A matter of economics

I thought some comments on Allan Richards' fascinating report about Paul Lillie's travails at his Pillings Lock Marina would be in order, writes David Collins.

Anyone who spends multi-millions of (presumably) borrowed money on building a marina on the say-so of a British Waterways marketing document is rather susceptible.

It is no use anyone who has built a marina like Paul Lillie complaining that they did so on the basis of an interested party's (British Waterways') view of how much may be gained from such an investment. Caveat Emptor!

Needed demand

Surely Paul satisfied himself that the demand he needed would be there and that the level of investment he made would be justified? If so, he has himself and the world at large to blame but certainly not British Waterways . Recent years have been difficult for investors in almost anything you can name. Ask any pensioner trying to maintain his savings income. If a marina developer did not satisfy himself about the risks, he was susceptible. I'm sure Paul is no such thing.

As to the Network Access Agreement costing him £44K, something he would have known from the outset, it made me smile. He may as well complain about business rates or utility prices, but they at least have increased at more than inflation rates and might have been underestimated. The Network Access Agreement charges were a certainty.

Misgivings

I was one of those who signed on early for Paul's marina moorings, based on the plan. When I visited the site several times during its very slow construction, I had growing misgivings. Flesh Hovel Lane just off the A6 near Loughborough was it seemed to me and is, a daft location for a marina.

Flood-free it may be, but unaffected by flooding it certainly ain't. I'm not sure that like our esteemed editor I would want to be cruising anywhere between or in the Trent and the Soar at present, but if you opt for this, undeniably, in times of high river levels, one's cruising range is rather limited! I was very glad to jump ship and opt for the comparative certainty of the Leicester Section summit, where I moor now on necessarily slack ties but with plenty of water in the cut!

Onley Marina

Paul Lillee involved himself in the debate about the new marina now approved for Onley between Barby and Braunston on the North Oxford. His points about the viability of marinas were interesting but irrelevant in planning terms. It always seemed a bit odd that he should think that demand for moorings right down on the Oxford Canal should affect his on the Soar.

Is the explanation that in his own words, he is apparently going bust? Could that be because he has spent too much on his marina without a sure return from moorers and passing trade? Could it be that putting a marina in the Soar Valley flood plain underneath national grid electricity pylons and cables was not a clever idea?

Got it wrong

Now I have nothing against Paul. I'm sure he is a fine fellow and very popular with his moorers at Pillings Lock Marina. Just don't ask me to applaud him as a model businessman. There may be lots of others (about half of all marina owners, it seems) who have got it wrong too. They must not blame the Network Access Agreement for their plight. They should be saving their ire for the mismatch between what marina moorers pay and what freeloaders on the cut pay.

Canal & River Trust can sort that out and should do so within a couple of years. There is a disincentive to use marina moorings. It is a fact that this costs about £2,000 to £2,500 per annum more than 'continuously mooring'.  If marinas need help then let CaRT encourage marina mooring by discouraging continuous on-line mooring.

Matter of economics

You see, it isn't just a simple matter of live and let live. It is a matter of economics and the creation and survival of facilities on the canals on which all boaters depend. Let there be choice of marinas, more than now, and let there be space for short-term mooring on the towpath (a lot more than now)!