|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 13, 2018 3:44:08 GMT
A couple of months ago I was chatting with MSO, who told me that they were going to be inundated with work refurbishing many boats from the Chelsea Yacht and Boat Company moorings, who had all been told to smarten up. Now, the Sunday Times has published an article revealing that the new pier owners are planning even more radical moves, ousting some of the long term resident boats to make room for multi-million pound giant houseboats. The PLA have gone along with a preposterously grotesque deal that pretends to be within their legal remit. They are charging [for the “licence” to maintain Cadogan Pier] an annual “rent” starting at £53,050 and 25% of all mooring fees. Those mooring fees are set to skyrocket of course; projected fees of £168/foot/annum being announced, with [if I have understood correctly] almost double that for a 10 year licence premium. Some 14 boats have apparently been served eviction notices despite having signed up for compulsory overhauls with MSO. I cannot help wondering how that will affect Jake’s bookings – if they cannot return, why would they get the work done? The situation was bad enough with the previous business owner. I knew several of the Houseboat owners there, one of whom had been evicted and became the losing party in a landmark High Court case regarding his security of tenure. Now, a couple of the resident houseboaters are taking the business to the High Court yet again, this time to determine whether the moorings operator is entitled to charge for a licence on top of moorings fees. I can’t see that going well for them, I am afraid. There is a petition out now, with nearly 2,000 signatures, asking the Council to make the moorings an “Asset of Community Value”. Quite how that will help the tenants is something I fail to see. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3f7582de-24a4-11e8-a283-1b5f066ae234 twitter.com/chelseaboats www.change.org/p/royal-borough-of-kensington-and-chelsea-save-our-chelsea-houseboats-and-make-them-an-asset-of-community-value-2916b637-28ac-4c70-a892-ea0bc7ac8c9f I realise that many from here will have scant sympathy, and some will scoff at ‘non-real-boaters’, but many of those worst affected are not the wealthy ones – not that it matters whether they are or not, the principle is the same. The whole houseboat security of tenure situation has been a long-running sore, and it gained a lot of publicity some years back. I have even been asked for my opinion on the matter, but I had to say that I had a foot in both camps and could see both sides. The one sure principle is that everybody should be able to count on fair play and all parties keeping to their word, but that has never been a given. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 7:06:21 GMT
Limehouse Marina is full of boats paying around £168/ft a year so more than that. £9500. And boats still get sold for a premium for the transferable moorings.
Why would Chelsea not be similarly valuable as a mooring site ? I would have thought it would be even more valuable...
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 13, 2018 9:57:51 GMT
I agree that the sums bandied about are commensurate with top London sites, although if it is correct that they have to pay double for a 10 year certainty, then that changes the picture somewhat – but the principal area of concern is the seemingly arbitrary imposition of the new terms, and the wholesale eviction of boats that have apparently agreed to take steps to conform to new requirements [and who have actually committed funds to that], with their mooring agreements terminated anyway.
As an investor in such a business, it is to be expected that efforts will be made to maximise the return, but a bad reputation for arbitrary terminations and goal-shifting will not be conducive to attracting new customers.
It is more than a decade since the government last looked seriously at the situation; there is the possibility that this could provoke a new investigation, and that could be bad for all parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 13, 2018 10:22:58 GMT
Reading through the twitter posts on the subject a bit further back, the price situation seems to hinge around the imposition of both mooring fees AND a 'mooring licence' fee.
07 July 2016
CYBC claims it can charge £5,800/ft for a ten year licence - a 1,160% increase from 2015 & equivalent to £500,000 for an 85ft boat (ON TOP of the £12,410 per year mooring fee).
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 13, 2018 10:38:23 GMT
Reading through the twitter posts on the subject a bit further back, the price situation seems to hinge around the imposition of both mooring fees AND a 'mooring licence' fee. 07 July 2016
CYBC claims it can charge £5,800/ft for a ten year licence - a 1,160% increase from 2015 & equivalent to £500,000 for an 85ft boat (ON TOP of the £12,410 per year mooring fee). Wow, by any yardstick it does seem excessive. I don't really know the location, is it possible to get super yatchs to this location. It would seem this is the market that they are going for. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 13, 2018 10:42:17 GMT
A rational view from the other side over the prices paid for houseboats on his moorings -
08 May 2016
Andrew Moffat quote: it’s time "the bubble was burst for the houseboat owners" & "if somebody had paid £800,000 to buy a boat then they had paid the wrong people. They should have paid [CYBC] for the cost of the mooring & only £100,000 to the boat owner”
This has long been a bone of contention; he is correct - although people have been prepared to pay silly money as a premium for boats on residential moorings [even on recreational moorings] - on the BW canals as elsewhere - the fact is that the value of the premium does not attach to the boat without consent of the moorings owner/operator. People have protested in the past about marinas charging for boats sold on their moorings, but the fact is that the percentage 'cut' demanded in such situations invariably came in at far less than the extra demanded by the boat sellers.
Since BW began addressing the situation some years back, insisting that pleasure boat mooring agreements were personal to the owner not the boat [official 'houseboats' being in a different category], the sale prices of such boats dropped to a more realistic market level.
A disturbing element appears from the news that Cadogan Pier boats that have been used as homes for many years on an 'under the radar' basis, could be threatened now with RBKC planning enforcement action, following an application [now withdrawn] by the pier owner for a lawful use certificate for residential moorings. That came hot on the heels of the pier's advert for a £2.25 million houseboat on the pier; one would have to be a chancer to pay out those sums for a 'boat' that has no relevent planning consent for its use.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Mar 13, 2018 11:29:04 GMT
Its not going to go well for the original moorers is it? money and its serious amounts of the dreaded lucre are involved so people go out of the window!! so sad
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 13, 2018 13:29:12 GMT
Wow, by any yardstick it does seem excessive. I don't really know the location, is it possible to get super yatchs to this location. It would seem this is the market that they are going for. The Chelsea Embankment moorings are mud berths, so no, super yachts could not moor there. Cadogan Pier boats float, but what draught is available I am not sure. However the plans are to build flat bottom super houseboats to sell for around £6 million. The standard/classic houseboats on the Embankment were 40'x12' double story boats - very nice too, especially if moored facing uninterrupted views across the Thames. I have attended great parties on one of them. The total mooring costs for such boats would amount to about £2,500/month, so for some could still be seen as a 'bargain'. I bet the group of boat owners who bought out the moorings opposite Chelsea Harbour are congratulating themselves over their foresight! Bear Grylls had his rather ugly barge there years ago [before achieving 'fame']; don't know whether he has upgraded his lifestyle since then, but it would surprise me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2018 13:55:48 GMT
I'll be passing there tomorrow morning about 1030. Will check the depth sounder  On the navionics charts cadogan pier is marked as 2 metres which I guess is at MLWS. Not sure that's deep enough for proper super yachts and also the bridges may present a problem. £500k for a ten year lease with mooring fee on top does seem a lot but it is a well known very expensive area. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 13, 2018 22:16:55 GMT
I found the article I was thinking of, dated September 2004. Interesting, if somewhat depressing, that the public and Parliamentary exposure of the background problems came about too late for educated representations against the Housing Bill – that did indeed become law a few months later, leaving houseboat occupants in the lurch as the only occupiers of any form of housing, stationary or mobile, without the otherwise universal protections against harassment and abuses. www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/advice/propertymarket/3335470/Cast-adrift.html |
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 13, 2018 23:26:35 GMT
I'll be passing there tomorrow morning about 1030. Is that heading back to Brentford? I will be there from about 6pm, if you fancy meeting up for a drink. |
|
|
|
Post by airedaleman on Apr 3, 2018 16:05:13 GMT
In today’s torygraph article about this saying super houseboats costing 6 million planned. Local council reported as not in favor.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 3, 2018 16:28:55 GMT
Now the latest lower-grade houseboat, inspired by flat-pack furniture apparently, but can come with seaplane dock etc. Be interesting to see those on the Thames! www.ybw.com/pictures/max-zhivov-unveils-his-ecological-houseboat-concept-modul-go-66661?utm_campaign=20180403_YBW-X_NWL_EO&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ETMany years ago now, I worked on fitting out a Belgian barge for a zany young architect with a penchant for containers. Fork lift mechanisms were installed so that hydraulics could be used to open up the hold covers, and allow a separate sitting room and other container 'cabins' to rise up out the hold and perch high in the air for good views. Eventually moored at Cadogan pier, he was never allowed to operate them, because the landside residents complained he was blocking their own view. Probably for the best; the mechanisms were a little feeble for the task, and the sight of the containers swaying around on the extended forks was rather alarming. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 16:37:17 GMT
Seaplanes on the River at Chelsea? That seems rather improbable.
|
|
