Homeowners in Cambridgeshire are facing significant and unexpected expenses after being informed they are responsible for maintaining a stream near their properties. This obligation stems from a centuries-old law concerning riparian responsibilities.

Riparian Responsibilities Explained

Residents in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, have received notices detailing five-figure bills related to stream upkeep. Cambridgeshire County Council invoked a common law principle, originating in Ancient Rome, that places the responsibility for maintaining a waterway – including the channel and surrounding vegetation – on adjacent landowners.

Legal Obligations and Potential Consequences

This riparian responsibility extends to preventing blockages, mitigating flood risks, controlling pollution, and protecting wildlife within the stream. Failure to comply with these obligations could result in prosecution under legislation such as the Public Health Act 1936 and the Land Drainage Acts.

Concerns Over Disclosure and Enforcement

Graham Ottaway, 76, discovered he and his neighbours are now liable for these costs nine years after purchasing his property. “I was never informed of these responsibilities during the property purchase,” Mr. Ottaway stated, adding that the information was absent from his property deeds and was not disclosed by his conveyancer.

He estimates the cost of maintaining mature trees and preventing issues like fallen branches could amount to tens of thousands of pounds. Mr. Ottaway also questions the council’s selective enforcement of the law, pointing out inconsistencies in which properties along the stream are being held accountable.

Council's Position and Homeowner Concerns

The council’s letter demands vegetation and debris removal by a specified date, citing potential flooding and pollution risks. Mr. Ottaway believes the council is attempting to transfer the financial burden of stream maintenance onto homeowners. He also highlights the inconsistent application of the riparian law, noting exemptions for properties on the opposite bank and at different points along the stream.

Wider Implications

This case raises concerns about transparency in property transactions and the potential for other local authorities to adopt similar practices. It underscores the importance of thorough due diligence during property purchases and the need for clear disclosure of riparian responsibilities to prospective homeowners.