Contact: Alan Inder, ext 6759 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 At the end of March 2004, the discussion paper `Strategic Principles to Guide Development on the River Hamble' was circulated to a wide range of stakeholder organisations for comment. This report summarises the comments received and recommends that amendments be made, and that the amended document be adopted as guidance for the Harbour Authority in policy and decision making with regard to development on the river.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 This report supports Aim 1 (Maximising life opportunities) and Aim 2 (Stewardship of the environment) of the Corporate Strategy by trying to balance the varied provision of moorings for different sectors of the community with the need to conserve the landscape and important nature conservation areas.

3. Introduction

3.1 At its meeting in December 2003, the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee supported the proposal for the County Council as Harbour Authority to prepare a discussion paper `Strategic Principles to Guide Development on the River Hamble' for public consultation, following a stakeholders' workshop. The workshop was held on 26 January 2004. It was attended by 37 participants, representing more than 30 organisations. A summary of the workshop has been issued to all participants and to others with an interest.

3.2 Following the workshop the discussion paper `Strategic Principles to Guide Development on the River Hamble' was produced and circulated to all Members of the Advisory and Management Committees, to marinas and boatyards, sailing and yacht clubs, etc. By the deadline of 30 April, 11 sets of comments had been received, and a further four sets were received prior to the drafting of this report. Full sets of the comments received are held in the Environment Department and the Harbour Office. The respondents are listed in Appendix 1.

3.3 This report summarises the comments received and suggests where amendments ought to be made prior to adoption by the County Council as Harbour Authority. Significant proposed amendments are listed in Appendix 2. The paragraph references correspond to those in the Strategic Principles document.

4. General Points

4.1 The main general points may be summarised as follows.

Consultation

4.2 It was recognised that a great deal of effort had been made to involve stakeholder organisations, and many expressed appreciation of the workshop held in January. However, there was some criticism that not enough had been done to consult individuals with an interest. Although the County Council expected that numerous individuals would be consulted through stakeholder organisations, it is acknowledged that in future more should be done to reach those who do not belong to any such organisations.

Review

4.3 Several consultees remarked that the Strategic Principles should be subject to review at some time in the future. This is accepted as a good idea, and the document should be amended to reflect the need for review within three years.

Planning Framework

4.4 There is strong support for the established planning framework, especially the two Borough Local Plans and the Estuary Management Plan. However, concern was expressed that there are some inconsistencies between policies in the two Local Plans, and there is support for reviewing planning policies in the coming years as the new planning system comes into effect. The County Council shares this concern and considers that the new form of plans might provide the opportunity to revert to the concept of a river-wide local plan, allowing a more holistic approach to planning and development once again. Therefore, it is recommended that the Borough Councils be approached formally to see if they would support the idea.

5. Range of Moorings

5.1 Some consultees remarked that Table 1 (Division of Moorings between Sectors) showed the big swing that has occurred towards the commercial sector, with over 70% of the moorings on the river now being under the control of marinas, boatyards and other commercial operators.

5.2 The figures in Table 1 (Average Charge for a Berth/Mooring) were queried by some. However, these figures were averages based on figures supplied by providers and so any discrepancies will be due to non-response by certain providers.

5.3 The reference to the most appropriate allocation between sectors of any current spare capacity generated controversy, with strong support for priority to affordable moorings being balanced by claims by the commercial operators that, as the main providers of facilities, their sector should have priority.

5.4 Similarly, the reference to giving priority to "local" people in the allocation of "affordable" moorings caused controversy. Whilst considered by many to be highly desirable, it was criticised by others for various reasons, including:

(i) it would be difficult if not impossible to operate a scheme which allocated moorings fairly to local people on low incomes; and

(ii) it does not reflect the value non-local people bring to the economy.

5.5 The representations received on these issues have been carefully considered but, however laudable it may be to prioritise spare mooring capacity to provide affordable moorings and to allocate such moorings to local people on low incomes, the reality is that the provision of moorings is essentially market driven and dependent on the policies of the various mooring providers, and it is beyond the ability of the Harbour Authority to implement such policies. Therefore it has come to the conclusion that the two principles associated with "priority to affordable moorings" and "moorings for local people" ought to be deleted from the document. For the same reason it is impossible to accept the recommendation of one consultee that "at every opportunity moorings should be brought back into the private (public) sector".

6. Mooring Numbers and Capacity

6.1 The issue of whether the river is below, at or above capacity generated a variety of views across the spectrum. This reinforced the need for a comprehensive assessment of the river's capacity, to be carried out by independent consultants. There is no allocation for this work in the Harbour Authority's budget for 2004/05, and so a bid would need to be made for funding from next year's budget.

6.2 The Harbour Authority's contention that a more flexible application of Mooring Restriction Areas (MRA) policy is required to enable improvements to take place was generally supported, although one consultee argued for continuation of the strict application of the policy.

7. Traffic, Access and Parking

7.1 Many respondents reinforced concern about the adequacy of parking provision. Indeed, additional reasons were given for pressures, including inadequate parking provision, with recent housing and industrial developments in Hamble. Two suggestions for additional parking provision at Hamble were made.

7.2 The adopted Hamble Area Transport Strategy (HATS) seeks to encourage travel by modes other than the car, consequently it would not accord with the strategy to seek additional permanent parking. Nevertheless, some of the potential transportation solutions identified by stakeholders are being proposed through HATS. These include the investigation of potential sites for overspill parking during special events and trailer parking, and the opportunity to incorporate a park-and-ride for the Hamble Peninsula into any scheme to serve the Southampton area at Windhover. Other proposals will also address some of the concerns expressed, eg a review of parking charges and stay limits, and the decriminalisation of parking enforcement, which will mean a review of on-street parking and traffic regulation orders. A study of parking (on- and off-street) was undertaken in autumn 2003.

8. Navigational Matters

8.1 The pros and cons of widening or narrowing the main channel caused debate, as expected. The reality is that the best thing to do is likely to vary according to location and circumstances, and that every proposal must be judged on its merits. The last sentence of paragraph 4.28 should be amended to reflect this.

8.2 The statement that "secondary channels are highly valued by many river users" was supported, and some felt it should also cover "other channels". It would be appropriate to refer to "secondary and access to moorings channels" in the principles and explanatory text.

8.3 Some made the point that adequate manoeuvring areas should be maintained for approaching and departing from marinas, and it is proposed that a principle be added to this effect.

9. Environment and Heritage

9.1 One consultee pointed out that the rigorous application of nature conservation policies is due to the need to comply with European legislation.

9.2 The text on dredging (paragraph 4.40) gave unnecessary concern to commercial operators, primarily because it failed to exclude maintenance dredging from the statement "dredging ought to be kept to a minimum, if not prevented altogether". Certainly the Harbour Authority recognises that prevention of maintenance dredging would lead to the silting up of

channels, loss of access for deep drafted vessels, and potentially serious adverse effects on marinas, boatyards and others. The text will be amended to correct the position.

9.3 The document ought to refer to the dredging plan being drawn up by the Harbour Authority in close consultation with other regulators, commercial operators and environmental bodies. This plan aims to take a more strategic, long term, coordinated approach to maintenance dredging and the assessment of its effects, and to consider opportunities for the beneficial use of dredgings within the estuary system.

9.4 Some commercial operators pointed out that the intention that developments should incorporate means of improving environmental quality is not realistic in all cases, and so it is proposed that the qualification "where possible" be added.

10. General Principles

10.1 One consultee suggested that all base information should be in the public domain. However, whilst generally desirable, this might not always be acceptable or appropriate.

11. Conclusions

11.1 The stakeholders' workshop and consultation on the discussion paper have been very valuable in helping to develop `Strategic Principles to Guide Development on the River Hamble'. The consultation showed broad support for the principles, and many constructive comments and suggestions were made which will improve the document. It is believed that the proposed amendments referred to in this report and listed in Appendix 2 will be acceptable to most people, although some will be unhappy about the deletion of principles relating to affordable moorings, and moorings for local people. However, it must be recognised that, however laudable and desirable such principles might be, they are beyond the powers of the Harbour Authority to enforce.

Recommendation

That the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee be advised that this Committee agrees that:

(i) the document `Strategic Principles to Guide Development on the River Hamble' be amended as proposed in this report, and adopted by the County Council as Harbour Authority;

(ii) the County Council discusses with the Borough Councils the feasibility of preparing a river-wide plan within the Local Development Frameworks; and

(iii) the County Council commissions independent consultants to carry out a comprehensive study of the capacity of the river to accommodate moorings and vessels.

8786/AI

STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE DEVELOPMENT ON THE RIVER HAMBLE

CONSULTATION RESPONSES - LIST OF RESPONDENTS

Written comments on the Discussion Paper were received from the following organisations (in alphabetical order):

_ Association of Hamble River Yacht Clubs

_ Botley Parish Council

_ Crown Estate

_ Environment Agency

_ Hamble-le-Rice Parish Council

_ Hamble River Sailing Club

_ Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

_ Marina Developments Limited

_ Moody & Son Limited

_ River Hamble Mooring Holders' Association

_ Royal Southern Yacht Club

_ The Hamble Berth Holders' Association

_ Trinity House

and from the following members of the River Hamble Harbour Advisory Committee [AC] or Management Committee [MC]:

_ Mr L M Garner, Royal Yachting Association [AC]

_ C P M Hobbs, Warsash Residents' Association [MC]

_ Councillor Mrs P Holden-Brown, Hampshire County Council [MC]

APPENDIX 2

STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE DEVELOPMENT ON THE RIVER HAMBLE

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

The following amendments to the Discussion Paper are proposed, following analysis of comments received. Paragraph numbers in column 1 refer to those in the Discussion Paper.