a period of up to 15 minutes is available to deal with questions from the public
Minutes:
SH.5/18
In accordance with the Procedure Rules, the following members of the public addressed the Board:
(a) Tim Tucker (South Sands Ferry)
Mr Tucker stated his concerns over the recent dinghy races and the fact that the Harbour had been closed for a 50 minute time period. Whilst accepting that it was inappropriate for the Board to consider this matter further at this meeting, Mr Tucker asked that consideration be given in the future to implementing alternative measures rather than closing the Harbour (e.g. by imposing staggered start times).
(b)Dick Martin (Egremont)
Mr Martin highlighted agenda item 12 (Minute SH.10/18 below refers) and read a statement in support of the Egremont retaining its mooring. In urging the Board to reconsider its current stance on the return of the Egremont, Mr Martin’s statement made specific reference to:-
(i) the local economic benefits arising from the Egremont’s return;
(ii) the intention of the Egremont to offer sailing and other watersport opportunities to disadvantaged children. Mr Martin asked that the Board give consideration to the wellbeing of these children before making a final decision;
(iii) his confidence that the Egremont would not become a noisy party ship. It was confirmed that the intention would be for a well-managed, tightly controlled facility to be created that would not be a nuisance in the Harbour;
(iv) the intended corporate hospitality events would ensure the financial wellbeing of the business;
(v) these proposals not constituting a new business start-up;
(vi) the contents and tone of the Board letter having caused a crisis in confidence amongst the financial backers who were supporting the business venture. Furthermore, Mr Martin questioned whether it was fair for the Egremont to lose its rightful home especially when considering that £300,000 had already been spent on its restoration;
(vii) the Egremont’s Moorings having been paid up to and including March 2018. In addition, Mr Martin clarified that no further payments had been made since he had not received an invoice for payment beyond this period;
(viii) the ship having previously been an eyesore and an embarrassment. Mr Martin reassured the Board that the returning ship would come back to the Harbour in an excellent condition;
(ix) his guarantees that all aspects of the returning ship would be fully compliant with the safe running of the Harbour. Moreover, the ship would be an environmentally friendly vessel;
(x) the Rivermaid. For clarity, Mr Martin informed that the viability of the Rivermaid was an important part of the overall project and its operation was financially unsustainable without the Egremont;
(xi) it being his wish to present the financial modelling that underpinned the project to a future Board meeting. When questioned, Mr Martin reiterated that he had no reason to doubt the veracity of the finance that supported this project.
In conclusion, Mr Martin thanked the Board for enabling him the opportunity to make his address and he hoped that he could work with the Board to bring the Egremont back to Salcombe.
(c)Stephanie Danby
Ms Danby informed the Board that she had previously been an ICC instructor and had started a petition in support of the Egremont just five days before this meeting. At the time of this meeting, Ms Danby advised that the petition had already obtained 983 signatures and she urged the Board to support the project.
(d)Martin Jenkins
Mr Jenkins highlighted the Harbour’s adopted Strategic Business Plan and emphasised that a number of facets within this document (e.g. supporting a thriving local economy, the importance of taking stakeholder engagement seriously and employment in the marine industry) were relevant to the Egremont project. Mr Jenkins proceeded to urge the Board to support the project.
(e)Phil Pritchard
Mr Pritchard expressed a contrary view to the previous speakers and questioned where the Board would stand in the event of the Egremont returning and the business not succeeding. In addition, Mr Pritchard made reference to the proposed future hospitality uses for the vessel and asked the Board to think very carefully before making its decision.
(f) Martin Beck
Mr Beck acknowledged that there was an emotional connection with the Egremont and was aware that vast amounts of money had been loaned and/or gifted to support it. Having taken a keen interest in the project, Mr Beck had not seen a Business Plan and was still to be convinced that the proposals would be financially viable. In order to generate revenue, Mr Beck emphasised the need for the operation to be highly commercial and a training school would not go far enough in this respect. Whilst expressing the view that times were changing, Mr Beck felt sorry for the Board and Mr Martin alike but remained of the view that, in the absence of a robust Business Plan, the vacant Egremont mooring should be reallocated. Finally, Mr Beck recognised that, despite there remaining a demand for a sailing school, the ICC required a new vision.
(g)William Tucker (local landowner)
Mr Tucker handed a letter to the Chairman that stated that, as a local landowner, he would not enter into any easement for services with any party without having previously consulted the Harbour Authority.