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

[marisca]

Questions and answers in Holyrood - at least it's getting aired.

[Gardenshed]

indeed. Behind the public comments, someone has obviously "had a word" to make sure that nothing is said to compromise a judicial hearing should one be needed.

The 1965 Clydeport Order was ammended for CoP 26, so it can be amended again if the government and Transport Scotland decide to do so.

Legislation implemented in 1965 to manage the commercial docks and maritime movements in the Clyde Estuary did not foresee, and was most likely not intended, to be used to generate revenue from leisure craft.

[Gardenshed]

Late to the party but the bbc have noticed…..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrn0k2lxgwo

[marisca]

Peel Ports are harbour authority for Sheerness and Medway. I'm not sure for which bits of those waters these charges apply but for leisure vessels conservancy in 2023/24 the charge was £87.69 inc.VAT. By 2025/26 it has risen to £103.13 inc.VAT and on top of that there is £146.20 charge for a mooring.

Is this what we have to look forward to if Peel Ports get their way? Oh, and if you don't pay before the year starts on 1st April there is a 25% late fee!

[cpedw]

Peel Ports are harbour authority for Sheerness and Medway. I'm not sure for which bits of those waters these charges apply but for leisure vessels conservancy in 2023/24 the charge was £87.69 inc.VAT. By 2025/26 it has risen to £103.13 inc.VAT and on top of that there is £146.20 charge for a mooring.

Is this what we have to look forward to if Peel Ports get their way? Oh, and if you don't pay before the year starts on 1st April there is a 25% late fee!

I think it's inappropriate and dangerous to compare, or to allow Peel Ports to compare, Clydeport to any other Peel Ports operation. In comparison to Sheerness & Medway, Clydeport is HUGE - 450 sq miles cf about 23. Clydeport is a whole cruising cornucopia while the Medway (I've never been but I looked at a chart) is a muddy river with quite a lot of commercial traffic.
I don't mean to abandon our friends in the South but they must tackle their own problem. Perhaps they actually receive some sort of service for their fees?

[marisca]

I'm afraid I phrased my last note badly. My point was that once the commercial entity is allowed to milk the cash cow of leisure boats, their capacity for rapacity can run riot. An 18% hike over 2 years and sea bed rental nearly 3x that of Crown Estates because they can?

[Gardenshed]

Peel Ports are abusing Harbour Revision Orders which were put in place primarily to manage commercial shipping and freight movements.
in 1965 when the Clydeport HRO was put into law, the river Clyde was host to ship building, ship repairing and many busy commercial wharfs loading and unloading goods. The HRO was not written to manage or regulate leisure boat use.

the example of the Medway shows the abuse of privatised assets by a private company that is subject to strong regulations.

The Scottish Government should use this example (the PP Clyde proposal) to show Peel Ports that in Scotland the government will regulate private companies who abuse their position, by amending the Clyde Port Harbour Order to exclude leisure craft less than 24m. Changes were made to the HRO for CoP 26 so the precedent is set that it is possible. The only objector to the CoP 26 amendments were the RYA who stated that there were insufficient checks and balances in place to contol PP's actions....

The importance of the HROs and abuse of them is also timely for the discussions in Oban. Argyll and Bute Council will be noting PP's approach and no doubt will want to give themselves the opportunity to charge all users of Oban bay to top up the council coffers. A Trust Harbour structure would be a far better solution

[Bodach na mara]

In relation to various points made in recent posts:
The 1965 Harbour Order was clearly intended to apply only to commercial shipping, although the description of "vessels" therein is comprehensive enough to include almost anything that floats. But among the clauses you can find that you may not launch any vessel without the prior approval of the Harbour Authority! Which will cause problems for all the sailing clubs that foster dinghy sailing. And the wrath of Peel may descend upon anyone launch a tender, or even a stand- up paddle board.

You are also not allowed to use your vessel to tow another vessel unless your vessel is a duly registered and licensed tugboat under the control of a qualified skipper holding the appropriate license and insurance. So none of these dragging your old Redcrest or towing your mate back to his mooring if his engine fails.

Peel Ports as Conservators have come into some criticism, especially in relation to the Medway and the installations of Chatham docks. Closer to home, they have been responsible for the neglect of local harbours such as Ardrossan, and installations like Inchgreen drydock. Both of these have been allowed to become dilapidated to the point that they cannot be used, in part or at all. The company started as property speculators, buying up redundant mills around Bradford, demolishing them and selling off the land at a profit. They are also conservators for several other ports, which leads to the question of conflict of interest. Or even whether they are a fit and proper company to be entrusted with the conservancy of the Clyde, as envisaged by the authors of the 1965 Harbour Order.

No doubt other things will come to mind just after I post this.

[Gardenshed]

Good points about the 1965 harbour Order, thanks

There are also requirements for the appointment of directors which a quick Look at companies house demonstrates is not being complied with. Digging into the details of the 1965 order could produce lots of ways to show that Peel Port are being selective with their interpretation and implementation of it

[Burst Boiler]

Digging into the details of the 1965 order could produce lots of ways to show that Peel Port are being selective with their interpretation and implementation of it

I also spotted this. Lots of scope for excrement stirring if Peel Ports don't back down.

On the point about the original intention of the SHO, it also was in the context of the authority being a public sector body. It didn't anticipate a private sector organisation taking on this role. Need to ask the Scottish Tories why the privatisation was so ineptly handled to give a private sector firm such powers without limitations.

[Burst Boiler]

The Scottish Government should use this example (the PP Clyde proposal) to show Peel Ports that in Scotland the government will regulate private companies who abuse their position, by amending the Clyde Port Harbour Order to exclude leisure craft less than 24m.

I agree, but would PP sue the scot gov for loss of potential income? Could get messy and maybe explains their reluctance to get involved.

[Gardenshed]

Yes they could sue, doesn’t mean they’d win
Loss of a revenue they don’t have from a fee that isn’t justified may be a hard argument to win in court

[cpedw]

I'm still, after 45 years since MT got control, trying to understand how capitalism operates to the benefit of society in a monopoly.

[Bodach na mara]

In a monopoly or competitive environment, capitalism operates for the benefit of capital, I have always thought.

Further to my comments about the suitability of Peel Ports to act as conservators, I was reading some posts in the Sailing Cruising Scotland group of Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/168cm4yqfe/
on the subject of Latchford locks which has photos of the neglect of this facility. The post also has many comments about neglect of other canal and port installations owned by that company. It all adds to the picture of how unsatisfactory it is to have them in the position of conservators. I think that non-members of the group can view the messages.

[Gardenshed]

You can badly run any entity whether it's publicly owned or private. Worst case is privately owned but with government backing (ie. the utilities)

"Badly run" (as judged at the time) nationalised railways, water companies etc gave a great excuse to MT to change by privatising. Giving everyone a chance to own shares in the newly privatised companies created the illusion that the pubic wouldn't lose out (Tell Sid campaign etc).....The newly privatised entities quickly realised that poor regulation, guaranteed govt payments to bail them out, huge assets bases etc, created a fantastic opportunity to asset strip and reward the major institutional shareholders. Basically, gaming the system at public expense (meet the minimum regulatoryy requirements, guaranteed price increases, monopoly supply etc)

My view is that the real issue is the post privatisation governments failing to put in strong regulations to prevent the abuse of position that e.g. Thames Water has demonstrated.