ATTEMPTS by Teignbridge Council to negotiate with the Crown Estate Commissioners to renew the Teign estuary lease when it expires at the end of the year, have met with complete silence.
The chairman of the review group looking into the matter, Cllr Beryl Austen, told the district authority's overview and scrutiny committee that, despite repeated attempts, nothing had been heard.
Members feared that there could be an increase of 100 per cent in mooring charges for boat owners who moor their craft on the foreshore of the River Teign between Teignmouth and Newton Abbot.
The council leases the bed and foreshore from the Crown Estate. Since 1995, the annual cost has rocketed from £5,000 to £21,000 this year.
In 1995, Teignbridge charged £25 per mooring and this year it stands at £83.77, with a non-resident paying £167.50.
Cllr Austen said the group had felt that serious consideration should be given to not renewing the lease if its price exceeded the rise in inflation each year.
'Because we have not been able to make contact with the Crown Estate we do not know what it is proposing this year.
'If we said we did not want the lease at all, we would not have any less power to control the beaches and estuary than we do at the moment because of the environmental side,' said Cllr Austen.
Cllr Chris Clarance said the council should go for the lease and have it in line with inflation.
'We should make the running for it. If the Crown Estate do not accept it, we should then stand right back from it,' he said, believing the lease should go out to a contractor with a ceiling on the mooring charge.
He pointed out that in recent years the cost of moorings – there are 650 – had gone up 37 per cent, four per cent and nine per cent, and now there was talk of a 100 per cent increase.
'I think someone would come out of the woodwork to take this on,' said Cllr Clarance.
He added that he could not believe proposals for a full-time mooring officer instead of part-time as at present, at a cost of £16,515.
'With a pair of gumboots he can walk to every mooring when the tide's out. We are not supplying a chain, buoy, or sinker.
'This council is top-heavy with staff running it. Our costs are extraordinarily high,' he maintained.
Cllr Austen told members that if the cost of the lease was extortionate the council would not have it.
Cllr Vince Fusco said the council was in an awkward position, not knowing how much the Crown was going to charge.
'I am concerned about the actual cost of administration and everything else that goes with it. We are talking about an extra six months for a mooring officer.
'I cannot see him going out there in the middle of winter. He would probably drown or something.
'I think we should be allowed to put this out to tender. We are asked to provide best value to the public. Why should we not be able to do it?'
Cllr John Clatworthy said he could never understand why they had to subsidise a hobby.
'At the end of the day, if you can afford a boat you can afford to pay the proper price. They are paying less than a pint of beer a week. In a council car park you pay £400 a year.
'I think it's odd we are talking about this when we do not know the terms of renewal.'
Among the recommendations accepted by members was that the council should retain the lease subject to increased costs based on a rise in line with inflation; if the lease is retained it should be administered at no cost to the council, and its expenses should be met through income.
The portfolio holder to look at effective management and the need to employ a full-time moorings officer; if there was any significant increase in rental costs, the executive would need seriously to question the council's retention of the lease; and should income generation be of particular consideration to the executive, there is the option for the removal of the residency discount for mooring holders which would bring in an additional £38,000 a year.