Archived decisions

Contact: Tony Clatworthy, tel 01489 576387

email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The River Hamble Harbour Authority has been consulted and asked to comment on matters of navigational safety. As part of the Harbour Authority's statutory duties it has to grant consent permitting harbour works in the navigation of the River Hamble, including works to modernise, extend and relocate pontoons. This consent is in addition to the planning permission required.

1.2 Consent may be granted by the Harbour Authority permitting harbour works in the navigation of the River Hamble to accord with the Southampton Harbour Act 1924 and 1949, as amended by the River Hamble Harbour Revision Orders 1969 to 1989. Within the Harbour Authority's statutory duties lies the responsibility to ensure that all matters concerning navigational safety are addressed. This area of responsibility includes the area known as Stone Pier Yard in Warsash, Southampton.

2. Application for Consent

2.1 The full history of the consultation and consent process undertaken by the Harbour Authority concerning the proposed development is set out in Appendix 1.

3. Legal Implications

3.1 Consents may be granted by the Harbour Authority permitting harbour works under Section 10 of the Southampton Harbour Act 1924 and Section 48 of the Southampton Harbour Act 1949, as amended by the River Hamble Harbour Revision Orders 1969 to 1989. Within the Harbour Authority's statutory duties lies the responsibility to ensure that all matters concerning navigational safety are addressed.

4. Index to Points Raised Against the Proposed Development Concerning Navigational Safety

4.1 Points raised through representations and during previous public meetings concerning navigational safety of the proposed development have been listed and are reproduced in Appendix 2. The points have been addressed within the Risk Assessments completed by the Harbour Master following the receipt of the application for the proposed development.

5. Index to Letters Sent to Fareham Borough Council

5.1 An index of points raised in letters sent to Fareham Borough Council is reproduced as Appendix 3. The index deals with points raised in these letters concerning maritime or navigational safety issues. Fareham Borough Council passed on the letters to enable the Harbour Authority to be aware of and also to address the various points raised. All the points raised in the letters received from the Borough Council have been addressed by the Harbour Master in the Risk Assessments.

6. Impact of the Proposed Development at Stone Pier Yard

6.1 This is a consolidation of the important points brought to the Harbour Master's attention by various groups during the consents process, along with explanations and in some cases recommendations by the Harbour Master.

Impact on the Width of the Main Channel

6.2 The main channel width would not alter from the 60 metres currently available. The Harbour Master recommends a clearer and more defined channel to aid navigational safety which includes the removal of the fore and aft moorings off the Harbour Master's Jetty and Stone Pier Yard.

6.3 Boats approaching the Harbour Master's Jetty and Stone Pier Yard get caught on the moorings and are unable to clear themselves without the aid of a diver. This then leads to dangerous practices as putting a diver in the water at that location can be dangerous and difficult owing to the volume of traffic and the strong tidal stream. The normal practice is to let the vessel remain hooked up until the tide stops running and the traffic subsides, unless darkness is approaching when decisions must be made to overcome the problem. Vessels caught on these moorings swing out into the main channel causing an obstruction to passing traffic.

6.4 The line of fore and aft moorings give the impression of a secondary channel, but this is not the case; the channel routes vessels into an undefined mooring area with no clear route out leading to difficulties especially at night with visiting vessels. These moorings would be relocated and their removal would improve navigational safety. It is the Harbour Master's intention, should the proposed development proceed, to establish two starboard hand buoys to denote the main channel. The forming of a main channel, that will be well-defined, at the entrance to the river will go a long way in improving navigational safety. A secondary channel will be available for dinghies departing or returning to the sailing club launching area upstream of the Harbour Master's Jetty and downstream of the proposed development at Stone Pier Yard.

6.5 The fuel berth, currently located on the downstream pontoon of Stone Pier Yard, would be relocated, if the proposed development went ahead, to inside the proposed marina, removing it from the main channel. This would remove the danger of vessels approaching and waiting for a berth on the fuel pontoon off the Harbour Master's Jetty to a location much further upstream. The relocation would also have benefits for Warsash Sailing Club (see below).

Impact on the Dinghy Launching Area

6.6 The proposed development would provide a safe and protected pool for sailing dinghies that can be used directly after launching to prepare properly before moving into the main channel. The extension of Stone Pier Yard out to the area of the fore and aft moorings would give dinghies protection from any vessels in the main channel, approaching from downstream.

6.7 The removal of the 11 metre downstream overhang of the fuel jetty would also help to enlarge the area available for the dinghies. The pontoon that the fuel berth is located on is over one metre in height and obscures views upstream for dinghy helms coming out into the river. Therefore the relocation of the fuel barge to the proposed location would make the area safer and is recommended. The relocation would remove a potential pinch-point and would allow a better approach and access for vessels to the proposed location of the fuel berth. The relocation would also reduce the number of vessels which use the area whilst waiting for space on the fuel pontoon, thus making the area safer for dinghies departing Warsash Sailing Club dinghy launching pontoon.

6.8 As the river has slowly become more congested various procedures carried out by the Warsash Sailing Club may have to be modernised. Following an Assessment completed by the Harbour Master, various risks were identified that must be managed to reduce the danger. It has therefore been agreed with Warsash Sailing Club that in future, and should the development proceed, it will be advisable during very strong tides and heavy traffic periods to deliver groups of training dinghies by towing them to the training area. The practice of stationing a safety boat with a view of the main channel to give warning of any approaching vessels should be adopted during busy periods. This procedure would help manage the risks associated with launching novice young helms into a busy main channel with a fast flowing tide and little wind. The event organiser would also be able to call on the help of the Harbour Patrol during very busy periods. The procedures mentioned above are recommended even if the development does not proceed.

6.9 The managing of dinghy races and training events is controlled through the Code of Practice. All identified risks are managed within that Code by the Yacht Clubs and the Harbour Authority.

Impact on the Access and Egress for Other River Users

6.10 Should the development proceed, the main channel would become more defined and would be a more natural entrance as opposed to a jumble of moorings with a channel directing vessels into a mooring area with limited escape, which is the current situation.

6.11 To help bring vessels into the natural main channel, the Harbour Master is considering establishing two small lit green buoys to guide vessels into the main channel, keeping them well clear of the busy jetties in the area.

6.12 From indications and observations of other similar locations, within the river and in other harbours, directing vessels into a defined 60 metre channel will force them to reduce speed and to proceed with more caution. The traffic flow would become self-regulating. It has been observed that a wider channel provides more opportunity to go faster and the temptation to overtake, exceeding the speed limit.

Impact on Secondary/Access Channels

6.13 The introduction of a bridge for tenders which must be available at all states of the tide would be a very safe option, reducing the number of tenders forced to use the main channel to proceed upstream or return to Warsash. It must be emphasised that the bridge has only been designed for use by tenders with low freeboard and other small vessels, such as canoes. Larger craft and dinghies will use the main channel, depending on wind and tide.

6.14 The fore and aft moorings off the Harbour Master's Jetty and Stone Pier Yard produced a route which is currently looked on as another channel. As already explained, this route led masters unknowingly to a mooring area with no escape and was also the culprit of vessels being caught up on those moorings, requiring a diver to release them. The removal of these moorings would make that area safer.

6.15 Dinghies sailing from Warsash Sailing Club are frequently unable to stay out of the main channel because they are required to tack, making use of any water available, to make way against the wind.

6.16 Other dinghies routing from Hamble River Sailing Club and the Hamble village launching area use the main channel or, if busy, the two secondary channels on the western side of this area. Secondary channels are only used if the wind permits, otherwise dinghies continually tack using all available water. During national events up to 30 dinghies at a time use the channels on the western side successfully.

6.17 During club racing on a Wednesday or Friday evening, 20 to 30 dinghies use the main channel regardless of tidal conditions or river traffic. The experience of the helms is varied from novice to very experienced and all of these dinghies launch from downstream of Stone Pier Yard or from the Warsash slipway. It is rare for these racing dinghies to proceed upstream from their launching site until they have joined the main channel.

Impact on Tenders Using the Proposed Tender Bridge

6.18 The proposed bridge has been designed to allow small tenders to pass through and this is reflected in its proposed dimensions: not less than 1.5 metres high and not less than 3 metres wide. The seat height of a tender is unlikely to be more than 0.5 metres above the waterline and a man sitting would be less than approximately one metre high. The proposed bridge gives 1.5 metres clearance, which is sufficient.

6.19 The bridge would be available at all states of the tide and a clearly defined route would always be available and would be enforced by the harbour patrols and the Harbour Master.

6.20 The lateral depth of the bridge would only be three metres, therefore a passing situation is very unlikely to arise. The bridge would be in a working marina and if difficulties arose tenders would have the option to come alongside or call for assistance.

6.21 The bridge is not designed to be used by sailing dinghies but small groups of optimists with their masts down would be able to be towed upstream through the bridge by their safety boats.

6.22 A sign giving warning of clearance would be displayed at the entrance to the tender channel. Should tenders get into difficulties they would be able to come alongside in the marina or call for assistance. Should the route be narrowed on occasions, owing to moored craft in the marina, passing places for tenders would be available at the stern or bows of the moored craft.

6.23 The use of the bridge for tenders would be a much safer option, as tenders would not have to proceed into the main channel and its associated heavy traffic, and they would be able to route upstream and return in an area of the river with minimal tide.

7. Comparison Risk Assessment

7.1 The Harbour Master has compiled a comparison Risk Assessment of the current situation and an assessment of the situation should the proposed development be permitted to proceed. This is attached as Appendix 4.

7.2 The Risk Assessment, along with the report prepared by the Harbour Master, has been reviewed by Marine Enforcement Limited and its comments are attached as Appendix 5.

8. Director of Environment's Comments

8.1 The proposed development at Stone Pier Yard has drawn conflicting views from the many river users and stakeholders. These reflect competing interests. Navigational safety matters are the only ones addressed by this consents procedure. There remain two minor areas of concern (as detailed below in 8.3 and 8.4) but otherwise the project does not have any adverse effects on navigational safety.

8.2 Benefits to navigational safety:

(i) provision of route and bridge for tenders;

(ii) removal of the fuel jetty downstream overhang;

(iii) removal/relocation of the fuel jetty from the downstream overhang;

(iv) removal of the fuel jetty from the main channel;

(v) better visibility for dinghy helms around the downstream pontoon of Stone Pier Yard;

(vi) removal of the fore and aft moorings. These moorings are considered dangerous by the Harbour Master because there is a history of vessels getting hung or caught up on them;

(vii) a more defined and therefore a safer approach into the main channel which is more clearly defined; and

(viii) larger and safer protected sailing area for dinghies launching at Warsash Sailing Club.

8.3 The first concern for navigational safety is that during periods of strong tides there may be difficulty for boats manoeuvring through the entrance or exiting the marina berths. This could have an impact on vessels in the main channel. The revised plans show a larger opening at this entrance which does overcome some of these concerns. The Harbour Master has also made recommendations for precautions to be taken by the marina operator (see risk assessment). Locating the fuel berth inside the marina does provide two benefits to navigational safety. Further manoeuvring room for vessels to approach and depart from the inside berths and the fuel berth is now out of the main channel.

8.4 The second area of concern for navigational safety is that dinghies wishing to proceed upstream after departing from the launching area at lobster quay have to use the main channel. The current practice for dinghies departing this area and proceeding upstream is to enter the main channel and use all available water. This is dependent on the tide and wind available. Normally dinghies wish to use the full extent of all available sailing water and therefore normally tack across the main channel. The proposed development will not change this practice.

Recommendation

That, under Section 10 of the Southampton Harbour Act 1924 and Section 48 of the Southampton Harbour Act 1949, as amended by the River Hamble Harbour Revision Orders 1969 to 1989, conditional consent be granted to Warsash Marine for harbour works in the navigation of the River Hamble, permitting Warsash Marine to modernise, extend and relocate its pontooning at Stone Pier Yard, as shown on Drawing No. 5323-P-100 revision dated February 2005, drawn by Evans Grant Opus, Consulting Engineers and displayed at the River Hamble Executive Member's Group at Winchester on 17 March 2005, and subject to the following conditions:

(i) the main fairway is to be kept at least 60 metres wide;

(ii) the harbour works will not increase the number of vessels currently moored within the curtilage of Stone Pier Yard;

(iii) negotiations between the Crown Estate and Warsash Marine are successful regarding the relocation of all other moorings affected by the proposed development;

(iv) one vessel only to be moored alongside at the outside jetty face and the southern side of Stone Pier Yard. Catamarans and vessels over four metres beam not to be moored on the outside face of the jetty;

(v) during weekends and bank holidays, during the period 1 May through to 30 September, the downstream outer berth to remain available as a waiting berth for vessels approaching the fuel berth;

(vi) that passage through the bridge designed for tenders be available at all states of the tide and access to this channel not be blocked by moored vessels in the marina berths. The access route to the bridge to have a four metre channel available to allow tenders to route through the marina at all times. The bridge, to allow tenders to pass through, must not be less than three metres wide and not less than 1.5 metres high. The bridge to be lit within, to enable those using it to identify the location;

(vii) Warsash Marine to meet the cost of erecting signs on the piles at the entrance to the tender channel warning of the bridge clearance available, to be erected within one week of the completion of the works;

(viii) the marina operator informs all skippers using the marina of the risks of manoeuvring during the periods of maximum current and that it posts appropriate signs; and

(ix) all other appropriate consents being obtained.

306 Rpt/TC

APPENDIX 1

HISTORY OF CONSULTATION AND APPLICATION FOR CONSENT

1. Following lengthy discussions with the Warsash Improvements Working Group (WIPWG) and representations to the Streamlined Consents Group, (a group, unique to the Hamble, consisting of representatives of the Department for Transport, the Marine Consents Unit, Fareham Borough Council, Eastleigh Borough Council, English Nature, the Environment Agency and the Harbour Authority, in the person of the Harbour Master, who consider applications for consents), Warsash Marine is now applying to the Harbour Authority for consents permitting harbour works in the navigation of the River Hamble, including the modernisation, extension and relocation of its pontoons. This is the first proposal to emerge from the Working Group. The objectives of WIPWG are to:

(i) discuss and assess problems and opportunities within the Warsash part of the river, including aspirations of interested parties;

(ii) discuss ideas for improvements to facilities, the environment, navigation and safety, etc;

(iii) agree basis of a comprehensive and integrated improvement scheme;

(iv) advise on the scope of formal assessment required; and

(v) provide information to the River Hamble Harbour Advisory and Management Committees and the River Hamble Executive Member's Group.

2. All the stakeholders involved have contributed and been involved in the forming of these proposed plans, either at a meeting of WIPWG or within the Streamlined Consents process. The stakeholders involved and consulted during this process were the County Council, English Nature, the Environment Agency, Fareham Borough Council, Solent Protection Society, Ferry Operator, Mooring Contractors, Warsash Residents' Association, Hamble Rescue, Hamble River Sailing Club, X-Boats, Oil Spill Response Limited, River Hamble Mooring Holders' Association, Marina Developments Limited, Victoria Ramparts, Humberts, Warsash Sailing Club, Royal Thames Yacht Club, Sea Start, Warsash Maritime College, Commercial Fishermen, Commercial Marine Operators' Association, Sea Scouts, Hants and Wight Trust Maritime Archaeology, Household Division Yacht Club, Royal Naval Sailing Association, Olley Yacht and Property, Royal Southern Yacht Club and Hamble Parish Council.

3. A report on behalf of Warsash Marine was presented to the River Hamble Executive Member's Group on 13 May 2004 and again on 26 July 2004. The report was then submitted to the Executive Member for Environment on 14 September 2004. The Executive Member for Environment made the following decisions on the report:

(i) That the application be refused.

(ii) That delegated authority be granted to the Director of Environment to determine any subsequent application which addressed the reason for refusal, subject to no new objections being received.

4. The Reason for Refusal was given as:

"The loss of the secondary channel poses an unacceptable risk to `tenders' and small craft during periods of higher tidal flow".

5. As a result of this refusal, the applicant was asked to investigate the possibility of the inclusion of a bridge and a route for tenders through the complex into a revised plan. The Director of Environment was given delegated powers to grant consent for the revised proposals subject to there being no new objections. The Harbour Master was to facilitate this procedure. The Harbour Master presented the revised scheme to interested parties who raised a number of objections, therefore the revised proposals were referred back to the Executive Member for decision.

6. All the issues raised by various parties relating to the scope of the Harbour Authority's Terms of Reference have been addressed and answered within the background papers attached to this report. The issues were addressed in the form of an impact assessment and address navigational safety issues only.

7. The Marine Director of the River Hamble wrote to Members of the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee on behalf of the Executive Member for Environment and requested their comments on the proposed development as revised. The letter included a copy of a draft of this report and the associated background papers, including the risk assessments. Advice or comments received were reported verbally at the decision day meeting.

8. On 7 December 2004 the Executive Member for Environment granted consent to the development.

9. Following the granting of consent by the Harbour Authority further consultations proceeded with the developer and Fareham Borough Council. Fareham Borough Council advised that the proposed development would encroach into a non-mooring area and the Borough Council would not be willing to allow the full development because of the restrictions set out in the Local Plan (non-moorings area). Therefore a compromise solution was reached and a new set of plans were drawn up for the proposed development with the full involvement of Fareham Borough Council officers and the Harbour Master. (Drawing  No. 5323-P-100 revision dated February 2005, drawn by Evans Grant Opus, Consulting Engineers refers.)

10. The revised plans were discussed at the River Hamble Executive Member's Group on 17 March 2005, prior being placed on the agenda for the Executive Member's Decision Day on 19 April 2005.

APPENDIX 2

Index to Points Raised Against the Proposed Development Concerning Navigational Safety

Point Raised Against the Proposed Development Not Concerning Navigational Safety

The River will be compromised for all river users for purely commercial reasons; do you think anyone will look upon this as improving the River, apart from Stone Pier Yard.

Extracts from Report to Executive Member for Environment on 7 December 2005

5. Impact on the Width of the Main Channel

5.1 The main channel width would not alter from the 60 metres currently available. The Harbour Master recommends a clearer and more defined channel to aid navigational safety which includes the removal of the fore and aft moorings off the Harbour Master's Jetty and Stone Pier Yard.

5.2 Boats approaching the Harbour Master's Jetty and Stone Pier Yard get caught on the moorings and are unable to clear themselves without the aid of a diver. This then leads to dangerous practices as putting a diver in the water at that location can be dangerous and difficult owing to the volume of traffic and the strong tidal stream. The normal practice is to let the vessel remain hooked up until the tide stops running and the traffic subsides, unless darkness is approaching when decisions must be made to overcome the problem. Vessels caught on these moorings swing out into the main channel causing an obstruction to passing traffic.

5.3 The line of fore and aft moorings give the impression of a secondary channel, but this is not the case; the channel routes vessels into an undefined mooring area with no clear route out leading to difficulties especially at night with visiting vessels. These moorings would be relocated and their removal would improve navigational safety.

5.4 The fuel berth currently located on the downstream pontoon of Stone Pier Yard would be relocated, if the proposed development went ahead, to the upstream end of the new development. This would remove the danger of vessels approaching and waiting for a berth on the fuel pontoon off the Harbour Master's Jetty to a location much further upstream. The relocation would also have benefits for Warsash Sailing Club.

6. Impact on the Dinghy Launching Area

6.3 As the river has slowly become more congested various procedures carried out by the Warsash Sailing Club may have to be modernised. Following an Assessment completed by the Harbour Master, various risks were identified that must be managed to reduce the danger. It has therefore been agreed with Warsash Sailing Club that in future, and should the development proceed, it will be advisable during very strong tides and heavy traffic periods to deliver groups of training dinghies by towing them to the training area. The practice of stationing a safety boat with a view of the main channel to give warning of any approaching vessels should be adopted during busy periods. This procedure would help manage the risks associated with launching novice young helms into a busy main channel with a fast flowing tide and little wind. The event organiser would also be able to call on the help of the Harbour Patrol during very busy periods. The procedures mentioned above are recommended even if the development does not proceed.

6.4 The managing of dinghy races and training events is controlled through the Code of Practice. All identified risks are managed within that Code by the Yacht Clubs and the Harbour Authority.

8. Impact on Secondary/Access Channels

8.1 The introduction of a bridge for tenders which must be available at all states of the tide, would be a very safe option reducing the number of tenders that would be forced to use the main channel to proceed upstream or return to Warsash. It must be emphasized that the bridge has only been designed for use by tenders with low freeboard and other small vessels such as canoes. Larger craft and dinghies will use the main channel as they always have done.

8.2 The fore and aft moorings off the Harbour Master's Jetty and Stone Pier Yard produced a route which is currently looked on as another channel. As already explained, this route led masters unknowingly to a mooring area with no escape and was also the culprit of vessels being caught up on those moorings, requiring a diver to release them. The removal of these moorings would make that area safer.

8.3 Dinghies sailing from Warsash Sailing Club are frequently unable to stay out of the main channel because they are required to tack, making use of any water available, to make way against the wind.

8.4 Other dinghies routing from Hamble River Sailing Club and the Hamble village launching area use the main channel or if busy the two secondary channels on the western side of this area. Secondary channels are only used if the wind permits, otherwise dinghies continually tack using all available water. During national events up to 30 dinghies at a time use the channels on the western side successfully.

8.5 During club racing on a Wednesday or Friday evening, 20 to 30 dinghies use the main channel regardless of tidal conditions or river traffic. The experience of the helms is varied from novice to very experienced and all of these dinghies launch from downstream of Stone Pier Yard or from the Warsash slipway. It is rare for these racing dinghies to proceed upstream from their launching site until they have joined the main channel.

9. Impact on Tenders Using the Proposed Tender Bridge

9.1 The proposed bridge has been designed to allow small tenders to pass through and this is reflected in its proposed dimensions: not less than 1.5 metres high and not less than 3 metres wide. The seat height of a tender is unlikely to be more than 0.5 metres above the waterline and a man sitting would be less than approximately one metre high. The proposed bridge gives 1.5 metres clearance, which is sufficient.

9.2 The bridge would be available at all states of the tide and a clearly defined route would always be available and would be enforced by the harbour patrols and the Harbour Master.

9.3 The lateral depth of the bridge would only be three metres therefore a passing situation is very unlikely to arise. The bridge would be in a working marina and if difficulties arose tenders would have the option to come alongside or call for assistance.

9.4 The bridge is not designed to be used by sailing dinghies but small groups of optimists with their masts down would be able to be towed upstream through the bridge by their safety boats.

9.5 A sign giving warning of clearance would be displayed at the entrance to the tender channel. Should tenders get into difficulties they would be able to come alongside in the marina or call for assistance. Should the route be narrowed on occasions owing to moored craft in the marina, passing places for tenders would be available at the stern or bows of the moored craft.

9.6 The use of the bridge for tenders would be a much safer option, as tenders would not have to proceed into the main channel and its associated heavy traffic, and they would be able to route upstream and return in an area of the river with minimal tide.

APPENDIX 3

Table showing index of points raised in 48 letters to Fareham Borough Council from those who object to the proposed development at Stone Pier