Does EA actually enforce mooring limits?

[Thomas C King]

We moved down from Reading to Brentford over the weekend. When in Kingston(-upon-Thames) we noticed that there were some boats on the short-term moorings that look like they never move (though I might be mistaken). Example below. I know the Duke's cut in Oxford doesn't have mooring limits enforced by CRT or EA, I was just wondering if this is a wider trend? No intention of taking the piss ourselves, obviously.

 

[MtB]

"Does EA actually enforce mooring limits?"

 

I think the answer has to be no, the landowner enforces whatever mooring limits they have decided to impose. Usually by charging a discouragingly high rate per night. 

 

 

[magnetman]

That bit isn't EA owned. 

 

The owner of that particular boat, a Mr Trotman, has caused Richmond council to acquire a byelaw making it a criminal offence to moor to their land for more than 1 hour.

 

On the River it is up to the land owners what happens about moorings. 

 

I think that bit which is Queens promenade is probably Kingston Council owned and as we know councils can't do anything to control moorings unless they have byelaws or a PSPO in place. 

 

It's a known problem on that bit of the Thames. 

 

 

[MtB]

 

Point being, unlike CRT, the EA don't generally own the banks or towpaths.

 

 

[magnetman]

True but another side to it is that even bits that the EA do own are not all that effectively managed. They rely on the patrol boats which don't come out often at all. 

 

Of course this might change this year. 

 

On the byelaw situation Hounslow copied Richmond and I believe that Spelthorne have been debating it also Elmbridge. 

 

Surrey cc are doing aggressive "enforcement" and signage but it's not clear whether they actually have any powers and quite possible as NigelMoore was wont to say they are acting Ultra Vires. Not unusual for this to happen.

 

The slum barges are awful. 

 

ETA Kingston claim they do have powers here 

 

https://kingstonletstalk.co.uk/river-enforcement

 

One obvious issue with the slum barges is that the disposal cost would be enormous. It's not like its a little GRP cruiser you just crush these are old lighters or Dutch barges with all manner of dodgy constructions on top. Not an easy thing to dismantle.

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by magnetman

[Thomas C King]

That makes sense. The signs say "no mooring" in big print, and "except for the first 24 hours" in very small print below. The second bit is a right conferred so that navigation is feasible, I assume. If that's a correct assumption, are most landowners who say "no mooring" (with no exceptions) on the Thames actually obliged to "allow" 24 hours? E.g., the royal estate at Windsor lol.

 

It's a bit worrying if the 24-hour moorings are abolished, can councils do that legally? I'd be dead if we'd done Reading to Teddington in a day, it took us 17 hours.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Thomas C King

[magnetman]

I don't think private land owners are obliged to offer moorings. In fact land owners are well protected in byelaws. 

 

You are technically allowed to anchor anywhere for a short time as long as it is not obstructing navigation but another condition is that it does not cause nuisance to riparian owner. So dropping the hook outside the gentleman's stately home while he is necking one of the maids in the gardens would be strictly forbidden.

 

 

 

 

 

From TC act 1932

 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

If that's a correct assumption, are most landowners who say "no mooring" (with no exceptions) on the Thames actually obliged to "allow" 24 hours? E.g., the royal estate at Windsor lol.

 

 

Well along there, there used to be really hostile-looking signs in quite a small font and once when passing I decided to see what they actually said. This was about 20 years ago. So I slowed down and hovered by one, perhaps 20ft from the bank to read it. We'd been there maybe three minutes when a black Range Rover with blacked out windows came hacking into view heading straight for us and out jumped two big fit-looking blokes in sharp suits and dark sunglasses and shouted at me to get on my way, NOW. 

 

Very scary, more so that in sounds having written it out. 

[roland elsdon]

No doubt the fashion police. Your attire did not match the boat. You should have worn a red neckerchief a waistcoat and a black bowler.

You should know this goes with the responsibility of an old boat.

It distinguishes us from the  Hudson’s.

[magnetman]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Well along there, there used to be really hostile-looking signs in quite a small font and once when passing I decided to see what they actually said. This was about 20 years ago. So I slowed down and hovered by one, perhaps 20ft from the bank to read it. We'd been there maybe three minutes when a black Range Rover with blacked out windows came hacking into view heading straight for us and out jumped two big fit-looking blokes in sharp suits and dark sunglasses and shouted at me to get on my way, NOW. 

 

Very scary, more so that in sounds having written it out. 

 

The wording of the signs on the royal estate opposite Datchet is as follows: 

 

 

"This is a protected site under section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. 

 

Trespass on this site is a criminal offence."

 

I think this means "clear off" and yes it is regularly and heavily patrolled. 

 

 

[MtB]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

The wording of the signs on the royal estate opposite Datchet is as follows: 

 

 

"This is a protected site under section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. 

 

Trespass on this site is a criminal offence."

 

I think this means "clear off" and yes it is regularly and heavily patrolled. 

 

 

 

 

But it looks a FANTASTIC place to land for a picnic!

 

 

[Mike Todd]

On 19/04/2022 at 09:52, MtB said:

 

Point being, unlike CRT, the EA don't generally own the banks or towpaths.

 

 

The difference between rivers and canals, rather than the various navigation authorities. 

[erivers]

The EA's 'experiment' with allowing private companies (such as Disrict Enforcement Ltd) to impose compulsory registration on arrival at a mooring and profit from imposing "parking fine" type regulations was abandoned by the EA last year when they finally accepted that the rules for EA--provided moorings are clearly set by the Thames Conservancy Act, not by some profiteering shysters.