Maryport Harbour Revision Order decision letter

Print Print page   Download PDF PDF image

Alastair Lewis
Sharp Pritchard
Solicitors & Parliamentary Agents
Elizabeth House
Fulwood Place
London
WC1V 6HG

Dear Sir,

The Maryport Harbour Revision Order 2007

1  I am authorised by the Secretary of State to inform you that consideration has been given to the application you submitted on behalf of your client, the Maryport Harbour Commissioners on 9 January 2004 for the making of the Maryport Harbour Revision Order (“the Order”) under Section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964.

2  The Order, if made, would alter the name and the constitution of the Commissioners, and on or after the new constitution date the Commissioners shall be known as the Maryport Harbour Authority. The Secretary of State determined that the proposed Order would not authorise a project, accordingly Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC) does not apply to the proposals and no environmental statement has been supplied with the application.

Application Procedure

3  Notice of the application for the Order was advertised in the London Gazette on 9 January 2004 and in The West Cumberland Times and Star newspaper on 9, 23 and 30 January 2004 respectively.

4  The Secretary of State received objections from two organisations and one individual within the statutory period of forty-two days provided for in Schedule 3 of the Harbours Act 1964.  All objectors subsequently withdrew their objections. The Secretary of State has therefore determined that he is not required to hold a public inquiry into the Order.

The Applicant’s case for the Order

5  The Maryport Harbour Commissioners ("the Commissioners") applied to the Secretary of State for Transport to make a Harbour Revision Order for the purpose of altering the name and the constitution of the Commissioners. On or after the new constitution date the Commissioners shall be known as the Maryport Harbour Authority. The object of the alteration to the Constitution of the Commissioners is to give effect to the guidance contained in the Department's publication Modernising Trust Ports - a Guide to Good Governance. Under the proposed constitution the authority will consist of a body of seven members; six appointed and the general manager. In addition, the proposed order will repeal most of the existing local legislation relating to the harbour and replace it with legislation framed in modern terms, and repeal all the existing local legislation relating to the harbour except that relating to existing harbour stock.

Objections

6 The Secretary of State received objections to the proposed Order within the statutory time period allowed from the Royal Yachting Association (RYA), the Environment Agency (North West Region) and Mr Alan Sewell.

Royal Yachting Association (RYA)

7  In a letter dated 17 February 2004, the RYA objected on the grounds of the wide-ranging nature of the proposed Order, which, as well as reconstituting the Commissioners, would confer substantial new powers upon the proposed Harbour Authority as the Commissioners' replacement. The RYA stated that it was not clear that a number of the proposed new powers were justified or that adequate provision had been made for recreational craft and small vessels. For example, powers were proposed restricting use of the harbour and the provision and use of moorings for the execution of a wide variety of works and operations, for giving general directions to vessels, for making of a wide range of general byelaws and for licensing or granting permits in respect of pleasure craft.

The Environment Agency (North West Region)

8  In a letter dated 19 February 2004, Bircham Dyson Bell on behalf of the Environment Agency (North West Region) objected on the grounds that the proposals of the Order were of concern to the Agency in that they would replace existing legislation with new powers which would have wide ranging impacts upon the functions for which the Agency is responsible and, in particular, coastal processes and flood defence, fisheries and water quality. In addition, the proposed Order did not adequately address the need to make allowance for the proper exercise by the Agency of its statutory functions and the Agency wished to propose specific safeguards and protection in relation to a number of the proposed powers.

Mr Alan Sewell

9  In a letter dated 20 February 2004, Mr Alan Sewell objected on the basis that the draft order would give the Authority the right to charge and enforce charges. Mr Sewell stated his objection to any authority which charges him to use a harbour when he has been using it free of charge for approximately thirty years. In addition, any authority which is granted to the Authority in this regard should only allow the collection of any harbour dues from the date on which the Order is accepted and no back charges should be due. Mr Sewell states that he objects to the Authority being given powers to charge any users of the Harbour that have been using it consistently over a significant period of time.

Applicants' considerations of the written representations

10  The applicants have discussed the application proposals with the Royal Yachting Association, the Environment Agency (North West Region) and Mr Alan Sewell.

11  In their letter of 29 June 2005, Bircham Dyson Bell on behalf of the Environment Agency (North West Region) confirm that following the letter of 22 June 2005 from Sharp Pritchard on behalf of the applicants, the parties had agreed a set of amendments to the proposed order for the protection of the Agency and that the amendments be made as modifications to the draft order. On this basis the Environment Agency's objection was withdrawn.

12  In their letter of 31 August 2005, Sharp Pritchard on behalf of the applicants advised the Secretary of State that negotiations between the applicants for the order and the RYA had resulted in the parties agreeing a set of amendments to the order for the protection of the Association. The applicants asked that the amendments be made as modifications to the draft order. On 5 September 2005, Bircham Dyson Bell wrote on behalf of the RYA confirming that agreement had been reached between the parties and that the RYA's objection could be treated as withdrawn.

13  On 27 February 2006, Mr Alan Sewell wrote to the Department withdrawing his objection to the proposed Order.

Letter of Support

14  A letter supporting the application was received from Allerdale Borough Council on 15 January 2004.

Secretary of State’s consideration

15  Section 14(2) (b) of the Harbours Act requires that a Harbour Revision Order shall not be made in relation to a harbour unless the appropriate Minister is 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 economical transport of goods or passengers by sea or in the interests of the recreational use of sea-going ships.

16  The Secretary of State notes and agrees with the Maryport Harbour Commissioners' case for the proposal as set out in paragraph 5 above.

17  The Secretary of State notes the Maryport Harbour Commissioners have met and discussed the proposals with the Environment Agency (North West), the Royal Yachting Association and Mr Alan Sewell. The Secretary of State is content for the Order to proceed to be made.

18  The Secretary of State notes that all objections to the Order have now been withdrawn and that the Maryport Harbour Commissioners have proposed modifications to the Order to accord with amendments required by the Environment Agency (North West Region) and the Royal Yachting Association.  These amendments have been included in a revised filled up Order.  The Secretary of State accepts the case for the inclusion of the amendments and considers that they do not substantially affect the character of the Order and that there is no requirement for further consultation on the Order as a result of the amendments.

The Secretary of State’s Decision

19  The Secretary of State is satisfied, for the reasons given above, that the making of the Order is desirable in the interests as set out in section 14(2)(b) of the Harbours Act 1964 and that the Order should be made, with the amendments indicated in paragraph 36 above. He does not consider that these amendments substantially affect the character of the Order as originally proposed.

20 The Secretary of State authorises the making of the Order with the amendments already indicated above and with modifications not substantially affecting the character of the Order which appear to him to be necessary.

21 A copy of this letter is being sent to all those who objected and made comments and representations. The decision will also appear on the DfT website.

Yours faithfully

Colin Morris
Ports Division
31 October 2007