Issue - meetings

Verbal update regarding the Feasibility Study, Mooring Policy and Riverbank Policy.

Matter for Decision

The City Council has asserted its ownership of, and registered its title to, the subsoil of Riverside and in doing so this has afforded the opportunity to consider management options for moorings at Riverside.

 

In October 2013, Scrutiny Committee considered the results of the Spring 2013 consultation on exploring options for the future management of the moorings at Riverside.

 

Respondents to the consultation considered six possible options for the Riverside moorings.

 

None of the options had been tested for legality, technical feasibility, or cost, as it was felt appropriate to put all options to the consultation.  This allowed due consideration without the expense of detailed appraisals on options that might actually prove unacceptable.

 

At the October Scrutiny Committee, The Executive Councillor recommended that:

·       Officers carry out feasibility work on options 2 and 3.

·       Option 2: To permit mooring on Riverside wall, but not where the river is narrowest.

·       Option 3: A ban on mooring on Riverside wall, and relocating Riverside craft to other locations on the river.

 

This verbal report was requested by Scrutiny Committee and it is intended to detail work to date on progressing options 2 and 3.

 

A further more detailed report on the findings will be considered by Environment Scrutiny Committee in the latter part of 2014.

 

In the meantime Officers have not discounted options 1, 4, 5 and 6, and those options are:

·       Option 1:  Permit mooring on Riverside wall, integrating the area into the city's mooring policy.

·       Option 4:  Ban mooring on Riverside wall and give existing resident moorers notice to vacate.

·       Option 5:  Re-organise mooring so as to make Riverside a visitor mooring area only, opening up existing visitor moorings for residential use.

·       Option 6: Do nothing; leave things as they are although City Council has already committed to do something.

 

In considering option 2 (permit mooring on Riverside wall, but not where the river is narrowest), Officers have met with the Cam Conservators and the County Council to consider adaptions and changes to Riverside.

 

The River Manager, County Officers and City Officers have discussed creating pontoons to be stationed below the existing gates and providing additional gates with ladder access points.

 

Pontoons would permit access to boats moored in a series. Access would be to the vessel bow or stern only.

 

This not ideal, however the Conservators cannot allow any further encroachment across the navigation by having pontoons running along the length of the wall with vessels moored to the outside.

 

The Conservators’ existing mooring prohibitions would need to be recognised.

 

The insertion of pontoons would increase the spacing interval between boats. It is estimate a 50% reduction of current boat numbers at Riverside.

 

That said, it is important to note that not all boats at Riverside are occupied, and of the ones that are occupied, not all of them meet the City Council’s policy requirement that boats moored in Cambridge be the sole residence of the person living on the boat.  Only boats meeting City Council policy would be able to moor at Riverside.

 

The key design issues are:

       i.          For the pontoon to be of sufficient size to be stable under load.

     ii.          Finding a means of tethering the pontoons next to the wall to allow for the rise and fall of river levels.

 

The Conservators would levy an annual fee for any pontoon on the river. The going rate presently is £82 per square metre per annum.

 

The licences could be granted for a number of years with a rent view clause.

 

The Council could recover the fees through Mooring Licence.

 

The Conservators have expressed a wish that any new scheme would limit vessels to narrow-beam only (no wider than 2.15 metres).

 

The wide-beam vessel owners displaced would have to be considered in the management response to Option 3 (ban mooring on riverside wall, and relocate Riverside craft to other locations on the river).

 

The County Council have agreed in principle that the railings can be adapted to allow gates and ladders to be installed.  Any change would require their written permission, a planning application and Environment Agency consent.

 

The County Council have offered to allow the City Council to access their Framework Agreement with Skanska to provide detailed feasibility.

 

The feasibility would indicate whether adaptions could be made to facilitate mooring at the riverside.

 

If it is possible to create moorings at Riverside, the next question is who will be allocated those additional spaces, given the long waiting list for residential moorings at Cambridge.

 

The exact costs remain unknown and this moment in time officers have not worked up a business case for the adaptions.

 

The next report to Scrutiny Committee will narrow down the options.

 

Environment Scrutiny Committee will also consider the financial implications of making changes at riverside and therefore a full worked up business case and justification is recommended, before any decision is taken.

 

The next steps are:

·       Gain written consent from the Cam Conservators and the County Council including any conditions.

·       Discuss the principles of pontoons with the Environment Agency (and obtain any written consent needed).

·       Gain a fee proposal from Skanska regarding working up detailed solutions.

·       Seek an early indication of planning consents needed.

·       Consider business models to determine revenue, capital spend and repairs and renewals contributions needed.

 

With regards progress on option 3:

·       If it is decided to ban mooring on Riverside wall, and relocate Riverside craft to other locations on the river, it is vital to have considered alternatives and the impact on those that currently moor at Riverside.

·       To that end, officers will consider:

o   How to balance the rights of those on the waiting list against the needs of those currently mooring at Riverside, and the need for fair treatment.

o   If mooring at Riverside is banned, whether it is possible to grant temporary grandfather rights to those currently moored at Riverside, to obviate and undue hardship.

o   The timescales for implementations of any ban.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

In response to Members’ questions the Asset Manager (Streets & Open Spaces) said the following:

 

       i.          The mooring terms of reference would determine the length of stay at a particular site. The criteria for selecting who can moor at different sites could be reviewed.

     ii.          A response to concerns regarding crowding on the riverside and lack of amenities should be ready by the end of 2014. Any adaptions to riverside railings could impact on the highway, options to mitigate this will be reviewed.

   iii.          Pontoons were the preferred method to access moored boats. Permanent bridges would reduce the amount of navigable river.

   iv.          The Asset Manager (Streets & Open Spaces) undertook to confirm with Conservators of the River Cam if there was a requirement to ensure there was 18m of navigable width.

    v.          Officers were looking at options to balance mooring and leisure use of the Cam, these would be presented to Environment Scrutiny Committee for consideration in future.