C11. Recreational Boating
C11.1 Scoping Results
The results of the scoping assessment are presented in Table C11.1 (Offshore Wind), Table C11.2 (Wave) and Table C11.3 (Tidal) and indicate whether more detailed assessment is required (Y/N).
Table C11.1 Offshore Wind
|Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and heavy or medium cruising routes||N||N||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||N||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||N||N||N||N|
|Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and sailing areas||N||N||N||N||N**||N**||N||N||N||N|
|Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and racing areas||N||N||N||N||N||N||N||N||N||N|
|Potential deterrent to investment||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only|
* Draft Plan Option areas transected by heavy or medium use cruising route(s), arrays for low scenario occupy less than 5% of Draft Plan Option areas and it has been assumed that spatial planning of the Draft Plan Option areas can be used to avoid significant impacts under this scenario.
** Spatial overlap of RYA Sailing or Racing areas with Draft Plan Option areas, but this is less than 10% of combined area (Draft Plan Option areas plus sailing area) and it has been assumed that spatial planning of the Draft Plan Option areas can be used to avoid significant impacts under all scenarios.
Table C11.2 Wave
|Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and heavy or medium cruising routes||N*||N*||N||N||N||N||N||N|
|Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and sailing areas||N||N||Y||N||N||N||N||N|
|Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and racing areas||N||N||N||N||N||N||N||N|
|Potential deterrent to investment||N||N*||N*||N||N||N||N||N|
* Draft Plan Option areas transected by heavy or medium use cruising route(s), and arrays for all scenarios occupy less than 1% of Draft Plan Option areas, it has been assumed that spatial planning of the Draft Plan Option areas can be used to avoid significant impacts under these scenarios.
Table C11.3 Tidal
|Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and heavy or medium cruising routes||N**||N||Y* - for high scenario only||N||N||N||N||Y* - for high scenario only||N||N**|
|Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and sailing areas||Y||Y||Y||Y||Y||Y||Y||Y||N||N|
|Spatial overlap between Draft Plan Option areas and racing areas||N||N||N||N||N||N||N||N||N||N|
|Potential deterrent to investment||N**||Y* - for high scenario only||Y* - for high scenario only||Y* - for high scenario only||Y* - for high scenario only||Y* - for high scenario only||Y* - for high scenario only||Y* - for high scenario only||Y* - for high scenario only||N**|
* Draft Plan Option areas transected by heavy or medium use cruising route(s), and arrays for low and central scenarios occupy less than 5% of Draft Plan Option areas, it has been assumed that spatial planning of the Draft Plan Option areas can be used to avoid significant impacts under these scenarios.
** Draft Plan Option areas scoped out due to depths greater than 40m.
C11.2.1 Quantitative Assessment of Impacts to Cruising Routes
Indicative costs associated with modifying existing cruising routes for recreational vessels have been calculated with respect to additional transit distance and cost.
C126.96.36.199 Cruising routes - wind
For the Draft Plan Option areas associated with offshore wind, three have been scoped in for assessment and are OWNE1, OWSW1 and OWSW2. These Draft Plan Option areas are crossed by Medium cruising routes, no Heavy use routes cross any Draft Plan Option areas. Typically, more than one medium intensity route overlaps each of the Draft Plan Option areas. The calculated costs associated with transiting around wind development boundaries for recreational vessels are summarised in Table C11.4.
Table C11.4 Offshore Wind Costs
|Scoping result: Spatial overlap||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only||Y* - for central and high scenarios only|
|Central Scenario||Number of routes intersecting||1||2||1|
|Cost individual journey (£)||0.37||0.77||0.45|
|Cost annual journey (£ millions)||0.0007||0.0014||0.0008|
|High Scenario||Number of routes intersecting||1||3||1|
|Cost individual journey (£)||1.74||2.10||0.82|
|Cost annual journey (£ millions)||0.0032||0.0038||0.0015|
Based on the assessment, the largest deviation and associated cost is observed with site OWSW1 under the high development scenario, where an annual deviation cost is approximately £4,000 has been assessed. Costs are larger for the developments within OWSW1 as three cruising routes intersect the development boundary. Costs are also much lower for the medium development scenarios, with a maximum annual additional transit cost of less than £1000.
C188.8.131.52 Cruising routes - wave
All wave developments are scoped out for assessments as the density of the development within each Draft Plan Option area is less than 1%. The assumption that spatial planning of the Draft Plan Option areas can be used to avoid significant impacts under these scenarios can therefore be applied.
C184.108.40.206 Cruising routes - tide
For the Draft Plan Option areas associated with tide developments, two were identified to have overlapping cruising routes. These were TN3 and TSW1, where the others were scoped either because the seabed depths are greater than 40m or no routes intersected the Draft Plan Option area. For the two Draft Plan Option areas scoped in the impact is considered to occur only for the high development scenario, where the density of development is greater than 5% of the Draft Plan Option area.
Of the scoped in Draft Plan Option areas, cruising routes only intersect one development boundary, which is that in TSW1. At the same time although up to five medium use cruising routes intersect the wider Draft Plan Option areas, only one route actually intersects the development boundary. As such, the assessment has been completed on the single route through the boundary, the results of which are presented in Table C11.5.
Table C11.5 Tide Costs
|Scoping result: Spatial overlap||Y* - for high scenario only|
|High Scenario||Number of routes intersecting||1|
|Cost individual journey (£)||2.48|
|Cost annual journey (£ millions)||0.0045|
C11.2.2 Qualitative Assessment Of Increase in Marine Risk
Potential risks to recreational boating activities from the offshore wind developments include collision with structures, effects on navigation and communication equipment and visibility creating a vessel to vessel collision risk. Collision risk is dependant on a wide range of factors including conditions, visibility, vessel characteristics and vessel speed.
Studies in relation to wind farms in the UK and using characteristic site conditions identified that for vessel to structure collision scenarios, the outer structures provide the largest potential for collision. This risk is however minimal assuming the vessel is being correctly navigated with an alert helm on watch, and is therefore collision are only likely to occur where a vessel is not under command or adversely affected by the weather to a point where the intended course cannot be maintained. In this situation, the risk is posed by the Wind Farm moving parts, particularly the rotor blade, and any other solid structure such as the supports. Due to this risk to recreational vessels, the RYA has specified a minimum rotor height clearance above mean high water springs of 22.6m ( RYA, 2008). These clearances should also take into account sea conditions and may need to take a further 2 metres clearance (additional height on sea conditions).
In the case of the wind Draft Plan Option areas in this study, these are sited further offshore but notably overlap or are positioned in close proximity to established recreational and commercial shipping navigation routes. The displacement of Commercial Shipping routes due to wind farm developments may increase the risk to recreational vessels through increased use of other sea areas; this is especially the case for the North-East site of OWNE1.
In terms of navigation safety and visibility aids, studies by the MCA in association with QinetiQb found that the effects of offshore wind structures on communication and position-fixing systems were not significant enough to affect navigational efficiency or safety ( MCA & QinetiQ, 2004). The exception however was a recognised risk to ship-borne and shore-based radar systems as the presence of wind farm structures can produce false (multiple and reflected) radar echoes, due to the vertical extent of the wind turbine generators. At the same time the turbines can reduce introduce interference and cause shadowing for a given distance round the structures or development. The risk to recreational vessels is that the resulting lack of visibility of such small craft to search and rescue vessels, each other and larger commercial vessels in proximity to wind farm structures. This is particularly true for small craft and their navigational equipment as these are often not as powerful as commercial vessels.
With regards to wave developments, the presence of floating structures on or near the sea surface poses a risk to all vessels. This is primarily through the risk of an underwater collision or snagging of vessel lines with structures and their moving parts, while the vessel is either under power or adrift. Any wave development with surface or near surface wave devices would be identified on a chart and appropriately marked with buoyage as an exclusion zone. The effectiveness of these controls relies on both commercial and recreational vessels monitoring up to date charting information and maintaining an effective watch whilst at sea. The risk of a vessel not under command or a vessel struggling to maintain its course and speed in heavy weather and drifting into the wave development exclusion zone, should also be recognised. In this instance the boats crew and the emergency services and their personal would all be at risk in performing their duties in preserving life at sea.
The risk associated with the tidal developments is principally the risk of underwater collision or snagging of rope or anchor chain with structures whilst under power or adrift. The water depth for tidal devices has been assessed to be 40m, which provides an allowance of circa 20m from the bed (to avoid bed turbulence) and a maximum blade around 10m in diameter, providing a 30m bed-to-blade-tip clearance. This provides a clearance of at least 8m assuming a 2m draught vessel. Where tidal sites are situated in water depths less than this and an exclusion zone needs to be established, the risk posed to smaller vessels navigating further from shore is apparent. For example, in the West at TW2, vessels rounding the Mull of Kintyre which are deviated away from the coast could be set further out to sea. This would affect the attractiveness of navigating from the Clyde to the cruising grounds and outer islands within this region. Other examples of this increased risk and associated dissuasion of planned passage can be found in the South-West region around the Mull of Galloway for the TSW1 Draft Plan Option area.
For all the renewable developments, there is a marginal increased risk of collision with installation vessels along cable routes while cabling is laid. This risk is increased in proximity to navigation channels and port and harbours approaches through increased vessel activity in these areas. The risk is however transient in nature and can be adequately mitigated for through planning and informing relevant parties through notices to mariners. It is concluded that cable installations are unlikely to have an impact on the recreational community as sailors and power boat owners are used to taking account of shipping, which is common place requirement of navigation interaction with Commercial Shipping.
C11.2.3 Deterrent to Investment in Marinas/Supply Chain - Qualitative Assessment
C220.127.116.11 Deterrent to investment - New marina berth developments
Measures from 2007 indicate that the GVA contribution of coastal marinas to the UK economy is estimated to be in excess of £500 million and potentially up to £700 million ( BMF, 2005; 2007). At the same time, coastal marinas directly employ over 1,700 people and support the employment of 22,000 more people. Furthermore coastal marinas provide significant benefits to local economies, in terms of supply chain businesses and tourist jobs. Scottish marinas potentially account up to 9% of this value based on their ability to meet the demand due to the number of coastal marina berths (Robinson, 2009).
The Scottish Development International ( SDI) highlights the revenue sailing and marinas bring into the Scottish economy with ongoing investment into this sector. This is in terms of Key Performance Indicators ( KPI) which indicate that Scotland's sailing sector itself is worth over £101 million, with which there is an associated future growth in demand ( SDI, 2012). As such over a thousand new pontoon berths, some of which would be associated with marina developments are either in planning or currently under development ( SDI, 2012). At the same time the SDI also indicate that the new provision of berths would need to double in the next ten years in order to meet demand, meaning there are in excess of 2000 new berths required by 2025. Assuming the number of berths as a proxy for investment required to meet the demand, based on the most recent investment example from Rhu Marina on the Firth of Clyde, an approximate investment value of £10 million over a 10-year period has been inferred.
It is not possible to provide a quantitative assessment of the potential deterrent of investment from Draft Plan Option area at a national scale. Site specific evaluation for individual developments should take into account the potential deterrent to marina investment. The results of these site specific assessments will be highly dependent on the renewable energy development location, cruising, racing and leisure use in the local area; plus the potential demand for berths.
C18.104.22.168 Deterrent to investment - established marinas
To provide a more detailed consideration of the potential for deterrent to use existing marinas, Draft Plan Option areas that overlapped medium intensity cruising routes with direct links to marinas were identified.
This assessment identified that for offshore wind Draft Plan Option, OWNE1 and OWNE2 located on the North-East region overlapped two medium intensity routes that linked to the Peterhead Bay marina. For wave Draft Plan Option areas WN2 fronted the Stromness and Westray marinas thereby limiting direct access from offshore locations, and WN2 fronted the Scalloway, Skeld and Walls marinas, which limited offshore access especially as the boundaries of this development abuts with the coast. For tidal developments, one Draft Plan Option area was identified, which was TW2 which overlapped a medium intensity route into the marina at Port Ellen. The pathway for affecting economic factors (as commented upon by the RYA) is noted as:
1) Vessels are discouraged from sailing to particular areas because offshore renewable energy installation schemes as skippers are dissuaded from making passage plans that involve passage through or in proximity to renewable developments leading to consequent effect on local businesses, this in tern leads to;
2) Deterrent to investment in facilities for visiting sailors including by community groups in remote areas due to reduced numbers of visiting craft, this in tern leads to;
3) A reduction in the number of craft visiting communities reliant on tourism because of no inward investment into berthing or onshore facilities, which potentially leads to;
4) Loss of business, potential failures of existing businesses as business plan targets are unable to be met. (Graham Russell RYA Scotland pers. comm.).
The additional journey time is important to recreational sailors, whilst the assessment in this report has covered additional costs for fuel, it is has not been possible to quantify the potential for lost revenue through dissuasion of attempting the passage or holiday. Most cruising sailors around Scotland either spend a long time on an extensive voyage or charter a vessel from a charter base (largely but not entirely on the Clyde or the west coast) and spend a week or a fortnight cruising. Unlike the owner who can choose to leave his or her vessel in a safe haven if conditions deteriorate, the charterer has to return the boat on time and additional journey time around renewable developments may mean that some passages are no longer prudent.
C22.214.171.124 Deterrent to investment - cable routes
In a number of instances the potential cable routes associated with the renewable developments overlapped marina locations as well as the cruising routes into the marinas. However it is assumed that the cables would be buried below the seabed or protection, meaning there would be limited to no exposure at the seabed surface.
The assessment of costs incurred through deviations for renewable development sites has concluded that three wind sites ( OWSW1, OWSW2 and OWNE1) provides a combined additional fuel cost of circa £8,500 annually. The assessment assumes that all vessels are under power. The relative risk of development sites on recreational boating has been assessed qualitatively, and has concluded that increased risks are apparent, especially for development sites located in sea areas which are already challenging to navigate. This increased risk is mitigated through passage planning and awareness, plus the update and circulation of up to date navigational information via charting publications. The effect on deterrent to marina developments has also been highlighted; identify the role of site specific assessments for individual renewable developments which should recognise and evaluate the potential for deterrent in marina investment.
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 2013. Monthly Fuel Price Tracker. Published 6 February 13. www.ahdb.org.uk.
Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B., Moffat, C.F., (Editors), 2011. Scotland's Marine Atlas: Information for the national marine plan. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh.
British Marine Federation, 2005. Economic Benefits of the UK Leisure Boating Industry. The British Marine Federation Report.
British Marine Federation, 2007. Executive Summary. Economic Benefits of Coastal Marinas UK and Channel Islands. The British Marine Federation Report.
MCCIP, 2008. Marine climate change impacts. Annual Report Card 2007-2008
Robinson, K., 2009 Marinas: The Tourism Aspect of Leisure Boating. Unpublished report: http://www.insights.org.uk/articleitem.aspx?title=Marinas:%20The%20Tourism%20Aspect%20of%20Leisure%20Boating. Accessed 8 th March 2003.
RYA, 2008. UK Coastal Atlas of Recreational Boating.
Russell, G., 2013. Personal Communications. Response to consultation invitation (February 2013).
Scottish Development International, 2012. Scotland: Opportunities in Tourism Investment. Scottish Development International Report.
Scottish Enterprise, 2010. 'Sailing Tourism In Scotland' February 2010
United Kingdom Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy ( UKMMAS), 2010. Charting Progress 2 Feeder Report Productive Seas. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of UKMMAS (Eds. Saunders, J. and McKie, J.) 472pp Available online: http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk/