Seahouses / North Sunderland Harbour

[martyn78]

I called into the quaint harbour of Seahouses in Northumberland by car yesterday and during a walk along the harbour wall/quay, 3 gentlemen were discussing the best way to lay some motorway crash barrier sections along the outer basin quayside, the area which is used by visiting boats, to my dismay saw a large pile of at least 100yds barrier laying on a pallet.
I politely enquired as to the extent of this barrier to be told it was going along the whole edge of the quay and will be a height of around 2ft.
This will be a serious problem for anyone trying to arrive by boat, yes I must have been in by boat a dozen times or more, by day - by night it will be damned dangerous.
My heckles started to bristle a little as I had a 'discussion' with a H&S official (they had a clipboard) many years ago 'cos they wanted to see a 3ft. fence around the whole edge of a marina - yeah, including each and every pontoon finger - some things you can't make up!!
When I asked why the (I believe) assistant Harbour Master said it was due to Health and Safety, when pressed a little further the next reply was to say it was in case a car drove over the edge. (Bear in mind it isn't a public road). Now I just happened to be staying overnight in the harbour around 25 years ago when a drunk driver did indeed lose control ending in the ogin and sadly died. (It hasn't happened since) When I expressed a little bit of dismay as to the reasons and the problems caused to visiting boats his simple answer was 'WELL DON'T BRING YOUR BOAT THEN'
Funny attitude for a village that relies on tourism, and a big loss for sailing visitors to the Farne Islands and Holy Island.

 

[EdWingfield]

This will be a serious problem for anyone trying to arrive by boat,

Why?

 

[martyn78]

Health and Safety of course!!!!!

 

[reginaldon]

'Ilf 'n sighfty' is trotted out as an excuse for many nonsensical decisions!

 

[Pete7]

If the barrier is strong enough to stop a car from going in the oggin, then that will do nicely to tie a boat up to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfBmujieRU4


Pete

 

[ANDY123]

'Ilf 'n sighfty' is trotted out as an excuse for many nonsensical decisions!

+1

 

[EdWingfield]

Hold on boys, not so fast. the HM has to perform a difficult balancing act at Seahouses (North Sunderland).

The Harbour is very busy; one trade is sport diving. It provides revenue and employment to professional dive boat operators. These dive boats load and discharge their divers at the pier end. Since scuba divers + equipment are extremely heavy they are allowed to park their vehicles on the pier. Many of their chosen vehicles are vans or campervans. These vehicles have to be turned in restricted space with a sheer drop on the inner yottie side.

Visiting yotties moor against this outer pier wall and they use vertical ladders.

I suggest one further step over a rail is no hardship for us. It may save the lives of divers who've made a silly misjudgement.

 

[ShinyShoe]

These vehicles have to be turned in restricted space with a sheer drop on the inner yottie side.

Visiting yotties moor against this outer pier wall and they use vertical ladders.

I suggest one further step over a rail is no hardship for us. It may save the lives of divers who've made a silly misjudgement.

Aye - and I'd rather some muppett didn't land his car/van on top of my moored boat as well. So even if he isn't killed I'd not lose my boat because I can't imagine 2 ton of vehicle falling on it will do it much good.

Is the barrier going to be on the very edge? That feels like it would actually be hard to install! Barriers normally go into posts - on an edge you con't easily drill holes for the posts in a way which would provide support on all sides. You might bolt a post onto the wall and attach to the post. But I'd have thought that was harder than drilling a post hole say 12 inches in from the wall (not been to seahouses for ages so can't quite remember how much space there is). That will leave 12 inches for you when you climb the ladder to then step over the rail. If its really an issue perhaps they can be persuaded to put some 18inch gaps in the barrier that would allow people to walk through.

There may have been only 1 incident at Sea Houses in 25 years but there have been incidents at other harbours. A pregnant woman drove off Ramsgate by accident in November (saved). But there were 5 people killed in Donegal not that long ago - I think it was a slipway - but it does highlight the risk as you'd assume a slipway was less catastrophic than falling off a wall.

 

[PabloPicasso]

Aye - and I'd rather some muppett didn't land his car/van on top of my moored boat as well. So even if he isn't killed I'd not lose my boat because I can't imagine 2 ton of vehicle falling on it will do it much good.

Is the barrier going to be on the very edge? That feels like it would actually be hard to install! Barriers normally go into posts - on an edge you con't easily drill holes for the posts in a way which would provide support on all sides. You might bolt a post onto the wall and attach to the post. But I'd have thought that was harder than drilling a post hole say 12 inches in from the wall (not been to seahouses for ages so can't quite remember how much space there is). That will leave 12 inches for you when you climb the ladder to then step over the rail. If its really an issue perhaps they can be persuaded to put some 18inch gaps in the barrier that would allow people to walk through.

There may have been only 1 incident at Sea Houses in 25 years but there have been incidents at other harbours. A pregnant woman drove off Ramsgate by accident in November (saved). But there were 5 people killed in Donegal not that long ago - I think it was a slipway - but it does highlight the risk as you'd assume a slipway was less catastrophic than falling off a wall.

A crash barrier would not have saved the five in a car who drove onto a slipway in Donegal, very sad incident, I don't think the driver realised the risks on a slime covered slipway unused in winter and uncovered by a lower tide. The council had a gate that was open, or not locked anyway. Not unless the harbour edge crash barrier was around the slipway as well, but that might impede boats. H&S would pay great heed to that wouldn't they

 

[ianj99]

What nonsense.
The hse need to visit Tarbert and many other harbours where there are no preventative measures at all to stop kids, cycles, mobility scooter etc etc going straight off the quayside into the harbour. Indeed, anyone parked on the quayside accidentally engaging reverse will go straight over.

A few miles south of Seahouses at Amble, the last time I was there, the harbour authority had placed 6" high railway sleepers along the quayside about a foot from the edge after a mobility scooter failed to stop and its occupant ended up in a foot or two of water (it was low water). That's all that is required - 6" high is adequate to stop most vehicles whilst not hindering harbour users.

 

[Romeo]

I reckon if you can manage to get up the quay wall from your boat, you will probably be able to manage to get over any barrier too. I doubt it will affect the amount of marine traffic that they get.

I agree however that there is usually no need for more fencing. Parents are always terrified that their kids wandering about will go over the edge, but funnily enough kiddies tend to have an innate instinct not to fall over precipices.

 

[macd]

...kiddies tend to have an innate instinct not to fall over precipices.

That's 'cos they're not old enough to vote

 

[ShinyShoe]

A crash barrier would not have saved the five in a car who drove onto a slipway in Donegal,

Sorry that was meant to be clear in my post when I said it wasn't a wall it was a slipway. What I meant was that I would expect a car failing to stop on a slipway to be expensive but not fatal, or certainly not for so many. So if it is possible for someone to slide down a slipway, its very possible to reverse off a wall in error. I expect if I drive off a harbour wall I may well sustain injuries which will add to my difficulty of escaping a car.

The hse need to visit

OK lets be clear. HSE won't have been anywhere near this. The Harbour Authority is required by law to undertake their own risk assessment. Someone from HSE doesn't come along and say "Hey Harbour Master why is that an unprotected edge" - the Harbour Master comes along and says "What risks do we have?" "Someone could drive off that unprotected edge" "What can we do to reduce that risk?"

Tarbert and many other harbours where there are no preventative measures at all to stop kids, cycles, mobility scooter etc etc going straight off the quayside into the harbour. Indeed, anyone parked on the quayside accidentally engaging reverse will go straight over.

Ah - yes. So in 1800s when we had children being killed in mills by machinery - and the mill owner though "Eek thats a bit dangerous should I try and make it safer...? He was right to think - nah - they mill down the road has the same risks?"

A few miles south of Seahouses at Amble, the last time I was there, the harbour authority had placed 6" high railway sleepers along the quayside about a foot from the edge after a mobility scooter failed to stop and its occupant ended up in a foot or two of water (it was low water). That's all that is required - 6" high is adequate to stop most vehicles whilst not hindering harbour users.

Also known as a 6" high trip hazard on a dark night resulting in someone tripping and falling over the side.

I'm not clear what the problem with a crash barrier at the harbour wall is... Can someone actually describe what the risk is. As has been said people accessing their boats are already having to climb a ladder... the risk assessment in that might be interesting!

 

[JumbleDuck]

As has been said people accessing their boats are already having to climb a ladder... the risk assessment in that might be interesting!

I dislike the ladders at Portpatrick so much that I row the dinghy round to the beach in the outer harbour rather than use them.

 

[JohnGC]

Not just cars and some people will find a way around.

 

[[163233]]

Do you mean here? https://goo.gl/maps/FdKd1MPQhUH2

If so, crash barriers don't appear to be entirely without merit.

 

[ianj99]

Sorry that was meant to be clear in my post when I said it wasn't a wall it was a slipway. What I meant was that I would expect a car failing to stop on a slipway to be expensive but not fatal, or certainly not for so many. So if it is possible for someone to slide down a slipway, its very possible to reverse off a wall in error. I expect if I drive off a harbour wall I may well sustain injuries which will add to my difficulty of escaping a car.

OK lets be clear. HSE won't have been anywhere near this. The Harbour Authority is required by law to undertake their own risk assessment. Someone from HSE doesn't come along and say "Hey Harbour Master why is that an unprotected edge" - the Harbour Master comes along and says "What risks do we have?" "Someone could drive off that unprotected edge" "What can we do to reduce that risk?"

Ah - yes. So in 1800s when we had children being killed in mills by machinery - and the mill owner though "Eek thats a bit dangerous should I try and make it safer...? He was right to think - nah - they mill down the road has the same risks?"

Also known as a 6" high trip hazard on a dark night resulting in someone tripping and falling over the side.

I'm not clear what the problem with a crash barrier at the harbour wall is... Can someone actually describe what the risk is. As has been said people accessing their boats are already having to climb a ladder... the risk assessment in that might be interesting!

Tarbert harbour is at the heart of the village, the shops, hotels etc are all the otherside of the main road that encircles the harbour. The main parking is all round the harbour on the harbour side of the main road.
There are no barriers or fences anywhere yet I have never heard of anyone ending up in the drink.
So Tarbert Harbour Authority's risk assessment thresholds must be a lot lower than Seahouses... Its the usual nanny state, PC, paranoid about being sued attitude shown by some organisations. (of course it may be their insurers refusing to indemnify them against such risks!)

On the other hand, properties adjacent the harbour suffer from flooding when a spring tide coincides with low pressure and an South Easterly gale and the obvious solution would be for the HA to erect a barrier about a foot high all round the edge, eliminating both flooding and unexpected dunkings.

 

[ShinyShoe]

On the other hand, properties adjacent the harbour suffer from flooding when a spring tide coincides with low pressure and an South Easterly gale and the obvious solution would be for the HA to erect a barrier about a foot high all round the edge, eliminating both flooding and unexpected dunkings.

A Solid Barrier. A foot high? Can you imagine what the yachties would say?

I'm not familiar with Tarbert. But I'd have thought the road in that Google Map which includes a junction increased risks further?

You can only be successfully sued if the judge/jury determine that you didn't adequately mitigate the risks. Now I think sometimes people do things because they think if they don't they would get sued but in reality a jury would never convict. In other cases people do things (or more often stop people doing things) because they didn't want to and conveniently use H&S as an excuse. But in this case, a harbour master has identified a risk, identified a mitigation and no-one has yet described how the mitigation actually causes the risks for a yacht to increase... so in court the prosecution would be saying
Lawyer: "So Harbour Master... did you consider there was a risk?"
HM: "Yes"
Lawyer: "Did you take any prevention measures?"
HM: "No"
Lawyer: "Why not? Why would you not build a barrier to prevent cars driving over an unprotected edge, dropping 3m into the sea resulting in the death of all its occupants including a 3 week old baby and the family pet dog?"
HM: "Erm. Well we thought about it, but those Yachty Types said it might prove a bit tricky for them to climb o'er"
Lawyer: "How do those 'yachty types' get to their boats?"
HM: "They climb down a ladder."
Lawyer: "I rest my case m'lord"

 

[[70521]]

I miss read that as seahorses...

 

[ianj99]

A Solid Barrier. A foot high? Can you imagine what the yachties would say?
I'm not familiar with Tarbert. But I'd have thought the road in that Google Map which includes a junction increased risks further?
You can only be successfully sued if the judge/jury determine that you didn't adequately mitigate the risks. Now I think sometimes people do things because they think if they don't they would get sued but in reality a jury would never convict. In other cases people do things (or more often stop people doing things) because they didn't want to and conveniently use H&S as an excuse. But in this case, a harbour master has identified a risk, identified a mitigation and no-one has yet described how the mitigation actually causes the risks for a yacht to increase... so in court the prosecution would be saying
Lawyer: "So Harbour Master... did you consider there was a risk?"
HM: "Yes"
Lawyer: "Did you take any prevention measures?"
HM: "No"
Lawyer: "Why not? Why would you not build a barrier to prevent cars driving over an unprotected edge, dropping 3m into the sea resulting in the death of all its occupants including a 3 week old baby and the family pet dog?"
HM: "Erm. Well we thought about it, but those Yachty Types said it might prove a bit tricky for them to climb o'er"
Lawyer: "How do those 'yachty types' get to their boats?"
HM: "They climb down a ladder."
Lawyer: "I rest my case m'lord"

There is not a yachtie issue because they use the marina opposite the fish quays so I wouldn't expect any objection from any harbour user. Its purely one of public safety.
Although most of the harbour adjacent to the road is relatively shallow, and part of it dries, I can't see how the risk is negligible and why Argyll & Bute council and the HA would not be liable if there was injury or death. The cynic in me thinks the authorities consider the cost of settling a claim to be lower than the cost of a few hundred yards of barriers and in any case, would argue it was 'just an accident' and as the dangers are self evident, they are not liable.

This seems fair enough to me otherwise we'd end up like the USA with, for example, landowners being sued for someone tripping and breaking an ankle whilst crossing their land on a public right of way.