Contact: Don Alexander 01489 581149, e-mail: [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 This report was considered at the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee on 15 November 2006. It was agreed at that meeting to submit this report to the River Hamble Harbour Board for a decision on the recommendations set out on page 3.

2 Report of the Boat Capacity Working Group

2.1 At the October 2005 meeting of the River Hamble Management Committee members volunteered their services to participate in the "Boat Capacity Working Group". The Group to study whether, in response to a proposal from the Marine Director, the upper limit on boat numbers be removed altogether and the planning processes be allowed to determine the absolute number of boats permitted on the river.

2.2 In view of the changes in boat size and type since a previous survey carried out in the 1980s, a full-scale survey of numbers of boats moored in the river and berthed ashore might also be necessary to ensure safety.

2.3 Subsequently an additional task was added to generate a "Glossary" to be included in the "Strategic Principles to Guide the Development on the River Hamble" document. (See separate report).

3 Working Group Members

3.1 Councillor Mrs Charlotte Bailey; Councillor Mr. Bill Pepper; Mr. John Greensmith; Mr. Dick Saint; Mr. Peter Knight; Ms. Leigh Marsh; Don Alexander (Chair).

4 Boat Numbers / River Capacity Report

4.1 The Working Group has met several times in the interim and also exchanged views and information electronically.

4.2 Background:-

After Hampshire County Council assumed control of the river in 1970, three studies were made of the boat capacity of the Hamble. One carried out by Captain Andrews, circa 1980, studied congestion in the lower reaches and concluded that 3,261 was, at that time, the maximum number of boats which could safely be moored in the river. It is understood that he calculated his figure from actual counts of vessels using the channel during busy periods and then extrapolated this to take account of the probable frequency of use by their owners. It went on to say that this number could be increased to 4,000 provided that the pinch point between Warsash Ferry hard and Port Hamble was widened to provide a clear channel 150 feet wide and that yachts were only to proceed under engine in this area.

4.3 The "River Hamble Local Plan" of 1985 was later compiled and the figure of 3,261 was adopted as the safe maximum number of boats. This plan was revised in 1992 but the original figure was retained.

4.4 Over the years we have seen the average boat size grow from originally approximately 28 feet to today's average of approximately 35 feet. However by today's standards, these older long keelboats were significantly underpowered and they had very wide turning circles and had very little stopping power due to their small engines and propellers.

4.5 Similarly, during the same period, we have seen the considerable growth in the numbers of motor yachts in many instances replacing sailing boats.

4.6 Though some believe the river to be congested, the Hamble has never had many serious collisions between boats nor any significant amount of damage as a result of congestion. The perception of the Working Group was that little had changed in terms of the frequency of actual incidents since the 1980s and that this is probably due to the improved handling characteristics of modern craft compensating for the increase in average size.

4.7 When the "River Hamble Local Plan" was overtaken by the district plans of Fareham and Eastleigh respectively the maximum figure of 3,261 was incorporated into each Local Authority's plan.

4.8 There have been many attempts to determine the actual number of craft afloat at various times and, whilst there was always an element of doubt over the accuracy of these boat counts, none gave a result, which approached the Andrews maximum. Mostly the counts indicated that the river was some 200 boats below its capacity. There have been occasions when the marinas, boatyards and clubs have been invited to submit plans for increasing their moorings. Some commercial operators and one of the clubs were able to increase their moorings within their existing curtilage and considerable discussion took place as to whether it was fair or even appropriate for the commercial operators to take up the last 200 or so remaining places. Since then a number of shallow drying mooring spaces have remained unoccupied, as the prices commercial operators needed to charge were unaffordable by boat owners and these moorings have mostly been taken out. Once again the river is believed to be somewhat below the early Andrews figure.

5 The Working Group's Findings

5.1 At the October 2005 Management Meeting the Marine Director suggested that an alternative approach to managing any likely future congestion would be to remove the upper limit on boat numbers altogether and to rely upon the process of planning applications and their approval or denial to regulate boat numbers.

5.2 The Working Group were concerned that the Harbour Authority would thus loose control of the numbers of vessels which, in law, it is charged to manage. Also, as the riparian Councils determine planning permissions, an unbalance could result where one Council was approving applications whilst another Council, possibly of a different political persuasion, was refusing them.

5.3 Since the initial meeting of the Working Group the Harbour Office has implemented its policy of issuing a numbered sticker to every boat longer than 3 metres, but excepting canoes and rowing boats. Thus the Harbourmaster now knows the precise number of stickers issued and hence the number of boats on the river. There is still some uncertainty over the total boat count because the marinas and boatyards were issued with the number of stickers they requested but they pay their Harbour Dues based upon the meterage of pontoons plus the number of dry sailed boats. We are informed that, at the time, no reconciliation of sticker numbers with meterage charged for was undertaken so there is still some uncertainty concerning the majority of the boats on the river; ie. those which are in marinas and boatyards. This means that two thirds of craft are still not accurately accounted for and their details are not logged on the Harbour database either. At present it is not possible to verify that the owner of a boat carrying a sticker has actually paid his dues and is it not known whether all stickers issued to yards and marinas have found their way on to boats.

5.4 The Working Group also considered whether safety could be better controlled based upon an estimate the total length of boats on the river rather than their actual numbers and it was felt this would introduce even more difficulties than that of a simple boat count. Marinas are currently charged dues based on a formula that does not charge for some 20% of their pontoon length and this does not satisfy the need for the Harbour Office to remain in control of the actual numbers of boats. It can be reasoned that a few large boats create the same amount of congestion as a greater number of small boats and that large boats can cause enormous amounts of damage. However small craft are correspondingly more vulnerable and the safety of life is undoubtedly lower in smaller vessels.

5.5 Accordingly this approach was not thought appropriate for the safe administration of the Hamble.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the River Hamble Harbour Board ,following consideration of the advice set out in this report, agrees the following:-

1. The expense of a full boat survey would not be justified.

2. The Harbour Office should continue to improve its collection of accurate data.

3. The current maximum capacity of 3,261 to be retained.

1 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 disclosure exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.