Archived decisions

RIVER HAMBLE HARBOUR AUTHORITY

PROPOSED PONTOON MOORING EXTENSION

STONE PIER YARD WARSASH

1. Instructions:

Marine Enforcement has been instructed to review the Risk Assessment Report compiled by the Harbour Master dated 4 April 2005 in support of his Report to the Director of Environment. The Harbour Master's Report is to assist the Director of Environment in making a recommendation as to whether the Harbour Authority should grant consent to a proposed pontoon mooring extension at Stone Pier Yard at Warsash.

2. Background:

The Harbour Authority has to give its consent in writing before works are commenced in the River Hamble¹. This consent is a statutory requirement. The local planning authorities consider it when giving or rejecting planning consent. It is understood that as the local planning authorities (in this case Fareham Borough Council) have extensive criteria against which to assess any application the Harbour Authority concentrate their decision as to whether to grant consent under Sec. 48(2) of the Southampton Harbour Act 1949 (the Act) to issues of navigational safety. This, in our opinion, seems right and proper. The staff of the Harbour Authority have day to day experience of the River and the Harbour Authority has a duty to ensure navigational safety as well as meeting its responsibilities as a conservancy.

The River Hamble Harbour Authority is committed to complying with the Port Marine Safety Code which imposes a National standard on all ports in the U.K. As such it routinely formally assesses risks associated with marine operations and then manages those risks to As Low As Reasonably Practical (ALARP). The Harbour Authority has adopted a format for conducting the risk assessments required by the Code.

By way of assisting the Harbour Authority in making a decision as to whether to grant consent under the Act the Harbour Master has conducted two risk assessments; one on the existing arrangements at Stone Pier Yard and one on the proposed arrangements for Stone Pier Yard. This provides a measure of the existing risks in comparison with the risks that may be expected to arise as a consequence of the proposed development.

This, in our opinion, is a sensible approach using a recognised methodology. By comparing the risks the Harbour Authority should be able to reach a conclusion as to whether navigational safety is likely to be adversely affected should the proposed development go ahead.

3. The Role of Marine Enforcement:

The Port Marine Safety Code requires that the Harbour Authority assigns the functions of a "Designated Person" to provide independent assurance to the Harbour Authority that it complies with the Code. Marine Enforcement is that "Designated Person". As such we are independent of the Harbour Authority and remain impartial.

4. Review of Risk Assessments by the Harbour Master dated 4 April 2005:

The author has spent considerable time with the Harbour Master working through the risk assessments has visited the site and reviewed associated documents and makes the following comments:

1) In our view the Harbour Master is the appropriate person to conduct the risk assessments. The Harbour Master for the River Hamble (as is the Harbour Master at any harbour or port) is charged with, amongst other things, ensuring the Harbour is operated safely. He has day to day responsibility for the management of the Harbour, constant contact with his staff and patrol officers with access to their operational and incident reports. He also maintains regular contact with stakeholders and seeks their input. We have difficulty in identifying a more appropriate person given that it is in the interests of the Harbour Master to ensure that risks are identified and appropriate precautions are put in place. For him not to do so would be a failure in his duty. Whilst it is generally accepted that assessing risks is, to some extent, subjective it should provide some comfort that the subjectivity is, in this case, coming from somebody who has a duty to ensure safety on the River.

2) The risk assessments are correctly presented and the methodology is sound. They comply with the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code. It could be that the hazards are not clearly defined but in our discussions with the Harbour Master he was well able to explain what he meant and was able to justify the figures he input into the risk assessment. We raise no objection to the rationale adopted by the Harbour Master and are content that the risk assessments have been carefully compiled and reflect the risks that have been identified by the Harbour Master who has given much thought to this project.

3) What is clear from the risk assessments is the following:

· All the risks associated with the proposed development are considered within the ALARP envelope or that precautions can be put in place to reduce the risk to ALARP;

· The majority of the identified risks are reduced if the proposed development goes ahead. This is largely due to the provision of a bridge for the use of tenders which will keep these vulnerable craft out of the busy main channel;

· What remains a concern is the risk associated with launching sailing dinghies from the launch area downstream and in the vicinity of the Stone Pier Yard. The Harbour Master is rightly concerned with the present possibility of dinghies sailing directly into the path of vessels transiting this section of the River. His view is that the proposed development would provide an area of clear water in which dinghy skippers can organise their craft and take stock of the situation before proceeding. Having viewed the site and carefully considered the site plan drawing no. 5323-P-100 dated Feb 05 we concur;

· It follows therefore that the greatest risk identified in the risk assessment (that of dinghies colliding and being swamped by larger vessels in transit) is considered to reduce should the proposed development proceed. We consider the reasoning for this proposition is sound and reasoned;

· The Harbour Master quite rightly remains concerned that the consequences of a collision or swamping of a dinghy in this area could lead to a fatality. It is understood he is pressing to engage the Club involved in discussions so that suitable and sensible precautions can be put in place. In our view, this issue is not a central one to the issue of granting consent to this application. In any event, as the risks have been assessed to decrease and not increase it should have no influence on the decision as to whether the Harbour Authority should grant or refuse consent under Sec. 48(2) of the Southampton Harbour Act 1949.

4) As the "Designated Person", Marine Enforcement will in the course of its regular audits ensure that all risks within the jurisdiction of the River Hamble Harbour Authority are identified and managed as required by the Port Marine Safety Code.

Conclusion:

Having carefully considered the Harbour Master's Risk Assessment Report dated 4 April 2005 and in conjunction with a site visit, discussions with the Harbour Master and careful consideration of associated papers and in particular drawing no. 5323-P-100 dated Feb 05, we conclude the following:

1) In these circumstances and with due regard to proportionality the Harbour Master is the most appropriate person to have conducted these risk assessments;

2) The risk assessments are correctly presented and the methodology is sound;

3) All the risks identified for both the existing and the proposed arrangements at Stone Pier Yard are capable of being managed so that the risks associated with marine operations are reduced to As Low As Reasonably Practical;

4) The proposed development at Stone Pier Yard does not increase any of the identified risks associated with the existing development to such an extent that simple precautions will not reduce the risk to as low as reasonably practical;

5) The risk assessments conducted by the Harbour Master show navigational safety should not be adversely affected should the proposed development at Stone Pier Yard be given consent and we concur. If consent is given it should be given subject to the conditions listed in the Report of the Director of Environment dated 19 April 2005.²

Mark Capon

Marine Enforcement

6 April 2005