DOCSLIB.ORG

Objection 58

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Objection 58 FoI request re 11/00310 Text of objections 58 - 73 Objection 58 I wish to object to Babcock applying for a Harbour Revision Order. I object on the grounds that: 1. There is no need for another Container Port on the Forth as there is plenty of capacity at Grangemouth, which also has better access to the transport system of Scotland. 2. The links to the Rail and road system are wholly inadequate for moving containers into and out of this Container Port if given the go ahead. 3. I do not believe that they will provide 200 jobs. Grangemouth, I believe, operate with far less people than 200. 4. The dredging needed to get channels deep enough to get ships in and out of this Terminal will have a severe impact on the environment both the surrounding sea walls and piers but also the marine and bird life. 5. The 'carbon impact' of a terminal at this location would be huge as tugs would be needed to move ships into place and there would be ongoing dredging to keep channels open. I do not know where the money is coming from to build such a project, can't believe that Babcock are totally funding, but if the Scottish Government are subsidising this would be very wrong in this environment. The money could be better spent much needed projects to grow the economy and not on something that does not have a strong business case to contribute to the economy. Objection 59 I write to you of my concern of the above proposal. I hereby object to the proposal on the following grounds. • 24/7 noise affecting the quality of life in surrounding villages. • Negligible job creation for the disruption. • Additional strain on local A roads with haulage vehicles • There is an under utilised terminal at Grangemouth on the Firth of Forth already. I hope you consider my objection. Objection 60 Objection 61 Proposed Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order and Proposed River Forth (Port Babcock Rosyth Port Limits) Harbour Revision Order As owner occupiers of the property which would be most severely affected by both noise and visual impact, we write to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed construction of a container terminal on the RD57 site at Rosyth. Objection 62 As a village resident in Charlestown I wish to lodge an objection to the proposal to build a container terminal at Rosyth. Reading the document sent to you by this Community Council there are various points that do not stand up in my opinion. Mainly that containers would only be able to come in at high tide. The volume of traffic on the present road system would not be acceptable. Dredging a deeper channel would have a devestating effect on the shore line. In the present climate this is a waste of time and effort when the opportunity is there to extend the Grangemouth facility. There are others to many to detail here. I have to add my name to this objection. Objection 63 I write to express my concern at the news that engineering support services organisation Babcock is planning to proceed with plans to develop the container terminal at Rosyth by obtaining a Harbour Revision Order - rather than following a democratic planning process which would allow for contributions and comments from the many stakeholders affected by this proposed development. There appears to be little merit in the proposed Harbour Revision Scheme. I am a resident of the Charlestown/Limekilns area and am very alarmed that the considerable impact that this development would have on our communities would be entirely disregarded and sidestepped by following such a process. My main concerns with this proposal are as follows: - Babcock claims it will handle 400,000 containers per year at its Rosyth site - without taking business from other operators. This figure represents more containers in total than currently visit ALL Scottish container ports and freight terminals. There is no evidence to support this claim. - This scheme would not make a contribution to the Fife economy or provide the number of jobs that Babcock promise. - If more capacity for containers were needed on the Forth, this could easily be met by Grangemouth. Grangemouth container port would require very few infrastructure upgrades to meet this demand. - Container transport in and out of the port will be by road, since the rail route alternatives through Inverkething have been assessed as severely limited. The road congestion that this represents for the town of Rosyth and for other traffic users of the A985 as well as the Forth Road Bridge will be horrendous. Given the hold-ups that were frequently experienced on this road during the snowy weather in December 2010, total grid-lock would be likely if container traffic were added in to the mix. - Due to the massive increases in noise levels, constant activity and necessary changes to the marine environment to accommodate the container terminal - such as dredging - the impact of such a project on the marine environment and birdlife could be catastrophic. - The noise and light pollution this project would have on the village of Limekilns and its residents all day and all night, would severely disrupt sleep patterns and add considerably to levels of stress and mental ill-health. I object to Babcock's proposals and strongly oppose that Babcock be granted a Harbour Revision Order. Objection 64 We write to express our concern and dismay at the decision by Babcock to apply for a Harbour Revision Order, which will allow the company to bypass the rigorous scrutiny of their proposals for a container terminal at Rosyth, and related works, that would be undertaken were the company required to follow standard planning procedures by making a Planning Application to Fife Council. As residents of Charles Way in Limekilns village, and thus very close neighbours of the proposed developments, we view this as a grossly improper attempt to circumvent normal democratic planning regulations and requirements, and thus to sidestep the need to consult with and take proper account of the very significant, and as yet wholly unaddressed, concerns of the neighbouring communities. To date, Babcock has totally failed to make a commercial or environmental case for the need for an additional container terminal on the Forth, let alone in Scotland. In the first instance, there is absolutely no need to construct an additional terminal on the Forth capable of handling 400,000 containers per year when, even in recent boom years, the total numbers of containers handled by ALL Scottish container terminals/ports was less than that number. If there is a real future requirement to augment existing container capacity on the Forth, the existing terminal at Grangemouth could more than double its existing capacity without significant infrastructure upgrade or environmental impact. By comparison, proceeding with the construction of a new container terminal at Rosyth would require massive upgrades to existing transport infrastructure, and would make an enormous (but, in the absence of rigorous environmental impact assessments, as yet unquantified) impact on the sensitive environment in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. It is already clear that connecting the proposed terminal to the national rail network will be highly problematic, and therefore that all container transport in and out of the terminal would have to be undertaken by road. The A985 is already overloaded as a transport artery over-run by large articulated lorries, and would require significant upgrading and re-routing were it to be able to handle the additional traffic that would generated by a new terminal. The proposed terminal at Rosyth will not be able to accommodate larger container ships than those already docking at Grangemouth, as the Forth bridges limit the maximum size of vessels for both ports. There is thus no benefit to developing a terminal at Rosyth rather than expanding the existing facility at Grangemouth. Further, since Grangemouth employs just 50 operators, it is hard to see how Babcock's economic justification, based on creating 200 operational jobs, will deliver. In terms of cost/benefit, the proposed terminal will not make a significant contribution to the economy of Fife, and will not deliver a significant uplift in terms of local employment opportunities. By contrast, it is absolutely clear that there will be a significant loss of amenity for local communities were the proposed development to go ahead, including major noise and light pollution at all times of the day and night. Further, the project will require dredged approach channels and alongside berths. As a Royal Navy hydrographic surveyor who has served as the National Hydrographer for both Oman and Fiji, I am acutely aware of the often unexpected and usually highly negative impacts that dredging, which inevitably disturbs the established tidal and environmental equilibrium, can make on the adjacent environment. Of particular concern will be the probable scouring effects on the adjacent shoreline due to altered tidal streams - which could both undermine the coastal defences at Limekilns, and destroy the environmentally sensitive foreshore that is a valuable habitat for a wide range of marine and bird life. In view of the above, we hereby register our very strongest objections to the application made by Babcock for a Harbour Revision Order, and request that Babcock should be required to follow standard planning application procedures by referring their proposals to Fife Council. Finally, we would be grateful for your early acknowledgment of receipt of this objection. Thank you. Objection 65 Proposed Rosyth International Container Terminal (Harbour Revision) Order and Proposed River Forth (Port Babcock Rosyth Port Limits) Harbour Revision Order 201[x] I write to object to the application by Babcock for both of the above Harbour Revision Orders.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part 4: Conclusions and Recommendations & Appendices
    Twentieth Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth: Characterisation Report PART FOUR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The final focus of this report is to develop the local, national and international contexts of the two dockyards to highlight specific areas of future research. Future discussion of Devonport and Portsmouth as distinct designed landscapes would coherently organise the many strands identified in this report. The Museum of London Archaeology Portsmouth Harbour Hinterland Project carried out for Heritage England (2015) is a promising step in this direction. It is emphasised that this study is just a start. By delivering the aim and objectives, it has indicated areas of further fruitful research. Project aim: to characterise the development of the active naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth, and the facilities within the dockyard boundaries at their maximum extent during the twentieth century, through library, archival and field surveys, presented and analysed in a published report, with a database of documentary and building reports. This has been delivered through Parts 1-4 and Appendices 2-4. Project objectives 1 To provide an overview of the twentieth century development of English naval dockyards, related to historical precedent, national foreign policy and naval strategy. 2 To address the main chronological development phases to accommodate new types of vessels and technologies of the naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth. 3 To identify the major twentieth century naval technological revolutions which affected British naval dockyards. 4 To relate the main chronological phases to topographic development of the yards and changing technological and strategic needs, and identify other significant factors. 5 To distinguish which buildings are typical of the twentieth century naval dockyards and/or of unique interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Dockyards Society
    20TH CENTURY NAVAL DOCKYARDS: DEVONPORT AND PORTSMOUTH CHARACTERISATION REPORT Naval Dockyards Society Devonport Dockyard Portsmouth Dockyard Title page picture acknowledgements Top left: Devonport HM Dockyard 1951 (TNA, WORK 69/19), courtesy The National Archives. Top right: J270/09/64. Photograph of Outmuster at Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (23 Oct 1964). Reproduced by permission of Historic England. Bottom left: Devonport NAAFI (TNA, CM 20/80 September 1979), courtesy The National Archives. Bottom right: Portsmouth Round Tower (1843–48, 1868, 3/262) from the north, with the adjoining rich red brick Offices (1979, 3/261). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. Commissioned by The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England of 1 Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, London, EC1N 2ST, ‘English Heritage’, known after 1 April 2015 as Historic England. Part of the NATIONAL HERITAGE PROTECTION COMMISSIONS PROGRAMME PROJECT NAME: 20th Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth (4A3.203) Project Number 6265 dated 7 December 2012 Fund Name: ARCH Contractor: 9865 Naval Dockyards Society, 44 Lindley Avenue, Southsea, PO4 9NU Jonathan Coad Project adviser Dr Ann Coats Editor, project manager and Portsmouth researcher Dr David Davies Editor and reviewer, project executive and Portsmouth researcher Dr David Evans Devonport researcher David Jenkins Project finance officer Professor Ray Riley Portsmouth researcher Sponsored by the National Museum of the Royal Navy Published by The Naval Dockyards Society 44 Lindley Avenue, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO4 9NU, England navaldockyards.org First published 2015 Copyright © The Naval Dockyards Society 2015 The Contractor grants to English Heritage a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, perpetual, irrevocable and royalty-free licence to use, copy, reproduce, adapt, modify, enhance, create derivative works and/or commercially exploit the Materials for any purpose required by Historic England.
    [Show full text]
  • Portsmouth Dockyard in the Twentieth Century1
    PART THREE PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY1 3.1 INTRODUCTION The twentieth century topography of Portsmouth Dockyard can be related first to the geology and geography of Portsea Island and secondly to the technological development of warships and their need for appropriately sized and furnished docks and basins. In 2013, Portsmouth Naval Base covered 300 acres of land, with 62 acres of basin, 17 dry docks and locks, 900 buildings and 3 miles of waterfront (Bannister, 10 June 2013a). The Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust (Heritage Area) footprint is 11.25 acres (4.56 hectares) which equates to 4.23% of the land area of the Naval Base or 3.5% of the total Naval Base footprint including the Basins (Duncan, 2013). From 8 or 9 acres in 1520–40 (Oppenheim, 1988, pp. 88-9), the dockyard was increased to 10 acres in 1658, to 95 acres in 1790, and gained 20 acres in 1843 for the steam basin and 180 acres by 1865 for the 1867 extension (Colson, 1881, p. 118). Surveyor Sir Baldwin Wake Walker warned the Admiralty in 1855 and again in 1858 that the harbour mouth needed dredging, as those [ships] of the largest Class could not in the present state of its Channel go out of Harbour, even in the event of a Blockade, in a condition to meet the Enemy, inasmuch as the insufficiency of Water renders it impossible for them to go out of Harbour with all their Guns, Coals, Ammunition and Stores on board. He noted further in 1858 that the harbour itself “is so blocked up by mud that there is barely sufficient space to moor the comparatively small Force at present there,” urging annual dredging to allow the larger current ships to moor there.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Navy Records
    -1- PLEASE ALWAYS QUOTE LIST NUMBER WHEN ORDERING. BOOK POST: From the 1st April 2014. Our postage charges will be as follows:- UK Customers: 0 to 1 Kilo - £3.50 1 to 2 Kilos - £4.50 2 to 30 Kilos - £8.50* * UK Mainland only (exceptions Scottish Highlands & Islands, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Isles of Scilly) Overseas customers: will be asked to pay the normal seamail, postage rates. Air Mail is available: extra charge on request. BOOK CARRIAGE: U.K. Parcels weighing less than 2kg are sent by 2nd class or Royal Mail standard parcel. Parcels weighing more than 2kg are sent via Parcel Force, 48 hour service. Books are sent at customers risk unless separately insured. The extra cost of insured carriage or ‘signed for’ delivery to customers is available on request. All orders are despatched promptly, usually next day. BOOK ORDERING: Books may be ordered by letter, phone, or e-mail or fax. Our e-mail is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Do not forget to look at the back-dated catalogues. Books are frequently unsold. BOOK PAYMENT: All customers may pay by Cash, Cheque and ALL Credit and Debit cards EXCEPT AMEX OR EUROCHEQUE. Please quote your card number, expiry date and security code (the last 3 digits on the signature strip) in separate emails if preferred for security reasons and the full address at which the card is registered when ordering. U.K and Overseas customers may also await our Proforma Invoice. Institutions will receive the books with an invoice plus postage or carriage charges.
    [Show full text]
  • Author Title
    Volume.Page Author Title No Bagaeen, Samer and Sustainable Regeneration of Former Military Sites - reviewed by Ray 11.141 Clark, Celia, Eds Riley Black, Jack The Naval Defence Act 1889 & its effect on the construction of 2.65 Gibraltar HM Dockyard Blakemore, Richard Parliament, Royal Dockyards and the London maritime community: 8.31 the aftermath of the 1648 Naval Revolt Brabander, Richard Intersections of interest: a prosopographical analysis of restoration 8.87 privateering enterprise Breen, Ken Second relief of Gibraltar 1781, Gibraltar as a strategic pivot 2.47 Brown, Paul Docking the Dreadnoughts: Dockyard Activity in the Dreadnought 12.43 Era Buchet, Christian The development of Victualling Board bases in London, 4.53 Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham and Dover (1701–1763) Buxton, Ian Rosyth Dockyard, Battleships and Dry-docking 12.107 Clark, Celia Adaptive re-use and the Georgian storehouses of Portsmouth: 4.27 naval storage to museum Clark, Celia Dockyards in visual art, art in dockyards: celebrated as sites of 9.44 national pride expressing the ‘beauty of utility’, pride in craft skills and foci of new artistic activity Clark, Celia Naval hospitals: history and architectural overview 6.65 Clark, Celia Vintage ports: lessons in the renewal of historic dockyards: an 3.89 international perspective Clark, Celia Women at Work in Portsmouth Dockyard 1914–19 12.1 Coad, Jonathan “To serve the fleet in distant waters”: buildings of the Georgian 5.51 Royal Navy’s overseas bases Coats, Ann Bermuda Dockyard and the War of 1812: a conference and tour 10.13 Coats, Ann Building(7–12 June Victory 2012): bureaucracy,set in time and logistics place and the sinews of war 7.9 Coats, Ann English naval administration under Charles I – Top-down and 8.9 bottom-up – tracing continuities Coats, Ann Epilogue: Rosia Water Tanks, Gibraltar 2.81 Coats, Ann Five Hundred Years of Deptford and Woolwich Royal Dockyards 11.1 and counting .
    [Show full text]
  • Rosyth Royal Dockyard Limited
    Rosyth Royal Dockyard Limited Annual report For the year ended 31 March 2020 Company registration number: SC101959 Rosyth Royal Dockyard Limited Directors and advisors Current Directors I S Urquhart D M Jones J A Donaldson J W Howie B R Alexander W R Watson Joint company secretaries J M Wood Babcock Corporate Secretaries Limited Registered office Babcock International Rosyth Business Park Rosyth Dunfermline Fife KY11 2YD Independent auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Chartered Accountants and Statutory Auditors 141 Bothwell Street Glasgow G2 7EQ Registered number SC101959 Page 1 Rosyth Royal Dockyard Limited Strategic report for the year ended 31 March 2020 The directors present their Strategic report on the Company for the year ended 31 March 2020. Principal activities The principal activities of the Company are the supply of employees and assets primarily to Babcock Marine Rosyth Limited, carrying out the Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP), leasing of surplus property to commercial tenants and cargo handling carried out by the commercial port business. On 1st April 2020, RRDL purchased the trade and assets of BMRL, its immediate parent, for consideration of £118,021,000 being the net book value of the assets, satisfied by the issue of 50 £1 ordinary shares at a premium of £118,020,950 or £2,360,419 per share. On 7th April 2020 a contract was novated to RRDL from Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited (DRDL), a sister company, for the Design & Build Contract relating to the Type 31e Programme for the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The contract duration extends through to 2030, at an initial value of £1,430m.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBMARINE DISMANTLING PROJECT COEIA MCDA Data Report
    XXXXXXXXXXX ISM SUBMARINE DISMANTLING PROJECT COEIA MCDA Data Report © Crown Copyright (2011) Issue 2.0 – Jun 2011 This document has been released as background information to support the Submarine Dismantling Consultation (28 Oct 2011 – 17 Feb 2012). It has been redacted in order to protect: • personal information; and • information that could compromise UK Defence or National Security. For further information about the Submarine Dismantling Project, please visit: www.mod.uk/submarinedismantling For information about Freedom of Information requests, please visit: www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation XXXXXXXXXXX ISM COEIA MCDA Data Report Submarine Dismantling Project v2.0 Jun 2011 Document Information Project Name: Submarine Dismantling Project Document Title: COEIA MCDA Data Report Issue Status: Issue 2.0 Deliverable Reference: Produced By: ISM Level of This Document is controlled to Ash 1b Control: Level 2 iaw SDP PMP Defence Equipment & Support Document Quality MOD Abbey Wood Management Procedure. Bristol BS34 8JH Document Authorisation Owner: Peer Reviewer Author: Committee Endorsement: Editorial Technical Checker: Checker: Document Approver’s Approver: Signature: Document Authoriser’s Authoriser: Signature: Conditions of Use The material in this document is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items in this document are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. The permission to reproduce Crown protected material does not extend to any material in this document which is identified as being the copyright of a third party.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2014-15
    Ministry of – Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2014-2015 ReportAnnual and Accounts Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2014-2015 Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2 014 -15 For the year ended 31 March 2015 Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 Departmental Report presented to the House of Commons by Command of Her Majesty Annual Report and Accounts presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 16 July 2015 HC 32 This is part of a series of departmental publications which, along with the Main Estimates 2015-16, the document Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 2015, and the Supply Estimates 2014-15: Supplementary Budgetary Information, present the Government’s outturn for 2014-15 and planned expenditure for 2015-16. © Crown copyright 2015 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London T W9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: [email protected] Print ISBN 9781474123358
    [Show full text]
  • Flight & Aircraft Engineer
    Flight, May 8, 1919 First Aero Weekly ia the World. Founder and Editor: STANLEY SPOONER A Journal devoted to the Interests, Practice, and Progress of Aerial Locomotion and Transport OFFICIAL ORGAN OF THE ROYAL AERO CLUB OF THE UNITED KINGDOM No. 641 (No. », Vol. XI.) eekly. Price 60. MAY 8, 1919 rPost Free, 7d. the aerodromes were being constructed for the War Office. Flight As these contractors were receiving a percentage on their expenditure and incurring no risk, it is difficult to understand and The Aircraft Engineer what public benefit could be derived from a change which Editorial Offices 36, GREAT QUEEN STREET, KINGSWAY, W.C 2 increased their remuneration (by an amount which they note Telegrams: Truditur, Westcent, London. Telephone : Gerard 1818 is estimated at £66,000) without (so far as my lords can see) Annual Subscription Rates, Post Free: securing in any particular an additional advantage to the United Kingdom .. 28;. 2d. Abroad 33s. ad. State. These rates are subject to any alteration found necessary under war conditions " They note that the ground alleged is that the contractors were not making sufficiently handsome profits, and had, CONTENTS therefore, ' lost interest ' in their contracts, but that the . Army Council state that this statement is entirely at variance with the information at their disposal. Editorial Comment: PAGE Pity the Poor Taxpayer! .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 587 " The complaints which their lordships have received " Serious Defects" .. .. 587 from many quarters as to the waste of money which is arising The Regulation of Civil Flying .. .. .. 588 in connection with aerodrome contracts reinforce their view The Regulations in Detail .
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction 1 the Officers of the Royal Navy Before 1918
    Notes Introduction 1. Rasor, 1990 2. Barnett, 1963 p. 185. 3. Rodger, 2001 p. 22. 4. Rodger, 2011 pp. 272–84. 5. Marshall, 2000 p. 160. 6. Palmer, 2005 p. 82. 7. Lewis-Stempel, 2011 p. 96. 8. Potholm, 2010 p. 150. 9. von Clausewitz, 1989 Book One Ch 3. 10. For example see Shillington, 1950 (reproduced RUSI Journal 156,(2), 2011, pp. 96–98). 11. Marshall, 2000; Watson, 2008; Fennell, 2011. 12. Watson; Holloway, 2006. 13. Watson, pp.128, 194 14. Fennell, pp. 9–10. 15. 2SLPersRec. 16. Interview with author, 28 October 2008. 17. Herzberg, 2008. 18. Watson, p. 140. 19. A good review of the literature is FitzGibbon, 1995) which, while largely con- cerning the Battle of Goose Green in 1982, goes in some detail into the theory of auftragstakik, and befehlstaktik. It is somewhat inaccessible to the non-military reader. Confusingly he describes the former - mission command – as ‘directive command’, referring to the practice of issuing a single command directive and leaving to the subordinate how the directive is to be achieved. 20. Harris, 2009 p. 192. 1 The Offi cers of the Royal Navy Before 1918 1. Barnett, 1963 p. 184. 2. Epstein, 2014 p. 213. 3. Bull, 2004 p. 272, Epstein, 2014 pp. 108–9. 4. Epstein, 2014. 5. Wilson and Callo, 2004 p. 159–60. 6. Kent, 1993 p. 27. 7. BR 827 June 1943 p. 4. 8. Buxton, 1978 p. 173; Hodges, 1981 pp. 133–4; Campbell, 1985 pp. 25–8. 9. Farquharson-Roberts, 2014 pp. 97–100. 10. Lambert, 2008 pp.
    [Show full text]
  • South Queensferry Throughout the Great War the Scotsman Printed
    South Queensferry Throughout the Great War The Scotsman printed many and varied stories of events that included references to South Queensferry, the Forth Bridge, and the Firth of Forth. Some of these are repeated here. The Scotsman - Saturday 1 August 1914 South Queensferry. Girl drowned. A girl was observed to disappear on Thursday afternoon in one of the reservoirs originally used in connection with the water supply of South Queensferry. On information being lodged with the local police, dragging operations were carried out, and eventually the body of Mary Airlie, seventeen years of age, who resided at Dalmeny Rows, and who had been until recently in domestic service in the neighbourhood, was recovered. The Scotsman - Monday 3 August 1914 The Firth of Forth under supervision. Important regulations for Merchantmen. Important public traffic regulations concerning the Firth of Forth have been issued in the public safety by order of the Commander-in-Chief, The Nore, whose representative here to see that they are carried out is the official known as "The King's Harbourmaster", Rosyth. Full details will be seen in an advertisement on the front page of The Scotsman. They amount in the main to this, that all mercantile traffic, including small craft, is forbidden to leave or enter the Firth of Forth during the hours of "official night" or during thick or foggy weather. Official night extends from some minutes after the almanac hour of sunset and some minutes before the almanac hour of sunrise. Examining stations, at which armed examination steamers will be stationed, have been instituted both on the east and west side of Inchkeith, and during the day no merchant vessels will be allowed to proceed up the Firth without first proceeding to these examination stations for examination.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Naval and Civilian Waterfront Renewals Have Lessons to Teach Each Other?
    Do naval and civilian waterfront renewals have lessons to teach each other? C. Clark University of Portsmouth, UK Abstract Naval and civilian waterfronts were once sharply differentiated, but there are signs of convergence in the process of their successor owners' search for new activities and in the eventual outcomes. Continued dock use may lead to the clearance of previous infrastructure in both types, for the vast acreages required for container handling. Location directly affects outcomes: container ports need close access to deep water and the sea, leaving inland ports vacant for the generation of new non-port uses. Proximity to water has important potential for the revitalisation of both naval and civilian waterfronts. It adds value to the adjoining land in two ways: as an amenity attraction for water-related leisure activities, and also from its ability to create value for developers and investors in abandoned waterfronts. But there are many ways in which naval waterfront renewals differ from the parallel process in commercial dock areas. In contrast to most of their civilian counterparts, naval waterfronts frequently have important historic architectural ensembles. These were built by national governments to reflect state power, constructed without reference from the operation of market forces which fuelled the development of civilian docks. This highly specialised townscape, when no longer required by the navy, has potential for development as heritage. However, extra layers of planning control may inhibit or delay reuse of historic naval docks, and inward investment may be hard to find. The surrounding communities are often excluded from decision-making about future uses for both kinds of site, but there are instances where they are creatively engaged in planning for their future.
    [Show full text]