Upload
phungminh
View
235
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MARINE AND RISK CONSULTANTS LTD
WASH MUSSELS LTD/PARKINSON WRIGHT
STOUR MUSSEL FARM NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT
Report Number: 15UK1098 Issue: Final Date: 6 September 2016
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright i
WASH MUSSELS LTD/PARKINSON WRIGHT
STOUR MUSSEL FARM NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT
Prepared for: Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 62 Burnham Road
Leigh-on-Sea Essex
SS9 2JS
Author(s): James Hannon Checked By: Dr Ed Rogers
Date Release Prepared Authorised Notes
28/09/2015 Issue 01 JH ER Issue to client
18/12/2015 Draft B JH ER Issue to client
6/09/2016 Final JH ER Issue to client
Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd Marico Marine Bramshaw Lyndhurst SO43 7JB Hampshire United Kingdom Tel. + 44 (0) 2380 811133
18 December 2015
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd (Marico Marine) have been appointed by Wash Mussels/Parkinson
Wright Solicitors to Conduct a Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) in relation to the River Stour Mussel
Farm Project. The purpose of the NRA is to provide reassurance to the local stakeholders and
Statutory Harbour Authority that the navigational risk has been appropriately assessed, and where
necessary mitigation measures are provided to ensure risk is not increased.
A proposal has made by Wash Mussels Ltd for the location of 5 sub tidal mussel farms at
predetermined points along the River Stour. The river users enjoy a clutter free environment and
although there is a degree of small commercial traffic there is a good history of vessel types coexisting
on the river with little issue.
Concerns raised by river users highlight some navigation hazards that may pose a particular issue to
them as a direct result of the addition of the farms and the associated vessel operations. This report
forms an independent assessment of navigation impact and considers the impact that this operation
will have of all river users including the Harbour Authority.
Two separate NRAs were undertaken, the first assessing the current navigational situation (pre mussel
farm) and the second being the navigational situation with the addition of the farms and associated
operations (post mussel farm).
The results of the NRA indicate that although there is a slight change of profile for craft and users of
the river as a result of the introduction of the mussel farms, the overall navigational risk remains low
with any increased risk to navigational safety also being low The NRA indicates that no additional risk
controls are necessary as the risks are low. Wash Mussels Ltd are committed to going beyond the
minimum control requirements with a view to alleviate any stakeholders concerns where possible and
to also ensure that the existing good record of safety is preserved. The following control measures
should be considered to ensure this:
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the farm operator and the SHA for
clear communications to river users;
Local recreational stakeholder engagement to ensure all aspects of the project are
communicated effectively to recreational users;
Restricting operations to daylight and less busy periods, such as weekdays;
Crab pots (if used) should be placed in accordance with SHA policies and should be
clearly marked; and
Any further mitigation measures appropriate to improving the safety of navigation
during harvesting operation.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright iii
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. ii
Contents iii
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... vi
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Draft Working Plan for Stour Mussel Proposal .................................................................. 2
2 Navigation on the Stour ................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 River Users .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Aids to Navigation .............................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Current Impact on Navigation ............................................................................................ 4
2.3.1 Commercial Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour ....................................... 5
2.3.2 All Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour ....................................................... 9
2.4 Local Regulations .............................................................................................................. 12
2.4.1 General Directions for Navigation .......................................................................... 12
2.4.2 Reporting ................................................................................................................ 13
2.5 Harbour Patrols ................................................................................................................ 13
2.6 Vessel Traffic Services ...................................................................................................... 13
2.6.1 Harwich VTS Level of Service ................................................................................. 13
2.7 Pilotage ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.8 Notice to Mariners ........................................................................................................... 14
2.9 Anchorages and Moorings ................................................................................................ 14
2.9.1 Small Craft Moorings .............................................................................................. 14
2.9.2 Shotley Marina ....................................................................................................... 16
2.10 Tidal and Prevailing Conditions ........................................................................................ 16
2.10.1 Prevailing Wind Conditions .................................................................................... 16
3 Consultation with Stakeholders .................................................................................................. 17
3.1 Commercial Vessel Stakeholder Meeting ........................................................................ 17
3.2 Recreational Vessel Stakehodler Meeting........................................................................ 19
3.3 Post draft nra comments .................................................................................................. 20
4 Assessment of risks Navigation Risk Assessment Methodology ................................................ 21
4.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Hazard Categories ............................................................................................................ 23
4.3 Risk Matrix Criteria ........................................................................................................... 23
4.3.1 Frequency ............................................................................................................... 23
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright iv
4.3.1 Consequence .......................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Risk Treatment Criteria ..................................................................................................... 25
5 Risk Assessment Results ............................................................................................................. 27
5.1 Risk Assessment Summary - Combined ............................................................................ 27
5.2 Risk Assessment Current Situation ................................................................................... 28
5.3 Risk Assessment with Mussel Farm Operation ................................................................ 30
5.4 Additional Control measures ............................................................................................ 30
6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 32
7 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 33
FIGURES
Figure 1: Proposed Mussel Farm Locations. ........................................................................................... 1
Figure 2: River Stour (Jacques Bay) viewed from Wrabness (looking west). .......................................... 6
Figure 3: River Stour viewed from Wrabness Beach (looking east). ....................................................... 7
Figure 4: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits. ......................................................................................... 7
Figure 5: Site 2 Inbound/Outbound Transits. ......................................................................................... 8
Figure 6: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits. ................................................................................... 8
Figure 7: Site 5 Inbound/Outbound Transits. ......................................................................................... 9
Figure 8: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels)..................................................................... 10
Figure 9: Site 2 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels)..................................................................... 10
Figure 10: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels). ........................................................... 11
Figure 11: Site 5 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels)................................................................... 11
Figure 12: River Stour Chartlet (HHA publication). ............................................................................... 12
Figure 13: Top Left: Bathside Bay small craft moorings, Top Right: Shotley small craft moorings, Bottom
Left: Holbrook small craft moorings, Bottom Right: Manningtree small craft moorings. .................... 15
Figure 14: Wrabness small craft moorings. .......................................................................................... 15
Figure 15: MARICO hazard identification and risk assessment process. .............................................. 21
Figure 16: Frequency/Consequence Chart. .......................................................................................... 22
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright v
TABLES
Table 1: Mussel Farm Operations. .......................................................................................................... 3
Table 2: River Stour Navigation Marks (East to West). ........................................................................... 5
Table 3: Type of commercial vessels used for main channel track analysis. .......................................... 7
Table 4: River Stour Small Craft Moorings. ........................................................................................... 14
Table 5: Stour Tidal Range. ................................................................................................................... 16
Table 6: Initial Hazard Identification Matrix. ........................................................................................ 23
Table 7: Hazard Frequency Ranges. ...................................................................................................... 23
Table 8: Consequence Categories (Costs in £). ..................................................................................... 25
Table 9: Risk Matrix. .............................................................................................................................. 26
Table 10: Top ten ranked hazards for both risk assessments combined. ............................................. 27
Table 11: Ranked Hazard List – Current Situation. ............................................................................... 29
Table 12: Ranked Hazard List – with the mussel farm in operation. .................................................... 31
ANNEXES
Annex A Direction of Tidal Streams .............................................................................................. A-1
Annex B Risk Assessment provided by Phillip Barnes (Commodore Stour Sailing Club) and Paul Rodhouse (RHYC) ................................................................................................................................. B-1
Annex C Hazard Logs for the Current Navigational Situation ........................................................ C-1
Annex D Hazard Logs for the for the Navigational Situation with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations ................................................................................................................................... D-1
Annex E Organisation Report ........................................................................................................ E-1
Annex F Ranked Hazard Lists for the Current Navigational Situation ........................................... F-1
Annex G Ranked Hazard Lists for the Navigational Situation with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations ................................................................................................................................... G-1
Annex H Post Draft NRA Comments received from Tim Goodwin with response ....................... H-1
Annex I Combined HASA Response ............................................................................................... I-1
Annex J Note on Section 7 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) act 1967 ............................................ J-1
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright vi
ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Detail
AIS Automatic Identification System
ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practicable
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CHA Competent Harbour Authority
D&B Design and Build
HW High Water
ICW In Collision With
IMO International Maritime Organisation
ITT Invitation to Tender
Kt Knot (unit of speed equal to nautical mile per hour, approximately 1.15 mph)
LW Low Water
M Metre
Marico Marine Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd
MCA Maritime and Coast Guard Agency
ML Most Likely
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NAABSA Not Always Afloat But Safe Aground
Nm Nautical Mile
NRA Navigation Risk Assessment
PEC Pilotage Exemption Certificate
PWC Personal Water Craft
RIB Ridged Inflatable Boat
SHA Statutory Harbour Authority
SMS Safety Management System
STCW Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping
VHF Very High Frequency (radio communication)
VTS Vessel Traffic Service
WC Worst Credible
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Wash Mussels Limited has made an application to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 1
of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 for an order conferring the right of several fishery under
section 1 of the Act. The Secretary of State has prepared a draft Order and served a copy of it on the
applicant in accordance with paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Act. There are five proposed locations
for the mussel farms located within the River Stour (see Figure 1 for locations).
Figure 1: Proposed Mussel Farm Locations.
The River Stour commences at Harwich and stretches its way westward forming the boundary
between Essex and Suffolk. The river has plenty of areas for anchoring, has a boatyard at Mistley
where there are also mud moorings, commercial quays and a small public quay that dries at low water.
Coasters operate from the commercial quays using the buoyed main channel to navigate, this channel
narrows and shoals to almost drying as it approaches Mistley.
Stakeholders have expressed concern regarding the safety of navigation for the river users as a result
of the location of the proposed mussel farms and the related operations including the presence of the
additional vessels used to manage and harvest the mussels. The requirement for Wash Mussels
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 2
Limited to undertake a Navigation Risk Assessment (NRA) is to provide a comprehensive study to
ensure stakeholders that where necessary adequate risk mitigation measures are in place to allow for
the continuous safety of craft navigating in the River Stour.
The navigational risk assessment process was split into the following phases:
1. Determination of the current navigational state of the River Stour. (i.e. nature of the river,
navigational channel, types of user and vessel, existing legislation/procedures, etc.);
2. Understanding of proposed mussel farm operation for the 5 proposed sites on the River
Stour;
3. Consultation with local stakeholders and site visit to better understand local issues;
4. Hazard Identification and Categorisation;
5. Assessment of risk;
6. Determination, where necessary of additional mitigation measures;
7. Conclusions; and
8. Recommendations.
1.1 DRAFT WORKING PLAN FOR STOUR MUSSEL PROPOSAL
Wash Mussels Limited have indicated that the time spent working with vessels on the farms will be
kept to within the working week, Monday to Friday and during the hours of daylight. Operations will
not be undertaken on weekends or during bank holidays when leisure activities are at their peak.
Activities that require vessel operations for longer durations are mostly conducted during off peak
leisure seasons, such as Spring and Autumn. Operations (if required) in the summer are very minimal.
Table 1 outlines the operational programme of the project over the trial period of 5 years.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 3
Table 1: Mussel Farm Operations.
Year Season Operation Duration
1 Autumn Clear 1 hectare square in each of the five sites (if seed mussel quantity is
available) 2 days
2 Spring If required lay crab pots (2 lines per 1 ha square) 1-2 days
Remove crab pots 0.5 day
2 Summer Run starfish mop of hectare squares affected if required 0.5 day
2 Autumn Clear a second 1 hectare square in each of the five sites (if seed mussel
quantity is available) 2 days
3 Spring Lay crab pots if required (2 lines per 1 hectare square) 1-2 days
Remove pots 0.5 days
3 Summer Run starfish mop of hectare squares affected 0.5 day
3 Autumn Harvest by dredge Year 1 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare squares 4 days
Clear 5 x 1 ha squares 2 days
Relay seed mussel in 5 x 1 hectare squares 1 day
4 Spring Lay crab pots if required (2 lines per 1 hectare square) 1-2 days
Remove pots 0.5 days
4 Summer Run starfish mop of hectare squares affected if required 0.5 days
4 Autumn
Harvest by dredge Year 1 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare squares 4 days
Clear 5 x 1 hectare squares 2 days
Relay seed mussel in 5 x 1 hectare squares 1 day
5 Spring/ Autumn
Harvest by dredge Year 3 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare squares Harvest by dredge Year 4 sown mussels from 5 x 1 hectare square (if order
not renewed).
4 days
4 days
5 Autumn
Clear perhaps 5 x 1 hectare squares
(only if order renewed) 2 days
2-5
20 monitoring visits each year using grab and sampling for local authority
environmental health 0.5 day
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 4
2 NAVIGATION ON THE STOUR
The navigable channel commences (see Figure 1) at its widest point wide (700m) off Harwich
International Port and narrows as it heads west to Mistley where it all but dries out at low water. The
channel is well marked with lit buoys and beacons and there are a number of small craft moorings
north and south of the channel. Harwich International Port is located on the southern side of the
entrance of the River Stour. The river in this area is at its busiest with relatively high amounts of
commercial traffic using Felixstowe and Harwich International Port.
The area is covered by Admiralty Charts 1594 (River Stour to Erwarton Ness to Manningtree) and 1491
(Harwich and Felixstowe).
2.1 RIVER USERS
The main current River Stour users can be spilt into the following categories:
Coasters/commercial vessels using Mistley;
Large ferries and cruise ships (Harwich International Port);
Dredgers; and
Recreational craft/charter fishing boats.
2.2 AIDS TO NAVIGATION
The Local Lighthouse Authority for the River Stour is Harwich Haven Authority (HHA) who is
responsible for correct maintenance and provision of Aids to Navigation (AtoN). The River Stour main
channel is clearly marked by navigational marks (see Table 2).
2.3 CURRENT IMPACT ON NAVIGATION
The principal navigational features that have an impact on users of the River Stour are as follows:
Coaster/general cargo berthing operations at Mistley;
Dredger operations in sediment placement areas;
Coasters navigating the main channel to and from Mistley;
Ferry and cruise ship movements at Harwich International Port;
Large ship mooring buoys on the southern edge of the main channel at Copperas Bay;
Use of recreational craft;
Regular use of the river for sailing events and races;
Fishing charter vessels;
Boatyard (Mistley Marine) with mud moorings;
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 5
Public quay at Mistley;
Large vessel anchorage north of Harwich International Port;
Explosive anchorage; Sailing and yacht clubs; and
Shotley Marina and associated traffic.
Table 2: River Stour Navigation Marks (East to West).
2.3.1 Commercial Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour
The principal vessel traffic data input used for this study was data from the Automatic Identification
System (AIS). AIS was developed at the turn of the century as an aid to collision avoidance between
vessels. A transponder is carried by vessels that broadcast key information about themselves (such as
size and type, etc.) and their actions (location, speed, course, etc.) at regular intervals on a VHF
bandwidth. Vessels carrying an AIS receiver are able to see these vessels and act accordingly. AIS
operates in two forms, Class A and Class B, the former having priority, and includes all vessels required
to carry AIS by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) mandate. Class B is used mainly by
fishing vessels and recreational craft.
Those vessels required to carry AIS as dictated by SOLAS Chapter V (IMO, 2002) are: “All ships of 300
gross tonnage and upwards engaged on international voyages and cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage
which are not engaged on international voyages and passenger ships irrespective of size...”
Name Type Light Characteristics
Parkeston Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl(3) G 10s
Harwich International Port North Cardinal Q
Ramsey Lateral Buoy (Starboard) LFl G 10s
Erwarton South Cardinal Q(6) + FLl 15s
No 1 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG
Holbrook South Cardinal VQ(6)+LFl 10s
No 2 North Cardinal Q
River Stour Lee Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG
No 4 Lateral Buoy (Port) QR
No 5 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl G 5s
No 6 Lateral Beacon (Port) Fl(2) R 5s
No 7 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG
No 8 Lateral Buoy (Port) QR
No 10 Lateral Buoy (Port) Fl R 5s
No 9 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl G 5s
No 11 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) QG
No 12 North Cardinal Q
No 13 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl G 5s
No 15 Lateral Buoy (Starboard) Fl(2) G 5s
Baltic Wharf Jetty Marker FR
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 6
AIS uses a time-division multiple access scheme broadcasting information over VHF radio frequency
where vessels transmit packets of dynamic and static information at different time-slots (IALA, 2011).
Static data of vessel information such as vessel type, dimensions and name are broadcast every six
minutes, and dynamic information such as position and course are broadcast at intervals, dependent
upon the speed and navigational status of that vessel. The normal reporting intervals for Class A AIS
are between 2 and 10 seconds for vessels transiting, or three minutes for a vessel at anchor (IMO,
1998). Class B AIS transmits at three minutes for a vessel at anchor or 30 seconds for a vessel in transit.
It should be noted that several vessel groups, including recreational craft who are not required to carry
AIS, are likely absent in the presented analysis.
Commercial vessel movements for vessels using the main channel to Mistley were studied, see Figure
4 to Figure 7. Using Automatic Identification System data, the tracks of three coaster sized vessels
were plotted and their tracks logged to provide details of the passage through the river for their arrival
and departure to/from Mistley. The data indicates that as expected the vessels navigate using the
main channel and at no time do they enter any of the areas marked out as proposed sites of the mussel
farms.
The details of the three coaster sized vessels used are in Table 3 and are typical of the vessel types
that use T W Logistics Ltd (TWL) at Mistley.
Figure 2: River Stour (Jacques Bay) viewed from Wrabness (looking west).
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 7
Figure 3: River Stour viewed from Wrabness Beach (looking east).
Table 3: Type of commercial vessels used for main channel track analysis.
Name Type Length Overall
EEMS SPACE General Cargo 87.2m
SEA RUBY General Cargo 77.8m
KORIANGI General Cargo 81m
Figure 4: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 8
Figure 5: Site 2 Inbound/Outbound Transits.
Figure 6: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 9
Figure 7: Site 5 Inbound/Outbound Transits.
2.3.2 All Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour
In addition to the analysis of the track data for commercial traffic using the main channel to Mistley,
an analysis was also undertaken of all commercial vessels using the River Stour and Harwich
International Port. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 8 to Figure 11.
This data indicates that very little traffic enters the proposed site (Part 1) with all traffic using Harwich
International Port navigating to the south of the area and not entering the site.
The data does show tracks passing through the areas, however, these are smaller shallow draft craft
and the frequency and volume would suggest that the mussel operations would not pose a significant
issue with regards to navigation.
The data also shows that the majority of vessels navigate in or near the main channel and very seldom
enter any of the proposed sites.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 10
Figure 8: Site 1 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels).
Figure 9: Site 2 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels).
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 11
Figure 10: Site 3 & 4 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels).
Figure 11: Site 5 Inbound/Outbound Transits (all Vessels).
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 12
2.4 LOCAL REGULATIONS
HHA has statutory powers to regulate commercial and leisure vessels within the HHA Area of
Jurisdiction which includes the River Stour (see Figure 12), and is responsible for the navigational
safety and traffic regulation of all vessels bound to and from the Haven Ports of Felixstowe, Harwich
International, Harwich Navyard, Ipswich, and Mistley. All vessels arriving at or sailing from the Haven
Ports, or on passage through the Harwich Seaward Area, must report to Harwich Vessel Traffic Service
(VTS) and comply with VTS Rules. The Reporting Procedures and VTS Rules are set in the General
Directions for Navigation and published in the Admiralty List of Radio Signals.
Figure 12: River Stour Chartlet (HHA publication).1
2.4.1 General Directions for Navigation
In March 2011 Harwich Haven Authority (HHA) exercised its powers under Section 32 of the Harwich
Harbour Act 1974 and updated the General Directions for Navigation.
The General Directions are to be construed in conjunction with the HHA Byelaws, Pilotage Directions
and HHA Local Notices to Mariners. It is the duty of the Master of a vessel to which a General Direction
applies to comply with that Direction.
1 Figure 12 source HAA website.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 13
2.4.2 Reporting
All vessels of more than 50 GT entering or leaving the Harwich VTS area must report to Harwich VTS
when passing the appropriate reporting points indicated on Admiralty charts.
2.5 HARBOUR PATROLS
The HHA maintains a regular patrol of the Haven throughout the year. In addition, during the summer
months weekends, between the hours of 0800 to 1800, these patrols are maintained to provide
assistance and advice to yachtsmen, and to ensure that the main channel is kept clear for the transit
of commercial shipping. The weekend Harbour patrol launch maintains a listening watch on VHF
Channel 71.
2.6 VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICES
Harwich VTS is operated from Harwich VTS Operations Centre on a continuous 24-hour basis to
provide a safe and efficient regime for vessel traffic, and protection for the environment. The river
and its approaches are continuously monitored by trained personnel using Radar, VHF and CCTV to
build a comprehensive traffic image of the area. Harwich Operations Centre also provides the co-
ordination and communications centre for the Haven Ports Pilotage Service. Harwich VTS provides
Traffic Organisation and Navigational Assistance Services with the authority of the Harbour Master.
Failure, without good cause, to obey an instruction given by Harwich VTS with the purpose of
preserving marine safety, may constitute an offence.
2.6.1 Harwich VTS Level of Service
Harwich VTS is a UK designated port VTS and provides the following levels of service:
Traffic Organisation Service – to prevent the development of dangerous maritime
traffic situations, and to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vessel traffic
within the Authority’s area; and
Navigational Assistance – provided on request or when deemed necessary by Harwich
VTS to assist on-board navigational decision making, and to monitor its effects. It does
not relieve the Master of his responsibility for the safe navigation of the vessel.
2.7 PILOTAGE
HHA is a Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) within the meaning of the Pilotage Act 1987, and under
Section 7 of the Act, has powers to issue Pilotage Directions to the Masters of vessels in the Haven
Ports Pilotage Area.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 14
HHA manage and regulate the requirements for the provision of pilots within the River Stour, which
fall into the CHA area. Pilot Exemption Certificates (PEC) are issued for master and mates operating
within the CHA upon completion of satisfactory assessment and examination. All commercial vessels
using the Stour currently take a pilot, there are no PEC holders using the River.
2.8 NOTICE TO MARINERS
HAA issues Notices to Mariners (NtMs) to provide essential, up-to-date information and advice to
those navigating within the HHA area of jurisdiction. Subjects include (but are not limited to)
notification of works and events which may impact on navigation and notification of new and updated
rules and regulations for navigation.
2.9 ANCHORAGES AND MOORINGS
The River Stour is tidal and moorings do dry out at low water. Most moorings are along the edge of
the channel and large craft are not permitted to moor in such a position where they may swing into,
and block the channel.
On the Essex side of the river no moorings are permitted below the commercial quay at Mistley. On
the Suffolk side of the river no moorings are permitted east of Bexford's factory.
Small craft are permitted to freely anchor on the river as long as they are clear of the main channel
and moorings.
2.9.1 Small Craft Moorings
Small craft mooring areas in the River Stour are laid out in Table 4, and their locations are shown in
Figure 13 and Figure 14.
Table 4: River Stour Small Craft Moorings.
Location Type Ownership Notes
Bathside Bay
Mud Swinging
10 x Trot (Harwich and Dovercourt Sailing Club)
Sealink Harbours Limited
The whole of Bathside Bay is scheduled for reclamation and development. Temporary
moorings may be laid within the bay with the consent of the Harbour Master.
Shotley Swinging
Mud
Shotley Sailing Club
These moorings may be used for commercial craft such as fishing parties or charter boats.
Mooring numbers are limited.
Holbrook Moorings
Mud Private Moorings numbers are limited.
Manningtree Moorings
Mud Stour Sailing Club
Wrabness Moorings
Mud Private The mooring area is limited in size and working
at full capacity.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 15
Figure 13: Top Left: Bathside Bay small craft moorings, Top Right: Shotley small craft moorings,
Bottom Left: Holbrook small craft moorings, Bottom Right: Manningtree small craft moorings.
Figure 14: Wrabness small craft moorings.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 16
2.9.2 Shotley Marina
Shotley Marina is situated on the north side of the River Stour where it meets the River Orwell and
comprises of 350 berths. The marina approach is via a marked maintained channel and a lock
controlled entrance. Users of the marina tend to navigate east of the Stour and visiting vessels arrive
from the Haven approach. Therefore, it is considered that the mussel farms, which lie to the west of
the marina, are unlikely to impact on the traffic using the marina.
2.10 TIDAL AND PREVAILING CONDITIONS
Tidal flows within the River Stour are no greater than 1.3kts on a Spring Ebb and 1.2kts on a Spring
Flood. The strongest streams are in the channel off Erwarton Ness. The direction of the streams run
westerly on the flood and easterly on the ebb (see Annex A for plots).
The tide height and range is shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Stour Tidal Range.
Tide Height Range
Mean High Water Springs 4.1m 3.7m (Mean Spring Range)
Mean Low Water Springs 0.4m
Mean High Water Neaps 3.4m 2.3m (Mean Neap Range)
Mean Low Water Neaps 1.1m
2.10.1 Prevailing Wind Conditions
The prevailing winds come from between the south and the north-west, and the strongest winds
nearly always blow from this range of directions. Spring time also tends to have the majority of winds
from the north east.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 17
3 CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
Consultation meetings with river users and the SHA (HHA) were undertaken during the site visit on
Wednesday 1st July 2015.
3.1 COMMERCIAL VESSEL STAKEHOLDER MEETING
The first of these meetings were with the HHA as the Statutory Harbour Authority for the river Stour
and TWL Mistley as the main berth operator at Mistley.
The meeting was held at the HHA offices in Harwich, and the following were present at the meeting:
Capt. Neil Glendenning - Harwich Harbour Master;
Mr John Brien – Harwich Harbour Authority;
Ms Isoldt Harris – TWL (Mistley);
Mr James Hannon – Marico Marine; and
Dr Edward Rodgers – Marico Marine.
The meeting involved a discussion based around the intended operation of the proposed mussel farm
sites and the type and size of vessel that would be used to harvest the mussels. The location of the
sites were analysed as were the requirements for marking the sites. Capt. Glendenning stated that he
would have concerns related to additional buoyage to be placed in the Stour and also stated that there
was no apparent need to mark the sites with buoyage.
It was noted that the marking of the sites could introduce an additional 26 buoys to the river. There
was also concern expressed regarding the location and marking of crab pots, however, HHA have
powers within their byelaws to regulate the placing and marking of such pots. HHA have already
written a response to the serval order outlining their opposition to the marking of the sites with buoys
and made reference to the minimal approach taken in marking the channel in the Stour to maintain
safe navigation. The Harbour Master was keen to keep the Stour ‘uncluttered’ from additional
buoyage.
The limitations on the freedom of navigation, mooring and anchoring were discussed. It was pointed
out that the freedom of navigation and anchoring would not be affected, this was preserved by Section
7 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967.
The liability of a master or pilot (including recreational craft crew), damaging the mussel beds due to
their vessel running aground was discussed. It was pointed out that as a matter of law, they would
not incur any liability for damage to the mussel beds resulting from accidental or emergency
groundings and/or re-floating of a vessel.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 18
It was noted that the current commercial traffic to and from Mistley remained within the main
navigation channel and that these vessels took a mandatory pilot supplied by the CHA (HHA).
Capt. Glendenning pointed out that there was slight concern regarding the southwest extremities of
site 3 and the northwest extremities of site 4 (Holbrook No. 2 area) extending south and north of the
main channel buoy line respectively. There was concern that this would restrict sea room available in
the main channel for larger vessels which were constrained by their draught and the harvesting vessels
restricted in their ability to manoeuvre during times that the fisheries are active. He asked if the
applicant would consider replotting the positon of these sites to take this into account.
The commercial anchorages in the area were seldom used and the most of the large traffic movements
took place off of Harwich International Port in a deep water area south of site 1. It was noted that
this area had the highest large commercial movements involving ferry, cruise ship and Trinity House
service vessel traffic. This included large vessels turning for the berth. It was also noted that this area
was monitored closely by VTS.
HHA operate dredgers for sediment replenishment and one of the dredging discharge tracks runs on
a lines crossing site 1, site 3 and site 4. The implications of a dredger and mussel dredger operating in
the same area was discussed with regards to COLREGS and give way vessel requirements, this is taken
into account in the NRA. There was a discussion regarding the size of site one possibly restricting sea
room for recreational vessel passing north of turning vessels in the deep water pocket.
Capt. Glendenning asked for a consideration on reducing the site 1 area in order to clear the southern
edges of the area out of the deeper part of northern edge of the main channel.
In addition to the concerns express by HAA, Isoldt Harris raised concerns regarding the possible
navigational restrictions to the current vessels arriving and departing Mistley and whether it would
impact on the use of larger vessels if TWL’s business grew and future demand required the use of
larger vessels. There was also concern regarding the reduction of speed for vessels navigating and
possibility of delays for arrivals and departures.
The question was asked regarding whether future dredging activities (maintenance and capital), would
be affected due to the placement of the mussel farms.
It was noted that with the exception of the extremities of site 3 and the northwest extremities of site
4, the impact to navigation would not increase. Both HHA and TWL were generally happy with the
proposed operation:
An agreement between the farm operator and the SHA (MoU) for clear
communications to river users;
Local recreational stakeholder engagement to ensure all aspects of the project are
communicated effectively to recreational users;
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 19
Restricting operations to daylight and less busy periods, such as weekdays;
Crab pots (if used) should be placed in accordance with SHA policies and should be
clearly marked; and
Any further mitigation measures appropriate to improving the safety of navigation
during harvesting operation.
3.2 RECREATIONAL VESSEL STAKEHODLER MEETING
A further stakeholder meeting was undertaken at the Royal Harwich Yacht Club (RHYC) with
representatives from the RYA, local yacht and sailing clubs, recreational fisherman and charter
owners. The meeting was chaired by the Chairman of Harwich Area Sailing Association (HASA), Brenda
Read.
Present at the meeting and sitting on the top table were the following:
Brenda Read, meeting chairman and Chairman of HASA;
Peter Scott – Partner, Quality Solicitors Parkinson Wright;
James Hannon – Marico Marine;
Dr Ed Rogers – Marico Marine;
Graham Osbourne - Wash Mussels Ltd; and
Representatives for the local clubs and stakeholders present at the meeting were:
Chris Edwards – RYA Regional Representative;
Tim Goodwin;
Derek Davis;
Graham Pugh;
Nigel Mower;
Peter Thomas;
Paul Rodhouse;
Phil Barns;
Graham Prior;
John Cooledge;
Peter Holborn;
David Card; and
Chris Brown.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 20
The meeting was called by Marico to discuss navigational concerns. Although some navigational
concerns were expressed, the meeting mostly consisted of issues relating to the consultation process
and DEFRA consultation.
A list of hazard (12 in total), complete with analysis had been complied by Phillip Barnes and Paul
Rodhouse and was handed out to all present. This document was discussed briefly. The risks
highlighted in this document which include grounding, collision, entanglement and drifting vessels
have been categorised into this NRA.
The contents of this document are contained in Annex B.
Mr Edwards (RYA) expressed concern regarding the placement of mussel site marker buoys. James
Hannon responded by advising that the HHA Harbour Master had strongly opposed to the marker
buoys. Mr Peter Scott also advised that they had met with DEFRA and there was no requirement for
surface marker buoys to be placed on any of the sites.
3.3 POST DRAFT NRA COMMENTS
Following the publication of this document in draft form a number of further comments have been
received from Tim Goodwin and combined response by the members of HASA. Peter Scott instructed
Marico to respond to these comments and included the response within the NRA report. The post
draft NRA report comments and Marico Responses can be found in Annex H. and Annex I respectively.
The comments are in submitted format and have been unaltered. The responses are given in red text.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 21
4 ASSESSMENT OF RISKS NAVIGATION RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
4.1 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 15).
Figure 15: 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) and follows the requirements of the Port Marine Safety
Code. 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
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 22
therefore a measure of the frequency and consequence of a particular hazard and in order to compare
risk levels a matrix is used.
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 16: 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 16.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 23
4.2 HAZARD CATEGORIES
In order to ensure that all hazards associated with the Project were identified (and allocated a Hazard
Reference number), a matrix of generic hazards was used, which focused on the risk exposure (see
Table 6).
Table 6: Initial Hazard Identification Matrix.
Hazard Ref.
Hazard Category Hazard Title
1 Collision HHA Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft
2 Collision HHA Dredger in collision with Coaster
3 Collision HHA Dredger in collision with a Ferry/Cruise Ship
4 Collision Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft
5 Collision Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster
6 Collision Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
7 Collision Coaster in collision with Coaster
8 Collision Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
9 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft
10 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with Coaster
11 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with a Ferry/Cruise Ship
12 Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with a HHA Dredger
13 Grounding Recreational Craft
14 Grounding Coaster
15 Grounding HHA Dredger
16 Grounding Ferry/Cruise Ship
17 Grounding Mussel Dredger
18 Navigational Contact Recreational Craft in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy
19 Navigational Contact Coaster in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy
20 Navigational Contact Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy
21 Navigational Contact HHA Dredger in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy
22 Navigational Contact Mussel Dredger in contact with Marker/Mooring Buoy
4.3 RISK MATRIX CRITERIA
4.3.1 Frequency
In this study, each hazard was reviewed with respect to cause and effect, with frequency of occurrence
derived for notional “most likely” and “worst credible” hazard events based on Table 7.
Table 7: Hazard Frequency Ranges.
Scale Description Definition Operational Interpretation
F5 Frequent An event occurring in the range once a week to
once an operating year. One or more times in 1 year.
F4 Likely An event occurring in the range once a year to
once every 10 operating years. One or more times in 10 years
1 - 9 years.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 24
4.3.1 Consequence
Consequence (or impact of risk realisation) was assessed in four key categories:
People - Personal injury, fatality etc.;
Property - Port and third party;
Environment - Oil pollution etc.; and
Stakeholder/ Business - Reputation, financial loss, public perception, etc.
Consequence is assessed against “most likely” and “worst credible” outcomes. It should be noted that
in terms of property, the risk assessment process by necessity considers that the loss of a large
commercial vessel is of wider implication than the loss of a private leisure cruiser. This assessment
criterion is not intended to undervalue damage suffered by the leisure user, whose personal loss may
be very significant in relative terms, however, it is recognised that the loss of a commercial vessel
often has a wider implication in terms of business and negative media exposure.
The rating applied is such that the consequences are of broadly equivalent value across the categories
(see Table 8).
F3 Possible An event occurring in the range once every 10
operating years to once in 100 operating years. One or more times in 100 years
10 – 99 years.
F2 Unlikely An event occurring in the range less than once
in 100 operating years. One or more times in 1,000 years 100 –
999 years.
F1 Remote Considered to occur less than once in 1,000
operating years (e.g. it may have occurred at a similar site, elsewhere in the world).
Less than once in 1,000 years >1,000 years.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 25
Table 8: Consequence Categories (Costs in £)2.
4.4 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 9). 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 (low risk) to 10 (high risk) (see Table 9 for more details).
2 Tiered oil spill response levels were adopted by the International Maritime Organisation International Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 26
Table 9: 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.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 27
5 RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS
A complete review of all vessel traffic types and marine operations for the Stour was undertaken in
order to identify a list of hazards. Each hazard was assessed using the method explained in Section 4.
Two assessments of risk were undertaken:
Risk Assessment for the current navigational situation; and
Risk Assesement for the navigational situation with the addition of the mussel farms
and their operations.
The hazard logs for the current navigational situation are in Annex C, and the hazard logs for the
navigational situation with the addition of the mussel farms and their operations are in Annex D.
Hazards are ranked in accordance to the level of overall risk.
5.1 RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY - COMBINED
The top ten hazards of both the current navigational situation and the navigational situation with the
mussel farms and their operations combined are shown in Table 10, the complete combined ranked
hazards of both risk assessments are shown in Annex E.
Table 10: Top ten ranked hazards for both risk assessments combined.
Organisation Rank
Register Rank Hazard
Ref Hazard Title Category
Inherent Risk
Residual Risk
1 Stour NRA
(Current) 1 6 Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision 3.32 3.32
2
Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
1 8 Recreational Craft in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision 3.32 3.32
3
Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
2 7 Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster Collision 3.3 3.3
4 Stour NRA
(Current) 2 5 Recreational Craft in collision with Coaster Collision 3.3 3.3
5 Stour NRA
(Current) 3 4 Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft Collision 2.74 2.74
6
Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
3 6 Recreational Craft in collision Recreational Craft Collision 2.74 2.74
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 28
Organisation Rank
Register Rank Hazard
Ref Hazard Title Category
Inherent Risk
Residual Risk
7
Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
5 16 Recreational Craft grounding Grounding 2.65 2.65
8
Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
4 20 Mussel Dredger in collision with HHA Dredger Collision 2.65 2.65
9 Stour NRA
(Current) 4 9 Recreational Craft grounding Grounding 2.65 2.65
10
Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
6 17 Mussel Dredger in collision with Recreational Craft Collision 2.57 2.57
5.2 RISK ASSESSMENT CURRENT SITUATION
The top ten hazards for the current navigational situation are shown in Table 10. The complete ranked
hazard list is shown in Annex F.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 29
Table 11: Ranked Hazard List – Current Situation. R
ank
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
1 6
Recreational Craft in
collision with Ferry/Cruise
Ship
Recreational craft navigating in main
channel whilst Ferry/Cruise Ship
are moving or turning off Harwich International Port
Near miss/low speed glancing
blow. Minor hull damage to
recreational craft.
Heavy contact. Major hull damage to
recreational craft. Sinking,
loss of life.
0 2 0 0 3 6 5 6 3.32
2 5
Recreational Craft in
collision with Coaster
Recreational craft navigating in main
channel whilst coaster is
navigating in main channel
Low speed contact, minor
damage to recreational
craft
Major damage to recreational craft, sinking,
loss of life.
0 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 3.3
3 4
Recreational Craft in collision
Recreational Craft
Leisure craft in contact with
another.
Low speed glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull
Heavy contact, major hull damage,
sinking. Loss of life.
0 0 0 0 2 6 6 6 2.74
4 9 Recreational
Craft grounding
Recreational craft out of position
Soft grounding, no damage, floats
free on next HW
Hard grounding, hull
damage, sinking, loss of
life.
0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65
5 10 Coaster
Grounding
Coaster/commercial vessel out of main
channel
Soft grounding, refloats, no
damage
Heavy grounding - minor hull damage.
0 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 2.49
6 2 HHA Dredger
in collision with Coaster
Coasters transiting to Mistley using or passing in the main
channel.
Low speed glancing blow.
Minor damage.
Heavy contact, hull damage.
Minor injury to crew member.
0 0 2 2 0 2 3 3 2.34
7 7 Coaster in
collision with Coaster
Coasters transiting to Mistley using or passing in the main
channel.
Low speed contact. no significant damage
Heavy contact - major hull
damage, water ingress, minor
injury
0 0 0 0 3 2 5 5 2.15
8 3
HHA Dredger in collision
with a Ferry/Cruise
Ship
Contact with Ferry or Cruise Ship
turning off Harwich Haven.
Low speed contact -
minor hull damage.
Major hull damage -
minor injury 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 1.95
9 1
HHA Dredger in collision
with Recreational
Craft
Low speed glancing blow.
Very minor damage.
Damage to hull, water ingress and
possible sinking. Loss of
life.
0 0 0 0 0 5 3 3 1.95
10 8
Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise
Ship
Coaster in contact with Ferry or Cruise
Ship turning off Harwich Haven.
Low speed contact -
minor hull damage
Heavy contact major hull
damage, minor injury.
0 0 0 0 1 3 4 4 1.8
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 30
5.3 RISK ASSESSMENT WITH MUSSEL FARM OPERATION
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 assessment shows that introduction of the mussel farms slightly increased the
number of hazards on the river. This is purely because of the presence of addition craft that would be
used in relation to the mussel farm operation on the river. However the risk to navigation has not
significantly increased and any additional risk was determined to be low.
The top ten hazards for the navigational situation with the mussel farm in operation are shown in
Table 12. The complete ranked hazard list is shown in Annex G.
5.4 ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES
The NRA indicates that no additional risk controls are necessary as the risks are low. However, Wash
Mussels Ltd are committed to going beyond the minimum control requirements with a view to
alleviate any stakeholders concerns where possible. This should include, but not be limited to, the
following control measures:
An agreement between the farm operator and the SHA (MoU) for clear
communications to river users;
Local recreational stakeholder engagement to ensure all aspects of the project are
communicated effectively to recreational users;
Restricting operations to daylight and less busy periods, such as weekdays;
Crab pots (if used) should be placed in accordance with SHA policies and should be
clearly marked; and
Any further mitigation measures appropriate to improving the safety of navigation
during harvesting operation.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 31
Table 12: Ranked Hazard List – with the mussel farm in operation. R
ank
Haz
ard
Re
f.
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
1 8
Recreational Craft in collision
with Ferry/Cruise
Ship
Recreational craft navigating in main
channel whilst Ferry/Cruise Ship
are moving or turning off Harwich International Port.
Near miss/low speed glancing
blow. Minor hull damage to
recreational craft.
Heavy contact. Major hull damage
to recreational craft. Sinking, loss
of life.
0 2 0 0 3 6 5 6 3.32
2 7 Recreational
Craft in collision with Coaster
Recreational craft navigating in main
channel.
Low speed contact, minor
damage to recreational
craft.
Major damage to recreational craft, sinking, loss of life.
0 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 3.3
3 6
Recreational Craft in collision
Recreational Craft
Leisure craft in contact with
another.
Low speed glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull.
Heavy contact, major hull damage, sinking. Loss of life.
0 0 0 0 2 6 6 6 2.74
4 20 Mussel Dredger in collision with
HHA Dredger
Mussel Dredging and Sediment replenishment
confliction. Sites 1, 2, 3 & 4.
Low speed contact, minor
damage.
Heavy impact, major hull damage,
sinking of mussel dredger.
0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65
5 16 Recreational
Craft grounding Recreational craft
out of position.
Soft grounding, no damage,
floats free on next HW.
Hard grounding, hull damage,
sinking, loss of life. 0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65
6 17
Mussel Dredger in collision with
Recreational Craft
14 M Mussel Dredger in contact with Recreational
Craft while engaged in operations.
Low speed collision,
glancing blow. Minor damage.
Hard collision, major hull damage, sinking, loss of life.
0 0 0 0 2 5 5 6 2.57
7 13 Coaster
Grounding
Coaster/commercial vessel out of main channel.
Soft grounding, re-floats, no
damage.
Heavy grounding - minor hull damage.
0 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 2.49
8 19
Mussel Dredger in collision with
Ferry/Cruise Ship
Mussel Dredger on transit or working southern edge of
Site 1.
Low speed glancing blow, minor damage
to mussel dredger.
Heavy impact, major hull damage,
sinking of mussel dredger.
0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 2.34
9 18 Mussel Dredger in collision with
Coaster
Mussel Dredger operating on main
channel edge of mussel farm or on
transit.
Glancing blow, minor damage.
Heavy contact, major hull damage,
taking water, possible sinking of
dredger.
0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 2.34
10 4 HHA Dredger in
collision with Coaster
Dredger operating on main channel
edge of soil ground or on transit.
Low speed glancing blow. Minor damage.
Heavy contact, hull damage. Minor injury to crew
member.
0 0 2 2 0 2 3 3 2.34
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 32
6 CONCLUSIONS
The five year mussel farm trail, once underway, is unlikely to generate a discernible increase in the
navigational risk on the River Stour as:
The mussels lines are placed on the sea bed with no vertical risers or lines;
Maximum operational days associated with additional vessel movements within the
trail period are less than 15 days per year, with 20 additional monitoring visits each
year for local authority environmental health;
Fishing vessels engaged in farm operations are subject to MCA safety inspections;
Total usage of each site is expected to be less than 20% of the total licenced area;
The farms do not restrict navigation, they are not exclusion zones;
Wash Mussels Limited state that there is no intention to mark the sites with additional
buoyage;
The area is monitored using VTS by HHA;
Large vessels using the river to transit to Mistley carry an authorised pilot with
exceptional local knowledge;
The right to free navigation and anchoring is not affected;
Anticipated times that the mussel dredgers are expected to operate are at times when
recreational usage is at a minimum;
HHA have powers within their byelaws (Clause 6) which regulate the marking and
placement of crab pots;
The navigational channel is well marked;
The SHA and CHA is well managed by HHA;
Mussel dredger operations will adhere to COLREGs;
There is no legal liability for vessels causing damage to mussel sites by running
aground; and
Section 7 of the Sea fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. Annex J
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright 33
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that good communications are maintained providing information on the time,
location of operation and vessel numbers involved in the mussel farm operations, are shared with all
port users to assist with de-confliction of commercial vessel transits and recreational activities. A
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the SHA for the provision of this information may
assist in ensuring that all operations are considered, communicated and de-conflicted. The SHA can
then choose to communicate this to the port users as it sees fit.
The mussel farm operational activities should be restricted to times when recreational use is at its
lowest, such as week days outside of the peak leisure/recreational season. Weekend and evening
operations, especially at peak recreational times should only be undertaken after consultation with
the HHA.
Wash Mussels Limited will need to provide clear information regarding the total numbers of vessel
movements, transit frequency and the locations for cargo discharge in order to provide information
to the SHA to assist with de-confliction of operations. This will assist in reducing the chances of
unwanted interaction between dredgers and river uses, commercial and recreational vessels alike.
HHA have expressed concern regarding the positioning of sites 3 & 4. The southwest extremities of
site 3 and the northwest extremities of site 4 (Holbrook No. 2 area) extended south and north of the
main channel buoy line respectively. This would allow operations to be undertaken in close proximity
and possibly restrict available sea room in the main channel for larger vessels which are ‘constrained
by their draft’ (COLREGS 28) and ‘navigating within a narrow channel’ (COLREGS 9) and the harvesting
vessels ‘restricted in their ability to manoeuvre’ (COLREGS 3) or ‘engaged in fishing operations’
(COLREGS 26) during times that the fisheries are active. The applicant may wish to consider replotting
the positon of sites 3 & 4.
HHA undertake sediment replenishment that involves dredging discharge across site 1 and sites 3 &
4. The implications of a dredger and mussel dredger operating in the same area was discussed with
regards to COLREGS and give way vessel requirements. An agreed procedure for this operation is
advised to de-conflict operations drawing from the requirements of Rule 8 of the COLREGS.
Consideration should be given to reducing the site 1 area in order to clear the southern edges of the
area out of the deeper part of northern edge of the main channel.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright A-1
Annex A Direction of Tidal Streams
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright A-2
HW -5.00
HW -3.00
HW -2.00
HW -1.00
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright A-3
HW
HW +1.00
HW +2.00
HW +3.00
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright A-4
HW +4.00
HW +5.00
HW +6.00
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright B-1
Annex B Risk Assessment provided by Phillip Barnes and
Paul Rodhouse
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright B-2
Assessment of risk to yachts of River Stour mussel culture
Top Twelve risks Cruising and Sailing Vessels
1. Leisure craft becoming entangled with the risers of fixed and temporary markers.
2. Disabled Leisure craft drifting down into the harbour on the ebb tide.
3. Small leisure craft being displaced by mussel farming activities and moving into areas currently
used by larger and faster leisure vessels.
4. Larger leisure vessels displaced into the deep water channel at Parkstone Quay by the displacement
of smaller craft mentioned at 3 above.
5. Collision between Leisure and Fishery vessels in the work areas.
6. Fishery boats forced out of the Wrabness channel by ships going to and from Mistly.
7. Conflict between fishery vessels avoiding ships in the Wrabness channel by entering the shallow
areas either side of the channel and leisure craft.
8. Conflict between fishery vessels and leisure craft upstream of Parkstone quay.
9. Disabled fishery vessels drifting down into the harbour on an ebb tide.
10. Leisure sailing craft having to get out of the way of a working dredger or other work boat.
11. Leisure sailing vessels being unable to make a reasonable angle on the wind as they approach the
Wrabness Channel – particularly when there is s strong East or West element to the wind.
12. Local lifeboat being off station attending to an entangled leisure vessel up river when an offshore
emergency is called.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright B-3
Impact Probability
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
2 11
3 9
4 6 10
5 8
6 12
7 2 7 1
8
9 5
10 4 3
Impact: low = cuts and bruises; high = multiple deaths or Financial Loss low = £-10s; high = £-Ms
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright B-4
Stour Mussel Bed Application
Safety Issues of concern Analysis of the Impact and probability
1. Leisure craft becoming entangled with the risers of fixed and temporary markers. If fixed area
markers are used along with pot markers the probability becomes quite high and the impact could be
serious with life at risk and emergency declared. Contact Navigation
2. Disabled Leisure craft drifting down into the harbour on the ebb tide. This could be very serious
causing disruption and an emergency declared. Harbour masters opinion is bound to have a bearing.
3. Small leisure craft being displaced by mussel farming activities and moving into areas currently
used by larger and faster leisure vessels. Particularly in area 1 there is a very high probability and the
impact potentially serious – see 4 below
4. Larger leisure vessels displaced into the deep water channel at Parkstone Quay by the displacement
of smaller craft mentioned at 3 above. If area 1 is kept at the proposed size then the probability is
very high and the impact potentially very serious. Skippers of larger faster craft will not want to go
into the deep water channel but could be forced into it whilst taking avoiding action.
5. Collision between Leisure and Fishery vessels in the work areas. The probability is not very high
because leisure skippers will see work boats in an area and largely decide to stay out of the area to be
safe. Therefore the impact on leisure use is very high.
6. Fishery boats forced out of the Wrabness channel by ships going to and from Mistly. The impact
not high unless the fishery boat goes aground in the shallow water or impacts with a moored or other
leisure vessel. Probability is that it is bound to happen at some point.
7. Conflict between fishery vessels avoiding ships in the Wrabness channel by entering the shallow
areas either side of the channel and leisure craft. The impact if something goes wrong is moderately
high as is the probability because there is little room to manoeuvre at some states of tide.
8. Conflict between fishery vessels and leisure craft upstream of Parkstone quay. The impact on leisure
use is moderately inconvenient as is the probability. 9. Disabled fishery vessels drifting down into the
harbour on an ebb tide. Impact is low to moderate as is the probability. The dredger would be obliged
to ask for professional Tug assistance. 10. Leisure sailing craft having to get out of the way of a working
dredger or other work boat. The impact on leisure vessels would not be high but the probability would
be.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright B-5
11. Leisure sailing vessels being unable to make a reasonable angle on the wind as they approach the
Wrabness Channel – particularly when there is s strong East or West element to the wind. This is a
nuisance factor for sailors with a high probability.
12. Local lifeboat being off station attending to an entangled leisure vessel up river when an offshore
emergency is called. The probability is moderate to high and the impact is mostly on the RNLI. Their
opinion should be taken into account. Even if they have a reserve boat available they may not be able
to crew it quickly.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright C-1
Annex C Hazard Logs for the Current Navigational Situation
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright C-2
Hazard Log for the River Stour (Current)
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML) Worst
Credible (WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
1 6
Harwich International Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Collision
Recreational Craft in collision
with Ferry/Cruise
Ship
Recreational craft navigating in main
channel whilst Ferry/Cruise Ship
are moving or turning off Harwich International Port
All
Environmental Interests, General
Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug
Owners, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third
Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Near miss/low speed glancing
blow. Minor hull damage to
recreational craft.
Heavy contact. Major hull damage to
recreational craft. Sinking, loss of
life.
2 1 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 5 3.32
Recreation Craft in
main channel due to traffic
volume in area north
of main channel.
2 5
Harwich International Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Collision Recreational
Craft in collision with Coaster
Recreational craft navigating in main
channel whilst Ferry/Cruise Ship
are moving or turning off Harwich International Port
All
Environmental Interests, Fishing
Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug
Owners, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact, minor
damage to recreational craft.
Major damage to recreational craft,
sinking, loss of life.
3 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3.3
3 4
Harwich International Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Collision
Recreational Craft in collision
Recreational Craft
Leisure craft in contact with
another. All
General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo;
Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing blow,
minor damage to vessel/hull.
Heavy contact, major hull
damage, sinking. Loss of life.
5 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 4 2.74
Glancing blow, minor
damage to vessel/hull
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright C-3
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML) Worst
Credible (WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
4 9
Mistley Approach Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Grounding Recreational
Craft grounding Recreational craft
out of position All
Fishing Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no damage, floats free on next HW
Hard grounding, hull damage,
sinking, loss of life.
5 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 3 2.65
5 10
Mistley Approach Main Channel
Secondary Channel Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site
4 Site 5
Grounding Coaster
Grounding
Coaster/commercial vessel out of main
channel All
Environmental Interests, Fishing
Users, General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug Owners, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality
and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, refloats, no
damage
Heavy grounding - minor hull damage.
3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 2.49
6 2
Harwich International Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Collision HHA Dredger in
collision with Coaster
Navigating in main channel whilst
Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or
turning off Harwich International Port
Fishing Users, HHA, Ships Master/Crew,
Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Failure; Failure to comply with Local Regulations;
Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing blow. Minor damage.
Heavy contact, hull damage.
Minor injury to crew member.
3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2.34
7 7 Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Collision Coaster in
collision with Coaster
Coasters transiting to Mistley using or passing in the main
channel.
Environmental Interests, General
Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew,
Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact. no significant damage
Heavy contact - major hull
damage, water ingress, minor
injury
3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 4 2.15
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright C-4
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML) Worst
Credible (WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
8 3 Harwich International Main Channel Site 1
Collision
HHA Dredger in collision with a
Ferry/Cruise Ship
Navigating in main channel whilst
Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or
turning off Harwich International Port
HHA, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact - minor
hull damage.
Major hull damage - minor
injury 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 1.95
9 1
Harwich International Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Collision
HHA Dredger in collision with Recreational
Craft
Navigating in main channel whilst
Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or
turning off Harwich International Port
All
Fishing Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality
and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing blow.
Very minor damage.
Damage to hull, water ingress and possible sinking.
Loss of life.
3 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 3 1.95
10 8 Harwich International
Main Channel Collision
Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise
Ship
Coaster in contact with Ferry or Cruise
Ship turning off Harwich Haven.
Environmental Interests, HHA,
Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew,
Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Quality; Failure to
comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo;
Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third
Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact - minor
hull damage.
Heavy contact major hull
damage, minor injury.
2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 1.8
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright C-5
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML) Worst
Credible (WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
11 12 Main Channel Harwich
International Secondary Channel
Grounding Ferry/Cruise
Ship Grounding outside
main channel All
HHA, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners, Tug Owners, General Public, Pilots
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment
Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning
Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no damage.
Heavy grounding, some hull damage.
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1.45
12 11 Site 2Secondary
Channel Site 3 Site 5 Site 4 Site 1
Grounding HHA Dredger
Grounding
Dredger going aground outside
main Channel All
Ships Master/Crew, Pilots, Vessel Owners, HHA
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no damage.
Floats free next HW.
Heavy grounding, minor hull damage.
2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1.32
13 14 Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Contact Navigation
Coaster in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Vessel out of position
All HHA, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with
VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications;
Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing pass, no damage.
Buoy run over, major damage to
buoy. Loss of ground mooring.
3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0
14 15 Harwich International
Main Channel Contact
Navigation
Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact
with Marker/mooring
Buoy
Vessel out of position
All Pilots, Vessel
Owners, Ships Master/Crew, HHA
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment
Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics;
Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing pass Buoy run down - major damage,
loss of buoy. 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright C-6
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML) Worst
Credible (WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
15 16
Site 3Main Channel Site 5 Site 2 Site1
Secondary Channel Site 4 Mistley
Approach Harwich International
Contact Navigation
HHA Dredger in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Vessel out of position
All HHA, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply
with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality
and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Passing contact, no damage.
Buoy run over, damage or loss of
buoy. 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0
16 13 Mistley Approach
Secondary Channel Contact
Navigation
Recreational Craft in contact
with Marker/Mooring
Buoy
Vessel out of position
All
Fishing Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Dredger on mussel farm site; Berth
Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing contact, no damage.
Buoy riser entanglement in
propeller resulting in
drifting.
5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-1
Annex D Hazard Logs for the for the Navigational Situation
with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-2
Hazard Log for the River Stour (With Mussel Farms)
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
1 8
Harbour Approach Harwich International
Harbour Entrance Main Channel Mistley
Approach
Collision Recreational Craft
in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Recreational craft navigating in main
channel whilst Ferry/Cruise Ship
are moving or turning off Harwich International Port
All
Vessel Owners, Environmental
Interests, Fishing Users, General
Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Tug Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting
Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Near miss/low speed
glancing blow. Minor hull damage to
recreational craft.
Heavy contact. Major
hull damage to
recreational craft. Sinking,
loss of life.
2 1 2 1 1 2 3 5 4 5 3.32
Recreation Craft in main channel
due to traffic volume in area north of main
channel.
2 7
Harwich International Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Collision Recreational Craft
in collision with Coaster
Navigating in main channel whilst
Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or
turning off Harwich International Port
All
Environmental Interests, Fishing
Users, General Public, HHA,
Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Tug Owners, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting
Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Low speed contact, minor
damage to recreational
craft.
Major damage to
recreational craft, sinking,
loss of life.
3 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3.3
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-3
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
3 6
Harwich International Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Collision Recreational Craft
in collision Recreational Craft
Leisure craft in contact with
another. All
General Public, HHA, Leisure Users,
Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting
Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance
Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Low speed glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull
Heavy contact, major hull damage, sinking. Loss
of life.
5 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 4 2.74 Glancing blow,
minor damage to vessel/hull.
4 20
Harbour Approach Harwich International
Harbour Entrance Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with HHA
Dredger
Mussel Dredging and Sediment replenishment
confliction. Sites 1, 2, 3 & 4
All
Environmental Interests, Fishing Users, HHA, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring
Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics;
Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic
Density.
Low speed contact, minor
damage.
Heavy impact, major hull damage, sinking of
mussel dredger.
2 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 3 2.65
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-4
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
5 16
Mistley Approach Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Grounding Recreational Craft
grounding Recreational craft
out of position All
Fishing Users, General Public,
HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting
Operations; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring
Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to
comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with
Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no
damage, floats free on
next HW.
Hard grounding,
hull damage, sinking, loss of
life.
5 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 3 2.65
6 17
Harbour Approach Harwich International
Harbour Entrance Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Collision Mussel Dredger in
collision with Recreational Craft
14 M Mussel Dredger in contact with Recreational
Craft while engaged in operations.
All
Any Regional Council,
Environmental Interests, Fishing
Users, General Public, HHA,
Leisure Users, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting
Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance
Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed collision,
glancing blow. Minor
damage.
Hard collision, major hull damage,
sinking, loss of life.
3 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 5 2.57
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-5
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
7 13
Site 5 Site 1 Site 3 Site 2 Site 4 Main Channel
Mistley Approach Secondary Channel
Grounding Coaster Grounding Coaster/commercial vessel out of main
channel All
Fishing Users, Tug Owners, General
Public, HHA, Pilots, Environmental Interests, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability;
Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;
Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with
Ship/Bank Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, refloats, no
damage.
Heavy grounding - minor hull damage.
3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 2.49
8 19
Harwich International Harbour Approach
Main Channel Site 1 Harbour Entrance
Collision Mussel Dredger in
collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Mussel Dredger on transit or working southern edge of
Site 1
All
Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners, Environmental
Interests, Pilots, HHA, General Public, Fishing
Users
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting
Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure
to comply with VTS; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing blow, minor damage
to mussel dredger.
Heavy impact, major hull damage, sinking of
mussel dredger.
2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 2.34
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-6
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
9 18
Harbour Approach Harwich International
Harbour Entrance Mistley Approach
Main Channel Site 1 Site 3 Site 4
Collision Mussel Dredger in
collision with Coaster
Mussel Dredger operating on main
channel edge of mussel farm or on
transit.
All
Any Regional Council,
Environmental Interests, Fishing
Users, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew,
Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting
Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure
to comply with VTS; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Glancing blow, minor
damage.
Heavy contact, major hull damage, taking water,
possible sinking of dredger.
2 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 2.34
10 4
Mistley Approach Harwich International
Site 2 Site 3 Main Channel Site 5 Site 1 Secondary Channel
Site 4
Collision HHA Dredger in
collision with Coaster
Navigating in main channel
Vessel Owners, HHA, Ships
Master/Crew, Fishing Users
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Equipment Failure; Failure to comply with Local
Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs;
Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human
Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance
Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing blow.
Minor damage.
Heavy contact, hull
damage. Minor injury
to crew member.
3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2.34
11 1 Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Collision Coaster in collision
with Coaster
Coasters transiting to Mistley using or passing in the main
channel.
Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships
Master/Crew, HHA, Environmental
Interests, General Public
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability;
Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;
Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with
Ship/Bank Maintenance; Failure Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact. no significant damage.
Heavy contact - major hull
damage, water ingress, minor injury
3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 4 2.15
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-7
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
12 3 Harwich International Site 1 Main Channel
Collision HHA Dredger in collision with a
Ferry/Cruise Ship
Navigating in main channel whilst
Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or
turning off Harwich International Port
HHA, Vessel
Owners, Ships Master/Crew
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability;
Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;
Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with
Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact -
minor hull damage.
Major hull damage -
minor injury. 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 1.95
13 5
Harwich International Mistley Approach
Main Channel Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Collision HHA Dredger in
collision with Recreational Craft
Navigating in main channel whilst
Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or
turning off Harwich International Port
All
Fishing Users, General Public,
HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting
Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance
Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing blow.
Very minor damage.
Damage to hull, water ingress and
possible sinking. Loss
of life.
3 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 3 1.95
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-8
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
14 2 Main Channel Harwich
International Collision
Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise
Ship
Coaster in contact with Ferry or Cruise
Ship turning off Harwich Haven.
Vessel Owners, Leisure Users, Environmental Interests, HHA,
Pilots, Ships Master/Crew
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability;
Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Quality; Failure to comply
with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with
Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact -
minor hull damage.
Heavy contact major hull damage,
minor injury.
2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 1.8
15 21
Mistley Approach Secondary Channel
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Grounding Mussel Dredger
grounding Vessel
out of position All
Fishing Users, HHA, Ships Master/Crew,
Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring
Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to
comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance
Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding,
refloated next HW.
Heavy grounding, damage to hull, water
ingress.
4 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1.69
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-9
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
16 14 Main Channel
Secondary Channel Harwich International
Grounding Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding outside
main channel All
General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug
Owners, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability;
Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines;
Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply
with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with
Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no
damage.
Heavy grounding, some hull damage.
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1.45
17 15 Secondary Channel
Site 5 Site 1 Site 4 Site 3 Site 2
Grounding HHA Dredger
Grounding
Dredger going aground outside
main Channel All
Pilots, HHA, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability;
Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;
Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications;
Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no
damage. Floats free next HW.
Heavy grounding, minor hull damage.
2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1.32
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-10
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
18 23
Main Channel Site 4 Harwich International Harbour Entrance Site
2 Mistley Approach Harbour Approach Secondary Channel Site 5 Site 3 Site1
Contact Navigation
Recreational Craft contact with Crab
Pot Lines
Small craft becomes entangled in Crab
Pot lines. All
Fishing Users, HHA, Vessel Owners, Tug
Owners, General Public, Leisure
Users, Ships Master/Crew,
Pilots
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting
Operations; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring
Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications;
Traffic Density.
Craft in contact with line and in
freed or line is cut.
Prop and steering failure
resulting in drifting vessel
with no power.
4 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 2 1 1.31
19 24
Harbour Approach Site 5 Site 3 Site 2
Secondary Channel Harbour Entrance Site
1 Mistley Approach Site 4 Main Channel
Harwich International
Contact Navigation
Mussel Dredger in contact with Crab
Pots
Navigating in main channel whilst
Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or
turning off Harwich International Port
All
HHA, Ships Master/Crew,
Vessel Owners, Pilots, Fishing Users, Leisure
Users
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring
Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to
comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance
Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic
Density.
Line freed, no damage to
craft
Loss of steering and prop. Drifting
with no power.
3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1.06
20 22
Harwich International Mistley Approach Site 1 Site 3 Site 4 Harbour Approach Site 5 Main
Channel Site 2Harbour Entrance Secondary
Channel
Contact Navigation
Mussel Dredger In contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Navigating in main channel whilst
Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or
turning off Harwich International Port
All Vessel Owners,
HHA, Fishing Users
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring
Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to
comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Malicious Action
by Third Party; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Passing blow, no damage.
Entanglement, foul prop.
3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-11
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
21 9 Secondary Channel Mistley Approach
Main Channel
Contact Navigation
Coaster in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Vessel out of position
All HHA, Pilots, Vessel
Owners, Ships Master/Crew
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability;
Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply
with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with
Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic
Density; Wave.
Glancing pass, no damage.
Buoy run over, major damage to buoy. Loss
of ground mooring.
3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0
22 10 Main Channel Harwich
International Contact
Navigation
Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact with
Marker/mooring Buoy
Vessel out of position
All Pilots, Vessel
Owners, Ships Master/Crew, HHA
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Equipment Age;
Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local
Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo;
Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics;
Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing pass
Buoy run down - major damage, loss
of buoy.
3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0
23 12 Secondary Channel Mistley Approach
Contact Navigation
Recreational Craft in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Vessel out of position
All
Leisure Users, HHA, Vessel Owners, Fishing Users, General Public
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Dredger on mussel farm site; Berth Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;
Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications;
Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing contact, no
damage.
Buoy riser entanglement
in propeller resulting in
drifting.
5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright D-12
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Risk Overall
Remarks
ML WC
Ran
k
Ref
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes Most Likely
(ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
Freq
uen
cy
Envi
ron
men
t
Peo
ple
Pro
per
ty
Stak
eho
lder
s
24 11
Harwich International Site 4 Site 1 Site 2 Site 5 Secondary Channel Main Channel Site 3
Mistley Approach
Contact Navigation
HHA Dredger in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Navigating in main channel whilst
Ferry/Cruise Ship are moving or
turning off Harwich International Port
All Vessel Owners,
Ships Master/Crew, HHA
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot
lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe
COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Passing contact, no
damage.
Buoy run over, damage or
loss of buoy. 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright E-1
Annex E Organisation Report
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright E-2
Organisation Report: River Stour
Organisation Rank
Register Rank Hazard
Ref Hazard Title Category
Inherent Risk
Residual Risk
Mitigation Effectiveness
1 Stour NRA (Current)
1 6
Recreational Craft in collision
with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Collision 3.32 3.32 0
2 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
1 8
Recreational Craft in collision
with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Collision 3.32 3.32 0
3 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
2 7 Recreational
Craft in collision with Coaster
Collision 3.3 3.3 0
4 Stour NRA (Current)
2 5 Recreational
Craft in collision with Coaster
Collision 3.3 3.3 0
5 Stour NRA (Current)
3 4
Recreational Craft in collision
Recreational Craft
Collision 2.74 2.74 0
6 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
3 6
Recreational Craft in collision
Recreational Craft
Collision 2.74 2.74 0
7 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
5 16 Recreational
Craft grounding Grounding 2.65 2.65 0
8 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
4 20 Mussel Dredger in collision with
HHA Dredger Collision 2.65 2.65 0
9 Stour NRA (Current)
4 9 Recreational
Craft grounding Grounding 2.65 2.65 0
10 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
6 17
Mussel Dredger in collision with
Recreational Craft
Collision 2.57 2.57 0
11 Stour NRA (Current)
5 10 Coaster
Grounding Grounding 2.49 2.49 0
12 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
7 13 Coaster
Grounding Grounding 2.49 2.49 0
13 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
8 19 Mussel Dredger in collision with
Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision 2.34 2.34 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright E-3
Organisation Rank
Register Rank Hazard
Ref Hazard Title Category
Inherent Risk
Residual Risk
Mitigation Effectiveness
14 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
9 18 Mussel Dredger in collision with
Coaster Collision 2.34 2.34 0
15 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
10 4 HHA Dredger in
collision with Coaster
Collision 3.03 2.34 0.69
16 Stour NRA (Current)
6 2 HHA Dredger in
collision with Coaster
Collision 3.03 2.34 0.69
17 Stour NRA (Current)
7 7 Coaster in
collision with Coaster
Collision 2.15 2.15 0
18 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
11 1 Coaster in
collision with Coaster
Collision 2.15 2.15 0
19 Stour NRA (Current)
9 1
HHA Dredger in collision with Recreational
Craft
Collision 6.87 1.95 4.91
20 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
13 5
HHA Dredger in collision with Recreational
Craft
Collision 6.87 1.95 4.91
21 Stour NRA (Current)
8 3 HHA Dredger in collision with a
Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision 1.95 1.95 0
22 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
12 3 HHA Dredger in collision with a
Ferry/Cruise Ship Collision 1.95 1.95 0
23 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
14 2 Coaster in
collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Collision 3.02 1.8 1.22
24 Stour NRA (Current)
10 8 Coaster in
collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Collision 3.02 1.8 1.22
25 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
15 21 Mussel Dredger
grounding Grounding 1.69 1.69 0
26 Stour NRA (Current)
11 12 Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding 1.45 1.45 0
27 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
16 14 Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding 1.45 1.45 0
28 Stour NRA (Current)
12 11 HHA Dredger
Grounding Grounding 1.32 1.32 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright E-4
Organisation Rank
Register Rank Hazard
Ref Hazard Title Category
Inherent Risk
Residual Risk
Mitigation Effectiveness
29 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
17 15 HHA Dredger
Grounding Grounding 1.32 1.32 0
30 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
18 23
Recreational Craft contact with Crab Pot
Lines
Contact Navigation
1.31 1.31 0
31 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
19 24 Mussel Dredger in contact with
Crab Pots
Contact Navigation
1.06 1.06 0
32 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
22 10
Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact with
Marker/mooring Buoy
Contact Navigation
0 0 0
33 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
20 22
Mussel Dredger In contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Contact Navigation
0 0 0
34 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
21 9
Coaster in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Contact Navigation
0 0 0
35 Stour NRA (Current)
13 14
Coaster in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Contact Navigation
0 0 0
36 Stour NRA (Current)
14 15
Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact with
Marker/mooring Buoy
Contact Navigation
0 0 0
37 Stour NRA (Current)
15 16
HHA Dredger in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Contact Navigation
0 0 0
38 Stour NRA (Current)
16 13
Recreational Craft in contact
with Marker/Mooring
Buoy
Contact Navigation
0 0 0
39 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
23 12
Recreational Craft in contact
with Marker/Mooring
Buoy
Contact Navigation
0 0 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright E-5
Organisation Rank
Register Rank Hazard
Ref Hazard Title Category
Inherent Risk
Residual Risk
Mitigation Effectiveness
40 Stour NRA
(With Mussel Farms)
24 11
HHA Dredger in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Contact Navigation
0 0 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright F-1
Annex F Ranked Hazard Lists for the Current Navigational
Situation
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright F-2
Ranked Hazard List: River Stour NRA (Current) R
ank
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
1 6
Harwich International,
Mistley Approach, Main Channel,
Secondary Channel
Collision Recreational Craft
in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Recreational craft navigating in main
channel whilst Ferry/Cruise Ship
are moving or turning off
Harwich International Port
Leisure
Environmental Interests, General
Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Tug Owners, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Interaction with Ship/Bank; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Near miss/low
speed glancing
blow. Minor hull damage
to recreational
craft.
Heavy contact. Major hull damage to
recreational craft. Sinking,
loss of life.
0 2 0 0 3 6 5 6 3.32
Recreation Craft in main
channel due to traffic volume in area north
of main channel.
2 5
Harwich International,
Mistley Approach, Main Channel,
Secondary Channel, Site 1,
Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Collision Recreational Craft
in collision with Coaster
Coaster/Commercial
Environmental Interests, Fishing
Users, General Public, HHA,
Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Tug Owners, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact, minor
damage to recreational
craft.
Major damage to recreational craft, sinking,
loss of life.
0 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 3.3
3 4
Harwich International,
Mistley Approach, Main Channel,
Secondary Channel, Site 1,
Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Collision Recreational Craft
in collision Recreational Craft
Leisure craft in contact with
another. Leisure
General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to notify
Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human
Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing
blow, minor damage to vessel/hull.
Heavy contact, major hull damage,
sinking. Loss of life.
0 0 0 0 2 6 6 6 2.74 Glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright F-3
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
4 9
Mistley Approach, Secondary
Channel, Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site
4, Site 5
Grounding Recreational Craft
grounding Recreational craft
out of position Leisure
Fishing Users, General Public,
HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no damage,
floats free on next HW.
Hard grounding, hull
damage, sinking, loss of
life.
0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65
5 10
Mistley Approach, Main Channel,
Secondary Channel, Site 1,
Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Grounding Coaster Grounding Coaster/commerci
al vessel out of main channel
Coaster/Commercial
Environmental Interests, Fishing
Users, General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Tug Owners, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Interaction with Ship/Bank; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality
and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, refloats, no
damage.
Heavy grounding - minor hull damage.
0 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 2.49
6 2
Harwich International,
Mistley Approach, Main Channel,
Secondary Channel, Site 1,
Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Collision HHA Dredger in
collision with Coaster
Coaster/Commercial
Fishing Users, HHA, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Equipment Failure; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS;
Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing
blow. Minor damage.
Heavy contact, hull damage.
Minor injury to crew member.
0 0 2 2 0 2 3 3 2.34
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright F-4
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
7 7 Mistley Approach,
Main Channel, Secondary Channel
Collision Coaster in collision
with Coaster
Coasters transiting to Mistley using or
passing in the main channel.
Coaster/Commercial
Environmental Interests, General
Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact. no significant damage.
Heavy contact - major hull
damage, water ingress, minor
injury.
0 0 0 0 3 2 5 5 2.15
8 3 Harwich
International, Main Channel, Site 1
Collision HHA Dredger in collision with a
Ferry/Cruise Ship
HHA Dredger
HHA, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact -
minor hull damage.
Major hull damage - minor
injury. 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 1.95
9 1
Harwich International,
Mistley Approach, Main Channel,
Secondary Channel, Site 1,
Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Collision HHA Dredger in
collision with Recreational Craft
HHA
Dredger
Fishing Users, General Public,
HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing
blow. Very minor
damage.
Damage to hull, water ingress and possible
sinking. Loss of life.
0 0 0 0 0 5 3 3 1.95
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright F-5
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
10 8 Harwich
International, Main Channel
Collision Coaster in collision with Ferry/Cruise
Ship
Coaster in contact with Ferry or
Cruise Ship turning off Harwich
Haven.
Coaster/Commercial
Environmental Interests, HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to
comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human
Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical
circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact -
minor hull damage.
Heavy contact major hull
damage, minor injury.
0 0 0 0 1 3 4 4 1.8
11 12
Main Channel, Harwich
International, Secondary Channel
Grounding Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding outside
main channel Ferry/Cruis
e Ship
HHA, Ships Master/Crew,
Vessel Owners, Tug Owners,
General Public, Pilots
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;
Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to
observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no damage.
Heavy grounding, some hull damage.
0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1.45
12 11 Site 2, Secondary Channel, Site 3,
Site 5, Site 4, Site 1 Grounding
HHA Dredger Grounding
Dredger going aground outside
main Channel
HHA Dredger
Ships Master/Crew, Pilots, Vessel Owners, HHA
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no damage. Floats free next HW.
Heavy grounding, minor hull damage.
0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 1.32
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright F-6
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
13 14 Mistley Approach,
Main Channel, Secondary Channel
Contact Navigation
Coaster in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Coaster/Commercial
HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic
Density; Wave.
Glancing pass, no damage.
Buoy run over, major damage
to buoy. Loss of ground
mooring.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 15 Harwich
International, Main Channel
Contact Navigation
Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact with
Marker/mooring Buoy
Ferry/Cruis
e Ship
Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew,
HHA
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure;
Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to
observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics;
Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing pass.
Buoy run down - major
damage, loss of buoy.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 16
Site 3, Main Channel, Site 5,
Site 2, Site 1, Secondary
Channel, Site 4, Mistley Approach,
Harwich International
Contact Navigation
HHA Dredger in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
HHA
Dredger
HHA, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality;
Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Passing contact, no
damage.
Buoy run over, damage or loss
of buoy. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright F-7
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions
Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible
(WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
16 13 Mistley Approach, Secondary Channel
Contact Navigation
Recreational Craft in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Leisure
Fishing Users, General Public,
HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Dredger on mussel farm site; Berth
Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement;
Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing contact, no
damage.
Buoy riser entanglement
in propeller resulting in
drifting.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-1
Annex G Ranked Hazard Lists for the Navigational Situation
with the Addition of the Mussel Farms and Operations
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-2
Ranked Hazard List: River Stour NRA (With Mussel Farms) R
ank
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas
Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
1 8
Harbour Approach, Harwich
International, Harbour
Entrance, Main Channel, Mistley
Approach
Collision Recreational Craft
in collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Recreational craft navigating in main channel
whilst Ferry/Cruise
Ship are moving or turning off
Harwich International
Port
Leisure
Vessel Owners, Environmental
Interests, Fishing Users, General Public,
HHA, Leisure Users, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Tug Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy;
Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local
Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic
Density; Wave.
Near miss/low speed glancing
blow. Minor hull damage to
recreational craft.
Heavy contact. Major hull damage to
recreational craft. Sinking, loss of
life.
0 2 0 0 3 6 5 6 3.32
Recreation Craft in main
channel due to traffic volume
in area north of main channel.
2 7
Harwich International,
Mistley Approach,
Main Channel, Secondary
Channel, Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Collision Recreational Craft
in collision with Coaster
Coaster/Com
mercial
Environmental Interests, Fishing
Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure Users,
Pilots, Ships Master/Crew, Tug
Owners, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy;
Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local
Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality
and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Low speed contact, minor
damage to recreational craft
Major damage to recreational craft,
sinking, loss of life.
0 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 3.3
3 6
Harwich International,
Mistley Approach,
Main Channel, Secondary
Channel, Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Collision
Recreational Craft in collision
Recreational Craft
Leisure craft in contact with
another. Leisure
General Public, HHA, Leisure Users, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy;
Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local
Regulations; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Low speed glancing blow,
minor damage to vessel/hull
Heavy contact, major hull
damage, sinking. Loss of life.
0 0 0 0 2 6 6 6 2.74 Glancing blow, minor damage to vessel/hull
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-3
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas
Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
4 20
Harbour Approach, Harwich
International, Harbour
Entrance, Mistley
Approach, Main Channel,
Secondary Channel, Site 1,
Site 2, Site 3, Site 4
Collision Mussel Dredger in collision with HHA
Dredger
Mussel Dredging and
Sediment replenishment
confliction. SItes 1, 2, 3 & 4
Fishing Vessel
Environmental Interests, Fishing Users, HHA, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age;
Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to
comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue;
Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Logistics; Maintenance Failure;
Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact, minor
damage
Heavy impact, major hull
damage, sinking of mussel dredger
0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65
5 16
Mistley Approach, Secondary
Channel, Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Grounding Recreational Craft
grounding
Recreational craft out of
position Leisure
Fishing Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure
Users, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations;
Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement
in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third
Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no damage,
floats free on next HW
Hard grounding, hull damage,
sinking, loss of life.
0 0 0 0 2 6 6 4 2.65
6 17
Harbour Approach, Harwich
International, Harbour
Entrance, Mistley
Approach , Main Channel,
Secondary Channel, Site 1,
Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Collision Mussel Dredger in
collision with Recreational Craft
14 M Mussel Dredger in
contact with Recreational Craft while engaged in operations.
HHA Dredger
Any Regional Council, Environmental
Interests, Fishing Users, General Public,
HHA, Leisure Users, Ships Master/Crew,
Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy;
Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local
Regulations; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed collision, glancing
blow. Minor damage.
Hard collision, major hull
damage, sinking, loss of life.
0 0 0 0 2 5 5 6 2.57
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-4
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas
Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
7 13
Site 5, Site 1, Site 3, Site 2, Site 4, Main
Channel, Mistley
Approach, Secondary
Channel
Grounding Coaster
Grounding
Coaster/commercial vessel out
of main channel
Coaster/Commercial
Fishing Users, Tug Owners, General
Public, HHA, Pilots, Environmental Interests, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels;
Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, refloats, no
damage
Heavy grounding - minor hull
damage. 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 2.49
8 19
Harbour Approach, Harwich
International, Harbour
Entrance, Main Channel, Site 1
Collision Mussel Dredger in
collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Mussel Dredger on transit or
working southern edge
of Site 1
Fishing Vessel
Environmental Interests, Fishing
Users, General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy;
Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local
Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning
Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing blow,
minor damage to mussel dredger
Heavy impact, major hull
damage, sinking of mussel dredger.
0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 2.34
9 18
Harbour Approach, Harwich
International, Harbour
Entrance, Mistley
Approach, Main Channel, Site 1, Site 3,
Site 4
Collision Mussel Dredger in
collision with Coaster
Mussel Dredger operating on main channel
edge of mussel farm or on
transit.
Fishing Vessel
Any Regional Council, Environmental
Interests, Fishing Users, HHA, Pilots,
Ships Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy;
Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local
Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning
Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Glancing blow, minor damage.
Heavy contact, major hull
damage, taking water, possible
sinking of dredger.
0 0 0 0 3 5 5 5 2.34
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-5
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas
Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
10 4
Mistley Approach, Harwich
International, Site 2, Site 3,
Main Channel, Site 5, Site 1,
Secondary Channel, Site 4
Collision HHA Dredger in
collision with Coaster
Coaster/Com
mercial
Vessel Owners, HHA, Ships Master/Crew,
Fishing Users
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Equipment Failure; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications;
Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing blow. Minor damage.
Heavy contact, hull damage.
Minor injury to crew member.
0 0 2 2 0 2 3 3 2.34
11 1
Mistley Approach,
Main Channel, Secondary
Channel
Collision Coaster in
collision with Coaster
Coasters transiting to
Mistley using or passing in the main channel.
Coaster/Commercial
Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew, HHA, Environmental
Interests, General Public
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank Maintenance; Failure Manning Levels; Quality
and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact. no significant damage
Heavy contact - major hull
damage, water ingress, minor
injury
0 0 0 0 3 2 5 5 2.15
12 3
Harwich International,
Site1, Main Channel
Collision HHA Dredger in collision with a
Ferry/Cruise Ship HHA Dredger
HHA, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third
Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact - minor
hull damage.
Major hull damage - minor
injury 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 1.95
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-6
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas
Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
13 5
Harwich International,
Mistley Approach,
Main Channel, Secondary
Channel, Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Collision HHA Dredger in
collision with Recreational Craft
HHA Dredger Fishing Users, General Public, HHA, Leisure
Users, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy;
Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local
Regulations; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error
Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure;
Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed glancing blow.
Very minor damage.
Damage to hull, water ingress and possible sinking.
Loss of life.
0 0 0 0 0 5 3 3 1.95
14 2 Main Channel,
Harwich International
Collision Coaster in
collision with Ferry/Cruise Ship
Coaster in contact with
Ferry or Cruise Ship turning off Harwich Haven.
Coaster/Commercial
Vessel Owners, Leisure Users, Environmental
Interests, HHA, Pilots, Ships Master/Crew
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to
comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human
Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical
circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality
and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Low speed contact - minor
hull damage
Heavy contact major hull
damage, minor injury.
0 0 0 0 1 3 4 4 1.8
15 21
Mistley Approach, Secondary
Channel, Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, Site 5
Grounding Mussel Dredger
grounding
Fishing Vessel
Fishing Users, HHA, Ships Master/Crew,
Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age;
Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic
Density.
Soft grounding, refloated next
HW
Heavy grounding, damage to hull, water ingress.
0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 1.69
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-7
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas
Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
16 14
Main Channel, Secondary Channel, Harwich
International
Grounding Ferry/Cruise Ship Grounding
outside main channel
Ferry/Cruise Ship
General Public, HHA, Pilots, Ships
Master/Crew, Tug Owners, Vessel
Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure
(Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment
Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Manning Levels; Quality
and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no damage.
Heavy grounding, some hull damage.
0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1.45
17 15
Secondary Channel, Site 5,
Site1, Site 4, Site 3, Site 2
Grounding HHA Dredger
Grounding
Dredger going aground
outside main Channel
HHA Dredger Pilots, HHA, Ships
Master/Crew, Vessel Owners
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Communications Failure (Equipment); Equipment Age; Equipment
Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Soft grounding, no damage.
Floats free next HW.
Heavy grounding, minor hull damage.
0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 1.32
18 23
Main Channel, Site 4, Harwich International,
Harbour Entrance, Site
2, Mistley Approach, Harbour
Approach, Secondary
Channel, Site 5, Site 3, Site 1
Contact Navigation
Recreational Craft contact with Crab
Pot Lines
Small craft becomes
entangled in Crab Pot lines.
Leisure
Fishing Users, HHA, Vessel Owners, Tug
Owners, General Public, Leisure Users, Ships Master/Crew,
Pilots
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Harvesting Operations;
Communications Failure (Equipment); Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement
in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure
to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Human Error
Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Craft in contact with line and in freed or line is
cut.
Prop and steering failure resulting in drifting vessel with no power.
0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1.31
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-8
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas
Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
19 24
Harbour Approach, Site 5, Site 3, Site 2,
Secondary Channel, Harbour
Entrance, Site1, Mistley
Approach, Site 4, Main
Channel, Harwich
International
Contact Navigation
Mussel Dredger in contact with Crab
Pots
Fishing Vessel
HHA, Ships Master/Crew, Vessel
Owners, Pilots, Fishing Users, Leisure Users
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age;
Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances;
Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Line freed, no damage to craft
Loss of steering and prop. Drifting
with no power. 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1.06
20 22
Harwich International,
Mistley Approach,
Site1, Site 3, Site 4, Harbour Approach, Site
5, Main Channel, Site 2,
Harbour Entrance, Secondary
Channel
Contact Navigation
Mussel Dredger In contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Fishing Vessel
Vessel Owners, HHA, Fishing Users
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Entanglement in Marker/Mooring Buoy; Equipment Age;
Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Malicious Action by Third
Party; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Passing blow, no damage
Entanglement, foul prop.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 9
Secondary Channel, Mistley
Approach, Main Channel
Contact Navigation
Coaster in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Coaster/Com
mercial
HHA, Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Berth Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure
to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank;
Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing pass, no damage.
Buoy run over, major damage to
buoy. Loss of ground mooring.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 10 Main Channel,
Harwich International
Contact Navigation
Ferry/Cruise ship in Contact with
Marker/mooring Buoy
Ferry/Cruise
Ship
Pilots, Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew,
HHA
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment
Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information
Failure; Logistics; Maintenance Failure; Quality and Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing pass Buoy run down - major damage,
loss of buoy. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright G-9
Ran
k
Haz
ard
Ref
.
Affected Areas
Accident Category
Hazard Title Hazard Detail
Affected Vessel Types
Affected Stakeholders
Possible Causes
Consequence Descriptions Risk By Consequence Category
Ris
k O
vera
ll
Remarks
ML WC
Most Likely (ML)
Worst Credible (WC)
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
Envi
ron
me
nt
Pe
op
le
Pro
pe
rty
Stak
eh
old
ers
23 12
Secondary Channel, Mistley
Approach
Contact Navigation
Recreational Craft in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
Leisure
Leisure Users, HHA, Vessel Owners,
Fishing Users, General Public
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Avoiding Dredger on mussel farm site; Berth
Availability; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure
to notify Hazardous Cargo; Failure to observe COLREGs; Human Error Control/Operational;
Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical circumstances; Information Failure; Maintenance Failure; Quality and
Qualifications; Traffic Density; Wave.
Glancing contact, no damage
Buoy riser entanglement in
propeller resulting in
drifting.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 11
Harwich International, Site 4, Site1, Site 2, Site 5,
Secondary Channel, Main Channel, Site 3,
Mistley Approach
Contact Navigation
HHA Dredger in contact with
Marker/Mooring Buoy
HHA Dredger Vessel Owners, Ships Master/Crew, HHA
Adverse Visibility e.g. Fog/Mist; Adverse Wind; Communications Failure (Equipment);
Entanglement in Crab Pot lines; Equipment Age; Equipment Failure; Equipment Quality; Failure
to comply with Local Regulations; Failure to comply with VTS; Failure to observe COLREGs;
Human Error Control/Operational; Human Error Judgement; Human Fatigue; Hydrographical
circumstances; Information Failure; Interaction with Ship/Bank; Maintenance Failure; Malicious Action by Third Party; Manning Levels; Quality
and Qualifications; Traffic Density.
Passing contact, no damage.
Buoy run over, damage or loss of
buoy. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-1
Annex H Post Draft NRA Comments received from Tim
Goodwin with response
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-2
Page ii)
Accepted is who commissioned the report and it is probable that no one else is in a position to, but it
can hardly be claimed to be independent when the applicant picks up the bill.
Marico has been appointed to conduct an unbiased independent report at the instruction of
Peter Scott acting on behalf of Wash Mussels Ltd.
Noted is that there has been little issue with commercial traffic to date but this is due to small number
of movements, that there is ample unimpeded area currently outside the shipping lanes and that
commercial traffic is predictable and adheres strictly to navigational channels.
Noted.
Clear communication to river users - really?
How will this be done to disparate groups many of whom don’t have internet - are you planning to
write to everyone?
This is a recommendation that has been made to Wash Mussels in order to supply information
to river users and the SHA in order to assist with deconfliction of all river traffic. How this
information is promulgated is dependent on the requirements of the SHA and in consultation
with river users. As outlined in this report the River Stour falls within the Statutory Harbour
Limits for Harwich Haven Authority. HHA have issued clear guidance and instruction for all
vessels using the waters within the SHA. Clear communications from the SHA are promulgated
using a wide variety of means such as Notice to Mariners, safety publications, byelaws,
directions and information broadcast from Harwich VTS. River users are advised to ensure that
they are in receipt of all safety and legislative information that effects the area they are using.
(MoU) - ??
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) describes a bilateral or multilateral agreement
between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties,
indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do
not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally
enforceable agreement.
Crab pots were I thought agreed not to be used?
At the time of the report being drafted the use of crab pots was not completely ruled out.
Therefore, the use of pots was considered within the NRA as an additional hazard. Removing
the pots from the NRA would reduce the hazards used within the assessment and lower the
risk scoring.
—————————————
Page vi)
My details are incorrect
Noted and corrected. .
—————————————
Page 1
The 5 locations were offered at the first meeting to be reduced to 2 or 3 and/or reduced in size with
the most Westerly being one to drop (as one of the most undesirable).
Not applicable to the overall NRA. Wash Mussels to respond.
—————————————
Page 2
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-3
Define minimal
Smallest in amount or degree.
Page 3 Table 1
Crab pots - are they, or are they not being used, and if they are will they be marked or not?
As stated in previous related comment.
—————————————
Page 4
The river is busiest in Harwich Harbour as far as only commercial traffic is concerned, but the river is
probably busier elsewhere with small boat movements. Even a small point like this if not given the
correct balance will skew any conclusions made.
The NRA was undertaken taking into consideration all traffic using the River Stour. The dataset
used in this report is complete for the geographic limits of the study area and includes all
vessels types listed. However it should be noted that several vessel groups, including
recreational craft who are not required to carry AIS, are likely absent in the presented analysis.
In short the data shown within the report is taken from commercial traffic and other vessels
carrying AIS equipment. The use of leisure craft was not discounted within the report.
You must separate Recreational craft and Charter fishing vessels because they are entirely different.
one has amatuer skippers of variable experience and ability with possibly no electronic accessories,
the others are professional if they offer Charter, in vessels of specified standard with crews with a
specified minima of knowledge, and will most likely have a reasonable level of equipment.
The NRA was grouped into similar vessel types. To complete an NRA using each and every
different vessel and craft type using the river would be extremely complex and would take a
very long time to complete. To state that amateur skippers and professional charter skippers
are entirely different because of the variation in ability and equipment is an assumption. The
difference in these vessel types is understood as is the possible variation in crew abilities, this
is taken into consideration in the possible causes listed in the NRA tables.
—————————————
Page 5
What is Explosive anchorage
An anchorage approved (licenced by the HSE) to moor vessels carrying explosive cargos.
HHA hold a licence for the Erwarton Anchorage, River Stour (Harwich Harbour) in accordance
with the Dangerous Substances in Harbours Regulations 1987.
--------------------------
Page 6 and 7
Rather pointless photos of landscape - the river when busy would be more useful?
The photos of the river were taken during a visit to the site on 1st July 2015 at around midday
in fine weather conditions. This time of year and day has been stated as being within the peak
season of leisure craft use on the river. The photographs give a representation of the area for
readers of the report who do not have local knowledge.
--------------------------
Page 9/10/11
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-4
This is also a rather pointless set of images without proper qualification. The claim ‘all vessels’ means
nothing unless the capture mechansim is defined. If AIS then the majority of river users don’t have it,
if radar tracked we need to know what in reality can be tracked, say at Wrabness where there is a
great deal of concern?
The images refer to the section of the report that is reproduced below. It is clear that the
‘capture mechanisim’ was AIS and clearly states that it is ‘Commercial Vessel Tracks and
Movements on the Stour’. ‘All vessels’ within this section are therefore commercial or using
AIS as stated.
The use of AIS to capture this information as stated in the report. Radar was not used as this
was not in the scope of this NRA analysis.
2.3.1 Commercial Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour
Commercial vessel movements for vessels using the main channel to Mistley were studied, see
Figure 4 to Figure 7. Using Automatic Identification System data, the tracks of three coaster
sized vessels were plotted and their tracks logged to provide details of the passage through
the river for their arrival and departure to/from Mistley. The data indicates that as expected
the vessels navigate using the main channel and at no time do they enter any of the areas
marked out as proposed sites of the mussel farms.
The details of the three coaster sized vessels used are in Table 3 and are typical of the vessel
types that use T W Logistics Ltd (TWL) at Mistley.
The wording in this section has been updated to provide further clarity.
From my perspective if the tracks are supposedly all movements in September the report
demonstrates that there are many vessels being missed. I have transited the selected areas several
times in several different boats from a dingy to 28’ and they are not shown!
As above
The statement under local regulations is as far as ‘real life’ is concerned total rubbish. In reality
whether correct or not, many vessels pass through the area without monitoring the appropriate
channels and many do not have VHF. I haven’t had chance to check the legislation but I don’t recall a
mandatory requirement to carry a marine VHF or for leisure users to contact VTS. As a recent fatal
accident in Harwich Harbour shows - there are flaws…
Guidance is given within Harwich Haven Authority’s Yachting Guide. VHF for Charter vessels is
a requirement under MCA vessel coding.
The RYA give the following advice - The Merchant Shipping (Radio Installations) Regulations
1998 do not apply to Pleasure Vessels, it is therefore not mandatory for a Pleasure Vessel to
have a "radio installation" on board. It is however highly recommended that vessels are
equipped with maritime radio equipment suitable for the area of operation. See Emergency
Distress Alerting for further guidance on equipping your boat.
With reference to regulation –
If you go boating on or near the coast the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea (IRPCS or COLREGs) will apply to you, as the COLREGs, as defined in rule 1, apply to all
vessels upon the high seas and waters connected to the high seas which are navigable by
seagoing vessels.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-5
It is essential that you know these rules well enough to be clear when you are the stand on
vessel, when you are the give way vessel and what the of correct action to take is when in close
quarters with other vessels and to avoid a collision
Byelaws and Local Regulations
Harbour Authorities may have local byelaws in force which apply to leisure boats such as speed
limits within the harbour, restricted areas, and requirements to monitor specific VHF channels.
Establishing what these are should be part of your passage planning.
Harbour Authorities may have their own website and publish small boat guides e.g.
Harwich Haven Authority has byelaws, directions, port safety information and a Yachting
Guide on their website.
Where is the evidence to show that Mussel operations pose no issue to navigation, particularly when
so few leisure vessel movements are fully shown.
The NRA provides a detailed study of navigation of the Stour.
The title of the page rather unfortunately gives away the purpose of the chart, ‘Stour Mussel Farm
Navigation Support'
The title meaning has been misread.
It is an interdepartmental title used by in house Marico data support service. This title is used
by Marico GIS department in support to the staff compiling the NRA report.
--------------------------
Page 12/13
2.4.2 This statement rather proves my comment above because clearly there is no requirement to
contact Harwich VTS if under 50GT so why imply there is and everything is under a controlled
movement regime when it is not?
Guidance is given within Harwich Haven Authority’s Yachting Guide.
It is not implied in the report that everything is under a controlled movement regime. However,
please note the following from HHA–
Navigational Safety
The principal deep-water navigational channels within Harwich Harbour are well marked by
buoys and lights. These channels are in constant use by large deep-draughted vessels.
Yachtsmen are advised to keep well clear whenever possible and use the recommended yacht
tracks. When main channels have to be crossed, this should be done as nearly as practicable
at right angles. Avoid crossing the bows of on-coming commercial traffic. Large container
ships, in particular, have very restricted visibility for quite a distance ahead when carrying a
deck cargo of containers. (You may be able to see her clearly, but can she see you?). Most
yachtsmen take a justifiable pride in the responsible way they conduct themselves. Part of this
is a realisation that hindering the passage of large commercial vessels is not only bad manners,
but downright dangerous to themselves and their crews. Yachtsmen are particularly requested
to remind themselves and observe the content and spirit of Rules 9(b) and (d), 18(b) and
18(d)(i) of the Collision Regulations and also the Harwich Haven Authority Byelaws. Anchoring
Leisure vessels should avoid anchoring within, or near to, navigational channels and
commercial anchorages. Where necessary to do so, they should comply with the requirements
of Collision Regulation Rule 30 and exercise heightened navigational awareness.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-6
COLLISION RULES
Rule 9(b) A Vessel of less than 20m in length or sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of
a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway. Rule 9(d) A vessel
shall not cross a narrow channel or fairway if such crossing impedes the passage of a vessel
which can safely navigate only within such channel or fairway. The latter vessel may use the
sound signal prescribed in Rule 34(d) if in doubt as to the intention of the crossing vessel. Rule
18(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: (i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre; (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing. Rule 18(d)(i)
Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to
manoeuvre shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a
vessel constrained by her draught, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.
GENERAL DIRECTIONS FOR NAVIGATION No.10.
Harwich Traffic System 10.2 (i) The Master of every small vessel shall not impede the passage
of a vessel, which can safely navigate only within the Harwich Traffic System. 10.2 (xi) The
Master of every small vessel shall not navigate or make use of the anchorages, Harwich Traffic
System or approaches to wharves, piers and jetties in such a way as to cause obstruction or
impede regulated vessels. 10.2 (xiii) The Master of every small vessel shall maintain a minimum
distance of 100 metres from any vessel berthed alongside or at anchor and engaged in loading
or discharging dangerous substances as indicated by the vessel displaying an all round red light
by night or a red flag by day in accordance with the Dangerous Substances in the Harbour Area
Regulations 1987. 10.5 (i) The Master of every small vessel shall make use of the
Recommended Track for Yachts and channel crossing positions whenever practicable when
transiting the Authority’s area.
2.5 A misleading reference as used within this report because the patrol operates in the active area of
the harbour and docksides - we have all seen it in operation and understand what it does.
Guidance from Harwich Haven Authority’s Yachting Guide states:
Harbour Patrol The Harwich Haven Authority maintains a regular patrol of the Haven
throughout the year. In addition, during the summer months weekends, between the hours of
0800 to 1800, these patrols are maintained to provide assistance and advice to yachtsmen,
and to ensure that the main channel is kept clear for the transit of commercial shipping. The
weekend Harbour patrol launch maintains a listening watch on VHF Channel 71. The crew will
be pleased to offer advice and information on the Harbour and its approaches.
In general it does NOT operate in the area being considered for the Mussel beds or the vessels near
them.
As above.
As an aside I don’t understand why there is such an enormous amount of text regarding large
commercial vessels operating in Harwich Harbour - there is no issue here, it does not matter what
Harwich, the VTS and commercial vessels do because they either stop at Harwich/Felixstowe or the
follow navigation channels which obviously do not impede mussel growing activities. Can this simple
statement be made and then a document produced which reflects the areas of interest and concern
and does not let them become drowned amongst the ’noise’.?
All stakeholders on the River were consulted not just small craft. The NRA was to consider ALL
vessel traffic using the river. The NRA covers baseline risk (before) and resultant risk (after)
introduction of the Mussel Farms. This is detailed within the report.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-7
--------------------------
Page 14
2.9 This is not the area of moorings for the River Stour, it is the area of moorings which are under
juresdiction of The Stour Sailing Clubs lease - there are plenty of moorings elsewhere. Please correct
this.
These are moorings on the River Stour.
Ownership is shown in Table 4: River Stour Small Craft Moorings. The ownership or lease will
have no bearing on the NRA results.
Table 4 Given Manningtree has the most developed moorings allocation system it is odd you have no
detail in the table (it was used a trial horse by HHA for all other moorings systems).
Noted
--------------------------
Page 15/16
2.9.2 Rubbish - this clearly shows you have been unable to quantify what leisure boat users actually
do. Making wild statements with no evidence simply goes to show what a poor quality document this
is - arriving at conclusions based on those erroneous statements is very unprofessional.
The farms do not impede the channel to Shotley Marina. There is no direct effect on the
navigation into this marina.
2.10 wrong, I suggest you go and check the flow in variious places including Wrabness. Or simpler, go
and talk to those that can row at 2 to 3 kts or more but cannot make headway against the tide…
The tidal information was a direct lift from the Harwich Harbour Tidal Stream Atlas provided
by Harwich Harbour Authority. If documented evidence to the contrary is available please
provide this data.
--------------------------
Page 17
3 As a river user and one that represents a Stour based Sailing club there was a single meeting before
this report was generated, I was unfortunately unable to attend the second meeting.
Noted
Again, there are acres of this report assessing the issues affecting commercial traffic when we all
already know there will be very little.
Commercial traffic is duty bound to follow the marked navigation travels..
The study is intended to include ALL river traffic.
It would be an assumption to say that the commercial traffic will follow marked navigation.
They are not duty bound by any means, they are free to navigate wherever they have the safe
depth and space to do so.
For information this is a RYA recommendation on COLREGS and Marine law. –
COLREGs
If you go boating on or near the coast the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea (IRPCS or COLREGs) will apply to you, as the COLREGs, as defined in rule 1, apply to all
vessels upon the high seas and waters connected to the high seas which are navigable by
seagoing vessels.
It is essential that you know these rules well enough to be clear when you are the stand on
vessel, when you are the give way vessel and what the of correct action to take is when in close
quarters with other vessels and to avoid a collision.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-8
As well as the steering and sailing rules, the COLREGs dictate what day shapes and navigation
lights a vessel must display to indicate its status to other vessels and when and what sound
and light signals it must make.
Many nautical publications include core information from the COLREGs. The full text of the
regulations is available in MSN 1781. The RYA publication G2 - International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, available from the RYA shop, has been prepared with the pleasure
craft skipper in mind and includes notes to help yachtsmen interpret and apply the rules.
The COLREGs do not give one vessel "right of way" over another and are clear that the stand
on vessel must also take action if the action of the give way vessel alone is not sufficient to
prevent a collision (or if the give way vessel takes no action). All the rules, relevant to a
situation must be considered before decisions are made, as must the situation and the
handling characteristics of the boats involved.
MArking of crab boats has already been stated as undesirable, furthermore the applicants do not wish
to use crab pots so there is nothing to mark?
Already answered.
-------------------------
Page 18
3.1 Surely under no circumstances should the mussel area be allowed to impinge on the navigable
channel or lines between channel marks that mark it?
Addressed in the recommendations.
--------------------------
Page 19 - finally the largest number of river users are being included..
Yes, this is correct along with all other river users.
3.1 cont Crab pots need to be clarified and removed as an entity if indeed they are not planned to be
used so minds cannot change in the future without a reassessment taking place.
Already answered.
—————————————
Page 20
As was clearly discussed at the meeting this was NOT the sole brief of the meeting as far as those
present were concerned (I asked just that question and it was clarified by the chair). Both NAvigational
issues and the consulation process were discussed in some detail.
The meeting was called by Marico in order to glean concerns and views of local river users as
part of the stakeholder consultation for the NRA, as it is always done during a NRA project. It
was agreed to meet together rather than individually. The meeting WAS to discuss
navigational risk.
Sorry - wrong yacht club!
Noted with thanks – removed
—————————————
Page 21 to 32 risk assessment
I am struggling to agree with the risk strategy in use when leisure/small vessels are being considered,
as the text says ‘the methodology is intended for ‘port marine safety code'. The river Stour in general IS
NOT A PORT it is an estuary and I question the application of the risk methodology as is being used at
present. I don’t believe it applies as it stands.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-9
The River Stour falls within the Statutory Harbour Authority limits for Harwich Harbour.
The ‘Port marine safety code’ establishes a national standard for every aspect of port marine
safety and aims to enhance safety for those who use or work in ports, their ships, passengers
and the environment. The code applies to all harbour authorities in the UK that have statutory
powers and duties.
Information is available from the Department for Transport (DfT) or the Maritime and
Coastguard Agency (MCA) on the Port Marine Safety Code.
The River Stour does fall within a port as defined by the DfT in the Port Marine Safety Code.
I also find it uncomfortable that the first table is in terms of financial loss rather than danger to life
when a vast majority of river users are not in valuable vessels.
Please read the methodology correctly – it does not refer just to financial loss.
If I am to accept the risk assessments then the number of leisure vessel movements tracked must be
far better than the 5 to 10% as has been previously stated.
Please support this statement.
If I am to accept the risk assessments as they stand how could a fatal accident occur in sight of HHA
directly within the VTS?
VTS definition –
A service implemented by a competent authority, VTS is designed to improve the safety and
efficiency of navigation, safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment.
VTS is governed by SOLAS Chapter V Regulation 12 together with the Guidelines for Vessel
Traffic Services [IMO Resolution A.857(20)] adopted by the International Maritime
Organization on 27 November 1997.
5 PLEASE stop referring to all vessels when the report has clearly not included the majority of river
stour movements in the vicinity of the proposed mussel beds - which are LEISURE/SMALL BOAT USERS.
This is in the context of the NRA and not the track information that you referred to earlier.
All vessels were included as per the vessel NRA grouping.
I may be wrong but I cannot see an adjustment in risk of injury or death between a large steel dredger
and by comparison a relatively fragile grp or wooden yacht. MAybe that is why the fatal accident was
an unlikely event - before it happened?
This is covered within the Most Likely – Worst Credible scoring. Please refer to methodology.
6 Monitoring - rubbish, the areas of the mussel beds are not in practical terms monitored
The area within HHA SHA is monitored by VTS. Please refer to HHA VTS information.
Again commercial operations are highly unlikely to be affected by the proposed mussel beds - THEY
DO NOT USE THE SAME PEICE OF WATER.
As stated before, all vessels and operations were considered.
USage - not always according to the applicants report.
?
—————————————
Page 33
7) THere are so many errors and misleading statements together with incomplete movement data
that conclusions are unreliable at present. Recommendations based upon then are therefore highly
dubious.
? –There is not enough detail in the comment to give a clear response.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright H-10
Yet again further consultation excludes leisure/small boat users so as a minimum HASA should be
included. I say again, the largest number of vessel movements in the river Stour in the vicinity of the
proposed mussel beds IS NOT COMMERCIAL it is LEISURE so this report is completely inappropriate
and is largely flawed because is it.
As stated before, all vessels and operations were considered
—————————————
Conclusion:-
In the short time given to reply (two weeks is just not enough) it is not possible to make a sensible
assessment of the many tables in the next section of the report. However, it is clear that much of the
source data is flawed, particularly that covering our own areas of interest, so conclusions and actions
based upon them cannot possibly be reliable.
All vessels and operations were considered
The report expends a great deal of effort (not to mention paper) demonstrating what is already pretty
obvious - that commercial activity within the main port of Harwich is unlikely to be affected by the
Mussel farm application. Given the areas identified in the application are not within the active
navigable channel (except small incursions that need to be address as referred to in the earlier text) it
is difficult to see how commercial traffic operating in the navigation channel could have an incident
with a mussel vessel outside of it.
All vessels and operations were considered
The report then goes on to show that commercial activity in the Stour Estuary itself is also unlikely to
be affected and for the reasons as given above it - that is really no surprise.
Not quite true! There is a number of issues that may have caused an adverse effect to the
navigation of commercial traffic. The NRA had to include all river users to assess the possible
impact. The report also shows that the effect on small craft and leisure users is unlikely.
What is a surprise is that so much report content has been generated about those commercial
activities in the estuary (based largely on three AIS tracked movements!), when the whole point of the
questions being raised is the effect and risk to the many hundreds of leisure/small boat movements
that DO NOT use the main navigational channels and which unbelievably still remain completely un-
quantifed.
The NRA was undertaken for all users of the river and NOT just for small vessel and leisure
craft.
Therefore, whilst the report may be very thorough for some aspects, it is completely inadequate for
our own, and given it was commissioned to answer our collective concerns about the risks to
navigation of small and/or leisure boats and the many movements it is simply not fit for purpose.
The NRA was not commissioned to answer solely the yacht clubs collective concerns, as stated
before, the yacht and sailing clubs were included as stakeholders within the NRA for ALL river
users. An NRA for one user group only would not fit for purpose as you all interact on the river.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright I-1
Annex I Combined HASA Response
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright I-2
Combined Harwich Area Sailing Association response to the Marico NRA
Draft Number 2
We are responding formally to the draft Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) produced by the applicant’s consultants on the following points: (no order of priority implied). It is based upon the fact that this report does not fully address issues of concern recorded by the very many people who have responded to the application which claims special rights in the River Stour.
1. River Use The applicant’s consultants have based their assessment of river usage on data that relies solely upon AIS tracks and is not complete or fully reflective of the real usage and therefore the statement in 2.4 of the Marico report which refers to “all vessels’ is incorrect.
HHA have statutory powers laid out in UK law: 2.4 of the report, ‘all vessels’ is correct. 2.4 reproduced below:
2.4 LOCAL REGULATIONS HHA has statutory powers to regulate commercial and leisure vessels within the HHA Area of Jurisdiction which includes the River Stour (see Figure 12), and is responsible for the navigational safety and traffic regulation of all vessels bound to and from the Haven Ports of Felixstowe, Harwich International, Harwich Navyard, Ipswich, and Mistley. All vessels arriving at or sailing from the Haven Ports, or on passage through the Harwich Seaward Area, must report to Harwich Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) and comply with VTS Rules. The Reporting Procedures and VTS Rules are set in the General Directions for Navigation and published in the Admiralty List of Radio Signals.
However, I do not believe that the correct section of the report has been referred to in comment 1.The section queried is in fact Section 2.3.1which refers to data usage as queried in the above comment and it is this that has been responded to below. ‘
‘All vessels’ within this section are commercial or with AIS as stated in section 2.3.1reproduced below.. The term ‘all vessels’ at this point refers to the vessels studied within this section.
2.3.1 Commercial Vessel Tracks and Movements on the Stour
Commercial vessel movements for vessels using the main channel to Mistley were studied, see Figure 4 to Figure 7. Using Automatic Identification System data, the tracks of three coaster sized vessels were plotted and their tracks logged to provide details of the passage through the river for their arrival and departure to/from Mistley. The data indicates that as expected the vessels navigate using the main channel and at no time do they enter any of the areas marked out as proposed sites of the mussel farms.
The details of the three coaster sized vessels used are in Table 3 and are typical of the vessel types that use T W Logistics Ltd (TWL) at Mistley. The wording in this section has been updated to provide further clarity. The NRA was not solely based around AIS data. The whole of the river and craft types and users where included and considered. It is incorrect to state that Marico only based the report on AIS data and tracks. The hazard logs in the NRA include all vessel types with and without AIS.
The vast majority of recreational craft in the river do not carry AIS equipment owing to size of craft, need, craft’s range of use, cost, etc.
This is understood and the AIS data was used for the collection of commercial tracks, as stated in the report. The lack of AIS use on recreational craft is fully understood, this is the
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright I-3
reason why they are not included within the AIS track data. As stated before ‘all vessels’ refers to all commercial vessels that where tracked and not ‘all vessels’ using the river. The wording in this section has been updated to provide further clarity. .
Through the sole use of AIS, the NRA does not accurately take into account the volume or frequency of recreational craft in the river and as such vastly underestimates true recreational usage.
This statement needs quantifying. As stated the previous response, the NRA is not a result of data solely received by AIS, it is incorrect to state so. At no time does the report state that AIS was the only source of data. How has it been underestimated? The report does state that the river is used by leisure craft and has a number of small craft moorings, marinas and yacht/sailing clubs. This presence of which indicates that there is a high usage of the river by small craft. The fact that the yacht and sailing clubs were consulted by Marico is evidence that the recreational usage was understood and was considered to be affected. It was not by no means underestimated.
There is no requirement from HHA for recreational vessels to report to Harwich VTS. They are encouraged to monitor the VTS channel so as to be aware of big ship movements but are not required to do so.
This is correct. However, the monitoring of VHF is recommended at all times for all information, movement and safety broadcasts and not only for the receipt of safety broadcasts for large vessel movements.
The NRA should have used radar and visual surveys – for example a 2 week summer survey - conducted alongside AIS-A and AIS-B data.
The NRA was conducted within the limits agreed with the client.
Radar would not indicate vessel types, only rough target size, course and speed etc. Radar with AIS overlay would only ID vessels with AIS fitted. A visual confirmation of the Radar target would be the only method that would confirm target type etc. This would require the temporary radar sites to be manned 24/7 for logging of visual confirmations of radar targets for the duration of the study.
2. Mitigation that allows us “to live together” It is unlikely to be helpful to redo the flawed NRA river use figures at this stage as it would incur large time and cost implications for everyone involved and that the effort could be more usefully put to agreeing mitigation by way of conditions of operation to be included in the Several Order, if granted!
This is stated within the recommendations in the form of an MoU.
a. No Marker Buoys Use of marker buoys to delineate the mussel plots is unacceptable to leisure users because of the risk of entanglement and consequent danger of disabled vessels being carried on the ebb tide into Harwich Harbour deep water channels.
At the time of the report being drafted the use of crab pots was not completely ruled out. It is our understanding that crab pots will no longer be used. Therefore, the use of pots was considered within the NRA as an additional hazard. Removing the pots from the NRA would reduce the hazard used within the assessment. The risk of entanglement was included and scored within the NRA.
b. No Crab Pots
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright I-4
We want to clarify, in writing, the decision not to use crab pots or plot markers as agreed at the meeting of 30th September with the applicants. HHA & The applicant are both opposed to the use of any markers for their own reasons. Nonetheless each in agreement with the policy.
It is our understanding that crab pots will no longer be used. c. Redefine Size of Plots Address the issues regarding the size of plots 1, 3 & 4 directly with Graham Osborne (Wash Mussels) and agree to have the plot boundary amended or suitable conditions drafted to alleviate our concerns. For Wash Mussels response.
d. Direct talks with Wash Mussels
To develop and agree conditions to be included in the Several Order. We understand that this is normally the stage which occurs after an NRA is supplied by applicants, and it is a vital step that we don’t want to miss as it is the only opportunity to agree mitigation measures. Talks to be followed by a written ‘without prejudice’ agreement which is to be included in the Order by DEFRA.
This is stated within the recommendations in the form of an MoU. 3. Other Responses Individual Clubs/organisations may also respond to the NRA supporting the responses already made by Timothy Goodwin - Stour Sailing Club, Peter Holborn & Phill Barnes - Shotley Point Yacht Club. The key points are likely to be:- a. Main issues haven’t been correctly addressed, taking into account the timeline which was only available after the NRA was drafted.
No explanation of ‘main issues’. Is this directed at the NRA or other issues? b. Reservations about the thoroughness of the original environmental statements, the NRA and other changes in the application. Marico are not involved in environmental statements. However, the NRA was undertaken to assess the impact of the operations on navigation for ALL users of the River Stour. c. All of the aforementioned should lead to a further consultation period before any consideration of a 5 year Order. Not part of the NRA, for Wash Mussels/Peter Scott to comment d. Yachtsmen and other leisure users of the Stour are concerned about the implications of the proposed mussel operation on conservation of biodiversity in the Stour estuary and request that DEFRA take into account the responses of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Essex Wildlife Trust which are included as addenda hereto. It is our understanding that in this respect the processes required under UK and European legislation have not been followed to date. EIA and not part of the NRA, for Wash Mussels to comment e. The active participation of the Stour and Orwell Estuary Management Group ought to be encouraged. This body is the local authority combined interest Group and in our opinion should have been consulted directly before the public consultation took place.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright I-5
Wash Mussels/Peter Scott to comment
4. Establish a Communications Link and Problem Resolution Forum It is our opinion that a regular open communications link between the users and the applicant would help to remove many of the possible problems and serve as a liaison channel through which both parties could seek to establish a safe working relationship. This was included within the NRA recommendations. If there are any outstanding issues or problems which can’t be agreed, we need to establish a forum or body to resolve them in some way that is acceptable to both users and applicant. Relevant points from Paul Rodhouse which should be considered:- (not part of the response but info for HASA members to consider when editing the draft above.
1. Graham Osborne seems to be straightforward.
2. We have won the crab potting argument.
3. With the Harwich Harbour Authority, Wash Mussels and all other users against laying buoys to mark the mussel plots it looks as if we will win that argument as well.
4. If there are only two vessels, like the one we saw yesterday, towing a pair of dredges each at low speed, then there seems to be a minimal risk of collision - especially as they will not be working at peak times for leisure users.
5. From what we heard yesterday it seems unlikely that the size of the operation will increase after the 5 year trial period but we should be vigilant when the time comes for a new application.
6. We should also be vigilant for any plan to apply for a crab potting licence in future.
7. Rather than do more than you have already to annotate the MARICO document I suggest that there should be a clear and concise response on one page from the combined Yacht clubs which DEFRA can read separately with no possibility of misunderstanding.
Additional information recently obtained by Paul from RSPB
RSPB have submitted a very detail and critical response which must cause DEFRA great concern
We should support the RSPB response on grounds of enjoyment of the natural beauty of the river
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-1
Annex J Note on Section 7 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) act
1967
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-2
NOTE ON SECTION 7 OF THE SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) ACT 1967
This note is prepared by Peter Scott, shellfish law specialist with Harrison Clark Rickerbys. It considers
concerns with regard to prospective liabilities of third parties to the grantees of a several order for
shellfish applied for under section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 arising from the provisions
of section 7 of the 1967 Act.
These concerns fall into a number of areas, including damage by vessels in the course of navigation,
fishing vessels’ gear, and potential blinding of shellfish beds by dredged material returned under
statutory authority to the water column.
Section 7 of the 1967 Act establishes a generally prosecutable criminal offence and a tort of breach of
statutory duty in relation to a number of operations causing damage to shellfish or shellfish fisheries,
subject to a number of exceptions. The relevant sub-sections are 7(4) and (5) which as amended by
the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009 read as follows:-
“(4)Subject to subsection (5) of this section, if within the limits of the area of the fishery with respect to which the right
of several fishery is conferred or in any part of that area described for the purposes of this subsection in the order, or
within the limits of any such private shellfish bed, any person other than the grantees or an agent or employee of theirs
or, as the case may be, the owner or an agent or employee of his knowingly does any of the following things, namely—
(a)uses any implement of fishing except—
(i)a line and hook; or
(ii)a net adapted solely for catching floating fish and so used as not to disturb or injure in any manner shellfish of the
description in question or any bed therefor or the fishery therefor; or
(iii)in the case of several fishery, an implement of a type specified in the order and so used as not to disturb
or injure in any manner shellfish of the description in question.
(b)dredges for any ballast or other substance except under a lawful authority for improving the navigation;
(c)deposits any ballast, rubbish or other substance;
(d)places any implement, apparatus or thing prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to any such shellfish, bed or fishery
except for a lawful purpose of navigation or anchorage;
(e)disturbs or injures in any manner, except for a lawful purpose of navigation or anchorage, any such shellfish, bed or
fishery;
he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first
offence, level 3 on the standard scale, or, in the case of a second offence, level 3 on the standard scale, or,
in the case of a third or subsequent offence, level 3 on the standard scale, and shall also be liable to make
full compensation to the grantees or, as the case may be, owner for all damage sustained by them or him by
reason of the unlawful act; and such compensation in default of payment may be recovered from him by the
grantees or owner as the case may be by proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction whether he has
been prosecuted for or convicted of the offence in question or not.
(5)Nothing in subsection (4) of this section shall make it unlawful for any person to do any of the things therein
mentioned—
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-3
(a)in the case of a right of several fishery granted by an order under section 1 of this Act, if at the time of his doing that
thing the limits of the area of the fishery within which that right is exercisable or of the part of that area described for
the purposes of the said subsection (4) in the order are not sufficiently marked out in manner prescribed by or under the
order or if notice of those limits has not been given to that person in manner so prescribed;
(b)in the case of a private shellfish bed owned by any person independently of this Act, if the bed is not sufficiently
marked out and known as such.
(6)In this section “the grantees” means the persons for the time being entitled to the right of several fishery conferred
by the order under section 1 of this Act.”
The relevant operations are considered alongside the exceptions relevant to those operations.
Navigation
The exercise of the public right of navigation is expressed by section 7 to be unrestricted by the order.
TWL Mistley (representation 171) state: “In the event of limitations to free movements within the
existing parameters in the river and its estuary, areas of the river may become more congested,
particularly with smaller leisure craft, which may have both operational and safety implications. This
would not be acceptable.” There is no restriction on navigation.
Concerns have been expressed in relation to the potential for claim under section 7 in relation to wash
from propulsion units of vessels (e.g. TWL representation 171 para 2). Section 7(4)(e) creates a liability
in relation to a person who “disturbs or injures in any manner, except for a lawful purpose of
navigation or anchorage, any such shellfish, bed or fishery”. The question then arises as to what
constitutes a lawful purpose of navigation or anchorage.
William Gann v The Free Fishers of Whitstable 11 E.R.1305 establishes that a vessel may, as matter of
choice, anchor within the area granted by the Crown as an exclusive fishery for oysters. It was held
that a claim for a payment for anchorage could not be made on the basis of the plaintiff’s claimed
ownership of the soil. The judgement then considers the extent to which the right of anchorage might
be abrogated by the grant of a fishery. Lord Westbury stated: “The case appears to me to depend on
principles which have long been settled….. The right to anchor is a necessary part of the right of
navigation because it is essential for the full enjoyment of that right. If the Crown therefore grants
part of the bed or soil of an estuary or navigable river, the grantee takes subject to the public right,
and he cannot in respect of his ownership of the soil make any claim or demand, even if it be expressly
granted to him, which in any way interferes with the enjoyment of the public right…..The present
fishery of the Respondents must be taken to have been [granted by the Crown to a subject]. And the
grant might include a portion of the soil for the purpose of the fishery. But this, like every other grant,
whenever made must have been subject to the public right of navigation……the grant by the Crown of
any part of the bed or soil of this estuary below low-water mark, whether for a fishery or not, must by
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-4
the common law have been subject to the public right of navigation, of which the right to anchor is an
essential part.”
The disturbance of sediment during the course of navigation by a vessel is a necessary consequence
of navigation when a vessel navigates in shallow water, and therefore there is no liability under section
7 for any damage caused by such a vessel navigating notwithstanding any damage to the mussel beds,
whether or not the vessel is navigating in or (as per Hutchison Ports comments in representation 108
and TWL representations 171 para 2) adjacent to it. Port authorities in relation to European marine
sites do have obligations under the transposition of the Birds and Habitats Directives, as was illustrated
in the case of R (Akester) v DEFRA [2010] Env LR 33 in respect of the harbour authority for Lymington
pier (which was the same company as the ferry operator rather than the harbour authority for
Lymington river).
The question of anchoring in a several fishery was addressed by A L Smith LJ in Attorney-General
(Moore) v Wright [1897] 2 QB 318 “The defendant is the lessee of the owner of the several fishery
opposite to the town of Leigh, who is therefore prima facie owner of the soil underneath such fishery.
Now take it for the purposes of today that he is owner of the soil at the locus in quo. Is he absolute
owner, or is he owner subject to certain rights? It is beyond all question that he is owner subject to
the common law right of all Her Majesty’s subjects, and of all frequenting the sea, to pass and repass
and navigate over the place in question, and, as incident to that navigation, to anchor in the ordinary
mode of navigation.” It is this general right of all using the sea that is referred to in section 7 as forming
an exception to the general principle that damage to the shellfish bed protected by a several order, or
the use of instruments capable of causing such damage, constitutes an offence and a breach of
statutory duty.
The concerns expressed by Harwich Haven Authority (representation 98 paras 1 and 5) that anchoring
in the mussel areas will be restricted therefore do not apply because the general right of navigation
includes this. Similarly with regard to dragging anchors, the securing of a vessel with an anchor applies
in whatever location the vessel is found, and there appears to be no distinction in law in theory
between a vessel which anchors in one location followed by another location and a vessel whose
anchor drags between the same location under conditions for example of strong winds. Such a
situation is typical of an emergency not least because the vessel presents a danger to other vessels. In
some circumstances marine safety requires or advises controlled dragging of an anchor rather than
weighing anchor and reanchoring or abandoning the anchor concerned. This scenario is therefore
within the public right of navigation, and immune from action. HHA’s paragraph 2 and Hutchison Ports
(representation 108) refer.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-5
It is suggested that the order would restrict the ability of the Haven Authority to establish new fixed
moorings within the mussel trial areas (paragraph 1). With one possible qualification, this is correct to
the extent that the agreement of the holder of the several order would be required to instal new fixed
moorings, as the establishment of such moorings is not part of the general right of navigation – they
can only be authorised by grant, implied grant, or sometimes custom. (A-G v Wright). The most
relevant case is perhaps Fowley Marine v Gafford [1968] 2QB 618. This related to oyster grounds at
Emsworth. The claimant to the oyster ground sued the defendant in relation to a permanent mooring
of two anchors and chain installed with permission of a predecessor in title. At trial the defendant
maintained a right to maintain it as an incident to the public right of navigation but did not proceed
with that in the Court of Appeal. Megaw J at first instance was very specific: “I hold that there is no
common law right to lay or maintain permanent moorings in another person's land without his
permission. Such a right may, of course, arise from custom or may be given by statute. Whether there
is here such a customary right I shall consider later, when I deal with the fifth issue. On the first issue,
the defendant fails. I reach this conclusion with satisfaction. To my mind it would be little less than
fantastic that, in the absence of statute or proved local custom, the law should allow anyone
navigating a ship or vessel, including every amateur yachtsman, to place bulky objects on another's
land, without permission, and to retain them there, presumably for ever, as being "an ordinary
incident of navigation."
It was held that giving permission for such moorings did not part with possession of the ground but
was evidence of title. In many instances, however, there is a statutory power on the part of the
harbour authority to establish fixed moorings. In that case that statutory power will be overriding.
As to the grounding of vessels, the most relevant authority is The Bien [1911] P 40. A Norwegian brig
had foundered in the Medway, and the owners under the direction of the harbour master raised it
and moved it to a position where it grounded on an oyster bed. It moved several times on the tide
and caused significant damage.
In the judgment it was noted that “It is undoubtedly and undeniably a fishery, vested by statute in the
persons who leased it to the plaintiff, and I am satisfied that it was a fishery in fact as well as in name.”
Hence it must be inferred that this fishery is one subject to the protection of the provisions of section
53 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1868 which are in the same terms as section 7.
The judge held that the harbourmaster was guilty of negligence in that he had special notice of the
fishery and could readily have put the vessel on ground which was not a fishery.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-6
The action of grounding a ship is perhaps the aspect of navigation most capable of damaging a shellfish
bed. The leading cases are Mayor of Colchester v Brooke and The Swift 85 LT 346. Express reference
was made to section 53 of the 1868 Act. The President, having concluded that the Act definitely
applied, noted that it was subject to the right of navigation, and continued: “Indeed, one may go one
step further, because if it can be shown that in the ordinary course of navigation it was necessary or
proper to touch the soil, whether with the vessel herself or by anchors, in that case there would be
such a right of grounding or anchoring, notwithstanding the ownership in the soil or in the oysters
upon it.” Therefore the concern expressed by Harwich Harbour Authority (representation 98
paragraph 2) in relation to a vessel losing steerage does not apply.
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-7
Dredging
No concern at this time is raised with regard to dredging within the area of the proposed order. The
concerns are in relation to dredging for navigational purposes adjacent to the proposed order sites,
and in relation to the discharge of dredged material into the water column within the estuary, which
may subsequently settle within the order sites.
It must be understood that section 7 only applies to acts “within the limits of the area of the fishery
with respect to which the right of several fishery is conferred”. Hence the execution of dredging
outwith the order area is prima facie not a breach of the section. However the prohibition of dredging
even within the designated area is qualified: “(b) dredges for any ballast or other substance except
under a lawful authority for improving the navigation”. Hence where there is statutory authority for
dredging, that authority will be exercisable notwithstanding the grant of the several order and any
consequent damage to the stock or the fishery, and the concern expressed by Harwich Harbour
Authority (representation 98) at paragraph 7 does not apply because of the statutory consents
obtained which are referred to there. TWL (representation 171 para 4) refer to precisely the same
consents.
One case which is informative with regard to damage to shellfish caused by the deposit of dredged
spoil is that of Seasalter Shellfish Ltd v Canterbury City Council 1986 WL 1255540. In this case the
damage was caused to oyster spat within a hatchery by way of an abstraction of seawater. The
relevant facts as found were that the harbour authority excavated anaerobic mud from west of the
east pier and deposited above and below mean high water springs. A causal connection was
established between the deposits of the dredgings and substantial losses of oyster larvae and spat of
the plaintiffs. The judge at first instance made findings that it was reasonably foreseeable to a person
in the position of the defendants that the deposit of anaerobic contaminated clay or mud on the shore
near the plaintiffs’ sea water intake and wholly or partly below mean high water would be likely to
injure larvae and spat within the plaintiffs’ oyster hatchery, and that the defendants had no statutory
authority to deposit material dredged from Whitstable Harbour.
The appeal was against a finding against the plaintiffs in respect of causation, and failed. Nevertheless
it does appear that (a) in principle liability for damage to a shellfishery by the deposit of contaminated
spoil within an estuary can arise (b) a statutory authority may have a duty of care to the owner of a
shellfishery but (c) statutory authority would be a complete defence to any claim.
Given therefore that both dredging for recharge and the release of sediment into the water column
in the Stour are both covered by statutory consents, statutory authority applies, and there is no reason
for the statutory authorities in respect of the harbours within the estuary to be concerned with regard
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-8
to the possibility of claim. It should also be noted that in relation to dispersed sediments (as opposed
to the Whitstable case where the dredgings were physically deposited upon the foreshore) to establish
a causal connection between any specific alleged damage and any specific dredging operation would
be extremely difficult if not virtually impossible. TWL’s representation 171 para 6 makes clear that the
sediments removed in maintenance dredging of the berths or navigable channel are not dumped but
dispersed in the water column from the locations in which they arise.
However, for the better reassurance of statutory undertakers DEFRA has agreed to the inclusion of a
further provision in the proposed order in the following terms:
Statutory undertakers
1.—(1) Nothing in this Order prejudicially affects the lawful activities of a statutory undertaker in exercising that undertaker’s statutory functions or authority.
(1) In paragraph 1 “statutory undertaker” has the meaning given in section 262(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990([1]) and article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995([2]) and includes—
(a) a person running a telecommunications code system, as defined in paragraph 1(1) of
Schedule 4 to the Telecommunications Act 1984([3]); and
(b) any person or body carrying out coast protection work within the meaning of the Coast
Protection Act 1949([4]) in accordance with any consent or approval under that Act.
Pollution
Concerns have been raised (e.g. by Harwich Haven Authority representation 98) that the owner of the
shellfish beds if confirmed could have a right of action in relation to pollution of them by vessels
navigating the Stour or the Orwell. Civil liability in relation to any such loss can only be based upon an
action in negligence, and the claimant cannot rely on res ipsa loquitur to put the burden of proof on
the master or owner of the ship concerned. Furthermore, necessity would be a defence (Esso
Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport Corporation HL [1956] AC 218). The concern expressed by Harwich
Haven Authority (representation 98 para 2) in relation to accidental damage in the event of an oil spill
therefore does not apply.
Cases specifically referring to sewage pollution have been the cases most frequently associated with
the predecessor of section 7, which arose from concerns in relation to bacterial contamination of
shellfish in the period from 1900 to 1910. The leading cases were Foster v Warblington Urban Council
[1906] KB 648 Owen v Faversham Corporation [1908] 73 JP 33 and Hobart v Southend-on-Sea
Corporation 75 LJKB 305. These were actions in nuisance. In Foster there was a direct discharge of
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-9
sewage into oyster ponds on the foreshore claimed by the plaintiff. This was a distinction drawn by
the defendants in Hobart, where the discharges were some distance from the fishery. The plaintiffs
relied upon section 53 not so much to rest the claim on it, but to negative the claim that the discharge
of sewage by the defendant so as to damage the shellfish bed was either lawful or authorised by
statute.
No concerns have been expressed in relation to potential claims against dischargers of pollution into
the estuary.
Non-native species
Harwich Harbour Authority (representation 98) raise at paragraph 3 an issue with regard to ballast
water management and non-native species. A similar issue is raised by TWL (representation 171) at
paragraph 2). The suggestion appears to be that the mussel beds could be adversely affected by the
introduction of non-native species by commercial vessels using the port in international trade not
complying with ballast water regulations in relation to exchange of water at sea. While section 7
presumably does include within its scope a potential claim against a third party for introduction of
alien predator species on to a shellfish bed (which would appear very difficult to prove) there appears
to be no precedent for any such claim in respect on any alien species in England or in the United States,
where there has been some academic discussion of the possibility of such claims in tort, even in
relation to Japanese knotweed. it is difficult to see that the presence of shellfish beds in the Stour
could or should deter any commercial traffic from using the Stour and Orwell ports on account of any
such risk.
Conclusions
Full consideration of the potential implications of the rights of the grantee of the proposed order in
relation to mussel fishery in the estuary of the River Stour suggests that current lawful activities should
not be prejudiced in any way by the grant of the order and that there is no legal basis for the
apprehensions on the part of the harbour authority and operators that the commercial operation of
the ports of Harwich or Mistley could be affected. The renewal of the order if applied for allows ample
opportunity for any such body to make representations that its future requirements as then identified
suggest the exclusion of some part of parts of the fishery from an extended several order if the trial is
successfully concluded, and for the decision-maker to act appropriately after balancing those concerns
with the benefits of renewal of the order.
1st December 2015
Peter Scott
Report No: 15UK1098 Commercial-in-Confidence Issue No: Draft B Stour Mussel Farm NRA
Wash Mussels Ltd/Parkinson Wright J-10
Harrison Clark Rickerbys
5 Deansway
Worcester
WR1 2JG