6
The Head of Operations stated that some of these matters, such as harbour limits and sale of land, had been picked up before the Harbour Revision Order (HRO) had been submitted. The Head of Operations invited Lara Moore, Partner at Ashfords, to address the Committee.
Ms Moore stated that Ashfords were checking with the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) that all responses had been received. If anything was outstanding or missing this would be addressed.
A total of twelve responses had been received and only five of these would require a response by the Council. Responses from the British Ports Association, Trinity House, Crown Estate, Department for Transport and Maritime and Coastguard Agency were fairly standard and did not require any additional response.
A number of respondents had raised the question of whether the 'third field' on the campsite could be included in the HRO. Ms Moore stated this was doable but would need working through with the MMO as they would not automatically view the caravan site as harbour lands. It might be that this plot had be referred to as something else to ensure it could be included as ‘harbour land’ was land that was adjacent to the harbour used solely for the purpose of the harbour. Ms Moore agreed that this was land that was important to the harbour as it contributed to the income of the harbour.
Mr Flunder stated this issue was being discussed between Southwold Town Council and East Suffolk Council to agree the ownership of the land. Ms Moore stated that ownership of the land did not make a huge difference within the terms of a HRO, harbour premises did not necessarily need to be owned by the harbour authority. The Chair agreed that the ownership issue needed to be resolved, but this would be done outside of the HRO process. When agreement has been reached on this, this land could be included and protected as part of the harbour and the Council was willing in principle to include it.
Ms Moore stated that regarding the Maritime and Coastguard Agency response concerning the boarding of vessels was a standard response, and some standard wording would be included around this.
Ms Moore confirmed that any representations that required a formal response from the Council would receive a response via Ashfords and would move forward from there. Ms Moore noted that the quality of the responses was very high and all points had been put across in a thought out manner.
Regarding the response from the Southwold Caravan Owners Association and concerns over the sale of harbour land, Ms Moore stated that a new HRO meant that land needed for the harbour undertaking could not be sold. 'Need' not only referred to operational need, but land that was needed for income generation. If land that generated income was sold, there needed to be proof of where the income to replace this would come from and this was not a small hurdle to overcome. Ms Moore stated that if she was engaged on any matter such as this, she would advise harbour authorities to demonstrate that they would not be affected by the loss of this income. In the terms of the HRO the harbour authority would be under a statutory obligation to consult the advisory group before any decisions were made. Ms Moore stated that she believed there were sufficient safeguards in the harbour order, but that the Council could also create a policy on this to provide additional reassurance.
Ms Perry-Yates stated that the concern was not that land would be sold immediately but that land could be sold in fifty or a hundred years. It may be that the caravan site was not the main income generator at this point, and so it would meet the criteria and be sold. Ms Moore stated that she agreed that this might be the case, however the MMO and Department for Transport would be unlikely to agree to fetter the ability of the harbour authority to sell land as there might be a future requirement that land be sold. There had been suggestions in some responses that the Secretary of State had to be consulted, Ms Moore stated that the MMO would not agree to this.
Mr Flunder stated that the Stakeholder Advisory Group believed that the drafting was sufficiently open to be a risk. Regarding income, sale of land would provide some income and this would fit the criteria. Ms Moore stated it would give capital income not long term revenue, and this would run out as the area of land that generated income had been lost. The terms in the HRO regarding the sale of land were the standard provisions that were applied to most HROs and it was not efficient or economic to have further restrictions on the sale of land. Ms Moore stated it would not be her advice to the Council to change the wording on the HRO on this point. To sell land, the harbour authority already had to prove they did not need it, consult the advisory group which was a statutory requirement, and then there could be a judicial review. The only further requirement that could be added would be that the Department for Transport had to be consulted at the same time as the advisory group. Mr MacFarlane stated that harbours did not generally sell land within their statutory area because it was so difficult to do. The HRO protected land within its boundary more than any other means. Ms Moore stated that the Department for Transport would not want to be required to approve the sale of land, but it might be possible to make them a consultee in any sale of land.
The Head of Operations stated that there had been concern that the Council would unilaterally decide to sell the caravan site without consultation. Councillor Ashton stated that the HRO was setting up rules which would still be in place when the current Councillors and stakeholders were no longer involved. The Council wanted to strengthen the tie between the campsite and harbour and the income generation it provided. Councillor Ashton stated we could not predict how things would change in the future, but they should not hamper future generations.
Mr Blois (Vice Chair of the Stakeholder Advisory Group) stated that there had previously been concerns about the ability of the harbour to generate income and wider issues in the area around national bodies running consultations as a box ticking exercise without listening to the responses from locals. Mr Blois stated that judicial reviews required locals raising large sums of money, and so the HRO could very much be biased in favour of the Council. Although the current Council was not currently of this view, they had been of this view in living memory, and there was nothing to say this would not be the case in a few decades time. Stakeholders should be making sure that the future Council could not do this, and the ability for a high authority than the Council to be consulted was welcome.
Ms Moore stated that the new HRO was using the same basic wording as the HROs at every harbour in the country. There were no harbours that were prevented from selling harbour lands if they needed to. There were far more safeguards on harbour lands than many other types of land owned by councils and similar bodies. Adding in a requirement to consult the Department for Transport would provide reassurance, but the MMO would not be willing to put something in that would prevent land being sold if necessary. The HRO did reflect a fair balance, and every single safeguarding provision possible had been included in the HRO, including ringfencing of income and of any capital monies so land could not be sold and income distributed to other parts of the Council.
A member of the public stated that they recognised the protections against land being sold and asked how well the site was protected against being used for other purposes. Ms Moore stated that there was no requirement for this land to be used as a caravan site, and this was not something that would be included in the HRO. The Head of Operations stated that there were protections for land use types in planning legislation.
A member of the public stated that judicial reviews were not cheap and so could be quite difficult to achieve. An additional safeguard for this part of land which had been bequeathed for the use of the town would be welcome. The Chair agreed that it would be worth exploring any additional levels of consultation with the Department of Transport as this provided some extra security.
Ms Moore confirmed the five points raised by Walberswick Parish Council were included in the HRO.
Ms Moore referred to the representation from Southwold Town Council. Regarding the suggestion that there were additional HMC board members who were members of town council, this was inconsistent with ports good governance guidance, as all co-opted posts had to be advertised. This was not viable to take forward. Regarding the definition of "harbour premises" and "harbour revenue", the HRO included a definition of both of these terms. Ms Moore noted that the HROs did not include a lot of expanded definitions as this was not considered appropriate and would not be allowed by the MMO. Regarding concerns about auditable expenses and separate funds for harbour income, the HRO did require this. Harbour accounts had to be auditable and only expenses properly chargeable to the harbour undertaking could be considered. This was the same for any Council accounts and any local elector was able to view and scrutinise the accounts, due to laws regarding local authority accounting. Harbour reserves were required to be held separately and the Council was already required to monitor this separately as money had to be ringfenced. Ms Moore stated that the new HRO ensured these things continued. Mr Flunder stated that this concern arose from previous administrations. Ms Moore stated that the Council had committed in this HRO to do this. There was no room for a grey area under this new HRO. If this was not complied with, this was challengeable as were all other council accounts.
Ms Moore referred to the response from the Stakeholder Advisory Group. They had raised similar concerns as had been addressed above. Regarding the traffic issues they had raised, Ms Moore confirmed the HRO did give more powers of direction to control parking, speed limits and other highways concerns within the harbour.
Ms Moore confirmed that all those who had submitted a representation would receive a formal response from Ashfords on behalf of East Suffolk Council. Once this had been done, it was possible that nothing could happen in the next two years due to how slowly the MMO was working at present. It was up to the MMO what changes were ultimately made and it was up to the Council on the final form that was submitted. It was estimated that there would be three months of correspondence before a final version could be agreed. All correspondence should be based on what had been submitted, not new issues.
A member of the public asked if the Council would act in the spirit of the HRO until it was confirmed. Councillor Ashton stated that this was the commitment of the Council, all monies would be ringfenced and protected for the harbour, and would be done so until the HRO was complete.
Mr MacFarlane stated that the HRO was the best way to secure the harbour for the future. Ms Moore agreed that there was no additional terms available that the Council had not already included to protect the harbour.