The Black Deep and the Port of London 2024 General Directions

[tillergirl]

With effect from yesterday (1st November, 2024) the revised 2024 PLA General Directions came into effect.​

On the face of it the revision has consequences for us. Direction 17.5 says:

17 NAVIGATIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND EXCLUSION ZONES

(17.5) Vessels with an Operating Draught of less than 6.0 metres must not use the Black Deep Channel, except with the permission of London VTS.

The definition of 'Vessels' means 'any vessel defined in the Act' and that includes us. I believe the point of the restriction is/was intended to force Ro-Ro's, dredgers and smaller commercial traffic to use the Princes Channel or the Barrow Deep. But using the defnition includes us. Telling us to ask permission to use, either laterally or crossing, is not very practical. It would take us several hours to get to the Black Deep whether north or southbound and then to be refused permission would be quite significant.

Waiting for permission to cross from the SW Sunk or Little Sunk crossings points into Fisherman's or Foulger's Gat would not necessarily be a problem. Waiting for shipping to pass before we cross is entirely sensible. Note on one occasion we hove-to at the entrance of Fisherman's Gat waiting for the vessel to pass after it emerged out of the murk.

But lateral use of the Black Deep e.g. from or to Fisherman's Gat and Foulger's along to or from Sunk Head which would need a lot more time. Whether VTS would give permission for lateral use within a reasonable time remains to be seen and the alternatives if permission was refused, say exiting north of Foulger's Gat are not trivial.

The Directions have a rather unpleasant blanket regulation:

Failure by the Master of a Vessel to comply with a General Direction constitutes an offence, and renders that Person liable, on conviction, to a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale. However, it is a defence for the Master of a Vessel to prove that he had reasonable grounds for supposing that compliance with the General Direction in question would be likely to imperil his Vessel or that in the circumstances compliance was impracticable (Section 117 of the Act).

I rather think the definition might be a little broad but perhaps it is deliberate. I have emailed the Port of London Authority asking for clarification and I will update you. In the meantime we should seek permission of London VTS on every occasion.

I see also there is a requirement for permission for a survey! I shall of course comply, delighted to submitted a copy of my (lengthy and rather tedious) instructions to the helmsman (aka Gladys).

 

[RivalRedwing]

I will very much welcome an update to this in due course, you diligence is appreciated

 

[Habebty]

Is crossing from Barrow no.2 to Foulgers Gat just outside PLA authority?

 

[tillergirl]

Interesting question Peter! On current UKHO charts, the PLA 'Seaward Limit' stops short just east of Fisherman's Gat. So Foulger's is outside of that. However, there is an 'extension of Pilotage Area' which extends east to the Sunk Precautionary Zone. The General Directions also talk about the 'VTS Sector' which similarly extends to the Sunk PZ.

Under Section 111 of the Port of London Act 1968 as amended:

(1) The Port Authority may, subject in each case to the agreement of the Pilotage Authority and the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, give directions for the purpose of promoting or securing conditions conducive to the ease, convenience or safety of navigation in the Thames, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, for any of the following purposes—
(a) for designating areas, routes or channels in the Thames which vessels are to use or refrain from using for movement

To actually find clarity about the geographic limits of authority needs more digging but I think it will says it can write rules about the Pilotage Area - well obvious since it can order ships to report in and have Pilots so the Pilotage Area is the relevant geographic area under which we fall (I think).

 

[tillergirl]

Researching old documents I find the 2021 General Directions were amended on 1st September 2023 and that incudes the para 17.5. Bit embarrassing that; I should have seen that but I don't think I ever became aware of the amendment. As it has been in force since at least 1st September, 2023 we can feel a little more confident about it. But we will wait and see.

 

[westhinder]

I’ve been trying to get my head round this, when crossing from Nieuwpoort to Harwich or vice versa and skirting around the northern tip of Long Sand Head, do you cross the Black Deep or stay just out of it?
Would it mean you have to ask permission to do so? What would be the alternative it permission is refused? Go around the north side of the Sunk complex?

 

[PeterWright]

Thank you, Tiller Girl, for bringing this to our attention. With the quantity of data you notify us of, it's hardly surprising if the odd bit fails to stck in your mind so there's no need from any embarrassment on your part. We' re all just thankful that you enjoy bringing us this wonderful service.

Peter.

 

[tillergirl]

I’ve been trying to get my head round this, when crossing from Nieuwpoort to Harwich or vice versa and skirting around the northern tip of Long Sand Head, do you cross the Black Deep or stay just out of it?
Would it mean you have to ask permission to do so? What would be the alternative it permission is refused? Go around the north side of the Sunk complex?

I have opened the issue of the alternatives if refused.. And I don't think where the BD starts and ends is defined.