Essex Marina – Excessive Wash

PeterWright said:
Not that long ago, Rompford was in Essex, before Lunnun stole it, so I'm afraid it's a natural hazard of the Essex rivers. Mobos always seem worse on the Crouch than the Blackwater because the Crouch (my home river) is such a narrow ditch. But I’ve had more jetski hassle on the Blackwater. I've nothing against mobos in general, I just don't like inconsiderate behaviour in any format, including deaf people driving around with their sound system on full power and windows open -it's the same "look at me" mentality.

Peter.
Click to expand...

I don't think Romford has been in Essex since 1965. However On more mobo, speedy boat type subject, I was anchored off Osea island on a peaceful sunny Sunday afternoon last year and awakened from my post luncheon snooze by a number of speedy boats, of various dimensions, some with outboard motors the size of London buses, and eminating enough noise to silence a Boeing 747, and causing enough wash to to swamp the Isle of Wight. So like a Peter I think the Crouch is quite peaceful in comparison to the Blackwater, although of course I do love the Blackwater.
 
Last edited:
All of them had been warned earlier in the day, then decided to ignore the advice on the speed limit. If they were in a car they would have been booked twice. Lets hope the news of the fines reaches other ignorant users of fast craft.
 
Well that really is a result! The harbour authority has at long last grown a pair and is doing something about the Romford Navy (JetSki and Small Power Boat Division). I wonder if they happily paid their fines and have gone away duly chastised or whether (as will probably be the case) they plead poverty and request to pay their fines at a tenner a month?

I wonder what their haul will be this coming Sunday? Half decent weather should bring the muppets out in force!
 
Spoke to Nigel Harman today in a model shop buying a drone with survey camera. He was telling me about some of the people he has caught & fined or been involved in the fine. It seems that they can impose on the spot ones at £ 100-00 which he says has little effect so really needs aqua plod & a court case
Apparently the aggression from some of the jet ski types has to be seen to be believed. One jet ski bloke had a jet ski capable of over 100MPH & kept sneering at Nigel that Nigel's could only do 60MPH. But as Nigel pointed out- He still caught the idiot.
Nigel says the aim is to keep driving them further up the A12 away from the Blackwater & Colne.
He was expecting some action tomorrow.
 
NOTICE TO MARINERS No 26 of 2017

NAVIGATION

River Crouch

No Wash Zone Buoys Established – Essex Marina

Mariners are advised of the deployment of 2 special lit ‘NO WASH ZONE’ buoys at the Eastern and Western ends of Essex Marina. Both buoys are positioned clear of the main fairway.

Eastern Buoy – Yellow Round Base – White No Wash Sign
Approx. position 51°37.447’N

000°48.002’E

Light – Quick Yellow Flash


Western Buoy - Yellow Round Base – White No Wash Sign
Approx. position 51°37.468’N

000°47.730’E

Light – Quick Yellow Flash


Susan Harrison MNM

Harbour Master

9th June 2017

Crouch Harbour Authority, Harbour Office, The Quay, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, CM0 8AS

Telephone/Fax: 01621 783602. Email: info@crouchharbour.org.uk
 
Just to update the progress on this issue, the Crouch Harbour Authority is proposing a new Harbour Direction which will allow them to impose fines of up to £2500 on the Master of any vessel (including jetskis) which is seen to be creating undue wash - regardless of whether or not the speed limit is being exceeded. The areas covered includes the section of river between Fairway 11 & 13 bouys (the area in which Essex Marina is located). The proposed Harbour Direction is currently out for consultation.
 
I wonder how they define 'undue wash'. Zero wash is easy to define, but what is undue wash, and at what level does it become undue?
 
CLB said:
I wonder how they define 'undue wash'. Zero wash is easy to define, but what is undue wash, and at what level does it become undue?
Click to expand...

The proposal has the wording "Every Ship navigating or manoeuvring within the designated areas below must, unless otherwise authorised by the Harbour Master in writing keep their wash/wake to an absolute minimum and be navigated with care and caution and in such a manner as not to cause injury to, or be a nuisance to persons, other ships, mooring buoys, beacons or other property."
 
But I have been shouted at, so I assume the person 'thought' I was bring a nuisance, when I was stationary! Who decides the what constitutes a nuisance. Some old grumpy sailor who complains about everthing, or only officials. If the latter, how often are they out on wash patrol?
 
Legislation containing wording such as that is either a complete nightmare for those charged with enforcing it, or a licence to print money...... "Minimum wash"? Really? So a boat doing three knots will produce more wash than one doing one, so which is the minimum....? "A Nuisance to" is slightly more workable as one would like to presume it will require third party evidence that they were in some way detrimentally impacted by the wash and as such it can be subjected to scrutiny and assessment by a court, but that's assuming it would ever get that far. What I suspect will happen is a whole load of tickets/fines will be dished out with very attractive incentives to pay up without a quibble. I'm not quite sure how you can be a nuisance to inanimate objects though, it is a word normally associated with irritation to a person or the public.
 
What a classic thread! People grumble about excess wash, lots of people agree it's a problem, Crouch Harbour Authority propose to introduce new legislation which will enable them to penalise the worst offenders (regardless of speed), and immediately people start questioning the CHA's response. It seems the CHA can't win, or can they?
 
The RBOD fleet came through Fambridge a couple of weeks back.. at full hull speed they were kicking up a wake to disturb more than a glass of wine.

Would they be "guilty" of an offence? under the proposed wording? (piccies to follow if I can sort out something)
 
pvb said:
What a classic thread! People grumble about excess wash, lots of people agree it's a problem, Crouch Harbour Authority propose to introduce new legislation which will enable them to penalise the worst offenders (regardless of speed), and immediately people start questioning the CHA's response. It seems the CHA can't win, or can they?
Click to expand...

There is already sufficient legislation in place to deal with the issue. The problem is the authorities consider it to difficult or expensive to apply it so they introduce new, poorly thought out knee jerk legislation that will allow them to capture a greater audience and therefore cover the cost of doing so......

It's a bit like speed cameras. Instead of paying police officers to go out and catch the worst offenders who are actually driving dangerously they introduce a system that targets everybody regardless of circumstances, even if what they are doing isn't actually a problem.
 
I think the CHA have acted quickly to a growing problem, I am sure common sense will prevail as to what constitutes excessive wash. We have all seen boats producing excessive wash and clearly know what it is.

We live in times when the authorities take forever to tackle a problem, usually costing vast sums in consultation fees etc etc, inefficiency at it best usually. We no long live in a "can do" society. So I am pleased CHA are addressing the issue in a positive way and swiftly.

On another note , we are lucky on the Crouch we don't usually have jet ski problems, unlike the Blackwater, Colne. I have seen many dangerous incidents involving them. But I don't see the the authorities in these rivers acting swiftly and consistently (fully aware of some recent prosecutions, but more are needed)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Plum
Support for Bradwell Marina
Replies
18
Views
1K
Snowgoose-1
S

Share this page

Top