Mooring fees

[blackrose]

Does anyone know whether the EA normally levy a mooring fee for a garden end mooring on top of that paid to the landowner? I believe BW commonly does this although I've never properly understood the justification for it.

Edited April 18, 2010 by blackrose

[Secret Garden]

Does anyone know whether the EA normally levy a mooring fee for a garden end mooring on top of that paid to the landowner? I believe BW commonly does this although I've never properly understood the justification for it.

Not that I'm supporting the levy in any way, but the justification goes something like:- they (BW) own the land under the water & the water itself whereas the land owner owns the land up to the water's edge, so unless you are using davits or a slip way (and the only davits that I've seen that would cope with a narrowbaot were in a Wallsend shipyard) BW "have the right" to charge you rent, as well as the land owner.

I must admit though I've not heard of it being imposed yet, but I'm sure that this will be rectified soon !

[carlt]

I must admit though I've not heard of it being imposed yet, but I'm sure that this will be rectified soon !

End of garden mooring fees are practically universal, on BW waters, though completely unjustified, imho.

[Water Rat.]

End of garden mooring fees are practically universal, on BW waters, though completely unjustified, imho.

 

 

How much do they charge for these?

[carlt]

How much do they charge for these?

Half the fee for an "equivalent" tow path mooring, in the area.

Edited April 20, 2010 by carlt

[GUMPY]

Does anyone know whether the EA normally levy a mooring fee for a garden end mooring on top of that paid to the landowner? I believe BW commonly does this although I've never properly understood the justification for it.

Normally on EA waters the landowner of the bank owns to the middle of the river bed

So EA cant make a charge for "offside mooring"

Where is this house you are going to moor up at then?

[Naughty Cal]

Half the fee for an "equivalent" tow path mooring, in the area.

 

Which is too much. Currently the houses at Burton Waters are paying £850 per year to BW for the priveledge of mooring a boat at the end of their garden.

 

Makes our £1k moorings fees look quite sensible

[grahoom]

Does anyone know whether the EA normally levy a mooring fee for a garden end mooring on top of that paid to the landowner? I believe BW commonly does this although I've never properly understood the justification for it.

 

I don't think so - I guess it depends.

 

I am on a mooring on private land on the Thames. The Land Owner has Riparian and as such is allowed to moor boats to his land (essentially having rights to the middle of the river).

 

I guess - best thing to do would contact EA directly. I know that EA don't hassle any moorers on Council land (even if they don't have permission to moor or not) in the area I am in, and leave it up to the Local Authority to sort out things like that.

[blackrose]

Normally on EA waters the landowner of the bank owns to the middle of the river bed

So EA cant make a charge for "offside mooring"

Where is this house you are going to moor up at then?

 

Wraysbury.

 

I don't think so - I guess it depends.

 

I am on a mooring on private land on the Thames. The Land Owner has Riparian and as such is allowed to moor boats to his land (essentially having rights to the middle of the river).

 

I guess - best thing to do would contact EA directly. I know that EA don't hassle any moorers on Council land (even if they don't have permission to moor or not) in the area I am in, and leave it up to the Local Authority to sort out things like that.

 

Thanks for that.

Edited April 21, 2010 by blackrose

[magnetman]

Wraysbury.

 

Just up from the Bells of Ouseley? Its a nice spot although a bit noisy from the planes.

 

 

As Idleness mentioned, riverside land and riverbed to centre of channel is owned by the Riparian Owner (Above Staines Railway bridge that is - below there its a different story).

 

The EA can not levy a charge. However it is technically within their power to disallow boats to stop for more than 24 hours but they won't do that

[blackrose]

Just up from the Bells of Ouseley? Its a nice spot although a bit noisy from the planes.

 

 

As Idleness mentioned, riverside land and riverbed to centre of channel is owned by the Riparian Owner (Above Staines Railway bridge that is - below there its a different story).

 

The EA can not levy a charge. However it is technically within their power to disallow boats to stop for more than 24 hours but they won't do that

 

Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, just up from the Bells of Ouseley but on the other side. I haven't got it yet, the landowner should get back to me today or tomorrow so fingers crossed.

 

The noise from planes can't possibly be worse than Brentford can it? Although the flight path over Brentford is for approaching planes which are far quieter than those taking off.

[GeoffS]

How much do they charge for these?

 

I pay £1000 pa to the landowner which includes electric hook up and water, and £550 pa to BW for a mooring licence, in the Ivinghoe area.

[magnetman]

Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, just up from the Bells of Ouseley but on the other side. I haven't got it yet, the landowner should get back to me today or tomorrow so fingers crossed.

 

The noise from planes can't possibly be worse than Brentford can it? Although the flight path over Brentford is for approaching planes which are far quieter than those taking off.

 

I've moored at Brentford and Wraysbury is one of my stops on the way up river and I reckon Wraysbury is a bit noisier, as you say its planes on full thrust and they are loud. Walk up the hill at Runnymede and you can clearly see the airport - its really very close. Must have been peaceful there these last few days...

 

another thing about Ham island is that it floods quite badly since the flood relief channel was built.

 

Interesting article and comments about it here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/have_your_say/floods.shtml

[bag 'o' bones]

Does anyone know whether the EA normally levy a mooring fee for a garden end mooring on top of that paid to the landowner? I believe BW commonly does this although I've never properly understood the justification for it.

 

I was told by the farmer who owns our mooring that BW effectively owns a strip off land - no idea how wide - on the off side rather then just to the waters edge. Hence the charge.

 

When you think about it, it makes sense technically if BW were to access the off side for essential maintainance they would effectively be trespassing.

 

I think the arrangement is no diffrent to that of some housing estates that have gardens reaching the road. The house holders don't actually own ta footpath strip next to the road, the idea being contractors can dig up the gardens to reach services without having to seek permision presumably.

 

Anyway, as far i'm concerned if you can afford the extra premium of a house next to a canal then you should be able to afford the mooring levy!

[mickspangle]

Mike,

 

I would seriously suggest talking to the EA about it first. I think Mick Dutton used to be the patrol officer for them in that stretch, and would be a good person to get the history from. You'll probably get a visit from him after you take up the mooring in any case.

 

It sounds like the mooring that a couple of friends of ours had a few years ago (boat was 70' NB called Navigator). I don't think they had any problems, but when we were moored in Staines on the Thames we got caught in the middle of a whole protracted legal process about whether the owner of the bank where we were moored was actually allowed to let boats moor. I won't go into the whole saga here, but it was a real headache for us. Hopefully yours will be much less hassle!

 

Feel free to PM for more info on that bit of the Thames if you want. We were moored there when you nearly bought a calorifier from us I think.

[magnetman]

Mike,

 

I would seriously suggest talking to the EA about it first. I think Mick Dutton used to be the patrol officer for them in that stretch, and would be a good person to get the history from. You'll probably get a visit from him after you take up the mooring in any case.

 

It sounds like the mooring that a couple of friends of ours had a few years ago (boat was 70' NB called Navigator). I don't think they had any problems, but when we were moored in Staines on the Thames we got caught in the middle of a whole protracted legal process about whether the owner of the bank where we were moored was actually allowed to let boats moor. I won't go into the whole saga here, but it was a real headache for us. Hopefully yours will be much less hassle!

 

Feel free to PM for more info on that bit of the Thames if you want. We were moored there when you nearly bought a calorifier from us I think.

 

I was wondering if it was where 'Navigator' used to moor, iirc they were looking after a house while the owner was abroad.

 

When you moored at Staines were you below the Railway Bridge? I've heard that the regulations around ownership of the riverbed change at this point.

 

I'd prefer this topic was kept in open forum rather than PM I'm finding it very interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

I was told by the farmer who owns our mooring that BW effectively owns a strip off land - no idea how wide - on the off side rather then just to the waters edge. Hence the charge.

 

When you think about it, it makes sense technically if BW were to access the off side for essential maintainance they would effectively be trespassing.

 

I think the arrangement is no diffrent to that of some housing estates that have gardens reaching the road. The house holders don't actually own ta footpath strip next to the road, the idea being contractors can dig up the gardens to reach services without having to seek permision presumably.

 

Anyway, as far i'm concerned if you can afford the extra premium of a house next to a canal then you should be able to afford the mooring levy!

 

The canal system was constructed on formerly private land presumably subject to a compulsory purchase order at some point and the companies building canals therefore owned a strip of land and the waterway on it so this ownership of land has transferred to British Waterways therefore they can charge fees.

 

However, the river Thames has always been there and private ownership of land remained even after it was made navigable. This is why in some places you will be charged a mooring fee - the landowner is completely within their rights to either demand a fee or disallow mooring altogether. On the other hand, the agency responsible for management of the river do not have the right to charge for moorings other than at the various sites where the land is owned by them.

 

 

 

Except below Staines Railway bridge, or more accurately, the London Stone which I think actually might be a bit further upstream.

 

Checking on wikipedia/bing maps its actually in the little park just above Staines road bridge on the right going upstream.

[blackrose]

Anyway, as far i'm concerned if you can afford the extra premium of a house next to a canal then you should be able to afford the mooring levy!

Except that it may be the the moorer who pays the mooring levy if they and the house owner are not the same person. .

[blackrose]

Mike,

 

I would seriously suggest talking to the EA about it first. I think Mick Dutton used to be the patrol officer for them in that stretch, and would be a good person to get the history from. You'll probably get a visit from him after you take up the mooring in any case.

 

It sounds like the mooring that a couple of friends of ours had a few years ago (boat was 70' NB called Navigator). I don't think they had any problems, but when we were moored in Staines on the Thames we got caught in the middle of a whole protracted legal process about whether the owner of the bank where we were moored was actually allowed to let boats moor. I won't go into the whole saga here, but it was a real headache for us. Hopefully yours will be much less hassle!

 

Feel free to PM for more info on that bit of the Thames if you want. We were moored there when you nearly bought a calorifier from us I think.

 

Thanks. The mooring is well upstream of London Stone/Staines road bridge so I think it should be ok.I don't think it's the mooring you're thinking of.

[blackrose]

I've moored at Brentford and Wraysbury is one of my stops on the way up river and I reckon Wraysbury is a bit noisier, as you say its planes on full thrust and they are loud. Walk up the hill at Runnymede and you can clearly see the airport - its really very close. Must have been peaceful there these last few days...

 

another thing about Ham island is that it floods quite badly since the flood relief channel was built.

 

Interesting article and comments about it here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/have_your_say/floods.shtml

 

They're knocking down the warehouses next to the visitor moorings at Brentford at the moment so it's even noisier than usual. I've seen the plans for the development and it looks like ther'll be construction noise for a few more years. Then there'll be flats on both sides so it's probably time to find another mooring.

 

As far as flooding on the Thames goes its always a risk. As long as a boat is moored next to poles or pilings to prevent it going over the bank it should be ok.

Edited April 21, 2010 by blackrose

[PhilR]

Anyway, as far i'm concerned if you can afford the extra premium of a house next to a canal then you should be able to afford the mooring levy!

 

Please explain your logic in making that comment. It is only recently that there has been a premium attached to canalside property.

[bag 'o' bones]

Please explain your logic in making that comment. It is only recently that there has been a premium attached to canalside property.

 

On average properties that have attractive views whether it be a canal, river or the coast tend to attract those who can afford to pay more for the privilage hence the values of those properties on the open market are higher. Canal side properties may not have attracted premiums in the past but the majority certainly do today. No diffrent to barn conversions. Who would have thought it would be chic to live in a barn 40 years ago!

 

The logic is basically this: If you can afford a property backing onto a canal and the convenience of a mooring at the bottom of your garden then one would assume you can afford to pay a mooring fee , a fact which BW are quite obviously aware of hence wanting their pound of flesh (and quite rightly so). The thing is why should you automatically have the right to free mooring just because your property adjoins the canal? The boat still sits on the canal taking up space on the cut. We pay for the boats licence and also pay for a mooring, a proportion of which is paid to BW by the mooring owner.

Think about it if there was free mooring then the owners would basically enjoy an enhancement of their properties value at BW's expense. As for how much you should be expected pay for an end of garden mooring is another kettle of fish.

[flatplane8]

Does anyone know whether the EA normally levy a mooring fee for a garden end mooring on top of that paid to the landowner? I believe BW commonly does this although I've never properly understood the justification for it.

 

 

We're moored just below the railway bridge at Staines and just pay the property owner a fee. The EA gets the license fee, which is pretty substantial in instelf, as its based on the area of water occupied, not just the length. They also don't give historic ship discount like BW.

 

Good luck with the new mooring, its a nice stretch of river. The aircraft noise isn't too intrusive, although its been nice over the last few days.

[magnetman]

Edited April 22, 2010 by magnetman

[blackrose]

On average properties that have attractive views whether it be a canal, river or the coast tend to attract those who can afford to pay more for the privilage hence the values of those properties on the open market are higher. Canal side properties may not have attracted premiums in the past but the majority certainly do today. No diffrent to barn conversions. Who would have thought it would be chic to live in a barn 40 years ago!

 

The logic is basically this: If you can afford a property backing onto a canal and the convenience of a mooring at the bottom of your garden then one would assume you can afford to pay a mooring fee , a fact which BW are quite obviously aware of hence wanting their pound of flesh (and quite rightly so). The thing is why should you automatically have the right to free mooring just because your property adjoins the canal? The boat still sits on the canal taking up space on the cut. We pay for the boats licence and also pay for a mooring, a proportion of which is paid to BW by the mooring owner.

Think about it if there was free mooring then the owners would basically enjoy an enhancement of their properties value at BW's expense. As for how much you should be expected pay for an end of garden mooring is another kettle of fish.

 

Did you see my previous post? In some cases the person who pays the the entire levy may be the moorer, not be the property owner.

Edited April 22, 2010 by blackrose

[bag 'o' bones]

Did you see my previous post? In some cases the person who pays the the entire levy may be the moorer, not be the property owner.

 

I've read and re-read the thread trying to understand the crux of the issue but does it actually make any diffrence who pays the levy? I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here but from what I can make out if you are moored on the off side then a levy has to paid regardless of who actually owns the boat.