Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

 

The Officer’s report set out proposals for an updated River Moorings Policy (RMP) to ensure the effective operational management of the moorings within the control of the City Council, for 2017 to 2023.

 

The updated RMP, outlined the principles with which the Council will follow, to manage its moorings effectively, including allocation of annual mooring licences, fees, charges, and enforcement policy.

 

The policy also brought forward a detailed scheme to develop new, safe, accessible moorings at Riverside to meet the needs of boaters and to address concerns about the safety of the current moorings.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

 

a)   Approved the proposed River Moorings Policy for use as the guiding document for management of the Council’s moorings for the period, 2017-23;

 

b)   Instructed officers to proceed with actions to ensure the successful implementation of the approved policy, including

 

                     i.        Taking forward the proposed Riverside Moorings Scheme, in order to develop up to seven safe moorings, subject to necessary consents and a detailed implementation plan to relocate boats on the Council’s Regulated Waiting List as set out in RMP;

                    ii.        Adopting a fee policy which sets charges in accordance with realistic costs of managing the moorings, including necessary enforcement;

                   iii.        Development of a capital investment programme for the improvement of the Council’s mooring facilities;

                  iv.        Further investigating options for charging for visitor moorings; and

 

c)   Noted the principal outcomes of the public consultation as detailed in the appendix B to this report, and

 

d)   Endorsed continued engagement with boat-dwellers and their representative organisations in working up recommendations on

 

                     i.        the River Moorings Licence terms and conditions;

                    ii.        a Housing and Planning Act 2016, Welfare and Needs assessment

                   iii.        Council Tax exemptions and the City Council’s means tested Council Tax Reduction scheme and

                  iv.        Further moorings investment and improvement options from future income and savings.

 

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 Asset Manager (Streets & Open Spaces)

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

Councillor Sarris queried the legality of the Council’s decision not to collect Council Tax from single occupant boaters. He asked whether the County Council had ever been consulted on this Council Tax exemption.

 

Councillor Cantrill expressed his concern on proposals to remove the single occupancy discount which had been sprung on the residents with little clarity. He believed that decisions should be deferred so more provisional information was made available on how the Council’s costs were calculated and on the impact of reviewing the discount and other impacts of the proposals. It should be brought back to committee before a final decision was made.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded by affirming that nothing had been done about the moorings for years. Some issues would need continued dialogue with the residents and this was still a high priority.

 

Councillor Baigent wanted to clarify that no resident who was legally moored would be made homeless or evicted by these proposals.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources confirmed that this was correct.

 

Councillor Bick welcomed the limitation on annual increase on fees, but stated that the package of proposals did not address the issues in a coordinated way. The residents were not consulted on the changes to the single occupancy discount and Members had not received officer analysis, both sides of the argument needed to be considered for a proper response.

 

Councillor Gillespie spoke with prior permission of the Chair. Referring to the Liberal Democrat amendment, he stated that more time for the consultation would perhaps allow boaters time to come to terms with the changes. He agreed that there had been a failure to tackle the issues for years. He believed that the wording of the consultation was loaded and did not represent the resident’s situation accurately. There had been a council risk assessment carried out that the residents had not been allowed to see to make their own views. Furthermore, the officer figures did not appear to represent the true cost. Boaters can’t inherit a mooring so they can’t be compared with a household. It appeared the Council was attempting to gentrify the river, creating a landlord class.

 

In response to the Liberal Democrat amendment Councillor Sinnott commented that the purpose of revising the single occupancy discount was to create greater equity. The new approach based on length of vessel rather than occupancy was more equal.

 

Councillor Cantrill suggested that this approach was discriminatory toward single working people. The system would be a reasonable compromise if the council services available to the residents reflected the real costs but they did not.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded by stating that the council had been making losses in revenue on its services to residents of the river for years which was unfair on the council tax payer. He stated that this approach as identified in the report was fairer.

 

In response to further Member questions the officers confirmed:

 

     i.        They were satisfied that the Council Tax policy for boaters was legal but were not aware of the County Council ever having been consulted on the single occupant exemption. 

    ii.        As part of the review of council tax discounting, the City Council as the billing authority will need to review with the other precepting authorities the implications of changes from 2012.

   iii.        The proposed fees would still be one of the lowest in the country.

  iv.        Officers would share with Camboaters further financial information and accepted that they needed to look again at the costs (e.g. of enforcement).

   v.        Riverside works would be prioritised and there would be other investment thereafter.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded to points made by the scrutiny committee:

     i.        There was no attempt to gentrify the river

    ii.        Charging by length was fairer

   iii.        Moorings were costing the taxpayer £30K per year.

  iv.        The consultation was useful and Camboater’s own report was taken into account when drafting the officer report.

   v.        The proposals would bring improvements to the recipients on the river in the long term.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed the following amendment to the recommendations:

 

The Executive Councilor was recommended to:

 

Defer any overall decision on moorings until

 

a)   Proper consultation on single occupancy discount

b)   Detailed exploration of options that retain the current moorings on Riverside

c)   Clarification of the position regarding council tax payments

d)   Clarity on potential contractual regulation of boats in respect of air and water pollution

 

The amendment was lost by 2 votes to 4.

 

The following amendment was proposed by Councillor Cantrill:

 

The Executive Councillor was recommended to:

 

Defer any overall decision on moorings until

 

a)      Proper consultation on single occupancy discount

 

The amendment was lost by 2 votes to 4.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 2 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources declared (see 17/2/SR) that he had resigned as a Cam Conservator.