RYA advice on entering France : deficient

B

bluerm166

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Sep 2009
Messages
1,136
Visit site
Disappointing that this information update simply repeats info that has been out for some long time and crucially doesn't manage to point out that three out of four of the closest channel port marinas,whilst included on the official PPF list for marina enabled entry ,do not actually provide this service.Instead you will have to travel to the appropriate PAF office to get your passport stamped at some cost and inconvenience.
These marinas are Dunkerque (sited in the east port) and Gravelines {both requiring travel to the Dunkerque west port office) and Boulogne (travel to the Calais office).
As far as I know this is still the case.I would be very pleased to learn that things have changed ,but I don't think so.
 
bluerm166 said:
Disappointing that this information update simply repeats info that has been out for some long time and crucially doesn't manage to point out that three out of four of the closest channel port marinas,whilst included on the official PPF list for marina enabled entry ,do not actually provide this service.Instead you will have to travel to the appropriate PAF office to get your passport stamped at some cost and inconvenience.
These marinas are Dunkerque (sited in the east port) and Gravelines {both requiring travel to the Dunkerque west port office) and Boulogne (travel to the Calais office).
As far as I know this is still the case.I would be very pleased to learn that things have changed ,but I don't think so.
Click to expand...
I am also disappointed in the way they have dealt with this issue at the northern ports.
 
Yes I point out the deficiency here because it has been discussed many times on this forum and there seems no point in conveying information in an official way that is likely to result in considerable inconvenience.
Anyone heading from Kent in particular to Northern France and onwards to Belgium or Holland will have had to deal with this for several years.It has been the case until this summer so bearing in mind that this is an update or a recirculation it would have been sensible to review it and add pertinent information.
 
bluerm166 said:
. . . there seems no point in conveying information in an official way that is likely to result in considerable inconvenience. . .
Click to expand...

The RYA advice is not 'official' in the state sense, though I agree it is regrettable that it is not practical for the users it is aimed at in regard to these ports.

It would be good if an RYA member (I am no longer one) pointed out to the RYA how the info about these points is misleading. It would be relatively easy for the RYA to update/clarify the info they publish and provide to members, whereas there is little chance the relevant French state authorities will change their official publications (or arrangements) quickly or even at all.

As you say, it is unfortunate that three of the four closest ports don't have convenient means of checking in an out, and for me especially as Boulogne and Gravelines are favourites of mine.

Gravelines has the apparent advantage over the others in that it is relatively close (about 6 miles) to the PAF (Police aux Frontieres) office at Dunkirk West (near the DFDS ferry terminal), and a bicycle can generally be hired from Gravelines Marina. I have not actually yet tried this, and aware in the event that a bike isn't available, it is a very long and likely not very scenic walk, and the Dunkirk ferry port a tricky place to get to by public transport from Gravelines.
 
Last edited:
bluerm166 said:
Yes I point out the deficiency here because it has been discussed many times on this forum and there seems no point in conveying information in an official way that is likely to result in considerable inconvenience.
Anyone heading from Kent in particular to Northern France and onwards to Belgium or Holland will have had to deal with this for several years.It has been the case until this summer so bearing in mind that this is an update or a recirculation it would have been sensible to review it and add pertinent information.
Click to expand...
But have you conveyed your concerns (with your caveat that you may be out of date!) to the RYA? It seems moaning about the RYA on a forum that is entirely unconnected to them is probably not going to result in change.
 
I think reading the RYA site, they list the ports legally allowed to operate outside of the PAF system, not the ones that have chosen to actually implement it.

More important though is that the RYA update information as the EES rolls out. It starts on 12th October and requires all entries to be logged by 10th April 26. The biometric requirements may remove the non-PAF access.
 
ylop said:
But have you conveyed your concerns (with your caveat that you may be out of date!) to the RYA? It seems moaning about the RYA on a forum that is entirely unconnected to them is probably not going to result in change.
Click to expand...
Yes, more than once, last year. Disappointing response.
 
The RYA has long since given up looking after the interests of yachtsmen. It does not fight our corner and did not make any attempt to stop the tragedy at Studland. The RYA could have paid for a judicial review but instead really just supported the ban. There are tons of things that the RYA should be doing on our behalf but does not. The CA are very good and represent us better but they don't have the political clout of the RYA.
 
Seven Spades said:
The RYA has long since given up looking after the interests of yachtsmen. It does not fight our corner and did not make any attempt to stop the tragedy at Studland. The RYA could have paid for a judicial review but instead really just supported the ban. There are tons of things that the RYA should be doing on our behalf but does not. The CA are very good and represent us better but they don't have the political clout of the RYA.
Click to expand...
I think it's more that the RYA have read the future road map prepared under the Johnson government - to use carbon sequestration in seagrass and salt meadow to mitigate the amount of actions required by industry and the general populace to meet our carbon targets.
 
Seven Spades said:
Yes but that has nothing to do with the anchoring ban at Studland.
Click to expand...
Really? The MMO report says:

The potential consequences of seagrass loss are significant. Fragmentation and loss
of seagrass causes reduction in primary production and halts carbon sequestration
(Jackson and Beaumont, 2012 cited in Jackson et al., 2013a). Erosion of rhizomes
increases as seagrass leaves no longer attenuate currents (Jackson and Beaumont,
2012 cited in Jackson et al., 2013a). Sediments will still lock up carbon, however, the
area becomes a source of carbon due to breakdown of rhizomes (Jackson and
Beaumont, 2012 cited in Jackson et al., 2013a). These changes have resultant
impacts on overall carbon sequestration and implications for climate change.
 
Anchoring does not impact the Sea Grass we have in this country; it is like sticking a pin in a football pitch "de minimis non curat lex". No amount of anchoring in Studland has prevented the spread of the stuff, it has become increasingly difficult to find sandy patches. Ergo anchoring and protecting sea grass do not conflict so anchoring has nothing to do with protecting sea grass.
 
Seven Spades said:
The RYA has long since given up looking after the interests of yachtsmen.
Click to expand...
I think the organisation would dispute that, although they would be quick to point out that their membership is much more diverse than "yachtsmen", including users of yachts, dinghies, powerboats, motor boats, and other craft as well as the young, the middle aged and the older from all genders. It may well be that some demographics amongst that group have conflicting interests with "yachtsmen".
Seven Spades said:
It does not fight our corner and did not make any attempt to stop the tragedy at Studland. The RYA could have paid for a judicial review but instead really just supported the ban.
Click to expand...
It's possible that they reviewed the information and thought that "the ban" was reasonable in the particular circumstances. Just because some yachtsmen disagree with the "the ban" does not mean that it is in the interest of all RYA members to oppose "the ban". I don't know if they even considered a judicial review, I was once told you can expect to pay £50K as the absolute minimum for a judicial review, and in a complex case with multiple stakeholders (which I think this has), potentially much more. If you win, you may not get anything like your costs back, if you lose you may have huge costs awarded against you. Moreover, winning doesn't even mean the decision is always reversed - just that the government need to reconsider the question. I suspect members away from this particular location would question if that was a good use of funds. I may be wrong but "the ban" isn't actually a "ban" in the sense that was originally worried about and the current approach is actually pretty close to what the RYA lobbied for? You can't get a judicial review before a decision is made and it would be perverse to demand one if the government implemented your suggestions! What I think you actually mean is you don't like that the RYA don't agree with you.
Seven Spades said:
There are tons of things that the RYA should be doing on our behalf but does not.
Click to expand...
Are you an RYA member? Have you told them what you think they should be doing? Stood for election etc? Or is this shouting from the sidelines? From what I can see here the RYA's greatest critics not only aren't members now but often have never been, or only joined for some perk like an ICC or Boat show tickets.
Seven Spades said:
The CA are very good and represent us better but they don't have the political clout of the RYA.
Click to expand...
What's their position of Studland Bay?
(BTW I'm neither an RYA member nor CA member)
 
Seven Spades said:
The RYA has long since given up looking after the interests of yachtsmen. It does not fight our corner and did not make any attempt to stop the tragedy at Studland. The RYA could have paid for a judicial review but instead really just supported the ban. There are tons of things that the RYA should be doing on our behalf but does not. The CA are very good and represent us better but they don't have the political clout of the RYA.
Click to expand...
Here we go again. The RYA do a huge amount in the background to represent UK boaters of all types - they can’t win all arguments with government, but often have reduced the adverse impacts of planned government proposals.
We never see what goes on behind the scenes but - red diesel (retaining 60/40 and right to access red diesel), light dues (retaining small craft exemption, when others all pay), “dangerous watercraft” legislation (which initially would have covered all unpowered craft also), battling the Brexit mess (some concessions in VAT RGR, but not everything we wanted), access to HVO etc.

Undoubtedly CA also do a huge amount of- on all the above as well, typically working in collaboration. But don’t think they campaigned on Studland either, though I am no expert on this.
 
Seven Spades said:
Anchoring does not impact the Sea Grass we have in this country; it is like sticking a pin in a football pitch "de minimis non curat lex". No amount of anchoring in Studland has prevented the spread of the stuff, it has become increasingly difficult to find sandy patches. Ergo anchoring and protecting sea grass do not conflict so anchoring has nothing to do with protecting sea grass.
Click to expand...
The government case is that anchoring releases the carbon the seagrass has stored in the sea floor subsoil. To reach Johnson's target, all shallow bays may have to become anchor free. That's why the RYA took part in schemes to find an alternative. The options aren't continue as is or use a specific type of buoy, it's used the buoy or don't use the bay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top