Any statements and/or petitions from the public under Standing Order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.
Minutes:
Two members of the public each made a statement at the meeting under this Standing Order in connection with the Enforcement report regarding Abingdon Marina as follows: -
(1) Gary Boughton-Smith, Marina Manager: -
Boats moored across the development boundary – Mr Boughton-Smith reported that this had been discussed at the previous meeting on 12 May 2008 when he had pointed out that in his opinion the invisible blue line drawn at 43 metres from and parallel to South Quay could only relate to fixed items, such as the pontoons and not moveable objects such as the boats that might or might not be tied to them. He stated that he wished to make it clear to the Council that it was not the Marina’s intention to expand the moorings westwards or expand it further at all. He commented that occasionally it might be prudent, for ease of marina boat movement, to moor a boat abreast of the boat at the end of a pontoon for a short period of time, as was the case in the summer of ‘Penelope Jane’ tied to ‘Bonnie Blue’. He assured the Committee that this would be a rare and by no means permanent occurrence.
He commented that he had produced a plan, but due to the rules regarding the circulation of material at Committee meetings was unable to circulate it to Members. He explained that the plan (a copy of which had been supplied by the planning department) had the limit to development line highlighted in blue and joining the ends of the pontoons was a red line, indicating clear divergence of the two getting wider, the further north. He commented that the difference between the blue line and the end of the first pontoon was 0.6 metres which would make the difference at the end of the third pontoon approximately 3 metres.
Permanent residential moorings – Mr Boughton-Smith commented that he believed there were no existing rules or regulations which stopped people staying on their boats in the Marina provided that they had a permanent place of residence elsewhere. He asked that if this was correct a local resident who had complained should be informed to enable her to cross this complaint off her list. He reported that the Inland Waterways Association had been consulted regarding this issue. He stated that to restrict the number of nights owners were allowed to stay on their boats would put this Marina out of kilter with other marinas throughout the country. He reported that he turned down on average three requests for residential moorings each week because only one residential mooring was allowed and apart from that one, he had land based addresses for all other boat owners; indeed the mooring agreement requested it. He stated that people did stay on their boats very occasionally for weeks on end, but then they left until the next time they tried to go cruising. He commented that most people would rather go cruising, than stay in the Marina, but due to the recent weather and how the Environment Agency chose to control the river, it was often not possible with the river flowing so fast to go cruising.
Mr Boughton-Smith reported that the Council’s Enforcement Officer had had the Marina under surveillance since February this year, which was more than 9 months and he believed that the Officers had not been able to draw any conclusion as to whether or not people were living on their boats. However, he commented that many people spent time on their boats and consequently money in the town. He asked that as the Officers had not found compelling evidence in the past 9 months the surveillance should now cease because although the Officers were affable and non-intrusive, people who moored their boats did not like the possibility of being spied upon. Consequently, people had left the Marina, thus affecting business. He commented that there would be people on their boats over the Christmas period but that they did not live on them.
He stated that concerns regarding the Marina had come about because one resident had been under the impression, quite incorrectly, that the only people allowed to stay on their boats were overnight visitors. He stated that he thought it was time that sense prevailed and that the surveillance and waste of taxpayer’s money stopped.
Finally, he suggested that it would be prudent for any further complaints about the Abingdon Marina to be at least first put to the Marina owners or him as the Marina Manager for consideration, before expending more local taxpayer’s money.
Mr Boughton-Smith thanked Members for having been given the opportunity to speak.
(2) Neil Boston : -
Provision, location and use of the 20 overnight moorings – Mr Boston reported the continued disappointment of residents’ regarding the procrastination on this matter as yet again it seemed that a revised proposal was being deployed to fend off potential enforcement action. He requested that when the new proposal for overnight moorings was submitted, it should be made available for comment by those who could be affected by it.
Moored boats extending beyond the western limit of the marina application site – Mr Boston stated that the report suggested that the boat Heron Island extended beyond the permitted zone by 2m and not the previously reported 0.5 – 1.5m which the Enforcement Officer had declared when this matter had last been considered. Referring to Appendix 2 which showed HeronIsland to have a beam width of 3.8m, it was a simple matter to calculate that it must extend 2.3m beyond the permitted zone. He reported that at the meeting of the Committee on 12 May, it had been resolved “that in this particular case no further action be taken against the mooring of the boat “Heron Island” when on mooring/berth number 93 on the western end of the northern arm of the marina”. This decision had been based on incorrect information presented by the Enforcement Officer. He stated that it was not surprising to residents, having regard to the operator’s track record of creeping development, that Members were now asked to consider permitting any boat of less than 4m beam width to moor to any of the 6 westernmost finger pontoon moorings. He commented that should this be permitted, this would equate to permitting vessels to infringe beyond the permitted zone by up to 2.5m or in excess of 8 feet. Furthermore, should this relaxation be granted, residents fully anticipated there soon being a 5.m boat or boats being moored on these pontoons taking the total infringement up to 3.5m or 12 feet.
Mr Boston suggested that the application before Members might still be misleading and that it should be deferred pending the preparation of the following:
(a) The production of a professional, accurate scale map of the western aspect of the development showing the distance from South Quay to each of the 3 arms and the 6 associated finger moorings of the public marina;
(b) The establishment by the operator of a full, accurate record of the beam widths of all boats with term mooring rights at the public marina. Thereafter, it was suggested that a clear individual limit be set by the Committee for the maximum beam width of boats moored on each of the 6 moorings in question; this width to be set to prevent any part of any boat extending outside of the permitted zone taking account of its distance from South Quay.
Finally, Mr Boston suggested that this permission must carry a codicil to prevent any form of multiple mooring on the moorings in question.
Storage of box trailer in the secure compound – Mr Boston stated that residents were yet again faced with prospective enforcement action being deferred and instead a reason for not enforcing against the box trailer was being considered. He reported that the reason was that the box trailer was required for “essential storage purposes”. If the storage purposes were essential this clearly equated to a permanent requirement. He suggested that this should have been clear from the outset and an application for a permanent structure submitted. He commented that the box trailer had power running to it which also suggested a permanent structure would be much more appropriate and resident strongly urged that the recommendation before the Committee be rejected and that the operator be required to seek permission for a permanent structure, appropriately and sympathetically designed and located to provide the essential storage space required. Mr Boston reported that the parking compound remained an eyesore and potential source of contamination to the marina. There was assorted rubbish around the compound and full containers of anti-freeze, diesel and possibly other products, none of which were contained within bunds and all of which should be removed.
Mr Boston stated that residents would be interested to learn what reports had been received further to Councillor Burton’s request for an environmental survey of the marina.
Finally, Mr Boston stated that Members had the opportunity to restore the balance between the public marina and the absolutely legitimate interests of local householders and he asked the Committee to support residents’ views.
The Chairman thanked Mr Boughton-Smith and Mr Boston for their statements.