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

1. Summary

1.1 This report is to inform Harbour Board members of the receipt by the Department for Transport of an objection to the current River Hamble Harbour Dues and other matters, made under Section 31 of the 1964 Harbours Act on behalf of Warsash Sailing Club.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That this report be noted

3. Background

3.1 In late 2006, Warsash Sailing Club advertised its intention of making an objection to the Department for Transport (DfT) concerning River Hamble Harbour Dues and other matters. The formal objection has now been received by DfT and the Harbour Authority has been asked to comment. A copy of the objection is at Appendix. It is intended to provide a carefully considered and comprehensive response. Inevitably, this will take some time to compile but there is no prescribed time-scale for this process. Board members will be kept advised of progress.

4. Impact Assessments

4.1 This report has been compiled for information only and has not been subject to an Equalities Impact Assessment.

APPENDIX

Objection to River Hamble Harbour Dues

1. Introduction

1.1. The following objection was submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport and published in a local newspaper on 7 December 2006:

Notice is hereby given that Warsash Sailing Club has lodged an objection with the Secretary of State for Transport to the changes in harbour dues introduced by Hampshire County Council on the River Hamble.

The grounds of objection are that:-

i. dues for sailing dinghies ought to be excluded since they are unreasonable in that sailing dinghies receive few services from the harbour authority and there is no valid distinction between sailing dinghies and boats which are rowed or paddled and which are exempted from harbour dues;

ii the charge to vessels on midstream moorings should be imposed at a lower rate since the discount given to vessels berthed in marinas as against vessels berthed on midstream moorings is unreasonable in that the Harbour Authority has undertaken no analysis of costs to justify such a discount or indeed any discount;

iii the charges to vessels more generally should be imposed at a lower rate because many of the activities of the Harbour Authority financed from harbour dues are ultra vires and the costs of the Harbour Authority are excessive and should be reduced substantially.

Any person having a substantial interest or any body representative of persons who have such an interest wishing to make representations in this matter to the Secretary of State should within forty-two days from the date at the foot of this notice write to the Secretary of State for Transport c/o Marigold Hime Zone 2/31, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, LONDON SW1P 4DR or by fax to 020 7944 2186 or email to [email protected], quoting reference PCP 6/23/1

1.2. The County Council has in part complied with the Harbour Revision Order and the recommendations of the Municipal Ports Review in that the accounts of the River Hamble Harbour have been kept separately. However, the accounts are not in the form of corporate accounts as required by the Department for Transport. We argue in this submission that the County Council has loaded excessive costs onto the dues payers by improperly and unlawfully devolving functions to the Harbour Authority that should be functions of the County Council or the district councils. We argue further that certain of the dues are themselves unlawful. As harbours are excluded by statute from the purview of the Local Government Commissioner, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to consider issues of maladministration insofar as they are relevant to this objection.

1.3. The reason for the long delay between the initial submission and this expanded document is that in order to support the objection various requests for information were submitted to Hampshire County Council. The Council refused most of the requests and we appealed to the Information Commissioner. He has only recently issued decision notices in our favour.

1.4. The Hampshire County Council became the harbour authority for the River Hamble in 1969, after the river was transferred from the Southampton Harbour Board by means of the Harbour Revision Order 1969. This order transferred to the River Hamble Harbour Authority various powers: under the Southampton Harbour Acts 1924 and 1949 to permit the laying of moorings and navigational marks; under the Merchant Shipping (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Act 1998 to co-operate with Port Waste Regulations;

and under the Oil Pollution, Preparedness, Response and Co-operation Convention (OPRC) 1992 to prepare an oil pollution response plan. Under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, the Harbour Master can regulate vessels entering, using or leaving the river. The Transport and Works Act 1992 imposed a statutory duty on all harbour authorities to take environmental considerations into account when undertaking their duties by adding Section 48A to the Harbours Act 1964

It shall be the duty of a harbour authority in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under any enactment to have regard to-

a) the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside and of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest;

b) the desirability of preserving for the public any freedom of access to places of natural beauty; and

c) the desirability of maintaining the availability to the public of any facility for visiting or inspecting any building, site or object of archaeological, architectural or historic interest;

and to take into account any effect which the proposals may have on the natural beauty of the countryside, flora, fauna or any such feature or facility and enables harbour revision orders to confer powers and duties on harbour authorities for nature conservation, including the power to make bye-laws and raise money for environmental works through harbour dues. The River Hamble Harbour Authority has not applied for such a harbour revision order and accordingly does not have powers or duties for nature conservation or powers to raise harbour dues for that purpose. Should it so apply, it is not reasonable that costs should fall upon those who moor in the river rather than others who would benefit from the use of such powers. The Harbour Authority satisfies its duties under Section 48A by ensuring that the appropriate permissions are obtained from the relevant environmental bodies. Clearly, the section does not require it to do more.

1.5. After transfer in 1969, the Harbour Office staff comprised five people, a harbour master, a patrol officer, an admin officer, a secretary/typist and one additional part-time officer in the summer. Since 1970, the county council had held a regulating lease for the river bed from the Crown Estates Commissioners. At that time, the duties of the Harbour Office included the administration of the midstream (pile and buoyed) moorings in the river, which were owned and let by the Harbour Authority. The number of boats mooring in the Hamble is strictly controlled and has not increased significantly since then. There has been a modest increase in the number of boats in that the number of larger dry-sailed boats has increased but these are a small proportion of the total number. It is doubtful if the number of sailing dinghies has changed greatly. Incidents affecting the safety of navigation in the Harbour or the safety of moored boats were few in number in those years.

1.6. The number of staff in the Harbour Office remained broadly the same until about 1997, when it began to increase sharply. There are now eleven members of staff. There is little evidence that harbour safety has improved with the addition of staff. The

increase has taken place in a period of marked increase in productivity in local government generally.

1.7. In January 2002, the County Council transferred the ownership of the midstream moorings to the Crown Estates Commission, receiving a capital sum in return. While the Harbour Office has continued to undertake some of the work of administering these moorings, the cost of this being recharged to the Commissioners, other work ceased to be the responsibility of the Harbour Authority. The Harbour Authority lost the rental income from the moorings. Instead of reviewing it's staffing in the light of the lost income and the decision of the Commission not to pay for some of the work previously undertaken, the Authority introduced a supervision charge for midstream mooring

holders. It had no powers to make this charge since there was no contractual relationship between the Harbour Authority and the mooring holders. In 2006, when it became clear that some mooring holders were likely to refuse to pay the charge, the Harbour Authority incorporated the charge in harbour dues and charged the midstream mooring holders 46% more for their harbour dues than equivalent boats berthed in marinas. In 2007, after the publication of our objection, the Harbour Authority decided to equalise the dues charged to the marina berth holders and the midstream-mooring holders over a five-year period.

1.8. Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999 requires the Hampshire Authority to consult representatives of those liable to pay any tax, precept or levy about the way in which its functions are exercised having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Harbour dues clearly fall within the definition of a "tax, precept or levy" and accordingly the Harbour Authority, as part of the Hampshire County Council, is obliged to consult representatives of dues payers about "economy, efficiency and effectiveness". The High Court has defined consultation in the following terms

In R. v Secretary of State for Social Services, Exp. Association of Metropolitan Authorities [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1; (1986) I30 SJ. 35; 7[I986] 1 All E.R. 164, Webster J. analysed the extent of the legal duty to consult, and observed:

".... in any context the essence of consultation is the communication of a genuine invitation to give advice and a genuine consideration of that advice. In my view it must go without saying that to achieve consultation sufficient information must be supplied by the consulting party to the consulted party to enable it to tender helpful advice. Sufficient time must be given by the consulting to the consulted party to enable it to do that, and sufficient time must be available for such advice to be considered by the consulting party. Sufficient, in that context, does not mean ample, but at least enough to enable the relevant purpose to be fulfilled. By helpful advice, in this contest, I mean sufficiently informed and considered information or advice about aspects of the form or substance of the proposals, or their implications for the consulted party, being aspects material to the implementation of the proposal as to which the Secretary of State might not be fully informed or advised and as to which the party consulted might have relevant information or advice to offer."

There has been no such consultation.

1.9. The Harbour Authority argues, in its initial response of 23 January 2007 that "A reduction in the Harbour Dues payable by one or more category of river user will inevitably result in an increase in Dues for others, so that the income required to manage the harbour can be maintained at the required level." This illustrates well the approach of the Authority. We say that harbour dues can be reduced substantially through the exercise of proper economy.

1.10. Again the Harbour Authority claims, in its initial response:

"The Management Committee provides an advice and scrutiny function for the Harbour Board, as well as a robust means by which the members of the Management Committee can make known the views of those whom they represent. There is an Annual Forum, where anyone with an interest in the River can make their views known to members of the Management Committee and the Harbour Board. In addition, there is frequent, though less formal, consultation with stakeholders."

The Management Committee of 17 includes nine county councillors, three district councillors, three representatives representing commercial interests and one each representing the Royal Yachting Association and yacht clubs. The annual forum provides a wholly unstructured opportunity for harbour users and others to express views in a controlled format of short, time-limited speeches - though in the most recent, questions were accepted. There is little dialogue. The Management Committee then receives a report on the forum, comprising responses and rebuttals. No modifications in policy or practice have resulted from the forum.

1.11. The Club argues in this objection that many of the activities of the Harbour Authority, for which it charges harbour dues, are outside its statutory powers and duties. The Club understands that the House of Lords has decided that a harbour created by statute can only use a "power that has been expressly given to it or can be implied by the language used."

2. Sailing Dinghies

2.1. Section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964 defines ship dues as:

"charges in respect of any ship for entering, using or leaving the harbour, including charges made on the ship in respect of marking or lighting the harbour".

2.2. The questions then arise as to whether a dinghy is a ship and separately whether it is "entering, using or leaving the harbour". To take the second point first, is a dinghy launched from the Club's launching pontoon, sailing within the harbour and requiring no harbour marks or lights doing any of those things?

2.3. In R v Godwin the Appeal Court held that a personal water craft (PWC) - a small vessel on which the rider sits astride and is propelled by emitting a jet of water - was not a ship. If so, Harbour dues are not chargeable for PWCs. Similar arguments apply to sailing dinghies. Lord Phillips reasoned that navigation consists of an ordered movement from A to B. Someone "messing about" in a dinghy is not navigating and hence a sailing dinghy is not a ship and harbour dues are not chargeable.

2.4. Whether or not R v Godwin is applicable, there are other strong grounds for objecting to the charging of harbour dues on dinghies. A working group chaired by Councillor S Woodward considered the question of charging dues on dinghies and reported in July 2006. The report is contained in the bundle submitted to you by the Harbour Authority. The working group observed in relation to boats that are rowed and paddled:

5.7 The strongest and most consistent representations that the Group has received have been from canoe organisations and other users of rowed or paddled craft, asking that they should be exempt from paying Harbour Dues. The arguments put forward are that these craft do not pollute or affect the regime of the River, that they do not use the facilities that are provided by the Harbour Authority and that the requirement to pay will discourage young people from participating, counter to current health initiatives. Another argument is that many canoeists own more than one craft which they use for different purposes and it is unfair that they should be expected to pay Dues for each such craft.

"6.9 The greatest weight of representations made to the Group have been to the effect that rowed and paddled craft, especially canoes and kayaks, should be made exempt from paying any form of dues. The Group recognises that the fact that these representations have been the most numerous does not automatically mean that their view should be accepted. It is also conscious that in some parts of the River where this type of small craft mix with much larger, much heavier and more speedy craft, dangerous situations can be created and their use should be dissuaded.

"6.10 Alternatively, however, the Group has been persuaded by some of the arguments put forward, namely:

"(i) canoes and kayaks and other rowed craft, for the most part, use the Upper Hamble;

"(ii) their activities have little or no environmental effect;

"(iii) they make little, if any, use of the facilities directly provided by the Harbour Authority;

"(iv) generally, charging for this type of activity runs counter to the current national initiatives to encourage a `healthy Britain';

"(v) they provide a cheap and convenient way of allowing young people to participate in water activities;

"(vi) there are difficulties in monitoring and collecting Dues from this type of craft which, if excluded by default, could bring the wider arrangements into disrepute; and

"(vii) if excluded, the amount of revenue lost would have only a very limited effect. (Note: The `best estimate' of the loss of income if charges are not made for canoes and rowing boats is some £1,500 p.a. The amount shown in the River Hamble Budget as the projected income from Harbour Dues in 2006/07 is £410,900.)"

2.5. The distinction drawn here between sailing dinghies and rowed and paddled craft is irrational and therefore unreasonable. The arguments in their paragraph 5.7 apply equally to sailing dinghies, including the possibility of owning more than one craft. All the points (ii) to (vi) in their paragraph 6.10 apply with fully as great a force to sailing dinghies. As to point (i) the relevance of this point is doubtful given point (iii). Moreover it is not true of all canoes. The Hamble is used for sea kayaking; those kayaks must traverse the lower Hamble. Patrol boats monitor motorboat and personal water craft speeds on the Upper Hamble specifically to protect canoes and kayaks from wash. As to (vii), the methods of revenue collection are the same for all the boats in question. Separating a sub-group clearly limits the revenue implications for that sub-group but the principles remain the same. The irrationality can best be illustrated by considering a dinghy owner who might in theory take care always to row the dinghy past the mouth of the Hamble and then hoist sail. On what basis could dues to be charged for such a dinghy?

2.6. The issues, then, for canoes, sailing dinghies and rowing boats are broadly similar. These do not require the facilities of a harbour. Sailing dinghies can be and are, in many places launched from a beach as well as from hards and slipways. The navigational aids and lights provided for larger boats are irrelevant to them. They would do better without the harbour. The Marine Director has been unable to quote any benefits other than some protection against pollution (a few hundred pounds was spent on this last year). It is questionable whether dues charged on a boat not receiving any services from the Harbour Authority could be seen as reasonable. The Marine Director's report, "Alternatives to the Supervision Charge", to the same meeting that approved the imposition of dues on dinghies (also in the bundle) sets out the services provided to boats by the Harbourmaster:

"facilities of the Harbour (navigational aids, patrols, jetties for pick-up and drop-off, scrubbing piles, safety measures, oil spill response, environmental protection, fresh water, sewage pump-out, etc) ;

"services such as towing vessels with emergencies (eg mechanical breakdown), assisting grounded vessels, providing berths for vessels with emergencies on Warsash and Hamble jetties, etc (all free of charge)."

Very few of these services are useful to sailing dinghies. As for environmental protection, that is a benefit to the whole community, not just to river users.

2.7. The important issue of freedom and traditional rights was raised by a number of people (see the accounts of forums in the bundle). At a time when people are being given greater access to the countryside, it cannot be right to restrict the access to the river enjoyed by local residents for centuries.

2.8. The imposition of harbour dues on dinghies was unreasonable, further, in that there was no consultation beforehand. The first intimation to virtually all those affected (from 1 January 2006) was in a letter addressed to sailing clubs received by us on 23 November 2005. We distributed copies the letter to our members attending our annual general meeting the following Saturday and also in our newsletter. To the best of our knowledge, there was no attempt on the part of the Harbour Board themselves directly to inform those affected.

2.9. It is implicit in Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999 quoted above that consultation should be undertaken before imposing a new tax and those consulted should be invited to suggest alternative measures of economy that would avoid the tax. No consultation so defined has been undertaken. Councillor Woodward's working

party undertook an element of consultation after the dues were imposed to the extent that he, on its behalf, invited views. However, it did not then make proposals and consult on them so that the requirements were not satisfied. Nor did it invite suggestions for economies or alternative ways of raising money. An adequate consultative document should at the minimum have set out the reason for the charges, the amount likely to be raised, methods of ensuring fairness in collection and invited organized responses. Councillor Woodward held one poorly advertised meeting, dominated by a well-organised lobby of canoeists. The only invitation to make a written submission was at the end of that meeting.

2.10. The charging of harbour dues on sailing dinghies is unreasonable, further, in that there is no system for collecting the dues from the majority of dinghy sailors. Probably, only 25% of our club members who own dinghies paid their dues last year. The club pontoon, from which our dinghies launch and the pound in which the dinghies a kept is next door to the Harbour Office. It is therefore extremely likely that the collection rate elsewhere on the river is much lower. There seems little or no attempt to collect dues from visiting boats launched at hards other than Warsash or from marina or boatyard slipways.

3. The Supervision Charge and its Incorporation into Harbour Dues

3.1. Although the supervision charge is not itself the subject of this appeal, since it was not originally included within harbour dues, the charging of a differential between midstream mooring holders and marina berth holders is included as the second part of the objection. In order to understand the objection in full, it will be necessary to

rehearse the history of the charge and demonstrate that it was at all times improper. It is likely that if refunds were demanded, the Harbour Authority would have no option but to comply.

3.2. The Harbour Authority has, since the submission of the objection, agreed to equalize the dues charged to midstream mooring holders and marina berth holders over a period of five years. However, this remains unsatisfactory. If the differential is illegitimate the charge should be equalized forthwith. Moreover, as will be shown, the charge results from the failure of the Harbour Authority to reduce its expenditure when the midstream moorings were sold to the Crown Estates Commissioners. The expenditure should be reduced at once and the charge reduced to both mooring and berth holders.

3.3. In January 2002, the Harbour Authority sold its midstream moorings to the Crown Estates Commissioners. Until then, the Authority leased the riverbed and owned the mooring piles. It charged combined rental and harbour dues to mooring holders the charge comprising:

a) Harbour Dues

b) Site rental (itemised as Crown lease, and Space and Supervision); this charge was weighted, pile moorings paying 100% the per ft rate, deep water buoy moorings 50%, and drying moorings 40%

c) Pile Rental (for pile moorings).

3.4. This was acceptable, since the Harbour Authority owned (leased) the site, and owned the piles, and indeed Harbour Management Committee Minutes of Nov 2000, refer to `Supervision of Sites' (note not boats). As such they were fully entitled to supervise who was on which of their moorings, and the condition of their piles and pile irons, and to charge for managing waiting lists, pile maintenance, allocation and other services.

3.5. After the Crown took back the moorings, the Crown invoiced the mooring holder for a sum equivalent to the old Crown Lease portion of Site Rental + Pile Rental. The Crown Estates also paid a sum to the Harbour Authority to manage waiting lists, and

allocate moorings, but indicated they were not interested in supervision of their (The Crown Estate) moorings. Section Five of the report to the Hampshire County Council Cabinet on 19 November 2001 (/decisions/decisions-docs/011119-cabint-R2) makes this clear.

"5 Mooring Fees

"5.1 The Mooring fee charged for 2001 for non piled moorings was £10.21 per foot (£33.51 per metre). This covered "space and supervision".

"5.2 The "supervision" service is provided by the Harbour Authority, and it was expected that this would form part of the management service provided to the Crown Estate, that the Crown Estate's bills would include a "supervision" element, and that the management fee charged by the Harbour Authority would cover this.

"5.3 The breakdown of the "space and supervision" charge for 2001 was as follows (excl VAT).

	£ Foot	£ Metre
Space (Crown lease)	7.78	25.53
Supervision	2.43	7.98

"5.4 The Crown Estate has declined to charge Mooring Holders direct for "supervision" for 2002 and instead has set a charge covering "space" only. The Crown Estate expects the Harbour Authority to charge Mooring Holders client for the supervision element, when it raised bills for Harbour Dues.

"5.5 While this is highly unsatisfactory, if the Harbour Authority does bill direct for the `supervision' element this year, it will give a full year in which to negotiate the management arrangements for 2003".

3.6. Thus, `Mooring Supervision' was introduced, acknowledged to be `highly unsatisfactory' - a euphemism for `unlawful' - at a level to balance the income shortfall. This charge actually rose by 8%, despite the fact the Commissioners were paying the County to manage waiting and allocation. Clearly, the charge was to balance the books. For the Harbour Authority to supervise moorings that they do not own, lease or rent is legally doubtful. At the time the Executive member for the Environment

acted as the Harbour Authority. A member of his advisory committee (and ex member of the Harbour Management Sub-Committee for some 20 years) wrote to the County Council likening the charge to him walking down the road, and invoicing all his neighbours for car parking supervision.

3.7. This produced two more legal problems: there was no specification of what is supervised; and there was a clear indication of a likely refusal to pay the supervision charge, which could almost certainly not be legally enforced. (See highlighted section of 051021-rvhhbd-R1208183324.html enclosed with the Harbour Authority's bundle.) Furthermore, many clubs and yards had their own systems for supervising their members/customers moorings.

3.8. On 8 December 2004, the Marine Director reported (/decisions/decisions-docs/041208-rivadv-R1202091446)

"Supervision Charges

"4.4 The current system of charging mooring holders for `supervision' should also be reviewed. It is currently unclear exactly what those who pay supervision charges are actually getting for their money and there is an obvious risk of litigation if the Harbour Authority fails to deliver an `appropriate' level of supervision. The Marine Director would be interested in ideas which would permit the phasing-out of supervision charges over a period, whilst maintaining sufficient income to run the harbour efficiently and safely."

3.9. In October 2005 the Harbour Authority included the supervision charge in the harbour dues charged to midstream mooring holders. This resulted in a 46% differential between dues paid by midstream mooring holders and marina berth holders. However, as the report by the working party under the chairmanship of Councillor Swanbrow

makes clear, there is no objective justification for this differential. Accordingly, the differential is unlawful. Moreover, the differential is justified by the Harbour Authority in terms of activities that are not within its powers and duties. Charging dues for those activities is unlawful.

3.10. The working party referred to in the forgoing paragraph reported to the Harbour Board in July 2007 (/decisions/decisions-docs/070720-rvhhbd-R0928140413) The minute reads:

`Councillor D. Swanbrow reported that the Harbour Dues Working Group had questioned why there were different charges for different moorings, considering that every boat uses the navigation system on the River and receives help from the Harbour Master's Office. The Group considered the Harbour Master's incident reports, and noted that only 4 out of 42 incidents in the past few months involved mid stream moorings, and on 3 occasions there were incidents related to marinas. Therefore this suggested that mid-stream moorings did not create sufficient extra work for the Harbour Master to justify the higher fee. The group therefore decided all moorings should pay the same harbour dues.

3.11. The decision of the Harbour Board was:

That after a period of five years from implementation, harbour dues should be set at the following levels, based on 2007 prices, with annual adjustments made in five stages to reach this point:

(i) All Crown Estate mid-stream moorings: Annual harbour dues to be £17.82 per metre (or part thereof)

(ii) All marina berthed vessels and those on mid-stream moorings operated commercially (including yacht clubs): Annual harbour dues to be £16.20 per metre (or part thereof), calculated in accordance with the Yacht Harbour Association formula where appropriate.

(iii) All dry-sailed and trailer sailed vessels over 6 metres length overall (LOA): Annual harbour dues to be £16.20 per metre (or part thereof)

(iv) Harbour dues for dry-sailed and trailer-sailed vessels under 6 metres LOA: No change to current arrangements.

(v) That annual increments (at a rate to be agreed separately by the Harbour Board) be applied to these figures for 2008 and subsequent years.

(all prices quoted include VAT at 17.5%)

3.12. A number of points arise from this decision.

3.12.1. The Harbour Board is not calculating harbour dues for holders of pile moorings on boat length but is basing charges on the length of the mooring. These are ship dues (see 2.1), to be charged on vessels, not mooring dues, to be charged on length of mooring.

3.12.2. The Harbour Board cannot justify the remaining differential of 10% in terms of an analysis of the costs of collection of harbour dues from midstream mooring holders since it does not make such an analysis.

3.12.3. The Harbour Board has failed to consider methods of reducing the cost of collection by, for example, using direct debit. It could offer a 10% discount to midstream mooring holders who pay by direct debit.

3.12.4. One consequence of this decision is that marina berth holders are now paying for services originally provided to midstream mooring holders at a time when their moorings were let by the Harbour Board and should have ceased when the Crown Estates Commissioners acquired the moorings. This lacks all logic.

3.13. The minute quoted in 3.10 amounts to an acknowledgement that the services are not related to the powers and duties of the Harbour Authority. There can be no justification for a five-year period of adjustment before harbour dues are made equal for different types of mooring. Further, if the dues are wrongly charged, there can be no case for continuing to charge them wrongly for another five years, even if at a reduced rate.

3.14. The Harbour Authority should adjust the dues by ceasing to impose the services formerly given when it provided the moorings. The next section will show that many of these services are redundant and that the costs of the Harbour Office could be reduced substantially.

3.15. There are further points to be made in terms of the different charging of harbour dues to boats berthing in marinas on the one hand and midstream on the other.

3.15.1. Harbour dues are charged to marinas on the basis of the available mooring space rather than the length and numbers of boats actually mooring. The Harbour Authority uses a "Yacht Harbours Association formula" which was derived for quite a different purpose.

3.15.2. There seems to be no consistent check on the extent of double banking in marinas or the berthing of extra boats in spaces between finger pontoons.

3.15.3. No additional dues are charged to visiting yachts berthing in marinas on the grounds that dues for the berths have already been paid. Dues are charged to yachts berthing temporarily on midstream moorings, though these, too, are charged on the basis of length of mooring.

3.15.4. As has been said above, dues are ship dues not berth dues and the Harbour Authority approach would seem to be unlawful. The Harbour Authority's officers argue that the method of charging is administratively convenient but there seems no good reason why the databases of yachts that marinas are bound to keep should not be shared with the Harbour Office. Moreover, as appropriate data are not collected, the Harbour Office has no check on the revenue lost.

3.15.5. There is no consistent check on harbour dues charged to `dry-sailed' boats (boats lifted out of the water and stored on shore in marinas). A recent check in one marina showed only a small proportion carrying harbour board stickers. Harbour Board employees have no right of access to marinas to make checks. The Harbour Office gives a discount of 20% to marinas collecting dues for dry-sailed

boats. (The Harbour Board has never approved this.) Even so, there is no system to ensure that dues collected by the marinas are passed to the Harbour Office.

4. The Harbour Authority's Staffing

4.1. The staff of the Harbour Authority, as explained in paragraphs 1.4 to 1.6 of the introduction, has grown significantly since 1969 although there has been little increase in the duties and responsibilities of the Authority for harbour safety, conservation and development and a reduction in the duties associated with providing moorings. The following paragraphs examine the duties of a number of posts and suggest that the overall staffing levels should be reduced significantly. In this context it should be noted that the Queen's Harbour Master (Portsmouth Harbour) has a staff of 28, less than three times the number in the Hamble. They deal with 50 square miles of harbour, operating 24 hours a day, 117,000 ship movements a year and have 5,000 yachts moored within the harbour. By contrast the consultants' report proposing a harbour authority for the River Exe (http://www.exeter.gov.uk/media/pdf/d/7/exe_estuary_1.pdf) suggests a staff of four, of whom one would be part-time (Page 64). The River Exe Harbour area is some 15 kilometres long and is a special conservation area. All the moorings in the Hamble are below the M27 Bridge, 3.2 miles from the mouth of the river.

4.2. In March 2007, the County Council appointed consultants Royal Haskoning to review the Governance of the River Hamble. The consultants reported in May 2007

(/decisions/decisions-docs/071102-revhma-R1025121059). Haskoning made explicit recommendations to rationalize the Harbour Office staffing.

"As part of the discrete harbour undertaking, and to maximise efficiency, it is recommended that the Harbour Office should be staffed with the minimum number of individuals required to fulfil its core duties and functions (e.g. compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code (DETR, 2000)). The staff should ideally include (amongst others):

"a) A Harbour Master / Chief Executive officer, thereby combining the existing Marine Director and the Harbour Master positions in the longer term.

"b) 1st and 2nd deputy Harbour Masters, etc. (as appropriate).

"c) A personal assistant to Harbour Master / administrative assistant. In the interim, it is recommended that the roles of the Harbour Master and Marine Director are better defined through the clear and concise allocation of responsibilities. Furthermore, this information should be made publicly available to ensure that river users and stakeholders are aware of how these roles relate to the statutory duties, functioning and management of the Harbour Authority. The roles and responsibilities of these posts should be reviewed regularly"

4.3. Marine Director

4.3.1. The following paragraphs have been extracted from the Haskoning report (3.5 p20)

"From responses obtained to the consultation exercise, many consultees (27% of respondents) felt that the administrative arrangements for the Harbour Authority have not been sufficiently streamlined by the May 2005 changes. One quoted example is the perceived duplication of roles between the Harbour Master and the Marine Director. This confuses stakeholders, especially given that the Marine Director has a non-voting position on the Harbour Board.

"The Marine Director was a new post (with a 5-year fixed-term) established by the County Council in 2005. The officer is an employee of the County Council. The role arose from previous difficulties in finding a Harbour Master with the necessary skills and experience to fulfil both the statutory duties of a Harbour Master and to develop the Harbour Authority's future strategic direction (a requirement of the changes put in place by HCC in 2005). However, creating this position has resulted in a degree of overlap in

the roles and responsibilities of the Harbour Master and Marine Director and has led to some confusion in the management of the Harbour Office Staff.

"This matter could be resolved by issuing role profiles for the two positions that clearly allocate responsibilities (including responsibility for the management of Harbour Office Staff). A performance review of the posts should be carried out after six months to ensure that targets have been met and progress made. By making the role profiles of the two posts publicly available, the confusion felt by stakeholders would also be appeased.

"However, given the size of the Harbour undertaking, it may not reflect best use of resources to have both a Harbour Master and a Marine Director in the longer term. It may be that, in due course, consideration should be given to merging these roles to create one Harbour Master / Chief Executive officer (whose position should be permanent). This would increase the efficiency associated with running the Harbour Office and the management of the Harbour staff, bring cost savings and, potentially, increase the field of applicants for the job."

4.3.2. In response to the explicit recommendation that the posts of harbour master and marine director be combined in the long term the County Council, replied:

"The Haskoning recommendation that the Harbour Office should be staffed with the minimum number of individuals required to fulfil its core duties and functions is supported. Unfortunately, the Haskoning proposals are not based on a detailed analysis of the operational requirements and working patterns of the Harbour Office staff and as such are ill-defined and not fully developed. Work is currently underway to clarify the roles of the

Marine Director and Harbour Master. Overall staffing levels will be reviewed against specific operational and safety requirements on the river" in effect a rejection. (/decisions/decisions-docs/071123-rvhhbd-R1116103545)

4.3.3. The dues payers, who fund the Harbour Office, are entitled to a better response than this. The role profiles of the Marine Director and Harbour Master are appended. The Marine Director's `role purpose' is:

"1. A strategic role with overall responsibility for the direction and management of all harbour authority staff, to ensure that all statutory and non-statutory requirements of the Harbour Authority are met.

"2. To implement and manage the governance arrangements of the Harbour Authority.

"3. To direct and manage the enhancement and improvement of the River Hamble through the development and implementation of projects and plans.

"4. To seek to balance the range of commercial, recreational and environmental interests on the River Hamble by identifying issues, developing strategies, formulating and evaluating policies and encouraging partnerships.

"5. To prepare and manage the budget for the Harbour Authority.

"6. To be a non-voting member of the Harbour Board.."

4.3.4. The Harbour Master's `role purpose' is

1. To provide professional and technical advice to the Harbour Authority to enable it to discharge its obligations.

2. To manage the statutory and non-statutory operations of the harbour by

a maintaining safety of navigation

b safeguarding members of the public within the Port Marine Safety Code

c promoting the objectives and policies of the Harbour Authority

d managing staff

e managing resources within delegated budgets.

4.3.5. There is substantial and unnecessary overlap between these posts. It is an extravagant use of dues-payers' resources to have two senior posts in a small harbour. Both these posts have responsibility for managing the same staff. Both have responsibility for managing resources. As to the Marine Director's other duties:

4.3.5.1. The governance arrangements for the River Hamble provide for two bodies, the Harbour Board, meeting six times a year and the Harbour Management Committee meeting four times a year. These are no more complicated than the governance arrangements for a small primary school.

4.3.5.2. The enhancement and improvement, if any, of the River Hamble has been exclusively through proposals made by marinas and boatyards. There is no proactive role for the Harbour Office.

4.3.5.3. "Balancing the range of interests" as set out in item 4 seems more an empty set of words than a practical guide to activity.

4.3.5.4. Preparing and managing the budget is surely a proper activity for a harbour master.

4.3.5.5. The harbour master attends every board meeting.

4.3.6. The post of Marine Director was created after successive problems with two previous harbour masters. The first was dismissed leading to expensive litigation including two separate appeals to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The second resigned after many complaints. A more productive approach would have been to appoint a new harbour master with a better specified post, including any necessary elements of the role specified for the marine director, using a robust appointment procedure.

4.4. Assistant Harbour Master (Environment)

The post of Assistant Harbour Master (Environment) was originally piloted for one year with the cost shared between the Harbour Authority and the Crown Estates Commission. After one year, The Crown Estates Commission withdrew and the full cost fell on the Harbour Authority.

4.5. The website of the Harbour Authority says,

"The RHHA has an important role in ensuring that any activities we undertake, or anything we permit others to do, will not harm this valuable environment. The Harbour Authority has been given this responsibility under European Law known as the Habitats Directive, however, we must also comply with numerous other pieces of legislation including: Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Biodiversity Action Plans

Protection of Wrecks Act 1974

Environmental Protection Act 1990

Water Resources Act 1991

The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation) Regulations 1998

The Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003

Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005

Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985"

To this list may be added the Transport and Works Act 1992. The inclusion of some of these is questionable. The only reference to harbour authorities in the Water Resources Act 1991, for example, is to exempt them from the prohibition on impounding. As the website says, the duty is to avoid harm, not to take a proactive role. The Wild life and Countryside Act 1981 confers duties or powers on harbour authorities. In the case of a marine nature reserve, the duty is in general satisfied by an application to the Marine Consents and Environment Unit (MCEU), established under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985. The proposer of any works makes the application. The Harbour Authority's duty is limited to ensuring that the appropriate consents have been obtained before giving its own consent. It does not require an assistant harbour master for this purpose. Moreover, an environmental expert has been appointed to the harbour Board specifically to ensure care for the environment.; she can check that the necessary approvals have been obtained when applications for marine consent are before the board.

4.5.1. The role purpose of the Assistant Harbour Master (Environment) is:

"To be responsible to the Harbour Master and Harbour Board for the sustainable environmental management of the River Hamble, working with statutory agencies and river users to enforce relevant environmental legislation and to manage, maintain and conserve the river and its environs.

"To supervise patrols in the mid and upper Hamble areas when required and to enforce the Authority's Bye-laws.

"To act as "duty manager" of the Harbour when required and to take a full and active part in patrolling and other activities including evenings, night and weekend duties."

Of these, the first is clearly the main function. She shares her function of acting as duty manager with seven colleagues. It is obvious that her main duties go well beyond the needs of the harbour. In practice, she services the Hamble Estuary Forum, a body mainly concerned with Marine Conservation. She is significantly involved with the Hook with Warsash Nature Reserve, lying mostly outside the Harbour. She deals with the Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSI is mostly within the Manor Farm Country park, owned by the County Council. The Lincegrove and Hackett's Marshes SSI

is mostly on riparian land owned by the County Council bordering on the Harbour.

4.5.2. The attached copies of her newsletter illustrate that her major concerns are not relevant to the duties and powers of the Harbour Authority. Similarly an inspection of her reports demonstrates a similar preoccupation with matters outside the functions of the Harbour. Extracts from one of these (/decisions/decisions-docs/041208-rivadv-R1202091511) show this.

3. River Hamble Estuary Management Plan

3.1 The River Hamble Estuary Management Plan Implementation Forum (RH EMP IF) is enjoying continued support from all involved. The meetings are proving to be a good forum for debate and exchange of information, as well as initiating management action.

4. Hamble Estuary Management Plan Student Research Fund

4.1 The student research fund is currently supporting two students from the first round of applications who are undertaking projects on the River Hamble. One project is looking at the presence of pollution in sediments from sites in the lower and upper Hamble. The second project is set to analyse the run-off from the M27 bridge; the sediments and water local to the site; and to assess the potential effect of the M27 run-off on the area.

4.2 There are a further two applications which are to be considered by the RH EMP IF at a meeting on 9 November 2004.

5. River Hamble Education Group

5.1 Policies under C3 Recreation, C6 Fishing and Bait Collection, C10 Archaeology and C12 Pollution and Water Quality, of the River Hamble Estuary Management Plan (RH EMP) all list education and interpretation as an action point.

5.2 To enable this action to be undertaken, the RH EMP IF has set up an Education Sub-Group to tackle this issue and this group has met three times to date. The group is made up of representatives from the Royal Yachting Association, Eastleigh and Fareham Borough Councils Tourism and Countryside Services, the County Council's Countryside Service, the River Hamble Harbour Authority, Southampton Institute, Hants and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology, the Solent Forum, Hampshire Wildlife Trusts and the Environment Agency.

5.3 Although the organisations represented have their own publications, the group is currently exploring the feasibility of a `portal' website for the Hamble area that would provide a central website for information, links and contact details. This will particularly address Policy 2 under C3, Recreation in the RH EMP.

6. Solent European Marine Site (SEMS) Management Scheme

6.1 The SEMS Management Scheme was submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in July 2004, at which time the SEMS officer role ceased. The SEMS Management Group decided a secretarial post should be created and this is currently being undertaken by Gemma Conway.

6.2 The SEMS Management Scheme states that :

"As part of the monitoring process, where they have relevant information to report, each relevant authority will be expected to report back to the Management Group on their implementation of the Scheme".

6.3 It was decided this should be undertaken on an annual basis and the Assistant Harbour Master (Environment) is currently completing the Monitoring/Review Strategy proforma for the river.

6.4 Once submitted, a summary of the annual reports for the Solent will be reported back to the SEMS Management Group. It is at this time, should there be cause for concern, that the Management Group will decide if action, eg the formation of topic groups, is required.

8. Water Quality

8.1 The water quality of the River Hamble can vary throughout the river and is affected by many variables. Current data on the water quality of the river is available through the Environment Agency and Eastleigh Borough Council.

8.2 Information on chemical and biological water quality at Hook Nature Reserve can be found on the Environment Agency website by accessing the Water Quality section from the front page, http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk. Bathing water quality results for various sites on the river can be found on the Eastleigh Borough Council website: http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/services/env

serv/WATERQU2004.pdf.

8.3 The River Hamble EMP recognises the need for better monitoring of water quality and aims to work with the Environment Agency and others on this matter.

9. M27 Bridge Run-off

9.1 The RH EMP Implementation Forum is still waiting to hear from the Highways Agency regarding its review of English and Welsh motorways and the pollution control methods in place.

9.2 A student project currently being supported by the Hamble Estuary Management Plan Student Research Fund is looking into the pollution effects of the run-off from the M27.

We do not argue that her post should be redundant. We are sure that her work is of great value. Rather, we argue that the funding of the post by the dues payers is a misuse of their funds and that the cost should be borne by the County.

4.6. Assistant Harbour Masters (Patrol)

4.6.1. Three assistant harbour masters (patrol) and an assistant harbour master (berthing) have identical role profiles. The assistant harbour masters (environment) and (administration), the Harbour Master and the Marine Director all undertake patrols. For the summer season four temporary coxswains are appointed additionally.

The Harbour Office provided log sheets for two weeks in January 2006 and two weeks in July 2005, confirmed by the Marine Director to be representative of the work of the patrols and related work in the office in 2005/6. The log sheets record both activities of the patrol officers and telephone and radio messages with some office-based work. An analysis of the log sheets is appended. The Harbour Master's incident reports to each board meeting shows that the number of incidents is always low and many, if not most, refer to matters outside the powers and duties of the Harbour Authority

4.6.2. Clearly, even at the height of summer - as can be seen from the appended analyses - activity levels are low. In the winter they are even lower and on some days there is no activity whatever. Very little of the activity relates to safety of navigation or to the powers and duties of the Harbour Authority. It is no part of the duties of the Harbour Office to act as a supplementary rescue service, still less to do so outside the Harbour. Nor is it part of the functions of the Harbour Office to act as a supplementary police service, to supervise moorings or to assist marinas in their work. Dues payers should not be expected to pay for excessive patrolling. There are additional ancillary costs. Only one patrol boat and one dory are needed so a boat could be sold. There is no case for a workshop, rented at an excessive rate. It would be a great deal more economical to contract out all except minor items of maintenance.

4.7. Designated Person

The Harbour Authority has appointed Marine Enforcement Ltd to act as designated person for the purposes of the Port Marine Safety Code. Haskoning recommended

"However, the role of Safety Officer may be conferred on the deputy Harbour Master provided he/she had direct access to the Board. In order to avoid any potential conflict, the post might be best undertaken by an employee of the Authority with direct access to the Board."

Other smaller harbours on and near the Solent adopt this practice. To do so on the Hamble would save a substantial sum, a budgeted £9,000 in 2008/9.

4.8. Overall Staffing Costs

There can be no doubt that a greatly reduced staff could undertake the work of the Harbour Office. A Harbour Master, a deputy (also acting as the designated person), an assistant harbour master for administration, a clerical assistant and an accounts assistant would be ample staffing. In the summer an additional coxswain would be added. The Harbour Office might be open for 12 hours a day in the summer and eight hours a day in the winter.

5. The Harbour Authority's Expenditure

5.1. Haskoning recommends

"4.5 (P28)

"Discrete business undertaking - the Harbour Authority should be established as a discrete business that is self-funding with clearly defined statutory functions (i.e. powers and duties) to improve, maintain and manage the harbour in an efficient and economical manner.

"4.12 Finance

"To comply with the recommendations of the Municipal Ports Review (paragraph 3.79) (DfT, 2006), the following is recommended:

"a) The Harbour Authority has `assured accounts'.

"b) Any rental levy imposed on the Harbour Authority should be the subject of a binding agreement between the Harbour Authority and the County Council.

"c) The harbour undertaking should be a discrete business that is self-financing.

The feasibility of adopting a strategy for delivering a commercially viable service for the benefit of all stakeholders, without subsidy, should be explored by the County Council and this should be established through a Memorandum of Understanding. Prior to this, a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out to identify the financial costs and benefits of the Harbour Authority becoming a discrete, self-financing business.

"d) Any profit should be put back into the running / management / future business planning of the Harbour Authority. This is currently in place.

"e) Prudent and adequate provision should be made for capital asset replacement and future development. This is currently being implemented.

"f) The County Council should produce commercial accounts which help explain the financial position of the Harbour Authority to the Board members without local authority accountancy training.

"g) A report of the annual accounts should (and currently is) made public (on the worldwide web). This should clearly show income, expenditure and assets. Through the implementation of such arrangements (including public accounts, business planning and the annual review of the strategic plan) sufficient scrutiny of the Harbour Authority and effective governance would be achieved.

5.2. Haskoning also says:

"With specific respect to streamlining administration, the County Council should also consider whether it is necessary to continue providing legal, financial and administrative/ secretariat support to the Harbour Board and Management Committee meetings. If the Harbour Authority were to operate as a more discrete business (see Section 4.12), minutes of meetings could be taken by a personal assistant/administrative support officer to the Harbour Master / Chief Executive officer. Under such an arrangement, if legal and financial advice is required, the Harbour Authority should pay the County Council for providing these services."

The County Council's recharges have a confusing variety of bases with no attempt to assess contestability. They may be: charged by service level, without service level agreements; apportioned; or based on estimates of work undertaken some time ago. Many are much higher than an independent organization of comparable size would pay.

5.3. Based on experience with comparable independent organizations, we would suggest that an accountancy assistant could undertake the accountancy function. On the reduced size we recommend, a full audit would not be necessary; an examination of the accounts would be satisfactory. In addition to staffing costs, we estimate that a sum of £2000 would be ample

5.4. The IT charges, budgeted to cost £12,000 in 2008/9 are grossly excessive in terms of the needs of a discrete, self-financing Harbour Office. Web services, equipment maintenance and replacement and software costs need amount to no more than £5,000 a year.

5.5. The 2005/6 accounts show £16,572 under the heading, "Chief Executive Committee & Legal" This does not include legal advice, shown under a separate head. It represents the cost of servicing annually: six meetings of the Harbour Board; four meetings of the Management Committee; and an annual forum. A discrete, self-funding business would provide the secretariat for these meetings from its staff, saving the whole of this sum.

5.6. The Harbour Board rents workshop space and storage from the former Solent School of Yachting for £10,500 (this being the net difference between the rental paid for the former Solent School of Yachting and the rental paid by Warsash Marine). The rental is grossly excessive. An equivalent area can be rented in a marina on the Hamble for about £2,500.

5.7. Expenditure on boats in 2005/6 was £15,263. For 2008/9, it is budgeted to be £ 21,500. Reducing the number of boats as suggested in paragraph 4.5.3 could save about half.

5.8. We do not find it easy to put a figure on staff costs because details of current salaries are not available to us. We would estimate that the level of staffing required for the effective running of a safe harbour, limiting activities to those relevant to the Harbour Authority's powers and duties would cost under £200,000.

6. The Harbour Authority's Accounts

6.1. Paragraph 3.59 of the Municipal Ports Review says:

"Local authorities which are a statutory harbour undertaking are required to submit to the Department for Transport accounts for their ports in the format required for businesses submitting accounts to Companies House."

The Accounts of the Hamble River Harbour Authority do not comply with this requirement. There are no accruals. There is no balance sheet. Assets other than reserves are not shown. There is no depreciation.

6.2. Our examination of the Accounts and records of how income is recorded raises a number of issues. We have divided our responses into the following:

6.2.1. Examination of the policy on raising income since 2004 and how this has been implemented and justified.

6.2.2. Summary of Expenditure and transfers to Reserves 2004-05 to 2006-07 and the Budgets for 2007-08 and 2008-09.

6.2.3. Report on Income for 2004-05 to 2006-07 and projections for 2007-08 and 2008-09.

6.2.4. The creation of and use of Reserves since January 2004.

6.3. Policy on Income

The financing of the Harbour Authority had been fairly consistent for many years until 2003-04 although expenditure had been increasing at above the rate of inflation. There was a change of accounting policy approved by the Harbour Board in July 2004. This was retrospective to 31 March 2004 on the grounds that "...this treatment is not strictly in accordance with UK accounting standards and greater emphasis is now attached to rigorous application of accounting standards in the public sector" (item 1.4). The report also contained the assurance that "Whatever the methodology used it has been agreed that this will not involve any additional income being collected over and above the agreed policy for income (inflation plus 1%)" 9item 1.6). In spite of the above statement, only a little over a year later the charge for dinghies, to which we object, was introduced.

6.4. As part of researching the background of the 2004 change we investigated the changes that effectively wrote off £271,114 of the Hamble River Reserves. Not only was the change unnecessary, it was introduced in a manner that transferred £271,114 of Hamble River funds into the General Rate fund. It also removed the interest on this from future years.

6.5. We do not consider this change necessary because the Authority does not have a Balance Sheet as such. If it did the cash, debtors, creditors and all other assets and liabilities would also have had to be included. Had there been a Balance Sheet the County would have been obliged to credit the Dues etc. collected before 31 March 2004. Even if the change of accounting policy can be justified, the imposition of a new range of Harbour Dues just 15 months after the undertaking not to do so, is not acceptable or reasonable. In view of the additional receipt of £100,000 for each of the 5 years 2002-03 to 2006-07 plus interest from Crown Estates there was no question of the Harbour Authority being short of funds.

6.6. Summary of Expenditure

We have prepared a Summary of Expenditure based on the Harbour Authority published Accounts, broken down to show firstly the regular expenditure and then the more variable items. The final part of the summary is the capital items and the creation of reserves.

6.7. We draw attention to the increased Revenue Totals comparing the actual years 2004-05 to 2006-07 and the budgets for 2007-08 and 2008-09. There was in fact a reduction between 2005-06 and 2006-07 but the increase from 2004-05 to 2006-07 was 5.93%, an average of 2.69%. The budget increase for 2007-08 was 13.61% and for the 2 years to 2008-09 was 25.77% an average of 12.88%. This appears to be extremely extravagant. The increase in Salaries from 2004-05 to 2006-07 was 10.81% an average of 5.40% but the budget for 2008-09 shows an increase of 17.78% over 2006-07, an average of 8.89%.

6.8. Report on Income

We have summarised the Income to show the main categories as shown in the published Accounts. We have now received from Hampshire County Council officers a more detailed summary that, we have been told, contains as much detail as they have without additional analysis that they did not consider necessary. We have attached a copy of this having noted the items that were recorded within the Reserves account. We have been concerned that no record was kept of the new sources of income following the October 2005 changes even when it became apparent that there were objections. It will be noted that the original proposal contained an estimate of additional income as set out below:

Visitors to public slipways 10,000

Dry sailed yachts ( 80 ) 6,000

Dry sailed dinghies ( 300 ) 6,000

Sub let - mid stream 2,500

24,500

Costs - Stickers 3,000

Signs (year 1 only) 3,000

6,000

Extra income £18,500

6.9. We have, as a result of our Freedom of information request, been able to inspect the Harbour Authority receipt books for the two years 2005-06 and 2006-07. It was decided to attempt an analysis of the books for April 2005 and April 2006 on the grounds that this was one month of the old rates and one month of the new rates. There were months with a few more receipt books and months with fewer books. We believe that we inspected about l/12th of the books.

6.10. The information contained in the receipt books was not sufficient to break the income down into the categories shown above and for this reason we did not continue with the analysis beyond the sample two months. It would not have required any more than a tiny amount of additional work to provide the information to identify the new source of income if there had been a desire to do so.

	April 2005				April 2006
Category	No.	Amount			No.	Amount
Overnight stay	108	1,305.55			112	1,486.00
Longer stay	3	121.5			14	2,452.20
Special rate	1	165
Clubs	1	80			1	200
Storage	1	60
Licence	1	52.88
Dues - Keel boats					17	1,845.84
Dinghies & Short Stay					30	648.38
H.R.S.C					1	217.5
		£1,732.05				£6,902.80

6.11. The manual analysis of the two months receipt books took approximately one and a half hours and we estimate that with a pre-prepared spreadsheet it would take about half an hour per month to provide a full analysis of this income.

6.12. The analysis we carried out can be summarised as follows:

The report of 21 October 2005 said at 8.1 "Clearly, the proposal will only be viable if the income generated significantly exceeds the material and manpower costs of implementation and enforcement" This was obviously a key issue but they did not bother to put in place the basic means of checking their estimates. It will be noted from the Income summary that the budgeted increase in income for 2007-08 was 3.50% and for 2008-09 an increase against the previous year's budget of 7.52%. We believe this reflects a more focused collection procedure. Collection is only worthwhile, if at all, because patrol officers are heavily underemployed.

6.13. However, the Harbour Office clearly finds it very difficult to collect harbour dues by legitimate means. The following condition was attached to the granting of marine consent to a one metre extension to our pontoon:

"e. no boat or dinghy to be moored or launched from the pontoon unless a current Harbour Dues sticker is displayed on the boat or dinghy. Harbour Dues will be payable at the daily or annual rate for any boat launched or moored on the pontoon."

The condition is obviously unlawful: the Harbour Office has no powers to enforce the display of stickers; the condition is not related to either navigational safety or environmental protection, the only grounds on which marine consent might be refused; and it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could impose it. The Harbour Office well knows that we are not in a position to supervise the pontoon in this manner. The condition clearly illustrates their desperation.

6.14. Creation and use of Reserves

The accounts before 31 March 2004 had contained a section for Reserves although the Authority has not provided an explanation as to what these could have been used for. It appears that the original Harbour Undertaking/ Moorings Management Reserve was similar to a trading company's Balance Sheet Profit and Loss Account, built up over many years. The deficit on the Visitor Centre Partnership Reserve came about from an artificial transfer of some income and expenditure to this heading. When a number of people questioned the legal status of this account the Harbour Authority wrote off the deficit to the Capital Receipt account in 2005-06. The third Reserve account relates to £500,000 from the Crown Estates as a capital receipt for mooring piles. These piles had been paid for over many years and in a commercial business would have been a Balance Sheet asset. This sum was being paid at the rate of £100,000 per year from 2002-03 to 2006-07. This reserve was used to cover the "Partnership" deficit referred to above - £153,647 and most of the net capital cost of the replacement Harbour Masters pontoons at Warsash - £141,829.

6.15. In May 2007 the Harbour Board considered a plan to change the Reserves at a meeting from which the public were excluded. We do not believe that the public should have been excluded. There is some confusion as to what was agreed and papers for the Board meeting of 1 February 2008 do not agree with the May 2007 papers. The February 2008 papers call the original reserve Revenue Reserve, which seems reasonable and call the Crown Receipt the Asset Enhancement Reserve, which does not appear so reasonable. In the year 2004-05 a Boat Replacement Fund was created and the transfer to this was £11,900. This was increased to £14,100 in the next two years 2005-06 and 2006-07.

6.16. We have shown, below our Income summary, a break down of the Revenue Surplus before capital expenditure or transfers to Reserves. There were very healthy surpluses for the three years 2004-05 £79,245, 2005-06 £99,040 and 2006-07 £117,675 and we believe this clearly shows that the additional dues, to which we are objecting, were not necessary. As at 31 March 2007 the total Reserves amounted to £378,142 and we consider this more than adequate for this modest undertaking. The amount written off to the general rate fund shown at 6.4 above of £271,114 should be added to this plus interest. As we have said previously, the budget for Expenditure for 2007-08 and 2008-09 is excessive and we do not consider that there is a need for further transfers to Reserves of £73,000 and £61,074.

6.17. Serious consideration should also be given to the failure to honour the undertaking given in July 2004 referred to in 6.3 "that this will not involve any additional income being collected over and above the agreed policy for income (inflation plus 1%).

7. Conclusions

7.1. The dues charged for dinghies are unlawful and should be abolished forthwith since

7.1.1. dinghies are not ships and ship dues cannot be charged for them;

7.1.2. if the dues are not held to be unlawful, they are nevertheless unreasonable and unfair since the dinghies do not benefit from the services of the harbour and since there is no meaningful distinction between sailing dinghies for which dues are charged and rowing dinghies for which they are not;

7.1.3. there was no consultation before the dues were imposed and there has been no effective consultation since, contrary to Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999;

7.1.4. the dues are difficult to collect and were the Harbour Authority to assess accurately the cost of collection and the income, they would be found not to be worth imposing;

7.1.5. because of the difficulty of collecting the dues, the incidence is unfair as between different dinghy sailors and impacts more harshly on those dinghy sailors easier to observe by the staff of the Harbour Office.

7.2. The differential between the dues charged to midstream mooring holders and those berthing in marinas should be abolished forthwith rather than over a period of five years since:

7.2.1. the supervision charge formerly made to midstream mooring holders was unlawful and accordingly the Harbour Dues derived from that charge are unlawful;

7.2.2. there was no consultation before the dues were imposed and there has been no effective consultation since, contrary to Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999;

7.2.3. no valid reason has been given for the phasing over five years;

7.2.4. work deriving from the provision of moorings should either be recharged to the Crown estates Commissioners or, if not required by them, should cease and the costs of such work eliminated from the costs of the Harbour Office.

7.3. Charging Harbour Dues by reference to the length of the mooring rather than the length of the vessel is unlawful and:

7.3.1. the practice should cease forthwith;

7.3.2. dues should be charged on the same basis to all vessels irrespective of where they are moored;

7.3.3. visiting dues should be charged for vessels berthing in marinas.

7.4. We estimate that savings of £273,000 could be made in an overall budget of £668,000, though careful examination of the cost and benefit of other expenditure, such as CCTV, might increase these savings. The following steps should be taken:

7.4.1. regular patrols by patrol boats are ineffective and should cease;

7.4.2. the number of assistant harbour masters and coxswains undertaking this work should be substantially reduced;

7.4.3. the number of boats owned by the Harbour Authority should be reduced and the rental of a workshop at an excessive rent should cease;

7.4.4. the cost of employing an assistant harbour master (environment) should be transferred from the dues-payers to the County Council as a whole;

7.4.5. the posts of Marine Director and Harbour Master should be combined;

7.4.6. the post of designated person for the purposes of the Port Marine Safety Code should be allocated to a member of staff of the Harbour Office;

7.4.7. activities that fall outside the powers and duties of the Harbour Authority including general moorings supervision, rescue work, especially rescues outside

the harbour, civil protection and moorings supervision, should cease.

7.4.8. the reserves removed from the Harbour Authority should be restored, arrears of interest paid;

7.4.9. the income of the Harbour being well-defined and easily forecast, significant reserves other than for forecast capital expenditure are unnecessary;

7.4.10. necessary future capital expenditure should be forecast and reserves limited to the forecast needs;

7.4.11. the excess of income over expenditure transferred annually to reserves should be reduced.

7.5. It should be possible to reduce Harbour Dues by at least one-third and probably more.

7.6.

HAMBLE RIVER HARBOUR AUTHORITY - SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS Expenditure

	2004-05 Actual	2005-06 Actual	2006-07 Actual	2007-08 Budget	2008-09 Budget
Salaries	285,793	300,740	316,692	350,925	373,000
Training , Adv . etc .	4,348	3,188	1,095	5,600	7,800
Premises	18,673	7,527	12,001	13,200	17,400
Rates				1,500
Former S.S.Y.	42,177	45,000	42,000	42,000	50,875)
Crown "Rent"	4,036	4,856	4,036	7,000	- )
Office Expenses	13,637	14,004	12,465	17,700	21,600
IT Charges	7,245	10,293	9,799	11,000	12,000
Environmental Maint.	922	1,361	685	2,500	3,000
Central Support	27,651	37,012	38,745	31,775	31,800
Other Services	1,712	1,669	2,603	6,100	6,100
Designated Person	3,375	7,205	?	8,600*	9,000
Boats/Chandlery	4,759	16,137	12,839	18,700	24,100
Vehicle Running	3,519	2,344	2,768	7,000	8,000
Car Allowances	3,432	3,964	3,036	5,300	5,800
Insurance	1,295	1,330	1,360	1,400	1,500
	422,574	456,630	460,124	530,300	571,975
Public Jetties/
Nav. Safety	10,646	13,462	11 , 579	9,000	18,000
Oil Response	5,738	2,701	1,300	-	3,500
Hydrographic	5,000	5,000	5,000	-	5,000
Dredging Plan	3,000	(77)	-	3,000	3,000
Estuary Man. Plan	865	584	-	1,000	1,500
Waste Plan	523	2,034	1,532	3,000	4,000
HRO	5,359
Uncommitted inc.
Staff		5,249
Stickers		1,674	3,064	2,000
Harbour Dues & Income	4,200	4,200
Revenue Totals	457,905	491,457	482,599	548,300	606,975
Boats	9,601
Harbour Jetty - Cap.		15,783
CCTV	69,169	968			7,000
Fishermans Jetty		1,290
General Reserve	-	38,000	38,000	38,000	43,000
Boat Replacement	11,900	14,100	14,100	14,100	-
Fish Jetty Res.		13,500
Harbour Dues?	4,200	4,200
Projects				13,200*
Inflation				7,700	11,074
Harbour Man. System	14,361
	£562,936	575,098	534,699	621,300	668,049

*Estimated adjustment

At the date these figures were prepared we did not have the actual details for 2007-08. Use of the Revised Budget would confuse.

Income

At the date these figures were prepared we did not have the actual details for 2007-08. Use of the Revised Budget would confuse.

HAMBLE RIVER HARBOUR AUTHORITY - SUMMARY OF RESERVES

*This change may be modified now that the implication has been made public

The write-off in 2003-4 is shown above and in the text of our objection as £271,114 but we note from the papers for June 2004 that at item 7 - 3.20 the Harbour Dues adjustment is £268,997 and at 3.21 the Supervision Charge adjustment is £66,424, making a total of £335,421.

River Hamble - Income Anlysis 2005/06 & 2006/07
Cost Elements	2005/06	% of Total Income		2006/07	% of Total Income
6549 Receipts From Other Bodies	0.00	0.00%		(50,564.21)	6.49%
6573 Calor Gas Sales	(92.18)	0.01%		(87.64)	0.01%
7111 Boat Licences	(1,260.07)	0.18%		(621.54)	0.08%
7117 Fishing	0.00	0.00%		(1,017.11)	0.13%
7188 Electricity Recovered	(117.16)	0.02%		(762.82)	0.10%
7203 General Misc Income	(31,532.52)	4.39%		2,018.02	-0.26%
7210 Income From Contributions	(1,000.00)	0.14%		(500.00)	0.06%
7233 Other Fees	(140,750.00)	19.60%		(149,771.39)	19.23%
7247 Rates Recovered	(2,198.47)	0.31%		0.00	0.00%
7257 Rights Of Way - Stile Works	0.00	0.00%		2,057.25	-0.26%
7276 Water Charges Recovered	(41.38)	0.01%		(256.00)	0.03%
7358 Jetty Charges	(7,775.74)	1.08%		(18,520.08)	2.38%
7371 Misc inc - Pontoon Visitor Income	(9,483.93)	1.32%		(13,026.52)	1.67%
7372 Misc inc - Commercial Visitor Pleas Craft	(1,911.43)	0.27%		(2,153.94)	0.28%
7373 Misc inc - acknowledgement rentals	(126.05)	0.02%		0.00	0.00%
7375 Misc inc - Pile Visitor Income	(9,225.58)	1.28%		3,577.97	-0.46%
7376 Misc inc - Sublet refunds	9,627.40	-1.34%		61,978.28	-7.96%
7377 Misc inc - Berthing Fees Hamble Landing	(2,352.96)	0.33%		(2,873.51)	0.37%
7378 Misc inc - Berthing Fees Warsash Landing	(5,849.59)	0.81%		(6,997.81)	0.90%
7400 General Lettings - Non Taxable	0.00	0.00%		0.00	0.00%
7410 Marinas & Boatyards	(292,207.39)	40.70%		(309,436.26)	39.72%
7411 River Moorings	(67,529.79)	9.41%		(88,382.20)	11.35%
7412 Site Moorings - rental space/supervision	(97,229.98)	13.54%		(72,640.95)	9.33%
7420 Rents Of Other Buildings/Land	(28,300.00)	3.94%		(30,000.00)	3.85%
7435 Sublet Income	(11,127.40)	1.55%		(72,925.57)	9.36%
7444 Interest On Other Balances	(17,485.38)	2.44%		(28,078.97)	3.60%
Total	(717,969.60)			(778,985.00)
Deduct the following shown elsewhere
Crown Estates - in 7233	(100,000)			(100,000)
Dredging Contribution - in 6459				(50,564)
-do- in 7203	(7,077)
Interest - in 7444	(17,485			(28,079)
	£593,407			£600,432

There is still a small difference between the above and the figures submitted to the Board, which we understand relates to items netted against expenditure. We do not consider it worthwhile delaying any longer for this information as it would not affect our submission.

Log Sheet Analysis
Date	Mooring Supervision	Reported Incident	Towing	Policing	Community Safety	River Safety	Environmental	Maintenance	Other
01-Jul-05	Unknown vessel left unauthorised tender locked to berth
02-Jul-05	Alarm sounding on yacht at Universal	Boat collided with another on visitors' piles						River "fairy" ferry? duty
03-Jul-05			Yacht engine failure river mouth	Speeding Jet ski	Youths taking dinghy from RAF jetty. Inflatable without lights
04-Jul-05	Main sheet block attached. Loose cover resecured					J boat warned to reduce sail. Tug reproved for entering without notification		Various minor maintenance items
05-Jul-05	Boats tidied and loose covers furled		Sunshine towed to HYS			Raft race from Hamble	Report of possible pollution from Fawley. Oil spill in Soton Water (outside harbour)	12 v sockets fitted to boats
06-Jul-05		Yacht lost steerage. Found to be outside harbour				Log removed from river		Minor maintenance. Diving approved
07-Jul-05	Gandalf too big for mooring		Armada to Elephant	Ribs warned about wash	Crew with head injury assisted. Boat reported ashore, Manor Farm. No action			Minor maintenance.
08-Jul-05	Yacht asked not use private pontoon		Yacht aground helped	Rib warned about wash		Tenders without lights reproved		Various maintenance items
09-Jul-05	Boat lines tightened on a mooring	Venture Rescue towed boat on to visitors' pontoon				Assisted marshalling Optimist fleet. Rib slowed. Jet skis warned			Firework display for Hamble week
10-Jul-05	Debris from firework on Royal Thames pontoon. Burns to one boat.					Jet ski slowed. Attended skiff race.
11-Jul-05				Police called to youths jumping from A27				Inspections of Hamble Quay and Manor Farm Pontoons
12-Jul-05	Asked rib to move from Royal Southern pontoon to visitors'. Took details from boat on RAF mooring. Replaced stern line on boat on HB mooring			Warned ribs and jet skis for speeding				Marked planks to be replaced on Hamble jetty.
13-Jul-05	Replaced stern line on a boat.			Stopped rib too much wash	Told children swimming and jumping off Hamble Quay to be careful	Supervised dinghy racing		Maintenance on pontoon
14-Jul-05	Replaced lines on RAF boat. Photographed I17. Checked mooring HB113.				Recovered rope used as a swing on A27 Bridge. Police called to Hamble jetty re youths	Telephone: disabled craft aground Upper Hamble. Patrol attended. Jetski complaint	Emma to railway bridge to take photographs
17-Jan-06	Yachts reported on wrong pontoon. Owner contacted							Hamble jetty lights inspected. Pile inspected
18-Jan-06	Confirmed above yachts moved							Boats moved - maintenance on visitors' pontoon
19-Jan-06	Mooring Checked, boat in place	Dredger overturned pontoon on mooring. Float damaged. Operator contacted						Harbour dues signs erected
20-Jan-06						Attended helicopter exercise off Institute jetty			Tender recovered from shore returned to RAFYC Another near ferry slip. Tender on HM pontoon bailed
21-Jan-06									Minor notes
22-Jan-06									Minor notes
23-Jan-06									Minor notes
24-Jan-06	Checked moorings redeployment. Message about person aboard a yacht.		Small abandoned yacht towed to Riverside.						MFV inspected for disposal
25-Jan-06	Closed hatch aboard Gib'sea. Discussed moving boats for Pile replacement
26-Jan-06	Helped move boats for pile maintenance
27-Jan-06	Checked boats on berths			Rib seen exceeding 10 Kn	7 Young people on Upper Hamble jetty
28-Jan-06									Southampton Police launch in river
29-Jan-06	Helped mooring holder lower headsail								Photographs for website
30-Jan-06								Contractor fixed sector light. Maintenance on boat. Damage on Hamble jetty reported
31-Jan-06							Oil spill reported near Universal. Later slick seen at Hamble point