PAGHAM HARBOUR LNR – BOAT PERMITS – PAPER BY SIDLESHAM PARISH COUNCIL
PAGHAM HARBOUR LNR – BOAT PERMITS
PAPER BY SIDLESHAM PARISH COUNCIL
1. Introduction and Summary
This Paper provides a reasoned response to the report entitled “Pagham Harbour LNR – Sailing/Boat Permits” (Agenda Item 7, PHLNR Advisory Board Meeting of 11 November 2008) (“The Report”) and to the ensuing debate at that Board Meeting.
The Report contends that Boat Permits should be phased-out over time, in continuation of an historic policy, which has the support of a number of agencies. In the ensuing debate, it was asserted that boating causes unacceptable disturbance to birds.
This Paper explores the historic background to the issue of Boat Permits to local residents, and provides evidence that the so-called “historic policy” of phasing-out permits is not as claimed. Had any such policy been introduced it would have been introduced without consultation with, and would be prejudicial to the rights of, local people and would be irrational, unreasonable and unfair.
The Paper explains the practical implications of boating in the harbour and shows that its continuation at historic levels would have negligible impact on the Reserve, and bird disturbance would be miniscule in comparison with other activities permitted, encouraged and planned.
The consequences of continuing the present policy of phasing-out permits are discussed, as are the advantages of retaining the permit system, which advantages have been ignored in The Report. Proposals for the administration of an ongoing Boat Permit system are also put forward.
2. Analysis of The Report
2.1 The legal position
The Report confirms the position under the Byelaws (existing and proposed) which is that public rights of navigation within the harbour are not affected, save that the ancillary rights of mooring, launching or leaving any vessel are not permitted except with a licence or permit. Boat permits accord special permission to permit-holders to launch or land a vessel.
2.2 The asserted historic basis of issue of permits
The Report asserts that boat permits are “historical”, issued to residents of Mill Hamlet and not to (sic) properties and that they are non-transferable. It is asserted that this was with the intention that the number of permits would reduce over time and on the understanding that no additional permits would be issued. It is said that recent applications for permits have been turned down “for the above reasons”.
2.3 The effect of boating
The report asserts that boating “can” cause disturbance to wildlife affecting visitors who come to view and enjoy the wildlife. Reference is made to complaints made on the basis either of disturbance or on the assumption that as a wildlife sanctuary boating is not permitted. Boating is said to be considered to be inappropriate and at odds with conservation objectives.
2.4 The Position of other agencies
It is asserted that:
• Natural England has concerns about boating. A reference is made to a wish that the current status quo is maintained, that is that permits are in existence, which are not transferable and that an increase in boat permits is not wanted and an increase in boating activity is not wanted.
• The Environment Agency supports the phasing out of permits over time and that they would not wish to see further permits issued.
• Royal Yachting Association supports the policy of phasing out boat permits over time.
2.5 The Sidlesham Parish Council position
The Parish Council contends that the Report is defective, among other reasons, because:
• It is misleading, by giving a false impression of the impact on the Reserve that a continuation of the boat permit system would have,
• It ignores the benefits that could arise by its continuation and,
• In at least one significant respect, it presents false information.
3. Sidlesham and PHLNR
From its origins, in the early 1960s, the Nature Reserve has expanded, from initially comprising 95% of Pagham Harbour, to the present day, when it now covers some 25% of Sidlesham Parish. Around 20% of the Parish’s public footpaths are now within the Reserve, and therefore subject to various restrictions under the Byelaws.
From 2001 to 2004, one much-used footpath around the harbour, (FP102), was closed by erosion, which could easily have been prevented or repaired, had the Authorities taken timely action. Instead, its reopening was much delayed by arguments as to whether it should be diverted inland to avoid carrying out any works and on the basis that there would then be less disruption to birds. This was at the same time as a short temporary diversion of the same footpath was in place at the Pagham end of Pagham wall, effectively around the works then being carried out in connection with the Chichester Flood Relief scheme. The notices regarding that diversion referred to the importance placed on FP102. Apparently such importance was not given to that part of the footpath further round the harbour at Owl point. This was an unfortunate example of an inconsistent position being taken regarding the management of the harbour as well as unfortunately creating concern and suspicion among local residents, there being no timely communications with the Parish Council, let alone consultation about the proposed inland diversion.
Prior to the formation of the Reserve, the area surrounding the present Visitor Centre was an open refuse tip, presenting much odour, pollution and nuisance to nearby residents. In return for the discomfort endured by the residents over many years, the County Council assured them it would eventually be landscaped and turned into a village recreational amenity. Instead, the harbour and tip were turned into a local nature reserve, from which restrictions on access and recreational use emerged, and continue to emerge to this day. Moreover, much emphasis was placed on the word local; assurances were given that it would remain a “low key” facility, not attracting large numbers of visitors from afar, which the local infrastructure, even then, could not support.
Examination of Sidlesham Parish Council’s records over the intervening years portray a continuing saga of discontent between parishioners and the Authorities who have had responsibilities for aspects of Pagham Harbour, relating either to broken promises, lack of action or lack of consultation. Issues, which have recurred repeatedly, include:
• Access and footpaths
• Drainage and flooding
• Boating and fishing
• Shooting and conservation
• Local amenities and rights vs. popularisation/visitor attraction
• Infrastructure suitability (e.g. B2145)
• Authorities reneging/not fulfilling promises/commitments
The present situation over boat permits is perceived by many residents as a perverse and untimely continuation of a high-handed approach which could, so easily, have been avoided by sensitivity and wise counsel; untimely, because it arises from the sad death last year of Hannah Wright, aged 99 – a much loved and respected Sidlesham resident, who had given much support to the creation and maintenance of the Reserve over its life. A number of applications by local residents for the issue of a permit held by her son (who has now moved away) have been turned down.
4. History of Boating Permits
The Report, referred to in Section 2, maintains that it has always been WSCC policy to phase out the issue of permits and boating on Pagham Harbour. It further asserts that the permit system was initiated “in the understanding” that no additional permits would be issued. This is incorrect, both as regards the position at inception of the permit scheme and as regards events since then (see further below).
The Report appears to rely on comparatively recently written documents stating that boat permits are “historical” and drawing from that a policy that they, and boating, will lapse with time. There is no actual explanation of how and when this alleged policy was initiated and promulgated. Indeed, PHLNR Management Plans (eg that for 1999 to 2004) talk about sailing “not being generally encouraged in the harbour”. More recently, the 2006-2011 Management Plan asserts that “sailing is not generally permitted”. Of course it is not. It is in practice to a large extent subject to permit, though of course rights to navigate (but not land, launch or moor without permit) remain. Neither Management Plan makes any mention of the so-called policy to phase-out boat permits.
In fact, from inception, the basis of the boat permit system was a recognition of the historic rights of local residents and was devised to protect not to terminate or phase out such rights. Thus, the Sussex Naturalists’ Trust presented WSCC with “A report on the Scientific Interest of Pagham Harbour, Sussex with proposals for the establishment of a Nature Reserve in the harbour”. That report identified and described the increasing use made of the harbour, including Pagham Lagoon, for boating, including increased moorings, water skiing, pedalos and the like. Having generally referred to the need to control such activities the report concludes on this aspect: “It is also suggested that boats of residents at Sidlesham living on the edge of the harbour should be licensed to ensure that their privilege of using the Harbour waters is not abused by others”. Far from a system directed at phasing out local residents’ boating rights, the paper thus saw permits as a way of protecting such rights. The conclusions of the report suggested byelaws might be made which could restrict the launching of boats into the harbour “subject to exceptions in favour of local residents”.
The issue of boating permits was also addressed following an informal meeting, in the early 1960s, between a WSCC councillor (Mrs Elizabeth Clarke) and angry local residents, who had learned that the management of the newly-formed Reserve intended to prohibit boating and fishing in the harbour. Out of this meeting the issue of permits to local residents to enable them to continue to use their long-standing rights to row, sail and fish followed. The Byelaws themselves of course expressly envisage the issue of boat permits.
The initial number of permits issued has been difficult to ascertain, but is thought to have been around 20. Mitigation for the discomforts suffered from the rubbish tip, and non-delivery of the promised local amenity (referred to above) were contributing factors in the obtaining of this concession.
The population of Sidlesham has remained roughly constant over the intervening years, but most of the original permit holders have either died or moved away. Yet, the number of permits in issue today (5, excluding the Wildfowlers rescue craft) include only 2 of the original holders. This indicates that permits have been acquired or passed-on, contrary to what is now stated to have been WSCC policy from inception (and to remain its policy).
In 1978/9, block boating and fishing permits were issued to around 20 Sidlesham youngsters for an experimental period in the summer, restricted to the waters adjacent to Sidlesham Quay. Additionally, a block permit was issued to Sidlesham Sea Scouts (now defunct), who later inherited a boat, moored near Sidlesham Quay, from a deceased permit-holder. The warden’s report for 1978 stated that “the block sailing permit allowed 20 of the children from Sidlesham to row or canoe in a restricted part of the north-western end of the harbour from 1 August to 15 September and caused no problems. No more than 4 canoes were on the water at any one time and behaviour was always good. No complaints were received from voluntary wardens or residents. The exercise will continue this year with an extended period allowing boating for the whole of August and September”.
In the Reserve Warden’s report to the Friends of Pagham Harbour in 1982/3, the stated number of permits in issue was 10, of which 3 were associated with Pagham wildfowlers, 7 being held by Sidlesham residents. Of these, only 2 remain today.
The foregoing provides evidence that the so-called “historic policy” to phase out permit-holders was not in existence from their first issue and that the issue of new permits has occurred in the past and that such issue apparently had no adverse effects.
Historic rights should not be swept away by an inconsistent and, probably unfair, policy. It should also be noted that permission continues (despite being threatened) for Pagham SC’s annual Harbour Sail. Indeed, permission for the annual sail day demonstrates the importance accorded both to local residents’ interests and the historic position. As stated by the Chairman of the Advisory Board, the sail day was continued not just for its educational benefit but because it had become “a popular custom”.
5. Practicalities of Boating in Pagham Harbour
Pagham Harbour has become very silted; the realistic opportunities for canoeing, rowing or sailing a boat, or launching one, only occur occasionally, that is around the periods of the Spring Tides, of which there are, on average, 25 such periods in any year. In reality, the tide height needs to be in excess of 4.5m., which is often not reached with low Springs.
Furthermore, even on a day when boating is feasible, the practical total boat-trip time is limited to 1-2 hours around high tide.
The number of days in 2009 when these tidal conditions occur in daylight (boating at night time being considered dangerous) is given in the Table below. People in work, or otherwise occupied in weekdays, would normally only be able to boat at weekends; the split between weekend/weekday occasions is also given. As navigation in the harbour is difficult, careful consideration has to be given to weather conditions, particularly sea state and wind direction/strength. Suitable conditions are more likely to occur in summer months (April to September). This breakdown is also shown. Further, a potential boater has to eschew, or permit time for, other competing leisure activities and family priorities.
Number of days (2009) in which tide ht. > 4.5m in daylight & number of Available boating days
Month Total Weekday Weekend
Jan 7 4 3
Feb 5 5 0
Mar 8 5 3
Apr 9 5 4
May 6 5 1
Jun 7 5 2
Jul 7 5 2
Aug 7 5 2
Sep 11 7 4
Oct 14 10 4
Nov 13 10 3
Dec 8 6 2
Total 102 72 30
less bird
count days -11 -11
Available
boat days 91 72 19
——————————–
(Summer Apr-Sep) Weekday Weekend
Apr 5 4
May 5 1
Jun 5 2
Jul 5 2
Aug 5 2
Sep 7 4
Total 32 15
less bird
count days -6
Available
boat days 32 9
From this, it can be confidently predicted that actual opportunities for boating (sailing, rowing or canoeing) are extremely rare. In practice, of the 6 permit-holders existing in recent years, only 1 makes several excursions in the harbour each year, the others no more than 1 or 2, some none.
As mentioned above, the realistic boating time is at most 2 hours around high tide. On this basis the proportion of possible boating hours to total hours in the relevant period can be calculated as below:
Available boating hours 2009 in which tide ht. > 4.5m in daylight
A=Days boating possible
B=Total Hours boating possible
C=Total Hours within days in A
%= B of C
Total weekdays 72(A) 144(B) 1,728(C) 8%
Total Weekend days 19(A) 38(B) 456(C) 8%
Total 91(A) 182(B) 2,184(C) 8%
Furthermore, looked at annually, there is a maximum of 182 hours available boating time, approximately 2% of the total number of hours in the year. As said, this is the maximum. In practice, were permits to be issued to the sort of numbers suggested below, it is difficult to see how actual boating hours would reach anywhere near these figures.
Looking at the Summer period, figures can be given as below:
Available boating hours 2009 (Apr-Sept) in which tide ht. > 4.5m in daylight
A=Days boating possible
B=Total Hours boating possible
C=Total Hours within days in A
%=B of C
Summer (Apr-Sep) weekdays 32(A) 64(B) 768(C) 8%
Summer (Apr-Sep) weekend days 9(A) 18(B) 216(C) 8%
Total 41(A) 82(B) 984(C) 8%
Again, looking at the total number of hours in April to September, maximum available boating hours would constitute less than 2% of the overall hours.
Boating, indeed any activity, can cause disturbance to birds. Angling and bait digging activities also can cause disturbance. One estimate puts the total number of bait digging and fishing hours combined to be around 200 hours per year. Compared with the reported 100,000 visitors per year for an average of 1 hour (say), the effect on disturbance of the activities carried out through the permit system, boating in particular, is a miniscule proportion of the whole.
6. Bird Disturbance
No proper scientific evidence has been produced to support a case that any damage, or any meaningful damage, would be caused to bird populations as a result of boating pursuant to boating permits. The position of the agencies is dealt with separately below.
The only basis that has currently been identified as a basis for refusing permits is “bird disturbance”. According to the minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Board on 11th November 2008 a Board member explained that “birds need to be free from disturbance at all times” and that disturbance at high tide during the autumn or winter “could result in the death of the birds as it would scare them away” and they might go to “Hilsea Island, which was likely to be too far away for them without sufficient food”. ( It may be that the Minutes are inaccurate and that the reference should be to “Pilsey Island”). With great respect, this is bare assertion/speculation and nothing more. A number of points can be made:
• First of all, if birds need to be free from disturbance at all times then the logic is that the whole reserve should be shut to humans all year round. This is clearly not appropriate nor policy. It is hard to see why disturbance from the myriad of other recreational activities that are permitted is considered to be appropriate but only that from boats is considered to be unacceptable.
• Secondly, although boating may give rise to disturbance, it is far from clear that the disturbance from boating is (a) in fact, deleterious on bird populations (b) anywhere near as great, in terms of disturbance or, if such is the case, in terms of deleterious effect on bird population, as the other recreational activities permitted and encouraged within the harbour.
• Thirdly, in this respect it has not been suggested that any surveys akin to those carried out for the Stour-Orwell estuaries, the Exe estuary or any individual-based models have been carried out in relation to PHLNR.
Developing the second and third points above:
• As regards disturbance, even in terms of behavioural response to disturbance, such as identification of the closest distance to which a disturbance source is approached or the time for birds to return after disturbance has ceased, no evidence has been produced as to the disturbance effects of the minimal boating that would result from boating in accordance with the boat permits proposed.
• Furthermore, mere behavioural response to disturbance is not necessarily related to population consequence, measured in terms of decreased reproduction or increased mortality. Again, no evidence has been produced in this connection as regards PHLNR. The suggestion that birds “might fly to Hilsea (or Pilsey) Island” and that they would have inadequate food there is, with respect, of the same sort of level of speculation as “birds might or might not suffer”.
• So far as feeding is concerned, boats are only able to sail for a short period at high tide; most feeding takes place at low tide, when the disturbance from shore-based activities is greatest. As regards disturbance at high tide, it is wholly unclear that any disturbance from boating, for a short period, would drive birds either from the water (the harbour is comparatively large and the site of disturbance would be small) or far from the nature reserve itself.
• Even if disturbed, birds may have spare time to compensate for disturbance or may move to another feeding area after being disturbed. Thus, as regards the Exe estuary, it is understood that an individual model was carried out to study the effects of human disturbance on wintering oystercatchers in 2002, which took account of time and energy costs of disturbance. However, although disturbance can increase mortality, it was not predicted to do so at the levels occurring in the busy Exe estuary. It is of course accepted that different species react differently and that their reaction may differ by reference to particular locations.
All the above points are capable of being developed further but for present purposes it is sufficient to refer to the surveys/studies above and the papers contained in Ibis (2007) Part 149, and the further papers and studies referred to in those papers.
In short, the simple assertion that boating cannot be permitted because it causes bird disturbance is not one that should carry any weight.
7. The Views of Other Parties
7.1 Objections: general public
A number of general complaints and objections to boating have been raised. In particular, an Appendix to The Report detailing “Watercraft Incidents and Reports” is, presumably, appended to support the case for phasing out permits.
In this context, the Appendix is irrelevant; in fact, it provides a good case for supporting the retention of a permit system, as many of the incidents recorded conflict with the Reserve’s objectives, which “friends” and permit-holders would abhor and wish to see prevented. The only incidents relating to a permit-holder (the Catamaran) have all been reported by the public, who are, most likely, ignorant of the permit system, as is obviously the case of the complainant concerning the permitted Annual Sail of Pagham SC.
If the matter were properly canvassed and explained, it is far from clear that objections would outweigh those in favour of limited and managed boating. Indeed, in the Issues Consultation exercise carried out in 2004, the Survey Results showed that “51% said we should tighten permit conditions but continue to issue a small number of permits, giving preference to local people”. Further, the conclusion to this part of the survey was: “Overall, a balanced opinion has emerged. Most people see the permit system as a good way to not only permit and regulate activities, but involve the local community in protecting the Reserve. Most also agree that there is a need to tighten the conditions.”
Further, and in any event, the matter should be considered on the basis of scientific evidence and a proper balancing of competing interests and aims, not on the basis of individuals’, or even a majority’s, sensibilities. Some people would like the reserve closed down to human beings but access cannot be decided on that sort of basis.
It is wholly unclear that some of the complaints were valid: leaving aside any boat sailed under permit, it is unclear that all other boating incidents subject of complaint in fact involved a breach of the Byelaws; at least some of the boats may well have been exercising public rights of navigation.
Some complaints may well have originated from what appears to have been the position promulgated to visitors to the visitor centre in recent years – namely that boating “is not permitted” in the harbour, which is simply not correct.
7.2 Natural England (“NE”)
As noted, NE is said to have “concerns” about boating. The reference to a wish that the current status quo is maintained, that is that permits are in existence which are not transferable and that an increase in boat permits is not wanted and an increase in boating activity is not wanted, is not the same as a wish that the number of boating permits be reduced to zero. A wish not to see increased activity, and to preserve the status quo, is not the same thing as a wish to see the activity cease.
7.3 The Environment Agency (the “EA”)
The EA is said to support the phasing out of permits over time and it would not wish to see further permits issued.
The mere expression of such a wish, without proper reasons and evidence, should not carry any weight. Without knowing more, there is nothing further that can be said by way of rebuttal. It is unreasonable, irrational and unfair to rely upon the expressed wish of the Environment Agency without proper reasons and evidence and without residents being afforded a proper opportunity to consider and, if appropriate, challenge such reasons or evidence or to devise ways in which those reasons may be met, without, in effect, abolishing permits over time.
7.4 The Royal Yachting Association (the “RYA”)
The RYA is reported as supporting “WSCC’s policy of phasing out boat permits over time”.
This is believed to be untrue. It is understood that:
• the RYA wrote to the Secretary of State in March 2008, objecting on several grounds to the proposed Byelaws as then drafted, including on the grounds that the then draft Byelaws sought to extinguish public rights of navigation.
• following such objection changes were made to the draft Byelaws, acknowledging the public rights of navigation within the harbour.
• The RYA then withdrew its objections.
• The RYA has never expressed support for the discontinuance of the permit system and indeed, as a boating association, it would be strange if it did so.
8. The Legal Position
The legal position has already been touched upon. The rights of navigation within the harbour remain, save that the rights of launching, landing and mooring are restricted to those with permits.
The rights of landowners – i.e. “owners, lessee or occupier of land in the Reserve” to exercise their private launching rights are preserved by the proposed Byelaws. There is a number of such landowners; one such has a launching ramp from the property into the harbour.
The Mission Statement of the 2006-2011 Pagham Harbour LNR Management Plan is “to manage Pagham Harbour LNR as a haven for wildlife and people”. Hence, it is clear that the Harbour is not managed solely for the purposes of bird conservation. The reserve is managed also for recreational purposes, that is, for the purposes of providing opportunities for the enjoyment of the harbour. As regards the public generally that is confirmed by (for example):
• The recent inception of the coastal cycleway along the footpath edging the harbour;
• The current plans for the redevelopment of the Visitor Centre so as to encourage more visitors to the reserve;
• The importance given to FP 102, as advertised at the time of the temporary diversion to accommodate works associated with the Chichester flood defence scheme as referred to above.
• As regards local residents, that is confirmed by the history referred to above including (by way of example):
• the background to the setting up of the nature reserve and the circumstance in which permits under the Byelaws came to be, and continued to be, issued;
• the issuing of permits regarding Sidlesham children’s activities in the 1970s as referred to above;
• the permission granted for the annual sail day by Pagham Sailing Club;
• the Report of WSCC’s Director for Environment and Development and Head of Environmental and Economic Policy Services to the Regulation Audit and Accounts Committee for the meeting on 18 March 2008, considering the then revised draft Byelaws. Item 7, under the heading “Human Rights” refers in terms to the policy that the rights of those living close to or visiting the harbour should be taken into account whilst also balancing them against the better protection of the site and its wildfowl. This policy must apply not just to the terms of the Byelaws but to their application (including consideration of the issue of boating permits under them) and management of the harbour generally.
It is not accepted that the policy from inception was that boat permits would fall away and not be replaced as inhabitants die or move away. As said, the purpose of permits was to regulate the rights of local inhabitants to limit damage to the reserve, not to abolish them. Any change in such policy would need to be notified properly to residents so that they had an opportunity to make representations. No such notification has taken place; accordingly, pursuance of such a policy, without first affording such an opportunity, would be unreasonable and, so it is understood, unlawful.
Whatever the historic position, a policy that is directed at the phasing out of boat permits over time is unfair and irrational and, so it is understood, unlawful. At present that understanding is based on the following considerations:
• It cannot be the basis of the policy that bird conservation of itself is the sole basis of the management of the harbour (see above). Therefore the only question can be one of the proper balance to be given to the threat (if any) to bird population against the benefits and historic rights of local residents to sail.
• The level of permits over the years clearly does not present an unacceptable threat to birds: otherwise all of them should and would have been cancelled or not renewed.
• No proper scientific evidence has been produced showing:
o (a) that there is any level of damage to the bird population that would arise from boating activity at the sort of levels in question
o (b) that, if there is any such damage, this level of damage has been properly considered and weighed against the benefits to residents of boating;
• Further, no proper scientific evidence has been produced that:
o (a) no damage to the bird population arises from, for example, the proposed massive expansion to the visitor centre and the number of visitors projected or the inception of the Selsey cycle link through the reserve and
o (b) the level of damage (if any) identified in (a), has been or is being properly considered and weighed prior to any decision that the matter should proceed.
• If there is no evidence regarding damage to bird populations caused by boating, as referred to above, then there is no adequate evidence on which to conclude that meaningful damage would occur to the bird population from the small amount of boating that would follow from the continuation of the permit system;
• If there is no evidence regarding absence of damage to bird populations flowing from the increase in non-boating activities, as referred to above, then the attempt now to phase out boat permits demonstrates unfair, irrational and unreasonable management of the harbour by discriminating against local residents who are actual or potential boat users compared with the those who would benefit from other recreational uses, for example, users of the proposed visitor centre or cyclists;
9. The Consequences of Phasing out Boat Permits
If the proposed policy of phasing out permits as permit-holders die or move away is pursued, the following consequences (among others) are probable:
• The perceived alienation between the Reserve Management and some local residents will be given added impetus – a regrettable trend for both parties.
• Existing permit-holders will hang-on to their permits for as long as possible – even unto death – in the hope that a future PHLNR management will emerge which will deploy a more resident-friendly attitude and/or better consultative technique, and restore long-held historic rights.
• Aspiring permit-holders may resort to perfectly legal measures to launch and sail boats.
• Opportunities for utilising the services of local boat owners to assist in emergencies and aiding the wardens will be gradually lost, as local residents will no longer bother to retain boats, nor maintain them in a readily launch-able state.
• The load on wardens will be increased, since it will not be known whether any boat navigating the Public Waterway has been launched legally or not. At present permit holders are required to display red flashes.
• The legal position is likely to have to be considered further by interested parties.
10. The Advantages of Permits
Maintaining the Boat permit system, at present or historic levels, would offer a number of advantages to the Reserve and its management. Among others, these include:
• The Reserve Management would be perceived as honouring pledges made by its predecessors, thus beginning to reverse the alienation of the local community to the Reserve, to the benefit of both.
• In return for the privileges conferred by a boat permit (or it could become a condition of the permit), it is likely that permit-holders would be willing to become voluntary wardens, as was the case when boat permits originated and as was carried out over many years by members of Pagham and West Sussex Wildfowling and Conservation Association. Water-borne voluntary wardens could identify and report on prohibited activities not visible from the land, help in the collection and disposal of floating flotsam and jetsam, identify and report on injured or dead wild-life, thus relieving the load on the existing wardens and making them more effective.
• A permit-holder would maintain a boat (again, this could become a condition of the permit) in a readily launch-able state near the water, and therefore be able to act as a quick-response voluntary emergency rescue service in the case of visitors in difficulties, such as being cut-off by a rising tide.
11. Proposals for the Continuation of Boat Permits
We propose that Boat Permits should not be phased out as permit-holders die or move away, but that the Boat Permit system should be continued, with the number of permits in issue restored to 10 – that is half the number originally allocated, but thought to be sufficient to accommodate the number of Sidlesham residents who have expressed a desire for a permit.
We suggest that the criteria for obtaining and retaining a Boat Permit could be along the following lines (the criteria being in order of importance in the case of over-subscription):
• Possession of a suitable craft being:
o Canoe/kayak
o Rowing boat
o Sailing boat
• Inhabitant of a property close to the harbour (in the case of competing applications, preference being given to the most proximate) and able to transport craft to launch site without vehicular assistance
• Full time residents given priority over weekenders
• Length of time on waiting list
• Permit-holders to be able to relinquish their permits temporarily in favour of others at times of, for example, prolonged illness or absence abroad. On return, permit-holder to be able to restore his permit.
• Permits to be granted to the owner for specified craft(s)
• The craft to be suitably marked to identify it as permitted (as per the red flash in the present permit conditions).
• Display a willingness to act as a voluntary warden and undergo the necessary training.
Sidlesham Parish Council further proposes that the administration of permit allocation and fee collection should be carried out by the Clerk to the Council. He/she is the person best positioned to establish and confirm that an applicant meets the criteria listed above. If necessary, the clerk will maintain a waiting list. To simplify the administration, we propose that permits are renewed annually on a calendar basis (e.g. 1st April), rather than at permit expiry, as at present. The clerk could also take on the task of collecting returns on boating activity during the year, and submitting these to PHLNR management in bulk. Of course, the actual approval for the issue of a permit and the power to revoke it would remain with PHLNR management, who would, however be relieved of the time consuming aspects of administration.
12. Conclusion
The purpose of this Paper is to offer a counter-balance to the views of those who find it difficult to reconcile the recreational use of Pagham Harbour with the interests of conservation, yet are committed to the vision that the Harbour should be managed as a haven for wildlife and people.
The Paper has concentrated on the issue of Boat Permits for Sidlesham residents, as these are currently threatened with eventual extinction, for reasons for which no substantive evidence has been put forward, but only the expressed desires of persons and organisations who wield considerable influence in any debates on conservation matters.
We have shown that, in actuality, the opportunities for boating are so limited that even a doubling of the permits currently in issue would have a negligible impact on wildlife, particularly when considered in the context of the published ambitious plans to attract more visitors to the Reserve.
Sidlesham Parish Council hopes that this Paper will enable agreement to be reached whereby a small number of Boat Permits may be retained for the benefit of Sidlesham residents who live nearby and share the same values as all who wish to maintain the sanctity of this beautiful Harbour.
Sidlesham Parish Council
February 2009