Brooke site proposals
PUBLISHED: 10:46 21 April 2008 | UPDATED: 20:12 05 July 2010
I REFER to Philip Watkins letter (March 21) seeking to allay the concerns of port businesses over jobs that arose after the publication of the Brooke site proposals.
I REFER to Philip Watkins letter (March 21) seeking to allay the concerns of port businesses over jobs that arose after the publication of the Brooke site proposals. This follows the clearance of maritime businesses from Riverside Road.
The Lowestoft Harbour Maritime Businesses Group have indeed now been assured that some additional quay space in the proposed Brooke development will be allocated to maritime business use.
This is what we want to hear and exactly the sort of development the port needs, being infinitely preferable to the construction of yet more unsustainable housing.
If housing is to be built it could happily exist alongside many port industries, except for a piece of UK legislation that can only be described as inept.
If someone moves into a dwelling next to a business that makes some noise, they can have it made quieter. If that is not possible the business has to close or move.
I have every sympathy with developers in their efforts to circumvent this unfair law. Measures include preventing householders from opening their windows and convoluted covenants - hardly practical solutions. British businesses have every right to quake at the prospect of new housing.
The correct solution to this national problem is for the legislation to be amended to take precedent into account.
The objection to the marina is simply that there isn't room for it in the location proposed. It blocks the channel, it inhibits the dredging of the whole upper harbour, it curtails the use of the slipways opposite and it is over harbour bed owned by others. These are not unreasonable objections.
It was incorrect to assert that LHMBG object to the third crossing.
Many members did vociferously object to the proposed fourth pedestrian and cycle crossing at the Brooke peninsular. One of the reasons is that ships cannot simply put a handbrake on and wait around for bridges to open, like motorcars. They have to berth up. As far as I am aware every maritime organisation involved with Lowestoft has lodged objection to this somewhat frivolous additional crossing.
Inferring that these are simply my personal opinions is an attempt to belittle the views of the Lowestoft Harbour Maritime Businesses Group.
This is the only body representing the many smaller concerns that depend upon the port and that make up the majority of port businesses. Such firms are the seed corn for the future and it is important that we should try to prevent their unintended destruction by communicating problems that were not envisaged by 1st East or developers.
If you think your firm is eligible to join this group, please telephone me on 01502 513632.
Port of Lowestoft Maritime Businesses Group