ferries that Stena have purchased. They have a double decker ramp to load/unload two decks at once.

More than that we’ve only ever used for 3 hours a week. Single berthing between 12.30 and 14.00 on Saturdays and Sundays for 5 months a year. That’s very different to twice a day for 4 months of the year and once a day for 3 months a year and twice a week for the rest.

That's just Stena showing off. But I wonder if there had been a bit of negotiation and say, ten million as a sweetener, the linkspan could  have been modified?

11 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Public transport is very poor. The road links aren’t good. Fleetwood is even worse than Morecambe and Heysham.

The dredging would be expensive and continuous. The link span needs total replacement. There are no passenger facilities.

Heysham with Bay Gateway link to M6, and updated terminal, beats everywhere in the North West. Anywhere else is seasonal low volume. It’s the latter point that wasn’t considered. 

Because it’s low volume it’s not economic for us to develop or anyone else to provide.

Spot on. Getting from Fleetwood by road to anywhere other than Cleveleys isn't getting any better! They are building a new 'bypass' from Skippool to Windy Harbour that simply moves the traffic between the two pinch points a little bit faster. Until they build a proper road right out to the M55 it won't get better. Some hope on the rail side though, with the feasibility for the resurrection of the line to Poulton now complete, and a competing 'tram loop' scheme which would create a Metro type system for Fylde and Wyre.

 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, ptarmigan said:

Birkenhead was a perfectly viable option, but no, it had to be Liverpool.     I like the fact you can do a day trip to Liverpool and walk straight off the boat at the liver building....but I’m not sure I like it at any cost....

And the new terminal is a fair old way from liverpool 1. It's either taxi, bus or long walk. Those heavy primark bags wont carry themselves.

[The Chief]

its simple the MHK's and senior civil servants think Morecambe and Lancaster are shit for daytrip jollies and since they seem to cream themselves anytime the island and Liverpool are mentioned in the same sentence it was always obvious they were going to splurge a stupid amount of cash on this.

[TheTeapot]

24 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

And the new terminal is a fair old way from liverpool 1. It's either taxi, bus or long walk. Those heavy primark bags wont carry themselves.

It really isn't.

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

It really isn't.

Its 800m further. Fine for me but imagine 4 primark bags and a belly full of Malibu cocktails 😁

[The Chief]

2 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Its 800m further. Fine for me but imagine 4 primark bags and a belly full of Malibu cocktails 😁

that artists 'impression' is terrible ,it doesn't make any sense when you see the cars lined up ready to go on the boat. a fucking 5 year old could do better and it wouldn't have cost £50,000, just some poster paints from Deals.

[Non-Believer]

I think there's two issues here. Firstly, PP's decision to redevelop the original landing stage area left IoMG/SPCo between a rock and a hard place with few options.

Long-time traditional ferry links with Liverpool and also now contemporary ties (footy and shopping opportunities, for instance) and major transport links meant that there was always going to be pressure on to maintain the status quo, I think that's a fair point.

But secondly, that has been cynically exploited by PP who identified the opportunity to offload a piece of the most useless, unwanted, contaminated land in their portfolio to that buyer with too much money, too few options and clearly too little experience in the requirements of ports (if Lars Ugland's opinions are anything to put stock by), and are now continuing to exploit that situation now by adding on extras as we go.

IoMG needs to wise up and start saying no because there will be no end to this. Start playing hardball and if necessary cut losses and walk away. At the end of the day it's only leasehold as well.

By the posted footage we'll be very lucky to see that facility open by TT next year as it is, let alone by the time we've finished trying to sate PP's appetite for free infrastructure improvement.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Non-Believer
typo

[The Duck of Atholl]

7 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I think there's two issues here. Firstly, PP's decision to redevelop the original landing stage area left IoMG/SPCo between a rock and a hard place with few options.

Long-time traditional ferry links with Liverpool and also now contemporary ties (footy and shopping opportunities, for instance) and major transport links meant that there was always going to be pressure on to maintain the status quo, I think that's a fair point.

But secondly, that has been cynically exploited by PP who identified the opportunity to offload a piece of the most useless, unwanted, contaminated land in their portfolio to that buyer with too much money, too few options and clearly too little experience in the requirements of ports (if Lars Ugland's opinions are anything to put stock by), and are now continuing to exploit that situation now by adding on extras as we go.

IoMG needs to wise up and start saying no because there will be no end to this. Start playing hardball and if necessary cut losses and walk away. At the end of the day it's only leasehold as well.

By the posted footage we'll be very lucky to see that facility open by TT next year as it is, let alone by the time we've finished trying to sate PP's appetite for free infrastructure improvement.

Absolutely correct but there is no opportunity for wising up and saying no. The ink on the lease is dry and whatever obligations we've signed up to no matter how onerous are now our problem for however many decades to come. Also if it isn't in the lease and we need it... then that will be extra.

[Andy Onchan]

11 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I think there's two issues here. Firstly, PP's decision to redevelop the original landing stage area left IoMG/SPCo between a rock and a hard place with few options.

Long-time traditional ferry links with Liverpool and also now contemporary ties (footy and shopping opportunities, for instance) and major transport links meant that there was always going to be pressure on to maintain the status quo, I think that's a fair point.

But secondly, that has been cynically exploited by PP who identified the opportunity to offload a piece of the most useless, unwanted, contaminated land in their portfolio to that buyer with too much money, too few options and clearly too little experience in the requirements of ports (if Lars Ugland's opinions are anything to put stock by), and are now continuing to exploit that situation now by adding on extras as we go.

IoMG needs to wise up and start saying no because there will be no end to this. Start playing hardball and if necessary cut losses and walk away. At the end of the day it's only leasehold as well.

By the posted footage we'll be very lucky to see that facility open by TT next year as it is, let alone by the time we've finished trying to sate PP's appetite for free infrastructure improvement.

Without searching on the UK Land Registry website, is PPs the actual freeholder of the site or is that still vested in Liverpool Council? I thought Liverpool Council bounced PPs into developing the Cruise Terminal for the City?

[SleepyJoe]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

And the new terminal is a fair old way from liverpool 1. It's either taxi, bus or long walk. Those heavy primark bags wont carry themselves.

Mayor Joe promised a bus I think

Would be good advertising for IOMSPC to have a small electric bus in their colours whisking shoppers up to John Lewis

[Happier diner]

21 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

Mayor Joe promised a bus I think

Would be good advertising for IOMSPC to have a small electric bus in their colours whisking shoppers up to John Lewis

Yes I remember the early news stories saying there would need to be a bus.

[Declan]

16 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Sounds like I’ve met the brief then?

You should change your user name, all the worst posters reference Dickensian villains in their user names. 

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Without searching on the UK Land Registry website, is PPs the actual freeholder of the site or is that still vested in Liverpool Council? I thought Liverpool Council bounced PPs into developing the Cruise Terminal for the City?

PP is the freeholder, or one of their subsidiaries. The bought Mersey Docks & Harbour Company Limited as successor to Mersey Docks & Harbour Board. Just like they bought Manchester Ship Canal Company to obtain Dumplington.

Liverpool City has never owned the docks/water front. Yes, they campaigned for the ferry terminal and lobbied the EU for funding ( you’ll recall one of the reasons the SPCo  was supposedly not allowed to use the cruise facilities was that IOM wasn’t in the EU and so couldn’t benefit - however the real reason was that neither Liverpool, nor Peel, nor the cruise lines wanted dirty little Manx boats and the Great Manx Unwashed messing up their brand new glass & steel terminal by coming and going and potentially blocking big boats from arriving ).

[snowman]

A couple of videos of the site

https://youtu.be/WzKgsEZHWqA

 

https://youtu.be/24jyOV4weZY

 

[Albert Tatlock]

Jebus...we've signed a blank cheque here. £60m my current guess now.