Issue - meetings

Public Question

Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.

 

1.    Mr Wright raised the following points:

       i.          He lived on a boat on the Cam.

     ii.          The Council were trying to undermine their own policy.

   iii.          The river community felt that they were all treated alike as troublemakers and not as people who needed help.

   iv.          Took issue with how officers managed the moorings policy.

    v.          Asked Councillors to consider the impact of the River Moorings Policy on the river community.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places responded:

       i.          The Officer’s report was focussed on how the policy would be enforced on a holistic basis across the river. People would be treated equally if they followed the rules.

     ii.          The River Moorings Policy was a moorings policy, not a housing policy.

 

Mr Wright said that policy inconsistencies should be resolved as this was a residential mooring policy, not a car parking scheme.

 

2.    Ms Tillson raised the following points:

       i.          Decisions should be made using an evidence base.

     ii.          The River Moorings Policy was based on anecdotal evidence.

   iii.          Expressed concerns that policy changes may be based on flawed data.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

       i.          Anecdotal evidence from 3 organisations had shaped the draft policy.

     ii.          Proposals would be consulted upon before being finalised.

   iii.          Consultation responses were invited from boat users to help shape the scheme.

 

3.    Mr Tidy raised the following points:

       i.          There was a lot of concern regarding the proposed Moorings Policy as it would affect boats that people lived on.

     ii.          The Executive Councillor had previously given assurances that people would not be made homeless as a result of policy decisions. However, the ultimate sanction in the proposed policy was to seize a boat, which would make the owner homeless. Queried if other options had been considered and if there was a political will to seize boats.

   iii.          Other organisations used criminal enforcement action rather than civil to avoid the possibility of seizing people’s boats.

   iv.          Queried who would undertake enforcement action ie in-house or out-house personnel.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

       i.          There were 2 areas of the river particularly affected by moorings issues: Riverside and visitor moorings.

     ii.          Enforcement action needed to be taken to make the mooring scheme effective.

   iii.          The ultimate sanction of seizing people’s boats was required in the policy. However, it was hoped that moorings charges would encourage compliance before the ultimate sanction was implemented.

   iv.          The use of enforcement through criminal law would be explored in the consultation. Criminal enforcement action took a long time and an alternative (ie civil law) was required.

    v.          Enforcement action by in-house personnel was desirable.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager said the River Manager had experience of enforcement schemes elsewhere. Mooring Policy scheme implementation could be reviewed as part of the consultation.

 

Mr Tidy re-iterated his concerns about the proposed mooring policy. The Executive Councillor said her earlier reassurance referred to those who had signed up to the Moorings Policy as they would be protected from enforcement action. Only those who had not signed up were liable to having their boats seized.

 

4.    Mr Maddison raised the following points:

       i.          Mooring sites should be reviewed to ensure they were in an appropriate place.

     ii.          Risk was not covered in the policy.

   iii.          The policy covered ‘illegal’ boats, not ‘legal’ boats moored incorrectly.

   iv.          Queried who was registered under the Moorings Policy eg boat owners or occupiers. Queried how sub-lettings were covered.

    v.          Queried if the policy would address:

·       Boat users burning any fuel they wished, even if this (negatively) impacted on neighbours.

·       Some boats had noisy generators.

·       Some boats did not move from their moorings and stayed in place until they sank.

   vi.          His concern was that some boat users did not take responsibility for their actions, not that people lived on boats (or with people who did so in general).

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

       i.          The intention was to review moorings as a whole. The proposal was to move inappropriately moored boats first, then review mooring sites in future.

     ii.          An enforcement policy needed to be put in place before action could be taken in future against people who breached the Moorings Policy.

   iii.          Pollution issues would be addressed as part of the wider policy review after the consultation stage.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager said the list of registered boats/owners was as per people who registered in August 2015.

 

Mr Maddison raised the following supplementary points:

       i.          Better communication was needed with residents regarding actions being undertaken.

     ii.          There was a perception that some boat users were not playing by the rules, although most did.

 

The Executive Councillor responded that she was aware that Riverside residents had concerns that not all boat users were following the Moorings Policy. A majority of boat users did follow the policy, but the Council needed enforcement powers to take action against the minority who flouted the rules.

 

5.    Ms Symons raised the following points:

       i.          Spoke as a Riverside resident.

     ii.          Expressed concern that some people were not adhering to the Moorings Policy and this led to anti-social behavior such as rubbish dumping.

   iii.          The threat of future enforcement action has led to some changes in people’s behavior already, but sanctions were needed to ensure all people conform to the Moorings Policy.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

       i.          There were a variety of issues affecting Riverside:

·       Moorings.

·       Parking.

·       Entrance to Stourbridge Common.

     ii.          The above issues had to be addressed through a variety of different policies. Enforcement action would be taken first, then wider issues addressed later.

   iii.          Community cohesion should improve once the anti-social behaviour of the minority had been addressed.

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager said he had liaised with the Senior Anti-Social Behaviour Officer regarding Riverside issues.

 

6.    Ms Clarke raised the following points:

       i.          Some boaters would prefer mooring fees to be used more efficiently ie directed towards services rather than enforcement.

     ii.          The consultation should allow boaters and non-boaters to comment.

   iii.          Anti-social behavior was committed by boaters and non-boaters.

 

The Executive Councillor said that boaters and non-boaters could respond to the consultation, to get the correct solution.

 

7.    Mr Ross raised the following points:

       i.          Took issue with the Council implementing a policy that took away people’s homes. The Moorings Policy was aimed at moorings issues, but impacted on people’s homes.

     ii.          There were lots of historic issues with the River Moorings Waiting List.

   iii.          The Moorings Policy should be applied equally, not on a discretionary basis.

   iv.          Asked if the Committee would consider an amnesty for people not on the River Moorings Waiting List, or those in dispute with the City Council, rather than taking enforcement action.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

       i.          Asked that Mr Ross raise points from his representation in the Moorings Policy consultation.

     ii.          An enforcement policy was required, albeit one to tackle a few unlicensed moorings users, or those who had not joined the moorings scheme.

   iii.          Those who had signed up to the Moorings Policy would not be affected by enforcement action.

   iv.          No amnesty was proposed for those who had no right to moor on the river.

    v.          Re-iterated that a consultation would be undertaken before the policy was further developed or implemented.

 

Mr Ross raised the following supplementary points:

       i.          There was a perception that the Moorings Policy was being applied in different ways.

     ii.          Hoped that a policy of mediation would be applied instead of a discretionary enforcement policy.

 

The Executive Councillor said that Cambridge moorings were cheaper than anywhere else.

 

8.    The River Manager raised the following points:

       i.          He had introduced pilot river management schemes in Oxford and Surrey.

     ii.          He was familiar with the Moorings Policy and how it could be implemented.

   iii.          He had not had to resort to seizing boats using other river management schemes to date as other measures had resolved issues before they got to that stage.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report contained recommendations that the Council consults about amendments to, and the management of, the Council’s River Moorings Policy.

 

The report detailed issues and options that had been raised by stakeholders, namely:

·       The management of the waiting list.

·       Overstays on the 48 hour visitor moorings.

·       Issues that arose from boats not on the regulated moorings scheme at Riverside.

 

The report highlighted areas for further consideration and scrutiny relating to the need for consultation to include the option to use a civil contract law approach for the regulation and management of the Council’s moorings.

 

Further investigative work was required to establish how the civil contract law approach would be best implemented and managed should the results of the recommended consultation support the approach.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

Instructed Officers to:

       i.          Consult on the following proposals:

a.    To introduce a management regime for the regulation and enforcement of the City Council moorings based on civil contract law.

b.    To retain the existing provision of a free 48 hour visitor mooring period, with no return for 7 days on designated moorings owned by Cambridge City Council;

c.    To introduce a free 6 hour mooring period, with no overnight stay or return for 7 days on all moorings owned by Cambridge City Council except the 48 hours visitor moorings.

d.    Levy a charge for overstaying/ or for mooring without a licence.

     ii.          Report the outcomes of the consultation, and to make further recommendations with regard to the management and enforcement of the City Council moorings taking into account the consultation responses.

 

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 Executive Councillor said the following:

       i.          Moorings were a small part of the wider river management issue. The Council needed to live up to its commitment to boaters to tackle illegal moorings before tackling wider issues.

     ii.          There would be a consultation on wider issues after enforcement ones.

   iii.          The point of a regulated moorings scheme was to protect people; so only unregulated moorings or people who use moorings since the list closed in August 2014.

   iv.          Recommendations would be brought back to committee in future setting out the policy to follow if enforcement may lead to boat seizures.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

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.