Change and decay in all around I see.

[Kukri]

Marina
Marina?

Place to park a boat or a seafarer?

Marinas. And that’s pretty much what I think.

 

[Tomahawk]

You overlook a basic fact of a tidal sea. It matters not what you choose to do but you cannot navigate at LW because in blunt terms there is no water to navigate on in the upper reaches to tidal rivers. The two boatyards upstream of Morgan Marine are very much tide restricted. However, once there is sufficient water to be afloat, the whole creek has widened so that the proposed marina would not have a significantly detrimental effect on navigation.

It terms of riding over others, is it not the same both ways round? A minority riding roughshod over a larger group because ther have "rights".

 

[Cobra]

We can agree to differ on some points..
Tis an odd thing but I never see people sailing past Morgans at low water. That is probably because looking on Google Satellite the pontoons at Underwoods are inaccessible at LW. In fact they have less tide access than the East Pontoon outside Morgans office. Therefore I find arguments about significant loss of navigation to be less than convincing.

Then we need to consider how much of what is being proposed. It is right that the present proposal will probably have an (note an) effect on navigation upriver. But I suggest we should look at how many people actually need that access. I count some 15 boats at Underwoods pontoons and 4 buoys. There are no sailing boats at S Osyth. So for the benefit of a max of bout 15 sailing boats at Underwoods some 40 boats must be denied the opportunity afforded by the Morgan Marine proposal.

I think that you are right Tomahawk, we probably will not agree on this matter, and I am certainly not going to fall out with anyone here over it!

You are of course correct in saying that at Low Water springs there is no more than a shallow ditch up past Morgans, in fact it is difficult for anything other than a rowing dinghy to get beyond the swinging point on the wharf under such conditions. However just before and after LW neaps it is possible apparently to leave the swinging moorings in a centreboarder at Underwroods Hard. Saying there are "No Sailing Boats at St Osyth" is ever so slightly wrong, as St Osyth is the home berth of the engineless sailing barge 'Edme'. Whenever 'Edme' leaves her berth, she has to be tugged down from St Osyth, her only exit being across the Folly and down the North channel. The fact that she has to be brought down by tug means that she will require a reasonable amount of sea room if there is any South in the wind. The proposed positioning of the pontoons, as was demonstrated on Monday, means that it would become very difficult to manoeuvre her past this bottleneck.

The other point that Mondays marking of the area by BHC has highlighted is that the Harkers Yard rowing gigs would not be able to transit up the river, as they have been doing for several years now, until almost top of tide thereby causing them also potential loss of amenity.

A further consideration...OK, only a couple of times a year, but the Sailing Club hold races that include circumnavigating Cindrey Island as part of their course. A fleet of 30 or so dinghies possibly tacking up the North channel is already challenging, but these proposed pontoons creating a pinch point could cause potential issues both to boats moored on the pontoons and boats participating in the racing.

I think it can be quite reasonably argued that the benefit gained by possibly 40 boats and the undoubted lining of the pockets of the Morgan Marine directors would be greatly to the detriment of the 15 or so boats at Underwoods, the sailing barge 'Edme', the Brightlingsea Gig Rowing Club, the members of the Sailing Club and anyone else wishing to traverse the area.

As I have already said, if the original plan as explained to me were carried out and the new pontoons only afforded all tide berths on the outer edge, then I doubt there would be any concern from anyone!

I fear that money will talk and that planning will be granted, I just hope that whoever is on the berths nearest the wharf are fully aware of the possible consequences they face if a coaster loses power while swinging onto the berth!

 

[Daydream believer]

Tiss an odd thing. People on this thread are bemoaning the loss of businesses and how things appear to be heading downhill at a rate of knots.
Yet when someone says "I will invest in the local economy, create jobs and offer people the facilities to come to a place and enjoy the water" ... why then it seems every man and his dog suddenly appears out the woodwork to object. We don't want change. Suddenly people want decay and decrepitation. Does Underwoods Boatyard full of cheap boats and a rusting hulk of some sort really offer a picture of a future to aspire to?

What you really mean is move on. Recognise that things change & that rotten broken down structures are not what people need. Build a few much needed houses beside the water, where people can live & enjoy the place for the next 100 years. Some shops, places to service the community- doctors surgery, schools couple of small work places, better communications, internet for home working etc. Then in 100 years someone else can come along & change the place again- if they want. It is how places evolve. But try telling the died in the wool old duffers what should REALLY happen. To deny access for such things is actually quite selfish against those who might actually come & participate by setting up home there & are being stopped from doing so by the odd day trippers who are non existent in the winter. Or the green fraternity who object to the idea of change.
Next stop Southwold. Brillant oportunity for a really good set of architects to come up with a total re design for the whole area.

 

[Daydream believer]

My dad bought me a Walker Super 12 when I was 11 years old. He never came near it & just let me & a friend float it in the Blackwater at Stone & find out how to sail, row & motor it with the 40+ seagull that i still own today. When I was 16 I advanced to a Hornet so I could joint the club. I spent most of the time upside down, but learnt a lot. At 21 he bought me my Stella & I just sailed off with it with absolutely no one to show me a thing. One finds out by having a go, & i did . Within a year I was of to Ostend with just a couple of charts, a rolling protractor that I still have,an echo sounder & a Sestral grid compass (that now sits in my Hanse) for navigation . Later I advanced to an RDF which I also still have.

So I did a similar thing with my kids. I bought my son & daughter a cadet & pushed them off from the launching trolley & told them to get on with it. I never interferred. Dads are there for one reason only. To pay the bills when something breaks. They are still sailing at 49 & 51 years of age. My daughter in a squib we share . When I bought the Phantom for my son as a celebration for becoming class chairman he won every cup that he could qualify for in the club year. He can outsail me in my Hanse by a country mile.

So one does not need loads of RYA training. Just common sense, a will to get on & do it. Plus a dad to pay for the broken bits

As for Chandlers. I used to go with my parents to the companies auditors for the final accounts sign off every year. In the next street was Captain O M Watts. My prize for sitting quietly was to be allowed to spend some time inside & nearly always came away with a prize of some sort.
I also am still using a set of Docksiders purchased from the London Yacht Centre. They went years ago, I am told. But I use the shoes as slippers on the boat in port at night when sipping my scotch prior to bed.

 

[Tomahawk]

What you really mean is move on. Recognise that things change & that rotten broken down structures are not what people need. Build a few much needed houses beside the water, where people can live & enjoy the place for the next 100 years. Some shops, places to service the community- doctors surgery, schools couple of small work places, better communications, internet for home working etc. Then in 100 years someone else can come along & change the place again- if they want. It is how places evolve. But try telling the died in the wool old duffers what should REALLY happen. To deny access for such things is actually quite selfish against those who might actually come & participate by setting up home there & are being stopped from doing so by the odd day trippers who are non existent in the winter. Or the green fraternity who object to the idea of change.
Next stop Southwold. Brillant oportunity for a really good set of architects to come up with a total re design for the whole area.

Not at all am I saying replace boatyards with houses. Houses can be built anywhere. Boatyards have to be on the waters edge where the ground is hard enough to launch. You would never have learned to sail if an architect had redeveloped the waterfront at Stone for housing . I am saying we need people to invest in boating facilities and provide for more people to be able to enjoy the water.

The population of Essex is planned to rise by some 230,000 on the present set of Local Plans. Those people have a need for recreation of all sorts. Boating is a legitimate one of them.

 

[Kukri]

A figure from Australian friends comes to mind: there used to be thirty boatyards on Sydney Harbour; now there are three … and a lot of waterfront housing.

Conversely, an American friend who is an architect and who sails a lot points out the planning rules applied in Newport, Rhode Island, where no change of use of waterfront property is permitted- a sailmaker is a sailmaker, a boatyard is a boatyard…

 

[michael_w]

In Annapolis, Maryland, has a town by-law that demands that every road that ends at the water has a dinghy dock.

 

[Daydream believer]

Not at all am I saying replace boatyards with houses. Houses can be built anywhere. Boatyards have to be on the waters edge where the ground is hard enough to launch. You would never have learned to sail if an architect had redeveloped the waterfront at Stone for housing . I am saying we need people to invest in boating facilities and provide for more people to be able to enjoy the water.

The population of Essex is planned to rise by some 230,000 on the present set of Local Plans. Those people have a need for recreation of all sorts. Boating is a legitimate one of them.

The area behind the sea wall at Stone does have houses & they are being regularly updated, as they become old. Houses have been built on estates at Stone. I am in favourof that . Stone is no longer a decrepit ranshackle area of huts. That is progress for which I am glad.
As for boat yards. Modern techniques do not need to be by the water. If you have them then you will be presented with great steel clad sheds. Is that what you really want? I am told it happens on the south coast & I have seen it in Holland at Flushing inside the lock, ( just an example, don't jump on it ). I think that I would prefer the sight of nice houses around the marina, as seen in Middleburgh
Marinas & shore side facilities can still operate with housing & there is nothing wrong with housing being alongside the water where those living there can enjoy the water if they so wish; along with others.
I want to point out that water activities are changing in the actual activity spread ( paddle boarding, windsurfing, possibly more canoeing, rowing than before , less home built small boats, bigger yachts, more charter yachts) & boat construction has changed, as much as is the need for shoreside boat yards. That is something that many seem to miss in these discussions. We no longer need the broken down tatty shed on the shore in the same way as before.
I do not think that many owners really do either, because if they did those owners would have thriving businesses. Not a bloke on his own in a shed. They would probably do something about the mess in which they work. I know that I have only used the tatty workshop in Downs Road, Maldon once in 18 years. Would it worry me if they removed it & tidied the place up.? - See the point that I am trying to make, Do we actually use these places that much?
I personally do not want to put my boat in a grubby old yard on poles & cans & see it surrounded by junk.. I prefer a neat yard well laid out with decent facilities, toilets, showers, eating area, parking etc. I do not want to have to navigate my car along 200 yds of pot holes to get there either.

 

[Daydream believer]

The population of Essex is planned to rise by some 230,000 on the present set of Local Plans.

Local plans are one thing. Getting them past the local planning directorate is another. Then getting Boris to give the actual go ahead is the final killer. Take no notice of the headlines. Do not hold your breath.

 

[Tomahawk]

Local plans are one thing. Getting them past the local planning directorate is another. Then getting Boris to give the actual go ahead is the final killer. Take no notice of the headlines. Do not hold your breath.

Once a site is allocated for development in the Local Plan, the rest is a formality. Planning officer cannot refuse planning consent on the ground they do not like something they have proposed and adopted. One only has to look at the sites being built out that are allocated for housing in various local plans to understand effect of that. What do I know? I used to work in Town Planning

 

[PeterWright]

If Burnham-on-Crouch is typical, where 2 years into the 10 year Local Development Plan consent had been granted for about 120 percent of the total of dwellings planned for 10 years, the much vaunted plans are a complete waste of time and energy.

Frankly, this is yet another example of the problems arising from the over success of human reproduction.

Peter.

 

[Tomahawk]

Indeed, I hear that Pryor's yard only just escaped being turned into flats. Once waterside land is lost to housing, it won't be available for boating. Yet every yard of shoreside outside the existing towns have been designated as RAMSAR, ESA, SPA etc by the greenies so they can look at birds and wildlife. It is now impossible to develop new boating facilities such as Burnham Marina as teh rights of bird watchers overrule everyone else.

 

[Tomahawk]

..
I personally do not want to put my boat in a grubby old yard on poles & cans & see it surrounded by junk.. I prefer a neat yard well laid out with decent facilities, toilets, showers, eating area, parking etc. I do not want to have to navigate my car along 200 yds of pot holes to get there either.

Me too. But that takes investment and someone willing to spend money. For which they want and expect a return. Sadly some commentators above think in terms of "undoubted lining of the pockets of the Morgan Marine directors". Why shouldn't they get a return for their money? Is making a profit so bad?

 

[Kukri]

If Burnham-on-Crouch is typical, where 2 years into the 10 year Local Development Plan consent had been granted for about 120 percent of the total of dwellings planned for 10 years, the much vaunted plans are a complete waste of time and energy.

Frankly, this is yet another example of the problems arising from the over success of human reproduction.

Peter.

I recall Hervey Benham pointing out that the effect of West Mersea becoming an Urban District Council under the old system was that the Chairman of the Planning Committee was the local builder.

 

[dolabriform]

I am hopeless at teaching sailing. Not only do I have my own ways of doing things but being very hands-on I find it hard to think myself into the position of the person at the helm without the tiller, or wheel, in my hand. I suppose that I learned on lugs'l dinghies on the Broads, but then moved on to Cadets at school and my father's, ie my, Firefly.

I agree that the Cadet is a great teaching aid, as well as being fun to sail, though I found it a bit tame after I acquired the Firefly. Its inherent instability gives it the advantage of, say, the Mirror. I am still uncertain about the relative merits of organised tuition vs the 'if not duffers won't drown' approaches. I would like to think that there is a place for both, though the discipline of racing is surely indispensible as the way to fine one's skills.

I wouldn't say you're hopeless, you taught me how to tack your HR single handed. Sarcastic yes, but not hopeless

 

[Cobra]

Sadly some commentators above think in terms of "undoubted lining of the pockets of the Morgan Marine directors". Why shouldn't they get a return for their money? Is making a profit so bad?

Jeez! You just don't get it do you?

What gives the Directors of ANY firm the right to place an obstruction on what is effectively Crown Estates Property for the sole benefit of their patrons and to the absolute detriment of everyone else...which is essentially what Morgan Marine are proposing with their current plan.

As I have said before and I will say again in the vain hope that you will see where the majority of Brightlingsea LOCALS are coming from:

No one has any objection to Morgans extending their available berths inside the plan they had original approval for. This plan took berths to the west of their current base with pontoons extending to MLWS and NO FURTHER.

The objection that LOCALS have is about essentially blocking half the river so Morgans can squeeze a few more boats in.

My final comment on the matter is "If you want a Marina berth with all tide access, then Brightlingsea is probably not going to be a viable option...I suggest that you try the Orwell, the Crouch or Bradwell where such facilities already exist for those who enjoy walking ashore!"

Nuff said!

 

[Kukri]

I think that you are right Tomahawk, we probably will not agree on this matter, and I am certainly not going to fall out with anyone here over it!

You are of course correct in saying that at Low Water springs there is no more than a shallow ditch up past Morgans, in fact it is difficult for anything other than a rowing dinghy to get beyond the swinging point on the wharf under such conditions. However just before and after LW neaps it is possible apparently to leave the swinging moorings in a centreboarder at Underwroods Hard. Saying there are "No Sailing Boats at St Osyth" is ever so slightly wrong, as St Osyth is the home berth of the engineless sailing barge 'Edme'. Whenever 'Edme' leaves her berth, she has to be tugged down from St Osyth, her only exit being across the Folly and down the North channel. The fact that she has to be brought down by tug means that she will require a reasonable amount of sea room if there is any South in the wind. The proposed positioning of the pontoons, as was demonstrated on Monday, means that it would become very difficult to manoeuvre her past this bottleneck.

…

On a personal note, in August 1970 I was rescued from a predicament by Dick Harman. I was beating down the Wallet singlehanded in my 18ft day boat against a fresh southwesterly and was off Jaywick when the old cotton mainsail ripped right across. I lowered it and, perforce, set about running back to Harwich under jib.

Off Clacton the “Viking Saga” came alongside and Dick hailed me:

“Will you get across West Bay like that?”

“Not sure”

“Catch!”

Tow rope flew across…

So I have strong views about anyone interfering with the Harman family yacht, i.e. the “EDME”.

 

[Tomahawk]

Jeez! You just don't get it do you?

What gives the Directors of ANY firm the right to place an obstruction on what is effectively Crown Estates Property for the sole benefit of their patrons and to the absolute detriment of everyone else...which is essentially what Morgan Marine are proposing with their current plan.

As I have said before and I will say again in the vain hope that you will see where the majority of Brightlingsea LOCALS are coming from:

No one has any objection to Morgans extending their available berths inside the plan they had original approval for. This plan took berths to the west of their current base with pontoons extending to MLWS and NO FURTHER.

The objection that LOCALS have is about essentially blocking half the river so Morgans can squeeze a few more boats in.

My final comment on the matter is "If you want a Marina berth with all tide access, then Brightlingsea is probably not going to be a viable option...I suggest that you try the Orwell, the Crouch or Bradwell where such facilities already exist for those who enjoy walking ashore!"

Nuff said!

So are you saying that if the pontoons do not extend beyond MLWS, it would get general approval and support?
If so perhaps we can get Morgans to look at the design?

 

[Capt Popeye]

Well whats caused the Changes and the Decay of Boating in general

Might offer a personal opinion as to another cause thats not been mentioned , but is apparent in some poster comments , that of change of type of person who has become interested in boating , but lacks any history or understanding of Boating , its rights and wrongs , its historical Rights etc .
Sort of person with the understanding or lack of , that compares Boating with , say car ownership and rules , apparent sometimes with comments like , well someone will gain so why cant they charge , we have licences to drive cars so why not boats , why have free moorings , why should etc etc

The subject of the Brightlingsea yard wanting to have /take away a public right of way , the different opinions do show quite well how the differences unfortunately uch apparent

I stated in a post about the RYA a long time ago , that I think us boaters really need a strong forcefull person /organisation that will fight for the various Rights Of Way and Access to be retained for our public use , a Organisation similar to the Ramblers Associoation who will take on Commerce , Companies , Governments etc etc ; Unfortunately the present Boating Interest Organisations would appear lacking in commitment , maybe they are ex Civil Serv etc who have no built in personal policy of Right n Wrong