Agenda item

To consider a report of the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services seeking Harbour Works Consent.

The Board considered a report of the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services seeking approval to a Harbour Works Consent application.

The Chairman once again emphasised that consent must be judged only on navigation and environmental grounds.

The Marine Director noted that the Appropriate Assessment on the Harbour Works’ Consent application was compliant with requirements under the Habitats Regulations having consulted with Natural England.

Regarding the safety of navigation, the Marine Director noted that the risks associated with the proposal could be reduced to a level that was as low as reasonably practicable. 

A member noted that whilst the proposal was compliant with Habitat Regulations, disappointment was noted that there were no net gains to biodiversity offered in the proposed plan.

Another Member noted that the plan assumed that everyone navigating the River was fully competent. It was further noted that the Crown Estate had already declined to agree to the proposal. The Member therefore asked why Board’s approval was being sought on a proposal that was purely hypothetical.

It was noted that this application for Harbour Works’ Consent was extant and that the Board was bound to consider it, regardless of any decision by the Crown Estate.

It was asked whether, in the light of any granting of Harbour Works’ Consent, part of the proposal within the Marina might be built, notwithstanding the Crown Estate decision outside the curtilage. The Marine Director made clear that the plan being considered was only that within the proposal.  Any part of it would require a different navigational risk assessment and so this consent would not be valid.  A separate application would need to be made for consideration. 

Another Member expressed a view that the Application would reduce number of privately available moorings on the River and that, accordingly, they would oppose the proposal.

It was asked if the developer for this proposal had any other plans outstanding. In reply it was noted that no other plans had been submitted for approval.

It was noted that outside factors beyond the purview of the River Hamble Harbour Board should not affect the Board’s decision. In the event that the Application were rejected based on factors not related to the safety of navigation or environmental compliance, then the matter might be made subject to a reasonable appeal.

RESOLVED:

A verbal vote was undertaken, with 3 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

With this vote River Hamble Harbour Board therefore approved Harbour Works’ Consent for the proposal set out in Section 4 of this report and subject to the following conditions

a.    The proposal to be built in accordance with the details, plans and method set out in paragraph 4.

b. The development is constructed in accordance with the guidance given in the industry Code of Practice for the design of marinas.

 c. Vibro-piling should be used as a standard rather than percussive piling. In the event that it is necessary to use percussive piling, soft-start procedures must be employed over a period of at least 20 minutes. Should piling cease for a period of greater than 10 minutes then the soft start procedure must be repeated.

 d. Percussive piling should only be permitted between 16 March and 29 November in any given year.

 e. The development must be completed within 3 years from the date of the approval granted by the Harbour Board.