Posted on 24 Nov 2008
Lymington Harbour Commissioners reply dated 12th November 2008
Dear Mr. Clark Thank you for your letter of 10 November re the above. I concur that there is no regulatory gap with regard to environmental regulation in this matter. A conclusion reached by the LHC in January 2007.
I refer you to the very first slide in my presentation to the Lymington Society’s public meeting last November, which stated:
To Manage the Harbour for the Benefit of all Users and with regard for the Environment.
To Regulate for Safety of Navigation in Accordance with the Port Marine Safety Code (Risk Assessment, Conservancy, Byelaws, COLREGS)
To Maintain an Open Port in accordance with the Harbour Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847.
In pursuance of this duty we have been involved in a number of discussions with the regulators involved in permisioning Wightlink’s shore works, and have publicly stated that we will cooperate fully in any regulatory process.
Our approach is to regulate the operation of the new vessels so as to produce no more hydrodynamic disturbance than the C Class. This is accepted by Natural England as a sensible strategy.
In exercising our powers to apply for byelaws for environmental protection we are reliant on their advice. They have been fully informed regarding the measurements that we are making and have assured us we are providing all that they require. If when they assess our results they make proposals beyond our original strategy we will take due account of their recommendations when framing our byelaws.
I hope that this serves to confirm that, despite what you may read in the press, the Lymington Harbour Commissioners have had the environmental well being of the river as a key concern from the outset, and that we will pursue it to a satisfactory regulatory conclusion.
If you have any further questions I will be happy to provide answers wherever possible.
Peter Griffiths Chairman – Lymington harbour Commissioners
Solent Protection Society 