New bye law for Richmond Thames

[Wanted]

It would seem that EA and Richmond are not messing. Did any of the boaters groups pick up on this?

 

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/unauthorised_mooring_will_be_outlawed_from_borough

By bye law I meant by law. Bye bye.

[Alan de Enfield]

It would seem that EA and Richmond are not messing. Did any of the boaters groups pick up on this?

 

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/unauthorised_mooring_will_be_outlawed_from_borough

By bye law I meant by law. Bye bye.

 

For those who do not like clicking links :

 

For too long parts of the borough’s picturesque riverside have been blighted by boats mooring with no permission and the Council has campaigned for a byelaw to be introduced to clamp down on the offending vessels.

The byelaw means that from 1am on Friday 13 March, if any boats moor up to Council owned or managed land it will be a criminal offence which could carry a fine and/or prison sentence. Every 24 hours the boat is moored, or attached, to the land, a new crime has been committed.

Richmond Council Cabinet Member for Environment, Cllr Pamela Fleming, said:

“I am delighted that all the hard work our officers and responsible river users have put into this byelaw application will be rewarded. Some of these boats cause a great deal of distress for people living in and visiting the borough.

"We hope that we will soon see the end of these boats mooring with no permission along our beautiful stretch of the Thames.

“Over the next few weeks we will follow up on the notices already given, and contact all those vessels currently in an unauthorised spot on the river and warn them that their unauthorised mooring days are over. Time to move on or risk a fine.”

[dekker]

Why would one not like clicking a link?

[Paul C]

Why would one not like clicking a link?

 

I don't like clicking them. The pertinant info is above, and isn't too onerous. Another link to another page would be slower and might consume a bunch of data allowance etc. Also plenty of people put links in which don't lead to the actual info, but the start page of the website and you have to wade through it to try find it.

 

Also, if the info is on the forum rather than an external link, the search engine will pick it up.

 

Apart from that, they're fine.

[Ray T]

For too long parts of the borough’s picturesque riverside have been blighted by boats mooring with no permission and the Council has campaigned for a byelaw to be introduced to clamp down on the offending vessels.

The byelaw means that from 1am on Friday 13 March, if any boats moor up to Council owned or managed land it will be a criminal offence which could carry a fine and/or prison sentence. Every 24 hours the boat is moored, or attached, to the land, a new crime has been committed.

 

Doesn't this just move the problem elsewhere rather than address the issue?

[mark99]

I wonder how many other local authorities are considering a similar thing.

 

How it works though on a CaRT canal rather than an EA river I've no idea.

[peterboat]

It addresses the problem for the council and that is what they are worried about

 

Peter

[sultan derocco]

Mark 99, a byelaw of this kind can only be imposed if the local authority has contributed financially to the location concerned. I think that neither CaRT or EA fall into this category and you will see that this byelaw is imposed by Richmond BC.

[mark99]

Mark 99, a byelaw of this kind can only be imposed if the local authority has contributed financially to the location concerned. I think that neither CaRT or EA fall into this category and you will see that this byelaw is imposed by Richmond BC.

 

 

Thanks for that. I guess that part of river (tidal) may be PLA rather than EA. IIRC recently there were evictions off a Water Companies property abutting the Thames in the same area.

Edited March 1, 2015 by mark99

[Paul C]

The council, being the landowner of the land adjoining, will probably own the bed of the river under riparian rights, where the land underneath a canal is likely owned by CRT. Hence they are able to impose mooring restrictions on a river, but not a canal.

[Tonka]

Good for them, I blame the minority who have been moored there. They have spoilt it for the rest of us

[OldGoat]

The council, being the landowner of the land adjoining, will probably own the bed of the river under riparian rights, where the land underneath a canal is likely owned by CRT. Hence they are able to impose mooring restrictions on a river, but not a canal.

 

A moot point - on the non tidal part of the Thames as far as EA concerned you can moor in the stream (provided you don't endanger navigation, etc) and the riparian right (if any) doesn't apply. At least AFAIK it's never been tested. What applies to PLA waters is a different matter.

Anyway the byelaw mentions mooring to a structure owned by the council and there are precious few on the semi-tidal bit.

I didn't check how far Richmond's jurisdiction applies - does it go past Tedington Lock - that's where the 'trouble' has been??

[Peter X]

Yes, all around Teddington Lock is part of the borough. From a little way upriver of it, the Surrey bank is in Kingston; details here:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/London+Borough+of+Richmond+upon+Thames,+Greater+London/@51.4311387,-0.3228428,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x48760c729ad60797:0x3a669638aa6727ac

[tillergirl]

My understanding from OH relatives is that there is to be lots of new housing around that area between the London Apprentice and Alberts Lock? (the Isleworth Ait area) .. .riverside housing with no boats to view....mmmm

[baz gimson]

local entrepreneur Alistair Trotman will have to move his barge then

 

https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/1524546

 

http://www.londonrentmyhouse.com/to-rent/property/London/?houseid=1865

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/london-houseboat-slum-rents-barge

Edited March 1, 2015 by baz gimson

[mark99]

My understanding from OH relatives is that there is to be lots of new housing around that area between the London Apprentice and Alberts Lock? (the Isleworth Ait area) .. .riverside housing with no boats to view....mmmm

 

Isleworth is LB Hounslow. Opposite bank is LB Richmond.

[NigelMoore]

I wonder how many other local authorities are considering a similar thing.

 

How it works though on a CaRT canal rather than an EA river I've no idea.

 

It works exactly the same.

 

The Borough Councils, as with CaRT and BW, are ‘creatures of statute’ enjoying the advantages along with the disadvantages of that status.

 

Their ownership of the riverbank meant nothing while they had no statutory power expressly defining the extent of what in an ordinary person would be a riparian right – but they did have, as does CaRT, the power to ask for Parliament’s approval of byelaws specifying the degree of control they wish to exercise over their land.

 

The talk of riparian rights and extent of ownership of the bed or banks is therefore irrelevant. The byelaw route was the only way for them to legitimately deal with moorers hogging the local public banks, and it is only unfortunate that they have seen fit to make them as harsh and restrictive as they seem to be.

 

The advantage CaRT have is that [so far as their offside land holdings are concerned] the enabling Acts invariably authorised their business control over use of that bank by boats anyway.

[MtB]

 

 

Thanks for that. I guess that part of river (tidal) may be PLA rather than EA. IIRC recently there were evictions off a Water Companies property abutting the Thames in the same area.

 

Would that be at Sunbury on Thames by any chance? By the footbridge to the large island whose name escapes me? A horrendous-looking trawler style sinker moored by the car park there the other day!

[mark99]

 

It works exactly the same.

 

The Borough Councils, as with CaRT and BW, are ‘creatures of statute’ enjoying the advantages along with the disadvantages of that status.

 

Their ownership of the riverbank meant nothing while they had no statutory power expressly defining the extent of what in an ordinary person would be a riparian right – but they did have, as does CaRT, the power to ask for Parliament’s approval of byelaws specifying the degree of control they wish to exercise over their land.

 

 

 

I must admit to being slightly confused about the whole thing.

 

1) I was under the impression CaRT could introduce T+C's (re not moving far enough or not satisfying the CaRT board) and if you do not follow them your licence would be withheld by CaRT and the the boat removed by CaRT because it was not licensed. However in the various threads this seems to be argued in that the T+C's are not ultimately enforceable as CaRT do not have ultimate power to introduce them and the legislation surrounding such matters is what we are told the courts will discuss are very open to interpretation as far as CaRT may be concerned.

 

2) CaRT would not be seeking a legislation change (to give them more power) as it's too difficult, costly and Parliament have lots more on their plate than faffing around with minor bills.

 

3) But here we have a council with a few boats giving them grief who have gone out and got the tools they need (bylaws) to crash right down on any overstayers.

 

4) Hence if situation for CaRT and Local Authorities is same and 1,2 above is true then, why do CaRT not seek bylaws (like Richmond) rather than introduce T+C's?

 

5) Or, is it that the CaRT T+C's DO give them the power to not licence a boat and that IS good enough to start S8?

Edited March 2, 2015 by mark99

[Leo No2]

Would that be at Sunbury on Thames by any chance? By the footbridge to the large island whose name escapes me? A horrendous-looking trawler style sinker moored by the car park there the other day!

MtB - I understand that the bit the Richmond BC are concerned about is that bit on the southern side of the river downstream of Kingston and downstream of the Small Boat Club moorings where a number of boats have been moored for four or five years. I stand to be corrected but I am fairly sure that's correct.

 

ETA: Added image with red line where there have been boats moored for years.

 

Edited March 2, 2015 by Leo No2

[mark99]

I wonder how many other local authorities are considering a similar thing.

 

 

One thing local authorities do is talk to each other and "network". One can foresee another local authority finding out how Richmond did this and then throwing it to CaRT and asking why CaRT does not do such a thing on their canals which affect their boroughs.

 

Would that be at Sunbury on Thames by any chance? By the footbridge to the large island whose name escapes me? A horrendous-looking trawler style sinker moored by the car park there the other day!

 

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/11422604.River_police_evict_17_boats_moored_illegally_in_Hampton/

 

 

Yes - the Water Co. lead it.

Edited March 2, 2015 by mark99

[Phil Ambrose]

Is this another example of a few pisstakers spoiling things for the many?

Phil

[mark99]

Is this another example of a few pisstakers spoiling things for the many?

Phil

 

 

It's probably sympomatic of the canals being an "easy touch" due to past years of weak enforcement where-as other authorities seem not to allow the rot to set in - and then have to shift the backlog.

Edited March 2, 2015 by mark99

[WJM]

This legislation is directed at the clusters of boats moored against the parkland above Teddington Lock and also the park above Trowlock Island.

 

The knock on effect is already visible in the steady stream of scruffy, botch-modified cabin cruisers filtering through Brentford now heading for the CaRT system.

[Scholar Gypsy]

This legislation is directed at the clusters of boats moored against the parkland above Teddington Lock and also the park above Trowlock Island.

 

The knock on effect is already visible in the steady stream of scruffy, botch-modified cabin cruisers filtering through Brentford now heading for the CaRT system.

 

There was some concern at the recent PLA open meeting in Putney that some of these boats would move on to the tideway.

 

I would guess the owners of the boats involved think that the canals are probably safer ....