Public Consultation Results
Post date: Dec 13, 2011 12:1:49 AM
We have the first draft results of the public consultation, click here (please note these are draft).
The Public Consultation closed 18/11/11. We prefixed our response with:
"Our comments and tick responses were drawn up at a packed public meeting we organised on 12th October. It is a shame that the consultants, RBOA and PLA reneged on an undertaking to jointly organise a public meeting. We understand why - because they are aware there would be a lot of hostility to the proposal. Indeed there was at our public meeting. In a way this is the greater shame, the study was an opportunity to produce a fair and reasoned formula that would resolve the long standing animus between the PLA and its customers. Outstanding like two sore thumbs in this proposal are the 1/3 take and the refusal to look at actual costs. Both are neither fair nor reasonable. Nor are they supported by logic or evidence. A fundamental flaw underlying the whole proposal is the consultants’ belief that the 1968 Act obliges the PLA to get best value. Even an amateur reading of section 67 of the Act clearly shows that the best value test is only to be applied failing agreement. This sums up the PLA’s long history with residential boat dwellers – never wanting to agree, always seeing them as adversaries to be beaten back. It is a great shame and this proposal is another missed opportunity."
Just under a hundred people packed the Rutland Arms on Tuesday 11th October. It was standing room only. We discussed the PLA fee proposals and drew up a sample response form, print it off (above) and use it to fill in the official PLA form which is available at www.plaform.notlong.com . The forms must be returned by Friday 18th November.
The consultants' (now there are two of them) methodology is out (here). Read our detailed objections here. OPLAC have fundamental objections to the formula and also to the Steering Group process. In particular:
We do not think the PLA are entitled to 33% of the value of the works (having only demanded 16.6% in their 2006 consultation).
We do not think 15% is a fair estimate of licence holders' costs.
We are unhappy with the arbitrary width bandings (we would have preferred actual width if width is to be used).
We believe the methodology breaches points in the legal opinion.
The consultation period is 10 weeks.