Decision details

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out the results of the recent consultation (Spring 2013) on exploring options for the future management of the moorings at Riverside.

 

The City Council has asserted its ownership of, and registered its title to, the subsoil of Riverside. The registration of title provided an opportunity to consider management options for moorings at Riverside.

 

In early 2013, Officers carried out an assessment of the possible approaches that could be adopted at Riverside. The appraisal was intended to assist identification of suitable solutions for addressing the management of moorings, whilst minimising or mitigating any adverse effects of any solution.

 

The Council identified six possible options for the Riverside Wall moorings. None of these has been tested for legality, technical feasibility, or cost, as it was felt appropriate to put all options to consultation before going to the expense of detailed feasibility appraisal on options that might actually prove unacceptable to the public interest.

 

The Council expressed a wish to consult with statutory and other bodies concerned with Riverside, and, with boat owners, local residents, and other stakeholders, to ensure that any final decision is informed by an appropriate range of views.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places

       i.          Instructed Officers to carry out feasibility work on options 2 & 3 (detailed at paragraph 3.6 of the Officer’s report); and to consult on Executive Councillor approved solutions and to report back consultation findings to Environment Scrutiny Committee for further consideration and decision. A verbal update is required at a future Environment Scrutiny Committee regarding the Feasibility Study, Mooring Policy and Riverbank Policy.

     ii.          Agreed not to pursue creating solutions for options 1, 4, 5 & 6 (detailed at paragraph 3.6) at this stage, or to consult on these options further. Agreed not to discount these options completely until the outcomes of further study of options 2 & 3 are known.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager said the following:

 

       i.          The County Council were responsible for maintenance of Riverside railings.

     ii.          A feasibility study would set out how the Riverside area could be made suitable for moorings. This may recommend a combination of options 2 and 3 from the Officer’s report.

   iii.          The feasibility study would set out how many boats would be displaced.

   iv.          Noted Councillors and members of the publics’ comments that it had taken a long time to implement work on Riverside. It had taken some time to clarify City and County Council responsibilities. The City Council had only owned the land for 3.5 years. It had only been in a position to take action during this time.

 

Councillors requested a change to recommendation (i). Councillor Owers formally proposed to amend the following recommendation from the Officer’s report (amendments shown as bold):

       i.          Instructed Officers to carry out feasibility work on options 2 & 3 (detailed at paragraph 3.6 of the Officer’s report); and to consult on Executive Councillor approved solutions and to report back consultation findings to Environment Scrutiny Committee for further consideration and decision. A verbal update is required at a future Environment Scrutiny Committee regarding the Feasibility Study, Mooring Policy and Riverbank Policy.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amended recommendation.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.