Archived decisions

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

1. Summary

1.1 This report recommends that, as a result of an inclusive formal consultation process, the proposed Harbour Authority Works Consent Policies for the River Hamble be withdrawn.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the River Hamble Management Committee agrees to withdraw the proposed Harbour Authority Works Consent policies for the River Hamble, without passing them to the Harbour Board for consideration.

3. Background

3.1 At its meeting on 20 June 2008, the River Hamble Management Committee authorised the Marine Director to conduct a public consultation on proposals for a series of Harbour Authority works consent policies. The consultation closed on 1^st September 2008.

4. Results

4.1 The proposed Works Consent policies were intended to be simple, easily understood, supportive of policies of other consenting bodies (but without duplicating them) and sufficiently flexible to allow members of the Harbour Board to make their decisions based on the policies combined with their own knowledge and experience.

4.2 It is impossible to say with any accuracy how many groups and individuals had the opportunity to respond to the consultation. A total of 140 copies were despatched by post and the document was also made available on the Harbour Authority website. Only 15 valid responses were received by the deadline - 7 in hard copy (5%) and 8 on-line. Of these, two replies from stakeholder groups and one from an individual were effectively identical in their content and wording. Very few responses addressed all the questions and two did not answer any of the questions, opting instead to provide an overall opinion on the matter.

4.3 With a response rate as low as this, it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from the consultation. There is no clear consensus on the best way forward and any attempt to modify the proposed policies in the light of the consultation responses would, at best, only satisfy a minority of respondents, leaving the Harbour Authority no further forward.

4.4 Some interesting points were made in the consultation responses:

"The regime for consenting of marine works is a complex one and the proposed introduction of extensive policies that cover a broad range of subject areas are likely to serve to make the situation worse. Furthermore, with the proposed introduction of a new Marine Bill and a Marine Management Organisation, now would not appear to be the most appropriate time for the introduction of the proposed policies."

"It is felt that, to avoid complication, duplication of policies and decision-making between authorities is best avoided."

"I understand that the regime for consenting works is already extremely complicated. Are the proposed policies not likely to make it even harder to progress even modest scale projects?"

4.5 Taken together, these comments suggest that the proposed new policies are duplicative, unnecessary and ill-timed. It is therefore recommended that the proposed policies should be withdrawn. If this is agreed, Harbour Board members will continue to follow the process already in place, namely to consult widely, seek advice from other bodies and individuals (for example, the Management Committee, the Hamble Estuary Partnership, the Designated Person, the Harbour Master, the Assistant Harbour Master (Environment) and any written or verbal deputations from members of the public), then make their decision based on this information combined with their own knowledge and experience. This approach has the following advantages:

· The Harbour Board will be able to base its decisions on the best information available to them at the time, making maximum use of the expert and informed opinions of others.

· The decision-making process will be open for any interested party to contribute throughout.

· The Harbour Board will not be restricted to either `rubber-stamping' applications which clearly comply with agreed policies, or rejecting outright any which do not. Instead, they would be able to consider each application on its merits.

And the following disadvantages:

· The absence of any clear policies may prolong uncertainty in the minds of the developer about the likely outcome of his application, thereby increasing the risks (and, potentially, the costs) of making an application.

· For difficult cases, the decision-making process may take longer in the absence of any clear policy guidelines.

Despite the perceived disadvantages, it is recommended that the proposed policies be dropped in favour of the more flexible approach. In particular, the time taken to reach a decision is far less important than making the right decision

5. Impact Assessments

5.1 The contents of this report do not have any direct impact on the services

provided by the River Hamble Harbour Authority and have not been subject to an equalities impact assessment.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The recommendation in this report is based on a failure to achieve any form of consensus from a very limited response to a public consultation exercise.