Jurassic Coast Marine Links 30/04/2014 Reference number 102771‐12
JURASSIC COAST MARINE LINKS PROJECT – PEER REVIEW
JURASSIC COAST MARINE LINKS JURASSIC COAST MARINE LINKS PROJECT – PEER REVIEW
IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Client/Project owner Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team
Project Jurassic Coast Marine Links
Study Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review
Type of document Final Report
Date 30/04/2014
File name 20140430 Jurassic Coast Marine Links Peer Review FINAL REPORT
Reference number 102771‐12
Confidentiality For Publication
Language English
Number of pages 84
APPROVAL
Version Name Position Date Modifications Senior Stephen Canning & Consultant Author Malcolm W. 25/03/2014 / Director Parrott TMG 1 Director / Dr David Connolly Checked by Principal 27/03/2014 & Alec Knox Consultant Approved Principal Alec Knox 28/03/2014 by Consultant Senior Stephen Canning & Consultant Changes in Author Malcolm W. 30/04/2014 / Director response to Parrott TMG comments 2 dated April Principal Checked by Alec Knox 30/04/2014 2014 and final Consultant meetings in Approved Principal Alec Knox 30/04/2014 April 2014 by Consultant
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 2/84
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 BACKGROUND TO STUDY 8
1.2 PEER REVIEW 9
1.3 GLOSSARY AND LIST OF CONSULTEES 10
1.4 FISHER ASSOCIATES AND BECKETT RANKINE 10 2. DEMAND ESTIMATION AND OUTLINE FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT 11
2.1 OVERVIEW 11
2.2 WATERBORNE TRANSPORT STUDY – USER SURVEY 11
2.3 WATERBORNE TRANSPORT AS A WHOLE 14
2.4 EAST DEVON PILOT 16
2.5 POOLE BAY PILOT 17
2.6 RELIABILITY 18
2.7 SUMMARY 19 3. TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES – EAST DEVON 20
3.1 OVERVIEW 20
3.2 SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT 20
3.3 LONGSHORE DRIFT 21
3.4 SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT PERCENTAGES AND EXPECTED DOWNTIME OF SERVICES 22
3.5 EXMOUTH 23
3.6 SIDMOUTH 26
3.7 SEATON 29
3.8 LYME REGIS 32
3.9 WEST BAY (BRIDPORT) 33
3.10 SUMMARY 36 4. POOLE BAY 39
4.1 OVERVIEW 39
4.2 SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT PERCENTAGES AND EXPECTED DOWNTIME OF SERVICES. 39
4.3 BOURNEMOUTH 40
4.4 POOLE 42
4.5 STUDLAND 47
4.6 SWANAGE 52
4.7 SUMMARY 55
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 3/84
5. VESSELS 58 6. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS 60
6.1 OVERVIEW 60
6.2 EAST DEVON PILOT 60
6.3 POOLE BAY PILOT 62
6.4 SUMMARY 64 7. OPERATOR INTEREST 66
7.1 OVERVIEW 66
7.2 LOCAL OPERATOR INTEREST 66
7.3 WIDER OPERATOR INTEREST 67
7.4 REGULATIONS AND OPERATIONAL MODELS 68
7.5 SUMMARY 77 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78
8.1 CONCLUSIONS 78
8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 78
8.3 NEXT STEPS 82
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 4/84
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Jurassic Coast Marine Links – Proposed Pilot Areas 9 Figure 2. Statistical Wave Distribution 20 Figure 3. Longshore Drift 21 Figure 4. Exmouth at the top of the picture with the warren spit clearly shown to the south‐west. Straight point is seen to the far right of the picture. The point lies to the north‐west tip of the town24 Figure 5. Exmouth Harbour 24 Figure 6. Exmouth Harbour showing the proposed berth at the bottom of the picture and the canal through to the tidal basin 25 Figure 7. Exmouth Harbour showing the canal through to the tidal basin marina 25 Figure 8. Exmouth Harbour ferry berth 26 Figure 9. Sidmouth showing the two breakwaters constructed in the 1990s. 27 Figure 10. Sidmouth Sea Front 27 Figure 11. Sidmouth East Groyne 28 Figure 12. Sidmouth sea front looking west 28 Figure 13. Sidmouth Sea Front looking west on a calm day 28 Figure 14. Seaton Harbour and the mouth of the River Axe 29 Figure 15. Seaton Sea Front. The red line shows the proposed position of the Beckett Rankine Pier30 Figure 16. Seaton (top right / centre of diagram) with Beer Point in the bottom left corner 30 Figure 17. Seaton Beach and Beer Head (distant left) 32 Figure 18. Lyme Regis Harbour, showing the inner and outer harbour. 32 Figure 19. Lyme Regis Harbour showing fishing boats berthed on the Cobb 33 Figure 20. West Bay showing inner and outer harbour 34 Figure 21. West Bay showing swell coming into harbour entrance 34 Figure 22. West Bay showing swell coming into harbour entrance 35 Figure 23. West Bay showing cut to Outer Harbour from Inner Basin. 35 Figure 24. West Bay showing Inner Basin. 35 Figure 25. West Bay Inner Basin showing sluice from River Brit open at LW. 36 Figure 26. Bournemouth Pier Showing the East Landing Stage 40 Figure 27. Bournemouth Pier – Aerial View 41 Figure 28. Bournemouth Pier showing East Landing Stage to 1.5‐2.0 Metres Swell Waves Approaching the Beach 41 Figure 29. Bournemouth Pier showing West Land Stage 42 Figure 30. Poole Harbour with the Port of Poole Top Centre 42 Figure 31. Poole Town Quay, the Main Berth for Tourist Ferries to Brownsea Island, Bournemouth and Swanage 43 Figure 32. Poole Port, Marina and Town Quay 43 Figure 33. Poole Harbour Entance, showing Sandbanks (top centre), Brownsea Island (top left) and South Haven (bottom centre). Swash Channel can clearly be seen on the bottom right 44 Figure 34. Sandbanks Chain Ferry 44 Figure 35. Sandbanks Chain Ferry viewed from South Haven Point on the Studland Peninsula 45 Figure 36. Poole Town Quay Looking West 46 Figure 37. Poole Town Quay Looking East showing the marina 46 Figure 38. Poole Town Quay Ferry and Tourist Boat Kiosks 46 Figure 39. Poole Town Quay Ferry and Tourist Boat Berths 47 Figure 40. Studland Bay, showing South Haven Point (top centre), Hanfast Point (Old Harry Rocks) and the village of Studland (bottom centre) 48
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 5/84
Figure 41. Option 2 – Plastic Modular Berth Showing Modules 50 Figure 42. Studland Knoll Beach National Trust Visitor Centre 51 Figure 43. Studland Knoll Beach looking North towards Sandbanks 51 Figure 44. Swanage Bay, showing Handfast Point (Old Harry Rocks) in the top right and Peveril Point (bottom centre). Ballard Point is SSW of Handfast Point 52 Figure 45. Swanage Bay and Swanage Pier, showing Handfast Point (Old Harry Rocks) in the top distance and Ballard Point seen inside Handfast Point 53 Figure 46. Swanage Pier and Peveril Point 53 Figure 47. Swanage Pier 54 Figure 48. Swanage Pier showing inner 15 metre Landing Stage 54 Figure 49. Swanage Pier 55 Figure 50. Next Steps Process 83
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 6/84
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Operational Downtime with 1 Metre Significant Wave Height 22 Table 2. Operatonal Downtime with 2 Metre Significant Wave Height 22 Table 3. Operational Time with 1 Metre Significant Wave Height 39 Table 4. Operational Downtime with 2 Metre Significant Wave Height 40
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Glossary of Terms Appendix B – List of Consultees
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 7/84
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to Study
1.1.1 The Dorset and East Devon Coast, popularly known as the Jurassic Coast, is England’s first natural World Heritage Site, having been inscribed in UNESCO’s World Heritage List in 2001. The site includes 95 miles (155 kilometres) of unspoilt cliffs and beaches from the westerly position of Orcombe Point at Exmouth in East Devon, through to Studland Bay in Dorset.
1.1.2 The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) designation provides the statutory landscape protection for the setting and presentation of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. Dorset AONB covers over 40% of the county from Poole Harbour to Lyme Regis and from Blandford to Chesil Beach. East Devon AONB covers 103 square miles of East Devon District (including the western section of the Jurassic Coast) stretching from Lyme Regis to Exmouth. The Dorset AONB is the 5th largest of 49 AONB’s in the UK.
1.1.3 There are policies within the Jurassic Coast, Dorset AONB and East Devon AONB Management Plans, as well as the Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset LTP 3 (2011 – 2026) which support sustainable transport and tourism and the reduction of the negative impacts of traffic on protected areas. A Transport Strategy for the Jurassic Coast first highlighted the possibility of marine transport along the coast in 2005 and funding was secured to undertake an initial Scoping Study in 2009 which, due to its positive conclusions, was followed by a Feasibility Study in 2011 which concluded that the development of marine transport along the Jurassic Coast is fully feasible and should be pursued, with the help of significant funding from the both the public and private sector. Both studies were undertaken by Fisher Associates.
1.1.4 The 2011 Feasibility Study identified three pilot routes, two of which were taken forward for further consideration:
| East Devon: Sidmouth – Seaton – Lyme Regis, with consideration of a western extension to Exmouth and an eastern extension to West Bay; and | Poole Bay: Bournemouth – Sandbanks – Poole – Studland – Swanage, and variations thereof.
1.1.5 The proposed pilot routes are illustrated in Figure 1 below:
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 8/84
Figure 1. Jurassic Coast Marine Links – Proposed Pilot Areas
1.1.6 A third pilot scheme between Weymouth and Portland is not being taken forward at this stage.
1.1.7 Further intensive and detailed design work was undertaken in 2012 by Fisher Associates and its contractors to submit an application for substantial capital funding to the Coastal Communities Fund. However, this process highlighted significant issues including environmental, planning, technical and operational constraints.
1.2 Peer Review
1.2.1 Having acknowledged the technical, operational and financial uncertainties surrounding the proposed pilots, the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team appointed SYSTRA and The Maritime Group International (TMG) to undertake a peer review evaluation of the proposed pilots.
1.2.2 This peer review is divided into ffour discrete work packages, namely:
| Demand Estimation and Outline Financial Assessment – how robust are the demand estimates and the overall Outline Financial Assessment for the two pilots? | Technical and Operational Issues – what are the issues surroounding the proposed vessels and jetty designs and locations? | Stakeholder Views – what are the key issues raised by stakeholders in terms of planning and environmental considerations and community suupport? | Market Interest – is there an appetite for commercially run services?
1.2.3 It is essential to note here that this study cannot provide a deffinitive answer as to whether the pilots should proceed or not. The aim of our analysis is to audit the existing work undertaken and identify unresolved issues that will need to be considered in further detail. It will be for the Jurassic Coast Transport Working Group to determine whether the issues identified can be overcome or are in fact inssurmountable (in the context of available resources).
1.2.4 It is also important point out thaat we have attempted to be both objective and balanced when carrying out this review. Whilst we have taken care to honestly identify and state what we see to be the key feasibility issues with the pilots, both SYSTRA and TMG understand the challenges in undertaking feasibility studies and we have attempted at all times to avoid any unwarranted or unfair criticisms of Fisher Associates and its contractors.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 9/84
1.2.5 Furthermore, it is also necessary to point out that the preliminary feasibility analysis that was undertaken was not intended to be exhaustive and was naturally limited by the resources that were available at the time. As such, whilst some elements of the previous work may be identified as being in need of more detailed analysis this does not necessarily suggest that the work was not undertaken to an appropriately robust standard previously but rather was constrained by the limited resources that were available.
1.3 Glossary and List of Consultees
1.3.1 To assist the interpretation of this report, a glossary of marine and other technical terms has been included in Appendix A. A list of study consultees is included in Appendix B.
1.3.2 Note that a PowerPoint based Executive Summary has been provided alongside this report.
1.4 Fisher Associates and Beckett Rankine
1.4.1 SYSTRA and TMG understand the challenges involved in carrying out feasibility studies, particularly when resources are limited. We have also been on the other side of the fence, where our work has been audited by external consultants. We would therefore like to put on record our thanks and appreciation of the time and cooperation offered by both Fisher Associates and Beckett Rankine in progressing this peer review.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 10/84
2. DEMAND ESTIMATION AND OUTLINE FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
2.1 Overview
2.1.1 This chapter summarises the conclusions of a detailed review of the demand estimation and Outline Financial Assessment which were described in the previous Feasibility Study report.
2.2 Waterborne Transport Study – User Survey
2.2.1 In order to provide an evidence base for the Stage 2 Feasibility Study, Dorset County Council’s Transport Planning Team carried out a detailed survey of factors that could affect the feasibility of the three proposed pilot routes. This survey was used as the basis for much of the demand and revenue forecasting in the Feasibility Report and it is therefore important to review that study and its survey as part of the overall peer review.
2.2.2 The number of responses obtained by the survey is impressive and the study itself is valuable in terms of gauging the level of interest in potential ferry services and the factors that are likely to have an impact on demand. However, we do not think that the outputs of the survey can be used to support the form of outline demand and revenue forecasting which was undertaken in the previous Feasibility Study. Our key concerns are discussed in detail below.
Question Design
2.2.3 A key consideration when designing surveys which are to be used to support travel demand forecasting (rather than just broadly confirming public support for a scheme) is to ensure that the sample can be scaled up to represent the relevant overall population. This requires estimates of the size of the subsets of the population which the various subsets within the sample are aiming to represent. It is not clear to us that this information was available for DCC’s survey and therefore it is difficult to use its results to estimate demand for the ferry services from either of the two main sub‐groups (local residents or visitors).
2.2.4 In addition, the survey included a number of questions where the required responses were rather qualitative and/or subjective, making it difficult to use these responses as the basis for a quantitative estimate of demand.
2.2.5 In particular, the question regarding the likely frequency of use was as follows:
| Question D2: How often do you think you would use waterborne transport during the Spring / Summer months?
z Frequently z Occasionally z One‐Off
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 11/84
z Never
2.2.6 The responses to this question can be used to gauge general levels of support, but are not ideal for using as the basis of demand estimates, since the interpretation of ‘Frequently’ and ‘Occasionally’ will differ from one respondent to another. Since the survey did not include any questions which could be used to robustly convert the qualitative responses to this question into likely actual number of journeys by the respondents or the population they were meant to represent, it is very difficult to attach a frequency of use to these responses, making it difficult to build a quantified demand profile from these responses
2.2.7 In addressing this point, the survey report stated that:
“it would have been possible to utilise a time specific response to ascertain how often people would use the services…However, the validity of responses such as this can be questionable. It is often found that stated preference responses vary from what is found in practice. Therefore, it was decided that the response options should be kept vague.”
2.2.8 We would very strongly question this premise, since our experience suggests that a robust stated preference survey would have provided a much‐higher quality evidence base than the simple ‘Stated Intention’ survey described above.
2.2.9 The report goes on to provide a table setting out an “interpretation of the frequency of use results” based on an “educated assumption of what the response options could represent”, so that the resulting demand forecast is essentially based on a ‘best‐guess’, rather than a robust evidence base.
Levels of Use and Repeat Visits
2.2.10 Building on the above, we would strongly question the number of trips assigned to those who have replied that they would use the ferries “Frequently” or “Occasionally”. In particular, the survey assumes that visitors who have selected “Frequently” would make 2‐4 trips in a one week stay or 3‐6 trips on a two week stay. These figures appear to be very high and one would have to question whether a typical holidaymaker would really make 2‐4 trips in a week.
2.2.11 In our view, a visitor may have interpreted this question as their frequency of use over multiple visits to the Jurassic Coast rather than just on one trip, but the opposite could also be true. The key point is that the vague trip frequencies and their interpretation without a supporting evidence base renders the results unsuable for the purpose of demand forecasting.
Estimation of Willingness to Pay
2.2.12 The estimation of willingness to pay (WTP) in the User Survey was used in the Feasibility Report and it is therefore important to analyse how it was constructed, as it is integral to the overall Outline Financial Assessment.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 12/84
2.2.13 The core willingness to pay question was:
(W1) How much would people be willing to pay for a waterborne return trip between the landing points?
2.2.14 There were slight variants of this question depending on whether it was targeted at residents and visitors to a particular town or wider area of visitors, but the basic premise remained the same.
2.2.15 The results for this question and the subsequent analysis were used to estimate the willingness to pay for different origin‐destination combinations on each pilot route. It is however important to note here that there is likely to be an element of stated intention bias whereby respondents provide an arbitrary WTP in the full knowledge that they will never be compelled to pay that fare. The WTP may therefore be too high or too low, with little evidence to suggest whether this value is practical in reality. Whilst comparisons have been made to bus services and other leisure cruises, this is not a like‐ for‐like comparison.
2.2.16 We would also question the statement:
“Often manifest in people indicating a lower level [of WTP] than what they would be willing to pay in reality”.
2.2.17 There is little evidence to support this statement and, indeed, the large number of travel demand studies which use Stated Preference as the basis of the demand forecasting would suggest the contrary.
Elasticity of Demand
2.2.18 One of the fundamental weaknesses with using the surveyed WTP is that no attempt has been made to understand the elasticity of demand – ie the impact of a change in price on the level of demand. This is a crucial point, as the Feasibility Report goes on to estimate demand at surveyed WTP points – there is no analysis of the impact of increasing or decreasing prices and, by extension, no evidence on the revenue‐ maximising price.
2.2.19 Linked to this is the issue of market segmentation and dividing up the potential demand for the ferry service into user groups that have varying responses to different factors like changes in fares, departure times, journey times and so forth. There appears to have been no attempt to segment the market or to model price sensitivity amongst different sub‐groups of the population, or to distinguish between different journey purposes. This is a weakness in the demand forecasting as it assumes all users would have a uniform response to changes in fare levels which would not be the case in reality.
2.2.20 Over the piece, we believe this to be a fundamental omission. If an operator were to consider operating a service at higher or lower prices than those identified in the survey, they would have no evidence on the sensitivity of demand and thus could not determine the impact on revenue. In a commercial situation, an operator would vary prices to
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 13/84
determine the revenue‐maximising price. The pilot services are likely to be a relatively marginal operation and could involve operators being asked to sign‐up to a set of obligations or indeed a contract. Operators may therefore be reluctant to offer services, particularly on a contractual basis, and are likely to want to shift this revenue risk onto the public sector where possible.
Resident Demand
2.2.21 Strategy 2 (Residents) of the User Survey notes that paper based self‐completion questionnaires were distributed by post to residential addresses within two kilometres of each landing point. Whilst additional resident surveys were carried out in Strategy 3, we would question the arbitrary two kilometre buffer zone, as this seems to assume that households outside of this zone will have zero use of the ferries. This assumption is questionable given the urban extent of Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch in particular. It is acknowledged that this may have been the result of resource constraints imposed upon the data collection exercise.
2.2.22 The User Survey also indicates that residents would make use of waterborne transport on the Jurassic Coast. However, it does not attempt to probe the journey purposes for which residents would use the service. Given our experience of ferries elsewhere in the UK, it would seem unlikely that residents would use the ferry for anything other than leisure trips. The headway between services, lack of reliability and limited integration with key services such as shops and health centres would make use of the ferry for anything other pleasure cruises seem unlikely.
2.3 Waterborne Transport as a Whole
2.3.1 This section reviews the assumptions made when developing the case for waterborne transport as a whole, followed by sections considering various pilot‐specific issues.
The Ferries and Road Travel
2.3.2 The Feasibility Report suggests that an important driver of the study is the increasing traffic levels and congestion along the Jurassic Coast. As a World Heritage Site and part of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, there is little prospect of providing significant additional road capacity. The Feasibility Report suggests at several points that alternatives to access by car will become not just desirable but essential.
2.3.3 Given the importance of this hypothesis to the study overall, we do not feel it has been explored in sufficient detail. Figure 2.3 (on page 8 of the report) attempts to show actual and projected growth in traffic on six Jurassic Coast roads. We would question why (unless, as suggested, there is an absence of data) forecast traffic growth is based on just two points (1983 and 2007), with a series of trends extrapolated out from 2007. Given the centrality of this issue, we would recommend reviewing recent traffic count data on the roads in, around and between landing stages to determine the trend in traffic growth or otherwise. The analysis needs to start from a strong footing rather than a high level average.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 14/84
2.3.4 One key piece of analysis absent from the Feasibility Study is a review of the journey purposes and frequency of traffic using the roads up and down the coast. In estimating potential mode switch between the car / bus and ferry, it is important to establish the proportion of total traffic which could realistically switch to using a ferry service. That is, which proportion of respondents to the User Survey make a trip which could realistically use the ferry and how often do they make this trip. It is not sufficiently robust to suggest that all tourists may use the ferry in place of a car journey.
2.3.5 The lack of evidence in this regard calls into question the evidence for some of the very definitive statements included in the Feasibility Report – eg “it seems highly likely that the broader appeal of the ferry…will supplant car journeys” (P.51). Indeed, it is possible that a new ferry service will generate new as opposed to displaced demand and may bring additional traffic into Dorset and East Devon. Similarly, the new ferry could displace traffic from one Jurassic Coast town to another, creating local congestion and parking issues at key landing stages.
Demand Estimation
2.3.6 We have a number of concerns regarding the manner in which the demand forecasts have been developed, particularly in light of a number of bold statements related to said demand. A key argument in both pilots is that there are a large number of visits to the other attractions in the area such as, for example, Sidmouth Donkey Sanctuary and Durlston Country Park. The analysis contained on pages 51 and 89 of the Feasibility Study draws a very tenuous link between visitors at these attractions and use of the ferries. Indeed, the study notes in the conclusions for both pilots that “other destinations receive large numbers of visitors …thus there is likely to be ample demand for the service”. However, there is no evidence available to suggest that demand at these attractions would translate to demand for a ferry service and, at best, this is indicative of the scale of the leisure market in the vicinity only.
2.3.7 For both pilots, the study assumes that 5% of people visiting the East Devon towns and Studland will use the ferry. Whilst it is undeniable that there are large numbers trips to these towns, research would be required to estimate what proportion of these visitors might consider using the ferry service.
2.3.8 The public survey results identified that just under 90% of those questioned would be interested in travelling by waterborne transport assuming the appropriate vessel was employed for the sea conditions. As noted previously, we have concerns about the design of the questions and the ability for the results to be used to underpin robust demand forecasting. It appears as though the response to this question has acted as the foundation upon which much of the evidence base for ferry demand has been based. This is alarming as the question is so vague that it is almost impossible to infer any meaningful relationship to ferry patronage.
2.3.9 Furthermore, it is not clear how many of the predicted ferry trips are additional trips and how many are abstracted from other modes (bus or car) or from other leisure activities (including other leisure cruises in the area). This makes it difficult to estimate the benefits (eg reducing local congestion) and disbenefits (eg removing patronage from subsidised bus services or other commercially‐run leisure activities.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 15/84
2.3.10 Overall, there is uncertainty surrounding where the anticipated demand for the services is expected to be generated from and whether the forecasts have been underpinned by suitably robust techniques to ensure confidence and reliability in the results.
Benchmarking
2.3.11 Notwithstanding the methodological limitations on demand estimation we have identified, we acknowledge that travel demand forecasting can be extremely difficult, especially where there is little or no data for comparable services available which enables the demand forecasts to be calibrated and validated against observed data.
2.3.12 In this instance, there are obviously not any comparable ferry services operating which could have been used for this purpose. However, a benchmarking exercise against the First X53 bus service (East Devon) and GoAhead service 50 (Poole Bay), which mirror the proposed routes could have been undertaken.
2.3.13 Our consultation with First suggests that the forecast demand for the East Devon pilot ferry service would appear to be high in light of the patronage for the X53 along the full length of its route. Furthermore, the X53 bus service has a large component of concessionary travel demand which would not be fare paying passengers in the context of the ferry so any abstraction from this market would be limited to the approximately 45% of passengers that are fare paying. On this basis, the ferry would be required to generate a substantial number of completely new trips or facilitate a large modal shift from car to produce sufficient demand to meet the forecasts.
2.3.14 A simple benchmarking exercise like this, undertaken in more detail, would have helped to provide context to the demand forecasts and would have assisted in verifying their validity or otherwise.
2.3.15 Whilst some limited comparisons were drawn with other ferry services we believe there may have been merit in undertaking a more comprehensive benchmarking exercise against similar ferry services elsewhere in the UK or around the world (eg the Cinque Terre coast in the Liguria region of Italy), to develop an understanding of how viable these proposed routes and their forecast demand was likely to be.
2.3.16 These relatively simple exercises can help to contextualise the proposals and identify whether they are realistic. As such, the absence of both robust demand forecasting and any kind of benchmarking means that we can have little confidence in the demand forecasts for the services being realised.
2.4 East Devon Pilot
2.4.1 We have identified a number of specific queries in relation to the proposed pilot services and their potential demand. In the case of the East Devon service, one of the initial queries was whether the ferry could offer a comparable journey time with the car or bus. Our analysis suggests that the ferry journey times would be broadly comparable with bus journey times but slower than car journey times and significantly so between Sidmouth and Lyme Regis where the ferry is estimated to take 55 minutes and a car journey is estimated at 29 minutes (according to www.transportdirect.info).
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 16/84
2.4.2 This would call into question whether the ferry would be attractive to car users and, particularly, those making a trip for reasons other than leisure who are likely to be most sensitive to journey time changes.
2.4.3 As highlighted above, it would also appear that the forecasts for this route may be optimistic in light of findings from our consultation with First regarding the patronage on the X53 bus service.
2.4.4 The study suggests on P.51 that “about a third of these will buy single journeys, with further travel by foot / cycle / bus, or perhaps by coast hopping”. Whilst we acknowledge that there is likely to be a market for trips of this nature there is no evidence to support this assumption which has a large influence over the revenue generation and, consequently, the commercial viability of the proposed service. Given the outline business case is marginal and, in our opinion, subject to a high degree of risk and uncertainty, any variability in the scale of this market could have a knock‐on impact on the viability of the service. By means of illustration, consider the following example:
P.48 Option 1.4 – The Preferred Outline Financial Assessment outlines: Individual Passengers carried ‐ 74,848 Revenues ‐ £555,000 Operating Costs ‐ £432,000 Operating Profit ‐ £123,000 Vessel Mortgage ‐ £94,000 Cash Surplus ‐ £28,000
NB A drop of 5% in revenue would cause the project to switch from profit‐making to loss‐making.
2.4.5 It can be seen that the outline business case is very susceptible to changes in the assumptions and, as it stands, presents a high degree of risk and uncertainty both to local authorities and potential operators.
2.5 Poole Bay Pilot
2.5.1 Similar to the East Devon route, one of our key queries regarding the Poole Bay pilot was whether a competitive journey time compared to other modes of transport could be provided. The Poole Bay service offers greater potential to offer an attractive service to passengers given the constraints on the existing landside transport network. In particular, the potential to bypass the Sandbanks chain ferry at periods of peak congestion is likely to be attractive to potential users and could reduce impacts on local villages. However, the limitation upon this is that the proposed service would be for foot passengers only whilst users of the chain ferry may wish to take their vehicle across for their onward journey.
2.5.2 Unlike the East Devon service the demand forecasting assumes that all users of the ferry would make a return trip, although it is not clear what is the underlying rationale for this assumption except to “avoid further intricacy” (P.86). On this basis we have identified that again the outline business case is subject to a high degree of risk and uncertainty which impinges on the extent to which it can be relied upon as illustrated below:
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 17/84
P.87 Option 3.3 – The Preferred Outline Financial Assessment outlines: Individual Passengers carried ‐ 74,429 Revenues ‐ £576,000 Operating Costs ‐ £463,000 Operating Profit ‐ £113,000 Vessel Mortgage ‐ £85,000 Cash Surplus ‐ £28,000
Again, a 5% reduction in patronage and revenue would result in the service being loss‐making.
2.5.3 As above in the East Devon example, the outline business case is very susceptible to changes in the assumptions, presenting a sizeable risk to any operator considering investing in this service.
2.5.4 Furthermore, we also identified that the demand forecasts and the subsequent commercial viability of the service is highly dependent on the market generated by Studland which accounts for 53,000 (71%) of the forecast demand for the ferry. Should it transpire that it is not possible to serve Studland (an issue discussed in Chapter 4) on this route, then the business case for the service would be severely called into question and, assuming these forecasts are accurate, it would be highly unlikely that a commercially viable service could be provided.
2.6 Reliability
2.6.1 Service‐related reliability is one of the key factors in determining the demand for ferry travel. The Outline Financial Assessment for the two pilots suggests that average monthly operational downtime between April and October would be:
| East Devon – 26% (eg 1 in 4 services would be cancelled); and | Poole Bay – 19% (eg almost 1 in every 5 services would be cancelled).
2.6.2 Downtime of this nature is not overly‐problematic for pleasure cruise companies, which have operational flexibility to change the timing and itinerary of a service or indeed cancel it should they choose. However, for a scheduled ferry service to generate demand, potential users would expect the ferry to operate reliably and on‐time in all but the worst conditions – the equivalent of a quarter of services cancelled in East Devon and a fifth of services cancelled in Poole Bay would act a considerable disincentive to use the ferry, particularly when there are alternative more‐reliable road and public transport options available.
2.6.3 Ferry users are extremely sensitive to poor reliability, a cancellation can leave a person or family stranded on the wrong side of a crossing. Whilst on the Jurassic Coast, there are alternative means of getting back to the port of departure, such as scheduled buses or operator provided courtesy coaches, the hassle factor combined with the possible need to integrate with, for example, onward rail connections means that most passengers will simply not travel by ferry if they think there is any possibility that they could get stranded, with no convenient route back to their starting point.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 18/84
2.6.4 Even the perception of poor reliability is a problem often amplified by the local press, which leads to a loss of confidence amongst users, particularly infrequent users.
2.6.5 It is our view that, even if the demand for a ferry service does exist, weather‐related cancellation rates equivalent to those set out above would completely undermine the sustainability of any service. Ways to improve the reliability of the proposed services are considered in more detail in Chapters 3‐5.
2.7 Summary
2.7.1 In summary, it is our view that there are fundamental flaws in the demand and revenue modelling, stemming from the application of the initial User Survey through to the use of these data in the Feasibility Study. The assumptions used to estimate the demand and willingness to pay are weak and there are no data on the elasticity of demand and no market segmentation (eg by journey purpose), making it impossible to accurately predict how demand will respond to a change in the fares being charged.
2.7.2 The lack of segmentation of the demand by journey purpose also makes it impossible to quantify what proportions of the demand would be abstracted from existing journeys and hence to estimate the benefits and disbenefits of this abstraction.
2.7.3 The Feasibility Study also employs a number of questionable demand assumptions with little evidence presented to support them and makes a series of unsupported assertions.
2.7.4 In our considered opinion, the existing demand and revenue forecasting and subsequent outline financial assessment for each of the pilot services are consequently subject to a high degree of risk and uncertainty which undermines the extent to which they can be used as a foundation for the implementation of the proposed pilot routes. In particular, we have illustrated how vulnerable the outline financial assessments for both services are to small changes in the assumptions that underpin them, which could cause a shift from a commercially viable service to one which is loss making.
2.7.5 On this basis we believe that there would be considerable risks associated with progressing with infrastructure investment or other related investment in the services at this time without first either undertaking further work to develop a more robust business case based upon established demand forecasting techniques and / or through gauging the market interest for providing these services more directly. Further details about the latter are provided in Chapter 7 whilst an overview of potential actions that could be taken to develop a more robust business case is provided in Chapter 8.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 19/84
3. TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES – EAST DEVON
3.1 Overview
3.1.1 This chapter outlines the key technical and operational issues relateed to the East Devon pilot. In advance of this, however, the report explores the two key issues of significant wave height and longshore drift, which impact on all landing points within each pilot.
3.1.2 TMG carried out a detailed site survey of all of the suggested landing points considered in the Pilot Studies over a three day period on two separate visits to the East Devon and Poole Bay pilot areas. They also worked closely with Beckett Rankine to review the design of the landing facilities – the recommended improvements advanced below are focused on improving service reliability, which we see as key for a scheduled ferry service.
3.2 Significant Wave Height
3.2.1 The significant wave height (Hs) is defined traditionally as the mean wave height (trough to crest) of the highest third of the waves (H1/3). Significant wave height combines the effect of sea waves and swell waves.
Figure 2. Statistical Wave Distribution
3.2.2 Statistical distribution of open sea wave heights: Significant wave height, scientifically represented as Hs, is an important parameter for the statistical distribution of ocean waves. The most common waves are less in height than Hss. This implies that encountering the significant wave is not too frequent. However, statistically, it is possible to encounter a wave that is much higher than the significant wave.
3.2.3 Generally, the statistical distribution of the individual wave heights is approximated by a Rayleigh distribution. For example, given that Hs is 10 metres (33 feet), statistically:
| 1 in 10 will be larger than 10.7 metres (35 ft) | 1 in 100 will be larger than 15.1 metres (50 ft) | 1 in 1000 will be larger than 18.6 metres (61 ft)
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 20/84
3.2.4 This implies that a vessel might encounter a wave that is roughly double the significant wave height. However, in rappidly changing conditions, the disparity between the significant wave height and the largest individual waves might be even larger.
3.3 Longshore Drift
3.3.1 Longshore drift consists of the transportation of sediments (clay, silt, sand and shingle) along a coast at an angle to the shoreline, which is dependent on prevailing wind direction, swash and backwash. This process occurs in the littoral zone, and in or close to the surf zone. The process is aalso known as longshore transport or littoral drift.
3.3.2 Longshore drift is influenced by numerous aspects of the coastal syystem, with processes that occur within the surf zone largely influencing the deposition and erosion of sediments. Longshore currentss can generate oblique breaking waves, which result in longshore transport. Longshore drift can generally be defined in terms of the systems within the surf zone as seen in the figure below. This figure shows that sediment transport along the shore and surf zone is influenced by the swash (which occurs in the direction of prevailing wind), which moves the pebbles/sand/shingles up the beach at the angle and backwash, whichh moves the pebbles/sand/shingles back down the beach due to the influence of gravity.
3.3.3 Longshore drift affects numerous sediment sizes as it works in slightly different ways depending on the sediment (eg the difference in longshore drift of sediments from a sandy beach to that of sediments from a shingle beach). Sand is largely affected by the oscillatory force of breaking waves, the motion of sediment due to the impact of breaking waves and bed shear from longshore current. Whereas, because shingle beaches are much steeper than sandy ones, plunging breakers aree more likely to form, causing the majority of long shore transport to occur in the swash zone, due to a lack of surf zone.
Figure 3. Longshore Drift
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 21/84
3.3.4 In the figure above:
| 1 = beach | 2 = sea | 3 = longshore current direction | 4 = incoming waves | 5 = swash | 6 = backwash
3.4 Significant Wave Height Percentages and Expected Downtime of Services
3.4.1 The diagram below is taken frrom the data provided by the Feasibility Study and is representative of the percentages of significant wave heights taken at position 500 30’N 30 00’ W. Note that these data are unlikely to be representative of conditions at the proposed jetties this position iss well offshore, some 15.9 nautical miles (nm) from West Bay, 14 nm from Lyme Regis, 12.5 nm from Seaton, 13.9 nm from Sidmouth and 16.85nm from Exmouth. It iis therefore clearly unrepresentatiive of conditions at harbour entrances or where the proposed piers are to be built.
3.4.2 Using an operating significant wave height limitation on the vesssel to be used as 1.0 metre, the table shows the operational time in percentages to be expected during high Summer season and the Spring and Autumn shoulder periods.
Table 1. Operational Downtime with 1 Metre Significant Wave Heightt
3.4.3 If a significant wave height limitation of 2.0m is placed on the vessel the downtime improves considerably. This should be borne in mind given the importance of service reliability (as discussed in Chapter 2)
Table 2. Operatonal Downntime with 2 Metre Significant Wave Height
3.4.4 The BA chart shows a depth of water in this position as being about 38 metres. The seabed starts to shelve to 20 metres approximately 2 nautical milles off the coast and 0.25 nautical miles where it reaches 5 metres and it is here in thiss area that the waves will start to dissipate until reaching the surf line. The jetties at Sidmouth and Seaton have been designed to reach the ‐2.0 metres/OD contour which we do not consider to be sufficient. To gain accurate data to build a jetty, a wave rider buoy needs to be
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 22/84
deployed in the area of the seaward end of the proposed jetties and accurate weather data provided for this position before work commences on buiilding. It should be pointed out that the jetties are designed to withstand 5 metre significant wave heights. Statistically waves of much higher than 5 metres will be encounteered (see above). The piers should probably be built to withstand the maximum mode wave height and not the maximum significant wave heighht expected.
3.5 Exmouth
3.5.1 Exmouth (situated at 500 37’000N 30 25’28W) is a port town, civiil parish and seaside resort in East Devon, sited on tthe east bank of the mouth of the River Exe. Exmouth town lies fronting the coast on the east side of the River Exe. Exxmouth Dock, a small tidal basin which is dredged to 2.0 metres (but is probably less in reality), lies at the west end of the town. The dock is closed to commercial shipping and is now used as a marina.
3.5.2 The river is also used by vesssels using the Exeter Canal or proceeding to Topsham. Langstone Point lies 1 nautical mile east of Dawlish at the north‐east end of red sandstone cliffs. The Warren, a low spit of land with many holiday chalets at its south‐ west end, extends 1 nautical mile north‐east from Langstone Point terminating at Warren Point. This low lying spit gives protection to the river estuary and offers a safe berth for small vessels during storms from the east through south to north‐west. Stuart Line Cruises’ vessels moor here on buoys in depths of 2 to 2.5 metres at Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS).
3.5.3 The River Exe flows into the sea between Warren Point and the Poiint. The approach to the harbour is hazardous with at least charted depth of 0.3m in the fairway about 0.35 nautical miles west, south‐west of Orcombe Point. The channel iis subject to change. Approach to the harbour is made from the east in clear water annd entered through a narrow channel between drying sandbanks and rocky ledges. Exmoouth Dock is entered through a canal‐like entrance about 75 metres long.
3.5.4 The proposed berth is adjacent to the old harbour, which is currentlly used by Stuart Line Cruises.
3.5.5 Exmouth port should not be approached in strong easterly througgh to southerly winds and should never be approached at night.
3.5.6 Berthing at Exmouth was not considered by the initial feasibility studies.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 23/84
Figure 4. Exmouth at the top of the picture with the warren spit clearly shown to the south‐west. Straight point is seen to the far right of the picture. The point lies to the north‐west tip of the town
Figure 5. Exmouth Harbour
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 24/84
Figure 6. Exmouth Harbour showing the proposed berth at the bottom of the picture and the canal through to the tidal basin
Figure 7. Exmouth Harbour showing the canal through to the tidal basin marina
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 25/84
Figure 8. Exmouth Harbour ferry berth
3.6 Sidmouth
3.6.1 Sidmouth (situated at 500 40’43N 30 14’04W) is a town situated on the English Channel coast in East Devon, 15 miles (224 km) SE of Exeter. It is a tourist resort and a gateway to the Jurassic Coast World Herritage Site. A large part of it has been designated a conservation area. Sidmouth lies at the mouth of the River Sid in a valley between Peak Hill to the west and Salcombe Hill to the east. It is surrounded by the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is on the South West Coast Path.
3.6.2 Erosion remains a serious concern east of the mouth of the River Sid. The cliffs have been heavily eroded, threatening homes and the coastal footpath.
3.6.3 The wide esplanade has been a prominent feature since Regency times. A series of south westerly storms in the early 1990s washed away much of the shingle beach protecting the masonry. A series of artificial rock island breakwaters was constructed to protect the sea front, and tons of pebbles were trucked in to replace/recharge the beach. During our visit, there was much evidence that the pebblles had been thrown onto the esplanade with associated flooding.
3.6.4 The beach is a mixture of mainly pebbles mixed with shingle and is steep from the high water mark to the esplanade and has a very shallow gradient beyyond the high water mark.
3.6.5 The weather on the day of the site visit was SSW’ly wind force Beaufort Scale (BS) 6/7. The seas breaking on the beach were 2.5 to 3.5 meters significant wave height with the surf line approximately 250 metres from the high water mark. There was no shelter by the breakwaters afforded to the beach from this direction.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 26/84
Figure 9. Sidmouth showing the two breakwaters constructed in the 1990s.
3.6.6 In the above figure, the groynes constructed to reduce longshore drift are clearly shown, as is the extent of this drift
Figure 10. Sidmouth Sea Front
3.6.7 The red line in the above figure shows the position of the pier proposed by Beckett Rankine. Longshore drift can be clearly seen.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 27/84
Figure 11. Sidmouth East Groyne
Figure 12. Sidmouth sea front looking west
Figure 13. Sidmouuth Sea Front looking west on a calm day
3.6.8 After our consultation, both Beckett Rankine and TMG concluded that the jetty should be extended another 10 to 15 metres seaward, to allow an increased clearance of the vessels keel of 1.5 metres in a vessel drawing 1.5 metres draft and to meet MLWS conditions. The first 10 metres of the jetty at the shoreward end should also be
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 28/84
constructed of concrete to give a secure bankseat, as at present tthere is no bankseat planned in the design to join the jetty to the esplanade. This will allso add to the overall costs, which in Beckett Rankine’s report seemed reasonable for 2011 prices.
3.7 Seaton
3.7.1 Seaton (situated at 500 42’12N 30 3’41W) is a seaside town in Eastt Devon. It faces onto Lyme Bay, to the west of the mouth of the River Axe. Axmouth and Beer are nearby. An unsubstantial sea wall providees access to the mostly shingle/pebble beach which stretches for about 1.6 kilometres. There is a small harbour at the mouth of the River Axe to the east but this dries out at low water and has a bar. It is doubtful if vessels over 15 metres could negotiate the narrow entrance.
3.7.2 The weather on the day of the site visit was heavily overcast, driving rain with a south, south westerly wind of BS 6/7. The seas breaking on the beach were 2.5 to 3.5 metres significant wave height. There is no shelter afforded to this beach by breakwaters.
Figure 14. Seaton Harbour and the mouth of the River Axe
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 29/84
Figure 15. Seaton Sea Front. The red line shows the proposed position of the Beckett Rankine Pier
Figure 16. Seaton (top right / centre of diagram) with Beer Point in the bottom left corner
3.7.3 Seaton is relatively sheltered from the west, south‐west by Beer Head and through north to the north‐east. However, it is exposed from the east, north‐east through south, south‐west. The beach is a mixture of pebbles and shingle and is steep to from the high water mark to the esplanade and has a very shallow gradient beyond the high water mark. The surf line was estimated on the day of the site visit to be 150 metres from the beach waterline. The jetty designed by Beckett Rankine extends only 80 metres and is represented in the diagrams above by a red line.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 30/84
3.7.4 TMG consulted with Stuart Line Cruises, who run pleasure cruises along the East Devon Coast during the summer season. They confirmed that there is an underlying swell on most days, even in calm weather, that sweeps into Seaton Bay, typiically from the south. Further, they stated that beaching their craft nose into the beach is dangerous in even the best of weather and they hhave on occasions bent the vessel’s screws by touching bottom. Their largest craft draws a draft of 1.5 metres. Extrapolating data from Admiralty Sailing Directions NP 27, Channel Pilot, it would appear that a swell can appear on Seaton Beach of 0.1–2.0 metres throughout the May‐August period.
3.7.5 TMG consulted at length with Beckett Rankine, who put forward the pier designs in the initial study. In our considered view, the proposed pier should be extended by a further 10 to 15 metres seawards and the bankseat should be higher at the promenade. However, this will result in the promenade cutting off the walkway enjoyed by tourists and locals. Either the pier would have to be high enough for pedestrians to walk under it or a step system built to allow pedestrians to cross the pier, though this would have implications for disabled people.
3.7.6 The proposed jetty also shows a 0.6 metre underwater clearance at Mean Low Water Neaps (MLWN) for a craft drawing 1.3 metres. It is worth noting that this design would not allow a vessel to berth at Mean Low Water Springs (MMLWS), although our recommendations set out below address this issue. The jetty has been planned for use with 1 metre swell waves (off‐shore of the surf line). This clearance is likely to cause bottoming out (confirmed by Stuart Line Cruises) which could eitheer break a craft’s back in violent scends or cause the craft to lose stability and capsize. For this reason, we would recommend building the jetty further out to sea, a course of action which will obviously have cost implications.
3.7.7 The jetty itself is well designed and will withstand sea waves of up to 5 metres significant wave height, which are exceeded, according to the Feasibility Study, only 2.1% of the year and during October, January, February and Marrch. These data were provided by BMT Nigel Gee and are based on data recorded in position 500 30’N 30 00’ W approximately 12.5 nautical miles offshore in Lyme Bay.
3.7.8 Longshore drift will be a problem, but has been considered by Beeckett Rankine as the piling will be 10 metres into the seabed and bedrock. However an accurate topographical and hydrographic survey of the area will be required.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 31/84
Figure 17. Seaton Beach and Beer Head (distant left)
3.8 Lyme Regis
3.8.1 Lyme Regis (situated at 500 43’00N 20 56’00W) is a coastal toown in West Dorset, situated 25 miles west of Dorchhester and 25 miles east of Exeter annd 6.5nm east of Beer Head. The town lies in Lyme BBay, on the English Channel coast at the Dorset–Devon border. There is a small tidal harrbour which is used principally for pleasure craft.
Figure 18. Lyme Regis Harbour, showing the inner and outer harbour.
3.8.2 At Mean High Water Springs (MHWS), there are depths of approximately 4 metres in the entrance and 2.7 to 4.3 metres inside the harbour with a tidal rannge of 4.7m at Spring Tides. The Inner Harbour therefore dries at low water on all tides The limiting
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 32/84
dimensions are for pleasure craft up to 9 metres in length and fishing vessels up to 11 metres with drafts up to 1.9 meetres can be accommodated. The proposed ferry would use the landing steps on the Cobb on neap tides and mid to high tiides, but we consider that even the proposed vessel of 18.80m in length would be too llong to operate from this berth. A new berth would have to be constructed in the outer harbour for all tide ferry use.
Figure 19. Lyme Regis Harrbour showing fishing boats berthed on thee Cobb
3.8.3 Berthing at Lyme Regis was not considered by the initial feasibility studies.
3.9 West Bay (Bridport)
3.9.1 West Bay (Bridport) (situated at 500 43’00N 20 56’00W), also known as Bridport Harbour, is a small settlement situated at the mouth of the River Brit approximately two miles from the centre of Bridport on the Jurassic Coast in Dorset. It has a fairly small harbour, two piers and two beaches.
3.9.2 Construction work was undertaken in 2004/05 to replace the westt pier and rebuild the east pier. This is part of a new coastal defence scheme and also exxttends the facilities of the harbour with a new slipway and outer harbour. After the consttruction work, a small regeneration scheme is in operation, with new housing being planned around the harbour area.
3.9.3 The improvement programme was driven by rough weather during the winter, as previously a high tide coinciding with westerly gales and high rainffall had caused some localised flooding issues. The port is exposed to the prevailing southerly to west, north‐ westerly winds but is sheltered to a large extent from the north‐west through north to south‐east.
3.9.4 West Bay Harbour is protected by two piers, East Pier and West Pier. Both pierheads are extended and surrounded by rock armour on which lights are exhiibited. The entrance faces south, south‐east. The inner basin is reached by a cut 22 metres wide between the root of the old west pier and the root of the east pier. Lights are exhibited on both sides of the cut. A sill at the cut entrance prevents silt from exiting the basin. The basin itself is 160 metres long and 42 metres wide and dries out at low tide, except for a relatively deep area in its centre extending to the sluice gates at the middle of the north
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 33/84
side. The sluice gates are opened at low water releasing water from the River Brit which has sufficient scour to keep the entrance clear.
3.9.5 There is a limiting sill 0.05 nautical miles north of the East Pier head with 0.2 metres below CD beyond which the basin dries at MLWS. The harbour can accommodate vessels up to 50 metres in lenggth and 3.2 metres in draft. In souutherly gales, the sea breaks heavily at the entrance and may on particularly severe occasions render the harbour unapproachable. Mean spring range of tide is about 3.5 metres and neap range about 1.4 metres. There is no mention in the Feasibility Study of where the proposed ferry would land at all states of the tide. Our suggestion is that it could only be in the outer harbour possibly adjacennt to West Pier, though this may be limited by swell and actual depth of water alongside at MLWS. If the port is to be used, accurate data will have to be obtained of actual chart data depths. The port cannot currently be reliably used as a scheduled ferry port.
3.9.6 Berthing at West Bay was not considered by the initial feasibility stuudies.
Figure 20. Wesst Bay showing inner and outer harbour
Figure 21. West Bay sshowing swell coming into harbour entrancce
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 34/84
Figure 22. West Bay showing swell coming into harbour entrance
Figure 23. West Bay showing cut to Outer Harbour from Inner Basin.
Figure 24. West Bay showing Inner Basin.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 35/84
Figure 25. West Bay Inner Basin showing sluice from River Brit open at LW.
3.10 Summary
3.10.1 TMG has visited all of the ports mentioned in the study and conclude that a ferry service could be operated throughout the summer months of May to August in East Devon. Note this is a shorter time horizzon than that suggested in the Feasibility Study as we feel reliability issues in the shoulder months could make the service untenable. Comments made in the following paragraphs indicate that operations would be limited to daylight hours only if Exmouth was used for laying the vessel up overnight. Lyme Regis could be used as an overnight berth provided a new jetty is built in the outer harbour. Alternatively West Pier at West Bay could be used for an overnight berth. The vessel itself would have to be more substantial than that proposed by the Feasibility Study and should have a shallow draft of no more than 1.0m and be capable of operating in significant wave heights of at least 1.5 metres.
3.10.2 A summary of the constraining factors at each landing point is presented below:
| Exmouth:
z Marina Dock is closed to commercial traffic. z Low lying spit built up from longshore drift from the Warren and terminating at Warren Point in the estuary of the Rivver Exe protects the estuary from southerly storms and is considered a safe haven. However the estuary is unprotected from the north. z The current berth iis being rebuilt, but it is not known if the new berth will take a 32 metre craft. The current berth can take vessels up to 40 metres. z Depth of water is limited at bar on MLWS at 0.3 metres and therefore cannot be approachhed at all states of the tide. z Lack of water at MLWS would prove challenging to run a scheduled service. z The channel is subject to shifting sands and depth. z The channel should not be approached in strong easterrly through southerly winds. z There is no real shelter to berth a 32 metres craft iin strong WNW’ly to ENE’ly through norttherly winds. z Entrance to harbour cannot be approached in strong southerly winds.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 36/84
z Port can only be used in daylight hours.
| Sidmouth
z The beach consists of pebbles which were trucked in to recharge it during the 1990s. z A series of rock armour break waters and groynes have been constructed to protect the sea front. z On the day of the inspection, Sidmouth was experiencing SSSW’ly winds z The beach is steep to where it has been recharged with pebbles but becomes a shallow incline of sand and shingle from the HW mark. z The proposed jetty should be extended seawards 10‐15 metres and a concrete bankseat of approximately 10 metres constructed at the landward end. This will add to the cost of the jetty. z The jetty is well designed but only built to withstand 5 metre significant wave heights, whereas it should be constructed to withstand the worst possible conditions expected.
| Seaton
z Beach consists of shingle. z There is no shelter for the beach provided by the breakwaters z There is some shelter from the prevailing WSW’ly wind and seas given by Beer Head SW of Seaton. z The beach is very exposed from NE’ly through Sth to SW’ly winds and sea. z Surf line in BS 6/7 was estimated to be 150 metres from HW mark. z A swell can be expected on the beach throughout May to August of 0.1 to 2.0 metres. z The beach is steep from the HW mark to the esplanade but becomes a shallow incline of sand and shingle from the HW mark seawards. z The design of the jetty needs to be extended seawards 10 to 15 metres. z The jetty is well designed but only built to withstand significant wave heights of 5 metres when it should have been designed to withstand the worst possible conditions expected. z Longshore drift will become a problem with a build up against the W’ly side which could affect the stability of the coast to the E.
| Lyme Regis
z Only the Outer Harbour can be used at all states of the tide as the Inner harbour dries. z Limiting dimensions of the Inner Harbour is restricted to 11 metres LOA z The berth recommended by the Feasibility Study can only accommodate an 11 metre vessel. z Unless a further berth is constructed in the Outer Harbour, the port could not be used as a landing point for a ferry service in all states of the tide.
| West Bay
z The West Pier was reconstructed after being damaged in storms.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 37/84
z The Outer Harbour is sheltered from S’ly to W’ly winds and seas by the West Pier. z The entrance is exposed to ESE’ly to S’ly winds. z There is a swell build up in the entrance at all states of the tide after storms. z The Inner Harbour partially dries at LW. z The limiting length of vessels to enter is 50 metres LOA and a limiting draft of 3.2 metres z Only possible berth for a ferry is on the inside of the West Pier. z Tidal constraints mean that the Port cannot be reliably used as a ferry port.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 38/84
4. POOLE BAY
4.1 Overview
4.1.1 This section considers the technical and operational issues surrouunding the Poole Bay pilot. Detailed consideration is given to the issues faced at Studlannd, which are likely to be the most problematic in the overall context of the pilot.
4.2 Significant Wave Height Percentages and Expected Downtime of Services.
4.2.1 The diagram below is taken from the data provided in the Feasibility Study and is representative of percentages of significant wave heights taken at position 500 30’N 10 45’ W. Once again, the significant wave heights have been taken ffrom a point well off the coast ‐ this position is to the south‐east of Studland Bay about, 9.4 nautical miles from Swanage, 13.36 nautical miles from Bournemouth Pier and 10.4 nautical miles from Handfast Point (Old Harry Rocks) in 35 metres of water. This depth of water is maintained until the 20 metre contour is reached, which extends from Anvil Point to the Needles. The seabed then gently decreases in depth until the 10 metre contour is passed 1.3 nautical miles from the beaches in Bournemouth and Studland and 0.25 nautical miles from where it reaches 5 metres and it is here in thiss area that the waves will start to dissipate until reaching the surf line. The percentages given in the table will probably be considerably less and it is therefore essential that acccurate data for Knoll Beach, Bournemouth Pier and Swanage is obtained. Inside Poole Harbour of course is an enclosed waterway and will nott be affected by sea waves and swell..
4.2.2 Using an operating significant wave height limitation on the vessel to be used as 1 metre, the table shows the downtime in percentages to be expected during high Summer season and the Spring and Autumn shoulder periods.
Table 3. Operational Time with 1 Metre Significant Wave Height
4.2.3 If a significant wave height limitation of 2 metres is placed on the vessel the downtime improves considerably. This should be borne in mind given the importance of service reliability (as discussed in Chapter 2)
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 39/84
Table 4. Operational Downtime with 2 Metre Significant Wave Height
4.3 Bournemouth
4.3.1 Bournemouth (situated at 500 442’58N 10 52’33W) is a large coastal resort town on the south coast of England directly to the east of the Jurassic Coast.. The town’s pier is recommended as the starting / terminus point for the proposed Poole Bay element of the pilot.
4.3.2 Bournemouth Pier, a promenade pier extends about 0.125 nautical miles south from the shore at the east end of West Undercliffe Promenade. The outer paart has a width of 37 metres. There are landing stages on its east and west sides used by pleasure steamers (including the PS Waverley) and small boats. There are said to be depths of 2.7 to 3.4 metres at the outer part of the landing stages with shoaling immediately inshore of the wide portion to 1.2 metre CD.
4.3.3 During the TMG’s site visit, it was noted that surfers seemed to be standing immediately adjacent to the east landing stage indicating that there was significantly less water than indicated in the BA Sailing Directions NP 27. High water Bournemouuth on the day of the visit was 06:22 at +1.80m CD and Low Water at 13:04 +0.8m CD. The visit took place at approximately 11:00, ie 2 hours before LW, therefore the height off the tide at this time by extrapolation was estimated to be about +1.0 m CD and should therefore have been 3.7m to 4.4m, which it clearly wwas not. Subsequent telephone coonversations with the Pier Master have indicated that there has been considerable silting around the pier in recent times due to longshore drift.
4.3.4 The landing stages at both the east and west side of the pier are substantial and are easily capable of taking a vessel of 100m length overall (LOA) provided there is depth of water to receive the vessel and the pier is maintained in a condition for providing a safe berth.
Figure 26. Bournemouth Pier Showing the East Landing Stage
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 40/84
Figure 27. Bournemouth Pier – Aerial View
Figure 28. Bournemouth Pier showing East Landing Stage to 1.5‐2.0 Metres Swell Wavess Approaching the Beach
4.3.5 Subsequent to the site visit, both TMG and SYSTRA consulted with thhe Pier Master of the Beach Section of Bournemouth Borough Council. They reported that the pier is badly silted with depths considerably less than reported at CD. The PS Waverley sometimes visits during summer but always has to arrive around higher waater, and even then sometimes touches bottom. The ship nearly always berths on the west landing stage, as the prevailing south‐westerly wind assists in berthing. The lading stages themselves are in need of repair and there is no money allocated to either dredge the berths or repair the landing stages. TMG enquirred as to whether a vessel having a draft of 0.8 metres could berth at all stages of the tide, which the Pier Master thought unlikely. Doubt must
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 41/84
therefore be cast on the viabiliity of using Bournemouth Pier to service a regular ferry service unless the berths are maintained at a workable depths and the landing stages are repaired.
Figure 29. Bournemouth Pier showing West Land Stage1
4.4 Poole
4.4.1 Poole (situated at 500 42’43N 10 59’18W) is a large coastal town and seaport in the county of Dorset, on the south coast of England. Poole Harbour is an extensive natural harbour with a port fronting the town of Poole, which lies on its noorth side. The port is used by commercial vessels and operates ferry services, with RoRo facilities to the Channel Islands and northern France. Local ferry services operatee from Poole Quay to Brownsea Island, and in the summer, excursion trips with small ferrries to Bournemouth and Swanage. The harbour is also an important yachting centre.
Figure 30. Poole Harbour with the Port of Poole Top Centre
1 Note – photograph shows swell waves against landing stage two hours before low water on a relatively calm day.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 42/84
Figure 31. Poole Town Quay, the Main Berth for Tourist Ferries to Brownsea Island, Bournemouth and Swanage
Figure 32. Poole Port, Marina and Town Quay
4.4.2 Poole Harbour is a spacious estuary for the Rivers Frome and Piddlee, which at high water resembles an inland lake. At low water, large expanses of mudflats uncover and numerous creeks and channels intersect these. The bottom of the harbour is mainly composed of sand over clay and gravel but it varies extensively.
4.4.3 The entrance to the harbour liees between South Haven Point, the end of a low sandy point with a few low buildings on it (Shell Bay), situated at the north end of sand‐dunes bordering Studland Bay, and the south end of Sandbanks, a peninsula which extends one mile south‐west from Poole Head.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 43/84
4.4.4 There are five main islands in Poole Harbour. Brownsea Island is the largest and lies closest to the harbour entrance. During the summer period there are frequent ferry services from Poole Quay to the island.
Figure 33. Poole Harbour Entance, showing Sandbanks (top centre), Brownsea Island (top left) and South Haven (bottom centre). Swash Channel can clearly be seen on the bottom rigght
4.4.5 Poole Harbour is approached through the south‐west part of Pooole Bay through the swash channel, clearly seen in the figure above and entered between South Haven Point and the south end of Sandbankks. The channel is maintained at a depth of 6.0 metres at CD. A privately owned chain ferry is operated between Sandbanks and South Haven Point (Shell Bay) running every 20 minutes in both directions (3 crossings per hour), except during winter refit periods and if disrupted by shipping using the entrance channel to Poole Harbour.
Figure 34. Sandbanks Chain Ferry
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 44/84
Figure 35. Sandbanks Chain Ferry viewed from South Haven Point on the Studland Peninsula
4.4.6 The ferry carries 48 standard size cars or a mixture of cars, buses or trucks, a car costing £3.50 per crossing (£7 return). Foot passengers are charged £1 and £1 for a cycle or motorcycle. Buses carrying 18 passengers or more are charged £8 per crossing. Thus in 1 hour, 144 cars can be carried in one direction. During summer months, there is a significant build‐up of road traffic on the approach roads both on the Sandbanks and Studland peninsulars.
4.4.7 There is a dredged channel from the entrance to Poole Port with a maintained depth of 6.0 metres at CD, mean sprinng tide range is 1.6 metres and neap range about 0.5 metres.2 There is a speed restriction in Poole Harbour of 10 knots3.
4.4.8 The proposed berth for the Pilot 2 study is Poole Town Quay. There was an element of speculation amongst some stakkeholders that there is insufficient capacity at Poole Quay to accommodate a scheduled ferry service. However, subsequennt conversations with Poole Harbour Commissioners has confirmed that this is not the casse.
4.4.9 Poole Town Quay is approximately 400 metres in length and is adjacent to and freely accessible from Poole town centre. At the east end of the Quay, a bbreakwater has been constructed and therein lays a marina for pleasure craft. Maintained depths alongside Poole Town Quay are 3.6 metres to 4.5 metres at CD. The quay walll is well faced and on the west end has pontoons to receive pleasure craft and smalll ferries. There are numerous kiosks along the quay for tourist boats and small ferries.
2 BA Sailing Directions NP 27 3 Poole Harbour Master
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 45/84
Figure 36. Poole Town Quay Looking West
Figure 37. Poole Town Quay Looking East showing the marina
Figure 38. Poole Town Quay Ferry and Tourist Boat Kiosks
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 46/84
Figure 39. Poole Town Quay Ferry and Tourist Boat Berths
4.4.10 Provided accommodation can be made for a suitable berth (and probably an overnight layup berth) there is no physical impediment for the ferry suggestted in Pilot Scheme 2 operating a ferry service from Poole.
4.5 Studland
4.5.1 Studland Beach (situated at 500 39’06N 10 57’10W). The Studland peninsular and village is a civil parish on the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset. It is famous for its beaches and nature reserve. Studland lies within the Purbeck administrative district, and is located about 2 miles north of the town of Swanage, over a steep chalk ridge, and 3 miles south of the south‐east Dorset conurbation at Sandbanks, but separated from it by Poole Harbour and the Sandbanks Ferry. In the 2011 Census, the parish had a population of 425, though many of the houses in the village are holiday homes, second homes, or guest houses, and the village's populaation varies depending upon the season.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 47/84
Figure 40.. Studland Bay, showing South Haven Point (top centre), Hanfast Point (Old Harry Rocks) and the village of Studland (bottom centre)
4.5.2 There is a private road runninng from Shell Bay to Studland village but national road traffic regulations are enforced. The north end of the road beecomes congested in summer by parked cars of tourists using the beach and queues awwaiting the Sandbanks ferry.
4.5.3 Studland is sited in the lee of Ballard Down, close to the east‐facing Studland Bay, a 2.5 miles long curved sweep of sandy beaches backed by dunes and heathland. The beaches are named South Beach, Middle Beach and Knoll Beach, with another at Shell Bay to the north. The beaches, as well as Godlingston Heath and Brownsea IIsland, are all owned and managed by The National Trust as part of their 1,700 hectare Studland Peninsula Estate.
4.5.4 Studland Bay is protected from the prevailing south‐westerly winds and storms by Ballard Down and Handfast Point, the chalk headland that sepaarates Studland from Swanage Bay to the south. In the 17th century, there began a process of sand accumulation in the bay and along the South Haven Peninsula stretching north, resulting in natural land reclamation and the creation or expansion of the bay's beaches and its sand dune system.
4.5.5 The beaches at Studland Bay are amongst the most popular in thee country, and on hot summer weekends, they fill up with thousands of visitors. Thhe south‐east Dorset conurbation lies on the other side of Poole Harbour, resulting in the beaches being relatively accessible to a large population. North of the visitor centre, the beach and dunes are owned and managed by the National Trust, who have restricted parking provision at the site to prevent overcrowding. A short northern stretch of beach is reserved as a naturist beach.
4.5.6 Since the early 20th century the supply of sand to the bay has depleted and erosion is occurring so that, if natural processes are uninterrupted, the coastline may in time
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 48/84
retreat back to its previous line, visible as a line of higher ground between Redend Point and the hill east of the Knoll House Hotel. In January 2004, the BBC television series on The National Trust investigated the conflicts between different groups of people who use the beach and heath at Studland. The series particularly coverred the debate about coastal management, with the Trust proposing to remove defensive walls to allow natural processes to shape the coastline, though this would result in loss of some land and property.
4.5.7 Behind the sand dunes there is a large area of heathland, named Studland Heath, to the north of the village and Godlingston Heath to the west. This area is also owned and managed by the National Trust. Within Studland Heath is an acidic freshwater lake called Little Sea, which was cut off from the sea by the development of the dunes, and is a haven for birds and other wiildlife. Studland and Godingston Heath National Nature Reserve (NNR) has been an NNR since 1946, and the site is on English Nature’s list of "Spotlight Reserves", the 31 most important reserves in England. The site is also a protected Site of Special Scieentific Interest within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, part of the Purbeck Heritage Coast, and a gateway to the Jurassic Coast World Heritage site.
4.5.8 The National Trust’s view is that the proposed ferry service would be well received and they are in support of it as they accept the popularity of Studland is a key cause of the chronic congestion issues experrienced in the summer. However, theey explained that the jetty should not distract from the ambience of the beach and that any proposed pier should be of a temporary nature. The National Trust explained tthat there had been considerable damage during the recent winter storms and possibly 10 metres of the beach and dunes had been destroyed. The waters of the beach arre extremely shallow with a very shallow gradient. Thhe National Trust is responsible for the beach to the high water mark and, beyond that, the Crown Agents own the seabed.. To our knowledge, there has been no recent hydrographical survey and the beach deepth contours change radically with every tide.
4.5.9 As part of this Peer Review, TMG discussed jetty design with Beckett Rankine, who had prepared the design included within the Feasibility Study. Beckeett Rankine explained that their calculations and positioning of any proposed jetty was governed by readings taken from British Admiralty charts, but there is a view that thesse readings are very much out of date.
4.5.10 The National Trust explained thhat the offshore waters are protected as they contain sea grass that is home to a special breed of seahorse. The sea grass however is not found in an exact area and moves with shifts of the sea bed. It is paramount that this is protected.
4.5.11 The National Trust also explained that due to the erosion of the beaach and the receding coastline, the organisation will shortly have to relocate the Visitor Centre and car parks further back inland. The Trust has plans to move the whole centre complex within the next five years.
4.5.12 Due to the shift and erosion of the beach it would be unwise for a permanent structure to be built and the Trust was more inclined towards a temporary structure, particularly Option 2 (Plastic Modular Berth) identified in the Feasibility Study. In addition, National
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 49/84
Trust policy means that they will not take responsibility for permanent structures. However, following consultation with Beckett Rankine, it was agreed that this system would not be substantial enough for a foot passenger service, as it be unlikely to comply with HSE regulations although this would be dependent upon the exact specifications of the structure.
4.5.13 In their professional opinion, TMG would recommend Feasibility Study Option 3, a pontoon with feet. Such a struucture would be far more substanttial and could have a landing stage fixed at the end to take a 32 metre craft. The whole jjetty could be landed in the winter leaving the anchors in place on the seabed, although this could have implications for the sea grass. The Trust’s main concern with this opption appeared to be the distance the pontoon would have to extend into Studland Baay and what it would look like.
Figure 41. Option 2 – Plastic Modular Berth Showing Modules
4.5.14 There is a 5‐knot speed restriction on vessels approaching the beach within 300 metres of the low water spring tide line.
4.5.15 TMG also consulted with the Crrown Estate, who reported that they see no reason why a licence should not be granted to construct a non‐permanent jetty. However the Crown Agents did note that they would be guided by the MMO.
4.5.16 There seems to be a number of obstacles to be overcome before introducing a ferry service into Studland. These include:
| Permission will need to be sought from and granted by the CCrown Agents to put permanent anchors into the sea bed, particularly in the area of the sea grass. | If Option 3 (the pontoon with feet) is considered the best way forward, further consultation will be required with the Crown Agents, MMO, Natural England, Seahorse Trust and others concerned with conservation in the area. | A more recent hydrographical survey of the seabed beyond the HW mark will be needed to ascertain thee length of the jetty suitable to recceive a vessel of 31 metres length and a draft of 0.8 metres, operating in significcant wave heights of up to 1.8 metres.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 50/84
| An accurate weather andd significant wave height study needs to carried out using a wave recorder buoy in the sea area adjacent to where the seaward end of the jetty will be positioned. | Political opposition to the scheme will have to be overcome. | An area will need to be allocated ashore to store the pontoon modules during winter season.
Figure 42. Studland Knoll Beach National Trust Visitor Centre
Figure 43. Studland Knoll Beach looking North towards Sandbanks
4.5.17 Knoll beach is sheltered from the south, south‐east through west to the North. The beach is however exposed to northerly winds through to south, south‐easterly winds. It will be sheltered from swell throughout much of the year.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 51/84
4.6 Swanage
4.6.1 Swanage (situated at 500 36’33N 10 57’00W) is a coastal town and civil parish in the south east of Dorset, It is situated at the eastern end of the Isle of Purbeck, approximately 10 km south of Poole and 40 km (25 miles) east of Doorchester. The parish has a population of 9,601 (2011). Nearby are Ballard Down and Old Harry Rocks off Handfast Point, with Studland Bay and Poole harbour to the north.
4.6.2 Swanage Bay is entered between Peveril Point and Ballard Point 1.5 nautical miles north, north‐east and provides good shelter from westerly winds. Speed is restricted within Swanage Bay to 5 knots within 300 metres of the low water spring mark.
Figure 44. Swanage Bay, showing Handfast Point (Old Harry Rocks) in the top right and Peveril Point (bottom centre). Ballard Point is SSW of Handfast Point
4.6.3 Swanage Pier from where the proposed ferry will run is in the south part of the bay and has depths of 2 to 3 metres CD at its head. Berthing at the pier is restricted. The pier is over 100 years old and is one of two built, although it is the only one that survives complete today. The pier is inn extremely good condition and is obviously well looked after. It is mainly constructed of wood. The pier has three landing stages, two are situated either side of the pier head and are 36 metres in length. The third landing stage is situated on the west side inside the arm and suitable for small craft no longer than 15 metres in length.
4.6.4 The Bay is well protected from the SSW through W to NNE though is exposed to winds and sea from the E.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 52/84
Figure 45. Swanage Bay and Swanage Pier, showing Handfast Point (Old Harry Rocks) in the top distance and Ballard Point seen inside Handfast Point
Figure 46. Swanage Pier and Peveril Point
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 53/84
Figure 47. Swanage Pier
Figure 48. Swanage Pier showing inner 15 metre Landing Stage
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 54/84
Figure 49. Swanage Pier
4.7 Summary
4.7.1 TMG has visited all of the ports mentioned in the study and conclude that a ferry service could be operated through the summer months of May through August, with the caveat that a regular service to Bournemouth could not be operated unless the pier and depths alongside were maintained. However, comments made in the folloowing paragraphs and with particular reference to the problems associated with Studland would have to be resolved. The vessel itself woulld have to be more substantial than tthat proposed by the Feasibility Study and should have a shallow draft of no more than 1.0 metre and be capable of operating in significant wave heights of at least 1.5 metres.
| Bournemouth
z Proposed berth is Bournemouth Pier which extends 0.125 nm seawards from the end of West Undercliffe Promenade. The pier has two landing stages situated at the east & west sides of the Pier. z It is said that there are depths of 2.7 metres to 3.4 metres CD alongside each landing stage. However from observation it is clear that depths were far less than promulgated. z The landing stages are substantial and capable of accommodating a vessel of 100 meters alonggside provided that there is enough wwater available. z Both the east and west sides of the pier are reported as being silted and it is in need of significannt maintenance. z Bournemouth Borough Council do not like vessels regularly berthing at the Pier as it would give rise to more intense maintenance and ongoing dredging of berths..
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 55/84
z It is unlikely that Bournemouth can be included in any proposed scheduled ferry service unless the required investment is made at the pier.
| Poole
z Local Ferry services and tourist excursion boats already operate from Poole Town Quay to Brownsea Island and other islands within Poole Harbour. z During summer the tourist boats offer excursions to Bournemouth, Old Harry Rocks and Swanage. z Poole Town Quay is well faced, 400m in length. z Maintained depths alongside of 3.6 metres to 4.5 metres at CD. z Entrance to the harbour through a channel to the east with a maintained depth of 6 metres at CD. z Speed limit within the channel and in the harbour of 10 knots. z There is no impediment from operating a ferry service from this port.
| Studland
z Studland’s beaches are on an east spit of low scrubland peninsular enclosing the east side of Poole Harbour. z The peninsular is reached by the Sandbanks chain ferry operating across the entrance to Poole Harbour. z The beaches of Studland are visited by thousands of people during summer. z The beaches and heathland are owned by the National Trust (NT). The beaches are some of the most popular in England. z The seabed beyond the LWS mark is owned by Crown Estates. z The beaches are protected from SW’ly winds and storms, but are open to the east. z Since the early 20th century, the beaches are becoming depleted as a result of longshore drift. The National Trust are allowing this natural erosion which will eventually reach the old coast line. z The NT are in favour of seeking ways to reduce the congestion arising from car‐borne visits to Studland. z The waters of the beaches are very shallow and the bottom is frequently shifting. z The sea bed is protected by Natural England as rare sea grass grows there and it is also home to a protected and rare seahorses. z NT policy dictates that the proposed jetty cannot be a permanent feature and must be removed in winter. z TMG suggest that the best option would be steel pontoons with feet, which could be brought ashore in the winter and would be least disruptive to the sea bed. z An area ashore would need to be located to store the pontoons during winter. z There is a 5 knot speed restriction within 300 metres of the beach. z There are a number of obstacles to be overcome before a ferry service could be started to Studland.
| Swanage
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 56/84
z Swanage is situated in the south‐west corner of Swanage Bay. It is well protected from W’ly and N’ly winds and sea but is open from the E. z The proposed berth is a Victorian Pier constructed on the south shore of Swanage Bay. z The Pier is extremely well maintained and is in good condition. z The Pier has 3 landing stages the 2 main stages being situated at the pier head. The 3rd and smaller pier is situated near the root of the pier. z The pier head landing stages are 36 metres in length with depths of 2 to 3 metres at CD alongside. z The bay has a speed limit of 5 knots within 300 metres of the HW mark. z This pier would be suitable for operating a ferry service as suggested.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 57/84
5. VESSELS
5.1.1 The Feasibility Study recommended the use of a high speed capability mono‐hull or catamaran as preferred. The suggested specification was:
| passenger capacity perhaps around 150; | service speed 15‐20 knots; | draft of around 1.3‐1.5 metres; | LOA of between 19‐26 metres; | shallow draft with propellers for shallow water operations and fuel efficiency; | aluminium or steel construction; | EU Class D (VI): Summer operations only; and | EU Class C: All year Operations.
5.1.2 TMG broadly concur with these recommendations, but would highly recommend an aluminium constructed catamaran over the use of a mono‐hull. Additionally, TMG believe that the craft recommended in the Feasibility Study are slightly small and have a draft too large to successfully use in the shallow waters of the coast. TMG would recommend that the length overall of the craft should be around 32 metres and have a draft of no more than 1 metre and if possible less.
5.1.3 Given the criticality of reliability in scheduled ferry operations, we would also strongly recommend that any craft used on the proposed routes has a significant wave height limitation of at least 1.5 metres and preferably as near to 2.0 metres as possible. When coupled with appropriate infrastructure, a vessel with a significant wave height limitation in the 1.5‐2.0 metre limitation will offer a more reliable service
5.1.4 Whilst the above specification is recommended, it will, in all likelihood, be left to the market to identify appropriate tonnage to serve the proposed pilot routes. This issue is explored in more detail in Chapter 7, Operator Interest.
5.1.5 TMG considers that an ideal vessel would be an AIMTEK Pty Ltd (Formerly NQEA) of Australia River class, but would have to comply with a seagoing state as a Class C vessel to comply with MCA regulations. Key specifications include:
| River Runner®100 | Length: 29.02m | Breadth: 7.30m | Draft: 0.8m | Significant wave height limitation 1.4m | Passengers: 117 | Speed: 25 knots | Features: Low wash, Low air draft, various configurations and layouts. The price of such vessel new is approximately US £2.6 million delivered.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 58/84
5.1.6 The above pictured vessel is built according to the HSC Regulations. If the speed were to be dropped to 20 knots she could be built as a Class VI vessel and this would reduce the build cost by about £0.3 million. The significant wave height limitation can be raised to 1.8m (or possibly 2.0m) thus reducing the downtime through weather limitation.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 59/84
6. STAKEHOLDER VIEWS
6.1 Overview
6.1.1 As part of this peer review, SYSTRA carried out an extensive consultation with a range of key stakeholders, including statutory planning consultees (such as Natural England), local authority planning and transport departments, town councils and other public transport operators. The purpose of this exercise was to understand stakeholder views on the proposed pilot services and identify any constraints which would prevent the realisation of the services.
6.1.2 It should be noted here that the purpose of this study was not to carry out a detailed consultation on all aspects of the pilots, rather to identify any potential constraints to their realisation. This chapter therefore briefly summarises the key issues identified throughout the consultation at the pilot level. It is worth also pointing out that consultation feedback related to the marine aspects of the pilot (eg the MMO, MCA etc) is included within Chapters 4 and 5 and is not reported separately here.
6.2 East Devon Pilot
6.2.1 This section reviews the stakeholder feedback for the East Devon Pilot area.
Planning Consultees
6.2.2 The majority of planning issues in the East Devon pilot are likely to be related to the proposed new jetties at Sidmouth and Seaton. Any operation that includes Exmouth, Lyme Regis and West Bay will, in all likelihood, make use of existing infrastructure, although some enhancements may be required depending on the exact harbour infrastructure needs.
6.2.3 The consultations with the local authority planning departments and Natural England did not identify any objections in principle to the proposed infrastructure at both Sidmouth and Seaton. However, it was evident from these conversations that there was a reluctance amongst planners to provide anything more than very general comments without sight of fully scoped designs.
6.2.4 Detailed consideration of planning issues was outwith the scope of this study, but our impression from the conversations held is that any planning issues which do arise in East Devon are not insurmountable and can be overcome through dialogue with national and local planning consultees.
6.2.5 A full understanding of the planning restrictions will only be gained through engaging directly with planners. A review of East Devon Council’s website suggests that a pre‐ application advice planning meeting only costs between £125‐£750. Natural England will also offer an initial level of advice free of charge, which will help identify key issues and opportunities on a development proposal.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 60/84
6.2.6 Given the relatively modest costs of pre‐application advice, we would recommend that the JCWHT consults with East Devon Council and Natural England (as a minimum) on the potential planning issues related to the proposed pilot.
Transport Consultees
6.2.7 The strategic transport function within the East Devon pilot area rests with Devon County Council, whilst Dorset County Council is responsible for transport planning in Lyme Regis and West Bay.
6.2.8 The Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project is not currently included within the Devon and Torbay LTP3 (2011 – 2016). Whilst the Council supports the project in principle, they do not see it as a strategic transport priority for the area in the immediate future. Although the Council has been a significant joint funder of previous feasibility and development work, it would not, at this stage, be willing to provide any further capital or revenue funding for the project and believe that any ferry service should be capable of being run commercially by an operator.
6.2.9 The Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset LTP3 (2011 – 2026) does however identify waterborne transport along the Jurassic Coast as one of its long‐term (i.e. 2020‐2026) proposed improvements to public transport. Dorset County Council has indicated a willingness to support capital investment in infrastructure but echoes the view of Devon County Council that the service must be financially self‐sustaining from an operational perspective.
Local Stakeholder Views
6.2.10 Whilst our consultation exercise was limited to Town Councils and Councillors, there appears to be relatively high levels of public support for the East Devon Pilot, to the extent that both Sidmouth and Seaton Town Councils are offering financial support to the project.
6.2.11 Whilst there are sceptics, there appears to be broad support from the respective Chambers of Commerce, hoteliers, businesses and wider civic society. The ferry is seen to represent a positive improvement to the tourist industry which is at the heart of the economy in these and other towns along the Jurassic Coast. The benefits are seen to be particularly marked at Seaton, where the ferry would complement the new visitor centre being developed in the town.
6.2.12 Bridport Town Council would also welcome the service in principle, although they do believe that additional public consultation and awareness raising exercises are required.
Other Public Transport Operators
6.2.13 If the proposed ferry services along the Jurassic Coast are to become functional transport services, there would be a need to integrate with other modes of public transport, particularly if a key aim of the project is to reduce travel by car to and provide integrated transport solutions along the Jurassic Coast. As part of this consultation, we
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 61/84
therefore consulted with First, who currently run the X53 “Jurassic Coaster”. This branded bus runs from Poole in the east through to Exeter calling at or close by the proposed landing stages for the East Devon ferry.
6.2.14 First noted that they would support the ferry service in principle as they believe that it could be complimentary to their operations, helping to grow the non‐car coastal travel market overall.
6.2.15 However, First were very clear that they would only support the ferry service if it is run on a commercial basis. Whilst they do not object to capital grants for infrastructure, they would strongly oppose the extension of revenue support or any subsidy to the ferry service. The company felt that it would not be beneficial to subsidise a new ferry service at the same time as reducing bus service operating grants across both Dorset and Devon.
Sidmouth and Seaton
6.2.16 TMG carried out a series of consultations specifically related to the proposed new infrastructure at Sidmouth and Seaton.
6.2.17 TMG first spoke with the East Devon coastal engineers, who have been busy restoring coastal defences after the recent winter storms. The coastal engineers confirmed that they do not have the data required regarding longshore drift but it may be obtainable from CH2M who undertook a survey for East Devon Council some time ago. Accurate data will be required since the construction of jetties at Sidmouth and Seaton will affect the longshore drift and the formation of the current tourist beaches. One of the coastal engineers with whom we consulted confirmed that there will also have to be a topographical survey carried out to ascertain the true depth of the bedrock. He considers that it might be at about 5 metres. Although mentioned in Beckett Rankine’s report, there is no immediate intention to recharge the beaches of Sidmouth and Seaton.
6.2.18 TMG also Consulted with Stuart Line Cruises who gave an insight regarding the problems of operating along the Jurassic Coast and beaching to embark / disembark passengers to the beach. The sea bed in both Seaton and Sidmouth are both gently shelving and at Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) and the craft sometimes touch bottom before they get anywhere near the shoreline. They therefore have to plan voyages around tides. This of course would not be conducive to running a scheduled ferry service. Stuart Line Cruises note that they have on more than one occasion damaged their screws when beaching.
6.3 Poole Bay Pilot
6.3.1 This section reviews the stakeholder feedback for the Poole Bay Pilot area.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 62/84
Planning Consultees
6.3.2 The principal planning issues related to the Poole Bay pilot surround the provision of new jetty infrastructure in Studland. The proposed ferry service would otherwise be calling at landing points currently supporting pleasure cruise vessels and there are unlikely to be any insurmountable planning issues to be overcome.
6.3.3 Whilst the Studland site is owned by the National Trust, planning consent would be granted by Purbeck District Council (PDC). PDC provided a written response to our consultation and noted, amongst other issues, that planning permission would be required for any jetty which is affixed to land above the mean low water mark. The Council also reaffirmed the need to consult with the Crown Estate and the MMO for any developments below the mean low water mark.
6.3.4 As with the East Devon pilot, PDC and Natural England were unable to provide detailed comments or take a definitive position without more specific details of what is being proposed. PDC’s rates for pre‐application advice are relatively modest and we would recommend engagement with the Council and other stakeholders related to Studland at the earliest opportunity.
6.3.5 Given the relatively modest costs of pre‐application advice, we would recommend that the JCWHT consults with Purbeck District Council and Natural England (as a minimum) on the potential planning issues related to the proposed pilot.
Transport Consultees
6.3.6 As has been previously mentioned, the Dorset County Council Local Transport Plan 3 supports the introduction of marine links along the Jurassic Coast. The Council, jointly with Devon CC, has funded much of the work to date and would likely be the principal funding body for the proposed new infrastructure at Studland.
6.3.7 Both Bournemouth Borough Council and Poole Borough Council support the introduction of the Poole Bay Pilot, although neither Council would be in a position to provide either capital or revenue funding to support the service.
Purbeck District Council Coastal Engineers
6.3.8 Following the site visits, TMG consulted with the Coastal Engineer for Purbeck District Council (PDC). They confirmed that the beach at Studland is constantly monitored by the Channel Coastal Observatory based at Southampton University and run by the New Forest District Council. The beach is constantly changing but PDC noted that it is quite feasible to run a ferry service, utilising a 32 metre ferry with a 0.8 metre draft to the beach, provided the relevant permissions and licences were obtained from the Crown Estate and the National Trust. They felt that the Observatory would have up to date charts of the beach waters.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 63/84
Local Stakeholder Views
6.3.9 Given the large population of the Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch conurbation, it was not possible to pick up detailed local views on the proposed pilot as part of this study. However, our consultations with the local authorities suggested that there would be general support for the project, so long as the public sector was not providing long‐ term subsidy to the service. Our limited consultations also picked up support for the project in Swanage.
6.3.10 The situation is however somewhat different in Studland, where there is likely to be opposition from the local resident population to the introduction of a ferry service. Local opposition is likely to stem both from objections to bringing more visitors to an already crowded stretch of beach and also from the construction of new infrastructure in whatever form it takes. It is difficult to offer a definite view on the extent of this impediment, but it is possible that local objections could be overcome through a process of setting out the benefits of the scheme, marketing and close engagement with the local population.
Other Public Transport Operators
6.3.11 The proposed ferry service in Poole Bay would almost identically mirror the service offered by the Go Ahead service 50 bus, which runs from Bournemouth to Swanage via Studland and the Sanbanks chain ferry. The ferry would also have some similarities to the Go Ahead service 40, which runs from Poole to Swanage via Wareham.
6.3.12 Go Ahead share similar views to First in the East Devon pilot. They believe that there could be synergies with the existing bus service and do not foresee issues of revenue abstraction given the limited timetable of the ferry. However, the company would oppose any operating subsidy for the service given recent reductions in bus service operator grants in Dorset.
6.3.13 As part of the consultation, we also spoke with the operators of the Sandbanks Chain Ferry to determine whether they seen the proposed service as competition. The company explained that there may be some limited abstraction of foot passengers. However, the key market for the chain ferry is cars and the operator does not foresee any particular revenue abstraction issues with the proposed ferry service.
6.4 Summary
6.4.1 Our consultations suggest that there are no ‘show‐stopping’ issues in either pilot at this stage. Providing a sound business case for the service can be developed for each pilot service, there is broad spectrum of support for the Marine Links Project from local government, other public transport operators and the local population in most of the proposed pilot landing stages.
6.4.2 Nonetheless, there is, in our view, a need to finalise infrastructure designs and engage with the relevant planning authorities through the pre‐application process immediately thereafter. This is a particularly pertinent issue in Studland, where the introduction of
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 64/84
new infrastructure will require a wide range of consents from different organisations (and may well be subject to objections from the local population). Given the centrality of Studland to the revenue forecasts for the pilot, the failure to realise this infrastructure would fatally undermine the Poole Bay Pilot.
6.4.3 A review of the Outline Financial Assessment is also required to determine whether a subsidy would be required to run either of the two services. If a subsidy were required, legal and procurement advice would be required as any subsidy could represent a State Aid in that it would abstract revenue from commercial bus operators. It is also important to consider the potential issue of any such abstraction in terms of the ongoing commercial viability of these services.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 65/84
7. OPERATOR INTEREST
7.1 Overview
7.1.1 This chapter addresses the issue of potential operator interest in running either the East Devon or Poole Bay pilot ferry services. Our review of the Feasibility Study suggests that potential operational models were not assessed in any significant detail as these were not part of the scope of the original commission. There are a few comments in the concluding chapter about the proposed business model, but no systematic analysis and commentary of how these services would operate. This is a key weakness of the Feasibility Study. There is therefore a need here to define potential operational models and set out the risks attached to each.
7.2 Local Operator Interest
7.2.1 As part of the consultation exercise, we consulted with a number of existing pleasure cruise operators, namely:
| East Devon
z Stuart Lines Cruises;
| Poole Bay
z Blueline Cruises; z Green Slade Ferries; and z Brownsea Island Ferries.
7.2.2 In the interests of operator confidentiality, we do not discuss individual responses in this report. Overall however, there was a common position amongst existing pleasure cruise operators that they would not be interested in operating a scheduled ferry service without receipt of a subsidy. Furthermore, there was a commonly agreed view amongst these companies that they would expect the public sector to bear most if not all of the revenue risk.
7.2.3 The lack of interest amongst local operators can in part be attributed to the fact that they are typically small family firms. Scaling up to operate a timetabled ferry service would require investment in new vessels, recruitment of crew and increased overheads in terms of insurances, marketing etc. In addition, with the service being seasonal only, the operator(s) would need to either:
| charter their vessels from the ‘spot’ or short‐term market, which would increase charter costs and introduce the potentially high risks that a suitable vessel could not be found in any given year; or | purchase / secure a vessel on a long‐term charter and find an alternative use for it during off‐season.
7.2.4 The local operators also lack the scale to undertake the required demand research to fully understand the market. Given the concerns we have raised over the existing demand forecasting in this report, we do not feel that these operators would have any
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 66/84
feel (except from their own operations) for the size of the market and its sensitivity to a range of factors, including fares, vessels, calling points etc.
7.2.5 Smaller operators would also lose their operational flexibility to respond to service demand, meaning they would be mandated to run services that are potentially not profitable. Furthermore, it is difficult to see why any local operator would sign‐up to operate a timetabled service without a guarantee of route exclusivity. Without such a guarantee, other local operators with more operational flexibility (ie those not tied to a timetable) could ‘cherry pick’ the most profitable sailings, landing points etc. On the flip side, if exclusivity were to be granted, it would in all likelihood be deemed anti‐ competitive by the European Commission unless the service is let in a tender open to all community members (this is discussed in more detail below). At a more local level, it is likely the awarding of exclusivity would be poorly received as it could be highly detrimental to firms not successful in tendering for the service.
7.2.6 Existing operators also expressed significant concern about the levels of demand even for a seasonal service, with a number of the above firms indicating that the ‘season’ effectively consists of the Easter period, May late bank holiday / half‐term week, the English school summer holidays and the September weekend.
7.2.7 Overall, existing operators feel that taking on the delivery of a formalised service without a subsidy and the transfer of risk to the public sector would mean that they are being asked to “bet the business”. The step change in scale required would mean that these operators, in all likelihood, would need to secure the required capital against their existing businesses and, potentially, their own personal assets.
7.3 Wider Operator Interest
7.3.1 Our Brief for this study did not specifically include the gauging of the wider operator interest as this is a significant exercise in its own right. However, through TMG’s industry contacts, we have consulted with a number of larger firms to understand whether they would have an interest of running the pilot services.
7.3.2 Interestingly, a number of larger firms did suggest that they would consider running the pilot services, subject to their assessment of the business case. The larger firms with whom we consulted have the scale to deliver and run services of this nature, whilst they also have a wider portfolio of operations which would allow them to spread the risks. For example, one operator could send a vessel to Dorset or East Devon during the summer months and bring it back to its core routes during the winter months to cover drydocking periods.
7.3.3 The JCWHT would clearly have to treat this issue with considerable sensitivity as there may be a negative reaction if a non‐local operator moved into the market and abstracted traffic from local pleasure cruise operators who have been resident in the area for many years.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 67/84
7.4 Regulations and Operational Models
It is important to note here that the consideration of operational models was not included within our brief for this study. However, it is the single most important issue to be considered going forward, as gauging operator interest within the context of different operational models is key to the success of any service. We have therefore attempted to set out the different operational models with a view to assisting the JCWHT in understanding the next steps in the process. However, whilst we have a good understanding of this area, ferry operations where the public sector is involved tend to involve consideration of European Commission legislation and State Aid issues. Our comments in this chapter should therefore not be taken as fact, rather as a steer on the next steps, each of which should be rigorously examined by the respective councils’ legal and procurement teams.
7.4.1 There are three broad potential operational models for the proposed pilot ferry services, each with their own variations. These are:
| OM1 ‐ free market operation; | OM2 ‐ public sector operation; and | OM3 ‐ Public Service Obligation / Public Service Contract.;
OM1 ‐ Free Market Operation
7.4.2 The Feasibility Study implies (without explicitly stating) that the free‐market operation is the likely business model to be adopted, albeit with the JCWHT providing the marine infrastructure (jetties and piers). This implies that there is currently a market failure, whereby there is a demand amongst operators to run the proposed services but the absence of the required infrastructure at Studland in Dorset and Seaton and Sidmouth in East Devon is preventing these services from materialising. This view has not been validated by the consultation process – indeed, the opposite appears to be the case.
7.4.3 In a free market operation, the assumption is that the JCWHT would address this market failure through facilitating the funding for the necessary infrastructure. The market would then be left to deliver the service. Existing and new operators would be under no obligation to run any services. Where an operator did choose to run a service, there would be no obligation on that operator to meet a given service specification in terms of eg fares, timetables, vessel type etc.
Where is this model currently in operation?
7.4.4 The most high profile UK example of free market operations using public sector infrastructure are the riverboat services on the River Thames. The majority of the landing points, such as Embankment and Greenwich Piers, are provided by Transport for London (TfL), with riverboat operators paying berthing and pier dues to TfL, which they recover through the farebox. This model is highly successful in London because the visitor market provides both volume and a relatively high willingness‐to‐pay on a year‐ round basis.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 68/84
Is this model appropriate in the context of Jurassic Coast Pilots?
7.4.5 The premise of the initial feasibility study was that a free market operation would emerge if the JCWHT provided the necessary infrastructure at Seaton, Sidmouth and Studland. This approach assumed that there is sufficient demand for a scheduled ferry service but the lack of infrastructure is inhibiting the provision of the service – ie there is a market failure.
7.4.6 A combination of the consultation undertaken and our own experience in ferry operations suggests that this is not the case – we think it highly unlikely that a free market service will emerge purely on the basis of new infrastructure being provided. This is partly because we have concerns over the demand forecasting and Outline Financial Assessment (which were set out in Chapter 2).
7.4.7 Even if one or more operators were to come forward to run a service, the JCWHT would have no control or influence over the operation despite supplying the infrastructure. In particular, there would be no impediment to an operator withdrawing from the market or choosing not to run timetabled services due to a lack of demand. Reliability of service is critical for scheduled ferry services and it seems unlikely that the free market solution will deliver in this regard.
7.4.8 In summary, we believe there are significant risks to the JCWHT of investing in new infrastructure of the premise of “build it and they will come”. We feel that there is a high risk that this approach could lead to ‘white elephant’ infrastructure.
OM2 ‐ Public Sector Operation
7.4.9 The converse of OM1 is the fully integrated public sector operation, where the JCWHT and its partners would fund all of the necessary infrastructure upgrades, purchase a vessel(s) and operate the service out of the public purse. The public sector would be responsible for all ongoing capital and operational costs. Any surplus revenue would be retained and any deficit funded by the respective councils.
Where is this model currently in operation?
7.4.10 Fully integrated public sector operations can typically be found where:
| marine transport cannot be delivered commercially but is critical to the social and economic vitality of an area; and / or | where an authority historically views a ferry as part of its road network.
7.4.11 Perhaps unsurprisingly, the main areas of public sector ferry operations in the UK are internal ferry services within the Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands. Smaller scale examples include those in Argyll & Bute, serving islands such as Lismore and Seil.
7.4.12 The treatment of ferries as part of the road network is common in Scandinavian countries, with both Sweden and Norway providing public sector run ferry services across major rivers, inlets and fjords. Closer to home, Highland Council runs the Corran Ferry between Corran and Nether Ardgour on the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 69/84
Is this model appropriate in the context of Jurassic Coast Pilots?
7.4.13 The risks associated with a free market operation could be mitigated by the public sector running the services. Whilst there is a logic to this approach in the context of lifeline ferry services, it does not seem appropriate for what is a largely tourist service on the south coast.
7.4.14 From a financial perspective, there would need to be significant public sector expenditure to fund the infrastructure, vessel purchase and operation of the service (eg crew, fuel, dues etc). In addition, recruitment or seconded consultants would be required to provide the necessary technical expertise to begin the service and manage ongoing operations. In the current financial climate, this would obviously give rise to questions over where both the capital and revenue funding would come from, assuming the fare box does not cover all costs.
7.4.15 There would also be wider questions and indeed criticism from local people and businesses as to why their local rates are being spent on developing and operating what would in effect be a tourist service. In all likelihood, criticism would be particularly severe from local bus operators currently facing cuts to local authority funding.
7.4.16 Finally, it is highly questionable whether a public sector run service would be permissible under the European Commission Maritime Cabotage Regulations (see below). It could be strongly argued that there is no pressing social or economic need for the ferry services, which would call into question the rationale for public sector operation. Even where the Commission did accept a need for public sector support, they would almost certainly insist that the service is put out to tender. Indeed, a number of the existing local authority operators in Scotland have been under some pressure in this respect in recent years.
7.4.17 Overall, we do not believe that fully integrated public sector operation of the proposed pilots is feasible. The rationale for public sector ownership and operation is questionable and would be criticised by the public, local businesses and other stakeholders. In addition, questions would arise as to how the capital and revenue funding required for the service would be sourced, particularly against a backdrop of cuts in other public transport services.
OM3 – Public Service Obligations / Public Service Contracts
7.4.18 A middle ground between the free market and public sector operation is a situation where the public sector defines what service is required and looks to the private sector to provide it, either commercially or with the assistance of a subsidy. The delivery mechanisms for such a service are discussed in more detail below.
European Commission Cabotage Regulations
7.4.19 The European Cabotage Regulations are defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92. This directive regulates the transportation of passengers by sea between two points within Member States of the European Union. The Cabotage Regulations apply the
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 70/84
principle of free movement of services to maritime transport and oblige member states to allow community ship owners to operate freely in the European market.
7.4.20 The Cabotage Regulations recognise that marine transport can often be vital to the economic prosperity of an area. As such, exceptions to the principle of free movement of services are allowed where, owing to special circumstances, market forces would not provide a satisfactory level of service. In certain circumstances, the Cabotage Regulations allow Member States to intervene in particular markets by imposing Public Service Obligations (PSOs) and / or providing subsidies to undertakings who take on Public Service Obligations.
Public Service Obligation (PSO)
7.4.21 Where the public sector does not wish to operate ferry services directly but, at the same time, has a desire to influence certain service characteristics, they can impose a Public Service Obligation (PSO) on a route. A PSO will help to ensure an adequate regular ferry service to and from given location(s) where community ship owners, in considering their own commercial interests, would not provide an adequate level of service.
7.4.22 It is the decision of individual member states to determine which routes the market would fail to deliver in its own right. The imposition of a PSO will only typically be challenged by the European Commission in the case of “manifest error”.
Key Question: Would the Commission permit the imposition of a PSO in the two pilot areas? Advice would have to be sought on this matter.
7.4.23 PSO requirements that can be mandated by member states are limited to the following service characteristics:
| the ports to be served by a ferry service; | requirements in relation to the length of operating day, timetable, frequency of services and vessel capacity; and | fare levels.
7.4.24 A crucial issue is that when imposing a PSO, member states must ensure that there is no discrimination against community ship owners interested in serving a route. So, for example, if the JCWHT imposed a PSO in either of the pilot areas, they would have to ensure that it did not discriminate against non‐local or indeed non‐UK operators. The non‐discrimination point must be observed throughout the process, from specifying the content of the PSO through to service commencement.
7.4.25 PSOs can be implemented in two ways:
| applying PSOs to all operators on a route by way of a fixed set of commitments for an operator or a licencing system; or | entering into a public service contract (PSC) with individual operators for one or more routes.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 71/84
Where is this model currently in operation?
7.4.26 There are few examples of marine transport PSOs in the UK, generally because non‐ commercial services require subsidies. However, PSO arrangements exist in various countries in Europe, such as Denmark, Spain and for freight services in Portugal.
Public Service Contract (PSC)
7.4.27 If upon imposition of a PSO it becomes clear that no operators are willing to offer the required level of service without a subsidy, the organisation promoting the PSO can then seek to implement a Public Service Contract (PSC). A PSC cannot be offered without first declaring a PSO. Any PSC offered will have to be procured in accordance with the Cabotage Regulations, EU and national procurement rules.
7.4.28 PSCs are the instrument typically used to impose PSOs where a subsidy is required for providing the PSO requirements. A PSC can cover a wider range of requirements than a PSO, including continuity of service over a contract period. With a PSO only, there is no barriers to operators entering or leaving the market, providing a lack of guarantees over the long‐term viability of the service. A PSC negates this problem by contractually mandating the tendered operator to see out a tender period.
7.4.29 As previously mentioned, where a PSO is imposed, it must be on a non‐discriminatory basis – the same applies for a PSC. In addition, where a subsidy is provided in return for delivering the contractual requirements, this subsidy must be available to all community ship owners (ie not just British owned or flagged vessels).
7.4.30 When procuring a PSC for ferry services, the Commission would advise launching an open, community‐wide tendering process, which they see as the best way to avoid discrimination. However, the decision as to whether to pursue this option rests with the authority undertaking the procurement.
7.4.31 It should be noted that there are two distinct types of subsidy available to procurement bodies:
| a gross‐cost contract pays the operator a specified sum to provide a specified service for a specified period. All revenue collected is returned to the funding authority; and | a net‐cost contract is where an operator provides a specified service for a specified period and retains all of the revenue. The authority pays a subsidy to the operator if the services are forecast to be unprofitable. If the services are profitable, the operator will pay the authority a royalty. Under a net‐cost contract, the operator has to forecast both the costs and revenues and the risk on this typically lies with the operator.
7.4.32 An important issue with a PSC is to identify the appropriate balance between risk and reward for operators that will bid for the contract. By definition, a PSC is put in place to ensure a service is delivered that the market would not otherwise offer. There will therefore be an element of prescription in the contract in terms of timetable, fares etc.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 72/84
It is our experience that PSCs which are overly prescriptive are either expensive to administer or attract no bidders.
7.4.33 In order to attract bidders and increase competition, a PSC should ensure that it offers bidders a fair return on investment, typically reflecting market rates of return. There is often a perception that bidders should make little or no money from a tendered service because a subsidy is being paid. This is reflected in the contract ‘clawback mechanism’, which stipulates that the operator will pay a certain percentage of its profits back to the contracting body. In our experience, we have come across a number of highly prescriptive contracts with high profit clawbacks, a good example being the previous Clyde & Hebrides Ferry Services tender, which had a clawback of around 95%. Whilst this prevented profiteering, the operator had no incentive to innovate or improve the service because they had no realistic opportunity of making a good return on their investment. At a more local level, the first of two recent tenders for ferry services in Torbay went unanswered because the rate of return offered to the market was unacceptable. When this was increased to around 30% in the second attempt at the tender, bidders came forward and the successful tenderer is now in the process of being appointed.
7.4.34 A good example of a well‐designed PSC is that for the service between Ballycastle and Rathlin Island in Northern Ireland. The tendering party agreed an innovative profit sharing agreement with the operator, which provided the operator with the incentive to grow the business but at the same time ensured the public received a financial benefit from this. Defining the rate of return is therefore a key aspect of any ferry tender.
Where is this model currently in operation?
7.4.35 The PSC model is used across many European countries to support air and ferry services in particular. Indeed, PSC’s are used extensively in Scotland to support the operation of ferry services to the Clyde & Hebridean islands and the Northern Isles.
7.4.36 Scotland’s tendered services currently operate on a broadly net‐cost contract system, where the operators are paid a monthly subsidy to top‐up the forecast revenue shortfall from farebox and other sales. The local authority services are run on a gross‐cost system, as they are generally wholly owned by the respective councils.
Exclusivity
7.4.37 One important question that would need to be considered is whether any tender undertaken in Poole Bay or East Devon offered exclusive rights to the route for the winning bidder. Exclusivity could be detrimental to local pleasure cruise companies if they were seen to be competing and limits market entry. However, where exclusivity is not granted, it is likely that the successful operator would look for some insurance against the risk of a competitor market skimming or ‘cherry picking’ the most profitable services. This insurance would either be in the form of pricing the risk into the overall tender price (thus driving subsidy up at the outset) or inclusion of a provision within the contract that the subsidy would be increased if competitors entered the market.
7.4.38 This is a key issue for the contracting authority when specifying the tender. Failure to manage the risk of competition under a PSC can have serious cost risks. For example, in
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 73/84
the early 2000s, the tendered ferry operator between the Scottish mainland and the Orkney and Shetland Islands (then NorthLink Ferries, which was effectively run by the public sector) faced market entry on its Caithness – Orkney route from a private operator. Free from restrictive PSC conditions, the private operator captured a large market share and made the NorthLink service unviable. To address this, the Scottish Government had to re‐tender the NorthLink services and insert a clause within the tender whereby the Scottish Government accepted the cost risk of market entry – this has progressively driven the subsidy up over a number of years. This is a key issue for the JCWHT because the current pressure on local authority budgets make such a risk unacceptable.
7.4.39 In certain situations, the European Commission will accept that exclusivity is required to meet the essential transport needs of a given route, so long as the contract award is granted for a limited time period and on the basis of a fair, open and non‐discriminatory ferry service.
Key Questions: Would the JCWHT seek to impose exclusivity within a PSC? Would this be authorised by the Commission?
State Aid
7.4.40 As well as the Cabotage Regulations, any public support for ferry services along the Jurassic Coast must be compliant with European State Aid legislation. State Aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. So, for example, the provision of a subsidy or public sector funded vessel to an operator would be considered a State Aid if not procured in the manner described above.
7.4.41 To avoid a State Aid case being referred to the Commission, the following four criteria must be met:
| the receiving undertaking (ie the winning tenderer) must have public service obligations to discharge and these must be clearly defined in the contract; | the subsidy must be calculated in an objective and transparent manner; | the subsidy cannot exceed what is necessary to cover the costs in discharging the public service obligations plus a “reasonable” (ie industry standard) profit; and | if the undertaking concerned is not chosen under a compliant public procurement procedure, then the level of subsidy must be determined on the basis of an analysis of costs of what an efficient undertaking would have incurred.
7.4.42 State Aid is an issue of European law – outwith the precedent related criteria set out above, there is not a firm definition of what does or does not constitute a State Aid. This is decided on a case‐by‐case basis.
7.4.43 It is important to note here that State Aid considerations may apply to competition with land‐based transport, particularly bus services.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 74/84
Should the JCWHT choose to pursue a PSC, we would strongly recommend early engagement with the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, who provide State Aid advice to public sector bodies across England – more details can be found at https://www.gov.uk/state‐aid#getting‐advice. It would also be worth consulting with Transport Scotland, who have vast experience in the issue of State Aid pertaining to ferry services.
Route Bundling
7.4.44 Should the JCWHT wish to pursue both pilot services, an important consideration would be whether to tender the routes separately or together (which is known as bundling).
7.4.45 The bundling of routes is often seen as beneficial because it reduces costs, offers economies of scale and can help to attract more bidders (because the ‘prize’ is bigger). The European Commission does not see the bundling of routes as discriminatory in its own right but a balance does need to be struck between the size of bundles and the risk that they could create a barrier to entry. For example, bundling the two pilot routes may attract more bidders but would make it extremely difficult for the small local operators to compete given the step‐change in operational scale on not just one but two routes.
7.4.46 Compliance with the Cabotage Regulations requires that the size and composition of bundles should not unduly or significantly restrain competition during the tender by excluding entrance into the market.
Key Question: Would the JCWHT look to tender each pilot route individually or procure them as a single bundle?
Contract Length and Vessels
7.4.47 A further important consideration when procuring a PSC is the duration of the contract and how this relates to the vessel offered. The Cabotage Regulations do not set a maximum duration for a PSC but there is a prevailing view that contracts should be offered for a maximum of six years. Thereafter, they should be retendered.
7.4.48 One of the criticisms of this approach across all transport tendering and franchising is that the cost of investment in capital assets such as ferries, aircraft or rail rolling stock are recovered over the life of that asset, typically 30 years. However, with a contract period of only six years, there is obviously little incentive to purchase new tonnage because losing the next contract could lead to the operator being left with a vessel that they cannot use, particularly if it is built for very specific sea conditions.
7.4.49 One potential solution to this is that a vessel purpose built to serve a route undergoes what is known as a transfer of assets at the end of the contract. Under this arrangement, assuming ownership of the said vessel and the attached liabilities would form part of the next contract. As a result, an operator coming to the end of its contract would not face the problem of being left with an expensive capital asset and nowhere to use it. The operational crew would also move into the employment of the new operator
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 75/84
under what is known as a “Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)” (TUPE for short).
7.4.50 However, the European Commission does not typically favour this approach as it views a tender requirement whereby a successful bidder for a PSC has to assume control of existing vessels and crew as discriminatory. This is because it does not allow Community ship owners to come forward with their own vessels. This has been a long‐term point of debate in Scotland in the Clyde & Hebrides network, where any new operator has to use the vessels provided by the government asset company (Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL)) and accept the TUPE transfer of crews. Special permissions were recently granted to Transport Scotland to continue with this arrangement because the current CMAL fleet is seen to be unique in its scope, size and composition. However, it is unlikely that such an allowance would be provided on the Jurassic Coast.
7.4.51 There is therefore a clear trade‐off between tender length and securing the most appropriate tonnage. This is an issue that would have to be discussed with procurement experts should a service be pursued.
Key Question – What length of tender would the JCWHT seek to pursue? Would the JCWHT seek to secure new tonnage by inserting a transfer of assets clause into the tender? Would this be seen as discriminatory by the European Commission?
Testing the Market
7.4.52 In advance of announcing a competition for a public service contract, it is possible to undertake a market testing exercise to assist in defining the scope of the procurement. The market testing process can help the contracting authority obtain clarity on what the market thinks is appropriate in terms of vessels, timetables, the length of the operating day etc. However, it is important to note that market testing process must be carried out in a way which does not prejudice the process or preclude competition.
7.4.53 One way of carrying out market testing would be to issue a Prior Information Notice (PIN). A PIN would give the market notice that a procurement for ferry services in the pilot areas may be coming forward. Those who respond to the PIN notice could be consulted in developing the tender notice.
Transport Scotland has recently released two PIN notices for ferries, one for the Gourock‐Dunoon service and the latter for the Clyde & Hebrides Ferry Services tender. We would recommend consulting with Transport Scotland regarding appropriate material to be included in a PIN as their insights could be highly valuable.
7.4.54 In order for the market testing to be successful, consultees will have to be provided with a certain level of detail about the proposed procurement. However, the level of detail should not exceed what would be included in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) notice. Any information provided to consultees should be made available in the ‘Information Room’ to any bidders who come forward under the OJEU process. The
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 76/84
consultation should also be transparent, with a list of consultees and their responses being documented.
7.4.55 Crucially, the information provided as part of the PIN process should not give consultees at this stage an advantage over other bidders further down the line. The consultation should also be carried out in a way that does not preclude future competition.
7.5 Summary
7.5.1 In summary, we do not feel the issue of operator interest and potential delivery models has been considered in any detail to date. The Feasibility Study alludes to a potential free market operation but does not provide any further detail or consider the pros and cons of this option.
7.5.2 Based on our experience, we do not believe that the concept of “build it and they will come” is appropriate in this context. Firstly, the infrastructure being proposed is not overly costly and if a major ferry company had seen a potential market, they may well have funded the infrastructure directly and begun running services themselves. Our consultations raised a number of concerns amongst local operators related to potential demand.
7.5.3 Even if operators were to come forward, the public sector would have no control over what they offer in terms of vessels, timetables, fares etc, despite having funded the enabling infrastructure. Market entry and exit would be unregulated and it is possible that a legacy of ‘white elephant’ infrastructure could follow.
7.5.4 As direct public ownership and operation is not feasible, we believe that only the declaration of a PSO and possibly a subsequent PSC will deliver the regular reliable ferry service sought by the JCWHT. There are a large number of questions in this regard, particularly related to the views of the European Commission on the declaration of a PSO, the granting of exclusivity, bundling, vessels policy, contract length, State Aid etc. In addition, there would be many local decisions to be made were a subsidy required. The Brief for this study did not include any attempt to resolve these issues. However, we would strongly recommend that the JCWHT consult with procurement and legal experts at Dorset County Council / Devon County Council / East Devon Council to understand what could be delivered and how.
7.5.5 Based on our experience of tendered ferry services, it is our strong view that any future work to develop these pilot services should be preceded by a market testing exercise (using a PIN notice) to test operator interest and inform the most appropriate tender specification and operational model going forward. A market testing exercise of this nature would at the very least identify a potential scope of services and whether or not there is high level interest in providing the proposed services.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 77/84
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Conclusions
8.1.1 This report has provided a detailed peer review of the Jurassic Coast Marine Links Feasibility Study. The review has considered the main aspects of the proposed ferry services, from operational and technical matters through to the Outline Financial Assessment and stakeholder views.
8.1.2 In conclusion, it is our considered view that there are a number of weaknesses in the work undertaken to date which can be partially attributed to the limited resources available to carry out the feasibility analysis. Whilst in our judgement the recommended infrastructure provision appears fit‐for‐purpose, subject to the identified modifications, we have identified methodological errors and limitations in the demand forecasting which, combined with the failure to identify a route to market (ie from feasibility to delivery), means that it is currently not possible to definitively state whether either of the two pilot services are viable.
8.1.3 In addition, the absence of extensive engagement with key stakeholders in the planning process casts a further element of uncertainty on what can be delivered and at what cost.
8.1.4 It may well be the case that the two proposed pilot services can be realised, but we suggest that it would be unwise for the work undertaken to date, which we have been granted access to for this peer review, to be solely relied upon as a basis for capital investment or funding bids. Should the JCWHT wish to continue exploring the viability of these services, there is a potential requirement for a range of remedial and new actions that would more fully inform the technical, operational and economic case for proceeding with the project although we would highlight that these would predominantly be to supplement the work that has already been undertaken. Our recommendations in this regard are presented below.
8.2 Recommendations
8.2.1 We note from our discussions with you to date that there is a desire to avoid further significant consultancy work. We have therefore attempted to base our recommendations on this premise. However, it is likely that at least some expert advice will be required in refining the case for the two proposed pilot services.
Technical – Marine Infrastructure
8.2.2 Our Peer Review has identified that the marine infrastructure proposed as part of this study is broadly fit for purpose, although we have recommended some additional investment and incremental changes to the designs in the feasibility study. Our improvements are suggested on the basis of operating a regular and reliable ferry service, capable of accessing landing points at all states of the tide.
8.2.3 Our recommended improvements include:
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 78/84
| The proposed jetty at Sidmouth should be extended seawards 10‐15 metres and a concrete bankseat of approximately 10 metres constructed at the landward end. | The proposed jetty at Seaton needs to be extended seawards 10 to 15 metres. | The current infrastructure at Lyme Regis could not accommodate the type of vessel recommended for this service. Unless a further berth is constructed in the Outer Harbour, the port could not be used as a landing point for a ferry service in all states of the tide. | Bournemouth Pier could only be included in any scheduled ferry service if the berth and approach were dredged and maintenance work undertaken on the pier. | At Studland, we believe that the best option would be steel pontoons with feet, which could be brought ashore in the winter and would be least disruptive to the sea bed.
8.2.4 The above are only preliminary comments and would be subject to more detailed design work. Such design work should be supplemented by:
| detailed wave analysis at Studland, Seaton and Sidmouth using a wave rider buoy. This would need to be deployed in the area of the seaward end of the proposed jetties and accurate weather data provided for this position before work commences on building; | the undertaking of topographical and hydrographic surveys at Seaton and Sidmouth; and | data collection on longshore drift patterns.
8.2.5 With regards to the vessel, our view is that it should be larger than those recommended in the Feasibility Study and be of a catamaran construction. The vessel would operate in the summer season only and would have to be able to operate in at least a 1.5 metres significant wave height, although preferably 2.0 metres.
8.2.6 However, it may also be worth leaving some scope in any tender specification for potential operators to provide their own proposed vessel specification.
The Planning Process
8.2.7 Having refined the proposed infrastructure options at Seaton, Sidmouth and Studland, we believe that the next stage in the process is to engage extensively with key stakeholders within the planning process. In our view, this would involve going through the pre‐application process with East Devon District Council, Purbeck District Council and Natural England. We would also recommend extensive engagement with the MMO and the Crown Estate, particularly at Studland, where the planning and environmental issues are likely to be most significant.
8.2.8 The outputs from the planning process should form an iterative loop back to the design of the marine infrastructure. Inputs from the planners should be used to produce final designs that will form the basis of the planning application. The planning application should then be put on hold until a review of the business case and market testing takes place.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 79/84
8.2.9 Once a viable business case and delivery mechanism for the services has been established the planning application should then be submitted and, upon approval, the infrastructure implemented to enable the services to be initiated.
Refinement of the Business Case
8.2.10 The extent to which this task needs to be undertaken is dependent on the JCWHT team’s view of how the market is likely to respond to a testing exercise. In a mature market (rail franchising or bus contracting for example), public sector bodies will put contracts out to tender and expect the bidders to formulate their own views on patronage and revenue. However, in a new market like that which is being proposed here, bidders may look for the public sector to provide market profiling and robust forecasts of potential demand. Where robust forecasts are absent (as is the case at present), the JCWHT may find it difficult to attract bidders and / or may end up paying for the demand‐related risks through the tender prices submitted by any bidders who do submit a compliant bid.
8.2.11 It is clear from our engagement with smaller local firms that they do not have the capability to undertake detailed demand research and thus the risks of bidding based on what is presented in the Feasibility Study would be too large and they would not bid. Larger firms may choose to bid and there is some evidence from our consultations and the forthcoming Torbay ferry service that this may be the case. Larger firms are more likely to undertake their own demand forecasting but, given the likely small size of the overall contract, it is possible that they may simply make use of what exists and price any risks back into the bid. There is therefore a significant risk that the public sector will ultimately over‐pay for any ferry service unless more detailed and robust demand research is undertaken.
8.2.12 The JCWHT must consequently decide whether to proceed with a market testing exercise, as described in next section, in the absence of more detailed demand forecasting and the development of a business case and accept that this may result in additional costs being priced into any tenders received from operators. Alternatively, the JCWHT may wish to procure a demand forecasting and business case development exercise at this stage to minimise this risk of additional costs being priced into tenders and to encourage more potential operators, particularly smaller ones, to participate in the bidding process. The latter option would incur more upfront costs (we estimate around £30,000‐£40,000) at this time but it could potentially save the public sector significantly more in subsidies for ferry services in the longer term.
Developing Demand Forecasts
8.2.13 In the event that the JCWHT chooses to undertake additional demand forecasting and Business Case development at this stage there are a range of measures and techniques that can be deployed to develop a significantly more robust set of forecasts which are summarised here.
8.2.14 The first issue we identified in the Peer Review was the design of the public survey, which was not suitable for use as the basis of quantitative demand forecasting for the proposed ferry services. A more appropriate approach would have been to use a Stated
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 80/84
Preference (or equivalent) survey which would typically be used to obtain a valuation of a non‐market resource. For a scheme like this, a preferred approach is often to carry out face‐to‐face interviews with potential users and present them with a series of showcards which provide a set of options about the characteristics of the proposed service. Each scenario would be varied to reflect users differing responses to changes in fares, journey times, size or comfort of the vessel, service reliability etc. and to attach a monetary value to each aspect of the service provision.
8.2.15 This approach would enable the JCWHT to determine willingness to pay for the service based upon its characteristics which can then be built into the demand forecasting. The market can be segmented to reflect differing reactions of various groups to changes in the proposed service such as longer journey times or higher fares with responses being governed by elasticity of demand ‐ the change in quantity demanded of a good or service relative to a change in its price – which could also be calculated from the survey.
8.2.16 The results of a Stated Preference survey would enable a much more reliable business case to be developed by creating demand forecasts taking into account market segmentation factors including trip purpose, resident or visitor trips, new or abstracted trips, age group, gender, etc. Price sensitivity and users’ elasticity of demand would also be reflected in their responses to changes in service provision. This would enable a revenue maximising solution to be identified where the optimum fare structure would be defined. Furthermore, sensitivity tests could be undertaken to understand the extent to which the business case was susceptible to risk and uncertainty in the assumptions.
8.2.17 The results from this process could then be validated through a benchmarking exercise by firstly comparing against existing landside transport services and also examining case studies of other similar ferry services. This would help to sense‐check the demand forecasts.
Market Testing
8.2.18 Irrespective of whether additional demand research is carried out in advance or not, we would recommend testing the market using the PIN procedure set out in the OJEU Guidance. Advice from the procurement and legal departments of Dorset County Council would be required before embarking on this process.
8.2.19 The PIN notice should set out the intended requirements of the buyer (the JCWHT) in terms of service specification, vessels, likely need for subsidy etc. and invite the market to respond with their views on what is being procured.
8.2.20 It should be noted that one of the possible outcomes from the PIN procedure could be that operators express an interest in providing the services but are unwilling or unable to develop their own demand forecasts and Business Case. In this case the JCWHT will be required to undertake the demand forecasting and Business Case development work described previously.
8.2.21 Alternatively, operators may wish to develop their own demand forecasts in which case the JCWHT would not necessarily have to carry out the demand forecasting and Business
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 81/84
Case work we describe although this may still be beneficial for benchmarking operator forecasts.
8.2.22 Expressions of interest through the PIN process would not guarantee that firms would bid for any contract. However, if no responses to a PIN notice were received, it would, at the very least, confirm that there is no interest in running the service. Should sufficient interest for running the services be generated, it would be then, and only then, that a formal planning application should be submitted to build the necessary infrastructure and approach the industry to procure the relevant services.
8.3 Next Steps
8.3.1 In summary, we recognise that a significant amount of valuable work has been undertaken to develop the pilot service proposals to this point and we acknowledge the potential for these services to be successfully delivered in the context of the right operational and financial environment. We consequently recommend that the JCWHT considers the findings of this peer review and the options to progress the pilot services at the very least through revising the infrastructure proposals and testing market interest through a PIN notice.
8.3.2 If deemed necessary and depending upon the outcomes of the PIN notice procedure, we also recommend that the JCWHT considers undertaking additional work to develop more comprehensive demand forecasts to support the development of a robust Business Case.
8.3.3 We believe these additional tasks would be sufficient to develop an understanding of the pilot services to the point where it would be possible to identify whether their implementation is viable or not. Therefore, whilst our peer review has identified some issues with the delivery of the pilot services at this time we do not believe that these are insurmountable as we believe they can be resolved to a definitive conclusion as to the viability of the services with the additional expenditure and resources required kept to a minimum.
8.3.4 The process we recommend the JCWHT follows is set out in the following diagram. It should be noted that this process does not necessarily have to be rigidly followed and is provided to offer an indication of the actions that the JCWHT may wish to take and the order in which they could be taken. For example, the JCWHT may choose to undertake the demand forecasting and Business Case development work in advance of issuing the PIN notice if it chooses.
8.3.5 Overall, we conclude that the case for both the East Devon and Poole Bay pilot services remains viable at this time pending the undertaking of the additional tasks described previously. We would therefore recommend that the JCWHT continues to develop these pilot services through the processes described previously and set out in the following figure until the point that they either:
| successfully implement the services; or | encounter a barrier which cannot be overcome without excessive cost or time delay, at which point the proposals would be abandoned.
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 82/84
Develop Revised Infrastructure Proposals & Process identifies Undertake Planning Pre‐application Process insurmountable barriers
Issue PIN Notice
Operators interested Operators interested Operators do but want Business and develop own not express Case demonstrated Business Case interest Stated Preference Survey & Business Case development
Issue Service PQQ
Operators submit bids Operators do not bid
Planning Application No further work Application Approved Application Refused required & Infrastructure Works
Service Tendering & Implementation
Figure 50. Next Steps Process
Jurassic Coast Marine Links Jurassic Coast Marine Links Project – Peer Review 102771‐12 Final Report 30/04/2014 Page 83/84
SYSTRA provides advice on transport, to central, regional and local government, agencies, developers, operators and financiers.
A diverse group of results‐oriented people, we are part of a strong team of professionals worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real people in the real world.
For more information visit www.systra.co.uk
Abu Dhabi Hong Kong AS Business Centre, First Floor, Suites 201‐213, 14th Floor West, Warwick House, TaiKoo Place, Al Ain Road, Umm al Nar, P.O. Box 129865, 979 King's Road, Island East, Hong Kong Abu Dhabi, UAE T: +852 2529 7037 F: +852 2527 8490 T: +971 2 558 3809 F: +971 2 558 9961 Shenzhen Birmingham Room 905, Excellence Mansion, No.98, No.1 Fuhua Road, Second Floor, 37a Waterloo Street Futian Central Zone, Shenzhen, PRC, Post Code：518048 Birmingham B2 5TJ United Kingdom T：+86 755 3336 1898 F：+86 755 3336 2060 T: +44 (0)121 233 7680 F: +44 (0)121 233 7681 Shenzhen ‐ Beijing Branch Office Dublin Room 1503, Block C, He Qiao Mansion, No. 8 Guanghua Road, 1st Floor, 12/13 Exchange Place, Chaoyang District, Beijing, PRC, Post Code：100026 Custom House Docks, IFSC, Dublin 1 Ireland T：+86 10 8557 0116 F：+86 10 8557 0126 T: +353 (0)1 542 6000 F: +353 (0)1 542 6001 Beijing Joint Venture Edinburgh Room 1507, Main Building, No. 60, Nan Li Shi Road, Prospect House, 5 Thistle Street, Edinburgh EH2 1DF Xi Cheng District, Beijing, PRC, Post Code：100045 United Kingdom T：+86 10 8807 3718 F：+86 10 6804 3744 T: +44 (0)131 220 6966 Mumbai Glasgow Antriksh, Unit no. 301, 3rd Floor, CTS Nos. Seventh Floor, 78 St Vincent Street 773, 773/1 to 7, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East , Glasgow G2 5UB United Kingdom Mumbai 400069 T: +44 (0)141 225 4400 T: +91 22 2647 3134 Lille B 307, Great Eastern Summit Sector ‐ 15, CBD Belapur Navi 86 Boulevard Carnot, 59000 Lille, France Mumbai ‐ 400 614 T: +33 (0)3 74 07 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01 T: +91 22 2757 2745 London New Delhi Seventh Floor, 15 Old Bailey 5th Floor Guru Angad Bhawan, 71 Nehru Place, New Delhi London EC4M 7EF United Kingdom 110019 T: +44 (0)20 7529 6500 F: +44 (0)20 3427 6274 T: +91 11 2641 3310 Lyon Noida 11, rue de la République, 69001 Lyon, France 3/F, C‐131, Sector 2, Noida‐201301, U.P. T: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 29 F: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 28 T: +91 120 432 6999 Manchester Singapore 25th Floor, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza 25 Seah Street #04‐01 Singapore 188381 Manchester M1 4BT United Kingdom T：+65 6227 3252 F：+65 6423 0178 T: +44 (0)161 236 0282 F: +44 (0)161 236 0095 Thailand Marseille 37th Floor, Unit F, Payatai Plaza Building,128/404‐405 Payathai 76, rue de la République, 13002 Marseille, France Road, Rajthewee, Bangkok 10400, Thailand T: +33 (0)4 91 37 35 15 F: +33 (0)4 91 91 90 14 T：+662 216 6652 F：+662 216 6651 Newcastle Vietnam PO Box 438, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE3 9BT 5/F Perfect Building, Le Thi Hong Gam St, District 1, United Kingdom Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam T: +44 (0)191 2136157 ： ： Paris T +84 8 3821 7183 F +84 8 3821 6967 72 rue Henry Farman, 75015 Paris, France T: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01 Woking Dukes Court, Duke Street Woking, Surrey GU21 5BH United Kingdom T: +44 (0)1483 728051 F: +44 (0)1483 755207
Appendix A ‐ Glossary of Terms
1.1 Marine Terms
| Air Draft –the distance from the surface of the water to the highest point on a vessel. | Backwash – also known as offshore flow, is the reversal of the layer of water that rushes onto the beach once a wave has broken. | Beam – the width of a ship at its widest point. | Beaufort Scale – an empirical measure that relates wind speed to observed conditions at sea or on land. The Beaufort Scale is a thirteen point scale, ranging from BS0 (calm) to BS13 (hurricane force). | Catamaran – a multi‐hulled vessel consisting of two hulls of equal dimensions | Chart Datum – the level of water that charted depths displayed on a nautical chart are measured from. | Draft – the vertical distance between the waterline and the keel. | Dredging – an excavation activity designed to remove sediments from rivers, approach channels or berths to ensure that they remain navigable. | Hydrogaphic Survey – measurement and description of features which affect maritime navigation. | Longshore Drift – consists of the transportation of sediments along a coast at an angle to the shoreline. | Length Overall (LOA) – maximum length of a vessel’s hull measured parallel to the waterline. | Littoral Zone – is the part of the sea that is close to the shore | Mean High Water Neaps (MHWN) – the average throughout the year of the heights of two successive high waters during those periods of 24 hours (approximately once a fortnight) when the range of the tide is least. | Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) ‐ the average throughout the year of the heights of two successive high waters during those periods of 24 hours (approximately once a fortnight) when the range of the tide is greatest. | Mean Low Water Neaps (MLWN) ‐ the average throughout the year of the heights of two successive low waters during those periods of 24 hours (approximately once a fortnight) when the range of the tide is least. | Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) ‐ the average throughout the year of the heights of two successive low waters during those periods of 24 hours (approximately once a fortnight) when the range of the tide is greatest. | Monohull – a monohull is a type of boat that only has one hull | Nautical Mile – is a unit of length that is approximately one minute of arc measured along any meridian. By international agreement, a nautical mile has been set at 1,852 metres. | Scends – the upward heaving of a vessel by the sea. | Significant Wave Height – defined as the mean wave height (trough to crest) of the highest third of the waves. | Surf Zone – the region of breaking waves | Swash – the turbulent layer of water that washes up on the beach after an incoming wave has broken. | Swell – the formation of long wavelength waves on the surface of the sea. | Tidal Range – the vertical difference between the high tide and the succeeding low tide.
| Tides, Neap – a tide that occurs when the difference between high and low tide is least. Typically occurs on a first quarter or third quarter moon | Tides, Spring – a tide that occurs when the difference between high tide and low tide is greatest. Typically occurs on a new moon or full moon. | Wash – the wake left by a moving vessel.
1.2 Other Terms
| Bundling – the practice of including more than one route in a tender for a Public Service Contract. | ‘Cherry Picking’ – also known as market skimming, ‘cherry picking’ refers to an operator competing with the tendered operator for the highest value routes / market segments contained within a Public Service Contract. | Clawback Mechanism – the means by which a contracting authority ‘claws back’ profits in excess of an agreed threshold from an operator fulfilling a Public Service Contract. | Community Ship Owners – vessel owners / shipping companies from countries within the European Union. | Demand Abstraction – the displacement of demand from one or more operators / modes / services as a result of a new operator / mode / service being introduced. | Elasticity of Demand – the percentage change in demand resulting from a percentage change in price. | European Cabotage Regulations – the directive which regulates the carriage of passengers at sea between two points within member states of the European Union. | Gross‐Cost Contract ‐ pays the operator a specified sum to provide a specified service for a specified period. All revenue collected is returned to the funding authority. | Market Failure – a situation where the allocation of goods by the free market is inefficient. Often used as a basis / justification for public sector intervention in a project. | Member States – Countries which are members of the European Union. | Net‐Cost Contract ‐ is where an operator provides a specified service for a specified period and retains all of the revenue. The authority pays a subsidy to the operator if the services are forecast to be unprofitable. If the services are profitable, the operator will pay the authority a royalty. Under a net‐cost contract, the operator has to forecast both the costs and revenues and the risk on this typically lies with the operator. | Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) – the official gazette of record for the European Union. | Prior Information Notice (PIN) – A PIN is a method of providing the marketplace with early notification of the intent to award a contract / framework and can lead to early supplier discussions which may help inform the development of the specification. | Public Service Obligation (PSO) ‐ Where the public sector does not wish to operate ferry services directly but, at the same time, has a desire to influence certain service characteristics, they can impose a Public Service Obligation (PSO) on a route. A PSO will help to ensure an adequate regular ferry service to and from given location(s) where community ship owners, in considering their own commercial interests, would not provide an adequate level of service. | Public Service Contract (PSC) ‐ PSCs are the instrument typically used to impose PSOs where a subsidy is required for providing the PSO requirements.
| State Aid ‐ State Aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. | Stated Preference – also known as contingent valuation, is an economic technique used for the valuation of non‐market resources. | Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) – the legislation used to protect the employment of those transferring from one undertaking to another. | Willingness to Pay – The price that someone is willing to give up or pay to acquire a good or service. Willingness to pay is the source of the demand price of a good. However, unlike demand price, in which buyers are on the spot of actually giving up the payment, willingness to pay does not require an actual payment.
Appendix B ‐ Organisations Consulted
1.3 Cross‐Pilot Consultees
| Crown Estate | Marine Management Organisation | Maritime and Coastguard Agency | Natural England
1.4 East Devon Consultees
| Bridport Town Council | Devon County Council
z Andrew Ardley, Transport Officer
| East Devon District Council
z Keith Steel, Coastal Engineer z Andy Phillips, Beach Safety Officer z Richard Cohen, Deputy Chief Executive
| First Group | Seaton Town Council | Sidmouth Town Council | Stuart Line Cruises | Torbay Council | West Dorset District Council
1.5 Poole Bay Consultees
| Blue Line Cruises | Borough of Poole Council | Bournemouth Pier | Bournemouth Town Council | Brownsea Island Ferries | GoAhead Group | Dorset Coast Forum | Greenslade Ferries | National Trust | Poole Harbour Commissioners | Purbeck District Council | Sandbanks Ferry
SYSTRA provides advice on transport, to central, regional and local goverrnment, agencies, develoopers, operators and financiers.
A diveerse group of results‐oriented people, we are part of a strong team of professionals worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real peoople in the real world.
For more information visit www.systra.co.uk
Abu Dhabi Hong Kong AS Business Centre, First Floor, Suites 201‐213, 14th Floor West, Warwick House, TaiKKoo Place, Al Ain Road, Umm al Nar, P.O. Box 129865, 979 King's Road, Island East, Hong Kong Abu Dhabi, UAE T: +852 2529 7037 F: +852 2527 8490 T: +971 2 558 3809 F: +971 2 558 9961 Shenzhen Birmingham Room 905, Excellence Mansion, No.98, No.1 Fuhua Road, Second Floor, 37a Waterloo Street Futian Central Zone, Shenzhen, PRC, Post Code：518048 Birmingham B2 5TJ United Kingdom T：+86 755 3336 1898 F：+86 755 3336 2060 T: +44 (0)121 233 7680 F: +44 (0)121 233 7681 Shenzhen ‐ Beijing Branch Office Dublin Room 1503, Block C, He Qiao Mansionn, No. 8 Guanghua Road, 1st Floor, 12/13 Exchange Place, Chaoyang District, Beijing, PRC, Post Code：100026 Custom House Docks, IFSC, Dublin 1 Ireland T：+86 10 8557 0116 F：+86 10 85557 0126 T: +353 (0)1 542 6000 F: +353 (0)1 542 6001 Beijing Joint Venture Edinburgh Room 1507, Main Building, No. 60, Nan Li Shi Road, Prospect House, 5 Thistle Street, Edinburgh EH2 1DF Xi Cheng District, Beijjing, PRC, Post Code：100045 United Kingdom T：+86 10 8807 3718 F：+86 10 68004 3744 T: +44 (0)131 220 6966 Mumbai Glasgow Antriksh, Unit no. 301, 3rd Floor, CTS Nos. Seventh Floor, 78 St Vincent Street 773, 773/1 to 7, Makwana Road, Marrol, Andheri East , Glasgow G2 5UB United Kingdom Mumbai 400069 T: +44 (0)141 225 4400 T: +91 22 2647 3134
Lille B 307, Great Eastern Summit Sector ‐ 15, CBD Belapur Navi 86 Boulevard Carnot, 59000 Lille, France Mumbai ‐ 400 614 T: +33 (0)3 74 07 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01 T: +91 22 2757 2745
London New Delhi Seventh Floor, 15 Old Bailey 5th Floor Guru Angad Bhawan, 71 Nehru Place, New Delhi London EC4M 7EF United Kingdom 110019 T: +44 (0)20 7529 6500 F: +44 (0)20 3427 6274 T: +91 11 2641 3310
Lyon Noida 11, rue de la République, 69001 Lyon, France 3/F, C‐131, Sector 2, Noida‐201301, U.P. T: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 29 F: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 28 T: +91 120 432 6999
Manchester Singapore 25th Floor, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza 25 Seah Street #04‐01 Singapore 188381 Manchester M1 4BT United Kingdom T：+65 6227 3252 F：+65 6423 0178 T: +44 (0)161 236 0282 F: +44 (0)161 236 0095 Thailand Marseille 37th Floor, Unit F, Payatai Plaza Building,128/404‐405 Payathai 76, rue de la République, 13002 Marseille, France Road, Rajthewee, Bangkok 10400, Thaailand T: +33 (0)4 91 37 35 15 F: +33 (0)4 91 91 90 14 T：+662 216 6652 F：+662 216 6651 Newcastle Vietnam PO Box 438, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE3 9BT 5/F Perfect Building, Le Thi Hong Gam St, District 1, United Kingdom Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam T: +44 (0)191 2136157 T：+84 8 3821 7183 F：+84 8 38211 6967 Paris 72 rue Henry Farman, 75015 Paris, France T: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01
Woking Dukes Couurt, Duke Street Woking, Surrey GU21 5BH United Kingdom T: +44 (0)1483 728051 F: +44 (0)1483 755207