Jump to content

The End of Quorn Marina Properties Ltd (ex Pilling Lock Marina)


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

24 minutes ago, Athy said:

Surely some mistake here?

Nope the Canal was built by the Romans who used the East German Vandals, much as 'we' used the Irish Navvies.

(The Goths, Gepids, Vandals, and Burgundians were East Germanic groups who appear in Roman records in Late Antiquity. At times these groups warred against or allied with the Roman Empire, the Huns, and various Germanic tribes. The Vandals were a “barbarian” Germanic people who sacked Rome, battled the Huns and the Goths, and founded a kingdom in North Africa that flourished for about a century until it succumbed to an invasion force from the Byzantine Empire in A.D. 534).

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Nope the Canal was built by the Romans who used the East German Vandals, much as 'we' used the Irish Navvies............................

 

Presumably under the Roman Governer, Preposterus Faxus..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TonyDunkley said:

Leaving aside any considerations as to the extent of the MNC and, post 1971, the attendant registration requirement on a river navigation, BWB/C&RT's authority to charge an access/connection fee has to be ultimately dependent on the PRN of the waterway in question having been extinguished under the 1968 Transport Act. It follows, therefore, that they have no authority so to do in respect of any of the River Waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act. 

Just to reprise comment from the previous rather lengthy thread on Pillings, the legal ability of BW/CaRT to charge for connection to ‘their’ waterways, whether canal or river, depends not so much upon whether a PRN still exists, but on whether connection is made through their own property or not.

Virtually all of the numerous canal company Acts reserved to riparian owners the right to create places for boats to lie alongside the canals, free of charge from the canal companies. Despite BW’s desire to abolish all such rights in the 1990 Bill, for the reason – amongst others – that they would not be able to profit from such developments, they were forced through opposition to withdraw the relevant clause.

In the only court case of which I am aware in which a marina owner sought to challenge BW’s demand for their paid consent for connection to a canal, BW won – HOWEVER, although they claimed in response to FoI requests to have no record of the judgment in that case, enough snippets of information published online at the time suffice to establish some curious and valuable insights into the accepted arguments.

The judgment apparently accepted the continuing right of riparian owners in this respect, but BW’s argument accepted by the court was that this ought not to be taken as conferring any right beyond creating lay-byes alongside the canal, and that extending the right to the creation of marinas could not have been contemplated. It was an absurd decision, because apart from anything else, once it is accepted that a lay-bye can be created by extending the width of canal into the owner’s property, wherein no charges can be demanded, a connection has been made, and it could make no difference whatsoever as to how far into the owner’s property that extended.

In fact, reading through BW’s justifications to Parliament for abolishing such rights, it was precisely the opportunity to create marinas from which BW could not profit, that impelled the insertion of the [ultimately withdrawn] clause in the first place. So the judgment was flawed and open to appeal on a number of grounds, though the marina operator abandoned the battle due to crippling costs [a not unusual scenario].

Still, the principle remains as accepted even in that judgment, that riparian owners could legitimately connect water-space in their own property to the adjacent canal, without liability to charges.

As I recall observing in that now old thread, however, in Pillings case the connection was made through banks belonging to BW, so the ancient rights could not apply. Perversely enough, it is obvious with the benefit of hindsight and looking at the title deeds, that Pillings could have created the entry through their own bankside a little further north – in which case, they could have reprised the argument over the historic rights.

The fact remains that they had not done so, however, so in that case at least, BW were entitled to make the connection through their own property subject to such conditions as they laid down.

Whether BW had been entitled to registration of that section of bank in the first place, is another question altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

The fact remains that they had not done so, however, so in that case at least, BW were entitled to make the connection through their own property subject to such conditions as they laid down.

Whether BW had been entitled to registration of that section of bank in the first place, is another question altogether.

Apart from the legality of the 'rights' of either party to access, I think the 'failure' of the enterprise was lack of income when set against costs. A lot of the latter being based on a charge derived from usage statistics provided by CRT at the outset. These statistics were then used to project the viability of the marina. Fine in theory but in practice the actual occupancy rate was not used by CRT, but instead the estimated usage rate - that became set in stone - and was used to charge the marina.

When it became obvious that the take-up of berths was below the CRT esimated usage figures - the arguments started - and degenerated into a drawn out squabble - and if there were excess drawings (expensive cars maybe - I don't know) - with individual boaters dragged into license argument - causing lots of bad feeling all round - it is not surprising it all went pear shaped.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Apart from the legality of the 'rights' of either party to access, I think the 'failure' of the enterprise was lack of income when set against costs. A lot of the latter being based on a charge derived from usage statistics provided by CRT at the outset. These statistics were then used to project the viability of the marina. Fine in theory but in practice the actual occupancy rate was not used by CRT, but instead the estimated usage rate - that became set in stone - and was used to charge the marina.

When it became obvious that the take-up of berths was below the CRT esimated usage figures - the arguments started - and degenerated into a drawn out squabble - and if there were excess drawings (expensive cars maybe - I don't know) - with individual boaters dragged into license argument - causing lots of bad feeling all round - it is not surprising it all went pear shaped.

 

Actually the charges were (are) based on the number of moorings offered, so if PLM had declared (say) 150 moorings to C&RT then their NAA would be 9% of the income based on 150 moorings. As PLM did not have 100% occupancy they were in fact paying for unused moorings (as you say – expenditure based on faulty assumptions of 100% occupancy)

All that PLM needed to do was remove a couple of pontoons (or whatever necessary) to achieve a ‘high’ occupancy and pay C&RT for the moorings they actually (now) had.

This is what the ‘new’ Phoenix PLM marina company did, by removing the unnecessary pontoons they are paying a lesser figure than the old PLM.

 

As a matter of interest the NAA payments are graduated to allow a ‘new’ marina to increase its occupancy levels without being burdened by high fixed costs.

• Has a standard payment to CRT of 9% of the gross mooring capacity multiplied by the mooring rate (net of VAT) charged at the marina. This will be paid by equal 3 monthly payments in advance. It will be reviewed annually to reflect any increases in the marina mooring rate. Interest is payable on late payments. 

• The payment will be phased in as follows. 1st year no payment, 2nd year 50% capacity, 3rd year 100% capacity.

 

Should a marina get higher occupancy levels earlier, then they can ’pocket the additional income’ and are not expected to increase their payments to C&RT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Actually the charges were (are) based on the number of moorings offered, so if PLM had declared (say) 150 moorings to C&RT then their NAA would be 9% of the income based on 150 moorings. As PLM did not have 100% occupancy they were in fact paying for unused moorings (as you say – expenditure based on faulty assumptions of 100% occupancy)

All that PLM needed to do was remove a couple of pontoons (or whatever necessary) to achieve a ‘high’ occupancy and pay C&RT for the moorings they actually (now) had.

This is what the ‘new’ Phoenix PLM marina company did, by removing the unnecessary pontoons they are paying a lesser figure than the old PLM.

 

As a matter of interest the NAA payments are graduated to allow a ‘new’ marina to increase its occupancy levels without being burdened by high fixed costs.

• Has a standard payment to CRT of 9% of the gross mooring capacity multiplied by the mooring rate (net of VAT) charged at the marina. This will be paid by equal 3 monthly payments in advance. It will be reviewed annually to reflect any increases in the marina mooring rate. Interest is payable on late payments. 

• The payment will be phased in as follows. 1st year no payment, 2nd year 50% capacity, 3rd year 100% capacity.

 

Should a marina get higher occupancy levels earlier, then they can ’pocket the additional income’ and are not expected to increase their payments to C&RT.

Alan.

Thanks for the up-date. The mechanism of charging is much clearer, but traced back to the planning stage of Pillings marina I think they used figures provided by CRT to assess the viabilty - and the usage didn't materialise as expected. They blamed CRT for duff gen - and at was Pillings gripe I think.

A problem in part now covered by the charging rate - but still leaves the on-going commercial risk for the marina to contend with. Whilst CRT sit back and do nothing direct for the marina except send a bill - albeit not to get anthing for the first year and half for the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Horace42 said:

Alan.

Thanks for the up-date. The mechanism of charging is much clearer, but traced back to the planning stage of Pillings marina I think they used figures provided by CRT to assess the viabilty - and the usage didn't materialise as expected. They blamed CRT for duff gen - and at was Pillings gripe I think.

A problem in part now covered by the charging rate - but still leaves the on-going commercial risk for the marina to contend with. Whilst CRT sit back and do nothing direct for the marina except send a bill - albeit not to get anthing for the first year and half for the second.

Yes, in the 80s BW did produce some optimistic figures / forecasts for future marina requirements based on the economy and the increasing disposable income. It is interesting that at around the same time the English Golf Association produced very similar forecasts for the need for additional golf courses, resulting in hundreds being built /opened during the late 80s /early 90s.

 

We were looking to buy a marina and did all of the necessary due-diligence and, being the trusting sort of chap that I am,(I was managing a multinational, £55 million business) I discounted BW forecasts and commissioned my own Market analysis. I determined that the bubble was about to burst and the forecasts were far too optimistic, I am sorry, but, anyone who relies on forecasts from an organisation that has such a ‘big dog in the fight’ is foolish.

I suppose that those with no experience of business and looking for an ’easy lifestyle’(sit back& let  the money roll in) could easily be hoodwinked.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Alan. It seems to me that regardless of the legality or otherwise of CRT/BW's actions it was up to the marina company to determine what its incomings and outgoings would be, and act accordingly. A business isn't bound to be a success simply because somebody wants it to be.

Regarding "phoenix" companies we've recently been stung by a large firm of solicitors doing exactly the same thing as described above. I have been able to resist the temptation to do any work for the new company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes, in the 80s BW did produce some optimistic figures / forecasts for future marina requirements based on the economy and the increasing disposable income. It is interesting that at around the same time the English Golf Association produced very similar forecasts for the need for additional golf courses, resulting in hundreds being built /opened during the late 80s /early 90s.

 

We were looking to buy a marina and did all of the necessary due-diligence and, being the trusting sort of chap that I am,(I was managing a multinational, £55 million business) I discounted BW forecasts and commissioned my own Market analysis. I determined that the bubble was about to burst and the forecasts were far too optimistic, I am sorry, but, anyone who relies on forecasts from an organisation that has such a ‘big dog in the fight’ is foolish.

I suppose that those with no experience of business and looking for an ’easy lifestyle’(sit back& let  the money roll in) could easily be hoodwinked.

......yes, and whilst I agree that running a business on the basis of an easy life is destined for disillusionment, it is my experience that these people work hard and long hours to make a success of it. Not helped psychologically by the thought that you paying a high price for something based on advice  'expert' - where those people who gave their advice were found to be wrong - but still get paid.

Looking back though, the original estimates of usage could be traced to early policies of CRT to reduce linear moorings (backed by boaters who do not like slowing down)      which by natural progression would mean boats moving to nearby marinas - immediately reducing income for CRT and the cost of managing them (do they?) - but soon to be replaced by fees from new marinas.

This probably caused a driving force at CRT to actively promote the benefits of new marinas based on the numbers linear moorings and the soon to be displaced boaters, that never materialised due to delays in closing their own linear moorings.

Just a thought. I have no facts or figures to support , but I gues it could explain why the uptake of berths was sluggish. Not helped by a pricing policy where marinas were competing in price with CRT linear mooring that were lower in price - and where not - then private linear moorings that would remain - unless CRT put an embargo on licenses for boats moored at private land. All of which acted as a brake on demand to the detriment of marinas.

Having said that, there has been a lot of marina development in the last few years - and they do seem to fill up. So perhaps the new charging policy is more equitable for all commercial partners.  I hope so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.