Parents courted on jetty
REGARDING the likely destruction of the Great Yarmouth Jetty. In the distant future will the historians and people of Great Yarmouth look back with regret at this loss? I have often looked at drawings and paintings of our wonderful town wall gates which were part of the town's history and wonder why not one was left.
REGARDING the likely destruction of the Great Yarmouth Jetty. In the distant future will the historians and people of Great Yarmouth look back with regret at this loss? I have often looked at drawings and paintings of our wonderful town wall gates which were part of the town's history and wonder why not one was left. When they are gone they are like the docks, never to grace this earth again?
I am speaking from a personal view as I doubt if I would exist if the jetty was not there. In the early 1900s the jetty was the walking and meeting point of local residents and that is where my mum and dad met and courted. I used to spend many happy hours fishing on the jetty and landed my biggest cod of 16lb one Christmas. In later times I often used to visit the jetty and have a chat to the fishermen and watch the world go by. Sadly this looks like its coming to an end.
I get this feeling that being a born and bred Yarco we don't count. Hoping the jetty will be repaired and preserved forever.
- 1 New bus service to link Great Yarmouth with two major airports
- 2 Gorleston road closed for five months for new manhole and tunnel
- 3 Man on cocktail of drugs arrested after hitting 73mph in 30mph limit
- 4 Items from Lidl and Sainsbury's recalled over health and safety concerns
- 5 Concern for missing Great Yarmouth man
- 6 Virus expert predicts Omicron will start 'outcompeting' Delta
- 7 Parts of Norfolk could see 60mph winds as Storm Barra hits
- 8 Car park closed after more erosion at Winterton
- 9 The best fossil hunting spots across East Anglia
- 10 Wind turbines, cables and trenches: Is another way possible?
THE council in it's wisdom have installed new street lighting in the Southtown area, which presumably will provide better lighting with energy savings from new technology. However, having excavated to install and connect the new lights, they did not remove the old columns or indeed remove the power. As a consequence the area has two working lights instead of one! In these days of Governments pressing for all to save energy, and to cut greenhouse gas emissions, does the council not have a duty to lead in this area. These new columns have been in place for several weeks, and therefore more electricity consumed, for the ratepayers to pick up the bill by further increases in council tax. Not to mention the additional costs for the removal of the old columns sometime in the future.
JOHN C WARNE
IN response to Cllr Castle's letter last week: I think it is only right to point out that everything he has said is “just words”, seemingly his own opinion, conjecture and nothing more. Does he have any firm information to back any of this up? I fear not; especially when he has to use phrases such as “we have to hope”. Whilst he is, like anyone else, perfectly entitled to his opinion, it can cause expectations to be raised, as people are likely to think that his position as a councillor makes him privy to information others do not have.
Whilst I appreciate he is trying to inspire confidence, and in today's financial climate confidence is everything, if he really feels the outer harbour will bring jobs and prosperity to Great Yarmouth then it is he who is “living in a parallel universe”. There has as yet been no indication of this at all. Only job losses.
There has only been one vessel which has the harbour and that was only in port for a matter of hours and the crew loaded it themselves! There are no bunkering facilities at the new harbour, so any vessels using it cannot refuel. Hardly ideal.
And of course; as has been stated countless times; there is no suitable road network to Yarmouth. But let's be fair, even if there were, there is a limit to how much traffic can travel along the quay.
I would love to be proven wrong. After all Yarmouth does badly need a boost.
WE hear much about the regeneration of Great Yarmouth seafront, but no-one mentions the degeneration of the seafront ie North Drive. Flower beds have been removed, shelters removed, lights from the boating lake and Waterways have disappeared. The council is now switching off the coloured strings of seafront lights
From Salisbury Road to the Waterways, there are 16 sections of lights. Is it a test? If residents don't complain will the remaning lights also disappear? Perhaps the master plan is to remove all facilities in North Drive so visitors and locals will be driven to the “regenerated” part of the seafront? If that was not bad enough, they have now put parking meters on North Drive. I shake my head from side to side.
WITH reference to the letter from John Calthorpe in last Friday's Mercury. I think Mr Calthorpe will find he is the one who is under the misapprehension he has priority to traffic travelling from his right on a roundabout. He is right that double broken lines mean give way to traffic on a major road or a mini-roundabout, but the Highway Code would indicate this does not apply to major roundabouts. Those double broken lines are more likely to be there to warn traffic coming from Burnt Lane, of which I am one, to beware of drivers shooting out of Church Road at great speed and with no regard to those coming onto the roundabout from their right. Maybe a representative of the Highways Departemnt would be able to clarify the situation.
I REFER to the letter from John Calthorpe. I have had many close shaves at that roundabout at the junction with Burnt Lane in Gorleston. Many motorists don't know how to behave and signal at roundabouts. How many motorists do you see, who want to go straight across, will signal right getting on to the roundabout, and then left as they go off. This is wrong. You do not need to signal when going straight over. While I am putting pen to paper is it not time that the Caister car parking issue was put to bed.
H G PERRY
I AM very pleased Michael Castle popped his head above the parapet. If I live in a parallel world to his it is good because mine is the real world.
No Michael, it isn't about the Outer Harbour per se, not about rubbishing it because most supported it originally but expectations and what residents were told about the project haven't materialised. Roll-on roll-off boats bringing jobs and tourists, some gamblers, to our super casino to add prosperity to our town. Delightful weekend trips to the continent for residents. Jobs by the hundreds.
Would he like to let us know the research that enabled the council to forecast what and where these jobs would be and what the new figures are. Why the change to containers which will cause noise pollution through the night? What powers did they give away or not preserve which is allowing EastPort to become a sovereign state within our borough. They have spawned a monster which seems able to do all it wants because of what appears to have been one sided negotiations. Is this why there is a veil of secrecy where “confidential commercial information” takes precedence over “freedom of information.”
It is encouraging to note in Bernard Williamson's letter that we should be able to have a public meeting to fully discuss the matter. I would go even further and say we also need a public enquiry into the GYBC/EastPort negotiations.
I don't think the “incomers” EastPort are to blame for the disgraceful state of the pier car park but that Michael Castle should probably take some blame for allowing this to happen during his term at the helm of the port. Why were the previous lessees not charged dilapidations before EastPort took over? Why wasn't the pier, a conservation area and a much needed car park, given protection in the lease; after all, as far as I can see, EastPort has no use for the pier other than as a barricade for the river. If they do have other plans because they seem to have only been given the parts of the port that are profit-making we need to know?
FURTHER to the article, “The art collection that's yearning for a gallery,” (Mercury, September 11) the Great Yarmouth and District Society of Artists have had several enquiries and will be considering these. However, it appears unlikely that one location could accommodate the whole collection and we would, therefore, be pleased to hear from any firms or professional bodies within the locality who might be interested in displaying a picture or pictures. Any interested parties can contact Julian Macey on 01493 728446 or by email to email@example.com.
Chairman of Permanent Collection Management Committee
I DID enjoy Mr Castle's letter the Mercury September 11); now perhaps either the present chairman of the Great Yarmouth Port Company, an executive director of the borough council, or one of the elected councillors who serve of the Port Company, could answer questions.
Where, specifically, will the benefits of the �18m of public funding towards the outer harbour scheme be seen locally? And how many jobs are going to be created? I would also point out that the closure of the harbour ring road is in none of the council's minutes!
Why should the council tax payer be responsible for the risk to the sum of �2.9m for the pensions of the 42 people working for the Port Company? If the Port Company is private and not subject to the Freedom of Information Act then why did the council agree to this? See Cabinet Report May 2007. 4.6.
What is the situation of the Compulsory Purchase Orders on the 'tank' and 'tent' sites, given the borough council's involvement in these? Does the council feel it prudent to allow a private commercial port company to go ahead with this, given the fact that the original investment in the outer harbour project, both public and private, has not yet been realised and there is no proof the land is required?
It is believed here is a severe weight restriction on the new outer harbour port land, which is restricting some forms of possible usage. Is this true? Also see item 5.5. Why should the council tax payer be responsible for repairing Haven Bridge as in Item 3.3 you state all Port Company assets are to be transferred to International Port Holdings (IPH)? Are councillors admitting that only profitable parts are being given to IPH.
Who put a value of �1.6m on the 42 parcels of land given to IPH surely at today's values that figure was greatly under priced?
Does the Council feel what they have done has given the town value for money?
The January 2009 Audit Commission stated the Council had not made value for money a priority, and was unable to show if it was getting good value, particularly from an externally funded project. They also commented “that the council was to make sure that it was ensuring that local people benefit from regeneration.”
So far this has not happened. The council has given every money-earning part of the harbour to a company who could if they wished sell it from under our council's nose.
There should be a public inquiry.
JOHN L COOPER
Honorary Freeman of the Borough
Ex Port Welfare Officer
WITH regard to the current discussion about mobility scooters; I should like to point out the following facts. (a) Class One are manually propelled, no requirements. (b) Class 2 are limited to 4mph, can be used on the pavements, no legal requirements. (c) Class 3 are capable of 8mph, can be used on the pavement at 4mph maximum, or on the road 8mph, and require registering with DVLA. While there is no legal requirement for insurance to drive these mobility buggies/scooters it is recommended owners/drivers take out some form of cover. While I understand some people are using these mobility scooters due to disability reasons, one must take on board the overall consideration and that is the potential for inflicting debilitating injury to an otherwise healthy person. In a nutshell, don't stick your head in the sand like an ostrich; take out public liability insurance; otherwise you may find yourself dealt with an insurance claim that will decimate any savings you have, should you injure a member of the public with your mobility scooter.
Name and Address withheld
CALLING all District Nurses who were working in the Great Yarmouth area in the 1970's and 80's. We are planning a reunion to be held on November 18 at Caf� Cru, Imperial Hotel, North Drive, Great Yarmouth at 12.30pm. Interested? Contact Doreen Powles (Alcock) on 01493 720096 or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org or alternatively call Mary Barnes-Clay (Kirkland) on 01603 501199 or e-mail email@example.com
I READ with interest the article in the Yarmouth Mercury (Friday August 28), concerning Pontin's Holiday Camp at Hemsby. I believe the site should be retained as a camp. The reason being there has been a holiday camp there since 1920. This was opened by a Mr Maddeson and used as a camp until 1971 when Pontin's bought it.
St Margaret's Way
I AM at the stage now when I buy the Mercury on Friday and turn to the letters pages straight away. The letters themselves make fascinating reading especially the ones about the white elephant (commonly known as EastPort). Two letters in particular from Messrs Denis Durrant and Steve Taylor; I agree with every word they write, and I'm sure many thousands of the local population do the same.
However Michael Castle's letter tries to put the other side of the argument over and he fails miserably. He doesn't mention the �18m of public money that we have had to put in to the venture. He bleats on about the many jobs that are supposed to be coming, so why scrap the existing jobs that have recently been lost? Sorry Mr Castle, with Felixstowe just down the road, you won't see many ships coming into Yarmouth. Someone once said if East Port ever got built it would make a great yachting marina!
TOO often, the youngsters of today receive bad press. So having watched with delight the brilliant show put on by Dusmagrik Productions at the Hippodrome last weekend I feel it is only appropriate that someone praises this talented young people. This show - written, choreographed and performed by the youngsters had everything - entertainment, emotion, laughter and tears and had the whole audience enthralled throughout. The entire cast (and their families) should be extremely proud of themselves for working so hard in preparing for the show that pleased so many. Well done to you all and I look forward to seeing your next production.
I WAS very disappointed to read Councillor Castle's letter concerning the outer harbour. If, as he states, the closure of the road at the harbour mouth was county council policy some 19 years ago, then why were our representatives not challenging this? He goes on to state that Gorleston pier has been in poor condition for years as if it is something we should all just accept! Gorleston is the poor relation when it comes to expenditure. At the very least the council owes the local electorate a clear explanation of the history of the pier, detailing how we have arrived at today's situation and who made the decisions.