navigational risk assessment – marico marine - amazon s3 · wash mussels ltd/parkinson wright ......

MARINE AND RISK CONSULTANTS LTD

WASH MUSSELS LTD/PARKINSON WRIGHT

STOUR MUSSEL FARM NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT

Report Number: 15UK1098 Issue: Final Date: 6 September 2016

Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA

Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright i

WASH MUSSELS LTD/PARKINSON WRIGHT

STOUR MUSSEL FARM NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT

Prepared for: Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 62 Burnham Road

Leigh-on-Sea Essex

SS9 2JS

Author(s): James Hannon Checked By: Dr Ed Rogers

Date Release Prepared Authorised Notes

28/09/2015 Issue 01 JH ER Issue to client

18/12/2015 Draft B JH ER Issue to client

6/09/2016 Final JH ER Issue to client

Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd Marico Marine Bramshaw Lyndhurst SO43 7JB Hampshire United Kingdom Tel. + 44 (0) 2380 811133

18 December 2015


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd (Marico Marine) have been appointed by Wash Mussels/Parkinson

Wright Solicitors to Conduct a Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) in relation to the River Stour Mussel

Farm Project. The purpose of the NRA is to provide reassurance to the local stakeholders and

Statutory Harbour Authority that the navigational risk has been appropriately assessed, and where

necessary mitigation measures are provided to ensure risk is not increased.

A proposal has made by Wash Mussels Ltd for the location of 5 sub tidal mussel farms at

predetermined points along the River Stour. The river users enjoy a clutter free environment and

although there is a degree of small commercial traffic there is a good history of vessel types coexisting

on the river with little issue.

Concerns raised by river users highlight some navigation hazards that may pose a particular issue to

them as a direct result of the addition of the farms and the associated vessel operations. This report

forms an independent assessment of navigation impact and considers the impact that this operation

will have of all river users including the Harbour Authority.

Two separate NRAs were undertaken, the first assessing the current navigational situation (pre mussel

farm) and the second being the navigational situation with the addition of the farms and associated

operations (post mussel farm).

The results of the NRA indicate that although there is a slight change of profile for craft and users of

the river as a result of the introduction of the mussel farms, the overall navigational risk remains low

with any increased risk to navigational safety also being low The NRA indicates that no additional risk

controls are necessary as the risks are low. Wash Mussels Ltd are committed to going beyond the

minimum control requirements with a view to alleviate any stakeholders concerns where possible and

to also ensure that the existing good record of safety is preserved. The following control measures

should be considered to ensure this:

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the farm operator and the SHA for

clear communications to river users;

Local recreational stakeholder engagement to ensure all aspects of the project are

communicated effectively to recreational users;

Restricting operations to daylight and less busy periods, such as weekdays;

Crab pots (if used) should be placed in accordance with SHA policies and should be

clearly marked; and

Any further mitigation measures appropriate to improving the safety of navigation

during harvesting operation.


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright iii

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. ii

Contents iii

Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... vi

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Draft Working Plan for Stour Mussel Proposal .................................................................. 2

2 Navigation on the Stour ................................................................................................................ 4

2.1 River Users .......................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Aids to Navigation .............................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Current Impact on Navigation ............................................................................................ 4

2.3.1 Commercial Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour ....................................... 5

2.3.2 All Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour ....................................................... 9

2.4 Local Regulations .............................................................................................................. 12

2.4.1 General Directions for Navigation .......................................................................... 12

2.4.2 Reporting ................................................................................................................ 13

2.5 Harbour Patrols ................................................................................................................ 13

2.6 Vessel Traffic Services ...................................................................................................... 13

2.6.1 Harwich VTS Level of Service ................................................................................. 13

2.7 Pilotage ............................................................................................................................. 13

2.8 Notice to Mariners ........................................................................................................... 14

2.9 Anchorages and Moorings ................................................................................................ 14

2.9.1 Small Craft Moorings .............................................................................................. 14

2.9.2 Shotley Marina ....................................................................................................... 16

2.10 Tidal and Prevailing Conditions ........................................................................................ 16

2.10.1 Prevailing Wind Conditions .................................................................................... 16

3 Consultation with Stakeholders .................................................................................................. 17

3.1 Commercial Vessel Stakeholder Meeting ........................................................................ 17

3.2 Recreational Vessel Stakehodler Meeting........................................................................ 19

3.3 Post draft nra comments .................................................................................................. 20

4 Assessment of risks Navigation Risk Assessment Methodology ................................................ 21

4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 21

4.2 Hazard Categories ............................................................................................................ 23

4.3 Risk Matrix Criteria ........................................................................................................... 23

4.3.1 Frequency ............................................................................................................... 23


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright iv

4.3.1 Consequence .......................................................................................................... 24

4.4 Risk Treatment Criteria ..................................................................................................... 25

5 Risk Assessment Results ............................................................................................................. 27

5.1 Risk Assessment Summary - Combined ............................................................................ 27

5.2 Risk Assessment Current Situation ................................................................................... 28

5.3 Risk Assessment with Mussel Farm Operation ................................................................ 30

5.4 Additional Control measures ............................................................................................ 30

6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 32

7 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 33

FIGURES

Figure 1: Proposed Mussel Farm Locations. ........................................................................................... 1

Figure 2: River Stour (Jacques Bay) viewed from Wrabness (looking west). .......................................... 6

Figure 3: River Stour viewed from Wrabness Beach (looking east). ....................................................... 7

Figure 4: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits. ......................................................................................... 7


Figure 6: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits. ................................................................................... 8


Figure 8: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels)..................................................................... 10

Figure 9: Site 2 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels)..................................................................... 10

Figure 10: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels). ........................................................... 11

Figure 11: Site 5 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels)................................................................... 11

Figure 12: River Stour Chartlet (HHA publication). ............................................................................... 12

Figure 13: Top Left: Bathside Bay small craft moorings, Top Right: Shotley small craft moorings, Bottom

Left: Holbrook small craft moorings, Bottom Right: Manningtree small craft moorings. .................... 15

Figure 14: Wrabness small craft moorings. .......................................................................................... 15

Figure 15: MARICO hazard identification and risk assessment process. .............................................. 21

Figure 16: Frequency/Consequence Chart. .......................................................................................... 22


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright v

TABLES

Table 1: Mussel Farm Operations. .......................................................................................................... 3

Table 2: River Stour Navigation Marks (East to West). ........................................................................... 5

Table 3: Type of commercial vessels used for main channel track analysis. .......................................... 7

Table 4: River Stour Small Craft Moorings. ........................................................................................... 14

Table 5: Stour Tidal Range. ................................................................................................................... 16

Table 6: Initial Hazard Identification Matrix. ........................................................................................ 23

Table 7: Hazard Frequency Ranges. ...................................................................................................... 23

Table 8: Consequence Categories (Costs in £). ..................................................................................... 25

Table 9: Risk Matrix. .............................................................................................................................. 26

Table 10: Top ten ranked hazards for both risk assessments combined. ............................................. 27

Table 11: Ranked Hazard List – Current Situation. ............................................................................... 29

Table 12: Ranked Hazard List – with the mussel farm in operation. .................................................... 31

ANNEXES

Annex A Direction of Tidal Streams .............................................................................................. A-1

Annex B Risk Assessment provided by Phillip Barnes (Commodore Stour Sailing Club) and Paul Rodhouse (RHYC) ................................................................................................................................. B-1

Annex C Hazard Logs for the Current Navigational Situation ........................................................ C-1

Annex D Hazard Logs for the for the Navigational Situation with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations ................................................................................................................................... D-1

Annex E Organisation Report ........................................................................................................ E-1

Annex F Ranked Hazard Lists for the Current Navigational Situation ........................................... F-1

Annex G Ranked Hazard Lists for the Navigational Situation with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations ................................................................................................................................... G-1

Annex H Post Draft NRA Comments received from Tim Goodwin with response ....................... H-1

Annex I Combined HASA Response ............................................................................................... I-1

Annex J Note on Section 7 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) act 1967 ............................................ J-1


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright vi

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Detail

AIS Automatic Identification System

ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practicable

CCTV Closed Circuit Television

CHA Competent Harbour Authority

D&B Design and Build

HW High Water

ICW In Collision With

IMO International Maritime Organisation

ITT Invitation to Tender

Kt Knot (unit of speed equal to nautical mile per hour, approximately 1.15 mph)

LW Low Water

M Metre

Marico Marine Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd

MCA Maritime and Coast Guard Agency

ML Most Likely

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

NAABSA Not Always Afloat But Safe Aground

Nm Nautical Mile

NRA Navigation Risk Assessment

PEC Pilotage Exemption Certificate

PWC Personal Water Craft

RIB Ridged Inflatable Boat

SHA Statutory Harbour Authority

SMS Safety Management System

STCW Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping

VHF Very High Frequency (radio communication)

VTS Vessel Traffic Service

WC Worst Credible


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Wash Mussels Limited has made an application to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 1

of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 for an order conferring the right of several fishery under

section 1 of the Act. The Secretary of State has prepared a draft Order and served a copy of it on the

applicant in accordance with paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Act. There are five proposed locations

for the mussel farms located within the River Stour (see Figure 1 for locations).

Figure 1: Proposed Mussel Farm Locations.

The River Stour commences at Harwich and stretches its way westward forming the boundary

between Essex and Suffolk. The river has plenty of areas for anchoring, has a boatyard at Mistley

where there are also mud moorings, commercial quays and a small public quay that dries at low water.

Coasters operate from the commercial quays using the buoyed main channel to navigate, this channel

narrows and shoals to almost drying as it approaches Mistley.

Stakeholders have expressed concern regarding the safety of navigation for the river users as a result

of the location of the proposed mussel farms and the related operations including the presence of the

additional vessels used to manage and harvest the mussels. The requirement for Wash Mussels



Limited to undertake a Navigation Risk Assessment (NRA) is to provide a comprehensive study to

ensure stakeholders that where necessary adequate risk mitigation measures are in place to allow for

the continuous safety of craft navigating in the River Stour.

The navigational risk assessment process was split into the following phases:

1. Determination of the current navigational state of the River Stour. (i.e. nature of the river,

navigational channel, types of user and vessel, existing legislation/procedures, etc.);

2. Understanding of proposed mussel farm operation for the 5 proposed sites on the River

Stour;

3. Consultation with local stakeholders and site visit to better understand local issues;

4. Hazard Identification and Categorisation;

5. Assessment of risk;

6. Determination, where necessary of additional mitigation measures;

7. Conclusions; and

8. Recommendations.

1.1 DRAFT WORKING PLAN FOR STOUR MUSSEL PROPOSAL

Wash Mussels Limited have indicated that the time spent working with vessels on the farms will be

kept to within the working week, Monday to Friday and during the hours of daylight. Operations will

not be undertaken on weekends or during bank holidays when leisure activities are at their peak.

Activities that require vessel operations for longer durations are mostly conducted during off peak

leisure seasons, such as Spring and Autumn. Operations (if required) in the summer are very minimal.

Table 1 outlines the operational programme of the project over the trial period of 5 years.



Table 1: Mussel Farm Operations.

Year Season Operation Duration

1 Autumn Clear 1 hectare square in each of the five sites (if seed mussel quantity is

available) 2 days

2 Spring If required lay crab pots (2 lines per 1 ha square) 1-2 days

Remove crab pots 0.5 day

2 Summer Run starfish mop of hectare squares affected if required 0.5 day

2 Autumn Clear a second 1 hectare square in each of the five sites (if seed mussel

quantity is available) 2 days

3 Spring Lay crab pots if required (2 lines per 1 hectare square) 1-2 days

Remove pots 0.5 days

3 Summer Run starfish mop of hectare squares affected 0.5 day

3 Autumn Harvest by dredge Year 1 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare squares 4 days

Clear 5 x 1 ha squares 2 days

Relay seed mussel in 5 x 1 hectare squares 1 day

4 Spring Lay crab pots if required (2 lines per 1 hectare square) 1-2 days

Remove pots 0.5 days

4 Summer Run starfish mop of hectare squares affected if required 0.5 days

4 Autumn

Harvest by dredge Year 1 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare squares 4 days

Clear 5 x 1 hectare squares 2 days

Relay seed mussel in 5 x 1 hectare squares 1 day

5 Spring/ Autumn

Harvest by dredge Year 3 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare squares Harvest by dredge Year 4 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare square (if order

not renewed).

4 days

4 days

5 Autumn

Clear perhaps 5 x 1 hectare squares

(only if order renewed) 2 days

2-5

20 monitoring visits each year using grab and sampling for local authority

environmental health 0.5 day



2 NAVIGATION ON THE STOUR

The navigable channel commences (see Figure 1) at its widest point wide (700m) off Harwich

International Port and narrows as it heads west to Mistley where it all but dries out at low water. The

channel is well marked with lit buoys and beacons and there are a number of small craft moorings

north and south of the channel. Harwich International Port is located on the southern side of the

entrance of the River Stour. The river in this area is at its busiest with relatively high amounts of

commercial traffic using Felixstowe and Harwich International Port.

The area is covered by Admiralty Charts 1594 (River Stour to Erwarton Ness to Manningtree) and 1491

(Harwich and Felixstowe).

2.1 RIVER USERS

The main current River Stour users can be spilt into the following categories:

Coasters/commercial vessels using Mistley;

Large ferries and cruise ships (Harwich International Port);

Dredgers; and

Recreational craft/charter fishing boats.

2.2 AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Local Lighthouse Authority for the River Stour is Harwich Haven Authority (HHA) who is

responsible for correct maintenance and provision of Aids to Navigation (AtoN). The River Stour main

channel is clearly marked by navigational marks (see Table 2).

2.3 CURRENT IMPACT ON NAVIGATION

The principal navigational features that have an impact on users of the River Stour are as follows:

Coaster/general cargo berthing operations at Mistley;

Dredger operations in sediment placement areas;

Coasters navigating the main channel to and from Mistley;

Ferry and cruise ship movements at Harwich International Port;

Large ship mooring buoys on the southern edge of the main channel at Copperas Bay;

Use of recreational craft;

Regular use of the river for sailing events and races;

Fishing charter vessels;

Boatyard (Mistley Marine) with mud moorings;



Public quay at Mistley;

Large vessel anchorage north of Harwich International Port;

Explosive anchorage; Sailing and yacht clubs; and

Shotley Marina and associated traffic.

Table 2: River Stour Navigation Marks (East to West).

2.3.1 Commercial Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour

The principal vessel traffic data input used for this study was data from the Automatic Identification

System (AIS). AIS was developed at the turn of the century as an aid to collision avoidance between

vessels. A transponder is carried by vessels that broadcast key information about themselves (such as

size and type, etc.) and their actions (location, speed, course, etc.) at regular intervals on a VHF

bandwidth. Vessels carrying an AIS receiver are able to see these vessels and act accordingly. AIS

operates in two forms, Class A and Class B, the former having priority, and includes all vessels required

to carry AIS by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) mandate. Class B is used mainly by

fishing vessels and recreational craft.

Those vessels required to carry AIS as dictated by SOLAS Chapter V (IMO, 2002) are: “All ships of 300

gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages and cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage

which are not engaged on international voyages and passenger ships irrespective of size...”

Name Type Light Characteristics

Parkeston Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl(3) G 10s

Harwich International Port North Cardinal Q

Ramsey Lateral Buoy (Starboard) LFl G 10s

Erwarton South Cardinal Q(6) + FLl 15s

No 1 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG

Holbrook South Cardinal VQ(6)+LFl 10s

No 2 North Cardinal Q

River Stour Lee Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG

No 4 Lateral Buoy (Port) QR

No 5 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl G 5s

No 6 Lateral Beacon (Port) Fl(2) R 5s


No 8 Lateral Buoy (Port) QR

No 10 Lateral Buoy (Port) Fl R 5s



No 12 North Cardinal Q


No 15 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl(2) G 5s

Baltic Wharf Jetty Marker FR



AIS uses a time-division multiple access scheme broadcasting information over VHF radio frequency

where vessels transmit packets of dynamic and static information at different time-slots (IALA, 2011).

Static data of vessel information such as vessel type, dimensions and name are broadcast every six

minutes, and dynamic information such as position and course are broadcast at intervals, dependent

upon the speed and navigational status of that vessel. The normal reporting intervals for Class A AIS

are between 2 and 10 seconds for vessels transiting, or three minutes for a vessel at anchor (IMO,

1998). Class B AIS transmits at three minutes for a vessel at anchor or 30 seconds for a vessel in transit.

It should be noted that several vessel groups, including recreational craft who are not required to carry

AIS, are likely absent in the presented analysis.

Commercial vessel movements for vessels using the main channel to Mistley were studied, see Figure

4 to Figure 7. Using Automatic Identification System data, the tracks of three coaster sized vessels

were plotted and their tracks logged to provide details of the passage through the river for their arrival

and departure to/from Mistley. The data indicates that as expected the vessels navigate using the

main channel and at no time do they enter any of the areas marked out as proposed sites of the mussel

farms.

The details of the three coaster sized vessels used are in Table 3 and are typical of the vessel types

that use T W Logistics Ltd (TWL) at Mistley.

Figure 2: River Stour (Jacques Bay) viewed from Wrabness (looking west).



Figure 3: River Stour viewed from Wrabness Beach (looking east).

Table 3: Type of commercial vessels used for main channel track analysis.

Name Type Length Overall

EEMS SPACE General Cargo 87.2m

SEA RUBY General Cargo 77.8m

KORIANGI General Cargo 81m

Figure 4: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits.




Figure 6: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits.




2.3.2 All Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour

In addition to the analysis of the track data for commercial traffic using the main channel to Mistley,

an analysis was also undertaken of all commercial vessels using the River Stour and Harwich

International Port. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 8 to Figure 11.

This data indicates that very little traffic enters the proposed site (Part 1) with all traffic using Harwich

International Port navigating to the south of the area and not entering the site.

The data does show tracks passing through the areas, however, these are smaller shallow draft craft

and the frequency and volume would suggest that the mussel operations would not pose a significant

issue with regards to navigation.

The data also shows that the majority of vessels navigate in or near the main channel and very seldom

enter any of the proposed sites.



Figure 8: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels).




Figure 10: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels).




2.4 LOCAL REGULATIONS

HHA has statutory powers to regulate commercial and leisure vessels within the HHA Area of

Jurisdiction which includes the River Stour (see Figure 12), and is responsible for the navigational

safety and traffic regulation of all vessels bound to and from the Haven Ports of Felixstowe, Harwich

International, Harwich Navyard, Ipswich, and Mistley. All vessels arriving at or sailing from the Haven

Ports, or on passage through the Harwich Seaward Area, must report to Harwich Vessel Traffic Service

(VTS) and comply with VTS Rules. The Reporting Procedures and VTS Rules are set in the General

Directions for Navigation and published in the Admiralty List of Radio Signals.

Figure 12: River Stour Chartlet (HHA publication).1

2.4.1 General Directions for Navigation

In March 2011 Harwich Haven Authority (HHA) exercised its powers under Section 32 of the Harwich

Harbour Act 1974 and updated the General Directions for Navigation.

The General Directions are to be construed in conjunction with the HHA Byelaws, Pilotage Directions

and HHA Local Notices to Mariners. It is the duty of the Master of a vessel to which a General Direction

applies to comply with that Direction.

1 Figure 12 source HAA website.



2.4.2 Reporting

All vessels of more than 50 GT entering or leaving the Harwich VTS area must report to Harwich VTS

when passing the appropriate reporting points indicated on Admiralty charts.

2.5 HARBOUR PATROLS

The HHA maintains a regular patrol of the Haven throughout the year. In addition, during the summer

months weekends, between the hours of 0800 to 1800, these patrols are maintained to provide

assistance and advice to yachtsmen, and to ensure that the main channel is kept clear for the transit

of commercial shipping. The weekend Harbour patrol launch maintains a listening watch on VHF

Channel 71.

2.6 VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICES

Harwich VTS is operated from Harwich VTS Operations Centre on a continuous 24-hour basis to

provide a safe and efficient regime for vessel traffic, and protection for the environment. The river

and its approaches are continuously monitored by trained personnel using Radar, VHF and CCTV to

build a comprehensive traffic image of the area. Harwich Operations Centre also provides the co-

ordination and communications centre for the Haven Ports Pilotage Service. Harwich VTS provides

Traffic Organisation and Navigational Assistance Services with the authority of the Harbour Master.

Failure, without good cause, to obey an instruction given by Harwich VTS with the purpose of

preserving marine safety, may constitute an offence.

2.6.1 Harwich VTS Level of Service

Harwich VTS is a UK designated port VTS and provides the following levels of service:

Traffic Organisation Service – to prevent the development of dangerous maritime

traffic situations, and to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vessel traffic

within the Authority’s area; and

Navigational Assistance – provided on request or when deemed necessary by Harwich

VTS to assist on-board navigational decision making, and to monitor its effects. It does

not relieve the Master of his responsibility for the safe navigation of the vessel.

2.7 PILOTAGE

HHA is a Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) within the meaning of the Pilotage Act 1987, and under

Section 7 of the Act, has powers to issue Pilotage Directions to the Masters of vessels in the Haven

Ports Pilotage Area.



HHA manage and regulate the requirements for the provision of pilots within the River Stour, which

fall into the CHA area. Pilot Exemption Certificates (PEC) are issued for master and mates operating

within the CHA upon completion of satisfactory assessment and examination. All commercial vessels

using the Stour currently take a pilot, there are no PEC holders using the River.

2.8 NOTICE TO MARINERS

HAA issues Notices to Mariners (NtMs) to provide essential, up-to-date information and advice to

those navigating within the HHA area of jurisdiction. Subjects include (but are not limited to)

notification of works and events which may impact on navigation and notification of new and updated

rules and regulations for navigation.

2.9 ANCHORAGES AND MOORINGS

The River Stour is tidal and moorings do dry out at low water. Most moorings are along the edge of

the channel and large craft are not permitted to moor in such a position where they may swing into,

and block the channel.

On the Essex side of the river no moorings are permitted below the commercial quay at Mistley. On

the Suffolk side of the river no moorings are permitted east of Bexford's factory.

Small craft are permitted to freely anchor on the river as long as they are clear of the main channel

and moorings.

2.9.1 Small Craft Moorings

Small craft mooring areas in the River Stour are laid out in Table 4, and their locations are shown in

Figure 13 and Figure 14.

Table 4: River Stour Small Craft Moorings.

Location Type Ownership Notes

Bathside Bay

Mud Swinging

10 x Trot (Harwich and Dovercourt Sailing Club)

Sealink Harbours Limited

The whole of Bathside Bay is scheduled for reclamation and development. Temporary

moorings may be laid within the bay with the consent of the Harbour Master.

Shotley Swinging

Mud

Shotley Sailing Club

These moorings may be used for commercial craft such as fishing parties or charter boats.

Mooring numbers are limited.

Holbrook Moorings

Mud Private Moorings numbers are limited.

Manningtree Moorings

Mud Stour Sailing Club

Wrabness Moorings

Mud Private The mooring area is limited in size and working

at full capacity.



Figure 13: Top Left: Bathside Bay small craft moorings, Top Right: Shotley small craft moorings,

Bottom Left: Holbrook small craft moorings, Bottom Right: Manningtree small craft moorings.

Figure 14: Wrabness small craft moorings.



2.9.2 Shotley Marina

Shotley Marina is situated on the north side of the River Stour where it meets the River Orwell and

comprises of 350 berths. The marina approach is via a marked maintained channel and a lock

controlled entrance. Users of the marina tend to navigate east of the Stour and visiting vessels arrive

from the Haven approach. Therefore, it is considered that the mussel farms, which lie to the west of

the marina, are unlikely to impact on the traffic using the marina.

2.10 TIDAL AND PREVAILING CONDITIONS

Tidal flows within the River Stour are no greater than 1.3kts on a Spring Ebb and 1.2kts on a Spring

Flood. The strongest streams are in the channel off Erwarton Ness. The direction of the streams run

westerly on the flood and easterly on the ebb (see Annex A for plots).

The tide height and range is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Stour Tidal Range.

Tide Height Range

Mean High Water Springs 4.1m 3.7m (Mean Spring Range)

Mean Low Water Springs 0.4m

Mean High Water Neaps 3.4m 2.3m (Mean Neap Range)

Mean Low Water Neaps 1.1m

2.10.1 Prevailing Wind Conditions

The prevailing winds come from between the south and the north-west, and the strongest winds

nearly always blow from this range of directions. Spring time also tends to have the majority of winds

from the north east.



3 CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS

Consultation meetings with river users and the SHA (HHA) were undertaken during the site visit on

Wednesday 1st July 2015.

3.1 COMMERCIAL VESSEL STAKEHOLDER MEETING

The first of these meetings were with the HHA as the Statutory Harbour Authority for the river Stour

and TWL Mistley as the main berth operator at Mistley.

The meeting was held at the HHA offices in Harwich, and the following were present at the meeting:

Capt. Neil Glendenning - Harwich Harbour Master;

Mr John Brien – Harwich Harbour Authority;

Ms Isoldt Harris – TWL (Mistley);

Mr James Hannon – Marico Marine; and

Dr Edward Rodgers – Marico Marine.

The meeting involved a discussion based around the intended operation of the proposed mussel farm

sites and the type and size of vessel that would be used to harvest the mussels. The location of the

sites were analysed as were the requirements for marking the sites. Capt. Glendenning stated that he

would have concerns related to additional buoyage to be placed in the Stour and also stated that there

was no apparent need to mark the sites with buoyage.

It was noted that the marking of the sites could introduce an additional 26 buoys to the river. There

was also concern expressed regarding the location and marking of crab pots, however, HHA have

powers within their byelaws to regulate the placing and marking of such pots. HHA have already

written a response to the serval order outlining their opposition to the marking of the sites with buoys

and made reference to the minimal approach taken in marking the channel in the Stour to maintain

safe navigation. The Harbour Master was keen to keep the Stour ‘uncluttered’ from additional

buoyage.

The limitations on the freedom of navigation, mooring and anchoring were discussed. It was pointed

out that the freedom of navigation and anchoring would not be affected, this was preserved by Section

7 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967.

The liability of a master or pilot (including recreational craft crew), damaging the mussel beds due to

their vessel running aground was discussed. It was pointed out that as a matter of law, they would

not incur any liability for damage to the mussel beds resulting from accidental or emergency

groundings and/or re-floating of a vessel.



It was noted that the current commercial traffic to and from Mistley remained within the main

navigation channel and that these vessels took a mandatory pilot supplied by the CHA (HHA).

Capt. Glendenning pointed out that there was slight concern regarding the southwest extremities of

site 3 and the northwest extremities of site 4 (Holbrook No. 2 area) extending south and north of the

main channel buoy line respectively. There was concern that this would restrict sea room available in

the main channel for larger vessels which were constrained by their draught and the harvesting vessels

restricted in their ability to manoeuvre during times that the fisheries are active. He asked if the

applicant would consider replotting the positon of these sites to take this into account.

The commercial anchorages in the area were seldom used and the most of the large traffic movements

took place off of Harwich International Port in a deep water area south of site 1. It was noted that

this area had the highest large commercial movements involving ferry, cruise ship and Trinity House

service vessel traffic. This included large vessels turning for the berth. It was also noted that this area

was monitored closely by VTS.

HHA operate dredgers for sediment replenishment and one of the dredging discharge tracks runs on

a lines crossing site 1, site 3 and site 4. The implications of a dredger and mussel dredger operating in

the same area was discussed with regards to COLREGS and give way vessel requirements, this is taken

into account in the NRA. There was a discussion regarding the size of site one possibly restricting sea

room for recreational vessel passing north of turning vessels in the deep water pocket.

Capt. Glendenning asked for a consideration on reducing the site 1 area in order to clear the southern

edges of the area out of the deeper part of northern edge of the main channel.

In addition to the concerns express by HAA, Isoldt Harris raised concerns regarding the possible

navigational restrictions to the current vessels arriving and departing Mistley and whether it would

impact on the use of larger vessels if TWL’s business grew and future demand required the use of

larger vessels. There was also concern regarding the reduction of speed for vessels navigating and

possibility of delays for arrivals and departures.

The question was asked regarding whether future dredging activities (maintenance and capital), would

be affected due to the placement of the mussel farms.

It was noted that with the exception of the extremities of site 3 and the northwest extremities of site

4, the impact to navigation would not increase. Both HHA and TWL were generally happy with the

proposed operation:

An agreement between the farm operator and the SHA (MoU) for clear

communications to river users;







clearly marked; and



3.2 RECREATIONAL VESSEL STAKEHODLER MEETING

A further stakeholder meeting was undertaken at the Royal Harwich Yacht Club (RHYC) with

representatives from the RYA, local yacht and sailing clubs, recreational fisherman and charter

owners. The meeting was chaired by the Chairman of Harwich Area Sailing Association (HASA), Brenda

Read.

Present at the meeting and sitting on the top table were the following:

Brenda Read, meeting chairman and Chairman of HASA;

Peter Scott – Partner, Quality Solicitors Parkinson Wright;

James Hannon – Marico Marine;

Dr Ed Rogers – Marico Marine;

Graham Osbourne - Wash Mussels Ltd; and

Representatives for the local clubs and stakeholders present at the meeting were:

Chris Edwards – RYA Regional Representative;

Tim Goodwin;

Derek Davis;

Graham Pugh;

Nigel Mower;

Peter Thomas;

Paul Rodhouse;

Phil Barns;

Graham Prior;

John Cooledge;

Peter Holborn;

David Card; and

Chris Brown.



The meeting was called by Marico to discuss navigational concerns. Although some navigational

concerns were expressed, the meeting mostly consisted of issues relating to the consultation process

and DEFRA consultation.

A list of hazard (12 in total), complete with analysis had been complied by Phillip Barnes and Paul

Rodhouse and was handed out to all present. This document was discussed briefly. The risks

highlighted in this document which include grounding, collision, entanglement and drifting vessels

have been categorised into this NRA.

The contents of this document are contained in Annex B.

Mr Edwards (RYA) expressed concern regarding the placement of mussel site marker buoys. James

Hannon responded by advising that the HHA Harbour Master had strongly opposed to the marker

buoys. Mr Peter Scott also advised that they had met with DEFRA and there was no requirement for

surface marker buoys to be placed on any of the sites.

3.3 POST DRAFT NRA COMMENTS

Following the publication of this document in draft form a number of further comments have been

received from Tim Goodwin and combined response by the members of HASA. Peter Scott instructed

Marico to respond to these comments and included the response within the NRA report. The post

draft NRA report comments and Marico Responses can be found in Annex H. and Annex I respectively.

The comments are in submitted format and have been unaltered. The responses are given in red text.



4 ASSESSMENT OF RISKS NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

4.1 METHODOLOGY

The NRA methodology, used for this assessment, has been specifically developed for navigational use

in ports/harbours. It is fundamentally based on concepts of the “Most Likely” (ML) and “Worst

Credible” (WC) scenarios that reflect the range of outcomes arising from a navigation hazard (see

Figure 15).

Figure 15: MARICO hazard identification and risk assessment process.

The NRA process is based on the Formal Safety Assessment methodology as adopted by the

International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and follows the requirements of the Port Marine Safety

Code. The NRA used the proprietary Marico Marine “Hazman II®” programme to undertake the risk

assessment process.

IMO guidelines define a hazard as “something with the potential to cause harm, loss or injury”, the

realisation of which results in an accident. The potential for a hazard to be realised can be combined

with an estimate or known consequence of outcome. This combination is termed “risk”. Risk is



therefore a measure of the frequency and consequence of a particular hazard and in order to compare

risk levels a matrix is used.

At the low end of the scale, frequency is extremely remote, consequence insignificant and risk can be

said to be negligible. At the high end, where hazards are defined as frequent and the consequence

catastrophic, then risk is termed intolerable. Between the two is an area defined “As Low As

Reasonably Practicable” (ALARP). The IMO guidelines allow the selection of definitions of frequency

and consequence to be made by the organisation carrying out the NRA. This is important, as it allows

risk to be applied in a qualitative and comparative way. To identify high risk levels using a quantitative

mathematical approach would require a large volume of casualty data, which is not generally

available.

Figure 16: Frequency/Consequence Chart.

ALARP can be defined as “Tolerable”, if the reduction of the risk is impracticable, or if the cost of such

reduction would obviously be highly disproportionate to the improvement. It can also be defined as

“Tolerable”, if the cost of reducing the risk is greater than any improvement gained. This is showed

pictorially in Figure 16.



4.2 HAZARD CATEGORIES

In order to ensure that all hazards associated with the Project were identified (and allocated a Hazard

Reference number), a matrix of generic hazards was used, which focused on the risk exposure (see

Table 6).

Table 6: Initial Hazard Identification Matrix.

Hazard Ref.

Hazard Category Hazard Title

1 Collision HHA Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft

2 Collision HHA Dredger in collision with Coaster

3 Collision HHA Dredger in collision with a Ferry/Cruise Ship

4 Collision Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft

5 Collision Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster

6 Collision Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship

7 Collision Coaster in collision with Coaster

8 Collision Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship

9 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft

10 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with Coaster

11 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with a Ferry/Cruise Ship

12 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with a HHA Dredger

13 Grounding Recreational Craft

14 Grounding Coaster

15 Grounding HHA Dredger

16 Grounding Ferry/Cruise Ship

17 Grounding Mussel Dredger

18 Navigational Contact Recreational Craft in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy

19 Navigational Contact Coaster in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy

20 Navigational Contact Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy

21 Navigational Contact HHA Dredger in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy

22 Navigational Contact Mussel Dredger in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy

4.3 RISK MATRIX CRITERIA

4.3.1 Frequency

In this study, each hazard was reviewed with respect to cause and effect, with frequency of occurrence

derived for notional “most likely” and “worst credible” hazard events based on Table 7.

Table 7: Hazard Frequency Ranges.

Scale Description Definition Operational Interpretation

F5 Frequent An event occurring in the range once a week to

once an operating year. One or more times in 1 year.

F4 Likely An event occurring in the range once a year to

once every 10 operating years. One or more times in 10 years

1 - 9 years.



4.3.1 Consequence

Consequence (or impact of risk realisation) was assessed in four key categories:

People - Personal injury, fatality etc.;

Property - Port and third party;

Environment - Oil pollution etc.; and

Stakeholder/ Business - Reputation, financial loss, public perception, etc.

Consequence is assessed against “most likely” and “worst credible” outcomes. It should be noted that

in terms of property, the risk assessment process by necessity considers that the loss of a large

commercial vessel is of wider implication than the loss of a private leisure cruiser. This assessment

criterion is not intended to undervalue damage suffered by the leisure user, whose personal loss may

be very significant in relative terms, however, it is recognised that the loss of a commercial vessel

often has a wider implication in terms of business and negative media exposure.

The rating applied is such that the consequences are of broadly equivalent value across the categories

(see Table 8).

F3 Possible An event occurring in the range once every 10

operating years to once in 100 operating years. One or more times in 100 years

10 – 99 years.

F2 Unlikely An event occurring in the range less than once

in 100 operating years. One or more times in 1,000 years 100 –

999 years.

F1 Remote Considered to occur less than once in 1,000

operating years (e.g. it may have occurred at a similar site, elsewhere in the world).

Less than once in 1,000 years >1,000 years.



Table 8: Consequence Categories (Costs in £)2.

4.4 RISK TREATMENT CRITERIA

Risk scores are calculated for each hazard under the “most likely” and “worst credible” scenarios for

each of the consequence criteria (people, property, environment and business) based on the scores

in the hazard log, using a risk matrix (see Table 9). This generates eight individual risk scores per

hazard which are documented in the “Ranked Hazard List”. The individual risk scores for each

consequence category are then combined, using a proprietary algorithm in Hazman II, to derive an

overall risk score. The overall baseline risk scores are used to create a ranked hazard list. All risk

scores, whether individually related to a hazard consequence category, or overall combined for an

individual hazard are scored on a scale of 0 (low risk) to 10 (high risk) (see Table 9 for more details).

2 Tiered oil spill response levels were adopted by the International Maritime Organisation International Convention on Oil Pollution

Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990.



Table 9: Risk Matrix.

MATRIX OUTCOME

Risk Definition Action Taken

0 & 1 Negligible Risk A level where operational safety is unaffected.

2 & 3 Low risk A level where operational safety is assumed.

4 ,5 and 6 As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)

A level defined by study at which risk control in place is reviewed. It should be kept under review in the ensuing Safety Management

System.

7 & 8 Significant Risk A level where existing risk control is automatically reviewed and suggestions made where additional risk control could be applied if

appropriate. Significant risk can occur in the average case or in individual categories. New risk controls identified should be

introduced in a timescale of two years.

9 & 10 High Risk A level requiring immediate mitigation.



5 RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

A complete review of all vessel traffic types and marine operations for the Stour was undertaken in

order to identify a list of hazards. Each hazard was assessed using the method explained in Section 4.

Two assessments of risk were undertaken:

Risk Assessment for the current navigational situation; and

Risk Assesement for the navigational situation with the addition of the mussel farms

and their operations.

The hazard logs for the current navigational situation are in Annex C, and the hazard logs for the

navigational situation with the addition of the mussel farms and their operations are in Annex D.

Hazards are ranked in accordance to the level of overall risk.

5.1 RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY - COMBINED

The top ten hazards of both the current navigational situation and the navigational situation with the

mussel farms and their operations combined are shown in Table 10, the complete combined ranked

hazards of both risk assessments are shown in Annex E.

Table 10: Top ten ranked hazards for both risk assessments combined.

Organisation Rank

Register Rank Hazard

Ref Hazard Title Category

Inherent Risk

Residual Risk

1 Stour NRA

(Current) 1 6 Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision 3.32 3.32

2

Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

1 8 Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision 3.32 3.32

3

Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

2 7 Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster Collision 3.3 3.3

4 Stour NRA

(Current) 2 5 Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster Collision 3.3 3.3

5 Stour NRA

(Current) 3 4 Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft Collision 2.74 2.74

6

Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

3 6 Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft Collision 2.74 2.74



Organisation Rank



Inherent Risk

Residual Risk

7

Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

5 16 Recreational Craft grounding Grounding 2.65 2.65

8

Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

4 20 Mussel Dredger in collision with HHA Dredger Collision 2.65 2.65

9 Stour NRA

(Current) 4 9 Recreational Craft grounding Grounding 2.65 2.65

10

Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

6 17 Mussel Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft Collision 2.57 2.57

5.2 RISK ASSESSMENT CURRENT SITUATION

The top ten hazards for the current navigational situation are shown in Table 10. The complete ranked

hazard list is shown in Annex F.



Table 11: Ranked Hazard List – Current Situation. R

ank

Haz

ard

Ref

.

Hazard Title Hazard Detail

Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category

Ris

k O

vera

ll ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

1 6

Recreational Craft in

collision with Ferry/Cruise

Ship

Recreational craft navigating in main

channel whilst Ferry/Cruise Ship

are moving or turning off Harwich International Port

Near miss/low speed glancing

blow. Minor hull damage to

recreational craft.

Heavy contact. Major hull damage to

recreational craft. Sinking,

loss of life.

0 2 0 0 3 6 5 6 3.32

2 5

Recreational Craft in

collision with Coaster


channel whilst coaster is

navigating in main channel

Low speed contact, minor

damage to recreational

craft

Major damage to recreational craft, sinking,

loss of life.

0 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 3.3

3 4

Recreational Craft in collision

Recreational Craft

Leisure craft in contact with

another.

Low speed glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull

Heavy contact, major hull damage,

sinking. Loss of life.

0 0 0 0 2 6 6 6 2.74

4 9 Recreational

Craft grounding

Recreational craft out of position

Soft grounding, no damage, floats

free on next HW

Hard grounding, hull

damage, sinking, loss of

life.

0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65

5 10 Coaster

Grounding

Coaster/commercial vessel out of main

channel

Soft grounding, refloats, no

damage

Heavy grounding - minor hull damage.

0 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 2.49

6 2 HHA Dredger

in collision with Coaster

Coasters transiting to Mistley using or passing in the main

channel.

Low speed glancing blow.

Minor damage.

Heavy contact, hull damage.

Minor injury to crew member.

0 0 2 2 0 2 3 3 2.34

7 7 Coaster in



channel.

Low speed contact. no significant damage

Heavy contact - major hull

damage, water ingress, minor

injury

0 0 0 0 3 2 5 5 2.15

8 3

HHA Dredger in collision

with a Ferry/Cruise

Ship

Contact with Ferry or Cruise Ship

turning off Harwich Haven.

Low speed contact -

minor hull damage.

Major hull damage -

minor injury 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 1.95

9 1

HHA Dredger in collision

with Recreational

Craft


Very minor damage.

Damage to hull, water ingress and

possible sinking. Loss of

life.

0 0 0 0 0 5 3 3 1.95

10 8

Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise

Ship

Coaster in contact with Ferry or Cruise

Ship turning off Harwich Haven.

Low speed contact -

minor hull damage

Heavy contact major hull

damage, minor injury.

0 0 0 0 1 3 4 4 1.8



5.3 RISK ASSESSMENT WITH MUSSEL FARM OPERATION

This NRA considers both the most likely and the worst credible outcomes (set against likely frequency

of the event happening in each case). This approach provides a more realistic and thorough

assessment of risk, which reflects reality, in that relatively very few incidents result in the worst

credible outcome. The assessment shows that introduction of the mussel farms slightly increased the

number of hazards on the river. This is purely because of the presence of addition craft that would be

used in relation to the mussel farm operation on the river. However the risk to navigation has not

significantly increased and any additional risk was determined to be low.

The top ten hazards for the navigational situation with the mussel farm in operation are shown in

Table 12. The complete ranked hazard list is shown in Annex G.

5.4 ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES

The NRA indicates that no additional risk controls are necessary as the risks are low. However, Wash

Mussels Ltd are committed to going beyond the minimum control requirements with a view to

alleviate any stakeholders concerns where possible. This should include, but not be limited to, the

following control measures:

An agreement between the farm operator and the SHA (MoU) for clear

communications to river users;





clearly marked; and





Table 12: Ranked Hazard List – with the mussel farm in operation. R

ank

Haz

ard

Re

f.



Ris

k O

vera

ll

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

1 8


with Ferry/Cruise

Ship



are moving or turning off Harwich International Port.



recreational craft.

Heavy contact. Major hull damage

to recreational craft. Sinking, loss

of life.

0 2 0 0 3 6 5 6 3.32

2 7 Recreational

Craft in collision with Coaster


channel.



craft.

Major damage to recreational craft, sinking, loss of life.

0 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 3.3

3 6


Recreational Craft


another.

Low speed glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull.

Heavy contact, major hull damage, sinking. Loss of life.

0 0 0 0 2 6 6 6 2.74

4 20 Mussel Dredger in collision with

HHA Dredger

Mussel Dredging and Sediment replenishment

confliction. Sites 1, 2, 3 & 4.


damage.

Heavy impact, major hull damage,

sinking of mussel dredger.

0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65

5 16 Recreational

Craft grounding Recreational craft

out of position.

Soft grounding, no damage,

floats free on next HW.

Hard grounding, hull damage,

sinking, loss of life. 0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65

6 17

Mussel Dredger in collision with

Recreational Craft

14 M Mussel Dredger in contact with Recreational

Craft while engaged in operations.

Low speed collision,

glancing blow. Minor damage.

Hard collision, major hull damage, sinking, loss of life.

0 0 0 0 2 5 5 6 2.57

7 13 Coaster

Grounding

Coaster/commercial vessel out of main channel.

Soft grounding, re-floats, no

damage.


0 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 2.49

8 19


Ferry/Cruise Ship

Mussel Dredger on transit or working southern edge of

Site 1.

Low speed glancing blow, minor damage

to mussel dredger.

Heavy impact, major hull damage,

sinking of mussel dredger.

0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 2.34


Coaster

Mussel Dredger operating on main

channel edge of mussel farm or on

transit.

Glancing blow, minor damage.


taking water, possible sinking of

dredger.

0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 2.34

10 4 HHA Dredger in


Dredger operating on main channel

edge of soil ground or on transit.

Low speed glancing blow. Minor damage.

Heavy contact, hull damage. Minor injury to crew

member.

0 0 2 2 0 2 3 3 2.34



6 CONCLUSIONS

The five year mussel farm trail, once underway, is unlikely to generate a discernible increase in the

navigational risk on the River Stour as:

The mussels lines are placed on the sea bed with no vertical risers or lines;

Maximum operational days associated with additional vessel movements within the

trail period are less than 15 days per year, with 20 additional monitoring visits each

year for local authority environmental health;

Fishing vessels engaged in farm operations are subject to MCA safety inspections;

Total usage of each site is expected to be less than 20% of the total licenced area;

The farms do not restrict navigation, they are not exclusion zones;

Wash Mussels Limited state that there is no intention to mark the sites with additional

buoyage;

The area is monitored using VTS by HHA;

Large vessels using the river to transit to Mistley carry an authorised pilot with

exceptional local knowledge;

The right to free navigation and anchoring is not affected;

Anticipated times that the mussel dredgers are expected to operate are at times when

recreational usage is at a minimum;

HHA have powers within their byelaws (Clause 6) which regulate the marking and

placement of crab pots;

The navigational channel is well marked;

The SHA and CHA is well managed by HHA;

Mussel dredger operations will adhere to COLREGs;

There is no legal liability for vessels causing damage to mussel sites by running

aground; and

Section 7 of the Sea fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. Annex J



7 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that good communications are maintained providing information on the time,

location of operation and vessel numbers involved in the mussel farm operations, are shared with all

port users to assist with de-confliction of commercial vessel transits and recreational activities. A

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the SHA for the provision of this information may

assist in ensuring that all operations are considered, communicated and de-conflicted. The SHA can

then choose to communicate this to the port users as it sees fit.

The mussel farm operational activities should be restricted to times when recreational use is at its

lowest, such as week days outside of the peak leisure/recreational season. Weekend and evening

operations, especially at peak recreational times should only be undertaken after consultation with

the HHA.

Wash Mussels Limited will need to provide clear information regarding the total numbers of vessel

movements, transit frequency and the locations for cargo discharge in order to provide information

to the SHA to assist with de-confliction of operations. This will assist in reducing the chances of

unwanted interaction between dredgers and river uses, commercial and recreational vessels alike.

HHA have expressed concern regarding the positioning of sites 3 & 4. The southwest extremities of

site 3 and the northwest extremities of site 4 (Holbrook No. 2 area) extended south and north of the

main channel buoy line respectively. This would allow operations to be undertaken in close proximity

and possibly restrict available sea room in the main channel for larger vessels which are ‘constrained

by their draft’ (COLREGS 28) and ‘navigating within a narrow channel’ (COLREGS 9) and the harvesting

vessels ‘restricted in their ability to manoeuvre’ (COLREGS 3) or ‘engaged in fishing operations’

(COLREGS 26) during times that the fisheries are active. The applicant may wish to consider replotting

the positon of sites 3 & 4.

HHA undertake sediment replenishment that involves dredging discharge across site 1 and sites 3 &

4. The implications of a dredger and mussel dredger operating in the same area was discussed with

regards to COLREGS and give way vessel requirements. An agreed procedure for this operation is

advised to de-conflict operations drawing from the requirements of Rule 8 of the COLREGS.

Consideration should be given to reducing the site 1 area in order to clear the southern edges of the

area out of the deeper part of northern edge of the main channel.


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright A-1

Annex A Direction of Tidal Streams



HW -5.00

HW -3.00

HW -2.00

HW -1.00



HW

HW +1.00

HW +2.00

HW +3.00



HW +4.00

HW +5.00

HW +6.00


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright B-1

Annex B Risk Assessment provided by Phillip Barnes and

Paul Rodhouse



Assessment of risk to yachts of River Stour mussel culture

Top Twelve risks Cruising and Sailing Vessels

1. Leisure craft becoming entangled with the risers of fixed and temporary markers.

2. Disabled Leisure craft drifting down into the harbour on the ebb tide.

3. Small leisure craft being displaced by mussel farming activities and moving into areas currently

used by larger and faster leisure vessels.

4. Larger leisure vessels displaced into the deep water channel at Parkstone Quay by the displacement

of smaller craft mentioned at 3 above.

5. Collision between Leisure and Fishery vessels in the work areas.

6. Fishery boats forced out of the Wrabness channel by ships going to and from Mistly.

7. Conflict between fishery vessels avoiding ships in the Wrabness channel by entering the shallow

areas either side of the channel and leisure craft.

8. Conflict between fishery vessels and leisure craft upstream of Parkstone quay.

9. Disabled fishery vessels drifting down into the harbour on an ebb tide.

10. Leisure sailing craft having to get out of the way of a working dredger or other work boat.

11. Leisure sailing vessels being unable to make a reasonable angle on the wind as they approach the

Wrabness Channel – particularly when there is s strong East or West element to the wind.

12. Local lifeboat being off station attending to an entangled leisure vessel up river when an offshore

emergency is called.



Impact Probability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

2 11

3 9

4 6 10

5 8

6 12

7 2 7 1

8

9 5

10 4 3

Impact: low = cuts and bruises; high = multiple deaths or Financial Loss low = £-10s; high = £-Ms



Stour Mussel Bed Application

Safety Issues of concern Analysis of the Impact and probability

1. Leisure craft becoming entangled with the risers of fixed and temporary markers. If fixed area

markers are used along with pot markers the probability becomes quite high and the impact could be

serious with life at risk and emergency declared. Contact Navigation

2. Disabled Leisure craft drifting down into the harbour on the ebb tide. This could be very serious

causing disruption and an emergency declared. Harbour masters opinion is bound to have a bearing.

3. Small leisure craft being displaced by mussel farming activities and moving into areas currently

used by larger and faster leisure vessels. Particularly in area 1 there is a very high probability and the

impact potentially serious – see 4 below

4. Larger leisure vessels displaced into the deep water channel at Parkstone Quay by the displacement

of smaller craft mentioned at 3 above. If area 1 is kept at the proposed size then the probability is

very high and the impact potentially very serious. Skippers of larger faster craft will not want to go

into the deep water channel but could be forced into it whilst taking avoiding action.

5. Collision between Leisure and Fishery vessels in the work areas. The probability is not very high

because leisure skippers will see work boats in an area and largely decide to stay out of the area to be

safe. Therefore the impact on leisure use is very high.

6. Fishery boats forced out of the Wrabness channel by ships going to and from Mistly. The impact

not high unless the fishery boat goes aground in the shallow water or impacts with a moored or other

leisure vessel. Probability is that it is bound to happen at some point.

7. Conflict between fishery vessels avoiding ships in the Wrabness channel by entering the shallow

areas either side of the channel and leisure craft. The impact if something goes wrong is moderately

high as is the probability because there is little room to manoeuvre at some states of tide.

8. Conflict between fishery vessels and leisure craft upstream of Parkstone quay. The impact on leisure

use is moderately inconvenient as is the probability. 9. Disabled fishery vessels drifting down into the

harbour on an ebb tide. Impact is low to moderate as is the probability. The dredger would be obliged

to ask for professional Tug assistance. 10. Leisure sailing craft having to get out of the way of a working

dredger or other work boat. The impact on leisure vessels would not be high but the probability would

be.



11. Leisure sailing vessels being unable to make a reasonable angle on the wind as they approach the

Wrabness Channel – particularly when there is s strong East or West element to the wind. This is a

nuisance factor for sailors with a high probability.

12. Local lifeboat being off station attending to an entangled leisure vessel up river when an offshore

emergency is called. The probability is moderate to high and the impact is mostly on the RNLI. Their

opinion should be taken into account. Even if they have a reserve boat available they may not be able

to crew it quickly.


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright C-1

Annex C Hazard Logs for the Current Navigational Situation



Hazard Log for the River Stour (Current)


Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref

Affected Areas Accident Category

Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types

Affected Stakeholders

Possible Causes Most Likely

(ML) Worst

Credible (WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

1 6

Harwich International Mistley Approach

Main Channel Secondary Channel

Collision


with Ferry/Cruise

Ship




All

Environmental Interests, General

Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug

Owners, Vessel Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure

(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure

to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;

Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information

Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third

Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.



recreational craft.


recreational craft. Sinking, loss of

life.

2 1 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 5 3.32

Recreation Craft in

main channel due to traffic

volume in area north

of main channel.

2 5



Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Collision Recreational





All

Environmental Interests, Fishing

Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug






Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and

Qualifications; Traffic Density.


damage to recreational craft.

Major damage to recreational craft,

sinking, loss of life.

3 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3.3

3 4




Collision


Recreational Craft


another. All

General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel

Owners


(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo;

Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;

Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.

Low speed glancing blow,

minor damage to vessel/hull.

Heavy contact, major hull

damage, sinking. Loss of life.

5 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 4 2.74

Glancing blow, minor

damage to vessel/hull




Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML) Worst

Credible (WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

4 9

Mistley Approach Secondary Channel


Grounding Recreational

Craft grounding Recreational craft

out of position All

Fishing Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel

Owners







Soft grounding, no damage, floats free on next HW



5 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 3 2.65

5 10

Mistley Approach Main Channel

Secondary Channel Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site

4 Site 5

Grounding Coaster

Grounding

Coaster/commercial vessel out of main

channel All


Users, General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug Owners, Vessel

Owners





Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality

and Qualifications; Traffic Density.


damage


3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 2.49

6 2




Collision HHA Dredger in


Navigating in main channel whilst

Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or

turning off Harwich International Port

Fishing Users, HHA, Ships Master/Crew,

Vessel Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Failure; Failure to comply with Local Regulations;

Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;


Failure; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.




3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2.34

7 7 Mistley Approach


Collision Coaster in



channel.


Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew,

Vessel Owners










injury

3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 4 2.15




Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML) Worst

Credible (WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

8 3 Harwich International Main Channel Site 1

Collision

HHA Dredger in collision with a

Ferry/Cruise Ship




HHA, Ships

Master/Crew, Vessel Owners





Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.

Low speed contact - minor

hull damage.

Major hull damage - minor

injury 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 1.95

9 1




Collision

HHA Dredger in collision with Recreational

Craft




All


Owners



to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality



Very minor damage.

Damage to hull, water ingress and possible sinking.

Loss of life.

3 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 3 1.95

10 8 Harwich International

Main Channel Collision


Ship



Environmental Interests, HHA,

Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew,

Vessel Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Quality; Failure to

comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo;

Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third



hull damage.



2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 1.8




Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML) Worst

Credible (WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

11 12 Main Channel Harwich

International Secondary Channel

Grounding Ferry/Cruise

Ship Grounding outside

main channel All

HHA, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners, Tug Owners, General Public, Pilots


(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment

Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify

Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error

Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning

Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.

Soft grounding, no damage.

Heavy grounding, some hull damage.

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1.45

12 11 Site 2Secondary

Channel Site 3 Site 5 Site 4 Site 1

Grounding HHA Dredger

Grounding

Dredger going aground outside

main Channel All

Ships Master/Crew, Pilots, Vessel Owners, HHA




Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and



Floats free next HW.

Heavy grounding, minor hull damage.

2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1.32



Contact Navigation

Coaster in contact with

Marker/Mooring Buoy

Vessel out of position

All HHA, Pilots, Ships


Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with

VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error

Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications;

Traffic Density; Wave.

Glancing pass, no damage.

Buoy run over, major damage to

buoy. Loss of ground mooring.

3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0

14 15 Harwich International

Main Channel Contact

Navigation

Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact

with Marker/mooring

Buoy


All Pilots, Vessel

Owners, Ships Master/Crew, HHA

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment

Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify

Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error

Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics;

Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.

Glancing pass Buoy run down - major damage,

loss of buoy. 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0




Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML) Worst

Credible (WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

15 16

Site 3Main Channel Site 5 Site 2 Site1

Secondary Channel Site 4 Mistley

Approach Harwich International

Contact Navigation

HHA Dredger in contact with

Marker/Mooring Buoy


All HHA, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);

Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply

with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error

Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality


Passing contact, no damage.

Buoy run over, damage or loss of

buoy. 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0


Secondary Channel Contact

Navigation

Recreational Craft in contact

with Marker/Mooring

Buoy


All


Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Dredger on mussel farm site; Berth

Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure



Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.

Glancing contact, no damage.

Buoy riser entanglement in

propeller resulting in

drifting.

5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 0


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-1

Annex D Hazard Logs for the for the Navigational Situation

with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations



Hazard Log for the River Stour (With Mussel Farms)

Consequence Descriptions

Risk By Consequence Category

Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

1 8

Harbour Approach Harwich International

Harbour Entrance Main Channel Mistley

Approach

Collision Recreational Craft

in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship




All

Vessel Owners, Environmental

Interests, Fishing Users, General

Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships

Master/Crew, Tug Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting

Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment);

Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment

Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify

Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error

Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;

Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;

Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.

Near miss/low speed

glancing blow. Minor hull damage to

recreational craft.

Heavy contact. Major

hull damage to


loss of life.

2 1 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 5 3.32

Recreation Craft in main channel

due to traffic volume in area north of main

channel.

2 7









All


Users, General Public, HHA,

Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships

Master/Crew, Tug Owners, Vessel

Owners




Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify



Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure;

Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.



craft.

Major damage to

recreational craft, sinking,

loss of life.

3 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3.3





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

3 6





in collision Recreational Craft


another. All

General Public, HHA, Leisure Users,

Vessel Owners




Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure

to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;

Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance

Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.

Low speed glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull

Heavy contact, major hull damage, sinking. Loss

of life.

5 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 4 2.74 Glancing blow,

minor damage to vessel/hull.

4 20


Harbour Entrance Mistley Approach


Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with HHA

Dredger

Mussel Dredging and Sediment replenishment

confliction. Sites 1, 2, 3 & 4

All

Environmental Interests, Fishing Users, HHA, Ships


Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring

Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify


Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics;

Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic

Density.


damage.

Heavy impact, major hull damage, sinking of

mussel dredger.

2 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 3 2.65





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

5 16



Grounding Recreational Craft

grounding Recreational craft

out of position All

Fishing Users, General Public,

HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel Owners


Operations; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring

Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to

comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;

Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with

Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;

Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.

Soft grounding, no

damage, floats free on

next HW.

Hard grounding,

hull damage, sinking, loss of

life.

5 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 3 2.65

6 17





Collision Mussel Dredger in

collision with Recreational Craft

14 M Mussel Dredger in contact with Recreational

Craft while engaged in operations.

All

Any Regional Council,



Leisure Users, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners







Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.

Low speed collision,

glancing blow. Minor

damage.

Hard collision, major hull damage,


3 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 5 2.57





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

7 13

Site 5 Site 1 Site 3 Site 2 Site 4 Main Channel


Grounding Coaster Grounding Coaster/commercial vessel out of main

channel All

Fishing Users, Tug Owners, General

Public, HHA, Pilots, Environmental Interests, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability;

Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;

Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify

Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error

Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;


Ship/Bank Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and



damage.


3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 2.49

8 19

Harwich International Harbour Approach

Main Channel Site 1 Harbour Entrance


collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship

Mussel Dredger on transit or working southern edge of

Site 1

All

Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners, Environmental

Interests, Pilots, HHA, General Public, Fishing

Users





to comply with VTS; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error




Low speed glancing blow, minor damage

to mussel dredger.

Heavy impact, major hull damage, sinking of

mussel dredger.

2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 2.34





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

9 18



Main Channel Site 1 Site 3 Site 4



Mussel Dredger operating on main

channel edge of mussel farm or on

transit.

All

Any Regional Council,


Users, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew,

Vessel Owners





to comply with VTS; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error




Glancing blow, minor

damage.

Heavy contact, major hull damage, taking water,

possible sinking of dredger.

2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 2.34

10 4

Mistley Approach Harwich International

Site 2 Site 3 Main Channel Site 5 Site 1 Secondary Channel

Site 4



Navigating in main channel

Vessel Owners, HHA, Ships

Master/Crew, Fishing Users

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure

(Equipment); Equipment Failure; Failure to comply with Local

Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs;

Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human

Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance



Minor damage.

Heavy contact, hull

damage. Minor injury

to crew member.

3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2.34



Collision Coaster in collision

with Coaster


channel.

Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships

Master/Crew, HHA, Environmental

Interests, General Public







Ship/Bank Maintenance; Failure Manning Levels; Quality and


Low speed contact. no significant damage.


damage, water ingress, minor injury

3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 4 2.15





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

12 3 Harwich International Site 1 Main Channel

Collision HHA Dredger in collision with a

Ferry/Cruise Ship




HHA, Vessel

Owners, Ships Master/Crew









Low speed contact -

minor hull damage.

Major hull damage -

minor injury. 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 1.95

13 5









All


HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel Owners









Very minor damage.

Damage to hull, water ingress and

possible sinking. Loss

of life.

3 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 3 1.95





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s


International Collision


Ship



Vessel Owners, Leisure Users, Environmental Interests, HHA,

Pilots, Ships Master/Crew


Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Quality; Failure to comply

with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify






Low speed contact -

minor hull damage.

Heavy contact major hull damage,

minor injury.

2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 1.8

15 21



Grounding Mussel Dredger

grounding Vessel

out of position All


Vessel Owners





Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and


Soft grounding,

refloated next HW.

Heavy grounding, damage to hull, water

ingress.

4 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1.69





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

16 14 Main Channel

Secondary Channel Harwich International

Grounding Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding outside

main channel All

General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug



Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines;

Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply





Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and


Soft grounding, no

damage.


3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1.45

17 15 Secondary Channel



Grounding


main Channel All

Pilots, HHA, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners






Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications;

Traffic Density.

Soft grounding, no

damage. Floats free next HW.


2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1.32





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

18 23

Main Channel Site 4 Harwich International Harbour Entrance Site

2 Mistley Approach Harbour Approach Secondary Channel Site 5 Site 3 Site1

Contact Navigation

Recreational Craft contact with Crab

Pot Lines

Small craft becomes entangled in Crab

Pot lines. All

Fishing Users, HHA, Vessel Owners, Tug

Owners, General Public, Leisure

Users, Ships Master/Crew,

Pilots


Operations; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring

Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure



Traffic Density.

Craft in contact with line and in

freed or line is cut.

Prop and steering failure

resulting in drifting vessel

with no power.

4 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 1.31

19 24

Harbour Approach Site 5 Site 3 Site 2

Secondary Channel Harbour Entrance Site

1 Mistley Approach Site 4 Main Channel

Harwich International

Contact Navigation

Mussel Dredger in contact with Crab

Pots




All

HHA, Ships Master/Crew,

Vessel Owners, Pilots, Fishing Users, Leisure

Users





Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic

Density.

Line freed, no damage to

craft

Loss of steering and prop. Drifting

with no power.

3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1.06

20 22

Harwich International Mistley Approach Site 1 Site 3 Site 4 Harbour Approach Site 5 Main

Channel Site 2Harbour Entrance Secondary

Channel

Contact Navigation

Mussel Dredger In contact with

Marker/Mooring Buoy




All Vessel Owners,

HHA, Fishing Users




Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Malicious Action

by Third Party; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.

Passing blow, no damage.

Entanglement, foul prop.

3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

21 9 Secondary Channel Mistley Approach

Main Channel

Contact Navigation


Marker/Mooring Buoy


All HHA, Pilots, Vessel

Owners, Ships Master/Crew


Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply





Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic

Density; Wave.


Buoy run over, major damage to buoy. Loss

of ground mooring.

3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0


International Contact

Navigation

Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact with

Marker/mooring Buoy


All Pilots, Vessel

Owners, Ships Master/Crew, HHA

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Equipment Age;

Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local

Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo;

Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;

Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics;


Glancing pass

Buoy run down - major damage, loss

of buoy.

3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0

23 12 Secondary Channel Mistley Approach

Contact Navigation

Recreational Craft in contact with

Marker/Mooring Buoy


All

Leisure Users, HHA, Vessel Owners, Fishing Users, General Public

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Dredger on mussel farm site; Berth Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;





Traffic Density; Wave.

Glancing contact, no

damage.

Buoy riser entanglement

in propeller resulting in

drifting.

5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 0





Risk Overall

Remarks

ML WC

Ran

k

Ref





(ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

Freq

uen

cy

Envi

ron

men

t

Peo

ple

Pro

per

ty

Stak

eho

lder

s

24 11

Harwich International Site 4 Site 1 Site 2 Site 5 Secondary Channel Main Channel Site 3

Mistley Approach

Contact Navigation


Marker/Mooring Buoy




All Vessel Owners,

Ships Master/Crew, HHA

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot

lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe

COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error


Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;


Passing contact, no

damage.

Buoy run over, damage or

loss of buoy. 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright E-1

Annex E Organisation Report



Organisation Report: River Stour

Organisation Rank



Inherent Risk

Residual Risk

Mitigation Effectiveness

1 Stour NRA (Current)

1 6


with Ferry/Cruise Ship

Collision 3.32 3.32 0

2 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

1 8


with Ferry/Cruise Ship


3 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

2 7 Recreational


Collision 3.3 3.3 0


2 5 Recreational


Collision 3.3 3.3 0


3 4


Recreational Craft


6 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

3 6


Recreational Craft


7 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

5 16 Recreational

Craft grounding Grounding 2.65 2.65 0

8 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)


HHA Dredger Collision 2.65 2.65 0


4 9 Recreational

Craft grounding Grounding 2.65 2.65 0

10 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

6 17


Recreational Craft



5 10 Coaster

Grounding Grounding 2.49 2.49 0

12 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

7 13 Coaster


13 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)


Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision 2.34 2.34 0



Organisation Rank



Inherent Risk

Residual Risk


14 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)


Coaster Collision 2.34 2.34 0

15 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

10 4 HHA Dredger in


Collision 3.03 2.34 0.69


6 2 HHA Dredger in


Collision 3.03 2.34 0.69


7 7 Coaster in



18 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

11 1 Coaster in




9 1


Craft

Collision 6.87 1.95 4.91

20 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

13 5


Craft

Collision 6.87 1.95 4.91


8 3 HHA Dredger in collision with a


22 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

12 3 HHA Dredger in collision with a


23 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

14 2 Coaster in


Collision 3.02 1.8 1.22


10 8 Coaster in


Collision 3.02 1.8 1.22

25 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

15 21 Mussel Dredger

grounding Grounding 1.69 1.69 0


11 12 Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding 1.45 1.45 0

27 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

16 14 Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding 1.45 1.45 0


12 11 HHA Dredger




Organisation Rank



Inherent Risk

Residual Risk


29 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

17 15 HHA Dredger


30 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

18 23

Recreational Craft contact with Crab Pot

Lines

Contact Navigation

1.31 1.31 0

31 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

19 24 Mussel Dredger in contact with

Crab Pots

Contact Navigation

1.06 1.06 0

32 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

22 10


Marker/mooring Buoy

Contact Navigation

0 0 0

33 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

20 22


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Contact Navigation

0 0 0

34 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

21 9


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Contact Navigation

0 0 0


13 14


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Contact Navigation

0 0 0


14 15


Marker/mooring Buoy

Contact Navigation

0 0 0


15 16


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Contact Navigation

0 0 0


16 13


with Marker/Mooring

Buoy

Contact Navigation

0 0 0

39 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

23 12


with Marker/Mooring

Buoy

Contact Navigation

0 0 0



Organisation Rank



Inherent Risk

Residual Risk


40 Stour NRA

(With Mussel Farms)

24 11


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Contact Navigation

0 0 0


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright F-1

Annex F Ranked Hazard Lists for the Current Navigational

Situation



Ranked Hazard List: River Stour NRA (Current) R

ank

Haz

ard

Ref

.




Possible Causes



Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

1 6

Harwich International,

Mistley Approach, Main Channel,

Secondary Channel





are moving or turning off

Harwich International Port

Leisure


Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships


Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment

Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure

to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;

Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;

Interaction with Ship/Bank; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and


Near miss/low

speed glancing

blow. Minor hull damage

to recreational

craft.



loss of life.

0 2 0 0 3 6 5 6 3.32

Recreation Craft in main

channel due to traffic volume in area north

of main channel.

2 5



Secondary Channel, Site 1,

Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5



Coaster/Commercial



Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships


Owners





Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and




craft.

Major damage to recreational craft, sinking,

loss of life.

0 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 3.3

3 4






in collision Recreational Craft


another. Leisure


Owners


Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to notify

Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human

Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and


Low speed glancing

blow, minor damage to vessel/hull.



0 0 0 0 2 6 6 6 2.74 Glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.




Possible Causes



Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

4 9

Mistley Approach, Secondary

Channel, Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site

4, Site 5


grounding Recreational craft

out of position Leisure


HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel

Owners








floats free on next HW.

Hard grounding, hull

damage, sinking, loss of

life.

0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65

5 10




Grounding Coaster Grounding Coaster/commerci

al vessel out of main channel

Coaster/Commercial


Users, General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships


Owners





Interaction with Ship/Bank; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality



damage.


0 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 2.49

6 2







Coaster/Commercial

Fishing Users, HHA, Ships



Equipment Failure; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS;

Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;


Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.

Low speed glancing

blow. Minor damage.



0 0 2 2 0 2 3 3 2.34



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.




Possible Causes



Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

7 7 Mistley Approach,

Main Channel, Secondary Channel

Collision Coaster in collision

with Coaster

Coasters transiting to Mistley using or

passing in the main channel.

Coaster/Commercial


Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships








Low speed contact. no significant damage.



injury.

0 0 0 0 3 2 5 5 2.15

8 3 Harwich

International, Main Channel, Site 1


Ferry/Cruise Ship

HHA Dredger

HHA, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners





Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;


Low speed contact -

minor hull damage.


injury. 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 1.95

9 1







HHA

Dredger



Owners


Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;




Low speed glancing

blow. Very minor

damage.

Damage to hull, water ingress and possible


0 0 0 0 0 5 3 3 1.95



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.




Possible Causes



Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

10 8 Harwich

International, Main Channel

Collision Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise

Ship

Coaster in contact with Ferry or

Cruise Ship turning off Harwich

Haven.

Coaster/Commercial

Environmental Interests, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships


Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to

comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human

Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical

circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;


Low speed contact -

minor hull damage.



0 0 0 0 1 3 4 4 1.8

11 12

Main Channel, Harwich

International, Secondary Channel

Grounding Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding outside

main channel Ferry/Cruis

e Ship

HHA, Ships Master/Crew,

Vessel Owners, Tug Owners,

General Public, Pilots


(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;

Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to

observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;






0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1.45

12 11 Site 2, Secondary Channel, Site 3,

Site 5, Site 4, Site 1 Grounding

HHA Dredger Grounding


main Channel

HHA Dredger

Ships Master/Crew, Pilots, Vessel Owners, HHA




Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and


Soft grounding, no damage. Floats free next HW.


0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 1.32



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.




Possible Causes



Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

13 14 Mistley Approach,

Main Channel, Secondary Channel

Contact Navigation


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Coaster/Commercial

HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure



Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic

Density; Wave.


Buoy run over, major damage

to buoy. Loss of ground

mooring.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14 15 Harwich

International, Main Channel

Contact Navigation


Marker/mooring Buoy

Ferry/Cruis

e Ship

Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew,

HHA

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;

Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to

observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;

Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics;


Glancing pass.

Buoy run down - major

damage, loss of buoy.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 16

Site 3, Main Channel, Site 5,

Site 2, Site 1, Secondary

Channel, Site 4, Mistley Approach,


Contact Navigation


Marker/Mooring Buoy

HHA

Dredger

HHA, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew


Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality;

Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;


Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and


Passing contact, no

damage.

Buoy run over, damage or loss

of buoy. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.




Possible Causes



Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible

(WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

16 13 Mistley Approach, Secondary Channel

Contact Navigation


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Leisure



Owners


Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure


Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and


Glancing contact, no

damage.

Buoy riser entanglement

in propeller resulting in

drifting.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-1

Annex G Ranked Hazard Lists for the Navigational Situation

with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations



Ranked Hazard List: River Stour NRA (With Mussel Farms) R

ank

Haz

ard

Ref

.

Affected Areas

Accident Category


Affected Vessel Types


Possible Causes


Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

1 8

Harbour Approach, Harwich

International, Harbour

Entrance, Main Channel, Mistley

Approach



Recreational craft navigating in main channel

whilst Ferry/Cruise

Ship are moving or turning off


Port

Leisure

Vessel Owners, Environmental

Interests, Fishing Users, General Public,

HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships

Master/Crew, Tug Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure

(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy;

Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local

Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error

Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;

Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic

Density; Wave.



recreational craft.


recreational craft. Sinking, loss of

life.

0 2 0 0 3 6 5 6 3.32

Recreation Craft in main

channel due to traffic volume

in area north of main channel.

2 7


Mistley Approach,

Main Channel, Secondary

Channel, Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5



Coaster/Com

mercial


Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure Users,

Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug





Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error

Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality

and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.


damage to recreational craft

Major damage to recreational craft,


0 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 3.3

3 6


Mistley Approach,



Collision


Recreational Craft


another. Leisure


Owners




Regulations; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error

Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;

Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.


minor damage to vessel/hull


damage, sinking. Loss of life.

0 0 0 0 2 6 6 6 2.74 Glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.

Affected Areas

Accident Category




Possible Causes


Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

4 20



Entrance, Mistley

Approach, Main Channel,


Site 2, Site 3, Site 4

Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with HHA

Dredger

Mussel Dredging and

Sediment replenishment

confliction. SItes 1, 2, 3 & 4

Fishing Vessel

Environmental Interests, Fishing Users, HHA, Ships



Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age;

Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to

comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;

Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics; Maintenance Failure;



damage

Heavy impact, major hull

damage, sinking of mussel dredger

0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65

5 16




grounding

Recreational craft out of

position Leisure

Fishing Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure

Users, Vessel Owners

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations;

Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement

in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third



floats free on next HW



0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65

6 17



Entrance, Mistley

Approach , Main Channel,





14 M Mussel Dredger in

contact with Recreational Craft while engaged in operations.

HHA Dredger

Any Regional Council, Environmental

Interests, Fishing Users, General Public,

HHA, Leisure Users, Ships Master/Crew,

Vessel Owners







Low speed collision, glancing

blow. Minor damage.

Hard collision, major hull

damage, sinking, loss of life.

0 0 0 0 2 5 5 6 2.57



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.

Affected Areas

Accident Category




Possible Causes


Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

7 13

Site 5, Site 1, Site 3, Site 2, Site 4, Main

Channel, Mistley

Approach, Secondary

Channel

Grounding Coaster

Grounding

Coaster/commercial vessel out

of main channel

Coaster/Commercial

Fishing Users, Tug Owners, General

Public, HHA, Pilots, Environmental Interests, Ships




to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels;

Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.


damage

Heavy grounding - minor hull

damage. 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 2.49

8 19



Entrance, Main Channel, Site 1



Mussel Dredger on transit or

working southern edge

of Site 1

Fishing Vessel


Users, General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships





Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error




minor damage to mussel dredger

Heavy impact, major hull

damage, sinking of mussel dredger.

0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 2.34

9 18



Entrance, Mistley

Approach, Main Channel, Site 1, Site 3,

Site 4



Mussel Dredger operating on main channel

edge of mussel farm or on

transit.

Fishing Vessel

Any Regional Council, Environmental

Interests, Fishing Users, HHA, Pilots,

Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners




Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error



Glancing blow, minor damage.


damage, taking water, possible

sinking of dredger.

0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 2.34



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.

Affected Areas

Accident Category




Possible Causes


Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

10 4

Mistley Approach, Harwich

International, Site 2, Site 3,

Main Channel, Site 5, Site 1,

Secondary Channel, Site 4



Coaster/Com

mercial

Vessel Owners, HHA, Ships Master/Crew,

Fishing Users


Equipment Failure; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure

to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;

Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications;

Traffic Density.




0 0 2 2 0 2 3 3 2.34

11 1

Mistley Approach,


Channel



Coasters transiting to

Mistley using or passing in the main channel.

Coaster/Commercial

Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew, HHA, Environmental

Interests, General Public



to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank Maintenance; Failure Manning Levels; Quality





injury

0 0 0 0 3 2 5 5 2.15

12 3


Site1, Main Channel


Ferry/Cruise Ship HHA Dredger

HHA, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew



to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third



hull damage.


injury 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 1.95



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.

Affected Areas

Accident Category




Possible Causes


Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

13 5


Mistley Approach,





HHA Dredger Fishing Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure

Users, Vessel Owners








Very minor damage.

Damage to hull, water ingress and possible sinking.

Loss of life.

0 0 0 0 0 5 3 3 1.95

14 2 Main Channel,





Ferry or Cruise Ship turning off Harwich Haven.

Coaster/Commercial

Vessel Owners, Leisure Users, Environmental

Interests, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to

comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human

Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical

circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality



hull damage



0 0 0 0 1 3 4 4 1.8

15 21



Grounding Mussel Dredger

grounding

Fishing Vessel


Vessel Owners



Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;

Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic

Density.

Soft grounding, refloated next

HW

Heavy grounding, damage to hull, water ingress.

0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 1.69



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.

Affected Areas

Accident Category




Possible Causes


Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

16 14

Main Channel, Secondary Channel, Harwich

International

Grounding Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding

outside main channel

Ferry/Cruise Ship

General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships


Owners


(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment

Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure



Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality




0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1.45

17 15


Site1, Site 4, Site 3, Site 2


Grounding

Dredger going aground

outside main Channel

HHA Dredger Pilots, HHA, Ships




to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;



Floats free next HW.


0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 1.32

18 23

Main Channel, Site 4, Harwich International,

Harbour Entrance, Site

2, Mistley Approach, Harbour

Approach, Secondary

Channel, Site 5, Site 3, Site 1

Contact Navigation

Recreational Craft contact with Crab

Pot Lines

Small craft becomes

entangled in Crab Pot lines.

Leisure

Fishing Users, HHA, Vessel Owners, Tug

Owners, General Public, Leisure Users, Ships Master/Crew,

Pilots

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations;

Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement

in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure

to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error

Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;


Craft in contact with line and in freed or line is

cut.

Prop and steering failure resulting in drifting vessel with no power.

0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1.31



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.

Affected Areas

Accident Category




Possible Causes


Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

19 24

Harbour Approach, Site 5, Site 3, Site 2,

Secondary Channel, Harbour

Entrance, Site1, Mistley

Approach, Site 4, Main

Channel, Harwich

International

Contact Navigation

Mussel Dredger in contact with Crab

Pots

Fishing Vessel

HHA, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel

Owners, Pilots, Fishing Users, Leisure Users



Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;

Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Quality and


Line freed, no damage to craft

Loss of steering and prop. Drifting

with no power. 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1.06

20 22


Mistley Approach,

Site1, Site 3, Site 4, Harbour Approach, Site

5, Main Channel, Site 2,

Harbour Entrance, Secondary

Channel

Contact Navigation


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Fishing Vessel

Vessel Owners, HHA, Fishing Users



Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Malicious Action by Third

Party; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.

Passing blow, no damage

Entanglement, foul prop.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 9

Secondary Channel, Mistley

Approach, Main Channel

Contact Navigation


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Coaster/Com

mercial

HHA, Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure

to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank;



Buoy run over, major damage to

buoy. Loss of ground mooring.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 10 Main Channel,


Contact Navigation


Marker/mooring Buoy

Ferry/Cruise

Ship

Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew,

HHA

Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment

Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure



Failure; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.

Glancing pass Buoy run down - major damage,

loss of buoy. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Ran

k

Haz

ard

Ref

.

Affected Areas

Accident Category




Possible Causes


Ris

k O

vera

ll

Remarks

ML WC

Most Likely (ML)

Worst Credible (WC)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pe

op

le

Pro

pe

rty

Stak

eh

old

ers

23 12

Secondary Channel, Mistley

Approach

Contact Navigation


Marker/Mooring Buoy

Leisure

Leisure Users, HHA, Vessel Owners,

Fishing Users, General Public


Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure




Glancing contact, no damage

Buoy riser entanglement in

propeller resulting in

drifting.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 11

Harwich International, Site 4, Site1, Site 2, Site 5,

Secondary Channel, Main Channel, Site 3,

Mistley Approach

Contact Navigation


Marker/Mooring Buoy

HHA Dredger Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew, HHA


Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure

to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs;

Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical

circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality


Passing contact, no damage.

Buoy run over, damage or loss of

buoy. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-1

Annex H Post Draft NRA Comments received from Tim

Goodwin with response



Page ii)

Accepted is who commissioned the report and it is probable that no one else is in a position to, but it

can hardly be claimed to be independent when the applicant picks up the bill.

Marico has been appointed to conduct an unbiased independent report at the instruction of

Peter Scott acting on behalf of Wash Mussels Ltd.

Noted is that there has been little issue with commercial traffic to date but this is due to small number

of movements, that there is ample unimpeded area currently outside the shipping lanes and that

commercial traffic is predictable and adheres strictly to navigational channels.

Noted.

Clear communication to river users - really?

How will this be done to disparate groups many of whom don’t have internet - are you planning to

write to everyone?

This is a recommendation that has been made to Wash Mussels in order to supply information

to river users and the SHA in order to assist with deconfliction of all river traffic. How this

information is promulgated is dependent on the requirements of the SHA and in consultation

with river users. As outlined in this report the River Stour falls within the Statutory Harbour

Limits for Harwich Haven Authority. HHA have issued clear guidance and instruction for all

vessels using the waters within the SHA. Clear communications from the SHA are promulgated

using a wide variety of means such as Notice to Mariners, safety publications, byelaws,

directions and information broadcast from Harwich VTS. River users are advised to ensure that

they are in receipt of all safety and legislative information that effects the area they are using.

(MoU) - ??

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) describes a bilateral or multilateral agreement

between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties,

indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do

not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally

enforceable agreement.

Crab pots were I thought agreed not to be used?

At the time of the report being drafted the use of crab pots was not completely ruled out.

Therefore, the use of pots was considered within the NRA as an additional hazard. Removing

the pots from the NRA would reduce the hazards used within the assessment and lower the

risk scoring.

—————————————

Page vi)

My details are incorrect

Noted and corrected. .

—————————————

Page 1

The 5 locations were offered at the first meeting to be reduced to 2 or 3 and/or reduced in size with

the most Westerly being one to drop (as one of the most undesirable).

Not applicable to the overall NRA. Wash Mussels to respond.

—————————————

Page 2



Define minimal

Smallest in amount or degree.

Page 3 Table 1

Crab pots - are they, or are they not being used, and if they are will they be marked or not?

As stated in previous related comment.

—————————————

Page 4

The river is busiest in Harwich Harbour as far as only commercial traffic is concerned, but the river is

probably busier elsewhere with small boat movements. Even a small point like this if not given the

correct balance will skew any conclusions made.

The NRA was undertaken taking into consideration all traffic using the River Stour. The dataset

used in this report is complete for the geographic limits of the study area and includes all

vessels types listed. However it should be noted that several vessel groups, including

recreational craft who are not required to carry AIS, are likely absent in the presented analysis.

In short the data shown within the report is taken from commercial traffic and other vessels

carrying AIS equipment. The use of leisure craft was not discounted within the report.

You must separate Recreational craft and Charter fishing vessels because they are entirely different.

one has amatuer skippers of variable experience and ability with possibly no electronic accessories,

the others are professional if they offer Charter, in vessels of specified standard with crews with a

specified minima of knowledge, and will most likely have a reasonable level of equipment.

The NRA was grouped into similar vessel types. To complete an NRA using each and every

different vessel and craft type using the river would be extremely complex and would take a

very long time to complete. To state that amateur skippers and professional charter skippers

are entirely different because of the variation in ability and equipment is an assumption. The

difference in these vessel types is understood as is the possible variation in crew abilities, this

is taken into consideration in the possible causes listed in the NRA tables.

—————————————

Page 5

What is Explosive anchorage

An anchorage approved (licenced by the HSE) to moor vessels carrying explosive cargos.

HHA hold a licence for the Erwarton Anchorage, River Stour (Harwich Harbour) in accordance

with the Dangerous Substances in Harbours Regulations 1987.

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

Page 6 and 7

Rather pointless photos of landscape - the river when busy would be more useful?

The photos of the river were taken during a visit to the site on 1st July 2015 at around midday

in fine weather conditions. This time of year and day has been stated as being within the peak

season of leisure craft use on the river. The photographs give a representation of the area for

readers of the report who do not have local knowledge.

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

Page 9/10/11



This is also a rather pointless set of images without proper qualification. The claim ‘all vessels’ means

nothing unless the capture mechansim is defined. If AIS then the majority of river users don’t have it,

if radar tracked we need to know what in reality can be tracked, say at Wrabness where there is a

great deal of concern?

The images refer to the section of the report that is reproduced below. It is clear that the

‘capture mechanisim’ was AIS and clearly states that it is ‘Commercial Vessel Tracks and

Movements on the Stour’. ‘All vessels’ within this section are therefore commercial or using

AIS as stated.

The use of AIS to capture this information as stated in the report. Radar was not used as this

was not in the scope of this NRA analysis.


Commercial vessel movements for vessels using the main channel to Mistley were studied, see

Figure 4 to Figure 7. Using Automatic Identification System data, the tracks of three coaster

sized vessels were plotted and their tracks logged to provide details of the passage through

the river for their arrival and departure to/from Mistley. The data indicates that as expected

the vessels navigate using the main channel and at no time do they enter any of the areas

marked out as proposed sites of the mussel farms.

The details of the three coaster sized vessels used are in Table 3 and are typical of the vessel

types that use T W Logistics Ltd (TWL) at Mistley.

The wording in this section has been updated to provide further clarity.

From my perspective if the tracks are supposedly all movements in September the report

demonstrates that there are many vessels being missed. I have transited the selected areas several

times in several different boats from a dingy to 28’ and they are not shown!

As above

The statement under local regulations is as far as ‘real life’ is concerned total rubbish. In reality

whether correct or not, many vessels pass through the area without monitoring the appropriate

channels and many do not have VHF. I haven’t had chance to check the legislation but I don’t recall a

mandatory requirement to carry a marine VHF or for leisure users to contact VTS. As a recent fatal

accident in Harwich Harbour shows - there are flaws…

Guidance is given within Harwich Haven Authority’s Yachting Guide. VHF for Charter vessels is

a requirement under MCA vessel coding.

The RYA give the following advice - The Merchant Shipping (Radio Installations) Regulations

1998 do not apply to Pleasure Vessels, it is therefore not mandatory for a Pleasure Vessel to

have a "radio installation" on board. It is however highly recommended that vessels are

equipped with maritime radio equipment suitable for the area of operation. See Emergency

Distress Alerting for further guidance on equipping your boat.

With reference to regulation –

If you go boating on or near the coast the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions

at Sea (IRPCS or COLREGs) will apply to you, as the COLREGs, as defined in rule 1, apply to all

vessels upon the high seas and waters connected to the high seas which are navigable by

seagoing vessels.



It is essential that you know these rules well enough to be clear when you are the stand on

vessel, when you are the give way vessel and what the of correct action to take is when in close

quarters with other vessels and to avoid a collision

Byelaws and Local Regulations

Harbour Authorities may have local byelaws in force which apply to leisure boats such as speed

limits within the harbour, restricted areas, and requirements to monitor specific VHF channels.

Establishing what these are should be part of your passage planning.

Harbour Authorities may have their own website and publish small boat guides e.g.

Harwich Haven Authority has byelaws, directions, port safety information and a Yachting

Guide on their website.

Where is the evidence to show that Mussel operations pose no issue to navigation, particularly when

so few leisure vessel movements are fully shown.

The NRA provides a detailed study of navigation of the Stour.

The title of the page rather unfortunately gives away the purpose of the chart, ‘Stour Mussel Farm

Navigation Support'

The title meaning has been misread.

It is an interdepartmental title used by in house Marico data support service. This title is used

by Marico GIS department in support to the staff compiling the NRA report.

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

Page 12/13

2.4.2 This statement rather proves my comment above because clearly there is no requirement to

contact Harwich VTS if under 50GT so why imply there is and everything is under a controlled

movement regime when it is not?

Guidance is given within Harwich Haven Authority’s Yachting Guide.

It is not implied in the report that everything is under a controlled movement regime. However,

please note the following from HHA–

Navigational Safety

The principal deep-water navigational channels within Harwich Harbour are well marked by

buoys and lights. These channels are in constant use by large deep-draughted vessels.

Yachtsmen are advised to keep well clear whenever possible and use the recommended yacht

tracks. When main channels have to be crossed, this should be done as nearly as practicable

at right angles. Avoid crossing the bows of on-coming commercial traffic. Large container

ships, in particular, have very restricted visibility for quite a distance ahead when carrying a

deck cargo of containers. (You may be able to see her clearly, but can she see you?). Most

yachtsmen take a justifiable pride in the responsible way they conduct themselves. Part of this

is a realisation that hindering the passage of large commercial vessels is not only bad manners,

but downright dangerous to themselves and their crews. Yachtsmen are particularly requested

to remind themselves and observe the content and spirit of Rules 9(b) and (d), 18(b) and

18(d)(i) of the Collision Regulations and also the Harwich Haven Authority Byelaws. Anchoring

Leisure vessels should avoid anchoring within, or near to, navigational channels and

commercial anchorages. Where necessary to do so, they should comply with the requirements

of Collision Regulation Rule 30 and exercise heightened navigational awareness.



COLLISION RULES

Rule 9(b) A Vessel of less than 20m in length or sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of

a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway. Rule 9(d) A vessel

shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel

which can safely navigate only within such channel or fairway. The latter vessel may use the

sound signal prescribed in Rule 34(d) if in doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel. Rule

18(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: (i) a vessel not under command;

(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre; (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing. Rule 18(d)(i)

Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to

manoeuvre shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a

vessel constrained by her draught, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.

GENERAL DIRECTIONS FOR NAVIGATION No.10.

Harwich Traffic System 10.2 (i) The Master of every small vessel shall not impede the passage

of a vessel, which can safely navigate only within the Harwich Traffic System. 10.2 (xi) The

Master of every small vessel shall not navigate or make use of the anchorages, Harwich Traffic

System or approaches to wharves, piers and jetties in such a way as to cause obstruction or

impede regulated vessels. 10.2 (xiii) The Master of every small vessel shall maintain a minimum

distance of 100 metres from any vessel berthed alongside or at anchor and engaged in loading

or discharging dangerous substances as indicated by the vessel displaying an all round red light

by night or a red flag by day in accordance with the Dangerous Substances in the Harbour Area

Regulations 1987. 10.5 (i) The Master of every small vessel shall make use of the

Recommended Track for Yachts and channel crossing positions whenever practicable when

transiting the Authority’s area.

2.5 A misleading reference as used within this report because the patrol operates in the active area of

the harbour and docksides - we have all seen it in operation and understand what it does.

Guidance from Harwich Haven Authority’s Yachting Guide states:

Harbour Patrol The Harwich Haven Authority maintains a regular patrol of the Haven

throughout the year. In addition, during the summer months weekends, between the hours of

0800 to 1800, these patrols are maintained to provide assistance and advice to yachtsmen,

and to ensure that the main channel is kept clear for the transit of commercial shipping. The

weekend Harbour patrol launch maintains a listening watch on VHF Channel 71. The crew will

be pleased to offer advice and information on the Harbour and its approaches.

In general it does NOT operate in the area being considered for the Mussel beds or the vessels near

them.

As above.

As an aside I don’t understand why there is such an enormous amount of text regarding large

commercial vessels operating in Harwich Harbour - there is no issue here, it does not matter what

Harwich, the VTS and commercial vessels do because they either stop at Harwich/Felixstowe or the

follow navigation channels which obviously do not impede mussel growing activities. Can this simple

statement be made and then a document produced which reflects the areas of interest and concern

and does not let them become drowned amongst the ’noise’.?

All stakeholders on the River were consulted not just small craft. The NRA was to consider ALL

vessel traffic using the river. The NRA covers baseline risk (before) and resultant risk (after)

introduction of the Mussel Farms. This is detailed within the report.



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

Page 14

2.9 This is not the area of moorings for the River Stour, it is the area of moorings which are under

juresdiction of The Stour Sailing Clubs lease - there are plenty of moorings elsewhere. Please correct

this.

These are moorings on the River Stour.

Ownership is shown in Table 4: River Stour Small Craft Moorings. The ownership or lease will

have no bearing on the NRA results.

Table 4 Given Manningtree has the most developed moorings allocation system it is odd you have no

detail in the table (it was used a trial horse by HHA for all other moorings systems).

Noted

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

Page 15/16

2.9.2 Rubbish - this clearly shows you have been unable to quantify what leisure boat users actually

do. Making wild statements with no evidence simply goes to show what a poor quality document this

is - arriving at conclusions based on those erroneous statements is very unprofessional.

The farms do not impede the channel to Shotley Marina. There is no direct effect on the

navigation into this marina.

2.10 wrong, I suggest you go and check the flow in variious places including Wrabness. Or simpler, go

and talk to those that can row at 2 to 3 kts or more but cannot make headway against the tide…

The tidal information was a direct lift from the Harwich Harbour Tidal Stream Atlas provided

by Harwich Harbour Authority. If documented evidence to the contrary is available please

provide this data.

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

Page 17

3 As a river user and one that represents a Stour based Sailing club there was a single meeting before

this report was generated, I was unfortunately unable to attend the second meeting.

Noted

Again, there are acres of this report assessing the issues affecting commercial traffic when we all

already know there will be very little.

Commercial traffic is duty bound to follow the marked navigation travels..

The study is intended to include ALL river traffic.

It would be an assumption to say that the commercial traffic will follow marked navigation.

They are not duty bound by any means, they are free to navigate wherever they have the safe

depth and space to do so.

For information this is a RYA recommendation on COLREGS and Marine law. –

COLREGs

If you go boating on or near the coast the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions

at Sea (IRPCS or COLREGs) will apply to you, as the COLREGs, as defined in rule 1, apply to all

vessels upon the high seas and waters connected to the high seas which are navigable by

seagoing vessels.

It is essential that you know these rules well enough to be clear when you are the stand on

vessel, when you are the give way vessel and what the of correct action to take is when in close

quarters with other vessels and to avoid a collision.



As well as the steering and sailing rules, the COLREGs dictate what day shapes and navigation

lights a vessel must display to indicate its status to other vessels and when and what sound

and light signals it must make.

Many nautical publications include core information from the COLREGs. The full text of the

regulations is available in MSN 1781. The RYA publication G2 - International Regulations for

Preventing Collisions at Sea, available from the RYA shop, has been prepared with the pleasure

craft skipper in mind and includes notes to help yachtsmen interpret and apply the rules.

The COLREGs do not give one vessel "right of way" over another and are clear that the stand

on vessel must also take action if the action of the give way vessel alone is not sufficient to

prevent a collision (or if the give way vessel takes no action). All the rules, relevant to a

situation must be considered before decisions are made, as must the situation and the

handling characteristics of the boats involved.

MArking of crab boats has already been stated as undesirable, furthermore the applicants do not wish

to use crab pots so there is nothing to mark?

Already answered.

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

Page 18

3.1 Surely under no circumstances should the mussel area be allowed to impinge on the navigable

channel or lines between channel marks that mark it?

Addressed in the recommendations.

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

Page 19 - finally the largest number of river users are being included..

Yes, this is correct along with all other river users.

3.1 cont Crab pots need to be clarified and removed as an entity if indeed they are not planned to be

used so minds cannot change in the future without a reassessment taking place.

Already answered.

—————————————

Page 20

As was clearly discussed at the meeting this was NOT the sole brief of the meeting as far as those

present were concerned (I asked just that question and it was clarified by the chair). Both NAvigational

issues and the consulation process were discussed in some detail.

The meeting was called by Marico in order to glean concerns and views of local river users as

part of the stakeholder consultation for the NRA, as it is always done during a NRA project. It

was agreed to meet together rather than individually. The meeting WAS to discuss

navigational risk.

Sorry - wrong yacht club!

Noted with thanks – removed

—————————————

Page 21 to 32 risk assessment

I am struggling to agree with the risk strategy in use when leisure/small vessels are being considered,

as the text says ‘the methodology is intended for ‘port marine safety code'. The river Stour in general IS

NOT A PORT it is an estuary and I question the application of the risk methodology as is being used at

present. I don’t believe it applies as it stands.



The River Stour falls within the Statutory Harbour Authority limits for Harwich Harbour.

The ‘Port marine safety code’ establishes a national standard for every aspect of port marine

safety and aims to enhance safety for those who use or work in ports, their ships, passengers

and the environment. The code applies to all harbour authorities in the UK that have statutory

powers and duties.

Information is available from the Department for Transport (DfT) or the Maritime and

Coastguard Agency (MCA) on the Port Marine Safety Code.

The River Stour does fall within a port as defined by the DfT in the Port Marine Safety Code.

I also find it uncomfortable that the first table is in terms of financial loss rather than danger to life

when a vast majority of river users are not in valuable vessels.

Please read the methodology correctly – it does not refer just to financial loss.

If I am to accept the risk assessments then the number of leisure vessel movements tracked must be

far better than the 5 to 10% as has been previously stated.

Please support this statement.

If I am to accept the risk assessments as they stand how could a fatal accident occur in sight of HHA

directly within the VTS?

VTS definition –

A service implemented by a competent authority, VTS is designed to improve the safety and

efficiency of navigation, safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment.

VTS is governed by SOLAS Chapter V Regulation 12 together with the Guidelines for Vessel

Traffic Services [IMO Resolution A.857(20)] adopted by the International Maritime

Organization on 27 November 1997.

5 PLEASE stop referring to all vessels when the report has clearly not included the majority of river

stour movements in the vicinity of the proposed mussel beds - which are LEISURE/SMALL BOAT USERS.

This is in the context of the NRA and not the track information that you referred to earlier.

All vessels were included as per the vessel NRA grouping.

I may be wrong but I cannot see an adjustment in risk of injury or death between a large steel dredger

and by comparison a relatively fragile grp or wooden yacht. MAybe that is why the fatal accident was

an unlikely event - before it happened?

This is covered within the Most Likely – Worst Credible scoring. Please refer to methodology.

6 Monitoring - rubbish, the areas of the mussel beds are not in practical terms monitored

The area within HHA SHA is monitored by VTS. Please refer to HHA VTS information.

Again commercial operations are highly unlikely to be affected by the proposed mussel beds - THEY

DO NOT USE THE SAME PEICE OF WATER.

As stated before, all vessels and operations were considered.

USage - not always according to the applicants report.

?

—————————————

Page 33

7) THere are so many errors and misleading statements together with incomplete movement data

that conclusions are unreliable at present. Recommendations based upon then are therefore highly

dubious.

? –There is not enough detail in the comment to give a clear response.



Yet again further consultation excludes leisure/small boat users so as a minimum HASA should be

included. I say again, the largest number of vessel movements in the river Stour in the vicinity of the

proposed mussel beds IS NOT COMMERCIAL it is LEISURE so this report is completely inappropriate

and is largely flawed because is it.

As stated before, all vessels and operations were considered

—————————————

Conclusion:-

In the short time given to reply (two weeks is just not enough) it is not possible to make a sensible

assessment of the many tables in the next section of the report. However, it is clear that much of the

source data is flawed, particularly that covering our own areas of interest, so conclusions and actions

based upon them cannot possibly be reliable.

All vessels and operations were considered

The report expends a great deal of effort (not to mention paper) demonstrating what is already pretty

obvious - that commercial activity within the main port of Harwich is unlikely to be affected by the

Mussel farm application. Given the areas identified in the application are not within the active

navigable channel (except small incursions that need to be address as referred to in the earlier text) it

is difficult to see how commercial traffic operating in the navigation channel could have an incident

with a mussel vessel outside of it.

All vessels and operations were considered

The report then goes on to show that commercial activity in the Stour Estuary itself is also unlikely to

be affected and for the reasons as given above it - that is really no surprise.

Not quite true! There is a number of issues that may have caused an adverse effect to the

navigation of commercial traffic. The NRA had to include all river users to assess the possible

impact. The report also shows that the effect on small craft and leisure users is unlikely.

What is a surprise is that so much report content has been generated about those commercial

activities in the estuary (based largely on three AIS tracked movements!), when the whole point of the

questions being raised is the effect and risk to the many hundreds of leisure/small boat movements

that DO NOT use the main navigational channels and which unbelievably still remain completely un-

quantifed.

The NRA was undertaken for all users of the river and NOT just for small vessel and leisure

craft.

Therefore, whilst the report may be very thorough for some aspects, it is completely inadequate for

our own, and given it was commissioned to answer our collective concerns about the risks to

navigation of small and/or leisure boats and the many movements it is simply not fit for purpose.

The NRA was not commissioned to answer solely the yacht clubs collective concerns, as stated

before, the yacht and sailing clubs were included as stakeholders within the NRA for ALL river

users. An NRA for one user group only would not fit for purpose as you all interact on the river.


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright I-1

Annex I Combined HASA Response



Combined Harwich Area Sailing Association response to the Marico NRA

Draft Number 2

We are responding formally to the draft Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) produced by the applicant’s consultants on the following points: (no order of priority implied). It is based upon the fact that this report does not fully address issues of concern recorded by the very many people who have responded to the application which claims special rights in the River Stour.

1. River Use The applicant’s consultants have based their assessment of river usage on data that relies solely upon AIS tracks and is not complete or fully reflective of the real usage and therefore the statement in 2.4 of the Marico report which refers to “all vessels’ is incorrect.

HHA have statutory powers laid out in UK law: 2.4 of the report, ‘all vessels’ is correct. 2.4 reproduced below:

2.4 LOCAL REGULATIONS HHA has statutory powers to regulate commercial and leisure vessels within the HHA Area of Jurisdiction which includes the River Stour (see Figure 12), and is responsible for the navigational safety and traffic regulation of all vessels bound to and from the Haven Ports of Felixstowe, Harwich International, Harwich Navyard, Ipswich, and Mistley. All vessels arriving at or sailing from the Haven Ports, or on passage through the Harwich Seaward Area, must report to Harwich Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) and comply with VTS Rules. The Reporting Procedures and VTS Rules are set in the General Directions for Navigation and published in the Admiralty List of Radio Signals.

However, I do not believe that the correct section of the report has been referred to in comment 1.The section queried is in fact Section 2.3.1which refers to data usage as queried in the above comment and it is this that has been responded to below. ‘

‘All vessels’ within this section are commercial or with AIS as stated in section 2.3.1reproduced below.. The term ‘all vessels’ at this point refers to the vessels studied within this section.


Commercial vessel movements for vessels using the main channel to Mistley were studied, see Figure 4 to Figure 7. Using Automatic Identification System data, the tracks of three coaster sized vessels were plotted and their tracks logged to provide details of the passage through the river for their arrival and departure to/from Mistley. The data indicates that as expected the vessels navigate using the main channel and at no time do they enter any of the areas marked out as proposed sites of the mussel farms.

The details of the three coaster sized vessels used are in Table 3 and are typical of the vessel types that use T W Logistics Ltd (TWL) at Mistley. The wording in this section has been updated to provide further clarity. The NRA was not solely based around AIS data. The whole of the river and craft types and users where included and considered. It is incorrect to state that Marico only based the report on AIS data and tracks. The hazard logs in the NRA include all vessel types with and without AIS.

The vast majority of recreational craft in the river do not carry AIS equipment owing to size of craft, need, craft’s range of use, cost, etc.

This is understood and the AIS data was used for the collection of commercial tracks, as stated in the report. The lack of AIS use on recreational craft is fully understood, this is the



reason why they are not included within the AIS track data. As stated before ‘all vessels’ refers to all commercial vessels that where tracked and not ‘all vessels’ using the river. The wording in this section has been updated to provide further clarity. .

Through the sole use of AIS, the NRA does not accurately take into account the volume or frequency of recreational craft in the river and as such vastly underestimates true recreational usage.

This statement needs quantifying. As stated the previous response, the NRA is not a result of data solely received by AIS, it is incorrect to state so. At no time does the report state that AIS was the only source of data. How has it been underestimated? The report does state that the river is used by leisure craft and has a number of small craft moorings, marinas and yacht/sailing clubs. This presence of which indicates that there is a high usage of the river by small craft. The fact that the yacht and sailing clubs were consulted by Marico is evidence that the recreational usage was understood and was considered to be affected. It was not by no means underestimated.

There is no requirement from HHA for recreational vessels to report to Harwich VTS. They are encouraged to monitor the VTS channel so as to be aware of big ship movements but are not required to do so.

This is correct. However, the monitoring of VHF is recommended at all times for all information, movement and safety broadcasts and not only for the receipt of safety broadcasts for large vessel movements.

The NRA should have used radar and visual surveys – for example a 2 week summer survey - conducted alongside AIS-A and AIS-B data.

The NRA was conducted within the limits agreed with the client.

Radar would not indicate vessel types, only rough target size, course and speed etc. Radar with AIS overlay would only ID vessels with AIS fitted. A visual confirmation of the Radar target would be the only method that would confirm target type etc. This would require the temporary radar sites to be manned 24/7 for logging of visual confirmations of radar targets for the duration of the study.

2. Mitigation that allows us “to live together” It is unlikely to be helpful to redo the flawed NRA river use figures at this stage as it would incur large time and cost implications for everyone involved and that the effort could be more usefully put to agreeing mitigation by way of conditions of operation to be included in the Several Order, if granted!

This is stated within the recommendations in the form of an MoU.

a. No Marker Buoys Use of marker buoys to delineate the mussel plots is unacceptable to leisure users because of the risk of entanglement and consequent danger of disabled vessels being carried on the ebb tide into Harwich Harbour deep water channels.

At the time of the report being drafted the use of crab pots was not completely ruled out. It is our understanding that crab pots will no longer be used. Therefore, the use of pots was considered within the NRA as an additional hazard. Removing the pots from the NRA would reduce the hazard used within the assessment. The risk of entanglement was included and scored within the NRA.

b. No Crab Pots



We want to clarify, in writing, the decision not to use crab pots or plot markers as agreed at the meeting of 30th September with the applicants. HHA & The applicant are both opposed to the use of any markers for their own reasons. Nonetheless each in agreement with the policy.

It is our understanding that crab pots will no longer be used. c. Redefine Size of Plots Address the issues regarding the size of plots 1, 3 & 4 directly with Graham Osborne (Wash Mussels) and agree to have the plot boundary amended or suitable conditions drafted to alleviate our concerns. For Wash Mussels response.

d. Direct talks with Wash Mussels

To develop and agree conditions to be included in the Several Order. We understand that this is normally the stage which occurs after an NRA is supplied by applicants, and it is a vital step that we don’t want to miss as it is the only opportunity to agree mitigation measures. Talks to be followed by a written ‘without prejudice’ agreement which is to be included in the Order by DEFRA.

This is stated within the recommendations in the form of an MoU. 3. Other Responses Individual Clubs/organisations may also respond to the NRA supporting the responses already made by Timothy Goodwin - Stour Sailing Club, Peter Holborn & Phill Barnes - Shotley Point Yacht Club. The key points are likely to be:- a. Main issues haven’t been correctly addressed, taking into account the timeline which was only available after the NRA was drafted.

No explanation of ‘main issues’. Is this directed at the NRA or other issues? b. Reservations about the thoroughness of the original environmental statements, the NRA and other changes in the application. Marico are not involved in environmental statements. However, the NRA was undertaken to assess the impact of the operations on navigation for ALL users of the River Stour. c. All of the aforementioned should lead to a further consultation period before any consideration of a 5 year Order. Not part of the NRA, for Wash Mussels/Peter Scott to comment d. Yachtsmen and other leisure users of the Stour are concerned about the implications of the proposed mussel operation on conservation of biodiversity in the Stour estuary and request that DEFRA take into account the responses of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Essex Wildlife Trust which are included as addenda hereto. It is our understanding that in this respect the processes required under UK and European legislation have not been followed to date. EIA and not part of the NRA, for Wash Mussels to comment e. The active participation of the Stour and Orwell Estuary Management Group ought to be encouraged. This body is the local authority combined interest Group and in our opinion should have been consulted directly before the public consultation took place.



Wash Mussels/Peter Scott to comment

4. Establish a Communications Link and Problem Resolution Forum It is our opinion that a regular open communications link between the users and the applicant would help to remove many of the possible problems and serve as a liaison channel through which both parties could seek to establish a safe working relationship. This was included within the NRA recommendations. If there are any outstanding issues or problems which can’t be agreed, we need to establish a forum or body to resolve them in some way that is acceptable to both users and applicant. Relevant points from Paul Rodhouse which should be considered:- (not part of the response but info for HASA members to consider when editing the draft above.

1. Graham Osborne seems to be straightforward.

2. We have won the crab potting argument.

3. With the Harwich Harbour Authority, Wash Mussels and all other users against laying buoys to mark the mussel plots it looks as if we will win that argument as well.

4. If there are only two vessels, like the one we saw yesterday, towing a pair of dredges each at low speed, then there seems to be a minimal risk of collision - especially as they will not be working at peak times for leisure users.

5. From what we heard yesterday it seems unlikely that the size of the operation will increase after the 5 year trial period but we should be vigilant when the time comes for a new application.

6. We should also be vigilant for any plan to apply for a crab potting licence in future.

7. Rather than do more than you have already to annotate the MARICO document I suggest that there should be a clear and concise response on one page from the combined Yacht clubs which DEFRA can read separately with no possibility of misunderstanding.

Additional information recently obtained by Paul from RSPB

RSPB have submitted a very detail and critical response which must cause DEFRA great concern

We should support the RSPB response on grounds of enjoyment of the natural beauty of the river


Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-1

Annex J Note on Section 7 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) act

1967



NOTE ON SECTION 7 OF THE SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) ACT 1967

This note is prepared by Peter Scott, shellfish law specialist with Harrison Clark Rickerbys. It considers

concerns with regard to prospective liabilities of third parties to the grantees of a several order for

shellfish applied for under section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 arising from the provisions

of section 7 of the 1967 Act.

These concerns fall into a number of areas, including damage by vessels in the course of navigation,

fishing vessels’ gear, and potential blinding of shellfish beds by dredged material returned under

statutory authority to the water column.

Section 7 of the 1967 Act establishes a generally prosecutable criminal offence and a tort of breach of

statutory duty in relation to a number of operations causing damage to shellfish or shellfish fisheries,

subject to a number of exceptions. The relevant sub-sections are 7(4) and (5) which as amended by

the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009 read as follows:-

“(4)Subject to subsection (5) of this section, if within the limits of the area of the fishery with respect to which the right

of several fishery is conferred or in any part of that area described for the purposes of this subsection in the order, or

within the limits of any such private shellfish bed, any person other than the grantees or an agent or employee of theirs

or, as the case may be, the owner or an agent or employee of his knowingly does any of the following things, namely—

(a)uses any implement of fishing except—

(i)a line and hook; or

(ii)a net adapted solely for catching floating fish and so used as not to disturb or injure in any manner shellfish of the

description in question or any bed therefor or the fishery therefor; or

(iii)in the case of several fishery, an implement of a type specified in the order and so used as not to disturb

or injure in any manner shellfish of the description in question.

(b)dredges for any ballast or other substance except under a lawful authority for improving the navigation;

(c)deposits any ballast, rubbish or other substance;

(d)places any implement, apparatus or thing prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to any such shellfish, bed or fishery

except for a lawful purpose of navigation or anchorage;

(e)disturbs or injures in any manner, except for a lawful purpose of navigation or anchorage, any such shellfish, bed or

fishery;

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first

offence, level 3 on the standard scale, or, in the case of a second offence, level 3 on the standard scale, or,

in the case of a third or subsequent offence, level 3 on the standard scale, and shall also be liable to make

full compensation to the grantees or, as the case may be, owner for all damage sustained by them or him by

reason of the unlawful act; and such compensation in default of payment may be recovered from him by the

grantees or owner as the case may be by proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction whether he has

been prosecuted for or convicted of the offence in question or not.

(5)Nothing in subsection (4) of this section shall make it unlawful for any person to do any of the things therein

mentioned—



(a)in the case of a right of several fishery granted by an order under section 1 of this Act, if at the time of his doing that

thing the limits of the area of the fishery within which that right is exercisable or of the part of that area described for

the purposes of the said subsection (4) in the order are not sufficiently marked out in manner prescribed by or under the

order or if notice of those limits has not been given to that person in manner so prescribed;

(b)in the case of a private shellfish bed owned by any person independently of this Act, if the bed is not sufficiently

marked out and known as such.

(6)In this section “the grantees” means the persons for the time being entitled to the right of several fishery conferred

by the order under section 1 of this Act.”

The relevant operations are considered alongside the exceptions relevant to those operations.

Navigation

The exercise of the public right of navigation is expressed by section 7 to be unrestricted by the order.

TWL Mistley (representation 171) state: “In the event of limitations to free movements within the

existing parameters in the river and its estuary, areas of the river may become more congested,

particularly with smaller leisure craft, which may have both operational and safety implications. This

would not be acceptable.” There is no restriction on navigation.

Concerns have been expressed in relation to the potential for claim under section 7 in relation to wash

from propulsion units of vessels (e.g. TWL representation 171 para 2). Section 7(4)(e) creates a liability

in relation to a person who “disturbs or injures in any manner, except for a lawful purpose of

navigation or anchorage, any such shellfish, bed or fishery”. The question then arises as to what

constitutes a lawful purpose of navigation or anchorage.

William Gann v The Free Fishers of Whitstable 11 E.R.1305 establishes that a vessel may, as matter of

choice, anchor within the area granted by the Crown as an exclusive fishery for oysters. It was held

that a claim for a payment for anchorage could not be made on the basis of the plaintiff’s claimed

ownership of the soil. The judgement then considers the extent to which the right of anchorage might

be abrogated by the grant of a fishery. Lord Westbury stated: “The case appears to me to depend on

principles which have long been settled….. The right to anchor is a necessary part of the right of

navigation because it is essential for the full enjoyment of that right. If the Crown therefore grants

part of the bed or soil of an estuary or navigable river, the grantee takes subject to the public right,

and he cannot in respect of his ownership of the soil make any claim or demand, even if it be expressly

granted to him, which in any way interferes with the enjoyment of the public right…..The present

fishery of the Respondents must be taken to have been [granted by the Crown to a subject]. And the

grant might include a portion of the soil for the purpose of the fishery. But this, like every other grant,

whenever made must have been subject to the public right of navigation……the grant by the Crown of

any part of the bed or soil of this estuary below low-water mark, whether for a fishery or not, must by



the common law have been subject to the public right of navigation, of which the right to anchor is an

essential part.”

The disturbance of sediment during the course of navigation by a vessel is a necessary consequence

of navigation when a vessel navigates in shallow water, and therefore there is no liability under section

7 for any damage caused by such a vessel navigating notwithstanding any damage to the mussel beds,

whether or not the vessel is navigating in or (as per Hutchison Ports comments in representation 108

and TWL representations 171 para 2) adjacent to it. Port authorities in relation to European marine

sites do have obligations under the transposition of the Birds and Habitats Directives, as was illustrated

in the case of R (Akester) v DEFRA [2010] Env LR 33 in respect of the harbour authority for Lymington

pier (which was the same company as the ferry operator rather than the harbour authority for

Lymington river).

The question of anchoring in a several fishery was addressed by A L Smith LJ in Attorney-General

(Moore) v Wright [1897] 2 QB 318 “The defendant is the lessee of the owner of the several fishery

opposite to the town of Leigh, who is therefore prima facie owner of the soil underneath such fishery.

Now take it for the purposes of today that he is owner of the soil at the locus in quo. Is he absolute

owner, or is he owner subject to certain rights? It is beyond all question that he is owner subject to

the common law right of all Her Majesty’s subjects, and of all frequenting the sea, to pass and repass

and navigate over the place in question, and, as incident to that navigation, to anchor in the ordinary

mode of navigation.” It is this general right of all using the sea that is referred to in section 7 as forming

an exception to the general principle that damage to the shellfish bed protected by a several order, or

the use of instruments capable of causing such damage, constitutes an offence and a breach of

statutory duty.

The concerns expressed by Harwich Haven Authority (representation 98 paras 1 and 5) that anchoring

in the mussel areas will be restricted therefore do not apply because the general right of navigation

includes this. Similarly with regard to dragging anchors, the securing of a vessel with an anchor applies

in whatever location the vessel is found, and there appears to be no distinction in law in theory

between a vessel which anchors in one location followed by another location and a vessel whose

anchor drags between the same location under conditions for example of strong winds. Such a

situation is typical of an emergency not least because the vessel presents a danger to other vessels. In

some circumstances marine safety requires or advises controlled dragging of an anchor rather than

weighing anchor and reanchoring or abandoning the anchor concerned. This scenario is therefore

within the public right of navigation, and immune from action. HHA’s paragraph 2 and Hutchison Ports

(representation 108) refer.



It is suggested that the order would restrict the ability of the Haven Authority to establish new fixed

moorings within the mussel trial areas (paragraph 1). With one possible qualification, this is correct to

the extent that the agreement of the holder of the several order would be required to instal new fixed

moorings, as the establishment of such moorings is not part of the general right of navigation – they

can only be authorised by grant, implied grant, or sometimes custom. (A-G v Wright). The most

relevant case is perhaps Fowley Marine v Gafford [1968] 2QB 618. This related to oyster grounds at

Emsworth. The claimant to the oyster ground sued the defendant in relation to a permanent mooring

of two anchors and chain installed with permission of a predecessor in title. At trial the defendant

maintained a right to maintain it as an incident to the public right of navigation but did not proceed

with that in the Court of Appeal. Megaw J at first instance was very specific: “I hold that there is no

common law right to lay or maintain permanent moorings in another person's land without his

permission. Such a right may, of course, arise from custom or may be given by statute. Whether there

is here such a customary right I shall consider later, when I deal with the fifth issue. On the first issue,

the defendant fails. I reach this conclusion with satisfaction. To my mind it would be little less than

fantastic that, in the absence of statute or proved local custom, the law should allow anyone

navigating a ship or vessel, including every amateur yachtsman, to place bulky objects on another's

land, without permission, and to retain them there, presumably for ever, as being "an ordinary

incident of navigation."

It was held that giving permission for such moorings did not part with possession of the ground but

was evidence of title. In many instances, however, there is a statutory power on the part of the

harbour authority to establish fixed moorings. In that case that statutory power will be overriding.

As to the grounding of vessels, the most relevant authority is The Bien [1911] P 40. A Norwegian brig

had foundered in the Medway, and the owners under the direction of the harbour master raised it

and moved it to a position where it grounded on an oyster bed. It moved several times on the tide

and caused significant damage.

In the judgment it was noted that “It is undoubtedly and undeniably a fishery, vested by statute in the

persons who leased it to the plaintiff, and I am satisfied that it was a fishery in fact as well as in name.”

Hence it must be inferred that this fishery is one subject to the protection of the provisions of section

53 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1868 which are in the same terms as section 7.

The judge held that the harbourmaster was guilty of negligence in that he had special notice of the

fishery and could readily have put the vessel on ground which was not a fishery.



The action of grounding a ship is perhaps the aspect of navigation most capable of damaging a shellfish

bed. The leading cases are Mayor of Colchester v Brooke and The Swift 85 LT 346. Express reference

was made to section 53 of the 1868 Act. The President, having concluded that the Act definitely

applied, noted that it was subject to the right of navigation, and continued: “Indeed, one may go one

step further, because if it can be shown that in the ordinary course of navigation it was necessary or

proper to touch the soil, whether with the vessel herself or by anchors, in that case there would be

such a right of grounding or anchoring, notwithstanding the ownership in the soil or in the oysters

upon it.” Therefore the concern expressed by Harwich Harbour Authority (representation 98

paragraph 2) in relation to a vessel losing steerage does not apply.



Dredging

No concern at this time is raised with regard to dredging within the area of the proposed order. The

concerns are in relation to dredging for navigational purposes adjacent to the proposed order sites,

and in relation to the discharge of dredged material into the water column within the estuary, which

may subsequently settle within the order sites.

It must be understood that section 7 only applies to acts “within the limits of the area of the fishery

with respect to which the right of several fishery is conferred”. Hence the execution of dredging

outwith the order area is prima facie not a breach of the section. However the prohibition of dredging

even within the designated area is qualified: “(b) dredges for any ballast or other substance except

under a lawful authority for improving the navigation”. Hence where there is statutory authority for

dredging, that authority will be exercisable notwithstanding the grant of the several order and any

consequent damage to the stock or the fishery, and the concern expressed by Harwich Harbour

Authority (representation 98) at paragraph 7 does not apply because of the statutory consents

obtained which are referred to there. TWL (representation 171 para 4) refer to precisely the same

consents.

One case which is informative with regard to damage to shellfish caused by the deposit of dredged

spoil is that of Seasalter Shellfish Ltd v Canterbury City Council 1986 WL 1255540. In this case the

damage was caused to oyster spat within a hatchery by way of an abstraction of seawater. The

relevant facts as found were that the harbour authority excavated anaerobic mud from west of the

east pier and deposited above and below mean high water springs. A causal connection was

established between the deposits of the dredgings and substantial losses of oyster larvae and spat of

the plaintiffs. The judge at first instance made findings that it was reasonably foreseeable to a person

in the position of the defendants that the deposit of anaerobic contaminated clay or mud on the shore

near the plaintiffs’ sea water intake and wholly or partly below mean high water would be likely to

injure larvae and spat within the plaintiffs’ oyster hatchery, and that the defendants had no statutory

authority to deposit material dredged from Whitstable Harbour.

The appeal was against a finding against the plaintiffs in respect of causation, and failed. Nevertheless

it does appear that (a) in principle liability for damage to a shellfishery by the deposit of contaminated

spoil within an estuary can arise (b) a statutory authority may have a duty of care to the owner of a

shellfishery but (c) statutory authority would be a complete defence to any claim.

Given therefore that both dredging for recharge and the release of sediment into the water column

in the Stour are both covered by statutory consents, statutory authority applies, and there is no reason

for the statutory authorities in respect of the harbours within the estuary to be concerned with regard



to the possibility of claim. It should also be noted that in relation to dispersed sediments (as opposed

to the Whitstable case where the dredgings were physically deposited upon the foreshore) to establish

a causal connection between any specific alleged damage and any specific dredging operation would

be extremely difficult if not virtually impossible. TWL’s representation 171 para 6 makes clear that the

sediments removed in maintenance dredging of the berths or navigable channel are not dumped but

dispersed in the water column from the locations in which they arise.

However, for the better reassurance of statutory undertakers DEFRA has agreed to the inclusion of a

further provision in the proposed order in the following terms:

Statutory undertakers

1.—(1) Nothing in this Order prejudicially affects the lawful activities of a statutory undertaker in exercising that undertaker’s statutory functions or authority.

(1) In paragraph 1 “statutory undertaker” has the meaning given in section 262(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990([1]) and article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995([2]) and includes—

(a) a person running a telecommunications code system, as defined in paragraph 1(1) of

Schedule 4 to the Telecommunications Act 1984([3]); and

(b) any person or body carrying out coast protection work within the meaning of the Coast

Protection Act 1949([4]) in accordance with any consent or approval under that Act.

Pollution

Concerns have been raised (e.g. by Harwich Haven Authority representation 98) that the owner of the

shellfish beds if confirmed could have a right of action in relation to pollution of them by vessels

navigating the Stour or the Orwell. Civil liability in relation to any such loss can only be based upon an

action in negligence, and the claimant cannot rely on res ipsa loquitur to put the burden of proof on

the master or owner of the ship concerned. Furthermore, necessity would be a defence (Esso

Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corporation HL [1956] AC 218). The concern expressed by Harwich

Haven Authority (representation 98 para 2) in relation to accidental damage in the event of an oil spill

therefore does not apply.

Cases specifically referring to sewage pollution have been the cases most frequently associated with

the predecessor of section 7, which arose from concerns in relation to bacterial contamination of

shellfish in the period from 1900 to 1910. The leading cases were Foster v Warblington Urban Council

[1906] KB 648 Owen v Faversham Corporation [1908] 73 JP 33 and Hobart v Southend-on-Sea

Corporation 75 LJKB 305. These were actions in nuisance. In Foster there was a direct discharge of

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#150dc4b0fa91dfa5__ftn1






sewage into oyster ponds on the foreshore claimed by the plaintiff. This was a distinction drawn by

the defendants in Hobart, where the discharges were some distance from the fishery. The plaintiffs

relied upon section 53 not so much to rest the claim on it, but to negative the claim that the discharge

of sewage by the defendant so as to damage the shellfish bed was either lawful or authorised by

statute.

No concerns have been expressed in relation to potential claims against dischargers of pollution into

the estuary.

Non-native species

Harwich Harbour Authority (representation 98) raise at paragraph 3 an issue with regard to ballast

water management and non-native species. A similar issue is raised by TWL (representation 171) at

paragraph 2). The suggestion appears to be that the mussel beds could be adversely affected by the

introduction of non-native species by commercial vessels using the port in international trade not

complying with ballast water regulations in relation to exchange of water at sea. While section 7

presumably does include within its scope a potential claim against a third party for introduction of

alien predator species on to a shellfish bed (which would appear very difficult to prove) there appears

to be no precedent for any such claim in respect on any alien species in England or in the United States,

where there has been some academic discussion of the possibility of such claims in tort, even in

relation to Japanese knotweed. it is difficult to see that the presence of shellfish beds in the Stour

could or should deter any commercial traffic from using the Stour and Orwell ports on account of any

such risk.

Conclusions

Full consideration of the potential implications of the rights of the grantee of the proposed order in

relation to mussel fishery in the estuary of the River Stour suggests that current lawful activities should

not be prejudiced in any way by the grant of the order and that there is no legal basis for the

apprehensions on the part of the harbour authority and operators that the commercial operation of

the ports of Harwich or Mistley could be affected. The renewal of the order if applied for allows ample

opportunity for any such body to make representations that its future requirements as then identified

suggest the exclusion of some part of parts of the fishery from an extended several order if the trial is

successfully concluded, and for the decision-maker to act appropriately after balancing those concerns

with the benefits of renewal of the order.

1st December 2015

Peter Scott



Harrison Clark Rickerbys

5 Deansway

Worcester

WR1 2JG

[email protected]

navigational risk assessment – marico marine - amazon s3 · wash mussels ltd/parkinson wright ......

Documents