Decision details

To consider changes and modifications to the River Moorings Policy.

Matter for Decision

The report considered and proposed a consultation on a range of issues and options relating to a revised River Moorings Policy (RMP).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

     i.        Instructed Officers to consult on the range of issues and options relating to the River Moorings Policy (including the revised consultation document) as amended at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee meeting and to report back to a future Committee with findings and further recommendations.

 

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 Asset Manager (Street and Open Spaces). 

 

Reference was made to a revised consultation document which had been published on the Council’s website prior to the Committee meeting and amended the consultation document to:

i.             Remove references in item 1 to market testing and auctioning of licences.

ii.            Remove paragraphs 1.3-1.6

iii.           Include a new paragraph 1.3 which asked people about alternative methods for determining fees and charges.

iv.          Remove reference within paragraph 4.1 to auctioning of licences.

v.           Include new paragraphs 4.2 and 4.4 which asked for other solution ideas.

vi.          Add new paragraph 6.3 which sought feedback on increasing the number of licences.

vii.         Make amendments were made to the regulation scheme at paragraph 8.2.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

i.             One Councillor was concerned by the options being put forward. Appeared that the Council had a desire to see moorings as an income generator. Thought that time should be taken to look at the consultation and then it should be started again.

ii.            Another said the river was an important community within the City and should be valued by residents of the City. Was deeply concerned by this proposal. Commented that £75,000 had been allocated earlier to improve the moorings but this funding had since been removed. Would encourage the consultation to be parked and re-started at a future point.

iii.           The Government grant to the Council would not exist from 2018 funding options for all services needed to be reviewed and that meant the river therefore also needed to be looked at. There were many competing interests on the river and suggested comments on this issue could be submitted through the consultation.

iv.          Representations would be heard from a broad range of people including taking account of all comments from those living on the river. The consultation would respect and take into account equality and diversity issues. All the points made today would be fed into the consultation.

v.           Requested confirmation that an increase in mooring fees would provide money in addition to the £65,000 which the surplus in his view should be allocated to improving riverside facilities for mooring users.

 

 

The Executive Councillor said the following:

          i.   He felt it was important to issue a press release in advance of the meeting and increase awareness of the planned consultation

         ii.   He wanted to enhance the facilities for people who lived on the river.

       iii.   The consultation was an open consultation, the last question acknowledged that the Council wanted to hear about any other ideas.

       iv.   Needed to hear the views from those who lived on the river.

        v.   There was time within the proposed 8 week consultation to talk to people and following this to develop any necessary revisions to the proposals.

       vi.   The total income of the mooring was £63-65,000, of which £35,000 included direct costs to the service.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed amended recommendations, the first amendment proposed ‘To pause and not approve the proposals but to defer this issue to a future meeting to encourage the Executive Councillor and Officer to consider issues which had been raised at the meeting’.

 

On a show of hands this amendment was lost by 2 votes in favour to 4 against.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed a second amendment that ‘The Executive Councillor acknowledged the uniqueness of boat people and that any increase in fees was limited to the CPI as had been the case since 2010’.

 

On a show of hands this amendment was lost by 2 votes in favour to 4 against.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources put forward an amendment (deleted text struck through, additional text underlined) to section 3.7 (page 3) of the Review of River Moorings Policy report and deleted the wording Annual mooring licences to be allocated by public auction and replaced with Mooring fees to be benchmarked with comparable mooring providers. A revised consultation document was circulated to members.

 

The Committee considered the amendments made to recommendation including the amendments to the Moorings Policy and consultation documentation and endorsed them by 4 votes to 2.  

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.