Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
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.