Clyde Estuary - Leisure Vessel Charge for Use

[RunAgroundHard]

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.

It’s a matter of perception and the degree of consequence to society, that will make a government change a law. I think that in this case, the government does not care, and will not care, as the consequence of doing nothing is low. I think of a few issues where law and the weight of the courts fail regularly for very damaging consequences. This falls into rich yachties space.

Having said that, the well organized campaign against the proposed Oban HRO, has been instrumental in getting that called in by ministers. Meanwhile, the self appoint FB group who are dealing with the Clyde situation ban any comments and do not provide any updates.

I agree with your sentiment, but so far, I am not convinced that there is any organized process to campaign to change the current right of PealPorts to charge leisure sailors in the FoC.

This is what an organized protest to influence looks like HRO decision to be referred to Ministers - Oban Community Harbour Development Association

 

[Aja]

I've just had a look at Peel Ports charges. If you think Ryanair and easyJet etc all are bad.....

 

[RunAgroundHard]

From RYA Scotland

https://www.rya.org.uk/news/rya_sco..._KNkJlyfBhmheA5bI4_aem_FRuHOC7NUKnAYRnvXuFIaQ

Further to our previous statement [22 Oct 2024] concerning what appears to be a proposal by Peel Ports to levy a Conservancy Fee on leisure boaters, RYA Scotland can provide the following update.

Over many years RYA Scotland has worked collaboratively with numerous partners and representative organisations of the boating community throughout Scotland. We are drawing on these long-established connections to ensure that relevant parties are aware and aligned on the matter. Many of these organisations are represented on the Holyrood Cross Party Group for Recreational Boating and Marine Tourism, a parliamentary forum for the open discussion and challenge of matters affecting boating in Scotland.

Key organisations we are in communication with include

• British Marine
• British Marine Scotland
• Scottish Canals
• Cruising Association (Celtic Branch)
• Sail Scotland
• Clyde Yacht Clubs Association
• Clyde Cruising Club

RYA Scotland brought the matter of the proposed Conservancy Fee to the attention of the Cross Party Group at their meeting on 24 September. This was the first public discussion of the matter. Since then we have met with the Chair of the Cross Party Group, Stuart McMillan MSP, to agree that this is the best forum for Peel Ports to begin engaging with the Scottish boating community.

We note in the most recent statement from Peel Ports that “no decision has been taken with regard to these initial discussions [of the proposal], however if we were to pursue the introduction of a fee, in line with our statutory obligations we would hold a consultation during which all marine users would be given the opportunity to share their views”. On this basis we have now written to Peel Ports noting our concerns of the proposal and encouraging their attendance at the next Cross Party Group meeting on the 26th November as an opportunity to present their proposals openly, and to outline their intentions regarding further consultation.

We have noted a number of enquiries from individuals, clubs and associations around what they can practically do on this issue. Our recommendation is to write to your local MSP, particularly if their constituency borders the Clydeport area, noting your concerns and urging the MSP to attend the Cross Party Group meeting on the 26thNovember.

If you would like to get in touch with us regarding this matter, please email communications@ryascotland.org.uk

 

[[193211]]

From the Peel spokesperson’s response:

“Conservancy fees for leisure vessels are standard practice among UK harbour authorities”

Setting aside the comparatively much greater area covered by the Clydeport jurisdiction, why has it taken up until now for them to consider levying a fee if it’s “standard practice”?

 

[Bodach na mara]

Indeed. It is one thing charging for use of facilities of a restricted harbour and quite different for a large area of navigable water. It's also different for large ships as compared to small boats. If it is that common we would need to sail around in boats with large number plates displayed to be read by ANPR cameras with automatic charging to our credit cards set up.

 

[awol]

Indeed. It is one thing charging for use of facilities of a restricted harbour and quite different for a large area of navigable water. It's also different for large ships as compared to small boats. If it is that common we would need to sail around in boats with large number plates displayed to be read by ANPR cameras with automatic charging to our credit cards set up.

Careful Ken. "They" may be watching and think "what a good idea". A system like that could easily be centralised in Liverpool (like most of the Clyde port activities). I'm waiting to see if anything comes from the Holyrood committee later this month but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[dgadee]

From the Peel spokesperson’s response:

“Conservancy fees for leisure vessels are standard practice among UK harbour authorities”

Setting aside the comparatively much greater area covered by the Clydeport jurisdiction, why has it taken up until now for them to consider levying a fee if it’s “standard practice”?

"As they see fit" is the only constraint on what they might charge. It would be interesting to see how they arise at what is "fit".

 

[Aja]

"As they see fit" is the only constraint on what they might charge. It would be interesting to see how they arise at what is "fit".

It will boil down to whether the income justifies the collection costs.

If there is a momentum of payment then it will become worthwhile to pursue any non-payers, but I'm suspecting this will have to involve other marine operators.

There may well be a feeling amongst boat owners that this charge is 'only' £100 + VAT and well within their annual costs. Two nights berthing for a larger boat at (say) Portavadie?

 

[Bodach na mara]

Indeed, for the owners of many of the boats that would be caught up in this net the £100 + VAT is chicken feed. But the net will also sweep up many smaller craft. Even rowing boat such as the Saint Ayled Skiffs would be charged. And there is a point of principle at stake. As can be found stated in past statements from the Crown Estates commissioners and Ministers of the Scottish Government for example care must be taken in imposing restrictions to ensure that there is no restriction on the rights of leisure craft to navigate the waters.

 

[sawduster]

Not a vastly surprising update from RYA Scotland, I doubt that Peelports like the scrutiny, though I also doubt it'll make any difference to their plans. https://www.rya.org.uk/news/rya_scotland_clydeport_conservancy_fee_statement_3_nov24