DOES THIS PHOTO RECORD SUGGEST BEMBRIDGE HARBOUR IS WELL MAINTAINED AS THE OWNERS CLAIM IN THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY PRESS 02.04.2021?
- Bennett’s point erosion and debris , taken after the Harbour say they had cleared up and where the erosion is due to the failure to maintain the groyne
- The narrowing and shallowing harbour entrance channel due to a failure to dredge and maintain the groyne
- Tens of thousands of pounds worth of privately paid for dredging only last year , infilling fast due to failure to replace Bennett’s work that helped towards overcoming the effects of the failure to maintain the groyne.
- Rapidly growing sandbank frustrate navigation for the same reasons
- 100s of tonnes of dredging spoil dumped and left on the foreshore causing environmental damage and obstruction
- 100’s of tonnes of dredging spoil leaves scaring the public beach at The Point
- Pontoons stressed after incomplete dredging at Bembridge Marina last year
- No dredging at all at Fisherman’s pontoon for over 15 years, restricting use for commercial and recreational fishermen.
- Dilapidated Groyne 9 years after it was described as a priority by the Statutory Harbour’s current directors who had adopted a management plan confirming liability to repair.
- Holed and weakened piles at Bembridge Marina taken just before Easter, even after other damaged piles in the marina feature in a High Court claim asserting negligence.
All these processes evident well before the added stress of covid intervened as was the planning application for 13 Houses and the replacement facilities that has just been issued by the Isle of Wight Council. This application was not made by the Statutory Harbour Authority, but by a separate property company owned by the same people. And this is why that is important:
WILL BUILDING HOUSES WHERE THE BEMBRIDGE HARBOUR’S FACILITIES ARE NOW HELP TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES?…. NOT ACCORDING TO THE OWNERS
The facts are now clear in the agreed s106 planning agreement the harbour’s owners promoted :
- There is no money predicted for dredging, groyne or any other maintenance in the Statutory Harbour area.
- The Statutory Harbour will incur higher rents whilst losing vast majority of its operational land.
Director’s continue in avoiding their liability to the groyne. They revert to asking the public to fund it for them:
- Despite securing increase in land value plus £1.2m in profits for another company they own
- Despite continuing to declare the groyne vital to the sustainability of the harbour
We ask the harbour users and our councillors if this is what they anticipated ? And is it a fair and proper outcome from a planning application where the only justification was to help the Statutory Harbour Authority?