Archived decisions

Item 2

AT A MEETING of the RIVER HAMBLE HARBOUR BOARD held at The Victory Hall, Warsash on Friday, 21 October 2005.

PRESENT:

Hampshire County Council

Chairman:

p Councillor T.G. Knight

Councillors:

p J. V. Bryant K. House

Independent Members

p Mr T. Lovell p Dr S. Tomson

p Mr C. Moody

Marine Director

p Mr D. Evans

27. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should, normally at the time of debate declare their interest, and having regards to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed.

28. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2005 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the spelling of Dr Tomson's name being corrected.

Arising thereon:

Items for Inclusion on Future Agendas (Minute 25)

The application for an operators shelter, submitted by Boat Scrubber Ltd, had been withdrawn and therefore could be removed from the list of future items.

29. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

The Chairman reported on two letters that had been received, one from the River Hamble Mooring Holders Association and another from the River Hamble Berth Holders Association both on the subject of supervision charges.

30. DEPUTATIONS

There were no deputations.

31. HARBOUR MASTER'S REPORT

The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 5 in the Minute Book) summarising the activities and events on the River Hamble from 19 August 2005. Officers circulated an additional annex to the report (item 5x in the Minute Book) with an update on events which had taken place since the agenda had been published.

It was noted that a number of serious incidents had occurred as a result of non-compliance with the rules of navigation. In such instances the details of the skipper and vessel were recorded by the Harbour Master and the skipper was issued with a written warning, which could subsequently be used in a court case if necessary, together with educational literature.

It was agreed that where possible the County Council should take a corporate approach towards those youths jumping off of the A27 road bridge and pontoons. It was hoped that the educational programme, to be implemented by the Harbour Master, could publicise local yachting clubs and advertise yachting as an attractive and more constructive alternative activity. Members stressed the importance of education as a means of preventing future accidents.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

32. ALTERNATIVES TO THE SUPERVISION CHARGE

The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 6 in the Minute Book) setting out two proposed alternatives to Supervision Charges. Both options had been widely consulted upon, although the responses had been conflicting. Mr Moody and Dr Tomson declared interests in this item as a member of the River Hamble Boatyard Marine Operators Association and a mid stream mooring holder respectively.

An overview of the legal status regarding the charging of Harbour Dues and Charges was received, including the provisions of Section 26 (2) of the Harbour Act 1964 and Section 1.6.1 of the Port Marine Safety Code. Specific attention was paid to the right of appeal to the Secretary of State in the case of Harbour Dues, the exact nature and cost of which therefore needed to be clearly defined.

It was reported that the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee had been of the view that the situation regarding Supervision Charges should remain unaltered. The board however highlighted the following concerns regarding the status quo being maintained;

a) There was very strong feeling among many river users that the Supervision Charge was not justified and none payment of the Charge was an increasing possibility.

b) It was unreasonable to keep the Charge without defining what it was used for (this view was supported by the Management Committee). However it may not be possible to produce such a definition as services provided by the Charge were inextricably linked to other duties carried out by the Harbour Master under the Port Marine Safety Code. For example, the Code required the Harbour Authority to undertake routine patrols of the River, it was during these patrols that much of the supervision was undertaken and the appropriate actions taken where necessary.

c) If the Charge was to be defined then the Harbour Authority would have to ensure that those services were available, otherwise it would be open to legal challenge.

d) The Harbour Authority provided services of a supervisory nature, for example towing stranded vessels, to all river users not just mid stream mooring holders.

e) Questions were raised as to whether the £98,000 received through the Supervision Charge was exclusively used for `supervision', if not then it would be difficult to justify.

In addition to the two alternatives outlined in the report two further options were identified. The first would be to abolish the Charge, leaving the Harbour Authority with a £98,000 deficit per year. This money could be found from increasing Harbour Dues and from anticipated additional funding streams. However it was agreed that this would result in a depletion of reserves meaning that long term replacement/maintenance schemes could not be implemented. This option was therefore felt to be impractical. The second additional option was to levy the Supervision Charge against the mooring owners (i.e. the Crown Estate), as was the case at a number of other harbours. Officers had previously investigated this option but it had been rejected by the Crown Estate.

There was a general consensus that change was necessary and that the Supervision Charge should be subsumed into the current Harbour Dues. A financial discount, in the region of 46 percent, would then be made available to marina berth holders in light of the fewer services provided to them and the lower administrative costs which they incur. Under this scheme each user would be paying the same as under the current arrangements. The key concern however, was that it would create two levels of Harbour Due and the approximate differential of 46 percent was considered excessive for the additional services provided. The Board therefore agreed to ask the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee to consider whether the differential was acceptable, and if not what steps the Board should take to alter it.

RESOLVED:

a) That, as of January 2007, Supervision Charges be subsumed into Harbour Dues, with marina berth holders receiving approximately a 46 percent discount on their dues (as described in paragraph 6.0 (i) of the report).

b) That the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee be requested to consider the levels of discount offered to Marina Berth Holders under a two tier system of Harbour Dues, and make recommendations back to the board.

33. PLANNING AND CONSENTS

The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 7 in the Minute Book) concerning an application to refurbish Riverside Boatyard (Foulkes Boatyard). Two plans showing the extent of the application were circulated at the meeting (item 7 x in the Minute Book)

RESOLVED:

That conditional consent be granted in respect of the proposal of Riverside Boatyard (Foulkes Boatyard) to refurbish its boatyard as set out in Drawing Number M2802/014, subject to the condition specified in the report.

34. APPROACHES TO MAIN CHANNEL - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 8 in the Minute Book) proposing modifications to the layout of moorings, buoyage and navigation lights to improve the navigational safety of the channel. It was noted that those mooring holders displaced by the proposal would be reallocated moorings elsewhere on the River

RESOLVED:

That the bid for funding for this project be made in 2006/07 and the Harbour Master be instructed to proceed with improvements to the approach to the main channel (as set out in the report).

35. BOAT CAPACITY OF THE RIVER HAMBLE

The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 9 in the Minute Book) addressing the issues of boat capacity on the River Hamble. The Board were informed that the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee had established a working group to further consider this issue.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of this item be deferred until the working group had had an opportunity to report back to the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee.

36. RIVER HAMBLE HARBOUR DUES

The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 10 in the Minute Book) outlining proposed changes to the regime and charges for Harbour Dues chargeable to leisure users of the River Hamble. While it was acknowledged that under the proposed collection arrangements some `temporary' users may be able to avoid payment, it was believed the vast majority would be charged. In fact informal consultation had suggested that most users believed the Charge to be reasonable.

It was agreed that the changes needed to be well publicised so that they did not come as a surprise to users. In particular it was suggested that signs be erected on slipways, a press release be sent to local newspapers and yachting periodicals and mooring holders, and that marinas and yacht clubs be informed in writing.

Further discussion was had on the definition of the types of user category and also on the effect that the proposal could have on where vessels were launched from.

RESOLVED:

That approval be given to the implementation of changes to the regime and charges for Harbour Dues chargeable to leisure users of the River Hamble (as set out in the report), with effect from 1 January 2006.

37. MARINE DIRECTOR'S CURRENT ISSUES

The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment (item 11 in the Minute Book) highlighting a number of current issues on the River Hamble. In addition an update was received concerning the operation of the CCTV network.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

38. ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

It was agreed that in order that sufficient notice of matters to be considered at meetings be received, the Chairman's briefing agenda and reports would in future be circulated to all Board Members. It was however noted that these would be for information only and that the reports may be changed following the briefing.

Enquiries were made as to the procedure for excluding the press and public from meetings when sensitive issues needed to be discussed. It was noted that Access to Information legislation spelt out the specific reasons why an item could be held in private session. A copy of those exemptions are attached as appendix 1 to these minutes.

Appendix 1

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

EXEMPT CATEGORIES

This content is archived

Hampshire County Council

Independent Members

Marine Director