Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 20 March 2025
Back to Argyll and Bute Harbour Board — 20 March 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 13 March 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE HARBOUR BOARD will be held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 20 MARCH 2025 at 2:30 PM, or at the conclusion of the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee at 11.00am, whichever is the later, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (Pages 3 - 6) Minutes of the Argyll and Bute Harbour Board held on 12 September 2024 4. PORT MARINE SAFETY CODE (Pages 7 - 130) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 5. MARINE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN - WORKS UPDATE (Pages 131 - 138) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 6. MARINE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN - CRAIGNURE FERRY TERMINAL (Pages 139 - 156) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services 7. STATUTORY HARBOUR BOARD ACCOUNTS (Pages 157 - 164) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services / Section 95 Officer REPORT FOR NOTING 8. ARGYLL AND BUTE HARBOUR BOARD WORKPLAN (Pages 165 - 166) Public Document Pack
Page 2
Argyll and Bute Harbour Board Councillor John Armour (Vice-Chair) Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Maurice Corry Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie McFadzean Councillor Ross Moreland (Chair) Councillor Andrew Vennard Contact: Katie McKenzie, Committee Services Officer Tel: 01546 604465
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of ARGYLL AND BUTE HARBOUR BOARD held in the ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Ross Moreland (Chair) Also Present: Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Maurice Corry Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Julie McKenzie Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie McFadzean Councillor Andrew Vennard Councillor Tommy Macpherson Councillor Yvonne McNeilly Attending: Douglas Hendry, Executive Director Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director David Logan, Head of Legal and Regulatory Services Jim Smith, Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Scott Reid, Marine Operations Manager Stuart McLean, Committee Manager 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 14 The Committee Manager advised that the following Notice of Motion Under Standing Order 14 had been received as a matter of urgency. The Harbour Board resolves and agrees as follows: 1. That an additional meeting of the Harbour Board is duly convened on Wednesday 25 September 2024 (which said additional meeting of the Harbour Board is hereafter referred to as “the Meeting”); 2. That the purpose of the Meeting shall be to receive, note, and consider the Briefing Note circulated to Harbour Board Members on 11 September 2024. Moved by Councillor Andrew Vennard, seconded by Councillor Maurice Corry. The Chair ruled that he did not consider this item to be urgent and that it would be included as an item of business for the next ordinary meeting, unless it is disposed of in some other way before then. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. Page 3 Agenda Item 3
Page 4
3. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of the Argyll and Bute Harbour Board held on 21 March 2024 were approved as a correct record. 4. PORT MARINE SAFETY CODE The Harbour Board gave consideration to a report providing an update on the status of Argyll and Bute Council as Harbour Authority and it’s compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code Decision The Argyll and Bute Harbour Board – 1. noted the contents of the submitted report; 2. approved the Harbour Consultation Policy for inclusion with the Marine Safety Management System; 3. approved the Harbours and Pier use Policy for inclusion with the Marine Safety Management System; and 4. approved the Collection of Fees Policy for inclusion with the Marine Safety Management System. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated August 2024, submitted) * 5. MARINE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN The Harbour Board considered a report providing a review of the marine infrastructure works Marine Asset Management Plan. It included an update on significant and major programmes currently planned and underway within Argyll and Bute Council’s Marine Asset Management Plan. Decision The Argyll and Bute Harbour Board – 1. noted the update on the major programmes currently being addressed within Argyll and Bute Council’s Marine Asset Management Plan; 2. noted that £23.4 million worth of capital works were underway or about to commence in the financial year 2024 / 2025; 3. noted that there was a potential spend of c. £129 million over the next 5 years, the majority of which would support the new CMAL & CFL / CalMac fleet renewal; 4. noted the new Marine Asset Management Board structure for monitoring and managing marine infrastructure projects; Page 4
Page 5
5. agreed to recommend to the Council, when setting the fees and charges for 2025 / 2026 that it approves an increase to piers and harbours fees and charges of 8% to generate sufficient income to develop the Council’s marine infrastructure. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services dated September 2024, submitted) 6. ARGYLL AND BUTE HARBOUR BOARD WORKPLAN The Argyll and Bute Harbour Board workplan was before the Harbour Board for noting. Decision The Argyll and Bute Harbour Board noted the content of the workplan. (Reference: Argyll and Bute Harbour Board Work Plan dated 12 September 2024, submitted) 7. NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 13 The following Notice of Motion Under Standing Order 13 was before the Harbour Board for consideration: The Harbour Board resolves and agrees as follows: 1. That Council Officers are instructed to prepare reports showing statements of account of the annual income and expenditure for each of the 8 statutory harbour authorities where the Council is the statutory harbour authority, for the noting by the Harbour Board; declaring that the said reports shall be prepared on an annual basis, commencing with the relevant statements of account for the 2024/2025 financial year, and provided for noting by the Harbour Board at duly Public Document Pack convened ordinary meetings of the Harbour Board each calendar year; 2. That Council Officers are instructed to prepare a report on the options for the future financial reporting regime of the portfolio of Piers, Harbours, and other maritime facilities managed by the Council, for consideration by the Harbour Board in due course, together with a report outlining the options for the non- financial performance reporting of the portfolio of Piers, Harbours, and other maritime facilities managed by the Council; declaring that the said reports shall be prepared and provided for consideration by the Harbour Board no later than the last ordinary meeting of the Harbour Board held during the 2025 calendar year. Moved by Councillor Andrew Vennard, seconded by Councillor Maurice Corry. Amendment In terms of the Council’s Constitution, the Authority’s Chief Financial Officer has responsibility for the administration of the financial affairs of the Council, and is requested by the Board to bring a report to a future meeting setting out the arrangements for financial reporting in respect of all the Council’s Piers, Harbours and Marine assets. Page 5
Page 6
Moved by Councillor Ross Moreland, seconded by Councillor John Armour. As the meeting was being held on a hybrid basis, the vote required to be taken by calling the Roll and Members voted as follows – Motion Amendment Councillor Corry Councillor Armour Councillor Howard Councillor Blair Councillor McCabe Councillor McFadzean Councillor Vennard Councillor Moreland Decision On there being an equality of votes with the Motion receiving 4 votes and the Amendment receiving 4 votes, the Chair gave his casting vote to the Amendment and the Harbour Board resolved accordingly. (Reference: Notice of Motion Under Standing Order 13 proposed by Councillor Andrew Vennard, seconded by Councillor Maurice Corry, submitted and amended, and Amendment by Councillor Ross Moreland, seconded by Councillor John Armour, tabled) Page 6
Page 7
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ARGYLL & BUTE HARBOUR BOARD ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 20 MARCH 2025 PORT MARINE SAFETY CODE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report provides Members with an update on the status of Argyll and Bute Council as Harbour Authority and its compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC). 1.2 It also introduces the Designated Person annual report. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members of the Harbour Board are asked to note and consider this report 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 Statutory Harbour Authority areas 3.1.1 Argyll and Bute Council is a Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA) at 8 locations and marine asset owner at a further 28 facilities. The SHA locations are: 1. Bruichladdich Pier, by virtue of the ‘Islay Piers Order, 1904’. 2. Carradale Harbour, by virtue of the ‘Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No 3) Act, 1901’. 3. Campbeltown Harbour, by virtue of ‘Campbeltown Harbour Acts and Orders 1846 to 2011’. In addition, the Council is also the Competent Harbour Authority in respect of Pilotage, under the requirements of the Pilotage Act 1987, at Campbeltown Harbour. 4. Craignure Harbour, by virtue of the ‘Argyll County Council (Arinagour and Craignure Piers, etc) Order 1961’. Page 7 Agenda Item 4
Page 8
5. Dunoon Harbour, by virtue of ‘The Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Acts 1895 to 1906’. 6. Oban North & South Pier, by virtue of the ‘Oban Pier and Harbour Orders 1862 to 1988’. 7. Port Askaig, by virtue of the ‘Port Askaig Acts and Order 1904 to 1975’. 8. Rothesay Harbour, by virtue of the ‘Rothesay Harbour Acts and Orders 1831 to 1937’. 3.2 Compliance with the PMSC 3.2.1 Argyll and Bute Council achieves compliance with the PMSC by implementing, monitoring and reviewing the Marine Safety Management System (MSMS). The MSMS includes the policies and procedures which seek to enhance the safety at all our facilities and is externally audited by the Designated Person (DP). 3.2.2 The audits carried out at Campbeltown Harbour, Carradale Harbour, Tayinloan pier, West Loch Tarbert and Arinagour Coll during 2024 identified through evidence sampled during the audit and onsite observations, that the Council has met the requirement of the Port Marine Safety Code. 3.2.3 Although the Council is in compliance with the PMSC (the Code) as it stands at present, the Code itself is undergoing a review with a new publication due imminently. 3.2.4 The Duty Holder is therefore required to submit a declaration of compliance to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) only after the new Code is available and external Assurance Audit confirms compliance with the ‘new’ version’s provisions. 3.3 Audit results 3.3.1 As well as a Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA) Campbeltown is also a Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) in that it provides compulsory pilotage to certain qualifying vessels. That aspect was therefore also subject to audit. 3.3.2 The audit found that Campbeltown had the following best practice areas: • Provision and maintenance of Aids to Navigation is recognised as an area of best practice with a 100% availability for Category 3 and 99.76% for Category 2 Aids. • Marine and operational risk assessments are conducted with the active involvement of the Pier Operatives. Toolbox talks are held and recorded, which is considered to be a best practice approach. • The Pilot boarding was undertaken in compliance with best practice. The Master/Pilot Exchange (MPX) was accurately handled; during the pilotage trip it was noted that information exchange continued. Delivery of Pilotage Duty is considered to be an area of best practice. Page 8
Page 9
3.3.3 The audit also identified 33 observations detailed in the report where improvement opportunities exist. Some of these refer to Council wide administrative items such as Harbour Board Members undertaking Duty Holder Training and some were specific to the port. In any case the conclusion is that although the Council complies with the Code, there is still ongoing work and improvements to make. 3.3.4 The Coll and Kintyre audits found that provision and maintenance of Aids to Navigation is recognised as an area of best practice with a 100% availability for Category 3 and 99.76% for Category 2 Aids. 3.3.5 The audit also identified 19 observations detailed in the report where improvement opportunities exist. Much of these were in the area of cleanliness and housekeeping at the remote piers where Argyll and Bute Council have no staff presence and is further justification for the installation of CCTV for enforcement of our rules and policies. 3.4 Objectives 3.4.1 Marine Operations officials supported by the Duty Holder and the DP, are committed to increasing best practice across the Argyll and Bute Council area and in particular, the enforcement of our policies and rules and minimising future observations for improvement. 3.4.2 The next set of audits will take place after the summer and will be subject to the new PMSC. Work will continue to concentrate on ensuring continued compliance and improvements. 3.4.3 The Council’s MSMS will be updated with any new items that are required for the new PMSC as soon as it is published. There are also some routine updates required, and these will be completed at the same time to be reviewed by the Duty Holder. 3.4.4 The updated MSMS, Safety Plan and audit reports will be presented to the September Harbour Board for noting and approval of Harbour Board Members. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 This report provides Members with an update on the status of Argyll and Bute Council as Harbour Authority and its compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC). 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy - None directly arising from this report. 5.2 Financial - None arising from this report Page 9
Page 10
5.3 Legal - Failure to comply with the PMSC could have legal consequences following a marine incident. 5.4 HR – None. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics - None arising from this report. 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty - None directly arising from this report. 5.5.3 Islands - Compliance with the PMSC will help ensure safe and effective port operations. 5.6 Climate Change - Due regard will be given to climate change with a view to minimising any climate change impact and these will be considered as and when they arise. 5.7 Risk - Compliance with the PMSC will minimise the risk of port operations. 5.8 Customer Service - Compliance with the PMSC will assure customers and port users; and assist council staff with safe operations. 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - None directly arising from this report. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services Councillor John Armour, Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity FEBRUARY 2025 For further information contact: Scott Reid, Marine Operations Manager Tel: 01546 604 696 Stephen Hall, Interim Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Tel: 01546 604 324 APPENDICES Appendix 1 - DP Annual Report Feb 2025 Appendix 2 - PMSC Audit Campbeltown Oct24 Appendix 3 - PMSC Audit Coll Kintyre Oct 24 Page 10
Page 11
Argyll and Bute Council Designated Person (PMSC) Annual Report 2025 February 2025 APPENDIX 1Page 11
Page 12
Designated Person (PMSC) Annual Report 2025 February 2025 Page 12
Page 13
Designated Person (PMSC): Annual Report 2025 Argyll and Bute Council
ABPmer, February 2025, R.4783 | i
Document Information
Document History and Authorisation
Title Designated Person (PMSC)
Annual Report 2025
Commissioned by Argyll and Bute Council
Issue date February 2025
Document ref R.4783
Project no R/4952/01
Date Version Revision Details
03 February 2025 1 Issued for client review
25 February 2025 2 Issued for client use
Prepared
(Designated Person)
Approved
(Quality Manager)
Authorised
(Project Director)
Monty Smedley Trevor Auld Gordon Osborn
Suggested Citation
ABPmer, (2025). Designated Person (PMSC), Annual Report 2025, ABPmer Report No. R.4783.
A report produced by ABPmer for Argyll and Bute Council, February 2025.
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 13Page 14
Designated Person (PMSC): Annual Report 2025 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, February 2025, R.4783 | ii Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Port Marine Safety Code ........................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Argyll and Bute Council and the Code ............................................................................................... 2 2.2 Assurance audits .......................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Audit Outcome ............................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Assurance audit outcome ........................................................................................................................ 4 4 Delivery Plan and Activities ...................................................................................................... 5 5 Designated Person Summary ................................................................................................. 5 6 References ...................................................................................................................................... 5 7 Abbreviations / Acronyms ........................................................................................................ 6 Tables Table 1. Port Marine Safety Code Ten Key Measures .................................................................................... 1 Table 2. Campbeltown Harbour 2024 .................................................................................................................. 3 Table 3. Coll and Kintyre 2024 ................................................................................................................................ 4 Page 14
Page 15
Designated Person (PMSC): Annual Report 2025 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, February 2025, R.4783 | 1 1 Introduction This report is provided by ABPmer to Argyll and Bute Council and is written to inform the Harbour Board and Duty Holder of their current status in respect of compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) published by the Department for Transports (DfT) and regulated through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). The Port Marine Safety Code is referred to within this report as ‘the Code’ and the accompanying Guide to Good Practice is abbreviated to ‘the GtGP’ (DfT, 2018). This report summarises activities carried out by ABPmer as the supplier of Designated Person services between 01 January 2024 and 31 December 2024. 2 Port Marine Safety Code The Code sets out a national standard for every aspect of port marine safety (DfT, 2016). The aim of the Code is to enhance safety for everyone who uses or works in the UK port marine environment. In order to successfully implement the requirements of the Code, ten key measures are identified as relevant for all Harbour Authorities to consider, as shown in Table 1. These are summarised below: Table 1. Port Marine Safety Code Ten Key Measures No Ten Key Measures Required for Successful Implementation of the Code 1 Duty Holder Formally identify and designate the Duty Holder, whose members are individually and collectively accountable for compliance with the Code and their performance in ensuring safe marine operations in the harbour and its approaches. 2 Designated Person A ‘Designated Person’ must be appointed to provide independent assurance about the operation of the marine safety management system. The Designated Person must have direct access to the Duty Holder. 3 Legislation The Duty Holder must review, and be aware of, their existing powers based on local and national legislation; seeking additional powers if required, in order to promote safe navigation. 4 Duties and Powers Comply with the duties and powers under existing legislation, as appropriate. 5 Marine Risk Assessment Ensure all marine risks are formally assessed and are eliminated, or as low as reasonably practicable in accordance with good practice. 6 Marine Safety Management System Operate an effective marine safety management system (MSMS), which has been developed after consultation, is based on formal risk assessment, and has an appropriate approach to incident investigation. 7 Review and Audit Monitor, review and audit the risk assessment and marine safety management system on a regular basis – the independent designated person has a key role in providing assurance for the Duty Holder. 8 Competence Use competent people (i.e., trained, qualified and experienced) in positions of responsibility for managing marine and navigation safety. 9 Plan Publish a safety plan, showing how the standard in the Code will be met, and a report assessing the performance against the plan at least every three-years. 10 Aids to Navigation Comply with directions from the General Lighthouse Authorities and supply information and returns as required. Page 15
Page 16
Designated Person (PMSC): Annual Report 2025 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, February 2025, R.4783 | 2 2.1 Argyll and Bute Council and the Code Argyll and Bute Council is a Statutory Harbour Authority at eight locations and a marine asset owner at a further 28 marine facilities located throughout the Council area; in total that accounts for 36 ports, harbours, piers and marine facilities. The Council’s Statutory Harbour Authorities are namely: 1. Bruichladdich Pier, by virtue of the ‘Islay Piers Order, 1904’. 2. Campbeltown Harbour, by virtue of ‘Campbeltown Harbour Acts and Orders 1846 to 2011’. 3. Carradale Harbour, by virtue of the ‘Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No 3) Act, 1901’. 4. Craignure Harbour, by virtue of the ‘Argyll County Council (Arinagour and Craignure Piers, etc) Order 1961’. 5. Dunoon Harbour, by virtue of ‘The Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Acts 1895 to 1906’. 6. Oban North & South Pier, by virtue of the ‘Oban Pier and Harbour Orders 1862 to 1988’. 7. Port Askaig, by virtue of the ‘Port Askaig Acts and Order 1904 to 1975’. 8. Rothesay Harbour, by virtue of the ‘Rothesay Harbour Acts and Orders 1831 to 1937’. The Council is the marine asset owner and, in most cases, operator of 28 piers, wharves and slipways. Some of these marine assets are located within the jurisdiction of another Statutory Harbour Authority (for example, Kilcreggan and Helensburgh Piers are located in Clydeport’s harbour). Others are located outside of Harbour Authority boundaries (for example, Iona and Fionnphort). In all situations, the Council is responsible for marine safety and must manage these facilities in compliance with the requirements of the Code. 2.2 Assurance audits The primary role of the Designated Person is to provide independent assurance about the operation of the marine safety management system. This is achieved through assurance auditing at ports, harbour, piers and other marine facilities. The following audits were conducted during 2024: 21 July 2024 to observe an act of Pilotage at Campbeltown, with a second visit on 03 September 2024 to review harbour operations. 03 to 04 September 2024: Carradale Harbour, Tayinloan Pier and West Loch Tarbert. 12 September 2024: middle Pier in Coll harbour, on the Isle of Coll. 3 Audit Outcome The following section provides the outcome of the audits as a comparison against the Code’s ten key measures. The following colour coding is used: A red identifies a non-compliance with the requirements of the Code or a breach of legal obligations, which may also compromise marine safety, environmental safety or presents a significant reputational risk. An amber is an Opportunity for Improvement, such as an update to information, procedural change, or a non-conformity with local operating instructions; addressing these items may improve the overall system standard. A green indicates an area of the Code which is delivered satisfactorily. Areas of best practice have also been identified as part of the audit’s outcome. Page 16
Page 17
Designated Person (PMSC): Annual Report 2025 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, February 2025, R.4783 | 3 Table 2. Campbeltown Harbour 2024 No Ten Key Measures Required for Successful Implementation of the Code RAG 1 Duty Holder The Council has a Duty Holder and a Harbour Board. Amber: Not all members of the Harbour Board have attended Duty Holder Training, an awareness visit would be advantageous. 2 Designated Person Argyll and Bute Council has an appointed Designated Person. The Designated Person provides an annual briefing to the Duty Holder and Board. 3 Legislation The MSMS lists local Acts and Orders. Amber: Campbeltown Harbour limits on the chart do not match the Marine Directorate data layers. 4 Duties and Powers Use of Powers of Direction and CHA duty was checked. Amber: The Council does not have a process for checking commercially operated Coded vessels in its ports and harbours. 5 Marine Risk Assessment Marine Risk Assessment are in place and fully reviewed. Amber: Whilst Council staff are engaged in risk assessment reviews, there is limited evidence of wider stakeholder input. 6 Marine Safety Management System The Council issues an MSMS covering all ports, harbours and piers Amber: There is no Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on how Special Directions are given or recorded by the Harbour Master Team. 7 Review and Audit The Council has an external audit structure in place. Amber: There was no evidence that Pilotage had been reviewed when the new Pilot Manual and Directions were issued in 2021. 8 Competence Training records are held centrally in MHR iTrent. A&BC uses a dedicated harbour training matrix which identifies the skill set needed by Marine Staff at each location. 9 Plan The ‘Marine Safety Plan’ was approved for issue by the Harbour Board on 21 March 2024, and is included as a Board Meeting annex. The Marine Safety Plan is hosted on the A&BC’s website. 10 Aids to Navigation As the Local Lighthouse Authority, the Council meets and exceeds the availability criteria: Category 2 = 99.76% (target is 99.0%), Category 3 = 100% (target is 97.0%). Items of best practice noted during the Campbeltown audit include the following topics: Provision and maintenance of Aids to Navigation is recognised as an area of best practice with a 100% availability for Category 3 and 99.76% for Category 2 Aids. Marine and operational risk assessments are conducted with the active involvement of the Pier Operatives. Toolbox talks are held and recorded, which is considered to be a best practice approach. The Pilot boarding was undertaken in compliance with best practice. The Master/Pilot Exchange (MPX) was accurately handled; during the pilotage trip it was noted that information exchange continued. Delivery of Pilotage Duty is considered to be an area of best practice. Page 17
Page 18
Designated Person (PMSC): Annual Report 2025 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, February 2025, R.4783 | 4 Table 3. Coll and Kintyre 2024 No Ten Key Measures Required for Successful Implementation of the Code RAG 1 Duty Holder The Council has a Duty Holder and a Harbour Board. Amber: Not all members of the Harbour Board have attended Duty Holder Training, an awareness visit would be advantageous. 2 Designated Person Argyll and Bute Council has an appointed Designated Person. The Designated Person provides an annual briefing to the Duty Holder and Board. 3 Legislation The MSMS lists local Acts and Orders. Amber: Only part of the ‘Carradale Pier’ Act is held by the Council, the whole act should be obtained from Parliamentary archives. 4 Duties and Powers Use of Powers of Direction and enforcement was checked. Amber: There is no towage guidance issued for Carradale Harbour. 5 Marine Risk Assessment Marine Risk Assessment are in place and fully reviewed. Amber: Whilst Council staff are engaged in risk assessment reviews, there is limited evidence of wider stakeholder input. 6 Marine Safety Management System The Council issues an MSMS covering all ports, harbours and piers Amber: Further development of specific SOPs for Carradale, Tayinloan, West Loch Tarbert and Coll would be desirable. 7 Review and Audit The Council has an external audit structure in place. Amber: There is no internal audit schedule, audits are arranged to meet specific requirements. 8 Competence Training records are held centrally in MHR iTrent. A&BC uses a dedicated harbour training matrix which identifies the skill set needed by Marine Staff at each location. 9 Plan The ‘Marine Safety Plan’ was approved for issue by the Harbour Board on 21 March 2024, and is included as a Board Meeting annex. The Marine Safety Plan is hosted on the A&BC’s website. 10 Aids to Navigation As the Local Lighthouse Authority, the Council meets and exceeds the availability criteria: Category 2 = 99.76% (target is 99.0%), Category 3 = 100% (target is 97.0%). One item of best practice was noted: Provision and maintenance of Aids to Navigation is recognised as an area of best practice with a 100% availability for Category 3 and 99.76% for Category 2 Aids. 3.1 Assurance audit outcome The Campbeltown Audit summarised in Table 2, demonstrates that the standard of the Code was met. Additionally, the Coll and Kintyre Harbours and Piers audit also met the expectation of the Code; noting that Carradale is a Statutory Harbour Authority and middle Pier on Coll, Tayinloan and West Loch Tarbert are marine facilities. It should be noted that several observations were made at West Loch Tarbert. The lack of direct oversight of this location has led to marine users discarding unwanted nets, engine oil, debris and for general fly-tipping. Monitoring is conducted remotely and remains a cause for concern from a marine safety and risk to marine pollution perspective. Page 18
Page 19
Designated Person (PMSC): Annual Report 2025 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, February 2025, R.4783 | 5 4 Delivery Plan and Activities During 2024, the Designated Person has attended the following: Meetings: o 21 March 2024: Designated Person presentation to the Harbour Board via MS Teams. o 25 October 2024: Duty Holder Training, attended via MS Teams. The generalised plan for the Designated Person in 2025 includes an annual meeting with the Duty Holder and attendance at Harbour Master meetings. The audit delivery dates are shown below: August/September 2025: Ellenabeich Pier, Easdale Slips, Cuan Ferry Slip. August/September 2025: Dunoon. 5 Designated Person Summary The Council is responsible for eight Statutory Harbour Authorities and 28 marine facilities; all of which are required to operate to the standard of the Port Marine Safety Code. The audits carried out at Campbeltown Harbour, Carradale Harbour, Tayinloan Pier, West Loch Tarbert and middle pier (Coll) during 2024 have identified through evidence sampled during the audit and onsite observations, that the Council has met the minimum requirement of the Port Marine Safety Code. The Duty Holder is advised to confirm its compliance with the Code to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at the next reporting opportunity. It should be noted that the Port Marine Safety Code has been updated and is expected to be reissued by Government in March or April of 2025. It is possible that the 2025 Code will introduce new or amended requirements and will therefore require a comparison with existing provisions before concluding the Council’s compliance status. Following the 2025 Code’s publication, the Council will have between 6-12 months to make its self-declaration as part of the national Compliance Exercise. Given the anticipated timescales, the Compliance Exercise is expected to take place circa October 2025 to April 2026; this timescale will be confirmed by the MCA in due course. 6 References Department for Transport, 2016. Port Marine Safety Code. Department for Transport (DfT), November 2016. Department for Transport, 2018. A Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations Prepared in conjunction with the Port Marine Safety Code 2016. Department for Transport (DfT), February 2018. Page 19
Page 20
Designated Person (PMSC): Annual Report 2025 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, February 2025, R.4783 | 6 7 Abbreviations / Acronyms A&BC Argyll & Bute Council CHA Competent Harbour Authority DfT Department for Transport DP Designated Person GtGP Guide to Good Practice MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency MS Microsoft MSMS Marine Safety Management System PMSC Port Marine Safety Code RAG Red/Amber/Green UK United Kingdom Cardinal points/directions are used unless otherwise stated. SI units are used unless otherwise stated. Page 20
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
Argyll and Bute Council Port Marine Safety Code Audit: Campbeltown 2024 October 2024 APPENDIX 2Page 23
Page 24
Page intentionally left blank Page 24
Page 25
Port Marine Safety Code Audit: Campbeltown 2024 October 2024 Source: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/migrated_files/marina-8.jpg Page 25
Page 26
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council
ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | i
Document Information
Document History and Authorisation
Title Port Marine Safety Code
Audit: Campbeltown 2024
Commissioned by Argyll and Bute Council
Issue date October 2024
Document ref R.4589
Project no R/4952/01
Date Version Revision Details
16 October 2024 1 Issued for client review
Authorised
(Designated Person)
Approved
(Quality Manager)
Authorised
(Project Director)
Monty Smedley Capt. Rod Lewis Gordon Osborn
Suggested Citation
ABPmer, (2024). Port Marine Safety Code, Audit: Campbeltown 2024, ABPmer Report No. R.4589. A report produced by ABPmer
for Argyll and Bute Council, October 2024.
Author
M.J. Smedley
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/
Accepted as Issued for client use
Page 26Page 27
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | ii Contents 1 The Port Marine Safety Code ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 About the Harbour Authority ................................................................................................................. 2 2 Purpose and Method ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Audit scope .................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Audit definitions and outcomes ............................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Audit date and criteria .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.4 Auditor............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.5 Auditees .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 3 Audit Summary ........................................................................................................................... 5 4 References .................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Websites ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 5 Abbreviations/Acronyms ........................................................................................................ 8 Appendices A Detailed Audit Findings ........................................................................................................ 11 A.1 PMSC Section 1 – Accountability for Marine Safety .................................................................. 11 A.2 PMSC Section 2 – Key Measures Needed to Secure Marine Safety .................................... 15 A.3 PMSC Section 3 – General Duties and Powers ............................................................................. 22 A.4 PMSC Section 4 – Specific Duties and Powers ............................................................................. 25 B Quayside Check ....................................................................................................................... 36 B.1 Quayside Check ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure Figure 1. Campbeltown Harbour Limits ................................................................................................................ 2 Images Image B1. Campbeltown, missing water egress ladder hand-grip ............................................................ 38 Image B2. Campbeltown, Old Quay bollard ....................................................................................................... 38 Image B3. Campbeltown, New Quay wooden edge beams ......................................................................... 39 Image B4. Campbeltown, Old Quay wooden edge beams ........................................................................... 39 Page 27
Page 28
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 1 1 The Port Marine Safety Code The Port Marine Safety Code (‘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. It is authored by the UK Government, supported by the devolved administrations and representatives from across the maritime sector and, whilst the Code is not mandatory, these bodies have a strong expectation that all harbour authorities will comply. The Code is applicable both to Statutory Harbour Authorities and to other marine facilities, which may not have statutory powers; these are collectively referred to throughout the Code as ‘organisations’ (DfT, 2016). In reading this audit report, the Council and Duty Holder 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 already exist. Failure to comply is not an offence in itself. However, the Code represents good practice as recognised by a wide range of industry stakeholders and a failure to adhere to good practice may be indicative of a harbour authority being in breach of certain legal duties. Moreover, the organisation may suffer reputational damage if it has publicly committed to the Code’s standards and then fails to meet them.” (DfT, 2016) 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 Formally identify and designate the Duty Holder, whose members are individually and collectively accountable for compliance with the Code and their performance in ensuring safe marine operations in the harbour and its approaches. 1.6-1.8, 1.10, 1.16-1.17 2 Designated Person A ‘Designated Person’ must be appointed to provide independent assurance about the operation of the marine safety management system. The designated person must have direct access to the Duty Holder. 1.11-1.12 3 Legislation The Duty Holder must review and be aware of their existing powers based on local and national legislation; seeking additional powers if required in order to promote safe navigation. 2.3-2.6, 4.3-4.5 4 Duties and Powers Comply with the duties and powers under existing legislation as appropriate. 1.3-1.5, 1.9, 1.13-1.15, 3.1-3.14, 4.2, 4.6-4.20, 4.25-4.32 5 Risk Assessment Ensure all marine risks are formally assessed and are eliminated or as low as reasonably practicable in accordance with good practice. 2.7-2.11 6 Marine Safety Management System Operate an effective marine safety management system which has been developed after consultation, is based on formal risk assessment, and refers to an appropriate approach to incident investigation. 2.12-2.17, 2.19-2.23, 2.25, 2.29 7 Review and Audit Monitor, review and audit the risk assessment and marine safety management system on a regular basis – the independent designated person has a key role in providing assurance for the Duty Holder. 2.2, 2.24, 2.30-2.32 8 Competence Use competent people (i.e. trained, qualified and experienced) in positions of responsibility for managing marine and navigation safety. 2.18 9 Plan Publish a safety plan showing how the standard in the Code will be met and a report assessing the performance against the plan at least every 3 years. 2.26-2.28 10 Aids to Navigation Comply with directions from the General Lighthouse Authorities and supply information and returns as required. 4.21-4.24 Page 28
Page 29
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 2 1.1 About the Harbour Authority Campbeltown Harbour is at the south end of the Kintyre Peninsula, facing eastwards to the First of Clyde. Argyll and Bute Council (A&BC) is the Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA) for Campbeltown Harbour with an area defined in the Campbeltown Harbour Acts and Orders 1846 to 2011. The harbour limits as recorded by Marine Scotland’s database are shown in Figure 1. A&BC is also the Local Lighthouse Authority (LLA) with respect to aids to navigation through Section 193 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. A&BC is also the Competent Harbour Authority in accordance with ‘The Argyll and Bute Council (Pilotage Powers Order) 2007’. This provides A&BC with a duty to provide pilotage for Campbeltown Harbour as required in the Pilotage Act 1987. Campbeltown Harbour has a number of marine facilities, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) refuelling jetty on the south shore of the harbour. This facility provides refuelling to Government and visiting military vessels, with the infrastructure owned by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and operated by the Oils and Pipeline Agency (OPA). At the western end of the harbour, the town of Campbeltown has two quays; these are termed the ‘New Quay’ and the ‘Old Quay’. The New Quay is a general cargo berth of 120 m in length, with a dedicated Roll-on, Roll-off (RoRo) terminal and linkspan on its eastern side. The cargo berth is routinely used for cut timber, but can take a range of cargo types. The ‘Old Quay’ is an ‘L’ shape with two 60 m sides and a 90 m quay return. The quay is predominantly used by fish vessels including resident vessels and visiting fishing vessels. The ‘Old Quay’ also has the Royal National Lifeboat Institute (RNLI) berth and access to the adjacent Campbeltown Marina. The marina is owned by A&BC and operated by a contracted third party. Other facilities in the harbour include a discussed fishing pier, a non-operational shipyard (privately owned) and a sailing club operating from a slipway on the north shore of the harbour. Figure 1. Campbeltown Harbour Limits Page 29
Page 30
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 3 2 Purpose and Method 2.1 Audit scope A&BC has contracted ABPmer to provide Designated Person services for its ports, harbours and piers. Part of this service includes the provision of annual auditing to establish if the Harbour Authority is compliant with the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC). The scope of the audit includes a review of Harbour Authority 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 Port Marine Safety Code requires organisations to confirm compliance with the requirements of the Code. Therefore, Port Marine Safety Code 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 port or harbour’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 local 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 30
Page 31
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 4 2.3 Audit date and criteria The audit was carried out onsite at Campbeltown Harbour as two visits. The first visit was conducted on 21 July 2024 to observe an act of Pilotage on the vessel MV Runner. The second visit was conducted on the 03 September 2024 to review harbour operations. The latest version of the PMSC, and the accompanying Guide to Good Practice (GtGP), has been used as the benchmarking standard within Appendix A. The audit tables also identify the paragraph numbers from the Code (DfT, 2016) and relevant sections of the Guide to Good Practice (DfT, 2018), for cross reference purposes. In addition, within Appendix B 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. The Appendix tables to this report contain the test questions and evidence, noting down compliance, non-compliance and observational remarks. 2.4 Auditor The following auditor conducted this audit. Team Member Initials Company, Designation Monty Smedley MJS ABPmer, Associate Maritime Consultant Lead Auditor for Quality Management Systems (QMS ISO 9001) Designed Person (PMSC) Argyll and Bute Council Capt. Rod Lewis RAL ABPmer Associate Maritime Consultant Auditor for Quality Management Systems (QMS ISO 9001) 2.5 Auditees The following individuals participated in the audit. Team Member Initials Role/Designation Allan Finlay AF Piers and Harbours – Technical Officer John Willis JW Campbeltown – Assistant Harbour Master Julie Hendry JH Marine Operations – Admin Officer Capt. Jonathon Hague Capt. JH Campbeltown Authorised Pilot – Association of Forth Pilots Scott Reid SR Marine Operations Manager Stephen Scally SS Campbeltown – Harbour Master Page 31
Page 32
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 5 3 Audit Summary Number Key Measures Ten-Point ‘Health Check’ 1 Duty Holder 0 2 4 2 Designated Person 0 0 2 3 Legislation 0 2 5 4 Duties and Powers 0 19 48 5 Risk Assessment 0 4 5 6 MSMS 0 4 10 7 Review and Audit 0 2 4 8 Competence 0 0 2 9 Plan 0 0 3 10 Aids to Navigation 0 0 2 Total 0 33 85 The summary presented in the above table identifies that, for the ten-point health-check, Argyll and Bute Council as the Statutory Harbour Authority for Campbeltown Harbour is found to be fully compliant with the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code. The following two areas of best practice were found during the audit: Provision and maintenance of Aids to Navigation is recognised as an area of best practice with a 100% availability for Category 3 and 99.76% for Category 2 Aids. Marine and operational risk assessments are conducted with the active involvement of the Pier Operatives. Toolbox talks are held and recorded, which is considered to be a best practice approach. The Pilot boarding was undertaken in compliance with best practice. The Master/Pilot Exchange (MPX) was accurately handled; during the pilotage trip it was noted that information exchange continued. Delivery of Pilotage Duty is considered to be an area of best practice. The PMSC audit identified 33 observations relating to improvement opportunities for management consideration, the detailed findings being presented in Appendix A. The following points identify the more significant items: At the time of audit, not all Councillors on the Harbour Board have attended Duty Holder training, the Marine Safety Plan has an objective of 100% attendance. It is recommended that members of the Harbour Board who have not attend Duty Holder training, complete this training as soon as practical. Whilst Council staff are actively engaged in risk assessment reviews, there is limited evidence of wider stakeholder consultation and engagement in marine risk assessments. The experience and knowledge of harbour users should be sought, and their engagement documented in the process. There is no Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) detailing how Special Directions are given or recorded by the Harbour Master team. The Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) does not provide information on the port and harbour stakeholder engagement process. Page 32
Page 33
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 6 A&BC does not have a formalised process for checking commercially operated Coded vessels at its ports, harbours or piers. It is recommended that the Council considers the requirements of the GtGP (Section 11.3, 11.4) with respect to regulating third party commercial workboats and launches within its area of jurisdiction and creates a registration scheme for workboats operating within the Authority’s area. There is evidence that Pilotage has been reviewed in 2021 when the Pilotage Manual (including Pilotage Directions) was updated. It is recommended that A&BC, as the CHA, formally review the need for Pilotage. This is an expectation of both the Pilotage Act 1987 and the Code. At the time of audit, the Pilotage Directions were not published (for example, available on the Council’s website). The Council, as CHA must publish a controlled copy of the Pilotage Directions for Campbeltown on its website. The directions should only be published once they have been consulted upon by users of the harbour. There is no evidence of a published passage plan, or detailed passage planning information available to mariners accessing the harbour. A&BC does have information for Campbeltown Harbour on its website, but this is not considered detailed enough to allow effective passage planning by visiting vessels. Any vessels using a Campbeltown Pilot will have the passage plan provided to them as part of the Pilotage service. A&BC, as CHA, should publish a passage plan or passage plan guidance on their website. Marine operations and quayside checks were also carried out, three observations were identified, the detailed findings being presented in Appendix B. The wooden edge protection beams at the RoRo berth and the Old Quay have deteriorated. The Old Quay bollards were not painted, were not numbered, or Safe Working Loads (SWL) identified. At the RoRo ferry terminal, one egress ladder was missing the cope level hand-grab bar; this should be repaired. Page 33
Page 34
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 7 4 References DfT, 2016. Port Marine Safety Code, Department for Transport (DfT) a, November 2016. DfT, 2018. A Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations Prepared in conjunction with the Port Marine Safety Code 2016, Department for Transport (DfT), February 2018. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2014. ‘Safety in Docks: Approved Code of Practice and Guidance’ (ACOP)’, Publication L148. ISO 9001: Quality Management Systems. International Organization for Standardization. Port Skills and Safety (PSS), 2019. Guidance on Mooring, SIP 005. March 2019. Port Skills and Safety (PSS), 2019b. Guidance on Safe Access and Egress, SIP 014. September 2019. 4.1 Websites https://forthpilots.com/forth-pilots-mission-statement https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/fees/24-25/marine https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=567&MId=15635&Ver=4 https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=567 https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/moderngov/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=567 https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/my-council/leon-e-learning https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/marine-services/campbeltown-harbour https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-05/dp_contact_information3_abc.pdf https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/migrated_files/dangerous_goods_notification_ procedures_may_2020.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/port-marine-safety-code-compliant-ports/port-marine- safety-code-compliant-ports-list Page 34
Page 35
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 8 5 Abbreviations/Acronyms A&BC Argyll and Bute Council ACOP Approved Code of Practice and Guidance AtoN Aid(s) to Navigation BPA British Ports Association CARP Critical Activity Recover Plan Cat Category CERS Consolidated European Reporting System CFL CalMac Ferries Limited CHA Competent Harbour Authority DfT Department for Transport DGHAR Dangerous Goods in Harbour Areas Regulations DRA Dynamic Risk Assessment FRA Formal Risk Assessment GLA General Lighthouse Authority GtGP Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations HDPCA Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 HRO Harbour Revision Order HSE Health and Safety Executive IMO International Maritime Organization ISO International Organization for Standardization ISPO International Standard for Marine Pilotage ISPS International Ship and Port Facility KHM King’s Harbour Master KPI Key Performance Indicator LATON Local Aids to Navigation LEON Council online e-learning platform LLA Local Lighthouse Authority LOA Length Overall LPS Local Port Service LSE Lifesaving Equipment MAIB Marine Accident Investigation Branch MARNIS Marine Risk Software Produced by ABPmer MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency MGN Marine Guidance Notes MHR iTrent Product name for the human resource and payroll software system MOD Ministry of Defence MPX Master/Pilot Exchange MS Microsoft MSMS Marine Safety Management System MV Motor Vessel / Merchant Vessel n/a Not Applicable NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization OPA Oils and Pipeline Agency OPRC International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation PEC Pilotage Exemption Certificates PFSP Port Facility Security Plan PMSC Port Marine Safety Code PPU Portable Pilot Unit Page 35
Page 36
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 9 PSS Port Skills and Safety QMS Quality Management System RATSA Railways and Transportation Safety Act RNLI Royal National Lifeboat Institute RoRo Roll-on, Roll-off SAC Special Areas of Conservation SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency SHA Statutory Harbour Authority SIP Safety in Port SOPs Standard Operating Procedures SOSREP Secretary of State's Representative SPA Special Protection Areas SWL Safe Working Load UK United Kingdom UKHO United Kingdom Hydrographic Office VHF Very High Frequency VTS Vessel Traffic Service Cardinal points/directions are used unless otherwise stated. SI units are used unless otherwise stated. Page 36
Page 37
Appendices Page 37
Page 38
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 11 A Detailed Audit Findings A.1 PMSC Section 1 – Accountability for Marine Safety PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor 1.3-1.5 Duties and Powers Is the Organisation’s Duty of Care for users of the harbour, port of facility stated? Satisfactory – A&BC’s Marine Safety Management System (MSMS), ‘Policies and Statements’, Volume 1, revision 02, issued 21 March 2024. The MSMS, Section 3.1 states: “Harbour Authorities have a range of statutory and non-statutory duties and powers relating to marine operations. The Council has a Duty of reasonable Care to its harbour users and will ensure the safety at work of employees and other persons who may be affected by the Authority's activities as far as is reasonably practicable to do so”. Additionally, Section 10 ‘Conservancy’ also states that: “There is a duty to conserve a harbour so that it is reasonably fit for use as a port, and a duty of reasonable care to see that the harbour is in a fit condition for vessels to use.” MJS_001 MJS Are local Acts and Orders identified? Satisfactory – the harbour authority has a copy of its local legislation. Local Acts and Orders 1846 to 2011 include: The Campbeltown Harbour and Burgh Act’, 1846. The Campbeltown Burgh and Harbour Act’, 1876. Campbeltown Harbour and Gas Order 1925. Campbeltown Harbour Water and Gas Order Confirmation, 1935. Campbeltown Water Order Confirmation 1946. The Campbeltown (Ferry Terminal) Harbour Revision Order 1996. The Argyll and Bute Council (Pilotage Powers) 2007. The Campbeltown Harbour Revision Order 2011. MJS_010 MJS Page 38
Page 39
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 12 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. 1.3-1.5 Cont. Duties and Powers Is the Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act (HDPCA) 1847 incorporated into local Acts and Orders? Satisfactory – the HDPCA has been incorporated into the Campbeltown Burgh and Harbour Act’, 1876, Section 5. Observation – as only part of the 1876 Act is available, it cannot be fully ascertained which sections of the 1847 HDPCA have been incorporated (or not). Recommend – the full 1876 Act is obtained from Parliamentary Archives Section 5 is reviewed to understand which parts of the 1847 Act have been incorporated. MJS_010 MJS 1.6 – 1.7 The Duty Holder Has the organisation appointed and confirmed who the Duty Holder is? Satisfactory – A&BC has assigned the post and accountability of the Duty Holder to the Council’s Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Services. The Harbour Board retains responsibility for providing policy direction to the officers of the Authority. An organisational structure is provided the MSMS, Section 1.6. MJS_001 MJS 1.8 The Duty Holder Are the Duty Holder’s responsibilities for compliance with Code defined? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 1.4 lists the principal requirements of the Duty Holder. MJS_001 MJS 1.10 The Duty Holder Does the Duty Holder (and Harbour Board members) have a clear understanding of the port’s marine activities and MSMS? Satisfactory – the Harbour Board and Duty Holder receive information from officers of the Authority, presented as technical reports to Board Meetings. Periodically the Harbour Board and Duty Holder visit one of the Councils ports, harbours or piers. The Harbour Board were invited to the Campbeltown Emergency Response Exercise in November 2021 and undertook an operational tour of Oban Harbour in September 2021. Observation – the Council is encouraged to arrange an opportunity in 2025 for the Duty Holder and Board to visit one of the Authority’s ports, harbours or piers. Recommend – to provide awareness of the Council’s ports, harbours and piers, arrange an annual visit for the Duty Holder and Board. MJS_001 MJS Page 39
Page 40
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 13 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. 1.10 Cont. The Duty Holder Has the Duty Holder (Harbour Board members) been provided with a clear brief or training on their role under the requirements of the Code? Satisfactory – four (of the eight) Councillors of the Harbour Board, plus the Council’s Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure Services (as Duty Holder) have attended training. Observation – not all Councillors on the Harbour Board have attended Duty Holder training, the Marine Safety Plan has an objective of 100% attendance. Recommend – that members of the Harbour Board who have not attend Duty Holder training, complete this training as soon as practical. MJS_011 https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/mo derngov/mgCo mmitteeDetails. aspx?ID=567 MJS 1.11-1.12 The Designated Person Has the Harbour Authority appointed an individual as the Designated Person? Satisfactory – the Duty Holder has appointed ABPmer to provide Designated Person services, with Monty Smedley as the named Designated Person. This contract commenced on 01 November 2021. The Designated Person’s contact details are hosted on the Council’s website. https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/site s/default/files/2 023- 05/dp_contact_i nformation3_ab c.pdf MJS Is the Designated Person’s role explained in the MSMS? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 2.0 lists the duties of the Designated Person. MJS_001 MJS 1.13 Chief Executive [or equivalent]] Have executive and operational responsibilities for marine safety been clearly assigned? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 1.6.1 lists the responsibilities of the ‘Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services’, and Section 1.6.2 lists the responsibilities of the ‘Marine Operations Manager’. MJS_001 MJS How is marine safety funded within the organisation? Satisfactory – funding is identified and agreed through the Council’s approvals process. Officers of the Authority have delegated spending powers within their spending limits. All significant funding decision outside of spending limits come to the Harbour Board, officers of the Authority provide technical input to Harbour Board decisions. n/a MJS Page 40
Page 41
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 14 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor 1.9, 1.14 – 1.15 Harbour Master Have executive and operational responsibilities for marine safety been clearly assigned? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 2.5 states that: “Harbour Masters and their Assistants are appointed by the Harbour Authority to support the Marine Operations Manager to develop the team’s service plans by working in partnership with colleagues (within and out with the service) and by taking personal responsibility for planning how these are delivered effectively and efficiently”. Section 1.6.4 lists specific duties. Additionally, A&BC also appoints Pier Masters in selected locations, the duties of which are identified in Section 1.6.5. MJS_001 MJS Does an officer with responsibilities for marine safety attend Board meetings? Satisfactory – three times a year, a report is provided by the Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services; major issues are raised to the Harbour Board. Evidence from the Harbour Board meeting of 12 September 2024 provided. MJS_012 MJS_013 https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/mo derngov/ieListM eetings.aspx?Co mmitteeId=567 MJS 1.16 – 1.17 The Organisation’s Officers Does the MSMS provide details of the organisation’s Officers and their responsibilities for marine safety? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 1.6.3 lists the responsibilities of the Marine Technical Officer, and Section 1.6.6 provides detail on the Council’s Assistant Harbour Masters. MJS_001 MJS Page 41
Page 42
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 15 A.2 PMSC Section 2 – Key Measures Needed to Secure Marine Safety PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor 2.2 Further guidance Does the organisation review any of the following: MAIB digest / reports MCA health check trends Satisfactory – the MCA Health Checks trends was included in the Designated Person’s briefing note which was tabled at the 02 September 2021 Harbour Board meeting. Information from the MAIB and the BPA in the former of safety circulars are distributed by the Marine Operations Admin Officer. MJS_014 MJS 2.3 – 2.6 Review existing powers Does the Harbour Authority have an understanding of local legislation? Satisfactory – the Harbour Authority has a list of local Acts and Orders for Campbeltown. MJS_010 MJS Are local Acts and Harbour Orders referenced in MSMS? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 3.2, has a list relevant local Acts or Orders. Campbeltown has local copies. Observation – Bruichladdich Pier is missing from the list in Section 3.2. Recommend – adding Bruichladdich Pier, by virtue of the ‘Islay Piers Order 1904’, into Section 3.2. MJS_001 MJS Have the Harbour Authority’s existing powers been reviewed? Satisfactory – the Harbour Acts have been reviewed by A&BC lawyers. Recommendations for update have been presented to the Council and a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) consolidation process initiated. Evidence provided. MJS_015 MJS_016 MJS_017 MJS Is the organisation’s jurisdiction mapped and clear? Satisfactory – the Harbour Authority has a list of local Acts and Orders for Campbeltown, plus a map with the extent of the harbour limits shown. Observation – the harbour limits on the chart (Admiralty Chart Number 1864 ‘Harbours and Anchorages in Arran and Kintyre’, Campbeltown Loch Panel C) does not match the information held by Marine Scotland. The Campbeltown Harbour Order 1846, Schedule 38 defines the limits at the Loch entrance, but is silent (does not mention) limits between Island Davaar and the mainland of Kintyre. Recommend – there is a discrepancy between the charted limits between the Island Davaar and the mainland of Kintyre limits on UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) products, and information held by Marine Scotland (which shows the limits as following ‘The Doirlinn’ causeway. The Campbeltown Harbour Order 1846, Schedule 38 is silent on this boundary. This should be raised with the UKHO. MJS_010 MJS_018 MJS Page 42
Page 43
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 16 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor 2.7 – 2.11 Use of Formal Risk Assessment (FRA) Have risks associated with marine operations been assessed and a means of controlling them deployed? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 5 describes the assessment methodology. A set of 15 risk assessments are in place for the harbour. The hazard scenarios cover a range of foreseeable eventualities including: Contact with structures, Collisions, Grounding/Stranding, Equipment Failure, Event Management and Fire/Explosions. Observation – many of the assessment review dates are set for January or February. Recommend – that a staggered approach to risk assessment review is adopted, on a cyclic basis, over the year. MJS_001 MJS_019 MJS How does the organisation ensure those undertaking marine risk assessment are competent in the role? Satisfactory – the Harbour Master has undertaken a training course for marine risk completed on 05 April 2016, certificate evidenced. Observation – the Deputy Harbour Master managed the day-to-day updates to the risk assessments and has not attended specific training on MARNIS software. Observation – there is no dedicated training course for Marine Risk Management, evidence from audits suggests that staff skill sets in this area are usually evidenced through previous training (for example, Certificates of Competence as deck officers, or academic training courses). Whilst it is expected that the recruitment process will identify these as desirable qualifications, there is no recognised route for obtaining these which is promoted by A&BC. Recommend – at the next opportunity, the Deputy Harbour Master should attend marine risk and MARNIS user training. Recommend – a training course, or process for obtaining suitable qualification(s) in Marine Risk Management is considered. This should include Marine Risk Assessment, management of risk controls and accident-incident reporting and investigation processes. MJS_020 MJS Are stakeholders included in marine risk review/assessments? Satisfactory – risk assessments are conducted with the active involvement of the Pier Operatives. Tool box talks are held and recorded, this is considered best practice. Observation – whilst Council staff are actively engaged in marine risk assessment reviews, there is limited evidence of wider stakeholder consultation and engagement in the risk review and assessment process. Recommend – the experience and knowledge of harbour users should be sought, and their engagement documented in marine risk assessments. MJS_019 MJS_021 MJS Page 43
Page 44
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 17 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. 2.7 – 2.11 Cont. Use of Formal Risk Assessment (FRA) Does the MSMS prescribe the review frequency for risk assessments? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 5.1.3 states that: “Navigational risk assessments are maintained for the main ports and harbours as a minimum. The regular (annual) review of these risk assessments and any new risk assessments caused by operational changes will identify new risks”. MJS_001 MJS Is a system of Dynamic Risk Assessment (DRA) used? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 5.2 provides information on the DRA requirement. A&BC has a DRA flowchart to aid decision making. MJS_001 MJS_025 MJS 2.12-2.14 Implement a MSMS Is there an MSMS? Does this incorporate policies and procedures? The MSMS must incorporate a regular and systematic review of its performance. Satisfactory – A&BC’s Marine Safety Management System (MSMS), ‘Policies and Statements’, Volume 1, revision 02, issued 21 March 2024. A revision history table is included, with a draft noted as being issued in January 2023. The MSMS was approved by the Harbour Board on 21 March 2024. The MSMS, Section 7.1 under the sub-heading ‘periodic review’ identifies that: “Additional to the above the Marine Safety Management System will be reviewed and reissued by the Marine Operations Manager every three years.” Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are authored by the port and held as a catalogue. Evidence sighted. Observation – the MSMS on A&BC’s website is Revision 02, however the front page and headers are dated November 2023. Recommend – the MSMS date on the front cover and footers is updated to match the revision number in the Document Record. MJS_001 MJS_022 MJS_023 MJS_024 MJS_028 MJS 2.15 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Does the harbour authority detail KPIs and/or make a statement about performance in the organisation’s annual report? Satisfactory – A&BC’s key performance indicators are detailed in the ‘Marine Safety Plan’ as standing objectives, these are measured and reported on annually with the outcome recorded in the published plan. The MSMS, Section 9.1 provides information on active and reactive system measurements. MJS_001 MJS_007 MJS 2.16 MSMS assigning responsibility Does the MSMS explicitly assign responsibility for appropriate safety/conservancy matters? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 1.6 ‘Marine Operational Management Structure’ details the assignment of responsibility to key officers of the Authority. MJS_001 MJS Page 44
Page 45
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 18 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor 2.17 MSMS Consultation Are forum/consultation meetings held? Satisfactory – the ‘Navigational Safety, Pilotage and Towage Policy’ states that A&BC will: “Consult widely with port and other relevant stakeholders in respect of navigational safety issues.” Active engagement occurs as a day-to-day process at Campbeltown, there is an open-door policy, with discussion at the quayside and at the harbour office. Harbour meetings have been held previously in person and over MS Teams. Observation – in Campbeltown, there are a number of distinct user groups, but no clear engagement strategy: The Royal National Lifeboat Institute (RNLI). The Marina The Oil & Pipelines Agency (OPA) The Fishermen’s Association CalMac Ferries Limited (CFL) Independent operators. Observation – the MSMS does not provide information on stakeholder engagement processes. Recommend – the engagement with harbour user groups is considered and written down as a strategy that can be delivered systematically, with the recording of meetings/discussion and any actions from these. Recommend – a section addressing stakeholder consultation is added to the MSMS. MJS_001 MJS_002 Anecdotal MJS 2.18 Competence standards Are personnel qualified and trained for their marine safety role? Satisfactory – training records are held centrally in MHR iTrent. A&BC uses a dedicated harbour training matrix which identifies the skill set needed by at each location. Many of the training courses are accessed on the online e-learning platform ‘LEON’. Induction and training records were sampled for Campbeltown staff. On training, the MSMS, Section 8.1 states: “The Marine Operations Department shall maintain a training matrix for all staff and the respective line managers are responsible for keeping it up-to-date. The training matrix and training records is held and maintained centrally”. MJS_001 MJS_003 MJS_026 MJS_027 MJS_047 https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/my -council/leon-e- learning MJS Is there a policy on revalidation or maintenance of qualifications in place? Satisfactory – a Marine Training Policy is in place, dated v1 August 2023, and available for download from the A&BC website. MJS_003 MJS Page 45
Page 46
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 19 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor 2.19 – 2.22 Incident reporting and investigation Does the MSMS identify the organisation’s instruction regarding: reporting recording of incidents investigation enforcement (if relevant). Satisfactory – the MSMS Section 4.5 details the process to follow should an incident occur; this addresses investigation and reporting. Evidence of the sailing vessel Encore grounding, and the ferry Loch Ridden grounding (on the slipway) sampled. The following provides a summary of totals per year: 2 incidents – 2024 (to date) 2 incidents - 2023 3 incidents - 2022 2 incidents – 2021 0 incidents – 2020 6 incidents – 2019 MJS_001 MJS_029 MJS_030 Paper based office records MJS GtGP 13.2 Incidents involving Death or Crime Are procedures in place for incidents involving death or crime? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 4.6 details actions to be taken in the event of death or crime. Deaths have occurred in the harbour (attributed to mental health issues) plus vandalism. Liaison with the Policy is verry good, with officers based in Campbeltown and visiting the harbour office periodically. MJS_001 Anecdotal MJS GtGP 13.9 Incident publication Does the Harbour Authority disseminate information from accident investigations? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 4.8 details statutory reporting requirements, incident reports are distributed to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the MCA. MJS_001 Anecdotal MJS 2.23 Incident statutory reporting Are procedures for reporting incidents to the MAIB in place? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 4.8 details statutory reporting requirements, including the Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 564 ‘Incident reporting and investigation’. There have been no MAIB reportable incidents at Campbeltown. Observation – anecdotal discussion identified that harbour staff considered it the role of the Coastguard and/or vessel Master to report relevant incidents to the MAIB. Recommend – a reminder is provided to Council harbour staff that MAIB reporting is a requirement of the Harbour Authority. The MARNIS reporting flow-process may assist in identifying reportable incidents. MJS_001 MJS Page 46
Page 47
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 20 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor 2.24 Monitoring performance and auditing Has the MSMS been subject to audit (internal and/or external)? Satisfactory – the last external audit of the MSMS was conducted in 2023. The MSMS, Section 7.2 and 7.3 detail the audit process for A&BC. Internal audits are arranged for PMSC and Health and Safety, evidence of periodic auditing was provided. Observation – there is no internal audit schedule, audits are arranged to meet specific requirements. Recommend – A&BC develop a schedule of internal audits that test the application of the MSMS and SOPs at each port location. MJS_001 MJS_031 MJS_045 MJS_046 MJS 2.25 Enforcement Are local officers aware of enforcement powers and responsibilities? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 4.9 provides the enforcement procedure. MJS_001 MJS Is there a policy on enforcement and prosecution in place? Satisfactory – A&BC publish an Enforcement and Prosecution policy, as Version 1, dated August 2023. MJS_004 MJS 2.26 Publication of plans and reports Does the organisation commit itself to developing policies and procedures to satisfy the requirements of the Code? Satisfactory – this requirement is evidenced through the publication of Navigational Safety, Pilotage and Towage Policy’ and its Marine Safety Plan, published on A&BC’s website. MJS_002 MJS 2.27 Plan assessment Is an assessment of the organisation’s performance against the plan published? Satisfactory – the Marine Safety Plan contains an ongoing assessment of the plan. MJS_007 MJS 2.28 Safety plan for marine operations Is a ‘Safety Plan for Marine Operations’ published (every three years). Satisfactory – the ‘Marine Safety Plan’ was approved for issue by the Harbour Board on 021 March 2024, and is included as an annex to the Board meeting. The Marine Safety Plan is hosted on the A&BC’s website. The plan covers the years 2024 to 2026 and includes objectives with measures reported in yearly intervals. MJS_007 https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/mo derngov/ieListD ocuments.aspx? CId=567&MId= 15635&Ver=4 MJS 2.29 Consensus Has the Harbour Board maintained consensus with harbour users? See response in this Audit report, Section 2.17 on Consultation. n/a MJS Page 47
Page 48
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 21 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendation Evidence Reference Auditor 2.30 – 2.32 Monitoring compliance Has the Harbour Authority confirmed compliance with the PMSC for the port to the MCA within the last three years? Satisfactory – A&BC wrote to the MCA on 10/03/21 to confirm its current state of compliance with the Code. Letter evidenced. The DfT list of ports reporting compliance does not include A&BC ports, harbours or marine facilities. This position has been taken by the DfT, guided by the MCA, as the Council has confirmed it was not (at that time) fully compliant with the requirements of the Code. At the time of writing the letter A&BC was working towards full compliance in a number of key areas, including legislation review, policy review, MSMS documentation and creation of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). MJS_032 https://www.go v.uk/governmen t/publications/p ort-marine- safety-code- compliant- ports/port- marine-safety- code- compliant- ports-list MJS GtGP 2.2.3 (also, Code Executive Summary) Monitoring compliance Has the Harbour Authority confirmed all organisations with its jurisdiction comply with the requirements of the Code? Satisfactory – there is one other organisation that operates a facility in the harbour, this is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) fuelling terminal. The terminal is owned and operated by ‘The Oils & Pipelines Agency’ (OPA). Dialogue on PMSC compliance has been conducted on 08 May 2024. Additionally, pilotage issues have been discussed with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) via the King’s Harbour Master (KHM) in the Clyde. Observation – a formalised exchange of information and notification process of PMSC Compliance to/from the OPA could not be evidenced. Recommend – the exchange of information and requests on PMSC Compliance is retained by A&BC. This should include any shared risk assessments, SOPs, emergency plans and exercises. Anecdotal MJS Page 48
Page 49
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 22 A.3 PMSC Section 3 – General Duties and Powers PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor 3.1 – 3.4 Safe and Efficient Port Operations Does the Duty Holder have regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation in respect to the services and facilities provided? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 9.0 ‘Marine Safety Plan’ outlines the requirements from the Code and points to the ‘Marine Safety Plan’ to deliver this requirement. The Marine Safety Plan states that: “The Council, as Harbour Authority, recognises that is has a duty of care to those using it ports, harbours and piers; which means the Council has an obligation for safe and efficient use of its marine facilities. To this end, Argyll & Bute Council’s Harbour Board has approved a set of policies in support of the management and regulation of marine operations at our facilities which are embedded in the MSMS.” MJS_001 MJS_007 MJS 3.5 Open port duty Is the port or harbour subject to Open Port Duty’? Satisfactory – the HDPCA has been incorporated into the Campbeltown Burgh and Harbour Act’, 1876, Section 5. It is therefore assumed that Open Port Duty applies to Campbeltown Harbour. Observation – as only part of the 1876 Act is available, it cannot be fully ascertained if Section 33 of the 1847 HDPCA has been incorporated (or not). Recommend – the full 1876 Act is obtained from Parliamentary Archives Section 5 is reviewed to understand which parts of the 1847 Act have been incorporated. MJS_010 MJS 3.6 – 3.6 Conservancy duty How does the harbour authority conserve the harbour?: Survey as necessary Place navigation marks Keep ‘vigilant watch’ for any seabed changes Keep hydrographic records Ensure hydrographic information is published Update UKHO. Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 10.0 providing information on the Council’s approach to conservancy. This includes conservancy duty, hydrographic survey policy, dredging, Aids to Navigation (AtoN), wreck removal, dangerous vessels and licensing marine works. The MSMS, Section 10.1 details hydrography, with the last bathymetric survey was conducted on 12 August 2022. Information was passed by the survey contractor to UKHO, evidence seen. MJS_001 MJS_033 MJS Page 49
Page 50
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 23 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor 3.7 Updates provided to UKHO Does the organisation have an Agreement with UKHO, and/or do they provide survey information to UKHO? Satisfactory – a bilateral agreement between A&BC and the UKHO is in place, dated 17 March 2017. MJS_034 MJS GtGP 1.9.11, and 7.8 Licensing, Regulating Harbour Works and Dredging? Does the harbour authority have the power to licence works? Satisfactory – there is no evidence that A&BC as Harbour Authority at Campbeltown has any powers to licence third party marine works under its local Acts and Orders. Mooring licences are required for individual and commercial moorings, via the Crown Estate, with navigation consent required from A&BC as the SHA. MJS_010 MJS_052 MJS_053 MJS_054 MJS 3.8 Environmental duty Does the Organisation understand its obligations: Nature conservation Section 48A of Harbours Act 1964 Obligations for SPA, SACs under Habitat Regs. the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 3.1 lists National legislation, including several Acts relating to Environmental Duties. These requirements are delivered through the Harbour’s services, including the Local Port Service (LPS) which monitors and advises vessel Masters and members of the public. A&BC also issue a ‘Marine Conservancy and Hydrographic Policy’, Version 1, issued August 2023 which has links to environmental duties. Information regarding Campbeltown and its local habitat is contained in the Oil Pollution Response plan. MJS_001 MJS_005 MJS_035 MJS 3.9 Civil Contingency Duty Does the MSMS include reference to the Harbour Authority’s obligations as a Category 2 responder? Satisfactory – the MSMS includes reference to Civil Contingency duties within supporting port, harbour and pier Annexes. MJS_001 MJS GtGP 6.2.4, 6.5 Emergency Planning / Pollution control Does the MSMS include emergency planning and oil pollution response? Satisfactory – an Oil Pollution Response Plan is in place, which was approved by the MCA on 30 September 2023 and is valid until the 26 January 2029. The annual OPRC return form was evidenced. A&BC maintain a Critical Activity Recover Plan (CARP) which incorporates the Council’s Civil Contingency duties. Campbeltown has an emergency plan. MJS_035 MJS_036 MJS Page 50
Page 51
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 24 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. GtGP 6.2.4, 6.5 Cont. Emergency Planning / Pollution control Does the port/harbour carry out emergency plan exercises? Satisfactory – a training exercise for oil pollution was carried out for A&BC in Campbeltown on 23 November 2021, as operation ‘Smerby’. Evidence provided. In Campbeltown, exercise ‘Mount Stuart’ was run in September 2023 as a multi-agency emergency response test. Post exercise report provided. An emergency plan schedule was evidence. MJS_037 MJS_038 MJS_039 MJS_040 MJS 3.10 – 3.11 Harbour Authority Powers review Has the Harbour Authority reviewed its powers? See the audit report response in Section 2.3 – 2.6. n/a MJS 3.12 – 3.14 Revising Duties and Powers Evidence of Harbour Revision Orders, or Harbour Closure. Satisfactory – the last HRO was made in 2011, for the powers to construct works and carry out dredging. MJS_010 MJS Page 51
Page 52
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 25 A.4 PMSC Section 4 – Specific Duties and Powers PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor 4.2 Appointment of Harbour Master Is there a Harbour Master appointment for the port? Satisfactory – a letter of appointment as the Campbeltown Harbour Master is held, date of appointment 02 September 2022. MJS_042 MJS 4.3 – 4.5 Byelaws Does the organisation have powers to make Byelaws, are these published? Satisfactory – under the ‘The Campbeltown Harbour Act and Orders 1846 to 2011’ Byelaws powers are available. To date, no Byelaws have been issued. MJS_010 MJS Date of last byelaw review? Not applicable – no byelaws have been issued n/a MJS 4.6 – 4.7 Special Directions Are the Harbour Master’s powers of Direction shown in the MSMS, how is delegation identified? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 5.1.1, details the use of Special Direction stating: “Special directions – may be given by the harbour master, deputies or their assistants: these directions are time and vessel specific and are apt for operational purposes of short duration and for emergencies”. Observation – there is no SOP detailing how Special Directions are given or recorded by the Harbour Master, relayed via LPS, or otherwise. Recommendation – an SOP for the use of Special Directions is drafted and agreed. This should detail the giving of the direction and its recording. MJS_001 MJS 4.8 General Directions Are the powers of General Directions available to the Harbour? Not applicable – powers of General Direction are not available. Auditor note: the harbour has a set of Navigational Guidelines, which are in draft, with the intention of issuing these until powers of General Direction are available. n/a MJS 4.9 Harbour Directions Are Harbour Directions used and published? Not applicable – Harbour Directions have not been applied for. n/a MJS 4.10 GtGP 6.4 Dangerous Vessels Does the MSMS (or other plan) make provision for giving directions to dangerous vessels? Satisfactory – the Harbour Master has powers under the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985. This is listed in the MSMS, Section 3.1 under ‘National Legislation’. Additionally, Section 5.1.1 of the MSMS states: “Dangerous vessel directions - permitting a Harbour Master to remove a vessel from the harbour in clearly defined circumstances”. MJS_001 MJS Page 52
Page 53
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 26 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. 4.10 GtGP 6.4 Cont. Dangerous Vessels Is the role of the Secretary of States' Representative for Maritime Salvage and Intervention (SOSREP) acknowledged? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 4.4.3 details the role of the SOSREP. MJS_001 MJS GtGP 6.2 Dangerous Substances Are there clear requirements for declaration of dangerous goods/substances? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 4.4.4 details the entry and control of dangerous goods and substances in the harbour. The Council’s website contains reporting forms for ‘Dangerous Good Notification Procedures’. At Campbeltown, CalMac (as ferry operator) manages the dangerous goods notification process if a ferry uses the terminal. MJS_001 https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/site s/default/files/ migrated_files/d angerous_good s_notification_pr ocedures_may_2 020.pdf MJS GtGP 8.4 Vessel Traffic Management Is vessel traffic managed within the port area, how is this achieved? Satisfactory – vessel traffic is monitored and managed through: Visual observation and communications by Very High Frequency (VHF) Channel 13, phone and email. Pre-arrival notification is used for any vessel over 80 m Length Overall (LOA). Under 80 m are booked in via the desk diary. LPS office, staffed by Port Operatives between 07:00-16:00 hr. Vessels pre- notified are met by Port Operatives (for line handling). Out of hours, there is a duty Harbour Master. The harbour team use WhatsApp for quick communications as a group. Observational MJS Is vessel traffic monitoring information passed to the MCA by the quickest means? Satisfactory – A&BC has a CERS login, evidence of a completed CERS logbook provided for the vessel ‘Island Spirit’ on 04 September 2024 seen. Observational MJS Page 53
Page 54
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 27 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. GtGP 8.4 Cont. Vessel Traffic Management Has the need for VTS/LPS been reviewed recently? Satisfactory – the current method of vessel traffic management has been arranged to meet the demands of harbour use. The harbour is staffed every day, between 07:00- 16:00 hr, every day except Christmas Day and New Year’s Day (an on-call duty process is used out of hours). MJS_007 Observational MJS GtGP 13.2.2 Drink and drugs Do staff know what to do if they suspect that a mariner (master, Pilot, seaman) has committed an offence whilst on duty? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 3.1 references the Railways and Transportation Safety Act (RATSA) 2003. A&BC has a Drink and Drugs Policy for its own staff. Observation – there is no specific instruction on the actions to take if a professional mariner is suspected of a drink or drugs offence when on duty. Recommend – the creation of an SOP or procedure to inform the Authority’s officers of their expected action for a drink or drugs offence under the RATSA 2003 Act. MJS_001 MJS 4.11 GtGP 9.0 Pilotage Conformity with Pilotage Manual and Policies Satisfactory – one of the audit team accompanied the Class 1 Maritime Ltd Authorised Campbeltown Pilot on the inbound passage of vessel MV Runner (21 July 2024). Prior to the passage, the auditor observed the Risk Assessment and Tool Box Talk for the boat crew and mooring party and the Pilot populate the Master/Pilot Exchange (MPX). The Pilot boarding was undertaken in compliance with best practice. The MPX was accurately handled. During the pilotage, it was noted that information exchange continued. The vessel was berthed safely without issue. It was evidenced by the auditor that the harbour benefits from the experience and training provided by Class 1 Maritime Ltd (as a contracted Pilotage Service provider). This affords the harbour a very high level of Pilot competence. Good working relationships between the Class 1 Maritime Ltd Pilots and the Harbour Master and operations teams was observed. Delivery of Pilotage Duty is considered to be an area of best practice. RAL_010 RAL_011 RAL_012 RAL_013 RAL_014 RAL_015 RAL_016 RAL_017 RAL_018 RAL_019 RAL_020 RAL_021 RAL_022 RAL_023 RAL_024 RAL_025 RAL_031 RAL_032 RAL 4.11 GtGP 9.0 Pilotage Is the port a CHA? Satisfactory – A&BC, as Harbour Authority, is identified as a Competent Harbour Authority (for Pilotage). RAL_006 RAL Page 54
Page 55
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 28 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. 4.11 GtGP 9.0 Cont. Pilotage Has the requirement for pilotage been reviewed? Satisfactory – Pilotage was reviewed and informed the 2007 order; the Pilotage Manual and Pilotage Directions were first drafted in 2011. Observation – there is evidence that Pilotage has been reviewed in 2021 when the Pilotage Manual (including Pilotage Directions) was updated. It is understood there has been recent reviews of both the compulsory pilotage LOA for vessels inside the enclosed harbour and overall provision at the fuel jetty. Recommend – A&BC, as CHA, formally review the need for Pilotage. This is an expectation of both the Pilotage Act 1987 and the PMSC. RAL_008 Anecdotal RAL 4.12 GtGP 9.4 Pilotage Directions Are Pilotage Directions issued? Satisfactory – Pilotage Directions sit within the (Pilotage Manual) there is a concise reference to Pilotage on the A&BC website, which states: “Pilotage is compulsory for inbound and outbound vessels 80 m and over”. Observation – it is understood that a request has been made for Pilotage Directions to be published in full on the A&BC website. At the time of audit, there was no evidence this has been done. Pilotage Directions are enforceable and should be promulgated to stakeholders to promote clear understanding. This is a requirement under the Pilotage Act 1987. Recommend – A&BC, as CHA must publish a controlled copy of the Pilotage Directions for Campbeltown on its website. The directions should only be published once they have been consulted upon by users of the harbour. Information in the Pilotage Manual with any additional information that refers to Pilotage (for example PEC and boarding and landing operational information) may be included in Pilotage Direction schedules so this information can be updated outside of formal Pilotage Direction consultation requirements. RAL_008 https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/roa ds-and- travel/marine- services/campb eltown-harbour RAL Page 55
Page 56
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 29 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. 4.12 GtGP 9.4 Cont. Pilotage Directions Were stakeholders consulted during the drafting phase of the most recent Pilotage Direction? Satisfactory – there is anecdotal evidence of consultation on the first draft of the Pilotage Directions. More recently, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has been consulted in respect to the changes at the NATO fuel jetty and vessel agents in respect to the docks. Observation – there is no evidence of formal consultation on the Pilotage Directions. Observation – the Pilotage Directions refer to both a requirement for all vessels: “carrying dangerous or polluting substances in bulk as defined in the Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 and all vessels which are not gas free” as requiring compulsory pilotage. Observation – the Pilotage Directions state: “vessels which have Crown Immunity are exempted. For the purposes of Pilotage and Towage they operate in Campbeltown under the auspices of the Queen’s Harbour Master, Faslane but adhere to the general guidelines for operations within the Loch at Campbeltown”. The Pilotage Act 1987 does not provide immunity for Crown vessels. This was previously the case (under the Pilotage Act 1913). A&BC, as CHA, may choose to exclude MOD vessels from the requirements of Pilotage, if supported through a risk-based decision. Recommend – A&BC, as CHA, formally consult on the Pilotage Directions. Evidence of consultation should be retained for later reference. This is a requirement under the Pilotage Act 1987. Recommend – the Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 were replaced by the ‘Dangerous Goods in Harbour Areas Regulations’ 2016 (DGHAR). Recommend – it is recommended that A&BC, as CHA, formally review the need for Pilotage, including the provisions for MOD vessels using the harbour with respect to Pilotage. There may be scope for an MOD Pilot to accompany the A&BC Authorised Pilot in circumstances that the A&BC CHA Pilot has ‘conduct’ of the vessel within the definition of the Pilotage Act 1987. RAL_008 Anecdotal RAL Page 56
Page 57
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 30 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. 4.12 GtGP 9.4 Cont. Pilotage Directions Cont. Were stakeholders consulted during the drafting phase of the most recent Pilotage Direction? Observation – it is understood that the Harbour Master, from time-to-time requests that vessels less than 80 m LOA take a Pilot due to the manoeuvre being perceived as challenging and the master not being familiar with the CHA area. This circumstance is not defined in the Pilotage Directions. Observation –the Pilotage Directions make no reference to how the Directions apply to Tugs and Tows. Observation – the Pilotage Directions refer to all vessels “which is deemed by the Harbour Master to be a danger or threat to the safe operation of the harbour due to defects, damage or handicap may be required to take the services of a Pilot even if exempted by size under the provisions of these Pilotage Directions”. This is a helpful ‘catch all’ clause but does not, on its own, cover all circumstances that the Harbour Master may wish to have a Pilot onboard of a vessel. For example, the recent consideration of Pilotage for vessels under 80 m within the enclosed docks, both generally and in in specific weather conditions. Recommend – the Pilotage Directions must contain relevant instructions for all circumstances, vessels less than 80 m LOA requiring a Pilot if considered necessary by the Harbour Master. For example, wording may read: “all vessels or tows of more than 60.00 meters but less than 80.00 meters in length overall where a bona fide deck officer has not navigated the port on that vessel or a vessel of a similar class in the past 12 months, will use the services of an Authorised Pilot”. Recommend – A&BC, as CHA, should review and consult the requirement for the Pilotage Directions to apply to Tugs and Tows. Recommend – A&BC, as CHA, should review this clause of the Pilotage Directions so as not to limit the circumstances the Harbour Master can enforce compulsory pilotage. For example, including weather and ‘any other reason’. RAL_008 Anecdotal RAL Page 57
Page 58
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 31 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor 4.13 GtGP 9.4 Authorisation of pilots Is the process for appointing Pilots referenced in the MSMS? Satisfactory – the following is noted on Pilot appointment: A&BC, as CHA, has responsibilities for pilotage which are set out in the MSMS, Section 4.3. The intent to appoint competent and authorised Pilots is set out in the Navigational Safety, Pilotage & Towage Policy (August 2023). The specifics of the process for appointing Pilots are set out in the Pilotage Manual section 10 (2021). The CHA, whilst retaining the duty to keep pilotage under review (Section 2 of the Pilotage Act 1987), has contracted to Class 1 Maritime Ltd, in respect to the provision of the actual Pilotage and craft required for boarding and landing of pilots. Pilot Authorisations are made on behalf of the CHA by the appoint Harbour Master for Campbeltown, on behalf of the Harbour Authority. The auditor has been provided evidence of Pilot authorisations. RAL_001 RAL_007 RAL_008 RAL_029 RAL_030 RAL 4.14 GtGP 9.4.31 Pilot Training Does the CHA implement the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Resolution A960? Satisfactory – A&BC, as CHA, in contracting Pilotage from Class 1 Maritime Ltd, benefit from the comprehensive underpinning knowledge and training program of Forth Pilots (Class 1 Maritime Ltd is a company owned by Authorised Forth Pilots). Forth Ports has International Standard for Marine Pilotage (ISPO accreditation) which included the adoption of A960 principles. Section 10 off the Navigational Safety, Pilotage & Towage Policy (August 2023) makes a commitment to national standards National Regulations, Guidelines and Competency Standards including A960 which is referenced in the Code’s GtGP. RAL_007 RAL_008 https://forthpilo ts.com/forth- pilots-mission- statement RAL Page 58
Page 59
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 32 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor GtGP 9.5.43 Pilotage Does the authority operate an effective Pilot Fatigue Management System? Satisfactory – by rota design there is a Fatigue Management System. There are insufficient acts of Pilotage to warrant a more active system of Fatigue Management. Pilotage acts are naturally spaced and there is a compliment of five Authorised Pilots for Campbelltown. When a vessel docks and sails on the subsequent tide, the docking Pilot will book a hotel room to rest if taking the vessel out. If there are several tides between docking and sailing, the Pilot will return home and the sailing Pilot allocated from the compliment of Authorised Pilots. Anecdotal, conversation with J. Hague during inbound pilotage of MV Runner and observed arrangements for overnight hotel. RAL 4.15 – 4.16 GtGP 9.5 Pilot Exemption Certificates Is a clear process for the issuing of Pilotage Exemption Certificate (PECs)? Satisfactory – there is a clear process for issuing PEC set out in the Pilotage Manual Observation – there is no evidence that the PEC process is published. Recommend – A&BC, as CHA, publishes the PEC process. For example, as an annex or schedule to the Pilotage Directions. RAL_008 RAL_027 RAL_028 RAL Are the requirements equivalent to those for an authorised Pilot? Satisfactory – the Pilotage Manual sets out a knowledge and tripping requirement no greater but equivalent to that for an Authorised Pilot. RAL-008 RAL_027 RAL_028 RAL GtGP 8.7.15 – 8.8.10 Port Passage Plan Is there a published passage plan? Satisfactory – there is limited passage planning information on the A&BC website for Campbeltown, there is a Pilotage passage plan within the MPX, but this is not promulgated to vessels until the Pilot boards. Observation – there is no evidence of a published passage plan or comprehensive guidance promulgated to PEC holders. Class 1 Maritime Authorised Pilots have a comprehensive passage plan on their PPU units. Recommend – A&BC, as CHA, should publish a passage plan or passage plan guidance on their website. This could be achieved through a standing notice to mariners promulgated through the existing notice to mariners page. MJS_048 https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/roa ds-and- travel/marine- services/campb eltown-harbour RAL GtGP 8.10 Recreational navigation Are recreational users of the harbour considered? Satisfactory – information is published on A&BC’s website, and also on the port entry information shown on the Campbeltown Harbour section of the A&BC website. https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/roa ds-and- travel/marine- services/Campb eltown-harbour MJS Page 59
Page 60
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 33 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor 4.17 – 4.20 Collecting Dues Are dues clearly defined? Satisfactory – charges (including dues) are laid out on the Council’s website. The process for setting charges uses a benchmarking exercise with other local ports. Charges are increased at the rate of inflation. https://www.arg yll- bute.gov.uk/fee s/24-25/marine MJS 4.21-4.23 Aids to Navigation Are defects and rectification of defects recorded? Satisfactory – as the Local Lighthouse Authority (LLA) the following Aids to Navigation are maintained: 2 fixed red lights (vertical) on the New Quay. 2 fixed green lights (vertical) on the Old Quay. East Cardinal (located north of the Old Quay and Marina. Within the harbour, there is an isolated danger, leading lights, lateral buoyage and NATO fuel terminal red AtoN, all of which is maintained by the MOD. MJS_049 MJS 4.24 GLA returns Are returns made to the GLA? Satisfactory – the LATON three-year return for A&BC identifies the availability return values for the period April 2021 to April 2024 as: Cat 2 = 99.76% (target is 99.0%) Cat 3 = 100% (target is 97.0%) Provision and maintenance of Aids to Navigation is recognised as an area of best practice. MJS_049 MJS 4.25-4.32 Wrecks, Abandoned or unserviceable vessels Does the MSMS refer to powers for dealing with wrecks? Satisfactory – the MSMS, Section 10.4 addresses wrecks within the Conservancy section and with respect to marking of wrecks. There is one abandoned vessel, the ‘Lady Craig’ left in 2023. There is no recent history of wrecks in the harbour. MJS_001 Anecdotal MJS Page 60
Page 61
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 34 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor GtGP 9.4.17 -9.4.21 Pilot Launches Do Pilot boats meet statutory requirements and appropriate Codes? Satisfactory – Pilot boats are provided by Class 1 Maritime Ltd. There are 3 Pilot vessels available for use in Pilot transfer, one of which (at the time of audit) was awaiting inspection and certification. Evidence viewed of workboat certification (with Pilot Boat endorsement) provided Bluebird had her last out of water inspection in June 2024. Maintenance records, schedules and reports were all provided. The boats are crewed locally by A&BC harbour staff, evidence of qualifications, drills and exercises provided. RAL_021 RAL_022 RAL_035 RAL_036 RAL_037 RAL_038 RAL_039 RAL_040 RAL_041 RAL_042 RAL_043 RAL_044 RAL GtGP - 10 Towage Operations Does the organisation produce towage guidelines? Satisfactory – A&BC, for Campbeltown Harbour, has issued Towage Guidelines. Observation – the towage guidelines are not published on the website and available for stakeholders. The Towage Guidelines have a section outlining Master/Pilot/Towage exchange considerations. Recommend – towage guidelines are published for harbour users to ready and apply. RAL_026 RAL Is there a process for approving towage providers? Are non-routine tows pre- approved / managed by the organisation? Satisfactory – the Towage Guidelines state that: “Towage companies are requested to supply the Harbour Master at Campbeltown with the appropriate Risk Assessments, Policies and Procedures relevant to their operations within Campbeltown Harbour Limits”. This has been evidenced as in place for Clyde Marine Tugs operating in Campbelltown Harbour. Observation – there is no evidence that this has been carried out for Svitzer Marine or Serco tugs operating at Campbeltown Harbour. Observation – there are no specific procedures referenced in the Towage Guidelines to manage non-routine towage. Recommend – the SHA upgrade the information in the Towage Guidelines from a request to a requirement and ensure that all third party towage operators comply with the procedure in place. Recommend – A&BC should review the Towage Guidelines and introduce a procedure to manage non-routine (dead and unusual structure) towage within its Statutory Harbours. There is always the possibility that a tow may occur either within, or through the Council’s harbour limits. RAL_026 RAL_045 RAL_046 RAL_047 RAL_048 RAL_049 RAL_050 RAL Page 61
Page 62
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 35 PMSC / GtGP Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Evidence of Compliance Recommendations Evidence Reference Auditor Cont. GtGP - 10 Cont. Towage Operations Cont. Is there a process for approving towage providers? Are non-routine tows pre- approved / managed by the organisation? Observation – the ‘Navigation Safety, Pilotage and Towage Policy’ states: “Currently there is no provision of towage services at any of the harbours for which Argyll and Bute Council are the Harbour Authority.” Whilst there are no permanently stationed tugs in Campbeltown, ship towage does occur. Recommend – the ‘Navigation Safety, Pilotage and Towage Policy’ is revised to recognise ship towage operations in Campbelltown. Additionally, non-routine towage should be included in the policy statement. MJS_002 RAL GtGP 1.9.11 Licensing Harbour Tugs? Does the harbour authority have the power to licence tugs? Not applicable – there are no known powers to licence tugs. n/a MJS GtGP - 10.4 Diving Operations (commercial) Is there a process for managing commercial diving? Satisfactory – a ‘Permission to Dive Permit’ for 30 March 2024 was evidenced. MJS_043 MJS GtGP - 10.4 Diving Operations (recreational) Is there a process for managing recreational diving? Not applicable – there is no history of recreational diving. n/a MJS GtGP - 6.7.3 Hot Work Permits Is there a process for managing Hot Works? Satisfactory – a ‘Marine Department Hot Work Permit – Ship’ for 27 May 2024 was evidenced. MJS_045 MJS_046 MJS GtGP – 6.7.3 Bunkering Is there a process for managing Bunkering? Satisfactory – the NATO jetty operates its own Oil Pollution Plan. Fishing vessels bunker by road tanker. n/a MJS GtGP – 11.3, 11.4 Regulation of Port Craft, Pilot Launches and Workboats Does the Authority have a procedure for regulating port craft? Satisfactory – for vessels using the harbour, checks are made as part of the booking process operated by LPS. Observation – A&BC does not have a formalised process for checking commercially operated Coded vessels. Recommend – the Harbour Authority considers the requirements of the GtGP (Section 11.3, 11.4) with respect to regulating third party commercial workboats and launches within its area of jurisdiction and creates a registration scheme for workboats operating within the Authority’s area. MJS_001 MJS Page 62
Page 63
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 36 B Quayside Check Visual observation of Campbeltown Harbour quays during the site visit on the 03 September 2024. B.1 Quayside Check Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations Auditor PMSC 3.0 GtGP 8.11.19 ACOP 207-208 SIP 014 Access Is the quayside and its access locations clear of debris and obstructions? Satisfactory – the Old Pier was clear of debris and obstructions. The New Pier had wood bark from cargo handling that was being cleared away, with the RoRo berth and linkspan clear and well maintained. Housekeeping on the quay was evident during the visit. MJS Pedestrian/Disabled access for passengers or leisure users? Satisfactory – walkways were clearly marked for pedestrians to access the ferry terminal; walkways were delineated from vehicle parking areas. MJS Is the type and condition of quayside surface appropriate to the operation? Satisfactory – the marina pontoons, quayside and pier surface accessible to the public (some areas were restricted) is appropriate to its intended use. MJS 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 – the quayside had appropriately spaced LSE. The quay structures had water egress ladders. Observation – at the RoRo ferry terminal, one egress ladder was missing the cope level hand-grab bar. See Image B1. Recommend – the replacement of the missing the cope level hand-grab bar. MJS Is there appropriate LSE at quay edge? Satisfactory – Life saving equipment (life rings) were installed at the pier, dockside and marina pontoons. MJS SIP 005 Bollards and securing equipment Does the general condition of bollards appear to be in good order? Satisfactory – the bollards along the New Quay were (visually) in good condition. The RNLI berthing area had been recently refitted, as had the marina. The Old Quay had a number of older bollards that were in need of painting. Observation – the Old Quay bollards had not been recently painted, were not numbered, or Safe Working Loads (SWL) identified. See Image B2. Recommendation – bollards and bits are inspected, numbered and SWL added. MJS Page 63
Page 64
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 37 Reference Subject Evidence Required For Compliance Observation Recommendations Auditor SIP 005 Fenders Is the fendering appropriate to the vessel being handled? Satisfactory – fendering on the New Quay commercial quay is vertical rubber sections, the linkspan RoRo berth has piles and sprung fenders. The Old Quay has a mixed set of fendering dependant on vessel type. MJS Is the condition of the fendering in good order? Satisfactory – fitted fendering was observed to be in serviceable condition. MJS Are chaffing plates used? Satisfactory – wood sections are used on most sections of the Quays. Some sections are concrete, along the New Quay at the commercial berth. Observation – the wooden edge protection beams at the RoRo berth (see Image B3 and the Old Quay (See Image B4) have deteriorated. Recommend– wooden edge beams along the Quay edges are reviewed, with repairs made or sections replaced as required. MJS 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 – there is ample lighting around all berths at the Quays and the Pontoons (note, quayside checks carried out in daylight only). MJS ACOP 58-60 Layout Is adequate separation delineated between quayside operations? Satisfactory – there is adequate delineated between quayside operations with certain sections fenced off and usable to manage cruise passengers under International Ship and Port Facility (ISPS) requirements. MJS ACOP 82 Signage Is appropriate signs and markings provided Satisfactory – the harbour has adequate signage. MJS Page 64
Page 65
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 38 Image B1. Campbeltown, missing water egress ladder hand-grip Image B2. Campbeltown, Old Quay bollard Page 65
Page 66
Port Marine Safety Code - Audit: Campbeltown 2024 Argyll and Bute Council ABPmer, October 2024, R.4589 | 39 Image B3. Campbeltown, New Quay wooden edge beams Image B4. Campbeltown, Old Quay wooden edge beams Page 66
Page 67
Page 67
Page 68
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 69
Page 69
Page 70
Page 70
Page 71
Page 71
Page 72
Page 72
Page 73
Page 73
Page 74
Page 74
Page 75
Page 75
Page 76
Page 76
Page 77
Page 77
Page 78
Page 78
Page 79
Page 79
Page 80
Page 80
Page 81
Page 81
Page 82
Page 82
Page 83
Page 83
Page 84
Page 84
Page 85
Page 85
Page 86
Page 86
Page 87
Page 87
Page 88
Page 88
Page 89
Page 89
Page 90
Page 90
Page 91
Page 91
Page 92
Page 92
Page 93
Page 93
Page 94
Page 94
Page 95
Page 95
Page 96
Page 96
Page 97
Page 97
Page 98
Page 98
Page 99
Page 99
Page 100
Page 100
Page 101
Page 101
Page 102
Page 102
Page 103
Page 103
Page 104
Page 104
Page 105
Page 105
Page 106
Page 106
Page 107
Page 107
Page 108
Page 108
Page 109
Page 109
Page 110
Page 110
Page 111
Page 111
Page 112
Page 112
Page 113
Page 113
Page 114
Page 114
Page 115
Page 115
Page 116
Page 116
Page 117
Page 117
Page 118
Page 118
Page 119
Page 119
Page 120
Page 120
Page 121
Page 121
Page 122
Page 122
Page 123
Page 123
Page 124
Page 124
Page 125
Page 125
Page 126
Page 126
Page 127
Page 127
Page 128
Page 128
Page 129
Page 129
Page 130
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 131
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ARGYLL & BUTE HARBOUR BOARD ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 20 MARCH 2025 MARINE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN – WORKS UPDATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report provides Harbour Board Members with a review of the marine infrastructure works contained within the Marine Asset Management Plan (MAMP). It includes significant and major programmes currently planned as well as those underway. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members are asked to: 2.1.1 Consider the update on the major programmes currently being addressed within Argyll and Bute Council’s MAMP (appendix 1). 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 The MAMP lists the programmed work being carried out over the next few years with more detailed estimates focused on the next 5 years. The plan is adaptable and can change to suit emerging priorities and circumstances. The plan contains projects located throughout the Argyll and Bute Council area, many of which include work to adapt existing or renew infrastructure to support the CalMac Ferry Limited (CFL) services in advance of new vessels being delivered. Funding for these Capital projects is mainly delivered by Prudential Borrowing, paid back through fees and charges collected at our major ports. Projects are competitively tendered to ensure a wide range of quotations, delivering value for money and across a range of suppliers to ensure works are Page 131 Agenda Item 5
Page 132
delivered to a high quality and on time. Projects are monitored and re-forecast regularly to manage risks and adjust budgets where required and in good time. 3.2 Alongside our maintenance, servicing and conservancy works, Marine Operations are presently engaged in several longer, and shorter-term projects across Argyll and Bute which are listed here. 3.2.1 Craignure – New Ferry Terminal A separate report is presented with the detail of this project for gateway approval. A project forecast is shown here as image 1. Image 1 Costs are estimated at £3M over the next two years to reach construction stage which includes completion of business cases, environmental impact assessments, design and tendering. Construction estimates have risen to c.£96 million and Members should note that this is now reflected in the MAMP and is a significant increase from the previously reported £50 million estimate. A more accurate assessment of those costs will follow in the next phase of the project and will be reported back. 3.2.2 Iona breakwater – protection of ferry berthing slip This contract has now been awarded to Foyle and Marine Dredging Ltd for £14.8m. Ordering and stockpiling of rock armour is now well underway with other preparations, and the contractor is anticipated to be on site this month. The total construction phase is estimated to take some 17 months. These works will include the adjacent slipway repairs as well as the toilet block. 3.2.3 Fionnphort overnight berthing facility Preparation is progressing with Fionnphort to ensure: • Overnight berth Page 132
Page 133
• Safe access for crew • Sheltered berthing • Charging and supply facilities • Traffic survey to enhance the road passenger interface at the terminal area. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is in process including the socio- economic assessment. Design colleagues have addressed all potential issues with CalMac Marine regarding swept paths and approaches. When Marine Scotland approve the EIA we will continue with the marine licences, public engagement and other preparations with a view to tender in the coming months. Costs are estimated at £800k over the next two-year period and thereafter an estimated £25M for construction works. 3.2.4 Port Askaig – Marshalling area development for new CalMac vessels Following a review of consultation feedback from communities and the level of facility we currently have, we can deliver a cost-effective solution that remains within the parameters of the provision in the Marine Asset Management Plan, without the larger scale disruption and additional cost that would have been required by the original concept design. This considers the community’s wish to preserve parking spaces and will deliver improved signage, lining, quayside traffic management and CCTV in time for the new larger ferries arriving. We are now progressing that solution to enhance existing facilities and will be discussing operational plans with CFL and Transport Scotland. The Council works will be completed following completion of CMAL’s quayside works and will consist of relining, signage, parking allocation, CCTV and traffic access control installation. Other aspects including installation of substantial barriers in the marshalling area will not be progressed. Previous incidents in the Marshalling area involved practices which are no longer permitted in the Port area. Costs are estimated at £2M for the longer-term improvement works as well as the short term works which include the CCTV installation. 3.2.5 Feolin Installation of a passenger only access at Feolin, for those periods when the vehicular vessel is not available. Although these occasions are relatively rare, we recognised the need for a pontoon and gangway system near the existing slipway for passengers with limited mobility. This will make a very significant improvement to the connectivity issues when there is a breakdown on the Eilean Dhiura. Page 133
Page 134
Officers have been disappointed with the response to sourcing these works so far and are including other options for a solution as well as continuing to engage with the established pontoon providers. Funding available is £100k from Crown Estates sources. 3.2.6 Campbeltown Harbour Campbeltown Harbour continues to be very busy commercially with timber loading projected to increase at the port. Linkspan Overhaul: We have commenced the cylinder overhaul programme at Campbeltown, with all four cylinders having been uplifted and taken to workshop for refurb work and testing, so that they can be returned to site. This programme will ensure that no further disruption is required for this work when the ferry service resumes. Other business opportunities include using Campbeltown as a strategic hub for the planned offshore wind projects which are being explored and this represents a real opportunity, to develop the Port and secure long-term work in and from Campbeltown harbour. Replacement of ‘Wall A’ at the Old Quay is well underway and due for completion in 2025/26. Replacement of ‘Wall A’ works are estimated at £6M to complete over the next two-year period. 3.2.7 Rothesay Harbour Stability works to the main berthing face were completed early and on budget. Preparations are now underway for Phase 3 of the overall works, which will see a strengthening of the roundhead and may include fender renewals. Costs are expected to be £4.5M over the two-year period. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 This report provides Harbour Board Members with a review of the marine infrastructure works Asset Management Plan. It is an update on significant and major programmes currently planned and underway within Argyll and Bute Council’s Marine Asset Management Plan. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy - None directly arising from this report. Page 134
Page 135
5.2 Financial - Increases to fees and charges are required to ensure future income is sufficient to maintain and develop Argyll & Bute Council’s marine assets for future years. Alternative funding routes will also be explored to support future projects. 5.3 Legal - Considered to be none directly arising from this report. 5.4 HR - None. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics - None directly arising from this report. 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty - None directly arising from this report. 5.5.3 Islands - Completed works and projects will enhance service reliability and community connectivity. 5.6 Climate Change - There are no direct impacts regarding climate change from this report, due regard will be given to climate change with a view to minimising any climate change impact and these will be considered as and when they arise. 5.7 Risk - Completed works will reduce the repair and maintenance on existing infrastructure Above inflation increases may have a detrimental economic impact on businesses using the facilities for example: • Fishermen. • bulk importers. • timber exporters. • wind farm developers. • Cruise companies. Significant increases may also reduce usage and customers while making attracting new business more difficult. External influences may come to bear on ferry usage patterns which may, in turn, impact on income from ferry fees and charges i.e. Vessel breakdowns and redeployments, Environmental issues (car use), Brexit and potential changes in RET. This will pose a potential risk to income. 5.8 Customer Service - An overall improvement in travel experience and reliability should result with improved and maintained infrastructure. 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - None directly arising from this report. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services Page 135
Page 136
Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity: Councillor John Armour MARCH 2025 For further information contact: Scott Reid, Marine Operations Manager Tel: 01546 604 696 Stephen Hall, Interim Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Tel: 01546 604 324 APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Marine Asset Management Plan Page 136
Page 137
# Asset Location 2024/25 Items 2025/26 Items 2026/27 Items 2027/28 Items 2028/29 Items Bunessan £5,000 CAT 5 upgrade Campbeltown New Quay £60,000 Cylinder O/H £150,000 HPU & control panel overhaul Campbeltown Old Quay £5,000,000 Construction wall A £1,000,000 Construction wall A Craignure £1,000,000 Licencing. Finalise design and Tender documentation £2,000,000 Finalise design and Tender documentation £20,000,000 Construction of terminal £50,000,000 Construction of terminal £26,000,000 Complete construction of terminal Craignure £1,000,000 New PAS Design & build Cuan Ferry slip £2,000 Next steps to be agreed £2,000,000 Future provision Dunoon Harbour £50,000 Essential upgrade works £300,000 Upgrade works - to be determined Easdale Pier £1,000 Next steps to be agreed £2,400,000 Future provision Ellenabeich Pier £1,000 Next steps to be agreed £5,000,000 Future provision Feolin Ferry slip CE funding Installation of passenger access pontoon Fionnphort £300,000 Ongoing designs and consultations £500,000 Ongoing designs and consultations £20,000,000 Ongoing construction £5,000,000 Complete construction Gigha Ferry slip £200,000 Consultancy for Design & EIA (inc Tayinloan) £300,000 Consultancy for Design & EIA (inc Tayinloan) £500,000 Start construction breakwater & aligning structure £10,000,000 Ongoing construction £1,000,000 Complete construction breakwater and aligning structure Iona Ferry slip £5,000,000 Construction breakwater £10,000,000 Construction breakwater Kilcreggan Oban North Pier Port Askaig £2,000,000 New Islay vessel enabling works Rothesay £2,000,000 Berthing face stab works £2,500,000 Round head capital works £27,005,000Year Totals £13,560,000 £19,504,000 £50,200,000 £65,000,000 1 Appendix 1 - Marine Asset Management Plan Page 137
Page 138
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 139
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ARGYLL & BUTE HARBOUR BOARD ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 20 MARCH 2025 MARINE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN – CRAIGNURE FERRY TERMINAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report provides Harbour Board Members with the latest update on the proposed ferry terminal project at Craignure, Isle of Mull, and seeks authorisation to proceed from the Outline Business Case (OBC) and progress to the next phase, which includes Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), planning and licencing. 1.2 Previously reported costs through the Marine Asset Management Plan are £3M over the next two years, to reach the construction stage, which includes completion of business cases, Environmental Impact Assessments, design and tendering. 1.3 The next stage will also develop more accurate construction costing estimates as the design and methodology become more informed. The initial construction projection cost of £50 million is now estimated at c.£96 million based on inflationary increases to the original 2020 estimates. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members are asked to: 2.1.1 Consider and discuss this update on the new ferry terminal project at Craignure in conjunction with the Project Forecast (appendix 1). 2.1.2 Note that c.£96 million is the high-level construction projection estimate at present based on inflationary increases to the 2020 estimates. 2.1.3 Approve the continuation of the project to the next phase of the project with the option referred to as option ‘D1’ (image 1) as the preferred option. Page 139 Agenda Item 6
Page 140
2.1.4 Approve the advisory and consultation structure at 3.5 and described in the terms of reference for the Working Group (appendix 2), consisting of Working Group and Reference Group to advise Council Officers and Elected Members. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 Background to the Craignure Pier Development Project 3.1.1 Scottish Government and Transport Scotland strategic planning, as part of the Islands Connectivity Plan requires Argyll and Bute Council to upgrade the ferry terminal at Craignure to facilitate planned deployments of new and existing vessels. The existing pier and passenger access are not fit for those plans and so new infrastructure is required. 3.1.2 Project Scope & Objectives The Project Scope is defined in the Employer’s Requirements document (a working document at OBC stage), which defines the infrastructure scope and performance and capacity requirements. The Project Objectives include: • Replace the existing terminal infrastructure, parts of which are in poor condition, deteriorating or have limited structural capacity. • Increase berth capacity at the new ferry terminal to allow the full range of design vessels to be safely accommodated. • Ensure vessels can reliably berth year-round at the new ferry terminal, including in challenging weather conditions and overnight, to reduce weather-related cancellations and improve the winter timetable. • Increase resilience of the new ferry terminal operations. • Allow safe and efficient embarkation and disembarkation for both vehicles and foot passengers, including those with impaired mobility and wheelchair users. • Increase capacity of the new vehicle marshalling area in line with industry standards, addressing congestion on the A849. • Provide a new terminal building with modern facilities, meeting staff and passenger requirements. • Provide access for RNLI lifeboat, which is used for medical evacuations from Mull to mainland. • Avoid and minimise disruption to the ferry service as far as practicable during the construction works. Page 140
Page 141
3.1.3 In order to progress this project, a preferred option should be confirmed so that detailed designs, cost estimates and construction methods can be developed. Several different locations have been the subject of extensive discussions and consultations since the original STAG report was presented in 2019. 3.1.4 Over this time, a general acceptance was readily apparent that the existing pier is in the optimal location for the ferry service. Factors such as safe water depth, recognising residential and commercial areas and prevailing weather direction all underline the position that the preferred option should be as close to the existing infrastructure as possible, without intolerable disruption to the existing ferry service. 3.1.5 A major factor in confirming the location was provided by the Ground Investigations (GI) carried out last year. The GI encompassed an area covering two of the most suitable location options closest to the existing pier, giving the best information on technical construction issues like pile size in relation to water depth and the condition of the rock base of the seabed. It also gave an indication on how close proximity working may affect the ferry service and mitigations to consider during the construction phase. 3.1.6 As service continuity during the construction phase is a major concern for all stakeholders, specific discussions were held with the ferry service provider CFL /CalMac and vessel Masters. The experience gained from working together during the GI works and feedback from the Masters of the large vessels reassured the team that no significant gain would result from a relatively small increase in the distance of the construction from the existing pier. 3.1.7 The data and information gathered during this period has resulted in the option that is closer to the existing pier, referred to as D1 (image 1), as the optimal site for the new infrastructure and is recommended as the preferred option to take forward. Page 141
Page 142
3.2 Preferred option Image 1: Preferred option ‘D1’ 3.2.1 Layouts included on the diagram above are largely for information at this point as those items and details are picked up and refined at the next stage. The footprint size is based on the maximum area that may be required for operations and may see some reduction when refined. The EIA and planning are best approached with this maximum area as a starting point because it is a simpler process to reduce the scale rather than find during detailed design that the site requires more space and must therefore reapply for further licences and permissions. 3.2.2 The preferred option location is based on several connected factors and has been the subject of extensive consultation over a significant period. These discussions also included the ferry Captains and their professional opinions for future service needs. 3.2.3 The reasoning is based on: • Rebuild to north of existing pier. o The established location is the optimal site for safe water depth and to have as much of the new infrastructure away from residential areas. • As far south as possible with sufficient distance away from the existing pier for maximum service continuity during construction. Page 142
Page 143
o Again, this keeps the building as close to the already established area of ferry marshalling operations. o Maximises the northern approach area for the ferry in marginal weather conditions. • New pier to be parallel with the existing pier. o For optimal weather protection. o The pier heading was confirmed by the ferry Masters as optimal. • Re-orientate marshalling area to increase efficiency and to reduce ribbon effect. o Keeping the infrastructure from spreading along the coast in a thin strip increasingly remote from the pier. o Operational area is concentrated around the terminal building and linkspan. 3.3 Proposed construction programme 3.3.1 The following is also attached as a PDF in Appendix 1 for ease of reading. Image 2: Proposed construction programme Notes on programme: • ** start date is dependent on outcome of EIA determination. If unexpected surveys are required to confirm information which will impact procurement & construction methodology, the start date may be postponed until the survey data can be provided. • a tender process is expected to be required for the task "Surveys & EIA". • the task "Surveys & EIA" is shown as starting in-line with "EIA scoping opinion review" based on officers and the consulting team having confidence in the understanding of the survey requirements once the EIA scoping is complete, rather than waiting for a response before beginning the works. This is beneficial particularly in relation to seasonal surveys. Page 143
Page 144
3.3.2 Anticipated Survey and Technical Requirements As an indication of the work required in the next phase, the following table is a summary of the surveys anticipated to be included in the EIA. Table 1: Anticipated Survey Requirements Survey Type Method Brief Explanation Air Quality monitoring Diffusion tube set-up for a defined period Nearest council diffusion tubes are in Oban https://www.scottishairquality.scot/latest/diffusion- sites-info/87542 Air Quality data likely needed to inform ES with regards to impacts of traffic flows on local environment during construction and operation, as well as emissions from vessels. Noise and Vibration (above ground) monitoring Survey equipment in place for 1 week plus surveyors taking measurements on site Baseline noise data is needed to allow an assessment of potential effects on sensitive receptors, notably residential properties in the vicinity of the ferry terminal. Representative baseline levels are used to model potential construction and operational noise levels at these locations. Guidance is to avoid summer periods as these are typically quieter/not normal patterns – we may recommend a survey that spans both to get representative ‘commuter’ traffic and representative ‘tourist’ traffic – TBC by a noise specialist. Traffic surveys Surveyor counts on/in vicinity of site To inform transport assessment of traffic flows associated with construction and operation and to inform air quality/noise assessments – this data is used to derive forecast flows in the future to support Air quality and noise assessments. A clear understanding of current traffic volumes/congestion will be used to develop the design requirements of the marshalling yard redesign. Underwater noise monitoring Static hydrophone Up to date ambient underwater noise levels during a representative period will be important to shape the potential effects to sensitive marine receptors, notably harbour porpoise for which the adjacent SAC is designated for. The site is not pristine/undisturbed due to established ferry routes and therefore the availability of accurate data will allow a Page 144
Page 145
proportionate assessment of underwater noise generation and propagation. Bird surveys Surveys of the site over seasonal period Glas Eileanan SPA – common tern breeding Cnuic Agac Cladach Mhuile – golden eagle breeding May be required to inform Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the construction/operation of the replacement ferry terminal (do not envisage operational effects but we do need the data on local bird activity to inform conclusions). Consultation with Nature Scot recommended prior to finalising the scope of these surveys. Marine mammal surveys Surveys of the site over seasonal period To obtain accurate data on harbour porpoise and other marine mammal presence within Craignure Bay and study area to inform marine ecology effects during construction and operation. Surveys depends on the target species but recommend spring/summer to capture most sensitive period. This will inform any mitigation required and/or conditions to subsequent licences. Consultation with Nature Scot recommended prior to finalising the scope of these surveys. Baseline Photography surveys and ZTV preparation Landscape specialists on site to take photographs To inform landscape, seascape and visual assessments of the proposed development. Lynn of Lorn National Scenic Area opposite side of Sound of Mull ZTV = zone of theoretical visibility to inform need for assessments Coastal Modelling Static model equipment Dependent on availability of data and calibrated models for the area, if not available then Data used to inform wave action and the detailed design of the replacement terminal and reclamation to ensure no significant effects on wave action and ferry operations. Similarly, the coastal processes modelling may also be used to inform the nature of sediment plumes formed during dredging and where these may travel to afterwards to deposit which may inform dredge methods. Sediment budget within the bay. Sediment and water sampling – contaminants Vibrocore and surface water sampling to required dredge depth and in dredge area Required to inform dredge licensing to ensure that contaminants are known within the seabed sediment and to gather information on water quality to inform assessments. Note that this will require its own marine licence from MD-LOT Page 145
Page 146
Sediment/core sampling – marine archaeology and palaeoarchaeology Vibrocore sampling (as part of same campaign) May be required to inform archaeological assessments of the palaeo-landscape below seabed level – many parts of the UK were affected by previous ice age cycles and these features are present on the seabed. The need for this activity will be determined by a suitable archaeological specialist as part of the EIA Scoping activity Note that this will require its own marine licence from MD-LOT (part of the activity above – only one licence required to cover both) Site Walkover (contaminated land) Up to 2 no. surveyors To inform a contaminated land desk study required for planning/EIA to inform terrestrial impacts, due to the requirement to excavate the site to redevelop. Scope to be confirmed but considered likely to be required. UK Habitat survey Up to 2 no. surveyors To inform BNG requirements as part of planning and to provide information on ecological impacts and protected species that may be in the site boundary. Statutory requirement of 10% not mandatory in Scotland but always nice to show possibility of landscaping and site improvements for local community – e.g. as part of new terminal building. Benthic Ecology surveys Vessel grabs and port structure survey Could be done as part of sediment vibrocore campaign to inform assessment of marine ecology and dredge impacts to any notable species along with any invasive species present on port structures to be aware of. Seasonal – summer survey window (April-Sept). Scope to be consulted with NatureScot Revised otter surveys Up to 2 no surveyors To ensure updated survey information is available at the time of writing the EIA (not for scoping stage) Can be done at any time. Economic Impact Study External An economic impact study may be required to inform the socioeconomics assessment – this will look at the potential effects during construction (on local economy and job opportunities) and operation (on the local economy and job opportunities/tourism). These studies are useful to demonstrate any forecast demand in ferry access (PAX/Frequency Page 146
Page 147
of trips) in line with tourism, local economy and ferry upgrades. 3.4 Updated project construction estimate 3.4.1 Previously reported costs are estimated at £3M over the next two years, to reach construction stage, which includes completion of business cases, Environmental Impact Assessments, design and tendering. 3.4.2 As reported above, the high-level estimate at present is c.£96 million. This cost has been developed by taking the total forecast construction project cost in 2020 for option D1 and updating this cost with inflation. 3.4.3 This figure has not been updated since August 2024. When the OBC is completed an update cost forecast can be provided for further approval by Members at the next ‘gateway stage’, which will be this time next year before completion of the FBC. Inflation has been taken at the mid-point of the construction stage. This point in time is January 2028. The cost has been rounded to the nearest £1000. 3.4.4 The total forecast for the construction phase of the project is c£96 million. This forecast does not include. • OBC stage works. • Works between OBC and construction stage. • Other associated works out-with the construction stage. • Costs of any land acquisition. 3.5 Governance and consultation The project will follow a recognised route through the approval, procurement and consultation landscape. 3.5.1 Approval procedure Craignure port is an Argyll and Bute Council asset, and the governance clearly sits with Council Members. The project is one of those being overviewed by senior officials on the Marine Asset Management Board with approval by Members required at each key milestone or ‘Gateway’ review. These are points where a review of all the relevant aspects of the project thus far can be weighed, and a decision made on proceeding with the next step of the project. Key milestones are indicated on the project forecast and may be described as follows: Page 147
Page 148
• 2025 March Harbour Board. Completion of the OBC. Selection of a preferred option and permission to proceed to FBC for more accurate cost estimates, licencing and surveys. • 2026 March Harbour Board. Pre-completion of the FBC but in any case, the procurement and tender updates, cost estimates, EIA and licencing updates. • 2026 September Harbour Board. Pre-construction contract award. Although Craignure port is a Council asset, responsibility for decisions around the ferry service supported by the terminal is determined ultimately by Transport Scotland. For the new infrastructure to be fit for purpose as well as a sound investment for the future, as clear an understanding as possible of the service needs is required at an early stage and throughout the process. Therefore, a technical ‘Working Group’ has been formed from those public organisations with responsibility and accountability for the service, namely Argyll and Bute Council (infrastructure), Transport Scotland (strategy), CMAL (new vessels) and CFL / CalMac (service provider). The Working Group is referred to as the Craignure Pier Development Working Group (CPDWG) and have Terms of Reference, which are attached as appendix B. The Working Group will assist officers on coordination, information on any changes to vessel or service programmes, make recommendations as appropriate, act as a check on requirements and provide feedback on consultation questions and points. It will be for officers to then advise and recommend to Members based on the best and most up to date information. 3.5.2 Procurement strategy The Craignure ferry terminal project is a very large-scale marine construction project with specific logistical issues associated with island-based works and specialised construction companies who can provide those works. Marine and procurement officers are working closely with consultants on an appropriate procurement strategy that will best provide for a reliable delivery of the project with a high degree of confidence regarding cost and construction time. 3.5.3 Consultation Alongside the ‘Working Group’ the long established Craignure Marine Infrastructure Liaison Group (CMILG) will continue to be the point of contact with the Community Councils, ferry groups, residents, businesses and Local Elected Members. It is an important platform ensuring every voice is heard and opinion noted and is Chaired by Councillor Armour who is Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services and sits on the Council’s Harbour Board. All substantive points raised at the CMILG meetings will be addressed Page 148
Page 149
and responded to through the Working Group thus ensuring a qualified reply is recorded. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 This report provides Harbour Board Members with the latest update on the proposed ferry terminal project at Craignure, Isle of Mull, and seeks authorisation to proceed from the Outline Business Case (OBC) and progress to the next phase, which includes Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), planning and licencing. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy - None directly arising from this report. 5.2 Financial – Estimated costs for the next phase of the project will be added to the Marine Asset Management Plan, allowing for the financial implications and loan planning to be smoothed over an appropriate period. 5.3 Legal - Considered to be none directly arising from this report. 5.4 HR - None. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics - None directly arising from this report. 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty - None directly arising from this report. 5.5.3 Islands - Completed works and projects will enhance service reliability and community connectivity. 5.6 Climate Change - There are no direct impacts regarding climate change from this report, due regard will be given to climate change with a view to minimising any climate change impact and these will be considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment for the works. 5.7 Risk - A comprehensive Risk Register is maintained for this project. Costs may change over time and a realistic risk factor is included in the estimates. External influences may come to bear on ferry usage patterns which may, in turn, impact on income from ferry fees and charges i.e. Vessel breakdowns and redeployments, Environmental issues (car use), Brexit and potential changes in RET. This will pose a potential risk to income. Page 149
Page 150
5.8 Customer Service - An overall improvement in travel experience and reliability should result with improved infrastructure. 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - None directly arising from this report. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services: Councillor John Armour February 2025 For further information contact: Scott Reid, Marine Operations Manager Tel: 01546 604 696 Stephen Hall, Interim Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services Tel: 01546 604 324 APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Proposed construction programme Appendix 2 - Craignure Pier Development Working Group Terms of Reference Page 150
Page 151
2030 Septem ber October Novem ber Decem ber January February M arch April M ay June July August Septem ber October Novem ber Decem ber January February M arch April M ay June July August Septem ber October Novem ber Decem ber January February M arch April M ay June July August Septem ber October Novem ber Decem ber January February M arch April M ay June July August Septem ber October Novem ber Decem ber January February M arch April M ay June July August Septem ber October Novem ber Decem ber January Outline Business Case (OBC) Harbour Board (September 2024) * OBC review OBC review response * Harbour Board (February 2025) * EIA scoping EIA scoping opinion review (MD-LOT & A&BC) Surveys & EIA (tbc, dependent on procurement route) EIA Review & licensing Tender / procurement (management & design consultant for FBC & Construction stage) Completion of FBC Submission of FBC * Tender / procurement (incl ECI to EIA) ** Float - procurement stage Contract Award * Construction start date * Construction Construction (mid-point) * Handover & commissioning Float / Risk Completed Planned Key Milestone * Start date dependant on outcome of EIA determination ** 2028 2029 Programme Item 2024 2025 2026 2027 APPENDIX 1 Page 151
Page 152
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 153
Craignure Pier Development (CPD) Working Group Terms of Reference Ver: 240115 (004) FINAL Background to the Craignure Pier Development Project The Islands Connectivity Plan outlines transport connectivity as safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people, goods and services to support sustainable communities and populations. As part of the ICP, local authorities and private operators who are statutory harbour authorities and are responsible for ferry services and infrastructure assets are encouraged to adopt the ICP Vision and Priorities. As such the existing pier and passenger facilities at Craignure are life expired and new infrastructure will support the deployment of new vessels on the route and wider ferry network. Membership & Purpose of the Craignure Pier Development Working Group This group brings together representatives from Argyll & Bute Council, Transport Scotland, CMAL and CalMac to input to the delivery of improved pier facilities for the Craignure-Oban route, at Craignure Pier. Chair and Secretariat This group will be chaired by Argyll & Bute Council Marine Operations, with secretariat provided by Turner & Townsend (T&T). Project Scope & Objectives The Project Scope is defined in the Employer’s Requirements document for the project (a working document at OBC stage), this defines the infrastructure scope, performance and capacity requirements. The objectives of the proposed development are to: • Replace the existing terminal infrastructure, parts of which are in poor condition, deteriorating or have limited structural capacity. • Increase berth capacity at the new ferry terminal to allow the full range of design vessels to be safely accommodated. • Ensure vessels can reliably berth year-round at the new ferry terminal, including in challenging weather conditions and overnight, to reduce weather-related cancellations and improve the winter timetable. • Increase resilience of the new ferry terminal operations. • Allow safe and efficient embarkation and disembarkation for both vehicles and foot passengers, including those with impaired mobility and wheelchair users. • Increase capacity of the new vehicle marshalling yard in line with industry standards, addressing congestion on the A849. • Provide a new terminal building with modern facilities, meeting staff and passenger demand. • Provide access for RNLI lifeboat, which is used for medical evacuations from Mull to the mainland; and • Maintain the operational ferry service during construction works, avoiding and minimising disruption to the ferry service as far as possible. APPENDIX 2Page 153
Page 154
Craignure Pier Development (CPD) Working Group Terms of Reference Ver: 240115 (004) FINAL Project Governance Governance Responsibilities Argyll & Bute Council. Funding Decisions (Project Sponsor). Programme delivery. Craignure Pier Development Working Group Membership: Argyll & Bute Council, Transport Scotland, CMAL, CalMac, Project Development Group. Project level direction. Design co-ordination. Technical support & advice. Project joint communications. Project Development Group Membership: consultancy & design team (Turner & Townsend, Ramboll UK), Argyll & Bute Council, and consultation with other relevant parties as required. Production of Outline Business Case. Design development. Updates to Argyll & Bute Council. Reference Group - Craignure Marine Infrastructure Liaison Group (CMILG). Membership: Council Officers, Elected Members, Argyll & Bute Council, Transport Scotland, CMAL, CalMac, Local community representatives, Project Development Group. Details of the Reference Group Terms of Reference (TOR) are recorded in the latest version of the “Craignure Marine Infrastructure Liaison Group TOR” document Local Stakeholder and community engagement to provide perspective to the work managed by the Craignure Pier Development working group. Craignure Pier Development Working Group Objectives 1. Provide project input for papers to the Argyll & Bute Harbour Board via the Marine Operations Manager covering progress and programme. 2. Requests for strategic direction and project scoping guidance will also be made if required. 3. Assist the Project Development team in maintaining robust and auditable project governance. 4. To provide a forum for: project design collaboration; ferry service collaboration and facilitating central decision making, based on the information available to the relevant parties at the time. 5. Bring together the parties who are accountable and responsible for decisions on separate work streams affecting service provision between Craignure and Oban. 6. To ensure all parties are made aware of, or involved in, the decisions that affect each other’s work streams. 7. To agree, manage and maintain clear communication strategy and plans. 8. To develop the strategy for stakeholder engagement through the Craignure Marine Infrastructure Liaison Group. 9. To feed in substantive views from CMILG, via the Chair of the CMILG. Page 154
Page 155
Craignure Pier Development (CPD) Working Group Terms of Reference Ver: 240115 (004) FINAL Meetings, Communication and Document/Information Management. Venue and frequency: meetings will be held every 4-6 weeks via teleconference (MS Teams) where appropriate. Agenda, preparatory questions and actions to relevant parties and relevant documentation will be distributed 5 working days in advance of the meeting via email. Minutes and actions will to be recorded and distributed to the Working Group members within 10 working days, with a view to being agreed/closed at the following meeting. Communications out-with the Working Group meeting are planned to be via email, or in a further meeting setting with minutes taken. Issuing of documents will be via email, with a document issue record completed by T&T, on behalf of A&BC. Minutes of this working group will be made publicly available on the Argyll & Bute Council website as soon as practicable after responses are received from working group members. Page 155
Page 156
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 157
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ARGYLL AND BUTE HARBOUR BOARD FINANCIAL SERVICES 20 MARCH 2025 STATUTORY HARBOUR BOARD ACCOUNTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report advises that annual statements will now be provided for each of the Council’s Statutory Harbour Authorities, upon completion of the Council Accounts. The Council’s Accounts for the year end 31 March 2024 were approved by Council on 20 December 2024 and annual statements are now provided in appendix 1 of this report. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Argyll and Bute Harbour Board consider the information contained within this report and note that annual statements will be provided for each of the Council’s Statutory Harbour Authorities on completion of the audit of the Council Accounts. 3. DETAIL 3.1 Section 42 of the Harbours Act 1964 at paragraph (1) states the following: “It shall be the duty of every statutory harbour undertaker to prepare an annual statement of accounts relating to the harbour activities and to any associated activities carried out by him”. 3.2 The Council has previously included the statutory harbour income and expenditure within the overall Council Accounts, and now, developing on best practice, an annual statement of income and expenditure for each of the 8 Statutory Harbour Authorities will be provided to the Harbour Board upon completion of the audit of the Council Accounts. 3.3 Harbour assets are set out in the Council’s Accounts which contain information in relation to assets equivalent to a balance sheet. Further work will be undertaken to assess whether and how information may be more clearly set out in a balance sheet format in future. Pooling of Funds 3.4 It should be noted that the Council is the the harbour authority across 8 Harbours and has a duty to maintain its marine infrastructure throughout the Argyll and Bute Council footprint irrespective of the individual location’s ability to raise income. The cost of maintaining marine infrastructure is significant, especially so at remote or island locations. 3.5 Large scale or expensive works need to be paid for often within short timescales with available funds and borrowing, which is paid back through fees and charges. Page 157 Agenda Item 7
Page 158
To allow this to be done without short term spikes and to better suit budget planning, it is sensible to pool the resources and the expenses of the marine portfolio together. 3.6 The Council approved the Council’s Audited Accounts on 20 December 2024. Appendix 1 provides an annual statement for each of the 8 Statutory Harbour Authorities for the year ended 31 March 2024. There is an overall surplus of £810,634 when added together. 3.7 The total income and expenditure for all other piers and harbours totals a deficit of £426,879. This together with the surplus outlined in paragraph 3.5 results in an overall surplus for all piers and harbours for the year ended 31 March 2024 of £383,756. 3.8 Looking back at the accounts over the last 4 years, there is an overall deficit and therefore the pooled surplus generated in 2023-24 will be paying back previous years cumulative deficits. Where the cumulative total moves into a surplus, this will be ring-fenced at the end of the financial year for future years spending on piers and harbours. Year Surplus/(Deficit) £m 2020-21 (1.142) 2021-22 (0.295) 2022-23 0.318 2023-24 0.384 Total (last 4 years) (0.735) Consolidated HRO 3.9 It has been the reported intention of Argyll and Bute Council to consolidate its main ports and harbours under one Statutory Harbour Authority Order. CMAL and Cornwall Council are two examples of a Statutory Harbour Authority with multiple ports and harbours consolidating some or all their harbour areas under one single Statutory Harbour Authority order. The single legislation means that among other important aspects, the Authority can then account across the entire undertaking as one entity. 3.10 The benefits are similar to the pooling of resources in that an Authority can better cover planned and unexpected works that are invariably expensive without that burden being borne by a single location. Argyll and Bute Council intend to pursue this on completion of the ongoing Oban HRO process. 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 An annual statement for the year ended 31 March 2024 is now provided for each of the Council’s Statutory Harbour Authorities. Harbour assets are set out in the Council’s annual accounts which contain information in relation to assets equivalent to a balance sheet. Page 158
Page 159
5. IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – Reporting on income and expenditure for the Statutory Harbour Authorities. 5.2 Financial – Information on income and expenditure is provided for each of the Council’s Statutory Harbour Authorities. 5.3 Legal – None. 5.4 HR – None. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty – See Below 5.5.1 Equalities – None. 5.5.2 Socio-Economic Duty – None. 5.5.3 Islands Duty – None. 5.6 Climate Change – None. 5.7 Risk – None. 5.8 Customer Service – Provision of further information included in the overall Accounts of the Council. 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – None. Kirsty Flanagan Executive Director/Section 95 Officer 11 March 2025 Councillor Ross Moreland, Policy Lead for Finance and Commercial Services Appendices Appendix 1 – Income and Expenditure Statement Page 159
Page 160
APPENDIX 1 STATUTORY HARBOUR AUTHORITY INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2024 Bruichladdich 2023-24 £ £ Income Operating Income 51,341 Other Income 0 51,341 Expenditure Employee Costs 0 Other Operating Expenditure 13,241 Depreciation / Revaluation Adjustments 67,459 Financing Costs 10,915 91,615 Surplus/(Deficit) of income over expenditure (40,274) Carradale 2023-24 £ £ Income Operating Income 22,330 Other Income 100 22,430 Expenditure Employee Costs 0 Other Operating Expenditure 12,949 Depreciation / Revaluation Adjustments 20,508 Financing Costs 2,251 35,708 Surplus/(Deficit) of income over expenditure (13,278) Page 160
Page 161
Campbeltown 2023-24 £ £ Income Operating Income 360,043 Other Income 2,168 362,211 Expenditure Employee Costs 211,421 Other Operating Expenditure 199,192 Depreciation / Revaluation Adjustments 340,931 Financing Costs 45,217 796,761 Surplus/(Deficit) of income over expenditure (434,550) Craignure 2023-24 £ £ Income Operating Income 1,906,346 Other Income 0 1,906,346 Expenditure Employee Costs 44,246 Other Operating Expenditure 228,678 Depreciation / Revaluation Adjustments 11,051 Financing Costs 357,392 641,367 Surplus/(Deficit) of income over expenditure 1,264,979 Dunoon 2023-24 £ £ Income Operating Income 296,648 Other Income 0 296,648 Expenditure Employee Costs 421,503 Other Operating Expenditure 160,511 Depreciation / Revaluation Adjustments 202,413 Financing Costs 93,840 878,267 Surplus/(Deficit) of income over expenditure (581,618) Page 161
Page 162
Oban 2023-24 £ £ Income Operating Income 448,477 Other Income 3,106 451,583 Expenditure Employee Costs 213,468 Other Operating Expenditure 245,554 Depreciation / Revaluation Adjustments 247,518 Financing Costs 67,131 773,671 Surplus/(Deficit) of income over expenditure (322,088) Port Askaig 2023-24 £ £ Income Operating Income 863,684 Other Income 0 863,684 Expenditure Employee Costs 37,083 Other Operating Expenditure 219,972 Depreciation / Revaluation Adjustments 352,606 Financing Costs 151,078 760,739 Surplus/(Deficit) of income over expenditure 102,945 Rothesay 2023-24 £ £ Income Operating Income 2,728,267 Other Income 0 2,728,267 Expenditure Employee Costs 671,444 Other Operating Expenditure 321,051 Depreciation / Revaluation Adjustments 388,324 Financing Costs 512,929 1,893,748 Surplus/(Deficit) of income over expenditure 834,519 Page 162
Page 163
ACCOUNTING POLICIES Accounting Convention The financial statements have been prepared under the historical cost convention and in accordance with applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards. Income Income represents fees and charges for use of the Council's Pier and Harbours. Expenditure All expenditure is included on an accruals basis and is recognised where there is a legal or constructive obligation to pay for expenditure. All expenditure has been directly attributed to one of the functional categories of resources expended in the accounts. Wages and Salaries Provision is made in the accounts for wages and salaries paid by Argyll and Bute Council for the running of the Piers and Harbours. Page 163
Page 164
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 165
Argyll and Bute Harbour Board Work Plan 2024/25 This is an outline plan to facilitate forward planning of reports to the Harbour Board. Date Report Designation Lead Service/ Officer Regularity of occurrence/ consideration Date of Reports to Committee Services Additional Comment 20 March 2025 Port Marine Safety Code Marine Operations Bi-Annual 25 February 2025 Marine Asset Management Plan – Works Update Marine Operations Bi-Annual Marine Asset Management Plan – Craignure Terminal Marine Operations Statutory Harbour Board Accounts Marine Operations Future Reports – dates to be determined Community Groups & Berthing Dues Review of Marine Services Working Practices Page 165 Agenda Item 8
Page 166
This page is intentionally left blank