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-toour-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-sayabout-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 [email protected]
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
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
View of west end of Riverside area
2
View of central region of Riverside area
2
Typical highway arrangement at west end of Riverside area 3
Typical highway arrangement towards east end of
11
Riverside area
Arrangement in Riverside Bridge region
11
View of east end of Riverside area
12
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 1
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 2
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 3
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/ demobilisation 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 4
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 5
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 6
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 7
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 8
Appendices
Appendix A. Location plan
Page 9
Appendix B. Site photographs
Page
10
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
11
Figure 6 – View of east end of Riverside area
Page
12
Appendix C. Pontoon options drawing
Page
13