Any statements and/or petitions from the public under Standing Order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.
Minutes:
It was noted that four members of the public had each given notice that they wished to speak regarding the Enforcement Programme Report.
(1) Mr Gary Bourton Smith
Mr Bourton Smith made a statement in his capacity as Marina Manager of Abingdon Marina. He made the following points with respect to the allegation that the Marina moorings were being used for permanent residential purposes. He advised that there was provision for one residential mooring, for security purposes. He explained that the current residential mooring was used by a boat named “The Green Man”, and that the owners took the boat river cruising as often as they could. He advised that he was in possession of land based addresses for every other boat owner in the Marina.
He commented that it was his belief that one of the Directors of the Resident’s Association had considered that boat owners were not permitted to stay overnight on their boats or for several days. He advised that this was not the case as long as it could be demonstrated that the boat owners had a permanent place of residence elsewhere. He commented that the occupiers of the boats were very quiet and were mindful of their neighbours. He stated that he had invited Mr Boston, the Chairman of AMRA Ltd. to telephone him should he be disturbed by noise from the Marina, however to date he had not received such a call.
He made the point that the Marina was not set up for residential moorings, there were no showers, no hairdryers, no laundry facilities and only two toilets and an elsan disposal point.
With respect to the storage of the small caravan and box trailer in the secure compound, Mr Bourton-Smith advised that the caravan had now been removed. He stated that he did not consider that the box trailer was in breach of any planning permission, given that it sat in the car park, which was designated for cars and trailers. Furthermore, he stated that the trailer was positioned so as to have minimum visual impact.
In respect of the alleged breach of condition regarding the repair and improvement of the access road, he advised that following a recent meeting between himself, planning and enforcement officers and a representative from the county highways authority it had been agreed that the road was now up to an acceptable standard.
With respect to the moored boat extending beyond the western limit of the marina application site, Mr Bourton-Smith agreed that no action should be taken.
The Chair thanked Mr Bourton Smith for his statement.
(2) Mrs Gail Viney
Mrs Viney spoke in her capacity as a resident of the Marina. She advised that she had lived at the Marina for almost 20 years. She stated that the final scheme which had been approved in 1998 permitted a maximum of 100 boats, equating with the 100 moorings specified in the S106 Agreement. She explained that the amendment of the first scheme also specified 100 boats, but with a smaller mooring area with the pontoons located 5m further south.
She advised that in the last 2 years the unauthorised expansion of the public moorings both in boat numbers and area had upset the balance and was causing harm to the amenities that the residents once enjoyed. She stated that the moorings now extended approximately 1000 square metres beyond the permitted mooring area, the expansion being due to the illegal installation of 8 mooring posts, which had enabled the mooring of much longer boats than intended.
She stated that it was her estimate that there were almost 50% more boats permanently moored than permitted, a significant number of which were in unauthorised residential use.
She expressed concerns over the resultant harm to homeowners, namely loss of amenity, loss of privacy, loss of water space, upset of balance between public and private areas of the Marina, loss of reed bed, decrease in wildlife, adverse effect on visual amenity, dirtier water, increased risk of serious navigation accident, noise and the increase in traffic causing nuisance.
She stated that she believed that several things needed to be done. Firstly the public moorings must be kept within the boundaries agreed in 1998-2000, the western limit having been defined by the S106 Agreement. She advised that as the Enforcement Officer had found the pontoons to be 43.6 metres from South Quay, all boats which extended more than 40 cm west of the pontoons encroached beyond the western limit and therefore must be enforced against.
In addition she advised that the northern limit, as defined by the amended plan, the Royal Yachting Association standard should apply, meaning that no boat longer than 6.6 metres would be moored on the northern pontoons. She called for the immediate removal of the illegal mooring posts.
Furthermore she stated that the eastern limit ought to have been have been defined by the marker buoys 8m from the bank. She advised that last year an application had been approved for the provision of additional moorings, despite the plans having no proper scale and the Officers inaccurate advice that there was no upper limit to the number of boats.
She advised the Committee that boats should not encroach over the permitted western and northern limits, all stays should be for 24 hours at a time and that by ensuring that this was the case enforcement action would be simplified.
The Chair thanked the speaker for her statement.
(2) Mr Neil Boston
Mr Boston spoke as the Chairman of the Abingdon Marina Resident’s Association objecting to the application.
He advised that the proposal to defer the decision as to whether or not to take action in respect of the number of boats at the marina should not be agreed, as it had been demonstrated that the number of boats exceeded the number permitted. He confirmed that the Planning Officers would refute this as it was their belief that the maximum number of boats was never specified, only the number of moorings. He advised that it was essential that the Committee understood that the planning permission upon which the development had been based on both boat numbers and mooring numbers as being 100. He advised that it had been demonstrated that this number had been exceeded.
In respect of recommendation (b) of the Enforcement Report, he advised that the Operator had failed to maintain the location of the 20 overnight stay boats, contravening plan AB4/3, having let them out on a long term basis. He advised that enforcement action should be taken immediately.
He stated that the eight mooring posts which were installed without permission had caused significant damage to the amenity of householders, in particular as the effective size of the occupied area of the marina had been extended about 12 metres further. He advised that many of the long boats moored there were in residential use and called for immediate enforcement action to be taken to remove the posts.
With respect to recommendation (d) he stated that the offending boat, Heron Island, extended beyond the permitted zone, by 0.5 – 1.5 metres on a beam width of 3.8 metres. He advised that this had meant that 3.2 metres of the boat lay beyond the permitted zone and enforcement action should be taken. Furthermore he commented that it could be demonstrated that all of the boats on the westernmost pontoons projected beyond the permitted zones and enforcement action should be taken.
He advised that on the matter of the access road, enforcement action should be taken to require the Operator to upgrade the road in line with the Environment Agency’s request in order to protect the flood route from the marina basin.
(4) Mr Geoffrey Carr
Mr Geoffrey Car had given notice of his intention to speak and had prepared a written statement, which was read to the Committee by the Democratic Services Officer in his absence.
Mr Carr advised that he had kept his boat at Abingdon Marina for just over two years and used it regularly. He commented that he had stayed overnight on board for one or two nights. He advised that he had kept his boats at other marinas in the south of England and was therefore familiar with a broad spectrum of facilities of this type and had experienced usage of Abingdon Marina at all times of the year. He commented that he did not know the management of the marina well, and knew nothing of the background of this matter other than what was contained within the papers before the Committee. He commented that he could not claim to be a disinterested observer; he had viewed the papers with an open mind and wished to make two points on the issue under consideration.
He advised that Abingdon Marina was extremely quiet, essentially rural and drew hardly any traffic – even at peak times. He commented that it was efficiently run and well maintained and regulated. He advised that it was common in other marinas for a small level of disturbance as a result of boat maintenance, engine running or even a noisy club house, however none of these disturbances were evident in Abingdon, hence he was surprised that there was disharmony between the owners of the houses beside the Marina and the Marina itself. He commented that the majority of the complaints received seemed petty and vindictive and he wondered whether there was a personal vendetta involved or a history of ill feeling that he was not privy to. He advised that he considered that some of the complaints were trivial in the extreme and constituted a waste of public time and money. He advised however that he did not have a problem with the District Council instigating proper enforcement action where necessary.
He raised a concern that his privacy had been invaded by residents of the houses logging his comings and goings as he went about his lawful business. He commented that this contravened Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. He commented that everyone values their privacy and believed the Committee would wish to be mindful of this legislation when it considered the degree of action to be taken with respect to enforcement.
On the specific point of residential moorings he commented that the Authority must enforce the existing policies. He was aware of one resident in the Marina, which was acceptable according to the papers. He advised that a residential presence provided added security for the Marina and also discouraged potentially anti social behaviour in the park to the east of the Marina. He commented that he had stayed in the Marina in his boat overnight and had been aware of other boat owners present. However he believed that they were of a transient nature, like him. He advised that he had never witnessed any noise, parties or comings and goings that would indicate a permanent community. He advised that he would be very concerned if the Council was to ban boat owners from staying overnight after a days work on their boats. He commented that people had to stay overnight often due to strong stream conditions preventing them from leaving the Marina. He stated that such a ban would be impractical to enforce.
He urged the Committee to adopt a sense of proportion and practicality on this item. He advised that the pragmatic proposals put forward by the Council’s Enforcement Officer had much to commend them. In his experience, he advised that the house owners living adjacent to Abingdon Marina could have a considerably worse neighbour.
The Chair thanked the Democratic Services Officer for reading out the statement.