Aja
Well-known member
Racing on the Clyde is all but moribund, although dinghy racing and sailing of boats under 8m might suddenly become popular!
Clyde Estuary - Leisure Vessel Charge for Use
- Thread starter awol
- Start date
Racing on the Clyde is all but moribund, although dinghy racing and sailing of boats under 8m might suddenly become popular!
ylop
Well-known member
6m I think was the cut off?
Bodach na mara
Well-known member
I am grateful to dgadee in post#117 for the link. I lost the will to live briefly before skimming it to the conclusion and it reminded me of why I never became a lawyer. I pity those people who must wade through this sort of document and make sense of it. I also despair of the authors, for their inability to say, in simple terms, what they mean.
At the heart of all this lies the history of conservancy of the waters and what was actually intended in such legislation that exists. Ther seems little doubt that the intention in the creation of the original conservators was to provide an organisation that would develop and maintain the waterway for use by commercial shipping, and as such for the benefit of trade, commerce and industry of the local area. Previous conservators have taken only a benevolent interest in leisure maritime activities.
The record of Peel Ports in these respects suggests that they are unfit to be entrusted with such a mission. They are primarily a property owning company with only one aim; making money. They are in control of several competing port authorities and it seems that they will not hesitate to run down installations and sell off valuable resources if it is to their financial benefit.
At the heart of all this lies the history of conservancy of the waters and what was actually intended in such legislation that exists. Ther seems little doubt that the intention in the creation of the original conservators was to provide an organisation that would develop and maintain the waterway for use by commercial shipping, and as such for the benefit of trade, commerce and industry of the local area. Previous conservators have taken only a benevolent interest in leisure maritime activities.
The record of Peel Ports in these respects suggests that they are unfit to be entrusted with such a mission. They are primarily a property owning company with only one aim; making money. They are in control of several competing port authorities and it seems that they will not hesitate to run down installations and sell off valuable resources if it is to their financial benefit.
dgadee
Well-known member
Judgments used to be short. Then word processing came along. Then parties uploaded skeleton arguments to the court. The end result is the judge can copy and paste.
The 2010 order, giving new powers to the Environment Agency, was a Statutory Instrument - a means of changing law by the back door with (usually) little discussion or debate.
The 2010 order, giving new powers to the Environment Agency, was a Statutory Instrument - a means of changing law by the back door with (usually) little discussion or debate.
dunedin
Well-known member
Apologies and thanks for the correction - so £90 for the summer months.
Of course many boats like ours are only in the Clyde in the winter months, and migrate NW for the summer. Wonder if there would be a winter only reduction?
Porthandbuoy
Well-known member
Looks like Rhu marina, and moorings in the Gareloch and Loch Long are outside of Peel Ports jurisdiction. Or am I missing something?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sQFnoECDUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw27xWolkqpwiu5aa8CjK4b_
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sQFnoECDUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw27xWolkqpwiu5aa8CjK4b_
awol
Well-known member
You're missing the relatively recent court case where PP were allowed to charge "conservancy" on a tanker parked at Finnart and used as a storage tank.
Aja
Well-known member
Maybe but you are not going to get very far before payment is due.
Porthandbuoy
Well-known member
True. Three weeks summer cruise shuttling between The Narrows and Garelochhead could get a bit boring.
NorthUp
Active member
dgadee
Well-known member
Is that an increase from £120 to 50 members x £198 (£9900)?
Ps: the recommendations include: "the duty holder must review and be aware of their existing
powers based on local and national legislation, seeking additional powers if
required in order to promote safe navigation."
We are on a runaway train!
Last edited:
Aja
Well-known member
If Peel Ports are successful on the Clyde, and there's no reason to think otherwise, this will be a green light for many other areas to follow suit.
RunAgroundHard
Well-known member
Its amazing how democracy benefits the voter.
awol
Well-known member
It appears that under the Harbours Act 1964 Section 31 we have the right of objection:
ylop
Well-known member
Whilst that seems a ridiculous increase, at least you are tangibly getting something for your money - access to a sheltered slipway that presumably has maintenance costs etc. If it were in Scotland it would seem that a community buy-out of such a facility might be possible (and the Council might even be keen), I'm not sure such legislation exists in E&W? But the Clyde sailor has no such option and received nothing tangible in return: this is not a fee for using a harbour in any traditional sense of the word.
ylop
Well-known member
The right of objection seems to be to the Secretary of State. Has that evolved into the Cabinet Secretary as a result of devolution?
Bodach na mara
Well-known member
In the Minehead case the Authority seens to have read only the bits (of the Port Marine Safety Code information in the link given in the article ) that they want. What about the references to consultation or right of public access. In addition the code and other older legislation refer throughout to "vessels" but the bulk of the content clearly is applicable only to shipping, and commercial shipping at that.
dgadee
Well-known member
See In deep water – challenges under section 31 of the Harbours Act 1964 | Ashfords for an overview of the challenge opportunities.
Bodach na mara
Well-known member
Very interesting. In particular the continuing reference to "ships".
All mariners understand that a ship is a vessel that can carry boats. A boat cannot carry a ship. In the Minehead case I suspect that the vessels using the slipway whose owners are going to be charged are not even boats, more what I would call punts or maybe tenders. I also think that under the public right of access to the foreshore, the Local Authority who own the retaining wall are under an obligation to provide a slipway or ramp to allow access.
Aja
Well-known member
Response from government and other interested parties posted without comment:
Peel Ports Conservancy Fee - response by Parliamentary Cross Party Group for Marine Leisure and Tourism.
Note that SCS were represented at this meeting.
Quote
Scotland’s recreational boating sector rejects plans to introduce fee for sailing on the Clyde
Scotland’s recreational boaters have called out Peel Ports Clydeport for their plans to introduce a conservancy fee – citing concerns that this will restrict freedoms to sail in Scottish waters and will have a negative impact upon marine tourism.
At the Scottish Parliament’s Cross Party Group (CPG) on Recreational Boating and Marine Tourism’s meeting on Wednesday 27 November, members of the leisure boating community and sector representatives expressed their concerns about Peel Port’s proposal and their failure to engage with the CPG about their plans.
After much discussion, the overwhelming feeling was for Peel Ports to abandon their proposal.
Commenting after the meeting, Stuart McMillan MSP who chairs the CPG, said:
“The sector is rightly angry about this proposal, as the rationale for the charge does not appear to stand up to scrutiny.
“Members of the CPG are particularly frustrated that Peel Ports have twice turned down invites to our meetings to explain their proposals, leading the sector to feel like this is being imposed upon them without their input.
“While Peel Ports have said that they plan to begin their consultation with the sector after the New Year, boaters feel like they have been treated with contempt. It was therefore agreed at Wednesday’s meeting that Peel Ports should abandon this proposal.
“Failing this, myself and other concerned MSPs have committed to work with the sector to identify if there are legislative steps that can be taken to challenge this fee.
“I set up this CPG in 2009 and though there have been a range of important issues affecting the sector in that time, the volume of correspondence and level of anger from the sector is nothing like I have seen before.”
Kenneth Gibson, MSP for Cunninghame North, who attended the CPG meeting said:
“The recreational boating sector contributes significantly to Scotland’s coastal communities. The last thing the sector needs is for recreational boaters to be targeted with an unjustified and extortionate fee.
“The Clyde’s waters belong to the people of Scotland – not corporate interests looking to squeeze every penny out of those who enjoy and rely on them. This ill-conceived plan should be abandoned immediately.”
Finlo Cottier, CEO of Royal yachting Association Scotland (RYAS) said:
“This is not about recreational boaters being unwilling to pay for their pastime – sailors have always expected to pay for harbour, berthing and mooring fees.
“This is about the imposition of a fee with no clear provision of service or facility across a huge part of the recreational boating community.
“Peel Ports have tried to equate the proposed fee to those applied in other harbours across the UK, but this does not stand up to scrutiny.
“The Clyde is unique in the UK in its size and character, and the Clydeport area which Peel Port controls extends well beyond the commercial shipping channels.”
Daniel Steel, CEO of Sail Scotland, added:
“Marine tourism and recreational boating are essential to many fragile and rural communities in Scotland. Peel Ports proposals to date have failed to take account of the potential impacts, without proper consultation with our industry and the businesses and communities who would be impacted.
“Much more thought and consideration is required before introduction of any fees, and we call for open dialogue and scrutiny of any plans without delay.”
A representative from Sailing Cruising Scotland (SCS) who attended the CPG meeting, Eric Sweeney, said:
“In discussions with representatives of the members of SCS, of which there are over 13,000, it has become apparent that Peel Ports, as port regulator, need to be regulated themselves.
“In this regard, we believe that relevant Scottish Ministers should issue a Harbour Order to Peel Ports that ensures leisure craft under 24 metres in length are exempt of any port fees whatsoever.
“In addition, there is no appetite among our members to pay this fee and no appetite among marinas to collect the fee. Consequently, there is a danger that leisure vessels will deactivate location devices, which would be a safety concern.
“Fundamentally, Peel Ports’ plan to introduce a conservancy fee is outrageous.”
Ian Macdonald of Clyde Yacht Clubs Association added:
“Representatives of our member clubs and classes already contribute a large amount of volunteer time to help Peel Ports fulfil their statutory responsibilities and commercial functions including submission of detailed information on organised events and contributions to the Clyde Moorings Committee.
“It is also difficult to see how any fees such as those proposed could be collected economically or equitably.”
Alan Kohler from Cruising Association Celtic Section said:
“The area proposed to be subject to this new fee appears to be quite unprecedented in Scottish, and indeed UK terms. This covers a huge area of waters, most of which is not recognisable as a “harbour” in common usage, and indeed much is, by contrast, remote and beautiful waters with minimal commercial traffic – such as the Kyles of Bute and the entire length of Loch Fyne.
“As cruising sailors, we don’t object to paying for services which we use. However, it is not clear what, if any, services Clydeport would actually provide to leisure craft in return for these proposed charges, particularly in the areas well away from the commercial shipping ports. A lot has changed in the wider Clyde since Clydeport was given such a wide remit in 1965.”
Sarah Kennedy, Chair of British Marine Scotland, added:
"British Marine Scotland members are appalled by Peel Ports’ proposed industry destructive quasi tax.
“British Marine Scotland which represents the leisure marine business in Scotland, supporting a wide range of businesses including marinas, engineers, small boat yards, charter companies, training centres and many more, has just surveyed its members regarding the recently proposed so-called “conservation fee” to be levied on all boats in the Clyde area by Peel Ports. Members are so far unanimously opposed to the new charge.
“There is significant concern that the proposed charge will likely impact up to 50% of the boats in Scotland and in so doing seriously damage Scotland’s marine tourism industry.
“This industry has large economic benefits for Scotland as a whole, in particular the many remote, coastal communities heavily reliant on marine tourism.
“We would urge Peel Ports to simply cancel this unlooked for charge or, as a minimum, carry out a proper, genuine consultation with all relevant stakeholders including British Marine, RYA Scotland, Scottish Tourism Alliance, VisitScotland, coastal local authorities and mooring associations.
“Individual boaters and marine businesses are also encouraged to raise concerns with their Constituency and Regional MSPs."
ENDS
Unquote
Peel Ports Conservancy Fee - response by Parliamentary Cross Party Group for Marine Leisure and Tourism.
Note that SCS were represented at this meeting.
Quote
Scotland’s recreational boating sector rejects plans to introduce fee for sailing on the Clyde
Scotland’s recreational boaters have called out Peel Ports Clydeport for their plans to introduce a conservancy fee – citing concerns that this will restrict freedoms to sail in Scottish waters and will have a negative impact upon marine tourism.
At the Scottish Parliament’s Cross Party Group (CPG) on Recreational Boating and Marine Tourism’s meeting on Wednesday 27 November, members of the leisure boating community and sector representatives expressed their concerns about Peel Port’s proposal and their failure to engage with the CPG about their plans.
After much discussion, the overwhelming feeling was for Peel Ports to abandon their proposal.
Commenting after the meeting, Stuart McMillan MSP who chairs the CPG, said:
“The sector is rightly angry about this proposal, as the rationale for the charge does not appear to stand up to scrutiny.
“Members of the CPG are particularly frustrated that Peel Ports have twice turned down invites to our meetings to explain their proposals, leading the sector to feel like this is being imposed upon them without their input.
“While Peel Ports have said that they plan to begin their consultation with the sector after the New Year, boaters feel like they have been treated with contempt. It was therefore agreed at Wednesday’s meeting that Peel Ports should abandon this proposal.
“Failing this, myself and other concerned MSPs have committed to work with the sector to identify if there are legislative steps that can be taken to challenge this fee.
“I set up this CPG in 2009 and though there have been a range of important issues affecting the sector in that time, the volume of correspondence and level of anger from the sector is nothing like I have seen before.”
Kenneth Gibson, MSP for Cunninghame North, who attended the CPG meeting said:
“The recreational boating sector contributes significantly to Scotland’s coastal communities. The last thing the sector needs is for recreational boaters to be targeted with an unjustified and extortionate fee.
“The Clyde’s waters belong to the people of Scotland – not corporate interests looking to squeeze every penny out of those who enjoy and rely on them. This ill-conceived plan should be abandoned immediately.”
Finlo Cottier, CEO of Royal yachting Association Scotland (RYAS) said:
“This is not about recreational boaters being unwilling to pay for their pastime – sailors have always expected to pay for harbour, berthing and mooring fees.
“This is about the imposition of a fee with no clear provision of service or facility across a huge part of the recreational boating community.
“Peel Ports have tried to equate the proposed fee to those applied in other harbours across the UK, but this does not stand up to scrutiny.
“The Clyde is unique in the UK in its size and character, and the Clydeport area which Peel Port controls extends well beyond the commercial shipping channels.”
Daniel Steel, CEO of Sail Scotland, added:
“Marine tourism and recreational boating are essential to many fragile and rural communities in Scotland. Peel Ports proposals to date have failed to take account of the potential impacts, without proper consultation with our industry and the businesses and communities who would be impacted.
“Much more thought and consideration is required before introduction of any fees, and we call for open dialogue and scrutiny of any plans without delay.”
A representative from Sailing Cruising Scotland (SCS) who attended the CPG meeting, Eric Sweeney, said:
“In discussions with representatives of the members of SCS, of which there are over 13,000, it has become apparent that Peel Ports, as port regulator, need to be regulated themselves.
“In this regard, we believe that relevant Scottish Ministers should issue a Harbour Order to Peel Ports that ensures leisure craft under 24 metres in length are exempt of any port fees whatsoever.
“In addition, there is no appetite among our members to pay this fee and no appetite among marinas to collect the fee. Consequently, there is a danger that leisure vessels will deactivate location devices, which would be a safety concern.
“Fundamentally, Peel Ports’ plan to introduce a conservancy fee is outrageous.”
Ian Macdonald of Clyde Yacht Clubs Association added:
“Representatives of our member clubs and classes already contribute a large amount of volunteer time to help Peel Ports fulfil their statutory responsibilities and commercial functions including submission of detailed information on organised events and contributions to the Clyde Moorings Committee.
“It is also difficult to see how any fees such as those proposed could be collected economically or equitably.”
Alan Kohler from Cruising Association Celtic Section said:
“The area proposed to be subject to this new fee appears to be quite unprecedented in Scottish, and indeed UK terms. This covers a huge area of waters, most of which is not recognisable as a “harbour” in common usage, and indeed much is, by contrast, remote and beautiful waters with minimal commercial traffic – such as the Kyles of Bute and the entire length of Loch Fyne.
“As cruising sailors, we don’t object to paying for services which we use. However, it is not clear what, if any, services Clydeport would actually provide to leisure craft in return for these proposed charges, particularly in the areas well away from the commercial shipping ports. A lot has changed in the wider Clyde since Clydeport was given such a wide remit in 1965.”
Sarah Kennedy, Chair of British Marine Scotland, added:
"British Marine Scotland members are appalled by Peel Ports’ proposed industry destructive quasi tax.
“British Marine Scotland which represents the leisure marine business in Scotland, supporting a wide range of businesses including marinas, engineers, small boat yards, charter companies, training centres and many more, has just surveyed its members regarding the recently proposed so-called “conservation fee” to be levied on all boats in the Clyde area by Peel Ports. Members are so far unanimously opposed to the new charge.
“There is significant concern that the proposed charge will likely impact up to 50% of the boats in Scotland and in so doing seriously damage Scotland’s marine tourism industry.
“This industry has large economic benefits for Scotland as a whole, in particular the many remote, coastal communities heavily reliant on marine tourism.
“We would urge Peel Ports to simply cancel this unlooked for charge or, as a minimum, carry out a proper, genuine consultation with all relevant stakeholders including British Marine, RYA Scotland, Scottish Tourism Alliance, VisitScotland, coastal local authorities and mooring associations.
“Individual boaters and marine businesses are also encouraged to raise concerns with their Constituency and Regional MSPs."
ENDS
Unquote