Response to RNLI proposal 18 Jan 2010
RNLI wrote to PYSC 18 Jan proposing in outline:
- RNLI/PLT building an new larger lifeboat house in the current position
- a new temporary portacabin-type building on the grass by the top gate
- the possibility of PLT/RNLI moving off to an alternative site in future.
GC discussed this. Commodore's reply to RNLI sent 25 Jan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Adrian
This is a reply to your e-mail of 18 Jan. Members of the General Committee of the Club have all had a chance to comment on your proposal and I summarise our collective response below.
Our reference point as you know is the statement of Club's interests set out in section C of the Club's Policy Regarding Lifeboat Development dated Feb 2009. Using that public statement as our guide, as we said we would, we see four areas where the proposal would be contrary to the Club's reasonable interests. I set out below the 4 areas of interest, and for each explain how the proposal would infringe on it.
1. There shall be no adverse impact on size or nature of Club membership (e.g. number of boats able to be stored, number of boats able to sail, inexperienced and learner sailors).
The proposal we understand would reduce the area for dinghy storage in C1, and reduce the area of grass at the top by the gate used for Club members to load and unload boats from trailers. When we have Open meetings, the grass area is used for visitor boat parking, road trailer parking and loading/unloading as the access drive and slipway become congested. For example we host a round of the Laser SW circuit annually when we have around 20-25 visiting boats. Also on Open weekends, when visitors sail on Saturday and Sunday, they use the grass area for overnight boat storage as it is more secure than leaving boats out in the road.
As regards dinghy storage in C1, we have plans this year to convert to using this compound for storing most or all the dinghies that comprise the Club Fleet. There are several reasons for this. We have a growing Club Fleet and a growing proportion of members who use them. By having the boats in one place, right by the clubhouse and slipway, they will be all together instead of spread out, easier for the Club Bosun to manage, and will enjoy greater use by Club members especially those learners and less experienced who we are trying to encourage into our sport. We want to enable these Members to get to know each other more easily and build a sense of team spirit amongst them so they can sail together more. There is also consideration of installing a new steel boat rack in C1 to store the Club's Topper fleet mainly for our Cadets' use to make better use of space.
2. There shall be no adverse impact to reputation of Club amongst our local neighbours.
We believe that erecting a new portacabin building on the grass at the top would make us unpopular with our neighbours. PLT/RNLI and PYSC are not the same organisation of course, but this new building - no matter who is responsible for it - would probably be of a ultilitarian design, conspicuous and inevitably bring adverse criticism. We care about our reputation with our neighbours. We recall how our reputation suffered over the previous proposal, despite it being made by a different organisation and nothing to do with PYSC.
3. Any development proposals must be presented to the PYSC as a complete, well developed, fully programmed and where appropriate, impact assessed and costed package. PYSC will not consider incomplete proposals that form part of a creeping development.
Every person on the GC has raised what I will call the "thin end of the wedge" point on the proposal; seeing great risks for the future of the Club if the Club were to agree to this proposal, and then the thought or promise of PLT/RNLI moving away from Sugar Loaf in future to a new site was quietly forgotten thereafter. We see this proposal as a partial, short-term, interim arrangement; not a complete, well-developed, fully programmed etc package we seek as set out in our Policy. We are all concerned that this proposal might be the start of a creeping development where the Club's space and facilities would be eroded further step by step over time.
4. Boat spaces in Compound 1, including those already taken by the existing PLT boat house, are significantly more versatile and therefore more valuable to the Club than boat spaces in an extension to Compound 4.
This relates to and reinforces the first point above. C1 is the best place for dinghy storage in the Club. In this proposal we would lose valuable dinghy spaces without any compensating space elsewhere.
In summary it was the unanimous view of the members of the GC when we met recently that we could not support this proposal. It was also our unanimous view that a majority of Club Members would not support it.
I have written fully, frankly and openly in reply to the proposal as I wish to give you and your colleagues a full response. I realise this will be a disappointment to you and your colleagues in PLT. I am happy to discuss any of what I have written above by phone or to meet with you as you wish for further discussions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you have any questions plse speak with a member of the GC or the Commodore Peter Weeks.
(Written on 27-Jan-10)
| 