Clyde Estuary - Leisure Vessel Charge for Use

[ylop]

Per square mile of water I would suggest that the Clyde has the better deal (not that I am supporting its imposition)

Whilst that may be true, I wonder if the surface area covered is relevant. Supposedly the charge is to cover "accident investigation" (is that not MIAB's job?), "navigation bouys" (I suspect in electronic age these are less relevant to yachts), "issuing NTMs" (I've no idea why that costs any more if there are yachts there), "registering ownership" (presumably this is even less tangible than the SSR and is about knowing where to send the invoice!), "enforcement" (which they don't currently do any of - so presumably means - collecting the fees!), "wreck removal" (why not simply insist on my being insured for that).

If such charges are required, I wonder if they have objective reasons for leaving <6m boats outside the scope.

Since you know how it works "down south" - do they charge visitors? e.g. would a boat coming from Belfast sailing round arran and back to Campbeltown so never anchoring, mooring, or going ashore but passing through the area have to pay? If they did that in <24h would they still pay the 6 months fee? Would someone coming from the south and spending a week in the clyde before using the crinan canal to head north? What discounts are offered via clubs?

 

[Sandy]

Since you know how it works "down south" - do they charge visitors? e.g. would a boat coming from Belfast sailing round arran and back to Campbeltown so never anchoring, mooring, or going ashore but passing through the area have to pay? If they did that in <24h would they still pay the 6 months fee? Would someone coming from the south and spending a week in the clyde before using the crinan canal to head north? What discounts are offered via clubs?

That question did cross my mind.

Am I to miss out on the best ice cream in the known universe at Nardini's in Largs?

 

[dgadee]

Very interesting. Do they publish a financial statement on income and expenditure?

A lot of money when there are a lot of boats.

 

[st599]

Sounds a bit like what Chichester do. £18 for a two day ticket to sail in their waters (plus mooring fees). Langstone are similar, but don't have a man in a boat most of the time, you have to know about the charge and pay online, or get a ticket through the post which costs more.

 

[Bodach na mara]

I note that they intend to use information gained from AIS transmissions to check which boats are in "their" water (actually Crown Estates water) which calls into question whether this would be against data protection legislation.

 

[smert]

I note that they intend to use information gained from AIS transmissions to check which boats are in "their" water (actually Crown Estates water) which calls into question whether this would be against data protection legislation.

AIS data is public domain. Combining it with the private data on ownership and addresses will be likely covered by the legitimate interest lawful basis.

 

[Boathook]

I note that they intend to use information gained from AIS transmissions to check which boats are in "their" water (actually Crown Estates water) which calls into question whether this would be against data protection legislation.

Keep the AIS in silent mode ?

 

[boomerangben]

The irony in all this is that according to Wikipedia (ok, I’m open to the fact that it might be out of date/wrong) is the Peel Ports is owned in part (majority of 60%) by a pension fund………… which might be funding the sailing hobby of Clyde sailors.

So which side should we really be on……. Glad that our pension providers ensuring our investments work for us, or annoyed they are taking money from us.

PS I don’t necessarily have a vested interest in this either way. My point is hypothetical

 

[ctva]

Oh Dear, we don't have AIS

 

[sawduster]

Response from RYA Scotland - https://www.rya.org.uk/news/rya_scotland_clydeport_conservancy_fee_statement. The interesting part I think is "Whilst we recognise that as the Statutory Harbour Authority Peel Ports do have a right to levy fees under the Clyde Port Order (1965), it is clear from that order that charges made must be for very specific services and be reasonable." I haven't looked at the legislation in detail to see what the very specific and reasonable services could be but if anyone else has more time it's available here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1965/45/pdfs/ukla_19650045_en.pdf.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

Thanks @sawduster for digging up that information.

 

[RivalRedwing]

Since you know how it works "down south" - do they charge visitors? e.g. would a boat coming from Belfast sailing round arran and back to Campbeltown so never anchoring, mooring, or going ashore but passing through the area have to pay? If they did that in <24h would they still pay the 6 months fee? Would someone coming from the south and spending a week in the clyde before using the crinan canal to head north? What discounts are offered via clubs?

I cant answer your questions from current experience as I have now moved to to the Orwell where such things don't happen (yet...). From memory, visitors were not charged. oldgit (oldgit) or pye_end (Pye_End) of these fora may be better placed to comment

 

[awol]

With regards to "wreck removal" Peel Ports have had 50 years to do something about MV Captayannis while charging commercial shipping a lot more than £100 +VAT per year.

Edit: that should have been Clydeports. Peel Ports have not removed the sugar boat wreck for only the last 23 years!

 

[Aja]

With regards to "wreck removal" Peel Ports have had 50 years to do something about MV Captayannis while charging commercial shipping a lot more than £100 +VAT per year.

Edit: that should have been Clydeports. Peel Ports have not removed the sugar boat wreck for only the last 23 years!

Not least wrecks in Bowling Harbour which is within their tenure and River Leven.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

To be fair the Sugar Boat predates the HRO that allowed PeelPorts to take over. I could see that they would not accept that liability. Indeed, doubts around ownership and insurance on that vessel is why it was never recovered. Which raises an interesting point. Wreck removal will be funded by insurance companies and the majority of leisure vessels will maintain insurance, hence there is no cost to PeelPorts to remove wrecks.

The last wrecks were recovered by the government not PeelPorts: Antares and Nancy Glen.

 

[Geoff Wode]

The point about insurance is a significant one. Leisure boats have to provide proof of insurance to berth with marinas and clubs. In the event of the worst, It’s highly unlikely Peel will be paying for the recovery of those leisure vessels.

I would very much like to see evidence of their claimed increase in “vessels adrift or sunken” and “recovery costs” and how they become costs to Peel. After all, they’re only proposing 5% of the fee goes towards this purpose. The rest of the proposed purposes for the fee cover obligations Peel already has.
This is just about raising revenue and trying something on.

 

[dunedin]

The point about insurance is a significant one. Leisure boats have to provide proof of insurance to berth with marinas and clubs. In the event of the worst, It’s highly unlikely Peel will be paying for the recovery of those leisure vessels.

I would very much like to see evidence of their claimed increase in “vessels adrift or sunken” and “recovery costs” and how they become costs to Peel. After all, they’re only proposing 5% of the fee goes towards this purpose. The rest of the proposed purposes for the fee cover obligations Peel already has.
This is just about raising revenue and trying something on.

I doubt if Peel Ports have to worry about any boats in marinas being abandoned or sinking. The marinas would try to prevent this, and arrange recovery.
The issue of abandoned boats, insofar as it occurs, is only likely to be the handful of ones on moorings or anchor at the heads of the lochs. But I doubt if any of them will pay a fee to PP. in fact this could cause more to abandon old boats rather than register them.
The bigger issue is your point that only 5%, at most, of the proposed £120 fee would be put aside for recovery of abandoned boats. And the costs would be borne by the other seaworthy craft mostly safely in marinas or on properly managed club / boatyard moorings.

 

[Concerto]

Peel Ports have been charging a fee on the Medway for over 10 years. There has been no apparent benefit to the yachting fraternity. The parent company of Peel Ports is a property development company. They saw the potential to develop many of the old industrial docks and took over many ports.
Our Ports | International Trade Solutions | Peel Ports

Currently Peel Ports are trying to kill Chatham Docks. Thy have been very slow in repairing damage to lock gates at the entrance to Chatham Docks. This has been driving many smaller commercial ships to use alternative ports. Many of the businesses on site are having their leases not being renewed as they want the commercial site to become residential, as they will earn far more money. Parts of the docks have already been developed as residential.

Shipping on the Medway has been reducing over the past half century, partly by changes in the shipping industry making ships larger and the local loss of Kingsnorth coal fired power station, the loss of BP oil refinery, the loss of the Grain power station and the closure of the Sheerness steel plant - all with river loading berths. Some would say Peel Ports have suffered by this, but to their credit there are still timber and sand vessels continuing to use the Medway. The old Grain Refinery is now a small container transfer station which rarely has any ships using it and a LPG port with 2 berths that can accept vessels to about 250,000 tons. Vetee Rice unload most of their rice on the Medway. The old Sheerness dock has some small vessels constantly alongside and part of the dock is now a large transfer station for the import and export of new cars with a lot of the old steel works used as a parking area.

With the lack of shipping in the river, I cannot remember the last time the main channel was dredged, which used to be a regular occurance whilst Chatham Dockyard was still a Naval Port. I am pretty sure the navigation buoys are maintained by Trinity House.

So, what do Peel Ports actually do for all the river users. Very little.

From experience, I doubt if anyone will be able to stop the leisure charge on the Clyde. It will just be a very profitable revenue stream from all those wealthy people who own boats.

 

[PeterV]

Is the Crouch Harbour authority still going? I remember the outrage when it was proposed, the claims that it wouldn’t do anything for the leisure boater, the counter claim that it was only a nominal fee and then the increase in fees to cover the administrative cost of collecting the fees!
It seems like this highly successful strategy is still being implemented.

 

[Bodach na mara]

The last two posts describe the situation in the Medway and the Crouch. What does the fee entitle you to do? I assume that it is to berth within the area but is it also required if you are just passing through? The really worrying thing is that we may eventually be required to pay a fee to each and every "conservancy" or whatever they call themselves. That would really put the kibosh on our hobby.

Now I know that mooring or berthing fees are required to the providers of such facilities and I accept that. I don't have to use them. I am more concerned about anchoring charges where someone "authority" claims the right to charge for use of shelter which is natural and I feel in such cases that I owe nothing except to the Creator of the shelter. And he won't be round to collect. But how would our Concerto have coped on his epic voyage last year if all sorts of Trusts, Authorities and Boards that could lay claim to every mile of our coastal waters demanded a fee to cross it?

Fortunately Peel Ports and whatever body is trying to lay claim to Oban bay and the Sound of Kerrera are bound by the law of Scotland, where I believe that the right to unencumbered navigation has previously been established.