Contact: Richard Stocks, ext 5202

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That approval be given to continuing the current maintenance support up to the £400,000 allocated, subject to the completion of appropriate agreements to safeguard the County Council's position.

(ii) That an additional grant of £90,000 be allocated from the South West Hampshire Transport Strategy capital programme for 2003/04 and the subsequent four years as a contribution to the major structural works required, including the full structural analysis of the pier.

(iii) That no commitment be made at this time for contributions to the replacement of Hotspur IV but the service support negotiations will continue and will explore this matter.

2. Reason

2.1 To ensure the continued operation of the ferry service between Hythe and Southampton.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 The relocation of the ferry terminal or the replacement of the ferry with bus or rail services via Totton.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - none.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

7. Background

7.1 The Hythe Pier interchange and maintenance projects are included in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) for Hampshire 2001-2006. An allocation from the South West Hampshire Transport Strategy (SWHTS) Capital Programme of £400,000 has been made to the interchange project for the starts year 2003/04 with a further £200,000 in subsequent years. A contribution of £400,000 has been made to the maintenance of the pier for the starts year 2001/02 of which £149,000 has been spent to date.

7.2 There has been a ferry operating between Hythe and Southampton for more than 700 years. The construction of Hythe Pier began in October 1879 and was officially opened on 1 January 1881 at a cost of £7,000. It was constructed so that ferry passengers could board and disembark at all states of the tide, rather than using the gravel Hard. At approximately 640 metres long, the pier initially had a hand propelled truck to carry luggage and goods along its length. By 1901 a truck running on narrow gauge tram lines was in operation and the present pier train has been in use since 1922, when electrical power was introduced. In 1986 the refurbishment of the entire pier runway superstructure was completed, together with various remedial works throughout the substructure.

7.3 The draft Totton and Waterside Strategy provides the strategic overview for the Waterside and the remit to develop the schemes included within the capital programme. It specifically promotes integration between services and improved public transport services. The aim of the interchange project is to progress improvement to the multi-modal interchange. The scheme is being project managed by Atkins and options for improvement are currently being developed for consultation in late summer. A Hythe Steering Group has been set up to coordinate the work of the groups working on the interchange, the maintenance of the pier, the promenade and the proposed link road.

7.4 The area has RAMSAR designation and is of European significance and is a Solent Maritime Candidate Special Conservation (cSAE) and is also within a designated conservation area under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It is probable that any significant work carried out on the pier will require liaison with and subsequent consent from the Environment Agency.

7.5 Following the allocation of the above monies it was felt prudent to determine the life expectancy of the pier as the ferry service depended on it and as the County Council was spending a total of £1 million. Whilst the County Council does not own the pier the owner, White Horse Ferries, readily agreed to the survey. County Council engineers carried out a structural survey of the pier in August 2001. This report discusses the findings of that survey and proposes a way forward for the approval of the Executive Member for Environment.

8. The Structural Survey

8.1 A full structural survey of Hythe Pier was undertaken by the County Council in June 2001. The brief was to review its current condition and to determine the estimated life expectancy of the structure. This work was not to include the:

(i) train; or

(ii) pier head buildings or ticket office;

but was to look solely at the pier's foundations (where possible), Victorian columns, the more recent superstructure and decking.

8.2 During the initial site visit by engineers to determine the methods to be used in the survey, significant concerns were raised about the safety of the pier when the train was running. This was due to observed movement in the structure and that some bolts were missing and some structural members were broken. White Horse Ferries was immediately informed of these concerns and they stopped the train temporarily while emergency repairs were carried out. Following these emergency repairs the brief to the engineers was modified to identify what work would be required to give:

(i) a safe working pier;

(ii) a five year expected life; and

(iii) a life expectancy of 25 years or more.

8.3 Since then the survey has been undertaken and the report was completed before Christmas 2001. The recommendations of the structural survey are set out in the attached appendix. In general the structure of the pier is in relatively good condition, especially the Victorian elements of the structure. However, there are areas that require work to ensure that the pier remains an asset to Hythe and Hampshire in the long term.

9. Works Completed to Date

9.1 The broken and damaged bolts and fishplates that were identified during the emergency repairs have been replaced, and all the broken structural members have been re-welded. These elements have all been painted to give them protection from the marine environment.

9.2 The timber decking and guard-rails are being replaced, the cost being met from the £400,000 LTP allocation as a contribution to the maintenance of the pier. So far two loads of Ekki (a tropical hardwood from a sustainable source) costing £99,000 have been delivered and fitted. White Horse Ferries' own maintenance staff are carrying out the works, and their time paid for by the company. White Horse Ferries is concerned about controlling the quality together with the Health and Safety management of this work and have therefore taken responsibility for these areas. This has resulted in savings to the work.

9.3 The funding has been treated as a grant to the owner to maintain an asset that has wider significance for Hythe than simply a docking facility for a ferry.

9.4 At present the pier has had one-third of its re-decking and guard-rails replaced on the pedestrian side. It is proposed that this work continues up to the limit of the funds available, ie the remaining £251,000.

9.5 A contribution of £50,000 has been made out of the £400,000 to the replacement of the pontoon on which the ferries dock. The existing pontoon is in a poor state and is at risk of sinking. The total cost would be £68,780, the balance being met by White Horse Ferries. This pontoon is nearing completion and was due to be delivered by the end of July 2002.

10. Works Identified in the Structural Survey Report

10.1 A maintenance plan for the pier is being developed with White Horse Ferries. Discussions have therefore been held with the company regarding the findings, the way forward and funding for the remaining works identified in the report and other works needed to the pier.

10.2 Damaged areas of paintwork are being dealt with as the decking and guard-rails work progresses. It is proposed by White Horse Ferries that the major repaint of the whole structure be undertaken as ongoing cyclic maintenance, ie similar to the Forth Rail Bridge painting, say a fifth every year, so that every element of the structure is repainted/protected from the marine environment every five years. This will reduce the financial burden to both parties and will become part of an ongoing maintenance culture for the structure.

10.3 White Horse Ferries has had 380 stanchions made from surplus materials from the construction of the new pontoon and these will be used as replacements to some of the guard-rails not being replaced as part of the currently agreed works.

10.4 The old working platform that is still attached to the columns close to the pier head, and is a cause of concern because of its corroded state, will be removed by White Horse Ferries this summer.

10.5 The major structural works required by the survey report are to:

(i) take down and/or replace the pier end;

(ii) replace all the nuts, bolts, washers and welds to the diagonal bracing not already replaced;

(iii) undertake repairs to the pier head, deck bracing, approach ramps and concrete areas; and

(iv) fit expansion joints in the first half of the structure.

10.6 Prior to this work being done there is a strong recommendation in the survey report that a structural analysis of the whole structure be undertaken. This will ensure that the proposals will not compromise the existing structure. It is proposed that these works would be tendered for either as one project or separately. The major structural works, if they are to be done in the short term, will require financial support from the County Council.

11. Other Financial Support Requested by White Horse Ferries

11.1 White Horse Ferries has in recent correspondence requested further financial support for:

(i) the design of the ferry to replace Hotspur IV;

(ii) a contribution to Hotspur IV's replacement; and

(iii) repair to the pier head buildings.

11.2 White Horse Ferries has also requested that the County Council assist in the monitoring of the structure by carrying out an annual inspection.

11.3 White Horse Ferries needs a replacement vessel for Hotspur IV to maintain the reliability of the service. Hotspur IV has reached the end of its economic life and if a reliable service is to be maintained a relief vessel is needed. Experience has shown that when reliability falls - as recently occurred when Hotspur IV was damaged in a collision - patronage levels quickly drop.

12. Financial Statement

12.1 The structural survey report identified that essential maintenance would be required to ensure a 25 year life expectancy for the pier. These works have been initially estimated at £1.7 million. If White Horse Ferries' proposals and continued management/supervision of the work are accepted then the financial support required for the maintenance of the pier will be reduced to an overall estimate of £850,000.

12.2 White Horse Ferries has also requested financial support of £15,000 for the design of Hotspur IV's replacement and a contribution of £100,000 to the construction of the new boat (estimated to cost £600,000). It is proposed to explore the requested funding for the new boat through the service support negotiations for the ferry and in partnership with Southampton City Council. This service support agreement will be the subject of a report to the Executive Member for Environment at the appropriate time.

12.3 The pier head buildings need renovation, estimated to cost £35,000, which would allow the pier to be used for other social activities and a possible kiosk concession to be let. These elements of work are not considered to be of the highest priority.

12.4 In view of the nature of the works to be undertaken and the quality of the structure involved, other sources of funding are being pursued, including Southampton City Council, Lottery Heritage funding, etc. New Forest District Council, while supportive of the need to refurbish Hythe pier, has indicated informally that it is unlikely to be able to provide any funds, at least in the short term.

12.5 The County Council will seek to safeguard its investment through appropriate legal agreements. These will include for inspection programmes with agreed processes for dealing with any remedial works required. This will also include securing the County Council's interests in the commercial value of the investment if these assets (the pier or the replacement ferry) were sold.

12.6 The County Council does not have any specific power relating to the maintenance of a pier. However the Council does have the power, under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, to do anything which it considers likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of its area. Guidance confirms that it is for the local authority itself to decide whether any particular action would promote or improve well-being, taking account of its local circumstances and the wishes and needs of its communities. In the current case it is considered that the proposal would be a proper exercise of this power, having regard to a number of benefits that it will bring. The Hythe ferry is dependent on the pier, and the ferry provides an important transport link which has a significant benefit to the Waterside community.

13. Benefits

13.1 The ferry service between Hythe and Southampton now carries 436,000 passengers a year which equates to nearly 1,200 passengers a day. This service carries both pedestrians and cyclists who are commuters, shoppers and visitors to both Southampton and Hythe. The ferry links with the bus services at both ends and in Hythe to both the Solent Way and Hampshire coastal cycle path.

13.2 The alternatives to the use of the ferry are the bus services from Hythe to Southampton or the private car. Currently there is substantial peak period congestion on the A326 and A35 routes to Southampton which delays cars and, more especially, the bus links. The ferry service from the pier provides a valuable alternative to road based travel, with capacity for additional patronage. The journey to Southampton by the ferry is also faster than by bus. However whilst a survey of origins and destinations would be required to fully quantify the financial cost benefits, it can be reasonably assumed that this service does provide a benefit in terms of cost and time over road based travel. The other issue to be considered is that if the ferry service were to cease, these 1,200 or more passengers a day could be adding to the already congested road network.

13.3 The ferry service complies well with the corporate aims of Hampshire County Council, especially with regard to sustainability and stewardship of the environment. It also fits in with the aim to support local communities and their continued economic growth, by bringing commuters and tourists to and through Hythe.

14. Options

14.1 There are three main options with regard to the pier's maintenance requirements:

(i) County Council contributing to the cost of the maintenance;

(ii) no further contributions to the maintenance of the pier; and

(iii) review service alternatives.

14.2 The cost of the remedial works required to bring the pier to a standard which would give an estimated 25 year minimum life is covered in a previous section. In addition there will be a requirement for an estimated £20,000 per annum maintenance sum to be paid by the owner, some of which will need to be set aside for major cyclic maintenance. The full costs of this would be more accurately estimated in any further studies.

14.3 If the County Council did not make a further contribution to the maintenance of the pier, either through a direct grant or through an increased subsidy for the ferry service, then the pier and the ferry service could be at risk. This would have the effect of loss of trade in Hythe, additional need for road based transport and the public relations perception that the County Council was abandoning Hythe.

14.4 There are a number of possible alternatives to running a ferry service to Hythe Pier. First of all, the service could run from another location. The only one currently viable in all tide states is Hythe Marina. At present there are no facilities for running a ferry service from the Marina and a substantial investment would be required. Also, the Marina is out of the town centre and on private land not owned by either the current ferry operator or the County Council.

14.5 There is also some concern over the water depth in the marina channel and that either side of the channel is defined on the Port of Southampton chart INT 1733 2041 (1999) as a "foul area due to clump sinkers with wire attachments".

14.6 The alternative of using buses has been referred to in earlier sections. An increased frequency bus service could be provided but at present this would take longer than the ferry due to the congestion on the A326 and A35 and the more circuitous route to Southampton. Whilst the bus priority proposals may assist service efficiency, it is unlikely to reduce this journey time to compete with the ferry service. Also, many of the people using the ferry will in all probability not use a bus service. The ferry has a certain kudos which a bus service does not.

14.7 The alternative of bringing forward proposals for reopening railway train services to Hythe is a possible alternative. However this would entail substantial infrastructure costs and the current Railtrack time scale of five to ten years for non-safety related signalling work would put this option firmly in the long term category of alternatives. Also, the possibility of the Dibden Bay development contributing or providing other services in some way may also be in this long term category, if at all.

15. The Way Forward

15.1 The current service and its use of the pier are probably the best option in the short, medium and probably long term, due to the benefits both in environmental and economic terms to the communities of Hythe and Totton, and in the benefits of transport mode choice to the community. The full structural analysis of the pier needs to be carried out to ensure that the major structural works have the maximum impact on the longevity of the structure.

15.2 £400,000 was earmarked for the refurbishment of Hythe pier in the 2001/02 programme, of which £149,000 has been spent to date. It is proposed that this be released to White Horse Ferries so that the current programme of refurbishment can continue. This funding would be on the basis of the County Council taking proper legal safeguards to protect its interest and investment in the pier.

15.3 At a recent meeting of officers, White Horse Ferries indicated that the remainder of the refurbishment of the pier could be funded by way of an annual grant over a period of years - say five. This would enable the company to progress the works identified in the survey using substantially their own resources. Clearly the extent of the demand that would be placed on the County Council's resources would be influenced by the outcome of the pursuit of other sources of funding. For now it is considered important that the County Council gives some commitment in principle to fund the outstanding £450,000 which are needed. It is thus proposed that a sum of £90,000 per year over the next five years is earmarked from the LTP allocation for the South West Hampshire Transport Strategy capital programme.

16. Conclusion

16.1 The strategy to provide a public transport interchange in Hythe associated with the ferry remains sound. It fits in with what is achievable with alternative modes of transport and Hythe's heritage of providing a ferry between the New Forest and Southampton. There are also other benefits to Hythe in terms of the economic and social benefits that may not come from other transport alternatives.

16.2 The alternative transportation modes available would not provide the equivalent sustainable solutions. Whilst South Hampshire Rapid Transport may provide a viable public transport alternative in the future, the timescales involved in its delivery makes this a long term alternative to the ferry.

16.3 The County Council should continue to give financial support to the ferry company to ensure the refurbishment of the pier and thus the maintenance of the ferry service. It is also considered important that alternative sources of funding are pursued.

7171/RDS

APPENDIX

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STRUCTURAL SURVEY REPORT

The remedial works that should be carried out immediately are:

(i) replace the bolt connections which are presently loose, broken or missing;

(ii) clean and apply touch up paint to areas of significant corrosion;

(iii) replace pedestrian guard railings on the pier perimeter and to provide a permanent infill to the railings between the cycleway/walkway and the tramway; and

(iv) remove the disused working platform from span 56 and 57.

The remedial works that should commence within a year are:

(i) take down and replace the pier end;

(ii) replace welds to the diagonal braces;

(iii) replace all bolts, nuts and washers;

(iv) repair approach ramp girders;

(v) repair deck bracing;

(vi) replace column bracing;

(vii) repair column heads;

(viii) carry out concrete repairs;

(ix) replace hardwood timber decking where required;

(x) install additional movement joints;

(xi) replace pier lighting;

(xii) detailed survey beneath pier head using access scaffolding;

(xiii) install fenders to pier head; and

(xiv) carry out structural assessment and calculations.

The remedial works that should be carried out within two years of the report are:

(i) major repaint of entire structure; and

(ii) install new seating and street furniture.