Instructions not to anchor in Osbourne bay

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Shanklin and Sandown have areas marked with yellow buoys at 300 yards, Totland and Colwell also have the same byelaw but I don't think they put out the buoys. The areas aren't policed and most boaters completely ignore them - perhaps if we had the CRS on lifeguard duties things would be different

Lots of us anchor with 300 yards of the shore at Totland. Further than that makes it less fun to swim ashore.

Totland beach is of course privately owned.

 

[l'escargot]

...I have some sympathy with L'Escargot's point that claiming the whole sea exclusively for yachts is no better than claiming it exclusively for seahorses. However, given the location of the buoys several hundred yards from the shore, this clearly isn't just a marked swimming area like the ones that operate uncontroversially at, say, Yarmouth. If English Heritage had done that, it would probably have gone unnoticed here or even perhaps a "well done for finally letting people use the beach".

If and when we do operate inside their voluntary zone, we should be careful to stay well clear of any swimmers. Since most of the area is much further out than most people would want to swim, that shouldn't pose a problem.

Pete

The main swimming beaches have a 300 yard restriction, in this case it was 380 yards. The trouble is that at low tide there isn't a lot of water left for swimmers.

It is a shame, and this is a general observation, that many campaigning organisations once they become established lose sight of their principles and have a tendency to forget why they started. It is very easy for them to become like the organisations they set up to fight - indeed, once they start to get official recognition they often do.

It would be a shame if boaters in maintaining their "rights" began trampling over other people's rights and I am speaking as someone who owns two boats and is fortunate in being able to get out on the water most days.

There is a lot of sea out there for everyone to play in and I can't see why anyone would want to go and anchor in the middle of an area set aside for swimmers just because they can. All this "passage making" and "sheltered anchorages" is all a load of nonsense on a sunny August afternoon - the vast majority of people who anchor in Osborne Bay don't have the slightest inclination to anchor within 300 yards of the shore and never have.

I don't really see the point in anchoring right on the beach, if I wanted to be that close to the beach I'd get a deckchair instead of a boat. Perhaps it is just another aspect of the selfish "me" society that we are now living in.

 

[l'escargot]

Lots of us anchor with 300 yards of the shore at Totland. Further than that makes it less fun to swim ashore.

Totland beach is of course privately owned.

I don't dispute it, I've done it myself, I was just pointing out that there is a disregarded byelaw in place.

I used to anchor there when it was a novelty to see more than 3 or 4 boats. I don't bother now since the time I was stood waist deep in water and flagged down a little speed boat doing 25 knots parallel with the shore, to point out the kids snorkelling. Or the time the 30 foot Sunseeker ran onto the beach next to where I was stood, who didn't know what I was talking about when I said the tide was falling - that was funny watching four drunken used car salesman trying to push it off half an hour later.

I think you will find that it is parts of the promenade and not the beach that is privately owned.

 

[prv]

the vast majority of people who anchor in Osborne Bay don't have the slightest inclination to anchor within 300 yards of the shore and never have.

Well this is the thing - I don't go there very often, but when I do I usually anchor very close in. If everybody else is further out then it's more secluded, it's often more sheltered from wind and swell, and I have been known to go for a swim which may not be a good idea in the stronger tide further out. I accept the performance penalty of a 3-foot draught, I may as well get the benefits

Pete

 

[jamesjermain]

This afternoon I read a press release from the RYA concerning the buoys placed by English Heritage. EH has confirmed that the buoys mark a swimming area and the area inside the buoys is a no anchoring zone.

BUT the MMO and the RYA have confirmed that EH has no right to insist on a no anchoring zone and yachtsmen may/should ignore them. However, the RYA suggests that since there is a possibility that there will be swimmers off the beach, yachtsmen should procede with caution.

I strongly recommend that Yachtsmen respond to instructions from EH with a two fingered greeting.

 

[oldharry]

This afternoon I read a press release from the RYA concerning the buoys placed by English Heritage. EH has confirmed that the buoys mark a swimming area and the area inside the buoys is a no anchoring zone.

BUT the MMO and the RYA have confirmed that EH has no right to insist on a no anchoring zone and yachtsmen may/should ignore them. However, the RYA suggests that since there is a possibility that there will be swimmers off the beach, yachtsmen should procede with caution.

I strongly recommend that Yachtsmen respond to instructions from EH with a two fingered greeting.

Read it here: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326009

Also if you are or have been challenged by EH in Osborne Bay, tell the RYA on environment@rya.org.uk They need to know as they can take the matter forward.

 

[oldharry]

Judging by the reply from HMCG when BORG queried their statement at the beginning of this thread, the notifications had not gone through to them, so they and the RNLI were unaware of it. It is not clear quite where this has gone wrong, either MMO did not make it clear to EH, or EH 'forgot'. EH were supposed to notify UKHO of the proposed buoyage plans, who in turn would have notified Trinity House, HMCG and QHM.

I have it on good authority that MMO and HMCG are 'investigating', while QHM is looking to see whether a LNTM should be issued.

If it was EH's fault they have got themselves across some quite powerful organisations there!

This will also apply to QHM, which would explain why they have not responded to the emails several of us have sent, asking about it.

 

[Submariner!]

What baffles me is why done EH ,RYA, QHM all work together on this? Why not extend the area further out to sea and declare the whole bay as a slow speed area (4 knots max)? This way swimmers can be safe on the beach as well as in the vicinity of anchored yachts from the multitude of toe rags which race between yachts on RIBs, PWCs and larger power boats?

 

[Seajet]

You're certainly right about toerags on RIBs in that area !

Thing is, I can't really see many people wanting to swim there anyway, it's cold water as soon as it gets deep ( from personal experience off the boat ) and whenever a ship goes past in the Solent proper the wash is large and unpleasant, same goes for gin palaces passing closer.

The whole swimming off Osborne thing seems a useless gimmick to me, as mentioned before who's going to stroll around a stately home carrying trunks & towel ?!

 

[Searush]

(snip)
The whole swimming off Osborne thing seems a useless gimmick to me, as mentioned before who's going to stroll around a stately home carrying trunks & towel ?!

They will be pushing it as "Swimming on Victoria's private beach" Julia Bradbury did it with a bathing machine fairly recently. I can see people going specifically to do just that. lots of peopel like sea swimming you know.

I am a member of NT & EH & I go sea swimming - this was last week off Anglesey.

 

[l'escargot]

There are actually quite a number of swimming beaches on the north coast of the island and anyone who knew Osborne Bay or could read a chart would know that the buoyed area isn't deep water.

It proved such an attractive swimming area that the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had it for her personal use for many years.

No need to extend the area either, there is actually a 10 knot limit for 1000 yards off shore already as it falls within Portsmouth Dockyard, observing that will protect anchored boats and keeping boats out of the small buoyed area will protect the swimmers

 

[DaveS]

It proved such an attractive swimming area that the queen of England had it for her personal use for many years.

Not wishing to be overly picky, but Victoria was not Queen of England. England has not been a sovereign state since 1707.

 

[neale]

It proved such an attractive swimming area that the queen of England had it for her personal use for many years.

That was only because she hadn't discovered Easyjet

 

[l'escargot]

That was only because she hadn't discovered Easyjet

Shame a few more people on here haven't

 

[snooks]

anyone who knew Osborne Bay or could read a chart would know that the buoyed area isn't deep water.

But it's still deep enough to plonk a yacht for a few hours though

And when we were there, there was enough custom to keep the ickle ice cream boat busy inside the buoyed are so they didn't need to come further out

 

[oldharry]

What baffles me is why done EH ,RYA, QHM all work together on this? Why not extend the area further out to sea and declare the whole bay as a slow speed area (4 knots max)? This way swimmers can be safe on the beach as well as in the vicinity of anchored yachts from the multitude of toe rags which race between yachts on RIBs, PWCs and larger power boats?

Something like that was supposed to happen, but for some reason UKHO didnt get notified of the grant of the licence for the buoys, so MCA, Trinity House, QHM etc never got told it was happening. It was EHs responsibility to ensure that notification was sent, but if they were trying to sneak in their own little conservation zone maybe they thought that by not notifying, they would get away with more than they had been allowed?

The problem with speed limits - and this is widespread up and down the coast - is policing it. It costs money to have people in RIBS with radar cameras (I am told costing 10k each - non marine version so add 15 k for chandlers mark up) chasing around to stop the idiots.

Studlanders have an 8 knot speed limit - which is ignored daily. small wonder conservation divers, who are risk of having their heads cleaved by a passing RIB have a poor impression of us!

Mind you if it was more widely known that the fines can go into four figures, unlike on the cheap speeding ticket FP on the roads, then maybe some of the plomkerts would take a bit more care?

 

[Seajet]

Meanwhile the buoys were proven completely lacking any legal authority, so any self-serving 'instruction not to enter buoyed area' can be treated with the disdain it deserves.

Any normal decent boat owner will be going slowly anyway, though it remains to be seen if any swimmers use the area.

 

[l'escargot]

Meanwhile the buoys were proven completely lacking any legal authority, so any self-serving 'instruction not to enter buoyed area' can be treated with the disdain it deserves.

Any normal decent boat owner will be going slowly anyway, though it remains to be seen if any swimmers use the area.

The licence permits EH to 'discourage' boats from entering the buoyed area and QHM requires people to avoid them.

A boat owner who chooses to take their boat amongst swimmers and chooses to take their boat through a designated swimming area is irresponsible as are those who encourage others to do so.

 

[Seajet]

Well as I can see hazards, and read charts for that matter, I can sort it out for myself not be bothered by people with vested interests.

As mentioned I am dubious whether swimmers will ever bother, it's just something else for English Heritage to make out is a 'facility offered' and a chance to mention Victorias' bathing machine as an attraction.

 

[l'escargot]

...The problem with speed limits - and this is widespread up and down the coast - is policing it. It costs money to have people in RIBS with radar cameras (I am told costing 10k each - non marine version so add 15 k for chandlers mark up) chasing around to stop the idiots.

Studlanders have an 8 knot speed limit - which is ignored daily. small wonder conservation divers, who are risk of having their heads cleaved by a passing RIB have a poor impression of us!

Mind you if it was more widely known that the fines can go into four figures, unlike on the cheap speeding ticket FP on the roads, then maybe some of the plomkerts would take a bit more care?

I think a big problem is many boaters see boating as a regulation free area and no restrictions apply to them - I have just listened to QHM ******* a mobo for entering Portsmouth at speed and crossing to Gunwharf without clearance to drop someone on the Gosport ferry pontoon. What we need are more prosecutions to get the message over - like the idiot who had to cough up £1700 for towing a wakeboarder up Short Reach in Lymington last year. Publicising restrictions would also help - how many people know of the 10 knot speed limit 1000 yards offshore in most of the eastern Solent? Either not many or a lot choose to ignore it.