Maidens Harbour Feasibility Study - South Ayrshire · PDF fileTABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION...

Maidens Harbour Feasibility Study

December 2012

47062215

Prepared for: South Ayrshire Council

This project is part-financed by the European Union’s European Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG IVA Cross border Programme managed by the Special EU Programmes Body and is part of the Sail West initiative led by Donegal County Council.

South Ayrshire Council - Maidens Harbour Feasibility Study


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

1

REVISION RECORD

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

0 31.12.12 Final Ross MacPhie

Senior Engineer

Nicholas Williamson

Senior Engineer

Robert Clegg

Principal Engineer

URS

23 Chester Street

Edinburgh

EH3 7EN


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

2

Limitations

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of South Ayrshire Council (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. Refer to the report Preface.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report.

The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between February 2012 and May 2012 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances.

Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are based upon the information available at the time and where appropriate are subject to further investigations or information which may become available.

URS disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to URS’ attention after the date of the Report.

Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. URS specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.

Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant changes.

Where field investigations are carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail required to meet the stated objectives of the services. The results of any measurements taken may vary spatially or with time and further confirmatory measurements should be made after any significant delay in issuing this Report.

Costs may vary outside the ranges quoted. Whilst cost estimates are provided for individual issues in this Report these are based upon information at the time which can be incomplete. Cost estimates for such issues may therefore vary from those provided. Where costs are supplied, these estimates should be considered in aggregate only. No reliance should be made in relation to any division of aggregate costs, including in relation to any issue, site or other subdivision.

No allowance has been made for changes in prices or exchange rates or changes in any other conditions which may result in price fluctuations in the future. Where assessments of works or costs necessary to achieve compliance have been made, these are based upon measures which, in URS’ experience, could normally be negotiated with the relevant authorities under present legislation and enforcement practice, assuming a pro-active and reasonable approach by site management.

Forecast cost estimates do not include such costs associated with any negotiations, appeals or other non-technical actions associated with the agreement on measures to meet the requirements of the authorities, nor are potential business loss and interruption costs considered that may be incurred as part of any technical measures.

Copyright

© This Report is the copyright of URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

3

PREFACE

This report has been prepared by URS for South Ayrshire Council as explained within the Limitations noted on the preceding page.

The Sail West Project is a strategic programme for the development of marine leisure activities, tourism and infrastructure in the Republic of Ireland Border Region, Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland. The twenty project partners, led by Donegal County Council, secured a €7.4m funding package in early 2010 for a series of projects designed to improve the infrastructure and marketing of the area. The Sail West project is part-financed through the European Regional Development Fund INTERREG IVA 2007-2013 Cross-border Programme managed by the Special EU Programmes Body.

This report has been commissioned by South Ayrshire Council part-financed by the European Union’s INTERREG IVA Cross-border Programme for Ireland, Northern Ireland and West of Scotland 2007 – 13 managed by the Special EU Programmes Body. This study forms part of and contributes to the Sail West maritime tourism initiative led by Donegal County Council.

As this report is part funded through ERDF funds, it is the intention of South Ayrshire Council to publish the report without any obligation or liability to third party readers.

The views and opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission or the Special EU Programmes Body, South Ayrshire Council or the SailWest Partners.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 7

1.1 Project Background ......................................................... 7

1.2 Consultants Detailed Brief .............................................. 7

1.3 Record Information .......................................................... 7

1.4 Study Report .................................................................... 8

2 ENGINEERING WORKS FEASIBILITY ............................ 9

2.1 Harbour Description ........................................................ 9

2.1.1 Tides .................................................................................. 9

2.1.2 West Pier ........................................................................... 9

2.1.3 South Shore of Maidenhead Bay .................................... 9

2.1.4 East Breakwater ............................................................... 9

2.1.5 Navigation Channel ....................................................... 10

2.1.6 Current Condition of the Structures ............................ 10

2.1.7 Ground Conditions ........................................................ 10

2.2 Options for Pontoon Layouts ....................................... 10

2.2.1 Pontoon Layout - Option 1 ............................................ 10

2.2.2 Pontoon Layout – Option 2 ........................................... 11

2.2.3 Pontoon Layout – Option 3 ........................................... 12

2.3 Dredging and Slope Stability ........................................ 12

2.4 Breakwaters and Walls .................................................. 13

2.5 Channel Entrance Sedimentation ................................ 13

2.6 Pontoon Construction Details ...................................... 13

2.7 Wind Turbine Assessment ............................................ 14

2.8 Costs and Risks ............................................................. 14

3 SHORE BASED FACILITIES .......................................... 17

3.1 General Arrangement and Locations........................... 17

3.2 Hard Standing ................................................................ 18

3.3 Clubhouse, Chandlery, Toilets and Showers ............. 18

3.3.1 Clubhouse ...................................................................... 18

3.3.2 Clubhouse Bar ............................................................... 19

3.3.3 Chandlery ....................................................................... 20

3.3.4 Toilets and Showers ...................................................... 20

3.3.5 Boat Storage ................................................................... 20

3.4 Costs ............................................................................... 20

4 MARKET INFORMATION ............................................... 21

4.1 Introduction .................................................................... 21


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

5

4.2 Documents Reviewed .................................................... 21

4.3 Document Review Summaries ..................................... 21

4.3.1 Sailing in the Clyde Estuary ......................................... 21

4.3.2 Sail West Project ............................................................ 24

4.3.3 Sailing Tourism in Scotland ......................................... 27

4.3.4 Sail Scotland and Welcome Anchorages .................... 28

4.4 Market Assessment Review – Conclusions ................ 30

5 ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION AND BUSINESS PLAN .. 32

5.1 Introduction .................................................................... 32

5.2 Approach ........................................................................ 32

5.3 Strategic Case ................................................................ 32

5.3.1 Demographic and Economic Profile ............................ 32

5.3.2 Sailing Market Assessment Review ............................. 35

5.3.3 Case Studies .................................................................. 36

5.3.4 Tollesbury Marina .......................................................... 40

5.3.5 Other evidence and case studies ................................. 40

5.3.6 Strategic case summary ............................................... 41

5.4 Business Plan ................................................................ 42

5.4.1 Existing profile ............................................................... 42

5.4.2 Economic Case .............................................................. 43

5.4.3 Financial and Commercial Case ................................... 47

5.4.4 Income and Expenditure Summaries ........................... 48

5.4.5 Risk Assessment ........................................................... 52

5.5 Business Plan Summary ............................................... 52

6 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY .................................................. 53

6.1 Introduction .................................................................... 53

6.2 Survey Analysis ............................................................. 53

6.2.1 Question 1 ...................................................................... 54

6.2.2 Question 2 ...................................................................... 55

6.2.3 Question 3 ...................................................................... 63

6.2.4 Question 4 ...................................................................... 63

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 64

7.1 Study Conclusions ........................................................ 64

7.2 Recommendations for Project Procurement .............. 64

APPENDIX A – STUDY BRIEF APPENDIX B – PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX C – DRAWING FIGURES


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

6

APPENDIX D – HOUSEHOLD SURVEY APPENDIX E – COSTS


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

The village of Maidens is situated on the South Ayrshire coast approximately 12 miles south of the town of Ayr. The village is formed around a harbour comprising a concrete pier structure to the west and a breakwater to the east.

South Ayrshire Council (SAC) is investigating the feasibility of the development of Maidens Harbour, with the main objectives being the provision of pontoons to accommodate 100 yachts/small boat berths within the shelter of the existing harbour walls and breakwater.

URS is appointed by SAC to undertake this study and report on the feasibility of such a development by visiting the site; reviewing existing record information; developing options for pontoons layouts along with consideration for dredging and shore based facilities; assembling market information; compiling a business plan; and undertaking consultations including household survey.

The harbour is owned by Maidens Harbour Trust and is managed by Maidens Harbour Trust Management Committee.

1.2 Consultants Detailed Brief

The study is to investigate and report on the following six aspects associated with the proposals for installing pontoons with 100 berths and providing shore based facilities.

1. Engineering works including dredging, breakwaters and installation of pontoons.

2. Shore based facilities such as hard standing and storage, toilets and showers, chandlery and clubhouse/bar.

3. Available market information.

4. The economic justification and business plan for the project.

5. Technical feasibility for installing 2 wind turbines within the boundaries of the harbour.

6. Consultations with community and presentation of study report to stakeholder interests.

Further details of the Study Brief provided by SAC are included in Appendix A.

1.3 Record Information

The following five main groups of record information, made available by SAC, has been used to inform this study.

• Maidens Yacht Harbour Feasibility Study by JF Riddell dated 1994

• Upgrading of Maidens Harbour Drawings by Hodgins Smith Partnership dated 1999

• Sailing in the Clyde Estuary report by McKenzie Wilson dated 2006

• Sail West Project report by Project Consortium Consultants dated 2007

• Sailing Tourism in Scotland report by Tourism Resources Company dated 2010


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

8

1.4 Study Report

This document assembles the findings of the feasibility study with in a standalone report that considers how to progress further with the proposed development of Maidens Harbour.

The report is divided into the following five sections each of which address the requirements of the study Brief.

• Consideration of the engineering works feasibility including estimated construction costs is presented in Section 2.

• Outline details of the proposed shore based facilities is presented in Section 3.

• A review of the available market information is presented in Section 4.

• The business plan with economic justification is presented in Section 5.

• The results of the householder survey are presented in Section 6.

Each of these sections is supported by the information contained in Appendixes A to E which are included at the end of the document.

The report is concluded with recommendations in Section 7.

The report accounts for the feedback obtained during the regular progress meetings with SAC and Maidens Harbour Trust Management Committee during the initial period of the study.

The report is prepared in line with the limited information available on the ground at Maidens Harbour and without any new intrusive investigations at the site.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

9

2 ENGINEERING WORKS FEASIBILITY

2.1 Harbour Description

The harbour is accessed from the sea via a narrow navigation channel which is bounded by a pier structure to the west and a breakwater to the east. Maidens Harbour is shown in the photographs included in Appendix B and on the map extracts shown in Figure 1 on page 33 of Section 5.3.1 of the report and Figure 2 included within Appendix C.

2.1.1 Tides The tidal range at Maidens Harbour is noted in records varying between a lowest astronomical tide (LAT) of 0m above Chart Datum (CD) and a highest astronomical tide (HAT) of +3.5m above CD. The relationship between CD, the local maritime level datum and Ordnance Datum (OD), the national land datum, for Maidens is that OD is 1.4m above CD. Tide levels at Maidens are summarised below.

HAT = +3.5 mCD MHWS = +3.1 mCD MHWN = +2.6 mCD MLWN = +0.9 mCD MLWS = +0.4 mCD LAT = +0 mCD

2.1.2 West Pier The pier structure is predominately constructed from mass concrete and is approximately 8 to 10m wide with a deck level of +4.5mCD. A wave wall rises approximately 1.5m above the deck level along the west edge. Records of the pier construction are not available. However the structure is assumed to rest on a rock outcrop. The main pier extends approximately 190m from the shore. Vehicle access is allowed along the pier to a turning area at its head. A set of steps are provided mid way along the eastern face of the pier which gives access to a small system of pontoons providing berths for boats. The water depth at the existing berths is not known however it is likely to be close to chart datum near the pier and deeper further out. North of the pier a low crested concrete breakwater extends seaward a further 170m following the line of rock outcrops and provides additional shelter to the east. This breakwater provides pedestrian access but the crest is submerged during high tides.

2.1.3 South Shore of Maidenhead Bay A seating and viewing area has recently been constructed adjacent to the slipway all of which are located along the south shore of the harbour. The seating area comprises a raised area bounded by guardrails and is formed by gabion baskets with granular infill. The slipway surface is of concrete but does not appear to extend into deep water at low tide. The remainder of the south shore is natural shoreline.

2.1.4 East Breakwater The east breakwater is a low crested structure comprising two differing forms of construction. The southern 100m length consists of concrete slab revetments on both its east and west faces with a horizontal middle section of approximately 2m width. The sloped sides are supported by lines of sheet piles at the toe. The seaward end of the breakwater appears to be formed from rock armour stones restrained by sheet piles at toe level. A significant length of the breakwater is currently in disrepair and unformed. This damage may have been sustained by storms and current movement drawing material from its base leading to undermining of the structure.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

10

2.1.5 Navigation Channel The area between the west pier and the east breakwater constitutes Maidens Harbour. Between the south shore, the pier and the breakwater the area is approximately 30,000m

2 in

plan. However at present the majority of this area is filled with sand which has accumulated over time up to a level of approximately 2m above CD. Only the western area is dredged to allow vessels to navigate to the berths at the pier. The entrance channel approach to the pier is marked with a number of perches and this channel is understood to require periodic maintenance dredging. The entrance channel is approximately 10 to 15m wide and is approximately 300m in length.

2.1.6 Current Condition of the Structures Assessment of the integrity of these structures does not form part of this Study Brief. However the cost of applying measures to improve the condition of the majority length of the east breakwater is included in the options considered in the study, as this structure is in poor state and should new pontoons be installed at Maidens its loss through lack of maintenance would be considered unacceptable. Any work required to the west pier has not been considered in this study.

2.1.7 Ground Conditions The record information made available indicates that the ground in the area of the harbour comprises sands which overlie boulder clay which overlies bedrock, at relatively shallow depths. The condition of the ground has been recorded at specific investigation points within the harbour. As noted above we assume the majority of the pier is founded directly on to rock. The recorded level of the rock varies across the site, with the deepest recording of possible bedrock being noted at minus 2.6mCD.

2.2 Options for Pontoon Layouts

The Study Brief states that pontoons should be provided for berthing at finger pontoons for 100 number boats with 2m draught. Three different options are considered for arranging the layouts of the pontoons.

The three pontoon layouts considered are shown on drawings numbered Figures 3, Figures 4 and Figures 5, entitled Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3, and these are included in Appendix C.

When assessing these various options reference is made to applicable design guidance including the Maritime Code (BS6349) and the Yacht Harbour Association Ltd publication for Design, Construction, and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours.

These drawings show that there would appear to be more than sufficient space within the harbour to accommodate any one of these layouts. The key features of each of the three layouts are discussed in the follows sections.

2.2.1 Pontoon Layout - Option 1

This arrangement considers a single access bridge from the south shore to the system of floating pontoons situated away from the existing pier structure, relatively close to the east breakwater. The boats would berth at fingers aligned approximately in a north-south direction and the system of pontoons sitting in line with the east breakwater. The arrangement comprises four arms extending from the main pontoon line.

The option would allow continued use of the pier by vessels and may allow the existing system of pontoons to remain in place with perhaps only minor modification.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

11

Generally the harbour would be dredged to 2m below CD to allow for 8m boats to float in all states of tide. A deeper pocket down of 2.5m below CD would be provided to allow for a smaller number of 10m long boats to berth. The approach channel would be deepened to minus 1.5mCD, which would allow for restricted boat movements. Larger boats would not be able to move long the channel at the lowest tides. Larger boats would require tide levels above MLWS or MLWN, depending on draughts, to allow safe movement along the approaches.

The YHA guidance quotes typical draughts for 8m yachts as 1.8m and for 10m yachts as 2.1m and for 8m power boats as 1.2m and for 10m power boats as 1.3m. The dredge depths proposed of -2mCD and -2.5mCD accommodates these draughts, with an additional small allowance for under keel clearance. As stated above the approach channel would not be navigable at the lowest tide by the larger deeper draughted vessels. The YHA guidance states that water depths should be 0.5m more than the draught of the deepest craft using the harbour below LAT and that extra depth should be allowed if excessive waves action is expected.

These 8m and 10m boat lengths are used for reference purposes and are indicative of the sizes which would be accommodated at the harbour. These dredge depths were agreed through discussion with SAC and Maidens Harbour Management Committee as the maximum anticipated without the need for extensive bedrock dredging. However the actual dredge depths generally and the specifically the deeper pocket could be adjusted to take advantage of actual rock levels should they be found to be lower than originally anticipated. Water depths and dredging is discussed further in Section 2.3 below.

The plan extent of the dredging work required would be set by the layout of the pontoons with sufficient clearance around the system to allow vessels to move onto the berths.

The positioning of the pontoon access bridge is considered to be of principal importance and is located to complement the shore based facilities. The steepest gradient of the bridge at the lowest tide is to be 1 in 4 and the clear width should be 1.2m to allow for pedestrian movement in both directions. The bridge would hinged at a new support structure provided on the south shore.

In addition to dredging work this pontoon layout option would require repairs of the east breakwater and provision of a formed revetment at the access bridge. Each of these matters are discussed further in the subsequent sections of the report.

2.2.2 Pontoon Layout – Option 2

This arrangement considers a single access bridge from the south shore to the system of floating pontoons situated within a more central position within the harbour. Boats would berth on fingers aligned in an east-west direction. The arrangement would comprise two longer arms aligned with the east breakwater.

As with Option 1 three different dredge levels would be provided; generally at minus 2mCD, deeper pocket at minus 2.5mCD and the approach channel at minus 1.5mCD. This option would also require repairs to the east breakwater and provision of a single access bridge on the south shore.

This option would also allow continued use of the pier by vessels and may also allow the existing system of pontoons to remain in place with perhaps only minor modification.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

12

2.2.3 Pontoon Layout – Option 3

The third option considers a single access bridge from the pier to a system of floating pontoons situated close to and aligned with the pier structure. It comprises three arms with boats berthed on fingers aligned in a generally north-south direction.

As with Options 1 and 2 three different dredge levels would be provided; generally at minus 2mCD, deeper pocket at minus 2.5mCD and the approach channel at minus 1.5mCD. This option would also require repairs to the east breakwater, but would not require a new independent structure to support the access bridge.

This option, when compared to the other two options, would allow more limited use of the pier by vessels. The existing system of pontoons would need to be removed in whole or in part and access would be restricted to smaller vessels berthing parallel to the pier.

2.3 Dredging and Slope Stability

Removal of the sediments overlying bedrock could be achieved by mechanical excavation with plant mounted on a self propelled barge, with adjustable piles which allow it to be jacked-up and supported off the seabed when excavating material. Other methods, such as suction dredging, may also be suitable for the upper sandy sediments. It is possible that the some of the excavated material could be incorporated in the project construction work. However considering the large volume of material to be extracted it is anticipated that the bulk will need to be transported off site or used for beach nourishment. It is considered that the unwanted dredgings will need to be transported by barge to a licensed dump site at sea.

Consideration would need to be given to the stability of the underwater side slopes to ensure that maintenance dredging is minimised and stability of adjacent structures are not compromised. Without detailed knowledge of the constituents of the seabed materials a precise stable slope angle can not be confirmed. However for slope formation through boulder clay perhaps a slope of 1 in 4 (14 degrees to the horizontal) could be considered but through fine sands slopes of 1 in 6 (10 degree) to 1 in 8 (7 degree) may be needed to avoid transport of the material down the slope. For the purposes of this Study a slope of 1 in 6 through all overlying sediments has been assumed when producing the layouts shown on the drawings included in Appendix C. When cutting through rock much steeper side slopes could be considered and if vertical cuts are undesirable a shallower slope of 1 in 1 (45 degree) could be formed. Dredging through hard rock over significant areas of Maidens harbour may be difficult and need special methods to allow extraction. These methods could include; explosive blasting and pressure fracturing followed by mechanical excavation. However depending on the integrity of the upper surface of the rock it may be possible to rip the surface by mechanical means alone, but this is perhaps unlikely to prove successful at Maidens. The pontoon arrangements shown on Figures 3, 4 and 5 in Appendix C each show three different dredge levels of 1.5m, 2m and 2.5m below CD. These levels are selected to match boat draughts and anticipated bedrock levels. Based on review of the limited ground information available it is reasonably optimistic that bedrock levels will be such that these dredge levels can be achieved without the need for significant quantities of rock dredging. Figure 10 included in Appendix C shows the proposed seabed levels along an east-west section through the harbour. Further investigation of the site would be required to better define the bedrock profile across the site and this matter is discussed further in the cost section of the report below.

Marine Scotland the sea disposal licensing authority have advised informally that dredge material extracted from Maidens, in the quantities envisaged for this project, could be disposed off at the Girvan sea disposal site which is approximately 7 nautical miles from the harbour. They also advised that the sea disposal site at Ayr Bay 10 miles from the harbour could also be used. However Marine Scotland would need to be approached formally in due course to confirm these matters.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

13

2.4 Breakwaters and Walls

Dredging close to the existing east breakwater would have a detrimental effect on the already weakened stability of the breakwater. As discussed above it is assumed that significant repairs are required to the breakwater. Figure 11 included in Appendix C show the nature and extent of the repairs which could be provided at the east breakwater. The drawing shows new rock armour revetments enveloping the existing breakwater. The sizes and dimensions for each item shown on the drawing such as the armour stone size and layer thicknesses are indicative for the purposes of this Study however and would need to be determined through calculation in the subsequent detailed design phase should the project proceed further.

The nature of the ground close to harbour structures would need further investigation should dredging close to these walls be considered. Although the layouts drawings included in Appendix C show that dredging is sufficiently distant from the main pier structure so that stability is not affected, further assessment may be needed to the structures on both sides of the approach channel. In particular the current approach channel bathymetry and condition of the submerged elements of these structures would need to be established, by further survey and assessment.

2.5 Channel Entrance Sedimentation

There are significant quantities of sand currently deposited both within the harbour and to the north and east of the east breakwater. Lowering the seabed within the harbour to accommodate the arrangement of pontoons in conjunction with clearing the approach channel to a regular depth is unlikely to effect the rate of accretion in the harbour. However the effect of any accretion will be more apparent and would require periodic maintenance dredging. This may be particularly pronounced in the entrance channel. Determination of the matter would need to be established through sedimentation and hydraulic modelling assessment work. Should these further assessment works show that the sedimentation build-up in either the newly dredged harbour or the approach channel could be an ongoing dredging maintenance problem consideration could then be given to implementing prevention measures. These measures could take the form of extending the east breakwater north by an additional 180m and providing a shielding breakwater extending North West around the head of the Maidens rocks. However the cost of providing such extensive additional works would need to be balanced with an assessment of the volumes of annual maintenance dredging which may be needed. Consideration could be given to providing a deepening in the entrance channel which could restrict the volumes of material moving into the harbour and would allow an area of the bed where maintenance dredging could be focused.

2.6 Pontoon Construction Details

Manufacturer’s data showing typical pontoon details are include in Appendix C to accompany Figures 12 and 13 which indicate the main features of the pontoon arrangement, access bridge and restraint systems. The data included is for products provided by ‘Welcon’ and also by ‘Intermarine’, manufacturers well known for provision of these products. There are however a number of other suppliers of pontoons and associated fittings which would be equally suitable. ‘Solent Marine’ and ‘Varris’ are two other such organisations which could be considered.

The system of pontoons would be provided with durable decking, rubbing strip fendering, mooring cleats, access ladders and services bollards. These bollards would include power supply, water supply and lighting on the pontoons. The access bridge would also be provided with lighting and security gate arrangement. A manufacturer of service bollards for fitting onto pontoons such as ‘Rolec’ could be specified in the developing design.

The arrangement shown on Figure 12 for restraining the pontoons is with steel piles grouted into sockets formed in the bedrock. This solution although perhaps more costly than providing


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

14

seabed moorings would provide advantages requiring less ongoing maintenance than restraining chains and would make any periodic maintenance dredging required in the harbour easier. It is considered that providing sufficient chains and anchors on the seabed to adequately restrain the system of pontoons may be problematic in the shallow waters of Maidens Harbour. The lateral movement at low tides may be excessive for arrangements which would avoid chains fouling the relatively deep keels of the larger yachts. Drag anchors would need to dig in to the sediments overlying the bedrock. However if bedrock is exposed on the seabed fixing the ends of the chains in to the rock may be needed.

2.7 Wind Turbine Assessment

We have approached the local electricity distributer; Scottish Power to seek advice on the capacity of the local grid to accommodate the supply from two 600kW wind turbines which could potentially be located in the harbour area.

Scottish Power has indicated that based on the information supplied to them at this stage that a budget in the order of £2.2m would be needed to allow power from such a supply to be accommodated into the local electricity distribution system. Scottish Power would need to undertake the majority of the work, but the applicant would also need to carryout work on the site. Scottish Power advise that if there is sufficient Generation Capacity at Maybole Primary substation then approximately 10km of 11kV cabling, switchgear, associated equipment and substation on site would be needed. Although Scottish Power provided a relatively detailed account of what may be needed, the budget should be considered indicative. It could only be confirmed following site survey and network analysis following determination of the nature of the wind turbine installations.

2.8 Costs and Risks

We have estimated the costs associated with the proposals shown on Figure 3 for Pontoon Layout Option 1 and have included a breakdown of these costs in Appendix E.

Table 2.1, shown on the following page, includes a comparison of costs of the Option 1 pontoon layout with the costs for Option 2 and Option 3 pontoon layouts. The differences are highlighted with underlined text. This table also includes costs for provision of the Shore Based Facilities which are discussed in Section 3 of the report and costs associated with procuring the overall construction works.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

15

Table 2.1 – Estimated Construction Phase Costs

£k, ex VAT Pontoon Layout Option 1

Pontoon Layout Option 2

Pontoon Layout Option 3

Dredging Works 840 740 640

East Breakwater Repairs

600 600 600

Pontoons Installation 520 470 420

Pontoon Mooring and Access Works

346 332 260

Shore Based Facilities Works

1,090 1,090 1,090

Site Investigations 150 150 150

Works Consents 50 50 50

Professional Fees 300 300 300

Contingency Allowance (construction phase)

350 350 350

Totals Project Costs 4,246 4,082 3,860

These costs do not include any allowance for Project Optimism Bias and are based on implementation of the schemes shown on the Figures included in Appendix C. Optimism Bias allowances are derived from assessing historic projects and comparing the initial cost estimate with the final outturn costs and the guidance provided recommends that additional funds of between 6% and 66%, approximately, may be needed. Typically at feasibility stage an allowance of 40% could be appropriate.

The rates used to build the estimate are at today’s, 2012, prices and are based on use of current and historic contractors priced bills of quantities from similar maritime projects along with information obtained from price estimating guides. The quantities included make a reasonable allowance for the quanta involved. However there are uncertainties with the site both in physical characteristic and bathymetry and topography which involve risk that either the nature of the solution or the quantities would require to change from those allowed for in the estimate. These risks to the project are discussed further in Table 2.2 below.

Alternatives to the provision of the rock armoured repairs to the east breakwater and piled restraints to the pontoons could be considered during an options development stage to optimise costs.

An alternative of providing rock armoured revetment repairs to the east breakwater would be to provide a linked concrete block faced revetment. However the cost of such a solution is estimated to be 50% higher.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

16

Provision of a mooring chain restraint system for the pontoons is estimated to be 20% less than a piled restraint systems, but with the technical constraints noted in Section 2.6 above.

A brief summary of the main risks to the project along with possible mitigation measures are noted in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2 – Project Risks

Risk Possible Mitigation Actions

Bedrock levels are high resulting in more rock dredging

Marine Ground Investigation

Works are required to repair other harbour structures

Structural investigations

Works required to prevent sedimentation in harbour

Sedimentation modelling assessment

Works required to provide additional shelter from effect of waves entering harbour

Wave modelling assessment

Costs estimates low resulting from lack of topographic and bathymetric site information

Topographic and bathymetric survey

Ground conditions require stronger building foundations

Land Ground Investigation

The cost of providing pontoons and shore based facilities in Maidens Harbour is estimated to vary between £4,246k for layout Option 1 and £3,860k for layout Option 3. At this early stage in the project this 10% difference in costs is small. Therefore the full Option 1 layout costs are taken forward within the business case to represent the cost of implementation the construction works. Section 5.4.2.1 further discusses these costs and the Optimism Bias sum to be provided.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

17

3 SHORE BASED FACILITIES

3.1 General Arrangement and Locations

The best location for the shore based facilities including hardstand, clubhouse bar, chandlery, toilets and showers is considered to be in reasonably close proximity to the pontoon access point.

Following the start up meeting, discussions with stakeholders and after completing an initial appraisal of the site, the following design considerations and aspirations were established:

• A pedestrian and vehicular access is to be provided to the shore-based facilities, to facilitate goods delivery, access to hard standing and fire tender access.

• An aspiration to provide panoramic views out to Maidenhead Bay from the main Bar Lounge.

• Maintain the existing clear uninterrupted views of the harbour from the existing bowling club.

• A pedestrian link is to be provided from the shore based facilities and hard standing to the existing public car park.

• An aspiration to provide split level accommodation that can be accessed both from the existing road level and from the lower level harbour.

• To provide an easy access from the pontoon to the clubhouse.

An initial single storey proposal was considered which showed the building located immediately adjacent to the proposed pontoon access point and shoreline, this offered easy access to the marina and provided an easy pedestrian link between the existing public car park and the bowling club.

This single storey proposal included the following accommodation:

• Entrance Foyer

• Toilets

• Chandlery & store

• Bar & Bar Lounge

• Service corridor to bar store, kitchen & cold room

• Adjacent hardstand and staff car park and drop off area

Use of the existing public toilets mentioned in the Brief was discounted through early discussion with SAC.

Locating the facility directly in front of the Bowling Green was not considered an ideal location as views to the harbour from the clubhouse and green would be obstructed.

After further consideration and following discussions with stakeholders the preferred location would be to position the building further west into the adjacent embankment.

To avoid obstructing views from the existing Bowling Club the front edge of the building would sit further west than the front edges of the bowling green buildings. The main building access would be via the existing gap between two of the storage sheds adjacent to the road, and a secondary lower level access to the building would be provided direct from the harbour.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

18

The proposed site layout is shown in Figure 6 which is included in Appendix C.

While the report has produced an indicative proposal for a clubhouse and showers etc. the consultants are aware (informed by SAC) that there are several other groups in Maidens that have an interest in the area for the development of other land based facilities and they will be involved in taking forward any proposals that emerge in the future as a result of the report.

3.2 Hard Standing

A hard standing area of 1,500m2 is also shown in Figure 6 and is located immediately adjacent

to the shore and pontoon access point.

Direct vehicular and pedestrian access would be provided by extending the existing access road and pavement. A separate loading / unloading short term parking space would be provided close to the hard standing. This area would help berth holders to move their gear to and from the boats. Control will be necessary to ensure this area is not used as a long term parking area. Additional parking which could be used is currently available at the Harbour Road public car park.

3.3 Clubhouse, Chandlery, Toilets and Showers

3.3.1 Clubhouse

A split level proposal was developed, situating the building into the existing embankment, adjacent to the existing roadside storage buildings and toilet block. This option provides both an upper level Harbour Road access and a lower level harbour and pontoon access. The proposals are shown in Figures 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 which are included in Appendix C. These drawings show the proposed form and appearance of the building.

Additional accommodation is provided for additional shower and laundry facilities as required in ‘The Yacht Harbour Association Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal & Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours’.

The proposals show a harbourmasters office with views out to the harbour incorporated to the upper level, and a boat storage area provided to the lower level.

Table 3.1, on the following page, shows the accommodation areas indicated in the drawings.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

19

Table 3.1 – Clubhouse Accommodation Areas

Accommodation Area (m2)

Upper Level

• Entrance Foyer 21

• Chandlery 18

• Chandlery Store 8

• Toilets 26

• Cleaner store 3.2

• Secondary circulation 23

• Harbour Masters Office 19

• Bar Lounge 72

• Bar 18

• Kitchen 6

• Cold Store 6

• Bar Store 8.5

• External Terrace 28

Lower Level

• Entrance Lobby 10

• Boat Storage 98

• Toilets Showers 30

• Circulation 17.5

• Launderette 7

3.3.2 Clubhouse Bar

The Clubhouse bar has been located to the East offering panoramic views over Maidenhead Bay. The proposed facility would currently seat approximately 50 to 60 people.

Ancillary services to the bar would include:

• Small kitchen


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

20

• Cold store

• Bar store

• Service access corridor

• External balcony

3.3.3 Chandlery

The chandlery has been located in the west side of the building and can be accessed directly off the main foyer.

A glazed frontage both from outside and from the foyer help to provide direct views into the chandlery. The chandlery store is accessed directly from the rear of the shop and also from the service corridor to accommodate delivery of goods.

3.3.4 Toilets and Showers

Toilet and shower provision has been calculated based on the requirements of both the current Building Regulations and the ‘Yacht Harbour Association’ requirements for Marina design. The toilet and shower provision have been based on the scale of the pontoon berth proposals and bar lounge provision.

3.3.5 Boat Storage

A boat storage area has been provided to the lower level accommodation this area can be accessed directly from the Hard Standing via garage doors / shutters. A separate access has also been provided directly off the lower level circulation lobby.

3.4 Costs

The estimated outline costs for the Shore Based Facilities are included in Appendix E and discussed in Section 2 above.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

21

4 MARKET INFORMATION

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to summarise the available sailing market information and analyse its relevance to the proposed Maidens Harbour development. For ease of reference a summary of each document reviewed is provided and the chapter concludes with a summary identifying the market context conclusions for Maidens.

4.2 Documents Reviewed

A number of relevant reports have been identified and a review of the key findings for each document is set out in Section 4.3 below. It should be noted that most of the documents reviewed have used a wide range of published reference sources covering the period between 1994 and 2009. Where this is the case, we have acknowledged it in the document review summary.

From our desk-top research, we believe that the Scottish Enterprise (SE) “Sailing Tourism in Scotland” (2010) report remains the most recent comprehensive published report on the sailing market in Scotland. Whilst Tourism Intelligence Scotland published its “Sailing Tourism in Scotland – Opportunities for Growth” guide in 2011 this is heavily based upon the SE 2010 report and contains no new or updated market research information from when the SE report was published.

4.3 Document Review Summaries

4.3.1 Sailing in the Clyde Estuary

- The Potential for Future Development (Scottish Enterprise & Highlands & Islands Enterprise – 2006)

This study examines the potential for future development of the sailing industry in the Clyde Estuary. It addresses issues such as existing and future supply and demand, as well as the impact of sailing and its related support industries, on local and national economies. The overall aim of the study was to inform and influence future strategy at the national and local level as well as helping both the public and private sectors to recognise and manage any potential market failures. The study area covered all of the Clyde Estuary (north from a line between Portpatrick and Campbeltown) and included all of the Ayrshire coast.

In considering the baseline supply and demand for sailing in the Clyde Estuary, the study reviewed 24 reports on marine leisure in Scotland published between 1994 and 2005 (including the 1994 Maidens Yacht Harbour Feasibility Study) which were deemed to “have had an individual or collective impact” on the Clyde Estuary Study.

From this documentation review, the Clyde Estuary Study highlights a number of key baseline market aspects of the Scottish marine leisure sector. These include:-

• An estimated 15,000 boats over 7 metres in length are berthed around Scotland in marinas and harbours.

• Scotland has become a more accessible and attractive marine leisure destination due to improved road networks (e.g. the M74 between Carlisle and Glasgow), the advent of low cost airlines (e.g. from around the U.K. and Europe) and the lower cost of berthing rates (can be up to 40% cheaper than similar facilities on the south coast of England). These factors have extended the appeal of marinas on the Firth of Clyde to markets further south with less dependency upon the area’s historic north of England boat owner market source.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

22

• English domiciled boat owners account for around 30% of boats permanently based in marinas on the Clyde and this is expected to increase – partly due to the factors outlined in the preceding bullet-point.

• Scotland is an increasingly popular destination for visiting boats and also for owners who opt for “medium term residency” of their craft in Scottish waters ie for a period longer than a typical main holiday stay duration.

• Scotland will continue to encourage more boat owners to berth their boats both in summer and winter due to the competitiveness of berthing fees and boat maintenance opportunities.

• Increased marine leisure market activity will be absorbed efficiently as new pontoon facilities increase throughout Scotland. Any displacement impacts created by the movement of boats between locations is likely to be eliminated by the continuous demand for more pontoon berths in every location.

As part of the Sailing in the Clyde Estuary study, primary market research surveys were undertaken to identify current and forecasted sailing demand in the study area, cross-referenced to the baseline/proposed marina development capacities. Key survey respondent findings included:-

• 81% of marina/harbour berth holders were Scottish (40% from the Clyde), 17% were English and only 2% were from overseas.

• The primary sailing activity of berth holders was weekend cruising (75% of respondents), summer cruising (62%), social sailing (30%) and weekend accommodation (18%).

• The most important factors for berth holders in choosing a marina to berth their boats are Location, followed by Good Sailing, Easy Access, Friendly Staff, Sheltered Location and Pontoons.

• 19% of visiting boats were resident in the Clyde area, 31% were from England and 9% were from Ireland.

• 78% of visiting boats to the Clyde Estuary are Yachts, 15% are Motor Cruisers and 7% Motor Sailors.

• Over one-third of visiting boats (35%) have a length of visit of up to 4 days with almost 60% of those surveyed staying for up to 8 days.

• The most important factors for visiting leisure sailors in sailing in the Clyde Estuary are the Scenery, Safe Waters, the Quality of Sailing and it being Uncrowded. Less than 40% of visiting sailors surveyed identified marinas as being a key reason for choosing to sail in the Clyde Estuary.

The study also assessed the relationship between supply and demand. At a general geographic level (the Clyde Estuary), a key conclusion is that:-

• Pontoon berthing on the Clyde is “virtually at capacity” with small waiting lists operating at the main marinas as demand begins to outstrip supply. It is further contended that “there is nothing to suggest that this trend will change, as business in this sector in Scotland seems to be growing steadily each year”.

• At a more specific geographic level, the study paints a scenario for the zone defined as the Lower Clyde Estuary (which includes all of the South Ayrshire coast). This scenario suggests an additional supply of between 150 to 200 berths within the lower Clyde approaches, which, excluding Stranraer, would mean around 100 to 150 berths in the remainder of the geographic area which includes Maidens and where “there is


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

23

no previous history of any usage to determine their sales potential”. However the study contends that:-

• 50% of these 100 to 150 berths would be secured for local boats “fairly quickly” leaving the balance to be marketed to potential berth holders.

• If the cruising potential of the Stranraer-Girvan-Maidens axis could be collectively developed, this would enhance the potential of selling berths to visiting boats.

• Visiting boats are attracted by locations offering good services so “there is no reason to believe that pontoons in more remote or rural locations will not sell” – particularly to Scottish, Irish and English sailors.

• There would be a need for marketing activity which promotes the less well known, and rural area as a sailing location.

In terms of future market trends, the Clyde Estuary study concludes that:-

• The demand for new pontoon berths is likely to increase steadily throughout the area as visitors increasingly seek step ashore facilities.

• Boat sales in Scotland are still growing steadily - albeit slowly - but that “there is no indication that boat sales in Scotland are likely to reduce in the foreseeable future”.

• If the present level of boat ownership were maintained in Scotland, the growth of additional pontoon berths “would be a necessity”.

• Scotland “would be advised to continue with infrastructure development knowing that any spare capacity is likely to be taken up by boat sales or from new arrivals from outside the area”.

• Considering the present market conditions, the Clyde should be increasing its provision of berths by planning to double its capacity over the next five years.

• There appears to be a growing willingness from local communities and other key stakeholders to increase and improve the number of pontoon berths available in the Clyde Estuary.

• The sailing market in Scotland is driven by demand and this can be maintained if priority is given to infrastructure development e.g. pontoons and marinas.

The Clyde Estuary study contains an Action Plan which identifies locations and centres throughout the area where facilities could either be improved or new infrastructure developments considered. Maidens Harbour is one of the locations identified where sailing facilities could be improved. This is summarised from the 2006 study in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 – Clyde Estuary Action Plan Summary for Maidens Harbour

MAIDENS HARBOUR

Current Status Maidens Harbour has restricted depth and no pontoon berths at present (ie in 2006)

Potential There is a plan to develop a medium size marina at Maidens Harbour targeted at a mix of resident and visiting boats. The village has a small number of support businesses which could service the sector and attract new business to the immediate area.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

24

MAIDENS HARBOUR

Justification South Ayrshire lacks sufficient pontoon berths in the southern part of the region that would provide shorter transits between ports in Northern Ireland and the lower Clyde Estuary. Shorter cruising distances would attract more boats as well as smaller craft if a network of these facilities was established.

Benefit Maidens and Girvan would compliment each other and could easily co-exist. The success of the Maidens development may provide new business opportunities for the village.

4.3.2 Sail West Project

- A Strategic Programme for the Development of Marine Leisure Activities & Infrastructure in the Republic of Ireland Border Region, Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland (Project Consortium Consultants – 2007)

Sail West has been established by a group of some 21 public sector partners in the Borders region of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland. South Ayrshire Council is one of the Sail West partners.

The Sail West Strategy has a broad range of objectives:-

• To provide a cohesive marine leisure development strategy for the North West which links Sligo, Donegal, the maritime counties of Northern Ireland and the West Coast of Scotland.

• To provide innovation in the development of new products and services.

• To share knowledge and best practise between the partners.

• To provide sustainable development, job growth and the rejuvenation of maritime communities.

• To ensure that environmental best practise and the possible effects of global climate change is considered within all new developments.

• To encourage eco tourism.

The Strategy takes account of 17 marine leisure studies in Scotland which were undertaken between 2002 and 2007 including the 2006 “Sailing in the Clyde Estuary – The Potential for Future Development Study”. A review of these documents, interviews and site visits by the Project Consortium Consultants was undertaken in developing the Sail West Strategy to provide an overview of existing marine leisure facilities and identify any market gaps. A summary of these findings for Ayrshire, Arran and the Firth of Clyde is outlined in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 –Summary of Findings for Ayrshire, Arran and the Firth of Clyde

AYRSHIRE, ARRAN AND THE FIRTH OF CLYDE

Core Activities Considered

Boating and all main water sports activities


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

25

AYRSHIRE, ARRAN AND THE FIRTH OF CLYDE

Facility Provision Ayrshire, Arran and the Firth of Clyde form one of Europe’s leading boating destinations and a number of Marinas have been developed – predominantly on the east side of the Firth of Clyde from Troon to Gourock. There are also facilities such as the Scottish Sailing Institute at Largs, the National Watersports Centre on Cumbrae and a small network of visitor moorings along the coast.

Gap Analysis The studies reviewed (2002 to 2007) demonstrate a high and continued demand for:-

Significantly more pontoon berths in the Ayrshire, Arran and Firth of Clyde areas

Yacht stations and step ashore facilities in key locations e.g. Arran and the upper Sea Lochs to facilitate boat movements throughout the area

Use of South & North Ayrshire beaches for more extreme water sports activities.

The Sail West Strategy presents a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis of marine leisure in the Sail West project area. Key conclusions which are relevant in the context of the proposed Maidens Harbour development are summarised in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3 –Summary for Sail West Project Area

THE SAIL WEST PROJECT AREA

STRENGTHS Uncrowded marine environment

History of cruising boat movements between the three sail West geographic areas

Access e.g. low cost air travel, road networks and good and frequent ferry links between south-west Scotland and Northern Ireland (Cairnryan and Troon).

WEAKNESSES Lack of step ashore facilities e.g. pontoons throughout the Sail West area

Lack of on-shore facilities e.g. toilets and showers

Lack of visitor berths across the Sail West area

Competing with destinations in the Mediterranean and further afield.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

26

THE SAIL WEST PROJECT AREA

OPPORTUNITIES Large number of redundant fishing ports and harbours which could be converted for leisure usage

Increasing level of visiting boats from England, Northern Europe and between Sail West partner regions

Strong growth across all aspects of the marine leisure sector

Continued demand for marine leisure activities within the Sail West area

Demand outstrips supply in many areas (opportunity to develop marine leisure sector further)

THREATS Significant gaps in “necklace” of facilities limiting boat movements and visitor spend in local communities

Huge upfront costs of large marina facilities make private sector developments uneconomic below 220 berths

Negative perceptions amongst some communities (“Rich Yachties”)

Increased and growing competition from other marine leisure destinations in the UK (e.g. Wales and south-west England) and Europe (e.g. France, Scandinavia, the Med).

The Sail West Strategy identifies a number of objectives for the Sail West area to realise its potential as a sustainable marine leisure destination. These strategic objectives include:-

• Developing the coastal zone between the North of Ireland and the West of Scotland into a Coastal Maritime Zone of Marine Leisure Excellence

• Encouraging the development of cross border marine communities through the establishment of a necklace of safe havens and maritime centres

Supporting these particular objectives, the Strategy details prioritised actions including:-

• Ensuring that all infrastructural projects within the programme are planned in a co-ordinated way so that each development can be linked to other new or existing facilities, either through the networks or through marketing activity e.g. the development of cruising routes between marinas.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

27

4.3.3 Sailing Tourism in Scotland

- (Scottish Enterprise – 2010)

The aims of the Sailing Tourism in Scotland study were to establish the contribution that the sailing tourism sector makes to the Scottish economy and to highlight what potential there is within the sector through new product investment to grow the economic benefits. In considering the baseline supply and demand for sailing in Scotland, the study reviewed 34 reports on marine leisure in Scotland and the UK published between 2004 and 2009 including the 2006 “Sailing in the Clyde Estuary” study and the 2007 “Sail West Project Strategic Programme”.

The study states that over the preceding 15 years, the Scottish sailing tourism sector has been growing significantly “with no obvious decline apparent even during the recession”.

The study estimates that the Clyde area (Clyde Estuary & the Solway):-

• Accounts for 43% of all resident home port berths in Scotland - with pontoon provision in the Clyde area accounting for 47% of the national pontoon provision. The Clyde area is therefore the most significant market place in Scotland for resident berthings.

• Has 94% average occupancy of all resident home port berths (pontoons & moorings) compared to the Scottish average of 95% with almost 80% of these boat owners being of Scottish nationality. Therefore, the baseline supply of resident berths in the Clyde area is in line with market demand but offers only limited spare capacity to accommodate growth change in the baseline position.

• Accommodates 38% of all visiting berths (pontoons and moorings combined) provided in Scotland – with pontoon berths in the Clyde area alone also accounting for 38% of the national total of available visiting boat pontoons.

• Generates 29% of the total visiting boat nights achieved in Scotland with sailors from Scotland (56%) and the rest of the UK (29%) accounting for the significant majority (85%) of these visiting boat nights.

The study undertook consumer research of owners of boats resident in a Scottish home port and of visiting craft owners to inform the appraisal of the baseline market conditions. This research found that:-

• The overriding main appeal of the Scottish sailing product is the scenery and quality of its sailing waters which are not crowded.

• The most significant aspects of Scottish sailing which require improvement are the availability and quality of berthing /mooring facilities and onshore facilities e.g. pubs and restaurants.

In looking at the future Scotland sailing tourism opportunities, the study anticipated a certain stability in demand in the immediate future linked to the ongoing general economic downturn but that “it is realistic to expect that if the general economy starts to exhibit growth then this will be mirrored in the sailing sector”. Anticipating future growth activity, the study identifies several potential market opportunities which are envisaged as providing the main market demand sources. These include:-

• New Scottish boat owners resident in Scotland for “home port‟ resident berths.

• Boat owners resident outside Scotland, principally from other parts of the UK (this area exhibiting growth in the last few years) for home port facilities in Scotland.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

28

• Boat owners visiting Scottish waters as part of a sailing holiday / cruise itinerary seeking visitor berthing facilities e.g. visiting boats from other parts of the UK, Ireland as well as overseas.

• Scottish-based resident boats moving around and between areas for overnight berthing facilities whilst on short trips, holiday/cruising itineraries.

However, if the anticipated future demand from these market sector sources is to be accommodated, the Sailing Tourism in Scotland study highlights several issues which require to be addressed:-

• Overcoming issues of facility shortfall – particularly for visiting boats on day/longer cruises away from home ports or boats visiting Scottish waters.

• Providing sufficient resident berthing capacity to service the new demand e.g. from the anticipated growth in new boat ownership - be they people resident in Scotland or others living elsewhere in the UK or overseas.

• Ensuring sufficient transit berthing capacity for visiting boats (day visit/cruising/boat touring/charter holidays) is available – berthing needs to be of the right type and in the right location.

• Dissatisfaction with the current sailing tourism offering in terms of quality e.g. land based infrastructure.

Based upon the study research, the report recommends that the focus of future Scotland sailing tourism market activity and development should be given to the Clyde area (Clyde Estuary & the Solway) and the West Coast (e.g. Argyll and the Hebrides). These are also locations that traditionally have proven attractive to boat owners from outside Scotland with the highest proportion of non-Scottish resident boat owners and visiting boat activity.

For the Clyde area specifically it is anticipated that market growth will require new berths of all types:-

• Home port residential berthing – for Scottish markets but with a particular focus on attracting more non-Scottish boat owners to use the Clyde as their home port.

• Scottish (and non-Scottish) visiting boats sailing to/through the Clyde area.

4.3.4 Sail Scotland and Welcome Anchorages

- Sail Scotland Brochure (2011) and the Welcome Anchorages Brochure (2012)

Every year Sail Scotland produce a brochure detailing the various organisations and businesses related to sailing in Scotland. The current brochure is the 2011 edition. Welcome Anchorages is a guide to shore facilities for cruising yachts at around 150 locations around the coasts of Scotland and the north of Ireland, from the Mull of Galloway in the south west of Scotland to Peterhead in the north east, including the Orkney and Shetland Isles. Irish coverage is from Sligo in the west, and northward to Ardglass in the east.

Based upon a review of both these brochures, and supplementary information drawn from the visit My Harbour website (www.visitmyharbour.com), the Dumfries & Galloway Council Harbours web page (www.dumgal.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=2474), and the Practical Boat Owner website (www.pbo.co.uk/marina-guide/531118/stranraer-marina), the following table summarises the baseline Marina provision between Stranraer and Ardrossan.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

29

Table 4.4 –Summary of Baseline Marina Provision

FACILITIES *STRANRAER HARBOUR

**GIRVAN HARBOUR

TROON YACHT HAVEN

IRVINE CLYDE MARINA ARDROSSAN

Pontoon Berths 54 28 400 NK 285

Visitor Berths �� (9) �� (50) ��

Maximum Length/Draught

12m / 2.5m NK / 3m 50m / 3m NK (not known)

37m / 4.5m

Shore Power ��

Boat Hoist ��

Slipway ��

Fuel Berth ��

Gas Supplies ��

Petrol Availability ��

Repair Facilities ��

Chandlery ��

On-Site Restaurant/Pub ��

Wi-Fi Availability ��

Toilets/Showers ��

Table Notes:-

*Stranraer Harbour – In February 2012, Dumfries & Galloway Council issued tender documentation for a “Stranraer Marine Leisure & Marina Extension Study”. The tender documentation states that “the Marina is seen as a key driver to the positive development of Stranraer. By making Stranraer the home port for 250+ boat owners and attracting transit visitors it will help to establish the town as a marine leisure destination”.

**Girvan Harbour – In March 2012, South Ayrshire Council approved a planning application for new pontoon berths, an access bridge and associated works at Girvan Harbour. It is proposed to replace the existing pontoons which will increase the pontoon provision from 28 to around 35 berths. Source:-

www4.south-ayrshire.gov.uk/portal/page/portal30/CommitteePapers/CommitteePapers2012/Regulatory%20Panel/15th%20March%202012/3-7.pdf


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

30

In addition, Portpatrick Harbour, south-west of Stranraer plans to provide newly developed pontoon berths which would be available for visitors and permanently moored boats up to 20 metres in length. Facilities would include toilets, showers, electricity at berths, slipway, fuel (by can), and access to Bar and Restaurant amenities. However it is understood that plans to develop and complete these facilities by Easter 2012 are delayed.

4.4 Market Assessment Review – Conclusions

Based upon the documentation reviews undertaken in the preceding Section 4.3, we have identified a number of key market conclusions which we believe are relevant considerations for the Maidens Harbour development proposals:-

• The Scottish sailing market appears to remain relatively buoyant despite the recent world-wide economic downturn with a projected return to growth activity once the general economy picks up again. In the context of accommodating this anticipated future market growth, identified development opportunities for Scottish sailing include increasing the availability and quality of berthing (pontoon and mooring facilities) as well as on-shore support infrastructure.

• The improved accessibility of Scotland as a marine leisure market destination (e.g. for resident boat berthing) due to factors such as improved road networks, low cost airline routes and competitive berthing rates compared to the south of England. However with the current uncertainty over the future of Prestwick Airport which has

been put up for sale by its owners (Infratil); the transfer by Ryanair of many of its flights from Prestwick to Edinburgh Airport over the past 2 years; as well as the axing of flights e.g. Prestwick to London Stansted; the future “influence potential” of low cost air travel in attracting Maidens Harbour users may be diluted.

• Whilst the current supply of resident home berths (pontoons and moorings) in the Clyde Estuary meets baseline market demand there is only limited spare capacity to accommodate future growth activity. In addition, there is also an identified lack of berthing presently catering for visiting boats across the Sail West project area. The sailing market in Scotland is driven by demand and priority should be given to infrastructure development. The recent research suggests that there is scope to double the berthing capacity in the Clyde Estuary to accommodate future market growth. Although there is recent evidence of planned growth in supply within the Clyde area (the Clyde Estuary and the Solway) e.g. in Portpatrick, Stranraer, and Girvan, the market evidence indicates that there is still scope to accommodate further development in other locations in the Clyde Estuary.

• In relation to the above point, the proposed development of Maidens Harbour for leisure sailing use has the potential not only to capitalise upon the identified future supply need in the Clyde Estuary, but also as a direct consequence, to contribute to delivering several opportunities identified in the Sail West Strategy e.g.:-

- Improving the supply of step ashore pontoon facilities and on-shore support facilities in the Sail West area

- Converting redundant fishing harbours for leisure usage

- Filling a gap in the “necklace” of facilities within the Sail West region which would enhance the potential for boat movements and visitor spend in local communities and encourage the development of cross-border marine communities.

- Recent primary market survey research indicates that the key influences for Clyde Estuary boat owners in selecting a marina for resident boat berthing are Location, Good Sailing, Easy Access, Friendly Staff, Sheltered Location and Pontoons whilst for visiting sailors to the Clyde Estuary, the Scenery, Safe


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

31

Waters, the Quality of Sailing and it being an Uncrowded Marine Environment are the most important attractors. Being geographically located within the defined Clyde Estuary area, Maidens Harbour should seek to capitalise upon as many, if not all, of these already identified important sailing market influences.

• There are several market sector source opportunities for Maidens Harbour to consider:-

- Local, rest of Scotland residents, and also boat owners resident outside Scotland who are looking for “home port” resident berthing facilities. As indicated above, there is only limited spare capacity in the current berthing supply in the Clyde Estuary to accommodate the projected future demand from this market sector. Also, Scottish berthing rates are up to 40% cheaper than the south of England which is a significant incentive to encourage more boat owners to berth their boats in Scotland both in summer and winter. The price competitive advantage is an opportunity for Maidens Harbour in targeting this particular market sector whilst the extended season berthing fee income would assist in reducing peaking in the Harbour’s year-round financial performance.

- Scottish based boat owners “overnight berth-hopping” between areas e.g. locations along the west coast of Scotland during day, short break, and longer holiday sailing trips. Marina development on the east side (mainland) of the Clyde Estuary has been predominantly to the north e.g. there are 7 marinas between Troon and Gourock whilst there are currently only 3 marinas to the south between Troon and Stranraer. Maidens Harbour could therefore offer an additional overnight berthing stop opportunity and fill a geographical gap in the “necklace” of overnight/safe haven provision for visiting boats along this area of coastline.

- Visiting boats from other parts of GB, Northern Ireland, Ireland seeking overnight visitor berthing facilities during a sailing holiday or cruise touring trip. Maidens Harbour could therefore offer an additional transit berthing stop opportunity between marinas which could reduce cruising distances e.g. between Northern Ireland berths/moorings and the lower Clyde Estuary. Also, as for Scottish based boat owners “overnight berth-hopping” between locations, Maidens could fill a geographical gap in the “necklace” of overnight/safe haven provision for transiting boats. This transiting sailing market sector will potentially be made up of more experienced sailors who have had exposure to marina facilities across a wide geographic area. It therefore follows that this market would have heightened expectations of the quality of both the berthing and onshore facilities/services provided at Maidens Harbour. Failure to provide for such expectations could impact upon the potential of Maidens Harbour to attract this transit market.

• The proposed development of Maidens Harbour for leisure sailing use will not occur in isolation and the harbour will face competition from other known planned berthing expansion projects in locations elsewhere in Ayrshire and Dumfries & Galloway e.g. Girvan (11km from Maidens village), Stranraer (60km) and Portpatrick (70km). Indeed the SE “Sailing Tourism in Scotland” 2010 study identified 290 additional berths in the Clyde area (the Clyde Estuary & the Solway) which had received planning permission but which had not yet been constructed. Therefore, in competing for market share from the market sources identified above the formulation and delivery of a well targeted and effective Marketing Plan promoting Maidens Harbour to resident and visiting boat owners will be fundamental. The Maidens Harbour Marketing Plan should also reference marketing activity linked to existing and new berthing provision to capitalise upon joint working opportunities and to reflect a stated objective of the Sail West Action Plan “to ensure that all infrastructural projects within the programme are planned in a co-ordinated way”.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

32

5 ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION AND BUSINESS PLAN

5.1 Introduction

This section of the report outlines the economic justification and business plan. The economic justification is a central part of the wider business plan. This element involves an assessment of the impacts and value for money that the proposed development could deliver to the local economy. The following sub-section outlines the approach and different elements of the economic justification and business plan.

5.2 Approach

There are four main aspects to the approach as set out below:

• Strategic case: whether the business proposition is supported by an overall logical case by analysing the local demographic and economic structure; demand identified in the sailing tourism sector more broadly; and case studies of similar investments elsewhere;

• Economic case: here we set out the associated costs and potential impacts in terms of increased visitor numbers and subsequently the direct, indirect and induced employment and Gross Value Added (GVA) impacts;

• Financial and commercial case: we then triangulate the analysis from the various stages of the business plan to set out the financial and commercial case for the project. Ultimately the aim here is to set out whether or not the harbour can be self financing. We set out a simple cashflow forecast along with sensitivity analysis (to give a degree of variance and increased level of assurance). This includes details of how the project will be managed; and

• Risk assessment: The final part of the business plan is a basic risk assessment (purely from an economic development perspective) of the proposed development from an economic point of view.

5.3 Strategic Case

This section identifies the business proposition and sets out the argument for the investment. We draw on analysis of the wider market context, included in Section 4, and strategic drivers which the harbour operates in. There are three main areas reviewed:

• A profile of the local area in terms of demographics and economic structure. This information is used to provide detail on the potential demand profile for the harbour and shore based facilities;

• The sailing tourism sector. This helps to assess the demand for the different facilities and the potential benefits and revenues that the investment could generate; and

• Case studies of similar investments in harbour marinas elsewhere. The purpose here is to assess the case and potential for the different facilities.

5.3.1 Demographic and Economic Profile

The demographic and economic profile is set out for the datazone1 in which Maidens Village

falls and South Ayrshire as illustrated in Figure 1. This therefore illustrates the profile of

1 Data zones are small-area geographies which have populations between 500 and 1,000 household

residents. They have been made to respect physical boundaries and natural communities and, as far as possible, contain households with similar social characteristics


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

33

people living and working up to 3 and 30 miles away respectively of Maidens Harbour. Recent data is not available for all variables at the datazone level and as such information is not always illustrated.

This information is used to provide detail on the potential demand profile for the harbour and shore based facilities whilst setting out the profile of the local labour market.

Maidens Village Datazone - S01005537 South Ayrshire

Source: Nomisweb, Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved

Figure 1 Demographic and Economic Profile – Study Area

5.3.1.1 Population

There are approximately 111,400 people residing in South Ayrshire, of which 763 are in the Maidens datazone. The working age population (people aged between 16 and 64) is around 62.5% of the total in both areas

2. The population that is aged 18+ (potential customers of the

clubhouse) is 645 within the Maidens datazone.

5.3.1.2 Labour Supply

Three-quarters (74.5%) of the population of South Ayrshire are economically active. This is below both the Scottish (77.0%) and Great Britain (76.2%) averages. The employment rate in South Ayrshire is 67.1%, again marginally below Scotland (70.9%) and Great Britain (70.2%). Whereas, levels of self-employment (8.4%) are above the Scottish average (7.5%) but below Great Britain (9.1%).

Of those who are economically inactive in South Ayrshire, a third (32.3%) are long-term sick and a further quarter (25.0%) are retired. In both instances this is higher than the two comparator areas. On the other hand, there are a smaller proportion of residents who are classed as students (17.8%) and looking after a family member / home (14.5%)

3.

2 Source: ONS, Mid-year Population Estimates, 2010

3 Source: ONS, Annual Population Survey, June 2011


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

34

The occupational profile of residents in South Ayrshire is broadly similar to that of the Scottish average. However, there is a marginally higher proportion of ‘managers, directors and senior officials’, ‘skilled trades’, and ‘elementary’ occupations. Conversely, there is a lower proportion of ‘professional’, ‘administrative & secretarial’, ‘caring, leisure and other service’ occupations.

The qualification profile4 in South Ayrshire is similar to that of the Scottish average. However,

the residents of South Ayrshire are more highly qualified than the British average with more people with NVQ Level 4+ (34.2% compared to 31.3%), Level 3+ (54.1% compared to 51.0%), and Level 2+ (69.4% compared to 67.3%).

The average earning of residents is above the Scottish and British average. In South Ayrshire full-time workers earn £552.40 on average per week (gross) compared to £490.60 in Scotland and £503.10 in Great Britain

5.

5.3.1.3 Out of Work Benefits and Deprivation

The number of benefit claimants in South Ayrshire (17.2%) is above both the Scottish (16.7%) and British average (14.8%). The number claiming job seekers allowance, lone parents allowance, carers allowance, other income benefits and disability allowance is broadly the same as in Britain. However, in South Ayrshire (8.4%) there is a higher proportion of those claiming ESA and incapacity benefits than in Britain (6.6%)

6.

The Maidens datazone is ranked as the 2,090th (out of 6,505) most economically deprived

area in Scotland. This places it in the top third (32%) most economically deprived datazones in Scotland.

5.3.1.4 Labour Demand

There is broadly the same job density (ratio of total jobs to the working age population) in South Ayrshire (0.77) as in Scotland (0.78) and Great Britain (0.78)

7.

Table 5.1 illustrates the employment profile of local residents as compared to the Scottish and British averages. This information is not available at the datazone level but we have illustrated it for the ward in which Maidens Village falls in to (North Carrick & Maybole West).

It illustrates that employment within North Carrick & Maybole West lacks diversity and is hugely focussed in accommodation and food services with over half of jobs taken in this sector. Education and the arts, entertainment and recreation sectors are also of great importance here. South Ayrshire’s industrial base is a lot more diverse with strengths in health, retail, accommodation & food services, manufacturing, transport, arts & entertainment, and motor trades. The key for the table is:

Relative weakness (compared to Scotland and Great Britain)

Similar profile as Scotland and Great Britain

Relative strength (compared to Scotland and Great Britain)

4 NVQ 2 equivalent: e.g. 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C, intermediate GNVQ, NVQ 2, intermediate 2

national qualification (Scotland) or equivalent; NVQ 3 equivalent: e.g. 2 or more A levels, advanced GNVQ, NVQ 3, 2 or more higher or advanced higher national qualifications (Scotland) or equivalent; NVQ 4 equivalent and above: e.g. HND, Degree and Higher Degree level qualifications or equivalent 5 Source: ONS, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2011

6 Source: DWP, August 2011

7 Source: ONS, Job Density, 2009


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

35

Table 5.1 Employment Profile (% of those in employment)

North Carrick & Maybole West

South Ayrshire

Scotland Great

Britain

Agriculture, forestry & fishing 1.2 0.6 3.4 1.7

Mining, quarrying & utilities 0.0 0.5 2.6 1.2

Manufacturing 5.9 9.7 7.2 8.5

Construction 2.4 4.6 5.5 4.9

Motor trades 0.7 2.6 1.9 1.8

Wholesale 1.4 2.3 3.0 4.1

Retail 1.1 13.8 10.1 10.3

Transport & storage 2.4 5.7 3.9 4.4

Accommodation & food services 52.3 10.0 7.2 6.6

Information & communication 0.6 1.0 2.7 3.8

Financial & insurance 0.0 1.3 3.5 3.8

Property 0.2 1.2 1.1 1.6

Professional, scientific & technical 1.1 3.4 6.2 7.4

Business administration & support services 1.3 2.5 7.2 7.8

Public administration & defence 0.0 5.7 6.4 5.4

Education 11.8 7.8 8.0 9.1

Health 8.5 21.9 15.7 12.8

Arts, entertainment, recreation & other services

9.0 5.4 4.4 4.7

Source: Business Register and Employment Survey, 2010

5.3.2 Sailing Market Assessment Review

A number of relevant reports have been identified and reviewed. The full sailing market assessment review is set out in Section 4. Below is a summary of the key market conclusions from this review which we believe are relevant considerations for the Maidens Harbour development proposals:-

• The Scottish sailing market appears to remain relatively buoyant despite the recent world-wide economic downturn with a projected return to growth once the economy picks up again.

• The improved accessibility of Scotland as a marine leisure market destination (e.g. for resident boat berthing) due to factors such as improved road networks, low cost airline routes and competitive berthing rates compared to the south of England.

• Whilst the current supply of resident home berths (pontoons and moorings) in the Clyde Estuary meets baseline market demand there is only limited spare capacity to accommodate future growth activity. In addition, there is also an identified lack of berthing presently catering for visiting boats across the Sail West project area.

• Research indicates that the key influences for Clyde Estuary boat owners in selecting a marina for resident boat berthing are location, good sailing, easy access, friendly staff, sheltered location and pontoons whilst for visiting sailors to the Clyde Estuary, the scenery, safe waters, the quality of sailing and it being an uncrowded marine environment are the most important attractors.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

36

• Scottish berthing rates are up to 40% cheaper than the south of England which is a significant incentive to encourage more boat owners to berth their boats in Scotland both in summer and winter.

• Maidens Harbour can offer an additional overnight berthing stop opportunity and fill a geographical gap in the “necklace” of overnight/safe haven provision for visiting boats along this area of coastline.

• The formulation and delivery of a well targeted and effective Marketing Plan promoting Maidens Harbour to resident and visiting boat owners will be fundamental.

5.3.3 Case Studies

In order to estimate the potential of Maidens Harbour it is useful to review the economic benefits created in other similar investments. However, there exists little empirical evidence on the economic impact of such schemes. The examples that do exist are generally of a larger scale than being proposed at Maidens Harbour. There exists only one case study from Scotland. However, there are still some valuable and transferable lessons that can be applied.

This section begins by summarising a number of case studies across the UK which was conducted by the British Marine Federation in 2007. It is therefore important to note that the data relates to 2007 and turnover may have increased or decreased since then. Table 5.2 sets out the background to each of the marinas. Following this, Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 summarises the employment and GVA associated with the marinas.

Valuable lessons and useful assumptions which can be applied to this business plan include:

• There is a close link between the marine and harbour sector and retail, brokerage and boat repair. There are also significant tourism and hospitality gains that can be generated in the wider economy;

• Approximately £80,000 of turnover generated creates one full-time equivalent (FTE) job;

• Approximately 35% of the turnover generated by the on site businesses is spent on purchased goods and services, of which 33% is spent locally;

• The size and scale of the economic impacts of marinas is closely related to the range of on-site facilities that are provided, the number of businesses, the number of berths and associated visitors, and ultimately the opportunity for non local visitors to spend money in the local economy.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

37

Table 5.2 Case Studies Assessed

Name Background & Facilities Users per Annum

Largs Yacht Haven (Cylde)

Largs opened in 1984 and has since grown to accommodate 700 berths, making it the largest marina in Scotland.

Largs Yacht Haven has 700 marina berths, with no moorings or dedicated visitor berths. Visitors are accommodated in vacant marina berths when berth-holders are away from Largs. The site also has a significant shore storage area with a capacity for 340 boats.

Berth-holders: 17,472

Overnight: 7,592

Day boating: 2,080

Non-actively boating: 4,940

Non-boating leisure: 14,820

Total: 46,904

Jersey Harbours (Jersey)

The harbour has 40 different tenant businesses associated with provision of services to the marina.

Combined capacity of 1,050 marina berths.

Jersey Harbours operates the marina berths, moorings, two boat hoists (16 and 65 tonnes), pump-out facilities, car park, launderette, toilet and shower blocks.


Overnight: 40,859

Day boating: 2,043

Non-actively boating: Unknown

Non-boating leisure: Minimal

Total: 67,346

Mylor Yacht Harbour (Cornwall)

The site has recently been redeveloped to increase the number of boats by increasing shore storage capacity, from 200 to 450 boats, and the provision of marina berths from 10 to 197.

The redevelopment also included the refurbishment of the on-site holiday accommodation and the development of new buildings for marina-owned businesses and tenant businesses.

The marina business owns and provides many of the facilities and services available on site, which include dry storage, berths, moorings, boat hoist, boat repair, marine engineering, fuel, utilities, car parking, holiday accommodation, launderette, showers and toilets. These are supplemented by 14 tenant businesses including a chandlery, yacht broker, sailing schools, boat charter, café, restaurant and bar, additional specialist boat repair and maintenance, and a yacht club.


Overnight: 6,760

Day boating: 1,560



Total: 42,146

East Cowes Marina (Isle of Wight)

The marina has undergone significant redevelopment, installing new pontoons, reconfiguring and extending the previous layout, laying tarmac across the site, and building a new marina office, toilets and shower block, as well as a building four units for tenant businesses. East Cowes Marina has 390 marina berths, including 150 dedicated visitor berths. The marina has no moorings or shore storage capacity.


Overnight: 32,240

Day boating: 3,016



Total: 75,816


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

38

Name Background & Facilities Users per Annum

Port Hamble Marina (Southampton)

The marina has a history of refitting and maintaining racing yachts. As well as the facilities available on site, boaters are attracted to the marina by the neighbouring boatyard and the pubs, restaurants and shops at Hamble village, just a few minutes walk from the Marina. MDL operates the marina, fuel, utilities, car park, launderette, toilet and shower block. Additional services are provided by the six tenant businesses, which include three charter companies, two brokers and a chandlery. There are 310 marina berths, including 27 berths leased on a long-term basis.


Overnight: 62,400

Day boating: 11,960


Non-boating leisure: Minimal

Total: 82,940

Port Solent Marina (Portsmouth)

This marina provides a range of leisure services, marine services, residential property, and employment space, in addition to more than 800 marina berths, of which half are owned by local residents. There is plenty of shore storage space and a capacity of 550 boats.

Premier Marinas operates the marina, lock, berths, storage, hoist and crane, fuel, utilities, car park, launderette, toilet and shower block. Additional services are provided by 27 tenant businesses, which include boat repair, marine engineering, rigging, fabrication businesses, the largest chandlery in the UK, brokers and dealers, charters and sea-schools.

The estimates of boat use provided by the marina suggest that the marina receives 21,500 visits from berthholders per annum, and 10,500 visits from visiting boaters, all of whom can be assumed to stay overnight given the long distance visitors will have had to have travelled to get there.

Ramsgate Marina (Rames-gate)

The Royal Harbour Marina currently comprises 700 berths. It also owns around 50 chain moorings that are let out to a small boating organisation. The marina operation owns and provides a range of facilities and services available on site, including berths, moorings, slipways, fuel, utilities, 40 tonne boat hoist and maintenance services, pump-out facilities, security, car parking and a modern amenity block providing free showers, toilets and launderette facilities. There are approximately 30 on-site tenant businesses that provide additional services including a chandlery, marine engineering, boat repair and maintenance, charters and sea schools, brokerage and dealerships, restaurants and a café.

The marina estimates that it has 3,000 visitor boat nights each month for July and August and around half this figure for the months of April, May, June and September. The estimates suggest a total number of visitor boat nights of 10,500 per annum. The Ramsgate Marina visitor survey (2000) found the average number of people on board visiting boats to be 2.7, which can be used to provide an estimate of 28,350 visitor nights per annum.

Tollesbury Marina (Tollesbury, Essex)

Tollesbury Marina currently comprises 247 berths, of which 5 are residential berths. There are no dedicated visitor berths and visitors instead utilise vacant berths. The marina business owns and provides almost all of the facilities and services available on site, including a chandlery, broker, restaurant and bar, boat repair and maintenance, and a yacht club.


Overnight: 824


Non-boating leisure: 344

Total: 8,510

Conwy Quays Marina (Conwy, North Wales)

Conwy Quays Marina has 500 marina berths, with no moorings or dedicated visitor berths, although visitors are accommodated in vacant marina berths. The Conwy site also provides a shore storage facility with a capacity for 120 boats. Conwy Quays Marina owns and operates a range of services and facilities, including berthing and storage, access to the water, boat hoist and crane, fuel, utilities, pump-out facilities, car parking, launderette, toilets and shower block. The marina also has 6 tenant businesses on site, which include boatyard facilities, marine engineering, a chandlery, brokerage and a sea school.

The marina estimates that it receives almost 9,000 visits from berth-holders each year (which includes multiple visits from the same berth-holders), while visiting boaters are estimated to total 600 (all of whom stay overnight).

Source: Economic Benefits of Coastal Marinas, British Marine Federation, 2007


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

39

Table 5.3 Employment Impacts (FTE) at Marinas, 2007

Name Operation of Marina –

Core Business*

Operation of Marina – Additional Revenue**

On Site Tenant

Businesses

On Site Non Tenant

Businesses

Visitor Expenditure

in Wider Economy

Indirect & Induced

Effects from Suppliers and

Employees

TOTAL

Largs Yacht Haven

17 0 155 0 5 52 229

Jersey 15.5 2.5 159 0 55 53 285

Mylor Yacht 11 43 82 0 Minimal 41 177

East Cowes 6 0 15 0 31 6 58

Port Hamble 9 0 46 17 81 17 170

Port Solent 24 0 334 33 Minimal 107 498

Ramsgate 31 0 90 0 35 36 192

Tollesbury 6 4 4 9 1 4 28

Conwy Quays

9 0 24 21 0 16 70

Source: Economic Benefits of Coastal Marinas, British Marine Federation, 2007 *Including; Berthing, Mooring, Storage, Hoist, Fuel, Car Parking, Rent

**Including Marine Services, Hospitality

Table 5.4 GVA (£k) at Marinas, 2007


Core Business*


On Site Tenant

Businesses

On Site Non Tenant

Businesses

Visitor Expenditure

in Wider Economy

Indirect & Induced


Employees

TOTAL

Largs Yacht Haven

1,800 0 8,600 0 60 3,120 13,580

Jersey 592 95 8,870 0 664 2,870 13,091

Mylor Yacht 1,020 820 1,660 0 Minimal 1,050 4,550

East Cowes 618 0 1,066 0 360 505 2,549

Port Hamble 1,823 0 3,527 850 975 1,600 8,775

Port Solent 2,900 0 10,140 399 Minimal 3,912 17,351

Ramsgate 450 0 3,600 0 425 1,215 5,690

Tollesbury 225 160 92 360 12 143 992


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

40


Core Business*


On Site Tenant

Businesses

On Site Non Tenant

Businesses

Visitor Expenditure

in Wider Economy

Indirect & Induced


Employees

TOTAL

Conwy Quays

1,000 0 1,680 890 4 1,050 4,624

Source: Economic Benefits of Coastal Marinas, British Marine Federation, 2007 *Including; Berthing, Mooring, Storage, Hoist, Fuel, Car Parking, Rent

**Including Marine Services, Hospitality

5.3.4 Tollesbury Marina

It is worth exploring one of the above case studies in a little more detail as it provides the closest fit with the business proposition at Maidens Harbour. Tollesbury Marina in Essex comprises 247 berths. Although this is two and a half times the size of the business proposition at Maidens Harbour it provides the most useful benchmark available.

On site facilities include a chandlery, broker, restaurant and bar, boat repair and maintenance, and a yacht club. The catering is contracted out to a local business. A number of companies have located near to the marina since its inception whose services are utilised by marina visitors and they provide a valuable part of the economic effect of the marina. In recent years Tollesbury has experienced growth in boat sizes.

Approximately 236 people use the marina each week in peak season. This falls to 65 in the off season. This equates to 8,510 visitors per annum. Just over half (56%) of visitors are annual and seasonal berth holders.

The marina supports 14 FTE posts. This includes 13 permanent full time workers, 4 part time employees (summer posts) and 1 temporary employee in the summer. There are also an estimated 9 other posts that are supported in the wider economy.

The marina business has an annual turnover of £539,000. This includes; £315,000 from berthing fees; £124,000 from boat repairs and handling; and £100,000 from brokerage. Expenditure includes £184,000 on wages and £154,000 on goods and services.

Tollesbury Marine Engineering has a turnover of £64,000 with half of this spent on goods and services. The catering service has a turnover of £120,000, again with half spent on goods and services.

Visitors from outside the local area (4% of total visitors) spend on average £200 per visit. This is comprised as; berthing fees (£80); restaurant/bar (£70); chandlery (£20); fuel (£10); other (£20).

5.3.5 Other evidence and case studies

Economic impact studies and research of marinas / harbours from elsewhere also illustrate some important lessons and considerations:

• Assessments elsewhere illustrate economic potential in four areas, namely; direct employment of staff at marina / harbour; employment generated from onsite businesses such as chandlery, restaurants, etc; wider leisure and tourism impacts from visitors being drawn from outside the local area; and wider inward investment generated from increasing the attractiveness of the surrounding area;

• Marina’s will generate average revenue of between €1,000 – €3,000 per berth (£820 to £2,450); 1 to 1.5 jobs will be directly supported by every 100 berths, with a further


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

41

4.5 – 10 jobs created per 100 berths within supporting industries; and operational costs range from €500 – €1,000 (£410 to £820) per berth

8;

• It is not other marinas that generally provide competition but other leisure activities. In fact there are often agglomeration effects

9 in terms of marinas pooling their resources

and engaging in collaborative marketing to draw boats into the region10

;

• Long-term berthing generates greater economic returns than attracting more visitors;

• Average berthing fees in the UK is £283 per annum per metre of boat, with an average overnight fee of £2.27 per metre. In Scotland the respective figures are £289 and £2.03

11;

• Gross direct employment at Kings Lynn marina supports 3 FTE jobs per 100 berths. The composite multiplier applied was 1.36 locally and 1.56 for the region based on English Partnerships standard multipliers for the recreational sector

12. Other useful

information used to asses the economic impact of a 90 berth marina in King’s Lynn includes:

- a 95% occupancy rate was applied based on demand and consultations;

- 10% of berths were allocated to visiting boats based on evidence from case studies;

- Boat purchase costs are £22,200 on average with annual running costs at £1,570;

- 1 FTE is created for every £71,000 spent on boat services.

5.3.6 Strategic case summary

South Ayrshire is characterised by low levels of economic activity coupled with higher than average levels of retired residents and the long-term sick. The locality also lacks a diverse employment base. There is a need for new investment that will create new employment. A particular strength that is evident lies in tourism and the supporting industries which also supports the proposition of an improved harbour offer.

Coupled with this is the fact that the sailing market remains buoyant in Scotland even under current economic conditions. The sector has experienced rapid growth over the last couple of decades with these trends expected to continue into the future. However, there exists limited spare capacity within the Clyde Estuary. These two points suggest a logical case for investment from a strategic point of view.

8 The INTERREG II C project Maya 'Marina and Yacht Harbours in the Lower North Sea - based on seven

pilot projects in the UK, Ireland, France, the Netherlands and Belgium 9 Agglomeration effects are benefits that come about from businesses in similar industries clustering

together. For example, people may decide to sail the Clyde estuary because there are a number of marinas there. The coast can be marketed as a package. 10

Economic Impact Assessment of King's Lynn Marina, Ecotec, June 2007 11

Economic Benefits of Coastal Marinas, British Marine Federation, 2007 12

Economic Impact Assessment of King's Lynn Marina, Ecotec, June 2007


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

42

5.4 Business Plan

This section sets out the business plan for Maidens Harbour. We begin by setting out the existing profile of Maidens Harbour. Here we set out current income and expenditure, visitor numbers and staffing levels.

5.4.1 Existing profile

In 2010, Maidens Harbour generated almost £12,000 in turnover. Of this, almost £8k was from harbour dues and just over £2.4k from the annual gala. The current capacity is 30 number boats of approximately 6.5m in length and charge rates are currently £45 per metre for a season. The entire turnover is reinvested into the upkeep of the harbour. The day-to-day operational expenditure equates to approximately £1.7k (licences, electricity, insurance, and harbour master honorarium).

The vast majority of existing users are local (resident boats) and as such there is very little additional income generated in Maidens Village or further afield from visitors.

Currently no one receives a salary from Maidens Harbour. The capacity of residential / permanent berths is for 30 number boats. It has been assumed that they operate at three-quarters of capacity all year round (23 permanent berths). It is assumed that the average boat length is 6.5m which is applied to an average charge rate of £45 (i.e. £292.50 a season). This equates to £6,728. The remaining harbour dues must therefore come from occasional/overnight visitors at £10 a visit.

There are no indirect or induced effects as it is assumed that non-local residents are not currently spending any additional money and that there are no paid workers.

Table 5.5 below summarises this information.

Table 5.5 Existing Profile of Maidens Harbour (2010)

Baseline Position

Gross operational income

- Harbour dues £7,919.96

- Gala £2,420.24

- Other (including donations, scrap) £1,546.78

TOTAL £11,886.98

Expenditure

- Day-to-day maintenance and upkeep £1,707.98

- Gala £2,268.48

TOTAL £3,976.46

Visits per annum

- Resident / permanent berths 23


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

43

Baseline Position

- Overnight / occasional visitor boats 119

TOTAL 142

Visitor expenditure

- Direct £7,919.96

- Indirect £0

- Induced £0

Source: Maidens Harbour Trust Management Committee and URS Calculations, 2012

5.4.2 Economic Case

5.4.2.1 Construction Works Phase

As set out in Sections 2 and 3 of this report the proposals for development of the harbour include for provision of the following.

100 pontoon berths requiring;

• Dredging of the harbour;

• Repairs to the east breakwater

• Pontoon installation, restraints and access

A Club House building on two levels comprising:

• Clubhouse bar which could seat between 50 and 60 people. Ancillary services would include a small kitchen, cold store, bar store, service access corridor, and an external balcony;

• Harbour masters office and chandlery;

• Toilets, showers and laundrette;

• Boat storage;

Other Shore Based Works including:

• Access road and footpaths

• Fenced hardstand for boat storage

• External lighting and CCTV installations

Section 2 of the report presents three different pontoon layouts each of which are considered feasible. Pontoon layout option 1 is considered the preferred option and the construction costs estimated for this option are presented within this section of the report to represent the cost of procuring a scheme to develop the harbour at Maidens.

The cost of the construction works is estimated to be £4,246,000. This estimate makes an allowance for all construction activities and other design and procurement costs including site surveys and ground investigation, licences and permissions, design and site supervision. A contingency allowance for dealing with any construction phase cost increases has also been included. However allowances for any escalations in cost during the design and procurement phase has not been included. As discussed in Section 2.8 of the report a further Optimism


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

44

Bias sum of approximately 40% of this estimate should be included at this stage for funding the project. Therefore including for this sum a project funding allowance of £5.9m should be targeted. The construction works Cost estimate and Optimism Bias allowance would be reviewed and reconfirmed in subsequent phases of the project, with the Optimism Bias allowance reducing as the risks to the project are removed or managed. The Cost estimate for the works may increase as the Optimisum Bias allowance is reduced. However for the purposes of indicating a funding gap as presented in Tables 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12, the business plan and sensitivity analysis summaries, the estimated construction cost of £4,246,000 is used.

5.4.2.2 Projected Visitor Profile

Table 5.6 illustrates projected visitor numbers. This is based on the earlier strategic assessment, consultation with the Maidens Harbour Trust Management Committee and local residents, along with our judgement. The following assumptions have been made:

• 100 pontoon berths are installed (of which there is enough demand for by year 15) and the shore based facilities include a clubhouse bar, a chandlery, and toilets/showers;

• The Tollesbury case study set out earlier, in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4, provides a basis for the calculations of estimated visitor numbers at Maidens. 247 pontoon berths are provided at Tollesbury, therefore with 100 pontoon berths Maidens Harbour could potentially generate visitor numbers which are approximately 40% of those at Tollesbury. However, we have applied this figure more cautiously and assumed that it will take 15 years to reach this maximum as it will take a long time for the establishment of market awareness as Maidens Harbour has modest pontoon provision and does not have an established reputation as a leisure sailing location of this scale;

• Alongside this a technical and feasibility study of a proposed new marina in Campbeltown has been used as a ‘sense check’ and the assumptions set out in that study were cross referenced with those in this study;

• Boat users have been split into the following four groups. The boat user numbers are derived from review of the market information identified in the case studies in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4: The numbers of occasional berth users shown in Year 1 and the income generated, in Tables 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12, may vary significantly from the values shown until the market for Maidens Harbour is well established. The 551 occasional berth users selected for year 1 at Maidens was derived from the market information available of 1,962 number ‘non active berth users’ noted at Tollesbury factored down by 40% (for scale) and down by a further 70% (for delay to full market establishment).

- Existing resident / permanent berths who pay for a season at £45 per metre. It has been assumed that these users decline but at a very slow rate. The Maidens Harbour Trust suggests that the berthing rates would remain relatively constant for these users and as such a small increase of £5/m every 5 years has been applied;

- New resident / permanent berths from outside of Maidens village. These users would be charged £150 per metre for a season (based on rates charged elsewhere nearby). It has been assumed that there would be a slow but steady increase of these users. An increase of £5/m every 5 years has also been applied here;

- Occasional berths who are regular users and receive discount. This is found at other marinas. For example, they may not use the harbour enough for a regular berth but may want to berth a number of times throughout the year and only for


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

45

a couple of hours at a time. As per the Campbeltown marina a £100 per annum (per boat) has been applied. This increases by £5 every five years;

- Overnight visitor boats that usually stay for one night as part of a wider sailing trip. Based on comparable fees in nearby facilities there appears little scope to significantly increase the current £10 per night fee. This remains constant over the 15 years. Visitors from outside the region will not use the Harbour until the longer-term and these visitor numbers will be limited in the first five years;

• Average boat size is 6.5m (for this assessment);

• The majority of local residents (81%) are in favour of the clubhouse bar. It is assumed that 60% of the 18+ population in the Maidens datazone use the bar four times a year:

- 60% has been applied rather than 81% as the latter figure was based on a smaller spatial area which is closer to the bar with people living on the eastern and more southerly points of the datazone less likely to visit;

- This high percentage figure has been applied as there is little competition in the locality;

- Alongside this it has been assumed that 30% of occasional boat users will use the clubhouse bar and 60% of overnight visitors. Permanent berth holders haven’t been added here as they will mainly live locally and as such will already be included;

- A conservative average spend of £10 per head has been applied.

• The chandlery income is estimated by assuming that in year 15 it is 2.5 times less than the existing turnover of the Tollesbury Marina (as per the number of boat visitors). This is then apportioned as per the distribution of visitors.

• It is important to note that a sensitivity analysis has been applied at the end of this chapter. It is difficult to project visitor numbers and the table below sets out the best estimate scenario, whereas the sensitivity analysis illustrates presents pessimistic and optimistic scenarios.

Table 5.6 Maidens Harbour Projected Visitor Numbers

Visitor Type Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15

Boats

- permanent (existing)

23 23 23 22 22 20 19

- permanent (new)

9 11 13 16 18 30 41

- occasional 551 565 579 594 609 691 785

- overnight 121 242 363 484 605 1,211 2,422

TOTAL 704 841 978 1,116 1,255 1,952 3,266

Bar 1,786 1,863 1,940 2,017 2,094 2,482 3,236

Chandlery Visitor numbers not provided but turnover is included below



STUDY REPORT

December 2012

46

5.4.2.3 Visitor Expenditure

Table 5.7 illustrates the projected visitor income on site. By year 5 the total income generated on site is estimated to equate to just over £126,000; by year 10 it is estimated at £166,500; and year 15 at just under £224,000.

With reference to Section 5.4.2.2 above the projected overall annual income from berthing fees at Maidens in year 1 and year 15 is 23% and 53% of the £315k recorded in the Tollesbury market information.

Table 5.7 Direct Expenditure of Visitors (on-site)

Visitor Type Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15

Boats


£6,728 £6,728 £6,728 £6,435 £7,205 £7,150 £7,410

- permanent (new)

£8,775 £10,725 £12,675 £15,600 £18,135 £31,200 £43,973

- occasional £55,058 £56,470 £57,918 £59,403 £63,973 £76,063 £90,252

- overnight £1,211 £2,422 £3,632 £4,843 £6,054 £12,108 £24,216

Bar £17,858 £18,627 £19,397 £20,168 £20,940 £24,819 £32,364

Chandlery £5,515 £6,590 £7,668 £8,749 £9,833 £15,301 £25,600

Total £95,145 £101,561 £108,018 £115,199 £126,140 £166,641 £223,815


This direct expenditure will support 2.8 FTE posts in year 1513

. This will lead to further expenditure in other sectors of the economy through indirect and induced effects, as discussed earlier. It is common practice in economic impact studies to provide a composite multiplier which covers both indirect and induced effects.

We have reviewed multipliers from a range of sources. This includes an economic impact study of Sailing in the Clyde Estuary

14 where multipliers ranged from 1.2 (supporting and

auxiliary transport activities) to 1.7 (recreational, cultural and supporting activities). This is similar to the case studies reviewed earlier that have an average multiplier of 1.3. Therefore, based on this evidence we set our composite multiplier at 1.3.

Table 5.8 illustrates the total expenditure, GVA (Gross Value Added) and employment created/supported by year 15 of the business plan. This includes the indirect and induced effects and in other words some of the economic benefits will be realised in the wider economy. These wider benefits have not been illustrated in the business plan because the purpose there is to establish the economic benefits at the harbour and whether it is sustainable.

13

By applying the ratio of 1 FTE per £80,000 turnover generated 14

Sailing in the Clyde Estuary – The Potential for Future Development, A Market Assessment, Economic Impact Study and Action Plan, McKenzie Wilson, June 2006


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

47

Table 5.8 Expenditure, GVA and Employment Generated, Year 15

Visitor Type Direct Indirect and Induced Total

Expenditure / Turnover £223,815 £67,144 £290,959

GVA* £67,144 £20,143 £87,288

Employment (FTE) 2.8 0.8 3.6

Source: URS Calculations, 2012 *GVA is 30% of turnover (average GVA/turnover ratios from ‘sailing related industrials sectors’, Annual Business

Inquiry for Scotland)

5.4.3 Financial and Commercial Case

5.4.3.1 Staffing and Management

Maidens Harbour is currently managed by the Harbour Trust Management Committee. This consists of 10 full members and 4 co-opted members. It is assumed that this group is large enough to continue to manage this project, from a strategic point of view (there will be additionally day-to-day maintenance) and as such no additional management fees are required.

Table 5.9 sets out the number of staff (direct) that will be required by year 15 of the business plan (based on visitor forecasts) and the associated costs.

Table 5.9 Staffing Costs (in year 15)

Employment Type FTE Staff Average Salary Total Cost

Bar manager 1.0 £21,445 £21,445

Other bar staff 0.5 £12,319 £6,160

Chandlery 0.5 £24,183 £12,092

Support staff – upkeep of harbour, cleaner

0.5 £14,694 £7,347

TOTAL COST £47,044

Overall Full Time Equivalent 2.4

Source: URS Calculations, 2012 and Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2010

5.4.3.2 Other Costs

• Direct staffing costs are set out in the table above. It is assumed that all additional support services will continue to be met by the Harbour Trust Management Committee;

• Building land rental costs will be approximately £10,000 and business rates would be 22.5p per pound (50% small business bonus scheme applied);

• There will be additional cost for utilities, insurance and on-going maintenance costs. It has been assumed that these are 10% of annual turnover based on evidence from


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

48

elsewhere15. On top of this there are additional one-off maintenance costs for the harbour in year 10. We have allowed £50k on top of the existing maintenance and utility rates;

• Marketing activity will be quite minimal and generally ‘piggyback’ on to existing local tourism marketing. There will be some costs for adverts in sailing magazines and other relevant posts. We have allowed £1,200 per annum for years 1 to 5 and £200 in subsequent years;

• It has been assumed that the construction works costs are paid in year 1 all at once and the sum shown does not account for any allowance for Optimism Bias in the cost estimating process as discussed in Section 5.4.2.1;

• Our forecasts do not include any additional grants. No assumption has been made about how the construction work costs would be paid for i.e. there is no account for loan interest repayments for example.

No allowance for inflation has been included in the income and expenditure projections as it is assumed that this is likely to affect both in the same proportions.

5.4.4 Income and Expenditure Summaries

Table 5.10 shown on the following page sets out a summary of the income and expenditure over a 15 year period. The one off cost for the construction works shown in year 1 excludes any Optimism Bias allowance discussed in Section 5.4.2.1. A sum of approximately £1.6m would need to be added should Optimism Bias be allowed for at this stage.

15

Study to evaluate the cost of food preparation and service activities in the Hospitality Sector, Horwath Bastow Charleton


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

49

Table 5.11 and Table 5.12 presented on the subsequent pages set out the sensitivity analysis which allows for variation in visitor number projections. We have re-evaluated the funding gap based on 20% variations in users. Staffing and management costs are also adjusted accordingly. The other costs included in these two tables, including the estimated construction costs, are as presented in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10 Business Plan Summary

Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15

VISITOR PROFILE

Boats


23 23 22 20 19

- permanent (new) 9 13 18 30 41

- occasional 551 579 609 691 785

- overnight 121 363 605 1,211 2,422

Bar 1,786 1,940 2,094 2,482 3,236


INCOME (VISITOR EXPENDITURE)

Boats


£6,728 £6,728 £7,205 £7,150 £7,410

- permanent (new) £8,775 £12,675 £18,135 £31,200 £43,973

- occasional £55,058 £57,918 £63,973 £76,063 £90,252

- overnight £1,211 £3,632 £6,054 £12,108 £24,216

Bar £17,858 £19,397 £20,940 £24,819 £32,364

Chandlery £5,515 £7,668 £9,833 £15,301 £25,600

Total £95,145 £108,018 £126,140 £166,641 £223,815

OPERATING COSTS

Staffing and management

£19,999 £22,705 £26,514 £35,027 £47,044

Building land rental costs

£10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000

Business rates £2,250 £2,250 £2,250 £2,250 £2,250

Utility, insurance and maintenance

£9,514 £10,802 £12,614 £16,664 £22,381

Year 10 Harbour Maintenance

£50,000

Marketing £1,200 £1,200 £1,200 £200 £200

TOTAL £42,963 £46,956 £52,578 £114,141 £81,875

Profit £52,182 £61,062 £73,562 £52,500 £141,939

One-off construction works

£4,246,000

FUNDING GAP £4,193,818

Source: URS Calculations, 2012


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

50

Table 5.11 Business Plan Summary – Sensitivity Analysis: 20% Decrease in Visitors


VISITOR PROFILE

Boats


18 18 18 16 15

- permanent (new) 7 10 14 24 33

- occasional 440 463 487 553 628

- overnight 97 291 484 969 1,937

Bar 1,429 1,552 1,675 1,986 2,589



Boats


£5,382 £5,382 £5,720 £5,720 £5,928

- permanent (new) £7,020 £10,140 £14,508 £24,960 £35,178

- occasional £44,047 £46,334 £51,178 £60,851 £72,202

- overnight £969 £2,906 £4,843 £9,686 £19,373

Bar £14,287 £15,518 £16,752 £19,855 £25,891

Chandlery £4,412 £6,135 £7,867 £12,241 £20,480

Total £76,116 £86,415 £100,868 £133,313 £179,052

OPERATING COSTS


£15,999 £18,164 £21,202 £28,021 £37,635


£10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000

Business rates £2,250 £2,250 £2,250 £2,250 £2,250


£7,612 £8,641 £10,087 £13,331 £17,905


£50,000

Marketing £1,200 £1,200 £1,200 £200 £200

TOTAL £37,061 £40,255 £44,738 £103,803 £67,990

Profit £39,055 £46,159 £56,130 £29,510 £111,062


£4,246,000




STUDY REPORT

December 2012

51

Table 5.12 Business Plan Summary – Sensitivity Analysis: 20% Increase in Visitors


VISITOR PROFILE

Boats


28 28 26 24 23

- permanent (new) 11 16 22 36 49

- occasional 661 695 731 830 942

- overnight 145 436 726 1,453 2,906

Bar 2,143 2,328 2,513 2,978 3,884



Boats


£8,073 £8,073 £8,580 £8,580 £8,892

- permanent (new) £10,530 £15,210 £21,762 £37,440 £52,767

- occasional £66,070 £69,502 £76,767 £91,276 £108,302

- overnight £1,453 £4,359 £7,265 £14,530 £29,059

Bar £21,430 £23,276 £25,128 £29,783 £38,837

Chandlery £6,618 £9,202 £11,800 £18,361 £30,720

Total £114,174 £129,622 £151,302 £199,970 £268,577

OPERATING COSTS


£23,998 £27,245 £31,802 £42,032 £56,453


£10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000

Business rates £2,250 £2,250 £2,250 £2,250 £2,250


£11,417 £12,962 £15,130 £19,997 £26,858


£50,000

Marketing £1,200 £1,200 £1,200 £200 £200

TOTAL £48,866 £53,658 £60,383 £124,479 £95,761

Profit £65,308 £75,964 £90,919 £75,491 £172,816


£4,246,000




STUDY REPORT

December 2012

52

5.4.5 Risk Assessment

Some potential risks identified during the economic justification include:

• Market research conducted by the British Marine Federation in 2007 found a large number of barriers for marine owners in developing their sites. One of the largest concerns was the amount of red tape and regulation specifically relating to the environment and planning. Another strong concern was the increased costs associated with dredging.

• There is an increasing trend, due to increased ease of travel (in particular air) and growing waiting lists in some areas that less boats are being berthed locally. For example, the Sailing in the Clyde Estuary study suggested that 30% of boats permanently based in marinas on the Clyde are owned by English residents. This trend could easily continue as boat owners look for lower berth rates and less busy waters. Although this will generate potential income for Maidens Harbour there is a concern that this will greatly reduce availability for local residents and that they could be priced out.

• There is also an increasing trend in the purchase of bigger boats as they become more affordable. This could potentially pose a future problem for Maidens Harbour as the focus here is on smaller boats. Demand appears to be greater for larger berths than smaller and The Yacht Harbour Association (TYHA) suggests a particular shortage of 12 to 14 metre berths

16.

• The quality of marinas up and down the country is improving since the Yacht Harbour Association introduced the Gold Anchor Award Scheme. This is leading to stiffer competition.

One study suggests that marinas under 120 berths are unviable and that newly built marinas with fewer than 250 berths will struggle to survive

17.

5.5 Business Plan Summary

The financial case suggests that Maidens Harbour has the potential to become profitable from an early stage and continue to grow steadily up to year 15. However, this would be dependant on Maidens Harbour Trust securing a sizeable grant to cover the construction works. It would seem unviable to secure a loan (certainly for the full amount) as even by contributing all the profits over the first 15 years in the most positive scenario would only lead to approximately a third of the loan being paid off and this excludes any interest payments.

16

TYHA (March 2007) Fore & Aft 17

David Thame in Estates Gazette, 21st August 2010


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

53

6 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

6.1 Introduction

South Ayrshire Council (SAC) in conjunction with the Maidens Harbour Trust (MHT) commissioned URS to undertake a feasibility study to prepare and review options for the future development of Maidens Harbour. As part of the study brief requirements a short self-completion questionnaire survey of all households within Maidens village was undertaken seeking the local community’s views and opinions on the proposed development of Maidens Harbour.

A total of 248 self-completion questionnaires with accompanying maps and stamp addressed return envelopes were posted out by URS to all Maidens households on the 11

th April 2012. In

addition a further 20 copies of the questionnaire were placed in the post office and café in Maidens village by the MHT Management Committee. A copy of the Questionnaire and Map are provided in Appendix D.

The requested return date to URS for all completed questionnaires was the 27th April 2012.

The analysis of the returned questionnaires commenced on the 3rd May 2012, by which time a total of 108 questionnaire returns had been made which equated to a 40% survey response rate.

6.2 Survey Analysis

The results of the Maidens community survey are presented in the following sections.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

54

6.2.1 Question 1

Are you supportive of the overall concept for the development of Maidens Harbour?

[Note:- The Introduction section of the Questionnaire provided details of the overall aims of the project and a summary of all the harbour development proposals included in the feasibility study].

Question 1

83

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

105 people answered Question 1, with 83 in favour of the concept (79%) and 22 against it (21%).

3 people did not answer the question.

Those answering “NO” to Question 1 were invited to outline their reasons for doing so. A total of 21 such responses were received and all of these are summarised in Appendix D. However, the analysis of all these responses has identified some common issues:-

- Opposition to development in the village and changing the character and calm appeal of Maidens.

- General opposition to the presence of wind turbines.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

55

6.2.2 Question 2

Please indicate which of the proposed individual aspects you support, or otherwise. (Please tick either “YES” or “NO” for each project component).

Harbour Dredging

Quesion 2 - Harbour Dredging

97

9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Yes No

106 people answered this part of Question 2 with the vast majority of respondents (92%) in favour of harbour dredging and only 8% against.

2 respondents did not answer this part of the question.

Those answering “NO” were invited to outline their reasons. Comments provided included:-

- Reservations related to dredging works such as weekend work and noise/traffic.

- Methods used including diesel pollution.

- Cost.

- The potential for negative impacts on the area.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

56

Provision of Pontoons (for up to 100 Berths)

Q2 - Provision of pontoons for up to 100 berths

88

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes No

A total of 105 people answered this part of Question 2. A significant majority of respondents (84%) are in favour of providing pontoons for up to 100 berths at Maidens Harbour with only 16% expressing their opposition to such a proposal.


Those answering “NO” were invited to outline their reasons. 6 of the 17 respondents who answered “NO” provided comments. These related to:-

- The proposed scale of development (with 1 response suggesting that 50 pontoons would be more appropriate).

- Fear of over development and spoiling the area.

- Existing harbour pontoons were bought from a former salmon farm and looked “an eyesore”.

- Existing berths not being filled.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

57

Clubhouse

Q2 - Clubhouse

83

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

A total of 102 people answered this part of Question 2. 83 respondents (81%) were in favour of a clubhouse being added to the Maidens Harbour area although 19% people did not support this proposal.


Those answering “NO” were invited to outline their reasons. These included:-

- No need for a Clubhouse as there’s a nearby hotel already serving food and alcohol.

- This would spoil rather than benefit the area.

- There are not enough people on boats to support it.

- Concerns such as increased traffic and noise impacts on local residents especially at night, car parking requirements and additional access to parking areas would be needed.

- This is a small fishing village.

- The village needs a community hall, not a Clubhouse for a limited number of people. There is no room for a club house on the harbour grounds.

- Only if Clubhouse is a community based facility.

- For socialising, the harbour users can meet on boats for drinks or eat locally.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

58

Bar

Q2 - Bar

83

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

A total of 101 people responded to this part of Question 2. 83 respondents (82%) were in favour of a bar forming part of the proposal with 18% of respondents not in favour.

7 people did not answer this part of the question.

Those answering “NO” were invited to outline their reasons. Responses included:-

- No need for a Bar as there is already a nearby hotel serving food and alcohol.

- A bar would spoil rather than benefit the area.

- There are not enough people to support it.

- A bar would only serve as a meeting place for people “interested in booze”.

- A bar would require a full time manager - therefore a financial commitment.

- Concerns such as increased traffic and noise impacts on local residents especially at night, additional access to parking areas would be needed along with new provision of parking spaces.

- This is a small fishing village.

- Existing Bar next to harbour at Maidens Bowling Club.

- Only if Bar is a community based facility.

- For socialising, the harbour users can meet on boats for drinks or drink locally.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

59

Chandlery

Question 2 - Chandlery

80

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

A total of 100 people answered this part of Question 2. 80% of respondents indicated support for a Chandlery forming part of the harbour redevelopment proposals, with 20% opposed to such provision.

8 people did not answer this part of Question 2.

Those answering “NO” were invited to outline their reasons. Responses included:-

- A Chandlery would spoil rather than benefit the area.

- Already a Chandlery in Girvan 7 miles away.

- A Chandlery would require a full time manager - therefore a financial commitment.


- Maidens has previously had a chandlery - “it failed”.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

60

Toilets & Showers

Question 2 - Toilets & Showers

84

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

A total of 100 responses were received for this part of Question 2. 84% of respondents indicated support for toilets and showering facilities with only 16% expressing opposition to such provision.



- Facilities would be a target for vandalism.

- They would spoil rather than benefit the area.

- Council owned toilets already in place in Maidens Harbour area - but they need an upgrade. Most boats have showers.


- Showers etc should be included in a community centre.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

61

Hard Standing & Storage

Question 2 - Hard Standing & Storage

78

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

A total of 100 responses were received to this part of Question 2. 78% of respondents were supportive of an area for hard standing and storage being provided with 22% against such provision.

8 respondents did not answer this part of Question 2.


- Provision would spoil rather than benefit the area - regardless of location.

- Facilities could attract vandalism.


- Would only agree if hard standing area location is established or provision is within a designated area.

- Boats should be stored at owner’s own premises.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

62

Technical Evaluations for Wind Turbines

Question 2 - Technical Evaluations for Wind turbines

48

56

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

Yes No

A total of 104 responses were made to this part of Question 2. The majority of respondents (54%) did not support this proposal although 46% were in favour.

4 of the questionnaires returned did not answer this part of the question.

Those answering “NO” were invited to outline their reasons. A total of 30 such responses were received and all of these are summarised in Appendix D. However, the analysis of these responses clearly indicates that respondents interpreted the question’s meaning as relating to a proposal to erect wind turbines in the Maidens harbour or nearby area – rather than only indicating their views on the technical evaluation of such a proposal.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

63

6.2.3 Question 3

Do you feel that there are any other development opportunities which should be considered for Maidens Harbour that would add to the overall project aims identified in the introduction section of this questionnaire?

20 of the questionnaires returned did not answer this question. Of the remaining 88 respondents:-

53 people answered “NO” to Question 3

35 respondents (40%) answered “YES” to Question 3. Those answering “YES” were invited to outline their reasons. A total of 31 relevant responses were received and these are summarised in Appendix D. However, the analysis of all these responses has identified some common issues:-

- Provision of catering / retail outlet at the harbour including workshops or space for local producers.

- Use of the harbour for mixed use activities e.g. kayaking, dinghy boats, training, fishing, outdoor education, swimming etc.

- Breakwater repairs

- Streetscape improvements e.g. upgraded car parking spaces, improved public paths, information boards etc.

6.2.4 Question 4

Do you have any other views / opinions that you would like to express on the proposed development of Maidens Harbour which are not covered by Q1 to Q3 above?

A total of 36 respondents (33% of all the survey respondents) provided additional views/ opinions that were not covered in Questions 1-3. A total of 52 views/opinions were expressed which are all summarised in Appendix D.

The view/opinions expressed were wide ranging in their scope. However, some common themes can be identified:-

- Developed harbour facilities should be accessible to local community.

- The project delivery/management mechanisms e.g. should involve community.

- Support local employment opportunities.

- Need for more detailed information e.g. proposed facility mix lay-out, planning and financial considerations.

- Project scale (in the Maidens village context) and landscape impact considerations.


STUDY REPORT

December 2012

64

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Study Conclusions

The Study concludes that whilst it is technically feasible to provide a 100 berth development of Maidens Harbour there is a large funding gap at year 1 which is unlikely to be closed without securing significant external funding sources. Whilst it would be possible to reduce the scale of the proposed development down from 100 berths and also perhaps subdivide the project into a series of individual phases the income which would be generated by the development would also be correspondingly reduced.

• Section 2 of the report considers the engineering works feasibility and presented an outline arrangement for the 100 berth development including shore based facilities with construction works costs estimated at £4,246k.

• Section 3 of the report elaborates on the arrangements proposed for the shore based facilities which principally included new Clubhouse, Chandlery, Toilets and Showers housed within a two story building with views over the harbour.

• Section 4 of the report summarises the available market information and highlights the demand in the Scottish sailing market.

• Section 5 of the report outlines the economic justification and summarises the business plan for the 100 berth development. However the business plan indicates a significant funding gap between outlay and income will remain after a 15 year period.

• Section 6 of the report presents the results of the householder survey which generally indicated positive response to the proposals.

7.2 Recommendations for Project Procurement

We recommend that should the project secure the necessary funding it be progressed sequentially in the following further stages;

• Site Investigations and Surveys

• Confirmation of the Design in Outline (including wave / sedimentation analysis)

• Detailed Design

• Works Tendering

• Works Construction

Consideration should be given to procuring the Works through a combined building and marine works contact.

Maidens Harbour Feasibility Study - South Ayrshire · PDF fileTABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION...

Documents

Transcript of Maidens Harbour Feasibility Study - South Ayrshire · PDF fileTABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION...