Archived decisions

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

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out the background to the current moorings capacity limit for the River Hamble and explains why there is a compelling case for initiating a process to establish a new, widely agreed way of determining capacity which reflects trends in boating activity and is thoroughly fit for purpose.

1.2 The report focuses on the safety of the River Hamble and the protection of the environment of the River.

2. Recommendation

That the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee advises:

(i) that the River Hamble Harbour Board agrees to initiate a programme to address the issues of the carrying capacity of the River Hamble, with a view to changing the existing limit into a form which is fully fit for purpose; and

(ii) that the River Hamble Harbour Board commissions a limited consultation process to ascertain best practice in this field, and to scope the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment.

3. Introduction

3.1 The River Hamble Harbour Authority currently allows a maximum of 3,261 moorings in the River. This limit dates from 1989 and was originally established by the Harbour Authority as a means of controlling the carrying capacity of the River for reasons of navigational safety, particularly at the pinch-points in the main channel. Since then the limit has been quoted, adopted, or taken into account by other consenting bodies within the marine consents process, and is now widely applied as a constraint on development on the River, without reference to its original purpose. In reality, the moorings capacity limit provides a very crude means of measuring the carrying capacity of the River, primarily because it only deals with the number of moorings (and hence the number of boats) which are normally kept afloat - it does not directly address the number of boats which might be underway at any one time.

3.2 Much has changed since the limit was first imposed. The Port Marine Safety Code has been introduced and implemented on the River by means of a Safety Management System which provides a very effective tool for the identification and control of risk; dry-sailing and trailer-sailing have increased in popularity; and the average size of boats on the river has increased, probably by as much as 10 to 15% since 1989. Thus it can be argued that, from the point of view of the Harbour Authority, the moorings capacity limit has served a useful purpose but no longer provides a realistic measure of the carrying capacity of the River. Indeed, from the navigational safety perspective, the Safety Management System now provides an entirely adequate means of dealing with the hazards and risks on the River and there may no longer be a need for a strict limit on the number of moorings to achieve the same purpose.

3.3 Therefore it would appear that the moorings limit now provides only a crude basis upon which other consenting bodies can decide whether to grant or withhold their consent. Indeed, as set out below, each consenting body requires different information upon which to base its decision. By determining what type of information on carrying capacity would best suit the needs of each consenting body, a more intelligent, responsive, and flexible system could be devised.

3.4 Clearly, the current limit is a fact and, whilst it was originally imposed by the Harbour Authority, it is now widely used by others, including Local Planning Authorities and environmental bodies, when deciding on consents applications. Indeed, it can be argued that the current moorings capacity limit constitutes a `plan' under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 and would therefore require an Appropriate Assessment under these Regulations before it could be altered or rescinded. If any proposed changes are likely to have a `significant effect', either alone or in combination with other plans or projects within the Solent European Marine Site, an Appropriate Assessment will be required.

4. Consenting Bodies

4.1 The consent of the following bodies is required before any works can be carried out on the River Hamble. Each will consider the issue of the carrying capacity of the River, amongst other things, before granting consent.

(i) The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Marine Consents and Environment Unit) (Defra MCEU) - Issues Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) Licence, and Coastal Protection Act (CPA) consent, both of which take account of navigational safety before consent can be given.

(ii) Environment Agency - Issues Land Drainage Consent which takes into account the requirements of the Habitat Regulations if the proposed works have the potential to affect a European Marine Site. Factors taken into account will be disturbance, pollution, wave damage, and preservation of inter-tidal mudland.

(iii) Harbour Authority - Issues Harbour Authority works consent, taking into account navigational safety, ease of navigation, and obligations under the Habitat Regulations if the proposed works have the potential to affect a European Marine Site, and other relevant environmental legislation.

(iv) Local Planning Authority (LPA) - Issues consent under the Town and Country Planning Act for developments down to the mean low-water mark or beyond if linked to the land. The LPA may choose to consider matters of safety and ease of navigation, and will almost certainly consider the impact of the proposed works on shore-side infrastructure - eg car and trailer parking. The LPA will also consider any impact on existing Mooring Restricted Areas and the visual impact on the river `scene'.

5. Consultees

5.1 The following are normally consulted by one or more of the consenting bodies before consents are granted:

(i) Natural England - habitat protection, disturbance and impact on wildlife;

(ii) Trinity House - navigational safety, navigation marks, lights, obstructions, etc; and

(iii) Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology - potential for disturbance and damage to protected historic and archaeological sites.

6. The Case for Change

6.1 The current mooring capacity limit is nearly 20 years old and does not reflect modern trends in recreational boating. It limits the measurable (moorings capacity) in an effort to control something completely different (the safety and environmental impact of boats on the River). To a large extent, it is a blunt instrument which no longer delivers the required control measures.

6.2 Thus, there is a strong case for change, in an effort to ensure that any limit imposed is based on good science and sound risk management principles. It may not be easy, in view of the hurdles which must be overcome, but a limit (if one is needed at all) which is fit for purpose is a sensible goal.

7. Measuring Capacity

7.1 There are a number of parameters which must be taken into account when considering methods of measuring the carrying capacity of the River. From a safety perspective, the critical figure is normally the number of boats underway in a particular area at any one time, but physical space for the boats and their moorings is also important. From an environmental perspective, it is the disturbance and wash which these boats create and the environmental impact of their moorings, piles and pontoons which cause concern. From the land planning perspective it is a combination of the visual impact on the river `scene' and access issues from the land (including car and trailer parking). Part of the challenge is to decide which of these parameters lies on the critical path towards determining the maximum carrying capacity.

7.2 From the navigational safety point of view, the following `equation' illustrates the challenge of relating the maximum number of boats underway at any one time to the total boat population of the harbour:

Number of boats underway at any one time = (a + b + c + d + e - f ) x g% where:

a = Total number of moorings

b = Number of dry-sailed or trailer launched boats in the water at any

one time

c = Number of dinghies and tenders in the water at any one time

d = Number of visiting boats

e = Number of boats on sub-let berths

f = Number of absentees (boats which are away from the river or out of the water) and

g = the maximum percentage of the total (a to f) which might be underway at any one time.

7.3 Estimating the maximum number of boats which might be underway in a particular area can be achieved by a straightforward count at selected peak times as boats pass a fixed point. Then, given a reasonable estimate (or count) of the parameters (a) to (f) at the same time, it should be possible to derive a sensible `worst case' figure for the percentage (g). Obviously, the actual percentage outside of peak times will vary with time of year, day of the week, time of day, weather, tide and events, but it is the worst case figure at peak times which is of greatest significance in safety terms.

7.4 Of course, the number of boats underway at peak times may still not be the maximum which the safety of navigation allows. There are several possible reasons for this - traffic flow is generally in the same direction at the same time, there is an element of self-regulation (some people avoid using the river at busy times) and different types of activity occur at different times of the day. Indeed, it is entirely possible that the number of boats underway, even at peak times, does not yet reach the acceptable maximum from a safety perspective.

7.5 However, the determination of carrying capacity is not simply a function of the number of boats underway at any one time, but is a complex function of the number of boats, their size, type and activity. Further, boat size is not simply a function of length, but must take into account beam, draft, speed, hull form and crew numbers. Type must take into account propulsion type, manoeuvrability, and noise. Activity includes whether a boat is simply transiting the main channel under power, manoeuvring, sailing (or racing) with or against the wind, rowing or paddling, fishing, towing, or not under command. It is not generally considered practicable to impose limits on size (and it tends to be self-regulating anyway) or activity (because many activities, such as dinghy racing and canoeing, have an historic claim to use the River for this purpose).

7.6 As an example, consider two different types of power boat. Firstly, a large motor yacht which is highly manoeuvrable and generates little wash at low speeds, thus having minimal impact on safety and the environment. It will be wide beamed, thus taking up a lot of space for its length, even when on its mooring, and might carry a large crew who would require car parking spaces ashore. Secondly, a small, high-powered motor boat which is noisy, can be difficult to manoeuvre at low speeds and makes a large wash for its size, thus potentially impacting adversely on safety of navigation and the environment. It might fit easily into a small space in a marina, creating little disturbance (apart from noise) and having no adverse impact on ease of navigation and, with only one person one board, it might require only one car parking space. Under the current arrangements, the moorings for each of these boats counts equally against the total moorings capacity limit. This makes little sense and a more sophisticated way of dealing with these contradictions is needed.

8. Cumulative Effects

8.1 If the limit is to be changed or abolished, there is a compelling need to consider the cumulative effects of small increases in boat traffic which might result from individual projects and developments. In short, how is it ensured that the cumulative impact of discrete applications for marine consents are taken into account? For example, two or three separate applications for an extra 10-12 berths at separate sites may be acceptable to all consenting bodies, whereas a single application for an extra 30 or so berths may not be - but where should the line be drawn?

Clearly, applications must be dealt with when they are received, and the outcome of each application would depend to a large extent on the size and type of boat involved. This could easily lead to a situation where an application for berths for 10 large vessels might be rejected, whereas an application for moorings for 30 smaller boats would be approved. The important factors are:

(i) that cumulative effects must always be considered before granting or with-holding consent; and

(ii) that approving one application should not imply a precedent for approving or rejecting any similar application thereafter - each must be considered on its merits.

9. Other Factors

9.1 The way ahead will also need to consider the different environmental impact which various boat types make. For example, dinghies and dry-sailed/trailer-sailed boats pollute less because they are not normally anti-fouled.

9.2 Boats visiting marinas tend to be on a one-for-one basis (ie they occupy spaces temporarily vacated by permanent mooring holders) - so there is no net change in numbers as a result. The same is basically true for sub-lets on mid-stream moorings (whilst the permanent mooring holder is absent, a temporary one fills the space).

10. Way Ahead

10.1 If the recommendations to initiate a programme to address these issues and commission a limited consultation process are approved by the Harbour Board, the next step will be the development of a methodology for determining and monitoring the capacity of the River, to be agreed with the consenting bodies and consultees at sections 4 and 5 above.

11. Impact Assessments

11.1 This is a scoping report only and has not been subject to an equalities impact assessment.

12. Conclusion

12.1 This scoping report is the first step in what is likely to be a lengthy and complex process. By informing the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee and Board at this stage about the challenges which this process is likely to bring, it will ensure that those involved in the process are kept fully informed. The recommendations, if approved, will clearly show that the Management Committee and Harbour Board are committed to this process and, ultimately, to seeking a better way of determining the true capacity of the River Hamble.

1318/DE