Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[John Wright]

23 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

It's not been hindsight though Rhumsaa, people were predicting that this would happen from the very inception which itself predates this thread by 4 years. That IoM Gov and by implication the taxpayers, would be taken on a financial jolly without end by PP who had plenty of previous.

So it has proved to be, from an initial "no cost to the Manx taxpayer", up through £3M, £15M, to where we are now, anywhere between £41M and £53M depending on what Govt "erroneously" releases, with Baker suggesting that there will be more, certainly unable to refute it. Extra dredging, contaminated land, now bomb disposal as well. Now we are reinforcing PP's quayside for them too against potential damage from our maneuvering vessels. I wonder if PP stipulate this from other operators too?

All for a terminal development that we cannot put freight through and now, if what is suggested on these posts is correct, has a lease on the land of only 90 years. These costs are ludicrous when taken in that context.

The Govt should have examined all other options in depth including Holyhead, or construction possibilities in other ports, Liverpool is not the be-all and end-all. In 90 years time we may be doing it all again anyway if PP deem it so.

You’ve got to compare the upsides and downsides of revenue and capital expenditure and security.

We've had continuance of service security issues at Liverpool for years. Essentially since transatlantic liners stopped using the landing stage. We piggy backed their usage.

Every time the facilities needed upgrading we’ve had to pay or contribute and we paid a landing/handling fee for each arrival/departure.

Peel and Liverpool City/Region decided to extend the cruise terminal and berthing as the existing floating pontoon is at end of life. More money in cruises. So we were going to be moved anyway.

Yes, Peel offered to build a terminal for free. They’d have wanted the cost ( including value of land and development ) and profit back over 25-30 years. We’d have signed up to use it for that period. £2-£3 million a year. For >200,000 passengers a year.

So, £10-15 per passenger.

What happens in 25 or 30 years. Over a barrel.

Taking a long lease and build yourself has attractions. May work out cheaper in long term. At least IOM is in control. But they didn’t weigh up and cost the options, in my opinion. No landing charges.

Its a bit like Heathrow. We seem to want an air link at any cost. Liverpool we want a sea link terminal at any cost.

£5 million on a new terminal at Heysham, the Bay Gateway, and pay for dredging at Heysham every couple of years and pay for/subsidise  a proper rail or bus link to meet all boats could have been much more realistic.

For those suggesting other destinations, where? Fleetwood silted. No facilities. Not even a functioning link span. Access transport links dreadful. Holyhead not a realistic proposition. It’s effectively full. Yes, emergency freight. And whilst the A55 North Wales Expressway is better than it once was its 2 hours to the M6 and if you think Heysham is the arsehole of ports with no shops and nothing to do, Holyhead is little different.

[TerryFuchwit]

I assume there may be some income opportunities to sublet the facility to other traffic potentially.

[asitis]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

£5 million on a new terminal at Heysham, the Bay Gateway, and pay for dredging at Heysham every couple of years and pay for/subsidise  a proper rail or bus link to meet all boats could have been much more realistic.

Agreed John, desirability and affordability are two different things !

[John Wright]

Just now, TerryFuchwit said:

I assume there may be some income opportunities to sublet the facility to other traffic potentially.

Who else operates sub 140m RoPax? 

[asitis]

Just now, TerryFuchwit said:

I assume there may be some income opportunities to sublet the facility to other traffic potentially.

May have made more commercial sense with freight handling, but without freight I don't see massive opportunities to sublet for passengers !

[TerryFuchwit]

1 minute ago, asitis said:

May have made more commercial sense with freight handling, but without freight I don't see massive opportunities to sublet for passengers !

It's a very active port.  Wouldn't surprise me if opportunities arose.

Seems like the current approach is the better one (assuming one believes in Liverpool as a destination).

[the stinking enigma]

The brown envelope bill alone must be quite substantial.

[the stinking enigma]

Chuck in a couple of million to actually build the thing, i can see this costing upwards of 60 mill by the end of it.

[Holte End]

19 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Sure, find a bomb on land you’ve leased, your responsibility. Was the bomb on the land, or on the riverbed mud?

 

It is strange that it is the first time it has been reported anywhere, You think it would have at least made borded news or manx radio.

It could it, be all in the minds of PC sums 

 

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, asitis said:

Board Meeting NW England .........

STAFF ...Oh morning sir, we've surveyed the land on the dockside and we think there will be lots of issues with necessary repairs and without doubt WW2 ordnance.

SIR ..... I take it that will be costly to remedy

STAFF .... Sadly yes sir

SIR ........ So what you're telling me is, we need a real bunch of muppets to purchase the site and pay all our costs for us, no matter how costly or commercially unfeasible it gets.

STAFF .... I guess that's about it yes.

SIR ....... Leave it with me !

 

I didn't get where I am....esque

[Mistercee]

6 hours ago, The Old Git said:

Do you have much experience of commercial leases?

The tenant is often responsible for repairs, renews, insurance, unlike renting a domestic property where you just phone them landlord to sort it. 

Obviously more experience than you!!! There is a vast difference between a full repairing and insuring lease on a commercial property and a long lease on land upon which to build a property. If you are going to build on leased land common sense should tell you to ensure that you are not taking on potentially onerous obligations. Building on old industrial land is always fraught with potential contamination problems from former uses so it would be interesting to find out if they had a land contamination survey done before agreeing the lease. This would also have picked up the potential for UXB's.      

[ellanvannin2010]

The whole project only made sense if it was able to be used all year as our main port for freight and passengers.

 

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

The whole project only made sense if it was able to be used all year as our main port for freight and passengers.

 

That was never on the cards

[ellanvannin2010]

Just now, John Wright said:

That was never on the cards

Well then better to do as you suggested and spend the money on improving Heysham port and its  sea and land access

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, the stinking enigma said:

Chuck in a couple of million to actually build the thing, i can see this costing upwards of 60 mill by the end of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was well upward of £60M.

IF one considers the Barber Tynwald question figure to be accurate (but released in "error") it was £53M. Now we have Baker quoting another £5M, so potentially £58M.

Then we have this bit to consider from the same iomtoday report; who knows where it could end? It's that word "substantial"....

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Non-Believer
extra bit