Archived decisions

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

1. Summary

1.1 This report covers a set of proposals for the future of the relationship between the Hamble Estuary Partnership (HEP) and the Harbour Authority, by expanding the consultative role of the HEP and formalising the role of the Chairman of the HEP with respect to the Harbour Board.

2. Recommendation

That the River Hamble Harbour Board adopts the following with regard to the Hamble Estuary Partnership (HEP):

a. Invite the Chairman and members the HEP to provide an additional conduit for consultation with River Hamble stakeholder groups.


b. Allow the Chairman of the HEP to have direct access to the Harbour Board so that the views and advice of the HEP can be taken into account before decisions are made.

3. Background

3.1 The Hamble Estuary Partnership is the coastal partnership responsible for the Hamble Estuary Management Plan (EMP), currently independently chaired by Dr Steve Fletcher of Bournemouth University. The present EMP covers the period from 2003 - 2008, and the Partnership is currently considering what, if anything, should replace the EMP and how to maximise the effectiveness of the Partnership for the future.

3.2 In parallel, the Haskoning Report on the future governance of the River Hamble and the Trust Ports Study Group report have both highlighted the need for improved consultative arrangements to enhance the role of stakeholders in the management of the River. The large number of stakeholder interests represented on the HEP make it an ideal vehicle to improve consultation and broaden the sources of advice to the Harbour Board.

3.3 At present, the Harbour Board receives advice from several sources - the Management Committee, the Designated Person, the Harbour Master (following his own consultation with stakeholders), the Assistant Harbour Master (Environment) (AHM(E)) and a number of specialist Hampshire County Council officers. Before making any decisions concerning the River, Board members must distil this advice, both individually and as a committee. In addition, members of the public can make deputations to the Board but, unlike the other sources of advice, cannot engage in subsequent discussions.

3.4 If the HEP is to become a successful means of broadening and supporting future consultation, there must be an effective means for transmitting the views of its partners to the Management Committee and to the Harbour Board (as the decision making body). It is therefore proposed that the work of the HEP should be reported verbally to the Management Committee by the officer who supports the HEP (AHM(E)), as is currently the case, and to the Harbour Board (either verbally or in writing) by the Chairman of the HEP. Thus, the Chairman of the HEP would enjoy the same rights of access to the Board as the other advisors, and the Board would be able to consider all the strands of advice available to it.

3.5 Inviting the HEP to act in a consultative capacity would support the role and responsibilities of the Management Committee. The Management Committee has the opportunity to meet often enough (normally once a quarter, with additional meetings if required) to consider any issues which fall outside the bounds of the Strategic Plan. The HEP only meets twice per year (and it is unlikely that this will increase significantly) so it is not in a position to consider every matter to be placed before the Board. However, the HEP is ideally placed to focus its attention on some of the more complex matters which face the Board and provide appropriate advice after consulting amongst its partners. This could focus upon some of the key issues identified in the Strategic Plan for the river.

3.6 The potential for the HEP to play a constructive consultative role is considerable. Unlike the Management Committee, the membership of the HEP is not constrained by statute and is open to representatives of any stakeholder group, so maximum stakeholder engagement can be achieved. Furthermore, the HEP is independent and is not therefore governed by Hampshire County Council protocols. This will enable the Chairman to garner the full range of views expressed by that group, and report them directly to the Harbour Board.

3.7 The most recent Management Committee meeting received a presentation on the role of the HEP which was well received. The Management Committee were broadly supportive of the principle of using the HEP to assist in developing consultation and advice relating to the river.

3.8 Particular emphasis was placed upon the fact that the HEP does not have a solely environmental focus and is well positioned to support the strategic aims of the Harbour Authority. It is also well positioned to engage a wide range of stakeholders with an interest in the river.

4. Impact Assessments

4.1 This report does not seek to alter the level of services provided by the Harbour Authority and has not, therefore, been subject to an Equalities Impact Assessment.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The Hamble Estuary Partnership has considerable potential as an additional means of achieving stakeholder engagement prior to making decisions concerning the management of the River Hamble. Granting direct access for its Chairman to address the Harbour Board will help to ensure that the views of a wide range of stakeholders can be taken into account before decisions are made.