Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Now now, don't ask awkward questions!
Scrubbing off to be banned, what next?
- Thread starter Sans Bateau
- Start date
Now now, don't ask awkward questions!
Seajet
...
Club git
VO5,
I don't know if you've seen the ( otherwise mediocre ) film, 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' - " We've got a Hercules leaving for X in half an hour, would you like him to be on it ? " !
Oh I have some plans, and I'm hardly alone.
As for scrubbing off, working on that one...
Why don't you send him over here ? I'll soon sort him out for you .
VO5,
I don't know if you've seen the ( otherwise mediocre ) film, 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' - " We've got a Hercules leaving for X in half an hour, would you like him to be on it ? " !
Oh I have some plans, and I'm hardly alone.
As for scrubbing off, working on that one...
Last edited:
explores
Well-known member
Everyone will probably sail to bucklers hard or Falmouth and dry out alongside the Royal Cornwall or Flushing or maybe even Mylor if that's still possible.
They can take our piles, but they'll never take our walls!
My piles could do with a scrub.
Bobc
Well-known member
This just announced:-
The recent scare about scrub down licencing has been halted in its tracks with Defra confirming: ‘We will not require licences for the removal of biological growth from the hulls of vessels.’
Businesses and boaters alike were worried about both the price and the application procedures of the licence scheme, while owners of scrub down piles were concerned that they would have to add expensive upgrades in order to conform to the new legislation.
However, these fears have been quashed after boaters and businesses raised their concerns, and the British Marine Federation (BMF) successfully challenged both the effectiveness and the costs of the scheme.
Brian Clark, environment and external relations manager of the BMF told BB that a consultation (which followed on from the Marine & Coastal Access Act) was worded in a way that created alarm and some confusion. ‘It said, “The removal of biological growth that results in deposits to the sea will need a licence”,’ explained Mr Clark. ‘However, it wasn’t clear as to whether this meant that the requirement for a license would land with the business, the owner of the scrubbing pile, or the individual boater.’
He added, there was concern that this would create an extraordinary administrative burden on the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), which ‘in a period of cost saving and streamlining, simply wouldn’t be able to process the potential licencing of thousands of recreational craft’.
Plus, of course, there was the issue of additional costs to be borne by private boaters and businesses.
‘I think we were able to point out, that no matter which way they tried to apply the licence procedure, they were simply creating an onerous requirement for both the leisure sector and themselves as the regulator’, said Mr Clark, ‘especially considering they are also suffering from budgetary deficiencies’.
Defra has now admitted it needs guidance and has said that it's now in favour of an alternative mechanism,’ such as the BMF and RYA’s environmental initiative, The Green Blue, to increase awareness rather than take a licencing approach to manage the risk.
The recent scare about scrub down licencing has been halted in its tracks with Defra confirming: ‘We will not require licences for the removal of biological growth from the hulls of vessels.’
Businesses and boaters alike were worried about both the price and the application procedures of the licence scheme, while owners of scrub down piles were concerned that they would have to add expensive upgrades in order to conform to the new legislation.
However, these fears have been quashed after boaters and businesses raised their concerns, and the British Marine Federation (BMF) successfully challenged both the effectiveness and the costs of the scheme.
Brian Clark, environment and external relations manager of the BMF told BB that a consultation (which followed on from the Marine & Coastal Access Act) was worded in a way that created alarm and some confusion. ‘It said, “The removal of biological growth that results in deposits to the sea will need a licence”,’ explained Mr Clark. ‘However, it wasn’t clear as to whether this meant that the requirement for a license would land with the business, the owner of the scrubbing pile, or the individual boater.’
He added, there was concern that this would create an extraordinary administrative burden on the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), which ‘in a period of cost saving and streamlining, simply wouldn’t be able to process the potential licencing of thousands of recreational craft’.
Plus, of course, there was the issue of additional costs to be borne by private boaters and businesses.
‘I think we were able to point out, that no matter which way they tried to apply the licence procedure, they were simply creating an onerous requirement for both the leisure sector and themselves as the regulator’, said Mr Clark, ‘especially considering they are also suffering from budgetary deficiencies’.
Defra has now admitted it needs guidance and has said that it's now in favour of an alternative mechanism,’ such as the BMF and RYA’s environmental initiative, The Green Blue, to increase awareness rather than take a licencing approach to manage the risk.
Seajet
...
Bobc,
on the face of it this sounds spiffing...
However, note that BIOLOGICAL deposits are Ok, not antifouling residue !
Hopefully the cost of enforcing yet another daft ruling, and the resentment generated, wll be enough to deter any scrub-off wardens, but as it stands this is a little too open to interpretation for my liking - so now just at Yellow Alert rather than Red !
on the face of it this sounds spiffing...
However, note that BIOLOGICAL deposits are Ok, not antifouling residue !
Hopefully the cost of enforcing yet another daft ruling, and the resentment generated, wll be enough to deter any scrub-off wardens, but as it stands this is a little too open to interpretation for my liking - so now just at Yellow Alert rather than Red !
Wansworth
Well-known member
was talking to a boat owner here in Spain he said that the boatyard now had a specific place to clean off the antifouling and fouling which was conected to the main drainage system.Yachts are obliged to use the commecial set up and in no way are they ,the yachtsmen,allowed to scrub off on the beach etc...under pain of heavy fine from the Guardia Civil.In general Spanish yachtmen are adverse to getting their hands dirty so use the yard without complaint.I am considering not useing antifoul and just clean off every now and then.As yet to inquire about the idea with the officials but suspect they will be unable to grant permission as the marine groth will probabltbe re catagologed as waste so not to be left on the beach or slipway.
Sans Bateau
Well-known member
Mmmm, that might mean that weed and other growth can be scrubbed off, but they would take a pretty dim view of scrapping antifoul off. Which is fair enough, I actually cannot imagine anyone scrapping antifoul into the sea.
prv
Well-known member
But your weed was growing on antifoul, and is therefore CONTAMINATED WASTE!!!1!1! Full hazmat team required, Visa or Mastercard accepted.
If you scrub anything off an antifouled hull there'll be colour in the runoff water, even if you're not trying to remove the paint per se. I'm with Seajet on this - cautiously accept that statement as good news, but note that it still leaves plenty of wiggle room for those who like to interfere with other people's lives.
Pete
Sans Bateau
Well-known member
Better get Coppercoat then PDQ!
Other threads that may be of interest
