Desperately worried boaters

WHILST so much has been written with regard to the Pillings débâcle, at this late stage I have to begin with my concern for those, should the marina be closed, caught between the  Trust and Pillings—the boaters, writes Pam Pickett.

I have friends mooring at Pillings, desperately worried friends, who point out that Pillings has to remain their chosen venue for several reasons. Not only is it conveniently placed for their travel to work, it is more affordable than many other marinas, and it is their home. My friends tell me they are praying for some ‘Good Samaritan' to come to their rescue!

Okay if not inconvenienced

However, in a recent meeting with Simon Salem, he suggested to me that if any moored at Pillings were required to find new moorings the possible closure of the marina shouldn't pose a problem, those moorers are after all, he said, used to being marina moored, and there is plenty of space in other marinas. No doubt my friends will say, but definitely for them and others definitely not posing a problem of cost and inconvenience!

The following paragraph in the letter received by those mooring at Pillings they tell me is the ‘icing on the cake', proving to them that they are also being treated as the ‘bad guys' by CaRT. This despite their being caught up in a situation not of their making. That the bottom line of this paragraph is taken to mean CaRT in promising only a small number of ‘controlled' passages obviously feels it has the right to detain them against their will, has not been at all well received! And I quote the offending passage:

‘I must make it very clear that we will only allow passage out of the marina basin but this will not be available on demand. There will be a small number of designated periods when controlled passage will be provided. I would be happy to receive your views on what these arrangements might be. The final decision will however be the Trust's.'

Confused leisure boater

Writing with regard to a phone call from a worried and somewhat confused leisure boater that chooses to cruise both in and out of season. This boater has a paid-for full-time marina mooring, his boat has a standard licence, is insured and holds the requisite BSS, thus he thought both fulfilling the terms of his licence, and allowing him to go where he wants, stay where he wants, provided of course all visitor mooring rules are observed.

However, receiving an unexpected visit from a member of CaRT's enforcement team he told me he'd been accused of ‘failing to make due progress' i.e. bridge-hopping by going from place to place without returning to his home mooring. I obviously thought a mistake had been made so I rang Paul Griffin, CaRT's Enforcement Manager. As the content of this call appeared to confirm what my fellow leisure boater had been told I then emailed Simon Salem, seemingly heading the enforcement team, for clarification.

Swift clarification required for all

However in view of Simon Salem's failure to reply to my email I now feel it necessary to make boaters aware of the content of that email, lest the problem experienced by he charged with ‘failing to make due progress' could apply to us all.

I therefore asked Simon Salem that if I were to take an extended cruise, choosing only to remain on a part of the system I liked, thus going from A my home mooring to B, a chosen place and to then cruise on to C before returning again to B if it would as I'd been told result in me too being charged with ‘failing to make due progress' i.e. bridge-hopping—under it seems CaRT's new ‘wish list' of un-legislated rules. My email surely should not go unanswered, given my question relates only to whether CaRT's latest again un-legislated ‘rules' relate now only to those continuously cruising, or to us all?