New bye law for Richmond Thames

[NigelMoore]

They can’t lose such ability to control moorings as they already have, although a bad court case could severely damage their ability to continue imposing extra-legal policies.

 

CaRT has not retained BW’s power to promote primary legislation, but they have retained the power to promote secondary legislation – which is what byelaws are. This was opposed by the House of Lords Scrutiny Panel, but it got in anyway.

[Serenity Malc]

Yello,

 

Whilst you guys and gals exchange views on the legalities with CART etc .... the real issue here on the non tidal Thames is very specifically on the Teddington to Kingston stretch which has been over run by unlicensed sheds ..... some even without engines and mostly occupied as hotel boats by our fellow europeans.

My position however is one from a license paying ( £807 ), BSS owning and fully insured live aboard on the Thames. Although I may be tarred with the same brush by some of the members of this forum, my only illegality is that I currently moor without charge at a disused Sea Cadet wharf in West Molesey .... in the middle of now where.

The new Richmond BC bylaw is presumably only effective within the limits of the BC...... my current mooring is approximately 75 metres outside of the Richmond BC boundary ....... but I VERY much doubt that the enforcement officers or third party contractors will even notice that they've stepped a few metres too far and will slap a £100 a day ticket on my barge. Together with a criminal offence ! .... and then a new £100 fine and another criminal offence for any subsequent days.

This situation will be enforced from 1 am on Friday March 13th I believe ........ so I have applied for a home mooring ( non residential of course ) at a local eyot. My only problem is that I have to find a cheque for £1600 for the first 6 months from April .... and then another for the same amount in October.

I guess the majority of this forum are canal based and under the control of CART, but I live in my homeland on the Thames and I have to say that I don't particularly enjoy some of the comments from some of you 'cut based' forum members.

 

Wishing you all happy days .... whether you live in a marina .... a river ..... a ditch .... or on the mighty Thames.

 

Serenity Malc.

 

Edited to add that I'm also fully insured.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Serenity Malc

[OldGoat]

Umm - does it apply to you:-

 

"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."

 

Does the council own the land where you are moored? if not.....

 

(perhaps foolishly, I assumed the bylaw only really covered the towpath side - mark you, I'm not quite sure where you are...)

[Serenity Malc]

Yello,

 

I'm on the towpath south side ...... and I assumed rightly or wrongly that the council do control the towpath.

 

SM.

[OldGoat]

Yello,

 

I'm on the towpath south side ...... and I assumed rightly or wrongly that the council do control the towpath.

 

SM.

 

 

Aha - I was thinking of the cadet (?) site just before Shepperton marina

[Woodsy]

Looks like round one to Richmond council (link below)

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/man-who-refused-to-move-boat-because-it-breached-his-human-rights-ordered-to-pay-720-a3176631.html

 

With more to follow - extract quotes below from the Evening Standard article:

 

"Its creation has been considered to be robust by the court and we will be using these powers again very soon.

I hope this sends a clear message to anyone who tries to blot our riverside in this way. The council will not hesitate in taking action against you.

[blackrose]

Looks like round one to Richmond council (link below)

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/man-who-refused-to-move-boat-because-it-breached-his-human-rights-ordered-to-pay-720-a3176631.html

 

With more to follow - extract quotes below from the Evening Standard article:

 

"Its creation has been considered to be robust by the court and we will be using these powers again very soon.

I hope this sends a clear message to anyone who tries to blot our riverside in this way. The council will not hesitate in taking action against you.

Right to a family life? More like right to take the piss. No doubt he'll make further appeals and we haven't heard the end of this.

[Alan de Enfield]

Presumably the council must have seized his boat and sold it / crushed it, otherwise how could he be classed as homeless ?

 

But Akerman argued the enforcement notices breached his right to a family life and would make him homeless.

 

What an idiot, no wonder he lost.

 

Is a caravanner 'homeless' when he moves his van from site to site ?

[NigelMoore]

. . . how could he be classed as homeless ?

 

Technically, moving his boat off a mooring does render him homeless. You, as I, might consider that he is not being evicted from his home, his home is merely being relocated – but it would not have been any such argument that lost the point. The HRA does not seek to interfere with the enforcement of laws [even though that might otherwise involve breach of the HRA] provided that such enforcement is compatible with the state’s necessary control in the public interest, and is a measure that is proportionate to those legitimate aims.

 

Given that the control measures under the new byelaw are [ostensibly anyway] intended to make the public bank available to all in their turn, the public interest is served and the measures are proportionate.

 

[David Mack]

Is this this the same Longwood Lady that was owned by John Phillips, BCN Society Chairman in the 70s, and later by Eric Foakes?