Decision details

Public Speakers:

 

Lynette Gilbert on behalf of Riverside Area Residents’ Association

 

“Riverside residents welcome the recommendation to register City Council ownership of Riverside. It follows 5 years of buck-passing between City, County and Conservators. The introduction of the City’s mooring policy in January 2007 led to a mass exodus of unlicensed boats to the Riverside wall, directly opposite houses. We feel there has been a serious failure of the democratic process.

 

We would like to make two short observations and ask one question:

 

Para 3.8 indicates that the City Council owns this problem now, irrespective of whether it registers formal ownership.  The archive documents show that the city authority claimed the freehold in 1904.

The south side of Riverside is a wall, not a river-bank like the commons moorings. It has barrier railings along its full length to prevent cars and pedestrians falling into the river. These can never be safely removed. There is a sheer drop on the other side to boats below. It breaks every British Waterways safety guideline for residential mooring.

 

Para 4(e)(ii) states that consultation will “be limited to those options which the Council would be willing to consider”. What is the process for determining these consultation options, given the significant safety (hence legal liability) and financial issues here?

 

Para 3.12 refers only to a report on the future outcomes of consultation, not the options to be consulted on.”

 

Councillor Margaret Wright

Councillor Wright expressed her satisfaction that this matter was nearing a solution. She suggested this would be a historic decision. She asked that the amenity value of the area be given due consideration. The area was a unique feature of Cambridge that deserved further investment. The practical, aesthetic and access issues of the informal mooring policy needed due consideration. The costs also needed to be taken into account, including the existing cost of dealing with problems such as boats that sink.

 

Matter for Decision:

 

The County Council until recently was believed to be the owner of land at Riverside as detailed in Appendix A of the Officer’s report. However, there is now evidence to support a claim, that the City Council is in fact the riparian owner.

 

A successful claim to register an interest in/ or ownership of the land at Riverside with the Land Registry by the City Council would allow the Council to consider how it wished to manage this land and regulate any moorings or any other activities.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

        i.      Instructed officers to make a land registry application to register the land at Riverside as belonging to the City Council;

      ii.      Consult stakeholders on options relating to the management of this land at Riverside, and the possible regulation of moorings as set out at paragraph 3.11 of the report;

    iii.      Prepare a subsequent options appraisal with recommendations for the Community Services Scrutiny Committee.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

Cambridge City Council manages residential moorings on the River Cam, and over a number of years had developed a moorings policy that governs the way this service works.

 

The existing City Council Moorings Policy was approved by the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Leisure on the 24^th March 2005, and it does not cover land at Riverside.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Any decision on the future management of the land at Riverside should be informed by the views of different groups of people, who have a reasonable interest in what happens to this area as detailed in the Officer’s report. 

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Green Space Manager regarding Riparian Ownership of Mooring and a map of the area under discussion was tabled. The Green Space Manager suggested that the area was an ‘orphan’ of previous changes to local authority responsibilities.  He confirmed that the consultation would be limited to options that were financially feasible. The initial stage would be to gather knowledge and to work up options.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that the benefits of any changes needed to be measured against the costs. He understood resident’s frustrations over the time this matter had taken to resolve and thanked them and Councillor Wright for their work on the ownership issues.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 6 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

N/A