Another Thames Mooring Dispute

[NigelMoore]

It should be remembered that there is, in English law, no common law right to use of the riverbanks of a public navigable river, whether for towing, landing or mooring. Prescriptive rights may have arisen in certain locations, and statutory provision may have been made in others (as with EA owned riverbank moorings).

 

Private riparian land owners are within their rights to prohibit use of their land, and have civil remedies available to them in the event of any breach of their rights. If, as appears to be the case in the situation under discussion, no identifiable land owner exists, no prohibition applies or is enforceable; those using the unregistered riverbank are on their way to establishing – at the very least – a prescriptive right.

 

If they succeeded with establishing title, the situation would be identical with that of all the other lengths of privately owned riverbank (most of the Thames), use of which is prohibited at law unless with landowner consent.

 

So, while there exists a statutory right on the Thames for boats to anchor or moor in the course of navigation for a reasonable time, that right does not encompass any rights of access to privately owned riverbank (riparian owners’ rights being expressly reserved by the legislation). For the EA to claim that there are such rights – as implicit in claiming that those moored to the bank obstruct river users – is legally indefensible.

[NigelMoore]

10 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Who has the obligation re consent?  If it is on the landowner to grant/withhold consent, then these boats arguably have a case, because they haven't been asked or told to move on (until now).  But if the obligation is on the boat owner to identify the landowner and obtain consent, then they clearly haven't done so.

The obligation/right to grant/withhold consent lies with the landowner. It would be at the boater’s risk to moor to the riverbank without seeking to enquire as to who the landowner might be, but only that landowner (if any is identifiable) has any right to seek redress.

 

It is not for the EA to assume no relevant permission has been withheld, or even to act on behalf of any third-party landowner if permission has been withheld. They do have the power to create byelaws protecting such landowners in addition to the landowner’s already existing civil rights, but such have never been sought.

 

If the EA were to be successful in establishing title, then only would they be able to control the mooring of boats there in line with their legislated powers.

[Tonka]

I have just looked at google maps and you can see that they are moored on the towpath side. There is a strip of land between the water works and river. The bank where they are moored was done up because in the water works bit was an old hut which used to be used by 1st Molesey Sea Scouts ( I remember a sea scout row boat breaking the nose off of a skiff ). I would have thought that the sea scouts leased or had permission to use the bit inside the fence from the "Metropolitan Water board" as it would of been which is now Thames Water Board and the towpath I assumed would have been council.

 

Just found this on another site

"I believe the Jaguar Sea Scouts previously had a base on the Thames near Apps Farm but that the (French) firm redeveloping the area into wetlands reneged on the agreement to re-establish the base on completion of the works"

Edited February 13, 2019 by Tonka
more info

[Tim Lewis]

TV article: