Contact: David Evans, tel 01489 576387

email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report addresses the issue of the boat capacity of the River Hamble, makes the case for a review and proposes an alternative approach.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 This report supports Aims 1, 2 and 3 of the Corporate Strategy (Maximising Life Opportunities, Stewardship of the Environment, and Achieving Economic Prosperity) by ensuring that the River Hamble continues to operate as a safe and efficient harbour whilst preserving the environment of the River and ensuring the continued enjoyment of its economic benefits.

3. Aim

3.1 The aim of this report is to examine the basis for the current boat capacity limit, make a case for review and propose a possible alternative approach.

4. Introduction

4.1 The capacity of the River Hamble in terms of boat numbers (currently set at a maximum of 3,261) was established in the River Hamble Local Plan - First Alteration (RHLPFA) adopted by Hampshire County Council in 1992. The limit was set having regard to safety of navigation. The Harbour Authority limit was subsequently incorporated, in varying degrees, into the Eastleigh and Fareham Borough Local Plans which superseded the RHLPFA in the late 1990s. The limit of 3,261 moorings is included within the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (Policy 160.R) but in the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review policy that deals with new moorings (Policy C7) there is no direct reference to the 3,261 moorings limit (although the supporting text states that moorings are limited to 3,261 by the Harbour Authority for reasons of safety and navigation).

4.2 The Borough Councils are in the process of preparing Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) to supersede their Local Plans. This provides the opportunity for the Harbour Authority, along with the Crown Estate and the Local Planning Authorities, to review the current limit on boat capacity.

5. How the Current Capacity was Determined

5.1 There were many factors involved in determining capacity, the main ones being:

(i) The physical nature and capacity of the River, which is affected by the arrangement and width of main and secondary channels, and the layout of berths and moorings.

(ii) The ecology of the River and its ability to accommodate moorings infrastructure and boat movements without detriment.

(iii) The users' perspective, which is concerned not only with the attitudes and behaviour of users, and their skills and competence, but also their perceptions concerning overcrowding and safety.

(iv) Navigational safety, which is influenced not only by the physical layout of channels and moorings and the behaviour and competence of River users, but also by such things as navigation marks and the adequacy of bye-laws and their enforcement.

(v) The capacity of associated riverside infrastructure - especially access roads and car parking.

5.2 It is not entirely clear which of these factors was the key to determining the agreed figure of 3,261 and there is considerable scope for debate on the weighting which should be applied to each factor.

5.3 The number of boats actually berthed in the River was last assessed in 2004 by two methods: counting boats on aerial photographs and checking the number of berths for which Harbour Dues invoices were despatched.

6. Is a Review Required?

6.1 The current limit on boat capacity is contentious. Marina and boatyard operators (and other developers, including the Crown Estate) view it as an unnecessary constraint, superimposed on an already complex consents process. Further, reaching agreement on the precise number of boats berthed in the River has proved difficult in the past and the limit is thus almost impossible to enforce. In considering the case for a review, it is also important to decide whether the basis upon which the current limit

was calculated was valid and has stood the test of time. There are a number of other factors, many of which are difficult to quantify, which may not have been considered when calculating the present limit but which may influence the determination of the maximum capacity of the River in the future, including:

(i) the location and use of public launch points;

(ii) changes in the type and size of boat using the River - for example, the rapid increase in the number of Rigid Inflatable Boats (RIBs) and Personal Water Craft (PWC);

(iii) changes in patterns of usage (eg increasing leisure time allows boats to be used more often than in the past);

(iv) trends in dry sailing for racing yachts;

(v) the growth in popularity of regattas and other events;

(vi) the visual impact of berths, moorings and related infrastructure; and

(vii) Moorings Restricted Areas (MRAs) which limit the scope for relocating moorings from one MRA to another, even if an overall net reduction in moorings in MRAs would result. (This is because of the strict application of the "no new moorings in MRAs" policy, which effectively prevents improvements to mooring layouts within the MRAs.)

6.2 Given that not all of these have been fully incorporated into the assessment of boat capacity in the past, there may be a case for review. If a review is deemed appropriate, it will require considerable work and consultation. The outcome will also require agreement with the Crown Estate and local Borough Councils. A key element of a successful review would be to agree which of the many factors involved in determining boat capacity is on the critical path (ie the key determinant) and what weighting should be applied to the other non-key factors. An unsuccessful review would risk alienating some stakeholders and leave the Harbour Authority with the existing problem of counting boats and determining when the capacity limit has been reached.

7. An Alternative Approach

7.1 If an objective review is deemed unnecessary or impossible, there is a possible alternative approach which would overcome these difficulties. This alternative would be to remove the limit on boat capacity completely. Without a limit, developers, marinas, boatyards and the Crown Estate would be free to apply for consents and planning permission to construct additional berths or to modify existing berthing arrangements. Consents for such changes would be sought through the existing process, so the Harbour Authority, for example, would be able to withhold consent on the basis of safety and ease of navigation or any other reason within its powers. The appropriate local authorities would retain their powers to grant or withhold planning permission, based (amongst other things) on advice from consultees (statutory and non-statutory). Obviously, their deliberations will include consideration of issues such as access and car-parking. Far from allowing a `free for all', removing the limit on boat numbers would ensure that each and every application for changes or additions to the moorings layout would be considered solely on its merits. This approach accords entirely with that taken by other similar harbours in the Solent area. The advantages of this proposal are:

(i) simplicity and clarity;

(ii) the existing consents and planning process would be able to function as it should, without undue constraint;

(iii) development of the River would be controlled, as it is now, by the planning and consents process; and

(iv) applications for consent would be dealt with on their merits.

There are no obvious disadvantages to this proposal.

8. Consultation

8.1 Clearly, consultation and agreement with the local planning authorities will be required before any changes to the boat capacity or the method of determining it can be implemented.

9. Impact Assessment

9.1 This report provides a position statement only, therefore an impact assessment has not been undertaken.

Recommendation

That the most appropriate way forward is to abolish the current boat capacity limit, following consultation with the local Borough Councils.

625A/DE