Universal Marina land grab

[matt1]

Ok, how does this work? I've just been told that Universal marina on the Hamble River have applied to the Crown Estate to take over the J run of pile moorings currently run by, and assigned to, the Harbour Authority. They are claiming safety concerns with access to the marina and it looks like, if successful, they will then extend the marina out to where the existing J run is and we will all be turfed off our moorings! Obviously I, and I assume other impacted pile mooring holders, will object to the Crown Estate but I'm staggered that there is even legal scope for them to apply? What chance do a handful of mooring holders have against a corporate who can "grease palms". What next? MDL radomly decide to subsume council moorings into their demise? Lymington? Where does this end?

 

[sarabande]

They will have to justify the safety grounds very carefully, which gives the mooring holders a chance to gain public sympathy by a website or facebook pageset devoted to your cause. The more you can raise smoke signals via social media the more Universal will be aware of the reputational damage that an argument is likely to cause.


What have you got on your side ? History of mooring in the area ? Traditional mooring lifestyle ? Environmental impact ? Future effects of climate change (rise in water levels )? You need to start talking with the council planning people to understand the processes, and also to Marine Management Organisation, Env Agency, local natural history groups raising the spectre of more shit in the river, etc.

Somewhere you can find a good H&S consultant who will act pro bono, or perhaps ask the local Green party for help.

Go public.


If you start gathering names for a meeting, please be aware of infiltration by the people who stand to make money from this

 

[matt1]

I understand they are claiming the channel between the marina and the run of mid stream pile moorings is too narrow & creating a safety issue. Ironic given it's them who extended the marina to be closer to the mid stream moorings in their last redevelopment of the marina some years ago. There is no public good served by their proposals. Let's hope the Crown Estate decline the application. It will open the flood dates to Premier, MDL and all other commercial operators if they don't. Also ironic that in 35 years the only time I have had cause to write to the Harbourmaster about safety concerned the SUP rental company based at Universal!

 

[bikedaft]

more money can be made from boats berthed in a marina compared with moorings within the same area/space. always a risk, alas. make as much noise as you can, good luck.

 

[ithet]

I thought UM was up for sale? I heard rumour Premier had not offered enough. Maybe trying to up the ante.

 

[smert]

I understand they are claiming the channel between the marina and the run of mid stream pile moorings is too narrow & creating a safety issue. Ironic given it's them who extended the marina to be closer to the mid stream moorings in their last redevelopment of the marina some years ago. There is no public good served by their proposals. Let's hope the Crown Estate decline the application. It will open the flood dates to Premier, MDL and all other commercial operators if they don't. Also ironic that in 35 years the only time I have had cause to write to the Harbourmaster about safety concerned the SUP rental company based at Universal!

By removing the channel between them and j pontoon, they will actually create more risk as it will force the (often novice) paddle boarders and kayakers into the fairly narrow main channel where some of the biggest and least manoeuvrable boats on the river are.

 

[matt1]

Having now seen their plans it’s even more bizarre.

They are laying claim to the upstream end of the J pile run but will in fact leave that in place, albeit with a single long midstream pontoon (like they have down stream currently) instead of individual piles. The downstream J pontoon (Some of which is theirs rather than Hbr Authority) then gets removed for them to extend the bulk of the marina outwards (towards the channel). The harbour authority mooring holders on the upstream end of J then get evicted to make way for universals own tenants from the downstream pontoon they removed! So safety can’t be an issue at this upstream end of J as it essentially remains where it is! They just need it to house their own tenants as they have extended the marina over where their pontoon was! It’s outrageous.

I gather the Crown Estate is obligated to consider it as it was originally raised as a “safety concern”. I just hope it’s seen for what it is and rejected. It’s a very dangerous precedent if it goes though as it will encourage many other commercial operators to make similar land grabs.

 

[Bobc]

I'll be objecting to it. Until this summer, I was on J16/17 (right by the main entrance to Universal). In the 4 or 5 years I was there I never once saw any problem or incident that suggested it was dangerous in any way. Also, when you get out that far into the river, the tide really pushes through at Springs, so I would think that having J connected to the shore would make things more dangerous for the berth holders. It's just a land grab attempt and needs to be stopped.

 

[Birdseye]

more money can be made from boats berthed in a marina compared with moorings within the same area/space. always a risk, alas. make as much noise as you can, good luck.

Exactly. Its a commercial transaction. If the Crown Estates can get a better income from letting to the marina rather than the harbour authority,m why wouldnt they do so? And whats wrong with the marina trying to make more money? Dont you do the same?

 

[matt1]

The crown estate won’t make any more money out of it. They will essentially get the same sum, either from the Harbour Authority (as now) or if it goes ahead, from the Marina. Fortunately the crown estate do seem to understand the concept of a public good.

I’m all for people making money. Just not when they have form when it comes to evicting tenants (Bistro 8) and try to displace other mooring holders / tenants unilaterally. For those not familiar with the area, they really are quite an unpleasant commercial outfit and are pretty infamous on the river.

Irrespective of my personal views this really does need winning for mooring holders and for Universal to be sent packing. If this goes ahead I can confidently predict it will become common place in other areas of the Hamble and many other harbours besides.

 

[BabySharkDooDooDooDooDoo]

The crown estate won’t make any more money out of it. They will essentially get the same sum, either from the Harbour Authority (as now) or if it goes ahead, from the Marina. Fortunately the crown estate do seem to understand the concept of a public good.

I’m all for people making money. Just not when they have form when it comes to evicting tenants (Bistro 8) and try to displace other mooring holders / tenants unilaterally. For those not familiar with the area, they really are quite an unpleasant commercial outfit and are pretty infamous on the river.

Irrespective of my personal views this really does need winning for mooring holders and for Universal to be sent packing. If this goes ahead I can confidently predict it will become common place in other areas of the Hamble and many other harbours besides.

The last time Universal was mentioned on here was when they kicked out the dry sailing crowd as they seemed more interested in renting out Shepherd's huts.

 

[Sea-Fever]

Exactly. Its a commercial transaction. If the Crown Estates can get a better income from letting to the marina rather than the harbour authority,m why wouldnt they do so? And whats wrong with the marina trying to make more money? Dont you do the same?

Because access for the less well off should be protected. Or don't you give a monkey's about that?

 

[Sea-Fever]

The danger, of course, is that when faced with a huge reduction in income from other parts of the Crown Estate it sells, leases or otherwise monetises to greater effect this mooring area.

 

[JumbleDuck]

It will be interesting to see what position, if any, the RYA takes on this. Years ago they were pretty good at defending traditional harbours and anchorages ... until they accepted generous sponsorship from Marina Developments plc, whereupon their attitude changed completed. Odd, that. Probably coincidence.

 

[Quandary]

Because access for the less well off should be protected. Or don't you give a monkey's about that?

Perhaps he is a Tory?

 

[awol]

Perhaps he is a Tory?

I'm pretty sure using expletives like that is against forum rules.

 

[_Firebird_]

Found the supporting documents online - here's the link if it helps: https://documents.hants.gov.uk/thin...dditional-Berthing-Supporting-Information.pdf

Trying to get my head around the proposed layout, a plan of that would have helped!

 

[smert]

Found the supporting documents online - here's the link if it helps: https://documents.hants.gov.uk/thin...dditional-Berthing-Supporting-Information.pdf

Trying to get my head around the proposed layout, a plan of that would have helped!

https://documents.hants.gov.uk/thingstodo/Universal-Marina-Additional-Berthing-Drawing.pdf

 

[_Firebird_]

https://documents.hants.gov.uk/thingstodo/Universal-Marina-Additional-Berthing-Drawing.pdf

Cheers! Well, will give my feedback and see if it does anything... its only going to drive more traffic out into the main channel as far as I can tell, and benefit no one else on the river.

 

[Bobc]

Have sent my feedback. One of my concerns is that the tide runs fast through those moorings and trying to get into/out of a down-tide finger could cause problems and damage. In my view, their proposal has the impact of reducing safety for both marina berth-holders and other river users alike.