Sutton Harbour Lock Gates – PFSA Responds
Eight months on from when the Environment Agency (EA) issued its press notice about the refurbishment works to the Sutton Harbour lock gates the uncertainties and risks to the local fishing fleet remain unresolved.
At a meeting in December, the EA and Sutton Harbour Group (who own the harbour) announced changed dates for the proposed works. About six weeks later a report by Blyth Industries was circulated to those present at the December meeting. The report identified a range of issues still to be resolved – nearly all of which were known when the refurbishment works were first announced. There was acknowledgement that communication by the EA and Sutton Harbour Group had been regarded as ineffective and lacking.
The refurbishment works to the lock gates are planned to take place in two stages. The first will involve restricted access between 4th September 2023 and 12th November 2023, and the second between 11th March 2024 – 22nd May 2024. The EA and the Sutton Harbour Group are proposing that Millbay Docks should be made available as an alternative for vessels unable to berth or land fish in Sutton Harbour whilst the works are underway. The feasibility of this has yet to be assessed. There are a lot of unknowns.
We are concerned that so little progress has been made and concerned about the potentially serious adverse impacts on Plymouth’s fishing industry. We have issued a preliminary response to the Blyth Report flagging up our concerns. See below.
SUTTON HARBOUR LOCK GATES
COMMENTS ON MITIGATING MEASURES AND THE BLYTH REPORT
The comments below are PFSA’s initial response to the report by Blyth Industries as read alongside the EA’s schedule of works, which included free flow information. It is not intended to be a comprehensive response but to provide a general overview and to seek clarification. It could be used in future discussions as solutions are worked up.
General comments
Duration of works
The overall duration of the works, particularly where there is restricted access to the Fish Quay, is considered too long. In Phase 1, which has 62 days with restricted access, there are 20 “no works” days at weekends.
· What are the constraints precluding weekend work?
· Could the schedule be adjusted to include weekend work?
Communications
To date there has been minimal communications to affected parties. Only one newsletter has been forthcoming from SHG and this predates the meeting held at the Aquarium on 12 Dec. The EA/SHG website set up to provide “an information portal” contains no recent information. The SHG website includes a copy of a letter sent to berth holders back in July 22.
Has there been recent communication with the berth holders? Website information is minimal and out of date.
EA Works Schedule
The document provided by the EA detailed the works day by day and colour coded the lock access as: Red – No Access, Amber/Yellow – restricted access and Green – No restrictions. Whilst it is hoped that there can be good use of free flow on restricted days there will be a significant number of days on which use will have to be made of alternative landing/berthing arrangements. SHG should identify the alternative arrangements proposed, at the earliest opportunity, so that users of Sutton Harbour can consider the feasibility of the proposals.
In the meantime, PFSA will review the works schedule and free flow times and other factors (e.g.ferry movements) to further inform the impact of the works. the necessary reliance on the alternative arrangements and the potential operational impacts.
Comments arising from the Blyth Industries Feasibility Report
We agree with the conclusion in the report that Millbay is the only alternative landing/berthing site for most vessels that holds any prospect of offering possible mitigating measures. But, the feasibility of this has not been fully examined and, in this respect, the detail matters.
Whilst Trinity pier has limited scope to be used for berthing the basin to the north of it would provide pontoons to allow vessels to moor prior to and on completion of landing and for lay up when vessels cannot access their normal berths at Sutton Harbour. It will need to be determined the size of the vessel that can safely use such pontoons.
The use of West Pier should be explored with ABP but our initial thoughts are that it is an unattractive option which presents a number of practical problems which may be difficult to overcome. It is thought doubtful that boats up to 15m will be prepared to use it. The quayside height at mid tide and below will pose problems especially for self-discharge. Other constraints e.g. ferry movements and bonded status may prove problematic to efficient landing operations (see also the impact of ferrys – point 2 below).
Kings Point Marina, the report seems to imply its use only for smaller vessels (<10?), using “A” arm. We believe that the use of the western end of “F” Arm could provide a landing option. It would need a suitable truck with an adequate crane, both reach and capacity. As SHG control KPM the working up of solutions should be able to be done in the short term.
Whilst ferry movements are mentioned in the report as a potential issue no detail is given. PFSA have done a quick analysis based on schedules available on Brittany Ferries website. The Plymouth-Roscoff route sees a ferry arriving approx. 20:00 from Roscoff and departing at approx. 22:00 every day apart from Tue and Wed. This is a period where typically fishing vessels do land of an evening. There is also the Plymouth-Santander ferry to consider but this is only a weekly service and occurs in the middle of the day.
The report states that Vessel Operators (commercial and leisure) should make the best use of free flow but it also observes the majority of existing harbour users do not operate according to free flow times due to commercial need or recreational circumstance. As stated above, under general comments, many fishermen (e.g. day boats, scallopers subject to 7pm fishing curfews) will need access to evening landing facilities. Initial review of the Phase 1 works schedule indicate that as few as 30% of the restricted access days would afford evening access to the Fish Quay, thus requiring alternative arrangements. PFSA will undertake further analysis of the works schedule and free flow data.
Larger vessels, typically>15m, that do multi day trips might be better placed to plan their fishing around free flow, though they would need to be consulted. Alternatively, Victoria Wharf might provide a suitable facility, as indeed many scallopers choose to use it anyway. However, as the report observes, the use of this facility is subject to private agreement with the site operator. It is not evident from the report whether SHG have approached the site operators. If not, SHG should do so and should provide notification of the arrangements.
The report mentions that some operators may choose to relocate temporarily to Millbay and mentions 5 berths. In addition to some fishermen others. e.g. PML may wish to relocate. Such operators need to be identified to help inform the planning process. SHG should contact berth holders to determine the level of interest ASAP.
No mention is made of QAB in the report. A few berths on a pontoon may be of use to small <8m vessels awaiting access to Sutton Harbour.
There is brief reference to the MMO and regulatory compliance. Discussions with the MMO will be needed to get their definitive view of operating at Millbay (or other locations) which is not believed to be part of Plymouth’s designated port in fishery terms. The weighing of catch for <10m vessels would require scales. Vessels often utilise the market scales at the fish market, but this would not be permissible under the regulations for landings at Millbay.
We agree with the recommendation in the report that that SHG should arrange for [adequate] parking spaces to be provided in the public car park adjacent to King Point Marina, specifically for users with existing parking permits at Sutton Harbour.