Agenda Document Pack - Harbours Sub-Committee - 22/10/2025
Moray Council · 22 October 2025
Back to Harbours Sub-Committee — 22 October 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Harbours Sub-Committee Wednesday, 22 October 2025 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Meeting of the Harbours Sub-Committee is to be held at Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street, Elgin, IV30 1BX on Wednesday, 22 October 2025 at 09:30. BUSINESS 1. Sederunt 2. Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests * 3. Written Questions ** 4. Marine Safety and Operational Summary for period 2024 Q4 to 2025 Q1 Report by Executive Director Economy, Enterprise and Operations 5 - 172 Summary of Harbours Sub-Committee Functions To fulfil the role of Duty Holder as described in the Port Marine Safety Code, and to provide strategic oversight and direction for harbour operations, giving greater focus and clarity on the Council’s role as harbour authority. Page 1
Page 2
Watching the Meeting You can watch the webcast live by going to: http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_43661.html Webcasts are available to view for 1 year following the meeting. You can also attend the meeting in person. If you wish to attend in person, please come to the High Street entrance door and a member of staff will let you into the Chamber. Page 2
Page 3
GUIDANCE NOTES * Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests - The Chair of the meeting shall seek declarations from any individual or political group at the beginning of a meeting whether any prior decision has been reached on how the individual or members of the group will vote on any item(s) of business on the Agenda, and if so on which item(s). A prior decision shall be one that the individual or the group deems to be mandatory on the individual or the group members such that the individual or the group members will be subject to sanctions should they not vote in accordance with the prior decision. Any such prior decisions will be recorded in the Minute of the meeting. ** Written Questions - Any Member can put one written question about any relevant and competent business within the specified remits not already on the agenda, to the Chair provided it is received by the Proper Officer or Committee Services by 5pm three working days prior to the day of the meeting, please see Standing Order 36 for deadlines. A copy of any written answer provided by the Chair will be published on the Council’s committee management system by 12pm the day before the meeting. The Member who has put the question may, after the answer has been published, may ask one supplementary question directly related to the subject matter at the meeting, but no discussion will be allowed. No supplementary question can be put or answered more than 10 minutes after the Council has started on the relevant item of business, except with the consent of the Chair. If a Member does not have the opportunity to put a supplementary question because no time remains, then he or she can submit it in writing to the Proper Officer who will arrange for a written answer to be provided within 7 working days. Page 3
Page 4
MORAY COUNCIL Harbours Sub-Committee SEDERUNT Councillor Marc Macrae (Chair) Councillor Amber Dunbar (Depute Chair) Councillor James Allan (Member) Councillor Neil Cameron (Member) Councillor Tracy Colyer (Member) Councillor Sonya Warren (Member) Clerk Name: Lissa Rowan Clerk Telephone: 01343563015 Clerk Email: lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk Page 4
Page 5
Report to: Harbours Sub Committee Meeting Date: 22 October 2025 Report by: Executive Director Economy, Enterprise and Operations Author: Paul Jennings Contact Email: paul.jennings@moray.gov.uk Subject: Marine Safety and Operational Summary for period 2024 Q4 to 2025 Q1 1. PURPOSE ☒ For Decision ☐ For Information 1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Harbours Sub Committee on matters of Marine Safety and compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) for the year 2024/25 Q4 and 2025/26 Q1. 1.2 This report is submitted to the Harbours Sub Committee in terms of Section III (F) (25) of the Council's Scheme of Administration relating to the functions of Council as Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA). 2. SUMMARY 2.1 The report sets out safety and key operational indicators for the harbours, a financial overview, and the findings of the recent audit by the Designated Person on the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC). 2.2 It should be noted that a revised PMSC was released by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) in April 2025. The Moray Harbours annual PMSC audit was also conducted in April, against the updated code, by newly appointed auditors. The updated PMSC code is much more prescriptive in how harbours and facilities now “must” be managed and operated. This change of emphasis has resulted in a requirement to further develop and amend the existing Marine Safety Management System to achieve full compliance with the code. There is also the need for a new Marine Safety Plan. The PMSC audit report, actions taken to comply with audit recommendations and the PMSC, along with a new Marine Safety Plan are included in this report. 2.3 The harbours financial position, which although early in the financial year, is on budget. Updates with regard to operational activity and conservancy of the harbours are also included. Item 4. Page 5
Page 6
3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Committee: i) note the findings of the PMSC audit carried out by the Designated Person (ABPmer) (Appendix 1 Section A); ii) note the safety performance as set out in the report, fulfilling their function as Duty Holder under the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) (Appendix 1 Section B); iii) consider and note the actions taken against the observations in the PMSC audit report to achieve compliance with the PMSC (para 4.7 and Appendix 1 section A); iv) approve v8 of the Marine Safety Management System, which is updated to achieve compliance with the revised PMSC (Appendix 2); v) consider and approve the revised Marine Safety Plan and associated KPIs for 2005-2008 (para 4.8); and vi) note the harbours financial position (4.9-4.15), operations activity report (4.16-4.21), and conservancy reports (Section 5.0). Author Name: Paul Jennings Job Title: Interim Service Manager Harbours 4. PORT MARINE SAFETY CODE AUDIT 4.1 Under the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) the Council must appoint a Duty Holder to ensure that compliance with the PMSC is achieved. The council must provide a report on PMSC performance on an annual basis. 4.2 The role of Duty Holder is held by members of this Harbours Sub Committee (HSC). The role provides accountability for ensuring the organisation’s compliance with the PMSC and their organisation’s performance in ensuring safe marine operations. This report provides information on which to base assessment of compliance and safe operations. It should be noted that duty holders are required to be conversant with PMSC and its content. Duty Holders should undergo training to discharge their duty. For those current committee members who require training or wish refresher training, they can undertake online webinar training hosted by the British Ports Association. Future training dates have been circulated to the members of the HSC that have yet to conduct this training and they have booked onto the courses. Dates of Duty Holder training are now recorded in the MSMS, along with operational harbour visits conducted by Duty Holders. 4.3 The Harbour Authority appoints a suitably qualified person to act as the Designated Person (DP) – their function is to provide independent assurance that the Marine Safety Management System is working effectively and to audit compliance with the PMSC. The DP role is now undertaken by ABPmer following a procurement exercise earlier this year. 4.4 The PMSC was revised and updated on 15 April 2025. Moray Council must now demonstrate compliance against the revised PMSC. It should be noted the updated PMSC code is much more prescriptive in how harbours and facilities now “must” or “shall” be managed and operated, where previously it advised they “should” or “may” Page 6
Page 7
be operated. This change of emphasis has caused the need for the Marine Safety Management System to be further developed to achieve full compliance with the code. The audit report covers 179 areas, has 114 compliant areas, 51 recommendations and 14 areas of non-compliance with the PMSC, including the need for a new Marine Safety Plan. It also highlights two areas identified as best practice. A declaration of compliance (or partial compliance) with the PMSC should be lodged with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) between 26 January 2026 and 26 March 2026. The aim is to achieve full compliance with the PMSC so this can be reported as such to the MCA during this period. 4.5 Moray Council, in its capacity as a Statutory Harbour Authority, is committed to undertaking and regulating marine operations to safeguard all its harbour areas, the users, the public and the environment through its Marine Safety Management System (MSMS). The MSMS was last updated and approved by the Economic Development and Infrastructure Services Committee on 4 February 2025. The MSMS is a live document which includes a Marine Safety Plan (MSP) that should be approved by the Duty Holder and reviewed and reported against on at least an annual basis. The new PMSC includes requirements which have necessitated the MSMS to be revised further, including a new MSP. 4.6 There were no reported injuries or incidents ashore or afloat for 2024/25 Q4 or 2025/26 Q1. There were also no reported near misses. The Navigational Safety Risk Assessment for each harbour, reviewed annually or after each reported incident, subsequently has no changes. It should be noted that this lack of reporting of near misses is unhealthy for the review of safety at the harbours. Mechanisms to better promote incident and near miss reporting will be sought and recommended for future implementation. 4.7 A full annual audit of Moray Council’s compliance with the recently updated 2025 PMSC was carried out by the newly appointed ABPmer in their capacity as the Designated Person. This audit, which is more detailed than previous reports, was conducted 8-10 April 2025 concluding that the Moray Council harbours were not compliant with the revised 2025 Port Marine Safety Code, where it had been compliant with the previous version of the PMSC. The Audit Report identified14 non-compliances and 51 observations where improvement can be made out of 179 areas audited. The majority of the non-compliances have been rectified by redrafting the MSMS to include additional and more specific references to the structural processes underpinning the harbours management, in accordance with the importance and emphasis now placed with regard to such matters in the revised PMSC. Specific operational procedures relating to pilotage, training and competence have also been identified as needing improvement to be compliant with the new PMSC. These procedures have been addressed or are currently being addressed. It is expected the harbours operated by Moray Council will be compliant with the revised PMSC by the time of the triennial compliance reporting exercise to the MCA, in the first quarter of 2026. Appendix 1 includes the PMSC report and actions against non-compliances and observations. Summary of non-compliances raise in the April 2025 PSMC audit Subject Evidence required for compliance Recommendations Current compliance status Page 7
Page 8
Assessment of Vessel Traffic Management using Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 401 (MCA, 2022) Has a Formal Risk Assessment (FRA) been conducted into the requirement for a Vessel Traffic Service. An FRA needs to be conducted to determine the level of Vessel Traffic Management required at each of the harbour areas. Risk Assessments and Operational procedures to be updated. Work commenced. Target date: 31/12/25 Dangerous Vessels If the Organisation is a Harbour Authority, are powers to issue Dangerous Vessels Directions by the Harbour Master included in the MSMS? A detailed procedure should be produced. Dangerous Vessel policy and procedure to be written and integrated into the MSMS. Ensure required staff knowledge is captured on competency records. Staff trained and assessed. Target date: 31/12/25 Pilotage Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) Has an FRA been conducted into the requirement for Pilotage? Is the Organisation a CHA? An FRA for the requirement of pilotage should be conducted for all harbours. FRAs to include an assessment for all harbours and update the Buckie FRA to clarify the Buckie pilotage jurisdiction. Work commenced Target date: 31/12/25 MSMS Accountability Officers Does the MSMS define the appointment of Officers and their delegated powers, duties and responsibilities? Include descriptions for each of the roles in the Organisation Chart. MSMS updated for Duty Holder approval. Complete. Enforcement Policy Is there clear policy on enforcement and prosecution? A policy on enforcement must be produced and approved by the Duty Holder. Enforcement policy drafted and with legal service for verification prior to being brought to Duty Holder for approval and integration into the MSMS. Work commenced Target date: 31/01/26 MSMS review Does the MSMS incorporate a regular and systematic review of its performance? The MSMS must incorporate a regular and systematic review of its performance. MSMS updated to include a review policy for Duty Holder approval. Complete. Page 8
Page 9
Competence (Trained, Qualified, Experienced) Are National Occupational Standards (NOS), or an equivalent, used in recruiting and training? NOS, or an equivalent, should be reviewed and applicable elements incorporated. Competencies for tasks conducted by harbours staff created and reference against NOS where possible. Complete. Is there a methodology for assessing personnel against the set standards? To ensure that competent persons are employed Moray Council should develop an assessment methodology. Competency matrix for staff developed. Complete. Are existing staff reviewed to ensure they meet the standards set? NOS or an equivalent should be reviewed and applicable elements incorporated. Competency matrix for staff developed. Complete. Publication of a Marine Safety Plan (MSP) Has the Organisation published a MSP? In order to comply with this ‘Key Measure’ the Marine Safety Plan needs to be clearly published. Marine Safety Plan with KPIs submitted to Duty Holder for approval. Complete. MSP Review Is the MSP reviewed and is this review published? The review requirements around the MSP should be captured within the HSMS. MSMS re-drafted to define review procedure and periodicity. Complete. MSP Timing Is the MSP in date and within its three-year period? The outdated MSP, should be reviewed and a new plan published. MSP submitted for Duty Holder approval. Complete. Conservancy Introduction Are the marine facilities in good repair and fit for purpose? The Council should consider its responsibility under The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. There is an inspection plan for harbour facilities and structures against the asset register. It is current practice to log defects and prioritise repairs. Need to consider closing unsafe areas until repaired. Complete. Harbour Authority Conservancy Duty Buckie North Quay surface condition severely deteriorated. Poses risk to staff and users accessing that part of the harbour. Priority 1 repair requested. Area requires closed to pedestrians and vehicles. Page 9
Page 10
Risk to be managed compliantly pending full repair. Harbour Authority Conservancy Duty Is there a Harbour Authority' recognition of the ‘duty to conserve’ and/or ‘reasonable care’ statement? Add a statement regarding the Council’s legal duties to the HSMS. Statement added to MSMS revision. Complete. 4.8 The Marine Safety Plan The proposed Marine Safety Plan (MSP) and KPIs for the 2025-2028 period are shown in the table below. The plan is based upon marine safety management requirements, conservancy requirements, compliance requirements, the financial situation, growth potential, harbours user and community consultation. The Duty Holder, prior to approving the MSP, should ensure all aspects of the plan are suitable for the operation of Moray Council harbours and correctly resourced. Moray Harbours MSP 2025-2028 1. Full compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code. KPI indicator: No non compliances reported against the PMSC audit. 2. Incident reporting improved. KPI indicator: Improved near miss reporting methodologies with better public access to reporting systems. Incidents investigated within 2 weeks of the date reported. 3. Harbour infrastructure maintained to ensure all commercial contracts can be fulfilled. KPI indicator: No reported delays to commercial contracts due to infrastructure issues. AtoN availability in accordance with NLB reporting requirements Commercial quayside lighting at 100% availability Pilot boat availability at 95%. Commercial quays and approaches dredged to declared depths for commercial customers. 4. Harbour staff competent in their core roles. KPI indicator: Competence matrix measured at competent or awaiting assessment, for all staff with more than six months service. All Duty Holders completed training within 6 months of appointment 5. Traffic management reviews conducted for all KPI indicator: Traffic management reviewed by March 2027. Page 10
Page 11
harbours, to minimise risk between all types of harbour user. Actions from traffic management plans in place by March 2028. 6. Harbours Website updated. KPI indicator: New website to include all relevant compliance, navigational and conservancy information, including the MSP and reported progress against the plan. 7. Leisure berth occupancy maximised No unsold leisure berths Waiting lists numbers above zero for all harbours 8. Harbour quayside space used to maximise, safety, community benefit and income at all harbours. One improvement or service provided following suggestions by the relevant Harbour User Groups, implemented at, Burghead, Hopeman, Findochty, Portknockie and Cullen Harbours by March 2027. 5 FINANCIAL REPORT 5.1 Financial report A summary of the financial position of the harbours revenue and capital plans is included below. The figures for the two previous financial years revenue income and expenditure and capital expenditure, are included for reference against the Q1 figures for this financial year. This years’ capital figures are broken down by task. 5.2 Harbours Revenue Income and Expenditure All Harbours revenue figure to the end of June 2025, financial year Q1. Annual Budget Q1 Budget Q1 Actual Income (£1,192,696) (£355,542) (£409,143) Expenditure £439,405 £164,400 £169,228 Net (£278,882) (£191,141) (£239,915) 5.3 Revenue income for Q1 includes most income expected from the leisure harbours. The commercial harbour income will continue to be received as invoices are paid for services offered throughout the year. Income is slightly ahead of forecast due to the one off rental income from the filming at Burghead and Buckie harbours during Q1. Page 11
Page 12
5.4 Commercial income is slightly lower than forecast due to a loss of weighbridge income. The weighbridge became operational in Q2. It should be noted that there is a global downturn in the alcohol and spirits market. The main imported cargo at Buckie is directly linked to this market and this should be noted as a possible risk to income. To date the same number of cargos have been handled this year in comparison to previous years. 5.5 Harbours capital expenditure plan for 2025/26 2025/26 Planned Capital expenditure is £698,000 Project Approved Budget Spend to date Notes Buckie navigation light £125,000 £125,000 Work complete. Buckie weighbridge £22,000 £22,000 Operational. Buckie Pier 1 joints £124,000 £13,000 Work complete. Waiting for invoice Burghead sheet pile repairs £245,000 £109,000 Work to schedule. Design due July 25 Portknockie north wall repairs £114,000 £88,000 Programmed for Q2 start. Portknockie middle pier repair design £35,000 £34,000 Programmed for Q2 start. Portknockie pontoon replacement £33,000 £0 Middle pier repair design and the actual repair needs to be complete prior to purchase. Total £698,000 £391,000 5.6 Capital expenditure is aligned with the identified engineering projects which are to scheduled following routine inspection and condition reports. The works include the replacement Buckie navigation light, an extension to the Buckie weighbridge platform and the Portknockie north wall repairs, which are all complete. The Burghead inner quay sheet piling repairs are well advanced although being more extensive than initially thought. The Buckie pier one repairs are planned to commence in October. An engineering report is being finalised to establish the condition of the Portknockie middle pier and establish a repair design. This will delay the pontoon replacement as the pontoons may have to be removed for the repair. The repair may also require the reallocation of expenditure from the planned pontoon purchase. 5.7 A review of the Schedule of Fees and Charges will be undertaken to ensure they list all the necessary charges included for expected activity in the 2026/27 financial year, they are updated as part of the annual review of fees and charges and also maximise potential income against market standards. 5.8 It is expected additional fees currently not listed will include accommodating additional types of international vessels (such as cruise ship activity) and additional types of leisure services not currently offered, such as short-term quay storage. The HSC will be Page 12
Page 13
asked to note the updated Schedule of Fees and Charges from a Duty Holder perspective, prior to Schedule of Fees and Charges being submitting to full committee for final budgetary approval for financial year 2026/27. 6 OPERATIONAL REPORT 6.1 Operational Report Incidents Reported 2024/25 Injuries Incidents Near Misses Q1 0 2 0 Q2 1 0 0 Q3 0 1 0 Q4 0 0 0 Total 1 3 0 2025/26 Q1 0 0 0 6.2 Incident reporting is very low, particularly near miss reporting. This does not mean that there is a lack of incidents in the harbour environment. It may indicate that a change of culture amongst the harbour users is required and that reporting mechanisms need to be simplified and more accessible. Low levels of incident reporting also make it more difficult to target safety initiates to the correct areas. Initiatives to increase the level of near miss reporting, as we as the reporting of incidents, will be sought, advertised to users and implemented. The Marine Safety Plan will include and monitor such initiatives. 6.3 Pilotage Pilotage is not compulsory at Buckie harbour, and therefore not all cargo movements require the services of a pilot. The number of pilotage acts carried out in the last 6 months is: Period Vessel movements Piloted vessel movements FY24/25 Q4 24 10 FY 25/26 Q1 24 12 6.4 In order to increase resilience in pilotage the harbour management team is seeking to expand the relief pool of available qualified pilots. 6.5 The harbour workboat, which is also coded for pilot boat use, is fully operational. The vessel has recently had an unannounced MCA inspection and her annual MCA survey, both of which she passed. The vessel also recently had her annual maintenance slipping and is compliant with all current legislation and requirements applicable to work boats and pilot boats of her class. Page 13
Page 14
6.6 Staffing, Training and Competence An additional harbour assistant is now trained, qualified and competent to act as coxswain for the harbour workboat in both general duties and pilotage duties. Staffing of the workboat remains very tight. A solution to improve the pool of staff available is being progressed. This is in accordance with the staff competency matrix which is now linked to National Occupational Standards for the sector. 7 CONSERVANCY 7.1 Aids to Navigation The tables below summarise the availability of Navigational lights under Moray Council’s responsibility. 7.2 The tables below summarise the availability of Navigational lights under Moray Council’s responsibility. Figure 1. Availability during the last twelve months 7.3 Figure 2. Availability during the last 36 months. 7.4 The ‘Availability Objective’ is calculated over a rolling 36 month period. Now that all the navigation light faults have been rectified and the new solar lights have been installed, the required availability has now been achieved over the last 12 months, yet it will take some time for the 36 month average target availability to be attained. 7.5 Dredging Page 14
Page 15
MV Selkie is in a very good overall operational condition. She is due her second, 5 year survey, between 12 January 2026 and 12 April 2026. This will involve a slipping and inspection period by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency surveyors. Slipping availability has been requested at the shipyard. 7.6 The maintenance plan for the excavator fitted to MV Selkie was changed during Q1 and updated in Q2 of this year. The inspection regime has been increased to monthly and components identified to be at risk of failure (the main cause of breakdown) are now exchanged prior to failure, outside of the crewed the operational cycle of the vessel. This improves vessel availability and the cost efficiency per tonne of dredged material. The aim is to also improve operational availability. Moray Council Fleet services currently support the inspection, planned maintenance and repair of the excavator. 7.7 To date this maintenance plan is showing signs of significant improvement for the excavator availability compared to the previous two years where a ‘fix when a component fails’ maintenance programme was in place. This is largely thanks to both Fleet Service department staff and vessel staff who fully support this methodology. The excavator is nearing its end of life and does require replaced. This remains a serious risk factor to operational availability despite the new maintenance plan. 7.8 Year Working Days Weather Delay Days Maintenance Days Working Day % Tonnage Removed 2025/26 YTD 38.5 4 37.5 48 9,460 2024/25 32 12 91 24 9,012 2023/24 62 58 28 42 8,472 2022/23 94 68 46 46 12,880 2021/22 77 62 59 39 14,120 2020/21 38 14 47 39 11,240 7.9 Tonnage removed per harbour during 2024/25 Harbour Tonnage removed Buckie 9012 7.10 Tonnage removed per harbour during 2025/26 Q1 and Q2(July and Aug only) Harbour Q1 Q2 Buckie 1,360 4,440 Burghead 400 2,020 Findochty 0 1,000 Portknockie o 240 7.11 Dredging at Buckie is to the contracted depth. At Burghead the groin is now repaired, and a bathymetric survey was conducted in June 2025. This demonstrates that the charted depth is still accurate and navigation safe in this area. This also indicates that the current depths at Burghead are not unusual. Page 15
Page 16
There has been good dredging progress at Burghead, however, if there is a desire to achieve access through the majority of the tidal range then extensive additional dredging will be required. There has been a considerable build-up of sand in the approaches due to a lack of dredging in 2024 and the previous failure of the groin to the south of the approaches, which was designed to slow the movement of sand. The operational ambition is to lower the depth of the approaches, then resurvey prior to submitting the survey data and updating the charted depth. Then maintain this lower depth and the accessibility of the harbour at as wide a range of the tide as is practicable. Dredging at Findochty is complete for 2025. Dredging at Portknockie will commence after the 15 September licence limitation for bathing activity. Dredging at Hopeman and Cullen will require alternative methods to that allowed under the current licence. 7.12 Infrastructure The capital plan is addressing the harbour wall infrastructure issues raised by the routine periodic surveys. Some further items of infrastructure may need to be brought into this routine survey programme, such as bollard surveys. This will add additional pressure to the maintenance budget. The end of the west quay at Cullen is being very closely monitored, in particular, as there is evidence of increased movement where an old repair has previously been made. Historical information giving the cause for the need of this previous repair is being sought. The strong winds in August also caused some damage to the Buckie fish market building and will need repaired. 7.13 Environment Hundreds of tonnes of old fishing gear has been dumped on council ground at Buckie Harbour over the last few years. The environmental impact and cleanup cost to remove this gear and bring this land back into productive service for the harbour is significant, as there is no recycling or scrap value in these items. A methodology to prevent further dumping of waste fishing gear and to bring these areas back into productive use, is being worked up for Harbours Sub Committee consideration. 8 SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS 8.1 The table below shows whether risks and implications apply if the recommendations are agreed: SUBJECT YES NO Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcome Improvement Plan) x Policy and Legal x Page 16
Page 17
Financial x Risk x Staffing x Best Value and Transformation x Property x Information Communications Technology/Digital x Equalities. Social Inclusion and Economic Impact x Climate Change and Biodiversity Impact x 8.2 Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (LOIP)) Improved Collaborative Leadership, as part of continuous improvement through Best Value, will better enable the Council to fulfil the ambitions set out in its strategic plans. a) Links to Council Corporate Plan – The proposals in this report support and contribute to improved outcomes for communities as outlined in the following Council Plan strategic priorities: ☐ Tackle Poverty and Inequality. ☐ Build Stronger Greener Vibrant Economy. ☐ Build Thriving, resilient, empowered Communities. b) Links to Local Outcomes Improvement Plan – The proposals in this report support and contribute to improved outcomes for communities as outlined in the following Local Outcomes Improvement Plan priorities: ☐ Developing a diverse, inclusive, and sustainable economy ☐ Building a better future for our children and young people in Moray. ☐ Empowering and connecting communities. ☐ Improving wellbeing of our population 8.3 Policy and Legal The Council aims to run the harbours in compliance with the PMSC and within the legislative framework set out for harbours. Non compliance with the code will have legal implications. 8.4 Financial Non compliance with the code may have financial implications. 8.5 Risk Non compliance with the PMSC could result in the prosecution of the authority. 8.6 Staffing no staffing implications arise from the report. 8.7 Best Value and Transformation N/A 8.8 Property No property implications arise from the report. Page 17
Page 18
8.9 Information Communications/Technology/Digital No ICT implications arise from the report. 8.10 Equalities, Social Inclusion and Economic Impact There are no specific equalities matters, however, the Equalities Officer has been consulted and comments incorporated into this report. 8.11 Climate Change and Biodiversity Impacts There are no climate change and biodiversity implications arising from this report. 9. CONSULTATION 9.1 This report has been prepared in consultation with the Executive Director Economy, Enterprise and Operations, Head of Operations and Environment, Service Manager Legal Services, Service Manager People Management, Senior Engineer (Flood Risk Management), Principal Climate Change Officer, Equalities Officer and L Rowan, Committee Services Officer and any comments made have been incorporated into the report 10. BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 N/A Page 18
Page 19
Moray Council Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code Designated Person Audit - 2025 July 2025 Appendix 1 Page 19
Page 20
Page intentionally left blank Page 20
Page 21
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code Designated Person Audit - 2025 July 2025 Page 21
Page 22
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council
ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | i
Document Information
Document History and Authorisation
Title Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code
Designated Person Audit - 2025
Commissioned by Moray Council
Issue date July 2025
Document ref R.4915
Project no R/5567/01
Date Version Revision Details
01 July 2025 1 Issued for client review
Prepared
(Designated Person)
Approved
(Quality Manager)
Authorised
(Project Director)
Richard Vaughan James Hannon Monty Smedley
Suggested Citation
ABPmer, (2025). Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code, Designated Person Audit - 2025, ABPmer Report No. R.4915. A report
produced by ABPmer for Moray Council, July 2025.
Authors
R.H. Vaughan
Notice
ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd ("ABPmer") has prepared this document in accordance with the client’s instructions, for
the client’s sole purpose and use. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement
of ABPmer. ABPmer does not accept liability to any person other than the client. If the client discloses this document to a third
party, it shall make them aware that ABPmer shall not be liable to them in relation to this document. The client shall indemnify
ABPmer in the event that ABPmer suffers any loss or damage as a result of the client’s failure to comply with this requirement.
Sections of this document may rely on information supplied by or drawn from third party sources. Unless otherwise expressly
stated in this document, ABPmer has not independently checked or verified such information. ABPmer does not accept liability
for any loss or damage suffered by any person, including the client, as a result of any error or inaccuracy in any third party
information or for any conclusions drawn by ABPmer which are based on such information.
All content in this document should be considered provisional and should not be relied upon until a final version marked ‘issued for
client use’ is issued.
All images on front cover copyright ABPmer.
ABPmer
Quayside Suite, Medina Chambers, Town Quay, Southampton, Hampshire SO14 2AQ
T: +44 (0) 2380 711844 W: http://www.abpmer.co.uk/
Page 22Page 23
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | ii Contents 1 The Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code ....................................................................... 1 1.1 About the Harbour Authority ................................................................................................................. 2 2 Purpose and Method ............................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Audit Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Audit definitions and outcomes ............................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Audit date and criteria .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.4 Auditors........................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Auditees .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 3 Audit Summary ........................................................................................................................ 10 4 References ................................................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Websites ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 5 Abbreviations/Acronyms ..................................................................................................... 14 A Detailed Audit Findings ......................................................................................................................... 17 B Quayside Checks ...................................................................................................................................... 55 Appendices A Detailed Audit Findings ........................................................................................................ 17 A.1 Duty Holder ................................................................................................................................................ 17 A.2 Designated Person .................................................................................................................................. 21 A.3 Legislation ................................................................................................................................................... 22 A.4 Duties and Powers ................................................................................................................................... 25 A.5 Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 37 A.6 Marine Safety Management System ................................................................................................ 40 A.7 Review and Audit ..................................................................................................................................... 46 A.8 Competence ............................................................................................................................................... 47 A.9 Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 49 A.10 Conservancy Duty .................................................................................................................................... 51 B Quayside Checks ..................................................................................................................... 55 B.1 Quayside Check: Buckie – 09 April 2025 ......................................................................................... 55 B.2 Quayside Check: Cullen - 10 April 2025 .......................................................................................... 59 B.3 Quayside Check: Portknockie – 10 April 2025 .............................................................................. 62 B.4 Quayside Check: Findochty – 10 April 2025 .................................................................................. 65 B.5 Quayside Check: Hopeman – 10 April 2025 .................................................................................. 68 B.6 Quayside Check: Burghead – 10 April 2025 .................................................................................. 71 Page 23
Page 24
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | iii Figure Figure 1. Buckie Harbour Limits ............................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Burghead Harbour Limits ......................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Cullen Harbour Limits ................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4. Findochty Harbour Limits ........................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 5. Hopeman Harbour Limits ........................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 6. Portknockie Harbour Limits .................................................................................................................... 7 Images Image B1. Deteriorated surface presenting a trip hazard ............................................................................. 58 Image B2. Egress ladders covered in marine growth and with obstructing bar. ................................. 58 Image B3. Loose ropes presenting a trip hazard .............................................................................................. 61 Image B4. Mooring eye on a narrow walkway ................................................................................................... 61 Image B5. Portknockie pontoon with loose ropes ........................................................................................... 64 Image B6. Portknockie quayside with open access ......................................................................................... 64 Image B7. Open container of oil on the quayside ............................................................................................ 67 Image B8. Findochty egress ladder in poor condition .................................................................................... 67 Image B9. Recreational users around vessels ..................................................................................................... 70 Image B10. Quayside with open access .................................................................................................................. 70 Image B11. Burghead Quayside ................................................................................................................................. 73 Image B12. Bollards in poor condition .................................................................................................................... 73 Page 24
Page 25
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 1 1 The Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code The ‘Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code’ (PMSC) known as ‘the Code’ sets out a national standard for every aspect of port marine safety. Its aim is to enhance safety for everyone who uses or works in the UK port marine environment including those in marinas, boatyards and other marine facilities. It is authored by the UK Government, supported by the devolved administrations and representatives from across the maritime sector. Whilst the PMSC is not mandatory, these bodies have a strong expectation that all harbour authorities and marine facilities will comply. The Code is applicable both to Statutory Harbour Authorities and to marine facilities which may not have statutory powers; these are collectively referred to throughout the Code as ‘Organisations’ (DfT, 2025). In reading this audit report, Moray Council should note the following extract from the Code: “The Code does not contain any new legal obligations but includes, amongst other things, references to the main legal duties which exist and are relevant to many organisations. Although failure to comply with the Code is not an offence, it represents good practice as recognised by industry stakeholders. An organisation may suffer significant reputational damage if it has publicly stated compliance with the Code and subsequently fails to meet its requirements”. (DfT, 2025) In order to measure compliance with the Code, the table below sets out the 10 Duty Holder responsibilities, and corresponding cross-references with sections of the Code, which this audit has considered. No PMSC Duty Holder Responsibilities PMSC Section Reference 1 Duty Holder All organisations must have a Duty Holder which is accountable for compliance with the Code. The Duty Holder, whose members are typically, accountable for compliance with the Code, and their organisation’s performance in ensuring safe marine operations. 1.1-1.10 2 Designated Person All organisations must appoint a suitably qualified individual as their ‘Designed Person’. This person provides independent assurance about the operation of the organisation’s marine safety management system and must have direct access to the Duty Holder. 2.1-2.4 3 Legislation The Duty Holder must be aware of and review the organisation’s legal powers, duties and responsibilities based on applicable local and national legislation and seek additional powers if necessary to improve marine safety. 3.1-3.18 4 Duties and Powers Organisations must comply with any statutory duties and responsibilities they have. 4.1-4.46 5 Risk Assessment Organisations must ensure that risks are formally assessed and are eliminated or reduced to the lowest possible level, so far as is reasonably practicable, in accordance with good practice. 5.1-5.13 6 Marine Safety Management System Organisations must operate an effective Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) which is based on formal risk assessment. 6.1-6.25 7 Review and Audit Organisations must review and audit performance against applicable requirements of the Code. 7.1-7.8 8 Competence Organisations must use people who are appropriately trained, qualified and experienced to manage marine safety. 8.1-8.4 9 Plan Organisations must publish a marine safety plan showing how the standards in the Code will be met and produce a report assessing performance against that plan at least every 3-years. 9.1-9.7 10 Conservancy Duty Organisations must ensure their facilities are fit for purpose and have a duty of reasonable care to ensure that any vessel can utilise them safely. 10.1-10.17 Page 25
Page 26
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 2 1.1 About the Harbour Authority Moray Council is the Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA) for the municipal harbours of Buckie, Burghead, Cullen, Findochty, Hopeman, and Portknockie. The Council is also a Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) in respect of Pilotage and a Local Lighthouse Authority (LLA) for aids to navigation. The jurisdictional limits for each harbour area are shown in Figure 1 through to Figure 6. Figure 1. Buckie Harbour Limits Page 26
Page 27
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 3 Figure 2. Burghead Harbour Limits Page 27
Page 28
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 4 Figure 3. Cullen Harbour Limits Page 28
Page 29
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 5 Figure 4. Findochty Harbour Limits Page 29
Page 30
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 6 Figure 5. Hopeman Harbour Limits Page 30
Page 31
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 7 Figure 6. Portknockie Harbour Limits Page 31
Page 32
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 8 2 Purpose and Method 2.1 Audit Scope Moray Council has contracted ABPmer to provide Designated Person services. Part of this service includes the provision of annual auditing to establish if Moray Council is compliant with the requirements of the PMSC. The scope of the audit includes a review of the Organisation’s performance against the standard laid out within the latest edition of the Code. Any aspects that do not comply with, or fully address, the requirements of the Code will be identified, and recommendations for improvement will be made. 2.2 Audit definitions and outcomes 2.2.1 Definitions The following definitions are used in the audit report: Non-compliance: is a failure to adhere to a legal requirement such as an Act, Order or its Regulations. The PMSC requires Organisations to confirm compliance with the requirements of the Code. Therefore, PMSC audits are designed to test the requirements of the Code with any failure to comply identified as a ‘non-compliance’. Non-conformity: is an opportunity for the management system to improve through the identification of a requirement that is not met. Non-conformities are not regulatory but relate to the Organisation’s own operational instructions which are not met or fully met. Any non-conformities identified through the audit process are identified in bold text in the report. Evidence: Non-compliances and Non-conformities are identified through factual evidence sampled during the audit. 2.2.2 Outcomes The audit report uses the following outcomes: Non-Compliance: a non-compliance with the requirements of the Code which are a breach of legal obligations or may compromise marine safety, environmental safety or present a significant reputational risk. Recommendations for addressing non- compliances are identified in red. Observation: refers to an improvement opportunity such as an update to information, procedural change, or a non-conformity with the Organisation’s operating instructions. Whilst observations are defined as improvement opportunities, addressing them may improve the overall system standard. Recommendations for addressing observations are identified in yellow. Satisfactory: a system component that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Code. Items of best practice are identified in bold. Not applicable: part of the Code that is not relevant to the Organisation being audited. Page 32
Page 33
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 9 2.3 Audit date and criteria The audit was carried out onsite between the 08 and 09 April 2025. The benchmarking standard used in this audit is the latest version of the PMSC and the accompanying ‘A Guide to Good Practice (GtGP) on Port and Marine Facilities (MCA, 2025). The Appendix tables to this report contain the test questions and evidence, noting down compliance, non-compliance and observational remarks. The Appendix tables also identify the paragraph numbers from the PMSC (DfT, 2025) and relevant sections of the Guide to Good Practice (MCA, 2025), for cross reference purposes. Auditors Note: The PMSC Audit was originally undertaken against the previous 2016 version of the Code. As an updated 2025 version the Code was released shortly after the audit (15 April 2025), it was felt appropriate to amend the audit and present the findings as being against the new version of the Code, noting that future compliance statements will need to be against the 2025 version. Additionally, the following benchmarking standard has been used for the shoreside marine facility checks. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Publication L148 ‘Safety in Docks: Approved Code of Practice and Guidance’ (ACOP) (HSE, 2014) and the Port Skills and Safety (PSS) publications SIP 005 ‘Guidance on Mooring’ (PSS, 2019a) and SIP 014 ‘Guidance on Safe Access and Egress’ (PSS, 2019b) have been used. 2.4 Auditors The following auditor conducted this audit. Team Member Initials Company, Designation Richard Vaughan RHV ABPmer Senior Maritime Consultant Designated Person (PMSC) Moray Council Internal Auditor: Quality Management Systems (QMS ISO 9001) 2.5 Auditees The following individuals participated in the audit. Team Member Initials Role/Designation Darren Bremner DB Harbour Master Marc Macrae MM Councillor / Duty Holder Nicola Moss NM Head of Environmental & Commercial Services Page 33
Page 34
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 10 3 Audit Summary Number Ten Key Measures for Port and Marine Safety 1 Duty Holder 0 8 12 2 Designated Person 0 1 4 3 Legislation 0 4 9 4 Duties and Powers 3 16 40 5 Risk Assessment 0 5 10 6 MSMS 2 10 19 7 Review and Audit 1 1 4 8 Competence 3 1 4 9 Plan 3 0 0 10 Conservancy Duty 1 3 15 Total 13 49 117 The summary presented in the above table identifies that, for the ten key measures required for port and marine safety, Moray Council as the owner and operator of is six harbours1 is found not to be compliant with the requirements of the PMSC. ABPmer would like to thank the audit participants for their assistance. It was noted that maintaining oversight of all six harbours whilst carrying out general marine operations was challenging for the Harbours Team with their current level of resourcing. ABPmer is pleased to identify the following points of best practice: ▪ Section 6. The MSMS: Delivery of the water safety awareness presentation to local school children, to help in avoiding accidents. ▪ Section 6. The MSMS: Regular user engagement meetings which help with the running of the Harbours with limited resources. The PMSC audit identified 14 non-compliances which require addressing before compliance can be stated against all ten key measures. The following points identify the more significant items, the detailed findings being presented in Appendix A. The following are noted: 1. Section 4. Duties and Powers: A Formal Risk Assessment (FRA) needs to be conducted to determine the level of Vessel Traffic Management required at each of the harbour areas. This should be done with reference to the requirements in the MCA’s Marine Guidance Note (MGN) number 401. 2. Section 4. Duties and Powers: Neither the powers nor the process by which the Harbourmaster may give directions to Dangerous Vessels are captured within the Harbours Safety Management System HSMS. 3. Section 4. Duties and Powers: As the harbours operate under a single Act Moray Council is effectively a CHA for all six harbours. An FRA should therefore consider the provision of pilotage for all harbour areas. A clear position on the pilotage jurisdictional area can then be made (i.e. solely within Buckie, or otherwise). 1 Buckie, Burghead, Cullen, Findochty, Hopeman, and Portknockie Page 34
Page 35
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 11 4. Section 6. MSMS: Although the HSMS shows the structure of the Officers within the Organisation Chart it does not state what their delegated powers duties and responsibilities are. 5. Section 6. MSMS: There was no Marine Enforcement Policy. As rules and byelaws are effectively used as control measures enforcement is needed to ensure that they are effective. 6. Section 7. Review and Audit: There was no regular review of the performance of the HSMS, such as through the reporting of Key Performance Indicators. 7. Section 8. Competence: With the exception of the Pilots, the standards for recruiting, training and assessing marine personnel were not clearly established. 8. Section 8. Competence: Is no methodology for assessing personnel against the set standards. 9. Section 8. Competence: With reference to set standards there is no periodic review to identify improvement, training or Continuous Professional Development opportunities. 10. Section 9. Plan: The Marine Safety Plan (MSP) is not clearly published. It is not shown on the Harbours webpage and could only be found via an ‘internet search’ which linked directly to the document. 11. Section 9. Plan: There was no published review conducted at the end of the 2018 – 2021 period the MSP covered. 12. Section 9. Plan: The MSP is noticeably out of date and has not been renewed. 13. Section 10. Conservancy Duty: Part of the north quayside in Buckie is severely deteriorated and poses a risk to staff and harbours users accessing that part of the harbour. The PMSC audit identified 49 observations relating to improvement opportunities for management consideration. The following points identify the more significant items, the detailed findings being presented in Appendix A. The following are noted: ▪ Section 1. The Duty Holder: The HSMS requires greater detail in defining the requirements of the Duty Holder. ▪ Section 1. The Duty Holder: Although the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee (ED&I) committee receive regular briefing, there was no evidence of operational visits. ▪ Section 3. Legislation: The local Act (and Byelaws) jointly covers both Aberdeenshire and Moray Council. This could be seen to limit Moray Council’s control of its Harbours as any future changes would need to be done in conjunction and agreement with Aberdeenshire Council. It is strongly recommended that the implications of having shared legislation should be subject to external legal review by a firm that are experienced with port legislation, powers and duties. ▪ Section 4. Duties and Powers: In order to prevent an accident, it is strongly recommended that measures and resources are put in place at Hopeman Harbour to alert recreational users using the area of water around the pontoons to the risk from manoeuvring vessels. ▪ Section 4. Duties and Powers: The HSMS lacks a clear procedure on giving a ‘Special Direction’. Additionally, the HSMS has no detail on how the powers of direction may be delegated to other members of the Harbour Team. ▪ Section 4. Duties and Powers: Moray Council does not appear to have the power of General Direction (this should be confirmed by a legal review). It is a recommendation of the PMSC that powers of General Direction are sought which is normally achieved through a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) process. Although the Byelaws provide some useful regulatory control, they do not appear to provide (for example) the power to set a Speed Limit. Powers of General Direction would be very beneficial for harbour management. Page 35
Page 36
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 12 ▪ Section 4. Duties and Powers: It is strongly recommended that consideration should be given to a published set of towage guidelines which set out the organisation’s expectations around non-routine towage for all vessels. ▪ Section 5. Risk Assessment: The form in which Dynamic Risk Assessment is undertaken by Moray Council was unclear. ▪ Section 6. MSMS: Procedures were mixed, with some being separate documents and some integrated in the text of the HSMS. The HSMS is best treated as a ‘sign-posting’ document with detailed procedures sitting separately as an annex or similar work instructions. ▪ Section 7. Review and Audit: The statement within Section 5.2 of the HSMS does not match the annual DP audit process. ▪ Section 8. Competence: There is no policy on revalidation or maintenance of qualifications in place, which is a recommendation of the PMSC. ▪ Section 10. Conservancy Duty: It is recommended that the process and/or programme for undertaking internal depth surveys should be captured within the HSMS. ▪ Section 10. Conservancy Duty: The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) is not sent survey information. The Quayside audits conducted at all six harbours (Buckie, Burghead, Cullen, Findochty, Hopeman, and Portknockie) identified a cumulative total of 31 observations as improvement opportunities for management consideration. The following points identify the more common observations across all Harbours, the detailed findings being presented in Appendix B. The following are noted: ▪ The bollards and other mooring equipment are not subject to a periodic inspection by a competent person as required under the ‘Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations’ (PUWER) 1998. ▪ The majority of the egress ladders had significant amounts of marine growth, especially at lower levels on the ladder, which could hinder someone attempting self-recovery from the water at a low tide. ▪ It was unclear if all Harbours had adequate lighting. It should be noted that the audit was undertaken during daylight hours. It is recommended that a Lux text is conducted at each Harbour where quaysides are used in the hours of darkness. Consideration should be given to a Lux test against the requirements in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) publication ‘Lighting at Work’, (HSE, 1997). Further guidance is available from the International Labour Organization (ILO) Safety and Health in Ports (ILO, 2018). ▪ There was no segregation of pedestrians and vehicles which does not match with the requirements stated in Section 17 of ‘The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations’ 1992. Page 36
Page 37
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 13 4 References Department for Transport (DfT), 2025. Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code, Department for Transport. 15 April 2025. International Labour Organization (ILO), 2018. Safety and health in ports. https://www.ilo.org/resource/other/safety-and-health-ports-revised-2016 ISO 9001: Quality Management Systems. International Organization for Standardization. Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), 2022. MGN 401 (M+F) Amendment 3 Navigation: Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) and Local Port Services (LPS) in the UK. Maritime and Coastguard Agency, 22 March 2022. Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), 2025. A Guide to Good Practice on Port and Marine Facilities. Maritime and Coastguard Agency, 15 April 2025. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 1997. ‘Lighting at Work’, Second Edition. HSG38. https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg38.pdf Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2014. ‘Safety in Docks: Approved Code of Practice and Guidance’ (ACOP)’, Publication L148. 10 April 2014. https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l148.pdf Port Skills and Safety (PSS), 2019a. Guidance on Mooring, SIP 005. March 2019. https://www.portskillsandsafety.co.uk/knowledge-hub/sip005-guidance-on-mooring-operations Port Skills and Safety (PSS), 2019b. Guidance on Safe Access and Egress, SIP 014. September 2019. https://www.portskillsandsafety.co.uk/knowledge-hub/sip014-guidance-on-safe-access-and-egress 4.1 Websites https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/port-marine-safety-code-compliant-ports/port-marine- safety-code-compliant-ports-list www.legislation.gov.uk http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_74453.html Page 37
Page 38
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 14 5 Abbreviations/Acronyms ACOP Approved Code of Practice and Guidance ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable AtoN Aid(s) to Navigation BPA British Ports Association BRM Bridge Resource Management CEO Chief Executive Officer CHA Competent Harbour Authority Code Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code CPD Continuing Professional Development DfT Department for Transport DGHAR Dangerous Goods in Harbour Area Regulations DP Designated Person DRA Dynamic Risk Assessment ED&I Economic Development and Infrastructure FRA Formal Risk Assessment FSA Formal Safety Assessment GLA General Lighthouse Authority GRC Grampian Regional Council GtGP Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations HDPCA Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 HM Harbour Master HRO Harbour Revision Order HSE Health and Safety Executive HSMS Harbour Safety Management System IHO International Hydrographic Organisation ILO International Labour Organization? IMO International Maritime Organization ISO International Organization for Standardization KPI Key Performance Indicator LLA Local Lighthouse Authority LPS Local Port Service LRF Local Resilience Forum LSE Lifesaving Equipment M+F Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels MAIB Marine Accident Investigation Branch MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency MGN Marine Guidance Notes MPX Master/Pilot Exchange MSMS Marine Safety Management System MSP Marine Safety Plan n/a Not Applicable NLB Northern Lighthouse Board NOS National Occupational Standards NtM Notice to Mariners OPRC International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation PCPD Pilot Continuous Professional Development PEC Pilotage Exemption Certificates PFSP Port Facility Security Plan PMSC Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code Page 38
Page 39
Ports & Marine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 Moray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 15 PSS Port Skills and Safety PUWER Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations QMS Quality Management System RA Risk Assessment SHA Statutory Harbour Authority SIP Safety In Ports SOP Standard Operating Procedure SOSREP Secretary of State's Representative for Maritime Salvage and Intervention UK United Kingdom UKHO United Kingdom Hydrographic Office VTS Vessel Traffic Service Cardinal points/directions are used unless otherwise stated. SI units are used unless otherwise stated. Page 39
Page 40
Page 40
Page 41
Appendices Page 41
Page 42
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 17 A Detailed Audit Findings A.1 Duty Holder PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Action / Progress 1.1 Duty Holder Has the Organisation appointed a Duty Holder? Satisfactory – Section 1.4 of the HSMS states that the ‘Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee (ED&I) fulfils the role of the Duty Holder. 001 1.2 Duty Holder Construct W hat is the construct used by the Organisation for its Duty Holder? Satisfactory – As a municipal port authority the ED&I Committee of councillors are a sub-committee of the full council body. 001 Anecdotal 1.3 Duty Holder Published Has the Organisation published who the Duty Holder is and how they can be contacted? Satisfactory – The Duty Holder is recorded in public records, held by the Council within minutes of Council M eetings, and the HSMS. Observation – The ED&I’s remit as Duty Holder it is not clearly stated on the Harbours section of the M oray Council website, nor are there contact details shown. Recommend – Publish information regarding the Duty Holder and contact details on the Harbours webpage. N/A Low Update W ebsite GtGP 1.2 Duty Holder Published Has the Duty Holder made a clear published commitment to comply with the standards laid down in the PM SC? Observation – Although stated within Section 1.2 of the Harbour Safety M anagement System (HSMS), there is no clear publicly published commitment to comply with the PM SC. This is not a non-compliance with the Code, as the GtGP recommends this is carried out as a best practice action. Recommend – Publishing a clear statement regarding PM SC compliance on the Harbour webpage. This could be as part of a policy, or as part of the Safety Plan. 001 Low Update W ebsite 1.4 Duty Holder Responsibilities Has the Organisation laid out the responsibilities for the Duty Holder (i.e., in its M SM S)? Satisfactory – The HSM S, Section 1.4 has some elements of Duty Holder responsibilities under the PM SC. Observation – Although Section 1.4 of the HSM S is intended to define Recommend – Section 1.4 of the HSMS should be revised to clearly 001 M edium Revise section 1.4 of HSMS. Complete. Page 42
Page 43
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 18 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Action / Progress the responsibilities of the Duty Holder, is too generic in that it states the ‘Duties of a harbour authority’ rather than that of specifically the Duty Holder as required under Section 1.4 of the PM SC. state what is required of the Duty Holder, as per Section 1.4 of the PM SC. A clear process should be in place (such as an induction procedure) to ensure that the Duty Holders are aware of their responsibilities. Cont. 1.4 Cont. Duty Holder Responsibilities Is the Duty Holder aware of the organisation’s powers, duties and responsibilities? Satisfactory – Duty Holders have attended PMSC Duty Holder training through the British Ports Association (BPA), and various elements of legislation are listed and referenced within the HSMS. Observation – The ED&I is comprised of elected councillors, and as such has to deal with multiple matters other than the ports. Being elected members (typically on a five year term) means that there is the potential for large changes in the appointed Duty Holder members. Recommend – An induction pack, or similar, should be considered to provide a useful point of reference for new and existing Duty Holders. This could list their key responsibilities, duties, and relevant powers etc. 001 002 M edium Create induction pack for DHs. Include record of DH training. How does the Duty Holder ensure that a suitable M SM S is in place? Satisfactory – The Duty Holder relies on internal reviews, and external audits by the Designated Person. 001 Has the Duty Holder appointed a suitable Designated Person? See this audit report, Section 2.1. n/a How does the Duty Holder ensure that competent people are appointed to manage marine safety? See this audit report, Section 8.1-8.4. n/a How does the Duty Holder ensure that appropriate resources are made available for discharging their marine safety obligations? Satisfactory – As a municipal authority marine safety is centrally funded through an allocated budget. Capital expenditure comes from other budgets. Anecdotal Page 43
Page 44
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 19 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Action / Progress Does the Duty Holder publish a M arine Safety Plan (M SP)? See this audit report, Section 9.1-9.2 n/a Does the Duty Holder report on the Organisation’s compliance with the relevant parts of the Code to the MCA every three years See this audit report, Section 1.8- 1.10 n/a 1.5-1.7 Duty Holder Awareness Has the Duty Holder gained an appropriate insight into the Organisation’s marine activities? Satisfactory - The ED&I committee get regular briefings regarding activities within the ports. 003 Cont. 1.5-1.7 Cont. Duty Holder Awareness Has the Duty Holder gained an appropriate insight into the Organisation’s marine activities? Observation – Regular visits could not be evidenced. Recommend – It is advised that Duty Holders complete a formal visit to all the harbours on appointment. Subsequent annual visits should be made by the Duty Holders. This will give the Duty Holders a better appreciation of the marine activities and a chance to engage with M arine staff members. An auditable record of visits and engagement should be kept. 003 M edium Annual visit plan to be arranged. Record of visits to be held in HSM S. Has the Duty Holder gained an appropriate insight into the policies, procedures and M SM S? Satisfactory – The ED&I committee receive regular briefings and are on the distribution list for the HSMS. Observation –The HSM S revision page gives the impression that the HSMS is reviewed by the Harbour M aster and approved by the Head of Environmental and Commercial Services as opposed to the Duty Holder. Recommend – It is understood that the HSM S is passed to the Duty Holder for final approval. This should be captured on the revision page. The Duty Holder should be aware that it is they who are ultimately responsible for the HSMS. 001 003 Low Update revision page. Complete. In revised draft for approval. Page 44
Page 45
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 20 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Action / Progress If the Organisation has a Board, has a member with relevant maritime experience been appointed as the Designated Person’s contact point? Satisfactory – The Designated Person has met with one Councillor holding the maritime brief. Observation – Notwithstanding the meeting with the Councillor identified to meet with the Designated Person, there is no record of the ‘M aritime Brief’ being assigned or held by an individual Councillor. Recommend – A member of the ED&I committee should be formally appointed as the Designated Person’s point of contact. W here possible this should be someone with relevant maritime experience. Anecdotal Low Designate this as the Chair in HSM S. Complete. In revised draft for approval. Has the Organisation provided the Duty Holder with awareness training relevant to the role (i.e. Duty Holder Training)? Satisfactory – Duty Holder training is undertaken through the BPA. Observation – At the time of audit there was no clear requirement to undertake the training, nor were records readily available. Recommend – Duty Holder training should be a requirement for all ED&I committee members, to help inform them of their legal duties. Records should be kept as an auditable item. 003 M ed Include record of DH training within HSM S. Complete. Held in dedicated DH training matrix. 1.8-1.10 Reporting Compliance Has the Organisation responded to the Code Compliance Self- Certification exercise? Satisfactory – M oray Council stated compliance for the six harbours of Buckie, Burghead, Cullen, Findochty, Hopeman, and Portknockie at the previous 2022 compliance exercise. Auditor’s Note: The next compliance exercise has been announced as a three-month window starting on 26 January 2026. Subsequent statements of compliance must be against the latest Code. UK port facilities confirming PM SC compliance up to 31 January 2022 - GOV.UK High Be ready to declare compliance by 26 Jan 2026. Page 45
Page 46
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 21 A.2 Designated Person PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 2.1 Designated Person (DP) Appointment Has the Organisation appointed a DP? Satisfactory – ABPmer has been contracted to provide DP services, with Richard Vaughan as the named DP. Observation – The HSM S currently lists the previous DP services provider. Recommend – Review and update the HSMS to reflect the change to the DP services provider. 001 Low Update HSMS. Complete. In revised draft for approval. 2.2 DP Assurance Reporting Does the DP provide assurance directly to the Duty Holder? Satisfactory – The DP reports directly to the Duty Holder, providing an impartial statement on compliance. 001 2.3 Knowledge and understanding Does the DP have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the Code and GtGP? Satisfactory – The DP is an experienced mariner and port industry professional, evidenced through the Tender submitted by ABPmer. 004 2.4 Independent Assurance Does the Organisation embody ‘independent assurance through auditing and monitoring’? Satisfactory – The DP conducts annual audits of the M SM S and is contracted to provide additional marine support as requested and agreed. Audit reports are presented directly to the Board. 001 Page 46
Page 47
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 22 A.3 Legislation PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 3.1 Legal Duties Is the Organisation aware of its legal duties and powers relating to its marine operations? Satisfactory – Legislation is well referenced within the HSMS. 001 3.2 Legal advice Does the Organisation have access to marine/maritime legal representation? Satisfactory – It is understood that M oray Council has access to the services of Brodies LLP. Anecdotal 3.3-3.6 National Legislation Is the Organisation aware of its legal duties under National Legislation? Satisfactory – Legislation is well referenced within the HSMS. 001 3.7 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (HDPCA) Does local legislation reference the HDPCA 1847? Satisfactory – Not specifically, however the ‘Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Conformation Act (1987)’ provides similar powers. 001 3.8-3.9 Local Acts and Orders Is the Organisation aware of its legal duties under local legislation? Satisfactory – Legislation is well referenced within the HSMS. 001 Is the Organisations area of jurisdiction mapped, clear, and sufficient to manage marine safety? Satisfactory – The jurisdiction of all six harbour areas is well referenced with the ‘Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Conformation Act (1987)’. Observation – W hen plotting the areas during the production of Figure 1 through to Figure 6 it was noted that there are many minor discrepancies between the listed co-ordinates and the description of the area with the Act. Recommend – If at any time a HRO is undertaken it would be prudent to review and amend the harbour limits so that the descriptions matches the given co-ordinates. 005 Low Update when HRO drafted. 3.10-3.12 General and Harbour Directions Does the Organisation have powers of General Direction or Harbour Direction? See this audit report, Section 4.19- 4.22. n/a Page 47
Page 48
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 23 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 3.13-3.14 Reviewing Duties and Powers Does the Organisation keep under review its legal powers and duties? Satisfactory – The ‘Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Conformation Act (1987)’ predates M oray Council. As such it also refers to Harbours which are now under the control of the adjacent Aberdeenshire Council. A recent review of the Act by the Council’s legal department has concluded that Act is still applicable to M oray Council, and that there is no current requirement to update the Act. 005 006 Cont. 3.13-3.14 Cont. Reviewing Duties and Powers Cont. Does the Organisation keep under review its legal powers and duties? Observation – W hilst the Council has sought legal review, and it is confirmed that the local Acts and Orders are still applicable to M oray Council, having a shared responsibility is not ideal as any changes (for example, via a HRO) would need the consent of both Councils. It is strongly recommended that the Council considers a HRO, in association with Aberdeenshire Council, to formalise the separation of harbour responsibilities, duties and powers. Recommend – It is recommended that a full external legal review is conducted by a firm that has experience with matters specifically relating to port legislation, powers and duties. The review should consider the implications of having a shared Act, and how it impacts upon the ability of M oray Council to meet their obligations under the PM SC and any other legislation as required. 005 006 Low Action to be undertaken when HRO drafted. Does the Organisation’s review include the extent of its jurisdiction? Observation – Review has not currently considered the extent of the jurisdiction, however discussions with the Harbour M aster did not identify any need for changes based on their current operation. Recommend – It would be beneficial to create a procedure for HSMS review that includes consideration of the jurisdictional area. Noting that in-line with my previous comments the question ‘Does the Organisation keep under review its legal powers and duties?’ any required changes to the jurisdictional area that are identified cannot currently be implemented without Anecdotal Low To be considered when reviewing any incidents. Page 48
Page 49
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 24 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress undertaking the process jointly and in agreement with Aberdeen, as such this should be considered by external legal review. Is there a process in place for identifying new or changed legislation and incorporating it into the M SMS? Satisfactory – The Council has access to Designated Person updates provided by ABPmer and circulars from the BPA. Observation – Historically the HSMS has only been subject to internal review every three years. Noting that the M arine Team is quite small it can be difficult and time consuming to keep track of changing legislation. Recommend – Check with the Council’s legal department to ascertain how they identify changes to legislation, and if they can incorporate marine requirements. Additionally, some companies offer legislation updates as a subscription service. 001 Anecdotal Low Discuss with legal service whether this can be built into current practice. 3.15-3.18 Revising Statutory powers If the Organisation has statutory powers, duties and responsibilities, when was the last time these were revised? Satisfactory – There have been no changes since 1987. See response to ‘Does the Organisation keep under review its legal powers and duties?’ 005 Page 49
Page 50
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 25 A.4 Duties and Powers PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.1-4.2 Duty Of Care Is the Organisation’s Duty of Care for users of the harbour, port or facility stated? Satisfactory – Section 1.2 of the HSMS is a Policy Statement through which M oray Council states its responsibilities in line with the Health and Safety at W ork Act etc 1974 and DfT’s Port M arine Safety Code, 2016. Additionally, there is a Health and Safety Policy Statement (general to M oray Council) within Appendix 2. Observation – It was noted during the inspection of the harbour at Hopeman that recreational kayakers were using the area of water around the vessel pontoons (see Image B9). There is significant risk of harm from small vessels (yachts and powerboats etc) manoeuvring to such recreational users. It would very likely be difficult for those steering vessels to see such users who could be inadvertently struck. M oray Council has both a duty of care and powers available through its byelaws. Recommend – In order to prevent an accident, it is strongly recommended that measures and resources are put in place to alert recreational users using the area of water around the pontoons to the risk from manoeuvring vessels. 001 007 Observed M edium Safety advice to be pushed in this location. Signage to be avoided due to vandalism, alternative methodology to be used. HUG to be consulted with regard to best methodology and to help promote safety. Page 50
Page 51
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 26 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.3-4.5 Assessment of Vessel Traffic M anagement using M arine Guidance Note (M GN) 401 (M CA, 2022) Has a Formal Risk Assessment (FRA) been conducted into the requirement for a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) or the level of Local Port Service (LPS) need to manage vessel traffic in the port, harbour or at the marine facility? Non-Compliance – Although traffic movements at Buckie are controlled through an LPS, and the Harbour M aster has examined VTS requirements, there is no FRA in place that demonstrates how the level of service has been determined. Additionally, no consideration of the level of LPS/VTS provision at any of the other five ports was evidenced following the requirement in the Code, Section 4.5 which requires: “Assessment of vessel traffic management is determined by means of a Formal Risk Assessment (FRA) into the safety of navigation”. Recommend – An FRA needs to be conducted to determine the level of Vessel Traffic M anagement required at each of the harbour areas. This should be done with reference to the requirements within M GN 401 (Amendment 3). n/a High W rite a RA and OPs. Complete. RA revised to include all harbours. 4.6 Setting Dues Process for setting dues. See this audit report, Section 4.42- 4.43. n/a 4.7 GtGP 3.8 M arine Licences Does the Organisation have powers to licence marine works? Satisfactory – Section 13 of the ‘Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Conformation Act (1987)’ confers the power to licence marine works. Observation – The power to licence marine works is not documented within the HSMS. Recommend – The HSMS would benefit from a Section that summarises the powers available to the authority through Local and National legislation. This could be supported through an external legal review. 005 Low Revise with legal advice. Does the Organisation hold any marine licences or marine licence exemption notifications? Satisfactory – M oray Council undertakes its own dredging complying with licence requirements as necessary. Anecdotal 4.8 General Lighthouse Authority (GLA) consent GLA consent to establish, remove or alter an Aid to Navigation (AtoN)? See this audit report, Section 10.8. n/a Page 51
Page 52
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 27 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.9 Open Port Duty Is the port or harbour subject to Open Port Duty? Satisfactory – Although the HDPCA 1847 is not incorporated into the local 1987 Act, Section 36 confers the same Open Port Duty. 005 4.10 Harbour M aster Appointment Does the Organisation have powers to appoint a Harbour M aster and has this power been exercised? Satisfactory – The power to appoint a Harbour M aster is conferred by the local 1987 Act and includes deputies and assistants. 005 4.11 M arine M anager or Superintendent If the Organisation has no statutory powers to appoint a Harbour M aster, is there an appointment of a similar role such as M arine M anager or Superintendent? Not applicable. n/a 4.12-4.15 Byelaws Does the Organisation have powers to make Byelaws and has this power been exercised? Satisfactory – Section 30 of the local 1987 Act allows for making Byelaws. Harbour Byelaws dated 1991 are in effect, which fines against the ‘Standard Scale. Observation – As per the previous comments against ‘Does the Organisation keep under review its legal powers and duties?’ the Byelaws are essentially common to both M oray and Aberdeenshire Councils. It is likely that this would make any future amendments extremally difficult. Recommend – If a future HRO opportunity presents itself then consideration should also be given to the review of the Byelaws, or replacing them with the power to make General Directions. 005 006 007 Low Byelaws have been reviewed and they include the powers required to exercise safe navigation in current operating environment. Ensure future HRO includes powers to make GDs and review byelaws to compliment new HRO. 4.16-4.17 Special Directions If the Organisation has Statutory Powers to appoint a Harbour M aster, are the Harbour M aster’s powers of Special Direction shown in the M SMS? Satisfactory – The Harbour Authority has appointed a Harbour M aster and powers of Special Direction are available. Observation – Although the powers of special direction are mentioned within the HSMS it lacks detail or a procedure. Recommend – Further detail and preferably a formal procedure needs to be added to the HSM S, noting that these powers are essential for regulating vessel movements. 001 005 M edium Enforcement policy and procedure drafted for approval and inclusion in the HSMS. Legal services to review prior to approval. Page 52
Page 53
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 28 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.18 Special Directions Delegation Have powers of Special Direction been delegated? Satisfactory – The Harbour Authority has not delegated powers. Observation –The local 1987 Act allows for the delegation to deputies, assistants and others authorised to act in a similar capacity. However, the HSMS does not document this situation. Recommend – Staff should be aware of the powers that are available to them. This should be captured within the HSMS and as a procedure. The HSM S would benefit from a clear statement on delegated powers (either confirming they are delegated or stating that they are not). A formal letter of appointment to relevant staff should also be considered by the Duty Holder. 001 005 M edium Competence M atrix requirement for harbours staff and Operating Procedures for the use of Special Directions introduced. 4.19-4.20 General Directions If the Organisation has Statutory Powers, are powers of General Directions available and have these been exercised? Satisfactory – The Council does not have powers of General Direction. Although Section 27 (2) of the local 1987 Act refers to ‘general directions’ this would appear to be in reference to the ability to give a Special Direction to all vessels in general during an emergency, and does not confer the power of General Direction. Observation – The power to make General Directions is typically required to set standing rules (for example, speed limit). Noting that Buckie states a speed limit of 3 knots, it would appear that it cannot be applied as a rule and is therefore unenforceable, and should not be used as a control measure in Risk Assessments. Recommend – A legal review by a firm experienced with port legislation would confirm what powers are available to the SHA. It is a recommendation of the PM SC that SHAs without the power to set general directions consider acquiring them through the HRO process. 005 007 Low Submit HRO for M oray Harbours. W ill need Aberdeenshire Council agreement and funding agreement. W hen were General Directions last reviewed? Not applicable n/a Page 53
Page 54
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 29 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.21-4.22 Harbour Directions If the Organisation is a Harbour Authority, has it applied for Harbour Directions? Not applicable – In reference to sections 40A to 40D of the Harbours Act 1964, there has been no application to become a Designated Harbour Authority. n/a 4.23 Dangerous Vessels If the Organisation is a Harbour Authority, are powers to issue Dangerous Vessels Directions by the Harbour M aster included in the M SMS? Non-Compliance – The powers are not captured with the HSM S, though they are referenced within Section 12 (d) of the M oray Harbours Emergency Plan. However, the procedure within the Emergency Plan lacks detail and would hinder a quick response to an emergency situation. The Code, Section 4.23 requires that the: “A Harbour Master may give a dangerous vessel direction prohibiting the entry into, or requiring the removal from, the harbour of any vessel. The Harbour Master must have regard to all the circumstances and to the safety of any person or vessel which may include to avoid or reduce risk from pollution”. Recommend – A detailed procedure should be produced which outlines the steps that should be taken. This should include reference to powers conferred on the Harbour M aster by the Dangerous Vessels Act. The procedure and powers should be referenced within the HSMS. 001 008 Anecdotal High Introduce a Danger Vessel policy and procedure. Ensure required staff knowledge is on competency records. 4.24 Secretary of State's Representative for M aritime Salvage and Intervention (SOSREP) Is the role of the SOSREP recognised by the Organisation? Observation – The role of the SOSREP is not detailed within the HSMS. The Code, Section 4.24 provides a brief explanation of the role. Recommend – The role of the SOSREP should be included within a Dangerous Vessel Procedure and referenced in the HSMS. 001 M ed Include when writing DV policy. Ensure HM & AHM competence in this knowledge base. Page 54
Page 55
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 30 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.25 Pilotage Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) Has an FRA been conducted into the requirement for Pilotage? Is the Organisation a CHA? Non-Compliance – M oray Council is a Competent Harbour Authority and provides a non-compulsory Pilotage Service at Buckie. Although Pilotage is a control measure the duty to keep the level of service provided under regular consideration (typically through the process of Formal Risk Assessment) could only be evidenced at Buckie and Burghead, but not any of the other Harbours. This measure is therefore partially met, but due to the Harbour Authority operating under a single Act, M oray Council is effectively a CHA for all six harbours. Recommend – An FRA for the requirement of pilotage should be conducted for all harbours making up the CHA. It is further recommended that a clear statement outlining the pilotage jurisdiction (i.e. within Buckie Harbour limits) should be made and supported/referenced in an FRA. 001 008 High W rite a FRA for the pilotage requirement at all harbours. Complete RAs updated. 4.26 Pilotage Directions If the Organisation is a CHA, have Pilotage Directions been issued? Not applicable – Pilotage is non- compulsory. n/a GtGP 4.5.13 Pilotage Directions Are pilotage directions available and regularly reviewed? Not applicable – Pilotage is non- compulsory. n/a 4.27 GtGP 4.5.19 Authorisation of Pilots If the Organisation is a CHA, is the process for appointing Pilots detailed in the M SMS? Satisfactory – Section 11.2 of the HSMS specifies required standards. 001 Cont. 4.27 GtGP 4.5.19 Cont. Authorisation of Pilots Are procedures and records available for authorisation of pilots? Satisfactory – Section 11.2 mentions authorisation procedures. A Booklet titled ‘Buckie Pilot Boat Coxswain and Pilot Training’ which contains guidance and a training log is in place Observation – There is no referenced within the HSMS. Recommend – Reference the booklet within the HSM S. Ensure that it is subject to a periodic review. 001 009 M edium Reference the booklet within the HSMS. Ensure that it is subject to a periodic review and competence is captured. Complete. HSMS updated. Competence records expanded to include pilotage. Page 55
Page 56
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 31 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.28 Pilot Training If the Organisation is a CHA, does the CHA implement the International M aritime Organisation (IM O) Resolution A960? Satisfactory – Pilotage training is detailed in the HSMS and Pilot Training Booklet. Observation – Although National Occupational Standards for Pilots are referenced, the recommendations within IMO Resolution A960 are not. Recommend – It is a recommendation of the PM SC to conform to the IM O Resolution A960, including implementation of the training, certification and operational procedures for pilots. 001 009 M edium W rite a policy and process that informs a set of OPs. GtGP 4.5.5 Bridge Resource M anagement (BRM) Is BRM principles included in pilot training? Observation – Although a Pilot Continuous Professional Development (PCPD) programme is in place, BRM is not a specific element of the Pilot training, Recommend – Consider implementing BRM principles into the Pilot training. 001 009 M edium W rite a policy and process that informs an OP GtGP 4.5.7 Pilot Assessment Are pilots subject to regular assessment such as peer review assessment? Satisfactory – A PCPD programme in place. A briefing process is in place for authorised pilots that have not completed an act of pilotage in the past four months. 001 009 GtGP 10.16.4 M aster/Pilot Exchange (M PX) Is a M PX process and template available and used? Satisfactory – A pilot card is used as part of the M PX. M PX 010 GtGP 4.5.14 Boarding and Landing Are there procedures in place for pilot boarding and landing operations? Satisfactory – Pilot boarding and landing is captured within the Training programme. 009 GtGP 4.5.25 Rostering and Fatigue M anagement Are there procedures in place for rostering of Pilots including fatigue management? Not applicable – There are relatively few acts of pilotage conducted. n/a GtGP 4.6.1 Pocket Guide Is the Pilots' Pocket Guide and Checklist’ made available to pilots? Observation – The Pilots' Pocket Guide and Checklist was not available. Recommend – It is recommended that a copy of the Pilots' Pocket Guide and Checklist is made available for quick reference. Anecdotal M edium Have a copy of the Pilots' Pocket Guide and Checklist available for quick reference. 4.29 Pilot Exemption certificates (PEC) If the Organisation is a CHA, is there a clear process for the issuing of PECs? Not applicable – Pilotage is non- compulsory. n/a Page 56
Page 57
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 32 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.30 Suspension or revocation of a PEC If the Organisation is a CHA, does the CHA have formal procedures for suspension or revocation of a PEC? Not applicable – Pilotage is non- compulsory. n/a GtGP 10.16 Passage Plan Is there a passage describing how vessels or craft would normally be expected to access the harbour or facility? Satisfactory – A basic passage plan is in place. Additional plans for arrivals and departures from the cargo berth are also in place. 010 011 012 013 014 4.31 Towage Procedures Have procedures for towage been put in place by the Organisation? Satisfactory – No routine towage is available at any of the harbours. Section 9.7 of the HSMS gives consideration to non-routine towage. 001 4.32 Towage Risk Assessment and Consultation Have towage procedures been risk assessed? Not applicable – No routine towage is available at any of the harbours. n/a Are suitable towage guidelines in place via consultation with stakeholders? Satisfactory – As all towage operations are considered non- routine and subject to risk assessment, towage guidelines are not required. Observation – There is limited oversight of some of the Harbours, where occasional towage of recreational or fishing vessels may go unnoticed. Recommend – It is strongly recommended that consideration should be given to a published set of towage guidelines which set out the organisation’s expectations around non-routine towage for all vessels. This could include elements such as requesting permission, risk assessment, commercial tows, small vessel / recreational tows, towing equipment, emergency towing etc. n/a M edium Have a tow policy and process users have to sign up to follow. GtGP 4.6.6 Towage training Is training between tug crews and pilots supported? Not applicable – No routine towage is available at any of the harbours. n/a Page 57
Page 58
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 33 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.33 Non-Routine Towage Is non-routine towage subject to a specific risk assessment and approval processes?> Satisfactory – Section 9.7 of the HSMS states that any individual towage operation would be subject to an unusual even Risk Assessment. 001 4.34 Regulation of Tugs and W orkboats Does the Organisation have powers to register, inspect and licence commercially operated craft? Satisfactory – The HSM S, Section 9.7 states: “Any tugs of more than 5 tonnes gross operating in harbour areas must be licensed by the Harbour Authority. No such tugs currently operate.” 001 Does the Organisation run a licensing/registration scheme (i.e., voluntary or compulsory)? Satisfactory – The workboats used in the harbour are primarily owned by M oray Council. There is currently no requirement for a registration scheme. Anecdotal 4.35 Environmental Duty ▪ Section 48A of Harbours Act 1964 ▪ Obligations under Habitats Regulations ▪ Environment Act 2021 Does the Organisation demonstrate that it operates its functions and duties with regards to nature conservation and biodiversity requirements? Satisfactory – The HSM S, Appendix D contains a General Policy which commits the Harbours Team to protecting the environment. There is also a wider Council Environment Policy. 001 4.37 Emergency Preparedness and Response Are there clear requirements for declaration of dangerous goods/substances referencing the ‘Dangerous Goods in Harbour Area Regulations’ (DGHAR)? Satisfactory – The HSM S, Section 6 details the handling of dangerous goods. Only occasional small quantities are handled. 001 Page 58
Page 59
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 34 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress Does the M SMS include the use of powers to prohibit entry of dangerous goods to the harbour area? Satisfactory – Anecdotal information identified that harbour staff understand the powers associated with prohibiting dangerous goods in the harbour. Observation – The powers of the Harbour M aster in regard to Dangerous Goods are not well described within the HSMS. Recommend – A description of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the DGHAR 2016 is included within the HSMS. 001 M edium Define more clearly Does the Organisation have an emergency Plan? Satisfactory – An emergency plan is in place. 008 Is the emergency Plan exercised? Satisfactory – Anecdotal information identified that exercises are conducted. Observation – W hilst it stated that Harbour staff do practise certain exercises such as M an Overboard drills, they are not formally recorded. Recommend – An exercise schedule should be drawn up. A process for recording the drills and any outcomes or improvement opportunities should also be put in place. Anecdotal M edium Have a drills and exercise plan and reporting system 4.38 Oil Pollution Response Does the Organisation have a requirement to produce an ‘OPRC Plan’ under the requirements of the ‘M erchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness Response and Co-operation Convention) Regulations 1998 (OPRC)’. Satisfactory – M oray Council is required to produce an OPRC Plan. Briggs is the Tier 2 provider. Anecdotal Cont. 4.38 Cont. Oil Pollution Is there an OPRC Plan in place for the Organisation, approved by the M CA? Satisfactory – An OPRC plan is in place and approved by the M CA. Observational Response Is the OPRC Plan exercised? Satisfactory – Yes, returns are also made to the MCA. 015 016 Page 59
Page 60
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 35 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 4.39 Civil Contingencies Act 2004 Duty If the Organisation is a Harbour Authority, does the M SMS include reference to its obligations as a Category 2 responder? Satisfactory – M oray Council is the local Tier 1 responder. This is captured in the HSMS, Section 4.1. 001 4.40-4.41 Resilience Forums Does the M SMS include procedures covering regular contact with Category 1 responders via Local Resilience Forum (LRF) or its regional equivalent? Satisfactory – M oray Council is the local Tier 1 responder. This is captured in the HSMS, Section 4.1 and includes contact procedures. 001 4.42 Dues If the Organisation is a Harbour Authority, does it have a ‘list of ship, passenger and goods dues? Satisfactory – Dues are listed. Observation – Although the List of Dues sent to interested parties are current, the ones listed on the Harbours webpage are out of date. Recommend – Update the website with the current list of dues. 017 018 M edium Review content of W ebsite and update. 4.43 Setting Dues If the Organisation is a Harbour Authority, how is the level of dues set to provide sufficient resource to discharge marine safety obligations? Satisfactory – Dues are set by the wider Council and go into the central pot. Budgets are then set according to available funds. Anecdotal 4.44-4.45 CHA Charges If the Organisation is a CHA, how are ‘reasonable charges’ set for Pilotage Services? Satisfactory – The Harbour M aster stated that dues are set to cover the costs associated with the service as per the Pilotage Act 1987. Anecdotal 4.46 Other Charges and Tariffs Has the Organisation set charges for services and the use of facilities with the issue of Terms and Conditions? Satisfactory – Charges for other services are set as per the Council’s policies. Anecdotal GtGP 4.8 Diving Commercial Is there a process for regulation and management of commercial diving? Satisfactory – The HSM S, Section 9.9 details the policy and procedure in regard to diving. There is a permit system in place. 001 019 Page 60
Page 61
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 36 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress GtGP 4.8.2 Diving Recreational Does the organisation control / regulate recreational diving within its jurisdiction? Satisfactory – The byelaws provide for the regulation of recreational diving and swimming. 007 GtGP 4.8.3 M ooring & Berthing Does the Organisation regulate the provision of mooring and berthing services? Satisfactory – The byelaws provide for the regulation of mooring and berthing. There is a Harbour M ooring M anual in place for Buckie. 007 020 GtGP 4.9.18 Bunkering Does the Organisation have processes or procedures in place to control bunkering? Satisfactory – A Fuel Bunkering Checklist is in place for Buckie. Observation – Bunkering could potentially take place at locations other than Buckie, especially Burghead. Due to a spike in recent bunkering incidents in North-East Scotland other ports have taken measures to improve oversight. Recommend – It is suggested that commercial vessels, including fishing vessels, at all M oray Council harbours are instructed to inform the Harbours Team and complete the checklist prior to bunkering taking place. 021 022 M edium Define a process users are to follow and get them to sign up to that process GtGP 4.9.18 Controlled W orks Does the Organisation have processes or procedures in place to control works (i.e., hot works)? Satisfactory – There is a permit to work system in place. This is detailed in the HSMS, Section 14. 001 023 024 Page 61
Page 62
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 37 A.5 Risk Assessment PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 5.1 Risk Assessment (RAs) Does the Organisation carry out hazard identification and risk assessment? Satisfactory – This is carried out routinely by the Harbour Team. 008 022 5.2 Risk Controls Has the risk of marine operations been assessed and a means of controlling it deployed? Satisfactory – A range of risk assessments are in place, including HAR 30 that covers navigational risk. 008 5.3 Tolerability Does the Organisation set a tolerability threshold? Currently set by the Harbour Team tbc 5.4-5.6 RA Framework and As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) Does the Organisation provide a framework for delivering RAs which includes criteria (i.e., life, environment, port, damage)? Satisfactory – HAR 30 includes the criteria of people, environment, assets and reputation. 008 Does the Organisation use the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) principle? Satisfactory – Risk Assessment Procedure is covered in the HSMS, Section 5 which references the M oray Council’s general guidance. Observation – ALARP is not specifically mentioned, but the HSMS, Section 5.9, generally covers the principle. Recommend – It is suggested that Section 5 of the HSM S is reviewed to ensure that it more specifically covers marine operational risks as described in Section 5 of the PM SC. 001 Low Define RA scope and principle statement Page 62
Page 63
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 38 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 5.7 RA Competency How does the Organisation ensure those undertaking RA are competent? Satisfactory – The council operates an e-learning system called CLIVE, which has various in-house courses. The HM and some other staff members have a background in the offshore industry, and have completed training to a high standard, Observation – The HSM S does not formally state an expected standard. Recommend – M oray Council should take a formal position on the level of training and/or experience that is required by those undertaking risk assessments, particularly marine risk assessments which can require different background knowledge to shoreside risk assessments. 001 Anecdotal M edium Define standard / competency for those undertaking RAs 5.8-5.9 Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) Has the Organisation included options in its procedures to use a cost/benefit approach? Observation – A cost benefit assessment approach to Formal Safety Assessment is not captured within the HSMS. Recommend – Consider integrating a cost benefit approach into the Risk Assessment procedure. A method that is typically used is detailed in M SC- M EPC.2/Circ.12/Rev.2 001 Low DH to approve ALARP principles / levels to accept risk OPs set to. GtGP 5.6 Occupational H&S Risk Assessments Does the Organisation have in place Occupational risk assessments for task- based activities? Satisfactory – Task based risk assessments are in place. 025 5.10 RA Sharing Does the Organisation share its risk assessments with other operators in the area? (i.e., Terminals and other M arine Facilities). Satisfactory – Risk Assessments are written collaboratively with the Harbour Team. Observation – Risk assessments are not currently shared. Recommend – W here appropriate risk assessments should be shared between SHAs and marine facilities operating within their jurisdiction. n/a M edium Have all compliance in one ‘shared’ folder. Share RAs with other marine facilities. 5.11 RA Review Does the M SMS state the review frequency for RAs? Satisfactory – Section 5.11 of the HSMS states review frequency. 001 Page 63
Page 64
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 39 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 5.12 RA Stakeholders Does the Organisation include user groups in RA review? Satisfactory – W here required. Harbour users were recently consulted on changes to Navigation Aids. Anecdotal 5.13 Dynamic Risk Assessment (DRA) Does the Organisation provide a form of DRA complementary to its FRA processes? Satisfactory – The principle of Dynamic Risk Assessment was understood by the Harbour M aster. Observation – The form in which DRA it is provided by M oray Council was unclear. Recommend – It should be made clear how M oray Council undertakes DRA. Anecdotal M edium Have a DRA process and train staff to it. Page 64
Page 65
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 40 A.6 M arine Safety M anagement System PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 6.1 M SM S Introduction Does the organisation have a M SMS? Satisfactory – M oray Council operate the ‘Harbour Safety M anagement System’, last reviewed and updated October 2024. 001 6.2 M SM S Policy Are policies in place approved by the Duty Holder? Satisfactory – The HSM S contains a mix of policies. Some of these are general to the Council, such as the Health and Safety Policy Statement, and be seen as signed off by the CEO and Duty Holder. Other policies are specific to the Harbours Team, but do not show evidence of being approved by the Duty Holder (e.g. The Drone Policy). Observation – W hilst policy is in place, it is difficult to identify all the items and the approval process for each. Recommend – Policies should be clear and show approval by the Duty Holder. 001 Low Check sign off procedure 6.3 M SM S Demonstrating Best Practice Can the Organisation demonstrate review of: ▪ M AIB reports & Digests ▪ Sector/industry alerts ▪ M CA Health Checks Satisfactory – Industry circulars are regularly by the Harbours Team for relevance to their operations. Additionally, the Harbour M aster has delivered presentations about water safety to local schools, which is considered an example best practice. 026 038 6.4-6.5 M SM S Operational Procedures Does the M SMS include standard operating procedures (SOPs) or similar? Satisfactory – Procedures are included with the HSM S. Observation - There are a mix of general marine procedures that are partially incorporated into the HSMS (primarily in Section 2, Overview of the Harbours), and some that sit separately. The Recommend – It is strongly recommended that a separate set of clear procedures are produced that cover the marine activities undertaken in all of the harbours. M edium Have defined OPs that mitigate risks identified in RAs, to which staff are recruited and trained to. Page 65
Page 66
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 41 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress general procedures almost exclusively deal with the two commercial harbours of Buckie and Burghead. Appendix B lists M oray Council Procedures, but these are all related to ‘dry’ side activities. It is not the intention of the Code to cover landside tasks, rather marine and the ship/shore interface (see Exec. Summary 19 of the Code). For example: ▪ Restricted visibility procedure ▪ Vessel acceptance procedure ▪ Berth allocation procedure ▪ Line handling procedure ▪ LPS procedures (inc. special direction) ▪ Traffic management procedures ▪ M arine accident and incident investigation and reporting Cont. 6.4-6.5 Cont. M SM S Operational Procedures Cont. Does the M SMS include standard operating procedures (SOPs) or similar? Cont. These often work better as referenced documents that are integrated into an M SMS through the use of an appendix. 001 6.6 M SM S Implementation Does the M SMS: ▪ Confirm roles and responsibilities? Satisfactory – The majority of roles are included within the HSMS, and there is a useful organogram Observation – The roles and responsibilities of the Assistant Harbour M asters and Harbour Assistants is not captured. Recommend – Include the Assistant Harbour M aster and Harbour Assistant roles and responsibilities within the HSM S. 001 Low Add AHM and HA roles to M SMS Does the M SMS: ▪ Outline procedures for marine safety? See this audit report, Section 6.4- 6.5 for SOPs. n/a Does the M SMS: ▪ M easure performance against targets (the organisation must have a database or system to record incidents, including near misses)? See this audit report, Section 7.4- 7.6 for KPIs and Section 6.19-6.20 for incident reporting. n/a Does the M SMS: Observation – Although it is understood that good Recommend – The HSMS should capture communication lines n/a Low Share ERPs / M OU and request statement of Page 66
Page 67
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 42 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress ▪ Detail how adjoining/interfacing Organisations are interacted with (i.e., a bridging document)? relationships are maintained with the local facility operators this is not currently captured within the M SM S. and interaction between the SHA and interfacing organisations (e.g. M oray East and the M acduff Group shipyard), with particular reference to emergency response. ambition of operating facility against PM SC Does the M SMS: ▪ Reference relevant emergency response plans? Satisfactory – The HSM S references the M oray Council Emergency Plan. 001 008 6.7 M SM S Statement Is a statement about the standard of the Organisation’s performance against its M SM S included in the Annual Report? ?? M edium M SP, create and report against. KPIs. New M SP drafted with KPIs for DH approval. 6.8 M SM S Accountability Does the M SMS assign responsibility for Conservancy Duties? Satisfactory – Section 9 of the HSMS covers Conservancy, it is understood that responsibility lies with the Harbour M aster. Observation – The HSM S does not specifically assign responsibility, although it is understood to generally lie with the Harbour M aster. Recommend – The HSMS should assign conservancy responsibilities as appropriate. 001 Anecdotal Low Cont. 6.8 Cont. M SM S Accountability Cont. Does the M SMS assign responsibility for Conservancy Duties? Observation – Some of the sub- sections are not appropriate to Conservancy, such as Towage and mooring/unmooring which would be better as formal procedures. Recommend – Consider which of the sub-sections are appropriate to the conservancy function. 001 Anecdotal Low 6.9 M SM S Accountability CEO Does the M SMS define CEO accountability and responsibilities? Satisfactory – Section 1.5.2 of the HSMS assigns the CEO function, accountability and responsibility to the Head of Environmental and Commercial Services. 001 6.10-6.11 M SM S Accountability Harbour M aster Does the M SMS define Harbour M aster responsibilities? Satisfactory – Section 1.5.3 of the HSMS defines Harbour M aster responsibilities. 001 Page 67
Page 68
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 43 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 6.12 M SM S Accountability Officers Does the M SMS define the appointment of Officers and their delegated powers, duties and responsibilities? Non-Compliance – Although the HSMS shows the structure of the Officers within the Organisation Chart in Section 1.6, it does not state what their delegated powers duties and responsibilities are. The Code, Section 6.12 states: “Delegations must be clear, formal and must not obscure the accountability of the organisation and its Duty Holder.” Recommend – Include descriptions for each of the roles in the Organisation Chart. The description should clearly state what delegated powers, duties and responsibilities each role has. n/a High Define roles, both strategic and operational. Revision to HSMS drafted for HSC approval. Revised HM SM draft for DH approval. 6.13 Reporting to the Duty Holder Does an officer with delegated responsibilities for safety attend Duty Holder meetings? Satisfactory – The Head of Environmental and Commercial Services attends Duty Holder meetings. Anecdotal 6.14-6.15 Stakeholder Engagement & Consultation Does the Organisation hold regular stakeholder engagement (i.e., forums). Satisfactory – User group meetings are held separately for each of the six Harbours. Engagement with users contributes to the overall running of the Harbours, and good housekeeping. This was noted as being best practice. 027 028 029 030 6.16 Stakeholder Engagement & Consultation Are other marine facilities situated within the Organisations jurisdiction (if an SHA)? Satisfactory – There are a number of facilities situated within the jurisdiction of the SHA, primarily at Buckie. n/a Does the Organisation engage with marine facilities to understand their M SMS? Satisfactory – good relationships are maintained with other Organisations. Observation – Although it is understood that good relationships are maintained, at the time of audit it was unknown if the facilities had an M SM S. W ithin the Code there is an onus on SHAs to ensure that facilities are aware of the PM SC. Recommend – Facilities within the jurisdiction should be engaged with to ensure that they are aware of the requirements within the Code. Anecdotal Low Page 68
Page 69
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 44 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 6.17 Stakeholder Engagement & Consultation Does the Organisation declare compliance on behalf of another Organisation? Satisfactory – M oray Council does not state compliance on behalf of other Organisations. n/a 6.18 Stakeholder Engagement & Consultation If the Organisation is not an SHA and located outside of another SHA, has a risk-based decision process been using to decide if additional powers are required? Not applicable – The Organisation is an SHA. n/a 6.19-6.20 Incident reporting Does the M SMS address incident reporting (i.e., SOPs, reporting guidance)? Satisfactory – Incident Reporting is captured within Section 13 of the HSMS. 001 6.21-6.22 Incident Investigation Does the M SMS define incident investigation procedures (i.e., to determine safety recommendations or for prosecution)? Satisfactory – Incident investigation is captured within Section 13.9 and 13.10 of the HSMS. 001 Cont. Does the M SMS define incident investigation procedures (i.e., to determine safety recommendations or for prosecution)? Observation – The HSM S references the wider council SM S procedure (SM S 7.1), however this is for generic shoreside incident investigation. Recommend – It is recommended that a procedure for marine accident/incident investigation is developed. This should be sufficiently detailed to guide someone through the various stages of an investigation and reference appropriate legislation such as the Criminal Justice Act, 2016. 001 M edium HM to attend relevant investigation training then draft investigation guide. GtGP 6.9.10 Incident Investigation Sharing Are lessons from investigations published and shared within the organisation with a view to preventing a recurrence? Satisfactory – In response to an incident a safety meeting would typically be held at the Harbour Office. The Harbour M anager then attends a departmental meeting where incidents are discussed. The Departmental Head then reports into to a wider council meeting. Quarterly safety meetings are held, and there is a Anecdotal Page 69
Page 70
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 45 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress process to send an Incident alert out to all Council staff. Observation – The process outlined above is not captured within the HSMS. Recommend – In order to prevent reoccurrences of incidents a clear process of disseminating ‘lessons learned’ should be established and captured within the HSMS. M edium Include Safety Bulletins on website, derived from investigations 6.23 Statutory Incident Reporting Are procedures in place for statutory reporting? Satisfactory – Incident reporting is captured within the HSM S. It was evidenced that the Harbour M aster is aware of the process. 001 Cont. 6.23 Cont. Statutory Incident Reporting Cont. Are procedures in place for statutory reporting? Observation – W hilst incident reporting is captured within the HSMS, the procedure for reporting a marine incident to the M AIB is not well defined. Recommend – The HSMS would benefit from a clear procedure for marine incident reporting which references M GN 564. 001 M edium Include report form and process W hen was the last M AIB report? Satisfactory – The last M AIB report was made on 05 June 2024, which involved a slip trip fall. 031 6.24 Enforcement Resources Are adequate resources available to enact policy? See this audit report, Section 1.4. n/a 6.25 Enforcement Policy Is there clear policy on enforcement and prosecution? Non-Compliance – There is no clear policy on the enforcement and prosecution. The Code, Section 6.25 states: “Byelaws and directions adopted to manage identified marine safety risks must be backed by an appropriate policy on enforcement. Organisations should have a clear policy on prosecution”. Recommend – A policy on enforcement must be produced and approved by the Duty Holder. As byelaws and rules are essentially a control measure there must be adequate enforcement to ensure that they are effective in reducing risk. n/a HIgh Policy drafted for legal check and subsequent HSC approval. Page 70
Page 71
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 46 A.7 Review and Audit PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 7.1- 7.3 Review and Audit Does the Organisation have a regular and systematic process for review and audit? Satisfactory – Auditing is currently undertaken by the DP on an annual basis. Observation – The statement within Section 5.2 of the HSMS does not match the annual DP audit process. Recommend – Ensuring that the auditing requirements and process is fully agreed upon, update Section 5.2 of the HSM S appropriately. 001 M edium Change statement to reflect process Does the Duty Holder and the Designated Person have clearly defined roles in the review and audit process? Satisfactory – Section 1.5.4 of the HSMS states that it one of the DPs functions is to provide the Duty Holder with independent assurance through auditing. 001 7.4-7.6 M SM S review Does the M SMS incorporate a regular and systematic review of its performance? Non-Compliance – There was no evidence of a regular performance review. The Code states: “The MSMS must incorporate a regular and systematic review of its performance. This should be based on information from monitoring the system itself including testing, exercises and independent external audits of the system”. Recommend – The MSM S must incorporate a regular and systematic review of its performance. This is typically achieved through the reporting of Key Performance Indicators. n/a High New M SP drafted with KPIs for DH approval. Is the performance of the M SMS assessed against internal Key Performance Indicators (KPI)? Not Applicable – See response to the previous question ‘Does the MSMS incorporate a regular and systematic review of its performance?’. n/a Does the Designated Person (DP) present findings from audits to the Duty Holder? Satisfactory – Audit reports are presented to the ED&I committee. 032 7.7-7.8 Cyclic review Is there a cyclic (plan/do/check/act) process? Satisfactory – This is captured within the Health and Safety Policy Statement. 001 Page 71
Page 72
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 47 A.8 Competence PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 8.1-8.2 Competence (Trained, Qualified, Experienced) Are National Occupational Standards (NOS), or an equivalent, used in recruiting and training? Non-Compliance – NOS were evidenced for Pilot training, however NOS, or an equivalent, were not in place for other marine personnel. The Code states: “Under the Code, all persons ….. trained to the appropriate national standard”. A NOS is published for Pilots, VTS Staff and Harbour M asters. Recommend – NOS, or an equivalent, should be reviewed and applicable elements incorporated into recruitment and training procedures, specifically for Pilots and Harbour M asters operating in the Council’s harbours. 001 High Create competencies for tasks against NOS if applicable. Complete. NOS referenced against pilotage manual. Is there a methodology for assessing personnel against the set standards? Non-Compliance – Although Harbour Staff generally had a marine background and appropriate levels of experience there was no stated methodology. Recommend – To ensure that competent persons are employed M oray Council should develop an assessment methodology. n/a High Create assessment criteria for competencies Are existing staff reviewed to ensure they meet the standards set? Non-Compliance – There is an internal Employee Review and Development process, however this does not reference NOS or an equivalent. Recommend – NOS or an equivalent should be reviewed and applicable elements incorporated into periodic reviews to identify improvement, training or Continuous Professional Development opportunities. n/a High Complete.. Competence matrix includes this criteria. GtGP 8.10 Is a M arine Training M atrix available that describes all of the organisation’s marine personnel and what their training, experience and qualification requirements? Satisfactory – A training matrix is in use and was evidenced during the audit. 033 8.3 Assessing competence How does the Organisation assess the fitness of persons it has appointed? Satisfactory – All members of the Harbour Team require an ENG1 medical. 001 033 Page 72
Page 73
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 48 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 8.4 Policy Is there a policy on revalidation or maintenance of qualifications in place? Observation – There was no policy in place, which is a recommendation of the PMSC. Recommend – Consideration should be given to creating a policy on the on revalidation or maintenance of qualifications and continuing professional development. n/a M edium Create and maintain a qualification matrix How is Continuing Professional Development (CPD) achieved? Satisfactory – Although not fully captured within the MSM S, CPD opportunities are available within the M oray Council. 001 Anecdotal GtGP 8.10 Records Are training records maintained and reviewed (course completion certification, on job training etc.)? Satisfactory – Copies of certifications are held in personnel files. Observational Page 73
Page 74
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 49 A.9 Plan PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 9.1-9.2 Publication of a M arine Safety Plan (M SP) Has the Organisation published a M SP? Non-Compliance – A M arine Safety Plan dated 2018-2021 was evidenced. This can only be found via a ‘web search’ as it is not linked on the Harbour’s webpage. Recommend – In order to comply with this ‘Key M easure’ the M arine Safety Plan needs to be clearly published. 034 High Complete. M SP drafted with relevant KPIs. HSC to approve. Publish on new website. Report against KPIs at HSC meetings. Does the M SP commit the Organisation to regulating marine operations? Not applicable – The M SP is considerably out of date. Due regard to the content prescribed within the PM SC should be made if a future plan is produced. n/a Does the M SP commit to regulate vessels and include near miss reporting? Not applicable – The M SP is considerably out of date. Due regard to the content prescribed within the PM SC should be made if a future plan is produced. n/a Does the M SP explain how commercial pressures will be managed without undermining the safe provision of services? Not applicable – The M SP is considerably out of date. Due regard to the content prescribed within the PM SC should be made if a future plan is produced. n/a 9.4-9.5 M SP Review Is the M SP reviewed and is this review published? Non-Compliance – There was no evidence of a review of the outdated M SP. The M SP is not mentioned within the HSMS. Recommend – The review requirements around the MSP should be captured within the HSMS. 001 034 High Complete. M SP drafted with relevant KPIs. HSC to approve. Publish on new website. Report against KPIs at HSC meetings. Page 74
Page 75
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 50 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress Is the output of auditing and monitoring included in the M SP review? Not applicable – No review has been completed. 9.6-9.7 M SP Timing Is the M SP in date and within its three-year period? Non-Compliance – The M SP is considerably out of date. Recommend – The outdated M SP, should be reviewed and a new plan published. 034 High Complete. M SP drafted with relevant KPIs. HSC to approve. Publish on new website. Report against KPIs at HSC meetings. Has the Organisation responded to the Code Compliance Self- Certification exercise? See this audit report, Section 1.9-1.11. n/a Page 75
Page 76
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 51 A.10 Conservancy Duty PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress 10.1 Conservancy Introduction Are the marine facilities in good repair and fit for purpose? Non-Compliance – During the quayside inspection it was noted that certain areas of Buckie Harbour are in a very poor state of repair, notably the surface of the north quayside. Section 10.1 of the Code, states that: “All organisations which have responsibility for the operation and maintenance of marine facilities should ensure that these are in good repair and are fit for purpose”. Should a person trip and suffer a fall from height into either the water or onto a moored vessel then M oray Council could be held liable. As well as a non-compliance against the PM SC this is in contravention of Section 12 of The W orkplace (Health, Safety and W elfare) Regulations 1992. Recommend – The Council should consider its responsibility under The W orkplace (Health, Safety and W elfare) Regulations 1992 and the Code, Section 10.1, in arranging sufficient funding to maintain marine facilities in good repair and in a fit for purpose state. It would be sensible to undertake internal condition assessments of all accessible Harbour areas using a risk-based approach. Observational High Compliant. Harbour inspection processes is linked to defect reporting and prioritisation given. 10.2 Harbour Authority Conservancy Duty Is there a Harbour Authority' recognition of the ‘duty to conserve’ and/or ‘reasonable care’ statement? Non-Compliance –There is no overarching statement regarding M oray Council’s legal duty to conserve their harbours and ensure that they are in a fit condition. Recommend – Add a statement regarding the Council’s legal duties to the HSMS. 001 High Complete. Statement added to draft HSMS, section 1.2, for approval. Is survey conducted to International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) standards? Satisfactory – Official bathymetric surveys are carried out at Buckie by Aspect, and less frequently at Burghead. The other smaller recreational harbours are tidal but are subjected to occasional internal checks by staff using the pilot boat. 035 Is there a survey programme? Observation – Internal checks (soundings) at Buckie are regularly carried out by the pilot boat, to look for high points. This is especially the case after a significant weather event. There are contractual obligations with clients to maintain a 3 metre (m) Recommend – It is recommended that the process and/or programme for undertaking internal depth surveys should be captured within the HSMS. The logging of the findings would also 001 035 M edium Create internal survey programme, methodology, and criteria. Defined triggers for Page 76
Page 77
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 52 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress minimum depth for some berths. Burghead is surveyed internally, but less frequently. In both cases internal surveys may trigger a formal survey by the survey contractor, ‘Aspect Land & Hydrographic Surveys Ltd’. It was noted that there is no formal process for undertaking the internal surveys stated within the HSM S, nor are records kept of the soundings. give a useful historical record to identify trends. external resurvey required. Cont. 10.2 Cont. Harbour Authority Conservancy Duty Is there a risk-based approach for survey and placing navigation aids? Satisfactory – A project to replace the entrance lights with a sector light at Buckie was discussed. This included the interaction with the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) who asked to see risk assessments etc. Anecdotal Are hydrographic records kept? Satisfactory – Aspect maintains copies for the formal surveys. 035 10.3, 10.5 W arnings and publication Is survey information published and warning issued? Satisfactory – Harbour information is circulated by Notice to M ariners (NtM ). Observation – Surveys not published, but identified high spots are promulgated by NtM . Recommend – Consider publishing survey records on the website for the benefit of port users. 036 M edium Publish bathy surveys on website 10.4 UKHO Update Is the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) updated with new survey information? Observation – The Code, Section 10.4 states that: “Harbour authorities should supply the UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) with Information”. There is no evidence that the Council is doing so. Recommend – It is beneficial to all Harbour users to send information to the UKHO which assists them in keeping their charts up to date. This could be incorporated into the Contract with the Council’s Survey contractor who would handle this process on the Council’s behalf. n/a M edium Add to submission of survey data to survey contracts. This is normal practice. This will generate modest income from UKHO. 10.6 Aids to Navigation (AtoN). Is the Organisation an LLA or within an LLA jurisdiction? Satisfactory – M oray Council is an LLA. 001 GtGP 10.15 Aids to Navigation (AtoN). Are there procedures in place to support the maintenance and Satisfactory – The maintenance of Aids to Navigation is adequately covered by Section 10 of the HSMS 001 Page 77
Page 78
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 53 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress provision of aids to navigation? 10.7 AtoN Inspection Is the Organisation inspected by the GLA? Satisfactory – As an LLA M oray Council is subject to periodic inspections by the NLB. 037 10.8 AtoN Consent Has the Organisation applied to the relevant GLA for consent to establish, remove or alter an AtoN? Satisfactory – A project to alter some of the AtoNs at Buckie was discussed, including the involvement of the NLB in the process. Anecdotal 10.9 AtoN Returns Does the Organisation make returns to the GLA? Satisfactory – Returns are made using the online reporting system. 038 10.10- 10.12 W recks and Abandoned Vessels Policy Does the Organisation have a policy or process for wreck removal? Satisfactory – W reck removal is covered within Section 9.5 of the HSMS, 001 10.13 Dangerous Vessels Directions Are powers from the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985 recognised? See this audit report, Section 4.21. n/a 10.14- 10.15 W recks and Abandoned Vessels Additional Powers Are there any discretionary powers granted to the Organisation, in addition to those available through national legislation? Satisfactory – Section 9.5 of the HSMS states that ‘the authority has general powers under the 1987 GRC Confirmation Order and harbourmasters have specific powers under the Byelaws.’ 001 10.16 SOSREP Is the role of the SOSREP recognised by the Organisation? See this audit report, Section 4.22. n/a 10.17 Legal advice Does the Organisation have access to marine/maritime legal representation? See this audit report, Section 3.2. n/a GtGP 10.19 Event Planning Is there a process in place for event planning? Satisfactory – Section 15 of the HSM S covers Recreational Activities. The Harbour M aster has additional powers available through the Byelaws. 001 Page 78
Page 79
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 54 PM SC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Priority Progress GtGP 10.23 M oorings Does the Organisation licence, manage or support the provision of moorings? Satisfactory – M oray Council has a variety of moorings which are leased to customers. Anecdotal GtGP10.27 Subsea obstructions Does the Organisation have any subsea pipelines or cables within its jurisdiction, if so, are these recognised in the M SMS with controls to minimise damage identified? Satisfactory – There are believed to be no subsea pipelines or cables etc within the jurisdiction of any of the harbours. Anecdotal Page 79
Page 80
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 55 B Quayside Checks B.1 Quayside Check: Buckie – 09 April 2025 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations Priority Progress GtGP 10.19 ACOP 207-208 SIP 014 Access Is the quayside and its access locations clear of debris and obstructions? Satisfactory – The quayside was found to be generally tidy. Is the type and condition of quayside surface appropriate to the operation? Satisfactory – M uch of the harbour area at Buckie is suitable for pedestrian and vehicle use. Observation – Certain areas of Buckie Harbour are in a very poor state of repair, notably the surface of the north quayside. Should a person trip and suffer a fall from height into either the water or onto a moored vessel then M oray Council could be held liable. See response to Section 10.1 of the audit. See Image B1. Recommend – It is strongly recommended that repairs are made to the surface or that the quayside is put out of use. It would be sensible to undertake internal condition assessments of all accessible Harbour areas using a risk-based approach. See response to Section 10.1 of the audit. M edium Log repairs for capital maintenance plan. Shut off unsafe areas. Page 80
Page 81
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 56 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations Priority Progress ACOP 211-223 SIP 014 Rescue and Lifesaving equipment (LSE) at the water’s edge Is there appropriate means of egress from the water? Satisfactory – W ater egress ladders are installed in the harbour. Observation – Although there are multiple recessed ladders around the harbour some showed signs of damage, and all had significant marine growth which could impede some trying to exit the water. There was also a bar across multiple ladders that would obstruct their use. See Image B2. Recommend – Damage ladders should be assessed and replaced where appropriate. A regular cleaning regime (i.e. with a pressure washer at low tide) should be considered. Consider if the ladders with the obstructing bar can be safely used. M edium Is there appropriate LSE at quay edge? Satisfactory – There appeared to be adequate LSE around the harbour. SIP 005 - 18 Bollards and securing equipment Are the bollards appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – There were a range of bollards that appeared to be suitable for the vessels using the harbour. Are the bollards inspected? Observation – The bollards are not subject to Periodic Inspection as required by PUW ER Regulation 6. See Section 18 of SIP 005. Recommend – It is recommended that bollards are subject to periodic inspection by a competent person. M edium Complete. Bollards are included in standard inspection regime. Specific bollards which take large commercial vessels, have been identified for regular engineering led surveys. SIP 005 Fenders Is the fendering appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – Fending arrangements appeared to be adequate for the vessels using the harbour. Are chaffing plates used? Satisfactory – Re-purposed train track is used in the majority of areas. Page 81
Page 82
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 57 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations Priority Progress ACOP 232-235 SIP 005 SIP 014 Lighting Is lighting appropriate and appear to be in compliance with ACOP ‘safety in docs’ and the PFSP? Satisfactory – Lighting was observed to be in good condition and positioned around the harbour at appropriate intervals. ACOP 58-72 SIP 014 6.1-6.8 Layout Is adequate separation delineated between quayside operations? Observation – There is extremally limited delineation between quayside operations, which would appear to be in contravention of The W orkplace (Health, Safety and W elfare) Regulations 1992, Section 17. Recommend – It is recommended that all vehicle and pedestrian traffic routes should be clearly marked. Appropriate crossing points should be provided where pedestrians and vehicles meet. M edium Traffic management plans for all harbours to be generated with support from Transport service. ACOP 82 Signage Are appropriate signs and markings in place? Satisfactory – Signage was in place and was adequate for its purpose. Page 82
Page 83
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 58 Image B1. Deteriorated surface presenting a trip hazard Image B2. Egress ladders covered in marine growth and with obstructing bar. Page 83
Page 84
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 59 B.2 Quayside Check: Cullen - 10 April 2025 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations PM SC 3.0 GtGP 10.19 ACOP 207-208 SIP 014 Access Is the quayside and its access locations clear of debris and obstructions? Satisfactory – The quayside was found to be generally tidy. Observation – Although generally tidy there were old loose ropes observed in some areas. Additionally, there were mooring rings (believed to be unused) fixed to the floor in walkway areas. See Image B3 and Image B3. Recommend – Loose ropes should be removed or tidied up. Consider the removal of unused mooring rings that present a trip hazard. Is the type and condition of quayside surface appropriate to the operation? Satisfactory – The condition of the quayside was generally adequate. ACOP 211-223 SIP 014 Rescue and Lifesaving equipment (LSE) at the water’s edge Is there appropriate means of egress from the water? Satisfactory – There was a mixture of recessed ladders and rope ladders provided. Is there appropriate LSE at quay edge? Satisfactory – The provision of LSE appeared adequate. SIP 005 Bollards and securing equipment Are the bollards appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – The bollards appeared appropriate to the vessels using the harbour. Are the bollards inspected? Observation – The bollards etc are not subject to Periodic Inspection as required by PUW ER Regulation 6. See Section 18 of SIP 005. Recommend – It is recommended that bollards are subject to periodic inspection by a competent person. SIP 005 Fenders Is the fendering appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – Fendering was appropriate to the harbour usage. The harbour dries out at low tides. Are chaffing plates used? Observation – Chaffing plates were not in use. Recommend – Consider if chaffing plates would be beneficial in preventing vessel breakaway due to chaffed ropes. Page 84
Page 85
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 60 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations ACOP 232-235 SIP 005 SIP 014 Lighting Is lighting appropriate and appear to be in compliance with ACOP ‘safety in docs’ and the PFSP? Observation – Due to the audit being undertaken in daylight hours it was unclear if the lighting within the harbour was adequate with regard to industry guidance. Recommend – Consider the safety of those onboard vessels using the pontoon or members of the public accessing the harbour wall with respect to lighting. W hilst the audit was conducted in daylight hours, it is recommended that M oray Council review the area during the hours of darkness to conduct a Lux test. The ACOP ‘Safety in Docks’, Section 232 to 235 references the guidance in the ‘Safety and Health in Ports’ (ILO, 2018) code of practice; stating that access routes for people, plant and vehicles, illumination levels should not be less than 10 lux. In operational areas were people and vehicles or plant are working together, the minimum level of illumination should be not less than 50 lux. ACOP 58-60 Layout Is adequate separation delineated between quayside operations? Observation – Although the Cullen Harbour is classed as recreational there is some limited use by small potting boats that have vehicular access to the quayside. As such there is no delineation between quayside activity and pedestrians, which would appear to be in contravention of The W orkplace (Health, Safety and W elfare) Regulations 1992, Section 17. Recommend – It is recommended that all vehicle and pedestrian traffic routes should be clearly marked. ACOP 82 Signage Are appropriate signs and markings in place? Satisfactory – Signage generally appeared to be adequate. Page 85
Page 86
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 61 Image B3. Loose ropes presenting a trip hazard Image B4. M ooring eye on a narrow walkway Page 86
Page 87
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 62 B.3 Quayside Check: Portknockie – 10 April 2025 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations PM SC 3.0 GtGP 10.19 ACOP 207-208 SIP 014 Access Is the quayside and its access locations clear of debris and obstructions? Satisfactory – The quayside was found to be generally tidy. Observation – Although generally tidy there were old loose ropes observed in some areas, including at the top of ladders, which presented a trip hazard. See Image B5. Recommend – Loose ropes should be removed or tidied up. Is the type and condition of quayside surface appropriate to the operation? Satisfactory – The condition of the quayside was generally adequate. There was cracking observed at one section of the quayside which M oray Council is aware of. ACOP 211-223 SIP 014 Rescue and Lifesaving equipment (LSE) at the water’s edge Is there appropriate means of egress from the water? Satisfactory – W ater egress ladders are installed in the harbour. Observation – Although there are multiple recessed ladders around the harbour most had significant marine growth which could impede some trying to exit the water. Recommend – A regular cleaning regime (i.e. with a pressure washer at low tide) should be considered. Is there appropriate LSE at quay edge? Satisfactory – The provision of LSE appeared adequate. SIP 005 Bollards and securing equipment Are the bollards appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – The bollards etc appeared appropriate to the vessels using the harbour. Are the bollards inspected? Observation – The bollards etc are not subject to Periodic Inspection as required by PUW ER Regulation 6. See Section 18 of SIP 005. Recommend – It is recommended that bollards are subject to periodic inspection by a competent person. SIP 005 Fenders Is the fendering appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – Fendering is supplied by the harbour users as necessary. Are chaffing plates used? Satisfactory – Some areas use re-purposed train track as edge protection. Page 87
Page 88
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 63 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations ACOP 232-235 SIP 005 SIP 014 Lighting Is lighting appropriate and appear to be in compliance with ACOP ‘safety in docs’ and the PFSP? Observation – Due to the audit being undertaken in daylight hours it was unclear if the lighting within the harbour was adequate with regard to industry guidance. Recommend – Consider the safety of those onboard vessels using the pontoon or members of the public accessing the harbour wall with respect to lighting. W hilst the audit was conducted in daylight hours, it is recommended that M oray Council review the area during the hours of darkness to conduct a Lux test. The ACOP ‘Safety in Docks’, Section 232 to 235 references the guidance in the ‘Safety and Health in Ports’ (ILO, 2018) code of practice; stating that access routes for people, plant and vehicles, illumination levels should not be less than 10 lux. In operational areas were people and vehicles or plant are working together, the minimum level of illumination should be not less than 50 lux. ACOP 58-60 Layout Is adequate separation delineated between quayside operations? Observation – Although Portknockie Harbour is classed as recreational there is some limited use by small potting boats that have vehicular access to the quayside. As such there is no delineation between quayside activity and pedestrians, which would appear to be in contravention of The W orkplace (Health, Safety and W elfare) Regulations 1992, Section 17. See Image B6. Recommend – It is recommended that all vehicle and pedestrian traffic routes should be clearly marked. ACOP 82 Signage Are appropriate signs and markings in place? Satisfactory – Signage generally appeared to be adequate. Page 88
Page 89
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 64 Image B5. Portknockie pontoon with loose ropes Image B6. Portknockie quayside with open access Page 89
Page 90
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 65 B.4 Quayside Check: Findochty – 10 April 2025 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations PM SC 3.0 GtGP 10.19 ACOP 207-208 SIP 014 Access Is the quayside and its access locations clear of debris and obstructions? Satisfactory – The quayside was found to be generally tidy. Observation – Although the quayside was generally tidy with fishing pots and equipment neatly stacked, open containers of liquids and oils were observed. See Image B7. Recommend – In order to prevent spills measures should be taken to prevent oils etc being stored on the quayside. This may include bunded storage areas. Is the type and condition of quayside surface appropriate to the operation? Satisfactory – The quayside and surface appeared to be in an adequate state of repair. ACOP 211-223 SIP 014 Rescue and Lifesaving equipment (LSE) at the water’s edge Is there appropriate means of egress from the water? Satisfactory – W ater egress ladders are installed in the harbour. Observation – There is a mixture of fixed recessed ladders and rope ladders. Some of the fixed ladders appeared to be in a poor state of repair and other had significant amounts of marine growth that could hinder someone attempting self-recovery from the water. See Image B8. Recommend – Ensure all ladders are inspected and serviceable. M arine growth should be periodically cleaned from ladders to ensure they are fit for use. Is there appropriate LSE at quay edge? Satisfactory – The LSE provided appeared appropriate. SIP 005 Bollards and securing equipment Are the bollards appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – The bollards etc appeared appropriate to the vessels using the harbour. Are the bollards inspected ? Observation – The bollards etc are not subject to Periodic Inspection as required by PUW ER Regulation 6. See Section 18 of SIP 005. Recommend – It is recommended that bollards are subject to periodic inspection by a competent person. SIP 005 Fenders Is the fendering appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – Fendering is supplied by the harbour users as necessary. Are chaffing plates used? Observation – Chaffing plates were not in use. Recommend – Consider if chaffing plates would be beneficial in prevent vessel breakaway due to chaffed ropes. Page 90
Page 91
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 66 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations ACOP 232-235 SIP 005 SIP 014 Lighting Is lighting appropriate and appear to be in compliance with ACOP ‘safety in docs’ and the PFSP? Observation – Due to the audit being undertaken in daylight hours it was unclear if the lighting within the harbour was adequate with regard to industry guidance. Recommend – Consider the safety of those onboard vessels using the pontoon or members of the public accessing the harbour wall with respect to lighting. W hilst the audit was conducted in daylight hours, it is recommended that M oray Council review the area during the hours of darkness to conduct a Lux test. The ACOP ‘Safety in Docks’, Section 232 to 235 references the guidance in the ‘Safety and Health in Ports’ (ILO, 2018) code of practice; stating that access routes for people, plant and vehicles, illumination levels should not be less than 10 lux. In operational areas were people and vehicles or plant are working together, the minimum level of illumination should be not less than 50 lux. ACOP 58-60 Layout Is adequate separation delineated between quayside operations? Observation – Although Findochty Harbour is classed as recreational there is use by small potting boats that have vehicular access to the quayside. As such there is no delineation between quayside activity and pedestrians, which would appear to be in contravention of The W orkplace (Health, Safety and W elfare) Regulations 1992, Section 17. Recommend – It is recommended that all vehicle and pedestrian traffic routes should be clearly marked. ACOP 82 Signage Are appropriate signs and markings in place? Satisfactory – Signage appeared adequate. Page 91
Page 92
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 67 Image B7. Open container of oil on the quayside Image B8. Findochty egress ladder in poor condition Page 92
Page 93
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 68 B.5 Quayside Check: Hopeman – 10 April 2025 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations PM SC 3.0 GtGP 10.19 ACOP 207-208 SIP 014 Access Is the quayside and its access locations clear of debris and obstructions? Satisfactory – The quayside was generally tidy with fishing pots and equipment neatly stacked, and ropes coiled. Is the type and condition of quayside surface appropriate to the operation? Satisfactory – The quayside and surface appeared to be in an adequate state of repair. See Image B9. ACOP 211-223 SIP 014 Rescue and Lifesaving equipment (LSE) at the water’s edge Is there appropriate means of egress from the water? Satisfactory – W ater egress steps and ladders are installed in the harbour. Observation – There is a mixture of fixed recessed ladders and rope ladders. Some of the fixed ladders had significant amounts of marine growth that could hinder someone attempting self-recovery from the water. Recommend – M arine growth should be periodically cleaned from ladders to ensure they are fit for use. Is there appropriate LSE at quay edge? Satisfactory – The LSE provided appeared appropriate. SIP 005 Bollards and securing equipment Are the bollards appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – The bollards etc appeared appropriate to the vessels using the harbour. Are the bollards numbered? Observation – The bollards etc are not subject to Periodic Inspection as required by PUW ER Regulation 6. See Section 18 of SIP 005. Recommend – It is recommended that bollards are subject to periodic inspection by a competent person. SIP 005 Fenders Is the fendering appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – Fendering is supplied by the harbour users as necessary. Are chaffing plates used? Observation – Chaffing plates were not in use. Recommend – Consider if chaffing plates would be beneficial in prevent vessel breakaway due to chaffed ropes. Page 93
Page 94
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 69 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations ACOP 232-235 SIP 005 SIP 014 Lighting Is lighting appropriate and appear to be in compliance with ACOP ‘safety in docs’ and the PFSP? Observation – Due to the audit being undertaken in daylight hours it was unclear if the lighting within the harbour was adequate with regard to industry guidance. Recommend – Consider the safety of those onboard vessels using the pontoon or members of the public accessing the harbour wall with respect to lighting. W hilst the audit was conducted in daylight hours, it is recommended that M oray Council review the area during the hours of darkness to conduct a Lux test. The ACOP ‘Safety in Docks’, Section 232 to 235 references the guidance in the ‘Safety and Health in Ports’ (ILO, 2018) code of practice; stating that access routes for people, plant and vehicles, illumination levels should not be less than 10 lux. In operational areas were people and vehicles or plant are working together, the minimum level of illumination should be not less than 50 lux. ACOP 58-60 Layout Is adequate separation delineated between quayside operations? Observation – Although Hopeman Harbour is classed as recreational there is use by small potting boats that have vehicular access to the quayside. As such there is no delineation between quayside activity and pedestrians, which would appear to be in contravention of The W orkplace (Health, Safety and W elfare) Regulations 1992, Section 17. See Image B10. Recommend – It is recommended that all vehicle and pedestrian traffic routes should be clearly marked. ACOP 82 Signage Are appropriate signs and markings in place? Satisfactory – Signage appeared adequate. Page 94
Page 95
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 70 Image B9. Recreational users around vessels Image B10. Quayside with open access Page 95
Page 96
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 71 B.6 Quayside Check: Burghead – 10 April 2025 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations PM SC 3.0 GtGP 10.19 ACOP 207-208 SIP 014 Access Is the quayside and its access locations clear of debris and obstructions? Satisfactory – The quayside was generally tidy with fishing nets and equipment neatly stacked, and ropes coiled. See Image B11. Is the type and condition of quayside surface appropriate to the operation? Satisfactory – The quayside and surface appeared to be in an adequate state of repair. ACOP 211-223 SIP 014 Rescue and Lifesaving equipment (LSE) at the water’s edge Is there appropriate means of egress from the water? Satisfactory – W ater egress ladders are installed in the harbour. Observation – There is a mixture of fixed recessed ladders and rope ladders. Some of the fixed ladders had significant amounts of marine growth that could hinder someone attempting self-recovery from the water. Recommend – M arine growth should be periodically cleaned from ladders to ensure they are fit for use. Is there appropriate LSE at quay edge? Satisfactory – The LSE provided appeared appropriate. SIP 005 Bollards and securing equipment Are the bollards appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – The bollards etc appeared appropriate to the vessels using the harbour. Are the bollards inspected? Observation – The bollards etc are not subject to Periodic Inspection as required by PUW ER Regulation 6. See Section 18 of SIP 005. Some appeared to be in poor condition. See Image B12. Recommend – It is recommended that bollards are subject to periodic inspection by a competent person. SIP 005 Fenders Is the fendering appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – Fendering is generally by the harbour users as necessary. Are chaffing plates used? Observation – Chaffing plates were not in use. Recommend – Consider if chaffing plates would be beneficial in prevent vessel breakaway due to chaffed ropes. Page 96
Page 97
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 72 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations ACOP 232-235 SIP 005 SIP 014 Lighting Is lighting appropriate and appear to be in compliance with ACOP ‘safety in docs’ and the PFSP? Observation – Due to the audit being undertaken in daylight hours it was unclear if the lighting within the harbour was adequate with regard to industry guidance. Recommend – Consider the safety of those onboard vessels using the pontoon or members of the public accessing the harbour wall with respect to lighting. W hilst the audit was conducted in daylight hours, it is recommended that M oray Council review the area during the hours of darkness to conduct a Lux test. The ACOP ‘Safety in Docks’, Section 232 to 235 references the guidance in the ‘Safety and Health in Ports’ (ILO, 2018) code of practice; stating that access routes for people, plant and vehicles, illumination levels should not be less than 10 lux. In operational areas were people and vehicles or plant are working together, the minimum level of illumination should be not less than 50 lux. ACOP 58-60 Layout Is adequate separation delineated between quayside operations? Observation – Burghead Harbour is primarily used by commercial vessels that have vehicular access to the quayside. As such there is no delineation between quayside activity and pedestrians, which would appear to be in contravention of The W orkplace (Health, Safety and W elfare) Regulations 1992, Section 17. Recommend – It is recommended that all vehicle and pedestrian traffic routes should be clearly marked. ACOP 82 Signage Are appropriate signs and markings in place? Satisfactory – Signage appeared adequate. Page 97
Page 98
Ports & M arine Facilities Safety Code - Designated Person Audit - 2025 M oray Council ABPmer, July 2025, R.4915 | 73 Image B11. Burghead Quayside Image B12. Bollards in poor condition Page 98
Page 99
Page 99
Page 100
Page 100
Page 101
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 1 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Appendix 2 Page 101
Page 102
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 2 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Version control template Date of Creation: January 2002 Owner (Service): Harbours Service Reviewer Head of Service: Environmental and Commercial Services Approver Executive Director: Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure Date Approved: October 2024 Approver (Committee): harbours sub committee Date Approved: Next Review Date: Version History Version Date Author Changes Made Approved By 1.0 Jan 02 C J MIDDLETON - HARBOUR SERVICE Implementation 1.1 Oct 06 C J MIDDLETON - HARBOUR SERVICE Minor revisions K STRATTON 1.2 Dec 07 C J MIDDLETON - HARBOUR SERVICE Burghead launch procedure revision K STRATTON 1.3 Feb 10 W MACKAY - HARBOUR SERVICE Update Buckie operating constraint K STRATTON 1.4 Apr 12 C J MIDDLETON - HARBOUR SERVICE General review and update K STRATTON 1.5 Oct 17 D BREMNER – HARBOUR SERVICE General review and update N MOSS 1.6 Jan 20 D BREMNER – HARBOUR SERVICE Comprehensive review and update N MOSS 1.7 Oct 24 D BREMNER – HARBOUR SERVICE General review and update N MOSS 1.8 0ct 25 P JENNINGS – HARBOUR SERVICE Update against revised PMSC HSC Page 102
Page 103
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 3 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 DISTRIBUTION LIST COPY NO HOLDER NOTE 1 Harbours Compliance Folder Shared folder 2 Duty Holder – Members of harbours sub committee Electronic copy Page 103
Page 104
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 4 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 5 CROSS REFERENCE TABLE ........................................................................................................ 5 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Purpose and Application ...................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Policy Statement .................................................................................................................. 6 1.3 Applicable Codes and Regulations .................................................................................. 6 - 8 1.4 Duties Holders - Duties, Powers and Responsibilities.......................................................... 9 1.5 Responsible Persons - Moray Harbours ........................................................................ 9 - 10 1.6 Organisation Chart ............................................................................................................. 11 1.7 Qualifications and Training ................................................................................................ 12 1.8 Document control procedures………………………….……......................................................... 13 1.9 Review and Revision .......................................................................................................... 13 2 OVERVIEW OF THE HARBOURS .............................................................................................. 14 2.1 Buckie .......................................................................................................................... 14 - 18 2.2 Burghead ..................................................................................................................... 18 - 21 2.3 Recreational Harbours ....................................................................................................... 22 2.4 Principal Hazards ................................................................................................................ 23 3 RISK MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 24 3.3 Scope .................................................................................................................................. 24 3.4 Responsibilities ................................................................................................................... 25 3.5 Procedure .................................................................................................................... 25 - 26 3.6 Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 26 3.7 Toolbox Talks ............................................................................................................... 26 - 27 3.8 Unusual/Exeptional Operations ......................................................................................... 27 3.9 Contractor Compliance………………………………....………………………………………………………………27 3.10 Generic Review Of Hazards…………………………………..………………………………………….…….27 - 28 4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 29 4.1 Relevant Emergency Response Plans ................................................................................. 29 Working in Partnership ………………………………………………………………………………………………..29 Emergency Planning in Moray ……………………………………………………………………………………..29 Oil Pollution Arrangements…………………………………………………………………………………………..29 4.2 Review and Updates .......................................................................................................... 29 4.3 Exercises and Drills ............................................................................................................. 30 5 PERFORMANCE MONITORING ............................................................................................... 31 5.1 Periodic Review and Reporting………………………………………………………………………………………31 5.2 Auditing .............................................................................................................................. 31 Page 104
Page 105
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 5 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 6 HANDLING OF DANGEROUS GOODS ……………………………………………………………………….………… 32 7 ISPS CODE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33 8 PORT WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES…………………………………………………………………………………….34 9 CONSERVANCY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...34 - 38 10 AIDS TO NAVIGATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………..39 - 40 11 PILOTAGE ARRANGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………….41 - 43 12 OTHER HARBOUR CRAFT…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………44 13 INCIDENT & NEAR MISS REPORTING ……………………………………………………………………………………45 Incident reporting Procedure Flowchart…………………………………………………………………………46 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………47 Purpose. ........................................................................................................................... 47 Scope .................................................................................................................................. 47 Responsibiliities ................................................................................................................. 48 Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 48-49 Internal Incident Reporting .......................................................................................... 49 -50 RIDDOR and other agencies ............................................................................................... 50 Record Keeping ........................................................................................................... 50 - 51 Investigations .......................................................... ……………………………………………………….51 Definitions….…………………………………………..………………………………………………………………51 -52 Incident and Near Miss Summary………………………………………………………………………………...52 14 PERMIT TO WORK ………………………………………..……………………………………………………………..53 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..53 Scope ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….53 Responsibilities …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..54 Work which requires a permit……………………………………………………………………………………..54 Work which does not noramlly require a permit………………………………………………………….55 Authorisation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………55 Planning ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………55 Identification and tracking of forms ………………………………………………………………………55 -56 Changes to permit ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….56 Validity ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..56 Suspending a permit ……………………………………………………………….………………………….……….56 Lock, tag, and try ……………………………………………………………………………………………….…56 - 57 Permit form completion ………………………………………………………………………………………………57 Copy of a permit ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….58 15 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES………………………………………………………………………………………………….59 APPENDICES A PASSAGE PLANNING………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…60 1 Buckie ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………60 2 Burghead ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….60 B MORAY COUNCIL PROCEDURES……….……..………………..……………………………………….……......61 C MORAY COUNCIL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICY…………………………………………………..….62 - 63 D HARBOURS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY……………………………………………………………………………64 E DRONE POLICY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….65 F EMERGENCY CONTACT DETAILS……….……..…………………………………………………………………….66 G HANDLING OF DANGEROUS GOODS ……………………………………………………………………………..67 H COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………….68 Page 105
Page 106
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 6 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Cross reference table Port Marine Safety Code- section name PMSC – Subject Heading PMSC Paragraph Reference Moray Council SMS Document Reference Background Harbour Authority MC HSMS 1. Accountability for marine safety Accountability 1.1-.2 MC HSMS Duties and powers 1.3-1.5 MC HSMS The Duty Holder 1.6-1.10 MC HSMS page 9 The Designated Person 1.11-1.12 MC HSMS Chief Executive or equivalent 1.13 MC HSMS Harbour Master 1.14 -1.15 MC HSMS The authorities officers 1.16 -1.17 MC HSMS 2. Key measures to secure marine safety Key measures 2.1-2.2 MC HSMS Review existing powers 2.3-2.6 MC HSMS Use formal risk assessment 2.7-2.11 MC HSMS Implement a marine safety management system 2.12-2.17 MC HSMS Competence standards 2.18 MC HSMS Incident reporting and investigation 2.19-2.23 MC HSMS Monitoring performance and auditing 2.24 MC HSMS Enforcement 2.25 MC HSMS Publication of plans and reports 2.26 MC HSMS Consensus 2.29 MC HSMS Monitoring compliance 2.30-2.31 MC HSMS 3. General Duties and Powers General duties and powers 3.1-3.3 MC HSMS Safe and efficient port marine operations 3.4 MC HSMS Open port duty 3.5 MC HSMS Conservancy duty 3.6-3.7 MC HSMS Environmental duty 3.8 MC HSMS Civil contingencies duty 3.9 MC HSMS Harbour authority powers 3.10-3.11 MC HSMS Revising duties and powers 3.12-3.14 MC HSMS 4. Specific Duties and Powers Specific duties and powers 4.1 MC HSMS Appointment of harbour master 4.2 MC HSMS Byelaws 4.3-4.4 MC HSMS Directions (special) 4.6-4.7 MC HSMS Directions (general) 4.8-4.9 MC HSMS Dangerous vessel directions 4.10 MC HSMS Pilotage and pilotage directions 4.11-4.12 MC HSMS Authorisations of pilots 4.13-4.14 MC HSMS Pilot exemption certificates 4.15-4.16 MC HSMS Collecting dues 4.17-4.20 MC HSMS Aids to navigation 4.21-4.24 MC HSMS Wrecks and abandoned vessels 4.25-4.32 MC HSMS Page 106
Page 107
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 7 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Application This document demonstrates Moray Council’s commitment to operate its Harbours in a safe and environmentally sound manner to the benefit of staff, vessels and their crews, users and the community at large. It endeavours to reduce risks arising from the day to day operations to a level as low as reasonably practicable and gives guidance to staff and others involved in operations on best practice to achieve safe and efficient use of the Harbours, their approaches and environs. It applies variously to all persons, vessels and craft using, providing services to or otherwise involved with commercial activities on waterways within the various harbour limits. It applies to the all areas and quaysides within the harbour limits, defined in the Byelaws and as shown in the Directory of North-East Council Harbours and to other areas over which Moray Council, as the harbour authority, may have jurisdiction from time to time. 1.2 Policy Statement Moray Council recognises its continuing responsibility to provide a healthy and safe working environment and maintain the conservancy of the harbours. Hence, they implement policies in line with provisions of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Department for Transport (DfT) Port Marine Safety Code, 2016. Moray Council will: • Carry out harbour and associated marine operations, in a manner which minimises effects on the environment and the community and which protects the safety and health of: employees; users; others with business in the harbour areas; the general public; • Operate wherever practical to at least the standards required by law and regulation whilst meeting the changing needs of marine users. • Maximise the quality and value for money of its services • Ensure that employees perform their duties in a manner consistent with these principles and recognise, that the duty holder is ultimately responsible for meeting the standard the code requires. 1.3 Applicable Codes and Regulations Below is a summary of the more relevant legislation. Individual documents should be consulted for detailed requirements and obligations. 1.3.1 Port Marine Safety Code The Port Marine Safety Code 2016 sets standards for the operation of UK Ports. It codifies Duties and Responsibilities of harbour authorities and requires that ports be operated on the basis of Risk Assessment and a Safety Management System. The PMSC is complimentary to Health & Safety legislation discussed below. In broad terms, the interface is at the quayside. Page 107
Page 108
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 8 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Harbour operations should meet the standards of the associated Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations – Prepared in Conjunction with The Port Marine Safety Code, issued February 2018. 1.3.2 Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) and Regulations. The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and other health & safety legislation applies to dock operations including the loading and unloading of UK and foreign flag vessels at UK ports and to the handling of dangerous substances in ports and harbours. It does not apply to normal shipboard activities carried out by the master and crew of vessels but does form an interface with the Merchant Shipping (Health and Safety at Work) regs 1997. Port users including fishermen and fish sellers have a responsibility to comply. Harbour staff must abide by its provisions. 1.3.3 Pilotage Act 1987 This legislation addresses Competent Harbour Authorities, Pilotage Districts and other pilotage arrangements. It facilitates overall administration of the pilotage service at Buckie although Moray is a Competent Harbour Authority within the meaning of the Act 1.3.4 Docks Regulations 1988 and Approved Code of Practice Specific to quayside work, generally the responsibility of the port users. Harbour staff have an oversight duty to ensure safe practices within the Harbour Area and should have a general knowledge of the regulations. 1.3.5 International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) 2004 Applies to commercial harbours handling vessels on international voyages, in the case of Moray Harbours, to Buckie only. Requires an approved Security Plan, appointment of Port Facility Security Officers, arrival reports on security status and control of access to international vessels. Buckie complies in these respects. 1.3.6 Port Waste Facilities Management Regulations 2003 Requires the reporting and recording of the landing of waste by ships and the provision of appropriate facilities by harbour authorities. The purpose is to eradicate the dumping of waste at sea. 1.3.7 Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Conformation Act (1987) and Grampian Regional Council Harbour Byelaws (1990) The Grampian Regional (Harbours) Order Conformation Act is the legal document under which the harbours are run. The purpose of the order is to allow for better provision for the administration, improvement and regulation of the 6 Moray harbours. It also allows the harbours to create byelaws to further aid these goals. Page 108
Page 109
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 9 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 1.3.8 Other Legislation The authority has obligations under the following legislation, some of which include express planning duties: ▪ Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 ▪ Dangerous Goods in Harbour Areas Regulations 2016 ▪ Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations ▪ Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness Response & Cooperation Convention) Regulations 1998 ▪ Merchant Shipping Act 1995 ▪ Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996 ▪ Dangerous Vessels Act 1985 ▪ SOSREP – Sections 151 and 293 of MS Act 1995 and as amended by MS and Maritime Security Act 1997 ▪ Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods & Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990 ▪ Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1998 ▪ Merchant Shipping (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 1997 ▪ Aviation & Maritime Security Act 1990 ▪ Civil Contingencies Act 2004. A full list of relevant legislation is appended to the Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations. 1.3.9 Consultation Process Moray Council Harbour Authority’s Safety Management System has been developed through a combination of the harbour teams experience and most importantly through risk assessment and consultation. Consultation is an ongoing process which is principally achieved through the Harbour User Groups (HUGs). HUGs are established for each of the harbours to provide the Authority with a ready means for consulting with users and the local community. The committees meet approximately 2 times a year at intervals chosen by the committee. Membership is drawn from users, various clubs associated with the harbour and community councils. Each Harbour User Group has its own constitution. The following groups and organisations are involved with the HUG. • Moray Council Harbour Team • Shipping Companies • Shipping Agents • Stevedoring Services • Fishing industry • Fish Selling Agents • Forsyths, smaller manufacturing companies and other relevant commercial enterprises • Macduff Shipyard and other marine services • Recreational Users • 3 Harbour Associations • Findochty Water Sports Club Page 109
Page 110
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 10 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Updates are given on various projects, and views sought on a variety of topics. This gives the harbour team an opportunity to consult harbour users on a range of subjects, including aspects of this SMS. Some subjects require more detailed harbour user input. On these occasions, email or post is used to consult all harbour users. The Harbours Team remain in contact with the emergency services i.e. Police Scotland, RNLI, Coastguard (please refer to contents lists on page at the rear of this document) 1.4 Duty Holders – Duties, Powers and Responsibilities The Port Marine Safety Code defines the Duty Holder for a harbour authority as the Board of Management. In the case of local authority harbours the “Board” is the responsible council committee (See Organisational Chart). In the case of Moray Council the position of Duty Holder is the harbours sub committee (HSC). They remain publicly accountable for the proper operation of the harbour(s). Harbour authorities may entrust the operation of the harbour to professional people but board members are accountable and may not abdicate that accountability on the grounds that they do not have particular skills. They retain strategic oversight and direction of all aspects of harbour operations. They must ensure that powers are discharged but not exceeded. Duties of a harbour authority include: ▪ To take reasonable care that, so long as the harbours are open for public use, that all who choose to navigate them may do so without danger to their lives or property; ▪ An obligation to conserve and facilitate the safe use of the harbours and a duty of care against loss caused by the authority’s negligence. ▪ Developing policies, plans, systems and procedures for safe navigation ▪ Ensures assessments and reviews are undertaken to maintain and improve marine safety. ▪ Ensure that the Harbour Authority seeks and adopts appropriate powers for the effective enforcement of their regulations and for setting dues at a level which adequately resources the discharge of all their duties, including conservancy. ▪ Approves and monitors the Marine Safety Plan. The authority has the power to appoint Harbourmasters who in turn have powers to direct the operations of the ports so that they are carried out safely. They may also authorise pilots. Board members will make the time to gain an appropriate insight and understanding of the port’s marine activities, marine safety management system and supporting systems. The duties and responsibilities of harbour authorities are set out more fully in the Port Marine Safety Code. 1.5 Responsible Persons – Moray Harbours 1.5.1 Duty Holder Page 110
Page 111
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 11 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 The harbours sub committee (HSC) of Moray Council is the Duty Holder and makes up the Harbour Board. The Duty Holder will ensure: They are correctly trained to fulfil their role. They are sufficiently familiar with the harbours to make strategic decisions concerning financing, resourcing and strategic planning. The Harbours Service has sufficient resource to manage the legal duty to maintain the Conservancy of the Harbours. The Harbour Master has sufficient resource to ensure the harbours are operated in a navigationally safe manner, maintaining marine safety, including the delegation of the powers of Special Direction. They approve the Marine Safety Management System They approve the Marine Safety Plan, monitoring progress and reporting against the plan. They approve the appointment of pilots. They approve enforcement action. 1.5.2 Head of Operations and Environment The Head of Operations and Environment is responsible and accountable to the board for operational and financial control of the harbour authority. They advise the board on their powers and duties with input from the Harbours Manager, Harbourmaster and other officers; they oversee implementation of policy and decisions, has executive responsibility for safety of operations and staffing, oversees recruitment and training. The Head of Operations and Environment can set additional commercial rates for the harbours, without recourse to the Duty Holder to ensure operational flexibility. 1.5.3 Service Manager, Harbours The Service Manager, Harbours reports to the Head of Operations and Environment on strategic harbour matters. They conduct the internal auditing of the harbours with respect to Port Marine Safety Code compliance and the reporting of KPIs against the Marine Safety Plan. They provide, internal, specialist marine advise to the Duty Holder. They liaise with the community, business and harbour users to develop and promote both the Marine Safety Plan and the Harbour Business Plan for the harbours, to maximise the potential for the council and benefit to the community. The Service Manager, Harbours provides line management and support to the Harbour Master. 1.5.4 Harbourmaster The Harbourmaster is appointed by the Duty Holder to be responsible for the operational aspects of the harbours, they are responsible for the safety of navigation in the various harbours and for exercising the authority’s delegated powers in the ports and their approaches. Individually and via any staff, they are responsible for implementing powers of direction both general and local. The Harbourmaster: Page 111
Page 112
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 12 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 • Has powers of direction to regulate the time and manner of ships entry to, departure from and movement within the harbour waters, and related marine safety purposes. • Ensures co-ordination and regulation of all vessels within the harbour and its approaches. They are also responsible for developing and implementing emergency plans and procedures, for regulating dangerous goods in transit on ships and for counter-pollution and waste disposal plans. • Has overall responsibility for the provision and maintenance of aids to navigation. • Ensures harbour uses are aware of directions and regulations, including temporary safety measures. • Has overall responsibility for the inspection, defect reporting and routine maintenance of infrastructure for conservancy. Has overall responsibility for the training of pilots and the conduct of safe pilotage. • Has overall responsibility of the training and competence of harbour staff in accordance with the training matrix. The Harbourmaster is based at Buckie and is responsible for the commercial, operational and safety management of all 6 Moray harbours. There are two Assistant Harbourmasters – one who deals with the leisure harbours and one who is focussed on the commercial harbours of Buckie and Burghead. The Assistant Harbour Masters cover for the Harbour Master when he is away. The Harbourmaster supervises the harbour staff and reports to the Service Manager, Harbours upon the status of operational harbour matters. 1.5.5 Designated Person The Harbour Authority appoints a suitably qualified person to act as the Designated Person. This person’s function is to provide the Duty Holder with independent assurance that the Harbour Safety Management System is working effectively and to audit compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code. The Designated Person is appointed by the Head of Environmental & Commercial Services. They report periodically on the operation of the SMS to the Head of Environmental & Commercial Services and thence to harbours sub committee (HSC). This role is currently fulfilled by ABPmer. The Chair of the HSC and the Head of Operation and Environment are the DPs dedicated point of contact. Page 112
Page 113
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 13 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 1.6 Organisation Chart Page 113
Page 114
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 14 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 1.7 Qualifications and Training The Moray Council maintains qualifications and training standards appropriate to the duties and responsibilities of all personnel. In the case of the Harbourmasters and harbour staff, these include appropriate marine qualifications and experience. The Harbourmaster, Harbours Development and Operations Manager and Transportation Manager will set out the required training. In house training is completed on subjects such as the Mooring Manual or emergency response. There is also a training package for pilots and coxswains to complete which is in line with the training the National Occupational Standards and The Embarkation and Disembarkation of Pilots Code of Safe Practice 2017. An electronic personnel training file is maintained at the Harbour Office for each person and with the HR department in Elgin. Further training required will be scheduled or booked for the person. Page 114
Page 115
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 15 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 HARBOUR STAFF TRAINING REQUIREMENTS Staff PFSO Oil Spill Response lvl 1 First Aid Seagoing VHF Radio Risk Assess’t & Safety Aware’s Working in or near Water Manual Handling HM - Buckie X X X X X X X Assistant HM – Commercial X X X X X X X Assistant HM – Leisure X X X X X X X Harbour Assistant - Buckie X X X X X In addition, if in a sea going role,all harbour operational staff must have a valid ENG1 (medical fitness certificate). Page 115
Page 116
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 16 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 1.8 Document Control Procedures The Harbours Development and Operations Manager will issue numbered, controlled copies of this document to essential users as listed on page 2. They will initiate any required amendments to this document and issue these amendments to registered holders. Any uncontrolled copies are only valid at time of issue for a specific operation. Holders should check with the local Harbourmaster to obtain updates. 1.9 Review and Revision This document will be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure it remains current. An interim review will take place if there has been a significant change to operating parameters, legislation or other matters addressed in the document. The document will be reviewed yearly. The Harbours Manager is responsible for initiating and implementing reviews. Page 116
Page 117
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 17 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 2 OVERVIEW OF THE HARBOURS 2.1 Buckie 2.1.1 Location and Layout The Harbour is in position 56º 41’N, 02º 57’W, on the southern shore of the Moray Firth. It contains 4 basins with quays. Normally, vessels up to 87 metres LOA and 15 metres beam can be handled. The basins are protected by the North Pier and a narrow NW-facing entrance. No1 Basin and the North Pier are used for cargo vessels loading/discharging bulk cargoes and fabricated items, Basins 2 & 3 for fishing vessels and the Buckie Shipyard is in Basin No 4. Recreational craft and recreational fishing vessels are normally berthed in Basins 3 or 4. 2.1.2 Operating Constraints Principal operating constraints are: ▪ Maximum LOA 90 metres ▪ Maximum beam 15 metres ▪ Maximum draft 4.5 metres (5.0 m on bigger tides to be discussed with the Harbourmaster and subject to risk assessment) GREEN AMBER RED Vessels 0 ≥ 70 metres LOA Vessels 70 -80 metres LOA Vessels ≥ 80 metres LOA • Max draft 4.5 metres • Max beam 15 metres • Max draft 4.5 Metres • Max beam 15 Metres • Must have operational bow thruster • Max draft 4.5 Metres • Max beam 15 Metres • Operational Bow thruster • Wind strength ≤ Force 4 • Entry prohibited if significant sea/swell from north or north- east • Visibility at least 1 mile • Minimum 72 hours’ notice of arrival to sufficiently clear No 1 Basin of other vessels NOTE: In Northerly winds of force 5 or greater and/or in visibility less than 0.5 NM, the harbour is likely to be closed at Harbourmasters discretion. Vessels which do not meet the above parameters will be subject to prior Risk Assessment involving Harbourmaster/Pilot and Master. Constraints may include limitations on manoeuvring timings relative to tide and daylight hour movements. Page 117
Page 118
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 18 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Vessels of exceptional size, configuration or draft, bound to or from the shipyard are subject to an Unusual Event Risk Assessment. Vessels with high windage deck loads or other characteristics which adversely affect manoeuvrability are also subject to Unusual Event Risk Assessment. In all cases, the Harbourmaster should be consulted. 2.1.3 Port Control Vessels entering and leaving Buckie are controlled by VHF radio – Ch 16 calling, Ch 12 working. Approaching vessels have priority over those departing. The harbour office and VHF radio are manned 24 hours per day. The duty Watchman carries a portable radio when temporarily away from the harbour office to allow communication with vessels moving in the harbour. Vessels departing or moving through the harbour will get permission from port control before letting go of any ropes. Port closure due to bad weather is signalled by three vertical red lights at the entrance. 2.1.4 Port Limits Port limits are specified in the Schedule to Grampian Regional Council Harbours Byelaws 1990 and the Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Conformation Act 1987. In broad terms harbour limits extend approximately 1,000 metres north, west and east of the harbour entrance. 2.1.5 Approaches The approach to Buckie Harbour is relatively open from the north-west until passing The Mucks – rocky shoals about 0.25 nautical miles north of the entrance. The approach is covered by the white sector of the shore light. This, in line with the Occ (occulting) R (Red) Pierhead light provides a clearing line of 125º/305º, west of The Mucks. West Muck is marked by a light beacon. Buckie pilots recommend using the FR (Fixed Red) and Occ R lights on the North Pier as a lead. Red and green lights mark the extremities of the piers in the entrance. 2.1.6 Anchorages There is an anchorage, for vessels able to use Buckie, one nautical mile North West of the harbour entrance, clear of The Mucks, in depths of > 10 metres. Harbourmaster’s advice should be taken before anchoring. The anchorage is not recommended in northerly gales. 2.1.7 Pilotage Buckie offers a pilotage service on demand, although it is not compulsory for any class of vessel. There are authorised pilots.. Commercial vessels should request a pilot at least 72 hours prior to arrival and departure, if unfamiliar with the port. The high speed pilot Boat allows boarding seaward of The Mucks. The normal boarding area is about one nautical mile north-north-west of the harbour entrance Page 118
Page 119
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 19 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 The Boat is crewed by harbour staff. 2.1.8 Controlling Depths and Drafts A minimum keel clearance of 1 metre in the channel is recommended, subject to weather. The minimum depth below datum in the entrance channel is normally maintained at about 3 metres. A depth of some 3.0 metres below datum is available in basins 1 2 and 3. In basin No 4 the entrance depth of 2.0 metres shelves towards the shipyard slipways. Rise of tide varies between 3.2 metres at Neaps and 4.4 metres at Springs. The controlling depth is over the bank at the entrance. Vessels up to 4.5 metres draft can be handled on all tides; up to 5 metres draft on larger tides subject to risk assessment, if in doubt ask the Harbourmaster or staff for advice. Throughout the harbour vessels deeper than 2.5 – 3 metres take the ground at Low Water. Deep drafted vessels bound for the shipyard are subject to special arrangements and agreement between the Harbourmaster and Macduff Shipyards management. In case of disagreement, the Harbourmaster’s view prevails. The harbour entrance and bed are soft but silt up regularly. Debris can be a problem, particularly abandoned/lost tyres and various plastics (bottles, bags etc.). The pilot Boat carries out regular surveys. For all vessels with draft greater than 4.0 metres, the tide tables and latest channel survey must be checked by harbour staff. Draft of deep drafted vessels sailing from the harbour must be checked by harbour staff to confirm sufficient depth of water in the channel at time of exit. Vessels with draft deeper than about 2.5 metres in the harbour, take the ground at low water. 2.1.9 Traffic and Trade 2.1.9.1 Commercial Traffic Approximately 50 cargo vessels per year are handled at Buckie. Cargoes include bulk products, specialised loadouts of large or heavy items fabricated locally and occasional shipments of timber. Basin No 1 is generally kept clear for cargo vessels. A variety of fishing boats, tugs, ferries and workboats are built and/or repaired at the Macduff Shipyards buildings at the east end of the harbour. Boats are lifted on one of 3 purpose built boat lifters/slip ways and transferred to the work areas Buckie harbour is operated as a temporary storage facility complying with the relevant UK government requirements. The port utilises MCA approved software to monitor track and authorise movements of cargo in compliance with the UK customs and Border force requirements. Shipping agents should liaise with Harbourmaster to ensure all relevant documentation is completed prior to vessels departing port of origin before passage to Buckie. Page 119
Page 120
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 20 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 2.1.9.2 Fishing Vessels There are a number of fishing vessels over 10m which operate from Buckie year-round - although the number varies, it is on average 10 vessels. There are a smaller number of creel boats. 2.1.9.3 Recreational Craft A small number of recreational craft are based at Buckie including small passenger vessels. 30 – 60 passing yachts call at the harbour annually. Recreational craft and the creel boats are normally berthed in Basin No 4. An RNLI lifeboat is based in basin 4 at Buckie Harbour. The RNLI have provided the harbour with a pager, this allows the harbours team time to prepare for anything that may be required. The RNLI follow all the same procedures for entry/exit from the harbour as all other vessels, however, their movements will take priority. 2.1.10 Tides Rise of tide above datum is approx 4.4 metres at Springs and 3.2 metres at Neaps. This allows vessels up to 5.0 metres draft and exceptionally 6.0 metres to be handled. Deep vessels take the ground at low tide. Tidal heights are observed on the tide gauge and stonework of the North Pier. 2.1.11 Currents Tidal streams along the Moray coast run generally east-west and do not exceed 0.6 knots. Currents are not significant when navigating into or out of Buckie. 2.1.11.1 Wind and Wave Northerly gales and resultant swell make the entrance difficult and larger vessels are restricted in those conditions. Buckie is closed to vessels > 80 metres LOA in winds over Force 4 and/or heavy swell from northerly or north-easterly directions. It is closed to all vessels in winds over Force 5. Three vertical red lights indicate that the port is closed. 2.1.11.2 Visibility When visibility is or is forecast between 1.0 and 0.5 NM, Pilot/Duty Harbourmaster and vessel Master will review whether it is safe for a commercial vessel to enter or leave harbour. The Harbourmaster’s view will prevail in case of disagreement. Entry/departure is not recommended in poor visibility unless vessel has operating radar with short range settings. If visibility reduces to < 0.5 NM, movements in and out of the Buckie harbour is not recommended except for fishing vessels and recreational craft with good local knowledge. If Page 120
Page 121
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 21 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 visibility falls below 50 metres, movements in/out and within either Buckie or Burghead harbours, is not recommended. 2.1.11.3 Ice Icing may occur within the harbour in extreme conditions, particularly in Basin No 4. It may cause problems for small craft. 2.1.11.4 Environmental factors and SSSIs The entire Moray Coast is an environmentally sensitive area including: Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), SSSIs and Special Protection Areas (SPA). This is due to the resident and visiting cetacean populations and a number of visiting and resident birds of European Importance. The sensitive areas are covered in detail in the Moray Coastal Pollution Plan. 2.1.12 Navigation Aids Following aids are in use: • Light beacon on West Mucks rocks, north of the harbour • Sector light behind the harbour which, in line with pier head occulting red light provides a clearing line 125º/305º west of The Mucks; green sector marks the rocks to the west of the entrance • Fixed red and green lights marks the extremities of the piers at the entrance. Further information is in Section 10 (Aids to Navigation). The navigation aids are maintained by Moray Council staff. West Mucks light beacon is solar powered and the remainder by mains power. All the aids conform with the criteria in the NLB document “Instructions on the Provision and Maintenance of Aids to Navigation”. 2.1.13 Deficient Vessels Based on Incident & Near Miss Reports the Harbourmasters keep a record in their logbooks of vessels which, due to deficient performance, crewing or equipment increase the hazards of the port or are otherwise unsuitable. The harbourmasters will take appropriate steps to restrict the operations of such vessels pending modifications or improvements. Actions taken will be recorded in the logbook. The Harbourmasters have powers to issue Special Directions in respect of specific vessels or groups of vessels restricting their activities or requiring special provisions whenever such vessels use the ports. Such Directions may include lightening, restrictions to daylight or certain states of wind and/or tide – in extreme cases prohibition from the port. 2.2 Burghead 2.2.11 Location and Layout Burghead Harbour is located at 57º 42’ N, 03º 29’ W on the southern shore of the Moray Firth. The entrance faces SSW and is exposed to SW winds. Page 121
Page 122
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 22 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 The harbour consists of: ▪ the entrance some 18 metres wide ▪ a spend and turning basin ▪ an inner basin, some 200 metres long with quays either side with widths varying between 40 and 24 metres. 2.2.12 Operating Constraints Draft is the principal constraint, although beam and length are also relevant, on which the Harbourmaster should be consulted. Draft is limited to the rise of tide less an allowance depending upon the size of the vessel. Rise of tide is some 3.3 metres at high water Neaps and 4.4 metres at Springs. The entrance channel is subject to silting depending on the weather and season. There is a channel suitable for fishing and recreational vessels with a minimum depth at about chart datum along the North Pier. Maximum draft of about 3.8 metres can be accepted at Spring tides and 2.7 metres at Neaps. Any larger vessel movements should be planned on the basis of rise of tide less 0.6 metres, in consultation with the Harbourmaster. Depths between chart datum and 0.6 metres below datum are available in the Inner Basin. Deeper vessels take the ground at low water. The Harbourmaster at Buckie should be consulted for available depths. 2.2.13 Port Control There is no port control at Burghead, vessel operators make their own weather decisions based upon local knowledge. When larger vessels use the port they should contact the Harbourmaster at Buckie by telephone to discuss the operation. Apart from such larger vessels, whose arrival is planned in advance, there is no active control over navigation into and within the harbour. The Harbourmaster visits the harbour daily and maintains contact with users, allocating berths, dealing with any queries or problems which occur. Berths are arranged for regular vessels according to needs, priorities and availability. Space is normally available for visiting yachts, berth usage by recreational vessels is policed as necessary. 2.2.14 Port Limits Port limits are specified in the Schedule to Grampian Regional Council Harbours Byelaws 1990 and the Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Conformation Act 1987. In broad terms harbour limits extend approximately 500 metres south, west and north of the harbour entrance. 2.2.15 Approaches Approach is from west-north-westerly directions towards the beacon passing close south of the pier head where the harbour entrance opens. From here, depths shoal rapidly eastwards to where they dry out. The actual alignment of the channel varies with silting, recent weather and the season. Local advice should be sought if depths are critical. Once past the North Pier beacon, the channel remains close to the pier and through the narrow entrance. A 90º turn is required on entering the spend basin. Page 122
Page 123
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 23 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 2.2.16 Anchorages Anchorage in depths > 10 metres is available 0.5 to 1.0 miles West of the pier head. Holding ground is good. The anchorage is used principally by vessels which are bound elsewhere than Burghead. It not recommended when gales from between west and north are forecast. 2.2.17 Pilotage at Burghead There is no Pilotage available for vessels entering Burghead. The Harbourmaster is based at Buckie Harbour, they will give advice on harbour entry and exit by radio or telephone if requested. 2.2.18 Controlling Depths and Drafts Depth in the entrance is maintained to about chart datum. Rise of tide is between 3.3 metres at high water Neaps and 4.4 metres at Springs. Hence the controlling depth is the rise of tide plus an allowance to give a bottom clearance in the entrance of at least 0.6 metres. Lesser clearances can be accepted for small vessels. Within the basin depths between chart datum and 0.6 metres below datum are generally available. Deeper vessels take the ground – soft silt, at low water. In all cases, for advice on available depths, the Harbourmaster should be consulted. 2.2.19 Traffic and Trade 2.2.19.1 Commercial Traffic There is no commercial trade to Burghead, the last cargo vessel having called in September 1999. 2.2.19.2 Fishing Vessels Up to 30 fishing vessels operate from Burghead year round and this increases during the summer. They catch prawns primarily but often move to squid during the summer and land locally. The authority prioritises facilities for fishing vessels. There are other suitable harbours nearby which offer extensive facilities for recreational craft. 2.2.19.3 Recreational Craft There are about 15 locally based boats: part-time creel boats, yachts and launches. A variety of recreational craft use the harbour including about 30 visiting yachts per year. 2.2.20 Environmental Factors 2.2.20.1 Tides Rise of tide varies between 3.3 metres at Neaps and 4.4 at Springs. Painted boards form a tide gauge within the harbour. Page 123
Page 124
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 24 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 2.2.20.2 Currents Tidal streams along the Moray Coast generally run east-west and do not exceed 0.6 knots at Springs. Tidal currents are not a significant factor in operation of the port. 2.2.20.3 Wind and Wave The entrance to Burghead faces just west of south and hence is sheltered from northerly winds. South-westerly gales affect the entrance. Northerly swells are refracted into the entrance and cause difficult surges in the spend basin. Sustained northerly gales are common in certain seasons. At Burghead there are no fixed parameters. In the case of larger vessels, a decision is made based upon judgement of conditions at the time. Local fishermen are aware of the weather induced hazards. 2.2.20.4 Visibility Poor visibility occurs from time to time caused by fog (frontal & radiation), rain and snow blizzards. 2.2.20.5 Ice Due to its location, icing is rare at Burghead. 2.2.20.6 SSSIs The entire Moray Coast is an environmentally sensitive area including: Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), SSSIs and Special Protection Areas (SPA). This is due to the resident and visiting cetacean populations and a number of visiting and resident birds of European Importance. The sensitive areas are covered in detail in the Moray Coastal Pollution Plan. 2.2.21 Navigation Aids An occulting white light is located at the south-western corner of the North Pier. Red and green lights mark the extremities of the North and South piers respectively either side of the entrance channel. The beacon on the southern extremity of the groyne on the east side of the channel is marked by a flashing green light. Further information is in Section 10 (Aids to Navigation). The Aids to Navigation are maintained by Moray Council staff. All the aids conform with the criteria in the NLB document “Instructions on the Provision and Maintenance of Aids to Navigation”. 2.3 Recreational Harbours Page 124
Page 125
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 25 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 These are at Hopeman, Findochty, Portknockie and Cullen. There is no active management of vessel movements. There is heavy demand for recreational craft berths, with waiting lists for all harbours. The current waiting list can be found on the harbour noticeboard and in the Harbours section of Moray Council website. Port Limits are established per the Schedule to Grampian Regional Council Harbours Byelaws 1990 and the Grampian regional Council (Harbours) Order conformation Act 1987. No pilotage service is offered at the recreational ports but the Buckie Harbourmasters will arrange for advice if requested. Hopeman is used by over 100 craft including part time creel boats, yachts and launches. A sailing school is established there. The entrance is exposed to the north-west and much of the harbour dries out at low water. Depths of at least 2 metres are available at high water and the target depth in the channel when dredged is about one metre above chart datum. Swell dissipates in the outer spend basin. The inner basin contains about 50 pontoon berths and 60 wall berths, the harbour is well sheltered. Vessels arrive and leave at will when there is sufficient water. Leading lights can be seen lining up the harbour entrance. The Harbourmaster maintains contact with the regular users. Hopeman is managed from Buckie Harbour Office Findochty is a busy recreational harbour managed from Buckie. The outer basin absorbs the swells. The Middle Pier protects the inner basin which includes pontoons, forming a marina. Almost 100 recreational craft are based there and more call there each year. A few creel boats are based at Findochty. Regattas sometimes occur in the summer months and are planned in advance. Findochty Water Sports Club (FWSC) is based at the harbour and operates 2 rowing boats which are launched several times a week and nearly always at the weekend, they enter and exit the harbour frequently during that time. Most of the harbour dries out at low water. There is no active management of navigation and the generally small vessels enter and leave at will, subject to weather conditions and available water. There are numerous rocky shoals in the approach from the north and the entrance is exposed to gales and swell from the north and west quarters. Leading lights can be seen lining up the harbour entrance. The Harbourmaster maintains regular local contacts. Findochty is managed from Buckie Harbour Office. Portknockie is also exposed to the north-west, although the entrance is more sheltered. 3 pontoons are installed in the inner basin. A number of yachts, launches and part time creel boats(around 50) are based locally. Most of the harbour dries out at low water. Vessels enter and leave at will, subject to depths and weather. Leading lights can be seen lining up the route past the breakwater, when past the breakwater a 90° turn is made to Port for the harbour entrance. The Harbourmaster maintains regular local contacts. Portknockie is managed from Buckie Harbour Office. The entrance to Cullen harbour faces west but the bay is exposed to northerly gales and swell. The outer spend basin contains little more than a beach and some quay space. The inner basin contains a pontoon for recreational craft. Almost 30 yachts, small pleasure boats and part time creel boats are based at Cullen and moor in the inner basin. Most of the northerly swell dissipates but some enters the inner basin. Most of the entrance and harbour dry out at low water. Vessels enter and leave at will according to draft and weather. Cullen Sea School is operated from a building behind the harbour and part of the activities they offer is going out in Page 125
Page 126
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 26 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 the rowing boat, using their paddle boards and kayaks. The rowing boat is launched regularly, usually at the weekend, and enters and exits the harbour frequently during that time but can be launched at any time if they want. A single sector navigation light opens up as the entrance to the harbour becomes visible. The Harbourmaster maintains regular local contacts. Cullen is managed from Buckie Harbour Office. 2.4 Principal Hazards The principal hazards of the Moray Harbours are their exposure to northerly winds, sea and swell and the resultant difficulties in entering the harbours. The approach to some of the harbours is made more hazardous by physical features such as rocky shoals in the approach and narrow, shallow entrances. On fine days there is considerable small craft activity at the recreational harbours. With visibility partially obscured by the piers, there are risks of collision between small craft, but the consequences are likely to be minor. Jumping into the harbours from the piers remains a popular local pastime, despite the risks. One fatality occurred at Findochty in 2009. Collision between small craft and swimmers is reasonably foreseeable and the consequences could be serious however, maintaining a sensible slow speed while transiting through the harbours will minimise the risk Hence the principal risks are: ▪ Commercial or fishing vessels grounding or foundering whilst trying to enter the harbours in bad weather; ▪ Small craft grounding or foundering whilst trying to enter a harbour in bad weather with the potential for loss of life; ▪ Collisions between small craft in the approaches or within the recreational harbours; ▪ Persons jumping into the harbours and misjudging either the depth or their trajectory; ▪ Personal injury due to a small craft running down a swimmer. These are reviewed generically in Section 3.10 Page 126
Page 127
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 27 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 3 RISK MANAGEMENT Risk management is carried out integrally with the council's wider SMS, but is always done with due regard to the specific hazards and risks of the marine environment. Moray Council as harbour authority is committed to promoting a positive safety culture and managing a safe operating environment. Health and Safety Policy Statement The following paragraphs set out the council's approach to risk assessment and risk management, tailored for the marine environment. 1. Introduction Risk assessment is the basis on which you decide how you will act in any given situation. Hazards and risks are present in all walks of life. At work, we now have a specific duty to define the hazards to which people are exposed and assess the risks they pose. We do this taking into account any legal requirements, which relate to the hazards in question. 2. Purpose 2.1 To define how we handle our risk assessment duties under various pieces of legislation. 3. Scope 3.1 All known hazards to Health and Safety created by or during our operations or those of other people, both to our own employees and to other people. 4. Responsibilities 4.1 -- Managers - Ensure that risk assessments are carried out and that action is taken to eliminate or control significant risks. Also to review the assessments as necessary. 4.2 Risk Assessors - Will carry out the risk assessments to the best of their abilities. 4.3 All Employees - To assist in the risk assessment process and comment on its adequacy. 4.4 Contractors - To carry out their own assessments in consultation with Moray Council, detailing how their work may affect the employees and how we may affect them. 4.5 Clients - To give contractors information to enable them to comply with the above. 4.6 Senior Health and Safety Adviser - To devise an appropriate system for risk assessment, train people in its use, give advice and support during the process of risk assessment and monitor its effectiveness. 5. Procedure Page 127
Page 128
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 28 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 5.1 A suitable and sufficient risk assessment must be carried out on all jobs within the Council. The risk assessment will be either job based or task based dependent on the type of work being assessed. It should also be considered that before a new project is undertaken, a risk study can be carried out to look at the potential risks and actions needed to design them out. 5.2 The risk assessments are best carried out by a team consisting of a management representative, a safety representative and a person carrying out the job with input from the health and safety section as required. 5.3 If the job involves contractors the duty rests with all concerned to co-operate in carrying out the assessment, and to co-ordinate the activities which arise from it. 5.4 A risk assessment should contain the following elements :- a) A breakdown of the job into its main parts. (SMS Form 8.3) and a detailed look at each task in relationship to a standard list of hazards and hazardous tasks. b) A record of the assessment, held in the harbour office (SMS Form 8.4) giving :- i) details of hazards encountered ii) their current control, if any. iii) the magnitude of risk they pose (using a system where probability and severity are given a numeric value and then combined to give a risk rating). iv) comment on additional controls as necessary. A simple guide has been produced for new users of the system. (SMS GN 7.22) 5.5 Once the general risk assessment is complete, it must be passed to all people in the area and also to the area management and safety representatives. They will be given the opportunity to comment on the assessment and whether all hazards in the area have been adequately covered. All comments must be fed back to the risk assessment team. 5.6 For certain activities, it is appreciated that the same risks are being faced in a multitude of different areas. In these situations the principle of generic assessment will be used to make the task of assessment more manageable. This must be done with great care to ensure that no specific area hazards are missed. Generic assessments must be tailored when being applied to different areas, to pick up these differences. 5.7 More detailed assessment of certain types of hazard will be required in some situations. Please refer to the specific procedures for more detail. This includes manual handling, chemicals, noise, fire and display screen equipment (DSE) use. 5.8 The assessment should be used as a means of prioritising the action within departments to ensure people's health and safety. A plan of action should arise from the assessment with the highest scoring items being addressed first. 5.9 The points raised in an assessment must be addressed in one of the following ways. ELIMINATE the hazard SUBSTITUTE for a lesser hazard Page 128
Page 129
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 29 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 CONTROL the hazard (e.g. by things such as guarding, safe systems of work, information, training or supervision and finally personal protective equipment). RETAIN agree that the hazard is not significant or is acceptable in the given situation. 5.10 A final assessment must be made once the measures agreed on are implemented and the residual risk assessed and defined. 5.11 All risk assessments must be reviewed on an agreed frequency or if circumstances in an area change. If an accident or dangerous occurrence happens in the area covered by an assessment, it must be reviewed to find out why the hazard leading to the incident was not adequately controlled and whether the assessment findings are valid. Any changes necessary must be made and further control measures implemented. 6. Definitions Hazard Something with the potential to cause harm. Risk The likelihood of that harm occurring taking into account probability and severity. 7. Tool Box Talks A Tool Box Talk is a simple, informal risk assessment carried out by the personnel involved. It ensures that the task and its potential hazards are understood, that correct and adequate equipment is in place, that personnel understand their responsibilities and that contingency plans have been discussed and are understood. All routine operations involving potential hazards should be preceded by a Tool Box Talk. Such routine operations may include: ▪ mooring/unmooring operations, ▪ harbour launch operations, ▪ pilot Boat operations, ▪ Aid to Navigation maintenance, ▪ manoeuvring large vessels in and out of the harbours ▪ unusual quayside operations ▪ before each shift of an exceptional hazardous operation which has undergone risk assessment. The particular task leader is responsible for implementing tool box talks. At the end of each task, a debrief will be held with all those who took part in the task. During the debrief, questions such as ‘What went well and what didn’t go so well?’ should be asked so that any lessons learned are captured and communicated to others. 8. Unusual/Exceptional Operations Page 129
Page 130
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 30 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 All and any non-routine operations should be subjected to a Risk Assessment. Depending upon the potential hazards and complexity of the task it can vary from a simple tool box talk to a formal Risk Assessment Workshop. The fact that a risk assessment has been carried out and its conclusions will be recorded in appropriate detail, in the harbour logbook. Examples of such unusual operations include: ▪ Vessels of unusual size or configuration ▪ Dredging ▪ Diving ▪ Refloating a grounded/stranded vessel ▪ Vessel towage ▪ Salvage ▪ Removal of derelicts. 9. Contractor Compliance External contractors and agencies that utilise the port facilities are required to comply with local health and safety directives and all statutory health and safety regulations. As such, all vendors must comply with Moray Council’s third party acceptance checks and submit a signed letter of conformation confirming their commitment to carry out all port operations in a safe and efficient manner, in line with local and statutory regulations. 10. Generic Review of Hazards No Hazard Potential Causes Risks Risk Level Control Measures 1 Fire & Explosion Vessel collisions. Handling fuel (rec. craft) Handling gas bottles (rec. & fishing vessels) Personal injury or death. Harbour closed or obstructed Moderate To Substantial Commercial & fishing vessels use diesel. Small quantities petrol & gas. 2 Grounding Stranding Unexpected shoaling. Loss of power. Loss of control in onshore (Nly) gales. Crew error Vessel damage. Loss of life. Harbour blocked. Adverse publicity. Tolerable To Moderate Local knowledge. Published advice & recommended routes. Awareness and caution. 3 Collision - Commerci al harbours Mechanical failure. Crew error. Vessel damage. Pollution. Tolerable Low traffic levels. Local knowledge or advice from harbour staff/pilot Page 130
Page 131
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 31 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 4 Collision - Recreatio nal harbours Poor visibility around piers. Crew error. Running down swimmer. Vessel damage (minor). Loss of life. Adverse publicity. Trivial To Tolerable Speed limits. Harbourmasters follow up with irresponsible boat operators. 5 Pollution Fuelling vessels. Pumping bilges. Vessel damage. Crew error. Environmenta l damage. Slippery ladders and potential drowning. Injury to personnel Adverse publicity Moderate To Substantial Enforce bunkering procedures. Encourage oilsorb in FV bilges. Response equipment available. Waste Oil collection point at office Staff training on pollution response Good housekeeping maintained 6 Personal injury. Line handling. Harbour/Pilot launch operations. Crew/operator error. Public access/ jumping into harbours. Loss of life. Drowning. Serious injury Adverse publicity. Tolerable To Substantial Tool box talks. Suitable training with staff Awareness & caution. Youth and visitor education on hazards of harbours. Enforce byelaws. PPE. Page 131
Page 132
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 32 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES 4.1 Relevant Emergency Response Plans Working in Partnership The foundation of emergency planning is cooperation between partners. The Grampian Local Resilience Partnership (LRP) is the local forum for emergency planning and includes Police, Fire, Ambulance, HM Coastguard, SEPA, NHS, Moray, Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils. Grampian LRP is part of the North of Scotland Regional Resilience Partnership (NSRRP). The LRP aims to maintain effective local liaison and co-ordination, through developing and managing a local work program. Resilience Partnerships aim to protect the people, economy and environment by building resilience and having effective arrangements in place to deal with emergencies. Resilience Partnerships work closely with the Scottish Government, other Scottish Resilience Partnerships and specialist advisors in responding proportionately to emergencies, minimizing their impact and promoting recover y as quickly as possible. Emergency Planning in Moray An Emergency Planning Officer is based in Elgin. Via the emergency on call procedures the council provides a 24hr 365 days a year, first line of Council response, for any major emergency involving the council as a Tier 1 responder. As emergency situations arise, other Council officers are brought in to co-ordinate the Council’s response and to provide expert advice and assistance. The arrangements detailing the Council’s response to the effects of major emergencies whatever their cause is contained within the Emergency Planning Policy and Procedures. http://www.moray.gov.uk/downloads/file86131.pdf Oil Pollution Arrangements In addition to the general arrangements contained in the Emergency Planning, Policy and Procedures document, a plan detailing specific arrangements to deal with pollution of the moray coastline, including the Buckie and Burghead Harbours has been prepared. A copy is held by the Harbourmaster. Copies of relevant plans are maintained at individual Harbour Offices. All spill kit equipment can be found in the harbour stores. Buckie - in the Fishmarket and Burghead - underneath the office. If the incident occurred at a recreational harbour then equipment will be used from these sites. 4.2 Review and Updates These plans are reviewed for currency at regular intervals, normally between one and three years. Grampian Emergency Planning Unit issue updates. Page 132
Page 133
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 33 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 4.3 Exercise and Drills All harbour staff shall review the plans periodically and be familiar with their layout and content. Desk-top and hands-on exercise will be arranged based on the various Emergency Plans. The Harbourmaster will maintain a log of all the drills and exercises carried out. Page 133
Page 134
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 34 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 5 PERFORMANCE MONITORING 5.1 Periodic Review and Reporting a) Incident and Near Miss Reports are reviewed periodically to identify any trends of concern and to focus on necessary safety improvements. b) The logbook records plus Incident and Near Miss Analysis will be reviewed and analysed at regular intervals, normally annually. Trends and proposed improvement actions will be identified. The Harbourmaster will report on these topics to the Harbour Development and Operations Manager and thence to the Chief Executive. c) The periodic analysis of Incidents and Near Misses, trends and proposed actions will be made available to harbour staff and users. 5.2 Auditing Internally the Safety Management System will be audited by a suitably qualified person who will then report to the Duty Holder on the effectiveness and performance of the system. The Designated Person will audit the Safety Management System at least once every 3 years. Page 134
Page 135
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 35 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 6 HANDLING OF DANGEROUS GOODS Under the Dangerous Goods in Harbour Areas Regulations, vessels intending to use the port that have DGs onboard either for discharge or remaining in transit must advise the Harbourmaster of details 24 hours before arrival. This will be done in writing or if agreed with the Harbourmaster, another form of communication such as email. The Harbourmaster will decide where the vessel will be berthed after taking into consideration the cargo and how it may affect other vessels in the area. The emergency plans for the area should be reviewed and an amendment made if it is required. Depending on the potential out come should there be an incident with the substance; local emergency services will be informed. Gas cylinders and small quantities of flammable liquids are handled onto and off fishing and recreational vessels at all the harbours. Harbour staff must encourage vessel operators to take proper precautions when so doing. Neither empty nor full containers will be left unattended on the quays. High flash-point oil fuel is handled at all the harbours from road tank wagons. Pollution due to spillage is the principal risk from such operations. Bunkering Checklist is part of Risk Assessment 18. Importing of DG’s into the harbours is rare. Occasional containers of high flash point oil products are received at Buckie. If there are any DG’s which have to be stored on the quayside, either for import or export, then the Harbourmaster will dedicate an appropriate area as a Dangerous Goods Bay after consulting the storage guidelines on the SDS. This bay will be cordoned off. If there are 2 or more types of chemicals then all the storage guidelines will be consulted and the compatibility chart below will be used to ensure that there are no incompatible chemicals being stored together. Refer to Appendix G Page 135
Page 136
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 36 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 7 INTERNATIONAL SHIP AND PORT FACILITY SECURITY CODE (ISPS) Buckie handles international commercial vessels and hence is subject to ISPS. This requires a Port Facility Security Plan, duly trained Security Officers, and Security Declarations by arriving vessels on international voyages and restricted access to the quayside for such vessels, including a pass system. The Harbourmaster and Deputy Harbourmaster will normally be the designated Security Officers and are responsible for implementation of the Code according to guidance issued by Department for Transport ( DfT). Page 136
Page 137
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 37 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 8 PORT WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES REGULATIONS 2003 All Moray Harbours are subject to these regulations with an emphasis on Buckie and Burghead being commercial harbours this requires: ▪ the reporting, documentation and correct disposal of ship generated waste; ▪ a published charging regime. The Consolidated European Reporting System for ship’s waste also applies to certain vessels visiting Buckie. Before entry into the harbour, as part of the pre-arrival documentation, all cargo vessels will have already provided the port with the waste figures. The paperwork should arrive 24 hours prior. All other vessels use the general waste bins at the recreational harbours or if at Buckie or Burghead , the recycling bins which are available. Waste oil collection is also carried out at Buckie and Burghead. Any waste will be segregated and dealt with in accordance to Moray Council’s Harbours Waste Plan. 9 Conservancy 9.1 Shoaling The entrances to all the harbours – commercial and recreational silt regularly. Depths are surveyed regularly and dredged as outlined below. 9.2 Surveys Harbour beds and approaches will be surveyed at least annually for the commercial harbours two yearly for the recreational harbours. Intermediate surveys may be carried out after major storms if significant changes are suspected. Level surveys are carried out in areas which dry out at low water. Areas not accessible on foot are surveyed by echo sounder mounted on the Buckie pilot Boat. Echo sounder records have an accuracy of +/- 0.2 metres and the level surveys +/- 0.1 metres. Results of surveys are plotted on 1:500 charts which are available at harbour offices and the Roads Office at Elgin. Any hazards noted are promulgated via local notices to mariners and/or via UKHO. 9.3 Inspections Harbour fittings and equipment will be inspected: ▪ Weekly by harbour staff; ▪ Annually at random by Moray Council Safety Officer; ▪ Annually by a Council Engineer or Civil Engineer and divers. Weekly inspections follow separate lists for the commercial and recreational harbours. Similarly, separate report forms are submitted by the harbourmasters to the Harbours Development and Operations Manager. Any serious deficiencies must be reported immediately through the Harbour Asset Management System WDM. Page 137
Page 138
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 38 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Annual safety inspections can cover any aspect of the harbours including condition of quays, fixings, equipment facilities or the operation of the harbour. Any items for improvement or remedial action are reported to the Civil Engineering Technician and recorded through the Harbour Asset Management System WDM. Annual formal inspections cover accessible areas above MHWS. The complementary diving inspection covers authority facilities below MHWS. Defects and obstructions are reported and plotted on a 1:500 chart, using photographs if appropriate. Urgent defects are reported to the responsible harbourmaster or Harbours Development and Operations Manager. Additionally, steel ladders are inspected bi-annually at Low Water Springs, for safety and general condition. Any necessary repairs are actioned by the Harbours Development and Operations Manager. A plan showing the positions of all ladders at each harbour is maintained. Bi-annual inspection of lighting & electrical fittings by the Lighting Section of Roads Services includes navigation lights, pier lights and power boxes. 9.4 Dredging The Harbour Authority carries out maintenance dredging of the harbour basins and identified high spots in the approaches to maintain target depths. Frequency depends upon need, survey results and availability of Moray Council owned dredger “Selkie”. The frequencies are approximate: • Buckie Entrance annually, other areas as required • Burghead Entrance as required when dredger is available, basin, infrequently • Recreational Harbours As required Any dredging operation is considered to be an unusual event and hence is subject to a prior Risk Assessment involving the dredger skipper and Harbourmaster. See Section 5.4 of this appendix. Any capital dredging to improve the channels or increase the controlling depths would be a special project requiring: • Justification based upon need and detailed hydrographic survey • Approval of the Crown Estates • Risk Assessment - particularly in respect of traffic movements during the project • Determination of whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is required under the Harbour Works (EIA) Regulations 1999. • Approval of capital expenditure If spoil is to be disposed of in tidal waters consent is required from Scottish Government. If disposal is at sea a license is required from Marine Scotland. Any dredging contractor operating within the Moray Harbours will be required to: • Demonstrate its experience and competence for the particular project; • Employ personnel who are properly qualified, experienced and trained for the type of project; Page 138
Page 139
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 39 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 • Operate a risk based safety management system. Before any dredging operation, the Harbourmaster and Dredger Master will: • Carry out a risk assessment of the operation; • Develop any necessary special harbour procedures for the duration of the operation, these must address the question of vessels manoeuvring in the vicinity of the dredger; • Issue necessary warnings and notices. 9.5 Wrecks Under general powers and specific powers in the byelaws, the Harbourmasters may order or arrange the removal of any wreck, abandoned vessel or other derelict obstructing the navigable channels or other public areas of the harbours. The wreck location may be marked until it is raised, removed or destroyed. The authority has general powers under the 1987 GRC Confirmation Order and harbourmasters have specific powers under the Byelaws. Harbour staff will try to identify the owners of any such derelict and require them to arrange removal. If ownership cannot be established in a reasonable period, or if the derelict is seriously impeding traffic, the authority may arrange removal. Harbour staff will ensure that any such operation is properly planned taking account of safety, the environment, traffic and recreational aspects. Any contractors must operate under a risk based Safety Management System. The operation will be subject to an unusual event Risk Assessment involving all concerned parties. 9.6 Mooring/Unmooring Mooring and unmooring of commercial vessels at Buckie is normally carried out by the duty Watchman. Fishing vessels normally handle their own mooring lines but may request assistance. Operators of craft at the recreational harbours are responsible for handling their own moorings and any issues with the mooring arrangements noted while carrying out harbour checks will be communicated to the boat owner for rectification. Harbour staff employed in mooring/unmooring operations will wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), as per the Mooring Manual. They should set a good example to others so employed. The Harbourmasters are responsible for implementing this policy and for the safety of harbour personnel. Staff should ensure that members of the public and other personnel keep a safe distance from the mooring/unmooring operations at the commercial harbours. All harbour staff complete the Mooring Manual training . Procedures including safety and PPE standards are contained in Appendix D, Section 1. 9.7 Towage No routine towage services are available at the Moray Harbours. The commercial and fishing vessels visiting the harbours are equipped with bow thrusters or are otherwise able to Page 139
Page 140
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 40 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 manoeuvre adequately. The Buckie work Boat may be used to assist in berthing/unberthing a vessel. Any tugs of more than 5 tonnes gross operating in harbour areas must be licensed by the Harbour Authority. No such tugs currently operate. Any towage for specific purposes, to assist an unusual vessel/craft or to assist a disabled or grounded vessel will be planned with the Harbourmaster in advance. It will be subject to an unusual event Risk Assessment involving concerned personnel. Any additional control measures indicated by the risk assessment must be implemented. The contractor must satisfy the Harbourmaster that the proposed towage vessel: • Is of sufficient power and manoeuvrability for the vessel to be assisted and the confines of the • harbour • Is adequately and competently manned • Has all critical equipment operational • Is operated in accordance with a risk based safety management system, either formal or specific to the operation. If the towage vessel is unsuitable for these or other reasons, then operations will not proceed until suitable arrangements are in place. 9.8 Salvage Any salvage operations within the Moray Harbours must be carried out by a competent contractor, operating a risk based safety management system. A formal risk assessment is required prior to commencing the operation. Any specific controls or risk reduction measures identified as being necessary must be implemented. Tool box talks are essential before each shift or phase of the operation. Procedures for the operation must be produced by the contractor and cover: • Methodology; • Required equipment and personnel; • Exclusions/limitations on other harbour activities; • Other risk reduction and control measures required; • Parameters for suspending and aborting the operation; • Contingency plans. Harbourmasters will implement necessary and appropriate exclusion zones whilst the operation is being carried out. Other users should be kept advised of progress for any salvage operations. 9.9 Diving (Harbour Works and Vessels) The Authority has a responsibility to ensure that any diving works within the Harbour Area is carried out safely, by competent divers, in accordance with HSE Guidance. Recreational diving and swimming is regulated by the Byelaws. Page 140
Page 141
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 41 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Any diving works on behalf of Moray Council will be carried out by competent diving contractors, operating a risk based safety management system, requires a Permit to Work and must be carried out in line with a bespoke risk assessment and method statement for the activity. “Diving Operations in and around Moray Council Controlled Waters/Sites/Installations”. Contractors must provide evidence of their competence and SMS at the time of tendering. Refer to the above Safety Procedure. Any required diving on vessels within the Harbours must also be carried out by a competent diving contractor or otherwise be in compliance with HSE Guidance for Diving on Fishing Vessels. No such diving may take place without prior consultation with the Harbourmaster. In general, for any diving operations: • The diving system/vessel must be properly equipped and manned; • Weather and tidal conditions must be suitable; • Necessary warnings must be displayed and broadcast; • Other vessels, vehicles and persons not involved in the operation must be kept at a safe distance; • Diving must be suspended when there are increased risks from passing vessels or other activities in the harbour, or when other conditions change significantly; • Is subject to a Diving Permit (see the Direct Services Diving Safety Procedure) and a harbour permit to work The Harbourmaster may order the cessation of diving if any of the above are not met or the operation appears otherwise unsafe. 9.10 Navigational Warnings If Moray Council (Harbour Authority) become aware of any navigational hazard that is not present on marine charts or other published navigational information, it will, having verified any reports, publish a suitable warning through the use of a Local Notice to Mariners. The Notice to Mariners must be appropriate to the hazard and distributed accordingly. Such navigational warnings may include (but are not limited to) – • Adverse Weather Conditions • Shipping movements • Changes in charted depths • Damaged or malfunctioning AtoN • Wrecks or abandoned vessels • New or temporary exclusion zones • Works in harbour area • Miscellaneous safety warnings. If the navigational hazard is not of a temporary nature, changes to nautical charts and published information will be made if considered necessary by the UK Hydrographic Office. Tide tables are posted in the noticeboards at all the harbours. Page 141
Page 142
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 42 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 10. AIDS TO NAVIGATION 10.1 Procedures The Authority maintains a suite of navigation aids, listed below, to mark the harbour entrances and in some cases hazards in the approach. The General Lighthouse Authority – Northern Lighthouse Board sets standards for aids to navigation and must be kept advised of any defects to the principal ones. These meet criteria set in the NLB document “Instructions on the Provision and Maintenance of Aids to Navigation”. Navigation lights at Cullen, Findochty and Portknockie are for local assistance. None the less, they are included in the report to NLB. As a competent harbour authority, Moray Council acts as a local lighthouse authority, and therefore has responsibility for the provision and proper maintenance of aids to navigation as necessary, and effective management of any danger to navigation from wrecks or obstructions. Maintenance of all Aids to Navigation is carried out by authority staff. Harbour staff inspect navigation lights for operation at least weekly. At Buckie, the Watchman confirms operation each night. Any defects are advised immediately to the Streetlighting team in Elgin for action and reported through the Harbour Asset Management System WDM. At Buckie and Burghead, any relevant defects are advised to vessels in port. Availability reports are prepared and forwarded by the Harbourmaster then submitted through the online report form to NLB. All local lighthouse authorities – including harbour authorities which maintain navigation aids, are required to report annually to NLB. The report covers the status and downtime of the aids and is submitted via email once generated from the AtoN online system. Refer to NLB document “Instructions on the Provision and Maintenance of Aids to Navigation”. 10.2 List of Navigation Aids (i) Buckie ▪ Qk Fl R 5 sec, 5m 7M Marking West Muck rocks ▪ Iso WG 2 sec 20 m 16/12M White light, in line with the North Pier light provides a clearing line 125º/305º, west of The Mucks; Green sector marks the rocks to the west of the Entrance; ▪ Occ R 10s 15m 15M North Pier (ii) Burghead • Occ 8 sec 7m 5M South-western corner of the North Pier • Qk Fl R 3m 5M Extremity of the North Pier and channel • Qk Fl G 3m 5M Extremity of South Pier and channel • Fl G 5 sec 2m 1M Southern extremity of groyne, east side of the channel (iii) Hopeman • Occ G 4s 8m 4M North-west corner of the West Pier • FR 3 & 4m Leading lights marking the entrance channel 081º. Page 142
Page 143
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 43 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 (iv) Findochty • Unlit beacon on the north-west corner of the West Pier. • Fixed red leading lights marking the approach channel. (v) Portknockie • Flashing green leading lights marking the approach channel. (vi) Cullen • Unlit beacon on the south-west corner of the North Pier. • Flashing green light marking the entrance channel. Page 143
Page 144
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 44 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 11 PILOTAGE ARRANGEMENTS 11.1 Buckie offers a pilotage service on demand, although it is not compulsory for any class of vessel. Commercial vessels unfamiliar with the port are encouraged to take a pilot on arrival and may request a pilot for sailing. All pilotage is conducted in accordance with the Buckie Pilot Boat Coxswain and Pilot Training manual, which is compliant with the National Occupational Standards and reviewed annually. Pilots normally board at least one mile north-north-west of the entrance and always to seaward of The Mucks. Pilots land outside the harbour entrance at a point agreed with the master. Once onboard the Captain and Pilot will go through the Pilot/Master Interchange card before continuing entry/exit. The harbour authority employs and authorises the pilots and has in place appropriate qualifications and training requirements (see below). All hold recognised certification and have appropriate seagoing experience and local knowledge. No pilotage is available at Burghead. The Harbourmaster at Buckie will give advice if requested. No pilotage service is offered at the recreational ports but the Buckie harbourmaster will arrange for advice if requested. 11.2 Training & Qualifications Candidates for consideration as Pilot at Buckie should meet the following standards: • Experience working on commercial vessels, particularly in the bridge • Be medically fit with good hearing and sight, able to differentiate between colours (ENG1) • Familiarity with approaches to the harbour, position and nature of the approach lights and local hazards • Must be willing to complete the in-house Pilot Training Scheme • Minimum of six training trips, with an experienced pilot on a representative selection of vessels of which a) 3 trips should be inward b) 3 trips should be at night • Satisfactory examination by the Harbourmaster and/or experienced pilot. Any Pilot who has not carried out the duty within the previous 4 months will be given a full brief by the other Pilot on anything that may be new. The briefing will revalidate the Pilots authority to pilot for Buckie Harbour Training is in line with the National Occupational Standards (NOS) for Marine Pilotage. As part of the in-house training a competency assessment has been generated using the key points from the NOS and can be seen below. The Pilot Training log allows trainee pilots to log all lessons learned during their training and therefore ensure that those lessons are passed on to future pilots. Page 144
Page 145
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 45 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 A Pilot Continuous Professional Development (PCPD) programme has been set up for pilots. The purpose of this is to allow the Buckie Harbour pilots the opportunity to continue developing their skills gained during the initial training. It will focus on 3 elements, professional evaluation, knowledge and skills and emergency response. If this is not completed over the 3 years from gaining approval as a pilot then the authority to pilot vessels for Moray Council will be removed. Refer to Appendix H – Competency Assessment 11.3 Competency Assessment The Authority may restrict a new pilot to certain vessel dimensions or characteristics for a probationary period. The Authority may also restrict pilotage of certain vessels with specialised or unusual features to certain pilots with appropriate training and experience. 11.4 Pilotage Exemption Certificates As pilotage is not compulsory, there are no provisions for Pilotage Exemption Certificates (PEC’s). 11.5 Pilot/Master Interface Effective communications between the pilot and the master of the vessel are essential. Each must brief the other before the transit commences. (i) The Master should provide the Pilot with all relevant information concerning the vessel and its equipment, relevant to the proposed operation in written or diagrammatic format. This should include draft, dimensions, confirmation that all critical equipment is operational and any limitations or peculiarities of the vessel or its manoeuvring capability. This will be noted onto the Pilot Card. (ii) The Pilot will advise the Master verbally of all information relevant to the operation including depths of water, tidal conditions and status of navigation aids. The master and pilot will agree decision points on the passage, abort plans and necessary equipment and personnel to be available. This is on the Passage Plan. (iii) The Master will report on any polluting or hazardous materials to the Pilot. (iv) The Pilot will report any deficiencies in the performance of the vessel or in the information exchange to the Harbour Authority. If performance of the vessel or personnel is sufficiently downgraded the Pilot shall consider aborting the passage. The Pilot and Harbourmaster shall consider whether serious deficiencies require a report to MCA. In the first instance Aberdeen Coastguard should be contacted and asked for advice on the correct person to speak to (v) The Pilot will complete a report for any Incident or Near Miss per the Moray Council format. The Pilot and Harbourmaster will also consider whether this should be reported to the MAIB 11.6 Pilot Boat Buckie operates a high speed pilot boat, with good seakeeping characteristics, with which to board pilots to seaward of The Mucks. The Boat is crewed by at least two harbour staff in Page 145
Page 146
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 46 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 addition to the pilot. The harbour office is staffed when the pilot Boat is deployed during office hours but not out of hours. The Boat is equipped with echo sounding and navigation equipment and carries out depth surveys at Buckie, Burghead and areas of the recreational harbours which do not dry out. It should be crewed by at least two staff for survey operations. Generally, Pilot Boat operations are carried out in line with the MCA Code of Practice on the Safety of Small Workboats and Pilot Boats. The Buckie Boat is surveyed periodically by approved consultants for the SWB2 Document of Compliance. A Tool Box Talk risk assessment will be carried out before each Boat operation to identify the tasks, the particular hazards involved, each person’s responsibilities, protective equipment to be used and contingency plans in the event of an incident. 11.7 Pilotage Operations Procedures a) Duty Watchman to check lights and run pilot Boat engine prior to operation. b) Nominated 2 man crew, Pilot & Duty Harbourmaster muster 20 minutes before estimated arrival/sailing time. c) Harbourmaster confirms that sufficient depth of water for the operation, given vessel’s draft and weather conditions. d) Harbourmaster liaises with Pilot to ensure weather conditions suitable for the operation to proceed safely. e) Aborting the operation whilst in progress is at the discretion of the pilot. f) Whether to go alongside the vessel is at the discretion of the nominated pilot Boat coxswain. Notes: The Boat is operated in compliance with the MCA Small Workboats and Pilot Boats Code of Practice, under which Buckie Pilot Boat is considered a pilot boat vessel for operation within 3 miles of a safe haven Page 146
Page 147
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 47 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 12 OTHER HARBOUR CRAFT Any other small craft used for harbour services should be operated to the same safety standards as for the harbour launches. Any small craft used for harbour and associated works, including pilot boarding/landing and harbour surveys, whether operated by the harbour personnel or by contractors must: ▪ Be suitable, and certified where appropriate, for the task, the working area and the environmental conditions; ▪ Be crewed by at least two competent persons; ▪ Be aware of larger vessel movements which may affect the operation; ▪ Have an alternate means of propulsion to the primary engine; ▪ Maintain watch on VHF and be in constant radio contact with a designated person onshore; ▪ Carry lifejackets, a torch, flares and other means of attracting attention; ▪ If proceeding out with the enclosed harbour, be fitted with an operating compass. The crew must wear life vests and safety lines, properly fastened, when on exterior decks or when in an open craft. Single operators must wear a life vest and safety line at all times when in the craft. The crew and their onshore supervisor must carry out a “tool-box talk” before commencing the operation, at the least this should cover: ▪ All required tools and equipment for the task available; ▪ Sufficient, competent crew for operation, task requirements understood; ▪ Weather and tidal conditions, present and expected, checked and suitable; ▪ Marine craft safety and communications equipment in place, usage understood by crew; ▪ Communications procedures and methods agreed and understood; ▪ Parameters for aborting the operations agreed; ▪ Contingency/escape plans agreed and understood in the event of problems or incident. A full debrief will be held when back in the office looking at what went well and what could be done better to ensure any lessons learned are fully communicated to the team. Page 147
Page 148
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 48 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 13. INCIDENT & NEAR MISS REPORTING Reporting and Follow-up Flowchart The following flowchart summarises the incident reporting and follow up system. Page 148
Page 149
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 49 OF 72
ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025
Incident Reporting Procedure Flow Chart Incident Occurs
Person(s) Present - take appropriate
action, eg, get medical assistance, give
first aid, make area safe, etc.
Notify the Reporting Officer for your
section/team, this will usually be the
Line Manager or Supervisor
Reporting Officer - is the incident so
serious that others need to be informed
immediately? eg, death, major injury
under RIDDOR (see SMS7.1), injury to
a person not at work, service
threatening event, etc. Contact H&S
Section if advice is required
Yes
No
Contact the HSE Incident Contact
Centre by phone (08453009923)
for fatalities or major injuries.
Fatal incident occurring out of
hours should be reported to the
HSE Duty Officer (01519229235).
Other RIDDOR reportable injuries
notify the HSE ICC online.
www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/index.htm
Inform your Section Head
and the H&S Section
(01343) 563629
Buckie harbour is
operated as a
temporary
storage facility
complying with
the relevant UK
government
requirements.
The port utilises
MCA approved
software to
monitor track and
authorise
movements of
cargo in
compliance with
the UK customs
and Border force
requirements.
Shipping agents
should liaise with
Harbourmaster to
ensure all
relevant
documentation is
completed prior
to vessels
departing port of
origin before
passage to
Buckie.
Reporting Officer - implement the rest
of the incident reporting procedure,
contact H&S Section if assistance is
required
Is the incident not immediately notifiable to
the HSE, but still reportable under RIDDOR,
eg, an over 7 day injury? (See SMS7.1 for
the requirements of RIDDOR)
Yes
Complete the
Internal Incident
Report form.
File the Internal Incident Report form
(and any reports sent by the HSE) in the
section/team's Accident File ("Accident
Book")
Send copies to the
Section Head and the
H&S Section within 10
days of the incident.
Carry out an
investigation as
appropriate (see
SMS7.1)
Contact the HSE Incident
Contact Centre within 15
days (or as soon as possible
if an injury takes more than
15 days to confirm).
www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/index
.htm
With serious incidents
inform: Commucations
Officer (01343) 563601
Consider Head of Dept;
Chief Exec; Local
Councillors.
Out of office hours
contact Duty CMT/HoS
via Cameron Park Brae
0345 7565656
Person(s) Present - take appropriate action,
eg, get medical assistance, give first aid,
make area safe, etc.
Notify the Reporting Officer for your
section/team, this will usually be the Line
Manager or Supervisor
Reporting Officer - is the incident so
serious that others need to be informed
immediately? eg, death, major injury under
RIDDOR (see SMS7.1), injury to a person
not at work, service threatening event, etc.
Contact H&S Section if advice is required
Yes
No
Contact the HSE Incident Contact
Centre by phone (08453009923) for
fatalities or major injuries. Fatal
incident occurring out of hours
should be reported to the HSE Duty
Officer ((03453009923) Other
RIDDOR reportable injuries notify the
HSE ICC online.
www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/index.htm
Reporting Officer - implement the rest of
the incident reporting procedure, contact
H&S Section if assistance is required
Is the incident not immediately notifiable to the
HSE, but still reportable under RIDDOR, eg, an
over 7 day injury? (See SMS7.1 for the
requirements of RIDDOR)
Yes
Complete the
Internal Incident
Report form.
File the Internal Incident Report form (and
any reports sent by the HSE) in the
section/team's Accident File ("Accident
Book")
Send copies to the Section
Head and the H&S Section
within 10 days of the
incident.
Carry out an
investigation as
appropriate (see
SMS7.1)
Contact the HSE Incident
Contact Centre within 15 days
(or as soon as possible if an
injury takes more than 15 days
to confirm).
www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/index.
htm
Page 149Page 150
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 50 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 13.11 INCIDENT & NEAR MISS REPORTING 1. INTRODUCTION The Moray Council seeks to prevent undesirable incidents from occurring as a result of its activities and has instituted a pro-active safety management system, directions and operational procedures to ensure they are avoided where possible. That said, errors and mistakes do occur and these can result in harm to people or damage to property and equipment. This procedure covers how such incidents should be dealt with so that lessons are learned and repeat occurrences prevented. 2. PURPOSE To provide a system for recording, reporting and investigating relevant incidents so that deficiencies and adverse trends in safety performance can be highlighted and addressed. 3. SCOPE 3.1. This procedure covers the following events should they occur in the course of Council activities: − Injuries to persons − Occupational illnesses resulting from specific events or activities − Dangerous occurrences and near misses that could have resulted in harm or material damage − An environmental incident 3.2. It applies to anyone involved in, or affected by, work activities undertaken by the Council, eg, staff, clients, service users, contractors and members of the public. Violent and aggressive incidents, however, are not covered by this procedure. 3.3. At the all of the harbours there are other marine specific potential hazards to consider such as: ▪ Groundings, strandings, founderings ▪ Collision or contact with other vessels or craft, navigation aids, other fixed objects, significant debris or persons in the water ▪ Hard landings against quays, damage to quays and/or vessels ▪ Injury to personnel, falling into water, drowning, other fatality ▪ Significant equipment or propulsion failure on vessels ▪ Other damage to vessels, or property, including wash damage ▪ Other incidents which may result in loss or litigation. ▪ Close quarters situations with other vessels/craft or persons in the water ▪ Vessel equipment or propulsion failure with the potential to cause an incident ▪ Personnel errors with the potential to cause an incident. 4. RESPONSIBILITIES Page 150
Page 151
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 51 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 4.1. Duty Holders - approve procedures; monitor implementation; monitor incident data and take appropriate action, including enforcement. 4.2. Section Heads - designate staff with responsibility for reporting and investigating incidents; ensure designated persons are aware of their responsibilities; monitor procedure implementation; investigate serious incidents (as necessary); monitor incident data and take appropriate action. 4.3. Harbourmaster/Assistant Harbourmaster - inform staff of their responsibilities; report and record all relevant incidents; investigate incidents (as necessary); monitor incident data and take appropriate action, including investigation and enforcement. 4.4. All Harbour Employees/Visitors - report any incident they are involved in or witness to the Harbourmaster or Assistant Harbourmaster. 4.5. Senior Health & Safety Adviser - monitor procedure implementation; investigate serious incidents (as necessary); monitor incident data and take appropriate action. In certain circumstances the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) or Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) may become involved in incident investigation. The police will take primacy in any investigation involving death or crime. When someone dies in a work-related incident or as a result of a navigational incident, a number of different organisations will require to work with the police to ensure that the incident is investigated and that the reasons for the death are understood. Moray Council will work with the police to support their investigation “where appropriate.” 5. PROCEDURE Incident Occurs: 5.1. The first priority is to prevent an incident occurring by issuing a Special Direction or verbal warning. If an incident has occurred those present should take appropriate emergency action, eg, administer first aid, get medical assistance, make the area safe, etc. The objective should be to ensure that no further harm is incurred. 5.2. The incident should then be reported to the appropriate line manager so that this procedure can be activated, unless the line manager is already present and can take the necessary action. (See above for a flow chart illustration of the procedure). 5.3. With incidents occurring to staff outside of normal office hours, each service should have a contact manager who can deal with any incident reporting, immediate investigation requirement or other actions that cannot be delayed. Immediate Notification of Serious Incidents: 5.4. The initial response of the reporting officer must be to consider if others need to be told about it immediately. 5.5. The Section Head and the Health & Safety Section (01343 563073) must be informed as soon as possible after a serious incident occurs, ie, a death, serious notifiable injury or any other incident that could be considered significant to the operation of a Page 151
Page 152
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 52 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 service. In addition, the Head of Service and the Communications Officer (01343 563601) should be contacted. Depending on the severity and type of incident the Head of Service should consider notifying the Chief Executive and the Local Councillors. 5.6. The HSE will also need to be notified immediately under RIDDOR where a death or serious notifiable injury occurs. This must be done as soon as possible after the incident by phone (0345 300 9923, Monday to Friday 0830-1700). The MAIB should also be informed for any serious incident involving a vessel or personnel on board a vessel by calling 023 8023 2527. 5.7. If an incident occurs outside these hours the HSE Duty Officer should be contact by phone (0151 922 9235): • following a work-related death; • following a serious incident where there have been multiple casualties; • following an incident which has caused major disruption such as evacuation of people, closure of roads, large numbers of people going to hospital etc. All other out of office hours incidents are to be reported on line (www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/index.htm) (http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/report.htm#online) 5.8 When out of hours incidents detailed in paragraph 5.7 have occurred, it is important that a member of the Council’s SMT is notified, the duty senior officer can be contacted via Cameron Park Brae on 01343 556102. 5.9 The harbourmaster or his assistant who observes or is made aware of any event involving a discharge or probable discharge of oil, or the presence of oil in the sea shall without delay report the event or presence of oil to HM Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). 5.10 In the first instance contact should be made with the MCA in Aberdeen to inform them on 01224 597900. 5.11 Second stage is to complete a Post Incident Report on the MCA form and submit to the Counter Pollution and Salvaging Officer for Scotland and Northern Ireland. A blank Post Incident Report Form is stored electronically in the incident file. 6. Internal Incident Reporting 6.1. All incidents that come under the remit of this procedure must be formally reported by completing an Internal Incident Reporting form. 6.2 An Internal Incident Report form (SMS8.1) must be completed as soon as possible after the event so that an accurate account of what happened can be gained. Copies should then be sent to the Section Head and the Health & Safety Section within 10 days. 6.3. These forms can be found on the Intranet homepage under the Forms link. Forms should be completed by the relevant line-manager unless the incident involves a minor injury or near miss, in which case it may be done by the affected person. Page 152
Page 153
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 53 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 7. RIDDOR and other agencies 7.1 Deaths, notifiable serious injuries and injuries involving more than 7 days off work are reportable under RIDDOR where staff are involved, as are certain injuries to non- employees, some occupational diseases and particular dangerous occurrences. (See SMS7.1for guidance) 7.2 Incidents involving people not at work may also be RIDDOR reportable, if they are (1) injured as a result of something the Council has or has not done, and (2) needed to be taken to hospital as a result. (See SMS7.1 for guidance) 7.3 All non-fatal / major injury RIDDOR reportable incidents must be reported to the HSE's Incident Contact Centre, on line (www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/index.htm). 7.4 RIDDOR incidents involving contractors must be reported by their own employer and not the Moray Council. Where a self-employed person is working under the control of the Moray Council, however, that person should be treated in the same manner as a member of staff for the purposes of this procedure. 7.5 Accidents, including serious injuries, should be reported to the MAIB by the quickest means possible. This is so that the MAIB can decide whether to investigate the accident without delay, and to prevent evidence of all types being lost or decaying. MAIB should be called on 023 8023 2527 in the first instance and followed up with the online Accident Report Form (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49427 6/AccidentReportForm-ElectronicFormV2.pdf) 7.6 The MAIB (Marine Accident Investigation Branch) are an independent unit within the Department for Transport with 4 investigation teams and they investigate marine accidents involving UK vessels worldwide and all vessels in UK territorial waters. They do not apportion blame or liability but look for ways to prevent further avoidable accidents from occurring. 7.7 The MAIB should be notified if anyone dies as a result of an accident, suffers an injury or is lost or falls overboard. If the incident involves a vessel and causes loss of life, major injury, material damage, is abandoned, damaged by fire, has a collision, is disabled, causes serious pollution or is involved in a near miss then it should be reported. This list is not exhaustive and if further clarification is required the MAIB should be contacted. 8. Record Keeping 8.1 Original copies of incident forms must be kept within the office from which they were sent. They should be stored within a secure Incident Reporting file, which constitutes the unit's "Accident Book". 8.2 The HSE will send reports of incidents that they have been notified about and these should be appended to the corresponding Internal Incident Report form. Page 153
Page 154
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 54 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 8.3 Original copies of incident reports must be kept on file for at least 3 years. Note that incident reports involving children must be kept for at least 3 years after their 18th birthday. 8.4 Section Heads need to be able to monitor incident trends and should therefore collate details of incidents that occur within their area of responsibility. These details can be kept electronically rather than in the form of stored paper records. 9. Investigation and Enforcement 9.1. All incidents must be investigated. The extent of the investigation should be in direct proportion to the seriousness of the occurrence. (See SMS13 4.01 for guidance) 9.2. The Health & Safety Section can decide to undertake an independent investigation if they believe the circumstances warrant this, as can the HSE if they receive a RIDDOR report that gives them particular concern. Staff affected should provide all necessary co-operation should this occur. 9.3 Investigations will be carried out by suitably trained personnel including area/equipment specialists if required. The aim of all investigations will be to find the systems failure that created the situation and to ensure that suitable remedial actions are taken to ensure that the incident does not happen again. 9.4 Enforcement action in accordance with the Harbours Enforcement Policy should be considered following investigation to ensure the incident does not happen again. 10. DEFINITIONS 10.1 INCIDENT: An unplanned, unpremeditated happening which leads to injury or loss, or could have led to injury or loss. Examples include: ▪ Groundings, strandings, founderings ▪ Collision or contact with other vessels or craft, navaids, other fixed objects, significant debris or persons in the water ▪ Hard landings against quays, damage to quays and/or vessels ▪ Injury to personnel, falling into water, drowning, other fatality ▪ Significant equipment or propulsion failure on vessels ▪ Other damage to vessels, or property, including wash damage ▪ Other incidents which may result in loss or litigation. 10.2 ACCIDENT: An incident, which causes injury and/or damage. 10.3 DANGEROUS OCCURRENCE: A serious occurrence which does not necessarily result in a reportable injury, but which has the potential to do significant harm. 10.4 NEAR MISS: An occurrence which does not result in injury or loss, but which has the potential to do so. • Close quarters situations with other vessels/craft or persons in the water • Vessel equipment or propulsion failure with the potential to cause an incident • Personnel errors with the potential to cause an incident Page 154
Page 155
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 55 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 10.5 OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: Illness or medical condition caused by factors within the workplace. 10.6 RIDDOR: Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. ACCIDENT BOOK (BI 510): HSE book for recording the details of accidents in the workplace. It is not a requirement to use a BI 510 Accident Book to record accidents in the workplace. However, if one is not used, the information recorded in it must be recorded in an alternative manner. The Moray Council’s Internal Incident Report Form, when completed fully, meets this requirement and storing it in a secure file constitutes an "accident book" 11 Incident and Near Miss Summary YEAR: HARBOUR: NO DATE INCIDENT TYPE CAUSE FOLLOW –UP? YES/NO DATE CLOSED OUT NOTES Page 155
Page 156
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 56 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 14 PERMIT TO WORK Introduction In order for us to create a safe working environment for all our staff and contractors at Buckie Harbour, a Permit to Work System has been developed to control certain types of hazards and risks. The contents and elements of this system reflect the principles and intent as laid out by the Health and Safety Executive. Scope This permit to work system is applicable to all works being carried out at any of our harbours (Burghead, Hopeman, Buckie, Findochty, Portknockie and Cullen) and by all personnel including Moray Council staff and contractors. Responsibilities Person in Control of Work – This is the person in charge of the work. On some occasions the person in charge will be the task supervisor but other times it will be the project leader. An individual who is named in the appropriate section of the permit, and approved by an authorised person is the designated Person in Charge, and is responsible for ensuring that work is undertaken safely and efficiently within the limits of the permit, including: ▪ accurate completion of the permit form ▪ obtaining the appropriate level of authorisation ▪ understanding of the work and associated Company procedures ▪ compliance with all written precautions ▪ adherence to safe working practices at all times ▪ informing all affected persons before the start of the work ▪ ensuring the work area is left in a safe, clean condition at each stop, shift change, or on completion ▪ clearing all tools and equipment from the work area on completion ▪ properly briefing those who will continue the work at a shift change with regards to the work, necessary precautions, procedures and requirements of the permit ▪ accurate completion of the form when the work is finished and the return of the permit to the harbour office. Harbourmaster – The Harbourmaster (including the Assistant) is the authorised person who will give the approval for the work to be carried out. They will ensure that the PTW is filled in correctly and that there is a copy of the JSA, Risk Assessment or Method Statement and proof of Third Party Liability Insurance with the permit. The Harbourmaster will note down any potential conflicting operations that will be taking place within the harbour that day. When possible the Harbourmaster or his appointee will inspect the worksite prior to signing off the permit to ensure it has been left in a safe and tidy condition. Harbour Assistants – In the absence of the Harbourmaster, the Harbour Assistants (sometimes referred to as Watchmen) take on the role of authorised person with the same responsibilities to ensure that there are no conflicting operations and that the PTW and JSA etc. Page 156
Page 157
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 57 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 are in place and correct. Harbour Assistants can sign off a permit which was signed on by the Harbourmaster. Contractors – All contractors will be vetted by their own company for suitability to carry out the task safely prior to arrival on site, including the appropriate level of training and competence. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that they are following their own company’s rules and those of the harbour. The person in charge will brief the Harbourmaster on the task and safety considerations to ensure that all risk has been minimised. Harbour Users – All harbour users are subject to this same procedure for safe work. Where work is being undertaken on a vessel alongside, it may not be appropriate to issue a PTW. Each case will be risk assessed individually. When a permit is required Prior to undertaking any work, personnel must determine if a permit is required. This is determined by reference to the section below but may also be required by the Harbourmaster even if it is not listed. Work Which Requires a Permit Work requiring a permit falls into two basic categories as defined below: 1. HOT WORK: Work involving open flames or other sources of ignition, or which may have a potential source of ignition. 2. COLD WORK: Other work listed in this section and work that presents a significant hazard, but no source of ignition Work considered “Hot Work” that requires a permit includes, but is not limited to: ▪ work involving open flame ▪ grinding ▪ electric arc welding ▪ any work involving explosives ▪ use of powered wire brushes or work that can cause sparks ▪ needle gunning ▪ shot blasting, grit or high pressure water blasting ▪ work involving high voltage electrical equipment ▪ work on “live” electrical equipment including switching, testing, fault finding or other work exposing personnel to live cables, connections or exposing equipment to a hazardous atmosphere ▪ work that may cause an unintended or uncontrolled hydrocarbon release, including disconnection of pipework or equipment that contains or has contained hydrocarbon, flammable or hazardous materials Work considered “Cold Work” that requires a permit includes, but is not limited to: ▪ handling of any substance that could be hazardous to health, including toxic chemicals, radioactive sources, asbestos, etc. This would not include normal routine operations such as painting. ▪ removals of handrails, where an individual could fall 6 feet or more onto the ground or into the sea Page 157
Page 158
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 58 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 ▪ diving operations ▪ work requiring entry into a confined space, tank or vessel ▪ any work which affects the operation of safety and emergency systems, including work on detection systems, protection systems ▪ work required above an area where others will continue to work normally ▪ heavy or unusual lifts by a crane, which are defined as anything over 50% of the total lifting capacity of the crane or defined as a complicated or complex lift ▪ isolation of energy sources Work Which Does Not Normally Require a Permit It is impracticable and unnecessary to have all work covered by a permit. Therefore, work not listed above would not normally require a permit unless there is a deviation from the normal procedures or the harbourmaster requests a permit to assist control of the work. A properly completed JSA, Tool Box Talk, Risk Assessment or Method Statement should usually reveal the necessity for a permit. Authorisation The Harbourmaster (including the Assistant) is the only one who can authorise a permit and issue a permit number. However if the Harbourmaster is not on shift at the time then a Harbour Assistant/Watchman can authorise the permits apart from: ▪ Diving ▪ High Voltage Isolations ▪ Work on life saving equipment ▪ Working in an Asbestos contaminated building ▪ Any task where there is a risk to personnel undertaking the work and others in the immediate vicinity. ▪ Any task where there are members of the public likely to be affected Planning This is the most important aspect in ensuring efficient control of the work and communication between all personnel involved in the work or affected by the work. Planning and preparation should be made in advance, meetings held, and all aspects of the work, including policy, safe working practices, procedures, precautions and methods identified, before a permit is obtained. Planning and preparation of work requiring a permit must ensure all hazards have been identified, eliminated or controlled, and risks minimised to as low as reasonably practicable. Identification and tracking of forms All permits will have a unique identifying number written on to the top left hand corner of the PTW form. This unique number will consist of the first 3 letters of the harbour name, the last 2 digits of the year and then a sequential number. This would mean that the first permit for a task at Buckie Harbour would be BUC/16/01. Regardless of the harbour the sequential numbers continue so the second permit issued for a task at Findochty this time would be FIN/16/02. Permits for Burghead and Hopeman will be administered from Burghead and for Buckie, Findochty, Portknockie and Cullen they will be administered from Buckie. A permit log of what is happening and where it is taking place will be maintained from these locations. Page 158
Page 159
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 59 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Changes to the permit Once a permit has been approved no changes can be made without the authorisation of the Harbourmaster. These changes should be discussed with the Harbourmaster prior to being written onto the form where the Harbourmaster will initial his approval onto the form. Validity of the Permit Permits are can be validated for a period of no longer than 7 days. After that time a new permit will be raised and approved. If a permit was taken out for a period shorter that 7 days and it looks like that task will run on, approval can be given to extend the permit but only up to 7 days from when it was issued. Temporary stoppage or suspension of work On occasion it is necessary to stop the work being carried out, this may be due to the weather conditions, waiting for parts or many other reasons. If the work is stopped for more than an hour, the Person in Control of the work is responsible for letting the harbour office know of the suspension of work. If the suspension is for more than one shift, the permit should be returned to the harbour office. Lock, Tag and Try Electrical Isolations – Electrical isolations can only be carried out by an approved electrical engineering company. Moray Council has designated Campbell and McHardy as the company to deal with electrical engineering issues at the harbours. Moray Council electrical team deal with the other electrical items such as street lights and Navigation lights. They must at all times follow their company procedures for isolations Mechanical Isolations – Mechanical Isolations are not commonly carried out around the harbour but would include such things as isolating the water supply to a pier. These can be carried out by any approved person, approval will be given as part of the PTW process. When populating the Lock, Tag and Try part of the permit, write in a clear description of the piece of equipment that is to be isolated and if possible where the isolation point is. The Harbourmaster will then approve the isolation. The isolation is to be carried out prior to the permit being authorised fully. Once the item has been locked out it is important to tag the item so that others can see the isolation point, the piece of equipment isolated should then be tried to ensure that there is no residual power going to it. Failure to do so could result in any of the following hazards: ▪ Electrical shock ▪ Chemical exposure ▪ Skin burns ▪ Lacerations or amputations ▪ Fires or explosions ▪ Chemical releases ▪ Eye injury ▪ Environmental Incidents Page 159
Page 160
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 60 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 ▪ Death Any de-isolation has to go through the same process as the isolation, write down the details on the permit and get the de-isolation approved prior to de-isolating then closing the permit. If it is only a partial de-isolation this must be noted on the PTW and initialled as authorised by the Harbourmaster. Permit Form Completion( • The Person in Charge of the Task will note down his/her name and some contact details as he/she will be the main point of contact. The project site / location or vessel name is to be noted down then any of the other contractor supervisors whom may need to be contacted about the task. The start and finish times are the validity period so they can be no more than 7 days apart. • Next decide which type of permit you require and tick the appropriate box. • Under the job description put down as much details as you can regarding the task. There will be an associated JSA, Risk Assessment or Method Statement for the job and as a minimum the headings from each of those should be noted down. • Note down all the equipment that will be used throughout the task. ‘Hand Tools’ is not an adequate description- please list all the tools required. • Conflicting or simultaneous operations will be noted down by the Harbourmaster and discussed with the person in charge. • Ensuring adequate protection for members of the public is one of our main priorities in any task, therefore it is important that site controls are considered during this process and will be discussed between the Harbourmaster and Person in Charge. • Tick any of the appropriate boxes for safety equipment and PPE section. Think carefully about the requirements and ensure that any extra equipment required is noted down. • On the right hand side of the form is the authorisation section. It is important that if the task is complete, the box is ticked. The permit is neither authorised nor closed if the appropriate Harbourmaster signature is not there. • When the permit is authorised, a photocopy will be taken and given to the Person in Charge to be kept at the worksite. The original will be kept in the Harbour office. Page 160
Page 161
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 61 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Page 161
Page 162
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 62 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 15 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES All the Moray Harbours are used for recreational boating. At the four smaller harbours it is the principal activity. Buckie being principally commercial is the least active, with only passing yachts stopping in for 1 or 2 nights at a time. Burghead was becoming more of a recreational port dealing with larger yachts and launches but in recent years there has been an increase in the number of trawlers based at the harbour catching prawn/shellfish. This has meant that the number of recreational vessels has been reduced. At the other four harbours recreational boating includes use of sailing craft, launches and part time creel boats. Findochty and Portknockie have three pontoons each of varying length whereas Cullen has one pontoon and they are for small craft. There is one long pontoon at Hopeman. All harbours have some pier side berthing. Areas of the harbour estate at Burghead, Findochty, Portknockie and Hopeman are used by private individuals to maintain and repair boats. At all the harbours there is traditional, open, public access and a variety of water related activities take place. These include line fishing, beach swimming, boating and using the piers as jumping off points. The three easternmost harbours are used by speed boats, jet skis and water skiers. The Byelaws place restrictions on such craft and require all users to proceed at such speed as not to endanger others. A maximum speed of 3 knots applies within all the harbours. The exposed approaches to all the harbours make the possibility of a vessel stranding or foundering in bad weather, a potential event. There is no practical means of implementing port closures for the recreational harbours, as small craft may already be at sea. The Byelaws contain adequate powers to control recreational activities although with limited resources locally, enforcement has to be by good example and promoting a culture of safe, considerate boating. Within the recreational harbours, small craft and swimmers present and may be may be obscured by the piers. Hence, harbour staff must encourage caution among boat operators to avoid collisions or interations. Regattas, races and public events involving a number of craft within the harbours require 28 days advance notice and consultation with the Harbourmaster. In reviewing such proposals the Harbourmaster will consider: • Potential interference with other port activities • Any interaction with anticipated commercial traffic • Provision of safety equipment and safety boats • Contingency planning in case of bad weather or an incident • Competence and safety culture of the organisers. • Is a suitable and sufficient risk assessment in place • Is there suitable insurance in place Page 162
Page 163
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 63 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 16 APPENDIX A. PASSAGE PLANNING A passage plan will be produced and presented to the master of a vessel during pilotage tasks. Admiralty chart 1462 is for the Harbours on the North and East Coasts of Scotland and covers Buckie, Burghead and Hopeman. Page 163
Page 164
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 64 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 APPENDIX B. MORAY COUNCIL PROCEDURES There are many subjects covered throughout the SMS including the standardised forms to be used. All the following topics can be found by looking on Moray Council Intranet site available on all council owned computers. 5.1 – Hazardous substance Control 5.2 – Personal Protective Equipment 5.3 – Manual Handling 5.5 – First Aid 5.6 – Driving Safely 5.7 – Lone Working 5.8 – Hand Arm Vibration 5.14 – Working at height 5.15 – Confined Spaces 5.18 – Display Screen Equipment 5.19 – Promotion of Mental Health and Wellbeing (Stress Prevention) 5.20 – Musculoskeletal Disorder Management 5.21 – Asbestos Management 5.22 – Blood Borne Viruses 7.10 – Ladders and Stepladders 7.15 – Noise 7.16 – Office Safety 7.20 – Dealing with work related violence 7.27 – Toolbox Talks Explained This list is in no way exhaustive and all the documents are living documents. If there is an improvement that could be made to procedures then contact the Health and Safety department to discuss. APPENDIX C. MORAY COUNCIL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICY Page 164
Page 165
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 65 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Health and Safety Policy Statement INTRODUCTION The Council operates a health & safety management system based on a widely accepted model for ensuring we achieve the desired outcomes from our operations safely. The main elements of the system are categorised as PLANNING, DOING, CHECKING and ACTING. PLAN A critical part of the planning process is the Health & Safety Policy Statement which is contained on the following page. This is what clearly defines the intention of the organisation as regards keeping staff, sen/ice users contractors and the public healthy and safe. The other main part of planning is formalising how the policy outcomes will be achieved in practice. What needs to be done to eliminate or control the risks we face, who will carry out the required actions, how the system will be resourced, w hat competencies are required and how the system will be assured as adequate all need to be set down. DO This is the part of the system that ensures that all risks are being dealt with in a sensible and proportionate manner. It consists mainly of the risk assessment procedures but also deals with implementation issues like prioritisation, communication, preventive and protective measures, procurement of goods and services and maintenance. CHECK This part of the system involves us monitoring the system in different ways to keep a close watch on indicators which tell us about the efficacy of the risk control efforts. The main indicators are active ones, such as formal checks that the risk control measures are being followed and reactive ones such as proper investigation after system failures (ie : accidents) to gain an understanding of the causes. ACT In all the aforementioned monitoring exercises, learning and system improvement is the fundamental purpose. A regular review of performance on a broad range of measures is required. Taking note of what is going on in other organisations is also critical to accelerating the learning process. A constant loop through the PLAN, DO, CHECK, ACT cycle ensures that the system remains effective, and that people feel engaged in system improvement action. SAFER TOGETHER: EXPECTATIONS We are a diverse organisation, facing many and varied risks; but we commit to identify them, assess them and then eliminate or control them so that no one suffers injury, ill health or harm and losses are minimised. Page 165
Page 166
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 66 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 We will strive to ensure the health and safety of our clients and service users in the delivery of our services. We will make sure everyone knows of the part they play in keeping themselves and others safe and healthy. We will provide and maintain safe and healthy systems of work, working condit ions and work equipment. We will ensure employees receive adequate training to ensure employees are competent to do their work We will engage and involve employees and their representatives in actions to stop accidents and prevent any life limiting health effects. TO MEET THESE EXPECTATIONS • A good quality risk assessment will be available for all jobs, activities, projects & plans. • Everyone will be clear of the part they play in controlling risks • Ways to eliminate or control the risks will be clearly defined. • A sensible and proportionate approach will be taken to the management of risk. • Everyone will have opportunities to enable their active participation in the health & safety systems in operation • Quick means of communicating problems or concerns will be available TO MAKE SURE THE CONTROL OF RISK IS SUSTAINED • Safety check systems will be provided for workforce & managers to use. • Any deviations from the desired safe state will be analysed and corrections made. • Higher risk activities will be subject to regular audit and inspection. • Information on monitoring results and improvement actions will be provided through appropriate forums. • Systems will be in place to ensure that action is taken promptly to address any defects found Page 166
Page 167
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 67 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 APPENDIX D. HARBOURS ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY GENERAL POLICY Moray Council harbours team are committed to protecting the environment and will conduct all operations in a responsible manner in compliance with the applicable environmental laws and regulations. Moray Council Harbours recognise their environmental responsibility and will work proactively at all times to minimise environmental impact and prevent pollution and the effects that its activities can have on the environment. Scottish National Heritage has designated areas of the Moray Firth as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) due to the population of dolphins and porpoises within and some other areas are classed as a Special Protection Area (SPA) due to the number of birds with European importance. OBJECTIVES ▪ Continual improvements of our environmental habitat ▪ Foster environmental awareness and responsibility in employees, contractors, suppliers and other harbour users. ▪ Train employees appropriately to raise awareness of environmental issues and utilise their support in improving the performance of the team. ▪ Manage waste to minimise the impact on landfill sites and encourage all vessels to do the same ▪ Consult with the local community and community groups and organisations on their programmes to ensure environmental considerations are in place ▪ Audit and monitor the management of environmental issues to identify opportunities for improvement ▪ Maintain procedures and methods which aim to reduce the risk of accidental spills, emissions and discharges ▪ Maintain emergency response procedures and methods for environmental protection Moray Council Harbours team recognise that to achieve the goal of operating environmentally sound involves all employees and harbour users working together. We all have the responsibility both morally and legally to conduct activities with the protection of the environment as a priority. Page 167
Page 168
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 68 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 APPENDIX E. DRONE POLICY The operation of flying drones at the port of Buckie must only be done in compliance with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA website ) requirements and the Dronecode which sets out the regulations in brief. This code confirms that drones with cameras must not be flown within a specified distance of people, vessels or structures and cannot be flown over congested areas. In addition, Buckie Harbour must also be contacted and informed in advance of any activity involving drone flying. Drone activity on a commercial basis requires the operator to be licensed by the CAA, Buckie Harbour must be provided with prior confirmation and evidence that a licence is held, liability insurance is in place and a risk assessment has been carried out. Page 168
Page 169
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 69 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 APPENDIX F. EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS Emergency Contact Details Doctors Surgery (Ardach Health Centre) 0345 099 7200 Seafield Hospital 01542 832081 Dentist (8 to 8) 01542 833087 Dentist Emergency 0845 4565990 Police Scotland Emergency – 999 Non-Emergency - 101 Any Emergency 999 Coastguard (Aberdeen) 01224 592334 Page 169
Page 170
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 70 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 APPENDIX G. HANDLING OF DANGEROUS GOODS Page 170
Page 171
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 71 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Appendix H Competency Assessment Competency Standard Complete d (date) Assessor Signature Acquire the relevant factual information regarding the vessel, including defects and if the vessel has been to Buckie before. Consult charts, tidal and hydrographic information and weather forecasts. Know how these will affect your duties Clarify any other factors which may affect the passage or berthing such as other vessel movements within the harbour. Prepare the Port Passage Plan using the pre-arrival documentation and anything else it is felt should be obtained Monitor the data that helped form the plan and amend as required Recognise and act upon changed circumstances (i.e. weather or emergencies) Provide satisfactory descriptions/definitions for numerous nautical terms related to pilotage duties (i.e. Hydrodynamics) and Harbour specific terms (i.e. coastal topographical features) How to assess the levels of stress and fatigue and the potential impact of stress and fatigue on individual capability Safely embark and disembark the vessel Assess the standards on the vessel Work and communicate effectively with the bridge team Maintain effective communication with the port Ensure safe movement in harbour and approaches Respond to problems and emergency situations Page 171
Page 172
MORAY HARBOURS SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PAGE 72 OF 72 ISSUE A REV 01.8 AUGUST 2025 Page 172