Hampshire County Council

River Hamble Harbour Board Item 12

20 July 2007

River Hamble Harbour Management Committee Item 10

18 June 2007

Report of the Harbour Dues Working Group

Report of the Chief Executive and Chairman

Contact: Colin Hinxman. 01962 847343 E-mail: colin.hinxman@hants.gov.uk

Contact: Councillor David Swanbrow E-mail: dswanbrow@fareham.gov.uk

1. Summary

1.1 This report summarises the deliberations and conclusions of the working group established by the River Hamble Management Committee to consider the appropriate levels of Harbour Dues for various types of mooring on the River Hamble, and recommends a way forward for consideration by the Management Committee and Harbour Board.

2. Recommendations

2.1 The Harbour Board approves the following recommendations:

3. Introduction

3.1 As requested by the Harbour Board and Management Committee, a working group comprising County Councillors Adrian Evans, Geoff Hockley and Alan Rice, together with Fareham Borough Councillor David Swanbrow, met on 30 March and
19 April 2007 to consider the differential rates of harbour dues applicable to the different types of moorings on the River Hamble. With the agreement of the other members, Councillor Swanbrow took the Chair. They were advised on matters of fact only by the Marine Director, David Evans, who did not take part in their deliberations as he has a prejudicial interest as a payer of harbour dues himself.

4. Discussion

4.1 The Working Group had before them the minute of the meeting of the Board held in October relating to harbour dues and supervision charges; the report of the previous working group chaired by Councillor Woodward; and the Marine Director's earlier report entitled "Alternatives to the Supervision Charge" (as presented to the Harbour Board on. They also took into account details of the fees, charges and dues levied by other harbours: Langstone, Bembridge, Poole, Chichester, Cowes and Keyhaven. However it quickly became apparent to the Working Group that none of these other local harbours were in any way comparable to the River Hamble, since the duties and responsibilities of the various harbour authorities varied radically as did the way in which they raised income through charges. The Working Group therefore recognised that the River Hamble should be viewed as unique.

4.2 Members of the Working Group endorsed the approach that any changes in harbour dues should be financially neutral in their affect on Harbour Authority income. They also considered that they should aim for a system which was simple and equitable from the point of view of all river users.

4.3 Current rates of harbour dues are as follows:

4.4 Currently, dues are not charged for canoes, kayaks and rowing boats with no engine or sail, or other vessels under 3 metres in length unless they have an engine of more than 10hp.

4.5 Standard rate harbour dues are currently collected en block from the various marinas and boatyards for their berth holders afloat. Harbour dues for dry-sailed vessels are collected from individual owners, but are not invoiced annually. For the three categories of Crown Estate mid-stream moorings, the harbour dues are collected direct from each boat owner, with individual invoices being sent annually. These are sent at the same time as an invoice in respect of the Crown Estate licence fee. For a typical 11 metre boat, these two together amount to a total of:

4.6 There are some cases where boatyards or marinas also operate midstream moorings leased from the Crown Estate, for which the appropriate higher differential rates (as above) are currently payable.

4.7 In the case of midstream moorings, the Working Group acknowledged that the Harbour Authority does provide limited additional services such as repositioning fenders, re-securing lines and lashing loose sails and covers, but that these are invariably carried out as part of the routine patrols conducted by the Harbour Authority to monitor the safety of the River (as recommended by the Port Marine Safety Code). Any materials used (mainly ropes) are charged to the mooring holder. Other services provided by the Harbour Authority (such as responding to emergencies and towing disabled boats to the nearest safe berth) are freely available to all River users alike, regardless of where they are berthed.

4.8 The Working Group reached the conclusion that they could see little justification for the three separate categories of harbour dues for Crown Estate midstream moorings, and considered that there would be merit in a single average charge for all of these since the services provided in each case were the same. About 87% of the Crown Estate mid-stream moorings are piled moorings, 8% are deep water buoyed moorings and the remaining 5% are drying buoyed moorings. The Working Group therefore favoured a standard harbour dues charge for all these categories. Further, the Working Group concluded that it could not justify a differential between the rates of harbour dues charged to mid-stream mooring holders and that charged to marina berth holders on the grounds of the type and level of services provided. However, it concluded that the additional costs to the Harbour Authority associated with rendering individual invoices to Crown Estate mid-stream mooring holders and dealing with the administration of occasional bad debts justified a differential of 10% between the dues charged for Crown Estate mid-stream moorings and the dues charged for marina and other commercial berths. If implemented, this would require a reduction in the level of harbour dues for mid-stream mooring holders and a commensurate, but smaller, increase for marina and other commercially operated `walk-ashore' berth-holders, such that Harbour Authority income levels are maintained. It was proposed that these changes should be phased in over five years to minimise the impact for those who face an increase. Following detailed consideration, the Working Group proposed that:

4 Impact Assessment

5.1 This report covers the provision of a range of services and facilities by the Harbour Authority. Full equalities impact assessments for the delivery of these services have already been prepared.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The current arrangements for charging differing rates of harbour dues for vessels berthed on each type of mooring is over-complex and is no longer fit for purpose. This report proposes a simpler system, to be phased in over a five year period.

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.

NB the list excludes:

1.

Published works.

2.

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

TITLE

LOCATION

None.