PLA Local Knowledge Endorsement: Amendment to Tripping Requirements

CONSULTATION STATEMENT: C05-23

This consultation ran from 26/07/2023 to 26/08/2023. The below statement has been provided to summarise the Port of London Authority’s initial response.

This report provides a concise overview of the findings from our consultation survey and highlights the main themes that were identified.  

The purpose of our consultation was to address the feedback we received from river users who faced challenges in meeting the tripping requirements for a lower LKE (Local Knowledge Endorsement) and gather initial perspectives from our valued river users. 

The consultation on LKE Tripping was conducted over a period of one month, from July to August. We are pleased to report that we received a significant number of survey responses, indicating a strong level of engagement from our river users. In total, we received 20 responses, which have been carefully analysed and thoroughly considered. 

During the consultation process, several common themes emerged from the feedback provided by respondents. These themes have been summarised below to provide an overview of the key concerns and perspectives expressed by our river users: 

1. Contradiction with CPD Programme: Some respondents expressed concern that reducing tripping for the Lower LKE would contradict the upcoming CPD (Continued Professional Development) programme. They felt that the proposed changes may not align with the goals and objectives CPD to enhance safety.
2. Reviewing Lower LKE Risk Assessment: Respondents highlighted the need to review the Lower LKE risk assessment to support any future decisions regarding tripping requirements. They emphasised the importance of a thorough assessment to ensure the safety and well-being of river users.
3. Providing Further Information and Reasons: Some respondents requested additional information and reasons for the proposed changes to the tripping requirements. They felt that a clearer understanding of the rationale behind the changes would help them better comprehend and support the proposed modifications.
4. Positive Economic & Social Impact: Several respondents viewed the proposed changes as a positive development that would contribute to the economic and social advancement of the river Thames. They believed that reducing the number of trips required could attract more users and enhance the overall river experience.
5. Compromise and realistic tripping numbers: Respondents expressed varying opinions regarding the number of trips required. While some felt that 60 trips were difficult to achieve, they suggested with the use of modern technology and learning tools, a compromise could be reached. On the other hand, some respondents believed that 20 trips were more realistic and achievable.
6. Safety Standards Unaffected: It was noted by respondents that although the proposed changes would result in fewer trips, the examination standards would remain the same. They emphasised that safety standards would not be compromised despite the reduction in tripping numbers.

Based on the responses received, there was an overall bias towards supporting a reduction in tripping requirements. However, we acknowledge that there were several areas of concern which require further examination before any proposals are taken forward. 

The consultation results have highlighted the need for further assessment to address areas of concern and we are committed to working with river users to find a way forward that takes these concerns into account. We appreciate the valuable input of all those who participated in the consultation and would like to express our thanks for their contributions. 

Lyn Kindlen-Funnell, 
Harbour Master