Instructions not to anchor in Osbourne bay

[l'escargot]

Spiffing, but the set-up installed by EH was nothing like that agreed by the MMO, as pointed out rather forcefully by the RYA legal dept who for a change were on top of the situation and delivered a broadside.

If swimmers ( and I still don't think there will be any after the novelty wears off, a distinct hazard in water that cold ) can't manage in the illegally hi-jacked area, tough; they - EH - should have asked nicely !

There is one less outer buoy than the licence says and the roped buoys from the ends to the shore aren't there so there is significantly less than the licence allows. The licence also says that boats can be "discouraged" from entering the area so it could be argued that that Was what megaphone man was doing - what he couldn't do was say boats "can't" enter. There are plenty of people who swim off beaches in the Solent and Osborne Bay is no colder than any other beach - in fact it is actually more sheltered than most from the prevailing wind.

 

[Seajet]

There is one less outer buoy than the licence says and the roped buoys from the ends to the shore aren't there so there is significantly less than the licence allows. The licence also says that boats can be "discouraged" from entering the area so it could be argued that that what megaphone man was doing - what he couldn't do was say boats "can't" enter. There are plenty of people who swim off beaches in the Solent and Osborne Bay is no colder than any other beach - in fact it is actually more sheltered than most from the prevailing wind.

L'escargot,

I really don't want to bother with more protracted arguments, but it was the suggested idea of floating line between buoys which really upset people, along with megaphone man.

I tried swimming off my boat at Osborne years ago, and quickly rated it a silly, cold idea; the big wash from passing ships was a bit of a turn-off too.

If people want a swim in the sea, fine, they just have to be careful or get a legally cordoned off area.

I've seen a swimmer carried ashore after being hit by a speedboat prop', it wasn't good, and a chum at my club saved a waterskiers' life after he'd been hit by a prop....

I'd think the chance of speedboats at Osborne reasonably low, but it only takes one berk; they might even be attracted by the yellow buoys, a little while ago a couple of real idiot lowlives in speedboats slalomed between mooring buoys in Chichester harbour then shot through the bridge gap into Langstone, in the channel used by all sailing dinghies etc - which they couldn't have known were approaching there or not !

What people - even or especially English Heritage - can't do is lay a bunch of buoys out in the open sea and say " bagsie this bit's mine " !

 

[l'escargot]

L'escargot,

I really don't want to bother with more protracted arguments, but it was the suggested idea of floating line between buoys which really upset people, along with megaphone man.

I tried swimming off my boat at Osborne years ago, and quickly rated it a silly, cold idea; the big wash from passing ships was a bit of a turn-off too.

If people want a swim in the sea, fine, they just have to be careful or get a legally cordoned off area.

I've seen a swimmer carried ashore after being hit by a speedboat prop', it wasn't good, and a chum at my club saved a waterskiers' life after he'd been hit by a prop....

I'd think the chance of speedboats at Osborne reasonably low, but it only takes one berk; they might even be attracted by the yellow buoys, a little while ago a couple of real idiot lowlives in speedboats slalomed between mooring buoys in Chichester harbour then shot through the bridge gap into Langstone, in the channel used by all sailing dinghies etc - which they couldn't have known were approaching there or not !

What people - even or especially English Heritage - can't do is lay a bunch of buoys out in the open sea and say " bagsie this bit's mine " !

But it would seem that a lot of people don't seem to realise that it is a common way of marking swimming areas, even internationally - I've seen them in France, there is at least one other on the island and there is even one on Bournemouth beach as you approach Poole, Osborne Bay is hardly paving the way. EH have applied for the appropriate licence with the correct authority and been granted it. It may be that they haven't been clear enough that it is only a voluntary no boat zone and there is some suggestion that they possibly didn't circulate the fact that they had their licence to some other interested parties but I haven't found anywhere other than this forum that they were obliged to - it was all published on the MMO site for anyone to see, perhaps the RYA etc could be criticised for not checking the MMO site on a regular basis and addressing any applications that affect them at the application stage and not after appropriate licences have been issued?

 

[Seajet]

The marking out with buoys was basically illegal, a grab exercise which failed.

The RYA stepped in with their legal department, said and proved so.

End of story, please don't keep dragging me in, EH lost and that's it !

 

[Seajet]

RYA Press Release;


"Despite claims made by local English Heritage representatives, there are currently no anchoring restrictions in Osborne Bay.

Osborne Bay

The RYA is advising boaters wishing to anchor in Osborne Bay on the Isle of Wight that, despite claims made to the contrary by local English Heritage representatives, there are currently no anchoring restrictions in Osborne Bay.

The bay area of the Osborne House Estate has been opened to visitors for the 2012 summer season and English Heritage has obtained a marine licence from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to lay buoys to mark a swimming area for visitors to the beach.

Following an objection by the RYA to the original application, however, this licence does not permit English Heritage to prohibit anchoring or navigation in the waters adjacent to its beach (including in the swimming area).

Gus Lewis, Head of Legal and Government Affairs: “We have received a number of reports from boaters that they have been instructed by a representative of English Heritage from the beach in Osborne Bay that they are not allowed to anchor in or close to the marked swimming area.

Clearly, if there is an area marked out for swimming then boaters will need to take particular care if they choose to navigate or anchor in this area. However, English Heritage has no authority to prohibit anchoring anywhere in Osborne Bay and its staff have no power to require anchored boats to move.”

The RYA objected to the original proposal on several grounds and, despite the fact that the marine licence has been issued, there are a number of unresolved issues relating to safety of navigation on which the RYA continues to press the MMO for a resolution.

In particular, the RYA remains concerned about the adequacy of the marking of the swimming area and the location of the individual marker buoys.

Gus Lewis ends: “In the meantime, we have written to English Heritage to challenge the actions of its representatives in demanding that boats anchored in Osborne Bay are moved.”

The RYA would like to hear from any boaters who have been challenged by English

 

[l'escargot]

The marking out with buoys was basically illegal, a grab exercise which failed.

The RYA stepped in with their legal department, said and proved so.

End of story, please don't keep dragging me in, EH lost and that's it !

Could you point out where in that article it says the buoys are illegal? All it says is that anchoring and navigation cannot be prohibited. EH are licenced to mark the swimming area with buoys, it is just that they can take no action against anyone who chooses to ignore them - although there is a QHM LNTM that says boats should keep clear of them.

To keep stating on here that the buoys are illegal is wrong and actually misleading.

 

[DOK]

The EH "Licence"

Has anyone (other than l'escargot) actually looked at the EH licence application to the MMO? Sad git that I am, I just had a quick look and here are some initial observations.

From the MMO application document, here is the "Background to project" (emphasis added):

English Heritage are preparing to open up the Bay area of the Osborne House Estate to visitors from the 2012 summer season which will include giving visitors the option to swim in the sea should they wish. This added activity in the bay could increase the risk of boats and the like entering the bay and damaging the eelgrass beds in the intertidal zone and presenting a hazard to bathers. The proposal is to deploy 5no marker buoys linked with floated ropes, intended to define the bay and the extent of the eelgrass, thus protecting this valuable habitat

So the protection of the eelgrass was a key part of their reason for the application.

Again from the application, the "Proposed methodology" states (again with emphasis added):

Exact location of extent of eelgrass beds to be determined on site by divers. Outer marker buoys will be laid with standard concrete sinkers on the sea bed just beyond the eelgrass. The Marker buoys will be restrained with chains or nylon ropes. Two inboard buoys will be anchored with a helical screw anchor into the sea bed. The 5no marker buoys will be linked with floated ropes to define the area

So, as l'escargot says, they applied for 5 buoys but have only laid 4. However, it seems to me that what they applied for was to lay 3 outer buoys and 2 inner buoys, thus defining an area - I have previously asked on one of these threads just how a single line of buoys is meant to define an area. Now I know - it isn't.

Part of the application asks "Has the project been advertised", to which EH respond

Yes

The application then asks "Please state where and when", to which the response is

Only as part of the Planning Application process

I looked at the planning application on the IoW Council site. The proposal is described as

Demolition of disused toilets and boathouse proposed alterations and single storey extension to disused beach changing rooms to form cafe w.cs and changing rooms provision of winter marquee cover to bathing machine beach protection fencing formation of turning area formation of base for bathing machine formation of 2 boardwalks to give access to beach area works to Queens Alcove to replace timber roof cover strips with slate and insertion of new circular wall tiles to interior

Hmm, no mention of the buoys, so just how was this "advertising" the proposal contained in the MMO licence application?

IMHO, both EH and the MMO come out of this badly. EH appear to have adopted a rather cavalier attitude to the application and the MMO have just read it (I assume) and approved it. There doesn't appear to have been any follow up to check that the works done were as applied for.

Now I cannot actually find a document that shows whether or not any extra conditions were applied, I don't think the MMO site is actually that user-friendly So, if I've missed something, don't shoot me

 

[l'escargot]

If you go back to the MMO site it describes the lay out of the buoys - 5 in a line with the outer 2 then linked to the shore by another defined number of buoys (I forget how many but can't be bothered to look) linked by floating rope.

Although the original application did include protection of eel grass, the licence has only been granted on the basis of a swimming area although MMO specified that any buoys anchored within the eel grass must be snchored in a certain way.

The licence applications are posted in advance on the MMO site inviting comments and indeed the RYA did comment - I would guess that this would be considered advertising intent in the same way that planning applications on a website are.

Someone else referred to a conditions of licence document but was unable to point me to it when I asked but there is a terms of licence document amongst those on the MMO site.

As you say the MMO process would appear far from perfect. If you read through the entire licence documentation there are some contradictions that tken in isolation only add to the confusion - as does mentions of MCZs which are totally different and encompass far larger areas as this. There is in fact another proposal for MCZ along that entire stretch of coast but it is nothing to do with EH.

If you really want to be a sad git like me, read all of the information on the MMO site then look up Osborne Bay MCZ & Kings Quay MCZ application (I'm on my iPhone so it is to tortuous to find the links for you) and you will see how they have all been intertwined in this discussion resulting in much confusion and misinformation.

I don't really know why I still try to get the facts straight on this whole business but it is right on my doorstep and I don't like misinformation spread - even the MCA managed to get it mixed up with Kings Quay at one point!

 

[DOK]

If you go back to the MMO site it describes the lay out of the buoys - 5 in a line with the outer 2 then linked to the shore by another defined number of buoys (I forget how many but can't be bothered to look) linked by floating rope.

Not in the bit I looked at.

I don't really know why I still try to get the facts straight on this whole business but it is right on my doorstep and I don't like misinformation spread - even the MCA managed to get it mixed up with Kings Quay at one point!

The problem seems to be that the facts aren't that clear - at least, not unless you're prepared to go trawling over several sites. How is the average recreational boater supposed to know about areas such as this? If it's from the MMO site then God help us, because it's woeful. The document I read (and quoted from) was described as EH's "application". If there's another document - a "licence", perhaps with conditions attached, then where is it?

Of course, none of this changes the fact that EH appear to have been little short of devious in their whole approach.

I understand that you are frustrated, l'escargot but I'm only working with the information I can find

 

[l'escargot]

Not in the bit I looked at.




The problem seems to be that the facts aren't that clear - at least, not unless you're prepared to go trawling over several sites. How is the average recreational boater supposed to know about areas such as this? If it's from the MMO site then God help us, because it's woeful. The document I read (and quoted from) was described as EH's "application". If there's another document - a "licence", perhaps with conditions attached, then where is it?

Of course, none of this changes the fact that EH appear to have been little short of devious in their whole approach.

I understand that you are frustrated, l'escargot but I'm only working with the information I can find

As you say the website is woeful and will not let direct linking - you have to actually download the documents to read them, it is the only way you can get all the information to work with. So I am afraid if you really want to see them you are going to have to spend some more sad git time on the computer.

There is a section in the application called "Public Register Documents" which contains around 20 documents, most of them are ecological appraisals which don't contain much of interest relating to this discussion. The second one down is the licence document and contains most of the relevant information and supercedes the application - it actually specifies not what EH have asked to do but what they have been licenced to do.

This is the project background:

Project Background

English Heritage are preparing to open up the Bay area of the Osborne House Estate to visitors from the 2012 summer season which will include giving visitors the option to swim in the sea should they wish. This added activity in the bay could increase the risk of boats and crafts which enter the bay presenting a hazard to bathers. The proposal is to deploy a series of marker and mooring buoys, some linked with floated ropes, intended to define a safe swimming area in the bay. The buoys will provide a visual demarkation beyond which anchoring of craft is discouraged.

This relates to the buoys:

2.3 Works Methodology

The works will be carried out using the following methodology:
Buoys 1-4 and 8-11 are to be linked with floated ropes with the intention of preventing jet-ski's cutting across the bay and putting bathers at risk.
The outer buoys 4-8 will not be linked together and will be mooring buoys, providing a visual demarkation for boats and other crafts. Sailing into the area will not be prevented and a no anchoring zone will be voluntary.
The outer buoys are about 30m beyond the astronomical low spring tide line (reducing the risk of craft grounding at low tides) and will be laid with standard concrete sinkers on the sea bed just beyond the eelgrass.
Bouys 1-3 and 9-11 are to be only marker buoys, secured with helical or similar anchors that will minimise the impact on the seabed and eelgrass.Concrete sinkers are to be only used beyond the extent of the eelgrass. Within the eelgrass helical anchors that screw into the seabed are to be used so there is no risk of moving around once installed. The teather ropes/chains are to be fitted with intermediate mid-water floats to take up he slack and keep chains/ropes off the sea bed at low tide.

The only mention of notifying anybody is this:

3.2.4 The Licence Holder must notify The Source Data Receipt team, UK Hydrographic Office, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 2DN (Email: hdcfiles@ukho.gov.uk; Tel: 01823 337900) of both progress and completion of the works.

Reason: In order that all necessary amendments to nautical charts can
be made, to ensure navigational safety

The licence is actually 13 pages long so I won't copy the rest of it but as far as I can see, from the bits I've quoted, EH haven't actually done anything that they aren't allowed to do apart from perhaps going beyond "discouraging" anchoring - in fact there are a lot of things on the licence they haven't done (yet?)

With regards to the average recreational boater knowing about it, they will have to update their charts when UKHO get round to issuing the update which I guess will be when all the buoys have been laid.

Whether people like it or not that is the licence that has been issued and the content is nothing more than factual - which I am afraid a lot of comments haven't been but they have been portrayed as such.

I didn't apply for it, write it or issue it so don't shoot the messenger

 

[DOK]

l'escargot, thanks for that, I'll have another look when I'm back at my computer - I'm boating this weekend and I can't be bothered to trawl through all that on the iPad.

Also, definitely no intention of "shooting the messenger" A couple of things do jump out from the bits you copied from the licence, though (again, emphasis added).

The proposal is to deploy a series of marker and mooring buoys

The outer buoys 4-8 will not be linked together and will be mooring buoys

Interesting because the buoys that have actually been laid are clearly marked "No mooring"

You say that EH haven't done anything they aren't allowed to do (under the terms of the licence) but putting "no mooring" on buoys that are supposed to be mooring buoys is not exactly playing by the rules. They were also (IMHO) extremely disengenuous when they said they had advertised the proposals as part of the planning application to the Council (that application didn't mention the buoys).

 

[l'escargot]

It is actually refreshing to know at least one other person on here has read the licence and can make informed comment

 

[timbartlett]

... If it's from the MMO site then God help us, because it's woeful. The document I read (and quoted from) was described as EH's "application". If there's another document - a "licence", perhaps with conditions attached, then where is it?...

Yes. It reminds me of the planning application of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
But when you got to the "application" you were nearly there.
If you had downloaded the "application" instead of simply "viewing" it you would have received a multi-megabyte zipped file.

<deleted. I just realised that l'escargot has already said all this bit>

I love the idea that a "floated rope" will prevent jetskis. The key is in the word "jet" -- or hasn't anyone at EH noticed that?
It's almost as good as the idea of mooring buoys with the words "no mooring" stenciled on them!
And a bloke with a megaphone attempting to enforce the "voluntary" no anchoring!

I wonder what would happen to anyone else who repeatedly broke the terms of a licence. How long would they keep it, do you think?

 

[Seajet]

Tim,

all this including 'HitchHikers' Guide To The Galaxy' and the fact the only craft likely to go straight over floating lines are jetski's was mentioned early on in the threads about Osborne Bay.

Fortunately for once the RYA seem to have been on top of the situation.

 

[timbartlett]

Tim,

all this including 'HitchHikers' Guide To The Galaxy' and the fact the only craft likely to go straight over floating lines are jetski's was mentioned early on in the threads about Osborne Bay.

Fortunately for once the RYA seem to have been on top of the situation.

Sorry, but I was away on holiday (inland!) when it all kicked off, and as you know, there have been lots of long threads about it.

I'm surprised it is only in the past few days that quotes from the actual application and licence have started appearing on YBW, though -- or did I miss those, too? If so, I'm sorry -- it would have saved me a lot of time and aggro re-inventing the wheel!

In passing: I think you're being a bit unkind about the RYA -- they seem to be on top of most of these kind of issues pretty quickly, and have usually started fighting behind the scenes long before most of us are even aware of them.

 

[Seajet]

Hi Tim,

in suggesting the RYA can be a bit slow to react I was thinking of the Studland Bay / Seahorses issue, where they were diabolically slow, leading to self and 3 others ( Old Harry, Galadriel & Spongebob Squarepants ) forming BORG, Boat Owners Response Group with a following of something like 10,000 people.

The RYA and others still ask Old harry and BORG about that subject.

I left the group a while ago but we're still chums and I admire Old Harrys' diplomatic moves, I'm a bit more of a rabble rouser type !

The RYA did act commendably quickly over the recent Osborne Bay incident.

Here is the response which the RYA quickly came up with, they were on top of it before it even became public !
----------------------------

Osborne Bay claimed anchoring ban

In January 2012 English Heritage (EH) applied for a marine licence under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (the 2009 Act) to lay a series of buoys off Osborne Bay, Isle of Wight.

EH's original application indicated that the function of these buoys was to mark a swimming area and to protect the eelgrass in the bay. The application also requested that anchoring and navigation be prohibited within the area marked by the buoys.

The RYA objected to this application and pointed out that EH's statutory remit is confined to the built environment rather than the natural environment. As a result, a revised proposal was put forward by EH that no longer included the requested anchoring and navigation ban.

However, the RYA's objection that the linking together of the marker buoys with rope would present a significant hazard to navigation was not addressed by EH and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) issued a marine licence despite the fact that serious navigational safety concerns remained outstanding.

In addition, it has been reported that a representative of EH has been instructing boaters that they cannot anchor on the foreshore, despite the fact that EH does not have this authority.

The RYA is challenging both EH and the MMO over their involvement in this issue in order to ensure that boaters may continue to exercise their right of navigation in the bay.

Latest Updates
RYA challenges claimed anchoring ban in Osborne Bay

Despite claims made by local English Heritage representatives, there are currently no anchoring restrictions in Osborne Bay. ... read more

Published 09/08/2012
Contact Us

Article Published: August 10, 2012 10:36

---------------------

Andy

 

[oldharry]

Been off line for a few days in remote parts, so haven't been able to follow the debate: because I knew where to look on MMO site (which is a masterpiece of internet disinformtaion technology!), I too had looked at the terms of the licence when all this came up, and also discussed it with Gus Lewis at RYA, the result of which was the Press release quoted earlier.

RYA had been most definitely on the ball, as they usually are. However, as usual they hadnt told anybody what they have been doing! But, as they say, there is a huge amount of information like this which very few of us would bother to trawl through, and in any case how could they contact everyone who might be affected? How many of us read QHMs LNTMs throughly? Some will, most wont.

EH were advised in their planning consents from IoW Council that as they are refurbishing a 'swimming beach' they should establish a standard swimming zone buoyed area similar to those found on most major resort beaches. EH then got the bit between their teeth, anbd applied for a full exclusion zone for safety and conservation of the Seagrass beds. Its there in their MMO licence application. RYA spotted the 'exclusion zone' and objected, so that what EH got was permission for nothing more than a standard 'swimming safet zone. The Licence actually specifies that boats should continue to have free access and anchoring within the zone, so that EH had no justification whatsoever in trying to move boats or prevent them anchoring.

It seems that the UKHO did not receive the updates the licence required EH to make on the 'progress of works', so that the standard notifications were not sent out to QHM, HMCG, Trinity House etc. Therefore the marine sector did not know about the creation of the new Osborne Bay bathing zone until BORG and RYA flagged it up to them.

The creation of a buoyed bathing safety zone carries no legal weight except to warn vessels of the likely presence of people in the water. They exist in many locations.

There is a lot from this episode which we can do: The licensing process at MMO is not 'user friendly' on their website. You have to know what you are looking for before you look for it. You cannot trawl through to see what is being applied for easily. There seems to be little follow up to ensure license conditions are being observed. Notifications do not seem to have been sent to the people specified in the licence - why not? It should not be down to boat owners, BORG or even the RYA to ensure licence conditions are being met.

The whole thing is a mess, with MMO apparently not making clear what they expect EH to do, EH trying to grab a great deal more than they had permission for, and RYA in the middle actually doing MMOs job for them, informed by individuals on here who alerted them to what was going on.

.

 

[l'escargot]

...I'm surprised it is only in the past few days that quotes from the actual application and licence have started appearing on YBW, though -- or did I miss those, too? If so, I'm sorry -- it would have saved me a lot of time and aggro re-inventing the wheel!...

There were links to the licence back at the beginning of August but either people couldn't be bothered to navigate around the site, which isn't the easiest as you say and it isn't possible to directly link to it to save them the trouble, or they didn't want the facts to get in the way of a good rant...

 

[Seajet]

The info' about Osborne Bay is replicated above for people like Tim B, who have understandably been away in peak holiday season.

Far from a rant, I and others feel a need to object when unelected quango's highly financed by you and me try to grab bits of taxpayers' open sea, or for that matter land.

 

[l'escargot]

...EH were advised in their planning consents from IoW Council that as they are refurbishing a 'swimming beach' they should establish a standard swimming zone buoyed area similar to those found on most major resort beaches. EH then got the bit between their teeth, anbd applied for a full exclusion zone for safety and conservation of the Seagrass beds...

It would seem that the IW council have introduced this whole idea judging by this extract from the "Officer Written Justification" in the planning app (my highlighting):

The Councils Ecologist has provided a detailed comment on the proposal, this is summarised as follows:

The natural features are highly vulnerable to recreational impacts. The vegetated shingle plant communities are fragile and can be irreparably damaged by heavy visitor use, as has occurred on almost all publicly accessible beaches elsewhere. Seagrass beds are very susceptible to damage by anchors from boats moored in the bay and by trampling. These impacts have been the subject of discussion at pre-application meetings and exchanges between the developers and Natural England and the Isle of Wight Council. There is clearly a tension between protecting the fragile and valued natural habitats and promoting the area to the public.

There are very clears benefits from moving the bathing machine close to its original location, restoring the Queen’s alcove and allowing the public to visit and appreciate the area. However,there is a balance to be struck between allowing the public to enjoy and understand the area and controlling the undesirable consequences of heavy visitor impacts from both the land and the sea.

The proposals submitted represent an attempt to strike such a balance but there is uncertainty as to whether or not this will be successful. By promoting the beach as a destination not just for its historic and natural features but also as an attraction in its own right, there is a real risk that recreational pressures could get out of hand.

In addition to fee paying visitors to the estate, the bay is already an attractive destination as a summer anchorage for yachts. This argument has successfully resulted in the ‘Balanced Seas’ project (the team responsible for recommending the boundaries of Marine Conservation Zones to Government) moving the location of the proposed Kings Quay Reference Area southwards to avoid this area. Reference Areas are components of Marine Conservation
Zones where it is proposed that nature conservation interests will be protected by carefully controlled and policed management measures. Land based attractions are likely to further encourage yachts from visiting the area and accessing the land.

English Heritage has proposed a suite of measures to control visitor pressure. These include a boardwalk, beach fencing, interpretation and wardening. In addition, marker buoys will be installed in the bay to define the area of important seagrass beds.

Natural England, in responding to this application, has advised that the proposals are unlikely to have an adverse effect upon the Solent & Southampton Waters SAC and King’s Quay Shore SSSI. The Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, in contrast, consider that the ‘exceptional nature of the maritime and marine ecology of Osborne Bay’ is highly susceptible to damage, retreat or loss through the introduction of substantial recreational pressure.

The submitted ecology reports recognise the pristine quality of this habitat and, despite Natural England’s view that there are unlikely to be adverse effects from the proposals, I consider that the Wildlife Trust’s views are nearer the mark. In seeking to provide measures to protect the natural features of the bay from damage, structures will be put in place that detract from the naturalness of the site and are not guaranteed to be successful in preventing damage. If this application is recommended for approval then I would advise that a condition should be attached requiring the submission of a management plan for the area. Such a plan should set out the measures taken to control recreational pressure on the site and the proposed monitoring regimes to be put in place. There should be clear measures to be taken in the event that monitoring shows damaging impacts and annual monitoring reports should be submitted.

So it looks like in the course of the planning application the Council's Ecologist has introduced eel grass into the equation (at the behest of The Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust - not even Natural England) and stipulated that plans should be put in place to mitigate the effect of greater use from the land and sea. Then EH had to come up with proposals to satisfy them which would explain why they never put anything about them in the planning application.