Survey! Council trying to close Saltford Meadow mooring site

[MtB]

45 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Get District Enforcement involved like they did on the Thames. That went down well with boaters!

The land which is the subject of the OP is council owned (according to the link in post #1). As this is the River Avon CRT are the navigation authority but I assume they do not own the river bed.  So do they have any authority to control moorings outside the main navigation channel?

 

I think you are right and have put your finger on the nub of it. CRT probably control the MNC but not the bits at the side.

 

It's just unfortunate that nice Mr Chewbacka confused things by introducing the western end of the K&A, a different waterway, into the discussion

 

 

[Dave123]

25 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Boaters naturally don't like paying, but at least here the Council is seeking opinions.

 

They could just do what Richmond Council had done on the Thames.

 

In cases like that I would prefer to pay and retain the moorings.

 

 

Exactly! Paying a reasonable rate is much better than losing the mooring. And I believe the contract type signs where by mooring you enter into a contract etc if done properly are easier to enforce than a no mooring? As it's non-payment of an agreed fee rather than trespass on land which is public/public right of access?

With regards to overstaying though...even if CRT don't own the bank they presumably still require boats on the river to be licenced and therefore be moving every 14 days as with all other CRT water? And travelling a sufficient range if no home mooring? What is different about the Avon to the canal in this regard...as boats do move on the canal (even if not that far over the year etc)...?

[Dave123]

Seen on Facebook that the local council have decided to ban all mooring here despite their own survey suggesting retaining mooring was the most popular option! Sad day for all boaters, liveaboards or not, when mooring sites are lost.

[Stephen Jeavons]

53 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Seen on Facebook that the local council have decided to ban all mooring here despite their own survey suggesting retaining mooring was the most popular option! Sad day for all boaters, liveaboards or not, when mooring sites are lost.

It does mean that they (the Council) are going to need to employ someone to police the area. Really? What will they do if people continue to moor there, try to fine them? Have the boats removed at £8,000 a pop? Sounds like a massive overhead on the Council's budget. Sabre-rattling perhaps?

[Dave123]

I suppose it would be trespass and haven't the Tories now made that more illegal/given the police a lot more power to deal with it?

[Detling]

2 hours ago, Dave123 said:

I suppose it would be trespass and haven't the Tories now made that more illegal/given the police a lot more power to deal with it?

not yet but want to see this survey

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/I1EI5/?fbclid=IwAR24X3GwF4BPqi4p7fkqDCOwx3vPp_xvHwozZXkasjY9f7s1HjSWZ0d3vvM

 

reading it suggests a totalitarian government is getting closer. Although it suggests vehicles and travellers the proposed laws just mention people and property so can be applied to protest groups/marches and even a bunch of ramblers stopping for a cup of tea. I suspect it is so wide to capture all occasions, but as suggested, if the landowner or council, decide you could get a criminal record for stopping in a lay by for a cuppa and they could sieze your car. 

[Murflynn]

 

I'd like to see the authorities having the power to seize your car/van/truck, and then sell it to cover the costs of enforcement, if you throw litter out of the window or fly tip.    It is rapidly becoming a national disgrace.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Murflynn said:

 

I'd like to see the authorities having the power to seize your car/van/truck, and then sell it to cover the costs of enforcement, if you throw litter out of the window or fly tip.    It is rapidly becoming a national disgrace.

I find the litter situation better than it was a few decades ago but I totally agree with regard to fly tipping.

[Stephen Jeavons]

I do wonder how one trespasses on a bit of water that is not owned by the council.

Slightly off-tack.....I rent a mooring from my own council on a river that is not under CRT jurisdiction. My agreement mentions that I have a licence to moor 1 boat (fair enough). However, if I bought a second boat and moored it against my boat, technically, I'm still only mooring one boat against their land. They don't own the middle of the river so could they tell me to move the second boat? Who actually owns the water anyway? 

[David Mack]

16 minutes ago, Detling said:

not yet but want to see this survey

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/I1EI5/?fbclid=IwAR24X3GwF4BPqi4p7fkqDCOwx3vPp_xvHwozZXkasjY9f7s1HjSWZ0d3vvM

 

reading it suggests a totalitarian government is getting closer. Although it suggests vehicles and travellers the proposed laws just mention people and property so can be applied to protest groups/marches and even a bunch of ramblers stopping for a cup of tea. I suspect it is so wide to capture all occasions, but as suggested, if the landowner or council, decide you could get a criminal record for stopping in a lay by for a cuppa and they could sieze your car. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/15/tresspass-trap-law-land-travelling-people-rights

1 minute ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

 

Slightly off-tack.....I rent a mooring from my own council on a river that is not under CRT jurisdiction. My agreement mentions that I have a licence to moor 1 boat (fair enough). However, if I bought a second boat and moored it against my boat, technically, I'm still only mooring one boat against their land. They don't own the middle of the river so could they tell me to move the second boat? Who actually owns the water anyway? 

 

If the Council is the riparian owner, and this is a natural river channel (not a lock cut), then they own the river bed up to the middle of the river, and so your second boat would be moored over their land.

[Graham Davis]

28 minutes ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

I do wonder how one trespasses on a bit of water that is not owned by the council.

Slightly off-tack.....I rent a mooring from my own council on a river that is not under CRT jurisdiction. My agreement mentions that I have a licence to moor 1 boat (fair enough). However, if I bought a second boat and moored it against my boat, technically, I'm still only mooring one boat against their land. They don't own the middle of the river so could they tell me to move the second boat? Who actually owns the water anyway? 

As I understand it, most rivers the bank owners own to the centre of the river.

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

I do wonder how one trespasses on a bit of water that is not owned by the council.

Slightly off-tack.....I rent a mooring from my own council on a river that is not under CRT jurisdiction. My agreement mentions that I have a licence to moor 1 boat (fair enough). However, if I bought a second boat and moored it against my boat, technically, I'm still only mooring one boat against their land. They don't own the middle of the river so could they tell me to move the second boat? Who actually owns the water anyway? 

 

It is not the 'water' it is a case of who owns the land over which you are mooring.

The landowner (council) will own the bank and to the centre of the river, and the land owner on the opposite side will own up to the middle of the river.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Stephen Jeavons]

28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is not the 'water' it is a case of who owns the land over which you are mooring.

The landowner (council) will own the bank and to the centre of the river, and the land owner on the opposite side will own up to the middle of the river.

Okay, understood. I wasn't sure whether "rivers" were considered differently as they are natural rather than man made. It seems not.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Stephen Jeavons said:

Okay, understood. I wasn't sure whether "rivers" were considered differently as they are natural rather than man made. It seems not.

They are very different.

 

Unless there is local legislation overriding it 'natural rivers' bed are owned by the adjacent landowners.

In the case of the canals, unless there is local legislation overriding it the 'bed' will generally be owned by the Navigation authority, and in the case of C&RT I think it is true to say that they own 99% of the land under their canals. Farmers etc who own the bank side will not own the canal bed.

[Stephen Jeavons]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

They are very different.

 

Unless there is local legislation overriding it 'natural rivers' bed are owned by the adjacent landowners.

In the case of the canals, unless there is local legislation overriding it the 'bed' will generally be owned by the Navigation authority, and in the case of C&RT I think it is true to say that they own 99% of the land under their canals. Farmers etc who own the bank side will not own the canal bed.

Got it. Thanks

[Dave123]

You'd probably also be breaking the relevant navigation authority bylaws if you had a boat moored so that it was out in the main navigation channel...

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

They are very different.

 

Unless there is local legislation overriding it 'natural rivers' bed are owned by the adjacent landowners.

In the case of the canals, unless there is local legislation overriding it the 'bed' will generally be owned by the Navigation authority, and in the case of C&RT I think it is true to say that they own 99% of the land under their canals. Farmers etc who own the bank side will not own the canal bed.

And a bit wider as well - towpath generally and sometimes a ransom strip on the offside, or so I understand

[WotEver]

5 hours ago, Detling said:

not yet but want to see this survey

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/I1EI5/?fbclid=IwAR24X3GwF4BPqi4p7fkqDCOwx3vPp_xvHwozZXkasjY9f7s1HjSWZ0d3vvM

 

reading it suggests a totalitarian government is getting closer. 

Whereas reading it fills me with confidence that the problems that we have in our area with illegal encampments might finally be effectively addressed. 

 

Perhaps you have no experience of encampments regularly occurring on playing fields, school fields, parkland, and other public spaces, sometimes enabled by the campers removing fences or boulders. Then there’s the expense incurred by the council having to clear up the mess when the encampment finally ends, after several weeks spent applying for an injunction.  
 

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by WotEver
Grammar

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Whereas reading it fills me with confidence that the problems that we have in our area with illegal encampments might finally be effectively addressed. 

 

Perhaps you have no experience of encampments regularly occurring on playing fields, school fields, parkland, and other public spaces, sometimes enabled by the campers removing fences or boulders. Then there’s the expense incurred by the council having to clear up the mess when the encampment finally ends, after several weeks spent applying for an injunction.  
 

 

 

I don't think it goes far enough, it appears to be simply aimed at travellers who make the area 'residential'.

They only need to stop for a couple of days before the mess and faeces starts to appear.

 

Trespassing itself should be made illegal irrespective of intent to take up residence or not.

I'm sure all these city do-gooders would love to have a family or two (or more) wandering around their garden, crapping under the hedge, pulling down fences, lighting fires, parking up to 6 vehicles on their lawn etc etc.

[Boater Sam]

Many years ago the tinkers and pikeys turned up in Stockport and occupied Wharf Meadow which was to be developed it a HQ sight for the Gas Board.

 

Asked to leave they told everyone where to go and stayed making a right mess. Told to leave they ignored too.

 

Oddly, there was a terrible fire that burnt most of the vans and vehicles.

 

They never stop in Stockport now.

[Murflynn]

4 hours ago, Boater Sam said:

Many years ago the tinkers and pikeys turned up in Stockport and occupied Wharf Meadow which was to be developed it a HQ sight for the Gas Board.

 

Asked to leave they told everyone where to go and stayed making a right mess. Told to leave they ignored too.

 

Oddly, there was a terrible fire that burnt most of the vans and vehicles.

 

They never stop in Stockport now.

that's more like it!  

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

that's more like it!  

 

 

Without wishing to identify where it happened :

 

A skip hire company we frequently use had a problem with 'undesirables' taking over some of their land, after requests to move, Police involvement and court orders they were still there, so he decided to take action himself.

 

Hooked up a big Telehandler and drove into the field, picked up and moved the caravans (some of them with the occupants still inside) and deposited out on the road.

They took the hint and moved off.

 

A couple of weeks later I heard he was in hospital following a terrible accident.

It transpired that the 'undesirables' had got hold of him, stripped him and pushed a length of 1" blue water pipe up his backside, they had then slid a length of barbed wire up inside the water pipe and then removed the water pipe.

It was major surgery to sort it out.

 

Makes by rectum shrivel just to think about it.

[Boater Sam]

The mistake he made was leaving the undesirables in a condition where they were still able to move. At the final frontier, there is the final solution. 

[Murflynn]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Without wishing to identify where it happened :

 

A skip hire company we frequently use had a problem with 'undesirables' taking over some of their land, after requests to move, Police involvement and court orders they were still there, so he decided to take action himself.

 

Hooked up a big Telehandler and drove into the field, picked up and moved the caravans (some of them with the occupants still inside) and deposited out on the road.

They took the hint and moved off.

 

A couple of weeks later I heard he was in hospital following a terrible accident.

It transpired that the 'undesirables' had got hold of him, stripped him and pushed a length of 1" blue water pipe up his backside, they had then slid a length of barbed wire up inside the water pipe and then removed the water pipe.

It was major surgery to sort it out.

 

Makes by rectum shrivel just to think about it.

is this true or just an urban legend?  if true then he made the mistake of being identifiable........................   hard to imagine how he could resolve the problem anonymously or without drawing attention to himself, unless an 'accidental' fire could be arranged.

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

is this true or just an urban legend?  if true then he made the mistake of being identifiable........................   hard to imagine how he could resolve the problem anonymously or without drawing attention to himself, unless an 'accidental' fire could be arranged.

It is true and well known in the locality.

It would be difficult not to have been identifiable with them squatting on his land, he'd already asked them to leave, had the Police 'onto them' and been to court.

It would seem to be unlikely to be 'some random passer by with a telehandler thinking, I'll lift those caravans out onto the road'  so I think he was on a loser on that from the off.

 

An Englishman's home is his castle but don't dare pull up the draw-bridge.