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

 

[steve yates]

£100 a year plus vat would see me skip the clyde estuary entirely and keep going round kintyre for the more civilised west coast

 

[ylop]

£100 a year plus vat would see me skip the clyde estuary entirely and keep going round kintyre for the more civilised west coast

My understanding is it will only be charged to “resident” boats although no idea how that would be determined; it would also only be £100 if you sail all year - it was quite a bit less for boats that get lifted out. I’m in no way in support of the fee - but the anger is probably more about the principal than the magnitude.

 

[dunedin]

My understanding is it will only be charged to “resident” boats although no idea how that would be determined; it would also only be £100 if you sail all year - it was quite a bit less for boats that get lifted out. I’m in no way in support of the fee - but the anger is probably more about the principal than the magnitude.

I think you might be disappointed on a few counts. PP are still formulating their cunning plans but
1) Their proposed fee is £100 plus VAT so £120
2) There is likely to be a fee even if in the area just for one day - albeit not the full year
3) CORRECTION £90 if only afloat for the summer months

 

[oldgit]

Late to this Party.
Some observations and some parochial history.
"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.".


On the non tidal Thames all vessels on the navigation must comply with the registration requirements.
There had been widespread ignoring of the requirement for all vessels to be registered with the EA and to pay the required fees for quite some time
The EA , prompted by river users who had paid the required fees , started a clamp down on boat owners not registering and not paying the fees.
In one expensive and posh Thames Marina, 25% of the boats in that marina appeared to not have a current licence.
Boats on the hard are exempt.
Some time ago a number of boaters on the Thames, mainly house boat owners and livaboards claimed that as they were moored in various cuts/backwaters/off river boatyards and marinas they were not actively using the river and should therefore be exempt from all registration fees etc.
It all went to court and the the court decided that as all the house boat owners et al were floating on Thames water, kept available by all the infrastructure managed and funded by the EA, they needed to cough up.
More Medway History.
The Conservators of the River Medway were established by an Act of Parliament as a separate corporate body in 1881. In 1969, the Conservators' functions were taken over by the Medway Port Authority, who were themselves later taken over by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Co., operators of the Port of Liverpool. On 22 September 2005, the MDHC was acquired by Peel Ports.

Peel Ports also took on a couple of other little poisoned chalices regards the Medway including a number of piers and set of lock gates in Faversham.

In the Medway the widely ignored registration fee is only required for vessels permanently moored in and on the Medway, howewer some debate about the Ria known as the Swale.
Cannot recall any visitor ever being asked to pay.

 

[dgadee]

But the marinas do not need to be policemen for Peel Ports, saving them money in collecting and aiding surveying of non payers.

 

[oldgit]

But the marinas do not need to be policemen for Peel Ports, saving them money in collecting and aiding surveying of non payers.

Some boat clubs on the Medway stipulate in their club rules that having a river licence is condition of membership.

 

[dgadee]

The Environment Agency v Barrass & Ors [2017] EWHC 548 (Admin) (21 March 2017)

 

[ylop]

I think you might be disappointed on a few counts. PP are still formulating their cunning plans but
1) Their proposed fee is £100 plus VAT so £120

Yes it is misleading to describe a leisure fee as £100+vat. It IS £120 - nobody who is able to recover the VAT is actually a leisure vessel. In fact I'm sure there was some unfair contract terms / advertising standard direction on that about 15-20 yrs ago that if your target audience were consumers you had to list the inc VAT price. Rest assured if they get to that stage, I will make an appropriate fuss to the relevant parties! Peel Ports - if you are reading this - fix it now, or you'll be forced to redesign and reprint all your literature!

2) There is likely to be a fee even if in the area just for one day - albeit not the full year

You think the full fee would apply? Or there will be a visitor fee? They don't mention anything of the sort, I don't see how a visitor fee could realistically be enforced unless you go ashore at points where they have a cooperative charging point? How does it work on the Medway?

3) I expect the full annual fee will be charged even if only afloat for the summer months

The document in Post 1 explicitly says it will not (£75+vat) - although I confess I had remembered that as £75 inc vat.

 

[ylop]

Some boat clubs on the Medway stipulate in their club rules that having a river licence is condition of membership.

Do those boat clubs have some vested interest in helping Peel Ports (e.g. do they rent their land from Peel Ports?). The sentiment from Clyde clubs and marinas seems to be one of unhappiness so I doubt anyone is going to offer to help them. Potentially without Peel Ports "cooperation" staging large races in the Clyde might be difficult, but perhaps a fee for races would have been more acceptable.

 

[dgadee]

Some boat clubs on the Medway stipulate in their club rules that having a river licence is condition of membership.

Do they also stipulate that if you use a TV on board you have a license? And if you have a license at home, no-one else is watching at the same time?

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check...ome/second-home-aud8?wt.mc_id=bbc_second_home