Monitoring officer limits call in of decision to apply for first registration of riverbed

That ruling came from monitoring officer Michael Hewitt, who said the rest of the call-in of a cabinet member’s decision was “primarily misconceived”.

He said the decision being called in was whether to apply for first registration of land ownership beside the Avon as a riparian owner.

But opposition councillors had sought to conflate other decisions, he said, including eviction of boat dwellers and right of way and equalities issues, which were not part of the decision concerned.

Mr Howell said the call in to the Climate Emergency and Sustainability Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel could be made only on the ground that there had been a lack of transparency regarding 'subsequent associated projects'.

The call-in notice said: “No detail is provided about what those projects are, who they may benefit, or how they relate to current proposals for development along the riverside, including the proposed replacement Bath Rugby Club stadium.

“Councillors consider that the public interest in this decision cannot properly be assessed without that information, and that the vagueness of this justification renders the decision insufficiently reasoned.”

An earlier report for Sarah Warren, cabinet member for sustainability, proposed she should approve the first registration of riparian land to improve the council’s ability to manage Bath’s central waterway.

This stated: “Through subsequent implementation of other associated projects, this activity will also ensure that the council can preserve public safety in the area, support healthier river environments, and limit its own corporate liabilities.”

The report for Cllr Warren said it had become evident that establishing the extent of the council-owned riverbed estate “is challenging, as boundaries are currently determined through the doctrine of riparian rights” and there was uncertainty about these.

Better defining of the council’s land boundaries would allow it to focus resources only on land it owns and avoid “any valid legal challenges for overstepping its responsibilities, and take effective action to mitigate risks as a responsible land owner”.

The report noted common law applies a rebuttable presumption that land which adjoins a non-tidal river gains certain rights and responsibilities over the adjoining river.

One is that the owner of adjacent land is deemed to own the riverbed up to its central line.

The report explained: “There are many instances where the council is the owner of land which adjoins the River Avon and (arguably) is the owner of that extent of the riverbed running adjacent to its land up to the mid line of the river.

“In contrast, there are certain areas, where the ownership is unclear, or whether the river should be deemed as part of the navigation (as it has the right to navigation).”

The committee was due this week to debate the issue.

Mark Smulian