Clyde Estuary - Charge for Leisure Vessels !!!!!!

[marisca]

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... fb4417a14e

Peel Ports have made an "interesting" proposal to charge leisure vessels from April 2025. This is the company who for £1 were granted carte blanche over the Clyde and the ex-industrial waterside land. It may be time to get excited!

[mm5aho]

Where did you find this gem?
Sounds like it needs a wider dissemination!

They already think they control all activity on the Clyde including yacht racing..
https://www.peelports.com/media/dtxequp ... nisers.pdf

[marisca]

I believe it has been circulated to Clyde marinas. The CYCA are aware. Watch this space.

[Gardenshed]

the comparisons look like they are berthing/marina charges. The whole pretext for the charges is nonsense, just profiteering. Unfortunately, they are a private company given the authority to do this by the Harbour Revison Order that they operate under, so the Scottish Government (Transport Scotland) will have to amend that order and take that authority off them, to stop enforcement of the £100+vat that want to charge all 6m+ boats for being in the Clyde Port Area.

The area includes loch long, and all the marinas and moorings on the Clyde, down to Ardrossan (Troon escapes), so the Kyles of Bute, Port Bannantine, Millport bay....

Not a tourist, leisure friendly approach so time to write to your MSP's, councillors, the Scottish Minister for Transport, Fiona Hyslop and the newly appointed CEO of Transport Scotland, Alison Irvine.

[BlowingOldBoots]

I’ll be writing to RYA Scotland, my MP and MSP on this matter, as well as the minister in Scotland.

Don’t hold your breath. An example of what we are up against with this group https://www.parliament.scot/~/media/com ... ion-PE2029

[BlowingOldBoots]

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... fb4417a14e
… It may be time to get excited!

I wish people would get excited about stuff like this, but in serfdom Britain the proletariat and bourgeois are comfortable in their place and kowtow to their pseudo-betters. First it was the Clydeport, and I said nothing, then they charged at Oban, and still I said nothing, now they charge everyone, and there is no one left to charge. Coming to a port near you.

Anyway, a bunch of rich yachties having to pay is always good for a laugh.

Excuse my cynicism.

[marisca]

I already resent paying for my little bit of sea floor; the idea of paying just to be allowed to keep my boat in the Firth of Clyde and getting nothing I haven't had by right for over 60 years since I started sailing really pisses me off. If you read the Peel Port hand-out it offers nothing for our benefit. Their claim of benefits:

• Accident & investigation = MAIB are quite good at that
  Aids to Navigation - statutory duty that came with buying the Clyde for £1
  Regular annual surveys - of what?
  Management and monitoring of waterways - happy to call Estuary Control when moving East of Buoy No1 but the rest?
  Use of anchorages - I understand for the marked ship anchorages but for Wreck Bay etc.?
  Increase safety awareness and understanding vessel ownership - should stop us running into each other
  NTMs [Notice to Mariners] - already paid for
  Provide up to date Leisure events calendar - the CYCA calendar?
  Environmental protection - must stop throwing apple cores over the side!

[Burst Boiler]

I propose direct action via civil disobedience. Repeatedly call ch14 to notify them of your movements such that the scally on Merseyside who remotely answers ch14 calls from the Clyde gets overwhelmed.

[marisca]

I doubt that the Whittakers, the majority owners of Peel Ports, will worry too much about stressing their employees. Leaving open mikes on Ch12 might disrupt the ship movements but Estuary Control probably transmits at a tad more than 25W. The privatisation of the open sea with a private marine police force jars with our much vaunted landward "right to roam". It's not just us "rich yachties", it includes St Ayles skiffs, the rowing boats of RWSABC, the larger of the Port Glasgow Navy, all the Pipers and on it goes.
The answer has to be through our elected representatives - Holyrood has to be good for something.

[marisca]

....... now if they made it for boats more than 10 metres LOA ??????

[BlowingOldBoots]

Comment from ClydeSailing on FB. Might be useful if you want to write to MSP et cetera

2023
Peel Ports paid out £138.9 million in dividends, up from £88.9 million in 2022. The company's pre-tax profits increased to £397.3 million, and turnover increased to £696.3 million. The increase was largely due to the shipping segment, where turnover increased by 48.2%.

Peel Ports' largest shareholder is Peel Group, a northern property business owned by the Whittaker family. The company's operations cover London, Liverpool, and Glasgow.

This would appear to be merely a blatant money grab by an English property company to extract profits for its shareholders. Some might say it is reminiscent of the infamous Poll Tax and should be resisted similarly.

The Commodore of FYC has been active and has produced a document which will be taken to a meeting of the Cross Party Group at the Scottish Parliament on 26th November. Yachtspersons should write or email their MSP in advance of this.

Commercial vessels using Clyde ports already pay fees which presumably account for much of Peelports profit. The intention is clearly to add to the profits by including leisure users who make use of the services which are part of Peelport's responsibility. Peelports provide, under the supervision of the Northern Lighthouse Board, many of the navigation buoys necessary for commercial traffic. The NLB does not attempt to charge leisure users for their provision of lighthouses and hundreds of aids to navigation but that is Peelport's objective. The same goes for the 'managing and monitoring of waterways' and and Environmental Protection while Provision of Notices t Mariners is of course a legal responsibility

Accident & investigation - is MCA responsibility

Regular annual surveys- of what and of what usefulness ?

Use of anchorages- Crown Estates handle that already, right to roam.

Increase safety awareness and understanding vessel ownership- - is for RNLI, Clubs, owners responsibilities and insurance terms.

Provide up to date Leisure events calendar, is the job of sailing clubs and organisations eg CYCA

As to enforcement, their costs will far exceed the income and no doubt will steadily increase.
AIS checks, could lead to safety implications while
Pilot cutter patrols would bring enormous cost all of which would offset income from the scheme.

To most of us Peelports is largely invisible and notorious only for its failure to develop ferry berthing facilities at Ardrossan

[marisca]

RYA Scotland seem to have woken up to this. If Peel Ports get away with this other Harbour Authorities are bound to follow. As it stands any vessel 6-24m entering the Authority's waters, doesn't have to be moored/anchored, is liable. E.g. use the Crinan Canal and you are liable leaving the Ardrishaig Sea Lock.
https://www.rya.org.uk/news/rya_scotlan ... 8yGBnHvP-A

[Bodach na mara]

Thanks marisca for that link to the RYA Scotland statement. I also read through the response discussion about the petition re Inchgreen dry dock. I don't know how much truth to take from the accusations of the petitioner but considering the neglect by Peel Ports of some of their other assets, such as the container terminal in Greenock, Ardrossan Harbour, and the deepwater terminal near Hunterston I could well believe the assertions of neglect of the infrastructure and of the dry dock itself.

In another place I queried the suggestion in their notice that Peel Ports could use information from AIS signals to trace owners of vessels operating on the estuary as I consider that releasing such information (if they actually have it) would be a breach of the GDP regulations by the body that operates the system. I certainly don't like to think anyone could get my name and address if they saw that my boat was on passage out in the Western Isles, and deduce that my home might be unoccupied. But as I don't have a transceiver I won't be worried.

Some of Peel Ports information about what is charged elsewhere is blatantly misleading as they are quoting rates for the provision a pontoon mooring, often inclusive of the supply of electricity and water. The key issue for me is what they are providing for this fee. At least the Crown Estates say that they will manage mooring, prevent overcrowding, and remove vessels and moorings that encroach on the areas allocated to the licence holders. Even though their actual performance in respect of the third service has been less than impressive in the experience of my sailing club. It all comes down to the question that I paraphrase from the film "The life of Brian". What have Peel Ports ever done for us?

[marisca]

I had a phone chat with a journo from The National on this subject today. I wonder what he made of my vitriolic views of Peel Ports and if he is going to use any of it. If anyone actually reads the paper could they let me know, please?

[Burst Boiler]

Firstly, these slides seem to be for internal purposes only, so well done to whoever has leaked them. They are also amateurish, like a summer intern's project. 5% will be put into a fund for wreck clearance - makes a mockery by revealing the other 95% is going straight to the shareholders. Also, they seem to be claiming the kings naval dockyard as included (by coincidence where I am moored) so they can forget about getting anything from me.