Archived decisions

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

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out the results of a public consultation on the arrangements for berthing tenders on the public jetties at Hamble and Warsash, and some proposals for the management of these facilities in the future.

2. Reason

2.1 This report is intended to improve the safety and efficiency of the management of tender berthing on the public jetties at Hamble and Warsash, which directly supports the following corporate aim of the County Council: Hampshire safer and more secure for all.

3. Background

3.1 A considerable number of river users currently use the public jetties at Warsash and Hamble as a more-or-less permanent berth for their tender. Historically, this facility has been provided free of charge and has proved very popular, resulting in considerable overcrowding and potential for damage to the tenders and the pontoon structure. This problem has come about gradually, particularly as the costs of keeping a tender elsewhere on the River (in a marina or yacht club) has steadily increased. The provision and maintenance of the Harbour Authority jetties at Hamble and Warsash is mainly funded by Harbour Dues. Each occupies an area of river bed which is owned by the Crown Estate and an annual rental is payable to the Crown Estate by the Harbour Authority. In the case of the Warsash Jetty this is £3,136 per annum, plus 10% (£585 in 2005/06) of the income generated from visitors fees. For the Hamble Jetty it is £900 per annum, plus 10% (£235 in 2005/06) of income. In addition, both jetties are liable to Docks Heriditament (Rates), payable to the local authority, and totalling £8,229 (2005/06) per annum. Thus the total outgoings for the two jetties for 2005/06, excluding depreciation and maintenance costs, were £13,085. Total visitor income from the two jetties during the same period was £8,200, so the cost of providing the two jetties for public landing, berthing for the Harbour Master's launches and access for the emergency services is approximately £5,000 per annum, plus depreciation and maintenance.

3.2 The jetties are provided as public landing places and not as public storage facilities. Thus, no member of the public, whether a Crown Estate mooring holder or not, has any entitlement to permanently berth a vessel of any size on either jetty as of right. However, anyone who so wishes may use either jetty to land or pick up passengers or equipment, or for any similar activities.

3.3 Mid-stream mooring holders have a number of options for gaining access to their boats, as follows, by:

(i) tender, which can be stored ashore or afloat in a marina, boatyard, yacht club or local authority facility;

(ii) tender, stored elsewhere and transported by road to the River when required;

(iii) using a launch service provided by a yacht club;

(iv) using a tender provided by a yacht club; or

(v) using the River Taxi.

3.4 Others, who own a small dinghy which is not a tender to a larger vessel, may also wish to use the public jetties for berthing, although those with boats of less than three metres length overall (LOA) and engines of less than 10 horsepower, and those of any size which are only rowed or paddled, are not currently required to pay Harbour Dues. Occasional use of the public jetties would normally incur a visitors' fee, but there is a potential anomaly in that such craft could, if they so wished, enjoy a permanent berth on the public jetties free of charge under the previous arrangements.

Issue

3.5 In order to avoid overcrowding and damage to tenders and pontoons in the future, there is a need to look at new ways of managing tenders on public jetties. On 24 November 2006 the Harbour Board decided that a public consultation should be undertaken to best inform the options and a decision of the Harbour Board on the best way forward.

4. Consultation

4.1 A consultation document was designed, approved by Board members and circulated by post on 6 December 2006. The document was sent to all Crown Estate mid-stream mooring holders, commercial operators (including yacht clubs) and other relevant stakeholders. A total of 700 documents were sent out. In all cases the document was sent to named individuals. It was not posted on the Harbour Authority web site or sent electronically because to do so would have increased the risk of multiple responses distorting the results. At the end of the 2 January 2007 deadline 114 replies had been received, representing a return rate of over 15%. A copy of the consultation document is at Appendix 1.

5. Analysis and Results

5.1 All responses have been read and, where a preference for a specific option was indicated, counted. A wide range of comments was received and representative samples of these are attached at Appendix 2.

5.2 The underlying theme of many responses was that respondents want to see a system that is fair to all, secure, affordable and safe. Any new arrangements put in place must be simple and easily enforceable. There was also a consistent theme that the jetties must be available for anyone who wishes to use them to drop off or pick up passengers or equipment, or for a short stay for a visit to the shops or pub, and not obstructed by permanently moored tenders.

5.3 From the point of view of the Harbour Office staff, who have to make the chosen arrangements work in practice, the key criteria are that the chosen solution should be safe, simple and easy to enforce.

6. Options

6.1 Option 1: Retain the status quo - ie allow anyone who wishes to do so to leave a tender on either jetty indefinitely and free of charge.

6.2 Thirteen respondents indicted that this was their preferred option, although some proposed that this should be combined with a maximum duration of stay (periods of 24 hours up to one month were suggested).

6.3 Comments: Retaining the status quo would not solve the current problems associated with overcrowding and, although a limit on the duration of stay would help, this would do nothing for those who think that the Harbour Authority has a duty to provide long-term berthing for tenders. Further, a time limit would require a considerable amount of enforcement effort to register arrivals and departures, and deal with those who break the rules. It is also worth noting that some of the problems caused by the tenders berthed on the public jetties are the direct result of them being secured with painters and/or chains/wires which are too short, thereby restricting their freedom of movement and ease of access for others. As a minimum, all tenders should be secured by the bow only, using a painter and/or chain/wire which is at least as long as the tender itself. Therefore this option is not recommended.

6.4 Option 2: Allow only tenders belonging to visiting yachtsmen to use the jetties.

6.5 Only four respondents expressed support for this option, with many others commenting that it would be unfair to provide a facility for visitors which was not available to regular River users. However, several respondents made the point that it would be appropriate to provide some dedicated berths for visitors, so that they could get ashore from the visitors pontoon easily and safely.

6.6 Comments: In view of its obvious lack of approval, this option is not recommended.

6.7 Option 3: Limit use to visiting yachtsmen, plus permanent berth and mooring holders who have registered their tender with the Harbour Office and are displaying a valid Harbour Dues sticker on their tender.

6.8 Numerically, this was the most well-supported single option, with 35 respondents indicating it as their first preference. Several respondents expressed concerns about the overcrowding which this option was likely to cause, and some suggested a time limit ranging in duration from `no overnight berthing' up to a 48 hour maximum. Some respondents suggested a `sin-bin' where tenders which break the rules could be stored until a recovery fee was paid by the owner - unfortunately, the lack of land for such a facility makes this impractical.

6.9 Comments: This option is clearly the most popular, but does not solve the overcrowding problem, unless a time limit is imposed (see comments under Option 1) or it is assumed that the numbers will be self-regulating (on the basis that berth holders will want to look after their boats, keeping them properly fendered and regularly bailed out to avoid damage). If this option is adopted, it would be important to set aside an area of each jetty for the exclusive use of visitors and other River users who require short stay berthing for their tender. Ensuring that all permanently berthed tenders have a valid Harbour Dues sticker would be a straightforward task, but enforcing any requirement to bail boats out regularly and to keep them on adequate length painters would be more difficult without some control over numbers. Disposal of tenders which break the rules is not cheap - the best can be sold, but those in poor condition are worth little. The hire of a skip to dispose of these tenders can be as much as £100 per time. Abandoned tenders must be notified to the police for a period of 30 days before they can be disposed of, and the Harbour Authority has no facility to store them during this period. This option, and some variations of it, are included in the recommendations below.

6.10 Option 4: Allow use by visiting yachtsmen free-of charge (as part of visitors fees), but charge mooring holders for using the berths on an annual basis (£120 per annum has been proposed).

6.11 Eighteen of the respondents who expressed a preference were in favour of this option. Suggestions about the level of annual fee varied widely - one suggested £52, to include a weekly pump-out of all tenders by Harbour Office staff, whilst others suggested much higher figures (up to £400 per annum). Others suggested a monthly rather than annual charge (the proposed £120 was based on £10 per month, so this could easily be accommodated, although it would increase administration costs). One respondent suggested that if a fee of £120 did not control the numbers sufficiently, the fee should be increased until it did (ie base the fee on supply and demand).

6.12 Comments: There are problems associated with charging for tender berthing, principally that it would appear that a paying customer expects something in return, in addition to the actual berth. Suggestions ranged from car parking, showers and toilets, and key pad controlled access to the jetty for security. Realistically, none of these are feasible. Further, payment of a fee to the Harbour Authority might imply a liability on the Authority in the event of theft, damage or vandalism - a liability which the Authority should not be willing to take on. For this latter reason alone, this option is not recommended, despite its apparent popularity with many respondents (particularly when taken together with Option 6 below).

6.13 Option 5: Allow use by visiting yachtsmen, but hold an annual ballot to decide which berth and mooring holders' tenders are entitled to use a limited number of annual berths free of charge (there is space for a maximum of eight annual tender berths on the Warsash Jetty and six on the Hamble Jetty).

6.14 Ten respondents indicated this as their first preference, but see comments under Option 6 below. There were, however, a number of strongly held views that this arrangement would not work because it would leave those who were not successful in the ballot with nowhere to keep their tender that year. Several of those in support of a ballot suggested that those who were successful in the ballot one year should be barred from entering for the following year (one suggested a five year bar). A couple of respondents indicated that they thought there was room for more than eight tenders at Warsash and six at Hamble, which would enhance the chances of being successful in the ballot. Others felt that a ballot would not be effective in ensuring that the berths were allocated to those with the greatest `need' and that some people might be tempted to enter the ballot `just because they can', with no real intention of taking up a berth. This could result in a `black market' trade for berths, which is clearly undesirable. Some respondents indicated that a first-come, first-served arrangement would be better, whilst one suggested that tender berths should be allocated in perpetuity, rather like mid-stream moorings, with a waiting list.

6.15 Comments: The primary objection to a ballot is concern for those who would inevitably be unsuccessful each year. There are, of course, many alternative means of accessing mid-stream moorings, as set out above - see also the comments on the River Taxi below. It is difficult to predict whether a ballot would work sufficiently well in practice, and for this reason a one year trial period is recommended if this solution is adopted. A first-come, first-served solution might actually work better in practice, but would require comprehensive advance publicity with a clear start time/date to ensure that it was fair to all. Despite some misgivings about the ballot system, it is included in the recommended options below.

6.16 Option 6: A combination of Options 4 and 5 - ie allow use by visiting yachtsmen free-of-charge (as part of visitors fees), and hold an annual ballot, with a limited number of successful owners paying an annual fee to berth their tenders on the jetties.

6.17 This was the second most popular option amongst those who expressed a preference, with 21 respondents putting it in first place. Taken together with Option 4, this gives a total of 39 respondents in favour of paying for permanent tender berths, and, taken together with Option 5, it also shows that a total of 31 respondents are in favour of a ballot system for allocating permanent berths.

6.18 Comments: The comments under Options 4 and 5 above all apply to this option. Despite the popularity of charging a fee for tender berths, this option is not recommended for the reasons given under Option 4 above.

Table of Results of Preferred Options

7. General Comments

7.1 Many respondents agreed that visiting vessels (ie those using the mid-stream Visitors Pontoon) should be allowed to use either of the public jetties for their tenders and that the cost of doing so was already included in the visitors' fees. However, this facility should be limited to bona fide visitors, ie those who sleep on board) rather than those who use the Visitors Pontoon for long term berthing. Many felt that a reserved section of the pontoon should be set aside for the specific use of visitors, but that there should be controls on the duration of stay (ie no overnight tender berthing on the designated section).

7.2 Several respondents expressed concerns about the enforcement and policing of whichever option is chosen and some were concerned that this might involve a need for more Harbour Office staff. It has been suggested by the Harbour Office staff that the management of tenders on both jetties could be handed over to a local voluntary consortium. The consortium would be managed by those with an interest in keeping their tenders permanently on either jetty as they see fit, either within the maximum numbers imposed by the Harbour Authority or without a limit, such that the numbers could self-regulate. The consortium would be free to select a coordinator (either an individual or a committee), to be responsible for allocating berths, running a waiting list (if required), arranging a roster to bail out flooded boats and ensuring that the rules regarding display of harbour dues stickers, length of painters, etc are adhered to.

7.3 A number of respondents felt the Harbour Authority should be responsible for providing far more tender storage facilities than is currently the case. Suggestions ranged from extending the existing pontoons to allocating dedicated areas ashore, with security fences, key-pad controlled gates and storage racks for tenders. Several indicated that they would be willing to pay for such a facility but all failed to identify a suitable site or sites (it is worth reiterating that neither the Crown Estate nor the Harbour Authority currently owns any suitable land adjacent to the River). This is something which the riparian local authorities may wish to address when considering the related issues of car and trailer parking near the River as part of the Local Development Framework process.

7.4 The River Taxi service also attracted a number of comments. Many indicated that they would be prepared to use the River Taxi instead of a tender, if the service was available until later in the evening, particularly at weekends. Unfortunately, it is not viable for the River Taxi to operate into the evening unless there are sufficient customers - something of a chicken and egg situation. Use of the River Taxi instead of tenders should be actively encouraged by the Harbour Board, not least because the size and visibility of the River Taxi offers significant safety advantages over tenders, particularly in the dark. Support of the River Taxi accords with the basic principles of sustainability and supporting commercial viability of local businesses.

8. Impact Assessments

8.1 The outcome of this consultation will impact on all those who use tenders on the River Hamble. This may include those covered by equalities legislation. The recommendations have been thoroughly considered and they will have a positive impact in providing opportunities for equality of access to the River.

Recommendations

1. That the River Hamble Harbour Board approves the following core proposals:

(i) Tenders should be clearly defined as small vessels operating in support of a larger vessel (the mother ship) and should clearly display the name of the mother ship. Tenders may be up to four metres length overall, with a maximum engine size of 10 horsepower. Such tenders are already entitled to a Harbour Dues sticker free of charge, provided that Dues have been paid for the mother ship. Other small craft, less than three metres length overall and with a maximum engine size of 10 horsepower, which are not used specifically as tenders and which, under the current arrangements, are not required to pay Harbour Dues, should also be eligible to use temporary berths on public jetties upon payment of the appropriate fee. To facilitate better management of all such small craft, they should be required to register with the Harbour Office and display a Harbour Dues sticker (provided free of charge).

(ii) At Warsash, tenders should only be berthed on the inshore side of the downstream pontoon, as clearly marked. At Hamble, tenders should only be berthed on the inshore side of the upstream pontoon, as clearly marked. All tenders must be secured to the horse rail only, and must be secured by a painter and/or wire or chain at least as long as the tender itself. The Fishermen's Jetty should not to be used for privately owned tenders.

(iii) All tenders belonging to commercial fishermen and marked as such must use the Fishermen's Jetty at Warsash.

(iv) Tenders up to four metres length overall belonging to bona fide visiting yachtsmen using the visitors' pontoon may berth on the Hamble and Warsash jetties free of additional charge, subject to payment of visitor fees for the mother vessel, for which a Harbour Dues label must be displayed. A clearly marked area for these tenders should be set aside on each jetty. Visitors' tenders should not be allowed to berth overnight (ie during the period from midnight to 0700). Tenders belonging to other River users, provided that they are displaying a valid Harbour Dues sticker, will be allowed access to the marked visitor section, for the purpose of dropping off or picking up passengers or equipment, or short stays, but not for overnight berthing.

(v) Other tenders (and other small craft as set out in (i) above) displaying a valid Harbour Dues sticker should be allowed to berth in the designated long-term tender berthing area on either jetty (subject to the options set out in Recommendation 2 below).

(vi) River users should be actively encouraged to use the River Taxi service whenever possible, so that it remains financially viable and can extend its operating hours at peak times.

(vii) Any tender left on either jetty which fails to comply with the above should be charged at the normal rate, ie £6.00 per boat short stay (up to 4 hours) or £2.00 per metre overnight (any time between 1700 and 0900), and may ultimately be removed and disposed of, in accordance with the legal powers of the Harbour Master.

2. That the River Hamble Harbour Board considers and agrees one or more of the following options, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, intended to assist with the management of the core proposals above:

(i) That a maximum of 8 long term tenders berths should be allocated on the Warsash Jetty and 6 on the Hamble Jetty. These maxima should be reviewed after one year.

(ii) That the management of the designated long-term tender berths on each jetty should be handed over to a local voluntary consortium, to be managed by those with an interest in long-term berthing for their tenders on either jetty, as they see fit, either within the maximum numbers imposed by the Harbour Authority (see 2. (i) above), or without a limit, such that the numbers could self-regulate. The consortium would be free to select a coordinator (either an individual or a committee), to be responsible for allocating berths, running a waiting list (if required), arranging a roster to bail-out flooded boats and ensuring that the rules regarding the display of Harbour Dues stickers, length of painters, etc are adhered to. The Harbour Authority would retain the right to charge unregulated tenders (see 1. (vii) above) and to impound, remove and, if necessary, dispose of any tenders which break the rules. These arrangements should be reviewed after a one year trial period.

(iii) That the management of the designated long-term tender berths on each jetty should be by Harbour Office staff, with an annual ballot (to be held in public at the Annual Forum) to determine the allocation of spaces, up to the maxima in 2.(i) above. All tenders with allocated spaces should be required to display a valid Harbour Dues sticker. Owners should be responsible for the provision of adequate fendering, for bailing out their tenders and for full liability in the event of their tender being damaged, vandalised or stolen. The Harbour Authority would retain the right to charge unregulated tenders (see 1.(vii) above) and to impound, remove and, if necessary, dispose of any tenders which break the rules. These arrangements should be reviewed after a trial period of one year.

(iv) That the management of the designated long-term tender berths on each jetty should be by Harbour Office staff, with no limit imposed on the number of tenders which can be squeezed into the allocated space, such that the numbers could self-regulate. All long-term tenders should be required to display a valid Harbour Dues sticker. Owners should be responsible for the provision of adequate fendering, for bailing out their tenders and for full liability in the event of their tender being damaged, vandalised or stolen. The Harbour Authority would retain the right to charge unregulated tenders (see 1. (vii) above) and to impound, remove and, if necessary, dispose of any tenders which break the rules.

1174/DE

APPENDIX 1

CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

Dear River User,

Management of tenders on Hamble and Warsash Jetties

As you are probably aware, the pontoon structure on the Harbour Master's jetty at Warsash is currently being replaced. In the past, a considerable number of boat-owners have used this jetty, and the one at Hamble, as a more-or-less permanent berth for their tender. This facility has been provided free of charge and has proved very popular, resulting in considerable over-crowding and damage to the tenders and the pontoon structure. This problem has come about gradually, particularly as the costs of keeping a tender elsewhere on the River (in a marina or yacht club) has steadily increased (a tender berth in a marina is now about £800 per annum).

This consultation is intended to allow River users to express their views about the future management of tenders on the two jetties. Six possible options are set out below, along with some of their perceived advantages and disadvantages. You are invited to comment on each of these options, using the space provided. An additional space is provided for any further comments or suggestions which you may wish to make.

The results of this consultation will be used by the River Hamble Harbour Board to inform its decision about the best way to manage the use of the two jetties by tenders in the future. The final decision will be widely publicised.

Option 1. Retain the status quo - ie allow anyone who wishes to do so to leave a tender on either jetty indefinitely and free of charge.

Advantages: no change to present arrangements.

Disadvantages: ownership of tenders cannot be readily identified; tenders are easily damaged and can cause damage to pontoon; tenders often left waterlogged and occasionally sink; very difficult for visitors to find space for their tenders when coming ashore; unregulated situations are very tempting for thieves and vandals; tenders are frequently secured with short wires and chains, with little or no freedom of movement, thus easily becoming jammed against each other and under pontoons.

Option 2. Allow only tenders belonging to visiting yachtsmen to use the jetties.

Advantages: easy to manage, with guaranteed space for visiting yachtsmen; minimal risk of damage to jetty or tenders.

Disadvantages: poor use of jetty, due to relatively low numbers of bona fide visitors; removes an option for tender storage for mid-stream mooring holders.

Option 3. Limit use to visiting yachtsmen, plus permanent berth and mooring holders who have registered their tender with the Harbour Office and are displaying a valid Harbour Dues sticker on their tender.

Advantages: allows for identification of tenders, although it may be difficult to distinguish between those belonging to visitors and those belonging to mooring holders.

Disadvantages: no control over numbers (there are about 1,200 yachts on mid-stream moorings, most of which have a tender associated with them), leading to the current situation of overcrowding and potential damage, theft and vandalism.

Option 4. Allow use by visiting yachtsmen free-of charge (as part of visitors fees), but charge mooring holders for using the berths on an annual basis (£120 per annum has been proposed).

Advantages: charging for tender berths would reduce the scope for abuse (boats which have paid could be clearly marked as such) and might help to limit the numbers.

Disadvantages: would not automatically reduce over-crowding, unless a limit on the number of tenders is imposed (see Options 5 and 6 below), and would thus not guarantee availability of space for visiting yachtsmen.

Option 5. Allow use by visiting yachtsmen, but hold an annual ballot to decide which berth and mooring holders tenders are entitled to use a limited number of annual berths free of charge (there is space for a maximum of 8 annual tender berths on the Warsash Jetty and 6 on the Hamble Jetty).

Advantages: allows for complete control of tender berthing.

Disadvantages: those who are unsuccessful in the annual ballot would have to make alternative arrangements.

Option 6. A combination of Options 4 and 5 - ie allow use by visiting yachtsmen free-of charge (as part of visitors fees), and hold an annual ballot, with a limited number of successful owners paying an annual fee to berth their tenders on the jetties.

Advantages: allows for complete control of tender berthing and generates a modest income for the Harbour Authority.

Disadvantages: as per Option 5.

Please use the space below for any additional comments or suggestions which you would like to make:

Completed forms should be returned to:

The Harbour Office, Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FR

by 2nd January 2007.

Yours sincerely

David M Evans

Marine Director

APPENDIX 2

RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS

The comments below are not an exhaustive list, but are intended to give a clear indication of the wide range of views expressed by respondents.

Space and facilities

Space for 14 tenders is not enough to accommodate 1200 mid-stream mooring holders.

The public jetties should not be used for long term storage of tenders - there should be no overnight berthing.

Need to allow space for mooring holders who need to pop ashore for something.

Using the public jetties to berth tenders is not fair to others.

The public jetties are a public facility.

The question you should be asking is `how can we provide improved facilities for our valued customers?'

All the space on both jetties should be used for tender berthing, apart from one space for pick-up/drop-off and access for the disabled.

Most mid-stream moorings are too far away from the jetties for them to be any use.

The Fishermen's Jetty should be used for long-term tender berthing.

The Harbour Authority should provide adequate shore side facilities for all its customers.

The Harbour Authority should provide storage racks ashore at Hamble.

Build another jetty.

I prefer Option 3 but I am concerned about overcrowding.

Tenders should be limited to 3 metres LOA.

The Harbour Authority has a duty to provide facilities for its mooring holders.

Jetties should be used for public landing only, with no permanent berthing - there are plenty of facilities elsewhere in the River.

Use of the jetties should be restricted to Hamble and Warsash residents.

More use should be made of the Fishermen's Jetty.

The Harbour Authority should provide another pontoon at both Hamble and Warsash.

The Crown Estate should fund some shoreside facilities.

Time limits

No one should be allowed to stay more than 24 hours.

Option 3 is best, but for a maximum of 24 hours.

Maximum stay should be 48 hours.

Leave things as they are, but with a one month limit.

First 24 hours should be free, with a daily charge thereafter.

Tenders should not be left unused for more than 3 days.

Visitor berths

Why should visitors get a free tender berth?

Only visitors should be allowed to berth, but other mooring/berth holders should be allowed to use the pontoon for short periods.

Present arrangements make jetties look very down at heel, with no room for casual visitors.

A red area of each pontoon should be reserved for visitors only.

Charges

A modest charge would not be unreasonable.

£120 seems excessive.

£300 would be reasonable.

I would be reluctant to pay unless the Harbour Authority can stop vandalism and theft and provide a much better facility.

If you charge fees for tenders, there will be a backlash against the Harbour Authority.

There should be dedicated Harbour Authority tender berths provided at all access points to the river, for a fee of £100 per annum.

The charge should be £150 per year.

£120 too high - £52 better.

Charges should be monthly, not annual.

What benefits would an annual charge provide (such as showers and security)?

What use would the income be put to?

A ballot and a fee - charge £200.

A ballot and a fee is the perfect solution.

First three hours should be free, then a daily rate.

Charge £52 per annum, with tenders to be pumped out regularly by Harbour Office staff.

I agree with a ballot, providing short term visitors are allowed for.

If the fee doesn't reduce the numbers enough, just put the fees up.

Charge £200 for Option 4.

The charges should be sufficient to offset management costs.

If people pay, they will not be happy if there isn't a space available when they need it.

£50 per year would be reasonable, if adequate security is provided.

Allocation of spaces

A ballot seems very unfair, particularly for someone who relies on the tender berthing facility to run their business.

If a ballot is used, how will you ensure that only those who use their tenders regularly will get a place?

Mooring holders who are local and pay Council Tax should get priority.

The pontoons are public landing places, so there should be no ballot.

A ballot is best, if income is not a priority.

I favour the ballot, but once selected, the space should be operated like a mooring licence (ie in perpetuity, with a waiting list).

Those who are successful in the ballot should pay £250 per annum, but for one year only, with no return for 5 years.

Security

Removing all tenders from public pontoons would eliminate theft and vandalism.

There is an urgent need for a secure Harbour Authority compound with key pad access for the storage of tenders.

The current overcrowding situation discourages me from using the jetties at the moment, but I would not be prepared to pay unless security was improved.

There should be a lockable `marina gate' on the tender pontoons to improve security.

Enforcement

Establish a `sin-bin' with a fee for recovery.

Tenders need to be secured on long lines.

There should be strict penalties for abuse.

I hope that the new regime will not require more staff.

If tenders are neglected, the berth should be re-allocated.

Alternatives

The River Taxi is available for anyone unsuccessful in the ballot.

People should make more use of the River Taxi.

The Harbour Authority should provide tenders for hire.

The Harbour Authority should provide more pontoons for tender berthing.

Tender berthing without adequate car-parking = problem.

How about a tender share scheme?

The Harbour Authority should impose a Bye-Law to limit what marinas can charge for tender berthing.

Marina operators should be required to provide free tender berthing for all.

Use of the River Taxi should be encouraged.

The Harbour Authority should run a taxi service using their patrol boats.