FOI ref 5067 Response sent 24 November

1 What process and what data were used to determine that the mooring sites by the railings on Riverside were unsafe?"

2 "What cost analysis was done to consider options for providing safe

access to mooring sites on the railings on Riverside?"

3 "What is the legal basis and the policy document which provides the basis for the claim that there illegally moored vessels on the railings on Riverside?"

4 "Which stakeholders are going to be sent an invitation to complete

the consultation about moorings, and how will the decision be made to decide which of the responses to the consultation are from eligible stakeholders?"

As some of the information you requested meets the definition of environmental information elements of your request will be dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, as permitted under Section 39 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Regulations define "environmental information". This includes information relating to "built structures" to the extent that these are, or may be, affected by environmental elements; e.g. water or soil. The definition of environmental information also includes information concerning the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, as well as measures that might affect or are intended to protect those elements. We have determined that item 1 and the information you are seeking falls within the definition of "environmental information" as it relates to the state of the elements, and measures intended to protect them. The City Council is obliged, as a matter of law, to take a view on which regime applies. If information falls within the scope of the Environmental Information Regulations, then the City Council cannot consider it under the Freedom of Information Act. The Council only has to provide information that is in recorded form. The Regulations do not require the Council to create new information or find out the answer to a question. In response to your request:- 1 Officers and a consultant had considered the possibility and options for

creating safe access from the river level onto the pavement adjacent to the river. This took into consideration several factors including: the parapet railing’s purpose as a road vehicle containment barrier, the function of the bankside wall as a structural supporting wall for the roadway, the safety of the boat dwellers accessing and egressing from river level to the pavement and the safety considerations of riverbank users’ pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle occupants. The consultant also advised during site visits that the considerations and viewpoints he had given about the safety and structural integrity of the vehicle containment parapet railing and supporting wall would need to be assessed by a suitably qualified highway and structural engineer as this was a specialised area with its own guidance criteria.

FOI ref 5067 Response sent 24 November

In general, the Riverside Wall area was considered as one which was not approved by Cambridge City Council for mooring purposes and that they had inherited the issues of unauthorised mooring which had built up over several years prior to the site transferring to their ownership. Nevertheless, the consultant understood from Officers that the immediate issue was to ensure the health and safety of the boat occupants and other riverside users. Therefore, if an adequate health and safety solution could be identified at a proportionate cost this would reduce the immediate urgency of relocating the moored vessels. No project appraisal was produced and the Council is now consulting on a range of issues and options relating to the management of Riverside. The Council will consider all responses to the consultation and will make a decision on whether or not moorings are retained at this location based on the responses given. The consultation can be found using this link. Section 4 of the consultation sets out the issues and options relating to the moorings at Riverside. https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/consultations/have-your-say-about-proposed-changes-to-our-river-moorings-policy

2 A copy of a feasibility study completed by Skanska is included with this

reply. 3 No vessel has the right to moor on City Council land. As such we would

maintain people are making use of our land without permission and we would then link to enforcement policies. The City Councils enforcement policy is available from the link

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/content/enforcement-policy

4 The consultation is available to everyone in a variety of

formats. https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/consultations/have-your-say-about-proposed-changes-to-our-river-moorings-policy

Those registered to receive notification of City Council consultations have been sent the link above. All those on our waiting, regulated and licence holder databases have also been sent this link. A paper version of the consultation has been left on all boats moored on the River from Jubilee Gardens to Stourbridge Common. A postcard detailing the consultation web link is to be delivered to properties within close proximity to the River.

The consultation is collecting the following information to enable groupings

to be made from those that:- • Live on a boat in Cambridge • Would like to live on a boat in Cambridge • Live in Cambridge and have an interest in mooring • Live in Cambridge and have an interest in other uses of the River • Live in Cambridge and offer a view • Live outside of Cambridge and have an interest in mooring • Live outside of Cambridge and have an interest in other uses of the

River • Live outside Cambridge and offer a view • Represent the interests of a local group or organisation • Prefer not to disclose

FOI ref 5067 Response sent 24 November

All responses will be considered and a report will be considered by Strategy and Resource Committee in the Spring ’17.

Further queries on this matter should be directed to foi@cambridge.gov.uk

Riverside Moorings Options 7th July 2014

Client sign off Client Cambridgeshire County Council

Project Mooring at Riverside Wall

Document title Riverside Moorings Options

Job no. 5040052

Copy no. 01

Document reference

300/RiversideMoorings/RMOptions

Table of contents Chapter Page 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Brief 1 1.2 Site information 1

2. Options 4 2.1 Mooring options 4

2.2 Access options 4 3. Discussion 6

4. Conclusions 7

5. Recommendations 8

Appendices 9 Appendix A. Location plan 9 Appendix B. Site photographs 10 Appendix C. Pontoon options drawing 13 Figures and Tables Figure 1 View of west end of Riverside area 2 Figure 2 View of central region of Riverside area 2 Figure 3 Typical highway arrangement at west end of Riverside area 3 Figure 4 Typical highway arrangement towards east end of 11 Riverside area Figure 5 Arrangement in Riverside Bridge region 11 Figure 6 View of east end of Riverside area 12

Page 1

1. Introduction 1.1 Brief

Cambridge City Council has historically worked to try and balance the needs of different groups of people who use or enjoy the River Cam and its surroundings. This has included local residents, visitors, rowers and their clubs, residential moorers and visiting boat owners, commercial users of the river, and anglers, among others. A key part of this work has been the Council’s mooring policy, which designates areas of the river where craft can be moored and associated requirements. One region of the river that has not been subject to this mooring policy is the Riverside area in Cambridge. Cambridge City Council has completed a consultation about the feasibility of mooring with the above listed users as part of defining its overall mooring policy in the Riverside region. Following on from this consultation, Cambridge City Council has commissioned Skanska Infrastructure Services to investigate options and costs for mooring options. This work is associated with Option 2 of the Council’s “Mooring at Riverside” consultation. This document examines the existing site arrangements and considers the options available, in terms of the physical mooring of craft and the access to them. The options are discussed and conclusions/recommendations made.

1.2 Site information

The Riverside area of the river runs between OS grid references TL 461591 and TL 466595, linking Midsummer Common (from just west of Elizabeth Way Bridge) with Stourbridge Common in Cambridge (see location plan in Appendix A and figures 1,2 and 6, the last of which is in Appendix B). Numerous boats, some of which appear derelict or disused, are currently moored against the Cambridgeshire County Council owned “Riverside Retaining Wall” (structure number 465595), which runs along the southern edge of this unregulated region of the river. These boats are currently tethered to the railings on top of the prestressed concrete wall and their users clamber over the railings to access down to their boats, as no alternative means of access is currently available. A Cambridgeshire County Council owned highway, called “Riverside”, runs along most of the south side of the Riverside Retaining Wall. At present the highway arrangement along the western half of the region comprises a recently constructed wide foot/cycleway, the carriageway, a parking bay area and a footway (running from north to south), as shown in Figure 3. The arrangement along the eastern half of the region is similar, except that the north foot/cycleway is replaced by another parking bay area and either a footway of varying width or no footway at all. There are plans to change the highway arrangement along the eastern half of the region to align it more closely with the western half. Riverside Bridge carries pedestrians and cyclists over the River Cam towards the eastern end of the region. Further views are shown in figures 4 and 5, as provided in Appendix B of this report. The land to the north of the river is privately owned, except for the Cambridge City Council owned Logan’s Meadow local nature reserve. The land comprises open grassland and trees, which line the north river bank and are not believed to be subject to any Tree Preservation Orders. It should be noted that the River Cam is a main river, subject to the Environment Agency’s jurisdiction and navigation control from the Conservators of the River Cam. The site

Page 2

referred to also lies within the Riverside and Stourbridge Common Conservation Area. As such, all works adjacent to/in the river will be subject to the consent of the Environment Agency, the Conservators of the River Cam and the local Conservation Officer.

Figure 1 – View of west end of Riverside area

Figure 2 – View of central region of Riverside area

Page 3

Figure 3 – Typical highway arrangement at west end of Riverside area

Statutory Undertakers’ replies from the Riverside Bridge scheme suggested the presence of gas, British Telecom, electric and Virgin Media plant in the road and south footway in that region.

Page 4

2. Options

The various options available can be split further into the options for the physical mooring of craft and access to the craft. However, mooring may not be possible all the way along the Riverside area of the river as it narrows in some regions. It is understood that a minimum of 18.5 metres of navigable river width needs to be maintained at all positions for rowing boats to pass one another.

2.1 Mooring options

It is physically possible to drill and fix mooring hooks into the front of the larger piles of the retaining wall, as has been completed previously in some locations. However, there are concerns that the wall may not be able to sustain the additional mooring load effects. Hence this option has not been considered any further. Options for mooring would seem to comprise: • Mooring on to newly constructed piles in the river. It is estimated that mobilisation/ de-

mobilisation of the piling rig would cost about £5,000 on each occasion, with about £800 per pile installation. Hence a single mobilisation/de-mobilisation and piles at 20m centres would cost approximately £10,000 per 100 metres of mooring without access costs.

• Mooring on to newly installed bollards within the foot/cycleway area above (at an estimated cost of about £650 per bollard installation). Installation of bollards would cost approximately £4,000 per 100 metres of mooring without access costs. However, this also excludes costs associated with utilities, which could be very significant.

• Mooring on to newly installed pontoons (costs covered below) 2.2 Access options

All options considered involve the installation of kissing gate type arrangements, estimated at about £1,250 each, in the existing railings at the top of the wall. A simple extension to this would seem to be the installation of ladders, so as to provide discrete access points down to boats. However, the notion of having ladder access only has not been taken further due to its inadequacy for people of all physical abilities in emergency access and egress situations. Pontoons could provide safe access for all users. It is anticipated that these would comprise a landing platform at footway level, a walkway platform just above river level and some means of changing level between the two platforms. A gated access, landing platform and change of level (which could be disability compliant) would be provided at each end of each pontoon to ensure emergency access was possible. The decision would have to be made as to whether any intermediate access points would be required and what the nature of these (ie. ramps or ladders) would be. The river is wider at each end and near to the centre of the Riverside region, potentially providing more space for wider change of level regions. It may be that different ramp shapes in such regions would utilise less river length.

The two access options considered were, therefore:

• Fixed pontoons, comprising a walkway at a fixed level and supported off two new lines of driven support piles

• Floating pontoons, comprising a walkway supported off a single line of guide piles

Page 5

Each of these two options, including gates, landing platforms, walkway platforms and ramps between the levels, would be expected to cost about £100,000 per 100 metres of mooring. However, an additional risk allowance of about £25,000 per 100 metres should also be considered for uncertainties at this early stage – this could be reduced as the scheme develops. The fixed pontoons would be slightly more expensive due to the second line of piles. A basic drawing of both options is included in Appendix C.

Page 6

3. Discussion

Boats are of varying lengths and widths, so there would have to be large numbers of discrete moorings (ie. discrete pile or bollards) to fit most boats effectively. Whilst this could be overcome by those mooring using ropes, each boat would also require the provision of adjacent access measures between water level and footway level above (which would then not necessarily fit to each end of any mooring boat). Furthermore, the installation of bollards would require some changes to the existing highway arrangement towards the eastern end of the Riverside area and could be complicated by the presence of utilities. This may obstruct any new foot/cycleway or existing/new parking bays. A floating pontoon would move more underfoot than a fixed pontoon, but would be slightly less expensive and give much greater flexibility in its positioning. A fixed pontoon could result in a considerable drop down to a boat if river levels are very low or be underwater in times of flood. It would also be in a fixed position along the river bank, whereas a floating pontoon could be moved along to a new position relatively easily. It may be that the Council wishes to utilise this feature to phase the works to suit budgetary constraints. Pontoons could also be considered for use as a boardwalk in lieu of a footway above (if any changed highway arrangement was too narrow to fit a footway in). The existing river widths are not known, so it is not currently clear what lengths of the Riverside could be used for moorings. It may be that width restrictions could be placed on mooring boats in an attempt to maximise these mooring lengths. There are secondary costs associated with the potential mooring works, such as consent applications, moving on/removing current boats and tree pruning. It may also be that evicted moorers choose to moor at other unsuitable locations in the Riverside area. Hence it may be worth installing demarcation booms in these other regions to prevent river usage being compromised. Any works to utilities (as could be required for discrete bollard type moorings) will probably be prohibitively expensive, but this could be mitigated by confirming their locations prior to any adjacent works and designing any option around them. It may be that other measures, such as painting the railings, could be completed to enhance the appearance of the area (should funds permit). There are potential risks to the works, such as unforeseen ground conditions, tree preservation orders or the presence of protected ecological species. These could be mitigated through investigations during the design process. All works will require approval from both Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council.

Page 7

4. Conclusions

Any system of moorings needs associated adjacent access routes. Hence continuous lengths of floating pontoons will be more cost effective than other options as they will make most efficient use of the mooring lengths available. They can also accommodate changes in river level and be moved between different river areas easily, unlike fixed pontoons. Such floating pontoons could be installed at a cost of about £100,000 per 100 metres of mooring. A further risk allowance of about £25,000 per 100 metres should also be considered for uncertainties at this early stage.

Page 8

5. Recommendations

The installation of continuous lengths of floating pontoons (at about £100,000, plus £25,000 risk allowance, per 100 metres) should be compared against the other mooring feasibility options, as previously covered in the “Mooring at Riverside” consultation.

The appearance of the existing Riverside area should be enhanced through clearing derelict and disused boats. Demarcation booms could also be considered to ensure vacated lengths of river remain clear.

River widths along the Riverside region should be obtained or surveyed.

The area should be checked to confirm the presence of Tree Preservation Orders or protected ecological species, or otherwise.

A new statutory utilities search should be completed when planning any mooring works.

Page 9

Appendices Appendix A. Location plan

Page 10

Appendix B. Site photographs

Page 11

m Way

Hertfordshire

Figure 4 – Typical highway arrangement towards east end of Riverside area

Tel: 01923 776666

Figure 5 – Arrangement in Riverside Bridge region

Page 12

Figure 6 – View of east end of Riverside area

Page 13

Appendix C. Pontoon options drawing