Agenda item

Decision:

(1)   To note that the legal research undertaken concludes that the Council does not own the tow path, Weir, or bridge, and neither does the Council have any obligations to maintain the assets.

(2)    To progress with “Option 1” as outlined in Section 10 of the report submitted to the Executive.

(3)   To communicate publicly the Council’s rationale for progressing with “Option 1”.

(4)    To continue to be available to engage with the National Trust or other Parties should other currently unknown options become available.

Reason:

The Council was receiving continued public criticism and is facing pressure to provide a permanent solution to the collapsed Tumbling Bay Weir and footbridge. A decision was required from Executive to provide clarity on the level of the Council’s ongoing involvement in this matter.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

·         OPTION 2: The Council makes a one off limited financial contribution of £tbc to another organisation leading the work and taking ongoing responsibility, likely to be the National Trust.

·         OPTION 3: The Council takes a more active role in the project. In order to do this, the Council would need to recruit a suitable project manager to take the lead in coordinating a collective agreement on next steps with key stakeholders over the next 6 months. This option incurs an initial £50,000 revenue cost and £000’s in contributions this and future years. This will be growth in the MTFP and savings will need to be found to cover this cost.

·         OPTION 4: Assume full legal responsibility for the Tumbling Bay Weir and agree a transfer of the land and Weir to Guildford Borough Council ownership.

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None.

The Tumbling Bay Weir collapsed unexpectedly in November 2019, following which the Council and National Trust agreed to commission a temporary solution to restore water flow along the Navigation, sharing the cost equally. This was despite a lack of clarity of ownership and liability for replacing the Weir, so any structure installed as part of the works passed to the owner of the Weir. 

There had been significant public interest in the Weir over the past 18 - 24 months, with the Council and National Trust facing criticism for a lack of activity to resolve the ongoing land ownership matters and perhaps more crucially, for the continued closure of the tow path. 

There was a discussion about the confidential appendix to the report which had been restricted on the grounds of legal privilege. It was suggested that as much of the factual content appendix as should possible should be available in the public domain without compromising the council’s legal position. The Deputy Monitoring Officer would review the content again to learn to what extent this would be possible.

The Lead Councillor for Regeneration introduced the report to the Executive stating that the weir had attracted much public interest. The council had conducted extensive historical research going back hundreds of years to ascertain who owned the site and therefore had responsibility for maintenance and repair. The clear outcome of the research was that the council did not own the tow path, the weir or the bridge, indeed the tow path was not even a public footpath.

Cost of repair, likely to run to millions of pounds, was not the responsibility of the council and given the council’s budgetary circumstances there was no available finance to make any further contribution. The council had previously funded 50% of an emergency fix costing £800,000 shortly after the collapse in order to maintain the water levels in the Navigation for ecological reasons. A further £60,000 would be provided by the council for a fish pass on the nearby Millmead Weir. Furthermore, the council would continue to engage with the National Trust and other stakeholders to find a long term solution. The flood agencies were the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council, both beneficiaries of the weir, had not offered to contribute. Thames Water undertook extraction for the Wey Navigation had not offered to contribute.

The purpose of the report before the Executive was to consider and to decide the level of involvement the Council intended to have in reaching a permanent solution to the weir. The Lead Councillor for Regeneration recommended that in the absence of a duty to pay for repair and in the absence of a budget to fund a repair the council could have no further financial obligation.

Overall, the council maintained good relations with the National Trust. Most recently the Trust had proposed a financially collaborative approach with the council but given budgetary pressures, and the consequent implications for public services should the council commit to more funding, there was a consensus that Option 1, ‘Do nothing as the land and the Tumbling Bay Weir are not owned by the Council’ was the only way forward.

The land pocket SY734559 was owned by the council and maintenance of the land had been challenging without the bridge in place. It was noted that there was a narrow access bridge available from the Shalford Road which was restricted, but when Environment Agency’s weir was completed there would be additional access.

The Executive was mindful that the tow path route was important to residents, many of whom had appealed to the council for a solution. Due to the level of public attention, there should be a comprehensive communications plan to clearly set out the council’s position. This plan would be reviewed by Executive members in advance of publication.

In summary, the Chairman noted that having stepped into an emergency situation following the collapse, the council had received no gratitude. Indeed, the action appeared to have formed an opinion locally that the council had a duty to the site. Gratitude was expressed to members of the council’s legal team for the research and it was noted that although every available document had been consulted, it was possible that new information may come to light in the future. Should this be the case, the council would review its position. The Executive,

RESOLVED:

(1)   To note that the legal research undertaken concludes that the Council does not own the tow path, Weir, or bridge, and neither does the Council have any obligations to maintain the assets.

(2)    To progress with “Option 1” as outlined in Section 10 of the report submitted to the Executive.

(3)   To communicate publicly the Council’s rationale for progressing with “Option 1”.

(4)    To continue to be available to engage with the National Trust or other Parties should other currently unknown options become available.

Reason:

The Council was receiving continued public criticism and is facing pressure to provide a permanent solution to the collapsed Tumbling Bay Weir and footbridge. A decision was required from Executive to provide clarity on the level of the Council’s ongoing involvement in this matter.