HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by John L Cooper, 12:20, Mon 8 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  The EEDA Business plan which the grants were based on, called for a Harbour suitable for all types of Cargo and oil/gas related Supply Ships regardless of length and up to 8 metres draft.

  Mr Freeman states “the Harbour was not built for small ships”. This is contrary to what the Grants were for The Arklow ship that could not load was 90 metres long, so not really a small ship, as so the Team Oman.

  In more concise detail the following is what Councillors allowed to happen guided by unelected Officers.

  Officers rushed the procedures prior to the signing of contracts with IPH. Where it was quite possible IPH was in control of our port and the £16.5 million grant plus the £1.6 million in land but had lost their Backers which it appears Officers did not pick up on. Councillors in their exuberance to go down in history as the people that “built” the outer harbour, allowed Officers to persuade them to take on the massive liabilities of Haven Bridge, and West Bank. These were always paid for by the GYPA from earnings from Port Dues, Not the Rates. Officers promoted the idea that Councillors agreed that IPH should take over the Freehold of our port’s ancient Buildings and Pier. Also the leases of vast tracts of Port and Borough land and buildings. This gave IPH the collateral they needed to get a £12 million Bank loan/overdraft facility as being a fledgling company they had no money of their own to put into the venture. Councillors allowed Officers to talk them into agreeing with IPH that Norfolk rate money should be used to pay for the unused Plans that Eastport Gt. Yar. Ltd had made between 2000 and 2005, which included not all of the circa £1:5 m expended prior to signature was not only design but "expert" opinions from various consultants and legal teams. IPH wanted the complete £18 million as they wanted to produce their own plans, and as Eastport Gt. Yar. Ltd had already spent the money, Ratepayers had to give it back. Obviously either "our team" failed, contractually, to ensure that the funding was expended in accordance with the criteria depicted in the economic appraisal or IPH just ignored it and "our team" either has not or cannot hold them responsible ?. So can you tell us Why we are paying for HAVEN BRIDGE and the WEST BANK WHY we gave the FREEHOLD to IPH for our Pier WHY did we pay back the £1.5 Million for the OH plans when we should not have done Regards JL Cooper

• Posted by John L Cooper, 12:51, Mon 8 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Thanks Brandon

  Where do you stand on the issue of Gorleston Pier car park being closed,with no published future plan, as a long held public amenity?

• Posted by Steve Taylor, 12:58, Mon 8 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Hi Brandon,

  When will the Gorleston Pier car park be open to the public use again? (This should fit your new heading for all matters Outer Harbour, as the ownership of this well used amenity was transfered to Eastport, who quickly closed it on extremely tenious HSE grounds)

• Posted by Brandon Lewis, 14:41, Mon 8 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I have put a series of questions to the County and Borough Councils on these issues and will post here once I have their reply.

  I do think it is a shame that the car park is out of use, though I understand it is currently unsafe and finance is not available at present to make it safe.

  The issues raised are not ones I can answer directly as they do not fall within my remit, nor was I ever part of the deal or negotiations on the Harbour, so will post here once we get a response from the Councils.

• Posted by Brandon Lewis, 17:01, Tue 9 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Eastport, who own the Outer Harbour have announced today that they are ceasing container work at the harbour. This means that PSA work at the Harbour will cease and that Eastport will now focus on the energy industry and agriculture. This could have the medium and long term affect of actually creating more jobs. Some of the protagonists against the way the harbour have been working have made the point about the lack of jobs created by container work. This switch to energy and agriculture and renewable can potentially lead to far more jobs especially if it can lead to any localised manufacturing or long term servicing opportunities in the sector.

  I suspect this shift in the work will not be a surprise to many readers and as soon as I have a copy that I can cut and paste I will post the full Eastport press release here.

• Posted by Steve Taylor, 13:14, Wed 10 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Brandon, thanks for your reply.

  For Gorleston Pier the issue is not one of genuine Health & Safety, it is fear of litigation by the new owners. Will you have a look yourself as I'd be surprised if you then fell for that well used excuse?

  Appreciate that most of this didn't happen on your watch. However, would be nice to see elected officals held to accountability with the public purse. Enough of these Canute visionary statements, the tide is turning, will you pursue full accountability and transaprency of Eastport costs to the rate payers of your constituency?

  "Protaganists", Now it would seem you are also being critical of a public, who just like the little boy, cried "the emperor has no clothes on". The majority of people wanted this project to suceed and their expectations where based upon the futuristic comments reported by media, so when it is written that "thousands of jobs will be created", isn't it then reasonable to be disapointed and question the source of Pathe News type fairy tales.

  Kind Regards

  Steve Taylor

• Posted by Brandon Lewis, 14:16, Wed 10 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  The problem is that muc of this is not part of the public purse issue but it is a matter for Eastport: http://www.eastportuk.co.uk/

  Eddie Freeman is the Managing Director: EastPort UK House, South Beach Parade, Great Yarmouth, NR30 3GY

  Eastport is owned by International Port Holdings, whose contact details are: Eliza O'Toole, Cardinal Place, 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL United Kingdom

• Posted by Brian Routledge, 15:06, Thu 11 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  There is major concern from local residents with regard to the Outer Harbour and many questions remain unanswered. To have a sucessful working harbour is in the interests of everybody but it appears that valid questions regarding design and operational activites are being totally ignored by both the East Port Managing Director and Local Councillors who were ivolved in the negotiations to secure the harbour project. When ratepayers have contributed so much finacially and lost so much in the way of amenities it should be a matter of priority to provide explanation with regard to concerns of under performance and poor design. Now that it has been announced that the container business is to be no longer persued can we expect to have the road to the harbour Noth Pier opened up once more?

• Posted by Brandon Lewis, 18:20, Wed 1 December 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Brian the road issue has also been asked elsewhere and am happy to do my best to answer. Really you need to ask Great Yarmouth Borough Council about the road issue as it is not part of my remit nor was I ever involved in the deal or construction of the OH. I suspect they will say the road closure is about more than just the containers, inc safety etc. With regard to other comments in your post, I noted the letter in the Mercury last week by the Council Cross Party and I suspect more will follow and the County will be publicly scrutinising the OH shortly, so I understand. From my own research I have found the OH deal to be one that was done in good faith (remember the economy was also very different 5 or more years ago when it was done) but it is not for me to comment on a private company such as EastPort. I have noted the majority (around £80 million) of the investment in the port was private investment by the companies invovled not public money.

  For more details best to contact Eddie Freeman at Easport direct or on Council related issue on the OH it would be Richard Packham the MD at GYBC or the Leader Barry Coleman.

• Posted by Steve Taylor, 21:03, Wed 1 December 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Hi Brandon

  Thanks for a comprehensive reply. I would comment that presently the chain of my inquiry as to the original grounds for the road closure went to: NCC Highways Department, who referred me to GYBC planning authority, who referred me to NCC, who referred me to GYBC, who refer me to Eastport. .......no reply yet in the circle of referment, so much for open government.

  I would further suggest that "safety and containers" would be a cop-out as much of the port including Birds Eye and other industry have co-existed for many years with the public access, from memory the stated reason was security for a segregated customs area that will now not happen.

  The thought that Eastport will actually acknowledge yet alone answer my question really is a straight-bat reply from yourself. However, thanks for your efforts, its acknowledged and here for the record

  Regards

  Steve Taylor

• Posted by Dennis Durrant, 15:53, Sat 8 January 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Hi Brandon

  On 14th November, 2010 you stated on this page "I have put a series of questions to the County and Borough Councils on these issues and will post here once I have their reply.". Has any reply been received yet Please?

  Dennis Durrant

• Posted by Brandon Lewis, 18:10, Sun 9 January 2011: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Yes and they were published as letters from the Leader of the labour Group and the Leader of the Council (cross party) in the Mercury letters page before Christmas along with a column from Richard Packham. If you did not see it I will try and find the link to post here.

If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency, log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK, sign up in order to HearFromYourMP.