Morecambe Marina Feasibility Study Main Report PDF

MORECAMBE MARINA
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Report No. MP160, 17417/R/01 Rev B

Date: January 2011
MORECAMBE MARINA FEASIBILITY STUDY
CONTROLLED DOCUMENT
Gifford No: 17417/R/01
Status: FINAL Copy
No:
Issued for Distribution
Name Signature Date
Prepared by: Phil Dunn P Dunn 6.12.10
Checked: Nick Clarke N Clarke 6.12.10
Gifford N J Clarke N Clarke 6.12.10
Approved:
Revision Record
Rev. Date By Summary of Changes Chkd Aprvd
A 22.12.10 PD Minor amendments NJC NJC
B 18.01.11 PD Final Issued for distribution NJC NJC
Lancaster City Council Gifford

Environmental Management Team 20 Nicholas Street
Town Hall Chester
Marine Road CH1 2NX
Morecambe
LA4 5AF
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1
2 SITE APPRAISAL ............................................................................................4
3 MARKET ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................13
4 MARKET DEMAND, OPPORTUNITIES AND MARINA PROFILE ................28
5 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS........................................................................35
6 SELECTED CONCEPT ..................................................................................37
7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................39
8 LICENCES AND CONSENTS ........................................................................43
9 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ...............................................................................44
10 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................51
APPENDIX A ~ SITE INFORMATION
APPENDIX B ~ MARKET DATA
APPENDIX C ~ INTERTIDAL AND HYDROGRAPHIC DATA
APPENDIX D ~ CONCEPT PLANS
APPENDIX E ~ FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Report No: 17417/R/01 Rev B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lancaster City Council has a clear vision for Morecambe as a vibrant and sustainable seaside town
and the creation of a marina development commanding a prominent position within Morecambe is
considered by many to have potential as a catalyst for wider uplift and as a transformational project.
The Council wish to test this concept and have commissioned consultants Gifford, Marina Projects
and PLC Architects to assess the feasibility and financial viability of a marina development.
The study site sits at a pivotal location on Morecambes seafront Promenade, and commands
outstanding views across Morecambe Bay. It is characterised by its openness, and this has served to
retain the setting to the iconic art deco Midland Hotel, as well as providing space for seasonal seaside
attractions.
It is the vast intertidal areas that are a notable feature of Morecambe Bay and the tidal range leads to
strong tidal currents and an ever changing layout of channels and rills.
The Bay is of local and International environmental importance, attracting Natura 2000 and all
designations associated with a coastal location, the boundary of which is located immediately seaward
of the study site.
The completion of a market assessment has confirmed that there is demand for marina berthing
across the UK and if the long-term or underlying trend is considered, this demand is exceeding supply.
However, the demand for a particular marina location is influenced by a number of factors and the
North West coast exhibits a number of physical attributes that impact upon the market, such as,
shallow waters, tidal access restrictions, exposure to the Irish Sea, etc.
Notwithstanding the above the region does enjoy a level of leisure boating and it may be concluded
that the marine leisure market could sustain another marina facility on the North West coastline but a
long-term vision and strategy must be accepted. In this respect it is worth noting other potential
marina developments that have been tabled such as for Barrow, which have the potential to
accommodate this demand.
With consideration to the region the total number of new berths to be introduced should remain
modest and this is further tempered by the factors and attributes associated with Morecambe. A
modern fully serviced marina with a design target of 175 225 berths is therefore proposed and this
assumes that a minimum tidal access window of 4 hours can be achieved.
Alternative adjacent locations have been assessed to confirm whether they offer advantages over the
specified study site, principally extensions of existing breakwaters to create a new marina basin.
However, the market assessment does not give rise to the demand for a large marina and therefore
the adoption of an alternative site will be very difficult to justify when potential environmental impacts
and loss of intertidal area is considered.
In order to achieve a workable and competitive tidal access window the development of concept
designs has confirmed the need for a dredged access channel and impoundment. The new channel
would need to be approximately 250m long and have a footprint in the order of 1.2 ha. Two alternative
mechanisms for impoundment have been assessed, a lock structure that offers improved tidal access
and tidal flap/gate which offer reduced capital and operating cost.
The identified and optimum option for the marina layout maximises the available water space leading
to a marina of some 175 berths and places the war memorial and gardens in a central position,
creating a natural focus to the development as well as providing an area of quality public realm.
In all concepts it has been assumed that the war memorial should be retained and enhanced if
possible.

Report No: 17417/R/01 Rev A
In addition, the layout creates a development site to the North of the Midland Hotel which would be
appropriate as waterfront apartments and would complete a necklace of buildings from the hotel and
culminating in the RNLI Station. A fundamental area of planning gain that flows from this option is the
transformation of Marine Road to a tree-lined waterfront boulevard.
As noted, the creation of a marina at an alternative location such as between existing groynes has
been investigated and discounted due to the overall potential impact.
The predominant environmental impacts of the preferred scheme are those likely to occur on the
Natura 2000 designated areas in Morecambe Bay as a result of the dredged access channel. The
scheme will require a number of consents and licences to be secured and the application process will
require a significant number of surveys and assessments to establish the baseline and determine what
effect the scheme will have on the Natura 2000 sites. At an early stage a test of whether the proposal
is likely to have a significant effect on the Natura 2000 site will almost certainly confirm that an
Appropriate Assessment be undertaken under the Habitats Directive. A formal Environmental Impact
Assessment will also be required and the subject of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest
(IROPI) must be considered.
IROPI may prove difficult to demonstrate since other potential developments, such as proposed for
Barrow, are likely to come to the fore and potentially complicate matters.
Given the sensitivity of the habitats and qualifying features of the Natura 2000 sites it is probable that
the new access channel will be regarded as a loss of intertidal area and it is highly likely that
compensation will be required to offset the habitat loss and effects caused by activities such as
dredging. Given the nature of the site, it could prove difficult to identify and secure compensatory
habitat in the area. This is likely to be an expensive and time consuming process and with no
guarantee of a favourable outcome. In addition to this issues such as pollution and noise have the
potential to affect the qualifying features of the Natura 2000 sites.
In parallel, significant modelling and assessment would be required to provide suitable evidence that
the effects of a dredged channel (and marina) would not have a significant adverse effect on the
morphology and dynamics of Morecambe Bay.
The site also has the potential for contaminated land to be present based on the historical land uses.
The site and foreshore was formerly used as a ship breaking site and swimming stadium before being
in-filled in the late 20th Century. It is not known what backfill was used and there is potential that this
material could be contaminated. In addition to this the excavated material would need to be disposed
of at a suitable licenced landfill as the proposals do not allow for the reuse of this material. This has
the potential for significant disposal costs.
The budget capital cost for the preferred scheme within the study site, incorporating either a lock or
tidal gate structure is estimated at 23M - 26M. With the exception of marina operational items such
as pontoons and lock control, capital cost has not been included in the financial appraisal. It has been
assumed that the land will be gifted to the development.
A high level financial appraisal has been completed which indicates that an optimum fully serviced
marina enjoying the benefits of a lock the marina business fails to meet a trading profit over a 10 year
period. In part this is due to the high-level of operating costs attaching to maintenance dredging and a
lock structure; e.g. staffing and maintenance. Results indicate that early year losses reduce to just
over 50k by year 10 and a project Net Present Value (NPV) - based upon the discount rate of 11 % is
negative at (116k), confirming the inability of the scheme to contribute to any form of capital
investment.
In order to explore potential options for viability, a number of sensitivity tests have been completed.
These include increased tariffs and berth numbers but the extent to which these must be raised to
achieve a break-even position are considered ambitious, particularly given the site location, regional
competition and current economic climate.

A measure of viability can be achieved if the marina operation is reduced to provide a lower quality
marina offer and by adopting a tidal gate mechanism. In this situation with the lower operating costs
the marina creates a cumulative trading profit over a 10 year period of some 133k, with early year
losses being repaid by year 8. In addition the trading profit to turnover ratio achieves a ratio of circa
17% by year 9. The project Net Present Value (NPV) - based upon the discount rate of 11 %
suggests a contribution in the order of 700k can be made towards the capital cost of the scheme.
It should be noted that the level of trading profit in this situation and trading profit to turnover ratio
remain low and these need to be measured against the risks associated with the scheme. In addition,
the marina business model does not make provision for major maintenance works and re-investment
of the infrastructure items such as quay walls. Contributions from the development site through
annual charges or a dowry fund will assist but the majority share would fall to the marina or Council.
It is concluded that the ability of a marina in this location to sustain itself operationally is high risk and
may rely on income streams other than berth fees. The business can, at best, only support a very
small fraction (3%) of the capital cost of the scheme with the balance of the money needed being
gifted in some way to the scheme. Given the financial problems and high risk of achieving the
environmental consents needed, the commercial sector would deem the development of a marina at
this location to be very high risk and would be unlikely to pursue it. With this in mind, the Council may
wish to consider alternative opportunities that achieve in full or part, an enhancement of the
Morecambe waterfront

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Study Objective

Lancaster City Council has a clear vision for Morecambe as a vibrant and sustainable seaside
resort, underpinned by its history, location, natural surroundings, community and character. In
order to realise this vision, strategic development plans including the Area Action Plan are
coming forward and within these, viable and sustainable proposals are to be promoted in a
coordinated fashion. Importantly, the development plans must be formulated in an informed
manner scrutinising and testing proposals.
The creation of a marina development commanding a prominent position within Morecambe is

considered by many to have potential as a catalyst for wider uplift and as a transformational
project. In this respect it is important that a holistic approach is taken in which structures, space
and environmental performance are integrated. With all marina-based developments it is the
inter-relationships that could potentially give the project its vibrancy and vitality, and ensure that
the interlocking elements produce a cohesive theme.
Before moving towards adopting such a proposal the Council wish to test this concept and
confirm its feasibility. It is this study that seeks to addresses this requirement.
In this report the concept of a marina development will be subject to analysis and measurement
against a range of criteria such as practicality, environmental impact, capital cost, operation and
financial viability.
Above all, the long term viability and sustainability must come to the fore. The outcome and
conclusions arising from this initial feasibility study will inform and provide guidance to the
Council as to the potential of the concept and risks that exist.
1.2 Methodology and Approach

The study can be regarded in six parts which broadly follow a logical sequence leading to
conclusions and recommendations.
Part 1: Site Appraisal

A desk top review of the site has been completed using information provided by the Council and
other researched data. The objective being to gain an understanding of Morecambe in terms of
its physical, economic, environmental and social character, leading to an initial assessment of
opportunities and constraints.
At an early stage of the project a detailed site visit and review was completed which provided an
opportunity to meet with the Council to refine the brief and interview key stakeholders.
Part 2: Environmental Assessment

A desk based assessment of environmental issues has been undertaken based on information
from the Local Authority, publicly availably databases, past planning applications, internet
searches and our own experience of such developments. Coupled with this and the site visit,
investigations have been made in respect of Groundsure environmental database report and
access to the internet databases available from organisations such as Natural England, the
Environment Agency, English Heritage and the National Air Quality Archive.
The team have been mindful and aware that the land around the site is subject to various
ecological designations (Special Protection Area, Ramsar site and Special Site of Scientific
Interest) and that it is covered by the Shoreline Management Plan 2 process. The site also has
a history of potentially contaminative land uses including ship breaking.

Page 1 Report No: 17417/R/01 Rev B
Whenever possible, consultation with regulatory authorities such as Natural England and the
Environment Agency has been pursued in order to understand what development is feasible.
The findings of this environmental assessment work have been taken forward into the overall
feasibility study. Environmental mitigation measures and any enhancements that are likely to be
required are identified and included in the overall costing for the scheme.
A review of the consents and permissions required for any development are identified.
Part 3: Market Review & Analysis
This is seen as a critical element of the study work. Together with desk-top study work, the
project team has made maximum use of existing knowledge of the industry and data gathered
from previous studies. In particular the North West coast operational experiences and project
work in the region is reviewed and updated. This is supported by available research information
including data and reports by the British Marine Federation (BMF) such as the coastal mooring
audit.
Through experience and data analysis, demands, expectations and trends have been
established leading to identification of opportunities for a new marina and requirements for
shore side facilities/enterprises. This stage has also considered potential tariff levels and
structures, drawing comparisons where applicable and identifying trends for the future.
Collation of the market study element provides a market assessment summary which guides the
recommendations on marina form, size and likely tariff structures that can be applied. In turn
this has lead to the formalisation of a marina profile.
Part 4: Development Options and Preferred Concept

Taking forward the conclusions of the site appraisal, environmental assessment and market
analysis, development concepts have been considered and a preferred option formulated.
The development of the preferred concept option is an iterative process as the various attributes
and features are measured and tested. Included in this stage budget capital costs are
estimated and a break down of main items presented including works such as new quay walls,
tidal structures, pontoons, piling and dredging.
To quantify the monetary added value that a marina development will bring to Morecambe
would require the completion of a detailed economic assessment. This is considered
inappropriate at this stage of the project; therefore this matter is addressed by providing an
indication of the value through comment and from reference to industry reports and completed
reference developments.
Included in this section is the review of other potential sites in the immediate area that may be
more appropriate in terms of the environmental or master planning contexts and if any
significant barriers or risks exist to the preferred concept.
Part 5: Financial Viability

Drawing upon the conclusions and findings in earlier stages of the study a schedule of revenue
streams has been established and this in turn enables high-level income plan projections to be
drawn up for the marina.
At this early stage in the project assessment, indicative views are given as to the likely marina
financial performance and the likely level of capital expenditure which could be supported by the
marina business. In making an indicative assessment, industry standard Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) have been applied to give broad outlines whilst also referring to existing
businesses to determine what profit performance might be expected.

It is not just the viability of any marina development that will be a measure of its valuation or
return on investment. Comment will be made on the wider added value identified under the
assessment process and potential risks that a developer or operator may face. Importantly, the
ability to be self-sustaining as an ongoing business is highlighted.
Part 6: Study Findings and Recommendations

The study work has culminated in this report that summarises the above noted elements and
provides conclusions and recommendations on the form and viability of a marina development.
This includes the reasons and rationale for the selection of a preferred concept.
The report also identifies the statutory consents required and potential risks or barriers to
development together with reference to environmental effects and potential
compensation/mitigation measure necessary.

2 SITE APPRAISAL
2.1 Site Location

The study site is located in Morecambe, Lancashire and is centred on Ordnance Survey
National Grid Reference SD429645. The site is irregular in plan and is approximately 8ha in
area. The site location shown in Appendix A, Figure 1.
2.2 Site Setting and Description
General Description
Morecambe is a seaside town located on the north west coast approximately 22 miles North of
Blackpool and 18 miles South of Kendal. In many ways the town occupies an enviable position
surrounded by natural interests, overlooking Morecambe Bay and the Lake District beyond, with
the Forest of Bowland and Yorkshire Dales to the east.
The City of Lancaster with its University lies just 6 miles to the East and strong linkages exist
between the two conurbations. Population and catchments to the north are limited but the built-
up areas of Preston, Blackburn, Bolton and Manchester are within striking distance to the
South.
Major road and rail networks exist in close proximity with Junction 34 of the M6 approximately 6
miles away, together with direct connection to the West Coast Mainline railway. Outside of busy
periods, road communications between the M6/Lancaster and Morecambe take approximately
15 minutes, however the road network and few bridges that cross the River Lune mean
Lancaster currently suffers from major traffic congestion, the impacts of which are felt by both
Morecambe and nearby Heysham.
The proposed Heysham to M6 Link promoted by Lancashire County Council will improve
matters and the Department of Transport announcement that it is one of the key infrastructure
projects still to receive financial backing despite recent government spending cuts which should
ensure its delivery.
The existing site layout is shown in Figure 1 and Aerial Photographs 1 & 2 below.
The site sits at a pivotal location on Morecambes seafront Promenade, and commands
outstanding views across Morecambe Bay to the Lake District mountains beyond. It is
characterised by its openness, and this has served to retain the setting to the iconic art deco
Midland Hotel, as well as providing space for seasonal seaside attractions. The lack of these in
the winter months do, however, render the area a somewhat desolate appearance which has
been heightened by the closure of the former Bubbles leisure park and The Dome.
The site is comprised of an area of formal gardens, hard standing and grassed areas together
with sunken areas and redundant Dome theatre which is due for demolition; much of the site is
now relatively clear. It is bounded to the north and east by Morecambe Bay, to the south by
Marine Road Central and terrace buildings that front the road and to the west by the Midland
Hotel and its grounds.
Marine Road is a main arterial link for the town which currently forms a barrier to the
development site to the north. This feeling of isolation is somewhat exacerbated by the wide
forecourts to the Victoria Pavilion and its adjoining commercial operators that display a lack of
character and consistency.

Town Victoria Pavilion/
Centre Winter Gardens
Midland Hotel
Study Site
Stone Jetty
Aerial Photograph 1 Morecambe Marina Study Site and Layout
Aerial Photograph 2 Morecambe Marina Study Site

The perimeter of the site is generally level, but as noted, there is a large depression at the
centre of the site that corresponds with the site of the former Bubbles leisure complex
Recent years has seen significant investment and works to enhance the coastal defences in the
area with the construction of sloping rock revetments, breakwaters and groynes. This work
included major improvements to the Stone Jetty and provided opportunity for the RNLI to
construct a new lifeboat station that houses a Griffon Hovercraft. A further Lifeboat Station at
the Green Street Slipway constructed in 1998 accommodates a D Class Inshore Lifeboat.
Access to the sea is provided by a shared concrete slipway located adjacent to the Lifeboat
Station and Stone Jetty.
The new Stone Jetty and associated foreshore works have created an enhanced section of
seafront promenade that is befitting a seaside resort,
Works to the Midland Hotel and its immediate environs, together with the relatively recent Stone
Jetty and associated foreshore works have greatly enhanced this area of the seafront
promenade that is befitting a seaside resort waterfront but the lack of amenities adjoining this is
a lost opportunity that needs addressing if potential vitality and vibrancy is not to be lost.
The site appears well serviced with respect to electric and water and it anticipated that these will
not pose a significant barrier to development. It is worth noting that an electrical sub-station is
located to the north west of the site.
Marine Background
The site bounded to the north by a sloping rock revetment leading to a fish tail groyne to the
east, beyond which revetments merge into a sandy beach. The Stone Jetty forms a physical
boundary to the west of the site and once again, beyond this a sandy beach extends. As the
tide ebbs away the revetments and beaches give way to areas of intertidal mudflats and sands.
It is these vast intertidal areas that are a notable feature of Morecambe Bay and the significant
tidal range leads to strong tidal currents and an ever changing layout of channels and rills.
These factors and speed at which an incoming tide floods the Bay is notorious and can be
hazardous to the unwary.
Tidal predictions for the Morecambe area are provided in Table 2.2 and it is worth noting that in
general, this report will adopt reference to marine Chart Datum rather than Ordnance Datum.
Predicted Tide Chart Datum Ordnance Datum

Highest Astronomical Tide 11.0m 6.1m
Mean High Water Springs 9.4m 4.5m
Mean High Water Neaps 7.4m 2.5m
Mean Low Water Neaps 2.9m -2.0m
Mean Low Water Springs 1.1m -3.8m
Lowest Astronomical Tide -0.2m -5.1m
Mean Sea Level 5.10m 0.2m
Chart Datum is 4.9m below Ordnance Datum Newlyn
Table 2.2 Tidal Information for Heysham, Morecambe Bay
Morecambe seafront and the site itself is generally orientated in a northerly direction and thus it
is afforded some shelter from the prevailing south westerly and westerly weather with further
protection offered by the extending Stone Jetty.

Improvements to the Stone Jetty and construction of groynes has as was intended, lead to the
deposition of silts and sands directly in front of the site. A review of ongoing beach profile data
indicates that in the last 10 years the surface of exposed mudflat has risen by some 1.5m. This
rate of deposition and the somewhat unpredictable nature of the intertidal areas will have a
bearing upon access, navigation and development proposals.
The development of GIS and remote sensing for the area is providing an insight to the dynamic
nature of Morecambe Bay and changing channel alignment. Only time will tell but it would
appear that the Stone Jetty introduces some form of control and stability to its immediate
surroundings, see Appendix E.
Navigational access to the Morecambe seafront area is obtained by the Lune Deep channel and
Grange Channel, the former also providing access to the port of Heysham. Tidal currents
experienced in these channels can be significant, reaching in excess of 2.5 knots in some
locations and at certain states of the tide meaning passage plans require careful consideration.
Comments and site observations confirm a strong tidal current exists at the end of the Stone
Jetty.
Site observations also confirm a number of moorings in the deeper channel that runs parallel to
the site and foreshore. Further moorings were seen to exist in the sheltered pockets created
by the new groynes and a total of 25 - 35 moorings were observed. This number varies
throughout the season and is relatively unregulated.
The site benefits from a concrete slipway (access for RNLI hovercraft & fisherman), a timber
slipway and causeway over the sands and mudflats that is utilised by fisherman for the landing
of their catch. This functionality and practice will require consideration in any proposal.
Three other public slipways are to be found at varying locations along Morecambe seafront and
promenade. Each slipway has been designated for particular use (power, non-power/sail, etc)
and provides a very useful facility for marine related activity.
An extract of the Admiralty chart below identifies Morecambes location with respect to
navigation.
Morecambe
Admiralty Chart Copyright UKHO licence no.11208

2.3 Environmental Baseline
Geology and Soils

Information on the geology and ground conditions was obtained from the information contained
within British Geological Survey (BGS) mapping and site investigation borehole logs provided
by Lancaster City Council.
The BGS mapping shows that the ground conditions comprise made ground which is underlain
by quaternary drift materials consisting of Tidal Flat Deposits. These are recent deposits
comprising fine to medium grained sand with shell fragments. Glacial till is also shown in the
area but not at the site itself along with fluvial deposits. The drift deposits are underlain by
Millstone Grit of Namurian age. This is comprised of sedimentary strata including sandstones,
mudstones and siltstones.
No published faults are shown on the mapping with the closest located approximately 1.5km
east of the site.
Site investigation data received from Lancaster City Council confirms that the intertidal area
located immediately north of the site comprises silts and sands.
Hydrogeology
The Environment Agency website (www.environment-agency.gov.uk) states that the site is
underlain by a Secondary A aquifer. This is defined by the Environment Agency as permeable
layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some
cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly
classified as minor aquifers.
The Environment Agency website also shows aquifers present in the superficial geology. None
are shown directly within the site although one is shown along the eastern edge of the western
groyne. This is shown as a Secondary A aquifer. A Secondary B aquifer is shown
immediately north of the site between the two groynes. Secondary B aquifers are defined by
the Environment Agency as predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield
limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable
horizons and weathering.
These are generally the water-bearing parts of non-aquifers. These areas can be vulnerable to
pollution from construction activities or any contamination that might be present on site.
The aquifer is considered to be the millstone grit bedrock which underlies the site. The
overlying strata should provide some protection to the underlying aquifer. However, the
alluvium could provide a potential pathway for contaminants to reach the aquifer.
The Environment Agency website states that no groundwater abstractions are located within
1km of the site. The site is not located within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ).
Hydrology, Drainage and Flood Risk
The site is located immediately adjacent to Morecambe Bay. Ordnance Survey mapping shows
that the nearest surface water feature to the site other than Morecambe Bay is an unnamed
drain located 300m south of the site.
No surface water or potable abstractions are located within 1km of the site.

The Environment Agency flood map indicates that the site is located in an existing Flood Zone
1, an area not designated for flooding. However, the area immediately north of the site within
Morecambe Bay is located in Flood Zone 3, an area likely to flood in a 1 in 100 year fluvial flood
event and/or 1 in 200 year tidal flood event per year. The flood map shows that the area is
protected by flood defences.
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) requires any development
over 1 hectare to have a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
No information was obtained regarding the existing drainage at the site.
Cultural Heritage
The archaeological and heritage implications were assessed on the basis of an initial survey of
the known archaeological and historic remains on and in the vicinity of the site. In addition to
this an assessment was made of the likelihood that as yet undocumented and unknown
archaeological remains exist at the site.
Two historical features are located at the site are designated. These are the:
o War Memorial Listed Grade II; and

o Walls and Entrance Piers to the Midland Hotel Listed Grade II.
In addition to this a number of non-designated features located at the site which are listed in the
Historic Environmental Record (HER) for Lancashire. This includes a Goods Shed and
Lavatories, both of which since been demolished.
The site is also located within a conservation area; Morecambe Bay Conservation Area, that
has been designated to recognise the area as having special architectural or historic interest,
the character of which is desirable to preserve or enhance.
A number of designated features are located in close proximity to the site. These include:
o Former Morecambe Promenade Station Listed Grade II;

o Church of St. Lawrence Listed Grade II;
o Barclays Bank Listed Grade II;
o Midland Hotel Listed Grade II*;
o The Winter Gardens Listed Grade II*;
o Numbers 217, 219 and 221 Marine Road Central Listed Grade II; and
o Stone Jetty Station and Lighthouse Listed Grade II.
No Scheduled Ancient Monuments are located at the site or in close proximity (500m). A new
marina has the potential to affect the above features directly and indirectly. Direct effects could
include loss and damage to the features whilst indirect effects could include impacts associated
with the features setting.
Nature Conservation
The terrestrial part of the site is predominantly comprised of hardstanding and areas of amenity
grassland and introduced shrubs. These features are associated with the promenade and
formal gardens. These are habitats of limited ecological value. These habitats offer little
potential for protected species but this would need to be confirmed further through specialist
survey.
A number of statutory environmental designations are located within 2km of the site. These
include:
o Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA);

o Morecambe Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC); and

o Morecambe Bay Ramsar Site; and
o Morecambe Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
The internationally designated areas listed above, the SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites, are
collectively known as Natura 2000 sites.
The boundary of the above areas are located immediately north of the site in the intertidal zone
between the two groynes. These are shown in Appendix A Figure 4. The SPA and SAC,
collectively known as European Marine Sites, along with the Ramsar designation are all of
international importance due to their qualifying features. The SSSI designation is of national
importance.
Information obtained from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) states that the SAC
has been designated under the Habitats Directive as the area supports Annex 1 habitats,
notably:
o Estuaries, mudflats and sandflats not covered by water at low tide;

o Large shallow inlets and bays;
o Perennial vegetation of stone banks, Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and
sand;
o Atlantic salt meadows;
o Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes);
o Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes); and
o Humid dune slacks.
The JNCC (www.jncc.gov.uk) website states that the SPA has been designated as it supports
internationally important assemblages of wetland birds.
The Morecambe Bay Ramsar site has been designated as the bay supports wetland habitats.
The Natural England website (www.naturalengland.gov.uk) states that the SSSI has been
designated as Morecambe Bay supports aggregations of non-breeding birds; Teal Anas crecca,
Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, and Turnstone Arenaria interpres, and
saltmarshes.
A proposed marina would have the potential for significant adverse effects on the qualifying
features of the designated areas through processes such as dredging, noise, release of
contaminants/sediments and pollution. It is likely that a Habitats Regulations Assessment will
be required to establish the risks and effects of a proposed marina. This will require extensive
ecological surveys to establish baseline information. This was confirmed following initial
consultation with Natural England. They acknowledged that a new marina could be feasible in
theory. However it would have to be demonstrated that the development would not have an
adverse impact on the qualifying features of the environmental designations and given the land
take, compensatory habitat would likely be necessary. However, without any detailed proposals
they would not be able to comment further.
Air Quality
Lancaster City Council has not declared any Air Quality Management Areas in Morecambe.
Road traffic and construction activities are likely to be the dominant sources of air pollution
during the construction phase. The A589 road along the seafront in Morecambe is a main route
through the town. However, there are no sensitive receptors (i.e. schools or residential
properties) located in immediate proximity to the site. Operational effects will be dictated by the
number of additional trips a marina would create. Diesel based marine traffic could also
adversely affect localised air quality. A calculation of the effect of construction and operation
phase traffic to the new site may be required and would need to be confirmed with the local
authority.

Noise
Given the scale of the development, an assessment of noise impacts associated with the
development would most likely be required.
Noise generated during construction is likely to have an impact on noise sensitive receptors
such as residential housing and local businesses, particularly from operations such as piling.
The local authority may impose planning conditions to mitigate or attenuate the effect of noise
during construction and operation.
Contaminated Land
A review of Ordnance Survey historical mapping has shown that a number of potentially
contaminative land uses to be present. From 1848 to 1933 a railway was located extending
along the southern part of the site onto the southern stone breakwater. This was used for the
transportation of cattle, iron ore and tourist passengers. Numerous sidings and yards were
located along the railway. Potential contamination issues associated with railways include the
presence of hydrocarbons and herbicides.
The majority of the site is located in an area that has been infilled and reclaimed from the sea.
This was undertaken in the mid 1930s when the area was infilled for the construction of a large
outdoor swimming pool and paddling pool. This was present until the mid 20th Century. There
is potential that the material used to infill the pool development could contain contaminants that
could affect human health, controlled water and flora and fauna.
The intertidal area immediately north of the site between the two groynes was used for breaking
ships between 1913 and the mid 1930s. This was undertaken by Thomas Ward Shipbreakers,
who were one of the biggest ship breaking companies in the country at that time.
Ship breaking has the potential to yield significant contaminants such as Polychloro Biphenyls
(PCBs), solvents, asbestos and hydrocarbons. There is potential that this process could have
released contaminants that may be trapped within the sediments in the area. These may be
released through activities such as dredging or piling, which in turn could impact the ecological
assets in Morecambe Bay. However, given the time periods it is not likely that some of the
complex contaminants such as PCBs, asbestos or solvents were common in ships of that time.
Therefore, potential contamination may be limited to hydrocarbons but this would need to be
confirmed through site investigation. No contamination testing was included as part of the site
investigation supplied by Lancaster City Council.
Other potentially contaminative land uses in the area include laundries and undefined works.
Hydrodynamics
The site is located in Morecambe Bay, a large area of sand flats with saltmarsh areas that acts
as a sink for sand and silt material. The area has dynamic, complex tidal flows that dominate
sediment transport in Morecambe Bay, with the net direction being controlled by asymmetry
between the flood and ebb tides. Material is therefore generally transported into the Bay along
the coastline and outwards in the centre of the Bay resulting in a large sink for sediments.
A number of studies have been undertaken as part of a Shoreline Management Plan which is in
the process of being updated. This has shown that the estuary dynamics within Morecambe
Bay are affected by crossings and embankments that can fix channels. Flash flows can also
produce significant morphological change.
Processes such as dredging and the introduction of fixed structures in the Bay have the
potential to result in effects such as fixing of channels, erosion and significant morphological
change.

It is likely that significant modelling and studies will be required to establish the morphological
and hydrodynamic effects on Morecambe Bay if the proposal is taken forward.
2.4 Planning and Master Plan Context

It is evident from the recessed topography of the former Bubbles leisure park that this area of
the development site will offer the most appropriate location for a marina facility. However, the
open aspect of the site needs to be retained in certain key areas. Therefore it would be
inappropriate to build on all sides of the marina. .
The Midland Hotel is of sufficient significance and import as an iconic structure to act as a
design generator and driver of future development. Besides retaining key vistas, it should act as
a reference to ancillary development opportunities to the north within the former Harbour Band
area.
The setting of the hotel would be enhanced by the retention and improvement of the promenade
gardens and war memorial, and this would provide a more focussed and appropriately framed
area of public realm within the surrounding development. They currently feel somewhat lost
amid the rather run down area in the vicinity, but could be made to be a special and intrinsic
part of a broader master plan.
Consideration will need to be given to some form of traffic calming along Marine Road and
improvement to the commercial forecourts. Zebra crossings (or indeed pedestrian priority
zones) should be located to take advantage of any improved pedestrian linkages to the town.
New development to the east and west edges of the marina should be of a scale appropriate to
the hotel and could feature commercial uses at ground level sympathetic to Morecambes
heritage as a visitor seaside destination.
The waterfront units on the northern promenade edge should maintain the open feel of the
development.

3 MARKET ASSESSMENT
3.1 North West Coast

The North West coastline, of which 80% has been designated as of European importance for
wildlife and international importance for birds, offers a gateway from the Irish Sea to the North
West of England. Currently North West ports handle over 50 million tonnes of cargo for
distribution throughout the UK and Europe on an annual basis; however the current commercial
operations in the form of sea freight, fishing industries and passenger transportation represent
only a modest figure in comparison with historic activities of the same nature.
With traditional fishing methods diminishing and forming only a relatively minor market sector of
the economy and living heritage of the north west coast, opportunities for diversification into the
leisure industry are being investigated and in some instances progressed at several of the ports,
harbours and beaches.
Lancashires coastal location makes it an ideal area for potential residential, leisure and tourism
opportunities to be investigated. With an area of 3,075 square kilometres it is one of the largest
shire counties, with a total population of 1.2 million people and 80% of the county is officially
classed as rural.
With over 4.7 million visitors and 6.7 million tourist days in 2008 the City of Lancaster district in
which Morecambe is located has a solid number of visitors, when the population of only 133,194
(UK census 2001) is taken into account. A proportion of this is attributable to Morecambe
confirming its legacy as a seaside and tourist destination.
Morecambe provided total revenue in 2008 of 135.71 million, from total revenue of 269.62
million for the Lancaster area. This figure of almost 50% demonstrates the importance of
Morecambe to the sustained attraction of visitors to the North West Coastline and need to
safeguard its attraction for the future. It is noted that Lancashire maintains a 2.9 billion
economy.
A review of Figure 2 in Appendix A indicates the urban areas of Preston, Blackburn and Bolton
could be regarded as catchments and potential customers for a marina at Morecambe although
the corridor in which Manchester lies will be drawn more towards Liverpool and North Wales.
3.2 Economic Benefits of Coastal Marinas

It is worth considering the economic benefits of coastal marinas as many of the principle drivers
at work will also apply to the existing and potential development of the study site. The economic
benefit of coastal marinas throughout the U.K. was subject to a detailed study during 2007 by
the British Marine Federation (BMF). A high level summary of the key findings is highlighted
below, for a fuller understanding reference should be made to the full report1.
Coastal Marinas are closely linked to tourism and leisure as they provide infrastructure and
services for people to gain access to the water and participate in water based activities. They
also serve as visitor attractions whether as a stand alone operation, or when linked with local
interests.
Marinas generate local and wider economic impacts in varying ways, the key factors of which
are outlined below:
Marina fees paid by both visiting and long term berth boaters, support output and
employment among marina operators
1
Economic Benefits of Coastal marinas, UK and Channel Islands September 2007 British Marine Federation

Marina operators in turn purchase goods and support services from local firms,
generating output and employment in the supply chain
Resident boaters spend capital on local goods and services to include retail, food,
drink, accommodation and vessel maintenance services
Marinas attract critical mass to coastal locations, benefiting the local and wider
tourist industry
With demand for coastal marinas remaining high, the development of additional
berthing supply within the U.K. will continue to support the local and wider U.K.
economy
Marinas carry a positive effect on property value both with direct access/views of
the facility and within the locality.
The most significant commercial impact of coastal marinas is apportioned to on site businesses,
for example chandlers, boat repairs, retail, and catering. Visitors to the facilities spend money
on goods and services within the location which supports further employment.
Overall employment statistics taken from case study examples throughout the U.K. confirm that
for every job directly related to core marina operations, a further 12 jobs are created within the
local economy.
Of the 230 coastal Marinas within the U.K., The North West enjoys only a marginal 4% market
share generating a total of 2.78 million Gross Value Added through core Marina Operations.
The activity generated by coastal marinas holds measurable direct, indirect and induced effects
to the local economy, examples of which are detailed in Table 3.2 below.
Source of
Direct Indirect Induced
impact
Employment and GVA

Employment and
Boating Employment and GVA* resulting from spending
GVA among
expenditure of Marina operator by Marina and supplier
suppliers to Marina
employees
Employment and GVA Employment and

Employment and GVA
Tourism and among businesses GVA among
resulting from spending
leisure supplying food, drink, suppliers to leisure
by businesses and
expenditure accommodation and and tourism
supplier employees
retail goods businesses
Table 3.2 Examples of marina impacts upon local economies *GVA Gross Value Added
Total employment in the Marine industry is estimated at 35,000 full time employees, of which
1,700 are directly employed to carryout core operations within the coastal marina sector.

3.3 The UK Leisure Boat Market
The marina industry has enjoyed a steady increase in demand for the letting of marina berths
for leisure craft over the last 12 years or more. The more recent economic downturn aside, the
last 6 years have been particularly strong.
In the period 2005/6 the U.K. Leisure marine sector generated an annual turnover of 2.8
billion, directly contributing over 1 billion to the U.K. economy and employing 35,000 full time
staff. Since 1997, this market has been consistently growing at a typical rate of 8% per annum.
In a British Marine Federation (BMF) report, it is also stated that tourism spend linked to the UK
leisure boating industry represents a further 2.2 billion contributing to related employment of a
further 63,000 full time staff. The U.K. industry is however geared around two key geographic
locations, namely the south east and south west regions, which account for 60% of total
revenue and 53% full time employment.
The U.K. coastal marina sector in terms of operating costs alone has a turnover of 113 million
and employs over 1,600 full time staff. These figures represent core activities excluding
boatyard facilities, fuelling and the associated hospitality. The marina sector is closely and
economically linked to retail, brokerage, boat repair, boat charter, tourism and hospitality
extending out from the core marina activity and into the surrounding areas.
The U.K. marine leisure industry and in particular boat sales have been extremely positive
throughout this period although the provision of new marina berths has not been able to
increase at the same rate.
There are 230 coastal marinas in the U.K. providing over 45,000 marina berths. Table 3.3
illustrates the number by region of marina pontoon berths currently installed.
Region No. Marinas Total capacity % of total Berths
Scotland 35 4,503 10%

North West 10 1,958 4%
North East 6 1,505 3%
Northern Ireland 9 1,324 3%
Isle Of Man 2 190 0%
Yorkshire & Humberside 3 590 1%
East Midlands 4 618 1%
Wales 13 3,525 8%
South West 44 8,613 19%
The East coast 25 5,357 12%
London 7 790 2%
South East 74 16,660 37%
Total 230 45,460 100%
Table 3.3 - Availability by region of marina pontoon berths
Over the same ten year period the supply of new marina berths, through new developments or
expansion projects within existing facilities has failed to keep pace with market demand. The
main reason for this lack of market growth has been due to restrictions caused by
environmental, planning and geographic constraints. Across the whole of the UK, relatively few
viable sites remain available for development.

A limited number of new or re-configuration developments have been granted consent in the
last four years although by contrast, applications and development plans around the U.K.
coastlines were numerous. With the exception of Fleetwood Marina no notable additional
berths have been installed within the north west coast during this period.
3.4 Definition of the Local and Wider Market

For the purposes of this study the local market can be regarded as locations that rest within a
100 mile radius from Morecambe and could potentially influence and/or compete with any
development at Morecambe. Such locations can also be seen as possible cruising destinations
and sources of visitor activity.
The wider market is defined as beyond the 100 mile radius and is to be regarded as potential
wider cruising destinations and sources of visitor activity rather than competitive marinas. This
wider area principally captures Scotland and the east coast of Ireland.
3.5 Local Market

3.5.1 Existing Marina/Mooring Facilities
A number of moorings are to be found in Barrow-in-Furness particularly around Roa Island,

most of which are associated with the local yacht club. There are few other sheltered locations
in Morecambe Bay that lend themselves to provision of moorings, although a few are to be
found along Morecambe seafront.
The majority of these moorings are occupied by small fishing boats but a handful (<10) were
noted as small leisure craft. Out of the 30 40 full time fisherman operating in Morecambe Bay,
approximately 10 operate from Morecambe itself. The pattern of fishing and catch landed is
very much seasonal and a mixture of shellfish and white fish. In general, boats are removed
from the water in winter months for fear of storm damage.
It is noteworthy that the leisure craft observed were relatively small and of bilge or lifting keel
type which allows the vessel to ground at low tide with minimal or no damage. Furthermore, the
number of vessels was limited, reflecting the challenges of the area for boating and relatively
exposed location.
A number of marine related clubs enjoy Morecambe, most notably Morecambe and Heysham
Yacht Club (MHYC) who have a presence in both Morecambe and at Glasson Basin where
Royal Yachting Association (RYA) courses are offered. Their activity at Morecambe is primarily
geared around dinghy sailing and racing which is better suited to the tidal restrictions and
shallow depths, although the enjoyment and opportunities of cruising and completion of RYA
courses is being encouraged at Morecambe.
Membership of the club has declined in recent years to approximately 70 strong and members
would sight the coastal works impeding access to the water as a cause but the club remains
very prominent and its affiliation to the RYA is reputable. It is likely that the MHYC would have
a key role to play in any marina development.
Other clubs of note include the Morecambe Dinghy Angling Club who enable access to the sea
for day fishing trips by virtue of existing slipways and series of tractors for launch and recovery.
This practice of day sailing and use of trailers is well suited to the boating environment of
Morecambe Bay and avoids potential damage through grounding at low tide and exposure to
rough seas.

The moorings that are found at Morecambe are unregulated although various registrations and
permits are required. Therefore, the establishment of a personal mooring is in theory, a
relatively straight forward task and the small number in existence perhaps reflects the limited
tidal access and exposed location.
Leisure boat facilities within the local area are relatively few when compared to that of the South
Coast Marinas. Moreover, the limited facilities available are restricted by the tidal constraints at
each location. There are no marinas on this stretch of coast that allow access at all states of the
tide and the only full tidal access facilities within the study area are within the commercial
working ports of Heysham and Barrow-in-Furness.
The North West Coast line suits a limited day sail/visitor market with a bias towards residential
or long term berthing options. The tidal restrictions, currents and distances between safe
havens in the area mean a level of boating competency is required and commitment when
embarking on a passage.
There are a number of key boating destinations within the area, although the majority are
destinations of natural beauty rather than man-made convenience. This serves to reinforce the
lack of substantial investment in the leisure boat market within this area of coastline.
3.5.2 Local Market Berth Numbers
In the area encompassed by the 100 mile radius from Morecambe there are nine marinas,
providing a total of just over 1900 berths. As stated above, all of the marinas suffer from limited
tidal access and are all protected by a lock gate or tidal sill structure to help maintain water
levels within the basins.
Direction from Distance by sea

Marina Total Berths
Morecambe (Nautical Miles)
Maryport Marina 60.8 171
North
Whitehaven Marina 51.3 285
Morecambe
Glasson Basin 8.7 260
Fleetwood Haven 10.4 453
Preston Marina 37.4 125
South
Liverpool Marina 43.4 400
Conwy Marina 62.6 500
Deganwy Quays 62.7 165
Douglas Marina (IOM) 58.2 70
West
Peel Marina (IOM) 86.9 120
Table 3.5.2 Marinas in locality to Morecambe
Conway Marina and Deganwy Quays are highlighted because they are within 100 mile radius of
Morecambe but rest on the north coast of Wales which should be regarded as a different
market. For this reason they are discounted from further review to avoid a distortion of analysis.
The nearest marinas to the proposed location at Morecambe are Glasson Basin, Fleetwood
Haven and Preston Marina. Due to their relative proximity they are seen as immediate
competition to any Morecambe development and as such are discussed in more detail.

Glasson Basin Marina
Glasson Basin Marina is 9 nautical miles south of Morecambe and offers 260 berths run by
British Waterways Marinas Ltd (BWM). Pontoon berthing is arranged in an alongside fashion
rather than individual finger pontoon berths. The location is attractive and provides access to
not only the sea but the Lancaster Canal and inland waterway network.
The site is arranged over two historic man made basins or docks with permanents berthing
confined to the inner basin. Access to the sea requires transit via the outer basin, through a
series of lock gates and road swing bridge.
During the summer season and daylight hours the lock gates between inner and outer basins
are operated over the High Water period. Access to and from the outer basin via the main
dock gate is possible hour before High Water, with the lock gate then closing again at High
Water. During particular busy periods access to the outer sea lock basin can be achieved up to
2 hours before high water, allowing boat owners preparation time whilst moored alongside in the
outer dock. Outside of the season or daylight hours, access must be requested with 24 hours
notice.
In addition to pontoon berthing Glasson offers berth holders and visitors a boat lift out facility,
hard standing, a wet dock, fuel and other marina facilities. The location is noted for its attractive
surroundings and facilities, and operation by BWM has ensured a level of service and capital
investment in line with user expectations. At time of writing, refurbishment and improvements to
boat storage and hard standing were underway.
Glasson Sailing Club is located adjacent to the marina basins and there are cross linkages
between the two organisations.
Fleetwood
Developed in 1995 from redundant port facilities, Fleetwood marina is 10.4 nautical miles south
of Morecambe and offers 450 fully serviced pontoon berths in a locked basin. . Access to the
Associated British Ports (ABP) owned and operated port is restricted to approximately 1
hours either side of high water when free flow occurs.

Unlike Glasson Basin, access is possible on all high tides and a recognised lock operation is
introduced during the busy summer periods which increases the access window to 2 hours
either side of High Water. The drying channel outside of the basin is however, a further limiting
factor.
The facility offers boat lifting services, storage ashore, car parking and a facilities building for
marina users. The site is also home to the Fleetwood Harbour Yacht Club that offers marina
users a race calendar along with social events and clubhouse facilities.
Fleetwood Marina is one of four leisure boat marinas owned and operated by ABP within the UK
highlighting the potential for a commercially oriented port business to diversify its market share
and begin a systematic appraisal of its current and future portfolio in light of the leisure boat
market demand. This has relevance to other operations in the region and in particular the Port
of Barrow which presently has limited leisure boat facilities but is operated by ABP.
It is noteworthy that in 2009 ABP increased the berthing provision at Fleetwood by 150 berths
through the introduction of pontoons to the southern Fish Dock.
Preston Marina
Preston Marina is located within a historic dock, 37 nautical miles from Morecambe and differs
from the other marina locations in that it is 10 miles inland, with access to the sea via the river
Ribble. In combination with wider redevelopment initiatives, pontoon berthing was introduced in
1989 with further additions in 1991 and 1992, leading to a marina of 125 berths run by Preston
Marine Services Ltd. As a historic commercial port, water in impounded by a series of lock and
storm gates that are operated at High Water.

The facility is accessible 2 hours either side of High Water during the summer season but winter
months require 24 hours notification for access. The River Ribble is tidally restricted being very
shallow and drying well above Chart Datum in many locations, a factor that significantly impact
upon usage and access.
The marina is relatively modern and offers lift out facilities, hard standing, fuel and is
surrounded by complimentary facilities such as chandlery and boat sales.
3.5.3 Access to Sea
Access to sea or the tidal access window is one of the most significant factors for both visiting
vessels and long term residential customers.
Visiting vessels require the largest possible tidal window when planning a passage to their
chosen destination. As this stretch of coast offers a limited number of berthing facilities the
ability to ensure that there is sufficient water depth at a given location is further compounded.
Should a passage to the North West Coast take longer than envisaged (due to tide/wind
conditions), there are limited options in regards to a bolt hole or safe haven to await the
following high tide. Facilities with a longer tidal access window and/or that offer easily
accessible shelter will therefore be most attractive. This will also apply to boat owners
considering their choice of home port and opportunities to leave and access their berth.
Long term/residential berthing customers also want the longest possible window to maximise
the potential use of their vessel. The greater the tidal access a facility offers the greater the
appeal to end users.

Table 3.5.3 outlines the tidal access windows during neap and spring tides in the local market
area, based upon a typical leisure vessel of 1.5m draft.
MLWS MLWN Height Access on Access on

Facility name Restriction
Spring Neap
Above Chart
Above Chart Datum
Datum
Maryport Marina 0.9 2.5 Gate Sill 3.1m 2.5 HW 3.0 HW

Whitehaven
1.0 2.4 Drying Channel 1.0m 4.5 HW 24 hours
Marina
Morecambe 1.1 2.9 Drying Channel 4.5 2.5 HW 2.0 HW
Drying
Ravenglass 0.9 2.6 3.5m 2.2 HW 2.5 HW
Bar/Channel
Glasson Basin - - Limited by gate operation - 0.75HW - 0.75 HW
Fleetwood
1.2 3.0 Limited by gate operation 1.5 HW 0.75 HW
Haven
Preston Marina 1.0 2.9 Drying Channel 2.9 1.5 HW 1.5 HW
Liverpool Marina 0.9 2.9 Lock Sill 4.5 2.25 HW 1.5 HW
Douglas (IOM) 0.8 2.4 Gate Sill 2.6m 3.0 HW 3.5 HW

Peel Marina
0.4 1.5 Drying Channel 1.4 2.0 HW 2.0 HW
(IOM)
Barrow *S.C 1.1 3.0 Drying Channel 3.4m 2.2 HW 3.8 HW
Table 3.5.3 Tidal access windows (*SC denotes sailing club)
The average access window to marinas within the 100 mile radius is in the order of 2.2 hours
either side of high water, with a range of between 1 and 4 hours.
It is apparent that no marina facility in this region of coastline offers unrestricted 24 hour access
and there is a significant range between locations and access offered. It also suggests that
boat owners will expect some restriction and modest improvements over existing operations will
be welcomed.
Coupled with access is the distance of any marina or berthing facility from the sea because the
time taken to travel out to sea must be taken into account by the boat owner. Table 3.5.4
indicates the distances and estimated travel time to and from the open water at each marina
facility within the 100 mile radius.
The tidal restrictions imposed in this region of coastline lead to a pattern of sailing and leisure
boating that works around the tidal cycle. Activity centred around a single high water is likely to
be limited to dinghy or day boat sailing whereas cruising will require passage on one high water
with return or arrival at a destination on the next.

Distance to Sea Approx. Time to sea Typical Tidal Access
Marina
(nM) at 5 knots (hours) (Hours HW)
Maryport Marina 0.3 0.06 2.5

Whitehaven Marina 0.3 0.06 4.5
Morecambe 0.5 0.1 2.5
Glasson Basin 4.1 0.82 -0.75
Fleetwood Haven 2 0.4 1.5
Preston Marina 14 2.8 1.5
Liverpool Marina 10 2 2.25
Douglas Marina (IOM) 1 0.2 3.0
Peel Marina (IOM) 0.5 0.1 2.0
Table 3.5.4 Tidal access window and distance to sea.
3.6 Wider Market (Cruising and Visitor Activity)

The visiting boat market in the Irish Sea is a relatively modest sector of the leisure boat industry
when compared to that of the UK. Vessels on passage north or south through the Irish Sea may
call into the Cumbrian or Lancashire Coastline to seek refuge or replenish stocks.
The North West coastline will always compete with the east coast of Ireland for vessels making
passage north and south through the Irish Sea, not least due to the exceptional level of
facilities, tidal access and scenery that may be found throughout the east coast of Ireland.
Typical cruising routes and connections are illustrated in Appendix B, Figure 6.
Due to the exposure to prevailing winds and harsh coastline, the North West coast demands
accurate navigation and there are few unrestricted berthing destinations throughout its entire
length. This coupled with the numerous sandbanks, Lee shores in prevailing winds and a
significant tidal range of up to ten metres in some areas, which may be increased due to
atmospheric pressure, deters some leisure boaters from the area.
Data from Whitehaven Marina for example, indicates a total visiting yacht count of 845 during
2008, with an average L.O.A. of 10.8m. With 285 berths available, this creates a ratio of a little
under three visiting vessels for every berth available. By contrast a popular south coast marina
destination with 216 berths available has visitor numbers of 18,000 per annum generating a
ratio of 83 visiting vessels per berth.
Reports from the Royal Yachting Association confirm that few vessels pass through the Irish
Sea without stopping, identifying a significant visitor boat market. However the report continues
to outline that vessels making passage north or south of the Irish Sea, will tend to leave the Isle
of Man to the east and utilise the east coast of Ireland and its numerous unrestricted marina
facilities.
Tidal access will always remain the key constraint in considering the north west coastline as a
point of refuge, however the somewhat exceptional tidal access window and strategic position
enjoyed at Whitehaven Marina (in comparison to its neighbouring competitors) make this
Harbour the current chosen destination on the north west coastline from which to explore the
north west of England, Scotland, Ireland and The Isle of Man.

Southern Scotland berthing destinations have potential to form part of the cruising routes
utilised by residents and visitors of Morecambe and are noted below.
Kirkcudbright
The 'Blue Flag' facility offers a safe anchorage and is located upriver from the leading mark at
Little Ross Lighthouse. The access channel is well buoyed and safe passage is possible to the
facility 3 hours either side of high water. On site facilities include storage ashore, boat lifting, 50
fully serviced pontoon berths along with a further 40 drying berths, fuel by arrangement and
chandlery and provisions stores.
Isle of Whithorn
The Isle of Whithorn is a tidally restricted drying harbour. The facility provides an attractive
visitor destination although only vessels that are able to take the ground will utilise the harbour.
On site facilities include fresh water and power to a number of harbour berths, shower facilities,
yacht club and fuel by arrangement.
Portpatrick
On the Mull of Galloway, Portpatrick harbour has full tidal access although facilities are
restricted. Berthing type is made up of both fore and aft moorings and limited alongside quay
wall (60 berths in total). Pubs and restaurants line the harbour and located above the village
there are a number of hotels with idyllic sea views. The harbour is an ideal stopover for vessels
making passage across to the North of Ireland.
Both Northern Ireland and the east coast of Ireland lie within the cruising routes of vessels from
Morecambe making passage through the Irish Sea. The table below provides a summary of the
north and east coast Ireland facilities that lie within the cruising area of Morecambe and the
North West coast. The most notable feature of all but one facility is the unrestricted tidal access
to each marina.
per metre per

No of
Area Marina annum ( exchange
Berths Access rate 0.858)
Rathlin Island 30 Full tide n/a

N.
Ballycastle Marina 74 Full tide 187.61
Glenarm Marina 45 Full tide 179.15
Carrickfergus Marina 300 Full tide 243.84
Bangor Marina 565 Full tide 267.48
N.E.
Copeland Marina 52 Full tide 136.35
Portaferry Marina 30 Full tide 111.97
Phennick Cove Marina 83 Full tide 155.51
Carlingford Marina 300 Full tide 227.37
Malahide 350 + - 4hrs 340.63
Howth Marina 350 Full tide n/a
E.
Dublin City Moorings 25 Full tide n/a
Poolbeg Marina 100 Full tide 333.76
Dun Laoghaire 800 Full tide 390.39
Table 3.6 Wider Market Berth availability and Access

3.7 Berth Mix
The average sail to motor boat ratio for the study area is in the order of 70% to 30%
respectively. This differs from other well established boating regions where a more balance
ratio may be found and is due to a number of factors;
The lack of suitable day boating opportunities that suit motor boats rather than sail
boats.
Ability of sail boats, particularly smaller craft with lifting keels or bilge keels to take the
ground during times of low water. Such practice would not be recommended for motor
boats with fixed drive systems and of high value.
Historical and boating culture which tends towards sailing.

It is also worth noting that the general size of vessels is slightly smaller than would be found
elsewhere, especially the south coast. This again reflects the tidal restrictions of the North West
and advantages a smaller boat offers in terms of reduced draft and ease of preparation, launch
and recovery, etc.
The relatively recent changes in the derogation of red diesel (November 2008) and continued
uncertainty as to the effect on the industry means the higher ratio of sail boats does provide
some degree of stability to the potential market.
3.8 Tariff Rates & Pricing Structures

3.8.1 Regional Annual Berthing Tariff Comparison
When assessing the North West coast annual berthing tariff in comparison with that of other UK
regions it is evident that the returns on investment will be relative to the region due to the
significant variations in tariffs that the local marina market can sustain. For example Fleetwood,
achieving a little over 158 per metre average annual berthing tariff is amongst the lowest in the
U.K. The south and south west region providing the highest annual tariff rates in the U.K.,
average 283 per metre per year with several notable hot-spots in the central south coast
where tariffs exceed 500/m/annum.
Interestingly, notwithstanding site specific design features such as water depth, wave climate,
pontoon configurations and installation methods, the purchase costs of pontoon equipment
throughout the UK is consistent. Returns on investment per berth therefore may be summarised
against the annual berthing rates attained at each region. In this regard the North West coast
offers a significantly reduced return on investment when compared to the south coast marinas.
Evidence of the regional variances is further confirmed by comparing the average North West
tariff of 149/m with the tidally restricted south coast marina of Emsworth in Chichester Harbour
which provides access at only two hours either side of High water and charges 248/m. Almost
twice that of Glasson Basin Marina.
3.8.2 Local Market Tariffs
From the local market annual berthing analysis undertaken, it is evident that Whitehaven is the
most expensive berthing destination in the North West coastal area. This is due to a number of
factors including the range of facilities provided, proximity to the Town and crucially, tidal
access.
Table 4.7 below summarises the annual berthing tariffs charged at each of the local market
locations for the berthing year 2009/10:

Table 3.8 local market annual tariff rates as at 29th October 2010 excluding VAT
The annual berthing tariffs observed on the west coast are, in our experience, commensurate
with the level of services offered, tidal access window and regional averages.
A number of observations can be drawn from Table 3.8;

The average tariff across all marinas noted is 149/m (excluding VAT).
The higher tariff applied at Whitehaven reflects the improved tidal access and position
the marina holds both regionally and locally in the town.
The strategic positions, cruising areas, catchment and customer offer provided by
Liverpool allows the application of higher tariffs.
The Isle of Man has been included as a comparison of tariff, services and as a cruising
destination, however it should be taken into consideration that the tariffs quoted take account
the isolation of facilities on the Isle of Man and may therefore bear no direct relation to the tariffs
offered at the other marinas.
Similarly, tariffs encountered at locations such as Workington and Barrow which are both below
40/m per annum, reflect operation by a Sailing Club, the limited facilities and tidal restrictions.
It would therefore be misleading to set these against a tariff structure applied to a North West
coast marina facility.
Clearly there are a number of drivers that will dictate an appropriate and competitive annual
berthing tariff that might be achieved at Morecambe as noted below:
Access to the sea at a range of tides
On site services, facilities and support industry
Proximity to the Town
The local economy
Local competition from other facilities (Fleetwood & Glasson)
Cruising hubs and routes

3.8.3 Overnight Berthing Rates
Overnight berthing rates are again a function of the offer available to the visitor and reflect the
level of access, services, local attractions, etc. The North West coast average is 1.63/m.
Income derived from visitor berthing is unlikely to be a significant financial driver but perhaps
more importantly, each location provides an additional berthing option on the North West
coastline and in so doing, encourages development.
3.9 Local Market Developments

Like many parts of the UK the North West of England attracts many development programmes,
often with a focus on the potential of the waterfront linked to associated leisure berthing. The
long-term trend continues to see a growth in the leisure boating market and the North West
coast is no exception.
There are therefore a number of development proposals within the local market area which may
present future competition to Morecambe. These are noted as follows;
Whitehaven
Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners have plans to further develop the inner harbour and
increase berthing availability from 285 to 425. This expansion programme has been brought
about by the consistent berthing demand that the facility has enjoyed since its opening in 1998,
and also the need to increase boat numbers to maintain a viable business.
Barrow
Barrow Regeneration which was formally known as West Lakes Rennaisance have revealed
ambitious plans to regenerate the waterfront at Barrow to create a multimillion pound mixed
development comprising of a Marina Village, Leisure Marina and Waterfront Business.
The Leisure Marina is proposed situated on the edge of Buccleuch Dock, adjacent to a new
Marina Village, and could boast 350 berths. Access would be via an entry canal, enabling boats
to transfer from Walney Channel to the Marina.
It is reported that once market conditions improve, Barrow Regeneration will team up with the
private sector to develop the marina and a watersports centre.
The interests of Associated British Ports (ABP) are likely to feature in such a development and
as an existing leisure marina operator, their experience will assist in driving the development
forward.
Barrow Regeneration is the lead organisation for Marina Village working with Barrow Borough
Council, Northwest Regional Development Agency, Homes and Communities Agency and Story
Group.
The ability to benefit from existing infrastructure (potentially reduced environmental impact)
combined with good shelter and potential 24 hours access to the sea mean any marina
development at Barrow would pose significant competition to Morecambe. The timing of such a
development will also have implications and the potential to satisfy any latent demand in the
North West; certainly in the short to medium term.
Preston Marina
Preston Marina has expanded over the past 15 or so years but the redundant dock in which the
marina is located remains relatively open. Although proposals for further development of the
marina are not advertised, potential exists to increase berthing significantly.

Lytham St Annes
The development of leisure berthing at Lytham St Annes has been muted but developments
thus far have not featured such berthing and at time of writing, this is not considered to have
major implications for Morecambe.

4 MARKET DEMAND, OPPORTUNITIES AND MARINA PROFILE
With reference to the Market Assessment, this section will establish the potential and
opportunity that exists for the development of marine leisure berthing in the North West and how
that may be applied to Morecambe.
The Market Assessment has confirmed that there is demand for marina berthing across the UK
and if the long-term or underlying trend is considered, this demand is exceeding supply.
However, the demand for a particular marina location is influenced by a number of factors
including geographical location, convenience, catchment, sailing areas, support facilities and
berth pricing.
The North West coast exhibits a number of physical attributes that impact upon the market, not
least the tidal range, shallow waters along the coastline and exposure to the Irish Sea.
These and other constraints have had an impact on the popularity and rate of growth of marina
leisure activity in the region which are matched by relatively low tariff charges when compared
to other areas of the UK. The market in the North West may be regarded as being in its infancy
and the limited facilities available to cater for the typical leisure boater continue to curb the
potential of this coastline.
The resident berth holder market in the North West is complimented by visitor activity but once
again, the constraints noted above restrain the number of visitors a particular location can
expect. In addition, the east coast of Ireland can offer a more attractive option to boat owners
making the passage up the Irish Sea due to the fully serviced marinas and better tidal access
windows on offer. Visitor activity is therefore much reduced when compared to the south coast
of England.
In terms of customer choice and the catchment area relative to Morecambe, Glasson Basin and
Fleetwood and Preston are perhaps the most significant competitors to any facility, although
Whitehaven cannot be ignored due to the benefits that it offers.
Whitehaven continues to report healthy annual occupancy figures and prior to 2007, many
marinas in the area including Maryport, Glasson and Fleetwood were reporting waiting lists. In
2009 Fleetwood introduced a further 150 new berths which addressed the waiting list; now it is
reporting that in excess of 50 berths remain vacant. A similar situation currently exists at
Glasson Basin with a number of berths available.
Notwithstanding the above the region does enjoy a level of leisure boating and it may be
concluded that the marine leisure market could sustain another marina facility on the north west
coastline but a long-term vision and strategy must be accepted and it will rely to some extent on
investment and development throughout the region. In addition, it will be essential that any new
facility adopts a competitive position, offering modern fully services facilities and good access to
the sea.
At this point it is considered appropriate to complete a SWOT analysis for Morecambe and the
study site itself as a potential marina berthing location. This will help formulate a marina profile
in an informed manner that is best suited to Morecambe whilst ensuring it adopts a competitive
position in the market.

SWOT ANALYSIS:-
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Potential marina site is clear. Tidal access restrictions.

Reasonable links to town. Challenging and somewhat
Good geographical location in relation unpredictable sailing area.
to other sailing destinations. Distance to open sea during lower
Active sailing club & boating activity states of the tide.
Attractive location and access to other Need for various licences and
interests such as the Lake District and consents.
Forest of Bowland Anticipated duration to secure all
Potential linkages with regeneration consents.
initiatives. Potentially limited site area.
Limited cruising ground and distances
to destinations.
Limited landside facilities and
supporting marine trade.
Potential need to dredge and maintain
an access channel.
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Marina could be a key driver and Environmental impact imposes

catalyst for the regeneration of town. obligations that cannot be fulfilled.
Source of new and diverse Modest return on investment means if
employment. is difficult to attract a marina operator.
Long term trend of more leisure berths Development of leisure berthing at
in the UK and North West. Barrow.
Site readily available for development. Current economic downturn continues
Improved offer when measured for a length of time and long-term
against existing leisure berthing in area. demand for leisure berthing suffers.
Create a new development without
significant design constraints.
4.1 Berth Numbers and Berth Mix

With consideration to the North West market it is proposed that the total number of new berths
that could be introduced should remain modest, at least in the short-term and where the ability
to phase development is possible. This is further tempered by the factors and attributes
associated with Morecambe, particularly the tidal access restrictions and challenging sailing
area.
A target total of 175 225 berths are therefore proposed.
A review of numerous marinas across the UK gives rise to a typical berth mix in terms of boat
size. This can be used as a baseline reference from which location specific adjustment can be
made in light of local market assessment. In the case of Morecambe it is proposed to bias a
berth mix towards smaller and sailing boats, giving rise to the mix detailed in Table 4.1.1 and
4.1.2.

Table 4.1.1 Typical Berth Mix and Proposals for Morecambe
Proposed Morecambe
Berth Mix
19 11%
35 20%
34 19%
42 24%
26 15%
13 7%
6 3%
0 0%
Total 175 100%

Table 4.1.2 Proposed Morecambe Berth Mix
4.2 Waterborne Access and Impoundment

The most significant physical constraint to any marina development at Morecambe is access to
the sea and Section 3.5.3 explored the existing arrangements at various other potentially
competing locations on the North West coast. It is this access window which will be a key
feature in establishing Morecambes position in the market and in turn have a bearing on the
viability of the marina.
The ideal situation would be to provide full tidal access to deep water but the shallow depth and
drying sands of Morecambe Bay do not readily allow for such a situation. It is therefore judged
that an access window of 4 hours or more ( 2 hours either side of high water) should be a
design requirement and would lead to a competitive market position.
Having established the marina will be tidally restricted, the options for providing access and
berthing are limited to half-tide (drying) moorings or some form of impoundment of tidal waters.

It is considered that the provision of half-tide moorings will not achieve the project objectives or
offer a service different from existing arrangements, therefore impoundment in some form is
proposed. Three options are assessed in respect of the study site.
A full Lock Structure

The major advantage of a lock structure is that it will allow water levels within the basin to be
retained at the highest possible level. In addition, it would allow vessels to enter the basin at
lower tide levels and be raised up through the locking process and in turn, extend the access
window available to the customer. If possible the lock will be designed to allow for a degree of
free flow at high water whereby all gates remain open and vessels are free to passage the lock
unobstructed.
It is worth noting that the lock gates can be designed to ensure the integrity of the coastal
defence is maintained.
Fixed tidal sill

This is the simplest form of impoundment whereby a fixed sill acts as a barrier preventing water
loss. Only when the tide rises to a height sufficient to provide depth and clearance over the sill,
will access be gained. This significantly limits the tidal access window and preliminary
investigations confirm this would not be suitable for the study site.
Tidal flap
A tidal flap or gate is an automated system which raises and lowers a physical barrier to create
an impoundment. On a rising tide, once the tidal water level matches the impoundment water
the gate will lower allowing clearance and access. The process is reversed on a falling tide.
This option has the advantage of a reduced capital and operating cost when compared to a lock
and retains a higher water level than that seen with a fixed sill.
In order to maintain the integrity of any coastal defence, it is likely the tidal flap will be
complemented by an automated storm gate.
A required minimum tidal access window of 2 hours has been identified and preliminary
assessment of tidal curves indicate that an impoundment level of 7.5m above Chart Datum
(2.6m ODN) would complement a lock arrangement and allow for a period of free-flow. In the
case of a tidal flap, a water level of 6.0 - 6.5m above Chart Datum (1.6m ODN) would be
necessary.
A minimum water depth of 2.0 3.0m should be provided within the basin area suggesting an
excavation level in the order of 4.0m above Chart Datum (1.0m below ODN).
For the purposes of this study the above figures provide for appropriate assessment but the
following points and their inter relationship will need to be considered further to optimise any
design solution.
Variation and balance between access over Neap and Spring tides.
Achievable excavation & dredge depths.
Relationship between impounded water level and quay wall height.
Basin water capacity.
Coastal defence and flood risk.
Preliminary review of site plans confirm that to a greater or lesser extent, a new dredged access
channel between basin and deep water will be required. With consideration to the desired
access window once more, a dredge depth of 4.5m above Chart Datum is proposed.
In order to establish the layout and feasibility of any channel it has been necessary to ascertain
the depth of existing natural channels and height of intertidal mudflats/sands around the study
site.

Due to the dynamic and ever changing nature of Morecambe Bay such information is not readily
available and it has been necessary to gather various pieces of data to establish a reasonable
understanding. This data is provided in Appendix E and indeed it clearly demonstrates that
depths and channels are in the main constantly changing.
Completion of the coastal defence works at Morecambe and in particular, enhancement of the
Stone Jetty has it would seem, introduced a degree of stability to a section of deeper water
around the end of the Jetty. The area remains intertidal but a dredged channel linking a marina
to this deeper water would provide opportunity for an improved access window.
However, it should be noted that a risk remains as to the long-term stability of this arrangement
and potential maintenance dredging requirement.
The assessment of impoundment water level and access channel dredge depth are illustrated in
Table 4.2 in which a boat draft/clearance of 1.5m is assumed.
HW
1.5m Draft
4.5m above CD
(Channel depth)
HW 2HR
HW
1.5m Draft
4.5m above CD
(Channel depth)
HW 3HR
Table 4.2 Tidal graphs and access windows for Morecambe

4.3 Tariff Structure
Noting the Market Assessment and assuming berths will be fully serviced including the provision
of shore side facilities, the tariff level proposed for Morecambe is shown in Table 4.3. This
gives consideration to an introductory strategy and assumes completion for spring 2014,
followed by business development that allows systematic increase in tariff above inflation to
meet regional average.
Yr 1 Tariff
(Inflation Yr 5
Baseline Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4
increase Maturity
Tariff (2% over (3% over (4% over
2010 to (4% over
(2010) inflation) inflation) inflation)
2014 at inflation)
2.5%/yr)
Morecambe
140.00 154.53 157.62 162.35 168.85 175.60
Proposed
Regional
Average 149.00 164.45 167.75 171.11 174.53 178.02
Projected
Table 4.3 Morecambe Proposed Tariff (/m)
With regard to overnight or visitor berthing, it is proposed a charge of 1.60/m be applied which
would equate to 1.77/m in 2014.
4.4 Lock Control and Marina Administration

Where a lock structure is proposed over a tidal flap/gate, a control building will be necessary
sited adjacent to the lock itself. Given the potential modest size of the marina a combined lock
control, administration building and facilities building is suggested.
Adopting a prominent position adjacent to the lock, the location should also provide the marina
administration and management with commanding views over both the entrance and marina
itself. Typical layout would comprise;
Reception area.
Administration area.
Managers office/meeting room.
Small equipment store.
Shared toilet.
Taking account of staff levels and facilities a single or part two storey building of minimum
150m will be required.
4.5 Marina Facilities

In order to position any marina development at Morecambe competitively it is necessary that it
meets customer expectations with regard to facilities such as toilets, showers, laundry, etc. This
is particularly relevant given the rivals of Glasson Basin and Fleetwood that are fully equipped
and operated by well established marina companies. Furthermore, the application of the
preferred tariff has linkages with the facilities offered.
Experience and reference to The Yacht Harbour Association Ltd (TYHA): A Code of Practice
indicates the requirements shown in Table 4.5 are applicable to a 175 berth marina.

Facility No. Male No. Female
W.C.s 4 4
Urinals 3 -
Wash Hand Basins 4 3
Showers 3 3
Washing Machine & Dryer 1
4.6 Car Parking

Published guidance from TYHA specifies a ratio of 0.75 car parking spaces per berth however,
experience at other marinas and local authority incentives suggest a ratio in the order of 0.5 can
be more appropriate. Particularly where wider re-development master plans are unfolding and
parking strategies can be established including provision for set down points and long-term
parking.
With this in mind provision for marina car parking should be in the order of 75 90.
4.7 Boat Yard Services

Customer access to boatyard services for the lifting, storage, maintenance and re-launching of
vessels is essential for the viability of a boating location and can prove to be a viable enterprise
in itself.
The provision of such services are worthy of consideration at Morecambe but perhaps not
essential for the success of the marina given the established arrangements at Glasson Basin
and Fleetwood Marina, both of which are within a days sail.
The proposed berth mix shows a bias towards smaller vessels and therefore together with
existing slipways, the Morecambe site would benefit from a static crane of modest capacity (10
15 tonnes).

5 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS
The study site is clearly identified in the brief as an area more readily available for redevelopment
as a marina. However, a high level assessment of alternative locations in the immediate vicinity
has been undertaken in order to explore whether they offer advantages over the study site.
This assessment has been completed as an iterative process with continued reference to the
study site and opportunities it has to offer. Alternative sites are seen as those extending seaward
leading to the creation of what could be regarded as an offshore development. With
consideration to existing use, amenity value, environmental impact and shoreline management,
locations to the immediate East or West cannot be considered in favour over the study area.
Such arguments do extend to the intertidal area adjacent to the study site and resting between
the Stone Jetty and Eastern fish tail groyne however, the somewhat naturally sheltered and
encapsulated area is considered worthy of further consideration.
Of particular note is the larger development this area provides and potential to accommodate
marina berths in excess of 250. Preliminary financial assessment indicates that larger berth
numbers would assist viability but whether market demand could sustain such figures is
questionable and the market assessment tends to indicate otherwise.
In addition, the potential environmental impact through loss of inter tidal area alone confirms a
preference towards utilisation of the study site and this is discussed in more detail under Section
7. This coupled with other factors such as predicted market demand, confirm it cannot be
justified over the study site and option assessment should be confined to the study site.
In order to understand the site and direct option evaluation an Opportunities and Constraints
diagram has been produced as included in Appendix D, Figure 3. This diagram identifies a
number of anchor features and constraints including the Midland Hotel, War Memorial and
Lifeboat Station.
Having been recently refurbished, the iconic art deco Midland Hotel now commands a prominent
position both in physical terms and as a place of interest, drawing the public towards the sea
front. However, its linkage to the town centre and land to the South is weak with the Marine Road
Central adding little value. A number of promenades in the study site allow the public to enjoy the
sea front and connect the Midland Hotel with the wider area but the area is somewhat open and
featureless. To an extent this is a result of the ongoing transformation of the area.
The War Memorial stands as a key feature on the edge of the study site and throughout this
assessment it is assumed the Memorial should not be moved. The adjacent public open space
and gardens have a relationship to the War Memorial and although their value is recognised, the
shape and form of this could be amended.
The RNLI Lifeboat Station is relatively new and located on the extremity of the site therefore it is
assumed this is to remain unaltered. This is further emphasised by the slipway adjacent to the
Station providing access for the local fishermen and RNLI hovercraft.
Although not considered a constraint, the existing rock revetments and groynes have seen
significant capital investment as a sea defence to safeguard the town of Morecambe and this
cannot be ignored. It is therefore noted that options should seek to minimise modifications to
these and ensure the coastal defence remains intact.
Taking the Opportunities and Constraints diagram forward, Concept 1 as detailed in Appendix D
Figure 7 has been developed which identifies an initial design basis. Fundamentally, the
arrangement seeks to provide a marina and maximise its value or contribution through
connection, access and adjacent development. It is not intended to create a development to rival
the town centre or Midland Hotel for example, but rather an integrated solution that extends the
points of interest and pays homage to other existing features such as the Winter Gardens.

The marina will be a point of interest adding animation and vibrancy to the area but should also
form a cohesive link to the town, Midland Hotel, Winter Gardens and development area to the
South. A key feature and potential barrier to success is the Marine Road Central which must be
addressed.
Application of the elements noted in Section 4 and via a process of testing of the planning model
through a series of concept sketches gives rise to Figure 8 and Concept 2. From which two
alternative design options have been produced shown in Figures 9 and 10. Option 1 attempts to
minimise the extent of disruption and capital works whilst still achieving project objectives and
Option 2 allows for greater flexibility. In reality there is relatively little difference in capital cost and
Option 2 is judged to exhibit greater value and opportunity.
Crucially, Option 2 allows for a greater number of marina berths and preliminary investigations
suggest a particular quantum of berths will be required for any viability, subject to market
demand.

6 SELECTED CONCEPT
Option 2 has been selected as a preferred option in that it maximises the available water area
through the reconfiguration and central siting of the war memorial and gardens. This creates a
natural focus to the development as well as providing an area of quality public realm which will
enhance the Morecambe promenading experience.
In addition, the layout creates a development site to the North of the Midland Hotel which would
be appropriate as waterfront apartments and would complete a necklace of buildings from the
hotel and culminating in the RNLI Lifeboat Station. This proposal also makes allowance for
marina car parking and ancillary facilities to the East and West of the site.
One of the fundamental areas of planning gain that flows from this option is the transformation of
Marine Road from a somewhat dreary backdrop to a tree-lined waterfront boulevard. The
mirroring of the quayside hard-landscaping on the commercial forecourt side of the road will
revitalise this run down area of Morecambe and enhance values.
The development of a marina at Morecambe will generate interest and provide for a further
dimension in the towns offer, strengthening its relationship with the sea. It will also enable
improvements in the immediate area and provide linkage to the town centre and Midland Hotel
leading to a more complete coastal attraction. This assumes a marina development does
achieve its own goals in terms of operation and customer service and in part, investment in the
wider area is forthcoming.
The economic benefits of a marina have been well documented by the British Marine Federation
(BMF) and this has been touched upon in Section 3.2 of the report. To a large extent, these
benefits are reliant on a number of factors including berth numbers, marina employees, visiting
yachtsmen and associated marine business such as a boat yard, chandlery, engineers, yacht
brokers, etc. In the case of Morecambe, these benefits will exist but are likely to be tempered by
the site constraints and location. The site and market does not allow for a significant number of
berths and therefore the support of associated business is questionable. Furthermore, visitor
activity in the North West is modest in comparison to other coastal areas and boat yard activity
will most likely be confined to existing arrangements at Glasson Basin or Fleetwood.
6.1 Potential Wider Added Value and Regeneration
The introduction of a new marina in this location is bound to have a ripple effect in terms of the
enhancement of, and development potential for, adjoining sites, together with the potential
reinforcement of links with the Town Centre. This is essential to ensure that the scheme becomes
a fully integrated and genuine part of the community of Morecambe.
However, the exact nature and degree of this dividend will be influenced by a number of factors.
There is no doubt that probably the greatest planning gain would be the enhancement of
Morecambes waterfront and the transformation of Marine Road into a boulevard befitting its
adjacency to the Midland Hotel and the Winter Gardens. This in itself, however, will not deliver
the more far-reaching benefits that would be expected from a significant investment in a marina.
The area available for the impounded basin is constrained by factors explored earlier the
coastal defences, Midland Hotel and Marine Road, together with a desire to retain the war
memorial and gardens as an integral part of the development. Due to its limitation in size, there
has been a necessity to utilise most of this area for the marina itself in order to maximise berthing
numbers to a sustainable level. This has resulted in the creation of virtually no peripheral sites for
development, and it is traditionally those that yield the greatest return on investment to offset the
capital costs of the marina infrastructure.

It is therefore not big enough to be sustainable in isolation in the way that larger schemes such as
Port Solent and Brighton Marina have been able to create their own distinct identity that is not
dependant on the local town for support.
The site also suffers geographically from not being nearer to the centre of town, where the
potential for enhanced development opportunities would be greater. Those marinas that have
evolved within towns are usually as a result of redundant docks being brought into use, the
benefit being that the basin is already there, and the existing industrial buildings are ripe for
redevelopment (eg Bristol).
However, even this is not a guarantee of success for a town as could be cited at Milford Haven,
where the marina is somewhat divorced from the town by topography, and consequently the
associated commercial development has not integrated well, and the main centre has thereby not
benefited from regeneration to the degree expected.
The proposed option is therefore in danger of being a bolt on addition to the waterfront offer that
will enhance this aspect of the seaside town but with little opportunity to significantly generate a
wider added value regeneration due to its constraining location and significant adjacent barriers
in the form of existing buildings, topography and road network. That is not to say that long term
investment in the area around the Midland Hotel, and redevelopment of the buildings fronting
Marine Road, would not be enhanced by the presence of the marina, but careful consideration
has to be exercised in determining whether this option would represent best-value return on a
significant capital outlay.
The particular marina components of this option are detailed in Figure 11 (Drawing MP160-006)
with a number of the key features discussed.
Quay Walls
In order to maximise available water space it proposed vertical quay walls will be constructed.
Pontoons and berthing should be off-set from these walls in order to provide a degree of security
and to some extent the height differential between retained water level and quay will assist in this
matter.
It is this height differential of 4.5m 5.5m that is worth noting with respect to landscape,
pedestrian access and visual impact. Periods of free flow or when the tidal flap/gate is lowered
will allow for changes in water level as the high tide passes and the introduction of terracing can
mask the quay wall height but useable water area will be lost.
Entrance Channel
In accordance with the required access channel depth of 4.5m above Chart Datum a new
dredged access channel is proposed. The alignment seeks to minimise both capital and
maintenance dredging meeting the deeper water that rests at the head of the Stone Jetty. The
channel is aligned slightly eastwards in order to avoid the strong tidal currents that are present
around the jetty head.
A review of ongoing beach profiles and deposition over recent years suggests siltation rates in
the order of 0.3 0.5m per year could be expected. A practice of over dredging could be
employed in an attempt to limit maintenance dredging to every other year but in reality, an annual
maintenance will be required.
The stability and maintenance of this channel poses a significant risk to the project and detailed
modelling would be necessary to provide guidance and a more informed understanding of the
risk. Mathematical modelling can be commissioned in this respect but the employment of a
physical model cannot be ruled out.

Marina Building
A combined lock, administration and facilities building is proposed located over the existing rock
revetment. This location allows for development in other areas and given the function of the
building it is assumed concerns over flood risk will not come to the fore.
The location also provides marina staff with a commanding position overlooking both the marina
entrance and basin itself with useful control of visitor areas.
Building height should be limited to single or part two storey.
Pontoon Berthing
A modern fully serviced pontoon system is proposed featuring 3m wide main walkways reducing
to 2.5m for berthing piers. All berths are to benefit from finger pontoons and have access to
electric and water.
Marina Car Parking

A wider strategic approach to car parking is perhaps necessary but provision is currently made for
approximately 60 90 spaces to the west of the marina basin. It may be possible to reduce this
number providing alternative dedicated locations are made available and set down points
provided around the marina for the off loading equipment and passengers.
7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The environmental considerations have been fundamentally based on two alternative locations
for a marina development; an impoundment between the Stone Jetty and Fishtail Groyne groynes
and a new, excavated marina within the site boundary. The environmental constraints have been
described to illustrate the environmental setting of the site where the marina is to be situated.
No detailed identification or assessment of potential impacts is made during this study and has
been based using an evaluation of the available information by environmental specialists.
Data was collected from a variety of sources including:
Lancaster City Council;

Natural England;
English Heritage;
Environment Agency;
Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC); and
Existing/previous planning applications on the site.
Appendix A Figure 5 shows the sites environmental constraints.
Cultural Heritage
The proposal would impact on two types of designated heritage assets: listed buildings and a
conservation area. There are also a number of non-designated heritage assets in the vicinity.
As stated in the previous sections, no Scheduled Monuments are located at the site or in close
proximity. However, two listed buildings/structures are present in the immediate vicinity, as well
as several that are located in close proximity. The site is also located within the Morecambe
Conservation Area. The potential for unrecorded archaeological remains a factor for both
options.
The Morecambe Conservation Area Appraisal (2008) and Morecambe Conservation Area
Management Plan (2008) provide more detailed contextual information and guidance.

Legislation dictates the requirement for Listed Building consent for the demolition of a listed
building or for any works of alteration or extension to the listed building which would affect its
character as a building of special architectural or historic interest.. There should be a presumption
against development that would adversely harm the setting or special architectural or historic
interest of Listed Buildings.
The Listed Buildings that occur within or in close proximity to the site are a key element in the
historic environment and analysis of their setting is necessary in order to appraise the nature and
extent of any impact derived from the development proposals.
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) makes much of the
setting of heritage assets (Policies HE8 and HE10).
Both development locations have the potential to affect the setting of the Listed Buildings within
the site and in the immediate proximity although neither will result in direct effects. The Listed
Buildings located in close proximity such as the Winter Gardens have potential for setting issues,
particularly with regard to views from and to the Listed Buildings. Few buildings are proposed as
part of the scheme but are likely to be low-rise in nature. Therefore the main effects on setting
will be that of boats moored in the basin whether it be within the nominated study site or newly
created outer basin.
As the proposed development is located within a Conservation Area, the design of a new marina
should be sympathetic to its surroundings. Whilst no structures are proposed as part of the
scheme, it should take into account the principles set out in the English Heritage and CABE
document Building in Context: New Development in Historic Areas (2001). This recommends
that new buildings:
Relate well to the geography and history of the place and the land;
Sit happily in the Pattern of existing development and routes through and around it;
Respect important views;
Respect the scale of neighbouring buildings;
Use material and building methods which are as high in quality as those used in
existing buildings; and
Create new views and juxtapositions which add to the variety and texture of the setting.
Policy HE7.5 of PPS5 is also particularly relevant. English Heritage has also recently produced
draft guidance entitled The Setting of Heritage Assets which should be referred to.
Lancaster City Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy, Policy SC5, identified that
Morecambe Town Centre, Seafront and Approaches as areas where it is particularly important
that new development is of a quality which reflects and enhances the positive qualities of its
surroundings, results in an improved appearance where conditions are unsatisfactory,
complements and enhances the public realm and, in high profile locations, creates landmark
buildings of genuine and lasting architectural merit.
More detailed studies will be required to establish whether any proposal would have an adverse
affect on the fabric and setting of Listed Buildings and the Conservation Area. These would build
on existing information sources such as the Lancashire Extensive Urban Survey and the resulting
Morecambe Historic Town Assessment Report (July 2006) which includes an urban
characterisation assessment.
Land Use/Contaminated Land
A number of historical contaminative land uses have been identified at the site and immediate
area. These could give rise to potential contamination issues.

Newly Created Outer Basin; would require the dredging of the sediments located between the two
existing groynes. The sediments could contain contaminants associated with the ship breaking
activities that took place there in the early 20th Century. These materials may be locked between
horizons that could be released during dredging activities. It is also not understood how these
materials would be disposed and it is likely that a FEPA (Food, Environment Protection Act)
Licence would be required to dispose of dredged materials below the MHWS (Mean High Water
Springs) mark.
Study Site; would require the excavation of a significant quantity of material to create a basin.
Much of the site is comprised of made ground, backfill used to infill the swimming stadium, that
has the potential to be contaminated. Site investigation would be required to establish whether
the material is contaminated. As the proposals do not allow for any raising of ground levels or
bunding, and due to the quantities of material in question, the excavated material would need to
be sent to landfill. This has significant costs associated with it particularly if the material, or part
of, is classed as hazardous. There is also the potential for contaminants associated with the
railways to be present in this area that could require treatment or disposal as hazardous waste.
Dredging of a channel for Option 2 will also require a FEPA Licence.
Both options will require piling works as part of the design to establish a basin. This process has
the potential to create a pathway for contaminants (if present) to affect sensitive receptors such
as an aquifer. The design and subsequent planning application will need to take this principal
into account to ensure that sensitive receptors including human health, controlled waters and
flora and fauna are not affected.
Nature Conservation
As stated previously the main impacts are those likely to occur on the Natura 2000 designated
areas in Morecambe Bay. The terrestrial parts of the site itself are largely of low ecological value
with little evidence to suggest it can support protected species and habitats.
The Natura 2000 sites have the potential to be affected by both marina locations through direct
and indirect effects. A new outer basin will result in the loss of a significant amount of littoral area
through the dredging of material between the two existing groynes. A short area of dredged
channel will also be required to connect with the Kent Channel.
Utilisation of the study site will only require dredging of a channel to connect the basin to the Kent
Channel although this is likely to be longer in length than a new outer basin. Dredging has the
potential to release sediments that could affect the morphology of the bay. This in turn could
affect the habitats that support bird communities and the designated areas.
As stated previously if the sediments were contaminated this could also exacerbate the effect on
the Natura 2000 sites and the species and habitats it supports.
Both development locations will require significant numbers of surveys and work to establish the
baseline and determine what the effect of the scheme would have on the Natura 2000 sites. This
will be undertaken through a Habitats Regulations Assessment (Appropriate Assessment) under
the Habitats Directive. Given the sensitivity of the habitats and qualifying features of the Natura
2000 sites it is likely that compensation would be required to offset the habitat loss and effects
caused by activities such as dredging. The Councils experience gained through delivery of the
coastal defence works suggest that it could prove difficult to identify and secure compensatory
habitat in the area. This is likely to be an expensive and time consuming process and with no
guarantee of a favourable outcome. In addition to this issues such as pollution and noise have
the potential to affect the qualifying features of the Natura 2000 sites.
In parallel, significant modelling and assessment would be required to provide suitable evidence
that the effects of a dredged channel (and marina) would not have a significant adverse effect on
the morphology and dynamics of Morecambe Bay.

Other effects such as those from fuel spillages would need to be considered as part of the
Appropriate Assessment and suitably mitigated.
Landscape/Seascape
The proposals have the potential to affect the vista from the current site into Morecambe Bay and
those from nearby properties and areas. However, it is considered that both development
locations will not have a significant effect on the views as few structures are proposed that have
the potential to cause obstruction. A new outer basin may be more favourable as it is set back
from the seafront in this regard.
It is likely that a landscape assessment would be required as part of a planning application to

establish that this is the case.
Water Quality
Operations such as piling could have significant effects on the water environment and a full
assessment of the potential effects and careful design of construction techniques will be required
for the marina. This applies to both development locations.
If areas of contamination are present at the site within the sediments or soils then suitable
investigation would be required to establish the risk and effect on sea water and other sensitive
receptors such as the Natura 2000 sites. Measures would also be required to protect the
underlying aquifer from pollution through activities such as piling.
Dredging operations also have the potential to affect water quality through release of sediments
which could be contaminated from former land uses such as ship breaking. This in turn has the
potential to affect flora and fauna that could impact the designated status of the Bay and its
qualifying features.
Suitable mitigation would be required during construction and operation phases through the use
of the Environment Agency Planning Pollution Guidelines, storage of fuels for example.
Noise and Vibration
It is considered that the construction and operation of a proposed marina would not have a
significant effect on local receptors from noise and vibration assuming that all legislative and
planning guidelines are adhered to. Noise disturbance from floating pontoon, motors, rigging and
tannoy systems would all be new sources of noise. Further studies may be required to establish
this as part of a planning application.
Air Quality
It is considered that the construction and operation of a proposed marina would not have a
significant effect on local air quality assuming that all legislative and planning guidelines are
adhered to. Possible impacts could arise from exhaust from motor boats and vehicles. Further
studies may be required to establish this as part of a planning application.
Traffic and Transportation
The new marina has the potential for 175 berths that would result in additional traffic generation
to the site. A transport study may be required to establish the effects on the local road network
as part of a planning application.
Hydrodynamics and Coastal Processes
A significant amount of work has been undertaken as part of the Shoreline Management Plan for
the area, which is currently being updated.

This work has shown that Morecambe Bay is an accreting system but is dynamic in the sense
that the channels are subject to change with time. It has also been shown that there is a link
between channel movement and erosion of saltmarsh and other habitats within the Bay.
An new outer basin would require a shorter length of dredged channel to access the Kent
Channel than development of the study site however, significant modelling and assessment
would be required to provide suitable evidence that the effects of a dredged channel (and marina)
would not have a significant adverse effect on the morphology and dynamics of Morecambe Bay.
Potential effects would include erosion of habitats and flora and fauna, flood risk, change in
morphology and channel movement.
8 LICENCES AND CONSENTS

If the project was taken forward a number of licences and consents would be required, some of
which are listed below. Whilst this list is not exhaustive it does provide a suitable guide to the
licences and consents required for this type of development:
Licences and Consents:-
Coastal Protection Act 1949 Consent;

Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 Part II (FEPA) Consent;
Coastal Protection Act 1949 (CPA) Consent;
Planning Consent (under the Town & Country Planning Acts, as amended);
Agreement of the land owner (e.g. The Crown Estate);
Environment Agency Waste Management Licence, Environmental Protection Act 1990 /
Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994;
Discharge or Drainage Consents- Water resources Act 1991 / Land Drainage Act 1991);
The Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 as substituted by Schedule 9 to The Countryside and
Rights of Way Act, 2000. Section 28 SSSI Consent; and
Flood Defence Consent.
References, Legislation and Potential Documentation Required in Support:-
Habitats Regulations Assessment;

Environmental Statement to support and Environmental Impact Assessment;
Water Act 1993;
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010;
Flood Risk Assessment; and
Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

9 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL
As required by the study brief a high-level 10-year business plan has been developed with the
purpose of identifying the key financial factors. The summary incorporates a schedule of berthing
income, and a trading Profit and Loss forecast.
The business plan described below focuses on the option layout drawing noted above.
This business plan has taken account of berthing tariffs that might apply in this location, berthing
(annual and visitor),occupancy and growth projections as well as identifying the main operational
cost headings. The key business plan issues and assessments are outlined below along with a
commentary on the business plan.
9.1 Key Assumptions

In order to complete the model it has been necessary to make the following key assumptions:
1. The estimated operating results presented in this report are based on an evaluation of
the current overall economy of the area and neither take into account nor make provision
for the effect of any sharp rise or decline in local or economic conditions. We do not
warrant that the estimates of tariff and occupancy will be attained, but they have been
prepared on the basis of information obtained during the course of this study and reflect
the experienced view of the study team.
2. Many of the figures presented in this report were generated using sophisticated computer
models that make calculations based upon numbers carried out to three or more decimal
places. In the interest of simplicity most numbers presented in this report have been
rounded to some extent thus figures may be subject to small rounding errors in some
cases.
3. Although this business modelling employs various mathematical calculations to provide

value indications, the final estimate of value is to an extent subjective and will be
influenced by experience and other factors not specifically set forth in this report.
4. The model ignores inflation any increases in tariffs or operating costs are over and
above inflation. The effect of ignoring inflation is factored into the hurdle rates and
investment rates applied in the valuation element of the analysis.
5. The effect of Stamp Duty and other tax related issues e.g. capital allowances are ignored
at this stage of the business model/valuation assessment.
6. The business does not contribute to an estate sinking fund for the replacement of items
such as lock structures and quay walls.
7. The business will only carry the cost of depreciation of the fixed assets directly relating to
the marina operation (e.g. pontoons, lock mechanical structures, work boat etc). The
business assessment does not include the capital costs or associated depreciation of the
major civil and construction works required to deliver the scheme. The business does
carry amortisation for the annual maintenance dredge required to access the facility.
8. The business will be expected to contribute to the ongoing maintenance and repair of:
The pontoon system

Marina office and facilities accommodation
Lock/Tidal gate structures
The entrance channel (maintenance dredging)

9. All normal trading and other expenses are borne by the marina operating business.
10. Key Income streams include:

Annual berthing
Visitor/event berthing
Seasonal berthing
Associated retail sales (e.g. electricity, fuel, laundry).
11. The financial value of the site has been ignored and the project has not been burdened
with any purchase cost. In other words, it has been assumed that the land will be gifted
to the development.
12. The potential financial value of the development site noted in the selected concept has
not been included in the financial assessment. This is in terms of a dowry for future
capital investment or as a financial off-set against the initial capital expenditure. The
establishment of any monetary value would be the subject of land valuation exercise.
9.2 Tariffs and Income
The following section describes the main factors used to assess the income generating potential
of the marina business.
Occupancy and Growth Projections

Occupancy projections assume that at maturity the marina will achieve a level of 80%
occupancy for annual berths, i.e. of the finger pontoon berths and ignoring the alongside
berthing/visitors area. Maturity is achieved in Year 5 and this reflects an optimistic assessment
that the likely future demand for berthing will grow. An assumption has been made that the
landside development works do not adversely effect the development of marina occupancy and
this will of course to a large extent be dependent upon the timing and phasing of works.
Annual Berthing
The analysis of the existing berthing rates on the North West Coast suggests that a marina in
this location could readily support annual berthing rates in the range 140-170/m ex VAT. The
model assumes that individual berths are generally let on an annual basis with the tariff being
established at a cost per berth and not at cost per boat length. A total of 175 berths are to be
made available.
The promoted tariff for Morecambe Marina recognises the key benefits of the site, specifically:
A target tidal access window of 4 hours and the relevant positioning in

comparison to existing facilities
Fully serviced deep water berths in a relatively sheltered location
Location/access and catchment area
Recognises the future regeneration of the surrounding area
Understanding of existing and historic demands
Seasonal Berthing
There is a market for seasonal berths in Morecambe due to the lack of available
sheltered berthing facilities. This income line recognises both winter contracts and
short term summer berthing.
Visitor/Event Berthing
The location of a new marina installation at Morecambe will offer a sheltered mooring facility
with an advantageous tidal access window when compared to that of local competitors.

The location does also offer excellent landside links to the town. In addition the development of
the landside to include bars, restaurants and retail will create a visitor destination within its own
right.
It is recognised that in the early years (1 5) the landside development works will generate
noise, pollution and debris, which will somewhat dilute the offer with a particular impact on the
early year visitor activity.
Other Income
An assessment is also made of retail and other income including, fuel sales, electricity and
laundry income with the purchase cost of these items being deducted (where appropriate) to
provide an assessment of the net income.
9.3 Operational Considerations

The Profit and Loss model identifies costs under the various sections outlined below. At this
stage in developing a high-level business model a combination of specific assessment of the
main operating costs for a marina on the North West Coast and the use of marina industry Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) has been used.
Personnel & Related

At maturity the likely level of staffing required to provide adequate 24 hour cover is established
as follows:
A Marina Manager
Administration (full time)
Marina Operatives (2 Lock masters and 2 night Lockmasters)
Summer Dockmaster
The build-up of staff costs reflects the developing marina business with full staffing levels
achieved in Year 3. The staff costs include allowance for employers National Insurance,
pension costs, uniform, protective clothing and training.
Property & Related

The most significant cost in this section is the amortisation at over 50k per annum of dredging
costs associated with maintaining the access channel.
The Property and Related cost heading also includes business rates, estate service charge
contributions along with a payment to The Crown Estate associated with the entrance channel
and waiting pontoon structures.
The balance of the property and related costs can be attributed to general property running
costs and they are commensurate with a marina of this size.
Equipment & Related

By far the most significant equipment related cost is the depreciation, over a 25-year period, of
the pontoon equipment. Plant and equipment depreciation relates to IT equipment (this
includes allowance for the purchase, licensing and support of a marina management software
system) and also assumes that the marina has a modest workboat and laundry equipment and
these are considered to have a 7-year life.
General Expenses
The planned level of general expenses is commensurate with a marina of this size and no
single item is of an exceptional nature. This section does include for marketing of the facility
with associated costs over the 5 years to maturity totalling 40k. Thereafter marketing reduces
to a modest 4k per annum.

9.4 Capital Expenditure
With reference to the preferred concept shown in Figure 11 (Drawing MP160-006), the following
capital costs have been estimated.
Works Works Sub

Details Contingency Total Costs
Category Total
Site Clearance, Marina

Infrastructure 12,000,000 3,610,000 15,600,000
Basin, & Buildings
Pontoons, Piles, Bridges,

Marina 5,700,000 1,140,000 6,800,000
Fuel Berth & Lock Structure
Fees Project Fees 2,300,000 580,000 2,900,000
Additional Project Costs

Other Habitat Loss, Section 106 750,000 260,000 1,010,000
Etc.
Total Project costs 20,800,000 5,590,000 26,310,000
Contingency as a
27%
percentage
If tidal Flap/gate is adopted

18,300,000 5,090,000 23,310,000
in place of Lock
The capital cost estimate is derived from consultations with contractors and projects of a similar
nature and further detail is provided in Appendix E. Contingency items of between 20% and
35% have been applied leading to an overall figure of 27%. It should be noted that optimism
Bias has not been applied at this stage.
A number of work items are considered to be sensitive and pose a risk, these are;
Construction of quay walls and employment of steel sheet piling.

Excavation of basin and disposal.
Contamination, an allowance has been made but potential variance exists.
In bringing together this estimate a view has been taken of the quality of the infrastructure to be
provided and it is assumed that the marina pontoon system will be of high quality with generous
walkway widths to provide a feeling of stability and openness.
Key points to note when assessing the capital investment needed for the marina, are the high
costs associated with the following key works:
Creation of a marina entrance channel and associated works

Installation of a lock/tidal gate water retaining structure
Excavation and sheet pile works to create the marina basin
Harbour Office and Facilities building
The ability of the marina operating business to support investment in the marina related
infrastructure noted above is discussed at high level below.

9.5 Marina Viability
Marinas are increasingly seen as relatively low risk investments which produce a highly
predictable and stable cashflow. Consequently investment yields have fallen steadily as
valuations have increased. This appreciation of the risk/return nature of the asset class is
required to understand the valuation methodology.
Discounted cashflow (DCF) is the generally preferred method of valuation of a marina business.
Generally this is because the method allows the appraiser to take due account of the nature of
assets employed as well as the income generating potential of the operation.
The assessment of the financial performance of the operating marina business has been
assessed based on the above noted financial modelling. In making this indicative assessment
we have reviewed industry standard Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to ensure the profit
performance is in line with market expectations.
The up-front capital investment has been ignored in the following assessment in favour of
establishing the likely level of capital expenditure which could be supported by the marina
business (albeit the full depreciation assessment has been taken into account).
9.5.1 Marina Business Performance

The marina operating business has been the subject of a high level financial review in order to
ascertain the performance/viability of the proposal along with the likely level of capital
expenditure that the scheme might support. The key outputs of the baseline model are noted
below:
The marina business fails to achieve a Trading Profit over the full 10-year period. Early
year losses of 122k per annum reduce to 50k by Year 10 due to berthing occupancy
growth however accumulated Trading losses over the 10 year period amount to some
(795k).
Morecambe Business Analysis
400000
300000
200000
100000
0

-100000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-200000
-300000
-400000
-500000
Year
TURNOVER TOTAL OVERHEADS TRADING PROFIT

9.5.2 Exit Value
In attempting to calculate the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project it is necessary to make
an assessment of the possible business value at maturity. This has simply been done by
applying an exit yield to a Trading Profit average of Years 9 and 10 of the model. Based on
Trading losses in the range (40k) (50k) in these years capitalised at 10%, gives a
negative year ten maturity value of just under (460k). The exit yield represents a hypothetical
sale value which is commensurate with recent transactions for this type of asset in the marina
industry, in the central south coast region some yields being pushed as low as 8%. The
assessment of exit yield needs to take account of the condition of equipment and
infrastructure at this part of the projects lifecycle.
The exit value is highly sensitive to the exit yield rate used (a move from a 10% yield to an
11% yield has a 9.8% increase effect on the exit value) so due consideration needs to be
given to this. However as the exit is some years in to the future the discounted cashflow
approach de-sensitises the factor to an extent, such that it is not a project analysis critical
factor.
9.5.3 Project Net Present Value (NPV)
In order to calculate the projects NPV it is necessary to make an assessment of the discount
rate that should be applied and it is worth noting that this model is highly sensitive to the
discount rate used. The discount rate should equate to the Weighted Average Cost of Capital
(WACC) of the funding provider and also recognise the risks associated with the development.
The analysis here uses 11% as a mid range value based upon a number of criteria being:
Risk associated with the development this will vary depending upon the stage at which
the marina operator/developer is engaged (e.g. will they carry any form of construction
risk)
Typical investment returns currently being achieved in the property investment
marketplace.
The current cost of debt funding
Likely cost of capital of the equity provider
The project NPV (given a discount rate of 11%) arising from the accumulated profits/(losses)
and exit value is negative at (95k). This would suggest that the marina business could not
contribute to any form of capital costs, moreover the trading projections has confirmed that the
marina operation could not sustain its own operational costs and would not trade as a viable
entity.
On the face of it therefore as a stand alone development the marina scheme is not financially
viable and clearly at best the marina business is a marginal one.
If a view is taken of the positive benefit on the values to be achieved from the adjacent
waterfront residential properties and mixed use developments along with the GVA and wider
economic benefits of a leisure marina at Morecambe, a case may be made for providing the
necessary capital investment and in order to make the marina a viable proposition (at least in
some form) as a minimum this would need to include funding of the pontoons and related
equipment. This approach would however result in a marina business that could not invest in
the necessary levels of capital expenditure required to deal with replacement of operating
equipment at the end of its useful life.
A number of sensitivities have been run in an attempt to identify whether a viable marina
operation in a different form could be brought forward at Morecambe, the findings are noted
below:

Sensitivity Model No.1:
This model assumes that the tariff price for an annual berth within the marina is increased by
some 35% to match that of the leading marina provider within the wider Market (Whitehaven
Marina). This level of tariff would not be achievable within the scheme due to the level of access
that the site enjoys, the location and cruising routes along with the market catchment area and the
level of services and facilities on offer. The exercise has however been carried out to provide an
indication of the upper level of financial performance that the scheme might deliver:
The marina business fails to make accumulated Trading profits over the 10 year period
with total losses of some (290k).
The Project Net Present Value (NPV) - based upon the discount rate of 11 % is however
assessed as providing a maximum 400k contribution to the capital costs of the scheme.
Sensitivity Model No. 2:

The removal of the sector gate lock structures for a simplified tidal flap gate. This option reduces
capital costs (although they sit outside of the model), operating costs, due to reduced access
window and the opportunity to reduce associated personnel costs. The tariff rate is also detuned
to reflect this reduction in service.
The marina business fails to make accumulated trading profits over the 10 year period
assessed as providing a positive contribution, albeit a very modest one of just 19k.
Modelling would be required to confirm whether the alternative access arrangement
would lead to the marine business being burdened with increased dredging costs arising
from siltation within the basin area (as opposed to just the access channel).

This model assumes an enhanced level of berth numbers from 175 to 200, with a tidal flap gate
and associated operational cost reductions.
The marina business fails to provide accumulated trading profit over the 10 year period
assessed as providing a 230k contribution to the capital costs of the scheme.
Again modelling would be required of the likely impacts on the siltation regime within the
marina basin.

This model assumes a tidal flap gate for a 175 berth marina with a reduced operational resource:
The marina does create accumulated trading profits over the 10 year period of some
133k. With early year losses being repaid by year 8. In addition the Trading profit to
turnover ratio achieves a ratio of circa 17% by year 9. (Industry standards indicate a
T.P./T/O ratio of between 30% - 40%)
The Project Net Present Value (NPV) - based upon the discount rate of 11 % is also
assessed as providing a 700k contribution to the capital costs of the scheme.
Once again modelling would be required of the likely impacts on the siltation regime
within the marina basin.

10 CONCLUSIONS
This study has considered the outline feasibility of a new marina development at Morecambe,
Lancashire. Against a market assessment that has indentified market demand and trends in
leisure boating, options for development have been explored and a preferred option selected.
This selection and final assessment gives due regard to a number of factors not least, potential
environmental impact and wider value a scheme may bring. The selected concept has then
been the subject of financial assessment in order to confirm ongoing viability and potential
contribution towards capital investment.
A number of conclusions have been drawn together with identification of key risks as follows.
10.1 General Conclusions
Market assessment indicates that if a long-term view is taken, demand for further marine
leisure berthing in the north west exists although in part, this is reliant upon wider
economic development. Noting vacancies at existing sites, demand in the short-term is
questionable.
Demand for berthing when applied to Morecambe is likely to be tempered due to the site
characteristics such as restricted tidal access, location, immediate cruising area and
navigation.
A selected marina development scheme has been established that poses a number of
benefits. Namely, the creation of 175 marina berths, an area of quality public realm,
creates a potential waterfront development site, transformation of Marine Road and added
vibrancy and dimension to Morecambe.
The development of a marina at Morecambe will generate interest and provide for a further
dimension in the towns offer, strengthening its relationship with the sea. It will also enable
improvements in the immediate area and provide linkage to the town centre and Midland
Hotel leading to a more complete coastal attraction. Assuming a marina development
does achieve its own goals in terms of operation and customer service, the wider benefit
and move towards regeneration should follow.
The economic benefits of a marina have been well documented by the British Marine
Federation (BMF). However, to a large extent, these benefits are reliant on a number of
factors including berth numbers, marina employees, visiting yachtsmen and associated
marine business such as a boat yard, chandlery, engineers, yacht brokers, etc.
In the case of Morecambe, these benefits will still exist but are likely to be tempered by the
site constraints and location. The site and market does not allow for a significant number
of berths and therefore the ongoing support and viability of associated business may be
questionable. Furthermore, visitor activity in the north west is modest in comparison to
other coastal areas and boat yard activity will most likely be confined to existing
arrangements at Glasson Basin or Fleetwood.
A potential development site is created to the west of the site but further opportunities are
limited due to the necessary number of berths that required to assist operational viability.
Design of the preferred scheme could provide boat owners with a tidal access window of 4
hours, placing the marina in a comparable market position with other existing facilities in
the north west. Achieving such an arrangement will necessitate the employment of a lock
structure or tidal flap/gate together with new access channel.

The marina will require an access channel to be dredged together with either a lock or tidal
gate structure.
The creation of a new access channel has potential to have impact upon the
environmentally designated Morecambe Bay. The consenting process will therefore give
rise to time consuming and expensive study work without any guarantee of a favourable
outcome.
In all likelihood, environmental compensation will be a requirement of the development and

this may prove difficult to satisfy and a satisfactory outcome cannot be guaranteed.
The estimated capital cost of creating a marina is estimated at 23M 27M, this includes
contingencies but does not include an item for Optimism Bias. It should also be noted that
no financial land value has been attributed to the site in this assessment and it is assumed
the site will be gifted to the development.
Financial assessment of the marina indicates that an optimum fully serviced marina
returns a trading loss. If the marina operational costs are reduced to an absolute minimum
and a tidal flap/gate is adopted rather than a lock structure a trading profit is seen,
although this remains low and somewhat marginal.
The resulting NPV suggests a contribution of 700k (3%) can be made towards the capital
cost of the development but a significant shortfall would remain. It is also noted that
provision would need to be made for future investment in major infrastructure items such
as the new quay walls.
The financial performance of the marina is marginal and experience would suggest
attracting interest from existing operators will be difficult.
The wider benefits should not overshadow the significant challenges and risks associated
with a marina development at Morecambe and alternative development options should
perhaps be considered that have potential to deliver similar benefits with reduced risk.
10.2 Project Risks
In considerations of the conclusions drawn from this study, it is also worth noting the main
project risks.
Continued market demand for berthing in the north west and success of Morecambe to
attract a share of this market. The marina viability and ability to trade as a ongoing
concern is marginal at best and limited berths or poor occupancy figures will compound
this situation.
Other potential developments and in particular, proposals for Barrow-in-Furness. These

pose a significant threat to Morecambe and could potentially be delivered in a shorter time
period and with reduced complexities.
The ability to attract capital funding. The capital investment required to create a marina
type development at Morecambe is significant and the contribution made by the marina
operation is minimal. The success in attracting funding will not be aided by the unknowns
and risks that exist.

Stability of access channel and requirement for maintenance dredging. Morecambe Bay is
a very dynamic arrangement of channels and intertidal sands/mudflats meaning detailed
modelling will be necessary to provide a better understanding of how a new access
channel will behave. Such study work will assist but a risk will remain none the less and
more extensive and regular maintenance dredging would further burden the financial
performance of a marina and its practical viability.
Ability to address and satisfy the potential environmental impacts and in turn, the securing
of necessary permissions. Experience gained from other marine related works in the
locality suggests a proposal such as this will come under close scrutiny from Statutory
Bodies such as Natural England, Environment Agency, etc leading to a requirement for
detailed study work to confirm potential impacts. In all likelihood a requirement for
compensation and mitigation will come to the fore and this may prove difficult to address.
Relationship and completion of other regeneration initiatives in Morecambe and wider

area. The development of a marina alone is unlikely to delivery the uplift and regeneration
objectives that are desired for Morecambe and a reliance upon other local and wider
initiatives remain.
Viability and financial performance of marina. It has been shown that the trading
performance of the marina as a business entity is marginal and this risk must be noted
when considering ongoing operation, management and funding. The ability to attract a
marina operator may prove difficult in this respect.
Potential variance in capital cost. The development gives rise to a number of significant
work items such as excavation, quay walls, etc and hence the total capital cost is sensitive
to the unit rates adopted.
Contamination. An allowance has been made for potential contamination that may
be encountered in the development but the extent of this cannot be confirmed at
this time.


Morecambe Marina Feasibility Study Main Report PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Morecambe Marina Feasibility Study Main Report PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MORECAMBE MARINA

Report No. MP160, 17417/R/01 Rev B

Lancaster City Council Gifford

2 SITE APPRAISAL ............................................................................................4

3 MARKET ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................13

4 MARKET DEMAND, OPPORTUNITIES AND MARINA PROFILE ................28

6 SELECTED CONCEPT ..................................................................................37

7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................39

8 LICENCES AND CONSENTS ........................................................................43

9 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL ...............................................................................44

APPENDIX A ~ SITE INFORMATION

APPENDIX B ~ MARKET DATA

APPENDIX C ~ INTERTIDAL AND HYDROGRAPHIC DATA

APPENDIX D ~ CONCEPT PLANS

APPENDIX E ~ FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

1.1 Background and Study Objective

The creation of a marina development commanding a prominent position within Morecambe is

1.2 Methodology and Approach

Part 1: Site Appraisal

Part 2: Environmental Assessment

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Part 3: Market Review & Analysis

Part 4: Development Options and Preferred Concept

Part 5: Financial Viability

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Part 6: Study Findings and Recommendations

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

2.1 Site Location

2.2 Site Setting and Description

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Aerial Photograph 1 Morecambe Marina Study Site and Layout

Aerial Photograph 2 Morecambe Marina Study Site

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Predicted Tide Chart Datum Ordnance Datum

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Admiralty Chart Copyright UKHO licence no.11208

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Geology and Soils

Hydrology, Drainage and Flood Risk

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

No information was obtained regarding the existing drainage at the site.

o War Memorial Listed Grade II; and

o Former Morecambe Promenade Station Listed Grade II;

o Morecambe Bay Special Protection Area (SPA);

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

o Estuaries, mudflats and sandflats not covered by water at low tide;

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

2.4 Planning and Master Plan Context

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

3.1 North West Coast

3.2 Economic Benefits of Coastal Marinas

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Employment and GVA

Employment and GVA Employment and

Morecambe Bay Marina Feasibility Study Gifford

Region No. Marinas Total capacity % of total Berths

Scotland 35 4,503 10%

Total 230 45,460 100%