Clyde Estuary - Leisure Vessel Charge for Use

That article on the BBC about Minehead seems to be muddled thinking. It seems that they would rather the club closed and they collected no revenue than agree a concessionary rate.
 
cpedw said:
An MSP has started a petition against the conservancy fee proposal. I urge you to sign up.
Click to expand...

Beginning to look like Peel Ports really has the power to raise money through a Conservancy fee.

Government and all it's quangos are incapable of doing anything other than appealing to boaters to start a petition.

It's not looking good.
 
There is no “beginning” to it, they always have had that power. The government needs to raise an HRO to modify the clause.

The surprising thing is that they have not implemented the requirement.
 
Both Harbour Orders give the operating authority power to charge "vessels" for use of the facilities provided. "Conservancy" must not be confused with "conservation" and refers to the provision and maintenance of these facilities such as a channel dredging to a specified minimum depth, aids to navigation, provision of pilotage, wharves, lighterage, cranage etc. Vessels which don't require such installations and get no benefit from them are not required to pay. There is a clause in the HOs that states that. In Scotland we don't expect to pay unless there is a demonstrable benefit. Being a foreign company, maybe they don't understand that.

Peel Ports are property developers, who developed from their original activity of buying redundant mills, waiting till they were derelict, knocking them down and selling the land for housing at a considerable profit. They were originally named Peel Mills. By the way the "Peel" has nothing to do with the port on the Isle of Mann.

The company has been exposed as unsuitable to be Conservators. They behave as they started. In Clydeport they acquired assets that they have allowed to run down, such as Inchgreen dry dock which is no longer useable, Greenock container terminal wher the cranes were on the point of collapse before they got public cash to replace them and Ardrossan harbour, which has one of the two berths closed due to collapse of neglected walls and the other suffering from wear to the berthing protection that now makes berthing the Arran ferry a hazardous procedure.

What the Scottish Government really needs to do is get rid of this company from Scotland
 
Three private companies have too much power vested in them and no accountability. I don’t understand how any laws were ever passed giving them such power. Did the politicians think that they would be altruistic?
 
Seven Spades said:
Three private companies have too much power vested in them and no accountability. I don’t understand how any laws were ever passed giving them such power. Did the politicians think that they would be altruistic?
Click to expand...
Public bad. Private good. Since the days of Thatcher et. al.
 
Last edited:
Isle of Man company, so a tax dodge. Says it all really.

The Peel Group has a complex business structure, consisting of 342 registered and active companies and subsidiaries excluding Peel Ports in the UK. Its ultimate parent company is the Isle of Man-based Tokenhouse Ltd.
Click to expand...
 
The Australis was used to provide additional storage of crude oil used at Grangemouth. This enabled the refinery to use a wider range of crude oils to best match with the required production requirements and plant availability at the refinery.
 
I live on Arran, we are dealing with the loss of our primary mainland port due to peel ports negligence in maintenance and any investment in the port, it’s a shame as we regularly sail up the Clyde and spend money in rothsay, Millport and Tarbert, something we won’t do if we’re going to be charged, peel ports do nothing that doesn’t benefit their shareholders
 
From RYA Scotland

Since late last year, RYA Scotland has been actively opposing plans to introduce a Conservancy Fee in the Clydeport area.

By working closely with other trusted voices across the sector via the Cross Party Group for Marine Tourism and Recreational Boating, calls for Peel Ports Ltd to abandon proposals have been strengthened.

Tomorrow, Scottish Parliament will discuss Conservancy Fee proposals. Discussions will be livestreamed, and will be available online ⬇️

http://rya.org/eUzL50VnaZv

For more on actions RYA Scotland is taking in a representation capacity, check out our recent online update now ⬇️

http://rya.org/1BAP50VnaZu
 
The discussion (no questions) at the Scottish Parliament on Peel Ports proposals. Universal support to reject the support. The area is over 400 square miles and is not a harbour as such, but of course contains many harbours.

Worth listening to in my opinion.

Members' Business — S6M-16854 Stuart McMillan: Peel Ports’ Conservancy Fee Plans for Clydeport Area | Scottish Parliament TV

Summary
That the Parliament acknowledges reports that Peel Ports Clydeport is planning to introduce a conservancy fee for leisure craft sailing in the Clydeport area; understands that the boating sector has expressed concerns that such a charge could impact the marine tourism economy, including in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency, as it could discourage boaters from sailing in Clydeport's waters; believes that boaters have also expressed their anger at what it understands is Peel Ports’ lack of meaningful dialogue with the sector about these plans; further believes that this has led to questions arising over how the fee will be spent; understands that members of the Cross-Party Group on Recreational Boating and Marine Tourism have agreed that their collective position is that these plans should be abandoned, and that a public petition has been launched to attract support for this view, which, it understands, has attracted over 4,600 signatures so far, and notes the view that Peel Ports should scrap its proposal and work with the sector to address any issues.
Click to expand...
 
Fiona Hyslop's position was fairly neutral as it probably should be at this stage as a minister (or whatever it's called in Scotland). She did introduce the right of users to object to proposals under Section 31 of the Harbours Act which ministers can be involved with. Until the charge is formally introduced, there can be no objection. However, I think she was hinting that once an objection is made, the involvement of ministers could be used to the objectors advantage, but that is me just trying to read between the lines.

I guess we will have to wait for the full consultation that Peel Ports have advised will happen and the outcome from that, plus the actual introduction of a charge, before any objection can be made. An organisation such as RYA Scotland could be the objector, as a representative of leisure sailors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top