| Green light 16:27 - Jun 9 with 11518 views | TheArtChappy |
For the lagoon. Evening post have said can't link sorry |  |
| |  |
| Green light on 13:50 - Jun 11 with 1861 views | Scotia |
| Green light on 12:58 - Jun 11 by perchrockjack |
Swansea is a generation behind as regards regeneration.
While other cities Preston Swansea dithers, it might not work, I've yet to be convinced.
Incredible really.
I've seen a city on its knees, bankrupt, ungovernable then it sees the light and reborn.
Swansea needs more than pretty photos of mumbles and rhos il.
It needs a centre, a soul ,some swank , style, some self confidence.
Terry Matthews. God bless him |
Excellent post. I wholeheartedly agree with it.
Do you really think any other City would risk it's crowning glory without a fight though?
I desperately want Swansea to regenerate and grow. As it stands at the moment it's pretty dire within a two mile radius of the city centre with the exception of SA1 and the new Uni being built in Neath!
My concerns have been expressed on here with regards to the lagoon, I have genuine concerns as a chartered town planner and former coastal process engineer. I don't expect everyone to agree because the company have done a brilliant PR job, the people of Swansea have totally bought in to their vision, which is very different to what they actually have permission for.
Interestingly it's worth checking out threads on surfing and fishing forums to see the opposite views some people have.
It has only got this far by the skin of it's teeth. I honestly don't think it should have been accepted by the planning inspectorate in the first place, the conditions put on it by the DECC are stringent for good reason. It has got the potential to absolutely ruin the bay, for no reward at all.
Surely future regeneration should be planned to make the most of the bay rather than potentially destroy it as we see now?
Do you think it's worth the gamble? | | | |
| Green light on 13:51 - Jun 11 with 1861 views | yescomeon |
There isn't a lot wrong with it as far a big breakwater goes, aside from the potential impacts to the bay hydrodynamics. Modelling studies have been done but as far as I know they haven't been published, and the modelling more than likely focuses more on resource than impact. |  |
| |
| Green light on 14:56 - Jun 11 with 1819 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Green light on 13:50 - Jun 11 by Scotia |
Excellent post. I wholeheartedly agree with it.
Do you really think any other City would risk it's crowning glory without a fight though?
I desperately want Swansea to regenerate and grow. As it stands at the moment it's pretty dire within a two mile radius of the city centre with the exception of SA1 and the new Uni being built in Neath!
My concerns have been expressed on here with regards to the lagoon, I have genuine concerns as a chartered town planner and former coastal process engineer. I don't expect everyone to agree because the company have done a brilliant PR job, the people of Swansea have totally bought in to their vision, which is very different to what they actually have permission for.
Interestingly it's worth checking out threads on surfing and fishing forums to see the opposite views some people have.
It has only got this far by the skin of it's teeth. I honestly don't think it should have been accepted by the planning inspectorate in the first place, the conditions put on it by the DECC are stringent for good reason. It has got the potential to absolutely ruin the bay, for no reward at all.
Surely future regeneration should be planned to make the most of the bay rather than potentially destroy it as we see now?
Do you think it's worth the gamble? |
Other than the fact you are opposed to it, I'm struggling to see what your actual complaint about it is?
One minute you are talking about the price of energy, another minute you are talking about jobs, then about impact on the environment, then cost to tax payers, then cost to local tax payers, then lack of leisure facilities, previously you have talked about flooding on the Mumbles Road. So which is it?
It is coming across (maybe wrongly) that you have a significant objection to it and are just throwing out any possible negative you can think of until it is discounted, then moving on to the next one.
You say you are professionally involved, but in what way? You are obviously not involved with the Tidal Lagoon company, nor in the energy industry (your description of strike prices was incorrect, but incorrect in exactly the same way as the BBC's article was incorrect which suggests you have got it from there). You also don't work for the Council, WAG or UK Government, all of who have approved it unless the people that you work for have ignored your advice. Neither do you work for the infrastructure funds etc that are financing the project.
Your vehement objections seem odd, and I suspect you have a vested interest that you are not disclosing.
For what it's worth, I think it is excellent for the City and region, in terms of short term construction (yes - it is a Chinese company building the wall, but they're hardly building it in China and shipping it over are they?) and longer term potential. The only possible downside in my mind is any long term effects on the bay and surrounding bays, but you know what - they've been affecting that for years with the dredging. [Post edited 11 Jun 2015 14:59]
| | | |
| Green light on 15:34 - Jun 11 with 1798 views | ymaohyd |
| Green light on 14:56 - Jun 11 by londonlisa2001 |
Other than the fact you are opposed to it, I'm struggling to see what your actual complaint about it is?
One minute you are talking about the price of energy, another minute you are talking about jobs, then about impact on the environment, then cost to tax payers, then cost to local tax payers, then lack of leisure facilities, previously you have talked about flooding on the Mumbles Road. So which is it?
It is coming across (maybe wrongly) that you have a significant objection to it and are just throwing out any possible negative you can think of until it is discounted, then moving on to the next one.
You say you are professionally involved, but in what way? You are obviously not involved with the Tidal Lagoon company, nor in the energy industry (your description of strike prices was incorrect, but incorrect in exactly the same way as the BBC's article was incorrect which suggests you have got it from there). You also don't work for the Council, WAG or UK Government, all of who have approved it unless the people that you work for have ignored your advice. Neither do you work for the infrastructure funds etc that are financing the project.
Your vehement objections seem odd, and I suspect you have a vested interest that you are not disclosing.
For what it's worth, I think it is excellent for the City and region, in terms of short term construction (yes - it is a Chinese company building the wall, but they're hardly building it in China and shipping it over are they?) and longer term potential. The only possible downside in my mind is any long term effects on the bay and surrounding bays, but you know what - they've been affecting that for years with the dredging. [Post edited 11 Jun 2015 14:59]
|
Well said LL. |  |
| |
| Green light on 15:54 - Jun 11 with 1788 views | Scotia |
| Green light on 14:56 - Jun 11 by londonlisa2001 |
Other than the fact you are opposed to it, I'm struggling to see what your actual complaint about it is?
One minute you are talking about the price of energy, another minute you are talking about jobs, then about impact on the environment, then cost to tax payers, then cost to local tax payers, then lack of leisure facilities, previously you have talked about flooding on the Mumbles Road. So which is it?
It is coming across (maybe wrongly) that you have a significant objection to it and are just throwing out any possible negative you can think of until it is discounted, then moving on to the next one.
You say you are professionally involved, but in what way? You are obviously not involved with the Tidal Lagoon company, nor in the energy industry (your description of strike prices was incorrect, but incorrect in exactly the same way as the BBC's article was incorrect which suggests you have got it from there). You also don't work for the Council, WAG or UK Government, all of who have approved it unless the people that you work for have ignored your advice. Neither do you work for the infrastructure funds etc that are financing the project.
Your vehement objections seem odd, and I suspect you have a vested interest that you are not disclosing.
For what it's worth, I think it is excellent for the City and region, in terms of short term construction (yes - it is a Chinese company building the wall, but they're hardly building it in China and shipping it over are they?) and longer term potential. The only possible downside in my mind is any long term effects on the bay and surrounding bays, but you know what - they've been affecting that for years with the dredging. [Post edited 11 Jun 2015 14:59]
|
I'm opposed to every aspect of it because I honestly can't see it being of any benefit to the city I have been born in, brought up in and have no desire to leave. That is my only vested interest.
I don't care about energy prices, what the government agree as a strike price (I don't really see where I went wrong there, although it was written in a rush, it is what they will be guaranteed to get when they sell the power as a renewable subsidy from the government), Jobs, Chinese or lack of leisure facilities.
I'm concerned about the effects on the bay (and flooding on Mumbles Road) for no reward. I think the Bay is the last positive aspect Swansea has to regenerate from and I don't want it destroyed by some experiment.
Nobody has ignored the advice I have been involved with providing, it forms a large portion of the requirements of construction. I don't really want to say much more than that on a forum as I could get in serious trouble.
I don't work for WG but as an organisation they have nothing to do with the decision process, individuals within it may support it for political reasons but as an organisation they haven't expressed an opinion.
Similar to the council (Swansea), they have remained totally neutral, but are not involved in the decision process. This is the case with NPT too.
Very little dredging apart from by ABP takes place in the bay.
No the wall isn't being built in China but that's where the profits will go, and do you really think the builders will be local boys?
I would really like someone to tell me why this is worth it? | | | |
| Green light on 16:19 - Jun 11 with 1772 views | Mrgrumpy |
This project will not benefit Swansea and could just be a blot on the landscape we are stuck with
It will not produce anywhere near as much electricity as being claimed but it will be very expensive
Too many people are being fooled by the glossy brochures
the tourism and sports facilities are dubious at best | | | |
| Green light on 16:52 - Jun 11 with 1744 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Green light on 15:54 - Jun 11 by Scotia |
I'm opposed to every aspect of it because I honestly can't see it being of any benefit to the city I have been born in, brought up in and have no desire to leave. That is my only vested interest.
I don't care about energy prices, what the government agree as a strike price (I don't really see where I went wrong there, although it was written in a rush, it is what they will be guaranteed to get when they sell the power as a renewable subsidy from the government), Jobs, Chinese or lack of leisure facilities.
I'm concerned about the effects on the bay (and flooding on Mumbles Road) for no reward. I think the Bay is the last positive aspect Swansea has to regenerate from and I don't want it destroyed by some experiment.
Nobody has ignored the advice I have been involved with providing, it forms a large portion of the requirements of construction. I don't really want to say much more than that on a forum as I could get in serious trouble.
I don't work for WG but as an organisation they have nothing to do with the decision process, individuals within it may support it for political reasons but as an organisation they haven't expressed an opinion.
Similar to the council (Swansea), they have remained totally neutral, but are not involved in the decision process. This is the case with NPT too.
Very little dredging apart from by ABP takes place in the bay.
No the wall isn't being built in China but that's where the profits will go, and do you really think the builders will be local boys?
I would really like someone to tell me why this is worth it? |
So you're opposed to everything about it which was my point and all that stuff about tax payers and pricing you now say you don't care about?
And I know exactly where approvals come from - all projects of this size go straight to the Secretary of State, which is why all your points about putting it in an area where it is desperate for any investment (which you have said a few times) is an irrelevance.
Although they have no part in the planning process, both the council (Swansea and Neath/Port Talbot) and the WAG have welcomed the project so they haven't been neutral. As have many other bodies and organisations including Friends of The Earth.
With regard to the effects on the bay etc, well approval hasn't yet been given by NRW so we'll wait to see what they say before the granting of a marine licence. And if, as you say, you have been involved with the requirements for the construction then you'll have made sure that your concerns have been addressed I imagine.
And dredging in the Bristol Channel has had an impact on local beaches etc for years - it's not only the Bay itself which matters.
What I don't understand, is that you seem to be completely ignoring the legal agreements which have been put into place as part of the consent order granted by Amber Rudd. There are agreements in place about the leisure and recreational facilities and when they have to be built and also with regard to the employment plan. Both Swansea and Neath/Port Talbot councils are involved in both of these aspects. If the Tidal Lagoon people don't do what is in the legal agreements which have to be submitted, consent will not be granted and any agreement over pricing etc will fall away (plus, as a safety net, any future applications which are much bigger, will be turned down). The requirements to gain final consent have been significantly beefed up from what they were and you are, on here, pretending that they don't exist in a way which is designed to make people nervous. | | | |
| Green light on 16:56 - Jun 11 with 1740 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Green light on 16:19 - Jun 11 by Mrgrumpy |
This project will not benefit Swansea and could just be a blot on the landscape we are stuck with
It will not produce anywhere near as much electricity as being claimed but it will be very expensive
Too many people are being fooled by the glossy brochures
the tourism and sports facilities are dubious at best |
The estimate is that it will produce the electricity for 90% of all of Swansea Bay for 120 years. Now that may turn out to be wrong of course, but I can't see how you know that it won't work when so many experts have ben involved with advising the government on this?
And the facilities are now built in as a legal requirement to consent being finalised - it's a change that has been made. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Green light on 18:11 - Jun 11 with 1695 views | perchrockjack |
It's worth it as the city is dead on its feet.
No regeration or ideas are risk free but this surely is worth it.
If not ,what next.
I'm not mentioning the l word again but when the l city was dead and buried it's people with talent and ideas stayed and put their souls into rebuilding.
You lol find it encourages other projects to start up. | |
| |
| Green light on 18:24 - Jun 11 with 1682 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| Green light on 12:27 - Jun 11 by ymaohyd |
Personally I couldn't give a stuff, as to whether the lagoon will offer value for money in comparison to other forms of 'new energy sources'.
I couldn't give a stuff about the tax payer, of whom I am one as I have worked all my life.
As I highlighted in my post, I am sick to the back teeth of our part of the UK and Wales having little or no investment and we watch on as Cardiff benefits from initiative after initiative, or we look on as the UK Government spends billions on the Olympics or bailing out one of our European economic partners.
I have worked on a UK led initiative, providing support to countries like India and Pakistan and believe me the financial assistance is huge for two countries who have spent tens of billions on developing nucleus capabilities rather than supporting their impoverished populace...so excuse me for not being overly concerned that a significant investment is being made in our city, whatever those concerns may be.
Only in Swansea however, could people then turn around and moan about this possible investment and unbelievably question the value for money for the tax payer. As far as other concerns, is this development being constructed at the site of an ancient burial ground, a site of great architectural significance?
Oh no, it's being built on a stretch of water that probably none of us have dipped our toes in or set our eyes upon, over there by the docks.
So what will the benefits be?
The minister, charged with responsibility for given the green light for the project has given assurances that leisure facilities will be part of the development, so pardon me for taking her word rather than someone on Planet Swans.
The potential therefore is huge, all kinds of water sports facilities could be accounted for, wind surfing, kayaking, etc etc. Swansea could become a major force as a host city for triathlons given the proposed cycle track along side the lagoon.
If the potential in some of the areas I have mentioned comes to fruition then to support greater numbers, hopefully more hotels will be built to accommodate more people visiting, then more restaurants to take advantage of the growth that Swansea could potentially realise. Possibly to add to the water sport theme a white water rafting centre like our capital city have may look at investing. Who knows..The key word is POTENTIAL!
All I know is for years I have driven along Fabian Way, passed derelict Marsh land. Now we have a brand new university campus and in a few years a structure that may provide enormous potential for all kinds of recreational facilities....am I being naive or is it a no brainer !?
Finally an inspirational story.
A friend of mine is from Ystalyfera and still has his business in Ystradgynlais. Years ago now, he knew a gent who also lived in the area and they'd exchange pleasantries etc. Don't know what the gents name was/is, let's be stereotypical and call him Gwyn.
So my friend would ask Gwyn, 'Any plans for the weekend Gwyn' ?
Oh my boy has bought a place up in Newport, I'm doing a bit of gardening for him.
This conversation went on for several months, until my friend asked what his son owned?
The answer in a typical Swansea valley understated way was ' oh he's bought the Celtic Manor hotel'...His son was Sir Terry Matthews, who started off establishing the old Celtic Manor hotel before developing what is now one of the UK's leading resort hotels, host of the Ryde Cup and of course recently the G7 summit.
All i will say is thank goodness we have Sir Terry as chair of the Swansea Bay city region and not the likes of Scotia or some others on here.
As Sir Terry was offering his heart felt congratulations to the go ahead for the lagoon, I'm pretty sure he wasn't concerning himself with the £ per megawatt debate, instead being the man he is, i'm sure he'll be sitting back and placing a vital piece of the proverbial jigsaw that he see's as Swansea's future. |
Bravo
Great post |  |
| |
| Green light on 18:26 - Jun 11 with 1678 views | perchrockjack |
If we re talking blots on landscape, nobody would ever bother going further west than port talbot | |
| |
| Green light on 18:28 - Jun 11 with 1676 views | Scotia |
| Green light on 16:56 - Jun 11 by londonlisa2001 |
The estimate is that it will produce the electricity for 90% of all of Swansea Bay for 120 years. Now that may turn out to be wrong of course, but I can't see how you know that it won't work when so many experts have ben involved with advising the government on this?
And the facilities are now built in as a legal requirement to consent being finalised - it's a change that has been made. |
You obviously know a bit about this Lisa, it would be interesting to know what your role is?
A couple of points though.
Projects like this (NSIP's) don't go straight to the relevant secretary of state, they are run by the Planning Inspectorate who make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. This is the fourth such one I've been involved with and this has been by far the closest to not being approved, since the NSIP process has been in place, not one project has been turned down after being accepted. I honestly think this would have been had it not been for the political interest.
The risks to the bay, EU legislation and subsequent infraction are huge.
Individual politicians may have welcomed it, but Swansea have not expressed an official opinion. I'm not 100% sure on NPT but I'd be amazed if they had supported it as they have more to lose potentially. I think both would have opposed it had it not been for the benefits the lagoon company have claimed will materialise, it would have been political suicide.
Friends of the Earth have welcomed it, of course they would, its a green energy source reducing Carbon Emissions, they have no local interest in Swansea
I haven't had much to do with the marine licence, although NRW have already been heavily involved. The potential award of a Marine licence doesn't have a huge bearing on potential effects on the bay.
No I'm not ignoring the details of the DCO put in place by Amber Rudd. My team has been responsible for some of them, even though I've had to keep my personal opinions out of it.
I think that in itself is key though, they were put in place by her, not the lagoon company, despite what they have said all the way through. I don't think they had any intention of adding them. They have to apply for planning permission for them within three months. They will.
All I'd say is to build leisure facilities you have to have something to build them on, the lagoon will be built first. What will happen then if the company goes bust? Or the lagoon gets sold? Planning conditions aren't enforced too often on land let alone 6 miles out to sea. I have nothing to base this on but I am cynical as to their intentions.
You are right about the dredging, it has apparently had an impact on Gower beaches, even though it has only occurred intermittently over the last 20 odd years. Can you imagine the impact switching off the tidal gyre in Swansea bay will have over the next 120 years?
I would genuinely like someone to honestly tell me what benefits they see from this? | | | |
| Green light on 18:46 - Jun 11 with 1657 views | scottishjack |
| Green light on 12:27 - Jun 11 by ymaohyd |
Personally I couldn't give a stuff, as to whether the lagoon will offer value for money in comparison to other forms of 'new energy sources'.
I couldn't give a stuff about the tax payer, of whom I am one as I have worked all my life.
As I highlighted in my post, I am sick to the back teeth of our part of the UK and Wales having little or no investment and we watch on as Cardiff benefits from initiative after initiative, or we look on as the UK Government spends billions on the Olympics or bailing out one of our European economic partners.
I have worked on a UK led initiative, providing support to countries like India and Pakistan and believe me the financial assistance is huge for two countries who have spent tens of billions on developing nucleus capabilities rather than supporting their impoverished populace...so excuse me for not being overly concerned that a significant investment is being made in our city, whatever those concerns may be.
Only in Swansea however, could people then turn around and moan about this possible investment and unbelievably question the value for money for the tax payer. As far as other concerns, is this development being constructed at the site of an ancient burial ground, a site of great architectural significance?
Oh no, it's being built on a stretch of water that probably none of us have dipped our toes in or set our eyes upon, over there by the docks.
So what will the benefits be?
The minister, charged with responsibility for given the green light for the project has given assurances that leisure facilities will be part of the development, so pardon me for taking her word rather than someone on Planet Swans.
The potential therefore is huge, all kinds of water sports facilities could be accounted for, wind surfing, kayaking, etc etc. Swansea could become a major force as a host city for triathlons given the proposed cycle track along side the lagoon.
If the potential in some of the areas I have mentioned comes to fruition then to support greater numbers, hopefully more hotels will be built to accommodate more people visiting, then more restaurants to take advantage of the growth that Swansea could potentially realise. Possibly to add to the water sport theme a white water rafting centre like our capital city have may look at investing. Who knows..The key word is POTENTIAL!
All I know is for years I have driven along Fabian Way, passed derelict Marsh land. Now we have a brand new university campus and in a few years a structure that may provide enormous potential for all kinds of recreational facilities....am I being naive or is it a no brainer !?
Finally an inspirational story.
A friend of mine is from Ystalyfera and still has his business in Ystradgynlais. Years ago now, he knew a gent who also lived in the area and they'd exchange pleasantries etc. Don't know what the gents name was/is, let's be stereotypical and call him Gwyn.
So my friend would ask Gwyn, 'Any plans for the weekend Gwyn' ?
Oh my boy has bought a place up in Newport, I'm doing a bit of gardening for him.
This conversation went on for several months, until my friend asked what his son owned?
The answer in a typical Swansea valley understated way was ' oh he's bought the Celtic Manor hotel'...His son was Sir Terry Matthews, who started off establishing the old Celtic Manor hotel before developing what is now one of the UK's leading resort hotels, host of the Ryde Cup and of course recently the G7 summit.
All i will say is thank goodness we have Sir Terry as chair of the Swansea Bay city region and not the likes of Scotia or some others on here.
As Sir Terry was offering his heart felt congratulations to the go ahead for the lagoon, I'm pretty sure he wasn't concerning himself with the £ per megawatt debate, instead being the man he is, i'm sure he'll be sitting back and placing a vital piece of the proverbial jigsaw that he see's as Swansea's future. |
Well said!  |  | | |
| Green light on 19:01 - Jun 11 with 1645 views | skippyjack |
| Green light on 18:28 - Jun 11 by Scotia |
You obviously know a bit about this Lisa, it would be interesting to know what your role is?
A couple of points though.
Projects like this (NSIP's) don't go straight to the relevant secretary of state, they are run by the Planning Inspectorate who make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. This is the fourth such one I've been involved with and this has been by far the closest to not being approved, since the NSIP process has been in place, not one project has been turned down after being accepted. I honestly think this would have been had it not been for the political interest.
The risks to the bay, EU legislation and subsequent infraction are huge.
Individual politicians may have welcomed it, but Swansea have not expressed an official opinion. I'm not 100% sure on NPT but I'd be amazed if they had supported it as they have more to lose potentially. I think both would have opposed it had it not been for the benefits the lagoon company have claimed will materialise, it would have been political suicide.
Friends of the Earth have welcomed it, of course they would, its a green energy source reducing Carbon Emissions, they have no local interest in Swansea
I haven't had much to do with the marine licence, although NRW have already been heavily involved. The potential award of a Marine licence doesn't have a huge bearing on potential effects on the bay.
No I'm not ignoring the details of the DCO put in place by Amber Rudd. My team has been responsible for some of them, even though I've had to keep my personal opinions out of it.
I think that in itself is key though, they were put in place by her, not the lagoon company, despite what they have said all the way through. I don't think they had any intention of adding them. They have to apply for planning permission for them within three months. They will.
All I'd say is to build leisure facilities you have to have something to build them on, the lagoon will be built first. What will happen then if the company goes bust? Or the lagoon gets sold? Planning conditions aren't enforced too often on land let alone 6 miles out to sea. I have nothing to base this on but I am cynical as to their intentions.
You are right about the dredging, it has apparently had an impact on Gower beaches, even though it has only occurred intermittently over the last 20 odd years. Can you imagine the impact switching off the tidal gyre in Swansea bay will have over the next 120 years?
I would genuinely like someone to honestly tell me what benefits they see from this? |
Billionaires are investing billions into it and supporting it
Govt have given it the go ahead
And you're questioning the benefits of it?.. You’re actually involved with this?
F*ck me.. And they won't even let me clean the toilets in KFC for a living
How did you gain your position?.. I've seen some things posted on here.. But this one takes the biscuit.. I'm giving up with this country.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Green light on 19:06 - Jun 11 with 1641 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Green light on 18:28 - Jun 11 by Scotia |
You obviously know a bit about this Lisa, it would be interesting to know what your role is?
A couple of points though.
Projects like this (NSIP's) don't go straight to the relevant secretary of state, they are run by the Planning Inspectorate who make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. This is the fourth such one I've been involved with and this has been by far the closest to not being approved, since the NSIP process has been in place, not one project has been turned down after being accepted. I honestly think this would have been had it not been for the political interest.
The risks to the bay, EU legislation and subsequent infraction are huge.
Individual politicians may have welcomed it, but Swansea have not expressed an official opinion. I'm not 100% sure on NPT but I'd be amazed if they had supported it as they have more to lose potentially. I think both would have opposed it had it not been for the benefits the lagoon company have claimed will materialise, it would have been political suicide.
Friends of the Earth have welcomed it, of course they would, its a green energy source reducing Carbon Emissions, they have no local interest in Swansea
I haven't had much to do with the marine licence, although NRW have already been heavily involved. The potential award of a Marine licence doesn't have a huge bearing on potential effects on the bay.
No I'm not ignoring the details of the DCO put in place by Amber Rudd. My team has been responsible for some of them, even though I've had to keep my personal opinions out of it.
I think that in itself is key though, they were put in place by her, not the lagoon company, despite what they have said all the way through. I don't think they had any intention of adding them. They have to apply for planning permission for them within three months. They will.
All I'd say is to build leisure facilities you have to have something to build them on, the lagoon will be built first. What will happen then if the company goes bust? Or the lagoon gets sold? Planning conditions aren't enforced too often on land let alone 6 miles out to sea. I have nothing to base this on but I am cynical as to their intentions.
You are right about the dredging, it has apparently had an impact on Gower beaches, even though it has only occurred intermittently over the last 20 odd years. Can you imagine the impact switching off the tidal gyre in Swansea bay will have over the next 120 years?
I would genuinely like someone to honestly tell me what benefits they see from this? |
I don't have any role in this.
I do have a knowledge on related things though.
My point on the Secretary of State was re decision making, not that I was saying she (or her predecessor) had done the investigations! I was pointing out that you mentioning on several occasions about local views because of past lack of investment in the area was irrelevant.
With regard to the local councils etc - well of course they would have been against it if it wasn't for the benefits to the area - that's the whole point!
And of course the lagoon company themselves didn't suggest all the nice extras other than as a PR exercise. I didn't say that they did. I don't base my thoughts on what they say or propose, I base it on what will happen as a result of the whole process.
Obviously they wouldn't do them if they didn't have to - it's like saying Tesco will automatically build housing / flats when they are granted a new supermarket or a housebuilder will add affordable housing - these are always conditions imposed in order to get the project through and remediation required as well.
You are being disingenuous to support your position. Earlier you said it wouldn't happen (the leisure stuff), now you are saying it will only happen because of the conditions set by someone else, not voluntarily - that is always the case as you well know if you've been involved in these things before. You are, as I said earlier, trying to spin the downside.
Re what happens if they 'go bust'. Well again, as you probably know, there will be escrowed amounts to cover the CP imposed which will be used in that event. And, again, as you know, the funding is fully in place, and the cornerstone funding is from the Prudential Plc, not some fly-by-night organisation. If the lagoon gets sold, it is sold with the conditions in place - that is always the case in these projects, and also, planning on these sorts of energy / infrastructure related projects is always enforced.
I don't have a problem with you being against it, although it would have more of an effect on me if you were honest about exactly what your problem is, rather than implying stuff which just isn't true.
And the benefits I see are short(ish) term jobs in the construction, longer term jobs in the area for related technologies such as turbine assembly and so on, expertise in a brand new form of energy generation being built in the city which can be sold elsewhere, possible leisure and tourism impacts, and on a wider note, a move towards a sustainable energy mix that helps move this country away from energy dependancy and all that entails. | | | |
| Green light on 19:11 - Jun 11 with 1636 views | Scotia |
| Green light on 12:27 - Jun 11 by ymaohyd |
Personally I couldn't give a stuff, as to whether the lagoon will offer value for money in comparison to other forms of 'new energy sources'.
I couldn't give a stuff about the tax payer, of whom I am one as I have worked all my life.
As I highlighted in my post, I am sick to the back teeth of our part of the UK and Wales having little or no investment and we watch on as Cardiff benefits from initiative after initiative, or we look on as the UK Government spends billions on the Olympics or bailing out one of our European economic partners.
I have worked on a UK led initiative, providing support to countries like India and Pakistan and believe me the financial assistance is huge for two countries who have spent tens of billions on developing nucleus capabilities rather than supporting their impoverished populace...so excuse me for not being overly concerned that a significant investment is being made in our city, whatever those concerns may be.
Only in Swansea however, could people then turn around and moan about this possible investment and unbelievably question the value for money for the tax payer. As far as other concerns, is this development being constructed at the site of an ancient burial ground, a site of great architectural significance?
Oh no, it's being built on a stretch of water that probably none of us have dipped our toes in or set our eyes upon, over there by the docks.
So what will the benefits be?
The minister, charged with responsibility for given the green light for the project has given assurances that leisure facilities will be part of the development, so pardon me for taking her word rather than someone on Planet Swans.
The potential therefore is huge, all kinds of water sports facilities could be accounted for, wind surfing, kayaking, etc etc. Swansea could become a major force as a host city for triathlons given the proposed cycle track along side the lagoon.
If the potential in some of the areas I have mentioned comes to fruition then to support greater numbers, hopefully more hotels will be built to accommodate more people visiting, then more restaurants to take advantage of the growth that Swansea could potentially realise. Possibly to add to the water sport theme a white water rafting centre like our capital city have may look at investing. Who knows..The key word is POTENTIAL!
All I know is for years I have driven along Fabian Way, passed derelict Marsh land. Now we have a brand new university campus and in a few years a structure that may provide enormous potential for all kinds of recreational facilities....am I being naive or is it a no brainer !?
Finally an inspirational story.
A friend of mine is from Ystalyfera and still has his business in Ystradgynlais. Years ago now, he knew a gent who also lived in the area and they'd exchange pleasantries etc. Don't know what the gents name was/is, let's be stereotypical and call him Gwyn.
So my friend would ask Gwyn, 'Any plans for the weekend Gwyn' ?
Oh my boy has bought a place up in Newport, I'm doing a bit of gardening for him.
This conversation went on for several months, until my friend asked what his son owned?
The answer in a typical Swansea valley understated way was ' oh he's bought the Celtic Manor hotel'...His son was Sir Terry Matthews, who started off establishing the old Celtic Manor hotel before developing what is now one of the UK's leading resort hotels, host of the Ryde Cup and of course recently the G7 summit.
All i will say is thank goodness we have Sir Terry as chair of the Swansea Bay city region and not the likes of Scotia or some others on here.
As Sir Terry was offering his heart felt congratulations to the go ahead for the lagoon, I'm pretty sure he wasn't concerning himself with the £ per megawatt debate, instead being the man he is, i'm sure he'll be sitting back and placing a vital piece of the proverbial jigsaw that he see's as Swansea's future. |
Sorry I missed this.
I would be 100% behind this if I thought the benefits would be realised. Why wouldn't I be?
I'm sick to the back teeth of us not getting any investment too. I honestly think this is why this is planned here first, because the company will hope we'll think something is better than nothing.
No perhaps in itself nobody really uses that part of the bay, but the water flows through it for most of the tidal cycle in the direction of Mumbles. Switch this off and you change everything in the bay at present.
Watersports etc - brilliant, so it will be just like living by the sea then? Nothing we can't do now. In fact everyone acknowledges Monkstone marina in the river Neath will be unusable due to silt. This will just replace what it destroys
Triathlons etc from the walking area - Will never happen, not a single one can ever be organised along the wall. This weekend is the Swansea Half, I'm doing it and I've trained hard for about two months. What if it was a little bit windy? And I just mean a force 3-4 at high tide the route would have to be changed, the roads could not be closed at such short notice. The event would have to be cancelled it would piss all the entrants off and nobody would enter another one.
Fishing - again, will never happen. The wall is 6 miles out to sea, we're not even allowed to fish on the East pier.
If the potential does get realised and more hotels are built for the visitors around the docks area these will probably just replace those on the sea front in Mumbles which will close because they will be overlooking mud flats where there used to be sand and nobody will fancy looking at that. That's if they don't get flooded out first.
I don't think you're being naïve, you've just swallowed up the PR. | | | |
| Green light on 19:12 - Jun 11 with 1634 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Green light on 18:11 - Jun 11 by perchrockjack |
It's worth it as the city is dead on its feet.
No regeration or ideas are risk free but this surely is worth it.
If not ,what next.
I'm not mentioning the l word again but when the l city was dead and buried it's people with talent and ideas stayed and put their souls into rebuilding.
You lol find it encourages other projects to start up. |
Have a look at what's happening Perch around SA1 / River / Fabian Way and also at the trading figures for Swansea compared to the UK average. Also have a look at how many very expensive flats are being built around the place.
The city centre is terrible - the city is not dead on its feet.
It's in a similar position to Liverpool in many ways - has had to wait a shamefully long time while all investment goes into a neighbouring city (as Liverpool had with Manchester). And it will take time to rectify - look how many years Liverpool has had of regeneration and Manchester is still way in front. The difference with Swansea, is it has the natural advantages that Cardiff doesn't have. Liverpool doesn't have that advantage over Manchester. | | | |
| Green light on 19:23 - Jun 11 with 1622 views | ymaohyd |
| Green light on 19:01 - Jun 11 by skippyjack |
Billionaires are investing billions into it and supporting it
Govt have given it the go ahead
And you're questioning the benefits of it?.. You’re actually involved with this?
F*ck me.. And they won't even let me clean the toilets in KFC for a living
How did you gain your position?.. I've seen some things posted on here.. But this one takes the biscuit.. I'm giving up with this country.. |
| |
| |
| Green light on 19:35 - Jun 11 with 1611 views | skippyjack |
| Green light on 19:23 - Jun 11 by ymaohyd |
|
Scotia needs a lie down
Billionaire, Politicians and billionaire company investing billions in Swansea.
What benefits will that bring.. | |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Green light on 19:46 - Jun 11 with 1599 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Green light on 19:11 - Jun 11 by Scotia |
Sorry I missed this.
I would be 100% behind this if I thought the benefits would be realised. Why wouldn't I be?
I'm sick to the back teeth of us not getting any investment too. I honestly think this is why this is planned here first, because the company will hope we'll think something is better than nothing.
No perhaps in itself nobody really uses that part of the bay, but the water flows through it for most of the tidal cycle in the direction of Mumbles. Switch this off and you change everything in the bay at present.
Watersports etc - brilliant, so it will be just like living by the sea then? Nothing we can't do now. In fact everyone acknowledges Monkstone marina in the river Neath will be unusable due to silt. This will just replace what it destroys
Triathlons etc from the walking area - Will never happen, not a single one can ever be organised along the wall. This weekend is the Swansea Half, I'm doing it and I've trained hard for about two months. What if it was a little bit windy? And I just mean a force 3-4 at high tide the route would have to be changed, the roads could not be closed at such short notice. The event would have to be cancelled it would piss all the entrants off and nobody would enter another one.
Fishing - again, will never happen. The wall is 6 miles out to sea, we're not even allowed to fish on the East pier.
If the potential does get realised and more hotels are built for the visitors around the docks area these will probably just replace those on the sea front in Mumbles which will close because they will be overlooking mud flats where there used to be sand and nobody will fancy looking at that. That's if they don't get flooded out first.
I don't think you're being naïve, you've just swallowed up the PR. |
The wall isn't 6 miles out to sea - it is 6 miles long.
But tell me this. If you are so against this project, what exactly do you want to see done to harness the commercial opportunity of the Bay? What other projects could generate commercial opportunities for this area given that you have said it's the only resource we have?
And you have said that you couldn't let your personal opinion affect the professional work you were doing on this? Well I don't understand. Either the project has a negative impact (in which case your professional reports should have mentioned that) or it doesn't (in which case your personal opinion is based on non factual information).
Finally, since the head of Swansea Bay is Terry Matthews who is an engineer, don't you think he would have said something if he thought this wouldn't do what it is supposed to do? Don't you think someone, somewhere, in the entire £1bn process, involving thousand of pages of reports, impact studies, engineering feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, tide modelling studies and so on and so on (the stuff that people like the Prudential probably wanted to see before lumping in £100m and the government wanted to see before giving it the go ahead to this stage), someone would have said, hang on a minute, this will flood Swansea and turn the bay into mudflats. I mean someone other than on a Swans football website? Or is everyone else involved in this entire project a complete idiot who believes the company's own website and doesn't ask for any independent backup? | | | |
| Green light on 19:58 - Jun 11 with 1591 views | perchrockjack |
Lisa.
With respect, Manchester is not miles ahead. It was.
Liverpool has a huge advantage over Manchester, the river and the former 20 miles of former docklands now being turned into luxury apartments on an epic scale.
Any city with a waterfront has a geographical advantage over an inland one,Manchester ship canal not the same.
It also has more listed buildings by far than Manchester and only surpassed by London. It also takes advantage of its arts pedigree and visitors flock to see its music roots and artefacts.
Liverpool was given the capital of culture not Manchester and it attracts more visitors. If you take out football plastics ,manchester would empty at weekends.
Swansea has taken its location for granted and when industry ended leisure should have really taken over as a major earner . It's not enough simply to have a pretty coastline. The potential is there but Swansea council have a pitiful history and lack of planning. | |
| |
| Green light on 20:04 - Jun 11 with 1583 views | dickythorpe |
| Green light on 19:01 - Jun 11 by skippyjack |
Billionaires are investing billions into it and supporting it
Govt have given it the go ahead
And you're questioning the benefits of it?.. You’re actually involved with this?
F*ck me.. And they won't even let me clean the toilets in KFC for a living
How did you gain your position?.. I've seen some things posted on here.. But this one takes the biscuit.. I'm giving up with this country.. |
This is your finest moment Skippy |  | | |
| Green light on 20:19 - Jun 11 with 1570 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Green light on 19:58 - Jun 11 by perchrockjack |
Lisa.
With respect, Manchester is not miles ahead. It was.
Liverpool has a huge advantage over Manchester, the river and the former 20 miles of former docklands now being turned into luxury apartments on an epic scale.
Any city with a waterfront has a geographical advantage over an inland one,Manchester ship canal not the same.
It also has more listed buildings by far than Manchester and only surpassed by London. It also takes advantage of its arts pedigree and visitors flock to see its music roots and artefacts.
Liverpool was given the capital of culture not Manchester and it attracts more visitors. If you take out football plastics ,manchester would empty at weekends.
Swansea has taken its location for granted and when industry ended leisure should have really taken over as a major earner . It's not enough simply to have a pretty coastline. The potential is there but Swansea council have a pitiful history and lack of planning. |
Well as an outsider it is. And the stuff down at Media city in Salford is very impressive as well and has moved it on another notch.
I like Liverpool as a city, but I don't recognise the utopia you describe. The bits down by the Exhibition Centre / Docks are nice and around Sefton Park etc as nice as well, but the centre doesn't have the buzzy feel of Manchester. Manchester at weekends is a brilliant place - the nightlife / restaurants / bars are brilliant with a lot of stuff having grown out from Canal Street to the surrounding areas, and the regeneration of the old warehouses into flats and bars. And the shopping is brilliant there !
Both are good cities though. I would ignore the whole City of Culture bit as an indicator. Having been to Hull on several occasions it means nothing as Hull is an absolute heap.
You're right in that Swansea Council have had a lack of planning, but you are missing the crucial point that Swansea has had no inward investment to speak of. The council on many occasion have bent over backwards to try to attract anchor tenants to the centre - they wouldn't come. | | | |
| Green light on 20:44 - Jun 11 with 1555 views | perchrockjack |
Sorry Lisa but utopia? Never in a million years .
I say it as a see it.
ourcbiggest issue on Wirral is if Liverpool,becomes self governing as is proposed then Wirral and southport, outlying areas of the county, will be marginalised.
Finally, Liverpool is quirky, as is hull.
It's impossible to assess from afar or to listen to outdated stereotypes.
The city has deep lying problems not least gang wars which are kept neatly under the radar.nit can be a very dangerous city.
Finally, when I used the word dead, this applies to the city centre which is the core of any settlement | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
