Twister_Ken
Well-known member
But not too narrow for Southern members, presumably?
RSrnYC, River Hamble, Planning Application
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
But not too narrow for Southern members, presumably?
rwoofer
Active member
Now you mention I do recall some knocks and bumps in the RSYC channel, especially when the tide is ebbing quickly. Usually happened because too many people piled in rather than waiting. Once remember a 38 footer going through sideways and knocking boats on both sides. As an ex-member of the Southern I can see that the RAFYC will be affected, but for anyone else they wouldn't even have noticed if it was done.
brians
Member
Hamble Jetty
This should also be considered in conjunction with the Harbour Master's proposed extension to Hamble Jetty which I think will go ahead.
This should also be considered in conjunction with the Harbour Master's proposed extension to Hamble Jetty which I think will go ahead.
rwoofer
Active member
The more I think about the more I realise the problems it will cause.
I used to row to my downstream mooring from/to the Royal Southern. If there was an ebb running I had to hug the shore as closely as possible to be able to make headway. With a permanent connection I don't think you would be able to row any more. Seems a shame to be forced into an outboard propelled boat.
I used to row to my downstream mooring from/to the Royal Southern. If there was an ebb running I had to hug the shore as closely as possible to be able to make headway. With a permanent connection I don't think you would be able to row any more. Seems a shame to be forced into an outboard propelled boat.
HarryBirdman
New member
And not just the cheaper option - it is a mini-marina development by stealth if you ask me
Judders
Active member
There seems a lot of saying no to change for the sake of saying no to change here, but the access to the RAF pontoon for larger boats or less well handled boats (who would struggle to turn if coming from the other direction) is a genuine issue. Anyone trying to get a 35' plus yacht (or a smaller long keeled yacht) into there on the ebb would struggle.
As for the right to hug the shore in a tender, since you have to go out to get round Port Hamble or the Hamble village pontoon, this argument seems a little bit to be splitting hairs. One pontoon further out would not make an enourmous difference (though the ebb on the Hamble is fierce) and would actually shorten your route!
The benefit of the pontoon is not to create a marina for members, it will actually reduce the number of annual berths available, however it will allow for bigger and better events to be hosted on the river. The current walkashore pontoon is rather short and rather shallow so to attract events like the 12 Meter Regatta is a problem, although I would concede that the 28 days per year or whatever the current use is does allow for that. That said, I dont think it is anything like as many as that, it is more like 12.
The truth is that the only other option for attracting the quality events to the river is via the big commercial marinas and lets be frank, they dont do a very good job. The world over it is clubs who host these events and the Southern, whilst easilly the leading club at this sort of thing on the north island, needs better facilities in order to do it.
What ever Cowes' claims to the contrary, Hamble is the real hub of sailing in England but it has become ever more inward looking in recent years. The big boats you see on the river these days all berth there (dry berth mainly) and less are visiting. The outsiders image is of an unfriendly place dominated by big souless commercial marinas, plebian charters and unfriendly locals. This application is part of an opportunity to re-claim Hamble for real sailors.
*nb I am, incase you hadnt realised, a member of the Srn.
As for the right to hug the shore in a tender, since you have to go out to get round Port Hamble or the Hamble village pontoon, this argument seems a little bit to be splitting hairs. One pontoon further out would not make an enourmous difference (though the ebb on the Hamble is fierce) and would actually shorten your route!
The benefit of the pontoon is not to create a marina for members, it will actually reduce the number of annual berths available, however it will allow for bigger and better events to be hosted on the river. The current walkashore pontoon is rather short and rather shallow so to attract events like the 12 Meter Regatta is a problem, although I would concede that the 28 days per year or whatever the current use is does allow for that. That said, I dont think it is anything like as many as that, it is more like 12.
The truth is that the only other option for attracting the quality events to the river is via the big commercial marinas and lets be frank, they dont do a very good job. The world over it is clubs who host these events and the Southern, whilst easilly the leading club at this sort of thing on the north island, needs better facilities in order to do it.
What ever Cowes' claims to the contrary, Hamble is the real hub of sailing in England but it has become ever more inward looking in recent years. The big boats you see on the river these days all berth there (dry berth mainly) and less are visiting. The outsiders image is of an unfriendly place dominated by big souless commercial marinas, plebian charters and unfriendly locals. This application is part of an opportunity to re-claim Hamble for real sailors.
*nb I am, incase you hadnt realised, a member of the Srn.
Elessar
Well-known member
I have no comment on the yacht club proposal but in my opinion thr Deacons one has no impact on river users except for Deacons bertholders.
Some people like to object for the sake of it methinks.
RobbieW
Well-known member
Whats in it for an ordinary R Srn member ?
There are several aspects of your post that I find interesting. I'll focus on just this topic though.
Ok, so the proposal reduces the number of annual berths available to members. Will the members on those berths be able to use them during events ? It presumably increases the number of events held in the club, thus adding to the crowd at the bar during those events. I know the club has the downstairs 'members' bar for use on such occasions but your posts over on the 'Best use' thread suggests that members resent the intrusion of the sort of people who take part in the sort of events I imagine the club would like to host - essentially paying ones. Those events will likely increase pressure on parking in the village, also covered in the 'Best use' thread.
Members themselves will find access to thier berths more difficult than today. The application speaks glibly of it being no different to a finger berth in a marina, in a marina you only have to deal with one boatlength. For those with allocated berths near the bridges, there are upwards of 4 boatlengths to negotiate potentially in reverse with the tide and often a crosswind. I'm with flaming on this, that gallery outside the upstairs bar will be a superb place to watch the carnage - I'm almost tempted to join just for that
Could it be that the need for event space has outgrown the capacity of the Hamble? After next summer there'll be a lot of bespoke facility going at Portland, perhaps the Southern should consider relocation if it sees its core business going toward events.
So, back to the question - Whats in it for the ordinary member of the Southern ?
There are several aspects of your post that I find interesting. I'll focus on just this topic though.
Ok, so the proposal reduces the number of annual berths available to members. Will the members on those berths be able to use them during events ? It presumably increases the number of events held in the club, thus adding to the crowd at the bar during those events. I know the club has the downstairs 'members' bar for use on such occasions but your posts over on the 'Best use' thread suggests that members resent the intrusion of the sort of people who take part in the sort of events I imagine the club would like to host - essentially paying ones. Those events will likely increase pressure on parking in the village, also covered in the 'Best use' thread.
Members themselves will find access to thier berths more difficult than today. The application speaks glibly of it being no different to a finger berth in a marina, in a marina you only have to deal with one boatlength. For those with allocated berths near the bridges, there are upwards of 4 boatlengths to negotiate potentially in reverse with the tide and often a crosswind. I'm with flaming on this, that gallery outside the upstairs bar will be a superb place to watch the carnage - I'm almost tempted to join just for that
Could it be that the need for event space has outgrown the capacity of the Hamble? After next summer there'll be a lot of bespoke facility going at Portland, perhaps the Southern should consider relocation if it sees its core business going toward events.
So, back to the question - Whats in it for the ordinary member of the Southern ?
rwoofer
Active member
Boat was downstream so Hamble village pontoon was en-route. If there was enough headroom I used to sneak under the gangway down to the pontoon.
Judders
Active member
It's a tough concept, but I dont think there really is one.
I think it's rather hard for some people to understand but what makes a club different from a business such as a marina is that it is not merely (I emphasise merely) an entity for providing a serivce for profit. As I have pointed elsewhere, that is an alient concept to a lot of Hamble sailors.
Sandyskip
New member
It seems such a shame that while we all share the same love of being on the water, each entity on the Hamble gets very insular. It is such a shame! With a little good will and common sense maybe the RSn & the RAF could have come up with a proposal to benefit both clubs.
maxi
Member
The secondary channels are an absolute necessity for SAFETY's sake, for small craft.
Whilst RS'n do have permissions to close part of the secondary channels for a short and determined period each year - permanent closing would create a very unhealthy precedent that would give rise to a whole rash of further closures on the river. e.g. Deacons are already trying to do just that further upriver.
Whilst RS'n do have permissions to close part of the secondary channels for a short and determined period each year - permanent closing would create a very unhealthy precedent that would give rise to a whole rash of further closures on the river. e.g. Deacons are already trying to do just that further upriver.
Elessar
Well-known member
yep and there's nothing wrong with the Deacons proposal.
I agree they should all be looked at on merit, but the "if I let you have one they'll all want it" attitude is one that particularly annoys me.
That doesn't mean I support or object to the yacht club proposal, I don't know enough about it to comment.
Judders
Active member
But there is no secondary channel through Port Hamble Marina or HYS so the quarter of a mile immediately north of the proposed changes. Thus there is no loss of amenity with this proposal and, indeed, a secondary channel would remain. There would be just one less.
RobbieW
Well-known member
[sigh] there is a loss of amenity for those wishing to use the RAFYC pontoon
The application shows the 3 Southern pontoons being linked so this doesnt add up. Which secondary channel would remain open?
Judders
Active member
Apologies, I meant there was no loss of amenity of the secondary channels because there is no meaningful secondary channel at the moment. Having a secondary channel for one hundred yards and then run straight into Port Hamble. That said, I thought the plan was only to bridge the first gap.
There is however a loss of amenity to he RAF pontoon and for that reason I believe the scheme is fatally flawed.
There is however a loss of amenity to he RAF pontoon and for that reason I believe the scheme is fatally flawed.
moody lady
New member
Just a bit more information about the channel in front of the RSrnYC, the plan shows that both channels are to be closed thereby doubling the entertainment. Whenever this channel has been closed in the past, actually 43 days lst year, it has caused great inconvienence to members of the RAFYC and any other river user in a small vessel trying to keep out of the traffic in the main channel. It is impossible to berth or leave a berth safely unless proceeding against the tide. On 15th September the channel was closed for a small corporate regatta organised by a well known charter company based on the Hamble, approximately 10 yachts attempted to berth down stream on the ebb tide, collisions and absolute carnage took place with boats at all angles, and I have the photos to prove it. I wish I had it on video
Seven Spades
Well-known member
I don't see this as being a matter for any one but the Southern and the RAF. Ordinary river traffic does not traverse the gap between the Southern pontoons.The Southern pontoons are inside the line of Port Hamble so have no affect upon anyone.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Apart that is from dinghies, tenders, canoeists, etc, and boats visiting the RAFYC.
Seven Spades
Well-known member
Are you deliberately being an idiot or does it come naturally. My post was directed at other river uses. The first sentence clearly says this is a matter between the Southern and the RAF the proposed linking does not affect anyone else.