2112 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 The NPM is leading a news article about a proposal to build a hotel next to the new Liverpool Ferry Terminal. Why is it really news? Unless IOM taxpayers are in line for a windfall, which go some way towards the costs? It’s the likes of the private apartments and hotels in the vicinity which put the brakes on any freight going through the ferry terminal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfc84 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) 2 minutes ago, 2112 said: The NPM is leading a news article about a proposal to build a hotel next to the new Liverpool Ferry Terminal. Why is it really news? Unless IOM taxpayers are in line for a windfall, which go some way towards the costs? It’s the likes of the private apartments and hotels in the vicinity which put the brakes on any freight going through the ferry terminal. Furthermore the hotel site is freehold. Yet the passenger ferry terminal is leasehold. Edited June 20 by lfc84 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted June 20 Author Share Posted June 20 3 minutes ago, 2112 said: The NPM is leading a news article about a proposal to build a hotel next to the new Liverpool Ferry Terminal. Why is it really news? Unless IOM taxpayers are in line for a windfall, which go some way towards the costs? It’s the likes of the private apartments and hotels in the vicinity which put the brakes on any freight going through the ferry terminal. I bet it wouldn't cost £100M though....🤭 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxman2000 Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 On 6/20/2024 at 4:27 PM, lfc84 said: Furthermore the hotel site is freehold. Yet the passenger ferry terminal is leasehold. Yet again screwed by Peel Ports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 3 hours ago, Manxman2000 said: Yet again screwed by Peel Ports. Not necessarily. Who is, in effect, the Port of Liverpool Authority? Not sure they can permanently dispose of sites involving river frontage, harbour or dock wall. They have a statutory duty to maintain or oversee maintenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Lamb Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 5 hours ago, John Wright said: Not necessarily. Who is, in effect, the Port of Liverpool Authority? Not sure they can permanently dispose of sites involving river frontage, harbour or dock wall. They have a statutory duty to maintain or oversee maintenance. MDHC is the Port of Liverpool Authority, and Peel owns MDHC. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1992/10/enacted Look at 9.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 5 hours ago, Harry Lamb said: MDHC is the Port of Liverpool Authority, and Peel owns MDHC. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1992/10/enacted Look at 9.1 ‘Twas rhetorical. And that’s why they could only lease to IoMG but can sell the hotel site freehold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 If Peel ports have a statutory duty to upkeep their property why the f%$k did it cost us £15/20/53 million to shore up their dock, if it was not fit for the purpose we bought in for surely that would be down to them to rectifie. Oh look here comes the Manx Government, you know that bit of waterfront thats going to fall into the Mersey yeah that one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 Have they said what the yearly staffing and running costs are ? ...... or don't they know that yet ? surely that forms part of the business plan ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Poppins Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 On 6/24/2024 at 6:41 AM, Dirty Buggane said: If Peel ports have a statutory duty to upkeep their property why the f%$k did it cost us £15/20/53 million to shore up their dock, if it was not fit for the purpose we bought in for surely that would be down to them to rectifie. Oh look here comes the Manx Government, you know that bit of waterfront thats going to fall into the Mersey yeah that one. Because DOI know best. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 And just to rectify that statement, The DOI KNOW JACK SHIT. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 On 6/24/2024 at 6:41 AM, Dirty Buggane said: If Peel ports have a statutory duty to upkeep their property why the f%$k did it cost us £15/20/53 million to shore up their dock, if it was not fit for the purpose we bought in for surely that would be down to them to rectifie. Oh look here comes the Manx Government, you know that bit of waterfront thats going to fall into the Mersey yeah that one. Buyer beware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 On 6/24/2024 at 6:41 AM, Dirty Buggane said: If Peel ports have a statutory duty to upkeep their property why the f%$k did it cost us £15/20/53 million to shore up their dock, if it was not fit for the purpose we bought in for surely that would be down to them to rectifie. Oh look here comes the Manx Government, you know that bit of waterfront thats going to fall into the Mersey yeah that one. It was fit for purpose, and pre existing usage, as it was. IoMG changed the purpose and usage by building a ro-ro berth which would be subject to very powerful side thruster action direct against the quayside wall. The first lot of engineers who consulted, the Americans, calculated using Manannan leaving Douglas, straight ahead, with very little push off. Whereas on the Mersey it’s a tight turn with full thrust. When the “truth” came out there were red faces, lots of recalculation, and lots more underwater protection required. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 36 minutes ago, John Wright said: It was fit for purpose, and pre existing usage, as it was. IoMG changed the purpose and usage by building a ro-ro berth which would be subject to very powerful side thruster action direct against the quayside wall. The first lot of engineers who consulted, the Americans, calculated using Manannan leaving Douglas, straight ahead, with very little push off. Whereas on the Mersey it’s a tight turn with full thrust. When the “truth” came out there were red faces, lots of recalculation, and lots more underwater protection required. Americans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted June 25 Author Share Posted June 25 53 minutes ago, John Wright said: It was fit for purpose, and pre existing usage, as it was. IoMG changed the purpose and usage by building a ro-ro berth which would be subject to very powerful side thruster action direct against the quayside wall. The first lot of engineers who consulted, the Americans, calculated using Manannan leaving Douglas, straight ahead, with very little push off. Whereas on the Mersey it’s a tight turn with full thrust. When the “truth” came out there were red faces, lots of recalculation, and lots more underwater protection required. Precisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.