St Monans Harbour Feasibility Study...2012/12/06 · East Pier 3.2 The East Pier has an approximate length of 210m. It is the pier most exposed to the northeasterly winds and waves

Prepared for

St Monans Harbour Feasibility Study Report December 2010

Fife Council St Monans Harbour

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion. © Scott Wilson Ltd 2010

Scott Wilson 23 Chester Street Edinburgh EH3 7EN Tel 0131 2251230 Fax 0131 2255582 www.scottwilson.com

Revision Schedule St Monans Harbour Feasibility Study December 2010 Job Ref: D130822

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

0A 10 Sep 2010 Draft Jorge Aguilar Senior Assistant Engineer

Robert Clegg Principal Engineer

0 6 Dec 2010 Final Jorge Aguilar Senior Assistant Engineer

Ross MacPhie Senior Engineer

David Wright Project Director


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 1

2 Client Brief & Scope......................................................................... 2

3 Harbour Description......................................................................... 3 General ......................................................................................................................................... 3 East Pier......................................................................................................................................... 3 East Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Middle Pier ..................................................................................................................................... 4 West Basin ..................................................................................................................................... 4 West Pier........................................................................................................................................ 5 Breakwater ..................................................................................................................................... 5

4 Options for Enhancement of the Harbour...................................... 6 Consultation ................................................................................................................................... 6 Full Scope – Preferred Option A1 .................................................................................................. 8 Reduced Scope – Preferred Option A2........................................................................................ 12

5 Costs, Programme and Procurement ........................................... 15 Ground Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 15 Cost Estimate – Full Scope Option A1 ......................................................................................... 15 Cost Estimate – Reduced Scope Option A2 ................................................................................ 18 Programme................................................................................................................................... 19 Project Risks ................................................................................................................................ 19

6 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................... 21 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 21 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 21

Appendices ................................................................................................ 22 Appendix A – Briefing Information and Scope.............................................................................. 23 Appendix B – Consultation ........................................................................................................... 24 Appendix C – Drawings of Proposed Works ................................................................................ 25 Appendix D – Topography and Bathymetry ................................................................................. 26 Appendix E – Data Sheets ........................................................................................................... 27


Feasibility Study December 2010 1

1 Introduction 1.1 Under the current framework agreement, Scott Wilson has been appointed by Transportation

Services (Fife Council) on behalf of the Community Council and Local Members to investigate and advise on the feasibility of the construction of new facilities to enhance St Monans harbour by maximising its use and improving its environment.

1.2 St Monans harbour is located on the South East coast of Fife, approximately 3 miles west of the nearby port of Anstruther and 1 mile west of Pittenweem. The main activity at St Monans Harbour used to be fishing and boat building/repairs but nowadays it is more popular with tourists and the harbour is surrounded by holiday properties for rent. The harbour has been under-utilised for some time and at present is only being used by a few fishing boats and leisure craft. Discussions had taken place within the local community for several years until Local Members met with the Head of Transportation Services in 2009 who gave approval in principle for a feasibility study if funding became available. The funding was granted by the Area Locality Manager in January 2010.

1.3 Transportation Services requested assistance from Scott Wilson in February 2010 and an inception meeting was held with Transportation Services on 26 March 2010, in their Cupar offices, to discuss the scope of the project; the stakeholders involved in the development of the harbour; the allocated budget for this study; and available information relevant to the project.

1.4 This report details the options that have been considered for the development of the harbour. It includes the options identified as the most suitable for the purpose of this study considering the uncertainty regarding the funds available for construction. It also describes the process and result of the stakeholder’s consultation, and provides a construction budget and timescales for the options identified as feasible.



2 Client Brief & Scope 2.1 The outline brief of the study is set out in the Consultancy Services Term Commission

document ‘Design Brief’ (see Appendix A) provided during the early stage of the project. It states that the main objective of this study is to provide direction and insight into the possibilities of breathing new life into St Monans Harbour and report on the options available to maximise the use of the harbour while improving its environment. It also states that all interested parties should be consulted during the optioneering stage of the study.

2.2 A more detailed scope was discussed during the Inception Meeting and site visit on 26 March 2010. Initial options were suggested, and there were discussions about the background of the Harbour, the extent of the existing facilities, programme and costs. The client also provided us with documentation about the harbour and contact information for the consultees. After the Inception Meeting we went to visit St Monans, Pittenweem and Anstruther to see the existing facilities and look at potential ideas and similar solutions that had been implemented in other harbours close to St Monans. For a complete description of the meeting and information provided refer to the Inception Meeting minute (Appendix A).



3 Harbour Description

General 3.1 St Monans harbour consists of two basins, East and West, separated by the Middle Pier. The

harbour is protected by the East and West Pier. A detailed description of the harbour is mentioned in the following sections. Refer to Appendix D for overall layout of St Monans Harbour.

East Pier 3.2 The East Pier has an approximate length of 210m. It is the pier most exposed to the

northeasterly winds and waves during winter. From conversations with the Harbourmaster and the local users, we understand that the sea wall at the East Pier is overtopped several times a year by wind/swell waves, especially during the winter. Along its inner face it has approximately 11 ladders to access moored boats. Half of them are built into the wall and it seems that their installation was done during the initial construction of the pier; the other half are newer ladders and they protrude from the wall of the pier, which produces difficulties for mooring boats. Near the south end of the pier there are steps built into the wall to access the sea bed during low tide. During our site visit there were no boats or vessels moored to this pier.

3.3 At the north end of the pier, near the road and opposite where the former boatbuilding shed stood, there is a two storey building on the east side of the pier currently used as a fish smokery. The pier also has a ladder to cross the seawall to a walkway made of concrete and rocks to access a navigation beacon marking the harbour approach channel. The approximate length of this walkway is 95m and there is no handrail to protect the pedestrians when walking towards or from the beacon. There is also some kind of rock protection between the concrete walkway and the main navigation channel of the Harbour; it was not visible during our site visit, probably due to the high tide.

East Basin 3.4 The East Basin, situated between the Middle and East Piers, is not used very often for

manoeuvring and mooring of boats. We understand, based on conversations with the local users, that the depth of the basin is very shallow (shallower than the West Basin) because the last time the basin was dredged was several years ago. As mentioned above, the sea wall at the East Pier is overtopped by the waves several times per year, resulting in significant wave disturbance in the basin caused by the impact of the overtopping waves. The basin dries out during low tide and beneath the thin layer of mud the seabed is rock.

3.5 At the north east corner of the East Basin, there is an old boatbuilding shed that is no longer in use and is being dismantled. The shed has a concrete floor slab with approximate dimensions of 20m wide x 31m long. The slab area will be free to be used for other purposes once the shed has been dismantled completely. At the bottom end of the shed there is a slipway that it is also no longer in use. The approximate dimensions of the slipway are 8m wide x 61m long, with a gradient of about 1 in 20, and it consists of a concrete slab on a rockfill with concrete protection to the side slopes at the lower end. From the East Pier it was observed that some of the rock fill



supporting the slab has been washed out, undermining the slab edge. The loading capacity of the slipway is unknown.

3.6 Adjacent to the wall at the north of the basin, there is a small shed, close to the existing slipway; we are not sure about its current use. On the same wall there is also a chain attached to the lower part of the wall which may have been used to moor boats. The north east corner of the basin, adjacent to the old boatbuilding shed was full of floating debris and seaweed during our site visit.

Middle Pier 3.7 The Middle Pier has an estimated length of 110m. The Harbourmaster’s office is situated at the

root end of the pier and on the opposite side from the office there are steps down to access the East Basin. The east wall has approximately 8 ladders to access moored boats, most of them are protruding from the sea wall and about half of them have fender protection. The west wall has approximately 7 ladders, with the same arrangement as the east wall: most of them protruding from the wall and some of them with fender protection. There is also a davit near the end of the pier for lifting cargo into and out of the boats. In March, during our site visit, most of the boats in the harbour were out of the water and stored on top of the west side of the pier. Just a few fishing boats were moored to the west side of the pier.

West Basin 3.8 The West Basin is where most of the boat movemets and mooring occurs. The walls of the

basin are protected by the East Pier and basin on one side and an offshore breakwater on the southwest side. The navigation channel for accessing the basin is located between the West and East Piers and has an estimated width of 11m. The Harbourmaster and local users mentioned that during some weather conditions there are considerable waves (estimated to be around 0.5m in height) entering into the basin through the channel and fanning out across the basin. The northeast corner of the basin, opposite the entrance, was the area were the waves had the most significant impact.

3.9 The basin has two slipways. One is located adjacent to the north wall and the Harbourmaster’s office. It has an average width of approximately 7m, an approximate length of 30m and an estimated slope of 1 in 8.5. This slipway is made of stone setts with some areas of concrete and we understand that it is used for small boats. The other slipway is located at the west wall of the basin and is no longer in use. It is described in more detail in the next section discussing the West Pier. There are also two posts marking the lower end of the west slipway positioned near the centre of the basin. We understand that these posts were used to align boats waiting to use the slipway.

3.10 The north area of the basin, close to the road, is shallow and navigation is only possible at high tide. This basin also dries out completely at low tide and beneath the thin layer of mud there is a rocky sea bed. On the north wall, close to the road, there is a chain attached to the lower part of the wall which is apparently intended to be used to moor boats. The basin was last dredged in May 2007.



West Pier 3.11 The West Pier is protected by a concrete breakwater constructed some distance off-shore in

front of the pier; the estimated length of the pier is 115m, including the area occupied by the west slipway which cuts the pier in two sections. The north section of the pier is currently used for parking and storage of boats. This section has two ladders, one embedded in the wall and the newer ladder protruding from the wall. The south section of the pier is mainly used to store the fishing equipment of the fishing boats moored to the West Pier. This section has approximately 6 ladders, 2 of them protruding from the wall; on this section of the pier there is also a davit that is used to move loads from and into the boats.

3.12 The slipway located in the West Pier is no longer in use. It has an estimated width of 17m, the longest rail has an estimated length of 55m and the approximate slope is 1 in 12. The concrete slab extends into the basin for approximately 19m with the bottom part of the slab being slightly narrower than the top part at 14m width. The slipway has two different sets of rails, both of them are a four-rail system and, based on the size of the rails, the upper set was used for heavier loads. On the upper part of the slipway is a building that is currently disused and we understand that it is where the hauling winch was housed. The approximate dimensions of this building are 4m wide, 7m long and 3m high and it is constructed with stone walls and tiled roof. Close to the winch house there is old electrical / mechanical equipment that we assumed was used for operating the slipway but is no longer working.

3.13 There is a tarmac footpath running along the south side of the slipway that is used to access the southern section of the pier. Adjacent to this footpath there are five sheds that are currently being used by the locals. Closer to the south part of the pier there is a blue shed that, we assume, is used for storage by the owners of the fishing boats.

3.14 Adjacent to the west part of the harbour, there is a parking area used by the clients of the nearby restaurant. There is also a green area with benches and tables used for recreational purposes.

Breakwater 3.15 In front of the outer wall of the west pier, to the south west of the harbour, there is a breakwater

that protects the west side of the harbour. The breakwater is made of concrete with estimated dimensions of 2.5m x 40m at the top, 5m x 42m at the bottom and estimated height of 3m based on a past bathymetry survey. We understand that the breakwater was refurbished about 10 years ago.



4 Options for Enhancement of the Harbour

Consultation 4.1 As part of the feasibility study, Scott Wilson undertook a consultation process with a range of

consultees consisting mainly of local harbour users and members of the Community Council. The main objective of the consultation was to incorporate the local knowledge and feedback from the end users into the report. The initial list of consultees was provided by Fife Council during the Inception Meeting and other consultees were added during the consultation process. The main organisations involved in the consultation were the Community Council, Fife Councillors, St Monans Harbour Users Association and other interested harbour users. The complete list of consultees that were contacted during this process is shown in Appendix B.

First Phase

4.2 The initial stage of the consultation consisted of developing sketch layouts based on the preliminary discussions we had with Fife Council. These sketches showed one option for the installation of a new floating pontoon walkway running along the west side of the middle pier and a second option for a marina with access from the middle pier of the harbour. The objective of the first consultation phase was to understand the expectations of the consultees and obtain initial feedback with regards to the possible solutions for the harbour development.

4.3 The sketches were circulated by email to all the consultees, asking for review of the options and their comments or queries (see Appendix B). The consultees had several concerns and comments about these two options so they made a request for a formal meeting in order to have an in-depth discussion about the harbour and an exchange of ideas.

Second Phase

4.4 The second phase was a more thorough analysis of the possible options in a close collaboration with the consultees, including a meeting, a formal submission of drawings and exchange of feedback to be incorporated in the final report. The first activity carried out on this phase was to organise a meeting with the consultees. This was held at the Mayview Hotel, St Monans on the 1st of June, 2010. In addition to the Scott Wilson representatives, attendees included members of the Community Council, Fife Councillors and St Monans Harbour Users Association (SHUA).

4.5 A detailed description of items discussed during the meeting and actions to be carried out is provided in the meeting notes included in Appendix B. The main items discussed were:

• Preliminary Options (developed during the First Phase): The consultees did not favour these two options because they would rather keep the Middle Pier clear of pontoons to allow continuing mooring of larger fishing boats which currently use it. There were also concerns about the available space for navigation around the proposed pontoons in the northeast corner which it was also thought would be liable to storm damage as this corner of the basin is the most badly affected by wave action during extreme conditions. For these reasons the two preliminary options were discarded.

• Preferred Options: Based on local knowledge, current use and the community’s preference, the most appropriate location for a new mooring development with pontoon berths was agreed to be adjacent to the West Pier. The berths should be for a mix of 8 and 10m boats.



The pontoons should have two different berthing areas, one for local users and one for visitors and should also include at least one ramp for disabled users to access the pontoons. Security gates should be provided to control access and water, electricity and lightning water points provided to at least the visitors’ area. A more detailed description and considerations of the various preferred options is discussed in the following sections of this report.

• Other options and enhancements: The introduction of toilets and showers for harbour users, the footprint of the dismantled boat building shed could be used for seasonal car parking and out of season boat storage with the adjacent slipway into the East Basin generating funds from launch charges for recreational craft and the removal of the guide rails on the west slipway could allow the top section of it to be used for seasonal car parking/boat storage.

4.6 Based on the feedback and discussions with the consultees during the meeting, a new set of drawings was produced showing the incorporation of the elements mentioned for the preferred options. The drawings were completed and sent to all consultees in mid-June. The three drawings prepared under this second phase of the consultation showed:

• Full preferred option on west pier,

• Reduced scope for preferred option on west pier,

• Alternative option on Middle Pier.

4.7 A formal response from the consultees to the revised proposal shown on these drawings was provided in a document entitled “Harbour Proposals” dated 13th July 2010. The document was produced by the St Monans Harbour Users Association (SHUA) but we understand that it reflects and includes the feedback and comments of all consultees. The full document is shown in Appendix B. The most relevant items are summarised below:

• The main commercial elements of the harbour (the west slipways and boatbuilding shed) are not used anymore and there are no plans to replace or enhance them, therefore the harbour’s options for economic contribution to the community are mainly from leisure/tourist activities.

• The community has a strong preference to keep some of the existing facilities or berths for commercial creel boats to encourage commercial fishing.

• There are currently problems with access and parking and if there is to be an expansion of the facilities to cater for additional users these problems have to be addressed.

• The preferred option for the harbour development is Option A1, which includes a full marina located at the West Pier. This option adds new berths without reducing much of the existing mooring facilities for creel boats.

• With the new facilities and additional berths, it is proposed to remove the west slipway, replace it with a new section of pier wall and build up the ground behind to use this area for parking / turning. It will also provide more space for the pontoons and boats, provide access for cranes to lift out boats and store additional boats during winter.

• Use concrete slab at the dismantled shed for parking and launching boats using the existing east slipway, charging for this service and creating an additional income from this asset.



• Provide facilities for toilets and showers at the Harbour. The existing stone winch house at the West Slipway might possibly be suitable for this purpose.

• Consider provision of additional power and water points at the West Pier and the proposed new parking area replacing the boat shed.

• Dredging programme for the harbour to be incorporated.

• In the preferred option, the berthing of boats on the north side of the north pontoon could only be carried out over a short span of time near high water due to the shallow water in this section of the basin.

• The side of the south pontoon facing the main channel will be affected by a heavy surge that often happens even during the summer months. It is suggested that these berths should be kept for occasional/visitor berths.

• Reconsider the size and number of boats shown in the drawing on the southern corners of the west basin.

• Remove the extension of the west slipway into the basin to avoid having boats settling on the sloping concrete surface.

• There is a preference to install ramps instead of ladders to access all pontoons as ramps are safer, facilitate access for disabled users and allow easier loading and unloading of the vessels. However, local users are open about using ladders if there are funding constraints. Also, the additional new ladders installed around the harbour have not provided an acceptable solution for access because they project in front of the walls and, in some cases, create more problems in terms of mooring and damage to boats.

4.8 A review of the consultation feedback has been completed and most of the comments have been incorporated in the proposals described in the following sections. Some of the items mentioned in the SHUA report (e.g. potential noise of halliards, speed limits and overnight stays), are outside the scope of this feasibility study but will be covered by the Council’s existing Harbour Byelaws document.

Full Scope – Preferred Option A1 4.9 The following option has been developed using our experience and knowledge of the site,

pontoon manufacturer’s feedback and the results and comments obtained during the consultation process. This option is preferred by the community because it enhances the harbour without greatly reducing the availability of berths for commercial fishing vessels. The proposed arrangement is shown on drawings D130822/FS/01 and D130822/FS/03 in Appendix C. The main elements of this option are the following:

North Pontoon

4.10 Based on feedback from the consultees we are proposing that this pontoon will be reserved for local users. The main walkway pontoon has a proposed length of 70m and a width of 2.0m. It will also have legs similar to Anstruther harbour to protect the pontoon during low tides when the harbour is dry. The minimum number of berths provided by this pontoon is 28 and we are proposing to have berths for 10m boats on the south side and for 8m boats on the north side. This number can be increased to 31-32 berths if the removal of the west slipway is included in



the scope. The drawing shown in Appendix C shows the potential number of berths if the slipway is removed.

4.11 An important consideration for this pontoon is that access to the berth would be restricted because, as seen from the bathymetry survey (see Appendix D), the north area of the basin is shallow. Consultees noted that based on their experience the berthing manoeuvre could only be carried out one and a half hours to either side of high water at spring tides.

4.12 The access to the pontoon can be provided by either a hinged ramp or a ladder and in Section 5 we show the cost for providing a ramp. Due to Health & Safety implications and the loading/unloading of boats, the consultees would prefer to have a ramp installed but are also aware that the cost is greater than a ladder so they are willing to accept access by ladder if there are constraints in funding this option; the ramp could be installed at a later stage should further funding become available.

4.13 Access to the pontoon would be restricted by an electronic security gate on the pier. We have also included for the provision of water, electric and lightning services along the pontoon. The consultees mentioned that the service points could be removed from this pontoon if funding was restricted. The scope also includes the removal of the two concrete filled steel guide piles at the middle of the basin.

West Slipway

4.14 The West Slipway is an existing structure that is no longer in use and could be removed if enough funding is available. Based on the bathymetry survey (Appendix D) the slipway extends about 19m into the basin. The removal of the slipway would provide 3 or 4 extra berths at the north pontoon and an estimated 500m2 of additional turning and car parking areas on the pier.

4.15 The scope includes the removal of the steel rails; demolition of the slipway that extends into the basin; new sea wall made of mass concrete (see detail of wall in Appendix C) built up to the same level as the existing wall; infilling of the slip ramp up to the level of existing ground with imported material; and a 100mm layer of gravel as the finished surface. To install sheet piling in the basin may not be possible because we understand that the sea bed consists of rock at shallow depths below the surface and therefore our proposal is based on a mass concrete wall.

South Pontoon / Breakwater

4.16 From the consultation process we were informed that the waves within the West Basin can be up to 0.5m high during surge or extreme conditions; these waves fan out from the main channel but the highest impact is on the northeast corner of the basin. No detailed wave modelling has been carried out for this study but we recommend that it is essential to undertake wave modelling to ensure that the proposed pontoons won’t be damaged during extreme conditions. We are proposing to use the south pontoon as a floating breakwater to attenuate the waves penetrating into the basin. We consulted with the pontoon manufacturer and based on the estimated wave heights and geometry of the basin they believe that a heavy duty pontoon (see data sheet in Appendix E) may give sufficient wave attenuation to protect all the pontoons. This assumption must be confirmed at a later stage once the modelling results are available.

4.17 This pontoon could be used by locals and visitors. The pontoon is around 56m long and the proposed width of the heavy duty pontoon is 2.9m. This pontoon will also include legs similar to Anstruther harbour for protecting the pontoon during low tides when the harbour is dry. The minimum number of berths provided by this pontoon is between 18-20 and the berths are for a



mix of 8m and 10m boats. The berths on the south side of this pontoon are not protected from waves coming through the harbour entrance so these berths should only be used by occasional/visitor boats during the summer period.

4.18 The access to the pontoon would be provided by a hinged ramp for ease of access, especially for visitors and disabled users. The ramp would be hinged to the sea wall and will have rollers at the bottom end to maintain access to the pontoons at all times regardless of tide levels.

4.19 The access to the pontoon would be restricted by a gate at the edge of the pier wall, which will include a keypad access system to control ingress to pontoons. This pontoon includes the provision of water, electric and lighting services along the pontoon.

East Slipway

4.20 The slipway located on the East Basin, adjacent to the East Pier, is no longer in use. We understand that dismantling of the boatbuilding shed is currently being carried out and that this will be finished in the near future, prior to the start of the proposed enhancement to the harbour.

4.21 One of the outcomes of the consultation was to highlight the current shortage of car parking and that the potential increase of users would require additional parking areas. The proposal to enhance the harbour allows for the use of the concrete floor slab that will remain after the dismantling of the shed as a car park during summer and for boat storage during winter. The slipway could be used as an additional source of income by charging a fee to launch small recreational crafts.

4.22 The proposed works include the application of a uniform concrete finish to the slab, if required; vehicle barriers as other protection around edges; painting of parking bays; access control (barrier or parking meters); and refurbishment and protection of the slipway foundation which currently shows undermining of some areas. The proposed arrangement of the parking bays and access to the slipway is shown in Appendix C.

Toilets and Showers building

4.23 Currently the harbour doesn’t have any public toilets or showers and the potential increase in the number of users and visitors will require the provision of these facilities. The consultees have suggested that the existing stone winch house at the West Slipway could be used for this purpose. This is an option to consider but without knowing the layout, structural conditions and the compliance with the current building regulations we can not be sure that the building will be suitable for this purpose or that the modifications to the building will come at a lower cost than a new building. Therefore we have allowed for the cost of a new building and if a future survey and assessment of the existing building considers that it can provide the facilities at less cost then a saving can be made.

4.24 If the facilities are in a new building, the location of the building will depend on different factors including planning recommendations, location of existing utilities and services (sewer, water, electricity), preferences of harbour local users, among others. This location will have to be assessed and established at a later stage of the project development. For costing purposes we are assuming that the land where the building will be situated will be owned by the Local Council and no allowance has been made for land purchase.



4.25 The proposed numbers of toilets and showers have been based on the recommendations suggested in the document “Code of Practice for the Design, Construction and Operation of Coastal and Inland Marinas and Yacht Harbours” by The Yacht Harbour Association.

4.26 The table below shows the Toilet Accommodation for Coastal Marinas. It is also mentioned that the facilities should be situated in a suitable and available area but no more than 300 metres from the furthest access to the marina.

Table 4.1 Toilet Accommodation

FACILITY MALE FEMALE

W.C’s 1 per 50 berths 1 per 50 berths

Urinals 1 per 75 berths -

Wash Hand Basins 1 per 50 berths 1 per 75 berths

Showers 1 per 75 berths 1 per 75 berths

Deep Sinks 1 in each block 1 in each block

4.27 Considering the proposed and existing berths, the total berthing capacity will be between 50 and 75 berths, therefore we are proposing:

• Male WC

• 2 WCs, one of them to be for disabled users

• 1 Urinal

• 2 Wash Hand Basins

• Hand Drying facilities

• 1 Shower with adjacent changing room

• 1 Bucket sink

• Female WC

• 2 WCs, one of them to be for disabled users

• 1 Wash Hand Basin

• Hand Drying Facilities


• 1 Bucket sink

• Baby Changing facilities

4.28 The layout of the building will have to be finalised at a later stage once the final location has been established and the available space for construction is set. For costing purposes we have estimated that the building will need about 42m2 of plan area in order to fit all the facilities described in the previous paragraph. The cost is based on square metre of construction and we have also allowed for the cost of consents and connections to infrastructure services.



General Enhancements

4.29 Based on the feedback from the consultees, the last dredging of the harbour was carried out in 2007, therefore we are including in the budget a cost for dredging the west basin 300mm in average, and at the same time we need to ensure that the rock is not exposed and layer of mud is kept between the rock and the proposed pontoons to ensure that the new facilities or the boats using them are not damaged by a protruding rock during low tides. We strongly suggest that a dredging programme is established with pre-established dredging activities arranged on a yearly basis to keep navigation safe.

4.30 Consider additional power and water points at the west pier to facilitate loading/unloading and cleaning activities at the proposed new car park and boat storage area as per consultees’ recommendation.

Reduced Scope – Preferred Option A2 4.31 We are aware that the funding to develop the harbour may be restricted so we are also

proposing an alternative arrangement that reduces the initial capital expenditure and provides flexibility for developing the full scope in the future, when more funding is available. We understand that the core development is the marina and the alternative option is mainly focused on this item. The rest of the enhancements to the harbour, as per the description of the full scope, could either be considered in the scope or removed from the scope.

4.32 The main modification in this option is the reduction of the length of the pontoons to reduce cost and also to avoid having a heavy-duty pontoon acting as a breakwater; with the shorter length the pontoons are no longer in the main path of the surge waves. The length of the pontoons and the overall basin arrangement will have to be confirmed by a detailed wave modelling exercise at a future stage. The proposed arrangement for this reduced scope is shown in Appendix C.

North Pontoon

4.33 We are proposing that this pontoon will be exclusively used by the local users. The main walkway pontoon has a proposed length of 40m and a width of 2.0m; the length could be extended depending on the results from the wave modelling exercise. The pontoons will have legs similar to Anstruther harbour for protecting the pontoon during low tides when the harbour is dry. The minimum number of berths provided by this pontoon is 14 and we are proposing to have berths for 10m boats on the south side and for 8m boats on the north side. Drawing D130822/FS/02 shows the potential number of berths without removing the slipway.

4.34 An important consideration for this pontoon is that access to the berth would be restricted because, as seen from the bathymetry survey (see Appendix D), the north area of the basin is shallow. Consultees noted that based on their experience the berthing manoeuvre could only be carried out one and a half hours to either side of high water at spring tides.

4.35 The access to the pontoon can be provided by either a hinged ramp or a ladder. To keep costs low in the reduced scope we are only considering a ladder access. As mentioned in paragraph 4.12, we are aware that the consultees would prefer to have a ramp installed. The ramp could be installed at a later stage when more funding is available.



4.36 The access to the pontoon would be restricted by a gate located at the edge of the pier wall; the gate will include a keypad access system to control ingress to pontoons. We are not including the provision of water, electric and lightning services along the pontoon. The consultees mentioned that the service points could be removed from this pontoon if funding was restricted. The scope also includes the removal of the two timber posts at the middle of the basin.

West Slipway

4.37 For the reduced scope, the removal of the west slipway would be postponed for a later investment stage.

South Pontoon

4.38 This pontoon could be used by locals and visitors. The proposed pontoon would be around 30m long and its width would be 2.0m; the length could be extended depending on the results from the wave modelling exercise. This pontoon will also include legs similar to Anstruther harbour for protecting the pontoon during low tides when the harbour is dry. The minimum number of berths provided by this pontoon is between 11 and 12 and the berths are for a mix of 8m and 10m boats. Our assumption is that with the reduced length, the pontoon and the boats moored to this pontoon will not be on the main path of the surge waves, but depending on the wave modelling exercise, the berths on the south side of this pontoon may be affected so these berths may be restricted to use by occasional/visitor boats during the summer period.

4.39 The access to the pontoon would be provided by a hinged ramp for ease of access, especially for visitors and disabled users. The ramp would be hinged to the sea wall and will have rollers at the bottom to keep access to the pontoons at all times regardless of tide levels.

4.40 Entrance to the ramp would be controlled by a keypad activated security gate on the pier side. The pontoon would be lit with each berth having it’s own water and electrical service point.

Toilets and Showers building

4.41 Considering the decrease in berths for the reduced scope and, following the recommendations shown in Table 4.1 that the new building footprint could be smaller, then the design could allow for possible future expansion should the number of berths be subsequently increased. The proposed building would have:

• Male WC

• 1 WC, suitable for disabled users

• 1 Urinal


• Hand Drying facilities


• 1 Bucket sink

• Female WC

• 1 WC, suitable for disabled users




• Hand Drying Facilities


• 1 Bucket sink

• Baby Changing facilities

4.42 The layout of the building will have to be finalized at a later stage once the final location has been established and the available space for construction is set. For costing purposes we have estimated that the building will be reduced to a construction plan area of about 30m2 in order to accommodate all the facilities described in the previous paragraph. The cost is based on the area of construction and we have also allowed for the cost of permits and connections to infrastructure services.

East Slipway and General Enhancements

4.43 These items are described in the Full Scope section and can either be included in the scope or not depending on funding constraints. The stakeholders would need to decide what will be initially included, based on the available funding during the initial capital investment, and what would have to be postponed to a later funding stage.



5 Costs, Programme and Procurement

Ground Conditions 5.1 A special note has to be included regarding the ground conditions on the sea bed of the

harbour. Based on discussions with consultees and their local knowledge we are assuming that the rock head is very close to the top layer of the sea bed. We are not aware of any recent studies of ground conditions of the harbour to confirm the depth of the rockhead. The cost implications of having rockhead at shallow depth is that the cost of installing the guiding piles of the pontoons in these soil conditions (rock-socketed piles) is significantly higher than the conventional installation of driven piles. Based on the ground investigation that should be carried out at a later stage it could be established if the type and depth of the rock is suitable for driven or rock-socketed piles. As a reference, for a past project at Elie (a town very close to St Monans) we found that the first layer of rock consisted of basalt and it was approximately 3m deep; basalt is very difficult to drill and may carry additional costs.

5.2 For the following costing exercises we will assume that all piles will need to be rock-socketed. The significant cost, when installing a small number of piles, is the mobilization of the equipment.

Cost Estimate – Full Scope Option A1

Table 5.1 Costing Full Scope A1

Description Unit Quantity Rate (£) Amount (£)

Notes / Comments

Full Scope: Option A1 1. Construction North Pontoon Pontoons including cleats and pile guides.

nr 1 £69,000 £69,000 Walkway width 2.0m, fingers 0.61m wide.

bridge access and landing pontoon

nr 1 £29,900 £29,900 Hinged

Services (per pontoon berths)

nr 30 £600 £18,000 Ligths, electricity and water

Access Gate with keypad access

nr 1 £5,400 £5,400 Includes anti-intruder bars

Rock-socketed piles nr 6 £10,000 £60,000 Geotech conditions unknown

Mobilization of specialized piling Plant (Cost divided in two pontoons)

nr 0.5 £100,000 £50,000 Assumption: mud layer is not thick enough and rock is not weathered for driven piles

Sub total £232,300



South Pontoon Pontoons (attenuating waves) including cleats and pile guides.


bridge access nr 1 £17,900 £17,900 Hinged Services (per pontoon berths)




Rock-socketed piles nr 4 £10,000 £40,000 Geotech conditions unknown.



Sub total £231,700

Removal of West Slipway Demolition and disposal of concrete slipway section that extends into basin

m3 195 £207 £40,325 Assumption: thickness of slab is 600mm

Removal of slipway foundation

m3 1,157 £16 £18,931 Assumption: No discrete foundations, just a layer of crushed rock down to rock level (-0.48m assumed)

New mass concrete sea wall (placing underwater)

m3 420 £197 £82,909 Foundation to be rock bed (level: -0.48m assumed)

Infill of imported material m3 932 £22 £20,504

Layer of gravel m3 56 £22 £1,213 100mm thick

Sub total £163,881

Toilets and Showers Building

Public Toilets New Building m2 42 £1,400 £58,800 Assumption: Land owned by the Local Council. No cost allowed for purchasing land.

Connections to Infrastructure services (water, sewage, electricity, etc.) for new building

nr 1 £11,760 £11,760 Assumption: All utilities and services are relatively close to the new building. Cost to be confirmed with Utilities

Sub total £70,560

East Slipway Parking area at dismantled shed

nr 1 £15,500 £15,500 Allow for barrier, resurfacing of slab, vehicle barrier, and paint/signs. Assumption: The disposal of all existing structures and items in the shed area to be carried out by others

Mass Concrete Filling - East Slipway (Placing underwater)

m3 48 £197 £9,555 Assumption that east side is the only side undermined by waves

Sub total £25,055



General Works Dredging m3 1,950 £10 £19,500 Allow for establishing a

uniform level for most of the basin considering a dredging average depth of 300mm. Approx area of basin 6500 sq m

Electricity and Water points at West Pier

nr 1 £6,000 £6,000

Removal of Concrete filled steel guide piles

nr 2 £1,500 £3,000 Considering that the only requirements are to cut them at their base and their disposal

Sub total £28,500

Preliminaries General Items £150,399 20% Provisional Sums £40,000 testing and dayworks Sub total £190,399

Total Construction

Costs£942,396

2. Procurement Design and Management £65,968 7.0%Site Investigations £40,000 sumWave Modelling £20,000 sumConsents, Planning, etc £10,000 sumContract Administration £18,848 2%Site Supervision £37,696 4%

Total Procurement

Costs£192,511

Contingency Allowance

£340,472 30%

Total Project Cost £1,475,379

5.3 All of these estimates exclude VAT. These estimates have been made using SPON’S 2008 (civil engineering and highway works) Price Book, costs from past projects and direct quotes from manufacturers as reference. The costs estimated using SPON’S have been brought forward from January 2008 to June 2010 by factoring 8.3%. This number has been chosen with reference to the BERR Output Price Index for Public Works as an average of the relevant items. For the direct quotes from manufacturers the costs provided are recent and no significant changes in cost are envisioned up to the end of 2010.

5.4 A contingency allowance of 30% has been included to allow for optimism bias; uncertainty and/or lack of information for the design parameters; cost variations and additional items that may be required but cannot be identified at this stage; and other risks associated with this type of projects. However, costs may vary significantly from these estimates. We strongly recommend that the budget estimate be updated once further information is available (e.g. detailed site investigation, defined scope and available funding) and detailed design is in progress or has been completed.



Cost Estimate – Reduced Scope Option A2 5.5 We are aware that funding for this project is still an ongoing process and that the scope of the

project may have to be tailored to suit limited funds. Therefore we have developed costs for a reduced scope as a sensibility exercise in terms of costing and also considering the possible construction to be carried out in several stages. The comments given above in regard to cost estimates apply also in this case.

5.6 In the table below we have only shown the essential items in the reduced scope. Depending on the available funds the scope can be extended to include some or all the items described in the cost estimate for the full scope (Option A1).

Table 5.2 Costing Full Scope A2

Description Unit Quantity Rate (£) Amount (£)

Notes / Comments

Full Scope: Option A1 1. Construction North Pontoon Pontoons including cleats and pile guides.


Ladder access nr 1 £1,000 £1,000 Access Gate with keypad access


Rock-socketed piles nr 4 £10,000 £40,000 Geotech conditions unknown

Mobilization of specialised piling Plant (Cost divided in two pontoons)


Sub total £135,829

South Pontoon Pontoons (attenuating waves) including cleats and pile guides.


Ladder access nr 1 £1,000 £1,000 Services (per pontoon berths)




Rock-socketed piles nr 4 £10,000 £40,000 Geotech conditions unknown.



Sub total £133,171

Toilets and Showers Building



Public Toilets New Building m2 30 £1,400 £42,000 Assumption: Land owned by the Local Council. No cost allowed for purchasing land.

Connections to Infrastructure services (water, sewage, electricity, etc.) for new building

nr 1 £8,400 £8,400 Assumption: All utilities and services are relatively close to the new building. Cost to be confirmed with Utilities

Sub total £50,400

Preliminaries General Items £63,880 20% Provisional Sums £20,000 testing and dayworks Sub total £83,880

Total Construction

Costs£403,280

2. Procurement Design and Management £28,230 7.0%Site Investigations £40,000 sumWave Modelling £20,000 sumConsents, Planning, etc £8,000 sumContract Administration £8,066 2%Site Supervision £16,131 4%

Total Procurement

Costs£120,426

Contingency Allowance

£157,112 30%

Total Project Cost £680,818

Programme 5.7 The minimum duration of the project, from approval to proceed until operation of the new

facility, is estimated to be approximately 12 months. The three main phases being as follows;

3 months for Site Investigation, Value Engineering and Outline Design

3 months for Detailed Design and Tendering

Minimum 6 months for Construction

5.8 If any planning and environmental consents are required it is assumed that they are progressed in parallel with the outline design.

Project Risks 5.9 The following are considered risks to the project at this stage. Some of these items could be

suitably controlled by further investigation should the project proceed to the next phase.



Obtaining Planning Permissions / Section 34 Consent and the possible need for an Environmental Impact Assessment could prolong programme and increase costs.

Detailed Design – Scope of structure/foundation for sea wall and east slipway and structural design increases.

Ground conditions drive site investigation costs up and prolong duration.

Site investigation results necessitate more piling (number and/or length) or more expensive solution for sea wall.

Ground/sea bed conditions during construction result in delays due to unforeseen obstructions.

Unforeseen conditions associated with the existing structure e.g. foundation of existing east slipway or structural integrity of existing sea wall are in worse condition than assumed and need replacement or refurbishments.

Increase in cost of materials.



6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions 6.1 A comprehensive assessment of the cost and feasibility for the enhancement of St Monans

Harbour has been carried out, based on professional experience, limited available technical information and stakeholder engagement. Based on the estimated costs for the full scope and considering the uncertainty on the funds available for the development of this project we have also provided an alternative budget with a reduced scope. The project could be constructed in different stages to reduce the capital expenditure required for the initial stage of the construction without affecting the performance of the facilities once all stages have been completed.

Recommendations 6.2 The main uncertainties in terms of cost and design lie in the lack of reliable information about

the ground condition beneath the seabed and we recommend carrying out site investigation and other surveys before setting the definitive budget and scope for the construction of the new facilities. These could serve two purposes: Confirm budget costs while minimising risks, and identify any possible savings that could be incorporated during detailed design.

6.3 Our recommendation is to consider the Full Scope (Option A1) as the ideal solution for the harbour enhancement. Depending on the available funds, the development of the harbour could be made in only one stage that would develop the full scope or it could be done in successive stages to suit funding constraints, but always aiming on having a final product that resembles the Full Scope. In other words, the Reduced Scope option could be considered as an alternative first step in the development of the harbour. Once funding has been established, the local community can be consulted on the best option available.

6.4 As a final recommendation, if the development of the scope described in this study proves successful, the development of the East Basin could be considered as a further option to enhance the harbour even more, bringing to St Monans additional revenue by significantly increasing the berthing capacity – which would bring more tourism or even commercial activity. However, for development of the East Basin it would be necessary to address the problem of wave overtopping at the East Pier, either by raising the height of the pier or by providing a revetment or off-shore breakwater to attenuate the incoming waves.



Appendices



Appendix A – Briefing Information and Scope

Design Brief

Meeting Notes of Inception Meeting

1

Fife Council Transportation Services Consultancy Services Term Commission

Client Ref: R98411

Project Title: St Monans Harbour Feasibility Study

Completed by : Moir Gibson Date of Issue: 12/02/2010 (Client) Completed by : Ryan Hutchison Date of Return: 02/03/2010 (Scott Wilson) Brief Confirmed Final : (Date)

Revision Document Status Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Ref: R98411 St Monans Harbour – Feasibility Study

2

Project Control Plan (to be completed by the Client)

Client Reference R98411

Brief Issued To Scott Wilson

Brief Issued By Angus Carmichael

Date of Issue 12 February 2010

Project Manager (Client) Moir Gibson

Do the Construction (Design and Management Regulations) Apply?

No

Name of CDM Coordinator N/A

Name of Designer Scott Wilson

Safety Auditor Scott Wilson

Cycle Auditor Scott Wilson

Technical Approval Authority for Structures

Fife Council


3

Design Brief – Contents Section Page

1. Scope of Works 4

• Background

• Description of Clients Project Requirements

• Budget Allocation

• Information Provided by the Client

• Quality, Safety and Environmental Policies

2. Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 4

3. Deliverables 4

• Deliverables

• Key Dates for Deliverables

4. Communication/Contacts 5

• Liaison with Client

• Frequency of Progress Meetings

• List of Consultees

5. Associated Briefs 6

6. Location Plan 6

7. Consultants/Designers Response to Brief 6

• Project Manager

• Programme of Deliverables

• Staff Resources

• Fee Proposal


4

1. Scope of Works

Background

1.1 St Monans Harbour is a former commercial fishing and boat building/repair centre which has declined in recent decades to mainly catering for leisure craft with a few small creel boats.

Description of Client’s Project Requirements

1.2 The local Community Council and Fife Councillors are looking for direction and insight into the possibilities of breathing new life into this under utilised facility. You will consult with all interested parties and report on the options available to maximise use of the harbour and improve it’s environment.

Budget Allocation

1.3 A fund of £10,000 is available for the undertaking of this study and your submission should be tailored accordingly.

Information Provided by the Client

1.4 The following information will be available if required:

• Maintenance records and expenditure for last six years

• Tide tables

• Scale plan of the harbour

Quality, Safety and Environmental Policies

1.5 The commission is to be carried out in accordance with the Consultant’s approved Quality Assurance Scheme and Health and Safety and Environmental policies.

2. Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007

2.1 N/A.

3. Deliverables

Deliverables

3.1

• The following deliverables are to be provided, electronically and in paper:

• Fee Proposal including programme etc..

• Report on the options considered with your recommendations.


5

Key Dates for Deliverables

3.2 Key Dates:

Project Inception meeting 1 March 2010

Fee Proposal including programme etc. 08 March 2010

Feasibility Report 31 March 2010

4. Communications/Contacts

Liaison with the Client

4.1 The project will be managed by Fife Council Transportation Services, Structural Services – Harbours, Flood & Coast, Ground Floor County Buildings, St Catherine Street, Cupar, KY15 4TA.

Moir Gibson, Technician Engineer, Harbours, Flood & Coast, tel: 08451 555555 ext. 450522.

Jim Moodie, Lead Officer, Harbours, Flood & Coast, tel: 08451 555555 ext. 444390.

Mike Thorpe, Team Leader, Structural Services, tel: 08451 555555 ext. 450496.

Derek Crowe, Senior Manager, Roads & Engineering Services, tel: 08451 555555 ext. 450441.

Frequency of Progress Meetings

4.2 N/A.

List of Consultees

4.3

• Names and addresses of the Community Council Chair and Secretary

• Contact details of the local Fife Council Councillors

• Contact details of relevant Fife Council Officers

• Names and addresses of local interested parties and harbour users


6

5. Associated Briefs

Associated Briefs

5.1 N/A.

6. Location Plan

6.1 The following drawings are attached:

• Location plan showing area of interest

7. Consultants/Designers Response to Brief

Project Manager

7.1 Consultant’s nominated Project Manager is Ross Macphie.

Programme of Deliverables

7.2 In accordance with Section 3, above.

Staff Resources

CV’s to be issued to the Employer for all new personnel proposed by the Consultant for approval.

Name Role/Responsibility Contact Details

Ross Macphie Project Manager [email protected]

Jorge Aguilar Assistant Engineer [email protected]

Robert Clegg Technical Reviewer [email protected]


7

Fee Proposal

The study will be undertaken on a time-reimbursable basis using Term Commission hourly rates. The study will be subject to a fee ceiling of £10,000.

Meeting Notes

Page 1 of 2

Scott Wilson Holdings Limited Print Date: 01/09/2010 Form Issue: WRDJul 08 v3

Project Number D130822 Title St Monans Harbour Feasibility Study

Supply Number

Subject Start-up Meeting Meeting Number 01 Date & Time

19 / 03 / 2010 11:00am

Attendees

Mike Thorpe - Fife Council (FC) Jim Moodie (FC) Moir Gibson (FC) Ross MacPhie - Scott Wilson (SW) Jorge Aguilar (SW)

Venue Fife Council - Cupar Office

Distribution Attendees, Ryan Hutchinson, David Wright, Robert Clegg

Notes by Jorge Aguilar

Item Notes Action

1 Project Background

1.1 St Monans harbour is located on the South East coast of Fife, approximately 3 miles west of the nearby port of Anstruther and 1 mile west of Pittenweem. St Monans Harbour main activity used to be fishing; nowadays it is popular with tourists and the harbour is surrounded by holiday properties for rent.

1.2 About a year ago the local Council met to discuss the regeneration of the harbour because the commercial activity at the harbour had stopped. At the moment, the harbour is only being used by a few small boats and leisure crafts.

1.3 The Council wants to explore the feasibility of installing pontoons in St Monans, similar to Anstruther harbour. Scott Wilson are appointed to undertake a study and report findings to the Council. The study will include an independent review of potential enhancements to the harbour, and assess the options available.

2 Harbour Description An overview of St Monans harbour was discussed during the meeting. FC described the harbour’s main features and also provided the following information:

- Drawing of Harbour which showed the plan layout - Tide Tables 2010 - Contact Details of Consultees - Ports of Scotland 2010 - Forth Yacht Club Association 2009 Pilot Handbook

2.1 The harbour main structures are:

� West Pier – A slipway is located in the middle of the pier. � Middle Pier – Most of the boats in the harbour are in the west wall of this pier. � East Pier – This pier is the most vulnerable of the harbour. Last October the waves

were higher than the seawall and caused some damage. � Two basins, one formed by the West and Middle pier, and one formed by the Middle

and East pier – St Monans is a drying harbour and the basins’ depth is constrained by the rock bed. Dredging has been done in the west basin, not as much in the east basin.

� West Breakwater to the south of the West pier. � Rock / Concrete wall and path for accessing beacon. � West Slipway – No longer in operation. No interested parties to take over at the

moment. � Middle Slipway – It is used mainly for small boats. � East Slipway – Used for boat repair facilities. Its construction was suspended and

needs to be completed. At the moment is not in operation. � Building for boat repairs – Being dismantled and demolished. The concrete slab will

remain.

Meeting Notes

Page 2 of 2


Item Notes Action

2.2 Pontoons positioned perpendicular to the piers could be subjected to damage during extreme wave conditions.

2.3 Silt builds up quickly in the entrance to the basins. Dredging carried out every 3 or 4 years.

2.4 Seaweed can be found sometimes in the harbour. Locals complain about the smell.

2.5 Buildings near the harbour are classified as Grade B listing.

2.6 Harbour well lit. Could prevent criminal activity if future enhancements of the harbour are carried out.

3 Study Options Discussed The main options to be assessed where highlighted during the meeting. Some additional options were briefly discussed as well.

3.1 Local Councilers have suggested that a system of pontoons similar to Anstruther be investigated. There are concerns about risk and high maintenance cost brought up during consultation with FC Transportation Services and harbourmaster. There is also a great concern about any new work in the east basin due to waves overtopping east pier and potentially causing damage to proposed facilities.

3.2 However FC Transportation Services suggests that a more modest solution of a walkway of pontoons at the west face of the middle pier, which would allow for 2 or 3 rows of boats would perhaps be more appropriate.

3.3 Security facilities / control gates could be necessary depending on preferred solution; same for electrical pillars in pontoons or walkways. Walkways wouldn’t require as much security measures as pontoons.

3.4 Another option mentioned was the removal of the west slipway and build up the sea wall in order to increase the area for walkways or pontoons.

3.5 The concrete slab of the boat repair building that won’t be demolished could be used as a car park during summer and for boat storage during winter.

4 Programme and Budget

4.1 Scott Wilson to provide resource estimate and study programme to FC. Expenditure to be shown in parallel with programme. The budget for the study is £10,000.

SW

4.2 SW to resource project to spend approximately £5k this financial year and provide an estimate of this spend for FC approval and invoice accordingly.

SW

5 Any Other Business

5.1 SW to initiate contact with consultees / stakeholders. Mayview Hotel suggested as venue for meeting with interested parties.

SW

5.2 SW to consider planning consent as well as other licences required for this type of project.

SW



Appendix B – Consultation

Consultees Contact Information

Minute of Consultation Meeting

Options assessed during Consultation

Sketch Option 1A

Sketch Option 1B

Sketch Option A1

Sketch Option A2

Sketch Option B

SHUA Harbour Proposal Document

St Monans Harbour - Feasibility StudyConsultees List

Name Address Telephone Email Details Consultation Meeting Att.

Mr Andy Anderson St Helens, 7 Elm Grove, St Monans, KY10 2DA [email protected] Community Council - Chair

Mrs Ruth Craib 44 Station Road, St Monans, KY10 2DA 01333 730741 [email protected] Community Council - Secretary

George Brown 01333730539 [email protected] Community Council X

William Buchan - [email protected] Community Council X

Cllr Elizabeth Riches Seafield, Bankwell Road, Anstruther, KY10 3DA 08451 555555 ext 44107207720717111 [email protected] Fife Councillors

Cllr Donald MacGregor 15 Kinkell Terrace, St Andrews, KY16 8DS08451 555555 ext 442153

0782807963501334474282

[email protected]@hotmail.com Fife Councillors

X

Cllr Mike Scott-Hayward Sawmill Cottage, Kemback Bridge, KY15 5TP 0133465504007917365197 [email protected] Fife Councillors

Mr G Imrie Granandra, Ceres Road, Craigrothie KY15 5QB 01334828753 Note: No longer involved with St Monans Harbour

Mr I Anderson 01333311360 [email protected] Harbour Users & Local Interest Parties (St Monans Harbour Users Association) X

Mr G Bell 17 West Shore, St Monans, KY10 2AD 0133373089307802361748 [email protected] Harbour Users & Local Interest Parties (St

Monans Harbour Users Association)

Mr Kenneth Smith 3 The Cribbs, St Monans, KY10 2AD 0133373079307718863026 [email protected] Harbour Users & Local Interest Parties (St

Monans Harbour Users Association) X

Mr P Marr 8 West Shore, St Monans, KY10 2BS 01333730240 [email protected] Harbour Users & Local Interest Parties - Post Office

Mr T Hughes 40 Station Road, St Monans, KY10 2BN 01333730564 [email protected] Harbour Users & Local Interest Parties - Mayview Hotel / St Monans Trust X

Fiona Mitchell [email protected] Fife Council

Bob McLellan [email protected] Fife Council

Norman Hall [email protected] Harbourmaster

Meeting Notes

Page 1 of 4


Project Number D130822 Title St Monans Harbour Feasibility Study

Supply Number

Subject Consultation Meeting Meeting Number 02 Date & Time

01 / 06 / 2010 7:00pm

Attendees

Donald MacGregor - Fife Councillor (FCllr) George Brown - Community Council (CC) Ruth Craib (CC) William Buchan (CC) Tom Hughes - St Monans Trust (SMT) Ian Anderson - St Monans Harbours Users

Association (SHUA) Ken Smith (SHUA) Robert Clegg - Scott Wilson (SW) Jorge Aguilar (SW)

Venue Mayview Hotel, St Monans

Distribution

Attendees, Moir Gibson, Mike Thorpe, Elisabeth Riches, Bob McLellan, Mike Scott-Hayward, Andy Anderson, R Craib, Gordon Bell, P Marr, Fiona Mitchell.

Notes by Jorge Aguilar

Item Notes Action 1 Objective

1.1 A consultation meeting was organized to involve the stakeholders in the development of the feasibility study for the enhancement of St Monans Harbour. The purpose of this meeting was to explain the objective of the study to the Community Council, Harbours Users Group and Fife Councillors; discuss the preliminary options that were circulated previously and obtain their feedback / local knowledge in order to identify additional options for the harbour development. The notes below summarize what was discussed in the consultation meeting.

2 Current conditions / knowledge of the Harbour

2.1 Dredging of the basins is not done very often. It has been several years since dredging was done in either basin; most of the east basin has not enough water depth for safe navigation.

2.2 Not enough information available about rock / soil conditions of the sea bed. SHUA mentioned that it may be sandstone formations. Further studies or information required. SW to investigate and mention in report if there is any existing information available of possible rock formations and indicate additional studies required.

SW

2.3 No public toilets or showers are available at or near the harbour.

2.4 The harbourmaster’s building and the piers are historic / listed structures and any modifications to them may not be possible to implement.

2.5 Currently about 5 old, longer fishing boats use the harbour in the west basin (no boats in the east basin, except some small boats in summer). At the moment the boats can only be moored close to the existing ladders for ease of access, but also, as ladders protrude out from the wall, the boats can’t be moored across ladder position. The ladders are far apart so not all the available space in the piers can be easily used for berthing. The community has strongly emphasized that they want to keep a similar number of berths for the old fishing boats.

2..6 During strong wind conditions the east pier is overtopped by the sea waves causing significant waves in the east basin. These extreme conditions happen several times every year. SHUA provided a photo of the waves overtopping the pier illustrating the strong effects caused in the east basin. SMT mentioned that the space between the wall of the east pier and the new slipway attenuates the overtopping waves to some degree.

Meeting Notes

Page 2 of 4


Item Notes Action 2.7 The west breakwater protecting the harbour entrance was repaired around 10 years ago.

2.8 There are concrete blocks on the seabed protecting the east pier; they are located between the east pier outer wall and the east wall of the beacon access path. The blocks were not observed during SW site visits due to the level of the tide.

2.9 The sea/swell waves from the south west can be significant at the entry channel of the west basin (SMT estimates perhaps 0.5m wave heights) and once in the basin they tend to fan out and disperse towards the back wall. The most severe wave action is between the entrance and the NE corner of the basin where the small slipway is located and in this corner wave heights are amplified by reflecting back off the harbour walls.

2.10 The old shed at the head of the east pier (land owned by the council) is being dismantled very slowly. Community is concerned that no work could be carried out or completed in the harbour until the dismantling of the shed is completed.

2.11 The harbour has very good lighting at night; may reduce lighting requirements for new facilities.

3 Preliminary Options

3.1 Two preliminary options had been circulated to the stakeholders for initial comments and feedback. These considered either a walkway (Option 1A) or a marina (Option 1B) in the west basin, adjacent to the middle pier.

3.2 The main concern of using the middle pier for the new development is that the old fishing boats that currently use the harbour need to be moored directly to the pier and the installation of pontoons along the wall would reduce considerably the available berths for this kind of boats.

3.3 There were also concerns about the space available for boats between the small slipway and the proposed location of the pontoon arms shown in Option 1B. SHUA mentioned that during strong southwest winds the waves hit the top right corner with considerable force (see item 2.9 above) and that the pontoons located in the travelling path of the waves could be damaged.

3.4 For the walkway option (1A) it was suggested that the maximum number of boats moored in parallel to each berth could only be two therefore the small number of proposed additional berths could not justify the removal of berths for fishing boats and there would be few extra berths available for visitors.

3.5 In summary, the community prefers to keep the middle pier without new pontoons (neither a walkway nor marina) that reduce the number of berths for the fishing boats and would like to develop the west pier instead, if feasible.

4 Preferred Options

4.1 The preferred option was to consider a floating pontoon system.

4.2 Pontoons to have legs to protect and support the pontoons when the harbour is dry, similar to Anstruther.

4.3 The pontoon system to be designed for a mix of boats between 8m and 10m long (smaller boats would also be able to use the same berths).

4.4 As at Anstruther, the types of boats to be allowed in the new berths would be double keel and long keel boats but fin keels could not use the pontoons.

4.5 It is assumed that most of the smaller boats currently using the harbour would like to have berths in floating pontoons and the boat owners will favour the development of the west pier.

Meeting Notes

Page 3 of 4


Item Notes Action 4.6 If possible, there will be specific berths designated for visitors, separated from the berths used

by the local users, similar to Anstruther.

4.7

To enhance the security of the vessels and reduce the chances of vandalism the new facilities would include gates to control access to the pontoons.

4.8 Consider at least one ramp to access the pontoons to provide access for disabled people.

4.9 The community considers it is essential to include in the scope the construction of public toilets and showers. This facility would make the harbour more attractive for visitors and will also be convenient for the local users. SW to liaise with Transportation Services about the feasibility and best location for such facilities based on the current layout of the sewer / water network and the available space around the harbour.

SW

4.10 Lighting, water and electric power points to be included at the berths for visitors. The local community considers that water and power at the berths for the local users is a “good-to-have” but not essential and they could consider using the current lights and water points at the piers in order to keep down costs.

4.11 The general consensus at the meeting was that there was a preference for developing the west pier. The description of the preferred option is the following: Preferred Option A1

- Two floating pontoon walkways to be considered, one at each side of the concrete slipway, extending out perpendicular to the west Pier wall.

- Each walkway will have fingers for berthing. Number and dimensions of fingers to be defined when developing the layout of the options.

- Ideally, the proposed length of the pontoon walkways could be extended beyond the centreline of the basin, but consideration of wave penetration noted in item 2.9 above may restrict the extent of pontoons.

- SW mentioned a more sophisticated wave modelling exercise of the basin may be required at a future stage before any final design of a pontoon system.

- SW to assess if a stronger pontoon or a floating breakwater could be provided at the outer end of the southern walkway to avoid damaging the new facilities due to high waves travelling through the entry channel and into the basin.

- Consider an access ramp to the pontoon for visitors and ladders for the pontoons to be used by the locals.

- Retain access for lifting out boats at north side of concrete slipway.

SW

4.12 If the construction of a floating breakwater was too expensive or there were no pontoons that could withstand the critical waves a similar option was discussed with a reduced scope: Preferred Option A2

- Very similar to option A1 but the length of the two pontoon walkways will be reduced to diminish the exposed length of pontoons and the breakwater may no be needed or its size reduced.

SW

Meeting Notes

Page 4 of 4


Item Notes Action 4.13 It was agreed that as a precaution or back-up, an alternative option will need to be assessed

during the feasibility study in case the constraints at the west pier cause option A1 and/or A2 to be very expensive or not feasible. The alternative option is the following: Alternative Option B

- At the middle pier, consider the Installation of a pontoon walkway with fingers included, extending out perpendicular from the Middle Pier wall towards its northern end. The number of berths to be defined during development of the option. No walkway pontoons would be provided along the wall of the pier, which could still be used by the larger fishing boats.

- The length of the pontoon walkway to be assessed considering the perpendicular waves coming into the basin. The same modelling exercise will be required as in Option 1A.

- A breakwater or stronger pontoons may be required as this area is exposed to the wave action from the south west.

- Another consideration for this option is to minimize the number of berths of fishing boats affected by the new facilities

SW

5 Additional Enhancements and Future options

5.1 The floor slab of the building that is being dismantled at the east pier could be used as a parking space for cars during summer and boats’ storage during winter.

5.2 SHUA mentioned that the new slipway adjacent to the old building is very good for launching boats. It was mentioned that the slipway could be used to generate additional funds by charging a fee launching boats; this is a common practice in other harbours. SW to assess if the dimensions of the concrete slab are big enough to park cars and leave enough space to slip boats. SW will also consider protection works needed to prevent undermining of edges of the slipway.

SW

5.3 Future options: It was agreed that due to the vulnerable condition of the east basin during extreme conditions the development of the east basin will not be assessed in detail in the feasibility study but it will be mentioned as a potential development at a later stage. SW will make a basic assessment of the options available to develop and protect that east basin and they will be discussed in the report.

SW

5.4 Remove rails on concrete slipway in West basin and use area above high water for car parking / boat storage.

6 General

6.1 The proposed solution(s) will be agreed by the community of St Monans. Once the drawings are ready, SW will circulate the proposed layouts of the options mentioned above to all the stakeholders before proceeding or completing the detailed assessment and costing of the options.

SW

6.2 The meeting notes of the consultation to be provided to all stakeholders by Thursday, 3rd of June.

SW

6.3 Additional stakeholders where added to the consultees list. SW to circulate the list to ensure that all the personal details are correct.

SW

�

�

�

StMonan’s Harbour Users Association Harbour Proposals. 12th July 2010 Background: SHUA is a group formed to promote responsible use of the harbour by all age groups, within the community and for visitors. It is also to keep interested parties informed of activities and plans involving the harbour and surrounds, and to lobby for harbour improvements. We seek to encourage people, especially young people, to become involved in sailing and water sports, perhaps giving access to these sports to people who otherwise may not have the opportunity. We also seek to improve the visitor’s experience of St Monans, encouraging return visits and supporting local businesses. We were pleased to hear that consultants had been engaged to look in to possible developments in the harbour, however; perhaps due to the lack of local knowledge, initial proposals were not practical. More recent versions are more practical and have merit. We would like to state from the start that we are in favour of developing the capacity of the harbour and understand that any plans will need to be on a commercial basis. We have discussed facilities with the existing users - commercial, leisure and surrounding residents. It was thought to be useful to the process for us to submit our ideas and requests for the future development of the harbour. What we would like to achieve is a long term plan for the harbour and its development, which may have to happen in stages. Unfortunately, with the main commercial elements closing, namely the Boat Shed and the Slipway, and with little hope of their replacement, the future of the harbour’s contribution to the community’s economy is mainly from the leisure/tourism field. Having said this, it is important that the remaining commercial creel boats activities and interests are catered for in any future plans, and that commercial fishing is encouraged. Initial plans discussed have been around the addition of pontoons providing extra berths; however, we think it important that the consequences and impact on the community and functionality of the harbour is also considered. In general we already have access and parking problems. We have insufficient services and support infrastructure for the existing level of use never mind expansion.

If we take the issues we would like in the plan one area at a time. Additional Berths: There is for many reasons only one practical solution to add berths and that is detailed in the most recent version in Plan A1. We feel the final version will be very close to this. It leaves the majority of the harbour untouched for future use, and adds genuine additional berths and income. One concern expressed by houses round the harbour was one of potential noise, in particular from halliards banging on metal masts in winds, The main problems we face now, that will be exacerbated with the addition of an additional forty eight boats, are parking, hard standing and turning areas. With this in mind we feel strongly that the west end slipway should be removed, the harbour wall reinstated and the area levelled and surfaced. This would allow the ideal positioning of the pontoons, an access for cranes to lift out, provide a turning space, parking in the summer and hard standing for boats in the winter. Parking is a big issue, especially in the summer. We see many visitors to the harbour arrive by car, find no parking, have difficulty in turning and leave. If adjacent businesses , such as Letting Homes, Hotel, Restaurant, B&Bs, Café and Shops are to thrive we need to retain these visitors. With this in mind we would like to see part of the Boat Shed area used for parking and the remaining part reserved for launching of smaller recreational craft and trailers. A central access would be maintained for launching and it would be envisaged this facility would be charged for, becoming an income source. A system similar to this successfully operates at North Berwick , which has daily, weekly and monthly tariffs in place for launching and recovery. This area would be our one and only option of providing disabled access, which is not available at present. This linked to the West End area would go a long way to easing parking and accessibility. We also need clear signage forbidding overnight stays of caravans and campervans, as well as the harbour speed limits, as advertising the boatshed slip will/should attract day trippers, some of which are likely to have jet skis. We have at present no toilet facilities at the harbour. With the addition of so many boats on a marina facility this would be unacceptable. We would like to look at the possibility of converting the existing stone winding house on the west pier into toilets and a shower for use by the boat owners - we believe there are existing services to this building. There are insufficient points providing power and fresh water, and this would need to be considered In the plans, particularly to the landward side of the West Pier and the new Boat Shed Park. A dredging programme needs to be incorporated. All boats on pontoons north of the line of the slip on the road side will need to swing out towards the road to berth. At the moment this area is shallow, and a manoeuvre like this can only be tackled approx one and a half hours each side of high water max. - On neap tides we would imagine, this would be much less. On option A1, boats on the south side of the proposed pontoon running out from south west corner will only be able to lie there in very quiet weather – even during the summer months a heavy surge can occur when there has been a northerly gale down the north east coast., even though there is no wind at StMonans (take the surge from a recent weekend as an example, despite there being no wind.) We would suggest the SE berths are kept for occasional/visitor berthing.

Two further observations on the plan A1 1. There is insufficient clearance to allow boats of the size shown on the plan to berth in the south east corner (Also there's no room to get boats the size they're showing in and out of the south west corner as they're showing.) 2. The existing slipway extends much further out in to the harbor than is shown on the drawing – should the slipway removal not be an option, boats on the south side of the north pontoon will be settling in to sloping concrete. We notice the plans showing ladder access to most of the pontoons, but the ramps system at Anstruther are a much safer option, especially when carrying bags, fuel cans etc on and off boats. A recent accident on the ladder down to the east pier, when someone fell off trying to get on to his boat carrying items, illustrates this point. We realize, however, this option will add to the costs. Some of the existing ladders around the harbour – replaced twelve years or just months ago, are a hindrance rather than a help, as they offer no protection for the boats moored alongside. This precludes using these areas and severely restricts the usage of the existing harbour wall area, as boats have to moor away from these ladders to avoid damage This also makes boarding and leaving these boats difficult, if not dangerous, at some states of the tide and in some weathers. There may be other issues not mentioned here, however we feel that these are reasonable and sensible proposals which will go a long way to ensuring St Monan’s Harbour thrives, and remains at the centre of our community for our and visitors use and enjoyment. Gordon Bell Chairman SHUA �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�



Appendix C – Drawings of Proposed Works

Full Scope – Option A1

Reduced Scope – Option A2

Details – Option A1



Appendix D – Topography and Bathymetry

Drawing of Harbour Layout (Fife Council)

Drawing of Topographic and Bathymetric Survey



Appendix E – Data Sheets

Normal Pontoon

Heavy-Duty Pontoon

Access Bridge

Documents

St Monans Harbour Feasibility Study...2012/12/06 · East Pier 3.2 The East Pier has an approximate length of 210m. It is the pier most exposed to the northeasterly winds and waves