Hampshire County Council River Hamble Harbour Management Committee 11 January 2006 A Visitor Strategy for the River Hamble Report of the Director of Environment

Item 9

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

1. Summary

1.1 This report examines the role of the River Hamble Harbour Authority in the provision of facilities for visitors to the River, and proposes some possible alternatives to the current visitor partnership.

2. Corporate Strategy

2.1 This report supports Aims 1, 3 and 5 of the Corporate Strategy (Maximising Life Opportunities, Achieving Economic Prosperity and Improving Services) by addressing the role of the River Hamble Harbour Authority in the provision of facilities for visitors to the River.

3. River Hamble Visitor Strategy

Introduction

3.1 The River Hamble and the surrounding area is a popular destination for visitors. Some stay only for the day whilst others stay for longer periods. Most arrive by boat or by car, with a few by bus, train, bicycle or on foot. Some are attracted by the scenery and the pretty riverside villages with their shops, pubs and restaurants, and others by the hustle and bustle of the boating community which contrasts so clearly with the tranquillity of the upper reaches of the River. There are anglers, ramblers, birdwatchers and those who just want a change of view. There are also plenty who visit simply because of the outstanding facilities available for yachtsmen of all sorts. Whilst perhaps not the premier destination for those who visit the Solent to indulge in recreational boating, its importance is nonetheless nationally recognised.

3.2 Despite the steady development of leisure boating over many years, there has never been a coherent strategy for the overall management of visitors to the River Hamble. This strategic document seeks to rectify this shortcoming by examining what attracts people to the Hamble, what makes it special, what visitors expect when they get there, what facilities they require and how the facilities should be funded. In developing this strategy it would be of value to quantify the economic benefits which visitors bring

to the local economy, but this is far from straightforward. This strategy can therefore be based upon nothing more than an assumption that the local economy would be a great deal poorer without them.

Aim

3.3 The aim of this report is to propose a coherent strategy for visitors to the River Hamble.

Scope

3.4 It would be almost impossible to include the diverse needs of every visitor to the River Hamble in this strategy so it must necessarily be limited in scope. It will include yachtsmen arriving by water - whether they are bound for marinas, boatyards (for repairs and maintenance) or Harbour Authority facilities; visiting boats launched from the numerous public slipways; anglers, sightseers and ramblers (including birdwatchers) - what might be termed `active visitors'. It will specifically exclude those who arrive by road solely to visit local pubs, restaurants and shops - what might be termed `passive' visitors' - who have no interaction with the Harbour Authority.

Assumptions

3.5 It is assumed that the majority of visitors who interact with the Harbour Authority arrive by boat, or by car with a boat on a trailer or roof-rack, and that their specialist requirements will have a significant bearing on the overall strategy.

3.6 It is assumed that the provision of visitor facilities will be `demand-led' and that it would be a mistake for the Harbour Authority to invest heavily in visitor berths in the hope that doing so would increase demand.

Constraints

3.7 The ability of the Harbour Authority to influence the future of the River Hamble as a visitor destination is inevitably constrained by a number of factors. Firstly, it is clear that attracting and catering for visitors is not the primary role or responsibility of the Harbour Authority or, indeed, Hampshire County Council. Constraints are also imposed by Local Authorities and the Crown Estate (whose task, in part, is to maximise the financial return from their investment); the capacity of the River; the Strategic Principles for development on the River; the Estuary Management Plan and the requirements of the local planning authorities.

Risks

3.8 There are some risks to the successful agreement and implementation of a Visitor Strategy. These include lack of funding, failure to get agreement with the Crown Estate, lack of stakeholder support, planning constraints and a widely-held view that the River is already busy enough.

Consultation

3.9 The proposals in this report, if approved, are likely to impact on a wide range of stakeholders and other organisations. The Harbour Board may wish to consult more widely on some aspects before reaching a decision.

Methodology

3.10 This report is intended to be a major step towards an agreed strategy for visitors to the River Hamble. A key element is to identify the options available to the Harbour Authority to influence visitor activity. From this the likely cost drivers can be established and the anticipated benefits more fully understood. This will also help to identify who the likely beneficiaries will be and what the stakeholders and visitors actually want.

What Do Visitors Want?

3.11 Crucial to this Visitor Strategy is an assessment of what visitors want when they come to the River Hamble. Most important, for any visitor, is somewhere to stop, whether it is to berth a boat or park a car (and trailer). Dealing firstly with the boating visitor, the most obvious questions are: do visitors prefer marinas, jetties, mid-stream pontoons or piles? Several factors influence their decision: location (including proximity to pubs and restaurants), cost, convenience, facilities available, duration of stay, weather, peace and quiet, ease of berthing, rafting-up, and transit time from open water. Visitors who arrive by road may simply want somewhere to park and enjoy the view, whilst others will need a safe and accessible launching site and somewhere secure to park their trailer. It is beyond the remit of the Harbour Authority to provide for the needs of every visitor, but there is much that can be done to enhance the visitor's experience.

3.12 A wide variety of reasons are given for visiting the Hamble. A considerable amount of useful information is contained in the `River Hamble Visiting Yachts Survey' carried out in 2003 (final report prepared by Tourism South East Research Services, dated March 2004) which lists availability of the following as reasons why people visit the River:

· Launching sites

· Pubs

· Restaurants

· Shops

· Chandlers

· Fuel

· Repairs

· Victualling

· Showers/Toilets

· Laundry

· Water

· Sewage pump out

· Sight-seeing

· Walks

· Environment/setting/scenery

· Places to visit

· Sheltered

· Berthing facilities

· Racing

· Sailing Clubs

· Shore power

· Ease of access

· Disposal of rubbish

3.13 Although this list is the result of a survey of visiting yachtsmen, much of it applies to visitors of all types and most of the desirable features are already available. For the most part, duplication of existing facilities is probably unnecessary. However, there is currently a lack of public showers outside marinas and sailing clubs, which is seen as a major weakness by visiting yachtsmen using Harbour Authority berths.

3.14 The research also lists some reasons why some people choose not to visit:

· Overcrowding

· Insufficient and poorly situated visitor moorings

· Cost

· Poor facilities

· Noise

· Dirty water

3.15 Clearly, much is in the eye of the beholder, but the question remains "would rectifying these shortcomings result in more visitors, or just the same number, but happier." It seems unlikely that visitors who have been put off by these things in the past will come again, unless changes are made.

3.16 The needs of non-boating visitors are fairly straightforward. Car parking is obviously high on the list, followed by clear, well-signposted walks with information and interpretation boards, unspoilt habitats, refreshment facilities (cafes, pubs and restaurants), toilets, retail outlets (souvenirs, outdoor clothing, fishing tackle, etc), seating, and a pleasant, interesting view.

4. Present Situation - The Facts

4.1 Currently, there are approximately 90 dedicated visitor berths in the River; 28 on Visitor Piles (assuming four abreast), about 50 on the Visitor Pontoon (assuming double berthing on the inshore side) and a maximum of 12 on the two jetties. Obviously, this figure varies depending on the size of yachts involved. Based on these figures, there are in excess of 30,000 visitor nights available on Harbour Authority berths each year.

4.2 Typical numbers of visiting yachts (expressed as boat nights spent alongside) for each season (based on 2004 and 2005 figures) are as follows (for Harbour Authority berths only, including long-term visitors on visitors piles):

2004 2005

Winter 1,002 950

Spring 2,258 2,411

Summer 3,361 3,348

Autumn 2,950 3,150

Total 9,571 9,859

4.3 These figures are remarkably consistent and represent an average occupancy rate of about 30% throughout the year, with a peak during the summer months of 40%. The maximum number of visiting yachts recorded on any one night was 44 (just under 50% occupancy). These figures suggest that without a marketing strategy the Harbour Authority over-caters for visitors by a factor of about 100%. In reality, peak demand suggests a requirement for 45 public visitor berths, whilst average daily demand is 20 boats in the summer and rather fewer in the winter. To some extent large peaks in demand can be catered for by double or even triple berthing and will tend to be self-regulating - yachts will choose to go elsewhere if the visitors' berths appear to be overcrowded or full. In practice, no visiting yacht has been turned away from the River by the Harbour staff in recent memory. Proposals on how the demand for visitor berths could catered for in future are in Appendix 1.

5. Possible Options

5.1 A series of options are set out below for consideration. Options 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 include attracting and catering for visitors arriving by land, at least to some extent. Options 5 and 6 place the greatest emphasis on this aspect.

5.2 Option 1

The Harbour Authority could take full control of the visitor strategy, carrying all the risk and retaining any profits. This would, in effect, terminate the current Visitor Partnership and the Crown Estate's income would derive solely from licence fees or lease payments for those moorings/berths used by visitors, to be paid by the Harbour Authority (as a fixed sum or as a percentage of income). Clearly, there would need to be agreement between the Crown Estate and the Harbour Authority over how many berths should be allocated to visitors and which should be permanent moorings (see Appendix 1). The Harbour Authority would aim to provide a modest number of public visitor berths, less than needed at peak times but more than enough to meet average demand (see Appendix 1). There would be no obligation on the Harbour Authority to provide or develop additional facilities (such as toilets, showers, shore power, etc) or undertake any marketing, but if demand dictates these could be provided in due course and paid for either by the Harbour Authority (if a sound business case could be established) the private sector or local authorities. Partnership with marinas and local yacht clubs, so that visitors can use their facilities upon payment, is also an option worthy of further investigation.

5.3 Option 2

Hand over responsibility for visitors to the Crown Estate, in that it would carry all the costs and risks, and make all the profit. In return, it would pay the Harbour Authority a fixed sum (or perhaps a percentage, which would be a staff incentive) for collecting and processing the visitor fees. This would also mean the end of the current Visitor Partnership but would result in the Harbour Authority losing control of a significant aspect of the management of the River.

5.4 Option 3

Do nothing to attract visitors (waterborne or land-based) or provide any berths for them, on the grounds that it is not the business of the Harbour Authority and that the Harbour Authority has no remit to make a profit from visitors, and would certainly not wish to provide any facilities at a loss. This would involve re-categorisation of all midstream public visitors' moorings as permanent moorings and relying on the private sector (marinas) to meet visitor demand. Neither the Crown Estate nor the Harbour Authority would make any money from visitors (except perhaps from the Hamble and Warsash jetties) but income to both from permanent mooring holders would increase. This option is perfectly feasible but would fail to meet an obvious demand for non-marina visitor berths. Adopting this option would leave the River Hamble out of step with most other leisure harbours in the region.

5.5 Option 4

Maintain a version of the status quo, with the Crown Estate sharing the costs, the profits and the risks with the Harbour Authority in a re-vitalised Visitor Partnership. The main problems with this option are that development cannot take place without agreement by both parties and it is difficult to apportion costs and profits fairly.

5.6 Option 5

The Harbour Authority could seek to develop visitor facilities on a semi-commercial basis, adding to the facilities as dictated by market forces, and taking full responsibility for marketing and risk. This would be a long-term option for the future, but it would be difficult to justify the necessary expenditure and investment without being able to show that it would result in a substantial increase in visitor traffic (which may not be a desirable thing for the River).

5.7 Option 6

Establish a fully-equipped visitor centre providing information and facilities for walkers/ramblers, birdwatchers, anglers and, of course, recreational boaters. This would involve developing additional information points and interpretation boards, and actively marketing the Hamble valley as a place to visit. Clearly, there are significant cost implications, not to mention planning, parking and overcrowding issues. This option would undoubtedly benefit from partnership with others (public and private sector) but strays well outside the core role of the Harbour Authority and would require significant changes to staffing levels and the way in which the River is managed. This option could include encouraging other commercial operators (eg Whitbreads) to develop visitor facilities near retail outlets (eg The Jolly Sailor) at their own expense, keeping the proceeds (net of Crown Estate fees and Harbour Dues).

5.8 In addition to consideration of the options set out above, there are a number of other visitor-related issues which need to be taken into account as part of the overall strategy.

Supply and Demand

5.9 Clearly the demand for visitors' berths and associated facilities (toilets, showers, laundry, water, power, sewage pump out) is not steady. It peaks at weekends during the high summer season (June, July and August), and particularly on bank holiday weekends. This period includes events such as the Round the Island Race and Cowes Week which also contribute to demand. Usage of visitor berths during the winter months is obviously lower, although during the spring and autumn there is considerable demand from visiting racing yachts. The main questions are whether the current situation fills the need and whether there are sufficient visitor facilities? This is addressed in Appendix 2.

5.10 This becomes even more relevant if the income generation potential of berths is examined, comparing income from visitors with income from permanent mooring holders.

5.11 Harbour Authority income from a continuous 210 metre pontoon in the location of the present Visitors Piles would be about £6,700 per annum. At present, income from the Visitors Piles (at 33% occupancy) is about £18,800 per annum, of which half (£9,400) goes to the Harbour Authority and half goes to the Crown Estate. Thus, converting the visitors' piles into permanent moorings will see a £2,700 reduction in Harbour Authority income but a considerable reduction in the effort required to collect the income (although it is unlikely to result in any financial savings). Crown Estate income would increase considerably, but must be off-set against the investment to re-pile the moorings and establish the pontoon. The Crown Estate has not yet drawn up a detailed business case for converting the Visitor Piles into permanent moorings. If the business case cannot be made, the Visitor Piles would obviously remain as they are.

Costs

5.12 There are a number of costs associated with providing facilities for visitors to the River. These include:

(i) provision of berths - piles, pontoons and jetties;

(ii) provision of berthing for tenders;

(iii) provision of car parking facilities;

(iv) provision of trailer parking;

(v) provision of shore facilities (showers/toilets/laundry);

(vi) provision of general facilities - shore power, fresh water, sewage pump out, rubbish disposal, battery disposal, oil disposal, flare disposal, etc;

(vii) collection of visitor fees payments; and

(viii) marketing.

5.13 It is difficult at this stage to estimate all of these costs but, clearly, the Harbour Authority would logically need to bear some of them. Others could be borne by marina operators, boatyards, local authorities, sailing and yacht clubs, and local businesses (and, in some cases, they are already).

Benefits

5.14 Those who incur the costs should be aware of the potential economic benefits. For example, attracting more visitors to the River would see the Harbour Authority benefit from an increase in visitor fees and from Harbour Dues for other vessels visiting the River; local businesses, including shops, pubs, restaurants and garages, in addition to the more obvious marine businesses (fuel suppliers, repair yards, sailmakers, chandlers, brokers, etc) could benefit from increased customer numbers; and marina operators could benefit by filling vacant berths when permanent berth holders are away.

5.15 With so many potential beneficiaries, there are obvious advantages to be gained from attracting visitors to the River. But there is a downside - the most obvious being potential overcrowding on the water and in adjacent car parks. Hamble is already virtually full in high season, so there would be little potential for an increase in Parish Council income from car park charges, but there is no additional space available, so no scope for more visitors' cars. Warsash does not charge, but is similarly full in high season, with little scope for new parking areas. Park-and-ride might be an option but needs an imaginative solution. If more visitors bring boats by road, this will make parking worse, especially for trailers. Harbour Dues for day sailed boats launched in the river may discourage some and thereby help to reduce the problem slightly.

5.16 Overall, visitor spend has a positive impact on the local economy and businesses. Measuring this impact is easier said than done, although it is generally accepted that the figure is considerable so there is a significant case for trying to attract more visitors. However, it is unlikely that businesses will want to contribute to the cost of improving existing facilities or the provision of new ones, unless they can see the potential direct impact on their profits.

6. Future Potential

6.1 If the recommendations in this Visitor Strategy are accepted there will still be potential for future development of visitor facilities on the River. Some which deserve consideration are set out in the following paragraphs.

Toilets and Showers

6.2 An important facility, particularly for visiting yachtsmen, is access to clean, well-maintained toilets and showers. At present the only options are public toilets (at Warsash and Hamble), yacht clubs, pubs and marinas. Of these, the only ones available to visitors using Harbour Authority moorings are public toilets and pubs. There is, however, some potential for clubs and marinas to provide these facilities at an appropriate charge, should they so wish. The provision of dedicated Harbour Authority facilities, whilst highly desirable, is unlikely to be cost-effective, even if a suitable site could be found.

Advance Bookings

6.3 Harbour Office staff come under regular pressure to accept advance bookings for visitor berths. At present, this pressure is usually resisted because of the extra work involved - visitor berths would have to be marked out and `Reserved' signs deployed. `No-shows' would be a major inconvenience, particularly if a yacht which hasn't booked is turned away in favour of a pre-booking which fails to arrive. On the other hand, if a booking system is established (possibly on-line) it would incur considerable set-up costs but could lead to an increase in occupancy rates (and income). However, to make such a system work, visitors would have to pay for their berth in advance (plus possibly an additional booking fee) and the Harbour Authority would need to establish slots on the Visitor Pontoon for boats of various sizes, marking them so that owners can be clear about what they have booked and where they should berth. This may not be such an economic use of space as the present arrangement and would be more labour intensive in terms of policing. It would also mean careful handling of those who arrive without a booking and expect to be treated on a `first-come, first-served' basis. Staff would still need to visit each boat to issue a Harbour Dues tag on arrival. The manpower required to provide this service is likely to be out of all proportion to the additional income which would accrue.

Signage

6.4 However many visitors actually come to the River Hamble, it is vital that they are presented with a coherent Hampshire County Council/Harbour Authority corporate image. This could even be extended into marinas and boatyards. One means of achieving this would be by making gradual improvements to visitor signage, clearly indicating the facilities which are available, the charges which apply, the Bye-Laws and the local attractions. This signage could include advice on launching and recovery of boats and the dangers and hazards associated with the River. Costs associated with this signage could be contained within current revenue.

Marketing

6.5 The Harbour Authority already contributes towards the cost of producing the annual River Hamble Directory and is a founder member of Sail South East, an organisation which has been set up to develop the potential of yachting tourism in the south-east region. Beyond this, marketing becomes expensive and may produce very limited returns. It is proposed that additional marketing should only be considered in the short term if the number of visitors to the River Hamble starts to drop below present levels, in order to protect income to the Harbour Authority. A more pro-active marketing stance may result in an increase in visitor numbers, and could be implemented at a later date if considered necessary.

7. Impact Assessment

7.1 The proposed visitor strategy must adhere fully to equalities legislation and thereby ensure that visitor access to the River Hamble is equally available to all. A full equalities impact assessment will be carried out if the proposals in this report are accepted.

8. Review of Options

8.1 The six options presented in this report cover the full spectrum of possible visitor strategies for the River Hamble Harbour Authority. They range from a complete withdrawal from involvement with visitors (Option 3) to a pro-active visitor strategy designed to maximise income for all parties (Option 6). Option 1 proposes a balanced solution at minimum cost. Option 2 would leave the Harbour Authority with little control over a significant part of activity on the River. Option 3 would leave the River Hamble out of step with other harbours in the region and Option 4 would result in no improvements to the current approach. Option 5 presents a possible long term solution, but is unlikely to be appropriate in the near future. Finally, Option 6, whilst not out of the question, would require considerably more investigation into potential partnerships and funding streams. Adopting the recommended option (Option 1) below would not preclude a move towards Options 5 or 6 in the future, if circumstances change.

Recommendation

That the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee debate this issue and advise the River Hamble Harbour Board of its views. Based on the review of options above, the recommended way forward is that the Visitor Strategy encompassed by Option 1 and Appendix 1 of this report be adopted. In summary, the following is proposed, that:

(i) the Harbour Authority acknowledges that it has no statutory remit to encourage visitors to the River Hamble or to provide facilities for them;

(ii) the Harbour Authority acknowledges that visitors will continue to come to the River Hamble and that it has an historic role in providing berths for their vessels, facilities for their crews, and for protecting and maintaining the environment and habitats of the River for the benefit of visitors of all types and interests;

(iii) the Visitor Partnership with the Crown Estate be terminated;

(iv) subject to Crown Estate agreement, the current visitor pile moorings be re-allocated as permanent moorings requiring planning permission (including, possibly, the consent of Fareham Borough Council as this would have an impact on land-based facilities such as parking);

(v) subject to Crown Estate agreement, ownership of the visitor pontoon (from B7-B10) be transferred from the Harbour Authority to the Crown Estate, in return for the ownership of piles B1-B7 transferring from the Crown Estate to the Harbour Authority (see Appendix 1);

(vi) the Harbour Authority continues to provide a maximum of about 45 visitor berths (with a mixture of walk-ashore and mid-stream pontoons), with sewage pump out and waste disposal facilities available on the Warsash Jetty (to support ongoing environmental initiatives) and fresh water available on both that and the Hamble Jetty;

(vii) the proposed visitor fees structure at Appendix 2 be adopted;

(viii) the Harbour Authority not to provide any additional shore-side facilities such as toilets, showers or laundry, unless a sound business case can be developed;

(ix) the Harbour Authority continues to provide information and interpretation boards for non-boating visitors to the River; and

(x) the Harbour Authority remains engaged with Fareham and Eastleigh Borough Councils in seeking innovative solutions to the problems of car and trailer parking in the vicinity of the River, and the provision of suitable toilet and shower facilities ashore.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.
NB the list excludes:
1.	Published works.
2.	Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE	LOCATION
None.

683/DE

APPENDIX 1

Proposal for Provision of Visitor Moorings

As indicated in paragraph 4.3, the existing number of Harbour Authority visitor berths over-caters by about 100% (about 90 berths to meet an average demand of about 33 and a maximum peak demand of about 50). In determining the optimum number of Harbour Authority visitor berths for the future, some assumptions must be made about likely trends in visitor activity. There is no doubt that yachtsmen will continue to visit the River. It can reasonably be assumed that many of them will opt to use vacant marina berths, accepting the extra cost in return for walk-ashore facilities with toilets, showers and electricity. But there will always be those on a tighter budget who are happy to accept some inconvenience and prefer to use the Harbour Authority berths. A dedicated marketing campaign by the commercial operators may persuade more yachtsman to visit the River, but is unlikely to influence the behaviour of the latter group.

Thus it is proposed that the number of visitor berths provided by the Harbour Authority should be reduced to better match demand. To achieve this, the following is proposed:

Convert the visitors' pile berths into residential berths = 0

Retain the berths on the Hamble and Warsash Jetties = 12

Reduce the number of visitor berths on the B1-B10 Pontoon. = 33

The precise number of berths depends on the size of boats, but

a reduction from 210 metres to 125 metres would still provide

about 33 berths, assuming double berthing on the inside.

Total = 45

The piles supporting the B1-B10 pontoon belong to the Crown Estate, but the pontoon itself belongs to the Harbour Authority. Initial discussions with the Crown Estate suggest an interest in swapping the pontoon between B7 and B10 (the upstream end, about 85 metres, current value approx £15,000) for the piles from B1 - B7 (current value approx £15,000). It should be noted that replacement cots (new for old) would be substantially higher than the figures quoted.

The Crown Estate would re-allocate the B7-B10 pontoon as permanent moorings, so the Harbour Authority would continue to collect Harbour Dues for those moorings.

This proposal is based on terminating the Visitor Partnership with the Crown Estate. The Harbour Authority would continue to pay the Crown Estate for the leases on the Warsash and Hamble Jetties and would pay a fixed percentage (12.5% is proposed) of gross income from the retained part of the Visitor Pontoon for the lease of the site.

If the existing visitors piles are converted into permanent moorings on a continuous pontoon (which will require planning permission) there will be a reduction in Harbour Authority income (as explained in paragraph 5.11).Crown Estate income would increase considerably, but must be off-set against the investment to re-pile the moorings and establish the pontoon.

APPENDIX 2

Visitor Fees

The present cost for recreational boating visitors to the River Hamble varies according to location and the level of facilities provided. By way of illustration, the following Table shows current comparative charges per metre (unless otherwise stated) including VAT:

	Short Stay	Overnight*	24 hours	Per week
Warsash and Hamble Jetties	£0.75	£1.50	£2.25	-
Visitor Pontoon	£0.50	£1.00	£1.50	£9.00
Visitor Piles	-	-	£0.50	£3.00
MDL Marinas	£6.00 per boat under 10.1 metres £8.00 per boat over 10.1 metres		£2.70
Warsash Marine			£1.85
Crableck/Universal	£7.50 (all boats)		£2.00

*Overnight is from 1600 to 0900 hours

The main price drivers are:

· Proximity to the mouth of the River

· Duration of stay

· Walk ashore versus mid-stream

· Availability and proximity of facilities (mainly toilets, showers, shore power and water)

· Proximity to villages

With such a range of fees there should be something to suit everyone, but it is important to correlate the facilities provided at each location with the fees being charged. The following table sets out a proposed new scale of charges for visitors using Harbour Authority facilities:

	VISITOR PILES	VISITOR PONTOON	HAMBLE AND WARSASH JETTIES
Short Stay (up to 4 hours) (Note 1)	N/A	£4.00 flat rate up to 12 metres LOA £6.00 flat rate over 12 metres LOA	£6.00 flat rate up to 12 metres LOA £8.00 flat rate over 12 metres LOA
Overnight (4-24 hours) (Note 2)	£0.55/metre (Note 3) (Minimum charge £6.00)	£1.50 /metre	£2.00 /metre
Weekly	£3.30 /metre	£9.00 /metre	£12.00 /metre
Short stay tokens (Note 4)	N/A	20 tokens for £67.50 up to 12 metres LOA 20 tokens for £90.00 over 12 metres LOA	20 tokens for £90.00 up to 12 metres LOA 20 tokens for £120.00 over 12 metres LOA
Overnight tokens (Note 4)	N/A	20 for £22.50 /metre	20 for £30.00 /metre

TABLE SHOWING PROPOSED REVISED VISITORS FEE STRUCTURE

Note 1. First 30 minutes free of charge for pick-up and drop-off. Such vessels must be attended at all times.

Note 2. Any vessel alongside at any time during the period between 1700 and 0900 hours must pay the overnight rate, regardless of duration of stay. Vessels with genuine emergencies (medical, engine breakdown, etc) get the first 24 hours free.

Note 3. This rate also applies to long-term sub-lets. In the case of sub-lets, the Crown Estate has already agreed that the extra income generated from the £0.05p/metre increase should all accrue to the Harbour Authority, in lieu of Harbour Dues. Obviously, the minimum fee chargeable for a visitor mooring must be at least the same as the flat rate Harbour Dues already approved. At £0.55p per metre for the visitor pile moorings, this will only work for vessels over 11 metres LOA. This would be solved by imposing a minimum fee for the visitor pile moorings of £6.00 (for vessels up to and including 11 metres LOA) plus £0.55p per metre above 11 metres. This problem would be eliminated if the visitors pile moorings are discontinued.

Note 4. Tokens valid during calendar year of purchase only, and unused tokens not refundable. Tokens are intended to provide a discount to encourage regular visitors (such as sailing school yachts).

Special Deals

Visitor pricing should also include `special deals' for the Winter Series and Spring Series and discounted rates for periods of low demand. At present, yachts visiting for a two month period (to cover either of the Series) pays a special rate (£15 per metre) for a berth on the visitors pontoon. The Series run during Oct/Nov/Dec and Mar/Apr, so there is normally a 2 month period when no racing boats use the pontoon. It is proposed that a winter visitors package of 6 months (mid-October to mid-April, with dates adjusted to suit the Winter and Spring Series) should be made available at a discounted rate. A total of £50 per metre for the whole six-month period would attract considerable interest, with an alternative of £17.50 per metre (increased from the current £15) for the period covering either of the racing series for those who prefer it.

In order to deter boat-owners from using visitor moorings as a long-term berthing solution (thereby denying the berth to bona fide visitors) a maximum duration of stay should be imposed. It is proposed that this should be 30 days during the summer (mid-April to mid-October) and 6 months during the winter (mid-October to mid-April).

Estimated Income

If the scale of charges above is applied to the reduced total of 45 visitor berths and an occupancy similar to the current rate is assumed, the gross income from visitors should, conservatively, be in the order of £60,000. This should result in a net income to the Harbour Authority in excess of £50,000 per annum.