lake district national park authority · 2015-05-28 · lake district national park authority . 1....

MARINE AND RISK CONSULTANTS LTD

LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY

AQUATICS MARINA EXTENSION NAVIGATION ASSESSMENT

Report Number: 14UK986 Issue: 01 Date: 21 July 2014

j.maguire

Typewritten Text

Appendix 2

Report No: 14UK986 Issue No: 01 LDNPA Aquatics Marina Extension Nav. Assessment

Lake District National Park Authority i

LAKE DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY

AQUATICS MARINA EXTENSION NAVIGATION ASSESSMENT

Prepared for: Lake District National Park Authority

Author(s): Dennis Barber

Checked By: Paul Fuller

Date Release Prepared Authorised Notes

11 July 2014 Draft A DB ER For consultation

19 July 2014 Draft B DB ER For approval

21 July 2014 Issue 01 DB ER

Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd Marico Marine Bramshaw Lyndhurst SO43 7JB Hampshire United Kingdom

21 July 2014


Lake District National Park Authority ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A proposal has been submitted to the Lake District National Park Authority to extend the existing

marina at Glebe Road, Bowness-on-Windermere to accommodate a changing market of lake users.

The proposal includes the reconfiguring of jetties and water area in the narrowest part of Lake

Windermere. The impact on navigation safety could be significant both outside and inside the

proposed marina.

Concerns raised by lake users highlight some navigation hazards that this independent assessment of

navigation impact considers significant. It is also recognised however that a changing profile of craft

and users of the lake, as has been identified in the proposal and by local government should be

accommodated in some way to preserve the commercial health of the local region. The compromise

between navigation safety and what is considered by proposers to be commercial necessity is

difficult to achieve in such a constricted part of the lake but if the existing good record of safety is to

be preserved some form of compromise, by all parties is inevitable.

This independent review finds issues associated with:

• Channel delineation;

• Sight lines both in the channel and at the edge of the marina;

• Moorings at the outer edges;

• Changing behaviour in the main and proposed secondary channels;

• Effects of wash;

• Manoeuvring within the marina; and

• Duty of care.


Lake District National Park Authority iii

CONTENTS Abbreviations

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Authorship ..................................................................................................................... 1

2 Scope of the Assessment ......................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Definition....................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Area of Study ................................................................................................................. 2

2.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 3

3 Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... 4

4 Vessels, Craft and User Profiles ................................................................................................ 5

4.1 Vessels or Craft .............................................................................................................. 5

4.2 Users ............................................................................................................................. 6

4.3 Safeguards in Place ........................................................................................................ 6

5 Navigational Hazards ............................................................................................................... 8

5.1 Existing Causal Factors ................................................................................................... 8

5.1.1 Sight Lines: On the Water..................................................................................... 9

5.1.2 Sight Lines: Emerging from and close to the Marina ........................................... 10

5.1.3 Changing Sight Lines .......................................................................................... 12

5.1.4 Crossing Situation .............................................................................................. 13

5.1.5 Control of Mooring ............................................................................................ 14

5.1.6 Wind Conditions in Channel ............................................................................... 14

5.1.7 Tacking Sailing Craft ........................................................................................... 15

5.1.8 Sailing Craft running before the Wind ................................................................ 15

5.1.9 Secondary Channel ............................................................................................ 16

5.1.10 Cross Winds in Marina ....................................................................................... 16

5.1.11 Channel Segregation .......................................................................................... 17

5.1.12 Channel Markers ................................................................................................ 18

5.1.13 Alternative Delineation ...................................................................................... 19

5.1.14 Wash ................................................................................................................. 19

6 Marina Layout ....................................................................................................................... 21

6.1 Jetty Alignments .......................................................................................................... 21

6.1.1 Jetty E ................................................................................................................ 21

6.1.2 Jetties C and D ................................................................................................... 22

7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 23

References


Lake District National Park Authority iv


Lake District National Park Authority v

FIGURES Figure 1: Sight lines from between lines of swinging moorings looking south west. Wind from north

east. Photo LDNPA Ranger Patrol....................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2: Sight lines from inner line of swinging moorings looking north east. Wind in south west.

Photo D.Barber courtesy of LDNPA Ranger Patrol. .......................................................................... 10

Figure 3: Extract from (Marina Projects Ltd) drawing MP202-02-P-002-RevA showing interpretation

of one method of leaving existing marina: craft turning to starboard or port. .................................. 11

Figure 4: Sight lines from exit line of (existing) marina. Photo: LDNPA Ranger Patrol........................ 12

Figure 5: Extract from (Marina Projects Ltd) Drawing MP202-02-P-003-RevA, Planning application

LDNPA 7/2014/5320, showing emergence and entry (astern) manoeuvres. ..................................... 17


Lake District National Park Authority vi

ANNEXES Annex A List Of Consultees ....................................................................................................... A-1


Lake District National Park Authority vii

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Detail

ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practicable

kt Knot (unit of speed equal to nautical mile per hour , approximately 1.15 mph)

LDNPA Lake District National Park Authority

m Metre

MAIB Marine Accident Investigation Branch

Marico Marine Marine and Risk Consultants Ltd

MCA Maritime and Coast Guard Agency

nm Nautical Mile

NRA Navigation Risk Assessment

RHIB Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat; or

RIB Rigid Inflatable Boat

SLDC South Lakeland District Council

SMS Safety Management System

VHF Very High Frequency (radio communication)


Lake District National Park Authority 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA), the body responsible for planning applications in

the lakes of Cumbria have received an application to extend the marina currently operated by

Windermere Aquatics at Bowness on Lake Windermere. The application is accompanied by a

navigation risk assessment carried out by the Marina Projects Ltd who in turn were commissioned by

the site owners Windermere Aquatics. At the request of the planning authority, Marine and Risk

Consultants - known as Marico Marine - have been contracted to conduct an independent impact

assessment relating to navigation safety in the area of the development.

1.1 AUTHORSHIP

This report has been prepared by Captain Dennis Barber a Master Mariner who is Associate Partner

with Marico Marine. His background is a career at sea beginning in 1966 from cadet to master and

shipping management with P&O to Chief Marine Superintendent. He is also a small boat and tall

ship sailor having regularly participated in Cowes Week and other yachting activities. Before going

to sea he was mate on a river steamer on the Thames from Reading, which has some similarity to

the Bowness situation in terms of profile of powered, rowing and small sailing craft as well as

proficiency of users. Captain Barber has also been a technical adviser on maritime matters to a

parliamentary joint select committee as well as expert witness in the Admiralty Court of the Royal

Courts of Justice, London. Captain Barber is also an experienced auditor of ports and harbours for

the Port Marine Safety Code and has worked with shipping, harbours, offshore engineering projects

and regulatory authorities internationally.

2 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

The assessment is concerned only with those aspects of the proposed development that relate

directly to navigation safety. It does not concern itself with commercial or social considerations. It is

not a critique of the existing Navigation Risk Assessment (NRA). Although there may inevitably be

issues in which Marico Marine, as a specialist in marine risk, may disagree with the NRA it is not

intended to challenge it directly as it is considered this may only cause confusion for the reader.

Instead, issues will be identified such that, if necessary, the NRA may be revisited if considered

necessary, fully informed of other professional views.



2.1 DEFINITION

Throughout the report the use of certain technical terms could cause confusion. Within the report:

• Vessel: Is used legally for all craft but will also be used in the report to distinguish larger craft on the lake such as the lake cruise “steamers” and other craft that may be used for maintenance and service purposes;

• Craft: refers to smaller, usually leisure craft from the larger private motor cruiser through to kayaks and paddle boards, including sailing craft of all sizes found on the lake;

• In some discussion areas of the report the terms “vessel” and “craft” may become interchangeable but both terms are retained for grammatical avoidance of confusion and repetition;

• Draught: is the extent of immersion of the hull of a vessel or craft measured vertically downward from the waterline;

• Port: is that side of a vessel or craft that lies on the left side looking towards the forward end;

• Starboard: is that side of a vessel or craft that lies on the right side looking towards the forward end;

• Forward: refers to that end of the vessel or craft that is the front relating to its normal direction of travel;

• Aft: refers to that end of the vessel or craft that is the back relating to its normal direction of travel;

• The Head of a vessel or craft is its forward extreme;

• The Stem of a vessel or craft is the pointed forward extreme. Catamarans have two stems;

• The Stern of a vessel or craft is the extreme that is furthest aft;

• Ahead is the direction that a vessel or craft proceeds when travelling forwards; and

• Astern is the opposite direction of ahead.

2.2 AREA OF STUDY

The area examined is that of the proposed marina and its immediate surroundings, namely the

waters on the east side of Belle Isle between Cockshott Point in the south and Bowness Bay in the

north with considerations of the approaches either side, Bowness Bay itself and the waters to Belle

Isle and Parsonage Bay in the south, also including the waters across to Belle Isle.

The legal basis of navigation on the lake will focus on the Windermere Navigation Byelaws 2008 as

the definitive regulatory controls, which are very similar to and do not conflict with the



International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (ColRegs) but do contain some important

specific additional requirements pertaining to the local circumstances.

Other legal considerations will include the Duty of Care common law which may, in particular

situations, not be adequately covered by strict compliance with respect to the navigation byelaws.

2.3 METHODOLOGY

The assessment will not be a full risk assessment, which due to technical complexity may cause

more confusion to those who must make decisions on the planning application and who may not be

technically informed enough to fully appreciate the detail of such a study. Instead the situation as

observed by the author, presented in the developer’s risk assessment and deduced from regular

users are the basis of analysis.

To gather information, a site visit on 01 and 02 July 2014 was arranged to view the area. The author

was already familiar with the topography from earlier work on the cruise vessels of the lakes.

Opportunity was taken to speak to a number of consultees (see Annex A) - users of the lake in one

form or another – who, having requested to present their views, were invited to attend the Royal

Windermere Yacht Club to do so.

It was made clear to each of the consultees that the impact assessment was strictly limited to

navigation safety.

The consultations were arranged and supervised by LDNPA. An invitation was included to the

developers but the person responsible was not available on the days of the meetings. The planning

application and particularly the NRA however has been closely studied by the author.

In addition to the meetings, use has been made of photographic evidence of marine traffic in the

area obtained by the Park Ranger patrol vessel for the weekend of 21 and 22 June 2014 to obtain an

impression of levels of congestion at weekend periods. Four trips on the LDNPA Ranger Patrol vessel

were also undertaken and one from Lakeside to Bowness on the bridge of the passenger vessel mv

“Teal” of Windermere Lake Cruises. The crews of the cruise vessel and the patrol vessel were each

invited to contribute their own views and inform of any special circumstances that they considered

important, although it is emphasised that no opinions other than those concerning water and

navigational safety were expressed.



3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is grateful for all who attended both consultation meetings and on-water information

trips. Their input has been helpful in formulating the observations contained in this report.



4 VESSELS, CRAFT AND USER PROFILES

4.1 VESSELS OR CRAFT

During the visit it was confirmed that the vessels or craft to be found in the area fall into the

following categories:

• Larger lake cruise (MCA Class V) passenger vessels of traditional lines;

• Medium sized (also MCA Class V) passenger vessels of a broad beam single deck design;

• Smaller passenger cruise vessels of a more traditional open foredeck design;

• The private ferry to Belle Isle – a small passenger craft;

• Patrol vessels of LDNPA Ranger Service;

• Service and buoy maintenance vessels of South Lakes District Council (SLDC);

• Medium sized and small power cruise leisure craft with cabins;

• Medium sized sailing cruisers;

• Small sailing craft;

• Small powered open boats;

• Small powered craft with cuddies;

• Rowing boats and skiffs;

• Inflatable boats;

• Rigid inflatable boats with larger outboard and sometime inboard power units;

• Canadian style canoes;

• Kayaks;

• Paddle boards; and

• Sailboards .

Every category of craft listed was seen during the visit except for the last two identified in the above

list.

In addition to the usual service and maintenance craft there could be additional barges, pontoons

and attendant working craft for any marina extension construction works and surveys associated

with them.



4.2 USERS

The users of vessels or craft utilising the waters in the vicinity of the proposal site fall into the

following categories:

• Professional operators, subject to MCA competence certification on the passenger vessels;

• Seasonal professionals, also subject to MCA competence certification on the smaller passenger vessels augmenting the professional staff;

• Professional staff working from boat yards involved with moving and marshalling craft under their care. This category also includes the crew of the Belle Isle private ferry;

• Instructional staff at sailing and other waterborne schools, subject to competence certification;

• Regular users of powered cruisers with cabin accommodation;

• Regular users of sailing cruisers;

• Regular users of smaller sailing craft;

• Sportsmen and sportswomen - mostly using paddles or sail;

• Novice users of small craft propelled by paddles, oars, power and sail;

• Disabled users of small craft – mostly sail;

• Unskilled members of the public using hire craft - power or under oars or paddles; and

• Swimmers of varying degrees of competence.

4.3 SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE

A number of safeguards are in place as follows:

• The LDNPA issues a leaflet with the Lake Byelaws, which include steering and sailing rules;

• The speed limit at the proposal site is 6 knots. It discourages reckless behaviour but this may also be reinforced by the presence of swinging moorings close to the channel which creates an impression of confined waters, particularly when craft are moored to them;

• The LDNPA Rangers operate a patrol from the base at Ferry Nab and at busy times would be on the water or close by for most of their working day. This patrol is on the lookout for inappropriate behaviour as well as vulnerable situations including swimmers close to areas of higher traffic density;



• The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) are responsible for investigating accidents and would ultimately work with LDNPA and SLDC as the bodies responsible for regulation on Lake Windermere;

• SLDC is responsible for and has authority over the infrastructure of the lake, namely the buoys and other navigation marks, administration of the removal of wrecks, which includes a power of forced removal in the event that owners fail to comply;

• SLDC provide Lake Wardens who patrol and maintain the infrastructure of the Lake carrying out any maintenance work required using workboats and other maintenance craft belonging to SLDC;

• Similar to harbour masters, rangers do have powers of direction. They also have policing powers to enforce and promote the lake byelaws. They do provide advice to, and request action of lake users;

• Windermere Lake Cruises maintain a VHF watch on all their vessels and at their base in Bowness;

• The sailing and watersport schools operate safety craft – usually inflatable or rigid inflatable craft – in the close vicinity of their charges;

• The schools provide qualified instructors in their craft when the students are insufficiently qualified to “go solo”;

• Hire boat staff brief users at the beginning of the hiring agreement before the hirers depart the base. Apart from matters concerning control of the craft, the briefing gives advice as to where best to go and sites of principal dangers. It also includes advice to stay out of the way of larger craft, which, although not a complete précis of the steering and sailing rules does not conflict with them;

• LDNPA rangers hand out safety leaflets to users on the water and in some cases issue swimmers with high visibility hats and tow floats if intercepted and considered to be insufficiently visible; and

• Notice boards at the lakeside provide safety information and numbers to call in emergency.

All of the above measures were seen during the visit to be well maintained and diligently operated In

the case of notices and leaflets they were clear to use and understand.

It is not known if the Windermere Aquatics marina operates a watch – VHF or any other type – but

such monitoring, if it existed would contribute to overall safeguards, at least within and immediately

adjacent to the marina.



5 NAVIGATIONAL HAZARDS

The principal hazards that can be identified on the water in the area concerned are:

• Collision – between two vessels under way;

• Contact – between a vessel under way and a fixed object or another vessel moored;

• Grounding – of a vessel under way on an obstruction below the surface;

• Foundering – or sinking of a vessel in deep water;

• Fire and Explosion – not normally a navigational hazard but made more likely by the carriage of LPG and fuel aboard vessels; and

• Personal Injury – (and in some cases ultimate fatality) of a person in connection with an incident (which could itself fall into one of the above categories).

A risk assessment should always consider the occurrences of hazards that may lead to secondary

events and other hazards. For example:

A collision may result in the disabling of one vessel; that could then lead to:

• Grounding (which itself might be a deliberate beaching); another vessel could be holed in the collision leading to that vessel flooding and

• Foundering; and

• One or more personal injuries or fatalities could occur.

The example illustrates that, in this case, four categories of hazard can be possible following within

one initial incident.

The author’s visit to the area included inquiries about incident reports. It is reported that there are

few and near misses do not often get reported. This report has not included a detailed search for

incident data. The apparent lack of incidents, especially escalating scenarios like that just described,

would strongly suggest that there is awareness of the possibilities among the users of the lake.

5.1 EXISTING CAUSAL FACTORS

During the visit and already known to the author, the following causal factors that could contribute

to a hazard of one or more of the above categories were identified and in most cases the risks

associated with them were seen to be managed effectively to ALARP1.

1 ALARP: As Low As Reasonably Practicable; a term used in Risk Assessment defining an area of risk between tolerable and intolerable. The

hazards thus labelled should be regularly reviewed and where possible improved upon but are not considered so high that operations

cannot continue.



5.1.1 Sight Lines: On the Water

The NRA correctly identifies poor sight lines in amongst the swinging moorings which is noted and

agreed for the specific circumstances depicted.

Moored craft in the NRA photograph however were lying with their heading across the channel

pointing west, presumably due to a westerly wind. The prevailing wind, as taken from the NRA wind

rose and confirmed by local observation and knowledge is from the south west. Whilst winds from

other sectors do occur (very recently there were a number of consecutive days with winds from the

north) when the craft on the swinging moorings might lie across the channel, this is not the

dominant aspect. When aligned with the channel, as they tend to be during prevailing south

westerly winds they form an effective channel edge with the outer line of moorings and sight lines

through the area are not particularly impeded. (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Whilst the view is not

completely clear the situation cannot be described as dangerous for a small vessel travelling at 6

knots or less (such as the cabin cruiser heading towards the camera in Figure 1 ).

Figure 1: Sight lines from between lines of swinging moorings looking south west. Wind from

north east. Photo LDNPA Ranger Patrol.



Figure 2: Sight lines from inner line of swinging moorings looking north east. Wind in south west.

Photo D.Barber courtesy of LDNPA Ranger Patrol.

5.1.2 Sight Lines: Emerging from and close to the Marina

In the vicinity of the marina:

• Craft emerging from the marina may be seriously disadvantaged by lack of clear sight lines; and/or

• A craft passing or entering the marina entrance may be seriously at risk of collision if it does not have a clear sight line of one emerging from the marina.

A variable can be introduced for vessels manoeuvring inside or outside the marina possessing masts

and sometimes sails that can be seen above the obstructions.



Figure 3: Extract from (Marina Projects Ltd) drawing MP202-02-P-002-RevA showing interpretation

of one method of leaving existing marina: craft turning to starboard or port.

The NRA describes the method of departure from the marina most usually as heading across the

swinging mooring zone – in the new proposals designated as the “Secondary Channel” – and then

joining the main channel (see Figure 3). The vessel would then turn to join the main channel, the

notable regular exception being the private ferry to and from Belle Isle, which continues on across.

If the sight lines in this circumstance are obstructed, such that a vessel or craft is unable to see

another the possibility of collision exists.

Vessels moored at the end “hammerheads” of the marina, even as it exists at present tend to be of

larger types. They are often powered craft with larger upperworks and therefore create a greater

visual obstruction than smaller craft (see Figure 4). Whilst the earlier observation that craft with

masts have an additional feature to make them visible, when not carrying sails it is still often difficult

to determine if the craft is under way or not or even which direction it might be travelling.



The fact that incidents of this type are not being recorded suggests that the risk at present is ALARP

as generally identified within the NRA. If the marina is extended towards the channel however this

situation may change.

Figure 4: Sight lines from exit line of (existing) marina. Photo: LDNPA Ranger Patrol.

5.1.3 Changing Sight Lines

It has been noted that according to consultees, the profile of resident larger leisure vessels is

changing with a reduction in the number of larger power cruisers and an increase in the numbers of

larger sailing cruisers, which are fitted with propulsion engines for when they cannot or choose not

to sail. It is appreciated that this, together with a possible changing profile of users could be the

reason for the need to change the berth capacity of facilities where direct access without ferrying to

a swinging mooring would be preferred.

The overall length of sailing cruisers has in the past been typically up to about 9 metres in the early

part of the century whereas now there are a number of vessels of around 12 metres and even some

of 15 metres length overall. These sailing cruisers have their conning positions in a cockpit set into



the main deck level at the after end. As a result the length of craft that emerges from the marina

during a departure before the helmsman is able to get a good sight line is now greater. The

helmsman’s height of eye is significantly lower than in a motor cruiser.

The obvious mitigation of this effect is to place a lookout in the bow but it is somewhat doubtful that

the measure would be routinely used. If it is used however it introduces a two stage reaction to the

presence of a conflicting craft:

• The first stage is the sighting of the conflicting craft by the bow lookout; and

• The second stage is the reaction of the helmsman to whatever signal has been agreed with the bow lookout.

This two stage reaction introduces a time delay and potential for misunderstanding, which in turn

must reduce the time available to take preventive action. It could actually increase the likelihood

and therefore risk of collision. It is also true however that such a craft would be visible to even the

lowest viewpoint from outside the marina due to its mast being visibly moving allowing the other

vessel to take early avoiding action.

5.1.4 Crossing Situation

For consistency with the Navigation Byelaws the term vessel in this section includes what are

referred to as craft elsewhere in the report.

The crossing situation such as could evolve from the above situation could have various outcomes

affected by the priority of one vessel over the other by the steering and sailing rules. Assuming the

emerging vessel is under power then it should in strict accordance with the Navigation Byelaws be

giving way to:

• Other power driven vessels from its starboard side, i.e. navigating from north to south (Navigation Byelaw 6.4);

• Any sailing vessel (Navigation Byelaw 6.5);

• Any vessel under oars (Navigation Byelaw 6.6);

• Any Class V passenger vessel (Navigation Byelaws 7 and 12.1(c));

However the same vessel could indicate that it is unable to manoeuvre in compliance with the

Byelaws by making a sound signal ‘D’ in the Morse code (One prolonged and two short blasts, which

then requires the other vessel to give way (Navigation Byelaw 6.10).

Passing vessels are required to give way to any crossing power driven vessel:



• When they are power driven themselves and that vessel is on their starboard side (Navigation Byelaw 6.4);

• When they are propelled by any means and the other crossing vessel emerging from the marina does not (Navigation Byelaw 6.7) or indicates that it is unable to give way (Navigation Byelaw 6.10).

The legal position appears relatively clear. Emerging vessels should be prepared to give way to

passing vessels but if unable to do so have a clause that excuses them. In practical terms however

the author questions how many emerging vessels would:

• Post a forward lookout and how effective would be their discipline (Navigation Byelaw 6.1); and

• Be conversant with sound signals or be sufficiently disciplined to sound ‘D’.

If the passing vessel does not hear the sound signal or it is not given, will they have sufficient time or

be in a suitable situation (particularly if under sail) to take adequate action to comply with

Navigation Byelaw 6.7 and keep out of the way? The author thinks it doubtful.

5.1.5 Control of Mooring

A further mitigation measure might be not to allow long term mooring at the hammerheads. They

could be kept clear and used as layby berths for vessels awaiting a clear access to their berth or for

short stay drop off or pick up. This would reduce congestion caused by craft manoeuvring in the

channel or secondary channel traffic awaiting entry.

Clear pontoon or jetty edges at the outer side would also enhance safety for the situation in which a

person in the water or small craft needs a point of escape or rescue. Small craft could lie alongside

or persons could climb or be pulled out more easily.

Navigation Byelaw 11.1 prohibits the mooring of any vessel in any part of the lake where it is likely to

cause nuisance, injury or damage to individuals or property. With the outer edge of the marina

being moved significantly closer to an area that is being designated a channel, even if that channel is

secondary, in the event of an accident caused by poor sight lines as a result of moored vessels close

to the channel this byelaw could be invoked.

5.1.6 Wind Conditions in Channel

The channel is aligned approximately with the prevailing winds. This means that sailing vessels,

most usually headed south in prevailing south westerly conditions of wind will, if they remain sailing,

have to tack down the channel. This is now regularly done and does not apparently present



problems. Some of the smaller vessels however, particularly those belonging to sailing schools,

currently use the swinging mooring area inshore of the channel to progress and the smallest of them

can probably do so without emerging from the area into the main channel.

5.1.7 Tacking Sailing Craft

It has been observed that tacking of all sizes of craft takes place right across the channel. There is no

doubt that this must increase the potential for collision but careful and considerate behaviour that

conforms to the Navigation Byelaws appears to be an effective management of this risk. This is one

deduction of the reportedly low frequency of incidents.

The Navigation Byelaw 7 however requires that not only small craft but any vessel shall not

recklessly hamper the safe passage of a Class V passenger vessel, a rule roughly equivalent to that of

the International ColRegs in favour of vessels constrained by their draught. Currently it would

appear that this rule works in that there are reportedly few incidents between the different

categories of vessel or craft. During passages of the Class V passenger vessels through the

Navigation channel the collision avoidance manoeuvres between sailing craft could become complex

but it appears not to be an issue in the current layout of the channel.

5.1.8 Sailing Craft running before the Wind

Navigation Byelaw 6.2 requires that sailing vessels upwind of others shall keep out of the way of the

others. This effectively dictates that most sailing craft running before the wind, with a few

exceptions, have an obligation to keep out of the way. In the Secondary Channel such craft could

find it difficult to comply with this obligation if the area of water – narrowed by comparison with the

previous area – becomes more densely populated. Such an assumption is reasonable as the existing

population of craft is not expected to reduce - it may yet grow - and the removal of swinging

moorings is likely to make the passage to the opposite Lake basin more attractive. Added to the

density issue is the sometimes hazardous manoeuvre of gybing2 the sail, which if necessary to avoid

collision and done with little preparation can create a broaching3 influence that could in dinghies,

result in capsize and in larger craft with weighted keels lead to a loss of directional control.

2 Gybing: To pass the sail through the wind coming from astern, so that it sets on the opposite side.

3 Broaching: The effect of the wind on the sail causes a turning moment that may stall the rudder and turn the craft beam on to the wind.



5.1.9 Secondary Channel

If the area outside the main Navigation channel is reduced in width and if delineation between the

main and secondary channels is not well marked, the possibility of conflicting situations must

increase, especially if removal of swinging moorings encourages more craft to transit the Secondary

Channel area.

A mitigation measure worthy of consideration might be for the schools to tow flotillas of craft

through the zone. However, other non-school craft will continue to be exposed and the passage of

larger craft and Class V passenger vessels in the main Navigation channel may become impeded by

craft that choose to use that area, possibly because of congestion in the Secondary Channel.

5.1.10 Cross Winds in Marina

Vessels manoeuvring in and out of the marina are subject to influence from the prevailing cross

winds. It has been observed that one way of performing the entry manoeuvre is to reverse the

vessel into the marina from the area outside. This limits the extent of the turn the vessel needs to

perform in the restricted area within the marina. Such a manoeuvre inevitably places the vessel at

right angles to the prevailing wind and there can only be a limited distance over which that vessel

can proceed astern before leeway carries it to one side of the zone and into potential contact with

moored vessels or pontoons (see Figure 5 between jetties B and C for example). Currently there are

few incidents involving this hazard but when the lengths of the jetties of the marina are increased

nearly twofold the distance over which vessels will need to proceed will be significantly greater.

Slow speed and stern way will both restrict manoeuvrability and increase leeway. The potential for

contact between a manoeuvring vessel and other vessels or pontoons in the marina will increase. It

may well result in a need to review methods of entry into the berths and with it a control regime.

This situation is not unique to this marina but the issue is whether a change in risk can be anticipated

from that which exists at present. The author concludes that there must be an increased potential

for contact or collision as a result of downwind drift over a more lengthy transit at slow speed and

possibly astern.



Figure 5: Extract from (Marina Projects Ltd) Drawing MP202-02-P-003-RevA, Planning application

LDNPA 7/2014/5320, showing emergence and entry (astern) manoeuvres.

The emerging situation, if, as anticipated, is in the ahead direction (see Figure 5 between jetties A

and B for example), the vessel’s progress will be more controlled but a cross wind might still cause

leeway sufficient to need extra power to thrust the bow to windward. Additional thrust will also

increase speed and this, coupled with poor sightlines (shaded area Figure 5) will increase the

potential for collision with crossing vessels in the inshore zone between the marina and the main

channel – the proposed Secondary Channel.

5.1.11 Channel Segregation

The channel at present is marked at each end by yellow marker buoys. Between these and the outer

hammerheads of the existing marina are swinging moorings that are represented by the circles on

Marine Projects Ltd drawing MP202-02-P-003-RevA, part of which is shown in Figure 5. This



representation could be misleading in that the craft on the moorings will point into the wind, which

for most of the year is from the south west. There will be times when they lie across this direction

and therefore create the appearance of obstructing the passage of vessels proceeding through the

moorings. The significance of this is debatable as most vessels proceeding through this area at

present are light displacement, highly manoeuvrable craft for which a contact or collision would be a

relatively low energy impact. The outer row of these moorings lies just inshore of the south east side

of the main channel and the craft on these moorings provide a prominent visual barrier between the

channel and the inshore area. In the proposal it is anticipated that these moorings will all be

removed. An additional channel buoy opposite jetty D (see Figure 5) will assist in restoring

delineation between the main channel and the proposed secondary channel but the small spherical

buoy will be a fraction of the visual profile of the moored craft. The author anticipates that this may

change behaviour in the area as follows:

• Small craft will be intimidated by their new exposure to passing larger craft in the main channel, especially if crewed by novices;

• The way through to South Basin would be more visible to hire craft, which may then venture in that direction more than they do at present;

• Other medium sized craft will be less inhibited on entering the inshore area to make through passage; and

• Larger powered craft4 navigating in the inshore area may be less inhibited in their speed creating an increased wash both in the channel and at the outer berths of the proposed marina.

On the converse of this debate is the possibility that contacts between vessels on passage with those

on swinging moorings is eliminated but these are not significant in their frequency at present

suggesting the risk is already ALARP. The proposal is that the “Secondary Channel” will be 30 metres

wide but it is currently approximately twice that, albeit with additional moorings interspersed within

it. Logic strongly suggests that there will be an increase in traffic density and with it an increase in

risk of collision.

5.1.12 Channel Markers

One consideration for marking the limit of the main channel could be for additional marker buoys to

be laid on the east side of the channel, for example, aligned with each jetty. Viewed longitudinally

along the channel these should, like cones on a motorway, create a definitive delineation between

4 Powered Craft: It is noted that many larger powered craft are planning hulls, which will create a larger wash when off the plane in

displacement mode, above which they will not be able to proceed within the speed limit.



the two areas but it would still not be such a comforting barrier as are the moored craft for novice

boat users in the inshore area.

School flotillas could be protected by their escorting safety boats positioning themselves between

the flotilla and the main channel but if the flotilla is spaced out this would be more difficult. It is

nevertheless an established technique with which the author is familiar.

5.1.13 Alternative Delineation

It may be considered by some opinion worth repositioning some of the outer swinging moorings in

line with and in lieu of the suggested additional buoy positions above. This should not be considered

further north than proposed Jetty E due to proximity of the narrow northern entrance to the main

Navigation channel. It could be argued that a single row of swinging moorings would serve a similar

purpose to those that exist at present as an informal edge to the main Navigation channel and they

would also act as an inhibitor against larger craft passing close to the marina as well as a shelter for

smaller, more vulnerable craft. There would at the very least, need to be a maximum length

imposed for such moored craft to reduce the impact of their swinging across the channels and the

measure would probably be impractical without some reduction in the length of some of the jetties

(see 6.1.2 below).

On those occasions however, when wind direction caused the moored craft to swing across the line

of the channel, the measure would probably introduce more of an obstruction to both channels than

does the existing arrangement within the inshore area. The measure’s delineation properties would

probably be balanced, if not eliminated by the obstruction element. It should also be noted that if

the moorings, as is anticipated, were closer to the Main Channel, on those days of light winds (likely

to coincide with an increase of density of pleasure craft in the area), moored craft would more likely

be influenced by hydrodynamic interaction with passing vessels or craft creating collision scenarios

for other vessels or craft on passage in the channels as their sterns swung across the line of traffic.

5.1.14 Wash

As indicated above, many powered craft on the lake, large and small are of planing hull designs.

Planing hulls in displacement mode tend to create large wash as they approach their critical speed.

For shorter hulls the 6 knot speed limit may be fairly close to this critical speed.



Additionally, the water adjacent to the marina is almost all below 2 metres depth5 out as far as the

main Navigation channel and in shallow water wash is amplified. As a result of changing behaviour

power craft passing through the area may choose to do so by entering the area currently occupied

by swinging moorings when they are cleared. Their speed inhibition may be reduced because of the

apparently clearer water and this could create increased wash at the outer edges of the marina. This

has implications for small craft in the vicinity, which could be disturbed to a point of being at risk of

swamping or capsize. It could also affect larger craft on the berths in causing movement to the point

of incurring unwanted contacts or over-stressed mooring lines.

5 Verified by soundings from patrol craft on 02.07.2014 confirming accuracy of chart.



6 MARINA LAYOUT

The design of the proposed marina would occupy an additional area between the proposed marina

and the main channel. This in effect would doubles its size and halve the area between it and the

main Navigation Channel – the proportions are approximate. This report has no concern for the

commercial or political arguments for or against the proposal but in navigation safety there are

issues to be considered. The clearing of the inshore zone and designating it as the Secondary

Channel is claimed in the application submission to be an advantage. It also has disadvantages

however, as indicated above. The potential for changed behaviour and possibly creating greater

density of smaller and medium sized craft in that area is, the author believes, both possible and

probable.

6.1 JETTY ALIGNMENTS

It is noted that unlike the existing jetties, in the new arrangement the jetties do not remain at right

angles to the shoreline as it curves round. Drawing MP002-02-P-003-RevA shows, by comparing

both the existing and proposed layouts, the new jetties remain parallel to each other. This creates a

long section of water between each that is double the existing stretch necessitating very careful

navigation when in that zone if contacts are to be prevented (note 5.1.10 above). If the curve of the

shore were followed more like the existing arrangements the width of this area of water would

increase as the jetties diverge and outer sectors would have more manoeuvring space. It is

appreciated that this may cause a reduction in the number of berths ultimately available.

6.1.1 Jetty E

In the proposed arrangement Jetty E splits to form an inner harbour. If craft are to be moored

alongside the outer rim of the inner harbour the reasoning is understood but by having parallel, as

opposed to diverging jetties (see 6.1 above) the width of water to be manoeuvred for craft on the

innermost berths either side of Jetty E would be considerably constrained for its entire length. In a

divergent arrangement more room would be available towards the outer berths, thus reducing the

potential for contacts in cross winds. Jetty E could be aligned at right angles to the shore as a single

jetty with fingers on either side. It would probably need shortening to align with the new line formed

by the shortening of jetties C and D (see 6.1.2 below). It is acknowledged that this arrangement

might incur a loss of berthing space on the outer rim of the proposed “inner harbour”.



6.1.2 Jetties C and D

The greatest incursion on the secondary channel width is caused by Jetties C and D. If these were

reduced in length by at least one finger pontoon length and the hammerheads realigned, the pinch-

point in the secondary channel evident on the proposal as it stands off Jetty D would be smoothed

and the channel’s inshore boundary would be straightened. This would allow more ordered

manoeuvring of small craft in the zone and relief of congestion density. It may also allow for keeping

some of the swinging moorings (see also 5.1.13) but this last point is questionable.



7 CONCLUSION

A number of issues affecting navigation safety have been identified with the proposal. Not all issues

concern safety for non-marina users. Some involve the berthed and manoeuvring craft in the

marina.

The study has assumed that the existing profile of vessel types and users will be the same after the

marina is installed but it is also recognised that a slow change might evolve to which the providers of

facilities and those charged with maintaining safety on the water can adapt, as they have

successfully achieved to date.

The issues that, in the opinion of the author, require further consideration are:

• Sight lines: The projection of the moored larger craft offshore by a distance approximately double their existing distance from the shore must have some repercussions on the safety of navigation in the waters between the jetties and the main channel. It may be necessary to vacate the outer berths to retain visibility for departing vessels particularly during peak berth occupancy;

• Wind effects: Both in the channel and its immediate waters (Secondary Channel) craft will be restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, even if the swinging moorings are removed this may still open up the area for tacking up-wind. In the berths there will be predominant cross wind effects affecting vessels manoeuvring within the marina, much more so within the new parallel and longer stretches of water than in the existing divergent ones. This will probably create a likely increase in the risk of contact events;

• Channel Segregation: The existing swinging moorings provide an informal edge to the main channel and if removed would open up the area in a way that could allow for changes in the behaviour of users. Ultimately this may lead to more congestion and faster speeds that have increased collision risk and wash implications. However, the psychological barrier provided by the moored craft would also be removed and more timid and vulnerable users could be discouraged. Furthermore the presence of new users who might otherwise be using the main channel could increase the possibility of incidents fuelled by unpredictable behaviour of novices and unskilled public;

• Channel Markers: Marking proposals leave an area south of Jetty D unmarked at the edge of the channel. If left without either swinging moorings or channel marking buoys – one suggestion is one for each jetty end (‘A’ excluded as it is already marked) - small craft may find it difficult to determine when they may be entering the main channel and larger craft similarly in the reverse direction. This could potentially increase the possibility of encounters in the area that threaten safety. Either the retention of some swinging moorings or addition of intermediate channel markers could retain the segregation that is currently evident but this should be



considered in conjunction with the outer edge of the previously discussed issues with sight lines and berth occupation;

• Wash: The more open waters of the designated Secondary Channel in the proposal may:

o Lead to an increase in speed of passing craft, particularly planing craft at sub-critical speeds;

o Allow passing craft to transit closer to the marina because of being less inhibited by swinging moorings; and

o Increase the potential for swamping small craft and disturbing outer berths in the marina to the extent that they could capsize and that damage to moored craft and/or their moorings might result.

Retention of some form of channel segregation that creates a boundary to the area near the jetty ends would, it is anticipated, help prevent disruption due to this effect;

• Marina Design: The existing design allows for an incursion into currently navigable waters and is not, for reasons outlined in this report, counter-balanced by clearing of those waters of swinging moorings. The stretch of water in which the proposal is being made is unfortunately also the narrowest part of the lake and a “win – win” situation is not possible. The effects of the design on the waterborne traffic in the area could be reduced by careful modification of the design. It may also improve the risks associated with manoeuvring within the marina. Of course it is also appreciated that such a compromise would inevitably mean a reduction in numbers of berths available but if serious about navigation safety, both outside and inside the marina, the designers should be prepared to consider some form of modification; and

• Duty of Care: In particular, the provision of open pontoon or jetty edges at the outer extremes of the marina might be considered in the same way as quay wall ladders in ports - a provision for rescue and shelter that could be regarded as part of the duty of care to users and others in the vicinity affected by the marina presence.



REFERENCES

Lake District National Park Planning Proposal Ref. 7/2014/5320: Reconfiguration and extension of

marina, and reduction and re-modelling of existing building. Windermere Aquatic Limited.

Associated Drawings and Risk Assessment for above.

Lake District National Park: Windermere Lake Byelaws.


Lake District National Park Authority A-1

Annex A List Of Consultees


Lake District National Park Authority A-2

Table 1: List of Consultees

Organisation Represented

South Lakeland District Council

Windermere Lake Users Forum

Royal Windermere Yacht Club

Windermere Town Council

Windermere Lake Cruises

Blackwell Sailing Club

The author was advised that LDNPA had contacted a number of other potential consultees including

Windermere Aquatics but none were available, or did not express a wish to participate.

lake district national park authority · 2015-05-28 · lake district national park authority . 1....

Documents