Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
36 Riverside Moorings Consultation Findings and Options Appraisal PDF 74 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Public Questions
Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.
1. Ms Gilbert made the following points:
i.
The City Council had
muddled two issues: A) Proposing to install permanent mooring infrastructure on
the riverside. B) How to make this stretch of riverside safe.
ii.
Suggested
implementing option 3 from the Officer’s report in the short term, and option 2
in the long term.
iii.
Some stretches of
Riverside are too narrow for pavements now. The option 2 Caveat "not where
the river is narrowest" must be extended to include the further caveat
"not where the highway is narrowest".
2. Mr Brown made the following points:
i.
Suggested outside
assistance (technical expertise) would be required to undertake the feasibility
study.
ii.
Suggested a
strategic approach to look at the river as a whole should have been taken
instead of looking at one area in particular. Cambridge is not seen as
accessible to visitors.
iii.
The Local Plan did
not refer to river moorings in detail.
The Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager
referred to the Officer’s report and said that funding had been set aside for
adaption and changes to the riverside. Specialist advice would be sought where
necessary.
3. Dr Eva made the following points:
i.
Expressed concern
at the lack of progress on Riverside moorings.
ii.
He had campaigned to
get riverside railings painted for some time.
iii.
The City and County
Councils had argued over who was responsible for railings maintenance.
iv.
Dr Eva felt the City Council
had not undertaken maintenance in a timely fashion.
v.
Requested details on
a timetable for implementing work. The railings were merely one illustration of
continuing problems caused by delay to moorings work.
4. Mr Phillips made the following points:
i.
Suggested that
Cambridge needed a marina.
ii.
Requested a
feasibility study be undertaken.
iii.
Suggested specialist
input was required to undertake riverside mooring work.
iv.
Asked for details on
a timetable for implementing work (as per Dr Eva).
v.
Felt that people who
moor on the riverside should pay to do so, as per other legal mooring areas.
Boat owners undertaking maintenance work raised health and safety issues for
other river users.
vi.
Asked for details on
funding available to implement a marina feasibility study.
5. Councillor Roberts made the following points:
i.
Expressed concern
that railings were in a poor of repair and needed re-painting.
ii.
Riverside moorings
were an on-going issue.
iii.
Expressed support
for option 2 in the Officer’s report.
vii.
Supported Mr Phillip’s point that boat owners undertaking maintenance
work raised health and safety issues for other river users.
iv.
Supported Mr Phillip’s point that Riverside needed a specific mooring
area.
In response to the comment that the railings
were in a poor state, the Chair asked officers to clarify the responsibility
for this aspect of maintenance. It was confirmed that this was a County Council
highways issue.
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.