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

[Gardenshed]

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.

....you'll owe then the money as soon as you leave the king's naval dockyard and go onto the waters that are included in the whole of the Clyde Estuary.

Visitors coming through the Crinan Canal will be liable as soon as they leave the sea-lock and all boats from the weir at the extreme upper end of the Clyde, down to lines from Arran to the Kintyre peninsula and Arran across to Irvine bay

This shows the importance of scrutiny of the Harbour Revision Order that Peel Ports operate under and that will soon be granted to Argyll and Bute Council for Oban Bay. Powers granted by law can only be changed by altering legislation so MSP's with support from councillors need to be lobbied.
Lobbying of MSP's and others needs to give them a good reason for objecting to this and pushing for change. The "services" Peel Port say this "conservation licence" will provide are either statutory obligations they already have or are being provided by others.

interesting to see how this will play out...

[Burst Boiler]

They will have to know I've left the naval dockyard and entered their area. The mention of AIS shows how ignorant the child putting together the slides is, and the idea of patrol cutters intercepting me or impounding my vessel is completely unworkable. The danger as i see it is that they backslide to something apparently reasonably (£20 voluntary contribution to AtoNs, which is the only thing they do provide from what i can tell), and its the thin end of the wedge that gets ramped up over time.

[BlowingOldBoots]

Wreck clearing is a red herring. The majority of yachts based on the Clyde are berthed in marinas and they must hold insurance as a condition of the berthing contract. For rented moorings, perhaps it is the same, I don't know. Also, I think we can assume that many who own their own moorings will also insure with a marine insurer. Therefore wreck removal will likely be paid out of insurance, rather than Peel Ports funding wreck removal.

Would be worth including this point in your communications, if minded to write to your MSP, MP et cetera.

On these matters, my default position is that campaign's won''t work, but you have to try. Organisations like PeelPorts and Governments are reluctant to change legislation for the benefit of the public.

[Burst Boiler]

I believe clydeport or successors are required to consult with various parties, including RYA Scotland about any changes. The fact they haven't yet done so suggests to me these slides are some wet behind the ears kid flying kites internally and dont represent peel ports settled plans. But come formal consultation, I don't share your scepticism that coherent and logical arguments based on the legal situation and put across in a formal way have no influence. Especially where holyrood is involved (at least as long as the tories aren't in power - they are the ones that privatised clydeport in the first place).

[BlowingOldBoots]

A bit more detail from an article in The Greenock Telegraph that includes a response from Peel Ports.

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/new ... U8cvLawhhA

Greenock and Inverclyde MSP Stuart McMillan, chairs a cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism at Holyrood. I will also be writing to him to express my concerns. MSP McMillan, backs calls for the conservancy fee to be not implemented.

[Bodach na mara]

Studying the map pictured in the Greenock Telegraph article shows as mentioned in earlier posts that any vessel coming from or going to either limb of the Royal Dockyard or transiting between the limbs must navigate through the area claimed by Peel Ports. Also any vessel heading to or coming from either the Crinan or Forth and Clyde canal must also navigate through the disputed area. Which brings up a question that has been covered and settled during the debate on an earlier controversy: the imposition of fees for laying moorings imposed by the Crown Estates. At that time it was contested that mooring was a part of navigation and by custom, practice and the law of Scotland, free an unencumbered navigation is a right. It was explained that mooring, as distinct from anchoring, is not part of what is understood as navigation and that the Scottish Parliament had in fact enacted a law empowering the C. E. to exercise control over moorings and charge a fee to cover the cost of administering such control. This power in no way interfered with the right to freely navigate the waters around Scotland. The move was described to us as being a good thing as it would prevent the uncontrolled proliferation of fish farms for example or other obstructions that would interfere with free access.

Now bear with me while I describe my own experience of an attempt to charge a fee for free movement. It concerns movement on land but there are relevant aspects. My house is one of several built on a road which leads to a farm. In the mid 70s the farm was bought from the Ministry of Agriculture. Shortly after that the farmer sent a lawyer's letter to all the owners of the houses to say that we must purchase a right of access and pay an annual fee for use of the road. My neigh and I sought the opinion of a QC ( it was in the time of Good Queen Betty) and the result was an explanation that we already had access and why. When the house were built the land belonged to a family Estate. The sale of the ground implied, under common law of Scotland, that the new owners of the ground and their heirs and successors had the right to occupy the land and to enjoy free and unencumbered access to the land over the road, which still belonged to the Estate. When the Estate was further divided the obligation to allow free access etc. passed to the subsequent owners and thus to the farmer. In respect of the maintenance fee, it was conversely the duty of the farmer to maintain the road in good order to prevent encumberence. The Q.C. verbally said that insisting on that would be difficult, his exact words being "Good luck with that "!

The point of all that is that all of us have either moorings or marina berths or use boatyards or other waterside facilities, and all of these facilities have, by habit and use, the right to free access ove the waters. Thus all the users of the facilities have such free and unencumbered access.

Finally I asked the Q.C. about the report situation in England where developers retain a strip of land and were charging a fee for house owners to cross it. He explained that this was possible in England but the Common Law of Scotland did not allow such sharp practice.

[Bodach na mara]

Further thoughts. There is a thread in Scuttlebut in TOP that is interesting. One of the posts today from Concerto (the guy who sailed a Fulmar round Britain last year) describing what Peel Ports have done (or not) for the Medway and also one from someone describing the erosion of rights on the Crouch.

[BlowingOldBoots]

Plans are afoot to try and address the proposal to charge. There appears to be some coordinated work by Sailing Cruising Scotland and MSPs.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/sailing ... 787161852/?


The more information that comes forward, the more I am convinced that unless the harbour order is changed, or new regulation is implemented, then, there is little than can be done to stop PeelPorts from charging.

[marisca]

If Peel Ports succeeds in charging for leisure craft, how long before Oban, Stornoway, Tobermory, Forth, Tay, etc., etc. jump on the bandwagon? Each charge will be nominally "affordable" but will be guaranteed to rise. I can't imagine the Canadian Fund managers that own Forth Ports eschewing such an income stream.
Write to your MSPs, MP, RYA (apparently they must be consulted!), your aunt Fanny and anyone else you can think of!

[Bodach na mara]

This is what worries me. The right to free navigation will be extinguished. Every pissant wee area group will look to control their local water and charge to pass through it. I agree that the existing harbour orders give draconian powers to the administrators including the power to charge for or ban transit. If that was the intention of those who drafted the orders then hanging is too good for them. In any case harbour orders must clarify that they don't conflict with age-old rights.

[Gardenshed]

The Harbour Revision Orders are dangerous legislation if poorly drafted or awarded with poor safeguards in place a checks and balances to their abuse.

When, in 1965, the Clydeport Authority Order was put in place, I'm sure the intention of paragraph 68 (68. The Port Authority may demand, take and recover such reason- able charges for services and facilities provided by them as they may from time to time determine.) was not envisaged as a charge on all who sail on the open waters of the Firth.

Key is that they have to provide "services and facilities"
It can be argued that the proposed "services" listed are obligations on Peel Ports under other sections of the act, and that there is no provision of "facilities" under their proposal.

At the time of the CoP 26 temporary amendment to the harbor order, the RYA and RYA Scotland objected to Peel Ports proposal and the "powers of general direction" granted to them. The decision letter is worth reading:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/50 ... letter.pdf

whilst they have powers of general direction, it could be argued that this proposal is not consistent with paragraph 12 in the letter:

12. Section 14(2)(b) of the 1964 Act requires that a Harbour Revision order shall not be made in relation to a harbour unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that the making of the order is desirable in the interests of securing the improvement, maintenance or management of the harbour ni an efficient and economical manner, or of facilitating the efficient and economical transport of goods or passengers by sea or in the interests of the recreational use of sea-going ships.

a few levers to use in formal objections for those composing their submissions to MSPs or the relevant Ministers

[BlowingOldBoots]

Thanks for posting that Gardenshed

[Bodach na mara]

Thanks for finding that gardenshed. It should be very useful. Paragraph 11 also contains useful information. It is stated that "They (Ministers) also determine that none of these powers unreasonably limits the publicright of navigation."

This is important as it clearly states that there IS a public right of navigation.

[Gardenshed]

indeed

It's important that when objecting, there are clear grounds beyond "I don't like it" or "I don't want to pay", hence worth digging into the archives.

[Burst Boiler]

I'm not on TOP so cant join in there, but i have a cunning plan . . .

I will share details as appropriate, but fear posting anything further here now might risk Peel Ports figuring out what I'm up to.