Clyde Estuary - Leisure Vessel Charge for Use

[Aja]

I'm currently trying to get through the 100+ pages of that document and it is hard going. I have not come across any mention of rights to demand information yet I agree that the GDPR legislation should prevent the release of address information. When these Regulations were introduced most organisations needed to find someone that would monitor the storage of information and ensure that it was not accessible to outside agencies without the express permission of the provider of the information. In my own work I was told by the jumped-up prat that was the Data Protection Officer that I couldn't record student information on a word processor or spreadsheet but could devise blanks that could be completed by hand!

The 1965 document is completely focused on shipping and lists various vessels that are controlled, including floating docks! It requires that the launch of any vessel within the area defined by the Order be notified to and approved by the Clyde Port Authority. I must confess that I have never done this before launching any of my sailing dinghies, keel boats or rowing boats in the last 60 years. The new proposed rules are intended to apply to any vessel longer than 6 metres, thus fours and eights (rowing shells) from the Royal West of Scotland Amateur Boat Club will be charged. But the users of wet-bikes and stand-up paddle boards will be exempt. One other snippet; vessels belonging to the RN or to the Royal Family are exempt but Police boats and Lifeboats are not.

I suspect a marina may be legally obliged to notify that vessel ********* of **** length was launched by them the **/**/**** but hell mend them if they the boatyard/marina operators give out names of owners or owner's address they might find that the boat just launched might threaten never to darken their facility again. Money as they say, talks.

 

[dgadee]

I'm currently trying to get through the 100+ pages of that document and it is hard going. I have not come across any mention of rights to demand information yet I agree that the GDPR legislation should prevent the release of address information. When these Regulations were introduced most organisations needed to find someone that would monitor the storage of information and ensure that it was not accessible to outside agencies without the express permission of the provider of the information. In my own work I was told by the jumped-up prat that was the Data Protection Officer that I couldn't record student information on a word processor or spreadsheet but could devise blanks that could be completed by hand!

The 1965 document is completely focused on shipping and lists various vessels that are controlled, including floating docks! It requires that the launch of any vessel within the area defined by the Order be notified to and approved by the Clyde Port Authority. I must confess that I have never done this before launching any of my sailing dinghies, keel boats or rowing boats in the last 60 years. The new proposed rules are intended to apply to any vessel longer than 6 metres, thus fours and eights (rowing shells) from the Royal West of Scotland Amateur Boat Club will be charged. But the users of wet-bikes and stand-up paddle boards will be exempt. One other snippet; vessels belonging to the RN or to the Royal Family are exempt but Police boats and Lifeboats are not.

That must have been under the 1984 Act. Only computer processable data was covered. By 1998 it included organized paper files.

But I can't see how it is possible to make a third party provide information unless for the usual reasons e.g. prevention of crime or with consent. So depends on what the 1965 text says.

 

[Sybarite]

A barrister member of the forum once held that local authrities (apart from Crown Estates) had no legal authority to charge for moorings.
I wonder where that argument is now?

 

[Bodach na mara]

I knew one Scottish QC who maintained that the Crown had no estates in Scotland as the monarch is "king or queen of Scots, not of Scotland" and thus does not have the power to charge for moorings. Sadly the Scottish Parliament passed a law recognising the right of the CEC to the seabed. Even more sadly, my friend now conducts his arguments in a higher court, having passed on several years ago.

 

[Concerto]

They could refuse to participate. That would make collection problematic. Where would Peel Ports lawfully get the data from otherwise?

On the Medway, the marinas offer the licence stickers as a service to berth holders. The berth holder has to complete a form for Peel Ports with contact details. In the first couple of years they inspected boats for the licence stickers in the marinas, any without were left a note with the threat of a fine. I do not believe the marinas ever passed on the owners details.

 

[dgadee]

What if - like so many boats in marinas - they never left their berth? What about boats on the hard? Isn't it use of harbour waters which is charged for?

I think the marinas should have kept out of it ,personally.

 

[Aja]

A barrister member of the forum once held that local authrities (apart from Crown Estates) had no legal authority to charge for moorings.
I wonder where that argument is now?

Not strictly charging for moorings.

 

[Bodach na mara]

Not strictly charging for moorings.

I agree. The explanation for charging for what used to be free was the need to monitor and control the laying of moorings so that there were still places left for boats to anchor, which the CEC claimed was a right that they were defending!

To be fair, there was a lot of expansion of fish farming at the time and the guy that came to a meeting that I attended implied that there was a worry that every bay on the coast would be cluttered with nets and cruising could become impossible.

 

[dunedin]

What if - like so many boats in marinas - they never left their berth? What about boats on the hard? Isn't it use of harbour waters which is charged for?

I think the marinas should have kept out of it ,personally.

What are you criticising the marinas for? As far as I know they have raised concerns, and have not offered to play any role in assisting with this.

 

[dgadee]

What are you criticising the marinas for? As far as I know they have raised concerns, and have not offered to play any role in assisting with this.

They were giving out stickers and allowing inspection of yachts for exhibition of those stickers. That is an active role.

 

[dunedin]

They were giving out stickers and allowing inspection of yachts for exhibition of those stickers. That is an active role.

Ah, Medway Marinas not the Clyde

 

[dgadee]

Ah, Medway Marinas not the Clyde

Apologies for confusion.

The problem is that marinas will be thinking about their long term relationship with harbour water owners. They will defer to the long term rather than current clients.

So don't expect marinas to defend sailors' rights.

 

[Bodach na mara]

Apologies for confusion.

The problem is that marinas will be thinking about their long term relationship with harbour water owners. They will defer to the long term rather than current clients.

So don't expect marinas to defend sailors' rights.

Like Peel Ports, you seem confused about their function. A wee bit of history may clarify.
Before 1965 ther was an organisation called the Clyde Navigation Trust. They administered shipping on the river for the benefit of the users and surrounding areas. Then the 1965 Act changed things and a body called the Clyde Port Authority was created, later renamed Clydeport. They didn't own the water and neither do Peel Ports. It seems that Peel Ports do own some of the land and installations on the banks. Their attention to upkeep of these assets seems to be a bit negligent. The responsibility for buoyage also seems to have become their's. The water belongs to no one although the CEC claims the right to control the ground under it.

One interesting feature of the 1965 Act is that it refers only to vessels and makes sure that floating docks are considered to be vessels. As it requires that all launching of slipping of vessels is reported for prior approval one assumes that the authors of the Bill didn't mean it to apply to boats.

 

[dgadee]

Ownership of rights over water. Is that better?

 

[Bodach na mara]

Not ownership but administration of rights. They appear to have failed to recognize that the rights exist. Strangely really as in 2021 they sought to extend the powers over which they had control for the period of the COP23 Conference. This was granted subject to conditions and in the response we find in #11 the important phrase "They (Ministers of the Scottish Government) also determine that none of these powers unreasonably limits the public right of navigation."

This phrase is important as there are plenty of people who dispute that such a right exists.

 

[dgadee]

You quibble as jurisprudes have done for generations.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

An MSP and the Scottish minister don’t care because it’s a “commercial company”.

Bei Facebook anmelden

The Facebook Group does not allow responses. It’s a joke.

You will have to pay up.

 

[ylop]

It’s a commercial company given powers by law (which the government can ammend!) with the weight of the courts to enforce it… Anyone think of any other once statutory bodies that now operate essentially private company’s that acquired historic rights to enforce/prosecute where things went wrong? The response is shockingly bad.

 

[dgadee]

It’s a commercial company given powers by law (which the government can ammend!) with the weight of the courts to enforce it… Anyone think of any other once statutory bodies that now operate essentially private company’s that acquired historic rights to enforce/prosecute where things went wrong? The response is shockingly bad.

The Post Office?

 

[awol]

Being bored but definitely NOT a lawyer I offer te following. As to their relevance I leave that to others.

From the 1965 Clyde Ports Act


From
The Clydeport COP 26 etc.etc.) Harbour Revision Order 2021
Temporary extension of port limits for the COP 26 period
16.—(1) On the COP 26 period commencement date, the Company shall become the harbour authority for the temporary additional area.
(2) Subject to article 18, on the COP 26 period termination date, the Company shall cease to be the harbour authority for the temporary additional area and shall cease to have any duties, powers, rights, privileges or authorities in respect of it as harbour authority under this Order.

Saving
18.—(1) No proceedings or inquiries, whether commenced or continued during or after the COP 26 period, in respect of any situation, matter, thing, happening, act, refusal, neglect or failure occurring during that period so far as relating to the port or the temporary additional area, or any part or parts of those areas, including, but not limited to proceedings—
(a) for an offence committed or penalty incurred; or
(b) for the recovery of expenses, rates, dues, fees or charges incurred;
during the COP 26 period, shall be affected by any article of this Order or any general directions or special directions ceasing to have effect on the COP 26 period termination date.
(2) Any proceedings or inquiries mentioned in paragraph (1) may be commenced, continued and concluded, and any decision, judgment or ruling may be enforced, as if any article of this Order, and any general directions and special directions, had not ceased to have effect.
(3) Any period of time current in relation to any proceedings or inquiries mentioned in paragraph (1) when this Order ceases to have effect is not affected by its ceasing to have effect and may continue to run as if this Order, and any general directions and special directions, had not ceased to have effect.

... and finally and a really scary document if it still applies

CLYDEPORT – UN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE (COP 26) GENERAL DIRECTIONS 2021