Pontoon Talk  

Go Back   Pontoon Talk > The Common Room
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-12-2005, 19:35
Rod Fletcher Rod Fletcher is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: East Preston
Posts: 20
Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

6 November 2005
LITTLEHAMPTON HARBOUR BOARD
Minutes of the meeting held at the Manor House, Littlehampton on 28 October 2005
Present:
Deborah Barnes (DB) SEEDA Harri James (HJ) SEEDA
Andrew Bridges (AB) DfT Colin Morris (CM) DfT
Louise Goldsmith (LG) WSCC Bryan Robinson (BR) WSCC
Norman Dingemans (ND) ADC Nigel Croad (NC) ADC
Howard Cheadle (HC) ADC Richard Emmens (RE) GOSE
Rupert Clubb (RC) EA Andrew Gilham (AG) EA
James Walsh (JW) (Chairman) LHB David Eastlake (DE) LHB
Chris Braby (CB) LHB John Sharwood (JS) LHB
Nick Gibb (NG) MP
In Attendance:
Pamela Barton (Minute Secretary)
Daryl Radwell (WSCC Youth Cabinet)
APOLOGIES
1. Apologies were received from Paula Welland AIF.
INTRODUCTION
2. The Chairman welcomed those present, especially those new to the group. He
reminded attendees of the background to this series of meetings which was contained in the
minutes of the last meeting and stated that the aim of this meeting was to progress matters.
He also thanked DfT for agreeing to give a brief update on the 2006 Ports Policy Review.
MINUTES
3. The minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2005 were agreed as a correct record of
that meeting.
For information on the Harbour visit our Web Site at: www.littlehampton.org.uk
E-Mail: harbour@littlehampton.org.uk
Page 1 of 7
C:\Program Files\lotus\work\wordpro\Harbour Board\Papers\Nick Gibb Mtgs\Minutes - 28 Oct 2005.lwp
MATTERS ARISING
4. Minute 9: GOSE write to EA:
Action completed.
5. Minute 11.b: All to identify possible regeneration projects:
Action completed.
6. Minute 15: Nick Gibb to investigate grant aid to northern ports:
Outstanding.
7. Minute 16: SEEDA investigate facilitating completion of Wey and Arun Canal:
DB reported that this project had received some funding and was an
ongoing project in which SEEDA had an interest. However, funding
to allow completion in the short term was not available.
RC stated that the project gave rise to many environmental concerns
and problems would be encountered due to the requirement to transfer
water from one catchment area to another. He doubted that these
difficulties could be overcome.
2006 PORTS POLICY REVIEW
8. CM gave an overview of the Ports Policy Review due to start in January 2006 and
expected to conclude in Autumn 2006. The review would look at all ports, large and small,
private, trust and municipal.
9. In answer to questions CM stated that:
a. Current policy did not say no public funding but that should be the
assumption.
b. DfT recognised the value of small ports but this was not the same as saying
that each and every small port was of the same value.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
10. RC confirmed that the River Arun was a drainage channel but questioned the fact that
it was necessary for the training walls to remain in order for the drainage function to be
sufficiently efficient to prevent flooding.
11. With regard to Littlehampton, RC stated, "If you want to maintain the harbour and
training walls for shipping, any authority can do that; from a flood risk perspective, the
training walls can go and the EA does not see an increased flood risk." RC further stated that
removing the training walls might deepen the entrance channel and cited Cuckmere Haven as
an example.
For information on the Harbour visit our Web Site at: www.littlehampton.org.uk
E-Mail: harbour@littlehampton.org.uk
Page 2 of 7
12. JW questioned how the above could be reconciled with the Littlehampton Harbour
and Arun Outfall Act 1927. The reply by RC was that since 1927 there had been changes in
land and river management.
13. In response to the question by NG that, "If the walls go and the river mouth moves,
does it not mean certain areas will risk flooding?", the response was that RC believed the bed
would deepen and the river mouth would fan out to the east. If the Board were unable to
fund maintenance of the entrance for navigation purposes then some kind of 'exit strategy'
may well be the way to progress.
14. In comparing Littlehampton with Rye, RC stated that the training walls at Rye had no
drainage/flood prevention function and that Rye Harbour was economically viable from
commercial and fishing activities without public subsidy.
(Post Meeting Note: See enclosed letter from Chief Executive to the EA)
15. JS expressed concern that the EA were talking subjectively by saying "may" and
"could" but there was no hard facts to back this up and that the example of Cuckmere Haven
being deep due to the absence of training walls was incorrect as it was no deeper than the
Arun at low water and considerably more shallow at high water. Further, recent studies
indicate that the absence of training walls to the west of the River Arun would result in the
destruction of the dune system. Without the dune system the hinterland would flood.
16. HC asked if the removal of the works at the river mouth meant a reduced risk of
flooding, would areas that are currently underdeveloped because they are on the existing
flood plain then be available for development. AG replied that although it was possible there
could be a beneficial impact on flood levels one should also look at the historical data and not
develop on areas that had flooded in the past.
OPEN FORUM
17. JW asked RC to define "Navigation Function Funding Stream" which he believed was
a subsidy provided by the EA to enable Rye Harbour to operate. The reply was that this was
where the EA obtained financial aid for a primary navigation function for which there had to
be a reasonable necessity for the funding.
(Post Meeting Note: Again, see enclosed letter from Chief Executive to the EA)
18. BR asked how the assumption of no public subsidy could be maintained when Rye
was, in effect, receiving a subsidy from the EA and Littlehampton could precept the local
authorities. He asked how DfT would legislate to remove subsidies. CM replied that DfT
had no policy to remove subsidies.
19. In reply to a question from NG regarding the power to precept, CM replied that, "we
do not intend to change local legislation."
20. LG asked, "if you do a rationalisation of several ports that are not viable can they still
precept." CM confirmed that, "we have no intention to remove precepts."
For information on the Harbour visit our Web Site at: www.littlehampton.org.uk
E-Mail: harbour@littlehampton.org.uk
Page 3 of 7
21. LG continued, "then there could be ports that are out to dry without removal of
precept. If you found four or five ports should be mothballed are you saying they would still
precept? I was wondering how that would be managed and if it would be dumped on local
authority." The reply from CM was that no unviable port would be dumped on local
authority and there was no thoughts of removing the precept.
22. JW explained that the real question was, "should the harbour be maintained for leisure
or at all and if so what are the consequences for the Board and the public purse."
23. RE was of the opinion that there were two separate issues:
a. What should be the future of the harbour.
b. Did the harbour works contribute to flood defence. If so it was right that the
EA should contribute to the cost of those defences but a formal study should be
commissioned by the EA to resolve this issue once and for all.
24. ND posed the opinion that the point was not 'should the harbour be maintained' but,
'can the harbour be maintained'. The costs of maintaining the infrastructure were not
sustainable by the Board and it had been hoped that the Trust Port Review had provided the
opportunity for an exit strategy for the local authorities.
25. BR voiced the opinion that the local authorities had been able to meet the current
precept but the problem now encountered was the requirement to find £14 M over the next 20
years. This was beyond their capability.
26. RC suggested that if a decision was taken to 'wind up' the harbour an exit strategy
would need to be funded but he was unsure how this could be implemented as people still
come to Littlehampton for the river and one could not just 'walk away'.
27. JS expressed concern that the meeting was in danger of not reaching any conclusion.
In reference to the comment about studies made earlier by RE he informed those present that
the Board had submitted a bid for AIF funding to conduct a study on the flood risk to the
Arun area should the infrastructure at the river mouth be non existent. RC stated that the
Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) was currently being developed which would
investigate this scenario.
28. At this stage LG declared an interest as a Cabinet Member of WSCC and confirmed
that although also a member of Littlehampton Harbour Board she was attending the meeting
as a representative of the WSCC. She reminded the meeting that the County Council were
accountable for what was spent and they could not spend on 'emotional things'. In view of
the costs involved in maintaining a harbour which is not viable we should minimise the risk
to local authority and form an exit strategy.
29. NG took the contrary line that many inhabitants of Littlehampton and West Sussex
would be disappointed if some of the money they pay could not be used to maintain this
attraction. If capital costs for infrastructure were to be removed from the equation the
harbour could have a viable future. It is an attractive asset to the area and should not be
allowed to silt up and go into disrepair.
For information on the Harbour visit our Web Site at: www.littlehampton.org.uk
E-Mail: harbour@littlehampton.org.uk
Grim future LH harbour, river mouth.Part2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 4 of 7
30. NC sought assurance from RC that the CFMP would address the 'doomsday scenario'
where the mouth of the harbour was blocked by the joining of the west and east beaches. He
also wished to reiterate that the concept of local authority funding was not on the table as
government had said it would cap local authority spending and whilst the harbour was
important there were other important issues and the harbour will never be in the top priority
list.
31. RE wished it to be placed on record that it was essential that the flood risk
calculations be conducted within the CFMP so that we can be confident that we are not
talking about increased flooding. The 'doomsday' scenario must be considered in the CFMP.
Although the Halcrow Study identified the most 'cost effective' future for the harbour it was
not a full feasibility study on the concept of Littlehampton Harbour becoming a leisure only
port. Such a study, including perhaps a potential Business Plan should be commissioned.
There has been no mention of the LDF. There are things waiting to be done that with
creativity and forward looking could see a future for the harbour.
32. It was the opinion of DB that there was a lot more at stake than running the harbour as
it was now; it had more to do with Littlehampton and its future. Littlehampton Town is
suffering at present and needs jobs and opportunities etc. The Littlehampton Vision is trying
to address some of these issues.
If the Harbour Board were to disband, what would be left? What about accidents and
pollution? How would the marine businesses survive, would they go elsewhere? If one were
to go, then others would follow and those allied to those businesses. The future of
Littlehampton as a town would be at risk - there is nothing I can think of within the harbour
that would not effect the town if it were not there any more.
The Halcrow report should be extended to provide more detail on a possible leisure only
option. This should include the sale of assets to raise capital and the effects if infrastructure
were left to deteriorate.
33. CB pointed out that current indications were that the harbour could never again be a
financially viable proposition with regard to the import of materials. However, if a fully
leisure strategy were to be adopted the harbour could be operationally viable. Whichever
strategy were to be adopted the harbour would still not be able to fund the future investment
needed for infrastructure repairs and replacement.
34. JW wished to explore the mechanisms of pursuing the leisure only options and to
proactively get engaged with SEEDA and Intereg funding streams.
35. CM took the view that if the development of the harbour was important to the area as
a part of the Littlehampton Vision then some form of external funding was agreeable. He
also pointed out that DfT would rule out saying that the harbour could not have a subsidy
because that did not comply with the Trust Port Review.
For information on the Harbour visit our Web Site at: www.littlehampton.org.uk
E-Mail: harbour@littlehampton.org.uk
Page 5 of 7
36. BR stated that he wished to fully explore the legal position of the Board from two
aspects:
a. Did they have a legal obligation to maintain the harbour?
b. Was it possible for the Local Authorities to implement the 'winding up' of the
Board?
He was also of the opinion that if the harbour was not self supporting and economically
viable it did not deserve funding.
37. It was the opinion of LG that there had been too much talk about a leisure strategy but
not enough action. She thought an exit strategy must be formulated that would release the
Local Authorities from the burden of funding the port. The Local Authorities could not
afford the 'mortgage payments' and the money would be better spent by putting towards the
regeneration of the town etc.
38. RC asked again if the harbour was economically viable. If not he saw no possible
future in the port.
39. Nick Gibb reminded the councillors present that:
a. The current problems were due to lack of funding in the past.
b. 1 in 3 jobs in the area are tourist generated and the river is a main asset which
it would be grossly negligent to ignore.
c. The harbour has a direct benefit to Littlehampton and could not be divorced
from the town.
d. Nothing done by Local Government was economically viable but was done
because of the needs of the community and the greater good. The same was true of
the harbour.
40. An overview of the current planning rules was provided by HC during which he
confirmed that the future of the harbour and River Arun will be discussed as part of the Core
Strategy. He saw the necessity of obtaining the technical position with regard to the training
walls in order to make an informed decision as a matter of urgency and was surprised at the
assertion by the EA that the flood plain would not be affected.
41. ND thought that the Halcrow study should be tied in with the Littlehampton Vision to
include the west bank maritime related industries. He asked what assets the Board had that
could release capital for investment, how could we instigate the leisure only option and what
would be the final package? If the overall answer was that the harbour was unsustainable
then the unthinkable (losing the harbour) would need to be considered.
42. In answer to a question from JW, DB replied that the Littlehampton Vision would not
be adopted as a planning document for several years.
For information on the Harbour visit our Web Site at: www.littlehampton.org.uk
E-Mail: harbour@littlehampton.org.uk
Page 6 of 743. LG suggested that rather than develop an Exit Strategy perhaps it should be termed an
Alternative Strategy to include the possibility of allowing the river and harbour to return to 'a
natural state' and the area become a large nature park with varied leisure use but not
necessarily boating.
44. Those present were reminded by JW that the Board was bound by statutes to operate a
harbour and it was not within its remit to commission such a study.
45. In reply to this LG confirmed that she would request the AIF to conduct such a study.
46. RE pointed out the short time available to reach a decision on the harbour as it must
be made in order to progress other planning issues.
47. The need for a quick decision was confirmed by HC as the LDF was to run to a set
timetable.
THE WAY AHEAD
48. From the general tone of the meeting the following points emerged:
a. Although the Local Authorities were able to manage the current level of
precept they were not able to provide the funds required to ensure the future of the
harbour as a working port.
b. The EA stated on many occasions that the infrastructure at the river mouth is
not beneficial to flood defence or drainage. There is thus no compelling reason for
that organisation to contribute to the finances of the harbour and they refuse so to do.
c. WSCC is to seek a legal opinion on the requirement of the Board to maintain
the harbour and the legal status of the Board.
d. The request to conduct a study to provide either an Exit Strategy or
Alternative Strategy for the harbour is to be placed before the AIF.
e. Currently, no organisation was able to identify any source of funding to assist
the Board in ensuring the future of the harbour.
49. The Chairman closed the meeting after asking all those present to keep the funding
issues in mind and reminding all that the harbour was only one part of the vision for the area
and impacted on all aspects of regeneration and the community. A decision on the harbour
could not be made in isolation.
50. Another meeting is to be arranged for June or July 2006.
For information on the Harbour visit our Web Site at: www.littlehampton.org.uk
E-Mail: harbour@littlehampton.org.uk
Page 7 of 7
Rod Fletcher

Last edited by Administrator; 09-12-2005 at 10:45. Reason: Split post due to text limit now consolidated,, Admin
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-12-2005, 12:00
Steve's Avatar
Steve Steve is offline
A very special person
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Horsham
Posts: 2,058
Exclamation Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

LG suggested that rather than develop an Exit Strategy perhaps it should be termed an
Alternative Strategy to include the possibility of allowing the river and harbour to return to 'a
natural state' and the area become a large nature park with varied leisure use but
not
necessarily boating
.

Thats enough to pull the banking funds out from underneath the redevelopment of the marina and shut all the marine trades down on the riverbank down.

Leaving alot of cheap empty premesis for redeveloment as done on the otherside. Which provided that bit of training wall.
__________________
I'll never be a millionaire... and a boat owner.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13-12-2005, 17:55
Steve's Avatar
Steve Steve is offline
A very special person
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Horsham
Posts: 2,058
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

Wscc chairman will not deny that item 43 is the councils strategy.

CHi harbour bar is maintained by Lavant council and WSCC doesnt have to pay.

So Louise who is Chi west councillor can enjoy her harbour for free.
__________________
I'll never be a millionaire... and a boat owner.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17-12-2005, 18:07
Steve's Avatar
Steve Steve is offline
A very special person
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Horsham
Posts: 2,058
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

THE FUTURE OF LITTLEHAMPTON HARBOUR>> From the Harbourmaster .


Introduction
1. Littlehampton Harbour faces a funding crisis where income from operational activities is
insufficient to cover operational costs and maintain harbour infrastructure.
2. This brief paper is intended to provide a background to the situation and to facilitate the
identification of a way in which the long term future of the port can be secured.
3. Problems in funding the Harbour are not new. The Harbour Act of 1733 was introduced
because the harbour “is choked up and rendered almost useless” and “the people of
Littlehampton are unable to raise sufficient funds for the works.” Commissioners were
appointed and empowered to establish a schedule of charges to fund the necessary works.
The Harbour Act of 1793 gave the Commissioners authority to borrow money for
improvements.
4. By 1825, the works implemented under the previous Acts were greatly dilapidated and new
works were required to prevent the Harbour once again being choked up. The borrowing
rules were revised and the Commissioners were allowed to borrow up to £20,000 to restore
the harbour; a tenfold increase over the limit allowed in the 1793 Act.
5. The current, 1927, Act transferred the harbour undertaking to a new Harbour Board and
authorised West Sussex County Council to provide £71,522 to rebuild the harbour. The
West Sussex County Council Act of 1972 amended the 1927 Act and made The County and
District councils liable for any deficit incurred by the Board.
6. Repairs to Arun Parade and the ****erworks were undertaken some years ago. These were
funded by the Board obtaining loans that the County and District Councils are repaying.
The East Pier and Railway Wharf were recently refurbished and funded by the same means.
New Harbour Offices and Workshops were funded through the sale of an operational wharf
for development.
Current Position
7. The Harbour Board recently commissioned a study by Cluttons and Halcrow which
concluded that the best financial and operational option for the future is to cease commercial
operations and operate as a leisure harbour. This view is supported by the Board and both
local authorities. The report identified the need to spend over £11m on harbour
infrastructure in the next 20 years if the harbour is to continue in operation.
8. The Harbour’s two commercial wharfs are leased to Tarmac until 2026, one of which has
been sublet to United Marine Dredging (UMD). UMD ceased aggregate landings in 2004
and has mothballed its plant. Tarmac’s current levels of imports are well below estimates.
As a result, the Harbour is generating an annual and anticipated growing deficit in the
region of £75,000 which must be met by the Council Tax payers of West Sussex County
Council and Arun District Council.
9. The Board has held discussions with Tarmac regarding their level of operations compared
with the income generated and the cost to the Board of the maintenance of an organisation
(pilots, infrastructure etc) to support their operations. One option is for the Board to
Page 1 of 4
C:\Documents and Settings\John Sharwood.LHB\My Documents\Temporary\LHB DfT letter April 05-Final.doc
increase charges to cover the full cost of the pilotage service and maintaining safety for
commercial shipping. The charge per vessel would need to increase by 300% to 400%.
There is no doubt that Tarmac would challenge such an increase.
10. There is little room for the Board to make economies in personnel or overheads and still
meet its statutory obligations, ensure safety within the harbour and complete the necessary
administration. If commercial operations ceased, savings of up to £67,000 per annum may
be achievable.
11. Under a leisure option, Railway Wharf could be sold for development. However, such use
would be contrary to both the current adopted Local Minerals Plan and the Local Plan. The
capital receipt could be invested and would generate interest to support the operational
costs. This, however, provides only a temporary solution. After around 13 years the capital
receipt would be required to fund replacement of infrastructure and the Harbour would
again be operating at a deficit and be unable to meet the cost of maintaining and replacing
infrastructure.
12. Currently, the Littlehampton Action Group working with local businesses, the County,
District and Town Councils, Harbour board and others has developed a wider “Vision” for
the town of Littlehampton that is currently out for public consultation. The intention is that
the final document should encompass not just the regeneration of the town centre but also
the enhancement of the West Bank of the River Arun and therefore the harbour.
SEEDA has been actively involved in these discussions and studies and are supportive of
the approach being taken to make the finally agreed plan all encompassing. The inclusion of
the West Bank within the “Vision” is as a result of the steady decline, closure and loss of the
traditional river/harbour related marine businesses and industries. An active harbour is
critical not just to the Harbour Board but for the vitality and continuing regeneration efforts
of the Town. However, many of the more traditional marine related businesses are not high
profit and therefore unable to generate the significant investment needed to replace the
harbour infrastructure.
13. The current Coastal Defence Strategy for the coastline immediately to the West of the river
mouth recommends some “managed re-alignment”. The consultation draft of the “First
Review of the Shoreline Management Plan for Beachy Head to Selsey Bill” recommends
“Hold the Line” for the defences of the River Arun and Arun Valley and a long term policy
of “Managed Re-alignment” for the coast to the West of the river mouth. Any managed realignment
will be gradual and will need the agreement of the various landowners which is
unlikely in the short term and may be affected by legal agreements covering the sea
defences of part of this frontage. It is hoped that the Environment Agency will commence
drafting a Beach Management Plan for the West Beach in the summer of 2005 and it is
anticipated that this plan may help address the issues of beach stabilisation, recycling of
material building up on the beach and ensuring a navigable channel for the ongoing
operation of the harbour.
14. The County and District Councils are unable to fund the Harbour to the extent that will be
required over the next few years - i.e. significant capital investment and continuing and
potentially growing revenue deficits. This may also coincide with both Local Authorities
budgets being further constrained by continued downward pressure being placed upon them
by Central Government as a result of the Council Tax capping regime. Furthermore, the
estimated costs are beyond the scale which could be sought from developers via planning
Page 2 of 4
C:\Documents and Settings\John Sharwood.LHB\My Documents\Temporary\LHB DfT letter April 05-Final.doc
section 106 agreements as attempts so to do would stop or seriously undermine new
development taking place.
15. Although the River Arun is a major drainage outfall, the Environment Agency (EA) will not
contribute to the Board expenses. Not only does the EA not contribute to the Board’s
expenses, but its failure to maintain shingle levels on the West Beach, for which it is the
Operational Authority, has caused the Board, and consequentially the two local authorities,
to incur extra expenditure.
Future Options
16. There are three main options available for the future of Littlehampton Harbour:
• Option 1. Cease maintaining the Harbour.
• Option 2. Continue as at present.
• Option 3. Cease commercial activities and become a leisure only port.
Option 1
17. Under this option, staff would be reduced to the minimum needed to supervise the harbour.
No maintenance would be carried out and as infrastructure failed it would be made safe but
not replaced. Eventually the river would revert to a drainage channel and a bar would form
across the harbour mouth which would progressively reduce the possibility of any craft from
using the harbour and hamper or reverse recent attempts to regenerate the town.
Option 2
18. Under this option, the Trust Port Review would not be implemented with regard to Board
composition. The Board would make an annual operational loss of circa £75,000. There
would be little maintenance to infrastructure unless the Local Authorities were to fund such
works, which in the present financial climate is very unlikely to be affordable. Until forced
to cease using the harbour due to access limitations the Board would continue, in effect, to
subsidise Tarmac by £70,000 per annum. There would be no management of the West
Beach, bar or shoal and the harbour would eventually become unusable.
Option 3
19. Under this option, the Trust Port Review could be implemented. The Board would be re
reconstituted and the power to precept removed. Should this option be adopted, the two
Local Authorities have already agreed to meet the cost of existing drainage loans and
provide a lump sum of £150,000. There would be no financial safety net for the Board if the
power to precept were relinquished as the local authorities would not contribute to future
costs.
20. Commercial shipping would cease and Railway Wharf sold for development or developed in
partnership with a third party (however, currently such use of it would be contrary to both
the adopted Local Minerals Plan and the Local Plan). Leisure berths would be increased by
at least 150 and additional ‘leisure orientated’ income generating activities investigated. The
Board would need not only to operate in surplus but also to generate a reserve for
replacement of infrastructure and assets as required.
Page 3 of 4
C:\Documents and Settings\John Sharwood.LHB\My Documents\Temporary\LHB DfT letter April 05-Final.doc
Page 4 of 4
C:\Documents and Settings\John Sharwood.LHB\My Documents\Temporary\LHB DfT letter April 05-Final.doc
21. As stated above, this is the preferred option. However, although the best option financially,
it is still not sustainable beyond about 13 years without significant cash injections. In order
to continue as an operational harbour several possibilities have been identified that would
individually or collectively assist the longer term sustainability of the harbour without
increasing funding pressures being placed upon the two Local Authorities that would, if
agreed, increase the prospect of either or both being capped The options identified to date
include:
a. Responsibility for the flood defences, training walls and non operational
infrastructure being removed from the Board and placed with another authority.
b. The EA being directed to contribute significantly to the finances of the Board.
c. A new Harbour Act being drafted with funding from Central Government to rebuild
the ports essential infrastructure.
d. A new Harbour Act being drafted with funding from all West Sussex Council Tax
payers to rebuild the Port’s essential infrastructure.
e. SEEDA being requested to investigate the feasibility of facilitating the completion of
the Wey and Arun Canal project.
Conclusion
As a result of the issues and constraints set out above it is clear that without unequivocal
support from the Department for Transport, the three authorities have no obvious means to
progress The Trust Port Review. Without external assistance the long term sustainability of
the Harbour Board cannot be demonstrated and hence a Harbour Revision Order will not
succeed. Further, without such assistance, the medium term prospects for Littlehampton
Harbour are uncertain and therefore damaging to the continued regeneration of the town and
its economy.
JOHN SHARWOOD
Chief Executive
Littlehampton Harbour Board
KIERAN STIGANT NIGEL CROAD
Director for Environment & Development Resources Director
West Sussex County Council Arun District Council
__________________
I'll never be a millionaire... and a boat owner.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-12-2005, 18:54
robbie's Avatar
robbie robbie is offline
One of the Originals
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: redhill surrey
Posts: 1,694
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

So what is the e-mail address of the local MP.
Lets fill his inbox !!!!!

Tony Blaires address is : 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA
__________________
A lot of money is tainted: 'Taint yours, and 'taint mine.
.



Rob (Salamis)

Last edited by robbie; 17-12-2005 at 19:00.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17-12-2005, 21:28
Steve's Avatar
Steve Steve is offline
A very special person
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Horsham
Posts: 2,058
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

This is not a reliable service in terms of faxing, but it will get you the info you need to email or write to your MP.

Writee ot him but make sure he understands you are expecting a reply.

Sometimes they dont seemto understand that and just write back saying they have passed the matter on.


Apparently its bad form to address anyone other than your own MP who will pass the matter onwards

Steve
__________________
I'll never be a millionaire... and a boat owner.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17-12-2005, 22:54
robbie's Avatar
robbie robbie is offline
One of the Originals
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: redhill surrey
Posts: 1,694
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

But leaving one of this countries oldest harbours to silt up is bad form.


Actually I like the bit about the Wey - Arun Navigation regeneration. We will all have to get BSS certified and have a pirates day trip to London.
__________________
A lot of money is tainted: 'Taint yours, and 'taint mine.
.



Rob (Salamis)

Last edited by robbie; 17-12-2005 at 23:00.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18-12-2005, 11:03
Steve's Avatar
Steve Steve is offline
A very special person
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Horsham
Posts: 2,058
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbie
But leaving one of this countries oldest harbours to silt up is bad form.

Behaving as badly, they'll just take exception to your behaviour and ignore you altogether. Two wrongs dont make a right ,you'll get snubbed.

Considered appealing to them as fellow boaters and writing to the house of commons yacht club!
__________________
I'll never be a millionaire... and a boat owner.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 18-12-2005, 13:00
robbie's Avatar
robbie robbie is offline
One of the Originals
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: redhill surrey
Posts: 1,694
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

nice one - done deal
__________________
A lot of money is tainted: 'Taint yours, and 'taint mine.
.



Rob (Salamis)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 18-12-2005, 17:47
Steve's Avatar
Steve Steve is offline
A very special person
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Horsham
Posts: 2,058
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

Perhaps we should join the HoC sailing club
__________________
I'll never be a millionaire... and a boat owner.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 18-12-2005, 18:36
robbie's Avatar
robbie robbie is offline
One of the Originals
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: redhill surrey
Posts: 1,694
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

Boating and politics - Is that as volatile as religion and politics.

How many politicians does it take to steer a boat at speed?
2 to draw up a white paper, and 5 suddenly needing the toilet paper.
__________________
A lot of money is tainted: 'Taint yours, and 'taint mine.
.



Rob (Salamis)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-01-2006, 01:14
robbie's Avatar
robbie robbie is offline
One of the Originals
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: redhill surrey
Posts: 1,694
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

Edinburgh Council have just agreed to a £13M development to their quayside and Marina. Insisting that enough new buildings are put aside for Chandlers and marine bisinesses.

I'm not sure what is happening with Littlehampton, now Somerfield has given up there is no town centre supermarket and the whole town looks like it needs development investment. I was down there yesterday and popped into the town to buy some stuff. Its not the holiday hot-spot it was when I was a kid and my mum and dad took us out for the day to the seaside. Personally I think things started to go wrong with the demise of the 'Wild Rat ride'.

Come to Littlehampton for an unforgetable holiday. We have some shops and a bog which is home to some animals.
__________________
A lot of money is tainted: 'Taint yours, and 'taint mine.
.



Rob (Salamis)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-01-2006, 13:17
Steve's Avatar
Steve Steve is offline
A very special person
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Horsham
Posts: 2,058
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

Oh And a bunch of ex-boaters, now perverts, claiming to be ornathologists.
__________________
I'll never be a millionaire... and a boat owner.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 20-01-2006, 21:10
Steve's Avatar
Steve Steve is offline
A very special person
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Horsham
Posts: 2,058
Thumbs up Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

Alledgedly, West Sussex County Council has decided to replace Louise Goldsmith, their representative on the Little Hampton Harbour board.

I can help that think that this happened as a direct result of the pressure applied to them by people emailing and writing to them expressing their disgust.

Thanks you all for your support in this.

We have done something, better than nothing, we made a difference.
__________________
I'll never be a millionaire... and a boat owner.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 21-01-2006, 10:27
robbie's Avatar
robbie robbie is offline
One of the Originals
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: redhill surrey
Posts: 1,694
Re: Grim future, LH harbour, river mouth.

Damn!
Does this meen I've got to put the binoculars and bird identification charts back on eBay?
__________________
A lot of money is tainted: 'Taint yours, and 'taint mine.
.



Rob (Salamis)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Harbour Learning Zone Goes Live Harbour Info The Common Room 0 23-01-2006 10:06
Enjoying Chichester Harbour Harbour Info The Common Room 0 05-04-2005 17:34
No. 1 of 2005 Plaque system Harbour Info The Common Room 0 12-02-2005 23:32
No1 of 2005 Harbour Info The Common Room 0 02-02-2005 18:24


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Contents protected by copyright Pontoontalk.co.uk