Yorkshire Post.
Block urged on £2.8m marina plan
LEADERS of Whitby's tourism and business sectors are asking their MP to intervene to block Scarborough Council's plans for a new £2.8m marina in the upper harbour at Whitby.
Five non-political community organisations, including Whitby Beacon Town Forum, have told Robert Goodwill that Whitby's reputation as a historic port will not be improved by a "run-of-the-mill" development.Their letter has been copied to Local Government Minister Ruth Kelly, Euro-MPs, the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber, the Environment Department and others, including regional development agency Yorkshire Forward.They wrote: "We call on you as our MP to intervene quickly in Scarborough Borough Council's unwelcome plans to impose their Water Resource Centre on Whitby harbour."With Scarborough Council as the applicant, the planning authority, the site owner and the future landlord, we feel their urgency in pushing this over-development through the planning process has more to do with grabbing grants and avoiding new legislation than with sustainable or sympathetic development."It is claimed that in total the council has made 80 changes to the plans.
It says they are minor changes but the objectors claim they include the re-design of the steel framework, extra steel bracing resulting in different window positions and the need to change the door positions.They ask: "How can Scarborough Council claim that these are just 'minor amendments' to the original planning application? In truth, this is a very different building from the original proposal and a whole new planning application should be started from the beginning."The council's Water Resource Centre is already the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman alleging consultation with residents was a sham. The scheme attracted 100 letters of objection and a 2,500-signature petition but was approved 9-4.The letter said: "The plans for Scarborough Council's Water Resource Carbuncle should be abandoned in favour of the low-key and small-scale improvements in marina facilities which were originally requested by the users of Whitby Marina."The objectors told Mr Goodwill: "Scarborough Council claims to be 'a listening council, in touch with the local community'. We are the local community, we have told them it is not wanted nor needed and they are not listening to us. Maybe they will listen to you?"Scarborough Council had nobody available to comment.
March 14, 2007
Resort temporary parking
Resort temporary parking plan to avert marina scheme chaos
PLANS have been drawn up to prevent work on a marina scheme from causing traffic chaos in Whitby – including letting many vehicles park on a pitch and putt course.
Work on the development is due to start early this year and will result in the temporary loss of a large number of bays on the marina front car park and the marina users' car park.At present the marina front site has 96 pay and display spaces while the unmarked marina users' facility can accommodate about 80 vehicles and the potential loss of income is £100,000.The number of coaches allowed to park on the marina back car park will also be reduced to 20 a day from May to September, leaving operators hunting for alternative spaces.As well as parking congestion, and the council's income, there could be an impact on the local tourism economy unless temporary spaces are laid out.Head of engineering John Riby said the preferred solution was expected to at least balance the financial loss and included using land next to the West Cliff car park, at present a pitch and putt course, for temporary parking from May to September.
Mr Riby added that the council would have to compensate the tenant, but it was likely that the parking revenue from the land would easily offset this figure.He said temporary signing would be provided for visitors. Consultations would be carried out with town councillors, traders in Langbourne Road, tourism and hospitality associations and highways experts.Scarborough councillors will be recommended to approve the arrangements at a meeting today, clearing the way for legal agreements to be drawn up.
PLANS have been drawn up to prevent work on a marina scheme from causing traffic chaos in Whitby – including letting many vehicles park on a pitch and putt course.
Work on the development is due to start early this year and will result in the temporary loss of a large number of bays on the marina front car park and the marina users' car park.At present the marina front site has 96 pay and display spaces while the unmarked marina users' facility can accommodate about 80 vehicles and the potential loss of income is £100,000.The number of coaches allowed to park on the marina back car park will also be reduced to 20 a day from May to September, leaving operators hunting for alternative spaces.As well as parking congestion, and the council's income, there could be an impact on the local tourism economy unless temporary spaces are laid out.Head of engineering John Riby said the preferred solution was expected to at least balance the financial loss and included using land next to the West Cliff car park, at present a pitch and putt course, for temporary parking from May to September.
Mr Riby added that the council would have to compensate the tenant, but it was likely that the parking revenue from the land would easily offset this figure.He said temporary signing would be provided for visitors. Consultations would be carried out with town councillors, traders in Langbourne Road, tourism and hospitality associations and highways experts.Scarborough councillors will be recommended to approve the arrangements at a meeting today, clearing the way for legal agreements to be drawn up.
Marina Development
New move to stop marina.
The organisations – Whitby Beacon Town Forum, Whitby Hospitality Association, Whitby and District Tourism Association, Whitby Chamber of Trade and Whitby Marina Action Group – have sent a letter to Robert Goodwill asking him to step in.
The groups ask Mr Goodwill to intervene quickly in the council’s “unwelcome plans to impose their Water Resource Centre on Whitby harbour.”The letter has been copied to European MPs, the Government office for Yorkshire and Humber, local government minister Ruth Kelly, the Environment Department and Yorkshire Forward among others.It states: “With Scarborough Council as the applicant, the planning authority, the site owner and the future landlord, we feel their urgency in pushing this over-development through the planning process has more to do with grabbing grants and avoiding new legislation than with sustainable or sympathetic development.”John Freeman, chairman of Whitby Marina Action Group, said that they were moved to act after nearly 80 changes were made to the original planning application.He said: “With the amount of changes they have made it is definitely a new development and we felt we had to do something.“This will go the same way as the Tourist Information Centre where they told us what they were going to do with and that’s what we got.”The five organisations are calling for a halt to the proposed development until three conditions have been met.The first is until the Ombudsman’s report on the council’s standard of consultation on this project has been published, although the group claim the council has said it will ignore the findings. The council has strongly denied this was ever said.They also ask for an updated flood risk assessment to be carried out on the newly re-designated Zone 3 flood plain
The organisations – Whitby Beacon Town Forum, Whitby Hospitality Association, Whitby and District Tourism Association, Whitby Chamber of Trade and Whitby Marina Action Group – have sent a letter to Robert Goodwill asking him to step in.
The groups ask Mr Goodwill to intervene quickly in the council’s “unwelcome plans to impose their Water Resource Centre on Whitby harbour.”The letter has been copied to European MPs, the Government office for Yorkshire and Humber, local government minister Ruth Kelly, the Environment Department and Yorkshire Forward among others.It states: “With Scarborough Council as the applicant, the planning authority, the site owner and the future landlord, we feel their urgency in pushing this over-development through the planning process has more to do with grabbing grants and avoiding new legislation than with sustainable or sympathetic development.”John Freeman, chairman of Whitby Marina Action Group, said that they were moved to act after nearly 80 changes were made to the original planning application.He said: “With the amount of changes they have made it is definitely a new development and we felt we had to do something.“This will go the same way as the Tourist Information Centre where they told us what they were going to do with and that’s what we got.”The five organisations are calling for a halt to the proposed development until three conditions have been met.The first is until the Ombudsman’s report on the council’s standard of consultation on this project has been published, although the group claim the council has said it will ignore the findings. The council has strongly denied this was ever said.They also ask for an updated flood risk assessment to be carried out on the newly re-designated Zone 3 flood plain
March 08, 2007
Lift In
This years lift in on Saturday the 31st March"should not be affected by the development work on the Marina."
The fishing boats who traditionally use the main pontoon in winter have already been moved to the new visitor berths at Endeavour Wharf.
The existing pontoons are to be replaced work commencing on the 19th of March and should be completed in 3 or 4 days. The power supply will be installed at a later date and will involve the use of meters. At this stage we do not know when the water supply will be available but it is hoped it will be in by the 1st April.
The fishing boats who traditionally use the main pontoon in winter have already been moved to the new visitor berths at Endeavour Wharf.
The existing pontoons are to be replaced work commencing on the 19th of March and should be completed in 3 or 4 days. The power supply will be installed at a later date and will involve the use of meters. At this stage we do not know when the water supply will be available but it is hoped it will be in by the 1st April.
March 01, 2007
Opportunities for Ports in Local Authority Ownership
Extract from ‘Opportunities for Ports in Local Authority Ownership: A Review of Municipal ports in England and Wales’ published by the Department for Communities and Local Government and Department for Transport – May 2006
1. Executive Summary
The reasons behind this review
1.1 Work on the Trust Port Review clearly indicated that many of the issues raised by
that review around accountability, governance and finance were shared with the municipal
sector. This view was reinforced by feedback from the annual exercise to allocate
Supplementary Credit Approvals aimed to support essential safety and maintenance
works in the municipal sector.
1.2 Government’s commitment towards this review of the role, status and constitution of
municipal ports was contained in “Modern Ports – a UK Policy” published in November
2000. In delivering this review the Department worked closely with the British Ports
Association (BPA) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).
The methodology employed
1.3 The conclusions of this review are derived from the results of a questionnaire sent
out to 61 municipal ports in England and Wales and their owning authorities supported by
a closer scrutiny of a representative cross section of visits involving discussions with the
port managers, portfolio holders, chief executives, the owning authorities and some MP’s.
The entire review process has been closely supported by a working group of municipal
port managers and the BPA.
Key findings
Accountability and decision making
1.4 As a direct result of the ‘Modernising Local Government’ initiative many ports now
report to a small committee, portfolio holder or cabinet member.
1.5 This has led to concerns from some of the consultees about the capacity and
capability of harbour management. There is a perception that in some cases authorities’
management structures are failing to provide appropriate accountability, there is
insufficient stakeholder involvement, and that some portfolio holders are not seen as
accountable to the full council for the decisions they make.
Strategy and business planning
1.6 Concerns have been expressed that many local authorities are pitching dues at a
level designed to maximise income from lucrative visitor leisure traffic. Such a policy could
be in danger of excluding local stakeholders who have traditionally used the harbour
facilities for business and domestic pleasure purposes.
1.7 Local authorities need to have a clear idea of what they want to achieve from
ownership of a commercial/industrial port as opposed to a leisure/ tourist harbour.
Management and performance review
1.8 Like trust ports, municipal ports are operated for the benefit of stakeholders
including the local community but, unlike trusts, they are not in general governed by an
independent, bespoke, expert and directly accountable body. Instead municipal ports
generally form an integral part of the local authority and are treated the same way as any
other service.
Municipal port finances
1.9 Some consultees felt that local authority accounting methods were not well suited to
the needs of a commercial body. Failure to separate port accounts from those of the
owning authorities has also hindered systematic provision for maintenance and
development and prevented sensible commercial business planning.
The way forward
1.10 Canterbury City Council conducted a best value review of Whitstable. This was
carried out by an independent consultant. This review concluded that a (new style trust)
harbour management committee ( “HMC”) structure (incorporating some elements of the
trust port management structure) was the best option. They consider that this has since
been borne out in practice.
In view of our analysis of the data collected, the report makes the following
recommendations. We invite local authorities to consider the circumstances of their
ports in the light of these recommendations.
Accountability and decision making
1.11 Each authority should already have in place a mechanism to review and scrutinise
decisions and actions by the executive in relation to its port. Overview and scrutiny
committees should be used to question authorities’ discharge of their functions in
managing their ports.
1.12 Each authority, where ports are a responsibility of the executive, should keep under
review the effectiveness of its existing systems for the delegation of functions, so it is
clear what level of decision can be taken by the executive member, by the cabinet as a
group and by the full council.
1.13 Local authorities must accommodate underlying statutory requirements (both in local
government legislation and in any specific local harbours legislation) in their approach to
management of municipal ports. They should also seek to address stakeholder
requirements and take full account of the commercial realities of municipal port
operations.
1.14 Adoption of the structures recommended in Modernising Trust Ports: a Guide to
Good Governance (www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_shipping/documents/page/
dft_shipping_505328.pdf) could assist in addressing the reported concerns that relevant
stakeholders and those with relevant expertise have in practice been excluded from the
decision-making process in some ports, to the detriment of important issues such as
commercial viability, environment, health and safety.
Strategy and business planning
1.15 Municipal ports are in the main a local asset. Local authorities are strongly advised
to carefully consider, and to consult on, the impact of their policies on the communities
the ports serve.
1.16 Municipal ports should consider producing a business plan that looks at the future
prospects of the port and how it will meet the requirements of the stakeholders, who
should be involved in its development. The plan should review the strategy of the port and
present measurable objectives.
1.17 A local authority’s overview and scrutiny committee may wish to consider making a
specific inquiry into the role and status, including any statutory basis, of the municipal port
and whether this is compatible with the overarching objectives of the local authorities. The
committee may subsequently wish to review the circumstances of, and decisions taken
on, that port on a regular basis, e.g. by including port business as a permanent agenda
item for every overview and scrutiny meeting.
Management and performance review
1.18 Local authorities or municipal ports should undertake an audit of their current status,
benchmark themselves against the Modernising Trust Ports: a Guide to Good Governance
and adapt their structures accordingly.
1.19 When a local authority undertakes a review of its municipal port, the review should
be tailored to examine the port as a commercial operation, which allows the port
management the appropriate level of independence and flexibility.
1.20 Municipal ports may see benefits in assessing, on a regular basis, their level of
compliance with the benchmarks of good and accountable practice set out Modernising
Trust Ports: a Guide to Good Governance. Each port should set out an implementation
schedule for review. Ideally this should allow six months to formulate a plan and two years
for implementation.
Municipal port finances
1.21 We feel that municipal ports would benefit from the introduction of ‘assured
accounts’. We believe that any rental levy imposed on a municipal port by the owning
authority should be set within the memorandum of understanding between the port
managing body and the owning authority.
1.22 Where a municipal port is in receipt of an operational subsidy the owning authority
should explore, as a priority, the feasibility of adopting a strategy for delivering a
commercially viable port for the benefit of all stakeholders.
1.23 We believe that prudent and adequate provision should be made for capital asset
replacement and future development.
1.24 Local authorities should allow ports to undertake capital expenditure financed by
unsupported borrowing where the port can show that it can afford to service the debt.
The way forward
1.25 We believe that the trust port model as described in Modernising Trust Ports: a
Guide to Good Governance now offers many tried and tested benefits which are readily
transferable to the municipal ports sector and offer a real opportunity to provide municipal
ports with an accountable, expert and more responsive form of governance.
1.26 We recommend that all local authorities carefully consider whether the experience of
Canterbury City Council (Whitstable) and Cumbria County Council (Workington) (detailed
in Section 4) could bring similar benefits to their own ports.
1.27 Municipal ports should consider adopting and adapting the recommendations made
in the Modernising Trust Ports: A Guide to Good Governance. This sets out the
benchmarks in terms of board composition, appointment, performance and accountability.
1.28 The Municipal ports sector should consider establishing a similar scheme to run in
parallel with the beacon scheme that has been established by ODPM. This would provide
recognition of ports that have adopted the recommendations made within this review.
1.29 Department for Transport Ports Division will welcome future opportunities to discuss
with local authorities the ways forward for municipal ports.
1. Executive Summary
The reasons behind this review
1.1 Work on the Trust Port Review clearly indicated that many of the issues raised by
that review around accountability, governance and finance were shared with the municipal
sector. This view was reinforced by feedback from the annual exercise to allocate
Supplementary Credit Approvals aimed to support essential safety and maintenance
works in the municipal sector.
1.2 Government’s commitment towards this review of the role, status and constitution of
municipal ports was contained in “Modern Ports – a UK Policy” published in November
2000. In delivering this review the Department worked closely with the British Ports
Association (BPA) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).
The methodology employed
1.3 The conclusions of this review are derived from the results of a questionnaire sent
out to 61 municipal ports in England and Wales and their owning authorities supported by
a closer scrutiny of a representative cross section of visits involving discussions with the
port managers, portfolio holders, chief executives, the owning authorities and some MP’s.
The entire review process has been closely supported by a working group of municipal
port managers and the BPA.
Key findings
Accountability and decision making
1.4 As a direct result of the ‘Modernising Local Government’ initiative many ports now
report to a small committee, portfolio holder or cabinet member.
1.5 This has led to concerns from some of the consultees about the capacity and
capability of harbour management. There is a perception that in some cases authorities’
management structures are failing to provide appropriate accountability, there is
insufficient stakeholder involvement, and that some portfolio holders are not seen as
accountable to the full council for the decisions they make.
Strategy and business planning
1.6 Concerns have been expressed that many local authorities are pitching dues at a
level designed to maximise income from lucrative visitor leisure traffic. Such a policy could
be in danger of excluding local stakeholders who have traditionally used the harbour
facilities for business and domestic pleasure purposes.
1.7 Local authorities need to have a clear idea of what they want to achieve from
ownership of a commercial/industrial port as opposed to a leisure/ tourist harbour.
Management and performance review
1.8 Like trust ports, municipal ports are operated for the benefit of stakeholders
including the local community but, unlike trusts, they are not in general governed by an
independent, bespoke, expert and directly accountable body. Instead municipal ports
generally form an integral part of the local authority and are treated the same way as any
other service.
Municipal port finances
1.9 Some consultees felt that local authority accounting methods were not well suited to
the needs of a commercial body. Failure to separate port accounts from those of the
owning authorities has also hindered systematic provision for maintenance and
development and prevented sensible commercial business planning.
The way forward
1.10 Canterbury City Council conducted a best value review of Whitstable. This was
carried out by an independent consultant. This review concluded that a (new style trust)
harbour management committee ( “HMC”) structure (incorporating some elements of the
trust port management structure) was the best option. They consider that this has since
been borne out in practice.
In view of our analysis of the data collected, the report makes the following
recommendations. We invite local authorities to consider the circumstances of their
ports in the light of these recommendations.
Accountability and decision making
1.11 Each authority should already have in place a mechanism to review and scrutinise
decisions and actions by the executive in relation to its port. Overview and scrutiny
committees should be used to question authorities’ discharge of their functions in
managing their ports.
1.12 Each authority, where ports are a responsibility of the executive, should keep under
review the effectiveness of its existing systems for the delegation of functions, so it is
clear what level of decision can be taken by the executive member, by the cabinet as a
group and by the full council.
1.13 Local authorities must accommodate underlying statutory requirements (both in local
government legislation and in any specific local harbours legislation) in their approach to
management of municipal ports. They should also seek to address stakeholder
requirements and take full account of the commercial realities of municipal port
operations.
1.14 Adoption of the structures recommended in Modernising Trust Ports: a Guide to
Good Governance (www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_shipping/documents/page/
dft_shipping_505328.pdf) could assist in addressing the reported concerns that relevant
stakeholders and those with relevant expertise have in practice been excluded from the
decision-making process in some ports, to the detriment of important issues such as
commercial viability, environment, health and safety.
Strategy and business planning
1.15 Municipal ports are in the main a local asset. Local authorities are strongly advised
to carefully consider, and to consult on, the impact of their policies on the communities
the ports serve.
1.16 Municipal ports should consider producing a business plan that looks at the future
prospects of the port and how it will meet the requirements of the stakeholders, who
should be involved in its development. The plan should review the strategy of the port and
present measurable objectives.
1.17 A local authority’s overview and scrutiny committee may wish to consider making a
specific inquiry into the role and status, including any statutory basis, of the municipal port
and whether this is compatible with the overarching objectives of the local authorities. The
committee may subsequently wish to review the circumstances of, and decisions taken
on, that port on a regular basis, e.g. by including port business as a permanent agenda
item for every overview and scrutiny meeting.
Management and performance review
1.18 Local authorities or municipal ports should undertake an audit of their current status,
benchmark themselves against the Modernising Trust Ports: a Guide to Good Governance
and adapt their structures accordingly.
1.19 When a local authority undertakes a review of its municipal port, the review should
be tailored to examine the port as a commercial operation, which allows the port
management the appropriate level of independence and flexibility.
1.20 Municipal ports may see benefits in assessing, on a regular basis, their level of
compliance with the benchmarks of good and accountable practice set out Modernising
Trust Ports: a Guide to Good Governance. Each port should set out an implementation
schedule for review. Ideally this should allow six months to formulate a plan and two years
for implementation.
Municipal port finances
1.21 We feel that municipal ports would benefit from the introduction of ‘assured
accounts’. We believe that any rental levy imposed on a municipal port by the owning
authority should be set within the memorandum of understanding between the port
managing body and the owning authority.
1.22 Where a municipal port is in receipt of an operational subsidy the owning authority
should explore, as a priority, the feasibility of adopting a strategy for delivering a
commercially viable port for the benefit of all stakeholders.
1.23 We believe that prudent and adequate provision should be made for capital asset
replacement and future development.
1.24 Local authorities should allow ports to undertake capital expenditure financed by
unsupported borrowing where the port can show that it can afford to service the debt.
The way forward
1.25 We believe that the trust port model as described in Modernising Trust Ports: a
Guide to Good Governance now offers many tried and tested benefits which are readily
transferable to the municipal ports sector and offer a real opportunity to provide municipal
ports with an accountable, expert and more responsive form of governance.
1.26 We recommend that all local authorities carefully consider whether the experience of
Canterbury City Council (Whitstable) and Cumbria County Council (Workington) (detailed
in Section 4) could bring similar benefits to their own ports.
1.27 Municipal ports should consider adopting and adapting the recommendations made
in the Modernising Trust Ports: A Guide to Good Governance. This sets out the
benchmarks in terms of board composition, appointment, performance and accountability.
1.28 The Municipal ports sector should consider establishing a similar scheme to run in
parallel with the beacon scheme that has been established by ODPM. This would provide
recognition of ports that have adopted the recommendations made within this review.
1.29 Department for Transport Ports Division will welcome future opportunities to discuss
with local authorities the ways forward for municipal ports.
NOTES OF THE WHITBY HARBOUR USERS MEETING
NOTES OF THE WHITBY HARBOUR USERS MEETING
HELD IN WHITBY HARBOUR OFFICE, WHITBY
FRIDAY 12 JANUARY 2007 AT 2 PM
Present: Capt. W. Estill, Port Manager (Chairman)
Cllr B Christon, Portfolio Holder for Harbours and Performance Management
Mr G Benson, Whitby Cruising Association
Mr M Coates, Whitby Yacht Club
Mr K Hall, Financial Controller
Ms D Jeuda, Whitby Boating Association
Mr A Locker, Lockers Trawlers
Mr R Marsden, Whitby Coblemens Association
Mr J Riby, Head of Engineering and Harbour Services
Mr A Richards, Project Officer
Mr D Winspear, Alliance Fish
Mr J Whitton, Whitby Chartered Skippers Association
Mr J Woodhead, Northern Area Engineer
Mrs L Dale, Ports Administration
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Notes of Previous Meeting
The notes of the meeting held 6 October 2006 were agreed as a true record. (Appendix 1)
3. Matters Arising
Ice Quality – Mr Winspear wished to clarify that the ice at both Whitby and Scarborough were of a high quality but are of a different type.
Safety Ladders – Capt. Estill reported that Ms Jeuda and Mr Willis were in discussions to find a mutually acceptable date to test the ladders.
Ms Jeuda arrived during this item
4. Port Managers Report
Received: Port Managers Report (September to November 2006) (Appendix 2) Agreed: to note and accept the report
5. Port Marine Safety Code
Capt. Estill reported that only one incident had been reported to the office concerning a near miss between a fishing vessel and a private craft as they approached the harbour. All the necessary reports have been sent to the MCA but no further action is required.
/continued ….
- 2 -
6. Fees and Charges 2007/8
Capt. Estill reported that there had been large landings of prawns into both Whitby and Scarborough Harbours over the year and as an incentive to attract more vessels the ad valorem charge for nephrops had been reduced to 2%. He has had discussions with representatives of the industry who had all expressed interest in the reduction. Mr Locker asked if this reduction would be advertised in the Fishing Press. Capt. Estill reported that this had been his intention.
All other fees have been increased by 3%.
7. Fishing Industry Prospects – including Shellfish Holding Facility
Mr Locker reported that two of the larger vessels have left Scarborough Harbour and one of these has come to fish out of Whitby. Mr Locker expects that Whitby will become the primary port for 2007.
Mr Locker also reported changes to quota from the recent meeting in Brussels. Haddock quota increased by 5%, Whiting by 23%, Prawns reduced by 7%. Cod is reduced by 14%. The extra restrictions in cod fishing are at odds with the FRS and CEFAS science which indicates a 35% increase in cod.
Mr Locker reported that while the Whitby fleets landings have been reduced in weight their value has increased. There are good prawn and lemon sole fisheries off the coast. Mr Winspear reported that the cod landings over Christmas had shown a good mix of all sizes of fish – proving that the cod stocks are healthy and regenerating.
Shellfish Holding Facility – Capt. Estill reported that the application for a Government grant in November had failed and the Shellfish Holding Facility Liaison Group had met in November to explore possible options. The application had been refused due to ‘distortion of competition’ as a merchant had objected against the application. It is hoped to re-apply, perhaps for a smaller facility.
The meeting discussed the need for the facility and the essential role it would play in the future viability of shell fishermen. Capt. Estill reported that he had received an enquiry about the facility and products from Spain.
8. Whitby Upper Harbour Development
Mr Richards, Project Officer, reported that the funding is in place to deliver the project and the works have been split with the pontoon works taking place between January and April 2007 and the building and car parking works being completed by December 2007. The car parking works will affect the town and discussions with relevant parties have taken place to minimise disruption. Capt. Estill advised that a liaison group would be established to keep relevant agencies informed and try and deliver the project to everyone’s benefit.
Ms Jeuda asked for clarification regarding the available funding as the Ombudsman has not yet reported their findings. Mr Riby stated that Yorkshire Forward has attached conditions to the funding and the Council has considered the risks involved before making its decision to go ahead with the scheme. However, if the Ombudsman finds anything wrong then Yorkshire Forward can ask for their funding to be returned.
/continued ….
- 3 -
Ms Jeuda asked for confirmation that the Council had no prior knowledge of the Ombudsman’s decision before deciding to go ahead with the scheme. Mr Riby confirmed that this was the case.
Mr Riby stated that it has been current practice will all major SBC projects to form a liaison group to assist with delivery of projects. The meeting will be held in the Harbour Office and attendance will be limited. The remit of the Group is to minimise interference and discuss the practicalities of getting the scheme introduced. It will not be a public meeting.
Ms Jeuda stated that on behalf of the Whitby Boating Association she wished it to be on record that the projects is ill conceived and they consider their concerns have not been dealt with. She believes there were flaws in the consultation process and the way things were handled. However, she will work with the Council to approach the scheme in a constructive way.
Mr Coates also wished it to be placed on record that the Whitby Yacht Club echoed the statement made by Ms Jeuda.
Capt. Estill reported that the dredging was almost two thirds completed and the fishing boat pontoon previously located adjacent to Endeavour Wharf has been removed. Following the advice of the RYA consultant some extra visitor spaces will be provided by utilising the replaced pontoons, during the summer, off of Endeavour Wharf.
Mr Marsden asked about the fishing boat pontoon which had been removed. Capt. Estill assured the group that he had held discussions with each boat owner and they had all co-operated. The pontoon will be moved towards the corner and reinstated in the future.
9. Swing Bridge
Capt. Estill reported that despite the recent coverage in the press the bridge has not been neglected and a firm in Teesside has been engaged when urgent attention is required. There has been a problem with the East Leaf for the past 7-8 months but the part should be replaced within a week. A maintenance agreement is to be put in place to provide regular servicing and maintenance.
Mr Coates stated that the extra bridge openings had been a great success and asked if they could be extended for the full season, April to October, with extra lunch time bridges fortnightly to accommodate racing. He also requested that the extra bridges be included in the Reeds Almanac etc. Capt. Estill asked Ms Jeuda and Mr Coates to make an appointment to see him to discuss their requirements.
Ms Jeuda asked if the tide times could be calculated using ‘Reeds’ rather than the ‘Proudman Institutes’. Therefore vessels would not need to purchase a Tide Table booklet and the tide times could then be published on the website. Although, in some cases, there is up to 20 minutes difference between these tide times. Capt. Estill will investigate for 2008 as it is too late for this year.
ACTION: Capt.Estill
10. Dredging
Capt. Estill reported that the developments at Whitby and Scarborough Harbours had taken priority and as soon as the work in the marina area is completed then the entrance and other harbour areas will be addressed.
Ms Jeuda asked if the inside of the Church Street pontoon could be dredged. Capt. Estill stated that every effort would be made to fit this into the programme.
/continued ….
- 4 -
11. Eskside Wharf
Mr Riby reported that since initial discussions had been held and the possibility of toilets and showers on this area investigated other parties have expressed an interest in the area. The Joiners Shop is in a perilous state and requires removal. A report will be made to Cllr Christon for a decision as to how to proceed with the area.
Ms Jeuda requested that if there was to be a delay with the toilets etc, could access keys for the Main Pontoon be given for the Church Street users so they could row across to access the facilities.
Mr Locker stated that Parkol were now very successful and productive and one of the best boat builders in the UK. He thought that to use the area adjacent to the company as a car park was a nonsense and Parkol would be involving their MP.
Capt. Estill reported that the removal of the Joiners Shop would be delayed for 10 weeks as the electrics require removal.
12. RNLI Development
Capt. Estill reported that a completion date of April/May had been given for the new station.
13. Any Other Business
Group Remit and Terms of Reference – Mr Riby asked the Group to consider how it actually works, its remit, membership and functionality. Could the group be expanded or reduced to make it more productive. The Municipal Ports Review (MPR) suggests how ports should be organised and makes recommendations about consultative groups including membership from the voluntary sectors and environmental groups and should group members be trained? The recommendations made in the MPR will be considered after May and Mr Riby asked the group to consider the options and it could be discussed at the next meeting in April.
Mr Benson asked if the status of the group and its authority could be clarified.
Capt. Estill stated that the group cannot pass resolutions and has no decision making power but the Portfolio Holder is present at these meetings so that the groups views can be taken account of when decisions are being made.
Ms Jeuda agreed that the group should not have decision making powers but would like time to consider how the group could be taken forward and have a wider communication field to the other users. Ms Jeuda asked for a copy of the MPR Executive Summary to be distributed with the notes of the meeting.
ACTION: LMD
Mr Locker stated that the group fulfils its remit in its current form. It is an open forum for frank discussion with no decision making powers, as representatives of users of the harbour we try to make the best use of the harbour for all concerned.
Mr Winspear stated that he had been co-opted onto the Harbour Committee for many years and in his view those meetings had been taken over by Councillors trying to make decisions. He would hate to see the common sense, open approach of this group diluted by politically required people rather than those people who actually use the harbour.
/continued ….
- 5 -
WyBA Site Inspection – Ms Jeuda reported that she had undertaken a site inspection with Mr Cooper and the following points were highlighted:
i. The fire-fighting equipment was welcomed (fire gongs) and she hoped these would remain on the pontoons all year round. However the drying pontoon was unprotected and she asked for a gong to be placed on this pontoon also.
ii. The testing of the man overboard ladders had yet to take place but the delay was due to illness.
iii. The pontoons were being regularly cleaned.
iv. The float on the access to the Church Street pontoon requires attention. Capt. Estill is aware of this although solving the problem will take further investigation.
v. The toilet block now cleaned to a higher standard.
vi. Could a longer hose pipe and a fire gong be fitted to the drying pontoon. Capt. Estill to consider.
vii. As agreed could the word ‘Ladder’ be painted on the piles for the location of the man overboard ladders.
viii. Could the fixed ladder on the inside of the Main Pontoon be moved. The location will be decided upon when the new pontoons are put in place.
Ms Jeuda stated that overall she was pleased the authority seemed to have a more positive attitude to safety.
Fire Exercise – Whitby Yacht Club Pontoon – Mr Coates asked if the fire services had ever had an exercise within the harbour. Capt. Estill reported that while the fire brigade had inspected all pontoons an exercise had never taken place. Mr Coates asked if one could be arranged for the Yacht Club Pontoon. Capt. Estill stated that the pontoon was the responsibility of the Yacht Club and while the Harbour Office would assist if necessary it was up to them to make necessary arrangements, take required precautions and put procedures in place.
Fish Market Scaffolding – Mr Woodhead reported that scaffolding would be placed on the fish quay next week covering approximately 17 metres to replace five piles, it should be in place for approximately 2 weeks. The crab winch will be inaccessible during this time.
Discussion took place regarding the practicalities of landings for the smaller vessels if this winch was unavailable.
Capt. Estill agreed to investigate possibilities regarding a temporary replacement being used. ACTION: Capt. Estill
Fish Quay Crane – Mr Woodhead asked if the industry still required the crane to be moved up the quay, holes had previously been drilled. Mr Locker stated that the crane should be left where it is as it enabled increased use of the market. He also asked if the illegal parking of vans in this area could be addressed. Mr Marsden agreed with Mr Locker and stated that the crane should stay in its present location. However, there is a wiring fault which requires attention. ACTION: Capt. Estill
West Pier – Lower Level - Mr Woodhead reported that the lower level of the West Pier had been reopened after harbour staff had done an excellent job of fitting high tensile wire between the existing handrails.
/continued ….
- 6 -
East Pier Access Bridge – Mr Woodhead reported that it had been intended to replace this bridge as part of the coast protection works but funding for these has been stopped so it is unlikely that the bridge will be reinstated in the near future. Mr Riby added that these repairs had been taken to Council Members as a capital bid for £100,000 but had been viewed as low priority.
Locked Refuse Bin – Mr Coates asked why the marina refuse bin had been locked over the Christmas period? Capt. Estill to investigate.
ACTION: Capt. Estill
Endeavour Wharf - Mr Locker asked about the storage of crab pots on the wharf. Capt. Estill reported that all shell fishermen had been written to about the current situation which could not be allowed in the future. The quantity of pots on the wharf has caused problems and frustration for all concerned.
Church Street Car Parking – Mr Whitton asked if the charges for the car parks had been set yet. Capt. Estill reported that a copy of the proposed charges was held in the office and Mr Whitton would be provided with a copy if required.
14. Date of Next Meeting - Friday 13 April 2007
HELD IN WHITBY HARBOUR OFFICE, WHITBY
FRIDAY 12 JANUARY 2007 AT 2 PM
Present: Capt. W. Estill, Port Manager (Chairman)
Cllr B Christon, Portfolio Holder for Harbours and Performance Management
Mr G Benson, Whitby Cruising Association
Mr M Coates, Whitby Yacht Club
Mr K Hall, Financial Controller
Ms D Jeuda, Whitby Boating Association
Mr A Locker, Lockers Trawlers
Mr R Marsden, Whitby Coblemens Association
Mr J Riby, Head of Engineering and Harbour Services
Mr A Richards, Project Officer
Mr D Winspear, Alliance Fish
Mr J Whitton, Whitby Chartered Skippers Association
Mr J Woodhead, Northern Area Engineer
Mrs L Dale, Ports Administration
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Notes of Previous Meeting
The notes of the meeting held 6 October 2006 were agreed as a true record. (Appendix 1)
3. Matters Arising
Ice Quality – Mr Winspear wished to clarify that the ice at both Whitby and Scarborough were of a high quality but are of a different type.
Safety Ladders – Capt. Estill reported that Ms Jeuda and Mr Willis were in discussions to find a mutually acceptable date to test the ladders.
Ms Jeuda arrived during this item
4. Port Managers Report
Received: Port Managers Report (September to November 2006) (Appendix 2) Agreed: to note and accept the report
5. Port Marine Safety Code
Capt. Estill reported that only one incident had been reported to the office concerning a near miss between a fishing vessel and a private craft as they approached the harbour. All the necessary reports have been sent to the MCA but no further action is required.
/continued ….
- 2 -
6. Fees and Charges 2007/8
Capt. Estill reported that there had been large landings of prawns into both Whitby and Scarborough Harbours over the year and as an incentive to attract more vessels the ad valorem charge for nephrops had been reduced to 2%. He has had discussions with representatives of the industry who had all expressed interest in the reduction. Mr Locker asked if this reduction would be advertised in the Fishing Press. Capt. Estill reported that this had been his intention.
All other fees have been increased by 3%.
7. Fishing Industry Prospects – including Shellfish Holding Facility
Mr Locker reported that two of the larger vessels have left Scarborough Harbour and one of these has come to fish out of Whitby. Mr Locker expects that Whitby will become the primary port for 2007.
Mr Locker also reported changes to quota from the recent meeting in Brussels. Haddock quota increased by 5%, Whiting by 23%, Prawns reduced by 7%. Cod is reduced by 14%. The extra restrictions in cod fishing are at odds with the FRS and CEFAS science which indicates a 35% increase in cod.
Mr Locker reported that while the Whitby fleets landings have been reduced in weight their value has increased. There are good prawn and lemon sole fisheries off the coast. Mr Winspear reported that the cod landings over Christmas had shown a good mix of all sizes of fish – proving that the cod stocks are healthy and regenerating.
Shellfish Holding Facility – Capt. Estill reported that the application for a Government grant in November had failed and the Shellfish Holding Facility Liaison Group had met in November to explore possible options. The application had been refused due to ‘distortion of competition’ as a merchant had objected against the application. It is hoped to re-apply, perhaps for a smaller facility.
The meeting discussed the need for the facility and the essential role it would play in the future viability of shell fishermen. Capt. Estill reported that he had received an enquiry about the facility and products from Spain.
8. Whitby Upper Harbour Development
Mr Richards, Project Officer, reported that the funding is in place to deliver the project and the works have been split with the pontoon works taking place between January and April 2007 and the building and car parking works being completed by December 2007. The car parking works will affect the town and discussions with relevant parties have taken place to minimise disruption. Capt. Estill advised that a liaison group would be established to keep relevant agencies informed and try and deliver the project to everyone’s benefit.
Ms Jeuda asked for clarification regarding the available funding as the Ombudsman has not yet reported their findings. Mr Riby stated that Yorkshire Forward has attached conditions to the funding and the Council has considered the risks involved before making its decision to go ahead with the scheme. However, if the Ombudsman finds anything wrong then Yorkshire Forward can ask for their funding to be returned.
/continued ….
- 3 -
Ms Jeuda asked for confirmation that the Council had no prior knowledge of the Ombudsman’s decision before deciding to go ahead with the scheme. Mr Riby confirmed that this was the case.
Mr Riby stated that it has been current practice will all major SBC projects to form a liaison group to assist with delivery of projects. The meeting will be held in the Harbour Office and attendance will be limited. The remit of the Group is to minimise interference and discuss the practicalities of getting the scheme introduced. It will not be a public meeting.
Ms Jeuda stated that on behalf of the Whitby Boating Association she wished it to be on record that the projects is ill conceived and they consider their concerns have not been dealt with. She believes there were flaws in the consultation process and the way things were handled. However, she will work with the Council to approach the scheme in a constructive way.
Mr Coates also wished it to be placed on record that the Whitby Yacht Club echoed the statement made by Ms Jeuda.
Capt. Estill reported that the dredging was almost two thirds completed and the fishing boat pontoon previously located adjacent to Endeavour Wharf has been removed. Following the advice of the RYA consultant some extra visitor spaces will be provided by utilising the replaced pontoons, during the summer, off of Endeavour Wharf.
Mr Marsden asked about the fishing boat pontoon which had been removed. Capt. Estill assured the group that he had held discussions with each boat owner and they had all co-operated. The pontoon will be moved towards the corner and reinstated in the future.
9. Swing Bridge
Capt. Estill reported that despite the recent coverage in the press the bridge has not been neglected and a firm in Teesside has been engaged when urgent attention is required. There has been a problem with the East Leaf for the past 7-8 months but the part should be replaced within a week. A maintenance agreement is to be put in place to provide regular servicing and maintenance.
Mr Coates stated that the extra bridge openings had been a great success and asked if they could be extended for the full season, April to October, with extra lunch time bridges fortnightly to accommodate racing. He also requested that the extra bridges be included in the Reeds Almanac etc. Capt. Estill asked Ms Jeuda and Mr Coates to make an appointment to see him to discuss their requirements.
Ms Jeuda asked if the tide times could be calculated using ‘Reeds’ rather than the ‘Proudman Institutes’. Therefore vessels would not need to purchase a Tide Table booklet and the tide times could then be published on the website. Although, in some cases, there is up to 20 minutes difference between these tide times. Capt. Estill will investigate for 2008 as it is too late for this year.
ACTION: Capt.Estill
10. Dredging
Capt. Estill reported that the developments at Whitby and Scarborough Harbours had taken priority and as soon as the work in the marina area is completed then the entrance and other harbour areas will be addressed.
Ms Jeuda asked if the inside of the Church Street pontoon could be dredged. Capt. Estill stated that every effort would be made to fit this into the programme.
/continued ….
- 4 -
11. Eskside Wharf
Mr Riby reported that since initial discussions had been held and the possibility of toilets and showers on this area investigated other parties have expressed an interest in the area. The Joiners Shop is in a perilous state and requires removal. A report will be made to Cllr Christon for a decision as to how to proceed with the area.
Ms Jeuda requested that if there was to be a delay with the toilets etc, could access keys for the Main Pontoon be given for the Church Street users so they could row across to access the facilities.
Mr Locker stated that Parkol were now very successful and productive and one of the best boat builders in the UK. He thought that to use the area adjacent to the company as a car park was a nonsense and Parkol would be involving their MP.
Capt. Estill reported that the removal of the Joiners Shop would be delayed for 10 weeks as the electrics require removal.
12. RNLI Development
Capt. Estill reported that a completion date of April/May had been given for the new station.
13. Any Other Business
Group Remit and Terms of Reference – Mr Riby asked the Group to consider how it actually works, its remit, membership and functionality. Could the group be expanded or reduced to make it more productive. The Municipal Ports Review (MPR) suggests how ports should be organised and makes recommendations about consultative groups including membership from the voluntary sectors and environmental groups and should group members be trained? The recommendations made in the MPR will be considered after May and Mr Riby asked the group to consider the options and it could be discussed at the next meeting in April.
Mr Benson asked if the status of the group and its authority could be clarified.
Capt. Estill stated that the group cannot pass resolutions and has no decision making power but the Portfolio Holder is present at these meetings so that the groups views can be taken account of when decisions are being made.
Ms Jeuda agreed that the group should not have decision making powers but would like time to consider how the group could be taken forward and have a wider communication field to the other users. Ms Jeuda asked for a copy of the MPR Executive Summary to be distributed with the notes of the meeting.
ACTION: LMD
Mr Locker stated that the group fulfils its remit in its current form. It is an open forum for frank discussion with no decision making powers, as representatives of users of the harbour we try to make the best use of the harbour for all concerned.
Mr Winspear stated that he had been co-opted onto the Harbour Committee for many years and in his view those meetings had been taken over by Councillors trying to make decisions. He would hate to see the common sense, open approach of this group diluted by politically required people rather than those people who actually use the harbour.
/continued ….
- 5 -
WyBA Site Inspection – Ms Jeuda reported that she had undertaken a site inspection with Mr Cooper and the following points were highlighted:
i. The fire-fighting equipment was welcomed (fire gongs) and she hoped these would remain on the pontoons all year round. However the drying pontoon was unprotected and she asked for a gong to be placed on this pontoon also.
ii. The testing of the man overboard ladders had yet to take place but the delay was due to illness.
iii. The pontoons were being regularly cleaned.
iv. The float on the access to the Church Street pontoon requires attention. Capt. Estill is aware of this although solving the problem will take further investigation.
v. The toilet block now cleaned to a higher standard.
vi. Could a longer hose pipe and a fire gong be fitted to the drying pontoon. Capt. Estill to consider.
vii. As agreed could the word ‘Ladder’ be painted on the piles for the location of the man overboard ladders.
viii. Could the fixed ladder on the inside of the Main Pontoon be moved. The location will be decided upon when the new pontoons are put in place.
Ms Jeuda stated that overall she was pleased the authority seemed to have a more positive attitude to safety.
Fire Exercise – Whitby Yacht Club Pontoon – Mr Coates asked if the fire services had ever had an exercise within the harbour. Capt. Estill reported that while the fire brigade had inspected all pontoons an exercise had never taken place. Mr Coates asked if one could be arranged for the Yacht Club Pontoon. Capt. Estill stated that the pontoon was the responsibility of the Yacht Club and while the Harbour Office would assist if necessary it was up to them to make necessary arrangements, take required precautions and put procedures in place.
Fish Market Scaffolding – Mr Woodhead reported that scaffolding would be placed on the fish quay next week covering approximately 17 metres to replace five piles, it should be in place for approximately 2 weeks. The crab winch will be inaccessible during this time.
Discussion took place regarding the practicalities of landings for the smaller vessels if this winch was unavailable.
Capt. Estill agreed to investigate possibilities regarding a temporary replacement being used. ACTION: Capt. Estill
Fish Quay Crane – Mr Woodhead asked if the industry still required the crane to be moved up the quay, holes had previously been drilled. Mr Locker stated that the crane should be left where it is as it enabled increased use of the market. He also asked if the illegal parking of vans in this area could be addressed. Mr Marsden agreed with Mr Locker and stated that the crane should stay in its present location. However, there is a wiring fault which requires attention. ACTION: Capt. Estill
West Pier – Lower Level - Mr Woodhead reported that the lower level of the West Pier had been reopened after harbour staff had done an excellent job of fitting high tensile wire between the existing handrails.
/continued ….
- 6 -
East Pier Access Bridge – Mr Woodhead reported that it had been intended to replace this bridge as part of the coast protection works but funding for these has been stopped so it is unlikely that the bridge will be reinstated in the near future. Mr Riby added that these repairs had been taken to Council Members as a capital bid for £100,000 but had been viewed as low priority.
Locked Refuse Bin – Mr Coates asked why the marina refuse bin had been locked over the Christmas period? Capt. Estill to investigate.
ACTION: Capt. Estill
Endeavour Wharf - Mr Locker asked about the storage of crab pots on the wharf. Capt. Estill reported that all shell fishermen had been written to about the current situation which could not be allowed in the future. The quantity of pots on the wharf has caused problems and frustration for all concerned.
Church Street Car Parking – Mr Whitton asked if the charges for the car parks had been set yet. Capt. Estill reported that a copy of the proposed charges was held in the office and Mr Whitton would be provided with a copy if required.
14. Date of Next Meeting - Friday 13 April 2007