Jump to content

Help with legal rights?


Emonaboat

Featured Posts

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I can't remember exactly how it works below Staines but riverbed ownership is something like corporation of London or Crown estate.

 

Port of London Authority.

 

Before the locks and weirs were built, diurnal tides would slosh up as far as the London stone (just about perceivable by all accounts) at Staines so it was considered the limit of tidal navigation, therefore under the jurisdiction of the City of London, then the PLA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bacchus said:

 

Port of London Authority.

 

Before the locks and weirs were built, diurnal tides would slosh up as far as the London stone (just about perceivable by all accounts) at Staines so it was considered the limit of tidal navigation, therefore under the jurisdiction of the City of London, then the PLA

 

That's interesting, there's no mention of this at all on the wiki page for the London Stone. 

 

It being there to mark the limit of tidal navigation on the River Thames makes a lot more sense.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stone

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bacchus said:

 

Port of London Authority.

 

Before the locks and weirs were built, diurnal tides would slosh up as far as the London stone (just about perceivable by all accounts) at Staines so it was considered the limit of tidal navigation, therefore under the jurisdiction of the City of London, then the PLA

But do they own it, The Crown owns most of the Norfolk Broads but the Broads Authority control it

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peanut said:

 It would be fairly simple to check that one way or the other.

Tam

 

I doubt that they own the water, just the land and the bridge, but they will know if you ask them.  Westminster Council won't own the River Thames under London Bridge. Not that it helps, as you have to deal with the marina management.

 

The point has already been made now, but we certainly leased the land and de facto the water held within it at Adelaide Dock, right to the junction with the canal mainline, and the plans showed that. I can't see why Maypole Dock should be any different. In the OP's instance there is no effective difference between someone blocking the water or blocking the land - it is still not possible to pass without the offending craft being moved.

 

Tam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But do they own it, The Crown owns most of the Norfolk Broads but the Broads Authority control it

 

 

I was under the impression that the Crown owned all tidal waters, and the land up the the High Water mark.

 

 

Since 1066 (a bit later for Wales and Scotland) all land is technically owned by The Crown.     This becomes increasingly important when we deal with moorings because so many are on our tidal waters or on our foreshore, most of which is owned or controlled by The Crown.   This can be through The Crown Office itself or in England through the two Duchys of Lancashire and Cornwall.  Their relevance now is often that the foreshore is owned by The Crown or owned and then leased out to the Harbour Authority which then organises use and control in its patch.  Where there is a claim for possessory title of that land The Crown itself has a privileged limitation period under the Limitation Act 

 

TidalWaters

 

Simply waters up to the point where the tide fails to reach and so this includes estuaries and rivers subject to the common law right of navigation and the right of The Crown

 

 

 

 

Port of London Authority v. Ashmore 2009 EWHC 954 and 2009 AER 74.  This case in the Chancery Division in London decided that it was possible for the owner of a moored vessel (in this case since 1983) a sailing barge called “Atrato” by Battersea Bridge in a tidal area of the Thames.  The Port of London Authority wished to register the land under the river at which point Mr. Ashmore made his claim for possessory title.  It was determined that although an area of tidal water adverse possession could be obtained of the sea or riverbed or the foreshore of the footprint of the vessel where (i) the title to the sea or riverbed had not been registered and (ii) the vessel rested on the mud or the foreshore at low tide.

Port of London Authority v. Tower Bridge Yacht and Boat Company 2013 EWHC 3084 (CH).  In a case decided in the summer of 2013.   The decision of Justice Mann involved a claim by the Port of London Authority against Tower Bridge Yacht and Boat Company as to their use and right to use a number of moorings close to Tower Bridge where from the evidence given there had been moorings at least from 1857 and possibly before that.   The Defendant had no licence for the moorings from the Authority but the Claimant claimed they did not need one.  The decision is long and clearly went through a good deal of history relevant to that particular site. The burden of proof to establish whether the mooring chains were in place in 1857 was assessed as being the Claimants.   The Judge found that the PLA failed to establish the moorings claimed by the Defendant were not present by 1857, save for three in dispute and as such was not entitled to insist on the Defendant requiring a licence for them.  There were certain moorings which the Judge felt were subject to the need for a licence and the Defendant failed in the claim that it had a franchise in respect of its moorings.  In making his decision the Judge was aware of a case being decided almost at the same time by Arnold J. in Couper Limited & Others v. Albion Property Limited.

Moore v. British Waterway Board 2013 EWCA Civ 73. In a tidal part of The Grand Union Canal Mr. Moore moored his vessels which were occupied as homes.  Although the BWB controlled the Canal it did not own the bed of the Canal but served a Statutory Notice on Mr. Moore for the removal of the vessels on the basis they were not moored with lawful authority.  Ultimately BWB lost the case because the Notice was deemed under the Regulations to be invalid but before then the Court had determined that in general a riparian owner owning the canal bank was not entitled against the true owner of the riverbed to place his vessels for an indefinite time over the riverbed if he did not own it.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/04/2023 at 17:00, Emonaboat said:

My neighbour has decided to moor his boat across the only entrance to the marina, completely blocking access in and out.  He says he will move his boat out of the way whenever is needed, but doesn't always

 

Ask him to move, then instead of going out moor in the entrance yourself.

 

It probably won't help, but the look on his face should be priceless!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T'is interesting that the court decided that the Riparian owner of the River bank (and to 1/2 way across the river) does not have the right to allow "indefinite moorings" unless they actually owned it (and NOT the Crown) - not just holding Riperian rights !

 

 

Ultimately BWB lost the case because the Notice was deemed under the Regulations to be invalid but before then the Court had determined that in general a riparian owner owning the canal bank was not entitled against the true owner of the riverbed to place his vessels for an indefinite time over the riverbed if he did not own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I was under the impression that the Crown owned all tidal waters, and the land up the the High Water mark.

 

 

Is it not that the Crown owns the whole lot, wet and dry?  The best the lower orders may have is an interest thereunder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

That's interesting, there's no mention of this at all on the wiki page for the London Stone. 

 

It being there to mark the limit of tidal navigation on the River Thames makes a lot more sense.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stone

 

 

 

Ah, well here lies a problem with the interweb, because this London stone wiki page does mention it...  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stone_(riparian) which also has a picture of the Staines stone complete with grooves worn by tow-ropes!

 

Also, another interesting thing about St Aines (you knew there was more than one, right?) is this little bollard

 

image.png.e91d881dfe12adb6142847a380c08b0a.png

 

There's another one buried in undergrowth by what is now Regus offices, and another by the towpath near Halfords.

 

They are excise markers. If you passed these markers going into London carrying coal or wine, you were liable to pay a duty which, I believe, helped pay for the bridges across the tideway!

 

(I have passed the Halfords one on the way back from Sainsbury's many times, but I think my wine was duty paid...)

 

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

But do they own it, The Crown owns most of the Norfolk Broads but the Broads Authority control it

 

Ah, now there you have me. I thought they owned it as part of the port, but it isn't a hill I am willing to die on.

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the thread drift, but when you live somewhere as dull as Staines, it's good to find some interesting bits that don't involve Sacha Baron Cohen...😁

 

 

  • Happy 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.