Osborne Bay - Permanent Buoys

[l'escargot]

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!

You are mixing up 2 entirely seperate issues - EH have stablished a small swimming area in one part of Osborne Bay; NE want to set up a large MCZ that extends from East Cowes to Wootton and encompasses the whole of Osborne Bay.

 

[Seajet]

You are mixing up 2 entirely seperate issues - EH have stablished a small swimming area in one part of Osborne Bay; NE want to set up a large MCZ that extends from East Cowes to Wootton and encompasses the whole of Osborne Bay.

l'escargot,

no, the move by NE was / is seen as a first move towards an MCZ, their own little one to start with until they were told not to be silly...

 

[DOK]

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.

If the site was easier to use, I probably would read the whole licence. However, i was referring to the bit of the licence you quoted from in this post, which refers to mooring bouys.

 

[l'escargot]

If the site was easier to use, I probably would read the whole licence. However, i was referring to the bit of the licence you quoted from in this post, which refers to mooring bouys.

Yes I did say there was a mention of mooring buoys as a type of buoy but the licence has not been issued for mooring, only marking and "providing a visual demarkation for boats and other crafts", that's why I said you need to read the whole licence and not just bits of it.

Also see old harry's post: "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 have never applied to provide moorings, aren't licenced to do so and the buoys they have put out are not for the purpose of mooring however you try to interpret it. If you do tie up to them I would guess it would be considered the same as tieing up to any other navigational mark in Portsmouth Dockyard and QHM could chase you for costs if you were to damage it or break it free.

To quote another poster: "Why on earth would you tie up to an official lit marker bouy? Sounds pretty dumb to me".

 

[gjgm]

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.

Is that normal in notices, out of interest, but I agree it makes the notice more useful it you understand what the yellow marker is marking !

 

[l'escargot]

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.

Is that normal in notices, out of interest, but I agree it makes the notice more useful it you understand what the yellow marker is marking !

That information wouldn't normally be included in a QHM LNTM, it would be in a NTM from the Hydrographic Office so that you could include it when you updated your charts. It doesn't seem to have been issued yet. Link from this page: http://www.ukho.gov.uk/ProductsandServices/Leisure/Pages/leisure-products.aspx on the Leisure NMs tab to "Solent and Approaches"..

 

[Giblets]

To quote another poster: "Why on earth would you tie up to an official lit marker bouy? Sounds pretty dumb to me".

Try telling that to the number of fishermen who tie up to the nav buoys and marks in the Eastern Solent on a regular basis.

 

[A1Sailor]

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

Pete

Including, presumably, Scottish tax payers.

 

[Fantasie 19]

That information wouldn't normally be included in a QHM LNTM, it would be in a NTM from the Hydrographic Office so that you could include it when you updated your charts. It doesn't seem to have been issued yet. Link from this page: http://www.ukho.gov.uk/ProductsandServices/Leisure/Pages/leisure-products.aspx on the Leisure NMs tab to "Solent and Approaches"..

I thought I'd ask - got this from QHM (very prompt response - was impressed )

"The 4 yellow marker buoys have been laid in Osborne Bay on behalf of English Heritage (Osborne House) to indicate the possible presence of swimmers in the vicinity. Under the conditions of the MMO Licence, the buoys will be fitted with "SWIM AREA" and "PRIVATE - NO LANDING" signs."

 

[Plomong]

But that is exactly who's business it is.

I don't think QHM issued the license, or has that power ??

Am I right, or wrong ???

Plomong

 

[Seajet]

Plomong,

see posts 26, 27 & 28 !

As for the marking described on the buoys in Fantasie 19's post, I hope they don't make it amiguous as if the area marked is private as opposed to landing...

 

[epervier]

I don't think QHM issued the license, or has that power ??

Am I right, or wrong ???

Plomong

I didn't say or imply that QHM Portsmouth issued anything, I just said it is his business to know of any and all activity in/on/under his patch.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Currently, the only existing MCZ in the area is around the corner in Kings Quay

When did that happen & on what grounds? I have been anchoring along that shore for at least fifteen years & that is one of the least used & least in need of protection sites that I can imagine.This IS all about jobsworths setting up their own little fiefdoms & justifying their own existences,nothing more!

 

[KristiferColumbus]

You are mixing up 2 entirely seperate issues - EH have stablished a small swimming area in one part of Osborne Bay; NE want to set up a large MCZ that extends from East Cowes to Wootton and encompasses the whole of Osborne Bay.

No I am not.See my previous post.......We are being told that we owe Billions.Welfare & goodness knows what else is being cut back while there is a proliferation of "experts" creeping in with it would seem unhindered access to the public purse.
I have anchored in Osbourn Bay on a number of occasions & I have never seen swimmers threatened close in shore (yachties are generally very protective of those in the water) let alone a need to spoil the look of the Bay with unnatural objects floating up & down.
Further down the coast & involving Kings Quay unless I am very much mistaken is an area designated for water skiers & the like.They occasionally are a bloody menace,you just could'nt make this up!
Restrict them possibly.Stop clam dredging & bottom trawling by all means.Try to get to grips with human pollution particularly in the form of plastic bags bottles & rubbish floating out to sea & the blaze' way of many throwing their rubbish in our creeks rivers & estuaries but spend money 'protecting' things that don't need protection.The lunatics have got in control of the asylum!
Gordon Brown will be seen as a tight wad by future generations the way the present Tory Government are pulling the wool down over peoples eyes justifying all sorts of cosmetic measures.

 

[l'escargot]

When did that happen & on what grounds? I have been anchoring along that shore for at least fifteen years & that is one of the least used & least in need of protection sites that I can imagine.This IS all about jobsworths setting up their own little fiefdoms & justifying their own existences,nothing more!

And you hadn't even noticed, it was even supported by the RYA who wanted it marked with buoys and EH who supported it as opposed to Osborne Beach:

http://www.balancedseas.org/gallery/download/1108.pdf

It is probably because it is used so little that it was seen as needing protection from greater use - preserving what was there.

 

[l'escargot]

...let alone a need to spoil the look of the Bay with unnatural objects floating up & down...

I would be careful with a view like that, I would hope that nobody seizes on it and makes a comparison between 4 buoys and a hundred or more boats...

 

[chubby]

There were lots of posts on this earlier in the year, many of which I contributed to but the whole thing became blurred and some of the posts personal and antagonistic.

From my perspective,

I enjoy being on the water and able to anchor for short or long stay stops and have used Osborne bay many times over nearly 50 years.

I welcome everyone esle who enjoys the water whether swimmer, sailor, RIB or jetski and make no presumptions about other people`s seamanship.

I accept that there are regulations to be followed and take a pride in doing so, for instance the Portsmouth small boat channel and going the correct side of Ballast pile and the outer pile but that is another post, but I do realise there are places we can`t anchor: fairways, foul ground, over power cables etc etc.

I enjoy being out in the natural environment as part of my sailing and would be concerned for it`s protection in a realistic way with a balance between users including dredging and bottom fishing which must cause greater damage than yacht anchors, let alone wind farms, oil rigs and the prospect of Boris island in the Thames estuary.

What I am concerned about is the risk of encroachment upon our traditional anchorages under the guise of MCZs as illustrated in Studland bay and threatened over much of the coast of the whole UK including areas outside the solent such as Falmouth. I am also concerned about the growth in power of new quangos such as the MMO and that in public consultation they will hear what they want to hear from conservation groups without considering an often silent yachting community.

What I do urge all to do is to be aware of what is going on and to take opportunity to respond to consultation and let our politians know our views and to support the RYA in their defence of our sport, they responded promptly when the bouys first appeared but need local grass roots feedback and information to act.

I do not want to be challenged to seamanship contests or have the depth of water I choose to anchor in for lunch relative to LAT examined in fine detail.

 

[oldharry]

Well said Chubby: exactly how I feel and why I got involved with teh BORG intiative, which is in its small way able to do and say things which it would not be poilitic for RYA, and to support them.

The real danger is that Yachtsmen ARE a silent majority, and so get ignored. Also because we are not an organised group, it is extremely difficult even for RYA to get our views, or to get their message across to us.

Legislation IS about to hit our sport, hobby, recreation; call it what you will. It is about to hit us in a big way. It is perhaps unfortunate that the first effects will be powered by the extremely powerful conservation lobby, who are well practiced at getting their own way regardless. If you had heard some of the ludicrous arguments I have been confronted with in some of the meetings I have attended!

But it will not stop there: MMOs 'Marine Plan' WILL eventually affect every one of us in some way or another, as they organise us and the marine environment. What doies that mean? We dont know yet - I suspect even the planners do not know themselves yet, but the admin machinery is alrady there for us all to be registered, catalogued, licensed, permitted , licensed, and therefore prosecuted, banned, limited and forced to comply with whatever regulations our political masters decide is good for them.
(No thats not a typo - it wont make us any safer, but that will not stop them) .

BORG was started by a handful of us concerned over what was happening at Studland, and we find we have opened a huge can of worms. With our limited time and resources there is very little more we can do than deal with the immediate issues of places like Studland, Osborne, Falmouth, and other places.

Everyone needs to get involved, because what I am seeing will involve everyone. We have a chance still to get in there and help RYA ensure nothing too stupid is proposed, but in a few years time we will all be involved whether we like it or not. And I can tell you now you will NOT like it!

 

[KristiferColumbus]

And you hadn't even noticed, it was even supported by the RYA who wanted it marked with buoys and EH who supported it as opposed to Osborne Beach:

http://www.balancedseas.org/gallery/download/1108.pdf

It is probably because it is used so little that it was seen as needing protection from greater use - preserving what was there.

If the RYA supported it then I can only say that I am glad i'm not a member & I'm not a great advocate in fixing things that ai'nt broke so you are barking up the wrong tree with that one also.
It seems to me that all those organisations are happy to spoil other peoples fun & it is all very depressing.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

I would be careful with a view like that, I would hope that nobody seizes on it and makes a comparison between 4 buoys and a hundred or more boats...

Do you work for the Isle of Wight Council or one of those other worthy organisations l'escargot?
The last couple of times I have anchored there I have had to put up with neither.