R.I.P. Old Harwich

But the business occupiers are relocating locally to a site more 'fit for purpose'. One assumes the workforce will still be mostly local and if the site is more 'appropriate' it may lend itself to expansion and more jobs.

Does anyone know where the new location for the business is? Does it require the wharves?
 
The link was given by pvb on post #3, but clearly some haven't looked, preferring to rant rather than find out.

Navyard Ltd said:
The business at Navyard will be re-locating locally.

The site has been operated by Mann Lines in excess of 50 years but the shipping business is constantly evolving and the site is no longer fit for purpose.

The new business location will enable Mann Lines to respond to modern shipping requirements as they continue to evolve in the future.
Click to expand...
 
True,
Mann Lines can move to another location.
But if the site is turned into a housing estate, no one can start a new business that needs access to water.

In Brightlingsea, the council allowed the old James and Sons slipways to be turned into a housing estate. Then before the thing was completed the wind farm industry developed bring with it the need to provide facilities for the boats that service the wind farms. Because the old slipways and moorings are now houses, There is now insufficient room in the harbour for the service boats as well as the other existing customers.

Chalk that up to the stupidity of people who say it’s a brownfield site and should be developed.
 
The Americans are much better at controlling waterfront change of use than we are. According to my friend Ian McColgin, in Annapolis a sailmaker’s loft is a sailmaker’s loft. It isn’t going to become a cafe, still less apartments. No windfall profits for real estate owners and the waterfront stays alive.

We have seen Colchester Hythe turned from a working port, kept dredged, into a stinking ditch surrounded by houses and flats with ‘waterfront views’
 
I too have a preference for seeing a working environment rather than a developers' money farm. The position of the site makes it ideal for maritime-based use but marginal for housing and it would be better in the long term if the option for commercial use were retained. If someone had the imagination and resources to develop a mixed residential and recreational facility that would regenerate the whole town, that would be one thing, but a few blocks of flats and a Costa won't do that.
 
johnalison said:
I too have a preference for seeing a working environment rather than a developers' money farm. The position of the site makes it ideal for maritime-based use but marginal for housing and it would be better in the long term if the option for commercial use were retained.

So your objection is that someone is making money, and what Maritime-based use, could it be used for, and if you owned the site, would you put it to that use?
Click to expand...
 
It seems to me Harwich is desperate for anything that creates employment as its historic functions are dying out.
I understand ships are getting bigger and the depth at Harwich is insufficient.
 
Kukri said:
The Americans are much better at controlling waterfront change of use than we are. According to my friend Ian McColgin, in Annapolis a sailmaker’s loft is a sailmaker’s loft. It isn’t going to become a cafe, still less apartments. No windfall profits for real estate owners and the waterfront stays alive.

We have seen Colchester Hythe turned from a working port, kept dredged, into a stinking ditch surrounded by houses and flats with ‘waterfront views’
Click to expand...

All Colchester needed was a couple of simple locks. I would guess that there would be
many takers, both winter and summer to work on boats under cover in converted storage sheds. A shared waterside community with a mix of live aboards , yachts and powerboats would blend nicely with Colchester's Roman history for visitors to stay for a few days.
 
It would appear that the Romans favoured Felixstowe as a port, too - see ‘Felixstowe Roman Port’ by John Fairclough in Suffolk Archaeology and History (Vol XLII, part 3, 2011, pp 252 -276) here:
http://suffolkinstitute.pdfsrv.co.uk/customers/Suffolk Institute/2014/01/10/Volume XLII Part 3 (2011)_Felixstowe Roman fort J Fairclough_253 to 276.pdf

On the journal’s contents page (Suffolk Institute) the paper is listed as ‘Felixstowe Roman Fort’ - a subject covered by the same author and a colleague in 2000 - but it is definitely about an associated port, the evidence for the existence of which is described in detail, and considered by the author to be compelling.
 
Hydrozoan said:
It would appear that the Romans favoured Felixstowe as a port, too - see ‘Felixstowe Roman Port’ by John Fairclough in Suffolk Archaeology and History (Vol XLII, part 3, 2011, pp 252 -276) here:
http://suffolkinstitute.pdfsrv.co.uk/customers/Suffolk Institute/2014/01/10/Volume XLII Part 3 (2011)_Felixstowe Roman fort J Fairclough_253 to 276.pdf

On the journal’s contents page (Suffolk Institute) the paper is listed as ‘Felixstowe Roman Fort’ - a subject covered by the same author and a colleague in 2000 - but it is definitely about an associated port, the evidence for the existence of which is described in detail, and considered by the author to be compelling.
Click to expand...
Amazing!
It's a lot of history to wipe out in one fell swoop, with a bunch of jerry-built rabbit hutches and a Tesco's Extra..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top