BOROUGH OF POOLE
ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW GROUP
7th DECEMBER 2006
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF LEISURE SERVICES
PROPOSED BYELAW TO CONTROL BAIT DIGGING WITHIN HOLES BAY
(POOLE HARBOUR)
1
Purpose of Report
1.1
To advise Members on the level of bait digging that is occurring in parts of
Poole Harbour, its affects and possible means of controlling the activity in the
future.
2
Decision Required
2.1
Members are recommended to
2.1.1 note the actions that have taken place already to try and manage the bait
digging situation
2.1.2 note the options considered to manage bait digging in the future
2.1.3 support public consultation on Options B and C, and report back to this
committee in due course.
3
Information
3.1
During the last few years the level of bait digging in Holes Bay has increased
causing disruption and concern to residents of Hamworthy and disturbance to
wildfowl and waders in this area. English Nature (now called Natural
England) also have some concerns over this activity and commissioned a
report to look into patterns of use, which did show some problems. Last
winter English Nature agreed a code of practice with Solent Area Bait Digging
Association, to which many of the bait diggers belong to, in order to control
this situation. While this did work to some degree, non-members were not
covered by this and some bait digging continued causing disturbance to
residents and wildlife alike.
3.2
Having tried to informally manage the situation, which has not produced the
desired results, the next option is to have a bye-law to control bait digging.
The Council has the power to make such byelaws under section 82 of the
Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907.
3.3
The council may make a byelaw to restrict bait digging, but legal advice
indicates that a total ban is not likely to be achievable, particularly in relation
1
to bait digging for personal use. Furthermore, the distinction between
personal and commercial digging is perhaps easier to identify on paper than
on the ground, with both groups often using unmarked vehicles and operating
after dark. This suggests that a single approach to all is the most practical
way forward.
3.4
Within Holes Bay the majority of the inter-tidal mud is in private ownership, the
Council can make a byelaw over privately owned land if the owner is in
agreement. Most is in the ownership of Canford Estates, plus their land
holding comprises some of the main areas used for bait digging. Their views
have already been informally sought and they are agreeable in principle to a
byelaw covering their ownership. Of the other owners we believe that some
may be amenable to having a byelaw on their land.
4
Options
4.1
The options considered for a byelaw are:
A: No bait digging in all parts of the Harbour under jurisdiction of the
Borough of Poole, at all times – current legal advice rules this out as bait
digging is considered to be ancillary to the common law ‘right to fish’.
Consequently we have an opportunity to regulate rather than prohibit.
B: No bait digging in Holes Bay at all times - this is possible as other sites
are available in the harbour, although Natural England may have
concerns as this might have the effect of displacing the activity to more
sensitive areas of the harbour.
C: No bait digging in Holes Bay north of the railway line at all times, and
no bait digging during January and February south of the railway line
within Holes Bay -. This option reflects the fact that some parts of Holes
Bay are more sensitive than others, and a less restrictive approach south
of the railway may ensure the most sensitive areas to the north are
protected. The proposal for a ban below the railway line during specific
months is based on the most sensitive times of the year for over-wintering
bird populations.
4.2
In order to take forward an option that is deliverable, and one that is based on
legal advice and informal consultation with Natural England, the
Government’s advisor on nature conservation matters, it is proposed to
consult only on Options B and C. The results of the consultation would be
reported back to this committee prior to a byelaw being applied for.
4.3
The public consultation will include any member of the public that may have
an interest, but also will have to include bait diggers, Natural England, and
Poole Harbour Commissioners.
2
5
Conclusion
5.1
It is recognised that local residents are concerned over the level and
frequency of bait digging in Holes Bay, and the effect that this may have on
bird populations. It is considered however that any solution will need to rely
on evidence and legal advice, and support from Natural England would be
desirable in order to increase the likelihood of success.
5.2
A byelaw would appear to be the only viable solution to try and manage this
situation, in the short term. It is considered that Options B or C represent the
most deliverable means of addressing concerns over bait digging in the Holes
bay at this time.
5.3
In the longer term, the Poole Harbour Commissioners Aquatic Management
Plan for Poole Harbour may address this situation and identify a solution, as it
will contain zoned areas of the Harbour where certain activities will not be
allowed.
CLIVE SMITH
HEAD OF LEISURE SERVICES
Contact Officers:
Jez Martin, Nature Conservation Officer (01202) 261338
Matti Raudsepp, Open Spaces Manager (01202) 261377
Background Papers:
None
3
EXTRACT OF MINUTES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW GROUP – 7TH
DECEMBER 2006
7.
PROPOSED BYELAWS TO CONTROL BAIT DIGGING WITHIN HOLES BAY
The Head of Leisure Services reported that, during the last few years the level
of bait digging in Holes Bay had increased, causing disruption and concern to
residents of Hamworthy and disturbance to wild fowl and waders in this area.
Natural England also had some concerns over this activity and had commissioned a
Report to look into patterns of use, which did show some problems.
Last winter, Natural England agreed a Code of Practice with the Solent Area
Bait Digging Association, to which many of the bait diggers belonged in order to
control this activity. While this did work to some degree, non members were not
covered by this Code of Practice and some bait digging had continued to cause
disturbance to residents and wildlife.
The Head of Leisure Services reported that, having tried to informally manage
the situation, which had not produced the desired results, the next option was to
have a byelaw to control bait digging. The Council had powers to make such
byelaws under Section 82 of the Public Health Act Amendment Act 1907 but legal
advice had indicated that a total ban was not likely to be achievable, particularly in
relation to bait digging for personal use.
The options considered for a Byelaw were:

Option A – no bait digging in all parts of the Harbour under jurisdiction of
the Borough of Poole, at all times – current legal advice ruled this out as
bait digging was considered to be ancillary to the common law, “Right to
Fish”.

Option B – no bait digging in Holes Bay at all times – this was possible as
other sites were available in the Harbour, although Natural England might
have concerns as this could have the effect of displacing the activity to
more sensitive areas of the Harbour.

Option C – no bait digging in Holes Bay north of the railway line at all
times, and no bait digging during January and February south of the
railway line, within Holes Bay – this option reflected the fact that some
parts of Holes Bay were more sensitive than others and a less restrictive
approach south of the railway line might ensure the most sensitive areas
to the north were protected. The proposal for a ban below the railway line
during specific months was based on the most sensitive times of the year,
for over-wintering bird populations.
The Head of Leisure Services proposed to consult on Options B & C and the
results of the Consultation would be reported back to this Overview Group prior to a
Byelaw being applied for. In response to questions on the proposals, the Head of
Leisure Services stated that, whilst the proposed Byelaw did not have an
4
overwhelming effect on parking problems caused by bait digging, wildlife
conservation was a concern of residents.
The Portfolio Holder felt that Option B would be the favourite choice to support
residents and protect wildlife. He felt that it was essential to see what the response
from residents was on the proposals.
He felt that it was important to protect the area especially near the railway line
as the mud was rich in nutrients and this was beneficial to the bait. Other areas such
as Sandbanks were not as nutrient rich.
A Member proposed that consideration should be given to extending Option
C, with no bait digging from January to April.
This Proposal was duly seconded and on being put to the vote was
CARRIED.
AGREED that
(i)
the actions that had taken place to date to manage the bait
digging situation be noted;
(ii)
the options to manage bait digging in the future be noted;
(iii)
public consultation on Option B & C be supported and a further
report be submitted to this Overview Group in due course; and
(iv)
further consideration be given to an extension of the ban, as set
out in Option B, be included in the Consultation which would ban
bait digging from January to April, south of the railway line within
Holes Bay.
For:
Councillor Adams, Belcham, Collier, Mrs Dion, Mrs Hives, Mrs
Lavender, Mrs Moore, Sorton, Trent and Miss Wilson.
ABSTAINED: Councillor Eades
5