Agenda item

The Environment Agency (EA) has advised that, for safety reasons, it wishes to remove the stepping stones from the Hogsmill River unless another organisation agrees to assume responsibility for their ongoing safety and maintenance.

This report considers the role of EEBC in protecting the stepping stones from removal whilst providing a safe crossing point.

Following consideration the Committee resolved to:

(1)           Agree to Option 3: Do not agree to take on the liability for the steps and stepping stones and acknowledge the EA will remove them and agree to deliver a new footbridge as an alternative safer fully accessible crossing point subject to being granted CIL funding and securing additional funding for the design and planning of a footbridge.

(2)           Note the submission of the CIL application for funding the construction of a new pedestrian footbridge. 

The Committee considered a report that explained how the Environment Agency (EA) has advised that, for safety reasons, it wished to remove the stepping stones from the Hogsmill River unless another organisation agrees to assume responsibility for their ongoing safety and maintenance.  The Committee were also told of a CIL bid that had been submitted for funding for a bridge across the river near to the stepping stones. The report asked that the Committee consider various options for protecting the stepping stones from removal whilst providing a safe crossing point.

The following matters were considered:

a)             Costs and budget (for repairs and liability): A member sought clarity about who would pay for what and where the money would come from if the committee were to choose option 2 which included keeping the stones and having a new bridge. The Countryside Manager explained that there were two aspects to this.  The cost of repair to the stones was estimated be less than £1K which could include a handrail and non-slip surface and could be accommodated from existing budgets.  If the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) bid was successful this would pay the capital costs of building a bridge, but funding would still need to be found for design and planning. Some of this maybe found from partnerships. The insurers had been contacted about potential increased costs, and it was their view that if measures such as an inspection regime, handrail, anti-slip surface, repairing the steps down to the stepping stones, lowering the depth of the water at that point and a safety sign, that they would not see an issue and there was no mention of increased insurance costs.

A Member stated that they did not believe the council should be taking on liability, especially at this stage when the EA believed that even with remedial actions suggested, the stones were still unsafe.  They also felt that for the council to let people do things that were known to be unsafe was irresponsible.

b)             Hogsmill Management Plan:  A Member asked what actions the council had taken in the last nine years to encourage the EA to carry out their responsibilities.  The Countryside Manager highlighted the good work of the EA and partnership working with them and stated that the work of the EA had been done in line with the management plan. The management plan was there to guide, assist and provide a context for all the works done.

c)             Options: The Committee discussed the various options and which they preferred and were reminded that the EA would not take responsibility or any liability for the stones, even if repaired, as they wanted them removed. If the Council took on liability there would need to be legal agreements in place as the riverbed and banks were still owned, and the responsibility of, the EA. The cost of the bridge was an issue and would need to be approved by Strategy & Resources Committee. It was also confirmed that the EA also intended to remove the steps leading to the stones.

Following consideration the Committee resolved to:

(1)           Agree to Option 3: Do not agree to take on the liability for the steps and stepping stones and acknowledge the EA will remove them and agree to deliver a new footbridge as an alternative safer fully accessible crossing point subject to being granted CIL funding and securing additional funding for the design and planning of a footbridge. (received 5 votes for)

(2)           Note the submission of the CIL application for funding the construction of a new pedestrian footbridge.   

Councillor Julie Morris left the meeting at 8.45pm