Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

1. Executive Summary

1.1 The purpose of this paper is to initiate a review of the current policy of exempting vessels using the River Hamble without engines or sails that are being rowed or paddled from the requirement to pay Harbour Dues.

2. Contextual information

2.1 At its meeting on 14 July 2006, the Harbour Board decided that vessels using the River Hamble without engines or sails that are being rowed or paddled should be exempt from the requirement to pay Harbour Dues, and that the impact of this exemption should be reviewed after 3 years operation, in the summer of 2009. The purpose of this report is to initiate this review.

2.2 The extent of the review is very specific, in that it is limited to consideration of the impact of the exemption on vessels without sails or engines that are being rowed or paddled. Whilst it may be considered timely to review the matter of Harbour Dues for sailing dinghies, this would be inappropriate whilst the objection to these Dues brought by Warsash Sailing Club under section 31 of the Harbours Act 1964 remains to be determined by the Department for Transport.

2.3 Observations over the past three years suggest that the volume of activity on the River by vessels that are being rowed or paddled (i.e. canoes, kayaks, gigs, skiffs and tenders) has not changed significantly. In 2006, it was estimated that charging Harbour Dues for these types of boat would generate an annual income of about £1,500. Since the annual rate (£5.00 per metre) has not changed and the daily rate (typically £3.50 per day) has actually reduced slightly, this estimate remains broadly valid.

2.4 The arguments put forward at the time were that such vessels:

· For the most part, use the upper Hamble

· Have little detrimental effect on the environment

· Make little, if any, use of the facilities directly provided by the Harbour Authority

· Are a cheap and convenient way of allowing young people to participate in water activities

· and that `charging for this type of activity runs counter to current national initiatives to encourage a `healthy Britain'' has not changed significantly.

2.5 On the other hand, it must be clearly stated that Harbour Dues are the means by which the activities of the Harbour Authority as a whole are funded and that without the controlling influence of the Harbour Authority, the harbour would quickly become a much more dangerous place for rowers and paddlers to operate. In addition, policing events such as organised gig racing imposes a considerable demand on the time and resources of the Harbour Authority, effectively free of charge. A strong case can therefore be made against the argument that such vessels `make little, if any, use of the facilities directly provided by the Harbour Authority'. Indeed, it seems entirely reasonable that the owners of such vessels should contribute towards the costs of managing the Harbour.

2.6 However, the determining factor in this review is the difficulty of collecting Harbour Dues from this type of craft, and of monitoring compliance. There is nothing to suggest that this is likely to have become any easier over the past three years, so it is recommended that the outcome of this review should be to maintain the existing arrangements, with another review after a further three years (or sooner if other factors so require).

3. Recommendation

3.1 It is recommended that the River Hamble Harbour Board agrees that the exemptions regime for Harbour Dues should continue, and that it should be reviewed again after three years.

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

Links to the Corporate Strategy