cherish your harbour master - a rant!

Triassic said:
True, but are they not very similar to Falmouth?
Click to expand...

Not sure the point you are making. Falmouth and Poole have a lot in common, but little in common with the sort of northern harbours JD was referring to. We (Poole) have similar issues to those which started this thread, although PHC is arguably much more responsive to local opinions than seems to be the case in Falmouth.

The basic issue, however is nothing new. When there is a limited resource and competing demands there will always be friction among potential users. Some sort of mechanism is needed to manage this friction, otherwise there is anarchy. The issue here is whether the latest changes in the way harbours (in general) are managed has tipped the balance against leisure users by placing too much power in the hands of local managers without sufficient accountability. Increased charges and limitations of use, including possibly such things as compulsory registration are the sorts of things that are now possible without the need to go back to parliament. The RYA fought hard to limit powers, but had to settle for "codes of practice" on consultation with local users. History shows this sort of mechanism is largely ineffective.

Where the economic health of a local harbour is dependent mainly on commercial activities it is almost inevitable that leisure users will lose out or be exploited.
 
My point was that Falmouth is a large deep water natural harbour like many on the west coast referred too, whereas Poole, although natural and large is extremely shallow and were it not for the constant intervention of man would soon silt up in many places and not be the place it is today. There was a theme suggesting that Harbour Authorities have to charge visiting yachts the fees they do in order to afford to maintain the facility, so why is it that Falmouth charges to much, when other similar harbours don't. I think the answer is that they do because they can, rather than because it is necessary.
 
I would be interested in which harbours you class as similar to Falmouth and the actual difference in charges between them. You would then really need to look at annual cost to run the harbour and how many individuals, companies, industries etc use it and then divi up the cost amongst them. For instance, I would guess that Poole has significantly more leisure users than Falmouth, but less commercial traffic. It is very hard to compare like for like. The costs of running a statutory port, with the associated regulation, would be higher than a small harbour that didn't have statutory status. Likewise a leisure harbour would be cheaper to maintain (and I mean maintain as in run and not just physical maintenance) than a commercial port with associated responsibilities such as VTS.
 
Triassic said:
My point was that Falmouth is a large deep water natural harbour like many on the west coast referred too, whereas Poole, although natural and large is extremely shallow and were it not for the constant intervention of man would soon silt up in many places and not be the place it is today. There was a theme suggesting that Harbour Authorities have to charge visiting yachts the fees they do in order to afford to maintain the facility, so why is it that Falmouth charges to much, when other similar harbours don't. I think the answer is that they do because they can, rather than because it is necessary.
Click to expand...

Agreed; one can have some sympathy for harbours like Poole and Chichester, Bembridge especially as they require dredging or they're history.

As for commercial operations, well either they make money or go bust ?!

I don't recall much terra-forming at Falmouth, and charging silly money for people to use their own anchor is going to upset anyone, quite rightly.

I wonder how the Falmouth Chamber Of Commerce feel about it, strikes me as very similar to idiotic car parking charges discouraging customers from high street shopping.
 
I'm at a slight disadvantage with Falmouth as I've not been there, so I'm limited to what I can find about the place on the Internet.... and my comparison was around the geography of the harbours, not particularly the use that they are put to. I have been in and out of Poole a fair few times though and I actually thought there was quite a significant commercial use there, including ferries, fishing vessels, tour trips and freighters.
 
Triassic,

yes Poole has plenty of commercial trade, I suspect Falmouth has a bit more - like big ships and the maintainence in the docks - but I don't know the figures.

Thing is, Poole has to be dredged, while Falmouth is pretty fjord - like !
 
l'escargot said:
Falmouth needs dredging too. Commercial shipping movements are dropping and they need to dredge to get them back, commercial shipping contributes two thirds of the harbour revenue.
Click to expand...

Throughout my childhood Falmouth was routinely dredged. This stopped some years,ago and the estuary has suffered accordingly. Moves to restart dredging have been thwarted at every turn by ecovangelists campaigning for quite a few years now, and grants etc secured to fund it are now withdrawn. As a result the harbour is no longer suitable to receive cruise ships and others so traffic is down. Bunkering is also down because of a lack of adequate local planning which has allowed low sulphur bunkering vessels to establish themselves a business whereby they come down from their home bases in bigger vessels (from Southampton area?) and service several vessels per trip before tootling back off home and being replaced by another from the same fleet thus killing off the local trade.

As far as the leisure side goes, it's apparently a case of squeeze every buck at every opportunity. Local mooring fees rose by about 30% last year and look set to rise again next season. Private mooring agreements being torn up with no recourse or discussion despite some holders having them for decades so that they can be let as serviced moorings for more money. Again no consultation or discussion allowed. A Gucci new website, new online weather/ tide times services (that you can access anyway from Google et al for free) and big pats on the back for all concerned, especially the chap appointed to run the Haven business. Local owners priced off the water but that's ok because other people from elsewhere who are prepared to pay more and base their boats in the harbour will still want them.

No discussions before acting, letters sent out with "sign this form accepting the new rates and conditions within 7 days or we will reallocate your mooring to someone else" type behaviour. Bloody disgusting, bullying business practice all round. Shameful!!!

Oh... And try asking to use a loo (let alone a shower etc) at the Grove Place park unless you are a 'visitor' despite paying nearly a grand a year for a 6 month swinging mooring.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top