Select a region
Guernsey Ports could be forced to find hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of savings or raise fees elsewhere if deputies back the attempt to limit domestic mooring fee increases to a flat rate of 10%.
The States Trading Supervisory Board won backing to increase mooring fees by between 12% to 45% based on the size of vessel from April 1, with the States agreeing the change by one vote in December.
But absenteeism in the States chamber, and firm lobbying from boat owners and marine associations since the vote, saw a group of critical deputies file a petition to replace those increases with a flat rate of 10% for all vessels, with further consultations before any future increases.
Policy & Resources are split on the matter, with President Deputy Lyndon Trott and Vice-President Deputy Heidi Soulsby intending to support the Requête.
Now, two P&R members - Deputies Jonathan Le Tocq and John Gollop - will lead an amendment looking to increase mooring fees by 24.5% for all domestic vessels regardless of size, which would generate the same amount of cash desired by the STSB.
If that fails, the States will instead be asked to proceed with the 10% increase as sought in the Requête but with an added requirement that STSB compensate for an estimated £261,000 shortfall in revenue.
This could be through other fee increases elsewhere, budget cuts, or delaying capital investment in infrastructure.
Ahead of the debate, STSB President Deputy Peter Roffey said a re-run of the December debate and decision of the States is setting a “dangerous precedent of eroding democratic decision making”.
He also rejected claims boat owners will sell their vessels because of the new fee structure, saying there’s been an 18% increase in waiting lists for moorings since consultations on increases began, while the turnover of mooring agreements has been in line with usual trends.
Pictured: Deputy Peter Roffey has been critical of attempts to re-hash the decision of the States.
In a letter of comment, Deputy Roffey said that hard financial decisions must be taken to get the Ports into a more financially sustainable position.
This includes fee increases for freight, airport parking, rents and mooring fees to mitigate a £4m loss in 2022 and an anticipated loss of £5m for 2023.
A flat 10% rise would see more taxpayer support in 2024 and 2025, with losses not contained to the one year after the increase, he said.
“More than 80% of the additional, above inflation income this year will come from increases in airport charges and harbour commercial fees,” Deputy Roffey said.
“The remainder will be from increases in leisure mooring fees, and those are weighted towards larger vessels. For the vast majority of boatowners, the cost of a berth in one of the marinas will still be much lower than in Jersey, and the south coast of the UK.”
He added it would be unfair to make smaller boats pay the same rate per square foot as the largest vessels, especially as around £110m worth of capital investment is required to improve the Ports estate with £25m earmarked for leisure marina facilities.
The local marine network is unsatisfied with the amendment and still support the Requête after two meetings in recent weeks with deputies, while also continuing to argue that revenue created at the harbours is being used to cross-subsidise losses at the airport.
“All the leisure boat owners and marine traders are asking for is a reduction to 10% for 2024 mooring fees which will still add another £250k+ to the revenue of the harbours, and a chance for us to be involved in meaningful discussions on future charges with STSB and Guernsey Ports,” Nick Guillemette, President of the Guernsey Boatowners Association said.
“This would alleviate many boat owners fears and prevent any decimation of an existing, thriving leisure marine industry which our forefathers designed to generate substantial income into our island's economy, whilst still being affordable.”
Attempt to limit mooring fee hike fails by a vote
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.