Plans by Bath and North East Somerset Council to regularly close the riverside footpath adjacent to the Recreation Ground on Bath Rugby match days have been suspended. The decision follows growing tensions between councillors and boaters living along the river, whose eviction has sparked controversy.
Originally slated to begin in September, the temporary footpath closures were paused after questions emerged regarding the evidence supporting the decision and the council’s governance processes. This move coincides with the council ordering houseboat residents moored nearby to vacate their homes by September under threat of legal action, citing safety concerns about dangerous river conditions in adverse weather. However, the council insists the footpath closure plan and the boaters’ eviction are unrelated.
Skepticism remains among some councillors and the boating community. Eleven backbench councillors challenged the council’s application to the Land Registry to formalize ownership of the riverbed stretch, criticizing a lack of transparency. This dispute was brought to a scrutiny committee on July 15, where Green Party Councillor Saskia Heijltjes questioned the timing and motivation behind registering ownership precisely as a £1.85 million feasibility study for a radial gate was commencing, alongside Bath Rugby’s £70 million stadium redevelopment and the eviction notices to boat dwellers.
READ MORE: M5 Traffic in Somerset Comes to a Standstill Following Police Incident
READ MORE: Sandy Somerset Beach Empties During Heatwave, But Tourists Soon Arrive
Heijltjes emphasized the need for clarity, stating, “The council has owned this riverbed in practice for a long time. It’s concerning that the formal registration took place just as significant projects affecting this area are underway, and yet no explanation was provided.”
Deputy council leader Sarah Warren responded, attributing the ownership registration to advice from a temporary staff member focused on river and moorings management. She reassured that no specific projects are currently planned but noted that future initiatives could include ecological improvements or flood prevention, all subject to separate approvals.
Despite concerns raised about the impact on displaced boaters, the council’s legal officer described objections as “primarily misconceived,” clarifying that the scrutiny committee’s scope was confined to issues around the specificity of references to future projects.
Following a tense meeting where discussion of broader river and boater issues was restricted, the committee voted to dismiss the call-in. Meanwhile, boaters like Percy Walton, who has lived on a Pulteney stretch houseboat for four years, remain defiant. Walton expressed feelings of discrimination and vowed to challenge eviction orders, stating, “I don’t think we fit in with their designs for the future. It’s a bit discriminatory against us.”
The evolving situation highlights conflicting interests between public access, urban development, and the rights of river dwellers in Bath, with resolutions still pending.