Universal Marina land grab

[matt1]

It’s a good point that leaving an existing pile mooring, largely into the flow of the stream, generally requires a shallow angle Vs entering a marina which is at a right angle and across the stream, with associated impaired visibility. None of the downstream marinas (MDL) exit direct into the channel (other than Mercury, which seems set back from the main channel and being in the bend has more room anyway)

 

[BabySharkDooDooDooDooDoo]

It’s a good point that leaving an existing pile mooring, largely into the flow of the stream, generally requires a shallow angle Vs entering a marina which is at a right angle and across the stream, with associated impaired visibility. None of the downstream marinas (MDL) exit direct into the channel (other than Mercury, which seems set back from the main channel and being in the bend has more room anyway)

Something similar happened at Deacons two years back, or did they owned the mid-river pontoons as well?

 

[grahamcaulfield]

By removing the channel between them and j pontoon, they will actually create more risk as it will force the (often novice) paddle boarders and kayakers into the fairly narrow main channel where some of the biggest and least manoeuvrable boats on the river are.

Having now seen their plans it’s even more bizarre.

They are laying claim to the upstream end of the J pile run but will in fact leave that in place, albeit with a single long midstream pontoon (like they have down stream currently) instead of individual piles. The downstream J pontoon (Some of which is theirs rather than Hbr Authority) then gets removed for them to extend the bulk of the marina outwards (towards the channel). The harbour authority mooring holders on the upstream end of J then get evicted to make way for universals own tenants from the downstream pontoon they removed! So safety can’t be an issue at this upstream end of J as it essentially remains where it is! They just need it to house their own tenants as they have extended the marina over where their pontoon was! It’s outrageous.

I gather the Crown Estate is obligated to consider it as it was originally raised as a “safety concern”. I just hope it’s seen for what it is and rejected. It’s a very dangerous precedent if it goes though as it will encourage many other commercial operators to make similar land grabs.

AH yes - I was aboard yesterday j22-23 at the far north end of universal when a group of 6 female paddle boarders went by down the secondary channel, one lost balance and nearly fell in. Slack tide and not much traffic in the main channel unlike it was in the summer months. I just hate to think what would happen if the secondary channel wasn't there.
I have on another occasion rescued a sit on canoeist that had capsized during a strong ebb and was being washed past by the strong current. It is very strong just there as there is a pinch point between the shallows to the north of the hammer head and the main channel - J row moorings.

 

[_Firebird_]

Additionally, Universal proposes to take away 46 Crown Estate berths. They currently charge £595 per metre for mooring of vessels up to 8m [http://www.universalmarina.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Universal-Marina-Pricelist-202021.pdf]. We currently have a Crown Estate mooring for up to 8m which would cost us £4,760 at those prices to moor for a year, when the Crown Estate is about £670. Thats seven times the price, just to have a walk-on, water and electric. You can see why they want to extend, will boost their profits nicely. And help price most normal people out of the river.

 

[sarabande]

You need to form a Community Interest Company and approach the Crown Estate with it as the effective manager of the mooring area.

Crown Estate and Duchy of Cornwall like CICs as they are ethical and have to be transparent, and for sports clubs are a simple structure..

Been there and done that.

Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies

 

[Sea-Fever]

Have sent my feedback. One of my concerns is that the tide runs fast through those moorings and trying to get into/out of a down-tide finger could cause problems and damage. In my view, their proposal has the impact of reducing safety for both marina berth-holders and other river users alike.

Good skills.

 

[Tiderace]

Whilst I have not read the proposal, one assumes the marina has reported numerous safety concerns to the Harbour Master in accordance with the appropriate Bylaws and Notices to River Users ?

Public notice

As part of any response it would be worthwhile reviewing the safety concerns raised by the Marina to the Harbour Master. If they don't from part of the application, I would be requesting copies of all reported safety issues from the Harbour Master, which will be a matter of public record and should be virtue of continual safety improvement be made available to all river users regardless.

 

[jac]

the Harbour Master is collating responses to this - ultimately they lose out as they manage and lease from the Crown Estate moorings and lease at reasonable rates.

As to Deacons - they already owned 2 mid river pontoons on the West Side of the river - X was too close to A and B to be considered a challenge - i could barely get a 356 footer through it if boats had fenders down. They extended the marina out to where the old X pontoon was but still out in the channel - Always fun getting in there!!

 

[matt1]

I've written to the HA with my views. Has anyone heard what the latest is? Not sure if there is a deadline or expiry on Universal's application?

 

[LadyInBed]

If any of the mooring holders are RYA members they can consult the RYA legal team and maybe get some assistance.

 

[Capt Popeye]

It will be interesting to see what position, if any, the RYA takes on this. Years ago they were pretty good at defending traditional harbours and anchorages ... until they accepted generous sponsorship from Marina Developments plc, whereupon their attitude changed completed. Odd, that. Probably coincidence.

Yes what we Boating really need is an equivilant to 'The Ramblers Association' to fight our waters, back waters and corners against 'all others' who would and probably will snatch, take, grab, aquire such facilities that badly effect our Heritage, Access and Rights on the water etc

 

[matg]

Deadline for responses to Universal's proposal is 2nd Nov. You need to email the harbour.office@hants.gov.uk

I've attached drawings of the plans.

 

[st599]

the Harbour Master is collating responses to this - ultimately they lose out as they manage and lease from the Crown Estate moorings and lease at reasonable rates.

As to Deacons - they already owned 2 mid river pontoons on the West Side of the river - X was too close to A and B to be considered a challenge - i could barely get a 356 footer through it if boats had fenders down. They extended the marina out to where the old X pontoon was but still out in the channel - Always fun getting in there!!

The new Deacon's work also shifted the stream so there's now a nasty, fast cross-stream that pushes you away if you try to use the outer pontoon or the Elephant's pontoon.

 

[Hot Property]

I emailed my concerns to the Harbour Master last night and received a relpy just now.

Over 150 people have commented and all of them against the proposal.

Given that the moorings appear to be run efficiently by the Hamble Harbour Authority then I presume the Crown Estate will continue with that arrangement.

If the Crown Estate were to change their minds then as "sarabande" states, a community interest company could be formed to "bid" for the right to manage the moorings. If this were the case I'm up for getting involved......

I have inserted an actual image of the proposed plans for clarity on this post.

Pro's and Cons of a CIC Advantages and disadvantages of a community interest company (CIC)

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

I emailed my concerns to the Harbour Master last night and received a relpy just now.

Over 150 people have commented and all of them against the proposal.

Given that the moorings appear to be run efficiently by the Hamble Harbour Authority then I presume the Crown Estate will continue with that arrangement.

If the Crown Estate were to change their minds then as "sarabande" states, a community interest company could be formed to "bid" for the right to manage the moorings. If this were the case I'm up for getting involved......

I have inserted an actual image of the proposed plans for clarity on this post.

Pro's and Cons of a CIC Advantages and disadvantages of a community interest company (CIC)

I emailed yesterday too.

 

[matt1]

I emailed a letter some while back but haven't heard anything else. Anecdotally form other river users I'd heard the Harbour Master had received a lot of responses, so fingers crossed

 

[smert]

Apparently the Harbour Master has also received some responses from berth holders in Universal Marina who are also against the proposal!

 

[Capt Popeye]

Might say, that to me the REAL difference between a Body like The Ramblers and a body like the RYA is that the former, The Ramblers, are very interested and dedicated body very able and willing to throw their weight about in order to achieve best results; wheras body like the RYA is rather like a Society that really does not want to upset anybody, relying upon the Mrs May approach to the action so not very motivated usually.

 

[dunedin]

Might say, that to me the REAL difference between a Body like The Ramblers and a body like the RYA is that the former, The Ramblers, are very interested and dedicated body very able and willing to throw their weight about in order to achieve best results; wheras body like the RYA is rather like a Society that really does not want to upset anybody, relying upon the Mrs May approach to the action so not very motivated usually.

Are you a member of RYA, and if so submitted your thoughts.

From my knowledge the RYA have been very active pressing the case for boaters (large and small) on Covid-19 and Brexit stuff, for example. But some will always grumble.
Not sure if they have been involved with this much more local matter, but sure they would be happy to advise local paid up members who have any concerns if they contacted them

 

[Bobc]

This just hit my inbox:-

Everyone

Following our recent consultation and in the light of comments made by respondents and the depth of feeling expressed against this proposal around the River, The Crown Estate has concluded that it cannot agree to this proposal given it would otherwise result in ‘detriment to its operations on the River Hamble and to the interests of its berthing holders both immediately affected and more broadly on the River’. The Crown Estate has said it remains open to exploring alternative schemes that would not adversely affect The Crown Estate’s mid-stream moorings.

I have spoken to or corresponded with every one of the 200 people to whom this message is sent and know that this has caused considerable anxiety. Thank you all for taking the time to write in.

Keep well and best wishes for the remainder of this challenging year.

Jason
Jason Scott
Marine Director and Harbour Master

River Hamble Harbour Authority