Review of Perth Harbour Operations to support 'Harbour Quarter' and Inner River Tay Developments
Perth and Kinross Council · 28 May 2025
Back to Economy and Infrastructure Committee — 28 May 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Economy and Infrastructure Committee Date of Meeting: 28 May 2025 Report Title: Review of Perth Harbour operations to support ‘Harbour Quarter’ and Inner River Tay developments Report Number: 25/130 Report Author: Alan Dobson, Economic Development Officer Organisational Lead: Serge Merone, Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Members with an update on the review of Perth Harbour operations to support the delivery of the ‘Harbour Quarter’ promoted as part of the Perth City Development and Design Framework and wider Inner River Tay developments for leisure, tourism and nature. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendations 3. Background/Main Issues 4. Impact and Value Assessment 5. Appendices 2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee: 2.1 Agree to proceed with the option of a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) retaining Statutory Harbour Authority and health and safety obligations excluding traffic for commercial vessels over 24 meters and ceasing Competent Harbour Authority duties in line with Transport Scotland (TS) suggestions. 2.2 Ask the Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning to report to the Finance and Resources Committee any financial implications of the review of Perth Harbour operations.
Page 2
2.3 Acknowledge the significant contributions made by the Harbour Board and its dedicated members. Their efforts have been invaluable. However, given the current circumstances, it is proposed that the Board is no longer necessary and should be discontinued. 3. Background/Main Issues 3.1 Context 3.1.1 Following the Council decision on 8th February 2023 (Report No. 23/42) to close the Harbour to commercial traffic and pursue regeneration, officers have been working with Transport Scotland (TS) to progress a Harbour Closure Order for Perth Harbour. The Harbour Closure Order seeks to relinquish Council’s obligations as Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA) and duties as Competent Harbour Authority (CHA). 3.1.2 On 4 September 2024, the Council (Report No. 24/241) approved the draft City Centre Development & Design Framework for consultation and engagement with the public and stakeholders and asked the Strategic Lead – Economy, Development & Planning to bring back a revised version of the Framework, incorporating suggested changes, for further consideration, along with a delivery programme (Report ref 24/241). It is planned to submit a report to the Council’s meeting on 10 September 2025. The Framework promotes some large scale, potentially longer term, projects spread over several development quarters including the Harbour Quarter. 3.1.3 The Framework envisages a reimagination of the Harbour requiring some long-term commercial leases to be bought out to create space for leisure- based uses such as outdoor tourism-led and water-based activities, micro & small businesses, and community facilities. A new bridge would connect the Harbour to Moncrieffe Island and an opportunity for people to engage with nature, to connect with greenspaces and to use active travel to travel to and from the city centre. 3.1.4 The Harbour Quarter is located within the Inner Tay area and will play an important future role in supporting the existing Inner Tay Masterplan 2012- 2022 (currently under review by the Tay and Earn Trust and other stakeholders). It is a vision strategy for the Tay area which promoted several completed and ongoing projects under the themes of: Access and Infrastructure, Leisure and Sport, Environmental and Cultural Heritage, and Biodiversity. In addition, the Tay Adventures programme is included in the Tay Cities Deal with several projects progressing with the Tay and Earn Trust to deliver a rejuvenation of river assets within the Tay as a water-based leisure destination. 3.1.5 To support the delivery of the above vision, the first step was to cease Council’s involvement and obligations to manage the harbour as a commercial port.
Page 3
3.2 Review of Perth Harbour operations 3.2.1 In February 2023, in addition to closure, the Council also agreed to market Perth Harbour as a long-term lease opportunity for another operator. This process concluded in September 2023, and although the Council agreed to accept one submitted bid, the bidder subsequently withdrew from the process. 3.2.2 In pursuing the closure of the Harbour, a prescribed Harbour Order process must be followed to ensure legal robustness. The Harbour Order process is outlined in the guidance published by TS on 5 February 2016 Guidance 05.02.2016 (transport.gov.scot). Appendix 1 summarises this guidance and process, which was also detailed in the supporting documents submitted alongside the February 2023 report to Council about the future of the Harbour operations. 3.2.3 A full timeline of discussions with TS since February 2023 is provided in Appendix 2. Following prompts from elected members and the Strategic Lead (Economy, Development & Planning) about the slow progress by TS on the Harbour Closure Order process, a response was received from TS in September 2024 indicating the complexity of the Harbour Order process and the need to avoid legal challenges. TS indicated they were at the final stages of the pre-consultation stage for the proposed Closure Order and would initiate the formal 42-day consultation period soon. 3.2.4 In October 2024, TS requested further information for Ministers/officials and stakeholders to fully consider the merits of a Closure application. A meeting was held on 6 November 2024 with TS Head of Ports and TS Head of Maritime Policy, along with Council and legal advisers. TS highlighted concerns regarding the obligations being relinquished and bylaw powers to be retained. The Council agreed to provide the additional information requested and stressed the need to reach a prompt conclusion. 3.2.5 In early February 2025, TS hosted a session outlining their concerns around safety and suggested a Harbour Revision Order as a more straightforward method, alleviating several concerns, particularly regarding health and safety risks. 3.2.6 During this process and despite having virtually no commercial traffic, the Council must continue commercial operations and maintain compliance with legislation and guidance. In the year 2024/25, only one vessel docked in April 2024 and one in November 2024. The Council had also to support the main commercial user to progress the new Border Control Point designation for import of Products from Animal Origin (e.g. fishmeal) and submission of an application for a dredging licence. Costs were incurred by the main commercial user of the Harbour. 3.2.7 Following the February 2023 Council’s decision, the 2023-24 budget allocated to the Harbour was reduced from £170K to £13K targeting a saving of £157K. However, the Council continued to incur costs to remain open and compliant creating a budget pressure. An actual net expenditure of £208K was reported as of 31 March 2024. The projected net expenditure as of 31 March 2025 is estimated at around £100K, depending on potential income from vessels. This
Page 4
expenditure includes the legal fees due to ongoing Order proceedings with respect to the closure. Overall, a saving of £57K has been achieved from the original target savings of £157K. Through a review of needs and in line with the Council decision, the Council also agreed to the sale the Fair Maid tugboat which raised £500K in 2023-24. 3.3 Proposals 3.3.1 At the Finance & Resources Committee meeting on 5 February 2025, the Strategy Lead (Economy, Development & Planning) suggested exploring the option of a Harbour Revision Order rather than a Harbour Closure Order in line with TS suggestions. as the HRO process is likely to be simpler and more manageable. 3.3.2 This option will still implement the February 2023 Council’s decision to close the harbour to commercial traffic and to focus on leisure activities, supporting the delivery of the ‘Harbour quarter’ as promoted in the City Centre Development and Design Framework. 3.3.3 Under this option, the Order would remove the Council’s Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) duties with the continuation of its Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA) and related Health and Safety obligations. The Council has sought its own legal advice on the matter, detailed in Appendix 3. Legal advice confirmed this would be an approach with some pros and cons. 3.3.4 The SHA obligations would reduce in tandem with the reduction of harbour operations due to the cessation of traffic of commercial vessels over 24 metres. This option would retain powers by the Council as SHA. 3.3.5 Whilst the most effective way to reduce obligations would be to advance the closure order, which would relieve the Council of more responsibilities. Our legal advisers have pointed out another risk: alongside the full closure order, PKC would need to initiate a separate legal process to amend the relevant bylaws, which would also require ministerial approval. 3.3.6 As the landowner, the Council would need to implement processes to address post-closure activities. Maintaining the SHA would not significantly burden the Council compared to implementing safety protocols for closure. 3.3.7 TS suggests proceeding with the Harbour Revision Order (HRO) rather than the Closure Order. The HRO process is likely to be simpler and more manageable for us but also facilitates future leisure activities and allows the Council to retain the necessary powers at the Harbour. This process is still subject to objections. This process could still take 6-18 months to complete depending on the results of the consultation. 3.3.8 The Committee is asked to agree to proceed with the option of a Harbour Revision Order retaining Statutory Harbour Authority and health and safety obligations excluding traffic for commercial vessels over 24 meters and ceasing Competent Harbour Authority duties in line with TS suggestions.
Page 5
3.3.9 In preparation for the public consultation, the Council has met and will continue to meet with key stakeholders to explain plans and address possible objections. These stakeholders include The Northern Lighthouse, NatureScot, Forth Ports (Dundee), Crown Estates, Ineos, Shell (pipeline owners), Amey, River Leisure Users and main commercial harbour user. 3.4 Responsibilities and Costs post Harbour Revision Order 3.4.1 The Council would remain a Statutory Harbour Authority for Perth Harbour with a Harbourmaster who could use its powers of directions and of control to facilitate future leisure activities and the delivery of the ‘Harbour Quarter’ as promoted in the City Centre Development and Design Framework. The overall risks would reduce due to the cessation of large commercial traffic. 3.4.2 Duties associated with being a Competent Harbour Authority including pilotage would cease. Responsibilities associated with dredging, equipment maintenance (e.g. Aids to Navigation), and general SHA burdens, would diminish or cease. 3.4.3 Commercial properties related to large commercial traffic could find new uses including business and community uses or land could be released for new connections to Moncrieffe Island supporting the development of the ‘Harbour Quarter’. Stronger or new synergies could be developed between Perth Harbour basin and Willow Gates and along the Inner Tay due to the cessation of large commercial traffic. 3.4.4 However, the Council would continue to incur costs. The future total budget is estimated at £65K. This would include the already budgeted £13K and an additional £52K. These costs are detailed below: - Rent and Rates: Covered by the current budget of £13K, likely to remain the same. A review could reduce them. - Designated Person (DP): Required by the UK Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) to provide independent assurance of marine safety management. The Council will need a DP, but a review of scope and costs would be initiated to keep costs to a minimum. - Harbourmaster & Operations: Includes a qualified Harbourmaster to ensure compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code, relevant insurances, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) servicing. The role and costs would be reviewed considering reduced responsibilities. The role could also include wider engagement activities to support leisure use possibly in partnership with other river users or organisations. - Asset Maintenance: Maintenance and phased decommission of Aids to Navigation, Safety Equipment, and assets like fencing. - Oil Spill Cover: Contract for oil spill response. Cover and costs would be maintained but reviewed considering reduced risks.
Page 6
- PPE: Replacement and repair of personal protective equipment. - Website: Maintenance for port, harbour, and river information as the new model is developed. 3.4.5 The estimated budget pressure at approximately £52K per annum would mean that the Council would still have achieved a budget saving of around £100K from its original 2023-24 budget saving target of £157K. This ongoing estimated budget pressure would need to be reported and considered by the Finance and Resources Committee. Whilst difficult to get a replica market comparison, a non-commercial shipping conservancy contract for the River Dee totals £600k over four years, although this included a lighthouse. 3.4.6 The current Council’s Scheme of Administration states that the Economy and Infrastructure Committee is to exercise the strategic and policy functions of the Council in relation to harbours, piers, boatslips and jetties in terms of Section 154 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and all relevant subordinate legislation, including the section of the River Tay over which the Council is Navigation Authority. The Scheme also states that the role of the Strategic Lead – Economy, Development and Planning is to exercise the functions of the Council in terms of Section 154 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and all relevant subordinate legislation in relation to Perth Harbour. This should be maintained but may have to be reviewed post Harbour Revision Order. 3.4.7 A Harbour Board was set up following the approval of the first Harbour Business Plan by the Council on 18 May 2016 (Report no 16/222 refers). The Harbour Board was not set-up as a sub-committee within the Scheme of Administration, but as an advisory Board with an Officer acting as the Harbour Duty Holder. With the approval of the second Business Plan in 2021, it was noted that, since the first business plan and over time, the Board’s role has evolved. As such, the Board has taken on more responsibilities and acted more as the Harbour Duty Holder, providing strategic direction, public representation and ensuring compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code (PSMC) (Report No 21/150 refers). The Harbour Board last meeting was in November 2023 and has not met since and the Harbour Duty Role has been provided in line with the Scheme of Administration. 3.4.8 Throughout these years, the Harbour Board and its dedicated members have been pivotal in tackling the various challenges faced by the Harbour. Each successive chair and member approached their roles with unwavering passion and commitment, making a significant impact. Their efforts have truly made a difference. 3.4.9 The Committee is asked to acknowledge the significant contributions made by the Harbour Board and its dedicated members. Their efforts have been invaluable. However, given the current circumstances, it is proposed that the Board is no longer necessary and should be discontinued.
Page 7
4. Impact and Value Assessment Review_of_Perth_Harbour_Operations_to_support_Harbour_Quarter_and_In ner_River_Tay_Dev.pdf 5. Appendices 5.1 Appendix 1 – Summary of guidance and process of a prescribed Harbour Order 5.2 Appendix 2 – Timeline of Activity 5.3 Appendix 3 – Harbour Legal Advice Update