Crouch Area Yachting Federation Update - for Club Noticeboards

FullCircle

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Nov 2003
Messages
28,223
Visit site
For all those on Crouch and Roach, here is the latest CAYF newsletter



[FONT=&quot]C. A. Y. F. Newsletter

This is an occasional newsletter from the Crouch Area Yachting Federation
for affiliated Clubs, issued only when there is something of interest to
tell your members. Designed to be pinned on noticeboards

inner_crouch

CHA Fees 2016

Sadly there are less bigger boats to pay dues this year and coupled with
the last cargo income from Crossrail ( alternatives are hoped for) to break
even the CHA plaque fees will need to go up next year to balance the books.
After exploring other revenue streams without success, your CAYF reps agreed
to vote it through. It should be emphasised that the CHA dues have not
increased for early payment in the last 3 years.

Vessel Length

Feet

Metres

Full Harbour Dues

% Increase

Prompt Payment Rate

% Increase

8.00 – 15.50

2.44 – 4.73

£ 35.50

14.53%

£24.00

14.29%

15.51 – 21.50

4.74 – 6.55

£ 49.00

13.9%

£34.00

15.27%

21.51 – 26.50

6.56 – 8.07

£ 62.00

14.8%

£42.00

15.08%

26.51 – 32.50

8.08 – 9.90

£ 65.00

15.03%

£44.00

14.3%

32.51 – 38.50

9.91 – 11.73

£ 76.00

15.15%

£51.00

14.6%

38.51 – 49.50

11.74 – 15.08

£ 86.00

14.6%

£58.50

14.7%

49.51 – 59.50

15.09 – 18.12

£ 95.00

4.45%

£65.00

15.03%

59.51 +

18.13 +

£121.00

15.24%

£84.00

15.06%

River Roach - new floating oyster pens

At the recent CHA Advisory meeting a works licence was agreed for the Roach
Oyster Company to install plastic coated floating cages for the cultivation
of oysters to replace the existing oyster trestles; almost opposite
Yokesfleet Creek, on the River Roach. Your CAYF representatives felt that
this was less of a hazard to the navigation of yachts tacking, than the
existing oyster trestles as they would be visible rather than submerged as
at present. Also they will also be lit in the hours of darkness.

New Navigational Buoyage in the Brandy Hole vicinity

The CHA had strong complaints last year about the confusion of the fairway
at Brandy Hole and Hullbridge. We managed to get the fairway identified and
cleared of moored boats thanks to the cooperation of the local clubs and
together with the Harbourmaster identified the best navigable channel in the
Brandy Hole area. There are now three new navigational buoys put in place
to guide boats through:-

· Sbd hand mark in postn 51 37.99N, 000 38.68 E named Brandy Hole

· Sbd hand mark in postn 51 37 .92N 000 37.93E ( off the North Bank
spit) named Kingsman ( The Revenue officers erected a lookout here that
stopped the smuggling).

· Port hand mark in postn 51 37.96N 000 37.64E (marking the right
hand kink) named Hawbush ( this was the old mouth of Hawbush Creek until
the seawall was built across it).

New Buoys at the top of the Roach

The access to the upper reaches of the Roach has always in the past been a
hit or miss affair. The reputation of the shallow end of the Roach is
unfounded to those who use it regularly. To assist the access to the area
the CHA have laid a series of navigation buoys from Paglesham Reach ( Black
Edge Buoy No 1 LIT -FL G 6 sec position 51 35.230 N 000 48.199E) to the
Upper Reaches (Top Rochford No7 LIT-FL G 6 Sec position 51 34.844 N 000
44.867 E . Top Rochford No 8 LIT-FL R 6 Sec 51 34.826 N 000 44.871 E)

There are also lit navigation buoys at Barling , Barton Hall , Mucking and
Lower Rochford (a pair.) From there to Wakering Yacht Club and Sutton Wharf
at Rochford, the yard have laid a series of their own red and green buoys
plus green withes. A sensible approach is around 1 1/2 hrs each side of high
water.

Havengore and Potton Bridges, River Roach

CAYF are concerned at the frequent closure of the Havengore and Potton
Bridges, most recently through a lack of bridge keepers. This is an ancient
protected right of navigation and we are eager to see this right protected.
We have so far involved the local MP and challenged the now private company
that runs the Foulness ranges on behalf of the MOD. Our efforts continue...

RYA feedback

There has been a lack of response to the RYA information sent to club
secretaries requesting feedback this year. As at least one of these returns
will be to HRH the Princess Royal, the RYA are chasing Clubs to return
information to Hamble or via the Eastern Region. Requests include: the 2015
RYA Club survey; Club volunteering initiatives feedback; and the most
recent, a proposal for extensions to the Outer Thames SPA which may have an
impact on restricting navigation. It would be great if all CAYF Clubs
replied...

Boats Speeding at the Hullbridge

In an attempt to curtail the perennial problem of members of the public
launching at the public Hullbridge slipway then speeding through the
moorings when the CHA launch has gone, the Harbourmaster is proposing to
moor an experimental 8 knot buoy in the middle of the river opposite the 2
public slipways of Hullbridge and South Woodham Ferrers. This will state
that the area is a restricted 8 knot speed area. CAYF have welcomed the
initiative which will be reviewed at the end of the year.

New CAYF members

Welcome to Burnham Coastal Rowing Club contact is Jerry Mecoy Email:


CAYF Officers representing your interests

Ken Wickham Chairman, also representing the Roach Area Fairways Conservation


Doug MacEwen representing River Crouch Clubs and associations Email:


Clem Freeman representing the River Roach Clubs and associations Email:


I have the contact emails for the above, but have deleted them so spambots don't pick them up.


[/FONT]
 
To break even the CHA should reduce its staff and expendature.

Why do they need two boats?
Why do they need to issue individual boat licenses which need huge amounts of staff and bureaucracy to administer?

The crossrail project was always going to stop. It is gross incompetence for the CHA to have failed to plan for when it stops and to now be putting up fees because of the loss of income.
 
To break even the CHA should reduce its staff and expendature.

Why do they need two boats?
Why do they need to issue individual boat licenses which need huge amounts of staff and bureaucracy to administer?

The crossrail project was always going to stop. It is gross incompetence for the CHA to have failed to plan for when it stops and to now be putting up fees because of the loss of income.

The Burnham Office has never appeared to have 'Huge Amounts of Staff' when ever I've been in there. More like 1 maybe 2 persons at the most.

How do Crouch fees compare with other local Harbour Authorities? What do we get for our monies? I think the buoyage in the Crouch is pretty good compared to say the Orwell!

The list of fees is a it hard to decipher as it is not rendering properly on my machine......
 
The CHA does a pretty good job and I think they are ok value for money. Of course they knew about the crossrail job and have managed that with minimal fuss.
The fees are on their website.
The occasional walk of marinas for licence display check is done by volunteers.
 
Seem to have quite a healthy bank account and seem to be able to afford quite a large sum to invest with St James Palace.. Not bad for a non profit organization.. So put the fee's up to invest more money with SJP ?, I trust no-one on the board of the CHA is also linked with SJP..
 
Last edited:
Would you prefer that they had no money in the bank and sod all reserves?

Not for profit organisations still have to be run on a sound financial footing
 
Why is the Crouch a harbour and the Blackwater is not? What do you get for your fees?

Wasn't it set up in the seventies to protect the river from a threat of commercial exploitation?

Istr that I read somewhere that the river bed had been acquired by a company and that the local councils sponsored a parliamentary act to create a trust port and aquire the river for the public benefit
 
Before moving to the Crouch, I kept my boat in Maldon. At thqt time I served on the Borad of the Maldon Harbour. (actually called The Maldon Harbour Improvement Commissioners). Maldon harbour goes back to a time before god were a lad. The Harbour Authority is enacted under the same legislation as the CHA and Brightlingsea as well as Dover.

We operated on the basis of meeting the legal obligations of the Act at the absolute minimum expense and cost to harbour users. To that end,we did not issue individual boat licenses to all the boat owners with all the attendant expense of paying salaries and pensions for the staff needed to keep track of licenses, issue invoices and licenses, enforcing it by visual inspection etc.

We raised our income by issuing a mere handful of invioces to commercial operators. The fees were calculated on a pro-rata of the commercial activity of the business. By doing it this way we could operate with a very part time clerk. Nzvigation marks were installed by a commercial operator and the equipment purchassed when necessary.

Whist the HM from the CHA likes to describe Maldon as morribund, we thought of ourselves as highly efficient. Indeed we were so good most people don't even know we existed.

I am good frineds with someone who was part of the initial setting up of the CHA. He said that there was a lot of concern the set up would lead to a self justifying bureaucracy. Indeed it has become just that. There is no justification for a 15% increse in fees when national inflaton is 1%. Except of course, the bureaucracy needs such an increase to pay for itself.
 
Wasn't it set up in the seventies to protect the river from a threat of commercial exploitation?

Istr that I read somewhere that the river bed had been acquired by a company and that the local councils sponsored a parliamentary act to create a trust port and aquire the river for the public benefit

Maldon DC own the riverbed of the Blackwater.
Maldon Harbour is a Trust Port.
 
Maldon DC own the riverbed of the Blackwater.
Maldon Harbour is a Trust Port.

But that's the Blackwater

To pick up an inaccuracy, the CHA was not created by order under existing legislation (as wad the case with Maldon), it was created by its own Act of Parliament

And what, I have to ask, are the Maldon Harbour Improvement Commissioners doing to improve the harbour? Perhaps if they were a bit more active they could do something about dredging the visitors pontoon and keeping it clear for visitors to use!

Does the MHIC, as a port authority, provide pilotage services to commercial shipping? Do they regulate the use of personal water craft? Control water skiing areas? Control the laying of moorings? Does Maldon even have a Harbourmaste?

The CHA does all of the above and more. The cost to us is frankly peanuts and the 15% rise is a consequence of licence fees having not risen in line with costs due to the temporary income from Crossrail

On balance, and given that the alternative was unfettered commercial exploitation of the river, I think the CHA is, if it's an evil at all, very much the lesser evil
 
Who is the CHA accountable to?

Ah now that is an interesting one

Essentially, like all Trust Ports, Parliament in extremis via the Secretary of State for Transport (who can make orders under relevant legislation if the board of the trust act outwith their remit or fail to carry out their statutory obligations)
 
Maldon DC own the riverbed of the Blackwater.
Maldon Harbour is a Trust Port.

So far as I am aware they MHIC only control the river from Fullbridge to Heybridge Basin and they have no authority in their own right to raise any funds by for example a tonnage tax on visiting vessels. They survive on a grant. The board members themselves paint the buoys from time to time.

The Blackwater, in my opinion, has been given a great disservice by the Maldon authorities in that they have never given any real effort to attracting yachties; notwithstanding their badge which has a 1960's foulies attired man upon it.

CHA appeared to be most efficient when dealing with the Cross Rail vessels.
 
There are lots of empty berths in BYH and lots of vacant buoys in the river. Boats on the Crouch pay a licence fee. Perhaps cost has a bearing. Every little helps not. Everywhere else seems to survive. Just seems a bit odd to me.

According to their website, BYH would want to charge me £4,436 for a 12 metre yacht, that would rise to £5,063 if I was daft enough to pay monthly. In comparison, SYH would charge £3565 if you managed to get to the top of their waiting list. The CHA charging £86 sounds reasonable to me compared to £282 that I have to pay for the Orwell. If BYH are having difficulties filling their marina maybe they should consider dropping their prices.
 
The users of the Blackwater are grateful for this 'disservice'.

Well I would rather like to visit Maldon by boat but the so called visitors pontoon seems to be permanently occupied by a couple of residential barges, it desperately needs dredging but apparently there's no money to do it and the overall impression is that nobody can be bothered to do anything about it
 
Top