Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Non-Believer]

21 minutes ago, asitis said:

I understood it was not a freight port ! If I'm wrong apologies.

From memory, conditions placed by LCC stipulate an emergency-only use of the facility for freight, this was always one of the bones of contention when it was revealed?

[James Blonde]

1 minute ago, joebean said:

Isn’t the freight issue a bit of a red herring? I don’t think the old Liverpool pier could handle freight either. It’s only an issue if you think that £70m+ of expenditure should lead to an improvement on the current position. The issue here is not really the freight capability but the fact that the cost estimate, that the initial decision to proceed was based on, was so seriously flawed. I want to know why and how such an error was made, who is responsible for this act of apparent gross incompetence, why subsequent “updates” to the costs were inaccurate or misrepresented and what will be done about it. If we pursue other, less relevant, avenues of enquiry the real issue at the centre of this will be lost. 

The facility offered by Peel Ports would have been capable of handling freight.. so really it's a bit of a upgrade to a downgrade of our current situation. 

It's £70m+ that need not have been spent in the first place. 

[Lost Login]

13 minutes ago, James Blonde said:

The facility offered by Peel Ports would have been capable of handling freight.. so really it's a bit of a upgrade to a downgrade of our current situation. 

It's £70m+ that need not have been spent in the first place. 

For somebody who only a couple of days ago was claiming that you had seen "claims that Peel Ports offered to build a brand new facility (at their cost) just a bit further up river" but where not sure if they were true you now seem to absolutely certain what was on the table.

I have no idea but what is being built is capable of handling freight. It is the planning permission that is placing restrictions on the use for freight. Why would planning permission have been any different just because it was Peel Port who were going to build a facility in pretty much the same place?

I have no idea why the costs of the project have increased so much, we need to see the report that will be produced for Tynwald. It may be Government or departmental incompetence. It may be that it was incompetence on the part of the advisors, engineers. It may be that matters came to light that nobody could have reasonably foreseen at the time. Possibly a mixture of all.

What I am 99% sure of is that Peel Port would have ensured that there costs of building etc would have been covered. You would have expected to see that there were contingencies for cost increases. They would probably have the matter dealt with by a wholly owned subsidiary which they could see go to the wall if they wanted to. Transfer the land into "paid" for by a secured loan and the parent company would have a charge over the land so could reclaim if the subsidiary collapsed. 

The idea that Peel Port would have left themselves at risk of building the facility for another party and being out of pocket is madness. The only party with a gun to their head over this was the IoM in that they either built or had the facility built at whatever the costs or had no facility on the Mersey. Peel Ports would have been happy to sat on the land and use for something else in the long term.

The genuine questions are how much does the IoM want a facility in Liverpool, why the costings have increased so much and what went wrong. If those costs are roughly in the right ball park, I have no idea if they are, the idea that another party would have built for the original costings is fantasy. They would have ensured they were covered as it was IoM that was really over a barrel if they were to continue to have a facility on the Mersey as apparently there were no other options.  

 

 

 

[Non-Believer]

10 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

I can only hope that the new Minister and acting CEO of DoI, and the new project people working for us in Liverpool are able to bring this online without your second question being realised.

Your answer is appreciated Stu but the fact that you have used the word "hope" speaks volumes here. We've voted to throw more money at a wing and a prayer here in the "hope" that it's not going to cost any more. That and political expediency and to save possible embarrassment.

Would it not have been better to come up with some firm figures for the completion  of the project before voting further funding rather than putting ourselves "in the pipe" on a potentially open-ended commitment in respect of both time and further money? No private sector concern would operate or continue a project on these terms, surely?

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

For somebody who only a couple of days ago was claiming that you had seen "claims that Peel Ports offered to build a brand new facility (at their cost) just a bit further up river" but where not sure if they were true you now seem to absolutely certain what was on the table.

I have no idea but what is being built is capable of handling freight. It is the planning permission that is placing restrictions on the use for freight. Why would planning permission have been any different just because it was Peel Port who were going to build a facility in pretty much the same place?

I have no idea why the costs of the project have increased so much, we need to see the report that will be produced for Tynwald. It may be Government or departmental incompetence. It may be that it was incompetence on the part of the advisors, engineers. It may be that matters came to light that nobody could have reasonably foreseen at the time. Possibly a mixture of all.

What I am 99% sure of is that Peel Port would have ensured that there costs of building etc would have been covered. You would have expected to see that there were contingencies for cost increases. They would probably have the matter dealt with by a wholly owned subsidiary which they could see go to the wall if they wanted to. Transfer the land into "paid" for by a secured loan and the parent company would have a charge over the land so could reclaim if the subsidiary collapsed. 

The idea that Peel Port would have left themselves at risk of building the facility for another party and being out of pocket is madness. The only party with a gun to their head over this was the IoM in that they either built or had the facility built at whatever the costs or had no facility on the Mersey. Peel Ports would have been happy to sat on the land and use for something else in the long term.

The genuine questions are how much does the IoM want a facility in Liverpool, why the costings have increased so much and what went wrong. If those costs are roughly in the right ball park, I have no idea if they are, the idea that another party would have built for the original costings is fantasy. They would have ensured they were covered as it was IoM that was really over a barrel if they were to continue to have a facility on the Mersey as apparently there were no other options.  

 

 

 

Seems there is some guessing going on with Mr Blonde

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, James Blonde said:

The facility offered by Peel Ports would have been capable of handling freight.. so really it's a bit of a upgrade to a downgrade of our current situation. 

 

Can you substantiate this?

As far as I know both facilities would be able to handle freight in an emergency

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, joebean said:

Isn’t the freight issue a bit of a red herring? I don’t think the old Liverpool pier could handle freight either. It’s only an issue if you think that £70m+ of expenditure should lead to an improvement on the current position. The issue here is not really the freight capability but the fact that the cost estimate, that the initial decision to proceed was based on, was so seriously flawed. I want to know why and how such an error was made, who is responsible for this act of apparent gross incompetence, why subsequent “updates” to the costs were inaccurate or misrepresented and what will be done about it. If we pursue other, less relevant, avenues of enquiry the real issue at the centre of this will be lost. 

The old Pier Head cannot handle freight I don't think. A large van maybe but I think the link span has a weight limit, the corner is tight to the boat  and is very steep and narrow., but Birkenhead can though.

[finlo]

5 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

The old Pier Head cannot handle freight I don't think. A large van maybe but I think the link span has a weight limit, the corner is tight to the boat  and is very steep and narrow., but Birkenhead can though.

I thought Birkenhead was out due to the design of their new linkspans?

[Two-lane]

11 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

But I voted for the extra funding because to have done otherwise would have wasted £40m+ already spent (and on contract penalty clauses)

The decision to spend more or lose everything is not one that is difficult to make.

This problem, and Douglas prom. and the silt and ..... just about everything are not caused by an act of God, but by people. THAT is the problem that needs to be solved, because those people are going to continue to screw things up.

Is there anyone in gov. who intends to do that?

Actually, those people are not the real problem - the people who selected these people are the ultimate problem.

Who thought Ann Reynolds knew anything about harbour silt? Or that Malcolm Couch with 26 years experience in tax and finance knew how to run a health service. And as for Nick Black - I received an email from him that I would class as semi-coherent drivel - he could not even frame a simple email. Yet someone thought he was capable of running a department with an annual budget of £120 million.

[Kopek]

Are Liverpool still pressing ahead with their Cruise Terminal? Or has the cruise market cooled to the point that they may abandon it?

[Lost Login]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Your answer is appreciated Stu but the fact that you have used the word "hope" speaks volumes here. We've voted to throw more money at a wing and a prayer here in the "hope" that it's not going to cost any more. That and political expediency and to save possible embarrassment.

Would it not have been better to come up with some firm figures for the completion  of the project before voting further funding rather than putting ourselves "in the pipe" on a potentially open-ended commitment in respect of both time and further money? No private sector concern would operate or continue a project on these terms, surely?

I am not exactly SPs biggest fan but what else can he do but hope. He is only a back bench MHK and has little if any control over the matter. As such all he can do, is based on information provided to him, make a decision and vote accordingly. Having done that it is out of his hands and if, for whatever reason, those in charge say we need £x to complete the only ay in the matter he has is to vote against any request. The day to day management and control is not something that SP has any control over.

[Happier diner]

49 minutes ago, finlo said:

I thought Birkenhead was out due to the design of their new linkspans?

Perhaps. To be honest I don't know. I seem to remember something about that not being an option. It's a strange one though as there is a Stena freight ship every 12 hours to Northern Island.  Unless that has stopped and everything is through cairnryan

[finlo]

10 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Perhaps. To be honest I don't know. I seem to remember something about that not being an option. It's a strange one though as there is a Stena freight ship every 12 hours to Northern Island.  Unless that has stopped and everything is through cairnryan

Stenna still use it but have gone to double decker linkspans for speed of loading/unloading.

[Non-Believer]

32 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I am not exactly SPs biggest fan but what else can he do but hope. He is only a back bench MHK and has little if any control over the matter. As such all he can do, is based on information provided to him, make a decision and vote accordingly. Having done that it is out of his hands and if, for whatever reason, those in charge say we need £x to complete the only ay in the matter he has is to vote against any request. The day to day management and control is not something that SP has any control over.

I wasn't referring to Stu individually; I was suggesting that his use of the word "hope" is indicative of the whole situation. The problem is that those in charge don't seem to know that the £x voted is yet what we need to complete. There's another 18 months of project to go yet, there may be more funding yet required. Given the way that costs have escalated to date, would you bet against it?

[Andy Onchan]

54 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I am not exactly SPs biggest fan but what else can he do but hope. He is only a back bench MHK and has little if any control over the matter. As such all he can do, is based on information provided to him, make a decision and vote accordingly. Having done that it is out of his hands and if, for whatever reason, those in charge say we need £x to complete the only ay in the matter he has is to vote against any request. The day to day management and control is not something that SP has any control over.

What I haven't seen yet, from any MHK that frequents this forum, is an admission that they have been party to any detailed financial information surrounding the overruns on costs. Which can only lead me to believe that they have been told to STFU and nod it through as the real story behind this is way beyond anything that could be called a "national embarrassment" (from the start to where we are now).

The word "strategic" is liberally peppered in IOMG documentation for projects such as this but it's clear that whatever strategy was applied has gone badly awry from day one.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Andy Onchan