Osborne Bay - Permanent Buoys

[Seajet]

;3793398]QUEEN'S HARBOUR MASTER PORTSMOUTH
LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS
No 77/12
PERMANENT MARKER BUOYS OSBORNE BAY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the Queen’s Harbour Master Portsmouth, that four yellow permanent lit marker buoys will be laid in Osborne Bay Friday 12 October 2012 replacing the temporary buoys in the following positions:

Buoy 1: 50 45.445N 001 15.225W
Buoy 2: 50 45.425N 001 15.190W
Buoy 3: 50 45.405N 001 15.156W
Buoy 4: 50 45.384N 001 15.122W

Mariners are advised to keep clear of these marker buoys in the approaches to Osborne Bay.




Cancel this Local Notice To Mariners Mon 15th Oct 2012 (4 days)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Am I reading too much into this apparently simple LNTM?

Why would they place permanent marker buoys to mark a swimming area?


Would it not have been more cost effective to lift them and replace them at the start of the new season?

Or from a darker view point, at a later time point, when everything settles down, they become part of the status quo,( although I think they are very good band) issue another LNTM saying all vessels keep clear of marker buoys and shore, no anchoring zone.

Just thinking out loud,and you heard it here first[/QUOTE]

Epervier,

I expect it's what you are referring to, but when these buoys first appeared it was widely regarded as a preemptive strike at establishing an MCZ, I seem to remember it was even alluded to by Natural England before they realised they had wildly exceeded their authority, as pointed out in no uncertain terms by Yachting Monthly / Motor Boat & Yachting...

 

[epervier]

;

Epervier,

I expect it's what you are referring to, but when these buoys first appeared it was widely regarded as a preemptive strike at establishing an MCZ, I seem to remember it was even alluded to by Natural England before they realised they had wildly exceeded their authority, as pointed out in no uncertain terms by Yachting Monthly / Motor Boat & Yachting...[/QUOTE]




I've been aware of this fiasco from the offset, I'm just wondering if this is a chance for EH/NE to get what they want through the back door, now that QHM Pompey have given out a LNTM which self cancels in three days, 12th -15th of this month is 3 days not 4, once established with permanent lit navigational buoys, with no apparent objections, there would be nothing to stop QHM turning it into a NAZ. after all, he has authority over all the submarine area of his patch.

 

[Plomong]

So no stopping in Osbourne Bay? Hasn't it been optional 'til now?

The NTM says "keep clear of the marker buoys", i.e. don't hit the damn things. It says nothing about going between, around, inshore or offshore of them, as that is not the business of QHM Portsmouth.

Plomong

 

[l'escargot]

I've been aware of this fiasco from the offset, I'm just wondering if this is a chance for EH/NE to get what they want through the back door, now that QHM Pompey have given out a LNTM which self cancels in three days, 12th -15th of this month is 3 days not 4, once established with permanent lit navigational buoys, with no apparent objections, there would be nothing to stop QHM turning it into a NAZ. after all, he has authority over all the submarine area of his patch.

I don't think there is any process to object to LNTM issued by QHM, they are issued for information not as discussion documents, and the licence was granted for permanent buoys from the start.

 

[epervier]

The NTM says "keep clear of the marker buoys", i.e. don't hit the damn things. It says nothing about going between, around, inshore or offshore of them, as that is not the business of QHM Portsmouth.

Plomong

But that is exactly who's business it is.

 

[Seajet]

I don't see why QHM should wish to impose an MCZ / NAZ, that's NE's game though I agree having 'official' buoys there could be regarded as a foot in the door.

They still have to go through the nonsense with Balanced Seas pretending they've consulted every 'stake holder' ie us, then also pretend there's an ecological reason.

 

[epervier]

I don't think there is any process to object to LNTM issued by QHM, they are issued for information not as discussion documents, and the licence was granted for permanent buoys from the start.

Apologies, I wrote it badly,I was trying to say objections against EH/NE wishes for the use of Osborne, not QHM's LNTM, but I'm sure you knew that,after all it's Thursday evening and there's not much on telly

 

[epervier]

I don't see why QHM should wish to impose an MCZ / NAZ, that's NE's game though I agree having 'official' buoys there could be regarded as a foot in the door.

They still have to go through the nonsense with Balanced Seas pretending they've consulted every 'stake holder' ie us, then also pretend there's an ecological reason.

You forgot to list the MMO, they're currently assessing the south coast, Dover thro to Weymouth I believe.

 

[Seajet]

I tend to lump all that lot together, it's all alphabet soup anyway !

 

[Chalker]

Does the cancellation of the LNTM mean that they will be removed or that you no longer need to avoid them after Monday?
If not, what does the cancellation mean? ;-)

And how do you post a smiley into the text?

 

[prv]

how do you post a smiley into the text?

For some reason the forum doesn't like noses. You have to miss out the dash in the middle.

Pete

 

[BelleSerene]

Does the cancellation of the LNTM mean that they will be removed or that you no longer need to avoid them after Monday?

The latter. The notice to avoid is part of the LNTM. The LNTM expires on Monday. So the notice to avoid expires on Monday: it's just valid during the 3-day laying period.

We enjoyed a good Sunday curry attached to the Eastmost buoy. Hadn't planned to, but hey, there was plenty of depth, just had the girls skiing off the back of the yacht, lunch was ready, yah boo sucks to the illegally laid buoy.

 

[VicS]

Does the cancellation of the LNTM mean that they will be removed or that you no longer need to avoid them after Monday?
If not, what does the cancellation mean? ;-)

And how do you post a smiley into the text?

Cant help with the LTNM

Go to your User CP

Go to Edit options

Scroll down to the last section.

Change the Message editor to "standard editor"

Save the changes

You will now have a whole load of new bells and whistles to play with including a box full of Smilies

 

[l'escargot]

Apologies, I wrote it badly,I was trying to say objections against EH/NE wishes for the use of Osborne, not QHM's LNTM, but I'm sure you knew that,after all it's Thursday evening and there's not much on telly

Nothing on the telly - so been out to the pub

Too late, the licence has been issued and the time for objecting has gone, but then most on here seem to ignore that and most of the prolific posters don't even seem to have read the licence - just post a load of uninformed nonsense. I doubt even if many of them can work out where the buoys are on the chart let alone visit Osborne Bay and see them in real life...

 

[myquest]

Why on earth would you tie up to an official lit marker bouy?
Sounds pretty dumb to me.
Seems to notice is just advising people that there are now permanent bouys, so dont sail into them.

It would seem that there is some important information missing from the Notice to Mariners. A yellow "Special Mark" only has any meaning if someone informs mariners why they have put it there.

Below is an example issued by Bournemouth Council that the Queens Harbour Master - Portsmouth might like to emulate.

Between 1st April and 31st October yellow marker buoys are located across the bay 200 metres out from the mean low water mark. Within this area watercraft may not:
Exceed 6 knots
Cause danger, obstruction or annoyance to bathers or people using the seashore
Run ashore or be launched from the beach
Powered watercraft must be fitted with an effective engine silencer
The area surrounding the Boscombe Artificial Surf Reef, marked by yellow buoys and a cardinal marker, has a year round 6 knot limit for all watercraft.

As any yellow Special Mark is completely pointless unless you know what feature it is drawing your attention to, surely it wouldn't do any harm to fix/paint on a brief summary of the feature on the marker buoy.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Us. English Heritage is 70% taxpayer-funded (the remainder coming from admission fees, donations, etc).

Pete

The Tories are wasting more money on cosmetic measures like the work program & the proliferation in training agencies than Labour ever did.Now we have "Natural England" defacing a nice little natural bay when there was'nt a problem in the first place,you could'nt invent it!

 

[DOK]

{Snip} the licence was granted for permanent buoys from the start.

l'escargot,

Agreed, but weren't the outer bouys (these four?) specified in the licence as being "mooring bouys"? Sorry, I'm being lazy - given the woeful nature of the MMO site, I can't face looking it up.

 

[oldharry]

Osborne is designated to become a No anchor zone MCZ anyway.

IoW Council insisted on the marked 'bathing zone' as part of the Planning Consent for modifications to the foreshore when EH decided to open it up. EH got the bit between their teeth and tried to create their own MCZ in the bathing area, prohibiting boats from anchoring or even entering the buoyed off area. This was claimed to protect the eelgrass.

RYA stepped in and objected to any limitation on navigation or anchoring in the area. The MMO licence therefore actually stipulates that boats will continue to have free access and anchoring rights within the defined bathing area.

The purpose of the markers is to warn skippers that there may be swimmers present in the water: a bit like a 20mph zone outside a school. Hit a swimmer, you would need a very good defense lawyer!

LNTM makes them officially recognised nav marks, and it is illegal to moor to them. Those located within the eelgrass area are secured with lightweight EFM helical screws, designed for securing lightweight marks not boats, so your boat is not safe anyway.

EH tried a to make it a no go zone, even thought the licence specifically forbids it, but thanks to you people contacting RYA, that was stopped pretty quickly.

Make the most of the Osborne anchorage: it is designated as an MCZ to protect the Eelgrass, and all the arguments being used by Natural England in Studland apply here too. If it becomes a designated MCZ, then anchoring WILL become illegal as things stand. Natural England list Osborne alongside Studland as 'high priority' for protection because of ongoing anchor damage. That means designation and an anchor ban COULd be in place by this time next year.

BORG and RYA are working to get some common sense into the arguments: ALL the eelgrass arguments around Studland apply here too, including the Seahorses. In recent weeks we have been in touch with Natural England, MMO, DEFRA and the Marine Science Coordination Committee at the House of Commons about the NE proposals for these and other areas.


See http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/ for more on all this, and news updates.

 

[l'escargot]

l'escargot,

Agreed, but weren't the outer bouys (these four?) specified in the licence as being "mooring bouys"? Sorry, I'm being lazy - given the woeful nature of the MMO site, I can't face looking it up.

You need to read the whole licence, which also specifies 5 buoys. There is a mention of the type of some of the buoys being used as mooring buoys, no licence has been granted for mooring though, only marking and the LNTM makes it clear that they are marker buoys.

 

[l'escargot]

IW council stipulated restrictions on the land as well as on the water to avoid over use of an area that had been protected for over 100 years, this was on the recommendation of one of the conservation organisations (I can't recall which one off hand) and not EH - it is all available in the planning documents if anyone is really interested in the facts surrounding all this. Currently, the only existing MCZ in the area is around the corner in Kings Quay which is nothing to do with EH and ironically they were the only organisation who raised any objection to it. Likewise the proposed MCZ which will encompass a huge area, including Osborne Bay, is nothing to do with EH either.