Ramsey Marina

[PmJ]

2 hours ago, b4mbi said:

In what possible way does it make financial sense?!!!! 

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiment and like the idea, but at a cost of £100m it just won't fly.

 Simply speaking:-

maximus stated £350-£500 per meter annual berthing fees and his yacht 19m - so if we make some VERY generous assumptions that the 400 berth marina would be full all the time, average yacht length 20m (I fully admit I have no clue about such things) and say a price of £425/m being the midpoint 

400 berths x 20 meters x £425 = £3.4m p.a.

Marina operating costs p.a. ?? 

financing costs? £100m at 5% ---> £5m ??

return for investors?

It comes no-where near to passing even this back of a fag packet calculation!!! And of course that income can only arise when the thing is built, how are the construction costs financed in the 2/3 year construction time??

However, I do stand to be corrected and would love to be proved wrong...

looking around the various harbours on the Island, I would suggest that 20 metre average is extremely generous and unlikely. Average length is nearer to 12 metres

[b4mbi]

27 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Have you looked at the proposal. the £100 million includes housing, apartments, shops and restaurants. The apartments and houses will be sold off, recouping a substantial sum

Yes I've looked at the proposal, and realise it's also a property play, but still struggling to see how the figures will possibly work.

I fully agree that the Island needs  24/7 non-tidal leisure yacht berthing facilities.

 

 

 

[Andy Onchan]

3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

The issue with a £100m project is that you can end up with something 1/3 built, which then collapses, adding to the whole despair effect. 

If this goes ahead - and good luck to them, IOMG must ensure it is wholly funded prior to build, and not relying on £50m of property sales to finish it.

Absolutely agree. You beat me to it. IOMG must ensure there's a least some sort of a bond sufficient to cover the actual completion of the harbour structure itself, so that the taxpayer is not required to stump up the shortfall if, for whatever reason, the most important part is not completed.

I would love this project to succeed. However, I don't know of any other infrastructure project of this size that has ever been undertaken in living memory by private enterprise on Mann, only those completed by IOMG. Also, isn't there something about Crown ownership and public rights of way on a foreshore? JW??      

[P.K.]

6 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Absolutely agree. You beat me to it. IOMG must ensure there's a least some sort of a bond sufficient to cover the actual completion of the harbour structure itself, so that the taxpayer is not required to stump up the shortfall if, for whatever reason, the most important part is not completed.

I would love this project to succeed. However, I don't know of any other infrastructure project of this size that has ever been undertaken in living memory by private enterprise on Mann, only those completed by IOMG. Also, isn't there something about Crown ownership and public rights of way on a foreshore? JW??      

There are some pompous idiots who think they have a "private" beach.

The truth is actually something of a "grey" area according to The Ramblers Association. It's generally thought that up to the maximum high tide line is property of The Crown. Although whether or not its actual or Chart Datum I have no idea.

I just thought I would save everyone some bandwidth by getting in before Barrie.....

[Lxxx]

With this and a new harbour in Douglas is this the way to go now for the island? Is this the new aerospace/film/biomed market which will save the manx economy?

[GD4ELI]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

There are some pompous idiots who think they have a "private" beach.

The truth is actually something of a "grey" area according to The Ramblers Association. It's generally thought that up to the maximum high tide line is property of The Crown. Although whether or not its actual or Chart Datum I have no idea.

I just thought I would save everyone some bandwidth by getting in before Barrie.....

In the UK The Crown owns ~55% of the foreshore and grants permissive access. Most of the foreshore down here belongs to the Duchy while also grants access. Some is private and you can't get to it anyway.

So - if Mrs. Windsor as Lord of Mann owns the foreshore then I guess permissive access is granted but I'm probably wrong, very hard to get a definitive ruling on foreshore access in the UK.

Edited February 4, 2019 by GD4ELI

[John Wright]

It was transferred to IoM in 1911, I think, and ended up with Harbour Board. Who owned what was explored in Crookall v Harbour Board, years ago, which related to Derbyhaven.

Think it’s DoI nowadays that owns from median to seaward, and then the landward owner from the land down to the median.

Where the land is a public road then it’s the DoI, as road owner.

Not sure about Ramsey, but in Porr Erin I think DoI licences the beach to the Commissioners.

Harbours are different again and ownership is covered by the Harbours Act. But essentially DoI. 

[GD4ELI]

12 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It was transferred to IoM in 1911, I think, and ended up with Harbour Board. Who owned what was explored in Crookall v Harbour Board, years ago, which related to Derbyhaven.

Think it’s DoI nowadays that owns from median to seaward, and then the landward owner from the land down to the median.

Where the land is a public road then it’s the DoI, as road owner.

Not sure about Ramsey, but in Porr Erin I think DoI licences the beach to the Commissioners.

Harbours are different again and ownership is covered by the Harbours Act. But essentially DoI. 

Quite a sensible solution.

[John Wright]

I set out the full position in 2014 in response to some total nonsense by TJ ( as he was that week ).

repeated here for completeness.

 

My interpretation who owns what of the foreshore is determined by the 1406 Charter from the King to Sir John Stanley and that the IOM Government, through a Department as successors to the Crown, by conveyance from Victoria (of ports) and George VI in 1946 (of everything else) owns the land between low and high water mark and the landowner owns the land to High water mark. So a private beach is that part above high water mark and access can be controlled, but you can access the tidal foreshore in between water marks land from the sea (you mustn't trespass to get onto the beach or to cross it above High water mark)

 

Here is a summary of the Crookall Case

 

Headnote

The respondents brought an action against the appellants in the Chancery Division to establish their ownership of a strip of land above the high-water mark at Derbyhaven.

The appellants owned three plots of land abutting a road which ran parallel to the sea at Derbyhaven. Between the road and the high-water mark there lay a 20 yd. strip of land. The respondent Harbour Board allowed the beaching of pleasure boats upon this strip in the summer and their storage upon it in the winter. The appellants objected to this use of the land and sought to prevent it. The respondents then brought the present proceedings to establish their ownership of the strip. At first instance the Chancery Division (Deemster Luft) found for the respondents. The appellants appealed.

It was agreed between the parties that title to the land could be determined only by reference to historical data concerning the Manx system of land tenure and the nature of seaports.

The Island was ruled by Norse kings in medieval times and the system of land tenure was not feudal. Land which was enclosed and cultivated by three generations of the same family became virtually their freehold land and was known as quarterland. The remaining land, owned by the king, was common land but when enclosed with the king's licence was known as intack.

Under the Norse kings the bay of Derbyhaven became the most important harbour on the Island. Unlike the English king, however, the Norse kings did not regard a port as a source of revenue and there was no record of Norse kings granting a liberty or franchise of any port on the Island.

The Norse kingdom ended in 1265 and soon the English king was acknowledged as Lord of Man. A number of grants of the Lordship were made to various English nobles and these included a grant of the franchises of the existing harbours on the Island (including Derbyhaven), which conferred the right to levy dues, although none were then levied.

In 1405 the Lordship of Man was granted in perpetuity to Sir John de Stanley. The terms of the Charter, dated 1406, were as follows: After granting the Island, Castle Peel and the Lordship, the king made 23 grants, the fifth being: "Sea Ports and all things to Port reasonably and duly belonging." The remaining 22 grants involved rights, liberties and franchises and none involved ownership of real property. There followed 11 grants involving ownership of land or of things pertaining to it.

The Stanley Lords of Man attempted to impose a feudal form of tenure upon the quarterland holders. This caused discontent and led to the Act of Settlement 1704, which confirmed the ancient customary estates of inheritance.

In 1765 King George III purchased the Island and from that date the British Sovereign was also Lord of Man. In 1765 and 1766 the British Parliament passed two Acts to regulate trade with the Island and for the first time the harbours of the Island were used as seaports in the English sense, i.e. as sources of revenue. The Act of 1766 provided, inter alia, that a Commission should appoint ports and places for shipping and landing goods in the Island. Most, if not all, of the disputed strip of land was designated as a landing place by the Commissioners.

In 1777 the King as Lord of Man reaffirmed the Act of Settlement 1704.

By the Lunatic Asylum Act 1860 provision was made for an asylum in the Island to be paid for by a rate levied on values of owned land assessed by valuers. The asylum plan dated 1863 showed the disputed strip of land as quarterland extending to the high-water mark.

In 1890 Queen Victoria granted land at Derbyhaven to the Isle of Man Harbour Commissioners. The indenture confined the land to be conveyed as—"parts of the foreshore between high and low-water mark . . ." although the plan annexed to the indenture showed the land to be conveyed as including the disputed strip.

Following a dispute between the then owner of the quarterland and the Harbour Commissioners, an agreement was reached in 1910 delineating the boundary between their lands. By this agreement most of the disputed land was deemed to be owned by the quarterland holder.

In 1927 the then Attorney General successfully brought proceedings to have the agreement of 1910 set aside. The question of ownership of the disputed strip was expressly reserved. In the present proceedings no weight was given to any conduct of the parties or document after 1927.

Both parties agreed that where ownership lay in 1406 it remained there in 1982, but each relied upon subsequent documents and events as evidence of the medieval position.

The appellants contended that since their land was quarterland there was a presumption that it extended to the high-water mark. They relied, inter alia, upon the asylum plan of 1863 which showed that the area in dispute was owned by the quarterland holder, contending that since the purpose of the plan was to assess the value of land upon which a rate should be levied the information, if given by the quarterland holder, was given against his own interests; while if it were obtained from the Crown, it was strong evidence in support of the appellants' case.

The respondents contended that since Derbyhaven was a port an almost irrebuttable presumption arose that the soil comprising the port was the property of the Lords of Man, their predecessors in title. They did not dispute the fact that the holders of quarterlands in 1405 passed good title to their successors in title, but denied that the strip of land in dispute was quarterland. They contended that the grant in 1405 of "Sea Ports and all things to Port reasonably and duly belonging" must have included the most important port of Derbyhaven and that the bay could not have been used as a port if the strip of land above the high-water mark were not owned by the King. They also relied upon the designation of the disputed strip as a landing place under the Act of 1766, contending that the absence of any protest by the owner of the quarterlands adjoining the disputed strip indicated that the landing places did not belong to him.

 

Held, allowing the appeal:

The land adjacent to the bay was undoubtedly quarterland and nothing had occurred prior to 1405 to rebut the presumption that, by that date, the quarterland extended to the high-water mark. There was no record of the harbour ever having been designated a port by any of the Norse kings and there was no reason to presume that any Norse king reserved common land above the high-water mark for the use of a port.

By 1405, however, the then Lords of Man owned the franchises of the existing harbours in the Island, including Derbyhaven, although the right to levy dues was not then exercised. These franchises were granted to Sir John de Stanley by the words—"Sea Ports and all things to Port reasonably and duly belonging . . . ." In the context in which these words appeared (i.e. as fifth of 23 grants, 22 of which did not involve ownership of real property) the ejusdem genesis rule compelled a construction which did not involve a conveyance of the soil of the harbour above the high-water mark; nor could the grant of the Island itself be construed as conveying such land since the King could not grant what he did not own.

Events after 1405 were not inconsistent with this interpretation. The designation of the disputed strip as a landing place in the 18th century was not an act necessarily referable to ownership of the land but to ownership of the franchise of the port. The franchise holder, who was entitled to exact dues anywhere within the area of the port, could properly designate certain places within that area as the only permitted landing places. Such designation did not alienate land away from the previous owner of the land. On the other hand, the asylum plan was strong evidence that the land was owned by the quarterland holder.

The appellants therefore owned the land but were not entitled to interfere with the proper exercise of the respondents' franchise (whatever rights such franchise might confer) within the area of the ancient port of Derbyhaven

 

[b4mbi]

So the owners of the land couldn't move the boats off it?!

Wouldn't an easy way to remedy that be to issue the Harbour Board with a massive invoice for ground rent?!

[Kopek]

11 hours ago, craggy_steve said:

, the island has built up expertise and services which go beyond VAT,

You mean beyond fiddling it?

[craggy_steve]

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

You mean beyond fiddling it?

Yep ...  The IoM has carved out quite a big vessel management and crew payroll niche, some tech / IT supply & support for on-board comms and IT, maritime financing & insurance, stuff like that. Amazingly it seems we even get customers who have VAT-registered their vessels elsewhere. Got to suspect that between greater VAT stringency, potentially being outside the EU VAT system post Brexit, and the Beneficial Ownership transparency that there will be a significant decline in new registrations though. Others on here know far more about this than me, but tax management is only a part of the IoM Shipping offering, the folk who have created this little local industry have genuinely created real value beyond tax.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

8 hours ago, PmJ said:

looking around the various harbours on the Island, I would suggest that 20 metre average is extremely generous and unlikely. Average length is nearer to 12 metres

1. Agreed, in my example yesterday I did actually say 

"5. 500 boats would be a reasonable target for the Island (I never said Ramsey) - 500 by say 12 meter average, by say £450 per year is £2.7M parking fees - what does IOMG currently receive in car park income?"

2. Craggy-Steve stated - "The type of customer M A is talking about is more likely to be a well-heeled professional who can afford to send his kids to boarding school (such as King Bill's), and to whom the cost of keeping a 15 metre boat for the family is an affordable luxury (and probably cheaper than a cottage in France or villa in Spain" I agree with this 100%.

3. In a Marina development, the 'Fundus' is likely to be at least as big an issue as the 'Foreshore'.

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Manximus Aururaneus

[Kopek]

I look forward to the day when.... Tax management, avoidance, evasion, VAT fraud etc are not part of our lexicon.

Ramsey bay, when the tide goes out, Ramseys' shore is one of the longest on the Island? Is the beach as shallow as that would suggest? Will this mean constant dredging and just where do we dump the dredge? Has this been considered?

[thesultanofsheight]

5 minutes ago, Kopek said:

I look forward to the day when.... Tax management, avoidance, evasion, VAT fraud etc are not part of our lexicon.

That will be the day your taxi plates are worth 25p each so we all have something to look forward too.