Hampshire County Council

River Hamble Harbour Board

14 July 2006

Harbour Dues and Supervision Charges

Report of the Harbour Dues Working Group

Item 7

Contact: Councillor Seán Woodward (Chairman)

email: sean.woodward@hants.gov.uk

1. Summary

1.1 Following discussions at the River Hamble Harbour Board and the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee, the Harbour Dues Working Group was asked to investigate alternative approaches to supervision charges and their interrelation with harbour dues; and to put forward recommendations for a better and more equitable solution to this meeting of the River Hamble Harbour Board. The Group was also asked to consider the issue of Harbour Dues, including whether canoes and kayaks should pay them.

1.2 This report explains the various investigations that the Group has undertaken and sets out its findings. In coming to these findings, it has taken account of previous reports made to the Management Committee and Harbour Board and information provided by the Marine Director. It has also invited comments from River users and members of the public. It has concluded, inter alia, that:

2. Background

2.1 At its meeting on 10 October 2005, the Management Committee considered a report by the County Council's Director of Environment on `Alternatives to Supervision Charges'. The Committee resolved to recommend to the River Hamble Harbour Board that it should maintain Supervision Charges in their present format. After consideration at its meeting on 21 October 2005, the Harbour Board decided that, as from 1 January 2006, Supervision Charges should be combined with Harbour Dues with marina berth holders receiving an appropriate discount. The Harbour Board also requested the Management Committee to consider the levels of discount to be offered under a two-tier system of Harbour Dues and make recommendations back.

2.2 A number of the members of the Management Committee exercised their right to `call-in' this decision and it was debated at the Committee meeting held on 6 December 2005. The Committee decided to ask the Harbour Board to delay implementation of any changes in order to allow time for more investigations to be undertaken. The Harbour Board acknowledged this advice at its meeting on 15 December 2005 but resolved that its original decision should stand. The Harbour Board also agreed, however, to ask the Management Committee to establish a Working Group to examine what suitable alternative arrangements there might be to Supervision Charges.

2.3 The Committee considered this request at its meeting on 11 January 2006 and felt that the Group should also consider the question of Harbour Dues, including whether canoes and kayaks should pay them. Accordingly, the Group was set up to examine these issues in detail and report back in July. It comprised Councillor Woodward as Chairman, Councillor Mrs Sutton, Councillor Cartwright, Mr Alexander and Mr Saint. This report now explains its findings.

3. Current Charges

3.1 The Harbour Board's current charges, applicable to 31 December 2006, for mooring in and/or using the River are as follows:

4. Working Group Meetings

4.1 The Group has met together on four occasions. One of those meetings - on 18 April 2006 - was a public meeting to which members of the public, river users and other interested parties were invited to make deputations. The River Hamble Harbour Master's database of river users was used as the basis of the `invite list' to that meeting and there was a wide circulation of press notices via the County Council's Press Unit inviting deputations and/or written representations to be made to the Group.

4.2 Members of the Group also attended the River Hamble Harbour Forum held on 4 April 2006 and have received comments made to them individually.

5. Representations Received

5.1 The meeting on 18 April was attended by 48 people. Twelve deputations were made, seven from representatives of clubs or organisations and five from individuals. A number of other people present made general observations. The Group has also received 15 separate written representations - eight from clubs or organisations (some adding to deputation comments) and seven from individual River users.

5.2 The Group has endeavoured to take all the comments made in the representations received into account. They are summarised in Appendices A and B attached to this report.

5.3 Briefly, they have identified what appear to be six particular areas of public concern, as follows:

5.4 Although it is recognised that the Marine Director carried out informal consultations with, for example, marina operators, there is a belief that no public consultation was undertaken regarding the proposed changes to the charging regime before they were introduced and, apart from the Group's meeting on 18 April, that there were no meetings in which the general public could participate. This has created a perception that the new system of charges has simply been imposed, that no notice has been taken of public feeling and that the changes have been poorly thought-through. The consequence is that many River users have been alienated and there is now bad feeling where none existed previously.

5.5 There still appears to be considerable public uncertainty about why the changes were introduced and about how they are being applied. There has also been criticism that, for the most part, publicity about the changes has been very limited.

5.6 Although there appears to be a general acceptance that users of the River ought to pay something towards maintaining the facilities that it provides, there are considerable doubts about the practicality of collecting Dues from certain categories of users, for example, day visitors and canoeists.

5.7 The strongest and most consistent representations that the Group has received have been from canoe organisations and other users of rowed or paddled craft, asking that they should be exempt from paying Harbour Dues. The arguments put forward are that these craft do not pollute or affect the regime of the River, that they do not use the facilities that are provided by the Harbour Authority and that the requirement to pay will discourage young people from participating, counter to current health initiatives. Another argument is that many canoeists own more than one craft which they use for different purposes and it is unfair that they should be expected to pay Dues for each such craft.

5.8 A number of representations have expressed the view that the changes have been made principally to help to meet a budget deficit and to pay for administrative costs and that neither will benefit the river user.

5.9 There also appears to have been considerable uncertainty about how the levels of Dues and Charges were arrived at and, again, about exactly what those who pay will be getting for their money.

6. Findings

6.1 The Group has sought to address all these issues in its discussions. It has considered various alternative approaches to deal with both Harbour Dues and Supervision Charges, as requested by the Management Committee. It has looked again at the advice previously given by the Marine Director and by the Director of Environment in her report on `Alternatives to Supervision Charges'. In particular, it has looked at the current schedules of charges and arrangements in neighbouring harbours including:

6.2 It has considered also the additional information now being provided by the Marine Director on the tasks carried out by the River Hamble Harbour Patrol. The Marine Director has provided the Group, in addition, with information concerning the current positions on the number of Harbour Dues stickers issued, the amount of income collected compared with previous years and representations made to him direct.

6.3 Taking all this into account, the Group has reached three main conclusions, as follows.

6.4 The strong views expressed to the Group have shown that, in the public's mind, there was a lack of consultation before the new charges were introduced. There is also public uncertainty about the purpose for which the income derived from Harbour Dues is being put and about the justification for collecting Supervision Charges where they apply. It is clearly too late, now, to address these retrospectively and the Group recognises that this is technically outside its immediate remit. However, it draws the Harbour Board's attention to the matter here because it feels that there are lessons to be learned for the future.

6.5 The Group believes that the additional information now being supplied by the Marine Director explaining the duties that the Harbour staff undertake in supervising the River moorings has helped to clarify the situation. If, however, public support is to be maintained, it will be important to ensure that more efforts are made to publicise the Harbour Board's activities and decisions and that wider public consultation exercises are undertaken when changes that could significantly affect River users are proposed.

6.6 As indicated, the Group has considered how these issues are dealt with in neighbouring harbours and has looked at the possible alternatives put forward by the Director of the Environment. Consideration has also been given to the advantages and disadvantages of defining separate amounts for Charges and Dues and to the question of discounts that might apply.

6.7 On balance, the Group feels that any advantages of maintaining a system of separate amounts and discounts are outweighed by the need to have arrangements that are clear, enforceable and easily understood.

6.8 Accordingly, the Group believes that:

6.9 The greatest weight of representations made to the Group have been to the effect that rowed and paddled craft, especially canoes and kayaks, should be made exempt from paying any form of dues. The Group recognises that the fact that these representations have been the most numerous does not automatically mean that their view should be accepted. It is also conscious that in some parts of the River where this type of small craft mix with much larger, much heavier and more speedy craft, dangerous situations can be created and their use should be dissuaded.

6.10 Alternatively, however, the Group has been persuaded by some of the arguments put forward, namely:

6.11 The Group believes, therefore, that while all other existing and new Harbour Dues should continue to apply, vessels without engines or sails that are being rowed or paddled should be exempt from the requirement to pay such Dues.

6.12 In putting forward this proposal, the Group recognises that many of the above arguments could equally apply to small dinghies. It also believes, therefore, that:

7. Conclusions

7.1 This Harbour Dues Working Group was asked by the River Hamble Management Committee to examine what suitable alternative arrangements there might be to the Supervision Charges that are currently applied to certain vessels moored in the River. It was also asked to consider the question of Harbour Dues, including whether canoes and kayaks should pay them.

7.2 In considering these issues, the Group has looked at the advice given previously by the Director of Environment, information supplied by the Marine Director and the arrangements for charging that apply in a number of neighbouring harbours. It has also invited comments from River users and members of the public, including those made at a public meeting on 18 April 2006.

7.3 Taking all this into account and following the discussions that have taken place between its members, the Group has concluded, inter alia, that:

7.4 The Harbour Board is now asked to consider the Group's findings and recommendations of the Management Committee.

Recommendation

That the River Hamble Harbour Board consider the Working Group's findings as detailed in this report and any recommendations from the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report or an important part of it is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

1.

Published works.

2.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE

LOCATION

None.

9384/SW

RIVER HAMBLE HARBOUR DUES GROUP

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE BY DEPUTATIONS AT MEETING HELD ON 18 APRIL 2006

Mr M Sterne - Warsash Sailing Club

Where public money is concerned, essential that public bodies conform to law. Believes there is ample evidence that Harbour Authority, in collecting Dues, is not acting in accordance with law. Section 26 of Harbour Act 1964 is relevant piece of legislation. Specifies that Dues can only be charged for exercise of powers and duties relating to management of River, not part of powers and duties to repair footpaths, etc.

Harbourmaster is responsible for securing safety/adequate management supervision of River and that should be provided as part of his duties. Does not have duty to secure flapping sails etc on untended boats. Hence, payment of supervision charge for this sort of activity should be voluntary, not raised through Harbour Dues.

Also concerned at lack of adequate consultation by HCC before Dues were introduced. Symptomatic of general lack of concern for River users that goes back many years. Believes that whole issue should be re-examined and that hard evidence of need for/legality of Dues must be produced.

Mr J Hinves - British Canoe Union (see also summary of written rep)

Canoes have traditionally had access to River for recreational/training/sporting activities for many years. Do not use facilities such as moorings etc provided, in fact River would be more suitable for canoeing without them.

Charging of Clubs has proved detrimental to development of sport (can demonstrate), works entirely against what Government is asking to be done to encourage sporting activities, development of more healthy nation, etc.

Now having to pay Dues will add considerably to stress of Clubs seeking to provide help/training for young people. Will also add stress to serious athletes seeking to train on River.

Generally, canoeing is relatively cheap sport to enter into. Charges now introduced are expensive if compared to normal cost of £300/£400 for purchase cost of new canoe.

Canoes cause little damage, create no wash - how then are canoeists to benefit from charges? Ideally, they require less, not more River management.

How also are charges to be implemented - in own case, owns 10 kayaks, each for specialist purpose. Are Dues payable for each one? Additionally, there are practical difficulties - canoeists do not have pockets/bags etc for carrying money while afloat.

Generally, feel that these issues were not addressed and that canoe organisations were not adequately consulted. Would welcome chance for further dialogue and opportunity to discuss in more informal way.

Would also ask that consideration be given to allowing free access/use by human-powered craft.

(Additional comments provided in writing 18.04 06.)

Government and local councils are pushing sports' clubs to do development work and encourage people into healthy lifestyle. However, cost of Dues will hit canoeists in more unfair way than sailing clubs in that introductory single-handed dinghies are under 3m in length whereas many introductory kayaks are longer. Larger dinghies can be used by more than person, thus enabling clubs to spread demands for money further whereas typical kayak is one person craft.

Mr C Harvey - Hamble Berth Holders' Association

Association exists to represent interests of leaseholders and tenants of approx. 1,000 berths in three Marina Developments Ltd's marinas on River. Many have long associations with area and are part of River community. In recent times, all have found it difficult to achieve voice in harbour administration and feel have been excluded from consultation exercises, notwithstanding large amount they contribute to River area economy.

Hope present exercise will lead to thoroughgoing and independent examination of finances/decision-making processes of Harbour Authority.

Pleasure craft holding annual licences are either marina-berthed boats, mid-stream moored boats on commercial moorings and mid-stream administered by Harbour Authority. All have different requirements that should be reflected in differences in charges - needs a properly researched solution, not succession of `band aid' proposals which have been case hitherto.

Not resisting totally any adjustment in Harbour charges - rather are looking for justifiable and transparent costing of facilities and resources used by clearly identifiable groups of boat owners that make different demands on Harbour Authority resources.

Fact that pay high fees to marinas does not mean that berth holders are insensitive to increases in Harbour Dues.

Key practical effect of paid-for marina service is that matters that would be of concern to Harbour Authority regarding boats elsewhere are attended to on 24-hour basis by marina staff.

Understand reason for Authority wishing to eliminate supervision charge. However, see no reason why different rates of Harbour Dues should not exist to cover different levels of demand on operational or administrative facilities.

Require clear and equitable distribution of Harbour Authority costs based on careful and objective costing of services to be supplied.

Does require competence, not series of poorly assessed projects to spend other people's money. Does require Working Group to grasp opportunity to inject requirement for informed, open management based on real partnership with River community.

Mr B Curtis - Hamble-le-Rice Parish Council

Parish Council has long had policy of trying to encourage those with modest means to use River - to make sure benefits it has to offer can be widely available. For instance, do not charge owners of boats of less than 18 feet in length. Would ask for review of intended charges to be undertaken to take account of this policy.

Mr J Mitchell - River user/Curdridge Parish Council

Curdridge Parish Council at one time had opportunity to comment on/participate in River Hamble issues. No longer applies, were not consulted in any way on subject of Harbour Dues.

Concerned that they can be applied equitably. Why should not all boat owners have to register with Harbour Board? Also believes that present arrangements are wide open to fraud - eg. stickers completed just with felt pen, can be changed easily.

While understanding some need to contribute, further believes that present arrangements have gone too far and are for most part unnecessary. There is feeling that supervision charges are principally to meet big budget deficit, not to improve conditions on River.

Mr C Brookes - River Hamble Mooring Holders' Association

Believe that this new debate is valuable in that provides opportunity to remove some of anomalies inherent in present system.

Accept that mid-stream mooring holders should pay additional fee for genuine supervision but do not believe that total of £98,900 is fair sum for what is mainly an ancillary to Harbour Patrol. Believe that Supervision Charge is partly there to help balance books.

Should be consistent treatment of all River users based on size of vessel and not on some arbitrary formula based on pontoon length. Harbour Revision Order refers to Dues being paid by boat. Would mean that if berth is re-let during year, second user would also have to pay.

River Hamble does not have large commercial user such as Red Funnel to help defray costs nor substantial holiday traffic so resident vessels have to pick up nearly all of total - some 90 per cent.

At recent Forum, raised issue of how payment of Dues is to be audited. Understand that blocks of discs are provided to marinas with no audit control or reporting back procedures - hope this is not true. No suggestion that marinas or their staff are dishonest but need system that would as far as possible remove risk of that accusation.

At minimum, all discs should be marked with painted numbers and Harbour Authority should record to whom each disc is issued. If issued to marinas or contractors, should be obliged to provide details of at least name of vessel, length and name of owner within seven days. Should also be receipt.

Dry-sailed boats should not be launched without issue of sticker. (This would only apply to dry-sailed boats in marinas, etc.)

Although in ideal world, all Dues would be paid direct to Harbour Authority and details kept as with Crown Estate mooring holders, accept could be financial savings by using marinas as agents, provided there is proper control.

Can also see that mid-stream mooring holders may benefit from additional scrutiny by Harbour staff. Charge should reflect level of additional attention. However, as far as Association is aware, no obligation within Harbour Acts for users to accept Supervision Charge.

Mr D Webb - Boat Owner/Swanwick Resident

Long-standing local resident and boat builder by trade. Have seen all benefits of living locally slowly removed.

In particular, retired people, small boat users, `rowers and paddlers' have seen their opportunities for quiet use and enjoyment of River gradually eroded. Needs have been ignored and now imposition of extra costs is extra cause of bad feeling.

Well understand reluctance and implications of losing face if admit that mistake has been made but if changes to imposition of Dues are made will make people feel that Management Committee do listen, will champion cause to get threat to last element of freedom removed. Also show that Committee does not sit back and `will do something about it'.

Propose, therefore, that charges should not be applied to manually propelled boats.

Also concerned about safety and environmental issues. Safety issue concerns stretch of River between A27 and Railway Bridge. Always a blackspot. Now only one central channel, potentially very dangerous for small boat user because of strong current on fast-ebbing tide. Needs investigation.

Environmental issue concerns activities of bait diggers on banks of Upper Hamble. Causing significant damage - needs to be addressed.

Mr T Dancer - Sport Hampshire and Isle of Wight

Explained Free Access for National Sportspeople (FANS) and Free Access for County Sportspeople (FACS) schemes. Offer elite sportspeople assistance and encouragement required to help them to reach full potential by providing free access to sports facilities. HCC administered.

Very cost-effective method of supporting local athletes. Numbers are small because emphasis is on performance and excellence. Most local authority initiatives aimed at `grass roots' - this is opportunity to offer support at other end of spectrum.

Particularly relevant because of 2012 London Olympics and Hampshire's long tradition of developing excellence in sailing. If fees imposed on all users of River Hamble will cut across opportunities to assist in this way. Asks that consideration be given to extending FANS and FACS schemes to cover River.

Mr C Wilkins

Asks for information on what legal rights Harbour Authority have used to introduce imposition of Dues. Does not believe that such rights exist. Believes aim is to take away all rights and freedoms of River users. River should be managed for benefit of users, not used as `cash cow' by local Councils.

Asks that if Dues found to be imposed wrongly, whether monies taken will be reimbursed.

Mr T Mitchell - Local Resident/Boat Owner

Concerned at effect on users of small dinghies, most young people's access into sailing. Wrong to impose restrictions and dissuade those people. Should encourage this type of activity.

Concerned also at Berth Holders' request to undertake more investigations, provide more information and analyses, consequences likely to be more restrictions. People want more freedom, not less. Believes main issue is that restrictions/additional costs will prevent young people from taking up sailing.

Mr N Francis - Mooring Holder

Query practical difficulties of collecting Dues - believes that these could be significant because of lack of support from River users e.g. what measures will be taken/applicable if people decline to pay?

Mr M Bond

Concerned that cost continually fall on boat owners. Query what environmentalists, who appear to want to stop everyone else doing anything, contribute, particularly financially. Always advise what should be done but do not want to pay. Important to ensure that boat owners are not priced out.

Mr M Steel - Warsash Sailing Club and Dinghy Instructor

Reiterates comments made about effect on young people and those being introduced to sailing. Means that costs will fall on those least able to meet them. Asks that full exemption be allowed for club owned boats of this sort.

Other issues raised:

Concern that meeting had been `one way' traffic, from body of audience to Group members. Essential that there is feedback the other way and that people are made fully aware of what and why conclusions are reached. Request that arrangements be made for suitable presentation (at Harbour Management Committee Meeting?) by way of feedback.

Further comments made about `legality' of introducing Dues - eg reference to Magna Carta.

APPENDIX B

RIVER HAMBLE HARBOUR DUES WORKING GROUP

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE IN WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

Mr J Hinves - British Canoe Union

Wish to express disquiet at introduction of charge for craft over 3m in length. Canoeing is quiet, non-polluting activity and BCU provides schemes to encourage health and sporting performance.

Would ask for human powered craft to be excluded from paying Dues due to health benefits that they offer.

Mr A Copland - Sport England South East

Express great disappointment at future levy charge being placed on canoeists, which believe will cause a dramatic decrease in participation. Changes do not seem to take account of national and government agendas to make Britain a healthier nation.

Would ask that charges be reconsidered and that active recreation activities be regarded as exempt.

Ms S Hall - Sport Hampshire and IOW

Consider proposed charging mechanism to be unfair and disproportionate and ask that canoeists be exempt.

Understand that many boat users create need for maintenance of River but believe canoeing does not have that effect.

Believe that proposed daily fee for craft over 3m in length will represent a huge additional cost and will prevent many young people from taking part.

Mr R Glover - Portsmouth and District Canoe Club

River is one of few safe water sites for teaching young and older inexperienced canoeists. Consider proposed charging mechanism for canoes is unfair and disproportionate and will act as a discouragement for young people, contrary to Government's initiatives to tackle obesity.

Mr R Kent - Southampton Canoe Club

River offers best resource locally for canoe marathon training. Charges will severely hamper ability of Club to develop canoeing, contrary to Government initiatives to promote health lifestyles.

Mr J Thorne - Southampton Water Activities Centre

Centre provides activities for young people using canoes, sailing dinghies and small powerboats, as part of national curriculum and social development work with youth groups.

Believe that proposed charges will severely curtail ability of those from deprived areas to participate and ask that consideration be given to providing exemption for bona fide schools, youth and outdoor education groups.

Mr J Dyke, Berth Holder

Human powered craft make no use of facilities offered, ie navigation marks, etc.

Such boats should be encouraged as way to healthy nation and low-cost entry to boating.

Sailing dinghies also make little use of facilities provided and available space for them is decreasing.

Dues will mean numbers of youngsters coming into boating will be reduced, causing problems in future.

Dry sailed boats require no supervision when ashore, as such should not pay for it.

Dry sailing should be encouraged as a way of reducing overcrowding on River and the economic advantages of such boats are great for the area.

Many people enjoy diversity of owning more than one boat, to pay Dues for each will be prohibitively expensive.

Will have detrimental effect on local community.

Will be serious safety aspects, both in collecting dues and forcing people out of safe confines of River.

Many people are proud boat owners and will not wish to have sticker stuck to their craft.

Charge not previously been necessary - what is money now required for and how will it benefit those now asked to pay it, ie the small boat owner.

Marine Director and Harbour Board should be seeking to minimise costs and not demand more money for non-existent services.

Scheme should be dropped for craft under 25 feet, thus allowing affordable entry for first timers.

Any deficit should be found through improved management of Harbourmaster's budget.

Mr McCallum, Sailing Club Member

Concerned at failure to consult interested parties on proposed introduction of charges - notified on 23.11.05, charges introduced on 01.01.06 which is totally unreasonable.

Also, services provided by Harbour Authority are largely irrelevant to sailing dinghies, which do not need navigation marks etc - dues amount to levy on recreational activity that is particularly important to young people.

Asks for deferment until proper consultation and, at least, that dues charged bear some relation to facilities used.

Mr P Sheppard, Mid-Stream Mooring Holder

Would be fairer and more logical for Harbour Dues and supervision charge to relate to actual size of boat, as appears to be case with marina berth holders, commercial mid-stream holders and dry-sailed boats - although it is unclear how former two are charged.

Appears that smaller boats in Crown Estates bands are subsidising others.

Suggest that either all boats should pay fixed charge depending on length band or on amount per metre.

Supervision charge seems to be extremely high for service provided - Harbour should be run as non-profit making organisation who have duty covering safety and security. Charges should therefore cover only costs involved and be applied fairly, so that boats of similar sizes do not pay widely-differing amounts.

Mr M Wren, Cruiser/Dinghy Owner

Already have tax in place in form of mooring charges.

Costs of administration of Dues plus costs of pursuing defaulters and non-compliance will not justify extra income produced.

De-minimus exemption for boats under 3m length is fudge to disguise difficulties in collecting.

Should be trying to encourage more people to use River, particularly new users - new tax will make little difference to regular users and will impact most on occasional user.

Currently, day sailer launched from trailer or a dinghy is only way to go sailing economically in the Solent because marinas increasingly dominated by larger boats - should encourage former in line with Sport for All and tackling obesity, etc.

Those who benefit from management of River should pay for that management - only requirement of small boat users is to control speeding.

New tax is unfair, unnecessary and will further dissuade people from boating.

Mr M Taylor, Commercial Mooring Holder

Has commercial mooring on River and within charges pays both Harbour Dues and rent to Crown Estates. Mooring contractor provides `supervision and care' so Harbour Boar is charging for unnecessary service. Overall, have no concerns with being asked to contribute towards River upkeep through mooring fees.

However, situation with newly introduced Harbour dues is quite different. Why should additional tax be levied - cannot get lost in River so need for navigation marks, lights, CCTV and patrols are a consequence of huge number of moorings for which Harbour Board receives revenue and mooring holders pay. Why should visitors and other small craft be taxed to provide what are to them unnecessary services?

Also argued that dry-sailed boats in lower marinas should pay dues but marina operators already significant taxation via rates which is collected from customers - where is justification for double charging?

Public Hards have provided access for generations - imagine outcry if tax were proposed for walkers using footpath. Also brings into question right of Harbour Board to impose such taxation.

Difficult to see what benefits are being provided - rather appears to be restricting publicly-owned asset to those who can pay most.

Mr T Fletcher - Southampton Solent University Watersports Centre

Centre is based at Warsash Maritime Centre Campus. In addition to RYA Sailing and Powerboat courses, run BCU introductory kayaking courses.

Currently all kayaks are less than 3m in length which means should be exempt from need to be registered, like remaining boats in Centre's fleet of training vessels. Understand need to generate income from all users but feels that need to charge kayakers and windsurfers may prove `need too far'. Will not only be very difficult for Harbour Patrols to enforce but numbers that it would affect would be minimal, which would prove that it would not be particularly effective or efficient use of resources. Another argument for making kayakers and windsurfers exempt is that both are environmentally clean and should not be penalised.

If exception cannot be accommodated, all swimmers and walkers should also be included since they, too, are river users and contribute to pollution of River and environs.

Mr P Collins - Woodmill Outdoor Centre

Appreciate that Harbour Board must raise revenue to pay for maintenance work but feel that way implemented should be reviewed and re-structured to provide much fairer system. Will impact negatively on canoes/kayaks, small dinghies etc - will also impact on how educational establishments use river.

Quieter Upper Reaches of Hamble particularly suited to canoe and kayak training and these are environmentally-friendly, non-polluting craft that use none of expensive facilities required by larger vessels. Also students frequently go ashore and spend on refreshments etc thus helping local economy.

Centres such as Woodmill help young people to become involved in healthy, physical activities, countering current trends for them to become inactive, obese and antisocial. Also engenders respect for natural environment. Dues will have to be passed on to customers ie. schools and as they will not pay, will drive this type of activity away from river.

Despite using river throughout year, had heard nothing about impending imposition of Dues. Also only heard by chance about 18 April meeting - can therefore understand why so many river users are concerned about accountability and consultation. Urge that Harbour Board revise its policy with regard to canoeing/kayaking etc activities. Also ask that educational establishments be made exempt from any form of Dues or related charges.

Mr T Naish - via email

Person of modest means being priced off river and this applies particularly to young people - most unhealthy for future outlook of boating. Concerned that Marine Director has given inconsistent reasons for imposition of Dues. Referred to protection of environment, why then is dredging which removes river mud still permitted. Should no longer be allowed.

Reference supervision charge for moorings, if money has changed hands, is not Harbour Authority contractually responsible for security/preventing damage to moored boats?

Feel that minimum length below which Dues are not charged is too short - length of 5 to 6 metres if confined to human powered craft would be more acceptable. Length for powered craft should be set so as to ensure Dues are payable by jet-skiers.

Mr B Rice, Mooring Holder, Sailing Club Member (dinghy owner) and kayak user

Imposition of additional charge of £20 per annum being levied on dinghy and kayak is main cause of objection. When enquired of Harbour Office what receiving for this additional money as small boat owner, advised that charge was for management of river and moorings, health and safety management plus environmental management. Feel already paid for these services in annual harbour dues. Object to being charged three times for same service.