Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > 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.