Ramsholt moorings

[Santana379]

Clive - the voice of reason as always!

As an outsider with no axe to grind I do wonder if anyone can give a rational and unemotional response to the question "Why should a person be allowed to have a mooring at Ramsholt and not keep a boat on it when there's a waiting list?" I genuinely don't understand.

I have come across a surprising number of individuals who retain a mooring there but who prefer to keep their boat in a marina, thus preventing others from having a mooring they would use. I realise the reason they do so is because their fairway committee rules allow them to, but how can that in any way be considered fair or reasonable? (Perhaps it's those individuals making/operating the rules?)

I am aware of other moorings where if you don't keep a boat on (rather than occasionally visit) your mooring for a year, you forfeit it, which seems entirely reasonable. Back to the bottom of the waiting list!

 

[Bru]

As an outsider with no axe to grind I do wonder if anyone can give a rational and unemotional response to the question "Why should a person be allowed to have a mooring at Ramsholt and not keep a boat on it when there's a waiting list?" I genuinely don't understand.

As another outsider equally devoid of axe and grindstone, my instinctive response to this sort of question is "Why shouldn't they be allowed?".

Perhaps I'm just too easiy going but if they're prepared to pay the annual fee and the costs of maintaining a mooring I can't see why they should have to use it or lose it

 

[Santana379]

As another outsider equally devoid of axe and grindstone, my instinctive response to this sort of question is "Why shouldn't they be allowed?".

Perhaps I'm just too easiy going but if they're prepared to pay the annual fee and the costs of maintaining a mooring I can't see why they should have to use it or lose it

You certainly are easy going Erbas (I'm not at all, and am jealous of you)!

My view is that you only need one place to keep one boat. Just because at some previous time one actually did use a mooring should in no way give an entitlement to keep it on unused, to the detriment of others. If there were no waiting list I wouldn't pass comment, but the waiting list appears to be very long (blocked?) as a consequence of this policy.

Look at it another way. Imagine you wanted a berth at a marina, you couldn't get one, but there was an empty one there. It was empty because the bloke with the boat next to it wanted it empty (improved his view maybe?), and was happily paying the annual berthing fee for it. Would you be happy, or think it fair?

I have to confess I do not understand the workings or objectives of fairways committees. I don't know what their official aims and objectives are, and I guess I may be well off the mark if their over-riding objective is to run the moorings for the sole benefit the existing mooring holders.

We keep our boat on a swinging mooring at Felixstowe Ferry, and I am certainly very happy indeed with the way the moorings are administered.

 

[CliveG]

Re the sometime attitude of a Ramsholt minder, commented upon on here; well I have heard of a rather aggressive attitude from such a described individual many moons ago, from a dinghy sailor attempting to launch his dinghy at Ramsholt. Perhaps tis not the same fella now, but it did strike me as unnecessary and OTT.

Ah well, Ramsholt is not what it used so to be these days

The access to the launch ramp and foreshore is in private ownership and the mooring holders pay a separate annual fee to be allowed to cross it, store our dinghys on it and to park for more that a few hours in the top car park.
George has a duty to the land owner to prevent non permit holders from crossing the area to launch boats.
It is not a public slip and If he were to allow that use to build up there would be a closure of the access to us all.
The Land owner's agent is keeping an eye on the use of the area.
We have all had a letter in the past month reminding us to make sure our permit is displayed on our dinghys and cars.

 

[Otter]

Am I right in thinking that if you don't put a boat on a Felixstowe mooring you loose the right to it?

The Ramsholt system is even more obscure than it seems. If you know some retired banker with a mooring there he doesn't use, you can then sub-let it; in the process get known to the HM and the committee and miraculously after a couple of years a mooring will come your way. I don't mind so much, I've had countless free nights at Ramsholt paid for by these retired bankers. What it seems to work against is the local yachtie searching for a mooring, but because someone else got there first and put their towel on the deckchair, they can't rent that mooring, even though it may go unused by the actual mooring 'owner'. It certainly doesn't help young people get into the sport when all the cheap moorings were bagged a couple of decades ago by people who use them half a dozen nights a year. All the other sets of moorings on the Deben seem to have an occupancy rate of at least 90% but I've rarely seen more than half the mooring occupied on a midweek evening.

 

[Matelot Joe]

As another outsider equally devoid of axe and grindstone, my instinctive response to this sort of question is "Why shouldn't they be allowed?".

Perhaps I'm just too easy going but if they're prepared to pay the annual fee and the costs of maintaining a mooring I can't see why they should have to use it or lose it

There is another side to this, if all the moorings were used all of the time as some would sujest by the berth holder, where would all the people that pick them up temporally go ? I believe it

gets quite busy down there from time to time. Maybe we should be paid for providing a service ! ;-)

Also some of the holders are or could be away cruising or having work done on their boats.

As for name calling on here, quite honestly I find that a bit below the belt to the person its aimed at.

 

[CliveG]

Clive - the voice of reason as always!

As an outsider with no axe to grind I do wonder if anyone can give a rational and unemotional response to the question "Why should a person be allowed to have a mooring at Ramsholt and not keep a boat on it when there's a waiting list?" I genuinely don't understand.

I have come across a surprising number of individuals who retain a mooring there but who prefer to keep their boat in a marina, thus preventing others from having a mooring they would use. I realise the reason they do so is because their fairway committee rules allow them to, but how can that in any way be considered fair or reasonable? (Perhaps it's those individuals making/operating the rules?)

I am aware of other moorings where if you don't keep a boat on (rather than occasionally visit) your mooring for a year, you forfeit it, which seems entirely reasonable. Back to the bottom of the waiting list!

I agree with your point of view in a way, but it is the Fairway committee's ball and they will make the rules they feel will work for them.
I believe that the lease on the river bed has just been renewed for another 25 years.

There are some mooring holders that are in the process of a major overhaul of their boat that is taking a lot longer than they would like but it would be unreasonable to take the mooring of them due to that.
If the rule was put in place I would think that you would find some inexpensive boats hanging on the under used moorings.

 

[Bru]

Y
Look at it another way. Imagine you wanted a berth at a marina, you couldn't get one, but there was an empty one there. It was empty because the bloke with the boat next to it wanted it empty (improved his view maybe?), and was happily paying the annual berthing fee for it. Would you be happy, or think it fair?.

I'm really not sure where "fair" comes into it. Call my a cynical old Hector (or mayhap just a battered by experience one at any rate) but I long ago gave up any expectation that life would be fair and realised that I was destined to get hold of the clarty end of the stick more often than not!

Is it fair that other people have bigger (and faster :mad-new boats than me?

It is fair that other people can afford to keep their boat in the marina all year whereas I have to paddle out to a swinging mooring?

Is it fair that my colleague at work won quite a lot on the lottery last week on a lucky dip ticket bought right before I bought my lucky dip ticket?

Now I would say that it is perhaps a little frustrating at times that folks with money can enjoy privileges I can't afford but that's life

 

[Otter]

There is another side to this, if all the moorings were used all of the time as some would sujest by the berth holder, where would all the people that pick them up temporally go ? I believe it gets quite busy down there from time to time. Maybe we should be paid for providing a service ! ;-)

Steady on MJ, less of this charging nonsense - some of us build a free night at Ramsholt into the passage plan

 

[Capt Popeye]

The access to the launch ramp and foreshore is in private ownership and the mooring holders pay a separate annual fee to be allowed to cross it, store our dinghys on it and to park for more that a few hours in the top car park.
George has a duty to the land owner to prevent non permit holders from crossing the area to launch boats.
It is not a public slip and If he were to allow that use to build up there would be a closure of the access to us all.
The Land owner's agent is keeping an eye on the use of the area.
We have all had a letter in the past month reminding us to make sure our permit is displayed on our dinghys and cars.

Thank you CG for that information; I did not appreciate the background to it all.

Who does the land belong to is it the Quilter family these days? Just be interested in finding out.

 

[CliveG]

Thank you CG for that information; I did not appreciate the background to it all.

Who does the land belong to is it the Quilter family these days? Just be interested in finding out.

The permits are issued on behalf of the Trustees of the Adenane Bawdsey Settlement.

 

[Capt Popeye]

The permits are issued on behalf of the Trustees of the Adenane Bawdsey Settlement.

Ahoy there again - thank you for the information, I was not aware of the changes since the Sir Raymond Quilter family owned most of the land from Bawdsey up river to Sutton Hoo.

 

[greylag]

Thank you CG for that information; I did not appreciate the background to it all.

Who does the land belong to is it the Quilter family these days? Just be interested in finding out.

Adeanes.

Not sure if the vision of the "Peoples Socialist Republic of Ramsholt" appeals to the owner.

 

[Santana379]

I'm really not sure where "fair" comes into it. Call my a cynical old Hector (or mayhap just a battered by experience one at any rate) but I long ago gave up any expectation that life would be fair and realised that I was destined to get hold of the clarty end of the stick more often than not!

Is it fair that other people have bigger (and faster :mad-new boats than me?

It is fair that other people can afford to keep their boat in the marina all year whereas I have to paddle out to a swinging mooring?

Is it fair that my colleague at work won quite a lot on the lottery last week on a lucky dip ticket bought right before I bought my lucky dip ticket?

Now I would say that it is perhaps a little frustrating at times that folks with money can enjoy privileges I can't afford but that's life

You are, as you say, a Cynical Old Hector. Moreover you are a fatalist, and in accepting situations that are seemingly unjust, are probably much more content with your lot in life than some others of us are. Lazy Kipper also seems to have the maturity to view life's injustices in a philosophical way. He was the one looking for a mooring, and passed no judgement or criticism whatsoever, simply stated the facts.

I used the "happily paying the annual berthing fee for it" analogy in my response to you as an illustration because you said earlier "if they're prepared to pay the annual fee and the costs of maintaining a mooring I can't see why they should have to use it or lose it". This situation isn't about the rich having more than the poor, or the successful having more than the less successful.

Swinging moorings, as we all know, are pretty inexpensive unless rented from a boatyard or marina.

Once again I would say the system for allocating/reviewing moorings at Ramsholt appears on the face of it to be pretty unfair when viewed from the outside. This is supported to a degree by anecdotal evidence from elsewhere in this thread.

As Clive says "it is the Fairway committee's ball" and that being the case, I'm sure I'll continue to hear people say smugly "I've got a mooring at Ramsholt too" from time to time in the years to come. One day it'll be too much for me and I'll make myself even more unpopular by saying what I really think!!!

I should add that I have a quite a few friends and acquaintances who keep boats on Ramsholt moorings, and they are all, (Clive included of course), extremely nice people. As is George too.

Would whoever rattled my cage please stop.

 

[CliveG]

One day it'll be too much for me and I'll make myself even more unpopular by saying what I really think!!!


Would whoever rattled my cage please stop.

Shake - Shake - Shake

Don't hold back Bill - You know you want to.
I don't think the situation will change any time soon.
Some may not be able to afford their marina fees while collecting their pensions and will have to come back to the fold.

 

[Otter]

Tell them to keep paying those marina fees - I like my free moorings at Ramsholt. But then I'm not a local family trying to get into boating.

 

[ninjod]

Ahoy there again - thank you for the information, I was not aware of the changes since the Sir Raymond Quilter family owned most of the land from Bawdsey up river to Sutton Hoo.

There's a few landowners on this side of the river. The Quilter realm stops well before Sutton Hoo..

 

[PeterWright]

Mystified

The whole basis of this attack on the Ramsholt Fairway Committee and George leaves me bemused - let me try a simple analogy. If any one of the complainers owned a leasehold cottage for occasional use, for which he paid a regular ground rent and in addition paid for the building itself and it's maintenance out of his own pocket, would his only using that cottage for a few weekends each summer constitute grounds for confiscation of his property? Surely only in a communist society which considers all property to be theft, and that's a kind of society I don't wish tobe a part of! I would quite like a mooring at Ramsholt, but realise that they are in limited supply and others (or their fathers before them) got there first.

Since my schooldays in the sixties, I have benefited from the current arrangement enjoying the odd night on a borrowed mooring to enjoy the pleasures of the Ramsholt Arms. I never got any hassle for beaching my Enterprise to partake of a pint there on returning from a trip to the Ferry from Waldrigfield, and have never found George anything but a model of courtesy and welcome.

Looking at my analogy above, we should marvel at the generosity of the mooring holders in allowing others to use their moorings when their own vessels are absent, be they off cruising, berthed elsewhere or even laid up ashore. But that marvel is part of what has always made East Coast yachting such a pleasure. I'd far prefer a river run by fairway committees than an unnecessary Harbour Authority such as we "enjoy" on the Crouch, which seems to spend most of the revenue it gets from harbour dues in collecting those same dues.

Thank you, George and long may you and your continue to make our cruising ground what it is!

 

[LittleSister]

constitute grounds for confiscation of his property? Surely only in a communist society. . . .

Did anyone suggest confiscating property? I must have missed it.

we should marvel at the generosity of the mooring holders in allowing others to use their moorings when their own vessels are absent

Not so much a marvel, as the traditional quid pro quo for occupying part of a public navigation.

 

[Santana379]

The whole basis of this attack on the Ramsholt Fairway Committee and George leaves me bemused - let me try a simple analogy. If any one of the complainers owned a leasehold cottage for occasional use, for which he paid a regular ground rent and in addition paid for the building itself and it's maintenance out of his own pocket, would his only using that cottage for a few weekends each summer constitute grounds for confiscation of his property? Surely only in a communist society which considers all property to be theft, and that's a kind of society I don't wish tobe a part of! I would quite like a mooring at Ramsholt, but realise that they are in limited supply and others (or their fathers before them) got there first.

Since my schooldays in the sixties, I have benefited from the current arrangement enjoying the odd night on a borrowed mooring to enjoy the pleasures of the Ramsholt Arms. I never got any hassle for beaching my Enterprise to partake of a pint there on returning from a trip to the Ferry from Waldrigfield, and have never found George anything but a model of courtesy and welcome.

Looking at my analogy above, we should marvel at the generosity of the mooring holders in allowing others to use their moorings when their own vessels are absent, be they off cruising, berthed elsewhere or even laid up ashore. But that marvel is part of what has always made East Coast yachting such a pleasure. I'd far prefer a river run by fairway committees than an unnecessary Harbour Authority such as we "enjoy" on the Crouch, which seems to spend most of the revenue it gets from harbour dues in collecting those same dues.

Thank you, George and long may you and your continue to make our cruising ground what it is!

I think only one poster (or two?) has passed any criticism of George, with everyone else who has mentioned his name doing so in either positive or in glowing terms. As for using empty moorings, provided one doesn't damage a private mooring with too heavy a boat, and vacates it when the "owner" returns, as LittleSister says - it's the traditional quid pro quo. It happens everywhere, not just at Ramsholt, and I expect people to use ours at the Ferry when we're not on it.

The "attack", such as it is, is on a system which allows people to retain moorings they do not keep a boat on when there is a very long and closed waiting list of people who presumably would like to keep a boat there. To some of us on the outside it appears to be an anachronistic system favouring cronyism. No-one has thus far given a credible justification (they don't have to of course) for the basis on which it's operated, though it has been explained that it is the "Fairway Committee's ball", and it has been suggested that it's unlikely to change.

It is perhaps more of a liberal attitude than a communist one to think the opportunity to have a mooring at Ramsholt should be more closely related to the intention to keep a boat on a mooring at Ramsholt than it currently is.