Harbour to get £800k pontoon berths

“If someone proposed to build 173 holiday cottages somewhere in Torquay and stated in the planning application that bathroom waste generated by occupants staying in those cottages could potentially drain into the inner harbour, do you think they would be approved? Of course not.
Yet this is exactly what has been approved by Torbay Council a couple of weeks ago with this proposal.
It would appear we're unable to prosecute dog owners who allow their dogs to foul the pavements In Torquay, (lack of evidence?), so what chance is there of stopping boat owners from emptying their waste into a harbour that doesn't fully drain and refill with every tide?
So whilst harbour users may have been consulted regarding these pontoons, have cafe/restaurant owners around the inner harbour been asked about the "ambience" being created by this venture? Doubt it. My guess is that if there is a stink around the inner harbour in years to come it won't necessarily be from overflowing dog bins.
Perhaps someone can please explain before a spectacular and very expensive home goal is achieved?
The following is the last paragraph under the heading "Risks" from the report to council:-
"An environmental risk always exists if any boat discharges pollution into the
harbour but in this location, behind a half-tide cill, the problem would be more
apparent and could be more damaging. Even though the proposed pontoon
berthing project will not increase the mooring capacity in this area of the harbour
the occupancy rate is expected to rise considerably. Also, the improved facilities will
encourage greater use of craft by their owners and consequently the possibility of
people staying on their boats overnight. This environmental risk will be mitigated by
educating customers and backing this up with the threat of bye-law enforcement.
Furthermore, it might be possible to provide some quayside toilets adjacent to the
access bridge on Victoria Parade or on pontoons within the structure itself. "”

“It seems very worrying that £800K should be found to help improve the harbour which will only benefit a few of the wealthiest members of society when the word is about that many people living in Torquay are some of the poorest in Britain. To put meat on the bones of this rather worrying statement, I conducted some research and found that in 2010, The Guardian newspaper produced a table of the 326 most deprived Local Authorities and placed Torbay at 61. That's worst than our neighbours in Plymouth, who came in at 72, and far worse than North Devon at 137 and Exeter at 141. We are clearly the most deprived part of Devon. We are included in the table alongside The Wirral and Durham.
The Church Urban Fund paints a far bleaker picture. The Parish of St. John that towers above the Harbour in Torquay has a parish of around 1900 people living close to the main tourist destinations,
I quote
"On the overall deprivation scale, where 1 is the least deprived in the country, this parish ranks 12449 out of 12706 parishes in England. This means that the parish is among the most deprived in the country.
Child poverty, working age poverty and lone parenthood in this parish are among the highest in the country. Male life expectancy in this parish is among the lowest nationally. Pensioner poverty in this parish is higher than average compared with other parishes in the country. Female life expectancy and qualification levels in this parish are lower than average compared with other parishes nationally. "
I think we all recognize and agree with the new phrase "talk up Torquay", but for this to be credible to locals and the outside world, and not just seen as a "spin" exercise by those with their heads in the sand, then surely we have to demonstrate initiatives and practical solutions that will begin to improve the lives of our ordinary town folk.
I am not sure spending £800K for some moorings at Torquay Harbour (Herald Express, 21.02.2013) shows there's much commitment for this in certain quarters!”

“This scheme has really not been thought through.
It is dependent on the half tide cill not failing allowing 173 lumps of expensive fibreglass and floating (concrete ?) pontoons to hit the deck, thereby presenting someone, (Torbay Council and the local tax payer), with a potentially large repair bill.
The scheme makes no provision for toilets, (and associated cost of provision), so you can second guess where human waste is going to be dumped. Of course and unlike the marina, the inner harbour does not fully "flush" with every tide. Apparently owners will need to be "educated" so that this enviromental risk can be mitigated and bye-laws enforces.
The business plan makes no allowance for the staffing, (and associated cost), of what could easily turn into a floating campsite with boat owners staying on their boats overnight.
The business plan only allows a maintenance cost of just over £1,000 per month rising slightly as the years go by.
And to cap it all, increase in revenue to Torbay Council the spend of £800,000 will generate equates to approximately £28,000 per annum over 25 years, (admittedly at 70% occupancy).
Of course existing boat owners with boats currently moored in the inner harbour will be facing an annual bill nearly two and a half times that currently being paid in order to keep their boats there.
Any bank manager would show you the door if you presented the same business plan and clearly a few councilors didn't read page 233 of the report provided on the 6th February 2013 (Para 8.0 - Risks), before voting in favour.”

“So the council has fifty million pounds borrowings in the bank losing us a net £2m a year and they are about to borrow another million for a scheme that will hardly bring in enough extra to cover the interest let alone the capital repayments.

If the harbour board are not generating enough income from their already outrageously high charges to pay for this scheme then it should not go ahead - clearly the harbour-master has some influential nautical friends on the council.

Meanwhile the council say we can't afford to keep the street lights on.”