During the planning inquiry to decide whether toll prices could be increased, the Sandbanks Ferry company asserted it needed more income to survive, while a consortium of local councils brushed aside the claim with a metaphorical eye roll.
Over six days, between Tuesday 21st and Wednesday 29th January 2024, the government-appointed planning inspector Kevin Gleeson heard from the company, which operates the ferry between Sandbanks and Studland in Dorset, that it was ‘fair and reasonable’ to link toll prices to inflation.

The public inquiry moved to the Springfield Country Hotel in Stoborough near Wareham for one session allowing people in Purbeck to attend more easily
General dismay from objectors
Only four years after the last inquiry to decide on the cost of tickets, the company claimed it needed more cash now, to ensure it could buy a replacement ferry in 2032.
However a number of objectors lined up to refute the necessity to increase ferry tolls above the three percent cap already agreed by the last inquiry in 2021.
The ferry company also asked to reinstate a road toll on Ferry Road, which links the ferry service to Studland village, despite the toll being scrapped in 1991. It was claimed that the extra revenue raised, estimated at £50,000 a year, could be added to the ferry replacement reserve pot.
There was general dismay from objectors to the proposal to charge for use of the road, despite a last minute concession to offer residents a pass for £5 a year in the BH19 postcode and those five miles from the ferry office in the BH20 postcode. It still meant no concession for Corfe Castle residents.

Making itself unpopular, the ferry company booked a temporary building at the Port of Poole on the other side of the harbour to Purbeck, meaning that few people attended
Elephant in the room
From Dorset South MP Lloyd Hatton, to Harman’s Cross resident Amber Hutchinson, the negative effect of any toll increase or reintroduction was highlighted.
Amber Hutchinson estimated that the increase on travelling on the ferry for work would cost her nearly £2,500 a year, along with an extra £1,000 a year to use the road when parking to walk her dog. She is in BH20 and probably outside the five mile radius.
The elephant in the room was residents’ lack of trust in the ferry company. While proceedings continued politely, the anger of many giving statements simmered under the surface. There were a record 633 objectors to the ferry company’s plans.
It was noted that the ferry company had not attempted any marketing to encourage passengers back to the ferry or sought to enter into local partnerships with hotels or the golf club.
While the ferry company talked about pre and post Covid passenger numbers, there was no mention that the post Covid period coincided with the 2021 public inquiry which was a public relations disaster for the company.
Alice Rogers told the inquiry there was a value in generating goodwill, which the ferry company had failed to seek.

Giving evidence, MP for South Dorset Lloyd Hatton (right)

Harman’s Cross resident Amber Hutchinson faces thousands of pounds of increased ferry costs
Interesting anomalies
A Harman’s Cross resident, Andrew Langsley spent a considerable time trawling through the numerous and increasingly complex ferry company documents, discovering interesting anomalies.
Giving evidence, he highlighted that the ferry company calculated how much it was receiving a year per vehicle, by dividing the toll income for that year, by the number of vehicles using the crossing in the same year. However any driver buying a book of tickets pays for them in one year and could be using them up to two years later.
While it may not make a whole lot of difference to the figures, it was surprising that a business wasn’t collecting correct data. Dividing the toll income, by the number of tickets sold in the same year, would better illustrate any trend in passenger behaviour.
He also pointed out that the ferry company was predicting that the number of vehicles using the ferry would go down by a steep seven percent by 2032, based on passenger data from 2022 compared to 2024.
But he suggested one percent growth per year was more in line with future predictions for rail passenger numbers. “Why are the ferry figures so pessimistic?” he questioned.

The Consortium delivers its closing statement
Consortium closing statement
There were two closing statements on the final day on Wednesday 29th January 2025. The first was by Joshua Dubin, the legal counsel representing the Consortium which opposes the ferry company’s plans.
The Consortium consists of Dorset Council, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, Swanage Town Council, Studland Parish Council, Langton Matravers Parish Council, Worth Matravers Parish Council and Corfe Castle Parish Council.
In his closing statement Joshua Dubin chose his words carefully when questioning the ferry company’s use of numbers. He said:
“The way you do the maths affects the apparent outcomes. Further, the company’s method applies inconsistent measures – RPI inflation to costs and CPI inflation to income – in a way that supports its case.
“It is not sleight of hand, given that each measure follows accepted accounting practice, but it is significant that none of the objectors with financial or statistical experience finds the methods employed by the company to be logical or appropriate.”
He went on to say:
“The Consortium criticises the current application as failing to promote sustainability: higher fares leading to increased traffic on already congested routes, failing to promote low carbon transport by prioritising financial returns in the fare structure and failing to encourage users onto the ferry.”
In relation to the proposed 75 percent increase in tolls for pedestrians, cycles and motorbikes he asked for it to be rejected.
He questioned whether the road toll could be realistically reintroduced and said the concession on the road toll did not go far enough for local residents, especially those in Corfe Castle.
He urged that the ferry company’s application should not be allowed, and that if there had to be an initial increase in ferry tolls then it should be a minimal amount. He asked the inspector to stick to the fixed cap of three percent a year for future increases, as set by the 2021 inquiry.
He added:
“The company’s traffic forecasts are too pessimistic and in accounting terms that forecast is the foundation for an approach to income projection that in several respects is not sound.”

The hearing lasted six days
Ferry company closing statement
Next up was the closing statement from Paul Reynolds, legal counsel representing the ferry company who started by outlining the financial situation as presented by the ferry company. He pointed out that there was a current shortfall of £3.902m in the fund to replace the ferry.
He said:
“In just the four years since the previous inquiry, an ever-increasing gap has emerged between the revenue received and that which is necessary to meet the expenditure and the ferry replacement reserve, let alone any reasonable contingency or return on investment.
“If action is not taken promptly, the situation is likely to only get worse, with even harder solutions.”
He challenged the claim that the ferry company was being overly pessimistic by predicting a decline in traffic, arguing that figures since 2020 suggested either a slight decline or a flatlining in passenger volume levels.
Moving onto the road toll he said:
“While certain objectors have suggested that the amount generated would be trivial against the overall finances, it can be appreciated that across 10 years a figure in the order of £50,000 profit per year is far from trivial.”

The ferry and Ferry Road in the distance
Automatic number plate recognition system
One of the most difficult to comprehend aspects during the inquiry was how the road toll would operate.
Ferry boss Mike Kean in his evidence explained that a person would drive along the road and using an ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) system would photograph any vehicle that was stationary, presumably to the side of the road. If they weren’t exempt and hadn’t paid the charge, they would be sent a penalty charge.
Paul Reynolds said that an ANPR company:
“Would bear the set up costs, subject to a 7.5 percent share of the revenue, based upon a sufficiently long contract, and with the enforcement company being entitled to any penalty income payable.”
But 7.5 percent of £50,000 is only £3,750 a year, and no recalculation was made by the ferry company when it excluded people living in the local area from the road toll, so the £50,000 and consequently the £3,750 a year have to be questionable.
The incredulity that any ANPR company would set up a high tech system for just £3,750 a year plus penalty charges was expressed earlier in the inquiry by Swanage resident Adrian Whalley, who was then cross examined by Paul Reynolds who demanded, “Are you an ANPR expert?” “No, I’m a businessman!” he replied.
When it came to the question that Corfe Castle residents would not benefit from the locals concession, the ferry company’s counsel remained unmoved:
“The proposed exemptions are fair and reasonable. There will inevitably be certain people who wish the exemptions to go a little further, or less far, to include some people or exclude others.”
Addressing the Consortium’s claim that increasing the toll for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists by 75 percent was against environmental transport policies. Paul Reynolds said:
“The company stands by these increases, armed as they are with significantly improved discounts, as being fair to all, in the round. They are not injurious to environmental considerations since there is a need to consider the environmental benefit of the ferry service continuity – given it removes so many cars from the road.”
He said that the level that the tolls are set should focus on providing the ferry with sufficient income. He added:
“The objective must be, amongst other things, to seek to ensure the survival of the privately-run ferry service.”

Planning inspector Kevin Gleeson will decide the outcome
Consideration of evidence
Following the end of the inquiry, the inspector will now consider all the evidence that he has heard.
It’s not clear exactly when he will make public his decision on whether tolls can increase or a road toll be reintroduced, however it took four months to hear the outcome after the 2021 inquiry.
Key questions
- Whose sums make the most sense?
- Is it feasible that a small initial rise in tolls followed by a 3 percent annual increase will be sufficient to ensure the purchase of a new ferry in 2032?
- What’s going to happen to future passenger levels? Recent levels are low compared to 2018 but will they decline long term or increase due to new home building in Purbeck?
- Will the road toll be able to operate logistically?
- Will the road toll be able to be legally enforced while not interfering with other legalities?
- Is it a road toll or a parking charge if the system can only capture stationary vehicles by the side of the road?

Will it only be the wealthy who will be able to afford the ferry in future?
Doom loop?
And finally the ‘doom loop’ scenario.
Chair of Studland parish council Nick Boulter says he wants the ferry to succeed but sees it in a doom loop, with ever increasing tolls, serving fewer and fewer people.
But the ferry company refutes that higher tolls will deter passengers and be counterproductive:
“There is no doubt that there may be a number of anecdotal evidence about that, but any more rigorous (or less anecdotal) evidence does not bear it up.”
It’s now the responsibility of the planning inspector Kevin Gleeson to decide.