Contact: David Evans, tel 01489 576387 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 At present, all mid-stream mooring holders on the River Hamble pay a Supervision Charge, to cover the additional administrative and operational cost to the Harbour Authority of boats on mid-stream moorings. The Supervision Charge is contentious so this report sets out two alternative proposals for consideration by the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee and Harbour Board.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 This report supports Aim 5 of the Corporate Strategy (Improving Services) by proposing alternatives to a charge which is seen by many as inappropriate.

3. Introduction

3.1 The River Hamble Harbour Authority levies charges on all vessels moored in the River to cover the cost of providing navigation marks and lights, assuring compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code (by operating a safe and efficient port) and ensuring that its environmental responsibilities are met. These charges currently take the form of Harbour Dues and Supervision Charges. Whilst Harbour Dues are levied on all vessels kept afloat on the River, Supervision Charges are only levied on boats moored on mid-stream moorings. The rate of Supervision Charges for 2005 is £8.84 per metre, increasing to £9.20 per metre in 2006. It raises about £98,000 per annum for the Harbour Authority. Unfortunately, the Supervision Charge has been the subject of some confusion and criticism because it is not immediately apparent what it is for. In reality, the charge reflects the additional costs to the Harbour Authority of providing a more individual level of service and a significantly higher level of monitoring (of moorings, boats and pontoons) to occupants of mid-stream moorings than marina berth-holders. There is, nonetheless, pressure to abolish the Supervision Charge, despite the fact that the income which it generates is vital and must be replaced even if the charge is abolished.

4. Aim

4.1 The aim of this report is to set out some options for the replacement of the Supervision Charge, for the consideration of the Harbour Management Committee and Harbour Board.

5. Assumptions

5.1 It is assumed that:

(i) the income to the Harbour Authority provided by the Supervision Charge must be maintained;

(ii) the owners of all vessels moored on the River pay Harbour Dues because they make use of the facilities of the Harbour (navigational aids, patrols, jetties for pick-up and drop-off, scrubbing piles, safety measures, oil spill response, environmental protection, fresh water, sewage pump-out, etc) in equal measure; and

(iii) services such as towing vessels with emergencies (eg mechanical breakdown), assisting grounded vessels, providing berths for vessels with emergencies on Warsash and Hamble jetties, etc (all free of charge) will continue to be provided to all users of the River, regardless of where they are berthed.

6. Proposals

6.1 Two proposals for replacing the Supervision Charge are:

(i) The Supervision Charge should be subsumed into Harbour Dues with effect from January 2007, such that Harbour Dues would be payable with a discount in place to reflect the reduced costs of servicing those within marinas. The financial burden for mid-stream mooring holders and marina berth-holders would be unchanged from the current position. This would be an interim solution, pending a comprehensive analysis of the costs associated with the provision of the various services of the Harbour Authority to come into force January 2008. As shown in the table below, this would mean that marina berth-holders would pay Harbour Dues at a 46% discount compared to mid-stream mooring holders (eg £118.58 for a typical 11 metre vessel in a marina berth, compared to £219.78 for the same size vessel on a mid-stream commercial mooring). This discount rises to 52% when compared with the same sized vessel on a Crown Estate mid-stream mooring. Analysis of the Harbour Authority costs might show that a discount of this size is inappropriate, in which case incremental changes can be made to more accurately apportion costs over a period of time.

(ii) The Supervision Charge should be subsumed into Harbour Dues, as above, whilst at the same time acknowledging that the scale of the discount to marina berth-holders, at 46% or more, would be excessive. Doing so would allow the first incremental step towards correcting the situation to be introduced earlier. It would be possible and affordable to increase the current rates of Harbour Dues by RPI + 5% across the board whilst applying a 20% reduction in the Supervision Charge element. This rate of change could be repeated annually until the correct differential is achieved (from the analysis of services described above). It is worthy of note that a 5% increase in Harbour Dues would amount to an additional 54p per metre for a typical marina berth holder each year. This would be the equivalent of a 0.1% rise in the average annual marina bill.

Table showing charges for a typical 11 metre vessel (based on 2006 charges)

(excluding VAT)

Notes

1. Fixed charge for vessels in a 9.8 metre to 12.2 metre band, based on a 12.2 metre boat.

2. These figures are for 2006. The 5% increase in Harbour Dues for marina berthholders does not include any RPI increase which will be applied to 2007 charges.

7. Consultation

7.1 The Marine Director has consulted informally with the Boatyard and Marina Operators' Association and the River Hamble Mooring Holders' Association on this issue. Wider and more formal consultation may be advisable before deciding on the most appropriate option.

8. Impact Assessments

8.1 At present, Supervision Charges are payable at the same rate per metre by everyone who moors a vessel on a mid-stream mooring in the River Hamble. There is no special provision for those on limited incomes. It is proposed that this arrangement should continue, regardless of which of the above alternatives in chosen.

Recommendation

That the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee should debate this issue and advise the River Hamble Harbour Board of its preferred option.

455/DE