To discuss the issues relating to any future application for a Harbour Revision Order.
Minutes:
The Engineering, Waterways and Parking Service Manager referred to the Council’s commitment to achieving Port Marine Safety Code compliance with the process having commenced through the formation of the Harbour Board. A successful application for a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) would help to ensure the safe running of the port, having sufficient powers to be able to levy harbour dues on vessels and carry out appropriate enforcement on the river and canal. In recent years, the Council has demonstrated an ambition to run a safe port, has invested in patrol boats, and ensured competent and qualified staff carried out the appropriate maintenance of the buoys and navigation aids.
He invited Members of the Harbour Board to offer their views on an application for a HRO being made, as well as any other course of action they might suggest. The views of the Board would be included in a report to the Executive and Full Council with any cost implication for consideration. It was acknowledged that making an application would be both a costly and lengthy exercise and include legal advice being sought, garnering evidence for the application from users and stakeholders as well as appropriate advertising through public notices. An estimate of £75,000 for the cost of submitting an application had been suggested, but this did not take into account any additional work required for any challenge that may be subsequently made. The Port Users Group as one of the Board’s main stakeholders had already commented along with informal feedback from the Estuary users that there was a greater appreciation that any future charges levied would be used to make the port self-sufficient financially with any improvements for the good of the users.
Where appropriate, the Engineering, Waterways and Parking Service Manager gave the following responses to Board Members’ comments and enquiries (the response was in italics).
· we are one of the only ports that does not have Marine Port Compliance and the Board Member had some concern over the lack of progress in pursuing a HRO to address this. The canal was virtually the only inland waterway in the country that was not part of the British Canal Licensing Scheme and, whilst it was not about seeking additional revenue, it should be about investing in extra facilities that could be accessible to all. There had been a great deal of scene setting and discussions on how a HRO would be progressed, what it might cost and how we might fund it, and how such a request would fit in with the Council’s Committee process over the forthcoming autumn period.
· whilst we should commend the Council and officers for the work they have done so far, applying for a HRO required careful consideration. Some individuals may perceive a HRO proposal as the opportunity to simply put regulations in place or raise finances, but this was clearly not the case. One of the reasons that the previous HRO in 2003 had met so much objection was centred on the lack of income opportunities and the financial viability of a third party taking on a Trust Port model at the time. Any future HRO bid would be less contentious as it would not involve a transfer of responsibility but simply enable the Council the appropriate powers to manage the port in a safer manner.
· the Board Member welcomed an application for a HRO and enquired if it would be possible to take a report to the Executive in September. It was anticipated that a report seeking the views of the Executive and Council on commencing work on an application for a HRO would be made in the autumn.
· the objectives set at the Visioning event should have net zero and biodiversity considerations embedded into the process as well as ensuring every appropriate opportunity to derive some revenue from the canal and river.
· there should be an appreciation that Exeter’s application for a HRO was starting from a low base but the experienced team should help to push this forward.
· in supporting an application for a HRO this could resolve the lack of any powers of enforcement, as well as ensuring other additional financial and environmental benefits for the Port.
· the Board Member welcomed making an application and a more holistic approach, including that the neighbouring partner authorities of East Devon and Teignbridge Councils would help the process, with a future conversation on the introduction of necessary byelaws.
The Harbour Master referred to the efforts made to ensure a safe environment and educating and reminding people of the dangers posed by speeding. They do need some form of deterrent and in response to a Board Member’s question, any new powers would provide the City Council with greater enforcement capabilities, particularly in respect of jet-skis and similar small craft not designated as ‘a vessel’ under previous legislation. Kite surfing was also becoming increasingly popular and they moved across the channel at low water which was particularly hazardous. He advised that existing patrols were making some difference.
The Chair referred to comments received from Board Member, Owen Michaelson who was unable to attend the meeting, but who had referred to the adoption of powers to adhere to the Port Marine Safety Code to keep the river and canal as a safe place for commercial and recreational use, and to a level appropriate and relevant to the risks within the Port of Exeter and being clear about the reasons for applying for HRO status.
The Chair presented a recommendation for a report to be made to the Executive. Members reiterated a number of comments in support of pursuing a HRO which included:-
· to move forward to achieving Port Marine Safety Code Compliance
· to regulate the waterways and enable appropriate enforcement powers
· to move towards a financially sustainably port by providing the opportunity to levy Harbour dues
· to include net zero and sustainability considerations
RESOLVED that the Exeter Harbour Board endorsed an application for a Harbour Revision Order be made with a report to the Executive with the Board’s request, setting out the process and associated costs for their consideration.