Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

 

Ok I'll spell it out.

 

NAA is charged at the rate of 9% of the mooring fee associated with each berth, occupied or not.

 

If the mooring fee associated with a berth is zero, then 9% of zero is due, whether or not the berth is occupied.

 

If the berth is one of those given 'free' with a car parking space, there is no mooring fee so 9% of the mooring fee of zero is due.

 

Scams'R'us, in my opinion.

 

 

MtB

 

Mike, I agree. But, C&RT must have caveats in place?

You could charge £10per year for each berth, but to gain access to the Marina 365 you have to pay a service charge of say £1,850? I would be interested to see how C&RT set up their agreements.

Therefore if there were 100 berths the marina would only pay 9% of £1,000. Surely not that simple & underhand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I agree. But, C&RT must have caveats in place?

You could charge £10per year for each berth, but to gain access to the Marina 365 you have to pay a service charge of say £1,850? I would be interested to see how C&RT set up their agreements.

Therefore if there were 100 berths the marina would only pay 9% of £1,000. Surely not that simple & underhand?

 

I don't know if the scam actually worked, but my guess is this was the thinking behind selling a car park space with a free mooring, as a 'testing the principle' excercise. It seems perverse to try to sell moorings this way around.

 

The natural way would be to sell a specific mooring plot with a right to park a car (anywhere) in the car park, so there must be an 'angle' on them choosing to reverse the intuitive way of doing it. The waffle about not being able to register a plot of land because 3ft of topsoil have been dug away so a boat can be moored over it is a cover for the real reason I suspect, based on the track record of the MD of the companies involved.

 

This is just my reading of the situation and idle speculation. I have no evidence to support it.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You miss my point. My back-of-an-envelope calcs indicate it is hard to make enough profit from a marina to realistically pay the cost of capital necessary to finance the venture.

 

Nothing to do with how long the waiting list is, beyond the fact that a waiting list suggests the marina is full.

 

MtB

 

sorry, I was actually responding to the post before yours I think (from memory as these things are flying past). I thought the jist was that that there wasnt a demand, which my post was meant to contribute to the view that in some areas, there obviously is.

 

Doing my own figures...how much does it really cost for a marina operator to dig a big hole in the ground, install a chemical tank, connect water and elec, and some floating pontoons. I know it's not cheap, but surely repaid within at least 2yrs if it has occupancy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Doing my own figures...how much does it really cost for a marina operator to dig a big hole in the ground, install a chemical tank, connect water and elec, and some floating pontoons. I know it's not cheap, but surely repaid within at least 2yrs if it has occupancy?

I think "hole in the ground" marinas are far more likely to be profitable, in these times, than one with a bistro and such, with the corresponding initial capital outlay required for the two ventures though the Barby experience may prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I make a buisness plan. I know the fixed costs and have to budget my return on capital expenditure versus return. There will be a contingency built into the calculations.

 

If the buisness fails, I blame a portion on the fixed costs imposed at the outset?

 

Methinks the original model was flawed!

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You miss my point. My back-of-an-envelope calcs indicate it is hard to make enough profit from a marina to realistically pay the cost of capital necessary to finance the venture.

 

Nothing to do with how long the waiting list is, beyond the fact that a waiting list suggests the marina is full.

 

MtB

 

 

sorry, I was actually responding to the post before yours I think (from memory as these things are flying past). I thought the jist was that that there wasnt a demand, which my post was meant to contribute to the view that in some areas, there obviously is.

 

Doing my own figures...how much does it really cost for a marina operator to dig a big hole in the ground, install a chemical tank, connect water and elec, and some floating pontoons. I know it's not cheap, but surely repaid within at least 2yrs if it has occupancy?

Nowhere near Dean.

 

Paul Liilies argument is based on the information contained within the now defunct BW Inland Marina Investment Guide published in 2006.

 

The financial model they used demonstrated something like a return of 8% on capital invested, which suggests the "payback" term would run into many years. Even so 8% is not a bad return on a "safe" investment. But, and this is Mr Lillies point, BW assumed something like 90% occupancy by year three and if you read the guide it is all about high demand, ancillary revenue streams etc. all in all a very optimistic, you might even say naive view of the leisure industry which as anyone who works in it knows, can be very fickle.

 

Taken as read - which Paul Lillie clearly did - what could possibly go wrong?

 

Well we all know the answer to that.

 

Being even handed, I think BW probably were a little cavalier in the way they presented the case for marina investement in 2006, but hindsight is a great thing. And, anybody who goes into business expecting wonderful returns has to consider there must be some risk, and there has to be a contingency plan. I don't doubt other marinas are having a hard time as well, but perhaps they built in some margin of error which clearly hasn't happened at Pillings Lock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The natural way would be to sell a specific mooring plot with a right to park a car (anywhere) in the car park, so there must be an 'angle' on them choosing to reverse the intuitive way of doing it.

 

You cannot register a piece of water with the Land Registry, but you can register a piece of car park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

sorry, I was actually responding to the post before yours I think (from memory as these things are flying past). I thought the jist was that that there wasnt a demand, which my post was meant to contribute to the view that in some areas, there obviously is.

 

Doing my own figures...how much does it really cost for a marina operator to dig a big hole in the ground, install a chemical tank, connect water and elec, and some floating pontoons. I know it's not cheap, but surely repaid within at least 2yrs if it has occupancy?

 

Dean, let's assume the cost of the site, with planning permission for a 300 boat marina, was £2m. The interest on that alone at a commercial rate of say 8% is going to be £3k a week, and that's before you've even spent a further £1m digging your hole.

 

Pay it of in two years? Two lifetimes more likely.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ref the long term leases, these were planned and offered for sale long before we entered into the NAA agreement, in fact we had took decarations of interest on some leases before we had even bought the site. their purpose was to raise capital to develop the marina more quickly, as I have stated before. The idea that they may have been included had nothing to do with avoiding BW/CRT charges, we didn't even know what they (CRT charges) were going to be at that time, as I recall.


the hole was already there when we first looked at the site, the outline planning permission had been approved, the sand and gravel had been excavated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It was only 24 hours ago but several pages back.

 

UK planning law was pretty much totally re-written in 1947 to accomodate changes in housing and industrial requirements after the war, this legislation (the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act) has been amended a number of times Later revisions of the Act were legislated in 1962, 1971 and 1990.

The act was re-written (again) in 1990 and whilst the 1990 Act is the current legislation, this Act has been substantially amended and added to, especially in 1991, 2004, 2008 and 2011.

 

It now bears absolutely no resemblance to any planning policy of 'a few 100 years ago'.

 

I have recently been involved in a case that was resolved under Sectionn 55 of the T&C Planning Act 1990 where it states that any land or building thereon can be used as agricultural land without the need for planning permission. It took an MP and QC to finally convice the Planning Authorities I was correct.

 

As an extreme example of what this means - the owner of a building in the middle of a city can change the use to agricultural (can store Tractors or fertiliser in it, could knock it down and plant trees, or clear the ground and keep sheep) without the need for planning permission, or even the need to inform the Local Authority Planning Department of their intentions.

 

Court Case :

North Warwickshire Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1984) JPL 434, found the the rights afforded by the sub-section also extended to any building occupied together with agricultural land. The Encyclopaedia notes that: "Thus an intensive agricultural use may be introduced to an existing building in an urban area without need of planning permission (though subject to public health and nuisance controls)"

 

I'd be surprised if that appears in the USA Planning Regulations - it did not appear in the UK regulations until post WW2

 

Thank you for the interesting explanation, Alan.

 

When I say that our property laws are similar, and that they have been basically unchanged for many years, I am referring to basic property law, not land use regulation. For a example, a freehold estate has been a freehold estate for hundreds of years, as have leasehold estates. Our definitions in law of these basic building blocks of property ownership and use are quite similar, wouldn't you agree?

 

Our commonality about land use regulations, as I was trying to express it, is not that the regulations themselves are so very similar, which they are not, it is the fact that we both have land use regulations that is the commonality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ref the long term leases, these were planned and offered for sale long before we entered into the NAA agreement, in fact we had took decarations of interest on some leases before we had even bought the site. their purpose was to raise capital to develop the marina more quickly, as I have stated before.

 

Ok! How many car park plots were there with fee moorings?

 

 

 

The idea that they may have been included had nothing to do with avoiding BW/CRT charges, we didn't even know what they (CRT charges) were going to be at that time, as I recall.

 

That seems plain nuts to me. Everyone else knew they were 9% surely. Or was this before the NAA guidelines were in place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The land beneath the water doesn't move about though, hence the ability to own, buy, sell and, I imagine, lease a canal.

 

The reason they lease the car park, rather than the mooring is more to do with planning dodges, I would have thought.

 

I haven't yet read to the end of this thread - so apologies if duplicated.

 

Essentially You may well be correct, but more germane is that to avoid the presumption of a residential mooring, the mooring contract always (?) stipulates that the operator can move the boat to another slot at any time.

This is in the standard BMF agreement. So not a dodge in itself

The questionable practice part was to offer a lease on a fixed piece of property to make a lease work legally.

Of itself I don't think there was an intent to defraud anyone at some future time, but then I couldn't possibly comment.

 

IME the leisure industry is beset with sharp practices and there are "unconventional operators" on both sides of the fence I know of instances where boaters have abused marina and boatyard businesses; thus "we" as boaters in general are not whiter than white.

 

I'm not taking sides, just my point of view at a distance. It's sad that it WILL end in tears for all parties as a result of the way it's been managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with that is QMP (with whom the NAA was signed) sits in the middle of the QMH/QMP/PLM sandwich, all three of which are controlled by the same people who I don't think would accept a completely separate company to fit into their cosy set up (and who would want to get involved anyway?). If the marina is to survive then either a/ CRT accept a settlement from QMP or b/ CRT deal with a phoenix QMP. The former seems to be the lesser of two evils.

I disagree with you completely. However, in all fairness, it is going to take a bankruptcy attorney to say which one of us is right.

 

The liquidator should have the authority to re-write contracts and to terminate contracts as s/he sees fit. If the liquidator does have this authority, then the liquidator can simply terminate the contract with PLM. PLM would still exist as a company, but it would no longer have a contract with QPM, or QPM's phoenix, to manage Pillings Lock Marina.

 

This would leave QPM's phoenix to deal with QMH. QMH owns the property and leases it to QMP. That's a pretty straightforward situation without a whole lot need for personal interaction. You pay your rent each month and there's no real need to interact. QMH has signed a long-term lease on the marina property. They can't just un-sign it, or cancel it just because a new lessor comes along. That lease is a long-term obligation of QMH and they have to honor it. At the same time, the lease is a debt of QMP. There is a good possibility that the liquidator could change the terms of the lease, in fact lower the amount of the lease payments to QMH if that were in the best interests of all the other creditors. IOW, if all the creditors were to get, say, 50 pence on the pound, what's to prevent the judge from telling QMH, you too will get 50 pence on the pound for your lease?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Essentially You may well be correct, but more germane is that to avoid the presumption of a residential mooring, the mooring contract always (?) stipulates that the operator can move the boat to another slot at any time.

I agree entirely.

 

I suspect you are correct and if actual moorings were leased then residential planning permission would be much harder to get.

The questionable practice arises because, rather than the moorer losing at most a year's mooring fee they are now looking at losing a 25 year asset and will be left with a worthless car parking space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thank you for the interesting explanation, Alan.

 

When I say that our property laws are similar, and that they have been basically unchanged for many years, I am referring to basic property law, not land use regulation. For a example, a freehold estate has been a freehold estate for hundreds of years, as have leasehold estates. Our definitions in law of these basic building blocks of property ownership and use are quite similar, wouldn't you agree?

 

Our commonality about land use regulations, as I was trying to express it, is not that the regulations themselves are so very similar, which they are not, it is the fact that we both have land use regulations that is the commonality.

I thought the big difference between land "ownership" in the US compared to the UK is that in the US you actually own the land - hence 'real estate' whilst in the UK you don't actually own the land, only the freehold to that land. Hence things like mineral rights belong to the crown or the government. If you find oil on your land, you have to give it away! I could be wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just how competative is PL marina in the area ? Its a lot cheaper than others I have looked at - Cain Hill for example is £2900 for a 60ft boat - up North £2500 at Northwich Marina which has no CRT charges as its on a River?

PLM looks ok at £2100 (or £2600 for dialy use?) similar price to Scarisbrick Marina

What is PLM actual berth take up? and did those with a long lease not pay the CRT charge for many years in advance? so maybe the 9% CRT charge ( £200ish per berth) is a red herring for the financial problems

Marina planning applications are still appearing at a rate and will have CRT charges where appicable

so there must be proffit in marinas if the plan is right and well managed

Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Paul Liilies argument is based on the information contained within the now defunct BW Inland Marina Investment Guide published in 2006.

 

The financial model they used demonstrated something like a return of 8% on capital invested, which suggests the "payback" term would run into many years. Even so 8% is not a bad return on a "safe" investment. But, and this is Mr Lillies point, BW assumed something like 90% occupancy by year three and if you read the guide it is all about high demand, ancillary revenue streams etc. all in all a very optimistic, you might even say naive view of the leisure industry which as anyone who works in it knows, can be very fickle.

 

Taken as read - which Paul Lillie clearly did - what could possibly go wrong?

 

So its BW's fault if a Marina doesn't achieve 90% occupancy? What about the quality of the management that runs the place? The friendliness of the staff, the quality and care taken over the facilities, the value for money? The ability to deliver promised improvements on time? Having a managerial style that is consistent and fair rather than shifty, erratic and petty? As usual I suspect Paul is seeking to blame others for problems of his own making.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re number of leases, originally it was planned to try to sell 25. And despite what has been said, and maybe we were naïve, but the costs of the NAA were not in the original business plan!At least not in specific numbers. As far as I am aware, the leases were drawn up so that whoever owned the site, the leases would still be valid. What was not taken into consideration at the time, was the threat of the entrance being cut off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was not taken into consideration at the time, was the threat of the entrance being cut off!

As a connection charge dispute had already led to BW barricading a marina entrance before Pillings was built this does seem, as you say, somewhat naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

New Islington Marina, in Manchester, which has had a lot of bad press due to local yoofs throwing stones etc, still has a waiting list of 60 boats for residential berths. Just to bring some perspective. There's no restaurant, but there is a washing machine smile.png

 

Just remember what makes a marina desirable.

 

Location, location, location.

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.