Archived decisions

Contact: David Evans, tel 01489 576387 email: [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 4.

1.2 This report records the proposals of a working group established under the Chairmanship of Councillor Woodward and tasked with providing advice to the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee with regard to matters raised at the River Hamble Annual Forum held in April 2006. The report is now being submitted to the River Hamble Harbour Board for approval.

2. Reason

2.1 This report does not directly support any of the priorities of the Corporate Strategy but is nonetheless a key element in the continuing good governance of the River Hamble.

3. Background

3.1 The River Hamble Annual Forum, chaired by Councillor Ellis, was held on 4 April 2006. At the Forum, members of the public raised a number of issues and concerns which were subsequently considered by the Management Committee. The Management Committee agreed that a working group should be established under the chairmanship of Councillor Woodward to consider the most appropriate proposed responses. The working group met twice and this report sets out the issues considered and the proposed responses.

4. Issues Considered and Proposed Actions

4.1 The following is a list of the issues raised by speakers at the River Hamble Annual Forum, together with the proposed actions agreed by the working group. The list excludes matters pertaining to Supervision Charges, Harbour Dues for canoes and moorings/boat capacity which have been dealt with separately.

(i) `Charging visitors has an adverse impact on local businesses', and `As a leisure industry, yachting should be treated and managed as such.'

The working group decided to write to the initiator of these comments to seek clarification of exactly what was meant by them. No reply was received and the working group proposes no further action.

(ii) `The River Hamble Berth Holders Association should have a representative on the Harbour Authority.'

The working group was conscious that the constitution of the Management Committee was established by the 1969 Harbour Revision Order and could not easily be changed. It was felt that marina berth-holders may make their views known through the Royal Yachting Association, the Association of Hamble River Yacht Clubs, The Yacht Harbours Association and River Hamble Marina and Boatyard Operators Association, all of whom are already represented on the Management Committee. In the longer term, the Harbour Board has three independent members and there is nothing to prevent a member of the Berth Holders Association from competing for one of these positions when they next fall vacant in 2009. The working group proposes no further action.

(iii) `Concerns about whether Harbour Dues stickers would stand up to audit.'

The working group was advised that the Harbour Office has been subjected to a full audit since the date of the Annual Forum and that the current system of Harbour Dues stickers was found to be entirely fit for purpose. The working group expressed concern that the purpose of the Harbour Dues stickers was not fully understood by river users and proposes that this should be explained more fully in forthcoming newsletters.

(iv) `Concerns that the County Council had not chosen the Trust Port model for the Harbour Authority, as this would result in it being more open, accountable and financially independent.'

The working group was advised that the County Council will be carrying out a review of the current governance arrangements early in 2007 and that this review would take into account the recommendations of the Municipal Ports Review and any other relevant information, including the findings of the Trust Port Steering Group.

(v) `Comments about public navigational rights being upheld by Fareham and Eastleigh Borough Councils by refusing planning applications (presumably refers to Stone Pier Yard and Hamble Yacht Services).'

The working group proposes that this comment should be noted but required no further action at this time.

(vi) `Criticism of proposal (now implemented) to remove mooring buoys opposite Harbour Master's office.'

The working group was advised that the clearing of the channel and new buoyage arrangements had been the subject of a great deal of favourable comment from river users during the summer. The working group proposes that this issue should be noted but required no further action at this time.

(vii) `Suggestions that the Harbour Authority needs either to find new sources of income or reduce expenditure.'

The working group was informed that the main sources of income to the Harbour Authority were from Harbour Dues and visitor fees and that there was no obvious way of increasing this income without increasing Dues and fees. The majority of expenditure (about two thirds) is on manpower and the working group was advised that a complete review of the current manpower requirements of the Harbour is in progress. Phase 1 of this work will be reported to the Management Committee and Harbour Board in January 2007. If Phase 1 is agreed, it is intended that Phase 2 will be reported to the respective meetings thereafter.

(viii) `Suggestions that the Harbour Authority should consult more regularly with stakeholders.'

It was agreed that there was considerable merit in this suggestion and the working group proposes that written consultation with interested parties should take place in future, whenever contentious issues are being considered by the Management Committee and Harbour Board. Maximum use should be made of electronic means (primarily email) for carrying out this consultation. It was also stressed that interested parties should stay in contact with appropriate members of the Management Committee in order to ensure that their views are taken into account.

(ix) `Criticism of the structure and process of the Annual Forum and suggestions that there should be more than one Forum per year.'

The working group proposes that there should be two fora per year in future (April and November) with an Annual Report made at one of them. Each forum should be kept as simple (and affordable) as possible. Questions and concerns from interested parties should be answered as far as possible at the forum, with written answers provided after the event for more complex issues.

(x) `Request for clarification of the distinction between beneficiary and non-beneficiary stakeholders.'

The working group proposes that a letter should be written to the initiator of this comment indicating that it would be Harbour Authority policy to make no distinction made between non-beneficiary and beneficiary stakeholders (or other interested parties) in future.

(xi) `Calls for improvements in the consents process, particularly for small businesses.'

The working group proposes that the Harbour Authority should await the outcome of the forthcoming Marine Bill before this matter is considered further.

(xii) `Concerns about the loss of affordable moorings.'

After some discussion about what is meant by `affordable' it was agreed that the cost of mid-stream moorings was a matter for The Crown Estate. The working group proposes no further action.

(xiii) `Criticism of Harbour Authority's perceived negative attitude towards owners with smaller vessels and promotion of commercial development.'

The working group proposes that this comment should be noted but requires no further action.

5. Impact Assessments

5.1 This report provides advice to the Management Committee and its recommendations will have no impact on equality of access to the harbour Authority's services and facilities at this stage. Thus no formal Equalities Impact Assessment is required.

Recommendation

That the River Hamble Harbour Board, following consideration of the advice set out in this report, agrees the Working Group proposed actions set out in paragraph 4.1 (i) to (xiii) inclusive.

1097/DE