Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[finlo]

11 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Thinking about it, didn’t the entire new boat only cost £78m? 

This must be a posh ferry terminal we’re getting. 

I heard a rumor that we don't need a new boat as the terminal is so singing and dancing that it can sail us here without a ferry!

[The Voice of Reason]

26 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

6 yard box, presumably.

Defence is a bit leaky

[Kopek]

Perhaps this would be a good  time for, particularly, the new MHKs  to make it known that they are not willing to support extortionate schemes and sent a message for future full n frank discussion of this, the Prom and many other projects?

If the backbenchers vote the increase down, then Comin will have to come back with truth about the contract if they cannot get out of it.

Commercial Confidentiality!!! Pffffttt!

[asitis]

I would love to know whose signatures actually appear on the contract !

[A fool and his money.....]

1 hour ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Thinking about it, didn’t the entire new boat only cost £78m? 

That's £78m so far. Don't worry, by the time it's finished its cost will be proportionate to our (by then) £200m terminal and even our £14m (almost) finished flumes.

[Non-Believer]

34 minutes ago, asitis said:

I would love to know whose signatures actually appear on the contract !

IoMG have previously engaged without there being any contracts.... 😂

[finlo]

3 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

IoMG have previously engaged without there being any contracts.... 😂

Big Joe will have told them he'd see them right!

[James Blonde]

2 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Why not talk to Everton about providing a landing stage at Bramley Moore Dock? ( the clue is in the name)

Might not be feasible but while they are developing the area? But sometimes you have to think outside the box. Worth a punt?

They need somewhere to dock their own sinking ship! 

[The Voice of Reason]

21 minutes ago, James Blonde said:

They need somewhere to dock their own sinking ship! 

Indeed they do but they will have catering, toilet, waiting facilities wi fi , etc, in situ

Just saying like

Perhaps match days may be a problem but I’m sure that could be worked around

Edited December 1, 2021 by The Voice of Reason

[quilp]

It's all a bit overboard. Drop anchor on it. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, quilp said:

It's all a bit overboard. Drop anchor on it. 

Certainly the continued support is a vivid example of the sunk costs fallacy.

[asitis]

11 hours ago, asitis said:

Sounds like trying to justify the continued necessity to me ! Whether true or not is perhaps debatable .

 

Just realised, you know things are getting out of hand when the reason for the continued splurging of money has to change to try and appease the naysayers who pay the bills . There is a direct comparison here to the point at which dissenting voices started to be heard about the expenditure at the airport, if you recall the airport expenditure PR by bullshit Bertha, suddenly went from runway extension/ RESA to comply with regs, to purely " we are doing this on safety grounds". Dropping the runway extension bit, and neatly sidestepping awkward observations about what sort of aircraft they were catering for, and how the expenditure was justified by a few holiday direct flights not having to land elsewhere for a full fuel load ! A direct correlation now appears to be "emergency freight supply if Heysham is inaccessible ". It is clear they know the expenditure justification is wearing thin.

[James Blonde]

It also now looks like the planned cruise terminal (the reason for losing the current landing stage) is on hold.

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/ports-destinations/liverpools-plans-new-cruise-terminal-face-delay-least-another-two-years

So there is no urgency to approve this additional £30m+ 

 

Quote

A report to the council to be considered next week says moving to the next phase of the proposed development is paused.

'Liverpool City Council welcomes the decision to grant a Harbour Revision Order for the city’s new cruise terminal, however, given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the council is currently assessing timescales for taking this scheme forward to the next stage but remains committed to the cruise terminal scheme,' the report to a council select committee states.

Design rendered out of date by new COVID protocols

Angie Redhead, head of city assets, told Seatrade the design tabled for the new terminal has been rendered out of date by new COVID-19 protocols. She also cited the flexibility of being able to use other council-owned and operated sites to support passenger handling.

Currently all passenger coronavirus testing and baggage handling is being carried out away from the existing terminal in a remote satellite operation elsewhere on Liverpool waterfront, at the City’s Arena and Convention Centre, with passenger coach transfer between sites in secure bubbles.

 'We definitely want to watch this space and see what recovery really looks like before we put any spades in the ground,' Redhead told Seatrade.

Cruise Liverpool is currently handling turnaround for MSC, Disney and Fred.Olsen as well as a host of operators visiting in transit.

'But equally, we have just had a plan that has worked like a dream and the solution might not necessarily be at Princes Parade [the location of the existing terminal],' she added.

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by James Blonde

[Non-Believer]

10 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

At what point does a project like this get independently audited? The people running it are either so incompetent that they should be walked off site or it needs to be investigated to ensure that other matters aren’t leading to the cost overrun. Especially given Liverpool’s fairly well documented history of various large property development frauds. 

Far too many of the people running it will have built their careers in a culture of an endless supply of public money and almost zero accountability for how it is spent, with politicians happy to accept whatever waffle is put before them in the name of justification.

Is there any more recent footage of progress on the Terminal site; ie anything tangible for this burgeoning outlay?

[Nellie]

10 minutes ago, James Blonde said:

It also now looks like the planned cruise terminal (the reason for losing the current landing stage) is on hold.

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/ports-destinations/liverpools-plans-new-cruise-terminal-face-delay-least-another-two-years

So there is no urgency to approve this additional £30m+ 

 

 

This is no surprise. The cruise industry will take years to get back to 'normal' and the business case for Peel's new terminal for cruising out of Liverpool will look very different now.

As you say, there is no urgency to spunk another £30m without a full reassessment of all the options.

The back-benchers should vote down this proposed expenditure and instead we should see:-

• A suspension of all work, once exisiting contractual obligations have been met, without any additonal expenditure, and the site moth-balled, if required.

• A 'back to square one' independent, and expert, (not DoI) review of all options going forward. This to include cutting losses and 'walking away', going to another port, ensuring pax and freight share the same facility etc.

• A seperate 'drains up' audit of how we got to this point. Original Business Case fully analysed. Ministers, Officers, AG's officers roles, decisons and performance to be scrutinised. Who recommended, agreed and signed what? Bring back Black and Reynolds, who have both conveniently run away, and ascertain their roles and level of accountability. Full ownership of key decisions to  be determined and suitable sanctions to be recommended, if appropriate.

All to be completed by March 2022, so that Tynwald can reconsider, from a more fully informed position.

This probably needs to be put into 'Tynwald speak' but the gist is clear.

What do you say, @Stu Peters?