Archived decisions
AT A MEETING of the RIVER HAMBLE HARBOUR BOARD held at Royal Southern Yacht Club, Rope Walk, Hamble on 19 May 2006.
Hampshire County Council
p Councillor T.G. Knight (Chairman)
p Councillor J.V. Bryant
a Councillor K. House
Independent Members
p Mr T. Lovell
p Mr C. Moody
p Dr S. Tomson
Marine Director
p Mr D. Evans
Also present
Councillor Dr R.J. Ellis, Chairman of River Hamble Harbour Management Committee and Captain M. Capon, Designated Person (Port Marine Safety Code).
74 APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor House.
75 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
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 the debate, declare their interest and, having regard 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 is discussed.
There were no declarations of interest made under this item.
76 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 24 March 2006 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Matters Arising:
Harbour Master's Report (Minute 69)
It was confirmed that Eastlands Boatyard had yet to remove a walkway extending over the marshland, this would be pursued by the Harbour Master. The publication of the Municipal Ports Review was still awaited.
Marine Director's Current Issues (Minute 70)
The Board was informed that Fareham Borough Council had postponed the deadline for the implementation of the Section 106 agreement with Universal Marina until August 2006. Work was being carried out by the Borough Council to determine whether the house boats in question had been on the site for over 10 years and therefore had rights of occupation.
77 CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS
The Chairman congratulated Councillor Bryant, Vice Chairman, on his recent appointment as Mayor of Fareham.
It was reported that Fareham Borough Council was considering the implementation of a new bye-law to address the issue of people jumping from the A27 road bridge into the river. It was understood that Eastleigh Borough Council was also looking into the possibility of a similar new bye-law. Various methods may be available to address the problem and were under consideration.
The Chairman reported on a meeting which had taken place between Members of the Board and the River Hamble Mooring Holders' Association (RHMHA). A record of the meeting would be published in the RHMHA newsletter.
78 DEPUTATIONS
There were no deputations received.
79 MINUTES OF THE RIVER HAMBLE HARBOUR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - 3 MAY 2006 (SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION)
The Board considered and noted the minutes of the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee held on 3 May 2006 (Item 6 in the minute book) as subject to confirmation at the next meeting of that Committee. It was confirmed that the notes of the River Hamble Forum would be published on the River Hamble website for members of the public to view. These would be considered by the Board at its meeting in July.
Some Members expressed concerns about the time that had been taken by the relevant working groups to produce reports on boat capacity and a glossary of terms. The Board was advised that there had recently been some significant revisions to the draft versions of these reports. On the whole it was felt that it would be preferable to ensure that the tasks were completed in a thorough manner rather than being rushed. It was acknowledged that these working groups reported to the Management Committee rather than the Board.
The Board was advised of some concerns that the Boat Capacity Working Group may have been exceeding its brief. It was thought that the group had been attempting to count the number of vessels on the river and had been considering what the boat capacity limit of the river should be. The original remit of the group, as detailed in the minutes of the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee, was to consider whether a boat capacity limit remained an appropriate method for management of the river or whether alternative methods might be used.
With regard to the Harbour Dues Working Group, the Board was advised that the annual letter was due to be sent to the midstream mooring holders to advise them of the charges for the next year. This would be calculated in accordance with the decision previously made by the Board and would subsume Supervision Charges into Harbour Dues.
80 HARBOUR MASTER'S REPORT
The Board considered and noted the report of the Director of Environment (Item 7 in the minute book) summarising activities and events on the River since 28 February 2006. A report regarding the Port Marine Safety Code Navigational Safety Risk Assessment would be considered at the next meeting and would contain a number of important recommendations, some of which could have budgetary implications.
A supplementary report (Item 7x in the minute book) was circulated to update Members on the latest incidents on the River. It was confirmed that the costs of retrieving equipment and temporary road signs from the river had been paid for by the building contractors. The new fisherman's jetty had been well received and was being frequently used by fishermen and dinghies.
Feedback on the new buoyage system at the entrance of the river had been positive and it was felt that the buoys clearly defined the channel. Despite the original concerns of some river users, the removal of the mooring buoys off Stone Pier Yard and the Harbour Master's Jetty had provided better lines of sight for dinghies launching in the area. Details of the new buoyage had been sent to the relevant bodies for charts to be updated.
81 PLANNING AND CONSENTS - UNIVERSAL SHIPYARD
The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment (Item 8 in the minute book) summarising the minor alterations in the works at Universal Shipyard and seeking to formalise alterations to the consent granted for these works. Due to the situation on site it had been necessary to make the decision regarding the consent quickly. In making an informal decision to be formally ratified at a later meeting of the Board, a situation had been avoided where works were being carried out without consent.
The changes to the plans of Universal Shipyard highlighted the issue of vessel size in the river. There were a number of river users who were unhappy about the possibility of more larger vessels berthing in the river. It was felt that, for the time being, the issue of larger vessels was self regulating. Those few larger vessels which ventured into the river did so slowly and with caution due to the narrow stretches of navigable water. Those vessels which were too large to navigate the river safely were not likely to enter it. It was noted that smaller vessels also had a responsibility to address the risks they presented to other river users.
There was no anecdotal evidence of larger vessels presenting a risk to safety on the river and there had been no risk identified at the time. It was confirmed that if the Board considered that the size of vessels was presenting an identified risk to safety on the river then it would be within its rights to establish restrictions. It would be difficult to establish, through a risk assessment, what length of vessel would create such a risk and what length of vessel could be said to keep a risk as low as reasonably practicable. It was felt that the issue of limiting the number or size of larger vessels was inextricably linked to the issue of whether a boat capacity limit was necessary and potential alternative methods which could be used to manage risk levels on the river.
RESOLVED
(a) That the decision to allow works to continue be ratified.
(b) That conditional Harbour Authority consent for the works be formally granted.
82 MARINE BILL
The Board considered the report of the Director of Environment (Item 9 in the minute book) providing an overview of the recently published Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) consultation document `A Marine Bill'. A draft response was being compiled by the Assistant Harbour Master (Environment) focusing on issues of: planning in the marine area; licensing marine activities; improving marine nature conservation; and the potential for a new marine management organisation. This would be circulated to Members of the Board and the Management Committee for comments which would be taken into consideration in the final drafting of the Harbour Authority's response. If necessary the Board Members and the Chairman of the Management Committee would meet informally to discuss any conflicting views.
It was noted that the consultation document applied not only to the coastal environment but covered the whole marine area up to 12 miles offshore. Defra had emphasised that its intention was to review the strategies of dealing with the whole of the marine environment and implement a holistic approach. It was hoped that this would streamline operations instead of producing an extra layer of bureaucracy. This could be an opportunity to improve the planning process and it was hoped that this would become less complicated as a result. Members were keen that the Harbour Authority should retain some control over site developments and the associated implications for risk management on the river.
It was emphasised that the response of the Harbour Authority should be appropriate to the context of the river and to the concerns of the Members and stakeholders. The Authority's response would be only one of many, but as a Municipal Port managed by a County Council it was a unique body with unique issues. As a result of discussions at the last meeting of the Management Committee, stakeholders had been contacted with information about how to access and give responses to the consultation document.
As a separate body the Harbour Authority would be independent from Hampshire County Council in its response to the consultation and the two responses would reflect differences in responsibilities and statutory roles of the authorities. Members considered it important that the Harbour Authority seek the County Council's support on principal issues. The Board was advised that the Assistant Harbour Master (Environment) was in discussion with officers at Hampshire County Council with regard to the Council's response. Individuals were encouraged to send their own responses if they wished to address particular issues of interest to them.
It was anticipated that the level of response to the consultation paper would determine the timescale for production of a draft bill for parliament to consider. It was likely that a further round of consultation would take place if the level of response was particularly high.
RESOLVED
(a) That a formal response be drafted and circulated to Members of the River Hamble Harbour Board and River Hamble Harbour Management Committee for comments.
(b) That Members' comments be taken into consideration in finalising the response of the Harbour Authority, to be approved by the Chairman of the Board before submission to Defra by 23 June 2006.
83 ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
The Board considered and noted the report of the Chief Executive (Item 10 in the minute book) on the forward plan of items to be considered at future meetings. Members requested a training session to provide an update and in depth briefing on significant issues of which they should be aware.