BLUEMOMENT

I assume based on the way the draft act is written that the status quo will remain in so far as CMAl, NLHB, and Crown Estates are concerned. Likely they contribute very little to the running of the harbour beyond maintaining their own affairs or through taxation, plus the dues they pay for maintaining navigation aids. In Gardenshed's initial post of this thread, there is a concern that ABC will charge other users for various activities. That concern is equally valid for a trust port because they too will have to generate funds from users.

The status quo, which works, is being changed because CMAL decided to apply for an HRO. Why did they do this? There is no incident increase in the use of the waters in and around Oban Bay, which is why the safe navigation is a red herring. Perhaps the fees that they pay at other trust ports are new fees that they did not pay in the past; CMAL traffic is significant in Oban bay. A trust set up would demand money from all users of Oban Bay. ABC have assets that they want to expand, why do they want to have to pay money to a trust for their assets?

Whomever runs the harbour will have to extract fees to run the facility and the sources for that are stated and implied in the draft act. I do not see how a trust would be any different, levying charges on vessels, perhaps an annual fee for the privilege of a fixed mooring, renting water space to the marina. The big fee payer likely would be CMAL, no one else comes close to the tonnage that they have using the bay or berthing in the bay. Can a trust rely on ABC, CMAL, NLHB paying them money when currently they do not pay a single authority money? After all these groups have functioned in the Bay successfully without an additional layer of charges. Historically, the local council have explicitly been mentioned as not the harbour authority.

If the trust stated how they would receive income in a proposal perhaps they could be taken seriously. At the moment their purpose is to consult to best serve all users.

https://ochda.scot

some homework for you

Gardenshed wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 3:17 pm https://ochda.scot

some homework for you

I have read most of their stuff and the ABC stuff. It is the information from these two sources that I ask questions about and post my opinions on. I have asked to be convinced why a trust is better and that has not yet happened. If defenders of the trust can't answer my queries or refute my points, it makes me wonder what the case is for a trust, which is the whole point of my posts.

The trust states it will consult to develop plans to manage the harbour for all stakeholders. ABC have made a draft act that states it will consult with all stakeholders. What am I missing?

ABC have made a draft act that states it will consult with all stakeholders. What am I missing?

1, the consultation process proposed by A&BC is a 2 stage process that allows CMAL/CALMAC and NLB to make, in private, with A&BC decision that don't take account of the other users
2. throughout the process, A&BC have been secretive, have not provided information that has been requested and printed reports/updates that are inaccurate

If they had engaged openly and been cooperative throughout the process, there would be a lot less concern.

That is the reason why ABC has not decided to form or support a trust. The guidelines and best practise for a trust port demand openness to ensure that the board operates a harbour to the benefit of all stakeholders. If CMal, ABC and NLHB, maybe the Crown Estates, cant be open about their use of the harbour, then the board of a trust cannot operate within the guidelines.

My personal opinion is that ABC will not manage the port to the detriment of leisure users, marinas or private moorings. It simply would make no sense to upset a group of stakeholders who are no more than a minimum inconvenience at best, and likely a minimum revenue stream. ABC would really have to be a bunch of dickheads to do what is feared in post 2. Mmmm, Conservative Lib Dem coalition ...

A question that does not have a clear answer from what I have researched, how is it decided what type of management system is best? Who makes that decision and are they being made aware of OCHDA desire to operate a trust port. If it is ministerial, have ministers been petitioned to review the application for a municipal harbour authority? ABC as the single authority for the area outside the other harbours do say that a trust port is a future option. So it is not a slam dunk trust is finished post HRO should ABC become the harbour authority in the bay to the limits. Maybe this is a stepping stone approach.

OCHDA press statement: December 12th

Oban Harbour at the crux
Consultation over future arrangements for the proposed Council-run Oban Harbour Authority is ongoing, finishing on January 10th. The outcome of this consultation will lead to changes in the way that the harbour is run for years to come. Full details can be found here and there is to be a public meeting, arranged by Oban Community Council (OCC) and Oban Community Harbour Development Association (OCHDA) to explain the proposals on Thursday December 14th at The Rockfield Centre, starting at 6.30 p.m.
Representations and objections should be sent to harbourorders@transport.gov.scot by January 10th, , not to the Council. The Council will then decide how to respond and may make alterations to their proposals before the Harbour Order, which makes the new law, is presented to the Transport Minister for approval. This is a two-way process that may continue after the initial 42 days which are allowed for submission of representations and objections.
OCC and OCHDA welcome the consultation and urge everyone with an interest in the future of Oban Harbour to take part.
Background
Since 1974 no authority has taken control of the harbour. In the meantime it has changed beyond recognition and is now generally acknowledged to be one of the busiest harbours in Scotland. For almost 20 years there has been talk about a new Harbour Authority to control vessels in the bay and approaches, in order to reduce the risk of accident, and also to plan future development. With the increase in traffic, particularly in the last 10 years, and the North entrance providing a challenge for mariners, it is a growing cause for concern. The Council’s plans will give them responsibility for safety in the bay and for planning future development.
Frank Roberts, Convenor of OCC, said “These are defining moments in the history of Oban Harbour. Now, at long last, we are on the verge of establishing a new Harbour Authority which will take responsibility for the harbour area and be of benefit to all water users and to businesses that depend upon the water, on the mainland in Oban and the surrounding area and on the islands served by the ferries. We welcome the development of the new Harbour Authority but it must be established on solid foundations.”
Establishing the new Harbour Authority is principally intended to improve safety but nowhere are we being told how the Council proposes to manage vessels to make the bay a safer environment. The Council will be able to charge any vessel visiting Oban Bay, in payment for the safe management of the Bay, but we are not being told how much they may be charged. The new safety arrangements will require additional staff and equipment to manage vessel movements but we are not being told how much any of this will cost. All that we have been told is that “Most if not all the users of Oban Harbour will not notice any change in the day to day business around the bay area.” This raises more questions than it answers as it gives no indication that there will be any new vessel management system.

No consultation has been undertaken with the fishing community, the operators of cruise ships, or those whose leisure takes them onto the waters of the bay, yet these are the key to safe management of the bay. We must hope that the Council will consult properly with all harbour users.
The powers the Council are requesting would give them complete control of all vessel movements in the bay, all moorings in the bay and all water-based activities such as kayaking in the bay. Nowhere in the documents under discussion does the Council explain why these powers might be necessary! Powers come with responsibility and the Council should state their intentions.
Planning for the future
Managing the future development of the bay while maintaining the freedom to continue to enjoy the waters of the bay for leisure and tourism alongside vital lifeline ferries, fishing and aquaculture will require careful negotiation between different interests. For some the principal issue is running ferries on time, for others it may be the survival of their business as small cruise ship operators or as the suppliers of food and drink for the small cruise ships. Others will want to be able to paddle or sail through the bay safely. Continuing traditional ‘social’ activities such as the famous Oban Raft Race is also part of the rich mosaic that is Oban Harbour.
Who will decide what the future Oban will look like? It will be a difficult balancing act with increasing ferry traffic – which is likely – alongside continued growth in tourism and water-based leisure and the growth in the aquaculture sector, with new opportunities emerging, such as renewable energy infrastructure. When the Council has to decide what sort of Oban they want to create we must hope that they consult properly with the communities that depend upon and those who live in Oban.
OCHDA Chair, Ross Wilson said, “We have repeatedly expressed concern regarding future planning and has urged the Council to think again. The Council’s current arrangements for planning the future do not give a role to the local elected representatives (Councillors) and do not give direct access to the Harbour Authority for those who work or take their leisure on the water. The Council’s Harbour Board will set the pattern for the future and their consultation arrangements must be made fit for purpose and future-proof. At present there are many questions and few answers. Make your voice heard!”

RYA Scotland's objection to the ABc's revised harbour order application. https://assetbank-eu-west-1.s3.eu-west- ... 22b2925370

It is a well thought out response and objection. I like the fact that they want a more defined consultative process in the RHO and state that CalMac should pay to use the harbour because if do not, funding is unfairly skewed towards less frequent users of the harbour. The RYA legal interpretations show that ABC are a bit dim when it comes to the legal implications and requirements in the current RHO. The RYA objection to the the limits of the new harbour authority area should be changed to exclude Kerrera marina is fair and justified. However, my personal view, is that the limits should have been objected to further by requesting significantly less limits, say just to the bay itself, leaving passage around Kerrera as open water not under the proposed harbour authority control. I dont see any need for them to have such wide limits, it serves no purpose beyond a water grab for the sake of it because incidents are low and that aids to navigation are adequate addressed.

I guess we shall see what happens.

the A&BC proposals show a lack of understanding of how the harbour and bay are currently managed
in addition to the points that you have made, the proposal for managing moorings completely disregards the existing roles of Marine Scotland and the Crown Estates. The proposed annual licensing of moorings means you could lose access/use of a mooring in 1 year or less, discouraging owners from investing in improvements to ground tackle. It's also not clear where and how the council will find the resources to mange them and enforce their regulations, duplicating and complicating what currently exists.
after receipt of >100 objections, A&BC are not releasing these to councillors or to members of the Oban Harbour Board, they propose to create a summary. Given the way they have managed the consolation, the factual inaccuracies in the minutes distributed after meetings and the inaccurate statements on their website claiming support from consultees to their proposals, its unlikely this summary will be an objective and unbiased summary.

BlowingOldBoots wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:19 pm However, my personal view, is that the limits should have been objected to further by requesting significantly less limits, say just to the bay itself, leaving passage around Kerrera as open water not under the proposed harbour authority control. I dont see any need for them to have such wide limits, it serves no purpose beyond a water grab for the sake of it because incidents are low and that aids to navigation are adequate addressed.

As I understand it (which could well be wrong or at least incomplete) the limits need to extend to cover the major pinch points at Dunollie Light and at Ferry Rocks (probably less important since few ferries use Kerrera Sound) where ferries are manoeuvring and the channel is narrow and not straight. The further extension at the north end is to include the cruise ship anchoring area has 2 justifications: the harbour authority gets to regulate cruise ship visits so there aren't too many at the same time, and a fee can be charged for anchoring.

cpedw wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:22 pm ... and a fee can be charged for anchoring.

Good point and very likely the reason, also fees for any vessel navigating into Oban Bay, including yachts, super yachts, small cruise liners et cetera. I dont mind the council optimising revenue streams, they should, but Calmac should pay as well, they have no reason for a special dispensation.