Minutes:
The Chairman, Cllr Daniel Gottschalk, welcomed everyone present to the meeting.
The Executive Committee had received four questions on notice. The Chairman invited the first speaker to read out their submitted question.
Question one received on notice - Rex Frost
‘Has the Executive consulted in detail with the Port of Exeter Harbour Authority regarding their attitude to this proposal?’
The Chairman invited the Habitat Regulations Delivery Manager to respond to the question. In response, the Delivery Manager advised that he worked closely with the Waterways Team Manager from Exeter City Council and that he sat on the Habitat Regulations Officer Working Group. As such, they have been involved in decisions about the Wildlife Refuge proposals since their inception and accompanied the Executive Committee on their boat visit to view the areas from the water.
Under the Executive Committee’s terms of reference in respect of questions submitted in advance, the questioner had the right to ask a supplementary question relevant to the original question printed above. In response to the supplementary question asked, the Habitat Regulations Delivery Manager advised that he had met with the Service Lead to discuss this.
Question two received on notice - Peter Hardy, Exe Power Boat and Ski Club. Member of the Port User Group
‘The zoning of the Exe Estuary is entirely based upon a study - called the Exe Disturbance Study - that has been completely dismissed as inaccurate and flawed. The report to this committee said, “The study is key because it establishes reasonable scientific argument that activities on and around the Exe are causing disturbance to protected species”.
This seems contrary to the long and detailed studies conducted by the leading figure in estuary bird disturbance research - Professor John Goss-Custard of Bournemouth University - whose work in this field has not been mentioned in this report. In order to make the correct decision on this important subject, the committee should be made aware of all the facts both for and against the Voluntary Exclusion Zones.
Why is this important evidence on disturbance not included with this report today?’
The Chairman invited the Habitat Regulations Delivery Manager to respond to the question. In response, the Delivery Manager advised that the critique of the Exe Disturbance Study by Professor Goss-Custard was referenced in Section 2 of the report. This section of the report went into considerable detail to explain why the current approach had been chosen and pointed out that the critique had been considered and rejected by Natural England and the partner authorities.
The critique failed to address a number of important considerations, including the precautionary principle which ensured protection where there was doubt. The Exe Disturbance Study was carried out by leaders in the field of bird disturbance monitoring, was robust and based on direct observation of the distribution and behaviour of birds on the Exe.
This was why, nationally, there were other studies and strategies, from the Humber to the Solent, from North Kent to Poole Harbour, which shared this approach and not that put forward by Professor Goss-Custard.
Records of ongoing disturbance had been compiled by Officers of Teignbridge District Council and were shown in Appendix F. This provided compelling evidence showing ongoing disturbance from powered and non-powered watercraft from 2009 to the present.
In response to a supplementary question, the Delivery Manager reported that Professor Goss-Custard’s critique of the study had been considered and rejected as it was considered it did not meet the requirement of the legislation. The Delivery Manager had met with Professor Goss-Custard in 2013 and December 2016 and he had talked to all of the planning teams and each of the local authorities concerned.
Third question submitted on notice – Jane Evans
‘Please can the committee explain why the proposal for wildlife refuges restricts human activity so that small craft (canoes, kayaks, dinghies and stand up paddleboards) will no longer be able to travel safely in the estuary? Instead, small craft will be obliged to travel too close to the main channel. This has two major problems:
a) they are at risk of being run down by large craft e.g. powered vessels and large yachts.
b) they will be unable to travel against the tidal flow, whereas without any restrictions it is possible to make passage against the tide when not close to the main channel. There are strong tidal flows in the estuary and craft need to be able to travel along a safe route.
The Committee should not introduce a requirement that compromises the safety of water users.
The agenda report states that the objections notified in the consultation which included these points have been addressed because they were misunderstandings. I can assure you that this is not the case, and that the agenda report is extremely misleading in this respect. I urge you to postpone any decision on wildlife refuges to a future date, and for the SEDHR Executive Committee (and not a partnership comprising only conservation bodies) to engage properly with water users.’
The Chairman invited the Delivery Manager to respond to the points raised. In response, the Delivery Manager advised that the Wildlife Refuge proposals had been amended as a result of the 9 month consultation period and took full account of the safety of all users. Since the outset and again in the report, the clear position was that the voluntary refuges cease to apply in the event that they are needed for immediate safety.
The proposed refuge at Dawlish Warren has been moved back by 100 meters from the navigation channel and existing National Nature Reserve boundary. The proposed refuge at Exmouth had been significantly reduced and the western boundary was approximately 750m from the navigation channel. This provided ample room for users to continue their activities.
Additionally, the proposed timing of the refuge at Exmouth had been significantly shortened so that it would not apply at the time of year when it was most popular for water sports. The Watersports Participation Survey 2016, funded by organisations such as the RYA and British Canoeing, shows that 77% of all water based activities take place between March and August.
At the same time, the very reason that the refuges had been proposed was because it was not permissible to allow disturbance from recreation to affect the survival of protected species. If approved, it was reasonable to expect users to factor the refuges into their plans and take personal responsibility for their safety and to avoid them.
In response to the supplementary question, the Delivery Manager advised that he wanted to work with user groups to establish proposals that would maintain the safety of users including less experienced users.
Question four submitted on notice – David Rochester
‘In section 5.1 of your report you comment on consultation as follows:
Through the questionnaire, approximately 70% of respondents raised issues with the initial proposed VEZs. However, although concerns were also raised during consultation meetings, the EEMP was able to clarify any misunderstandings about the proposals and discuss with users what they would like to see amended. The meetings generally resulted in users largely accepting the approach, as long as their concerns and suggestions were taken on board.
If as you suggest the user concerns and suggestions were taken on board can you explain why the most recent online questionnaire results (shown in appendix d) still show approximately 70% of respondents (69% for Exmouth and 64% for Dawlish) are raising issues with your proposals.’
The Chairman invited the Delivery Manager to respond to the question. In response, the Delivery Manager advised that the majority of those issues raised had been taken on board – they were the same as those addressed in the Exe Estuary Management Partnership’s report and addressed in detail again in the committee report.
The results of the most recent online questionnaire also broke down the issues raised by the respondents, as shown in Appendix D. Many of these responses (96 out of 143 responses for Exmouth and 83 out of 127 for Dawlish) suggested:
· that the proposals should be abandoned.
· there wasn’t sufficient evidence to back up the proposals.
· that the areas were needed for safety.
· or that non-engine water users didn’t have any impact.
Sections 2 and 3 of the report explain in detail the reasons it was considered that the proposals could not be abandoned, that there was sufficient evidence, how safety concerns had been addressed and Appendix F provided evidence of the disturbance that non-engine water activities could have.
In the absence of other compelling information, the proposals cannot simply be abandoned because people were not in favour of it or choose to support a challenge to the approach which had been addressed and rejected. The refuge proposals remain a request to all user groups to help to protect vulnerable species over areas accounting for less than 10% of the Special Protection Area.
In response to the supplementary question, the Delivery Manager reported that the safety of human users of the estuary was paramount and it was important that education was used to assist with safety and also protect vulnerable areas of the estuary and wildlife. The Delivery Manager confirmed that the operation of the patrol boat would be in line with health and safety protocols.
There were four speakers who had registered to speak at the meeting. The Chairman invited each in turn to address the Committee.
Gavin Bloomfield, representing the RSPB and the Devon Wildlife Trust. He reported that the RSPB fully supports the proposals and wanted to emphasise the importance of the area for migrating birds, which was without dispute. With the demands on the estuary, the number of migrating birds on the estuary had declined. Five species had shown particular high levels of reduction in numbers. The Exe Estuary was very busy compared with other estuaries.
The proposals would help reduce the effect on the most vulnerable parts of the estuary and the wildlife protection aspect of the proposals were important. To act now was a moral imperative to provide protection for both the Exe Estuary and the wildlife on it.
Myles Blood Smyth, representing Exmouth mussels, reported that he was a mussel fisherman on the Exe for 360 days per year. He had the aim of having a vital and healthy river, which supported everybody. He had helped overcome the total mortality of the shellfish beds in the estuary, which had occurred in Spring 2015.
He considered that the disturbance on the Dawlish side on the estuary was minimal. One way to act to help preserve the estuary and wildlife was for Exeter City Council to appoint a harbourmaster as Mr Blood Smyth considered that much of the disturbance of the estuary occurred at the weekend. He opposed the proposals in respect of protective zones within the Exe Estuary and considered that the views of those who knew what would work had not been properly taken in to account.
Rex Frost, Chairman of the Exeter Port User Group, reported on the huge outcry on how the protective zones on the Exe were to be implemented. He considered that the views of the water users, including those of the Royal Yacht Association, had been ignored. All the objections had not been dealt with properly. He did not feel that this matter had been dealt with in a democratic way and that the process should be started again and dealt with in a more conciliatory manner.
Vyv Game, reported that if inflammatory language was used it was because what users had been saying has not been taken into account in the proposals made. He considered that no Exe Estuary User had been part of the process. There had been a lack of proper statistical evidence, which undermined the legitimacy of the whole process.
He had two points to make regarding the proposals:
1) that the use of scientific evidence was not compelling.
2) the process was flawed from the outset.
He considered that no users of the Exe Estuary had been involved in the process. He urged the Committee to refuse the proposals that had been put in front of them and start again. He felt that the use of the Exe Estuary had reduced over the last 20 years.
Councillor Phil Twiss, had a question regarding the effect of future development of the Exe Estuary and also on the level of S106 funding. The Delivery Manager reported there was a 10km zone of influence for development around the designated wildlife site. These were the people in new housing likely to have a future influence on the Exe. Local Plans for the three Districts anticipated the development of 30,000 homes in these zones. Councillor Twiss did consider that the opinions of members of the public had been taken into account during the process.