WHITSTABLE HARBOUR - PILOTAGE REVIEW

Transcription

1 CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL WHITSTABLE HARBOUR - PILOTAGE REVIEW Report Number: 17UK1330 Issue: Draft B Date: 16 June 2017 MARINE AND RISK CONSULTANTS LTD

2 CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL WHITSTABLE HARBOUR - PILOTAGE REVIEW Prepared for: Whitstable Harbour Master Whitstable Harbour Office Whitstable Kent CT5 1AB Author(s): Checked By: Ryan Hall and Ray Blair Jamie Holmes Date Release Prepared Authorised Notes 16 June 2017 Draft A RH, RB JJH, EJR Issue to client for comment. 23 June 2017 Draft B RH, RB JJH, EJR Issue to client for comment. Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd Marico Marine Bramshaw Lyndhurst SO43 7JB Hampshire United Kingdom Tel (0) June 2017 Canterbury City Council i

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This navigational risk assessment report, prepared by Marine and Risk Consultants Limited for the Whitstable Harbour Board considers the future requirement for pilotage into and out of Whitstable Harbour. This risk assessment considers the navigation hazards to the shipping companies using Whitstable Harbour. A baseline risk assessment was undertaken with current risk control measures in place, including the act of pilotage, to assess the baseline level of navigation and hazards for the harbour. A further assessment was then undertaken where the pilot was removed as a risk control measure to assess whether there was a substantial change in risk without the pilot being embarked. A site visit and stakeholder consultation was held on 17 and 18 May 2017 to assess the harbour and its pilotage requirements. The stakeholder consultation sessions were used to determine frequency of an event occurring, proportionate and appropriate risk control measures and any other concerns of local operators and harbour users. The baseline risk assessment identified ten individual hazards to navigation, all of which were assessed to fall below the As Low as Reasonably Practicable risk margin. The three highest scoring baseline risks in the assessment are: Pilot fails to board or disembark safely; Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the harbour; and Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the CHA. To test the effectiveness of the pilot as a risk control measure the risk assessment was re-scored without the pilot being on board. The risk assessment showed that the overall risk to the harbour is Low Risk. There are adequate baseline risk controls in place which ensure the safe arrival and departure of any ship without a pilot on board. It is considered that provision of a pilotage service is no longer necessary or justified. Therefore, it is recommended that Whitstable Harbour commences the process for applying for a pilotage function removal order under Section 1 (4A) of the Pilotage Act 1987 and relinquishes its power as a Competent Harbour Authority. The process for removing pilotage directions and the pilotage function are fully described in the document Guidance on Closure Orders and Pilotage Function Removal Orders produced by the Department for Transport and summarised in Section 9 of this report. Canterbury City Council ii

4 CONTENTS Executive Summary...ii Contents... iii Abbreviations...v 1 Introduction Background Information Legal Context Whitstable Harbour Information Tidal Information Passage Plan into or out of the Harbour Whitstable Harbour Pilotage Directions Pilot and Pilot Exemption Authorisation Marine Activities at Whitstable Harbour Faversham Ships Waverly and Balmoral Fishing Vessels Leisure Users Consultation with Stakeholders Navigation Risk Assessment Methodology Vessel Types in Study Area Hazard Categories Incident Data Frequency Consequence Risk Treatment Criteria Risk Assessment Results Risk Controls Scenario 1: Risk Assessment: Existing Navigational Situation (with Pilot) Hazard Explanation: Boarding and landing of a Pilot Scenario 2: Risk Assessment with No Pilot Embarked Conclusions Recommendations Canterbury City Council iii

5 9 Method for Removing Pilotage Directions Pre-Application Consultation Risk Assessment Cost Benefit Analysis Formal Application FIGURES Figure 1: Whitstable Harbour Figure 2: Whitstable Statutory limits Figure 3: Typical passage into Whitstable Figure 4: Vessel Pluto... 8 Figure 5: Vessel Waverley Figure 6: Vessel Balmoral alongside in Whitstable Figure 7: MARICO hazard identification and risk assessment process Figure 8: Frequency/Consequence Chart TABLES Table 1: Consultation Table 2: Initial Hazard Identification Matrix Table 3: Frequency criteria Table 4: Consequence Criteria Table 5: Risk Matrix Table 6: Ranked Baseline Hazard Log ANNEXES Annex A Ranked Hazard List - Pilot embarked... A-1 Annex B Ranked Hazard List - No Pilot embarked... B-1 Annex C Example Stakeholder Consultation Letter... C-1 Canterbury City Council iv

6 ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation AIS ALARP CCTV CHA D&B HW ICW IMO Detail Automatic Identification System As Low as Reasonably Practicable Closed Circuit Television Competent Harbour Authority Design and Build High Water In Collision With International Maritime Organisation Kt Knot (unit of speed equal to nautical mile per hour, approximately 1.15 mph) LW M Marico Marine MCA ML Nm NRA PEC PWC RIB RNLI SHA SMS SUP VHF VTS WC Low Water Metre Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd Maritime and Coast Guard Agency Most Likely Nautical Mile Navigation Risk Assessment Pilotage Exemption Certificate Personal Water Craft Ridged Inflatable Boat Royal National Lifeboat Institute Statutory Harbour Authority Safety Management System Stand Up Paddle board Very High Frequency (radio communication) Vessel Traffic Service Worst Credible Canterbury City Council v

7 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This report, prepared by Marine and Risk Consultants Limited (Marico Marine) for Whitstable Harbour Authority, considers the necessity of pilotage at Whitstable Harbour. A risk assessment based methodology has been adopted and relevant recommendations are made to the Harbour Board about future pilotage requirements for the harbour. The review consists of: A review of current documentation and relevant national and local legislation; An overview of the current pilotage operation including a site visit and consultation A risk assessment to determine the need for a pilotage service; An analysis of the methods and options for delivering a pilotage service, if considered required; and Clarification of the method required to remove the pilotage function from the harbour authority, if considered not required. 1.2 LEGAL CONTEXT Under the Pilotage Act 1987 and Port Marine Safety Code 2016 a harbour must carry out a review of its pilotage function to determine whether it is appropriate and required. Whitstable is classified as a Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) and must provide pilotage to ships greater than 50m in length overall as determined by the Whitstable Pilotage Directions The CHA must also ensure that its pilots and Pilotage Exemption Certificate (PEC) holders meet the currency and experience requirements in the Pilotage Directions, so as to remain authorised to conduct acts of pilotage. Whitstable pilots and PEC holders are both required to complete three inward and three outward passages (with two of these being carried out at night) within the 12 months preceding the authorisation review date. Canterbury City Council 1

8 2 WHITSTABLE Whitstable on the North-East Kent coast, is a popular seaside destination for many recreational boaters and holiday makers. The usage of Whitstable Harbour, identified in Figure 1, has evolved over recent years. Originally a commercial port with working berths for commercial vessels, the harbour is now primarily a fishing vessel hub, with only two working commercial berths remaining. Figure 1: Whitstable Harbour. 2.1 HARBOUR INFORMATION Whitstable Harbour has two commercial berths available for visiting ships (East Quay and West Quay). Both berths measure approximately 100m in length. The berth on the East Quay is declared a Not Always Afloat But Safely Aground (NAABSA) berth and ships must be prepared to sit on the ground over the low water periods. The West Quay berth is used less frequently and is not a declared NAABSA berth due to a build-up of silt deposits half way along the berth face. The other berths inside the harbour are not used by commercial ships due to the navigational space available and are used for the berthing of fishing vessels, work boats and a Thames sailing barge. Canterbury City Council 2

9 Whitstable Harbour statutory powers are derived from the Whitstable Harbour Act 1957 and it is the Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA) for the area depicted in Figure 2. Figure 2: Whitstable Statutory limits. 2.2 TIDAL INFORMATION Whitstable Harbour is a secondary port to Margate. There is a tidal range of 5m, with Mean High Water Springs measuring 5.17m and Mean Low Water Springs measuring 0.4m. The tide floods at a rate of approximately 2.5 knots from the Thames Estuary in a westerly direction and then returns in a north easterly direction back out of the Thames Estuary. The navigation approach to Whitstable from the Oyster Buoy is shallow and the harbour s tidal limitations mean that visiting ships must wait until High Water slack before any approach to the harbour is made. The harbour has a shallow bottom gradient from the high-water mark and the ground is exposed for up to 3 hours of each tidal window, with a bottom-type of soft mud and shingle. Canterbury City Council 3

10 2.3 PASSAGE PLAN INTO OR OUT OF THE HARBOUR Navigation into Whitstable Harbour is conducted in two parts. The vessel makes an approach from the Street Buoy, situated to the east of the harbour, before passing the Oyster Buoy to port and turning onto a course for the harbour. The harbour is entered through a channel measuring 38m between two harbour walls, each of which is marked by navigation lights. Once aligned between the two harbour walls the vessel will make an approach to either the West Quay where it will berth starboard side to, or East Quay where it will berth port side to. The straightforward approach to the harbour is aided by the Oyster Buoy which clearly marks a position where a vessel should turn for entry to the harbour. A departure from the harbour will involve the vessel backing away from the berth into open sea, approximately 100m from the Oyster Buoy before turning to port to proceed back to the Thames Estuary. A typical passage into the harbour and the location of the Oyster and Street Buoys is shown below in Figure 3. Canterbury City Council 4

11 Figure 3: Typical passage into Whitstable. 2.4 WHITSTABLE HARBOUR PILOTAGE DIRECTIONS Under the Pilotage Act 1987, Whitstable is declared a CHA and must provide pilotage to ships visiting the harbour. The CHA area for Whitstable is identical to the SHA outlined above at Figure 2. The Whitstable Pilotage Directions 2014 were reviewed as part of this study and they outline the key requirements for visiting ships and provide some basic harbour information, namely: A vessel or tug and tow greater than 50m in length overall must take a pilot; and A vessel may apply for exemption from pilotage by meeting certain requirements The pilot boarding point is at Street Buoy located outside of the CHA and identified in the top right corner of Figure 3. It should be noted that if a pilot conducts an act of pilotage outside the harbour s CHA then the pilot is acting outside his authorisation and the harbour may be liable for any damages caused to the visiting ship before it enters the CHA. It has been identified that it is current practice for the Whitstable pilot to commence pilotage acts before entering the CHA and the Harbour Board are recommended to review the current pilot boarding procedures if the pilotage service continues to be provided. Canterbury City Council 5

12 2.5 PILOT AND PILOT EXEMPTION AUTHORISATION The Pilotage Act 1987 and Whitstable Pilotage Directions 2014 state that Whitstable Harbour may authorise pilots and PEC holders. To authorise a pilot or PEC holder to legally carry out pilotage the harbour must have evidence that the pilot has carried out pilotage acts of three inward and three outward passages (two of which must be at night) within the preceding 12 months. The only pilot currently employed at Whitstable Harbour is the Harbour Master who, due to static commercial shipping movement year on year, conducts only a small number of pilotage acts per year. As a result, the harbour is presently unable to demonstrate that the pilot has current experience and thus his authorisation is unattainable. Indeed, given the current number of acts conducted in the last 12 months the Harbour Master is no longer authorised as a pilot. A PEC is achieved after successful examination by the Harbour Master of the bona fide deck officer of the applying ship. The deck officer must complete three inward and outward trips with an accompanying pilot, two of which are to be at night in the 12 months prior to examination by the Harbour Master. A PEC is valid for one year and can be re-issued without re-examination if the deck officer can prove that at least three inward and outward trips have been undertaken within the year. The situation with current, and projected, shipping movements means that the current PEC holders are likely to be able to maintain authorisation. Canterbury City Council 6

13 3 MARINE ACTIVITIES AT WHITSTABLE HARBOUR The following types of activity are experienced at Whitstable Harbour: Faversham Ships (Aggregates); MV s Waverley or Balmoral; Fishing vessels; and Leisure users. In order to fully assess the pilotage requirement an analysis of vessel type and the operations associated with them was carried out. 3.1 FAVERSHAM SHIPS The cargo vessel Pluto, managed and operated by Faversham Ships, visits the East Quay approximately 40 times per year to deliver aggregate to Brett Aggregates facilities. Her Masters are current PEC holders. She invariably berths port side to at East Quay, coming straight in to her berth. On departure a sternboard is conducted out of the harbour to deeper water as there is insufficient turning space within the harbour itself. The ship s specifications are described below and shown in Figure 4 : Length overall 83m Beam 11m Gross tonnage 1530 t Cargo hold up to 2200 t Loaded draft 4.2m Brett Aggregates has a lease on the East Quay plant for approximately another seven years but is currently negotiating an extension to the lease of a further years and its local Plant Manager does not expect their current shipping activity to change in the foreseeable future. The East Quay plant can store approximately 20,000 tonnes of varying grades of aggregate and the Plant Manager does not allow this to fall below 13,000 tonnes. Ship visits are requested by the Plant Manager when stock levels fall close to this lower level. Canterbury City Council 7

14 Figure 4: Vessel Pluto. 3.2 WAVERLY AND BALMORAL The Waverley paddle steamer and Balmoral museum ship are passenger ships which visit Whitstable whilst on seasonal passages around the United Kingdom. The Masters of both ships are current PEC holders. Each may make between two and four visits to Whitstable per season but this varies year to year. Due to the nature of the vessels, visits are planned up to 18 months in advance when ports and harbours are booked by the ships operational team. In general, Waverley or Balmoral will not visit Whitstable in inclement weather and will change route to Southend or to Gravesend on the Thames. The vessels come straight in to the harbour and berth starboard side to on the West Quay and conduct a sternboard on departure. Waverly s / Balmoral s specifics are shown below and in Figure 5 and 6. Length overall 73m / 62m Beam 17.5m / 9.75m Gross tonnage 693 t / 688 t Max passengers 860 / 800 Loaded draft 2m Canterbury City Council 8

15 Figure 5: Vessel Waverley. Figure 6: Vessel Balmoral alongside in Whitstable. Canterbury City Council 9

16 3.3 FISHING VESSELS Whitstable is a key location for fishing vessels which utilise the harbour for berthing and off-loading catch after conducting fishing activities offshore. Under the Pilotage Act 1987 fishing vessels under 47.5m are not required to take a pilot. All fishing vessels using Whitstable Harbour fall under this length due to the space available to them within the harbour and the depth of water available to them outside the harbour. 3.4 LEISURE USERS In general, there are no berths available in Whitstable for leisure users and berth requests are invariably declined. Small passenger boats and yachts do not use the harbour as they are unable to take the ground due to their hull form and due to the lack of available space inside the harbour. Thames Sailing Barge Greta uses a berth on the eastern end of South Quay which has been specifically modified for her use. These vessels fall outside the Pilotage Directions due to their size. Canterbury City Council 10

17 4 CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS Consultation meetings (identified in Table 1) with key stakeholders were undertaken during a site visit to Whitstable on Wednesday 17 and Thursday 18 May 2017 or by telephone from Marico s office in Southampton. Table 1: Consultation. Organisation Whitstable Harbour Whitstable Harbour Brett Aggregates Harbour Board Ex Whitstable Pilot Consultee Mike Wier (Harbour Master and Pilot) Glyn Hall-Edwards (Senior Port Controller & Pilot launch Coxswain) Russ Spooner (Plant Manager) Peter Steen (Designated Person) Iain Irving Consultation meetings were used to help determine the following requirements for this risk assessment: Historical information; Incident data; Vessel activity and vessel types; Risk control measures; and Improved risk control measures. Canterbury City Council 11

18 5 NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT 5.1 METHODOLOGY The NRA methodology, used for this assessment, has been specifically developed for navigational use in ports/harbours. It is fundamentally based on concepts of the Most Likely (ML) and Worst Credible (WC) scenarios that reflect the range of outcomes arising from a navigation hazard (see Figure 7). Figure 7: MARICO hazard identification and risk assessment process. The NRA process is based on the Formal Safety Assessment methodology as adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) The NRA used the proprietary Marico Marine Hazman II programme to undertake the risk assessment process. IMO guidelines define a hazard as something with the potential to cause harm, loss or injury, the realisation of which results in an accident. The potential for a hazard to be realised can be combined with an estimate or known consequence of outcome. This combination is termed risk. Risk is therefore a measure of the frequency and consequence of a particular hazard and in order to compare risk levels a matrix is used. Canterbury City Council 12

19 At the low end of the scale, frequency is extremely remote, consequence insignificant and risk can be said to be negligible. At the high end, where hazards are defined as frequent and the consequence catastrophic, then risk is termed intolerable. Between the two is an area defined As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). The IMO guidelines allow the selection of definitions of frequency and consequence to be made by the organisation carrying out the NRA. This is important, as it allows risk to be applied in a qualitative and comparative way. To identify high risk levels using a quantitative mathematical approach would require a large volume of casualty data, which is not generally available. Figure 8: Frequency/Consequence Chart. ALARP can be defined as Tolerable, if the reduction of the risk is impracticable, or if the cost of such reduction would obviously be highly disproportionate to the improvement. It can also be defined as Tolerable, if the cost of reducing the risk is greater than any improvement gained. This is showed pictorially in Figure VESSEL TYPES IN STUDY AREA The vessel types experienced in the area were categorised into three groups and these vessel groups were then associated to the hazard category. Vessel group Large commercial vessel Fishing vessel Workboat / leisure user Vessel types Ships greater than 50m in length overall for which pilotage is currently compulsory Fishing vessel Other smaller craft such as workboats and leisure users Canterbury City Council 13

20 5.3 HAZARD CATEGORIES In order to ensure that all hazards associated with the NRA were identified (and allocated a Hazard Reference Number), a matrix of generic hazards was used which focused on the risk exposure (see Table 2) to vessel types typical to the area. Table 2: Initial Hazard Identification Matrix. Hazard Ref. Hazard Category Hazard Title 1 Collision Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the harbour 2 Collision Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the CHA 3 Collision Large vessel collides with a fishing vessel in the harbour 4 Collision Large vessel collides with a fishing vessel in the CHA 5 Contact Large vessel makes contact with the berth 6 Contact Large vessel contacts the dolphin at harbour entrance 7 Contact Large vessel contacts the Oyster buoy 8 Grounding Large vessel grounds in the CHA 9 Grounding Large vessel grounds in the harbour 10 Pilot boarding / landing Pilot fails to board / disembark safely from the vessel 5.4 INCIDENT DATA During consultation, Marico Marine requested information on marine incidents in Whitstable Harbour and also on any near miss or pilotage related incidents. Whitstable Harbour advised that an accident, incident and near miss record reporting system is in place but confirmed that no accident, incident or near misses have taken place thus there is no incident trend to vessels utilising Whitstable Harbour. This record is substantiated by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) database which also has no record of any marine incident occurring within Whitstable Harbour s SHA. 5.5 FREQUENCY As indicated earlier, frequency of occurrence and likely consequence are both assessed for the most likely and worst credible scenario. Frequencies are assessed according to the levels set out in Table 3 below. Canterbury City Council 14

21 Table 3: Frequency criteria. Scale Description Operational Interpretation F5 Frequent One or more times in 1 year F4 F3 F2 Likely Possible Unlikely One or more times in 10 years 1-9 years One or more times in 100 years years One or more times in 1,000 years years F1 Remote More than 1,000 years 5.6 CONSEQUENCE Using the assessed notional frequency for the most likely and worst credible scenarios for each hazard, the probable consequences associated with each are assessed in terms of damage to: People - Personal injury, fatality etc.; Property Port infrastructure and third party i.e. vessel; Environment - Oil pollution etc.; and Business - Reputation, financial loss, public relations etc. The magnitude of each is then assessed using the consequence categories given in the table below. These have been set such that the consequences in respect of property, environment and business have similar monetary outcomes as shown in Table 4. Canterbury City Council 15

22 Table 4: Consequence Criteria. Cat. People Property Environment Business C1 C2 Negligible Possible very minor injury (e.g. bruising) Minor (single minor injury) Negligible Costs < 10k Minor Minor damage Costs 10k 100k Negligible No effect of note. Tier1 may be declared but criteria not necessarily met. Costs < 10k Minor Tier 1 Tier 2 criteria reached. Small operational (oil) spill with little effect on environmental amenity Costs 10K 100k Negligible Costs < 10k Minor Bad local publicity and/or short-term loss of revenue Costs 10k 100k C3 Moderate Multiple minor or single major injury Moderate Moderate damage Costs 100k - 1M Moderate Tier 2 spill criteria reached but capable of being limited to immediate area within site Costs 100k - 1M Moderate Bad widespread publicity Temporary suspension of operations or prolonged restrictions Costs 100k - 1M C4 Major Multiple major injuries or single fatality Major Major damage Costs 1M -10M Major Tier 3 criteria reached with pollution requiring national support. Chemical spillage or small gas release Costs 1M - 10M Major National publicity, Temporary closure Costs 1M - 10M C5 Catastrophic Multiple fatalities Catastrophic Catastrophic damage Costs> 10M Catastrophic Tier 3 oil spill criteria reached. International support required. Widespread shoreline contamination. Serious chemical or gas release. Significant threat to environmental amenity. Costs > 10M Catastrophic International media publicity. Operations and revenue seriously disrupted for more than two days. Ensuing loss of revenue. Costs > 10M 5.7 RISK TREATMENT CRITERIA Risk scores are calculated for each hazard under the most likely and worst credible scenarios for each of the consequence criteria (people, property, environment and business) based on the scores in the hazard log, using a risk matrix (see Table 5). This generates eight individual risk scores per hazard which are documented in the Ranked Hazard List. The individual risk scores for each consequence category are then combined, using a proprietary algorithm in Hazman II, to derive an overall risk score. The overall baseline risk scores are used to create a ranked hazard list. All risk scores, whether individually related to a hazard consequence category or overall combined for an individual hazard, are scored on a scale of 0 (negligible risk) to 10 (high risk) (see Table 5 for more details). Canterbury City Council 16

23 Table 5: Risk Matrix. MATRIX OUTCOME Risk Definition Action Taken 0 & 1 Negligible Risk A level where operational safety is unaffected. 2 & 3 Low risk A level where operational safety is assumed. 4,5 and 6 As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) A level defined by study at which risk control in place is reviewed. It should be kept under review in the ensuing Safety Management System. 7 & 8 Significant Risk A level where existing risk control is automatically reviewed and suggestions made where additional risk control could be applied if appropriate. Significant risk can occur in the average case or in individual categories. New risk controls identified should be introduced in a timescale of two years. 9 & 10 High Risk A level requiring immediate mitigation. Canterbury City Council 17

24 6 RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS A complete review of all vessel traffic types and marine operations for Whitstable was undertaken in order to identify a list of hazards for the risk assessment. Each hazard was risk assessed using the methodology explained in Section 5. Two assessment scenarios of risk were undertaken: Scenario 1: Risk Assessment for the existing navigational scenario (Annex A); and Scenario 2: Risk Assessment for the existing navigational scenario with no pilot / PEC embarked (Annex B). Hazards are ranked in accordance to the level of overall risk. This NRA considers both the most likely and the worst credible outcomes (set against likely frequency of the event happening in each case). This approach provides a more realistic and thorough assessment of risk, which reflects reality, in that relatively very few incidents result in the worst credible outcome. The first assessment was based on the basic navigation into and out of the harbour with existing risk controls in place, with a pilot / PEC holder being embarked. 6.1 RISK CONTROLS The risk controls currently in place at Whitstable Harbour, and therefore assumed applicable for both risk assessment scenarios, include: Local Port Service (LPS) provision, providing real time tide and weather information to a ship on approach; Shipping notification provided to the local yacht club; Harbour staff on site one hour before a ship s arrival / departure; Requirement for ships to enter or depart the harbour over High Water slack periods; The harbour entrance is well lit by navigational aids; and The fairway is cleared of all fishing and leisure traffic for a ship arrival /departure. 6.2 SCENARIO 1: RISK ASSESSMENT: EXISTING NAVIGATIONAL SITUATION (WITH PILOT) In addition to the risk controls as listed in Section 6.1, the provision of a pilot / PEC holder is considered a risk control currently in place. The pilot or PEC holder further reduces the likelihood of Canterbury City Council 18

25 an event occurring as he understands the local navigational hazards, shipping routes and harbour communication channels. Standard maritime experience shows that a pilot can add up to 75% reduction in incident frequency in a typical port. As Whitstable Harbour has fewer visiting ships than a normal commercial port a moderated incident frequency reduction of 50% was applied to all hazards. The current situation risk assessment results as shown in Table 6 show that: 0 hazards were assessed as High Risk (>9); 0 hazards were assessed as ALARP (4 to 9); and 10 hazards were assessed as Low Risk (1 to 4). The top three scoring risks for the activity associated with a ship arrival or departure are: Pilot fails to board or disembark safely; Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the harbour; and Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the CHA. Table 6: Ranked Baseline Hazard Log. Ref Hazard BASELINE RISK SCORE 1 Pilot fails to board or disembark safely Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the harbour Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the CHA Large vessel collides with a fishing vessel in the CHA Large vessel collides with a fishing vessel in the harbour Large vessel contacts the berth / harbour infrastructure Large vessel contacts the dolphin at the harbour entrance Large vessel contacts the Oyster buoy 0 9 Large vessel grounds in the harbour 0 10 Large vessel grounds in the CHA Hazard Explanation: Boarding and Landing of a Pilot The highest scoring risk in this assessment is the risk to the pilot whilst embarking to conduct a pilotage act. The transfer of pilots only currently takes place a limited number of times per year and this means that the pilot boat is currently only used at the same intervals. The transfer and embarkation of pilots is a marine activity that should be exercised on a regular basis so that the pilot boat coxswain is confident in safely coming alongside a ship whilst it is underway and the pilot is confident in climbing up and down pilot ladders. As the pilotage activity is infrequent in Whitstable, Canterbury City Council 19

26 the ability to maintain currency and adequate training cannot be met and there remains a risk when the transfer of the pilot takes place. 6.3 SCENARIO 2: RISK ASSESSMENT WITH NO PILOT EMBARKED A further assessment was conducted which assumed the risk controls as listed in Section 6.1 are in place but excluded the risk control of the provision of a pilot / PEC holder. As the pilot was removed from the vessel the hazard of pilot embarking and disembarking from the vessel was also removed from the hazard log. The risk assessment with no pilot embarked shows that: 0 hazards were assessed as High Risk (>9); 0 hazards were assessed as ALARP (4 to 9); and 9 hazards were assessed as Low Risk (1 to 4). Table 7: Ranked Baseline Hazard Log. Ref Hazard BASELINE RISK SCORE 1 Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the harbour Large vessel collides with a leisure user in the CHA Large vessel collides with a fishing vessel in the harbour Large vessel collides with a fishing vessel in the CHA Large vessel contacts the berth / harbour infrastructure Large vessel contacts the dolphin at the harbour entrance Large vessel grounds in the CHA 0 8 Large vessel grounds in the harbour 0 9 Large vessel contacts the Oyster buoy 0 The overall risk for entry and departure from the harbour is low risk and no hazards are scored within the ALARP area. Even though there is a slight increase in risk without a pilot embarked, risk control measures put in place by the harbour are shown to be sufficient in reducing the likelihood of an event occurring. Canterbury City Council 20

27 7 CONCLUSIONS Whitstable Harbour provides a comparatively straightforward approach and departure for visiting vessels and the risk scores identified in this report show that the level of risk to visiting ships is Low Risk. The assessment has shown that removing the pilot from visiting vessels does not significantly change the associated risk and the risk scores have remained in the same Low Risk band as with a pilot embarked. Removing the pilot also removes the highest scoring hazard which is to the pilot and pilot boat whilst boarding or disembarking from a vessel (a hazard which is currently exacerbated due to infrequency of pilotage and therefore unfamiliarity with this operation). The static level of shipping movements at Whitstable is expected to continue in the future and Whitstable Harbour will not be able to meet the requirement of keeping a pilot authorised in compliance with its Pilotage Directions. This review has shown that the baseline risk to the harbour is Low Risk and that there are adequate baseline risk controls in place which can ensure the safe arrival and departure of any ship without a pilot on board. It is therefore considered that the removal of the pilotage service can be justified without any detriment to safety in the harbour. Canterbury City Council 21

28 8 RECOMMENDATIONS This review has shown that the baseline risk to the harbour is Low Risk and that there are adequate baseline risk controls in place which ensure the safe arrival and departure of any ship without a pilot on board. It is therefore considered that the removal of the provision of a pilotage service can be justified. The removal of the pilotage function will also have an effect on PEC holders as the PEC will no longer be valid. To ensure that previous PEC holders maintain currency in the safe approach and departure from the harbour, the Harbour Master is recommended to introduce a local examination on an annual basis to regular harbour users. If Whitstable Harbour decides to remove the pilotage function, it is recommended that Whitstable Harbour Master commences the process for applying for a pilotage function removal order under Section 1 (4A) of the Pilotage Act 1987 and relinquishes its power as a CHA. This recommendation is made providing the Harbour Master and his team continue to provide the assistance to visiting ships highlighted in baseline risk controls in Section 6.21 of this report. To enhance the baseline risk controls further the following recommendations are also made which the Harbour Master should consider for addition to the Whitstable Harbour Marine Safety Management System: Implement a weather limitation for the arrival and departure of ships; Consider placing a limit on new visiting vessels to conduct their first entry in daylight hours only; The Harbour Master should devise and introduce a local knowledge requirement and conduct a local exam for regular harbour users; Develop a port passage plan that can be advertised via the harbour website; Ensure continued use and reference to the tide gauge on the East Quay harbour wall; Continue to maintain an accident, incident and near miss record; and If the pilotage act continues to be provided, Whitstable Harbour should review the current pilot boarding procedures, and where the pilotage act commences relative to the CHA. Canterbury City Council 22

29 9 METHOD FOR REMOVING PILOTAGE DIRECTIONS To remove the harbour s obligations under the Pilotage Act and remove its CHA status, the process outlined below should be followed: Pre-application consultation; Risk assessment; Cost benefit analysis; and Formal application. 9.1 PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION The first step requires the Harbour Authority to consult with harbour users about any future pilotage requirements. This consultation should involve all PEC holders and shipping companies likely to require a pilotage service in the future. The consultation should be made in the local press and on the harbour s website and any responses to consultation should be logged. There is no time limit for the consultation period laid down in the regulations, however, as the harbour has infrequent shipping visits, a consultation period of three months can be considered sufficient time to gather all relevant responses. An example of a consultation letter is attached at Annex C. 9.2 RISK ASSESSMENT The Harbour Authority, as part of the application to the Department for Transport (DfT), will need to prepare a Risk Assessment showing that there is no substantial reason to continue pilotage in the area and that the risk is acceptable and/or can be adequately mitigated. It is considered that this report may be presented to comply with this stage of the application process. 9.3 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS The Harbour Authority must prepare a cost benefit analysis for submission to DfT. The supporting document should outline the impact on the Harbour Authority, on pilots, harbour users and the environment. The Harbour Master should detail the funds raised from the potential selling of the pilot launch and the effect of losing PEC entry fees for visiting ships and where this money may be recovered. Canterbury City Council 23

30 9.4 FORMAL APPLICATION Once the supporting documentation is collated, Whitstable Harbour Master should write to DfT stating the overall requirement and attach supporting papers. Submissions should be made to Once the formal application has been received by the Secretary of State it is likely that a formal public consultation on the proposal will be conducted. DfT will consult with: British Ports Association; Crown Estate; Environment Agency; Local authorities and partners of the CHA; Marine Management Organisation; Maritime and Coastguard Agency; Royal Yachting Association; UK Harbour Masters Association; Trinity House; and UK Maritime Pilots Association. Once the consultation is complete the Secretary of State will then decide whether the request to remove the pilotage function is valid and will issue an appropriate order if it is so decided. Canterbury City Council 24

31 Annex A Ranked Hazard List - Pilot embarked Canterbury City Council A-1

32 Ranked Hazard List: 17UK1330 Whitstable Pilotage Review Rank Hazard Ref. Affected Areas Accident Category Hazard Title Hazard Detail Possible Causes Consequence Descriptions Most Likely (ML) Worst Credible (WC) Environment Risk By Consequence Category ML WC People Property Stakeholders Environment People Property Stakeholders Risk Overall CHA CHA Harbour CHA Pilot Boarding / Landing Collision Collision Collision Pilot fails to board Pilot vessel error / / disembark safely boarding error/ greater than 50m collides with a leisure user, workboat in harbour greater than 50m collides with a leisure user, workboat in CHA area greater than 50m collides with a fishing vessel in CHA area greater than 50 m collides with another vessel in the harbour greater than 50 m collides with another vessel in the CHA area greater than 50 m collides with another vessel in the CHA area Pilot vessel fails to come along side correctly, inexperienced pilot crew, inexperienced pilot, severe weather, bad ship handling Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to avoid third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure Minor injury; minor damage to pilot vessel; no damage to commercial vessel Minor injuries to small vessel crew; minor damage to commercial vessel; moderate damage to smaller vessel Major injury or fatality; major damage to pilot vessel; minor damage to commercial vessel Major injuries and fatalities on small vessel; moderate pollution; Moderate damage to commercial vessel; total constructive loss of smaller vessel; Adverse national publicity Major injuries and fatalities on small Minor injuries to vessel; moderate small vessel crew; pollution; Moderate minor damage to damage to commercial commercial vessel; vessel; moderate total constructive damage to smaller loss of smaller vessel vessel; Adverse national publicity Major injuries and fatalities on small Minor injuries to vessel; moderate small vessel crew; pollution; Moderate minor damage to damage to commercial commercial vessel; vessel; moderate total constructive damage to smaller loss of smaller vessel vessel; Adverse national publicity Canterbury City Council A-2

33 Rank Hazard Ref. Affected Areas Accident Category Hazard Title Hazard Detail Possible Causes Consequence Descriptions Most Likely (ML) Worst Credible (WC) Environment Risk By Consequence Category ML WC People Property Stakeholders Environment People Property Stakeholders Risk Overall CHA Harbour CHA Harbour Harbour Harbour Grounding Grounding Contact Contact Contact Collison greater than 50m collides with a fishing vessel in harbour greater than 50m contacts the harbour infrastructure greater than 50m contacts the dolphin at the harbour entrance greater than 50m contacts Oyster Buoy greater than 50m grounds in the harbour greater than 50m grounds in CHA area greater than 50 m collides with another vessel in the harbour greater than 50 m contacts the harbour berth / infrastructure greater than 50 m contacts infrastructure greater than 50 m contacts infrastructure greater then 50m grounds in the harbour greater then 50m grounds on approaches to harbour in CHA area Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure; restricted manoeuvring Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure; restricted manoeuvring Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure; restricted manoeuvring Avoidance of 3rd party vessel; Restricted visibility; communication difficulties; severe weather; poor hydrological survey; machinery failure; equipment failure; navigation error; alcohol, drug misuse Avoidance of 3rd party vessel; Restricted visibility; communication difficulties; severe weather; poor hydrological survey; machinery failure; equipment failure; navigation error; alcohol, drug misuse Major injuries and fatalities on small Minor injuries to vessel; moderate small vessel crew; pollution; Moderate minor damage to damage to commercial commercial vessel; vessel; moderate total constructive damage to smaller loss of smaller vessel vessel; Adverse national publicity Minor damage Minor damage Minor damage Minor damage Minor damage Moderate pollution; Moderate damage; Adverse local publicity Moderate pollution; Moderate damage; Adverse local publicity Moderate pollution; Moderate damage; Adverse local publicity Moderate pollution; Significant bottom damage; Adverse national publicity Moderate pollution; Significant bottom damage; Adverse national publicity Canterbury City Council A-3

34 Annex B Ranked Hazard List - No Pilot embarked Canterbury City Council B-1

35 Ranked Hazard List: 17UK1330 Whitstable Pilotage Review Rank Hazard Ref. Affected Areas Accident Category Hazard Title Hazard Detail Possible Causes Consequence Descriptions Most Likely (ML) Worst Credible (WC) Environment Risk By Consequence Category ML WC People Property Stakeholders Environment People Property Stakeholders Risk Overall CHA Harbour CHA Harbour Collision Collison Collision Collision greater than 50m collides with a leisure user, workboat in harbour greater than 50m collides with a leisure user, workboat in CHA area greater than 50m collides with a fishing vessel in harbour greater than 50m collides with a fishing vessel in CHA area greater than 50 m collides with another vessel in the harbour greater than 50 m collides with another vessel in the CHA area greater than 50 m collides with another vessel in the harbour greater than 50 m collides with another vessel in the CHA area Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to avoid third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure Major injuries and fatalities on small Minor injuries to vessel; moderate small vessel crew; pollution; Moderate minor damage to damage to commercial commercial vessel; vessel; moderate total constructive damage to smaller loss of smaller vessel vessel; Adverse national publicity Major injuries and fatalities on small Minor injuries to vessel; moderate small vessel crew; pollution; Moderate minor damage to damage to commercial commercial vessel; vessel; moderate total constructive damage to smaller loss of smaller vessel vessel; Adverse national publicity Major injuries and fatalities on small Minor injuries to vessel; moderate small vessel crew; pollution; Moderate minor damage to damage to commercial commercial vessel; vessel; moderate total constructive damage to smaller loss of smaller vessel vessel; Adverse national publicity Major injuries and fatalities on small Minor injuries to vessel; moderate small vessel crew; pollution; Moderate minor damage to damage to commercial commercial vessel; vessel; moderate total constructive damage to smaller loss of smaller vessel vessel; Adverse national publicity Canterbury City Council B-2

36 Rank Hazard Ref. Affected Areas Accident Category Hazard Title Hazard Detail Possible Causes Consequence Descriptions Most Likely (ML) Worst Credible (WC) Environment Risk By Consequence Category ML WC People Property Stakeholders Environment People Property Stakeholders Risk Overall CHA Harbour CHA Harbour Harbour Contact Grounding Grounding Contact Contact greater than 50m contacts the harbour infrastructure greater than 50m contacts the dolphin at the harbour entrance greater than 50m grounds in CHA area greater than 50m grounds in the harbour greater than 50m contacts Oyster Buoy greater than 50 m contacts the harbour berth / infrastructure greater than 50 m contacts infrastructure greater then 50m grounds on approaches to harbour in CHA area greater then 50m grounds in the harbour greater than 50 m contacts infrastructure Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure; restricted manoeuvring Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure; restricted manoeuvring Avoidance of 3rd party vessel; Restricted visibility; communication difficulties; severe weather; poor hydrological survey; machinery failure; equipment failure; navigation error; alcohol, drug misuse Avoidance of 3rd party vessel; Restricted visibility; communication difficulties; severe weather; poor hydrological survey; machinery failure; equipment failure; navigation error; alcohol, drug misuse Restricted visibility; communication failure; severe weather; mechanical failure; inattention; failure to observe ColRegs; act to void third party vessel; alcohol or drug misuse; equipment failure; restricted manoeuvring Minor damage Minor damage Minor damage Minor damage Minor damage Moderate pollution; Moderate damage; Adverse local publicity Moderate pollution; Moderate damage; Adverse local publicity Moderate pollution; Significant bottom damage; Adverse national publicity Moderate pollution; Significant bottom damage; Adverse national publicity Moderate pollution; Moderate damage; Adverse local publicity Canterbury City Council B-3

37 Annex C Example Stakeholder Consultation Letter Canterbury City Council C-1