Archived decisions

River Hamble Forum - Notes of the Meeting

Held at Victory Hall, Warsash on 4 April 2006

1. 1.1	Chairman's opening remarks The Chairman welcomed the members of the public present to the first meeting of River Hamble Forum. He conveyed apologies for absence from Mr Tony Lovell, Dr Susie Tomson, Councillor House and Councillor Hockley.
1.2	The Chairman explained that the purpose of the Forum was for Members of the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee and the River Hamble Harbour Board to listen to the opinions and concerns of stakeholders so that they can take them into account when making decisions.
1.3	It was explained that the new structure of Governance, with the Board as executive decision making body and the Management Committee as the scrutiny body, had been in place for almost a year. Meetings were open to members of the public and all reports and minutes were available on the Hampshire County Council website.
1.4	The Harbour Authority had to work within certain legal and financial constraints. It was a self-funding authority, receiving no funding from Council Tax and, likewise, no income was taken from the Authority by Hampshire County Council.
1.5	It was emphasised that the management of the river was a delicate balancing act, not least because of the differing views of stakeholders and river users. The Harbour Authority had the role of administering services and maintaining the environment within this context.
1.6	Finally, the Chairman introduced David Evans, Marine Director, to give an annual report on the River Hamble.
2. 2.1	Annual Report on the River Hamble The Marine Director introduced himself and explained the format of his report as an overview of events and activities which had taken place and issues which had arisen over the last year. It was emphasised that feedback on the format of the report would be welcomed.
2.2	The Marine Director outlined the status, structure and responsibilities of the Harbour Authority and highlighted changes which had or would affect it including the changes in governance and the imminent publication of the Municipal Ports Review.
2.3	The wide range of work which had been carried out by the Harbour Authority was outlined.
3. 3.1	Presentation on River Hamble Estuary Management Plan Implementation Forum A presentation was given by Julie Satchell, a member of the River Hamble Estuary Management Plan Implementation Forum (RHEMPIF) explaining the purpose and structure of the group.
3.2	It had been established to follow on from the work of the River Hamble Estuary Management Plan Forum which had established to form that plan. Following the finalisation of the plan the original members had then agreed to be part of the RHEMPIF to see through the implementation of the plan.
3.3	The RHEMPIF was chaired by an independent member, Dr Steve Fletcher of the Solent University, and consisted of representatives from different stakeholders in the river. It had no direct relationship with the Harbour Authority and was not a sub-committee of the River Hamble Harbour Board. Those stakeholders represented included commercial organisations, environmental agencies, local interest groups, the Harbour Authority and many others. Each member had equal status and officer support was provided from the Harbour Master's Office.
3.4	Its purpose was to co-ordinate, facilitate and monitor the progress in the implementation of the Estuary Management Plan in a manner that was consistent between different organisations and which took into consideration the concerns and interests of different stakeholders.
3.5	The RHEMPIF had a Student Research Fund to enable it to commission students to carry out research which would feed into, inform and develop different areas of work.
3.6	Future challenges faced by RHEMPIF were outlined, including potential changes to the way central government funds this type of work.
4. 4.1	Speakers The Forum heard from speakers on a range of subjects as follows. Where available, notes of speakers comments have been attached as appendices.
4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7	Pete Dargie, Kevan Thomas and Richard Glover, of Upper Hamble Canoe Club, British Canoe Union and Portsmouth & District Canoe Club respectively, spoke regarding the payment of Harbour Dues by canoeists on the River (Appendices 1, 2 & 3). They emphasised the following points: All those canoes over 3 metres, which included all sea kayaks, had to pay Harbour Dues in order to use the river. The River Hamble had been, until the recent introduction of the new Harbour Dues scheme, the only substantial river in Hampshire which was free for canoeists to use. Canoeists had no requirements for mooring or navigational buoyage or policing, their only concerns were speeding craft. Canoeists took pleasure in the local environment, had no environmental impact upon the river and promoted stewardship of the environment through clean up days. Canoeing provided the opportunity for people to take up a sport for a relatively low cost. Payment of Harbour Dues would subsume government grants received by canoeing organisations. They felt that Harbour Dues charges were unfair given the promotion by national government of healthy living and environmental awareness. Small tenders were given exemptions to the payment of Harbour Dues, and it was requested that the Harbour Authority consider granting exemptions for canoes.
4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4	Graham Brown, river user and business owner, discussed the payment of Harbour Dues by visitors to the river and impacts upon local businesses (Appendix 4). He raised the following issues: He felt that charging visitors for using the river would have the result of reducing the number of visitors to the area which would impact upon local businesses. As a leisure industry he felt that yachting should be treated and managed as such. A trend had developed of people moving their boats abroad which meant that commercial enterprises in the area would be losing business. He requested evidence by the way of minutes and calculations, cost benefit analysis and proof of other options considered in taking the decision to charge visitors Harbour Dues.
4.4 4.4.1	Hugh Knight, of the Hamble Berth Holders' Association, spoke with regard to the payment of Harbour Dues by his members (Appendix 5). As over 1000 members of Hamble Berth Holders' Association paid Harbour Dues, he felt that they should have a representative on the Harbour Authority to look after their interests and represent their views.
4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2	Charles Clutterbuck, a river user, spoke about the payment of Harbour Dues by canoeists and small dinghies (Appendix 6). He emphasised the following points: Canoeists required no navigational lights, piles, moorings or channels and had no environmental impact on the river. He asked the Harbour Authority not to hinder the learning by canoeists of control, maintenance and safety through charging Harbour Dues which he felt were disproportionate to their impact.
4.6 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4 4.6.5	Colin Brookes, a river user, addressed the Forum regarding the following issues (Appendix 7). He felt there had been a lack of consultation on the implementation and impact of the Harbour Dues scheme on local river users. He was concerned that Harbour Dues stickers did not have consecutive numbers and were not linked to a receipt. He felt therefore that the system would not be auditable and could be abused. He expressed disappointment that the County Council had not chosen the Trust Port model for the Harbour Authority as he felt this would have resulted in it being more open, accountable and financially independent. He felt that public navigational rights had been upheld by Fareham Borough Council and Eastleigh Borough Council by refusing of planning applications. He criticised the proposal to remove mooring buoys opposite the Harbour Master's office as he felt that these helped to define the channel and provided further protection to smaller dinghies.
4.7 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3	Peter Nicholson, Chairman of the Trust Port Review Group spoke regarding the group's work. He raised the following points: He and the other members of the group had a strong preference towards to trust port structure. They had looked at a variety of examples of trust ports and were in the process of drafting a paper which would be circulated amongst interested parties for feedback and representations. It was hoped that this group would then be able to report its findings to Hampshire County Council.
4.8 4.8.1 4.8.2 4.8.3 4.8.4	John Selby, mooring holder, spoke on the subject on Harbour Authority finances and accounts (Appendix 8). He raised the following issues: Considering the difference between the proportional rise in income through Harbour Dues and the proportional rise in expenditure, either new sources of income would need to be found or expenditure would have to reduce. The IT support and telephone network supplied by Hampshire County Council cost well above the commercial rate for such services. He asked why the financial services provided by Hampshire County Council were still £20,000 following the appointment of the Marine Director who had responsibility for the accounts. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that capital purchases are good value for money and highlighted the costs of installing CCTV which had exceeded £75,000 with an annual budget of £5,000 for maintenance. He asked whether the CCTV camera on the Bursledon bend had ever worked. He called for more effort to be made to ensure that expenditure will be effective before projects are undertaken.
4.9. 4.9.1 4.9.2 4.9.3 4.9.4 4.9.5 4.9.6	Peter Crick, of the Hamble Mooring Holders' Association, addressed the Forum regarding the topic of consultation (Appendix 9). He highlighted the following points: He felt it was good that the Harbour Authority was consulting with stakeholders by having such a Forum. He was of the opinion that the Harbour Authority should consult more regularly with stakeholders, listen to their views and allow those views to feed into the decision making process. He criticised the structure of the Forum and suggested it would have been more useful to have had an open floor for discussion. He was pleased to have had the opportunity to make a presentation, but felt that it would have been better if time limits on speakers had not been imposed. He suggested that it would be better to have more than one of these Forums per year. He asked what Hampshire County Council's definition of consultation was; how the Harbour Authority and County Council ensured that they heard what was said; and what would be the first action arising from the Forum.
4.10 4.10.1 4.10.2 4.10.3 4.10.4	Michael Sterne, Honorary Secretary of Warsash Sailing Club, spoke on the subject of consultation. He emphasised the following points: River users and stakeholders had not been properly consulted before the implementation of the new Harbour Dues scheme. Bearing in mind the Port Marine Safety Code, the Harbour Authority should consult all stakeholders on potential changes and proposals. A distinction was made between beneficiary and non-beneficiary stakeholders. As experienced river users, the Harbour Authority should take advantage of stakeholders' expertise in a variety of areas. Past responses from officers had implied a lack of respect for the views of river users which was not helpful or conducive to the smooth running of the river. The Harbour Authority managed the river on behalf of the river users and, as such, should take their views into account when making decisions.
4.11 4.11.1 4.11.2	Jeremy Clark, of the Solent Protection Society, addressed the Forum on the subject of time limits for works consents (Appendix 10). He was of the view that, in order to retain public control or influence, it would be essential to incorporate a time limit or review date in all works consents granted by the Harbour Authority regardless of the time limits placed upon works by other consenting authorities. He asked whether anything in the relevant legislation prevented the Harbour Authority from doing so and whether it would be better practice to do so.
4.12 4.12.1 4.12.2 4.12.3 4.12.4 4.12.5	Chris Frost, of Stone Pier Boatyard, spoke regarding the proposed redevelopment of the site. He raised the following points: The Stone Pier Boatyard needed rejuvenating in order to continue trading as a viable business. Conditional works consent had been granted by the Harbour Authority for redevelopment, but Fareham Borough Council had turned down their application on the basis of the closure of secondary channels. He called for an improvement in the process for gaining consent for works which would result in closer work with small businesses. A significant amount of time, effort and expenditure had gone into the company's applications for permission to develop its marina and that this had not been aided by the complex structure of consents. Unless a compromise was reached with other river users regarding this proposed redevelopment the Stone Pier Boatyard would soon be unviable as a business venture.
4.13 4.13.1 4.13.2 4.13.3 4.13.4 4.13.5 4.13.6	John Mitchell, a river user, addressed the Forum on Boat Capacity on the River Hamble (Appendix 11). He raised the following issues: The river had a Boat Capacity limit of 3261 primarily for safety reasons. Originally the majority of vessels on the river had been sailing yachts, however in recent years there had been a sharp increase in the number of powerboats. Aerial photographs were the easiest and most effective way to count the number of boats on the river. No new aerial photographs of the river had been taken since 1999 so it had not been established that the Boat Capacity limit had not been exceeded. He felt that there had been an increase in the number of boats on the river and that the Boat Capacity limit had been exceeded. He therefore felt that there was a higher risk of accidents as a result. He asked when aerial photographs would be taken; what the increase would be in the total number of boats on the river once all new developments had been completed; what would happen if the number exceeded 3261; and whether dry sailed boats should be added to the Boat Capacity limit. He pointed out that Members of the River Hamble Harbour Board were responsible for maintaining safety on the river.
4.14 4.14.1 4.14.2 4.14.3 4.14.4	David Davis, mooring holder, spoke about the loss of affordable moorings on the river (Appendix 12). He covered the following issues: The two main reasons for the loss of affordable moorings relative to the rise in Marina berths were the policies of the Crown Estate and the efficient management of the river. He criticised the Crown Estate for their policies in trying to provide a range of prices of moorings rather than confining their moorings to affordable ones. He criticised the Harbour Authority for having a negative attitude towards smaller vessels and promoting commercial development. He felt their was a lack of consultation and openness with river stakeholders and the County Council had been wrong to adopt a Municipal Port structure rather than a Trust Port.
5 5.1 5.2 5.3	Chairman's Closing Remarks The Chairman emphasised the scrutiny role of the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee and assured the Forum that they would look into the possibility of having more regular public meetings. He thanked those who had made contributions and expressed his appreciation for the large number of members of the public who had come to the Forum meeting. On the subject of Harbour Dues, he highlighted that there would be a public meeting of the Harbour Dues Working Group at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 April 2006 at Warsash Sailing Club, Shore Road, Warsash.

Appendix 1

Ellie Draper,

Secretary, River Hamble Harbour Board

Democratic Services

Hampshire County Council

Room 149, Elizabeth II Court

The Castle

Winchester,

Hampshire

SO23 8UB

Dear Ellie

I am secretary of the Upper Hamble Canoe Club (UHCC), based upon the upper reaches of The River Hamble at Botley Quay, Botley. We have around 160 members of all ages and meet most Sundays, as tides permit, to spend time on the water. Typically a session will involve between 20 and 40 paddlers, in both canoes and kayaks. Our sessions are structured to provide an element of coaching, short trips and games. Groups are always supervised by volunteer coaches qualified to British Canoe Union (BCU) standards.

The upper reaches of the River Hamble offer us a wide variety of paddling opportunities; sheltered flat water, ideal for the introduction of beginners to the sport; short trips to Curbridge or further downstream to the Upper Hamble Country Park, or sometimes after heavy rain, moving water at Botley Mill. We are very lucky to have free access to this local tidal water, as most of Britain's inland waterways tend to be privately owned and to paddle on them without permission constitutes an act of trespass.

Following media attention to the harbour dues in early January we contacted the harbour authority for clarification of the charges and were surprised to hear that canoes and kayaks would indeed be liable for dues. While most of our members paddle kayaks shorter than 3m in length, both the club and some individual members have canoes or sea kayaks up to around 5m in length that are subject to harbour dues. Although we occasionally organise trips up the river from Warsash or Swanwick most of our paddling takes place on the upper reaches of the river, well away from the harbour with its necessary buoyage, lighting and jetties. Most of our concerns are therefore of an environmental nature or relate to issues such as the dangers to us of speeding motorised craft.

It does appear that human powered craft (canoes, kayaks and row boats) were overlooked when the charges were considered but fall into the charging structure purely due their length, an unfortunate fact given that their environmental impact is minimal.

As a club we offer many benefits to local paddlers and residents. Through our coaching activities we promote stewardship of the river environment; it is in our interest for it to remain as natural as possible so as to be a pleasant environment to paddle in. Our paddlers learn the BCU code of conduct which promotes stewardship of the river environment. Paddlers are introduced to the water in a safe and controlled manner with a good coach to student ratio. We work to keep Botley Quay clean and tidy and have organised `clean up' days where members have cleared the surrounding area of rubbish ensuring the area can continue to be enjoyed by both ourselves and local residents. The existence of our club also indirectly benefits other organisations such as the scouts for whom some of our coaches work voluntarily, again promoting safe use of the waterway and stewardship of the environment.

In 2005 the club was successful in securing an Awards for All lottery grant with which we purchased a number of open canoes with the explicit aim of using these to provide easier access to the sport for a wide range of paddlers; older members, families and juniors. With these boats we can get more family groups out onto the water together and involve children at a younger age. The new charges affect these craft in particular and will make it more expensive for our club to give people access to the River Hamble.

It is welcome to see that a working party has been set-up to look at the charging issue and as a club we would very much like to have an input into any discussions that may involve local paddlers and small boat owners.

As a club that offers the opportunity for people to take up paddle sport at minimal cost we feel the charges are unfair and disproportionate given the minimal environmental impact of our sport and the fact that we make little use if any of the harbour facilities. These charges will increase the cost of paddlers getting out on the River Hamble and dissuade them from taking part in a healthy, social and environmentally friendly pursuit. Perhaps exemption from the charges for human powered craft could be considered by the working party.

Yours sincerely

Pete Dargie

Secretary

Upper Hamble Canoe Club

Appendix 6

26/3/06

Ellie Draper,

Secretary, River Hamble Harbour Board

Democratic Services

Hampshire County Council

Room 149, Elizabeth II Court

The Castle

Winchester,

HANTS

SO 23 8UB

Dear Madam,

I have been informed that the inaugural meeting of the River Hamble forum will enable small boat owners and canoeists to have their views aired as the recent consultation in 2005 did not include those of us in the upper reaches of the Hamble to be involved on the debate about harbour dues. I hope you may read out or ask for this letter to be read at the meeting.

I am a small boat owner as well as being an enthusuast for canoes and sailing boats of all sizes. However it is our paddling community which I feel has been so badly let down by these proposals and not the larger motorised or sailing craft who clearly require the attention of the Harbour Master and the maintenance of navigation lights, piles, moorings and channels. The environmental cost to the river and its disturbance by operating these boats is at quite a different pitch to the gentle glide of rowing boats and canoes which have no need of navigation lights and channels and are entirely in tune with a "greener" regime that I understand is part of the responsibility that the European directives have laid on the Harbour Authority.

Small boats are by their nature the craft for young enthusiasts learning to row, scull or paddle and therefore learn about control, mooring, maintenance and SAFETY. I am afraid that with the best will in the world none of that will be covered by your harbour dues. The appreciation of our natural environment and learning to care for it come from these outings on the upper Hamble which is still unspoilt. Don't lets hinder that by presenting a financial barrier.

The Authority have shown in several replies to my letters that they wish to be balanced in the apportionment of the new fees. For instance tenders to larger boats are exempt (despite being motorised in most cases and causing as much environmental disturbance as the larger craft they serve) and charities may have charges waived or reduced. Surely then on dealing with the paddling community a consistent view should allow non-motorised non-sail boat use as being exempt entirely. I have also been advised that the under 3m rule allows youngsters to start sailing in the Optimist class without attracting a fee. Should not all cash strapped youngsters starting in canoes and dinghies therefore get the same treatment and be entirely exempt?

I believe you could lead the other river authorities and promote the use of the environmental benefits of small rowing boats and canoes by showing a fee exemption for these craft.

We have only one ramp left in Botley and saving that from developers was a battle. Please don't restrict further our free access to the Hamble by adding charges that are not proportional to our impact on the river.

Yours faithfully

Charles Clutterbuck (dinghy "Turnstone" - 3.19M.)

Appendix 10

Solent Protection Society

 

I am writing as a council member of the Solent Protection Society to register my desire to ask a question on behalf of the Society at the Hamble River Forum on 4th April.

 

Our intended question

 

In granting permission for a development on the River, the Harbour Board and Management committee do so without specifying a time limit for the permission or specifying a review date. Approval therefore appears to be given in perpetuity for the use of what is currently a public open space.

 

I am aware that the Crown may issue a lease that will have a review date, but that is no direct concern of the Board.

 

Bearing in mind the fact that the Board may need to review arrangements on the River, perhaps because of capacity considerations or global warming or many other reasons, would it not be better if developments were given approval for a fixed period, which would reflect the capital investment of the developer and the need for a return, but would also reflect the needs of the public and society as a whole to review the use of a public asset.

Jeremy Clark

Appendix 12

RIVER HAMBLE 2006 FORUM

Personal details.

I have had a mooring on the river for over 30 yrs. My grandfather was also a mooring holder many moons ago and I have had relatives working on the river. I feel a strong attachment to the river and feel I have the right to call myself a `Stakeholder'.

Concerns.

The loss of affordable moorings relative to the rise in Marina style berths, I would like to register the following comments on the subject.

There are two dominant factors which decide the price, type and availability of moorings i.e.

i) Crown Estate policy.

ii) Efficient management of the river.

Taking the first of these,

The Crown Estate often quotes that they work to the act that demands they maximise returns on their assets, in which case why don't they install continuous pontooning throughout the river and restrict them to boats of 35 ft and upwards. I respectfully suggest there is an aspect of social conscience in their decision-making, how and where that line between monetary gain and social considerations is drawn, is what needs to be explored. Because at the moment the effect of the CE on the river users is to double the cost of a mid-stream Mooring.

If the Crown Estate is seriously looking to maximise their returns they could also let out their luxury offices in London and move their administration headquarters out into an industrial estate in the provinces.

The Crown Estate has also put forward the idea of having a range of midstream Moorings charged according to various facilities and location. But surely there is already an ascending range of prices on the river, from Pile moorings, buoyed moorings, yacht club moorings, contractors, boatyards and Marinas. Why try and encapsulate the same range within the public moorings, surely they should be confined to the affordable category.

Efficient management of the river. Hampshire County Council has insisted in complete control of the River Management by setting it up as a Municipal Port against the national model adopted by the majority of other Harbours, who have taken up the Trust Port option, free of county politics.

Over the last 10 years or so Hampshire County Council through its Harbour Office has developed an ethos that is anti smaller boats on the river and enthusiastically pro commercial development.

This has been made apparent for instance, by its gradual elimination of cheap buoyed moorings, its attempts to close the secondary channels so as to enable expansion of marina type facilities and its refusal to take a count of boats on the river because they know it would show a considerable rise in boat numbers attached to Marinas.

Hampshire County Council could in one stroke remove all the anger, frustration and suspicion that they have created on the river, by adopting a policy of genuine consultation and openness with river stakeholders, as recommended in both the Trust Port and Municipal Ports review.

With all due respect Mr Chairman, a 4-minute slot once a year is not consultation.

DCD April 2006