The RYA threatened to sue the National Trust over the fees for anchoring in Newtown Creek, so now the Trust will not charge but "ask for donations" instead.
Setting aside all political arguments about the running of the organization, I would suggest that Nat Trust membership is well worthwhile. They now have custody of a massive proportion of the English / Welsh coastline, the protection of which is very much in our interest.
Is there any truth in the rumour that the NT are dredging the western side with a view to installing visitor pontoons and a visitor centre and running a land train up to a terminus close to the pub to enable access by land based tourists?
However to put it mildly their governship is undemocratic and unaccountable. Their recent submission to the Highways Agency for rerouteing the A303 past Stonehenge was quite simply farcical .. and treated as such by the the Highways Agency!
That scheme was dropped yonks ago, a survey suggested that the salt marshes wouldn't support the weight of a land train road. The latest plan is for a monorail running above the pontoon piles.
[ QUOTE ]
However to put it mildly their governship is undemocratic and unaccountable. Their recent submission to the Highways Agency for rerouteing the A303 past Stonehenge was quite simply farcical .. and treated as such by the the Highways Agency!
[/ QUOTE ]
Boy-o-boy. How people gets their facts so wrong. Stonehenge is managed by "English Heritage" not the NT. Ergo, nowt to do with this topic on Newtown Creek...
PelicanPete, you'd better apologise and get YOUR facts right before sounding off in a completely ill informed fashion!
Stonehenge is run by EnglishHeritage but all the surrounding land is owned by the NT. Due to the recent increase in the tunnel costs various parties including the NT wwere invited to resubmit proposals for a303 diversion.
The NT proposal consisted of resiting road from Beacon Hill, through Durrington and Larkhill, crossing the River Avon (SSI) and involving the relocation of 700 homes. Complete joke .. as was your post!
Was talking to the HM this weekend and gave him £2 which he was happy with. He mentioned that they were at one time thinking of applying to become a harbour commission but that it would have been too expensive.
The upshot of NOT paying the obligatory voluntary donation may be that they will lay more bouys in clamerkin lake to make up for lost revenue, ending up with no room for anchoring, which may be fine for some (them that's afraid of dropping the pick) but IMHO would ruin the place.
When I last told the Habourmaster that I was an NT member he said it made no difference and I still had to pay. I have been a regular visitor to Newtown Creek for the last four years and paid for anchoring every time. I reckon they "owe" me four years of free anchoring to reset the balance.
NT members had to - and still have to - pay full price if they occupy a buoy, but got free anchoring for a short stay and half price anchoring overnight.
Re: I\'d consider myself in Credit for all those illegally taken fees..nm
I seem to remember in the dim and distant past that Newtown was destined to have a power station built, it was the efforts of the NT that stopped that happening.
Anyone who begrudges a fiver to a deserving cause that keeps a beautiful area, just that, must be a right tight git. Try arguing with one of the big marinas on how much you want to pay next time your there.
Re: I\'d consider myself in Credit for all those illegally taken fees..nm
I'm with you. I don't begrudge a few quid for using Newtown - you have to pay a couple of quid to sit in the car and look at the sea most places now - it's not even a couple of pints at the New Inn.
Re: I\'d consider myself in Credit for all those illegally taken fees..
Well - funnily enough ... as the tide zips past the entrance quite quickly I believe there were plans to use it as a testbed for hydroelectric power in the solent.
If I want to make a donation to a charity I'll do so voluntarily. (& have significantly and continue to do so) NOT have it dragged out of me on some doubtful pretext.