Future of Condor Ferries uncertain in Weymouth

THAT WAS THEN: Weymouth welcomes Condor back to the port last July

THAT WAS THEN: Weymouth welcomes Condor back to the port last July

First published in News Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

CONDOR Ferries may abandon Weymouth and move its operation to Poole.

The Echo has learnt that the future of the firm in the resort remains uncertain following plans to replace its existing vessels with a new and larger hydrofoil.

A Weymouth and Portland Borough Council report revealed that Condor has rejected using the refurbished No 3 Berth in Weymouth port due to the size of the new vessel, despite £4m worth of repair works just being spent on the harbour wall.

It says that the ferry firm favours using No 1 Berth which will need £10 million to make it fit for purpose.

That has left the cash-strapped borough council debating its next move.

Borough councillor Ian Bruce confirmed the contents of the confidential report which was shown to councillors, and revealed that the move has sparked problems between the local authority and Condor.

He said: “This would be a very big loss to Weymouth.

“I urge Condor to think again.”

If work on No 1 berth went ahead, Condor would switch its cross Channel sailings to Poole for the 2015 season and return to Weymouth the following year.

There would only be one daily sailing as opposed to the current two a day because the new ferry has a 25 per cent larger capacity than the current vessels.

Cllr Bruce said it is believed that a deposit has already been put down on the new hydrofoil.

The new ferry is 102 metres long whereas the existing ferry is only 86 metres.

Cllr Ian Roebuck, council spokesman for environment and sustainability, added: “The point is that if Condor get a larger vessel and say that they can’t use Berth 3 then it will take at least a year to do the work on Berth 1.

“It will mean that Condor won’t be in Weymouth for this period.”

In November last year, councillors heard that Condor Ferries was set to sign a 15-year contract to use Weymouth as its main route to and from the Channel Islands.

Condor switched to Poole for 17 months while Weymouth’s crumbling quay was repaired in a project worth more than £4million.

As Weymouth port’s biggest customer, Condor – which returned last July – brings at least £7.7million a year to the local economy.

Condor revealed it was planning to bring in a new vessel to sail out of Weymouth in April 2015, but concerns have now been raised about the demands of the ferry firm.

  • Ports and Guests Services Director at Condor Ferries Captain Fran Collins said: “We are considering options for a new vessel in the fleet and are engaging in discussions with all ports across our network of routes between the UK, Channel Islands and France.

“Our current sailing schedules are available for booking up to 24 March 2015, allowing guests to plan their holidays to the Channel Islands and France well in advance.”

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:36am Thu 17 Apr 14

islandman says...

If they had told us this in the first place, we could have demolished the pier and saved millions, surely.
If they had told us this in the first place, we could have demolished the pier and saved millions, surely. islandman
  • Score: 32

6:53am Thu 17 Apr 14

weymouth donkey says...

So wheres the contract then ? Councillors screwed up again ?
So wheres the contract then ? Councillors screwed up again ? weymouth donkey
  • Score: 36

6:57am Thu 17 Apr 14

weymouth donkey says...

From what I can see its best they do clear off , wheres the profits going from them being here anyway ? the average weymouthian sees nothing from them being here apart from the traffic from the boats clogging up our streets , the town is bust and no better off from them at all all the takings are not benefiting us one bit as with a load of other things going on here .
From what I can see its best they do clear off , wheres the profits going from them being here anyway ? the average weymouthian sees nothing from them being here apart from the traffic from the boats clogging up our streets , the town is bust and no better off from them at all all the takings are not benefiting us one bit as with a load of other things going on here . weymouth donkey
  • Score: -20

7:27am Thu 17 Apr 14

arlbergbahn says...

So can we clarify here? "Condor Ferries was set to sign a 15-year contract to use Weymouth as its main route to and from the Channel Islands."
So did they or didn't they? If they did, surely they've got a cast-iron case for breach of contract. If they didn't, whose fault was that? Anyway, Berth 1? Is that the one by the "Pleasure" Pier? How could they possibly fit a ro/ro berth there, unless they construct a new ramp facing the opposite way to the current one so that they berth port side to. Anyway, it hardly sounds a very practical idea,does it, so on the whole perhaps it might be best if they did buzz off, since they obviously can't be trusted to honour any agreements, can they.
*Incidentally, Echo, Catamaran, not Hydrofoil.
So can we clarify here? "Condor Ferries was set to sign a 15-year contract to use Weymouth as its main route to and from the Channel Islands." So did they or didn't they? If they did, surely they've got a cast-iron case for breach of contract. If they didn't, whose fault was that? Anyway, Berth 1? Is that the one by the "Pleasure" Pier? How could they possibly fit a ro/ro berth there, unless they construct a new ramp facing the opposite way to the current one so that they berth port side to. Anyway, it hardly sounds a very practical idea,does it, so on the whole perhaps it might be best if they did buzz off, since they obviously can't be trusted to honour any agreements, can they. *Incidentally, Echo, Catamaran, not Hydrofoil. arlbergbahn
  • Score: 11

7:29am Thu 17 Apr 14

ksmain says...

weymouth donkey wrote:
From what I can see its best they do clear off , wheres the profits going from them being here anyway ? the average weymouthian sees nothing from them being here apart from the traffic from the boats clogging up our streets , the town is bust and no better off from them at all all the takings are not benefiting us one bit as with a load of other things going on here .
Its' quite simple really - their profits contribute to your Council Tax not going up to cover the £7.7 million loss to the local economy. And I suppose the passengers spend nothing in the town on their way to catch the ferry?

And what are the plenty of things going on in the town? The beach (summer only) and a few pubs and restaurants. Weymouth has no shopping centre, and doesn't appear to have a Council that have the foggiest of ideas how to create wealth in the local economy. So I would say that losing a major contributor to our local economy is a big blow!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]weymouth donkey[/bold] wrote: From what I can see its best they do clear off , wheres the profits going from them being here anyway ? the average weymouthian sees nothing from them being here apart from the traffic from the boats clogging up our streets , the town is bust and no better off from them at all all the takings are not benefiting us one bit as with a load of other things going on here .[/p][/quote]Its' quite simple really - their profits contribute to your Council Tax not going up to cover the £7.7 million loss to the local economy. And I suppose the passengers spend nothing in the town on their way to catch the ferry? And what are the plenty of things going on in the town? The beach (summer only) and a few pubs and restaurants. Weymouth has no shopping centre, and doesn't appear to have a Council that have the foggiest of ideas how to create wealth in the local economy. So I would say that losing a major contributor to our local economy is a big blow!!!!!! ksmain
  • Score: 26

7:35am Thu 17 Apr 14

jools says...

I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember that Condor had spent years paying the council a fee, which was supposed to cover the maintenance. The council apparently didn't do the maintenance, which was why the major repairs were needed.
I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember that Condor had spent years paying the council a fee, which was supposed to cover the maintenance. The council apparently didn't do the maintenance, which was why the major repairs were needed. jools
  • Score: 45

7:40am Thu 17 Apr 14

MrTomSmith says...

I have to ask, what percentage of passengers (or cars) stay overnight in Weymouth either before/after their Ferry Crossing? I am not convinced and never have been convinced that it is that high. But I do admit I have no idea what the percentage is. Anyone know? A lot of Hoteliers say they have a lot of custom from passengers which is fair enough.

But of course the big question is, how long have Condor known they are likely to go to the bigger vessel. They returned on 17th July 2013 however more significantly they had a new managing director take over on 1st Feb 2013 and it was in the news then that Weymouth was in the mix as a choice of ports.

Clearly things do move on, and buying a larger craft is something you might expect, sounds to me like Condor have made us (our council) look like right fools, and they don't actually give a stuff about Weymouth. That's what it looks like to me anyway.
I have to ask, what percentage of passengers (or cars) stay overnight in Weymouth either before/after their Ferry Crossing? I am not convinced and never have been convinced that it is that high. But I do admit I have no idea what the percentage is. Anyone know? A lot of Hoteliers say they have a lot of custom from passengers which is fair enough. But of course the big question is, how long have Condor known they are likely to go to the bigger vessel. They returned on 17th July 2013 however more significantly they had a new managing director take over on 1st Feb 2013 and it was in the news then that Weymouth was in the mix as a choice of ports. Clearly things do move on, and buying a larger craft is something you might expect, sounds to me like Condor have made us (our council) look like right fools, and they don't actually give a stuff about Weymouth. That's what it looks like to me anyway. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 20

7:41am Thu 17 Apr 14

Jimmytheone says...

Amazing the Echo has learnt?? Do we have another phone hacking scandal??Mr Bruce confirmed the Confidential report .We say 4 million what about the refurbishment of the ferry terminal building.After all this money what a legal blunder not to have secured a binding contract for 15 years as we the public were told .NOW what to do.Do we cut and run as suggested above or do we sale the council offices and pay for berth 1 at least the propert sale money stays in Weymouth and does not disappear over the hill to pay for their Simons Development or white elephant..What a pickle the Muppets have got into.Not a business head amongst them.
Amazing the Echo has learnt?? Do we have another phone hacking scandal??Mr Bruce confirmed the Confidential report .We say 4 million what about the refurbishment of the ferry terminal building.After all this money what a legal blunder not to have secured a binding contract for 15 years as we the public were told .NOW what to do.Do we cut and run as suggested above or do we sale the council offices and pay for berth 1 at least the propert sale money stays in Weymouth and does not disappear over the hill to pay for their Simons Development or white elephant..What a pickle the Muppets have got into.Not a business head amongst them. Jimmytheone
  • Score: 26

8:10am Thu 17 Apr 14

arlbergbahn says...

Anyway, I'm sure why this, apparently so far hypothetical, new "hydrofoil" need be unable to use the current berth; 102m is +/- 334 ft, and the Sealink ferries of days of old were around 350 ft, and while obviously a catamaran or "hydrofoil" would be rather bigger beam, it shouldn't be that significant a difference. I think condor are trying to take 'em for a ride, frankly, expecting them to spend some extraordinary amount purely for their benefit. Isn't that known as blackmail?
Anyway, I'm sure why this, apparently so far hypothetical, new "hydrofoil" need be unable to use the current berth; 102m is +/- 334 ft, and the Sealink ferries of days of old were around 350 ft, and while obviously a catamaran or "hydrofoil" would be rather bigger beam, it shouldn't be that significant a difference. I think condor are trying to take 'em for a ride, frankly, expecting them to spend some extraordinary amount purely for their benefit. Isn't that known as blackmail? arlbergbahn
  • Score: 11

8:33am Thu 17 Apr 14

Caption Sensible says...

The Jersey government has previously decreed that a link must be maintained with Weymouth for any ferry operator to use the port of St. Hellier, please bear that in mind before getting your knickers in a twist.

However, this may be the impetus required to redevelop the whole of the ferry terminal site . Something that should have been done years ago. If it means a few flats, so be it.
The Jersey government has previously decreed that a link must be maintained with Weymouth for any ferry operator to use the port of St. Hellier, please bear that in mind before getting your knickers in a twist. However, this may be the impetus required to redevelop the whole of the ferry terminal site . Something that should have been done years ago. If it means a few flats, so be it. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 15

8:36am Thu 17 Apr 14

Seb Baker says...

This would be a huge blow to Weymouth's economy - not only directly, but also through Weymouth's reputation and status. Towns are seen either as a place that investment is going towards, or being withdrawn from. I'm afraid that Weymouth is going to be seen (if it isn't already) very firmly in the latter category.
Cllrs Bruce and Roebuck have presided over more shop closures in the Borough, more job losses, and falling investment. I'm sure they try their hardest, but the reality is they just don't have any viable, realistic ideas for how to turn the Borough's fortunes around. They are yesterday's men - as are too many of our councillors.
With May's elections looming, my vote will go to any Party or candidate that can set out a vision for Weymouth and show a bit of leadership. I want a Council that can see Weymouth & Portland's potential, and can unite businesses, communities and investors around that vision, so we can start to feel we're back on the up - not forever declining. Any election leaflets about pavements, dog mess or parking will be going straight in the bin - it's time for our councillors to stop tinkering around the edges and have a bold plan for the future! Roll on May 22nd...!
This would be a huge blow to Weymouth's economy - not only directly, but also through Weymouth's reputation and status. Towns are seen either as a place that investment is going towards, or being withdrawn from. I'm afraid that Weymouth is going to be seen (if it isn't already) very firmly in the latter category. Cllrs Bruce and Roebuck have presided over more shop closures in the Borough, more job losses, and falling investment. I'm sure they try their hardest, but the reality is they just don't have any viable, realistic ideas for how to turn the Borough's fortunes around. They are yesterday's men - as are too many of our councillors. With May's elections looming, my vote will go to any Party or candidate that can set out a vision for Weymouth and show a bit of leadership. I want a Council that can see Weymouth & Portland's potential, and can unite businesses, communities and investors around that vision, so we can start to feel we're back on the up - not forever declining. Any election leaflets about pavements, dog mess or parking will be going straight in the bin - it's time for our councillors to stop tinkering around the edges and have a bold plan for the future! Roll on May 22nd...! Seb Baker
  • Score: 23

8:48am Thu 17 Apr 14

Caption Sensible says...

Seb Baker wrote:
This would be a huge blow to Weymouth's economy - not only directly, but also through Weymouth's reputation and status. Towns are seen either as a place that investment is going towards, or being withdrawn from. I'm afraid that Weymouth is going to be seen (if it isn't already) very firmly in the latter category.
Cllrs Bruce and Roebuck have presided over more shop closures in the Borough, more job losses, and falling investment. I'm sure they try their hardest, but the reality is they just don't have any viable, realistic ideas for how to turn the Borough's fortunes around. They are yesterday's men - as are too many of our councillors.
With May's elections looming, my vote will go to any Party or candidate that can set out a vision for Weymouth and show a bit of leadership. I want a Council that can see Weymouth & Portland's potential, and can unite businesses, communities and investors around that vision, so we can start to feel we're back on the up - not forever declining. Any election leaflets about pavements, dog mess or parking will be going straight in the bin - it's time for our councillors to stop tinkering around the edges and have a bold plan for the future! Roll on May 22nd...!
Very true and well said. Enough is enough.
[quote][p][bold]Seb Baker[/bold] wrote: This would be a huge blow to Weymouth's economy - not only directly, but also through Weymouth's reputation and status. Towns are seen either as a place that investment is going towards, or being withdrawn from. I'm afraid that Weymouth is going to be seen (if it isn't already) very firmly in the latter category. Cllrs Bruce and Roebuck have presided over more shop closures in the Borough, more job losses, and falling investment. I'm sure they try their hardest, but the reality is they just don't have any viable, realistic ideas for how to turn the Borough's fortunes around. They are yesterday's men - as are too many of our councillors. With May's elections looming, my vote will go to any Party or candidate that can set out a vision for Weymouth and show a bit of leadership. I want a Council that can see Weymouth & Portland's potential, and can unite businesses, communities and investors around that vision, so we can start to feel we're back on the up - not forever declining. Any election leaflets about pavements, dog mess or parking will be going straight in the bin - it's time for our councillors to stop tinkering around the edges and have a bold plan for the future! Roll on May 22nd...![/p][/quote]Very true and well said. Enough is enough. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 24

8:55am Thu 17 Apr 14

southill massive says...

Why not use portland port?
Why not use portland port? southill massive
  • Score: 16

9:03am Thu 17 Apr 14

Sidney Hall says...

Consider Portland Port. If £10m really needs spending on a berth, it would be better spent on investing in proper jobs and careers for our local kids, not seasonal support work.
Consider Portland Port. If £10m really needs spending on a berth, it would be better spent on investing in proper jobs and careers for our local kids, not seasonal support work. Sidney Hall
  • Score: 14

10:07am Thu 17 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoberth says...

Sounds like Condor have been stiffing this area after all the promises if we sorted out the berth that was fixed?
Sounds like Condor have been stiffing this area after all the promises if we sorted out the berth that was fixed? Sigurd Hoberth
  • Score: -1

10:09am Thu 17 Apr 14

Sigurd Hoberth says...

southill massive wrote:
Why not use portland port?
If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....
[quote][p][bold]southill massive[/bold] wrote: Why not use portland port?[/p][/quote]If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic.... Sigurd Hoberth
  • Score: 7

10:35am Thu 17 Apr 14

siriem says...

Seb Baker wrote:
This would be a huge blow to Weymouth's economy - not only directly, but also through Weymouth's reputation and status. Towns are seen either as a place that investment is going towards, or being withdrawn from. I'm afraid that Weymouth is going to be seen (if it isn't already) very firmly in the latter category.
Cllrs Bruce and Roebuck have presided over more shop closures in the Borough, more job losses, and falling investment. I'm sure they try their hardest, but the reality is they just don't have any viable, realistic ideas for how to turn the Borough's fortunes around. They are yesterday's men - as are too many of our councillors.
With May's elections looming, my vote will go to any Party or candidate that can set out a vision for Weymouth and show a bit of leadership. I want a Council that can see Weymouth & Portland's potential, and can unite businesses, communities and investors around that vision, so we can start to feel we're back on the up - not forever declining. Any election leaflets about pavements, dog mess or parking will be going straight in the bin - it's time for our councillors to stop tinkering around the edges and have a bold plan for the future! Roll on May 22nd...!
While I absolutely agree with you, I can't help wondering that if as you rightly suggest we ignore all the election campaigns that concentrate on non-issues, who does that leave?
[quote][p][bold]Seb Baker[/bold] wrote: This would be a huge blow to Weymouth's economy - not only directly, but also through Weymouth's reputation and status. Towns are seen either as a place that investment is going towards, or being withdrawn from. I'm afraid that Weymouth is going to be seen (if it isn't already) very firmly in the latter category. Cllrs Bruce and Roebuck have presided over more shop closures in the Borough, more job losses, and falling investment. I'm sure they try their hardest, but the reality is they just don't have any viable, realistic ideas for how to turn the Borough's fortunes around. They are yesterday's men - as are too many of our councillors. With May's elections looming, my vote will go to any Party or candidate that can set out a vision for Weymouth and show a bit of leadership. I want a Council that can see Weymouth & Portland's potential, and can unite businesses, communities and investors around that vision, so we can start to feel we're back on the up - not forever declining. Any election leaflets about pavements, dog mess or parking will be going straight in the bin - it's time for our councillors to stop tinkering around the edges and have a bold plan for the future! Roll on May 22nd...![/p][/quote]While I absolutely agree with you, I can't help wondering that if as you rightly suggest we ignore all the election campaigns that concentrate on non-issues, who does that leave? siriem
  • Score: 7

10:59am Thu 17 Apr 14

Woodgate says...

The lack of commercial competence shown by WPBC is frightening. Is it really too much to hope that Councillors and well paid officers might just be capable of some strategic planning and investment and professional engagement with the private sector? The beach, harbours and port are superb assets but all I see is squabbling over huts,kiosk pitches, TIC locations and placating small self interest groups whilst the area falls into further decline. Time for new people to sort the mess out and give us hope.
The lack of commercial competence shown by WPBC is frightening. Is it really too much to hope that Councillors and well paid officers might just be capable of some strategic planning and investment and professional engagement with the private sector? The beach, harbours and port are superb assets but all I see is squabbling over huts,kiosk pitches, TIC locations and placating small self interest groups whilst the area falls into further decline. Time for new people to sort the mess out and give us hope. Woodgate
  • Score: 32

11:26am Thu 17 Apr 14

cosmick says...

Well there will be a few new faces for election on MAY 22ND , make your choice wisely.
Well there will be a few new faces for election on MAY 22ND , make your choice wisely. cosmick
  • Score: 7

12:56pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Seriously - the channel Islands are ridiculous. They are a tax heaven for unscrupulous "british" business and the undertones of the recent Police investigation into child abuse which was hushed up by the Islands government was very disturbing. I read the interview with the Police officer in charge and it makes our corruption cases look like a tea party.
The generators are oil. I see a vast amount of very expensive large cars on the Islands as well. Sustainability is not high on the list of to dos.
The condor service is rubbish, quite frankly. The vessels are always breaking down and limping back to port. The biggest insult I think is the steel armrests that are like a medieval torture device. Ok, so might stop fat people taking up two seats once in a blue moon, but you cannot sit comfortably in any way other than bolt upright.
I think Brittany know how to run a ferry service and a company. I think we should just give the channel islands back to the French and go there for the occasional holiday or walk.
Theres nothing special about them - just bits of sandy rocky island. It certainly doesn't warrant the outrageous house prices there - Ive seen terraced houses on Gurnsey in estate agent windows for £500,000! Make all the 'Brits' there come back to the main land and pay proper tax into the system.
Seriously - the channel Islands are ridiculous. They are a tax heaven for unscrupulous "british" business and the undertones of the recent Police investigation into child abuse which was hushed up by the Islands government was very disturbing. I read the interview with the Police officer in charge and it makes our corruption cases look like a tea party. The generators are oil. I see a vast amount of very expensive large cars on the Islands as well. Sustainability is not high on the list of to dos. The condor service is rubbish, quite frankly. The vessels are always breaking down and limping back to port. The biggest insult I think is the steel armrests that are like a medieval torture device. Ok, so might stop fat people taking up two seats once in a blue moon, but you cannot sit comfortably in any way other than bolt upright. I think Brittany know how to run a ferry service and a company. I think we should just give the channel islands back to the French and go there for the occasional holiday or walk. Theres nothing special about them - just bits of sandy rocky island. It certainly doesn't warrant the outrageous house prices there - Ive seen terraced houses on Gurnsey in estate agent windows for £500,000! Make all the 'Brits' there come back to the main land and pay proper tax into the system. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -20

1:10pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Chumballs says...

Councillors are only in the job for what they can get out of it and they are a law unto themselves who seem to be able to make bad decision after bad decision and then act all innocent when things go wrong which seems to be all of the time .
I doubt if any of them are qualified to make the sort of decisions that they are making and I reckon that the interns at Monkey World could probably do a better job.
I doubt that they could do any worse !
Councillors are only in the job for what they can get out of it and they are a law unto themselves who seem to be able to make bad decision after bad decision and then act all innocent when things go wrong which seems to be all of the time . I doubt if any of them are qualified to make the sort of decisions that they are making and I reckon that the interns at Monkey World could probably do a better job. I doubt that they could do any worse ! Chumballs
  • Score: 18

1:10pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Dorset Guy1 says...

cosmick wrote:
Well there will be a few new faces for election on MAY 22ND , make your choice wisely.
Only a third of seats up for election so no big change likely
[quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: Well there will be a few new faces for election on MAY 22ND , make your choice wisely.[/p][/quote]Only a third of seats up for election so no big change likely Dorset Guy1
  • Score: 5

2:38pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Rocksalt says...

Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
southill massive wrote:
Why not use portland port?
If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....
How much more traffic would the ferry generate ? I suspect that the Tuesday summer market generates more than a once daily ferry. And there are other ways of getting to the Beach Road than via Boot Hill, if that's the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southill massive[/bold] wrote: Why not use portland port?[/p][/quote]If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....[/p][/quote]How much more traffic would the ferry generate ? I suspect that the Tuesday summer market generates more than a once daily ferry. And there are other ways of getting to the Beach Road than via Boot Hill, if that's the problem. Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Caption Sensible says...

Has anybody noticed that in the past week public notices for 'expressions of interests' have been placed in the Echo for the construction of a new pier in the port of Poole, any connection do you think? Are they ahead of us as usual?
Has anybody noticed that in the past week public notices for 'expressions of interests' have been placed in the Echo for the construction of a new pier in the port of Poole, any connection do you think? Are they ahead of us as usual? Caption Sensible
  • Score: 6

2:53pm Thu 17 Apr 14

X Old Bill says...

Some useful facts for the benefit of all (including OHEC).
No 3 berth, for access to the links-pan can accommodate ships of much greater length because they can encroach on No 4 berth if required.
No 2 berth does not exist because it was taken away to install the link-span.
No 1 berth, aka the knuckle, is nearest the harbour entrance and in order to install a new link-span for this berth it would need to face seaward.
The existing link-span on berth No3 was built to accommodate ships of a certain beam, or width, then using the port. It is not adjustable.
There was a suggestion 30 years ago for a second link-span to be built, at a time when trade would have warranted it. If that had happened then the port would have been able to continue trading while the repairs to No3 were ongoing - but it wasn't.

The ships are not hydrofoils. They are wave piercing catamarans. An entirely different type of craft.
Some useful facts for the benefit of all (including OHEC). No 3 berth, for access to the links-pan can accommodate ships of much greater length because they can encroach on No 4 berth if required. No 2 berth does not exist because it was taken away to install the link-span. No 1 berth, aka the knuckle, is nearest the harbour entrance and in order to install a new link-span for this berth it would need to face seaward. The existing link-span on berth No3 was built to accommodate ships of a certain beam, or width, then using the port. It is not adjustable. There was a suggestion 30 years ago for a second link-span to be built, at a time when trade would have warranted it. If that had happened then the port would have been able to continue trading while the repairs to No3 were ongoing - but it wasn't. The ships are not hydrofoils. They are wave piercing catamarans. An entirely different type of craft. X Old Bill
  • Score: 8

3:50pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Simon Nicholas says...

Dear Captian Sensible, can you supply documentary evidence to back up your comments -"the Jersey government has previously decreed that a link must be maintained with Weymouth for any ferry operator to use the port of St. Hellier"

I can`t find anything to back this up - in fact in a Channel Islands ferry requirements document, dated December 2012, it states that "The “northern route" is defined as any service between St. Helier and either Portsmouth, Poole or Weymouth, which may or may not be via Guernsey.

If you can find something more recent that substaniates your comments I would be grateful.

Cheers
Simon N.
Dear Captian Sensible, can you supply documentary evidence to back up your comments -"the Jersey government has previously decreed that a link must be maintained with Weymouth for any ferry operator to use the port of St. Hellier" I can`t find anything to back this up - in fact in a Channel Islands ferry requirements document, dated December 2012, it states that "The “northern route" is defined as any service between St. Helier and either Portsmouth, Poole or Weymouth, which may or may not be via Guernsey. If you can find something more recent that substaniates your comments I would be grateful. Cheers Simon N. Simon Nicholas
  • Score: 2

4:55pm Thu 17 Apr 14

anika says...

Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
southill massive wrote:
Why not use portland port?
If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....
Poole quay is no better
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southill massive[/bold] wrote: Why not use portland port?[/p][/quote]If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....[/p][/quote]Poole quay is no better anika
  • Score: 1

4:57pm Thu 17 Apr 14

anika says...

It was only a matter of time - they have no loyalties to weymouth
It was only a matter of time - they have no loyalties to weymouth anika
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Thu 17 Apr 14

arlbergbahn says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Seriously - the channel Islands are ridiculous. They are a tax heaven for unscrupulous "british" business and the undertones of the recent Police investigation into child abuse which was hushed up by the Islands government was very disturbing. I read the interview with the Police officer in charge and it makes our corruption cases look like a tea party.
The generators are oil. I see a vast amount of very expensive large cars on the Islands as well. Sustainability is not high on the list of to dos.
The condor service is rubbish, quite frankly. The vessels are always breaking down and limping back to port. The biggest insult I think is the steel armrests that are like a medieval torture device. Ok, so might stop fat people taking up two seats once in a blue moon, but you cannot sit comfortably in any way other than bolt upright.
I think Brittany know how to run a ferry service and a company. I think we should just give the channel islands back to the French and go there for the occasional holiday or walk.
Theres nothing special about them - just bits of sandy rocky island. It certainly doesn't warrant the outrageous house prices there - Ive seen terraced houses on Gurnsey in estate agent windows for £500,000! Make all the 'Brits' there come back to the main land and pay proper tax into the system.
is this post satirica?
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Seriously - the channel Islands are ridiculous. They are a tax heaven for unscrupulous "british" business and the undertones of the recent Police investigation into child abuse which was hushed up by the Islands government was very disturbing. I read the interview with the Police officer in charge and it makes our corruption cases look like a tea party. The generators are oil. I see a vast amount of very expensive large cars on the Islands as well. Sustainability is not high on the list of to dos. The condor service is rubbish, quite frankly. The vessels are always breaking down and limping back to port. The biggest insult I think is the steel armrests that are like a medieval torture device. Ok, so might stop fat people taking up two seats once in a blue moon, but you cannot sit comfortably in any way other than bolt upright. I think Brittany know how to run a ferry service and a company. I think we should just give the channel islands back to the French and go there for the occasional holiday or walk. Theres nothing special about them - just bits of sandy rocky island. It certainly doesn't warrant the outrageous house prices there - Ive seen terraced houses on Gurnsey in estate agent windows for £500,000! Make all the 'Brits' there come back to the main land and pay proper tax into the system.[/p][/quote]is this post satirica? arlbergbahn
  • Score: 2

5:23pm Thu 17 Apr 14

arlbergbahn says...

*satirical.
*satirical. arlbergbahn
  • Score: 2

5:31pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Caption Sensible says...

Please speak to Condor and the Channel Islands government. It is partially to do with Weymouth's help and assistance to the Channel Islands people during the second world war.
Please speak to Condor and the Channel Islands government. It is partially to do with Weymouth's help and assistance to the Channel Islands people during the second world war. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 2

5:52pm Thu 17 Apr 14

albula40 says...

May 22 elections. Take a look. I can see a few names which should not be here and up to you all to vote accordingly

https://www.dorsetfo
ryou.com/media.jsp?m
ediaid=189344&filety
pe=pdf
May 22 elections. Take a look. I can see a few names which should not be here and up to you all to vote accordingly https://www.dorsetfo ryou.com/media.jsp?m ediaid=189344&filety pe=pdf albula40
  • Score: 1

6:10pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Simon Nicholas says...

Captain Sensible,

But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures.

Simon N.
Captain Sensible, But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures. Simon N. Simon Nicholas
  • Score: 1

6:11pm Thu 17 Apr 14

maximan says...

Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
southill massive wrote:
Why not use portland port?
If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....
it takes twenty minutes...stop being such a drama queen
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southill massive[/bold] wrote: Why not use portland port?[/p][/quote]If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....[/p][/quote]it takes twenty minutes...stop being such a drama queen maximan
  • Score: 2

6:52pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Get a grip says...

dear Cllr Bruce

Are you able to tell us how is it that the ratepayers have forked out £4 million and there is no formal agreement in place?
dear Cllr Bruce Are you able to tell us how is it that the ratepayers have forked out £4 million and there is no formal agreement in place? Get a grip
  • Score: 8

7:01pm Thu 17 Apr 14

weymouthfox says...

Jimmytheone wrote:
Amazing the Echo has learnt?? Do we have another phone hacking scandal??Mr Bruce confirmed the Confidential report .We say 4 million what about the refurbishment of the ferry terminal building.After all this money what a legal blunder not to have secured a binding contract for 15 years as we the public were told .NOW what to do.Do we cut and run as suggested above or do we sale the council offices and pay for berth 1 at least the propert sale money stays in Weymouth and does not disappear over the hill to pay for their Simons Development or white elephant..What a pickle the Muppets have got into.Not a business head amongst them.
Councillor Jeff Petherick warned other councillors about this prospect when the rebuilding of the collapsed berth was being discussed. He is one of few councillors with any sense or vision. Wasnt it Councillor Ian Roebuck who told the Echo last year that a condition of rebuilding the berth was that Condor would sign a 15 year contract to use it? I suppose the answer is that our totally useless property officers didnt get round to it and Councillor Roebuck forgot to check. What a hapless bunch of councillors we have.
[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote: Amazing the Echo has learnt?? Do we have another phone hacking scandal??Mr Bruce confirmed the Confidential report .We say 4 million what about the refurbishment of the ferry terminal building.After all this money what a legal blunder not to have secured a binding contract for 15 years as we the public were told .NOW what to do.Do we cut and run as suggested above or do we sale the council offices and pay for berth 1 at least the propert sale money stays in Weymouth and does not disappear over the hill to pay for their Simons Development or white elephant..What a pickle the Muppets have got into.Not a business head amongst them.[/p][/quote]Councillor Jeff Petherick warned other councillors about this prospect when the rebuilding of the collapsed berth was being discussed. He is one of few councillors with any sense or vision. Wasnt it Councillor Ian Roebuck who told the Echo last year that a condition of rebuilding the berth was that Condor would sign a 15 year contract to use it? I suppose the answer is that our totally useless property officers didnt get round to it and Councillor Roebuck forgot to check. What a hapless bunch of councillors we have. weymouthfox
  • Score: 6

7:39pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Get a grip says...

Dear Cllr Bruce

Is it true that condor have never signed a formal agreement?
Dear Cllr Bruce Is it true that condor have never signed a formal agreement? Get a grip
  • Score: 4

7:44pm Thu 17 Apr 14

osmington4 says...

What a great shame, I feel so sorry for all the shopkeepers who have to pay extortionate business rates, which will undoubtably rise in order to meet the financial hole left by condor ferries. I just thank the Lord that my rates are sorted by West Dorset and not WPBC. This will give a nasty sting all round to everyone who comes under their borough. A huge thanks needs to go to Condor Ferries for their continued allegiance and loyalty to Weymouth. Well done.
What a great shame, I feel so sorry for all the shopkeepers who have to pay extortionate business rates, which will undoubtably rise in order to meet the financial hole left by condor ferries. I just thank the Lord that my rates are sorted by West Dorset and not WPBC. This will give a nasty sting all round to everyone who comes under their borough. A huge thanks needs to go to Condor Ferries for their continued allegiance and loyalty to Weymouth. Well done. osmington4
  • Score: -3

7:44pm Thu 17 Apr 14

MrTomSmith says...

Fair Question.
Fair Question. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -2

8:14pm Thu 17 Apr 14

portland rebel says...

Another wedge of money wasted then, is anyone really surprised by the total incompetence.
Another wedge of money wasted then, is anyone really surprised by the total incompetence. portland rebel
  • Score: 6

9:04pm Thu 17 Apr 14

arlbergbahn says...

Can we establish that it is in fact the Council's fault first? Did they sign a contract with Condor or not? To be quite honest, even if they didn't, it still smells of blackmail from Condor : "You spent 4 million last year on us, now we expect you to fork out another 10 million, purely for our benefit, because we don't want to pay for it." However much one may criticise W&PBC (and i've said plenty about them), let's be entirely fair here.
Can we establish that it is in fact the Council's fault first? Did they sign a contract with Condor or not? To be quite honest, even if they didn't, it still smells of blackmail from Condor : "You spent 4 million last year on us, now we expect you to fork out another 10 million, purely for our benefit, because we don't want to pay for it." However much one may criticise W&PBC (and i've said plenty about them), let's be entirely fair here. arlbergbahn
  • Score: -4

9:14pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Seriously - the channel Islands are ridiculous. They are a tax heaven for unscrupulous "british" business and the undertones of the recent Police investigation into child abuse which was hushed up by the Islands government was very disturbing. I read the interview with the Police officer in charge and it makes our corruption cases look like a tea party.
The generators are oil. I see a vast amount of very expensive large cars on the Islands as well. Sustainability is not high on the list of to dos.
The condor service is rubbish, quite frankly. The vessels are always breaking down and limping back to port. The biggest insult I think is the steel armrests that are like a medieval torture device. Ok, so might stop fat people taking up two seats once in a blue moon, but you cannot sit comfortably in any way other than bolt upright.
I think Brittany know how to run a ferry service and a company. I think we should just give the channel islands back to the French and go there for the occasional holiday or walk.
Theres nothing special about them - just bits of sandy rocky island. It certainly doesn't warrant the outrageous house prices there - Ive seen terraced houses on Gurnsey in estate agent windows for £500,000! Make all the 'Brits' there come back to the main land and pay proper tax into the system.
is this post satirica?
Oh yes - I forgot the nazi controlled police during the war. Rounded up and sent the Jewish islanders to the gas chambers...
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Seriously - the channel Islands are ridiculous. They are a tax heaven for unscrupulous "british" business and the undertones of the recent Police investigation into child abuse which was hushed up by the Islands government was very disturbing. I read the interview with the Police officer in charge and it makes our corruption cases look like a tea party. The generators are oil. I see a vast amount of very expensive large cars on the Islands as well. Sustainability is not high on the list of to dos. The condor service is rubbish, quite frankly. The vessels are always breaking down and limping back to port. The biggest insult I think is the steel armrests that are like a medieval torture device. Ok, so might stop fat people taking up two seats once in a blue moon, but you cannot sit comfortably in any way other than bolt upright. I think Brittany know how to run a ferry service and a company. I think we should just give the channel islands back to the French and go there for the occasional holiday or walk. Theres nothing special about them - just bits of sandy rocky island. It certainly doesn't warrant the outrageous house prices there - Ive seen terraced houses on Gurnsey in estate agent windows for £500,000! Make all the 'Brits' there come back to the main land and pay proper tax into the system.[/p][/quote]is this post satirica?[/p][/quote]Oh yes - I forgot the nazi controlled police during the war. Rounded up and sent the Jewish islanders to the gas chambers... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Thu 17 Apr 14

cosmick says...

Dorset Guy1 wrote:
cosmick wrote:
Well there will be a few new faces for election on MAY 22ND , make your choice wisely.
Only a third of seats up for election so no big change likely
But it could be a start. Maybe the other two thirds will get there act together or know the writting is on the wall.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Guy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: Well there will be a few new faces for election on MAY 22ND , make your choice wisely.[/p][/quote]Only a third of seats up for election so no big change likely[/p][/quote]But it could be a start. Maybe the other two thirds will get there act together or know the writting is on the wall. cosmick
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Thu 17 Apr 14

weymuffdiver says...

captain(seasick) fran Collins dangling a carrot again,monorail springs to mind!
captain(seasick) fran Collins dangling a carrot again,monorail springs to mind! weymuffdiver
  • Score: 4

10:49pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Micke12 says...

osmington4 wrote:
What a great shame, I feel so sorry for all the shopkeepers who have to pay extortionate business rates, which will undoubtably rise in order to meet the financial hole left by condor ferries. I just thank the Lord that my rates are sorted by West Dorset and not WPBC. This will give a nasty sting all round to everyone who comes under their borough. A huge thanks needs to go to Condor Ferries for their continued allegiance and loyalty to Weymouth. Well done.
Sorry to tell you Osmington4, but business rates are the domain of central government. not local councils, so your comment does not hold water.

More than likely. household precept on WPBC residents will go up further next year if condor pull out, and that will hurt the fragile recovery now being stated by the Office of National Statistics.

We all know that the councillors of this borough, in the main, are absolutely useless, although one of two do have a brain cell between them, but if council legal officers failed to get the 15 year contract signed and sealed, and the councillors did not bother to check that that had happened, then the relevant officers and councillors should own up and resign as they are clearly not fit for purpose.

I knew that this new vessel was in the pipeline, from reliable sources, long before Condor returned here last July, so that being the case, they must have known that berth no.3 was not sufficient to take the vessel because of the new vessel width opposed to the link-span.

If, knowing this, Condor failed to tell WPBC that the new boat was in the pipeline, then the fault here lies squarely with Condor. If Condor want to use berth no.1, with a new link-span facing seawards, then they must agree to pay 3/4 of the cost to do the work, as, if they had told the council about this new vessel, the councils decisions may well have been different. They could probably have had all the berths done for the same £14M that the repairs to berth no.3 and berth no.1 will end up costing us, the tax payer.
[quote][p][bold]osmington4[/bold] wrote: What a great shame, I feel so sorry for all the shopkeepers who have to pay extortionate business rates, which will undoubtably rise in order to meet the financial hole left by condor ferries. I just thank the Lord that my rates are sorted by West Dorset and not WPBC. This will give a nasty sting all round to everyone who comes under their borough. A huge thanks needs to go to Condor Ferries for their continued allegiance and loyalty to Weymouth. Well done.[/p][/quote]Sorry to tell you Osmington4, but business rates are the domain of central government. not local councils, so your comment does not hold water. More than likely. household precept on WPBC residents will go up further next year if condor pull out, and that will hurt the fragile recovery now being stated by the Office of National Statistics. We all know that the councillors of this borough, in the main, are absolutely useless, although one of two do have a brain cell between them, but if council legal officers failed to get the 15 year contract signed and sealed, and the councillors did not bother to check that that had happened, then the relevant officers and councillors should own up and resign as they are clearly not fit for purpose. I knew that this new vessel was in the pipeline, from reliable sources, long before Condor returned here last July, so that being the case, they must have known that berth no.3 was not sufficient to take the vessel because of the new vessel width opposed to the link-span. If, knowing this, Condor failed to tell WPBC that the new boat was in the pipeline, then the fault here lies squarely with Condor. If Condor want to use berth no.1, with a new link-span facing seawards, then they must agree to pay 3/4 of the cost to do the work, as, if they had told the council about this new vessel, the councils decisions may well have been different. They could probably have had all the berths done for the same £14M that the repairs to berth no.3 and berth no.1 will end up costing us, the tax payer. Micke12
  • Score: 1

1:28am Fri 18 Apr 14

westbaywonder says...

anika wrote:
It was only a matter of time - they have no loyalties to weymouth
Neither do the Council !
No loyalties to Weymouth or its citizens !!
[quote][p][bold]anika[/bold] wrote: It was only a matter of time - they have no loyalties to weymouth[/p][/quote]Neither do the Council ! No loyalties to Weymouth or its citizens !! westbaywonder
  • Score: 4

7:17am Fri 18 Apr 14

Jimmytheone says...

After 46 posts beating around the bush.
1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No
2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed exists been hidden ?
3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors.

Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions.
After 46 posts beating around the bush. 1. Was there or is there a signed 15 year legal contract in place Yes or No 2. How long has this confidential document which Mr Bruce revealed exists been hidden ? 3 Condor have paid a deposit on the new boat so it is coming fact how long has this fact been know by the relevant councillors. Without political one upmanship which will come into it can somebody without waffle please answer the above Three questions. Jimmytheone
  • Score: 0

7:33am Fri 18 Apr 14

arlbergbahn says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
arlbergbahn wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Seriously - the channel Islands are ridiculous. They are a tax heaven for unscrupulous "british" business and the undertones of the recent Police investigation into child abuse which was hushed up by the Islands government was very disturbing. I read the interview with the Police officer in charge and it makes our corruption cases look like a tea party.
The generators are oil. I see a vast amount of very expensive large cars on the Islands as well. Sustainability is not high on the list of to dos.
The condor service is rubbish, quite frankly. The vessels are always breaking down and limping back to port. The biggest insult I think is the steel armrests that are like a medieval torture device. Ok, so might stop fat people taking up two seats once in a blue moon, but you cannot sit comfortably in any way other than bolt upright.
I think Brittany know how to run a ferry service and a company. I think we should just give the channel islands back to the French and go there for the occasional holiday or walk.
Theres nothing special about them - just bits of sandy rocky island. It certainly doesn't warrant the outrageous house prices there - Ive seen terraced houses on Gurnsey in estate agent windows for £500,000! Make all the 'Brits' there come back to the main land and pay proper tax into the system.
is this post satirica?
Oh yes - I forgot the nazi controlled police during the war. Rounded up and sent the Jewish islanders to the gas chambers...
The CI police did that, did they, entirely off their own initiative? Funny, i always thought they were occupied by the Germans, and it was the German forces & Gestapo that did that.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Seriously - the channel Islands are ridiculous. They are a tax heaven for unscrupulous "british" business and the undertones of the recent Police investigation into child abuse which was hushed up by the Islands government was very disturbing. I read the interview with the Police officer in charge and it makes our corruption cases look like a tea party. The generators are oil. I see a vast amount of very expensive large cars on the Islands as well. Sustainability is not high on the list of to dos. The condor service is rubbish, quite frankly. The vessels are always breaking down and limping back to port. The biggest insult I think is the steel armrests that are like a medieval torture device. Ok, so might stop fat people taking up two seats once in a blue moon, but you cannot sit comfortably in any way other than bolt upright. I think Brittany know how to run a ferry service and a company. I think we should just give the channel islands back to the French and go there for the occasional holiday or walk. Theres nothing special about them - just bits of sandy rocky island. It certainly doesn't warrant the outrageous house prices there - Ive seen terraced houses on Gurnsey in estate agent windows for £500,000! Make all the 'Brits' there come back to the main land and pay proper tax into the system.[/p][/quote]is this post satirica?[/p][/quote]Oh yes - I forgot the nazi controlled police during the war. Rounded up and sent the Jewish islanders to the gas chambers...[/p][/quote]The CI police did that, did they, entirely off their own initiative? Funny, i always thought they were occupied by the Germans, and it was the German forces & Gestapo that did that. arlbergbahn
  • Score: 2

8:08am Fri 18 Apr 14

Caption Sensible says...

Simon Nicholas wrote:
Captain Sensible,

But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures.

Simon N.
I am interested in the future not the past,

How did it ever get to this?

How did these mental deficients ever manage to assume control of this council and completely and utterly mess things up?

Whichever area you look at, it has been destroyed by council interference and ineptitude.

The harbour and the ferry terminal used to be a thriving commercial enterprise - now look at at!

Another scandal is being kept from view as well at the moment - underpopulation. There are far more people in the borough than officially recognised, at least 7,000 persons - why you may ask?
[quote][p][bold]Simon Nicholas[/bold] wrote: Captain Sensible, But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures. Simon N.[/p][/quote]I am interested in the future not the past, How did it ever get to this? How did these mental deficients ever manage to assume control of this council and completely and utterly mess things up? Whichever area you look at, it has been destroyed by council interference and ineptitude. The harbour and the ferry terminal used to be a thriving commercial enterprise - now look at at! Another scandal is being kept from view as well at the moment - underpopulation. There are far more people in the borough than officially recognised, at least 7,000 persons - why you may ask? Caption Sensible
  • Score: 0

9:32am Fri 18 Apr 14

arlbergbahn says...

Caption Sensible wrote:
Simon Nicholas wrote:
Captain Sensible,

But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures.

Simon N.
I am interested in the future not the past,

How did it ever get to this?

How did these mental deficients ever manage to assume control of this council and completely and utterly mess things up?

Whichever area you look at, it has been destroyed by council interference and ineptitude.

The harbour and the ferry terminal used to be a thriving commercial enterprise - now look at at!

Another scandal is being kept from view as well at the moment - underpopulation. There are far more people in the borough than officially recognised, at least 7,000 persons - why you may ask?
You're sure it was the Council's fault? This doesn't sound like extortion on the part of the ferry company? Why is council interference to blame? They spent 4 mill on Condor's behalf last year, now they expect them to spend another 10 mill? That hardly seems fair, does it?
And what on earth do the apparent 7,000 illegal immigrants have to do with anything at all?
[quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon Nicholas[/bold] wrote: Captain Sensible, But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures. Simon N.[/p][/quote]I am interested in the future not the past, How did it ever get to this? How did these mental deficients ever manage to assume control of this council and completely and utterly mess things up? Whichever area you look at, it has been destroyed by council interference and ineptitude. The harbour and the ferry terminal used to be a thriving commercial enterprise - now look at at! Another scandal is being kept from view as well at the moment - underpopulation. There are far more people in the borough than officially recognised, at least 7,000 persons - why you may ask?[/p][/quote]You're sure it was the Council's fault? This doesn't sound like extortion on the part of the ferry company? Why is council interference to blame? They spent 4 mill on Condor's behalf last year, now they expect them to spend another 10 mill? That hardly seems fair, does it? And what on earth do the apparent 7,000 illegal immigrants have to do with anything at all? arlbergbahn
  • Score: 1

9:34am Fri 18 Apr 14

Portland G says...

osmington4 wrote:
What a great shame, I feel so sorry for all the shopkeepers who have to pay extortionate business rates, which will undoubtably rise in order to meet the financial hole left by condor ferries. I just thank the Lord that my rates are sorted by West Dorset and not WPBC. This will give a nasty sting all round to everyone who comes under their borough. A huge thanks needs to go to Condor Ferries for their continued allegiance and loyalty to Weymouth. Well done.
How many times do people have to be reminded. Local councils (W&PBC/WDDC) DO NOT set business rates. Business rates are set by Central Government and are ONLY collected by local councils so the fact
that condor may pull out will have no effect on BUSINESS RATES. W&PBC however are more than likley to raise the RENTS of the hotels etc that they own and lease out.

I am not defending W&PBC as I believe that they couldn't organise the preverbial drinking session in a brewery but I wish people would get their facts correct before posting
[quote][p][bold]osmington4[/bold] wrote: What a great shame, I feel so sorry for all the shopkeepers who have to pay extortionate business rates, which will undoubtably rise in order to meet the financial hole left by condor ferries. I just thank the Lord that my rates are sorted by West Dorset and not WPBC. This will give a nasty sting all round to everyone who comes under their borough. A huge thanks needs to go to Condor Ferries for their continued allegiance and loyalty to Weymouth. Well done.[/p][/quote]How many times do people have to be reminded. Local councils (W&PBC/WDDC) DO NOT set business rates. Business rates are set by Central Government and are ONLY collected by local councils so the fact that condor may pull out will have no effect on BUSINESS RATES. W&PBC however are more than likley to raise the RENTS of the hotels etc that they own and lease out. I am not defending W&PBC as I believe that they couldn't organise the preverbial drinking session in a brewery but I wish people would get their facts correct before posting Portland G
  • Score: 1

10:32am Fri 18 Apr 14

Caption Sensible says...

arlbergbahn wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
Simon Nicholas wrote: Captain Sensible, But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures. Simon N.
I am interested in the future not the past, How did it ever get to this? How did these mental deficients ever manage to assume control of this council and completely and utterly mess things up? Whichever area you look at, it has been destroyed by council interference and ineptitude. The harbour and the ferry terminal used to be a thriving commercial enterprise - now look at at! Another scandal is being kept from view as well at the moment - underpopulation. There are far more people in the borough than officially recognised, at least 7,000 persons - why you may ask?
You're sure it was the Council's fault? This doesn't sound like extortion on the part of the ferry company? Why is council interference to blame? They spent 4 mill on Condor's behalf last year, now they expect them to spend another 10 mill? That hardly seems fair, does it? And what on earth do the apparent 7,000 illegal immigrants have to do with anything at all?
Who said anything about illegal immigrants?

7000 people not officially recognised. Why?
[quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon Nicholas[/bold] wrote: Captain Sensible, But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures. Simon N.[/p][/quote]I am interested in the future not the past, How did it ever get to this? How did these mental deficients ever manage to assume control of this council and completely and utterly mess things up? Whichever area you look at, it has been destroyed by council interference and ineptitude. The harbour and the ferry terminal used to be a thriving commercial enterprise - now look at at! Another scandal is being kept from view as well at the moment - underpopulation. There are far more people in the borough than officially recognised, at least 7,000 persons - why you may ask?[/p][/quote]You're sure it was the Council's fault? This doesn't sound like extortion on the part of the ferry company? Why is council interference to blame? They spent 4 mill on Condor's behalf last year, now they expect them to spend another 10 mill? That hardly seems fair, does it? And what on earth do the apparent 7,000 illegal immigrants have to do with anything at all?[/p][/quote]Who said anything about illegal immigrants? 7000 people not officially recognised. Why? Caption Sensible
  • Score: 0

11:23am Fri 18 Apr 14

Caption Sensible says...

Caption Sensible wrote:
arlbergbahn wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
Simon Nicholas wrote: Captain Sensible, But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures. Simon N.
I am interested in the future not the past, How did it ever get to this? How did these mental deficients ever manage to assume control of this council and completely and utterly mess things up? Whichever area you look at, it has been destroyed by council interference and ineptitude. The harbour and the ferry terminal used to be a thriving commercial enterprise - now look at at! Another scandal is being kept from view as well at the moment - underpopulation. There are far more people in the borough than officially recognised, at least 7,000 persons - why you may ask?
You're sure it was the Council's fault? This doesn't sound like extortion on the part of the ferry company? Why is council interference to blame? They spent 4 mill on Condor's behalf last year, now they expect them to spend another 10 mill? That hardly seems fair, does it? And what on earth do the apparent 7,000 illegal immigrants have to do with anything at all?
Who said anything about illegal immigrants? 7000 people not officially recognised. Why?
And of course for a council that is virtually bankrupt I would have thought 7000 additional council tax payers would come in very handy.

The point being; incompetence or otherwise has allowed an income source to go untapped... An all too common theme I am afraid.
[quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arlbergbahn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon Nicholas[/bold] wrote: Captain Sensible, But Condor have left Weymouth before, at the end of 1996 to be exact - they did come back (on a limited scale initially) in 1998, but this was due to commercial reasons, not because of any Channel Islands Governance pressures. Simon N.[/p][/quote]I am interested in the future not the past, How did it ever get to this? How did these mental deficients ever manage to assume control of this council and completely and utterly mess things up? Whichever area you look at, it has been destroyed by council interference and ineptitude. The harbour and the ferry terminal used to be a thriving commercial enterprise - now look at at! Another scandal is being kept from view as well at the moment - underpopulation. There are far more people in the borough than officially recognised, at least 7,000 persons - why you may ask?[/p][/quote]You're sure it was the Council's fault? This doesn't sound like extortion on the part of the ferry company? Why is council interference to blame? They spent 4 mill on Condor's behalf last year, now they expect them to spend another 10 mill? That hardly seems fair, does it? And what on earth do the apparent 7,000 illegal immigrants have to do with anything at all?[/p][/quote]Who said anything about illegal immigrants? 7000 people not officially recognised. Why?[/p][/quote]And of course for a council that is virtually bankrupt I would have thought 7000 additional council tax payers would come in very handy. The point being; incompetence or otherwise has allowed an income source to go untapped... An all too common theme I am afraid. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 1

11:41am Fri 18 Apr 14

Jimmytheone says...

Lot. more waffle can anybody answer the three questions i posted earlier today and yesterday. Somebody must know or is it too embassing to admit
Lot. more waffle can anybody answer the three questions i posted earlier today and yesterday. Somebody must know or is it too embassing to admit Jimmytheone
  • Score: 2

1:45pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Micke12 says...

Jimmytheone wrote:
Lot. more waffle can anybody answer the three questions i posted earlier today and yesterday. Somebody must know or is it too embassing to admit
Someone somewhere has goofed up, be it councillors or officers of the council. Will these Echo reporters please get off their backsides and start investigating this contract thing.

If the council refuse to divulge any info on this contract, then they are hiding something and Echo reporters need to challenge this, preferably before 22nd May.

We, the electorate need answers to this now, so that we can make informed decisions on 22nd May and either keep on throw out 33% of the council and send a message to the rest over the next 2 elections after this one.

But then I forget, this council always stays the same because too few people get off their **** and vote, meaning the current idiots keep getting voted in.

I would love to know just how many of the people complaining on here about the council actually voted.
[quote][p][bold]Jimmytheone[/bold] wrote: Lot. more waffle can anybody answer the three questions i posted earlier today and yesterday. Somebody must know or is it too embassing to admit[/p][/quote]Someone somewhere has goofed up, be it councillors or officers of the council. Will these Echo reporters please get off their backsides and start investigating this contract thing. If the council refuse to divulge any info on this contract, then they are hiding something and Echo reporters need to challenge this, preferably before 22nd May. We, the electorate need answers to this now, so that we can make informed decisions on 22nd May and either keep on throw out 33% of the council and send a message to the rest over the next 2 elections after this one. But then I forget, this council always stays the same because too few people get off their **** and vote, meaning the current idiots keep getting voted in. I would love to know just how many of the people complaining on here about the council actually voted. Micke12
  • Score: 3

1:52pm Fri 18 Apr 14

arlbergbahn says...

Everyone's still just using this as an excuse to go on (& on) about the Council, and no one's even mentioned the Condor ferry company's attempt at extortion for several posts now. So everyone's fine with the way they've behaved then? Have four million spent for their benefit, and then just to turn round and say "oh yes, we want you to spend another 10 mill on us, or we'll be off"?
Everyone's still just using this as an excuse to go on (& on) about the Council, and no one's even mentioned the Condor ferry company's attempt at extortion for several posts now. So everyone's fine with the way they've behaved then? Have four million spent for their benefit, and then just to turn round and say "oh yes, we want you to spend another 10 mill on us, or we'll be off"? arlbergbahn
  • Score: -5

2:17pm Fri 18 Apr 14

X Old Bill says...

Some more information for you folks:

Incat, who build and lease the wave piercing cats do not make, and have no intention of building, a 102 metre long craft.
The existing 85 metre vessels have a beam of 26metres
The larger 99metre vessels are just fractionally wider.
The 112 metre vessels, which are all currently accounted for, have a beam of 30metres.
The 130 metre ship is in concept only.

The largest hydrofoil in the world is operated by the US Navy and is 'only' 67 metres long with a 12metre beam.

So, What ship are they talking about?
or to put it another way: Who is kidding who?
Some more information for you folks: Incat, who build and lease the wave piercing cats do not make, and have no intention of building, a 102 metre long craft. The existing 85 metre vessels have a beam of 26metres The larger 99metre vessels are just fractionally wider. The 112 metre vessels, which are all currently accounted for, have a beam of 30metres. The 130 metre ship is in concept only. The largest hydrofoil in the world is operated by the US Navy and is 'only' 67 metres long with a 12metre beam. So, What ship are they talking about? or to put it another way: Who is kidding who? X Old Bill
  • Score: 1

6:36pm Fri 18 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

anika wrote:
Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
southill massive wrote:
Why not use portland port?
If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....
Poole quay is no better
True indeed, but one of the major problems with getting roads to ports is all that wet stuff around them. Logically then the best place for a port would be somewhere in or around Birmingham.
[quote][p][bold]anika[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southill massive[/bold] wrote: Why not use portland port?[/p][/quote]If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....[/p][/quote]Poole quay is no better[/p][/quote]True indeed, but one of the major problems with getting roads to ports is all that wet stuff around them. Logically then the best place for a port would be somewhere in or around Birmingham. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Sat 19 Apr 14

sandman223 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
I have to ask, what percentage of passengers (or cars) stay overnight in Weymouth either before/after their Ferry Crossing? I am not convinced and never have been convinced that it is that high. But I do admit I have no idea what the percentage is. Anyone know? A lot of Hoteliers say they have a lot of custom from passengers which is fair enough.

But of course the big question is, how long have Condor known they are likely to go to the bigger vessel. They returned on 17th July 2013 however more significantly they had a new managing director take over on 1st Feb 2013 and it was in the news then that Weymouth was in the mix as a choice of ports.

Clearly things do move on, and buying a larger craft is something you might expect, sounds to me like Condor have made us (our council) look like right fools, and they don't actually give a stuff about Weymouth. That's what it looks like to me anyway.
please do some research before posting!
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: I have to ask, what percentage of passengers (or cars) stay overnight in Weymouth either before/after their Ferry Crossing? I am not convinced and never have been convinced that it is that high. But I do admit I have no idea what the percentage is. Anyone know? A lot of Hoteliers say they have a lot of custom from passengers which is fair enough. But of course the big question is, how long have Condor known they are likely to go to the bigger vessel. They returned on 17th July 2013 however more significantly they had a new managing director take over on 1st Feb 2013 and it was in the news then that Weymouth was in the mix as a choice of ports. Clearly things do move on, and buying a larger craft is something you might expect, sounds to me like Condor have made us (our council) look like right fools, and they don't actually give a stuff about Weymouth. That's what it looks like to me anyway.[/p][/quote]please do some research before posting! sandman223
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Sat 19 Apr 14

sandman223 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
I have to ask, what percentage of passengers (or cars) stay overnight in Weymouth either before/after their Ferry Crossing? I am not convinced and never have been convinced that it is that high. But I do admit I have no idea what the percentage is. Anyone know? A lot of Hoteliers say they have a lot of custom from passengers which is fair enough.

But of course the big question is, how long have Condor known they are likely to go to the bigger vessel. They returned on 17th July 2013 however more significantly they had a new managing director take over on 1st Feb 2013 and it was in the news then that Weymouth was in the mix as a choice of ports.

Clearly things do move on, and buying a larger craft is something you might expect, sounds to me like Condor have made us (our council) look like right fools, and they don't actually give a stuff about Weymouth. That's what it looks like to me anyway.
please do some research before posting!
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: I have to ask, what percentage of passengers (or cars) stay overnight in Weymouth either before/after their Ferry Crossing? I am not convinced and never have been convinced that it is that high. But I do admit I have no idea what the percentage is. Anyone know? A lot of Hoteliers say they have a lot of custom from passengers which is fair enough. But of course the big question is, how long have Condor known they are likely to go to the bigger vessel. They returned on 17th July 2013 however more significantly they had a new managing director take over on 1st Feb 2013 and it was in the news then that Weymouth was in the mix as a choice of ports. Clearly things do move on, and buying a larger craft is something you might expect, sounds to me like Condor have made us (our council) look like right fools, and they don't actually give a stuff about Weymouth. That's what it looks like to me anyway.[/p][/quote]please do some research before posting! sandman223
  • Score: -2

9:50am Mon 21 Apr 14

arlbergbahn says...

breamoreboy wrote:
anika wrote:
Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
southill massive wrote:
Why not use portland port?
If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....
Poole quay is no better
True indeed, but one of the major problems with getting roads to ports is all that wet stuff around them. Logically then the best place for a port would be somewhere in or around Birmingham.
I'm afraid that doesn't make sense. Southampton, for instance, is quite well served, with a spur off the M27 virtually right up to the gates. Dover, similarly.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anika[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southill massive[/bold] wrote: Why not use portland port?[/p][/quote]If only they had another road to the port from weymouth. It's bad enough of a bottleneck in normal times, imagine it with ferry traffic....[/p][/quote]Poole quay is no better[/p][/quote]True indeed, but one of the major problems with getting roads to ports is all that wet stuff around them. Logically then the best place for a port would be somewhere in or around Birmingham.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid that doesn't make sense. Southampton, for instance, is quite well served, with a spur off the M27 virtually right up to the gates. Dover, similarly. arlbergbahn
  • Score: -1

6:44am Sat 10 May 14

ThomasFairfax says...

Why should the latest chapter in the Condor Ferries/Weymouth story cause so much surprise and agitation?
I have been predicting a scenario such as this since before the Condor Ferry operation was forced to relocate to Poole, prior to the 2012 Olympics, and the repairs to ferry terminal three at Weymouth during the same year. Since 2012, numerous blog entries have commented on the fact that Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s handling of the relationship with Condor Ferries, the Weymouth Harbour repairs and ferry arrangements during the work programme have been a catalogue of ineptitude and incompetence, not to mention the disastrous handling of the Olympics themselves. No matter how far this incompetent council drive their head into the sand, the evidence is compelling.
Now this latest “bombshell” leaps from behind the tree and causes panic.
As recently as October of last year, I wrote (in this blog) under “New Condor ships may be too big for Weymouth Pier three”, that “However, the rebuilt Ferry berth 3 at the Weymouth Ferry terminal, is apparently not big enough to take larger ships. It seems that the planners did not see that problem coming. It this is in fact the case, then Poole may be the only port (other than Portsmouth for the traditional ferry) for arrival or departure from the Channel Islands.”
It is very easy to resort to the “I told you so” cliché, but mine was not the only siren voice raised to warn the Council that they were on the wrong track and heading for disaster.
The prospects of finding a solution to this problem seem, at this time to be remote but hopefully for the town and the people employed by Condor a solution will be forthcoming.

Further reading may be found at: http://new-agenda201
2.blogspot.co.uk/
Why should the latest chapter in the Condor Ferries/Weymouth story cause so much surprise and agitation? I have been predicting a scenario such as this since before the Condor Ferry operation was forced to relocate to Poole, prior to the 2012 Olympics, and the repairs to ferry terminal three at Weymouth during the same year. Since 2012, numerous blog entries have commented on the fact that Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s handling of the relationship with Condor Ferries, the Weymouth Harbour repairs and ferry arrangements during the work programme have been a catalogue of ineptitude and incompetence, not to mention the disastrous handling of the Olympics themselves. No matter how far this incompetent council drive their head into the sand, the evidence is compelling. Now this latest “bombshell” leaps from behind the tree and causes panic. As recently as October of last year, I wrote (in this blog) under “New Condor ships may be too big for Weymouth Pier three”, that “However, the rebuilt Ferry berth 3 at the Weymouth Ferry terminal, is apparently not big enough to take larger ships. It seems that the planners did not see that problem coming. It this is in fact the case, then Poole may be the only port (other than Portsmouth for the traditional ferry) for arrival or departure from the Channel Islands.” It is very easy to resort to the “I told you so” cliché, but mine was not the only siren voice raised to warn the Council that they were on the wrong track and heading for disaster. The prospects of finding a solution to this problem seem, at this time to be remote but hopefully for the town and the people employed by Condor a solution will be forthcoming. Further reading may be found at: http://new-agenda201 2.blogspot.co.uk/ ThomasFairfax
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree