10
The Committee received report ES/1202 of the Head of Operations, the purpose of which was to set out the process and timeline for a Harbour Revision Order (HRO). The Head of Operations invite Ms Lara Moore, Ashfords LLP, to present to the Committee.
Ms Moore summarised the core test for any Harbour Revision Order (HRO). In order for a HRO to be successful, the Marine Management Organisation(MMO) would have to be
“Satisfied that the making of the order is desirable in the interests of securing the improvement, maintenance or management of the harbour in an efficient and economical manner or of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods or passengers by sea or in the interests of the recreational use of sea-going ships”.
Ms Moore confirmed the process and timeframe for a HRO. A draft Harbour Order and Statement of Support would be created and put out for pre-application consultation for 28 days. Following this consultation the Harbour Order and Statement of Support would be amended based on feedback. Whilst the Harbour Order used fairly standard wording, and the Statement of Support provided more context around each point and would be of more use and interest to the public.
This would then be submitted to the MMO. Costs for application would be rising in October and it was hoped that the Harbour Order could be submitted before the rise. Ms Moore confirmed that to meet this deadline the application could be submitted whilst pre-application consultation was ongoing and then updated post submission. The MMO would then consider the Harbour Order and ask for any clarification or updates. The Harbour Order would then be submitted for formal public consultation for 42 days. During this consultation any responses would be submitted to the MMO.
Responses would be sent to the Council who would then discuss options with those who had submitted them, make any amendments, and then resubmit the application to the MMO to determine the order and check it with the Department of Transport. The Order would then have to be laid in Parliament, and Ms Moore stated that this was the main cause of delays at present. The final Harbour Revision Order would then be published.
Ms Moore summarised the provisions which might be included in the Harbour Revision Order. Firstly, the Order would place the HMC and the Stakeholder Advisory Group on a statutory footing and ensure that they could not be dissolved. The revised Order would also update the wording to ensure that Harbour funds and capital money continue to be ringfenced for spending within the Harbour lands.
Further provisions included ensuring the rating and Harbour limits were the same, modernising the definition of vessels, obtaining powers of general direction and making the landside Harbour limits flexible to allow the Council to purchase and dispose of land without an additional HRO. Ms Moore confirmed that there would be restrictions on this provision to prevent the disposal of land which was essential to the running of the Harbour.
Ms Moore confirmed that ideally the pre-application consultation would start in mid-august and and it was realistic to draft an order for the October deadline as much of the wording in the Order itself was standardised.
The Chairman invited questions
Mr Musgrove asked if a requirement for vessels to be insured could be included as a power general direction. Ms Moore confirmed that this was possible.
Mr Pickles asked if there would be any additional responsibilities or requirements in the Harbour as a result of the revised Order. Ms Moore confirmed that there would not, rather the Order would make it easier to comply with current legislation and requirements and give the Harbour additional powers of enforcement.
Councillor Beavan stated that whilst he accepted it might not be feasible to increase the Harbour limits to include the estuary, but asked if anything could be included on the wider environment and show its importance to the management of the Harbour. Ms Moore confirmed that there would be something included to ensure that the wider environment was protected but stated that a HRO would not be successful if it required the Harbour to take on larger responsibilities. Ms Moore confirmed that wider discussions on this could take place during the pre-application consultation when a HRO had been drafted and it was clearer what was and was not included.
The Coastal Manager stated that the issue around maintaining estuary walls was that the Council did not have the power to maintain walls inland from a flood risk perspective. The Environment Agency were responsible for the maintenance of estuaries until they became uneconomic to maintain. At this point the Environment Agency would engage with landowners and pass the responsibility over. The Local Authority did not have powers to take on this responsibility to operate in this area. However East Suffolk Council did engage with the Environment Agency, landowners and other risk managers to discuss the management of the estuary walls.
Ms Moore suggested that stakeholders might want to submit comments on estuary management during the pre-application stage to enable discussions to take place more widely.
The Chairman agreed that the Harbour Revision Order needed to reflect that there was a relationship between the estuary and the Harbour, but the wording would need to be carefully considered to ensure that the Order was passed.
There being no further questions, on the proposal of Councillor Ritchie seconded by Mr Musgrove it was by a unanimous vote
RESOLVED
That the HMC recommends that the Leader of the Council:
1. Approves moving forward with an Harbour Revision Order, with the understanding that more work would need to be done on the flexibility of the harbour limits and understanding of responsibilities upstream of the harbour.
2. Grants Delegated Authority to the Head of Operations to appoint a Legal Advisor to support the HRO process.