Contact: Merrick Denton-Thompson, ext 6826

email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The River Hamble Harbour Revision Order of 1969 (amended in 1982) established Hampshire County Council as the Harbour Authority. In 2001 the responsibilities of the Harbour Authority moved from the Recreation and Heritage Committee to the Executive Member for Environment. At the same time changes were made to administrative arrangements as an interim measure pending the outcome of the Review of Municipal Ports.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to:

(i) seek approval to establishing a River Hamble Harbour Board to discharge the County Council's responsibilities as Harbour Authority;

(ii) seek approval to revising the County Council's Constitution to be recommended to the County Council; and

(iii) authorise a Scheme of Delegation for the Harbour Board to be drawn up.

2. Background

2.1 It has been over four years since the Government announced its intention to undertake a review of Municipal Ports. The current arrangements for the management of the River Hamble have always been interim pending the review, these are:

(i) Decisions by the Executive Member for Environment;

(ii) River Hamble Executive Member's Group;

(iii) River Hamble Harbour Management Committee; and

(iv) River Hamble Harbour Advisory Committee.

2.2 The County Council concluded that it was important to put a permanent governance arrangement in place. On 28 June 2004 the Cabinet approved the commencement of the process to seek to change the governance of the River Hamble. Informal consultation had taken place in the previous six months to seek views on the best arrangements for governance which complied with the advice from the Department for Transport that a seven- person Harbour Board was the most effective arrangement.

2.3 Formal consultation was undertaken between 13 September and 7 November 2004 involving all the key stakeholder groups, the individual mooring holders and all those with a postal address within one kilometre of the banks of the river. A 29% response rate was achieved with over 80% supporting the principles of change. The details of the response are set out in the attached appendices, which include the report considered by the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee on 17 December 2004.

3. The Proposed Harbour Board

3.1 The proposal is to:

(i) transfer the responsibility for discharging the County Council's obligations as Harbour Authority from the Executive Member for Environment to a seven-person Harbour Board;

(ii) retain the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee as an independent scrutiny committee; and

(iii) disband the River Hamble Executive Member's Group and the River Hamble Harbour Advisory Committee.

3.2 It is proposed that two members of the Harbour Board would be directly appointed by the County Council - the Chairman of the Board and the River Hamble Marine Director (as a non-voting member). Two County Councillors would be appointed to the Board by an Appointments Panel which would also appoint three further individuals with the relevant technical skills. These skills would include recreational sailing, marine industry and environmental management. Of the two County Councillors, one would be selected from the seven County Members within the area of Eastleigh Borough Council and one would be selected from the six (seven after the boundary changes) Members within the Fareham Borough Council area.

3.3 The Appointments Panel would be chaired by the Chairman of the Harbour Board and it would consist of a representative of the Royal Yachting Association, the British Marine Federation, the Integrated Agency and Hamble Parish Council.

4. The County Council

4.1 The County Council would in effect be delegating its obligations to a new committee - the River Hamble Harbour Board, although there would be no change to the liabilities held by the County Council as a Municipal Port Authority. Those members of the Board who are not County Council elected Members would have the status of a co-opted member. While co-opted members would not normally have voting rights, advantage would be taken of a provision in legislation which states that voting rights will apply where the committee is established exclusively for the purpose of discharging harbour authority functions.

4.2 Changes to the County Council's Constitution would not, however, affect the continuation in force of the existing Harbour Revision Order. This means that the existing River Hamble Harbour Management Committee would remain in place. It would, however, become a sub-committee of the Board.

4.3 Article 12 of the Harbour Revision Order provides that "all matters relating to the discharge of the powers, functions and obligations [of the Board] shall stand referred to the Management Committee". Before exercising any such powers, functions and obligations, the Board would be required, except in the case of an emergency, to consider a report of the Management Committee with respect to the matter.

4.4 Thought needs to be given to how this may operate in the context of the workings of the proposed Board. The role of the Management Committee could be to meet twice yearly to approve a general policy framework, within the context of which actual decisions are then made by the Board (the approval of the general policy framework being deemed to be "the report of the Management Committee" with respect to the particular matter before the Board for decision). This would be consistent with the desire to avoid having different layers of decision-making. The Management Committee would concentrate on strategic issues, and this would avoid a situation where each individual report coming to the Board for decision had to be considered in advance by the Management Committee.

4.5 Consideration could also be given to the County Council designating the Management Committee as an overview and scrutiny committee further to the Local Government Act 2000. This would give it powers to review, scrutinise and call-in decisions of the Board, and to require members of the Board to attend before it to answer questions.

4.6 The proposed arrangements are very much in line with the recommendations to other Ports from the Review of Trust Ports by the Government. However, the details set out in this proposal would `break new ground' and it would be important to review the success of any new arrangements to ensure objectives are being met.

4.7 It should also be recognised that an advantage of the proposals is that the new framework could be created by internal decisions of the County Council, relatively speedily and at minimal cost, provided that Members are persuaded by the case for change. If it is not possible to proceed on this basis, consideration would need to be given to the formal amendment of the existing Harbour Revision Order, if revised governance arrangements are to be put in place. This would require a statutory process to be followed

that could lead to a public inquiry. That process would take much longer, and the outcome could be uncertain. Consideration would also need to be given to how the costs of that process would be met by the Harbour Authority.

4.8 There are two matters which, following further internal consideration, will vary from the papers considered by the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee. The first concerns the role of the Marine Director for the River Hamble, where it could be assumed that he would be a full voting member of the proposed Harbour Board. To clarify this it is recommended that he should be a non-voting member of the Harbour Board, which would leave the Chairman with the casting vote where necessary. Secondly, it is felt that political proportionality should apply to the membership of the Harbour Board. This is contrary to the proposition considered by the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee that full Council would need to agree unanimously to waiving proportionality on the Harbour Board.

5. Conclusions

5.1 The benefits of setting up a Harbour Board would be to streamline the administrative arrangements and ensure that the decision making process is in line with best practice for discharging Harbour Authority functions. A large number of individuals and organisations have given a great deal of thought and time to assist the County Council in deciding on the future governance arrangements for the River Hamble.

5.2 There is support for modernising the Harbour Authority and to do it as soon as reasonably possible. The County Council should consider carefully the need to achieve the desired outcomes of modernising the Harbour Authority so that it is fit for purpose, transparent, accountable and accessible. A change in the County Council's Constitution will be needed to modernise the Harbour Authority within the confines of the existing Harbour Revision Order. It is also recommended that the County Council gives a commitment to review after two years any new arrangements to ensure the objectives of the changes are being met.

5.3 A scheme of delegation will need to be prepared to clarify the relationship between the County Council, the Harbour Board and the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee. It will also secure a commitment from the Harbour Board to comply with corporate standards and protocols in the way it operates its budgets and programmes.

5.4 The County Council may consider putting in place these new arrangements to come into force immediately after the County Council elections in May 2005.

Recommendation

That it be a recommendation to the County Council:

(i) That approval be given to the principle of the establishment of a River Hamble Harbour Board to discharge the County Council's responsibilities as Harbour Authority.

(ii) That approval be given to the preparation of amendments to the County Council's Constitution to be considered by the County Council.

(iii) That authorisation be given to the preparation of a Scheme of Delegation and protocols defining the working arrangements between the County Council, the Harbour Board and the River Hamble Management Committee.

9139Rpt/MD-T

APPENDIX

Contact: Merrick Denton-Thompson, ext 6826

email: [email protected]

With the concurrence of the Chairman under Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, this matter is included on the agenda to enable the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee to approve the future governance of the River Hamble without delay

1. Summary

1.1 The current arrangements for the governance of the River Hamble Harbour Authority were established by the River Hamble Harbour Revision Order 1969 and the River Hamble Harbour Revision Order 1982. The internal governance arrangements within Hampshire County Council, the Municipal Port Authority, were amended as a result of the Local Government Act 2000; these were seen to be interim arrangements pending the review of Municipal Ports by the Government.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the public consultation on the proposed changes to governance arrangements and to set out a recommended way forward to be considered by the County Council.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 The report supports Aims 1 to 5 of the Corporate Strategy (Maximising Life Opportunities, Stewardship of the Environment, Achieving Economic Prosperity, Building Strong and Safe Communities, and Improving Services) by contributing to the statutory duties entailed in the management of the River Hamble.

3. Background

3.1 The River Hamble Harbour Revision Order of 1969 (amended in 1982) established Hampshire County Council as the Harbour Authority, together with the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee. The majority of the Members of this Committee are Members of the County Council.

3.2 In 2001 the decisions to be made by the Harbour Authority moved from the Recreation and Heritage Committee, of which the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee was a sub-committee, to the Executive Member for Environment. These changes were partly as a result of the Local Government Act 2000. At the same time the River Hamble Executive Member's Group and the River Hamble Harbour Advisory
Committee were established. Their terms of reference were agreed by the Standards Committee and the County Council on 13 December 2001. These arrangements were seen to be interim pending the findings and recommendations by the Review of Municipal Ports.

3.3 In June 2003 it became evident that progress on the Review of Municipal Ports was being delayed. Meanwhile, the present arrangements were still interim only and there was a growing wish to put a permanent governance arrangement in place. As a consequence, the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee and the County Council began to consider future governance arrangements. During the autumn of 2003 a range of informal discussions took place with river users and other interested parties. A progress report was considered by the Management Committee on 17 December 2003 which resolved "That the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee supports the River Hamble Harbour Authority remaining as a Municipal Port but consider that informal consultations should also include consideration of a Trust Port".

3.4 During further informal consultation it became clear that there was a need to concentrate on modernising the governance of the Harbour Authority, making it accountable and fit for purpose in line with recommendations of the Trust Ports Review undertaken by former the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which was published in June 1999.

4. Modernising the Harbour Authority

4.1 Under the current interim arrangements, decisions of the Harbour Authority are made by the Executive Member for Environment. The Executive Member draws on the advice of the River Hamble Executive Member's Group, which itself is made up of a small group of Members from the Management Committee, including local elected Members and representatives from the Royal Yachting Association and the marine industry. The Management Committee itself meets twice a year within a couple of weeks of the River Hamble Harbour Advisory Committee. The Executive Member chairs all these meetings.

4.2 There are 61 Municipal Ports in the country, 57% report to a Committee of elected representatives, 52% report to an Executive Member (a few report to both). However, informal discussions that have taken place with the Ports Division of the Department for Transport over a number of years have concluded that the most appropriate governance arrangement for Ports, including the River Hamble, would be through a Harbour Board, and like a Trust Port the Board should be fit for purpose, open and accountable.

A Board made up of between seven and nine members with all the necessary skills and experience to discharge both the Harbour Authority's statutory obligations and discretionary activities is considered by the Department for Transport as being most appropriate.

4.3 Informal consultations also pointed to a number of other weaknesses in the current interim arrangements, and included:

(i) Too many layers, with different types of meetings for `every decision'. Poor use of staff time both within the County Council and for Harbour staff; all of which is confusing for river users.

(ii) With all decisions being made by one person, there has been a general feeling by Members of the Management Committee and Executive Member's Group of being undervalued and disenfranchised from the Harbour Authority.

(iii) There is an apparent lack of clarity with respect to the framework within which individual decisions are made by the Executive Member for Environment and how those decisions relate to the functions of the Management Committee. The statutory obligation of the County Council as Harbour Authority has never been fully delegated to the Management Committee; in effect the Management Committee has always been an advisory body. The only change in 2001 was a shift of final decision-making powers from the old Recreation and Heritage Committee to the Executive Member for Environment. However, this reflects the fact that, under the current Harbour Revision Order, decision making responsibility is given to the County Council, with the Management Committee as an advisory, not executive, body.

(iv) There is an overall weakness in the current arrangements where all the committees and groups are chaired by the same person who makes all the decisions.

(v) There is no clear scheme of delegation to Harbour staff for day-to-day decision making.

4.4 It became clear during informal discussions that, should a major change to the governance of the Harbour Authority be contemplated, there was little understanding of the various options, in particular of the differences between a Municipal Port and a Trust Port. Marine Enforcement Limited was commissioned by the County Council to set out a foundation document or Discussion Paper that would enable people to make informed judgements during the formal stages of consultation. This Discussion Paper was prepared during the spring and summer of 2004 and published in July 2004.

5. Proposed Changes to the Governance of the River Hamble Harbour Authority

5.1 Marine Enforcement Limited demonstrated that the key challenge was to establish a fit for purpose, open and accountable Harbour Board. If that could be achieved there would in practice be very little difference between a Municipal or Trust Port. The following proposed reorganisation of the existing Municipal Port has been stimulated from informal discussions with a number of key stakeholders and after careful consideration of the returns from the formal consultation exercise:

(i) Harbour Board

To establish a River Hamble Harbour Board which takes full responsibility for all decisions associated with the functions of the Harbour Authority.

(ii) Skilled Board Members

To ensure that the River Hamble Harbour Board is fit for purpose by attracting members who are knowledgeable and experienced in the function of the Harbour Authority, including: recreational sailing; marine industry; business development; environmental matters (preferably with estuarine management experience); community development; and community capacity building.

(iii) Accountable and Transparent

A Harbour Board that publishes an annual report accounting for the delivery of services over the previous 12 months, along with its final accounts, and publishes its Service Plan with its draft budget for the next 12 months of activity and expenditure. A Harbour Board that publishes its scheme of delegation. A Harbour Board that ensures that before making decisions those who need to be consulted are consulted. A Harbour Board that is accessible and accountable to the users of the River Hamble.

(iv) Harbour Board consisting of Seven Board Members

In accordance with the informal advice from the Ports Division of the Department for Transport, a decision-making Board of seven individuals is favoured. The Board would consist of:

(a) Chairman appointed by the County Council;

(b) The County Council's Marine Director for the River Hamble;

(c) Independent person skilled and experienced in recreational sailing;

(d) Independent person skilled and experienced in the marine industry and business development;

(e) Independent person skilled and experienced in environmental management; and

(f) Two elected members skilled in community development and community capacity building - one appointed from the seven County Councillors within the area of Eastleigh Borough and one appointed from the six County Members from the area of Fareham Borough.

(v) Appointments Panel

The County Council to establish a Harbour Authority Appointments Panel to include the Chairman of the Harbour Board and representatives of: The Royal Yachting Association, the British Marine Federation, English Nature and Hamble Parish Council. The Panel to be advised by an Human Resources specialist from either Eastleigh or Fareham Borough Councils.

(vi) Initial Selection and Term of Office

Initial appointment of the Board members, other than the Chairman and Marine Director, would be by the Selection Panel after open competition. Each member of the Harbour Board (with the exception of the Marine Director) will serve a four year term which could be renewed once with the agreement of the Appointment Panel but a third term could only be achieved in competition with applicants from an open advertisement. The Chairman and the County Councillors would serve from the date (or soon after) of the County Council election. The three other Board members' term of office, expiry and renewal dates would be mid term between consecutive County Council elections to provide some continuity on the Board through times of change.

6. Formal Consultation

6.1 Marine Enforcement Limited was instructed to prepare a questionnaire, to make available the Discussion Paper, to set up a dedicated website and to analyse the results. Emphasis was to be given to seeking views on modernising the current arrangements to secure a `fit for purpose' harbour authority. Marine Enforcement Limited produced its report of analysis during the first week of December 2004, with a statistical analysis of the answers to the questionnaire and these are set out as Appendices 1 and 2 of this report.

6.2 The Executive Member for Environment wrote to all stakeholder groups, individual mooring holders and to all those with an address within 1kilometre of the banks of the River Hamble. A total of 5,700 letters and questionnaires were mailed out and the letter, questionnaire and the Discussion Paper were also available on the dedicated website.

6.3 The consultation period ran from 13 September to 7 November 2004; however a large number (in excess of 100) came in to the County Council in the last few days and a number that came in up to 2 weeks late were accepted for analysis.

6.4 A total of 1,627 questionnaires were returned; a response rate of 29%.

7. Summary of Results

7.1 A detailed breakdown of who responded, by type, is set out in Appendix 2. Of those who responded 80% were residents and 42% were boat owners. By amalgamating those who either strongly agreed or agreed as answers to the questions the following is a summary of the results:

(i) Constitution

87% agree that the one Local County Councillor with executive responsibility should be replaced by a Harbour Board;

84% agree Hampshire County Council should continue to have a role in the governance of the River Hamble;

89% agree the Board should be `fit for purpose', open and accountable;

83% agree the Board should be a mixture of Councillors and experts;

81% agree Board members should act solely in the interests of the Harbour Authority and not sit on the Board as representatives of another organisation, group or body.

(ii) Meetings

82% agree to public Board meetings;

78% agree to Board meetings close to the river.

(iii) Independent Panel

74% agree the Board should seek advice and liaise with an independent Panel;

80% agree all interested persons and groups should be invited to take part in an independent Panel;

79% agree the independent Panel should run itself and elect its own Chairman;

88% agree the Chairman of the independent Panel should report to the Board.

(iv) Funding

23% agree the Harbour Authority should not rely on funding from Hampshire County Council;

63% agree Hampshire County Council should provide practical support and accommodation to the Harbour Authority;

84% are content revenue comes from boats;

76% agree the Harbour Authority should undertake activities in line with what it can afford.

(v) Timing and Funding of Change

80% agree new arrangements should be put in place as soon as possible;

53% indicated the tax payer should fund any change in the law;

41% indicated the users of the river should fund any change in the law.

7.2 Of the responses received, 16 were from representatives of, or on behalf of, groups, bodies or clubs. Of the 16:

(i) 5 were in favour of a Trust Port;

(ii) 1 did not want a continuation of a Municipal Port but offered no alternative;

(iii) 8 supported the continuation of the Municipal Port;

(iv) 1 supported the continued involvement by the County Council in the governance but not with overall control; and

(v) 1 was silent on whether the County Council should continue but supported the Harbour Board being made up of Councillors and experts. Of the 16, 12 supported the make up of the Harbour Board to include a mixture of elected Members and experts. Further information is set out in section 3.2 of Appendix 1.

7.3 Where respondents favoured a Trust Port for the future administration of the River Hamble Harbour Authority, the reasons for change are listed below:

(i) absence of party politics;

(ii) decision-making by a Board of experts;

(iii) independence - Board members appointed because of their fitness for purpose;

(iv) financial transparency and accountability;

(v) commitment and application by the Board to the needs and responsibilities of the river;

(vi) improved access to the Board;

(vii) increased frequency of Board meetings; and

(viii) the Board would be able to convene specialist panels or working groups as needed.

8. Analysis and a Way Forward

8.1 On balance there is overwhelming support for modernising the River Hamble Harbour Authority in line with Section 4 of this report and doing so as soon as possible. A similar level of support exists for the County Council to continue to have a role in the governance of the River Hamble. However, it is important to examine closely the reasons given for change to a Trust Port from those individuals and organisations which proposed it as an alternative. All of the reasons given are attributes that should apply to either a Municipal or Trust Port. The particular reference to `Absence of party politics' needs closer examination. Records of the decision making by the County Council and recommendations made by the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee have proved that decisions and recommendations are very rarely, if ever, made on party lines.

8.2 Had there been compelling reasons to seek to change the entire administration to a Trust Port then the County Council would have had to consider the disadvantages of such a way forward before making a final decision. Issues such as what should happen to the existing staff, how the harbour staff would be accommodated, who would maintain the buildings, how the Harbour Authority should be insured, who would provide all the support services (personnel, secretariat, financial and accounting, planning, legal, estates advice, etc) would all need to be resolved. The lease of the bed of the river would need to be reviewed. The advantages to the Harbour Authority of having direct links with major programmes directly related to its functions, such as: transport; regeneration of older urban areas; coastal capital programme; European funding; etc would potentially be lost. The future of the capital resources the County Council has made available may need to be reconsidered and the question of who should fund the Harbour Revision Order that would be required for such a change would need to be considered.

8.3 Can the proposed modernisation of the River Hamble Harbour Authority be achieved without the need for a Harbour Revision Order? Informally the Ports Division of the Department for Transport did express a view that modernisation could be achieved within the provision of the existing Harbour Revision Order and this is also the view of Marine Enforcements Limited. The County Council's Head of Legal Practice is also of the view that it is possible to achieve the changes set out in section 4 through changes to the County Council's Constitution, although it will be necessary for the County Council to be persuaded by the case for change.

8.4 In summary, it would be necessary for the Council to agree that its functions as harbour authority should no longer be discharged by the Executive, but instead be delegated to a new committee established for this purpose (the new "Board"). Once established, meetings of the Board would be in public, and follow the same procedures for advance publication of agendas as other committees. The Council would need to agree unanimously that normal rules regarding the allocation of seats in accordance with political proportionality should not apply in this case. Those members of the Board who are not County Council elected members would have the status of co-opted members. While co-opted members would not normally have voting rights, advantage would be taken of a provision in legislation which states that voting rights will apply where the committee is established exclusively for the purpose of discharging harbour authority functions.

8.5 Changes to the Council's Constitution would not, however, affect the continuation in force of the existing Harbour Revision Order. This means that the existing River Hamble Harbour Management Committee would remain in place. It would however become a sub-committee of the Board. Article 12 of the Harbour Revision Order provides that "all matters relating to the discharge of the powers, functions and obligations [of the Board] shall stand referred to the Management Committee". Before exercising any such powers, functions and obligations, the Board would be required, except in the case of an emergency, to consider a report of the Management Committee with respect to the matter. Thought needs to be given to how this may operate in the context of the workings of the proposed Board. The role of the Management Committee could be to meet twice yearly to approve a general policy framework, within the context of which actual decisions are then made by the Board (the approval of the general policy framework being deemed to be "the report of the Management Committee" with respect to the particular matter before the Board for decision). This would be consistent with the desire to avoid having different layers of decision-making. The Management Committee would concentrate on strategic issues, and this would avoid a situation where each individual report coming to the Board for decision had to be considered in advance by the Management Committee. Consideration could also be given to the Council designating the Management Committee as an overview and scrutiny committee further to the Local Government Act 2000. This would give it powers to review, scrutinise and call-in decisions of the Board, and to require members of the Board to attend before it to answer questions.

8.6 The proposed arrangements are very much in line with the recommendations to other Ports from the Review of Trust Ports by the Government. However, the details set out in this proposal would `break new ground' and it would be important to review the success of any new arrangements to ensure objectives are being met. It should also be recognised that an advantage of the proposals is that the new framework could be created by internal decisions of the County Council, relatively speedily and at minimal cost, provided that County Councillors are persuaded by the case for change. If it is not possible to proceed on this basis, consideration would need to be given to the formal amendment of the existing Harbour Revision Order, if revised governance arrangements are to be put in place. This would require a statutory process to be followed that could lead to a public inquiry. That process would take much longer, and the outcome would be uncertain. Consideration would also need to be given to how the costs of that process would be met by the Harbour Authority.

9. Conclusions

9.1 A large number of individuals and organisations have given a great deal of thought and time to assist the County Council in deciding on the future governance arrangements for the River Hamble. There is support for modernising the Harbour Authority and to do it as soon as reasonably possible. The County Council should consider carefully the need to achieve the desired outcomes of modernising the Harbour Authority so that it is fit for purpose, transparent, accountable and accessible in the way set out in this report. A change in the County Council's Constitution will be needed to modernise the Harbour Authority within the confines of the existing Harbour Revision Order and this will need to be considered by the Cabinet of the County Council. It is also recommended that the County Council gives a commitment to review after two years any new arrangements to ensure the objectives of the changes are being met.

9.2 The County Council may consider putting in place these new arrangements to come into force immediately after the County Council elections in May 2005.

Recommendation

That the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee:

(i) considers the results of the formal consultation on the future Governance of the River Hamble;

(ii) supports the proposed new arrangements set out in section 5 of this report for a Harbour Board having full delegated powers to discharge the functions and obligations of the Harbour Authority;

(iii) agrees with the proposed new arrangements for the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee; and

(iv) recommends to the County Council a review of any new arrangements after two years.

9116/MDT

ANNEX 1

RIVER HAMBLE HARBOUR AUTHORITY

GOVERNANCE IN THE 21^st CENTURY

QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS

1. Background:

Recognising that the Governance of the River Hamble could be enhanced, Hampshire County Council instructed Marine Enforcement to produce a Discussion Paper¹ to raise the issues that need to be considered. The purpose of the Paper was to act as a catalyst and discussion document for a formal consultation process. The Discussion Paper which was published in July 2004 recommended that a questionnaire² was to be disseminated as widely as possible by way of seeking the views of all stakeholders.

The Executive Member for Environment wrote to all stakeholder groups, mooring holders and addresses within 1 km. of the banks of the River. He sought their help to improve the way the River is managed. The questionnaire was enclosed.

The consultation period began on 13^th September 2004.

A total of 5,700 letters and questionnaires were mailed. The letter, questionnaire and the Discussion Paper were also available on a dedicated website. The questionnaire could be completed on line. A total of 1,627 questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 29%. 119 copies of the Discussion Paper were mailed to stakeholder groups and to those who requested a copy.

The consultation period ended on 7^th November 2004.

2. Methodology:

All the data in the returned questionnaires (responses) was manually input into a Standard Microsoft Access Database. Report queries were then written to enable the data to be extracted and analysed.

Responses from representatives of Clubs, Associations and other bodies and all responses that included comments by way of notes or letters were individually considered.

Of the 1,627 responses that were received, 1,605 of these were submitted by individuals³ and 22 contained text in the section that asked if the respondent represented a group, body or Club. Of these 22 questionnaires 16 were considered to be submitted on behalf of a group, body or Club. Every response was entered into the database including those where not every question was answered, regardless of whether it was received from an individual or a group, body or Club. All the text entered into boxes provided for respondents to complete within the questionnaire was entered into the database. This text was subsequently printed out, read and considered. All accompanying notes and letters were also individually considered.

The full responses from all groups, bodies and Clubs together with a précis were made available directly to Hampshire County Council. The Data Protection legislation does not permit the publication of raw data that identifies the respondent.

This consultation exercise was not a referendum or a vote, its purpose was to seek the views of all stakeholders and to assist Hampshire County Council make an informed decision on the future governance of the River.

The inclusion in this report of comments made by respondents in the questionnaire is only to provide an indication of the range and type of views expressed. Some of the comments are extracts and all of them should be regarded with empirical caution. The inclusion of a comment is not to be construed as support for that comment.

3. Analysis:

3.1 Questionnaires:

The analysis of the questionnaire is at Annex 2.

This analysis shows of the respondents.

80% were residents;

46% owned a boat of some description;*

14% were dinghy sailors;

6% were professional mariners;

30% were ramblers;

8% had a commercial interest;

5% had an interest in a Marina;**

4% had an interest in a Boatyard;**

3% had an interest in a Chandlery;**

6% had an interest in Marine Services;**

8% had an interest in Pub/Restaurant;**

4% had an interest in Shops;**

10% had an unspecified interest in the River.

* This figure has been extracted by analysis

** Some respondents indicated they had a commercial interest in these facilities because they used them as consumers.

By amalgamating the respondents that answered strongly agree or agree to the questions the following emerges:

Constitution

87% agree that the one Local County Councillor with executive responsibility should be replaced by a Harbour Board;

84% agree Hampshire County Council should continue to have a role in the governance of the River Hamble;

89% agree the Board should be "fit for purpose", open and accountable;

83% agree the Board should be a mixture of Councillors and experts;

81% agree Board members should act solely in the interests of the Harbour Authority and not sit on the Board as representatives of another organisation, group or body;

Meetings

82% agree to public Board meetings;

78% agree to Board meetings close to the River;

Independent Panel

74% agree the Board should seek advice and liaise with an independent Panel;

80% agree all interested persons and groups should be invited to take part in an independent Panel;

79% agree the independent Panel should run itself and elect its own Chairman;

88% agree the Chairman of the independent Panel should report to the Board;

Funding

23% agree the Harbour Authority should not rely on funding from Hampshire County Council;

63% agree Hampshire County Council should provide practical support and accommodation to the Harbour Authority;

84% are content revenue comes from boats;

76% agree the Harbour Authority should undertake activities in line with what it can afford;

Timing and funding of change

80% agree new arrangements should be put in place as soon as

possible;

53% indicated the tax payer should fund any change in the law;

41% indicated the users of the River should fund any change in the law.

3.2 Responses from Groups, Bodies and Clubs:

It is difficult to reconcile the responses made on behalf of groups, bodies and Clubs. The questionnaire asked that those respondents that completed the questionnaire on behalf of groups, bodies and Club or by representatives explained how the views of members were sought and how many members were being represented. In some cases these details were not provided giving concern as to whether the representative had an appropriate mandate. In some cases a questionnaire was completed, in others a letter was written in lieu of completing the questionnaire. One questionnaire purported to represent the interests of 2000 members but gave no details of how the members had been consulted. Two responses were received from Councils, five were from businesses of various sizes, five were from Clubs, two from Associations and two from other Organisations. The form of all of these responses differed.

All 16 of the responses received from representatives of, or on behalf of groups, bodies or Clubs have been made available to Hampshire County Council in their raw form.

Of the 16 responses received from groups, bodies and Clubs, five advocated that the River Hamble should be run as a Trust Port. The majority of responses of this type supported the need for a "fit for purpose", open and accountable Board.

The questionnaire suggested that "Even though you (the respondent) may be a member of a Club or Association you are encouraged to complete this questionnaire as an individual."

In one case an Association's Committee responded advocating a new Trust Port. Analysis of the database shows 39 members of this Association completed questionnaires as individuals and of these 10 responded that they, in line with their Association's Committee, favoured a new Trust Port. It may be deduced that 29 did not.

It follows that Hampshire County Council need to carefully consider the views of each group, body or Club that responded during the consultation period during the decision making process. It is suggested that each response received from a group, body or Club is considered on its individual merits. It is recommended that a response received on behalf of say, 2000 members is not weighted in proportion to a response from an individual. Similarly, it is also difficult to weight the views of a Council as it is not known the size of their "membership". That is not to say the views of the Councils should not be considered very carefully, they should be but on their individual merits.

4. Points Raised from the Questionnaire:

4.1 Constitution.

The questionnaire provided a number of boxes in which respondents could add their comments.

24% added comments after the questions which focused on the nature of the Harbour Board and the formation of an independent Panel.

Below are listed some of the themes that recur in the comments made. They are reproduced in this report only to indicate the diversity of views. Their inclusion is not subsequent to any formal analysis and it must be remembered that a minority (24%) of respondents added text.

· A Trust Port is appropriate for the Hamble;

· The present arrangements are satisfactory;

· There is conflict between commercialism, conservation and the environment;

· Board members should be selected on their ability and not because they are Councillors;

· Councillors not to have majority on the Board;

· Experts should be elected not selected;

· The Board should seek advice from experts;

· A Board could represent the minority interest of yachtsmen;

· There should be a minimum of bureaucracy;

· There is no need for an independent Panel provided the Board is accountable;

· There is a need for multiple independent Panels who represent all stakeholders groups;

· One Board member should chair the independent Panel;

· All meetings should be public;

· No meetings should be public as it stifles the efficiency of the Board.

4.2 Funding

35% of respondents added comments after the questions focused on funding.

Within these comments there is a complete cross section of opinion on funding. Below are some of the points made:

· Hampshire County Council should assist to fund the Harbour Authority;

· Harbour and River users should finance themselves;

· Harbour Authority should seek funding from all who benefit from the River;

· Hampshire County Council should support the River as it does any other public amenity;

· Charge the people who do not live in Hampshire more;

· Environmental aspects should be funded from general taxation;

· If outside funding occurs, it should not be placed upon Hampshire residents' council taxes;

· People should not have to pay for things they don't use;

· The River is used for commercial enterprise and for recreation by those who have the privilege of owning boats, why should the tax payer subsidise this;

· There is a distinction between a public amenity and a river just for yachtsmen and the funding should reflect this;

However, the overriding recurrent theme is that Hampshire County Council should contribute to funding as should the users of the River.

4.3 The Council's role.

One of the questions in the questionnaire stated:

"The River Hamble is not only a harbour but also a public amenity. Hampshire County Council should continue to have a role in its governance"

84% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed. Provision was then made for those respondents that did not agree to say why and to set out who or what should replace the present role fulfilled by Hampshire County Council together with how it should be funded. 15% of respondents entered text in this box.

Although the questionnaire asked respondents to say why they did not agree that Hampshire County Council should continue to have a role in its governance few articulated reasons but the majority of respondents who entered text in this box advocated or favoured a Trust Port and made reference to other Trust Ports in the area.

The reasons given by respondents that favoured a Trust Port included the following;

· Absence of party politics;

· Decision making by a Board of experts;

· Independence - Board members appointed because of their fitness for purpose;

· Financial transparency and accountability;

· Commitment and application by the Board to the needs and responsibilities of the River;

· Improved access to the Board;

· Increased frequency of Board meetings;

· The Board would be able to convene specialist panels or working groups as needed.

The questionnaire also gave respondents the opportunity to set out who or what should replace the present role fulfilled by Hampshire County Council together with how it should be funded. Few of the minority of respondents that entered text in the appropriate box took this opportunity. Rather, the box was used to express a wide range of opinions and suggestions.

Some of the comments made included:

· Business interests could destroy the River;

· Hampshire County Council should continue to have a role but not an overriding influence and should not be influenced by politics;

· The River is not just an amenity but a natural resource - the use of the River as a harbour is of secondary importance.

· The River should be run as a Trust Port with input from all river users and not just managed as an asset of the County Council.

· The general public have an interest as well as boat users.

· The River Hamble should be run by the County as a public amenity.

· The new Board should consult and involve the County Council in the management of the River but decision making should be independent of the County Council. The County Council should not be able to appoint a representative (the same restrictions will apply to other organisations.)

· Hampshire County Council should retain its planning role but even though the River Hamble is a public amenity, this does not mean the County Council should continue to have a role in its governance. However the County Council should retain its right to appoint elected Councillors, Hampshire County Council should not have dominant control.

· The whole question is Municipal Port or Trust Port - provided it is properly set up and run it really doesn't matter which.

5. Impressions of the Author

The author of this report has read all of the returned questionnaires and has been involved in the review of the governance of the River Hamble throughout. He wrote the Discussion Document and has attended both formal and informal meetings with stakeholders. From his involvement he has formed three impressions. It must be clear that these are personnel impressions and are difficult to support with empirical evidence.

1) There is a fear that if Hampshire County Council has a role in the governance of the River the decisions it makes (or the decisions of Councillors) will be swayed by party politics. It is clear that the majority of stakeholders want decisions to be made which are good for the River and that party politics should have no role.

2) Equally there is a fear that an independent Board would become run by those that have an interest in yachting and the commercial activities on the River and the decisions it would make would be for the benefit of yachtsmen and commerce rather than for the benefit of all who use and enjoy the River.

3) It seems clear that what most stakeholders' desire is that the River is managed sensitively and efficiently for the benefit of all who use and enjoy it by a Board that is fit for purpose, open and accountable.

6. Other Issues the Harbour Authority Ought to Consider:

Whilst not directly relevant to the issue of Governance some respondents raised issues that deserve the attention of the Harbour Authority however it is constituted. These comments included:

· Litter and garbage from boats (including discharges from toilets and sinks);

· The lack of parking;

· Insufficient slipways;

· Slipways obstructed by marine debris;

· Riverside paths should be extended to Botley and clear unobstructed public footpaths should be available along both banks;

· Riverside paths should be available to cyclists and ought to be cycle routes;

· Access to all parts of the River ought to be easier;

· The River Hamble ought to become a National Park.

· The River is under policed and too many boats go too fast.

· The River is over policed.

7. Conclusion:

This consultation exercise has resulted in an unusually large response from all types of people who have an interest in or use the River. Marine Enforcement acknowledges the help given so freely by over 1600 stakeholders. It may be that the success of this consultation exercise is a reflection of the importance, and one hopes the affection, that so many of the stakeholders give the River.

The Discussion Paper stimulated much debate; it should, coupled with the results of the questionnaire, greatly assist Hampshire County Council in making an informed decision on the future governance of the River Hamble.

Mark G Capon

Marine Enforcement

November 2004

9139Appdx1