Can a river have a “right”? That was the question that vexed members of Maidstone council.

They were discussing a motion put forward by Green Party leader Cllr Stuart Jeffery who wants to improve the quality of the River Medway and its tributaries.

Cllr Jeffery said: “Recent events have exposed just what a mess our environment is in and how that is impacting on our lives, such as the failure of water supply and the pollution in our rivers.

“Despite this, there remains a deep-seated lack of understanding about the importance of the environment within the council and ‘business-as-usual thinking’ continues to drive decisions.”

He proposed a motion in three parts: “That the council acknowledges the growing global movement of ‘rights of nature’ as a framework for rethinking its relationship with the environment.

“That the council believes that there is a case to be made for considering our interactions with our local waterways in the context of ‘Rights of Rivers’ and through which the health and wellbeing of the River Medway and its tributaries can be addressed.”

And finally that: “This council will work with the other councils along the Medway catchment to explore with local communities and relevant stakeholders the implementation of Rights of Rivers along the River Medway and its tributaries. This will involve working towards the production of a ‘Declaration on the Rights of the River Medway and its tributaries’ by relevant stakeholders for possible endorsement by the council within two years.”

But the concept of an inanimate object having rights distressed many councillors.

Cllr Lottie Parfitt-Reid (Con) said: “Giving rights to something that doesn't have a consciousness is a real anathema to me.”

Cllr Ziggy Trzebinski (Con) asked: “Where will this stop? Shall we say the sun has the right to burn?”

Cllr Tom Cannon (Con) had concerns of a more practical nature. He said: “If the river has a right to flow, would that mean we couldn’t install flood protection measures? Aren’t you enshrining the right to flood?”

However, Cllr Tony Harwood thought the idea had merit. He said: “It’s absolutely clear that the existing mechanisms are not working. Our migratory fish have gone. Our wildlife has gone.

“The concept of a right to flow is a good one ”

Lib Dem party leader Clive English harked back to his student days at the University of Lancaster when there were always passionate declarations being made that made not a “scrap of difference”.

He declared the Green proposal to be “over-complicated with noble aspirations that would just place us in a legal quagmire.”

Instead, he suggested taking practical steps to improve the River Len, which, unlike the River Medway, fell completely within the geographical boundary of the borough.

He proposed the creation of a River Len Stakeholders’ Task Force which among other things would seek the “progressive removal and/or bypassing of manmade barriers to ecological movement, i.e. restoring the right to a natural flow;” as well as “setting measurable targets and achieving continuous improvement across flow rates and water quality”.

His amended motion was rejected by the Conservatives and Greens voting together.

Cllr David Burton (Con), the leader of the council, opposed the amendment because it still talked of giving rights to an inanimate object. He said: “Giving something rights does replace our responsibility to enforce those rights.

“If there is an inference that we are not doing enough (to keep our rivers clean) through the established channels, then we must redouble our efforts and do more.”

In the end, the council voted to dispense with the third part of Cllr Jeffery’s motion but to move the other two parts to an overview and scrutiny committee for further discussion.

Cllr Jeffery said afterwards: “I am delighted that the council has acknowledged that our river has intrinsic rights, such as the right to flow and to be free of pollution, and that we need to consider these when we make decisions.

“This marks a real change in approach and one that I hope starts to impact on how councillors and officers think about what we do.

“While the council did not want to work on the detail of those rights with other councils along the Medway basin, the motion was still successful in shifting the council’s position and more importantly, its thinking.”

However, it doesn’t seem that Cllr Jeffery was successful in shifting everyone’s opinion.

Cllr Cannon said afterwards: “The river rights movement is very niche and a small vocal minority.

“They put forward things that on paper sound sensible like a clean river, but then wrap it in more dangerous ideas.

“The enshrining of rights is also a lawyer’s charter as they will be the ones who defend rivers and the cost will be returned to taxpayers.”