magnetman
-
Posts
23,674 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by magnetman
-
-
1 hour ago, Wafi said:
Sorry, I didn't explain clearly enough: I'd walked along the public footpath from Wallingford and stopped (still on the footpath) to watch the kite. I'm not an expert on what you can and can't legally do on a footpath, but I do know that trespass (which I almost certainly wasn't doing anyway) is a civil offense. I politely informed the snooty woman that I had no intention of going anywhere else on her land, but that I would continue to stand on her bit of footpath watching the birds for as long as I wanted, and she was welcome to call the police if she felt that was necessary. She huffed some more, walked 200 yards back to her house, and presumably picked up the binoculars she'd used to spot me in the first place.
Oh I thought you were on a Boat !
Apologies for the misunderstanding I am Boat-centric so will tend to miss this sort of thing.
-
1
-
-
Accommodation licences are interesting because they also apply for jetties and structures above Staines even if the land owner does own the riverbed.
-
2 hours ago, Wafi said:
. Yes, it is a public right of way, she told me, but you're supposed to keep moving...
Byelaw 57 covers this.
57. Mooring, anchoring and vessels attached to moorings
a) The master or person in charge of any houseboat or launch who causes that houseboat or launch to be anchored moored or remain stationary during the course of ordinary navigation shall ensure that no annoyance be caused to any occupier of a riparian residence by reason of the loitering or delay of that houseboat or launch.
3 hours ago, Tonka said:I can't remember who owns the towpath there but I remember Don Bridgeman the old District Inspector discussing them with me and mentioned about the person who used to have his bonfire on the towpath. I do remember the houses at Laleham don't own the towpath even though they appear that they do. He gave me permission to use them at my leisure
the chalet in question was on the non towing path side. They owned the land to the edge but not the bed of the River.
-
It is interesting.
I had a look at a small chalet which was for sale below Staines and it turned out the land parcel did not include the riverbed. I think in some cases savvy land owners have managed to buy the riverbed freehold but in areas where they have not maybe the EA should be collecting rent.
In the Cherry Orchard Gardens case at Molesey the EA own the riverbed so the 'unauthorised' moorings to the towpath may be trespassing. But what about the million pound houses opposite? If the EA own the riverbed adjacent to their manicured gardens then presumably mooring a vessel would also be trespassing in the same way as it is on the other side. EA do not own the land in either case.
-
ETA a slightly easier to read website with more information
https://the-river-thames.co.uk/manage.htm
With regard to the River below Staines, a dispute arose in 1840 (at the time the Victoria Embankment was first muted) between the Crown and the City of London as to the ownership of the bed and soil of the River Thames. The Crown advanced the the argument that as the Thames was a navigable river it was an arm of the sea and consequently there was a prima facia case that the bed and soil, as far as it ebbed and flowed, belonged to the Crown by virture of prerogative.
This dispute lasted for 17 years, but some 660 years after Richard II's Charter, the City of London finally agreed in December 1856, to withdraw all claims to the bed and soil of the River and admitted the claim of the Crown. In 1857 the Thames Conservancy Act was passed which created a new body, the Thames Conservancy, to control the Thames between Staines and Yantlet Creek. The Crown's land rights were re-conveyed to the Conservancy except in places immediately adjacent to a Royal Palace. The consideration was that one third of all future rents and fines were to be paid to the Crown with the balance used for the benefit of navigation.
-
3 hours ago, blackrose said:
Don't the landowners on either side own the riverbed to the middle of the river rather than the EA? I thought that was the basis of riparian rights?
The Thames was tidal as far as Staines until the pound locks were built. The bed of tidal rivers is Crown property. After the pound locks were built and weirs constructed to impound the water for navigation the riverbed from Staines (Church Island / London Stone) to the marker below Teddington lock was conveyed from the Crown to the Thames Conservancy with the exception of riverbed adjacent to Hampton Court palace.
So below Staines the EA do technically own the riverbed unless someone can demonstrate otherwise. Above Staines the adjacent riparian owner owns the riverbed to half way across but of course in some instances land may have changed hands and bed ownership retained for reasons of privacy for example with estates who sold or transferred land parcels to others but retained ownership of the riverbed in order to help prevent inappropriate erections.
From https://thames.me.uk/s00495.htm
The most authoritative guide to the Thames anywhere on the internet.
The EA are the latest successor after Thames Water (Thames Conservancy Division) and National Rivers Authority. So basically the EA own the bed and soil below Staines unless someone can demonstrate otherwise on their land registry deeds.
London Stone Staines
WHERE THAMES SMOOTH WATERS GLIDEOther Maps: Bing Aerial Map Google Street View StreetMap GoogleMap
.........
. A claim was set up by the crown to the bed and soil of the river. The right to the conservancy of the Thames had been contested in the time of Queen Elizabeth, by the then Lord High Admiral, and decided in favour of the city; but the right to the bed and soil of the sea-shore, and of navigable rivers, between high and low-water mark, is comparatively a recent claim on the part of the crown. A bill was filed against the corporation to enforce this claim, and requiring them to show their title; and after protracted proceedings, extending over a period of thirteen years, a compromise was effected. The city, with a view to the interests of the public, consented to acknowdedge the title of the crown to the bed and soil of the river, and the crown consented to grant a title to the corporation, stipulating, at the same time, that a scheme, suggested by Government for the future management of the river, should be adopted and embodied in an act of parliament, which act has recently come into operation.
The Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, placed the authority over the river Thames — within the limits of the ancient jurisdiction of the city — in a board consisting of twelve persons, viz. the Lord Mayor for the time being, two Aldermen, and four Common Councilmen, elected by the Court of Common Council, the Deputy-master of the Trinity House, two persons chosen by the Admiralty, one by the Board of Trade, and one by the Trinity House. The members are severally to remain in office for five years, unless otherwise removed, and are eligible for re-election. The revenue arising from the tonnage dues below bridge, and the tolls and other receipts above bridge, together, form one fund for the management and improvement of the navigation of the river; and of the receipts arising from embankments, or other appropriation of the bed and soil, one-third is paid to the crown, and the remaining two-thirds added to the general fund above mentioned.-
1
-
-
The law says 'Moored vessels' which would cover any type of Boat.
-
If I did not have my LTO (bankrupt electric bus project) I think I would buy one of two of the cheapest Fogstar batteries. £220 for 100Ah with all the gubbins and a 6 year warranty.
Seems alright to me and less hassle than DIY.
I have no BMS on the LTO and they are only charged by solar.
-
15 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:
Sounds like a well balanced auto correcting mechanism to me.
None on the vessels were occupied. It's a bit crazy because several GRP Boats went through and just got broken up never to be seen again. There have also been two wide beans sunk on Sunbury main (B) weir and when the rower drowned in the Sunbury sluices (C weir) last October a small cruiser appeared when the sluices were closed during the rescue operation.
Too many scrap vessels around. It's gone completely mad down there.
Elmbridge have done a PSPO which is a blunt tool for management of their land. I think they are going to have a large bill for waste disposal coming up here. A good opportunity to engage local volunteers.
Of course the EA own the riverbed down there so it's an interesting argument about who must pay to actually remove all the Boats.
There was an interesting precedent at Maidenhead after the floods where a property developer paid a private contractor to remove sunken vessels from land he (developer) does not own. At Maidenhead the land owner also owns the riverbed.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
32 minutes ago, blackrose said:These people are such hypocrites. I saw it at Kew bridge when I used to moor at Brentford 20 years ago. The mess they left the council to clear up when they eventually did go was horrendous. I think that's become an ongoing issue at that spot too.
I always wondered when I first got onto Boats what would happen if public opinion swayed from 'oh what a nice alternative lifestyle' to 'what a load of filthy squatters'.
Some of the Elmbridge land is in a terrible state and will be very expensive to clear up. Add to this the fact that at least half a dozen vessels (I heard it was closer to ten) went onto or through Sunbury weir in the January 2024 major floods and this problem needs to be dealt with.
It is not just moored and sunk Boats there is also junk and rubbish on the land alongside the River. It really is quite bad in some bits. Also there is a flood management question if weirs are getting blocked.
Public opinion may now be moving towards viewing those living on Boats as a problem which is very sad.
It's no use pissing off the locals because they will always win if you get into a fight. There are a lot more of them and they have a vested interest in their neighbourhood...
It is obvious.
NBTA is an anti establishment political group. Nothing to do with Boats it's just that one can live on them then try to claim rights which don't exist then when the rights get clarified one can moan against the draconian authorities.
Persecution complex.
-
6
-
23 minutes ago, Russ T said:
We first went down in 2001. I don't remember seeing you.
You would not have known me anyway we went down in 2003 if I recall correctly. Got as far as Cambridge and St Ives.
-
When we went down there in the early 00s the guillotine gates were mostly hand wound. There was one which had been motorised and operated with solar power but someone had stolen the solar panels and the batteries.
It had hand wind backup.
Also I seem to recall one with a radial gate rather than the guillotine but not sure of that was powered. Ditchford.
What a great place name. A ford across a ditch.
-
2 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:
. I asked them about this and they explained holidays were for visiting family who were generally poorer than young successful IT workers.
Good point. When the Woman (born abroad to Moroccan parents) takes my kids in holiday it almost always involves visiting her mother.
So this could also translate to ethnic minorities not hiring or owning Boats for holidays because they do something else.
-
I have seen one or two 'ethnic minority' people on the narrows but not many. Quite often seen on the River in day hire.
I have formed a view that perhaps Boats are viewed as slum accommodation by some.
My kids go to school where 99 percent of the pupils are of Bengali descent. Usually first generation ie parents born abroad. They are intrigued that my kids used to live on a Boat and seem to think it is a very low quality of life and that we were drinking canal water.
It is important to understand that people with quite close links to third world countries think completely differently to those of us who have never experienced how awful it is to actually live in those places.
Its a mindset so if people have shanty Boats that would be undesirable and frowned upon.
People from third world countries exist in a completely different world to us.
-
1
-
-
Worth considering a stainless steel flue pipe. They do work alright. 1.5mm wall thickness. Mine is not 4 inch diameter its 70mm due to a custom made fire but I think @Russ T put a 4 inch on his fire and it was fine.
I don't like mild steel flues they can let you down at the wrong moment.
Boatmans stoves have always had good reviews and seem sensible.
-
Good weather for drying the Boat out. Open doors and any windows during a heatwave it will all dry up nice and quickly.
-
A split in the top of a polypropylene or stainless water tank is not unknown. Then if someone fills the tank from shore supply it won't get to the top of the tank and if left long enough will obviously put water in the cabin bilge.
More likely to be an internal plumbing leak but I have had a split poly tank which caused me to end up with significant water under the floor until I worked out what the problem was.
-
8 minutes ago, Lily Rose said:
Don't know why.
Maybe just a bad design. Where the wooden heel post goes into the steel balance beam does seem to be a bit of an obvious weakness.
If an object were to get caught behind the gate and someone tried forcefully to open it either with the balance beam or with the Boat that could break the already rotten part.
Someone has suggested this gate is dated 2008. Likely there will be a lot more similar failures.
Not sure if that steel bracket is an original fitting or added later as the balance beam to heel post joint started to be problematic.
-
Just now, IanD said:
Including costing 4x as much?
I'm sure that'll go down well with those doing possibly-problematic LFP installs "on the cheap" as noted above... 😉
That was quick !
-
LTO is good.
Cuts out all of the problems.
perfectly happy well below freezing. Can give and take 10C in/out rate without becoming scared and lasts until everyone has been taken out by climate change anyway.
What is not to like.
-
This must be an interesting discussion with the CRT who 'were on site today to continue to run water'.
Where are they getting the water from seems to be the question. I think there is a reservoir for this but it may be a bit low.
Intriguing problem.
Back pumps from the river would be nice
-
39 minutes ago, TunnelTiger said:
Yes! I don't get this fascination with power tools for every little job. A good hand saw is cheaper, lighter and almost certainly quicker if you consider time spent setting up and putting away nd maintenance/sharpening. Also a lot safer.
I used EIA Edsbyns bowsaws for nearly 30 years and still have them with a large supply of new blades. Only went for the little Makita chainsaw a couple of years ago. It does mean I can burn virtually no coal during a winter (I am on the Boat all the time with no service connections).
In a way it is lazy but it is also realistic.
Processing enough wood is not that easy with a bowsaw I have done it before but its not straight forward.
Do like my bowsaws !
But I am now a Makita chainsaw whore. Only a small one and never cut living wood but the chain design originally invented by Oregon is a clever bit of work which will never be improved upon. It basically copies the insect who excavates rather than cuts the wood.
Clever bit of work and devastatingly effective at deforesting the planet.
-
The CRT say navigation is closed subject to review on 2nd July. No mention of allowing narrows through.
But yes that is probably what they will do.
-
Big job to sort this one out
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices
Image stolen from fb
Composite lock gates. Wooden gate with steel balance beam. Obvious weakness there at the top of the heel post.
-
1
-
NBTA causing problems on the Thames
in Waterways News & Press
Posted · Edited by magnetman
A funny thing about Cigarette Island which is no longer an island because of the bridge being built and the rivers Mole and Ember being joined together in a man made channel:
"In 1926 council plans were drawn up to convert the island into a public park, in part to curb the "ever-increasing nuisance of caravan dwellers and occupiers of sheds".[1] In the early 1930s the Mole was diverted into the River Ember and the creek was filled in, and the park opened to the public in 1935.[1]""
So basically 99 years ago there were caravan dwellers and occupiers of sheds. Now there are slum shantyboats.
Plus ça change.
I find this amusing.