2005: Die Eigner kämpfen für ihr Boot Berchte in der örtlichen Presse zur Rettung von Fische:

Ein "öffentlicher Hilferuf" aus dem Internet Unten der Originaltext (Namen sind gekürzt bzw. entfernt)

eine Internet-Meldung: Fische SAVED!!! 29/06/05 @ 12:57 Fische has been saved! A decision has been made by the Deputy Prime-Minister's office, Fische can stay on her mooring, but with her jetty moved to the west side. To coinside with this decision, the official launch of ShorehamHouseboats.co.uk has been moved to the 30th of June! Tomorrow! I'm off to celebrate, I hope you will too! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verschiedene Zeitungsmeldungen im Shoreham Herald: Fische saga continues A FIGHTING fund has been set up to help a family to keep financially afloat in their houseboat planning battle. Fred and Polly C., who own the former German minesweeper the Fische, pictured right, have run up legal costs of nearly £20,000 in their two-year-long fight to keep it moored at Riverbank, Shoreham Beach. The couple have appealed against Adur District Council's bid to revoke planning permission for the boat they are converting into a home and also the council's enforcement notice against them, ordering them to remove it. Residents living in nearby River Close have complained the vessel is too big and spoils their views across the River Adur. The appeal was heard at a planning inquiry at the Civic Centre last week. It is due to resume in April and a decision will ultimately be made by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Now neighbouring houseboat owners have offered to set up a fighting fund to help the C. pay their legal bills. Many also own historic former naval craft, some of which saw action at Dunkirk, and are sympathetic to the plight of the C.'s. Mrs C. told the inquiry last week that the family faced financial ruin if they lost their home. "We have lived on the river for 25 years. It is not only our home, but our way of life. To have to move away would be unthinkable. Two of our sons who live with us on the Fische don't know any other way of living. "The whole family has suffered stress and ill-health from the worry of all this. "We now have to wait until April for the case to resume. Then we may not get the result until October. "All we want is a home for our family. Even if the result goes our way, it will be a hollow victory because, as council tax payers, we are paying towards the cost of the council's case against us as well as the enormous expense of putting forward our own case. "It will take more than money to compensate us for the last two years. It has been a nightmare and it is not over yet." 20 January 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Calm after storm POLLY and Fred C. – the owners of the Fische houseboat – have spoken to the Herald about their relief following last week's decision by John Prescott that their giant riverside home could stay put. The Deputy Prime Minister ruled last week that the former German naval vessel could stay in its mooring on the Riverbank, Shoreham Beach, after a planning inquiry earlier this year. Fred described the news as "unbelievable", adding: "It's funny because, since then, we've been so tired. It's like the two years of hassle and aggravation have drained away, leaving us exhausted." Polly added that they had received lots of cards from well-wishers and people had been stopping them in the street to congratulate them on the news. She said: "We felt all along that the boat was completely in our mooring. We were just replacing one boat with another. We did not need planning permission and we were proved right. "We still understand there are regulations and it does not mean we are outside the law. It has taken an awful lot of money to prove us right, and not only ours. As council tax payers, we have been paying for the other side as well." Polly and Fred agreed that they just wanted to get the 150ft Fische ready as a home and move on. Polly said the planning inquiry had cost more than £18,000 to fight, although they had received funding for a lot of their legal fees. They had also received help from neighbours among the Shoreham houseboat community, who had set up a Fische fighting fund. Peter Davis, Adur council's head of planning, commented: "This is a complex judgment on a complicated case. "The planning inspector did say in his report that the Fische was unacceptable on the planning merits of the case. "However, as one boat has replaced another, planning permission was not required and therefore the boat can stay. "The appeal was actually dismissed, but now the enforcement notice covers only the ramp to the houseboat, which needs to be removed or altered within the next nine months. "This decision does raise important local planning issues about the houseboats in Shoreham. Now that we have the judgment, the council will be meeting houseboat owners to discuss a shared way forward." 07 July 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fische on Friday WELL, would you try to steer a 150ft boat through a gap of just 20 metres under Shoreham Footbridge on Friday the 13th. The former German naval ship Fische attracted a crowd of hundreds on Friday morning as she made the short journey from the harbour to her new berth among the houseboats on Riverbank, Shoreham Beach. The vessel will be home to Polly and Fred C. and their two sons. Polly said they were concerned about bringing Fische through the gap on a date known for its bad luck, but the tide conditions were right and they had permission from West Sussex County Council to open the footbridge. The ship did not reach her final mooring on Friday morning because of the falling tide. Polly said about 30 to 40 people had then tried to help pull the boat in after the Arthur Brown concert in the Adur Festival marquee on Saturday night, but to no avail. A winch-lorry from the Harris Brothers Fair helped bring the Fische closer to her berth on Monday, but the C.'s were waiting for another high tide before she finally docked. Fische was built for NATO in about 1963 and was originally called Pisces, being part of a group of ships called the Star Fleet. She is made out of mahogany and teak and worked as a minehunter and diffuser. She had been at Marchwood boatyard in Southampton since 1985 and was spotted by a friend of the C.'s. 19 June 2003

Public Inquiry Mon 11th of January 2005 Our appeal against Adur councils decision to revoke planning permission. Due to extensive coverage in the local press and radio many of you will be aware of our long running dispute with Adur Council. This is a brief summary of events. The original vessel on this mooring was a 120ft long Motor Torpedo Boat, M.T.B.682 called ‘Lunasea’, which we bought and moved into in 1980. After more than 20 years of patching her up we knew we would have to replace the boat, unfortunately the first vessel we bought (‘Alanorah’) was damaged in transit and sank. We then bought a tug (‘Bridget’), which was sturdy enough, though not very big for a family of four adults, but we had no other choice at the time. While we were in the process of clearing the heavy equipment from the working tug ‘Bridget’ prior to conversion to a houseboat, Adur council issued an enforcement notice to clear the site, leaving one vessel. It was at about the same time that Mr C. was told he needed to have a hip replaced (spring 2002), which slowed down work considerably. Later that year we were told about ‘Fische’. She seemed to be the answer to all our problems, a strong, solid ship big enough to house all of us, without too much initial work involved to make a home. Mr. C. went to see it just before his hip operation in November 2002, and bought it. We wrote to the council to let them know that all other vessels and debris would be removed and replaced with one substantial, lovely looking vessel. They gave a positive reply, but said that if we did not apply for planning permission then they may take us to court! We were surprised, because even though a few of the more recent boats being replaced on the Riverbank had applied for planning permission it had not been common practise in the 20 or so years we had been living here, and I do not believe we were asked to submit planning permission for the other boats we had tried to replace ‘Lunasea’ with. However, we did not want anything to go wrong with our new project, so we submitted plans based on the measurements we were given when the boat was purchased, (the boat was still in Southampton at the time). The plans were recommended for approval by planning officers at four separate meetings from March to June 2003. At the first three meetings it was decided to defer approval until the site had been cleared. This included the remaining debris from ‘Alanorah’, the entire 120ft ‘Lunasea’ which had sunk by this time, and the tug ‘Bridget’, which we had sold. The site was cleared by April 2003, we just had to wait for a very high tide to move ‘Bridget’ to comply. But we also needed to move ‘Fische’ on the high tides, and time was running out. The last opportunity we had to bring ‘Fische’ through the footbridge safely and onto our mooring was on Friday 13th June 2003, ten days before the next planning meeting. As the boat had been recommended for approval we went ahead. At the next meeting the plans were turned down, (there had been opposition from a few residents in River Close), and an enforcement order to remove the vessel from the mooring was issued. We started a petition and got nearly 2,000 signatures (Thank you, if you were one of those who signed). One of the planning officers suggested that we put in another planning application (slightly modified). We followed his advice and the second application was approved in October 2003. A group of residents from River Close were not happy with the decision and insisted that the measurements of the boat were checked. We had no objection to this and allowed council officials on board and assisted them. The result was that the overall length of the boat was longer than in our original plans. We now realise that the previous owners gave us the waterline (or plimpsole line) measurement for the length of the boat. The waterline measurement is commonly used in measuring boats, we were not aware of the difference when we submitted our original plans. As a result of this, the plans we had approved were then revoked at a planning meeting in February 2004, and an enforcement order to remove the boat was issued once again. One of the reasons given to remove the vessel was that part of the boat was breaching the boundary between our land and that belonging to the RSPB reserve. That was true last winter, the boat was overhanging the boundary. All the houseboat moorings extend from the towpath North for 150ft and the property to the South includes the towpath itself and the land extending down the bank. When the bigger tides returned this spring the ‘Fische’ was floated nearer to the towpath and completely clear of the RSPB land. Even though the bow is now close to the path, we are entirely within our own property. We have been in regular contact with the RSPB throughout the proceedings, and they have measured the boat in relation to the mooring twice. They said they only wanted the boat moved enough, so it was not overhanging their land, not to be removed from the mudflats completely. They have now withdrawn their objections entirely. (See letter) We now have to fight for our home once again. Many people have said to us: ‘Why worry, what can the council do now?’ I wish I could be so confident. The trouble is that this has been going on for so long that people think the council has given up. We need to show that we still have support. When I tried to submit our petition of nearly 2000 signatures to the council, I was told that it was not relevant, and to quote a planning official: ‘petitions have had their day, individual letters are more effective’! Yet in their case against us they have used the petition from River Close in their evidence. We would appreciate all the support we can get. The hearing is on Tuesday 11th January 10am (and is also scheduled for the 12th). Please come along . . . Please Help, Thank you, . . .