Is this the start of the end for visitor moorings on the Thames?

[bassplayer]

 

People who believe that all moorings along the Thames are "public" are sadly mistaken.

Agreed. If the boaters concerned were breaking the law by overstaying and were moved on, it's already been dealt with. However, why should everyone lose this mooring as a result. If it was a private mooring to start with, fair enough.

[magnetman]

A similar thing has happened above teddington lock which is Richmond council owned land. I definitely used to think of this as 'public' moorings but it has been full for years now.

 

i guess it's just easier to "criminalise" everyone than to attempt to control moorings. My feeling is the best solution is patrolled moorings with a fee once you go above 24hrs. Like Hampton Court and the Barge Walk opposite Kingston. For some reason Richmond did not want to take that approach. Their reasons are a bit unclear but I have not gone into it so maybe its obvious why they didn't do it. The rough boats have been above Teddington for quite a long time so maybe they felt that a full ban was the only way to -eventually- get them to move before they become permanent...

Edited August 5, 2015 by magnetman

[bassplayer]

I guess it's just easier to stop everyone than to attempt to control moorings. Mh feeling is the best solution is patrolled moorings with a fee once you go above 24hrs. Like Hampton Court and the Barge Walk opposite Kingston. For some reason Richmond did not want to take that approach. Their reasons are a bit unclear but I have not gone into it so maybe its obvious why they didn't do it. The rough boats have been above Teddington for quite a long time so maybe they felt that a full ban was the only way to -eventually- get them to move before they become permanent...

I'm afraid isolated incidents are often used as an excuse to restrict everyones liberties. Seems a common theme these days.

 

We are as much let down by those who break the rules as those who over react by restricting all of us wuth more draconian rules.

[Naughty Cal]

A similar thing has happened above teddington lock which is Richmond council owned land. I definitely used to think of this as 'public' moorings but it has been full for years now.

 

i guess it's just easier to "criminalise" everyone than to attempt to control moorings. My feeling is the best solution is patrolled moorings with a fee once you go above 24hrs. Like Hampton Court and the Barge Walk opposite Kingston. For some reason Richmond did not want to take that approach. Their reasons are a bit unclear but I have not gone into it so maybe its obvious why they didn't do it. The rough boats have been above Teddington for quite a long time so maybe they felt that a full ban was the only way to -eventually- get them to move before they become permanent...

Another example of the minority ruining things for the majority.

 

There will still of course be those who blame the land owners rather then the real culprits

[magnetman]

I'm afraid isolated incidents are often used as an excuse to restrict everyones liberties. Seems a common theme these days.

 

We are as much let down by those who break the rules as those who over react by restricting all of us wuth more draconian rules.

But it may be the only way they can eventually clear the mooring. If it is successful and the 'problen' boats go away I would be willing to bet that the average Mr & or Mrs Boater would be able to stop overnight with no negative consequences.

 

If anyone pushes it by stopping for a longer time than that then it will probably not be allowed. Sort of a blind eye situation.

 

First job is clear the 'problem' boats..

[Dave Clinton]

 

But they weren't acting selfishly or without consideration, they acted in reponse to overstaying and waste being dumped in the river, something that no-one wants. From what I gather it wasn't just local residents either, but busineses and other boaters.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you bemoaning the loss of short term visitor moorings, or are you suggesting that people should be able to just squat wherever they like on the river, without either permission or paying for it?

 

 

I was on the point of agreeing with there but then I thought I'd seek clarification first.

 

Can you give me the evidence please for your allegation (I've helpfully put it in bold above).

 

or is it simple prejudice?

 

As to your last point, I think you need to research 'public right of navigation' before frothing at the mouth and composing letters to the Daily Mail.

[magnetman]

 

And of course there is always the option to stop because your jabsco impeller is shredded / alternator belt snappes and the local boatyard won't be open until the morning

[Dave Clinton]

 

 

I'm afraid your romantic view of all boaters gaily wandering up and down the waterways obeying the rules, respecting neighbours and surroundings, slipping in and out of districts on their progressive journeys is not quite right.

 

There are pockets where people "plot up" and have to get evicted - as seen in a couple of places on the Thames in that area recently. Some then creep back using the cover of "lack of signage/clear warnings". So your answer please?

 

Most liveaboard boaters do the former.

 

As there is a small sub-section of society that does the latter for various reasons, society needs to look at these reasons and how it provides for these people before simply poking them with a big stick and saying 'get orf of my land'.

 

Again we have someone who ignores (not so) recent history. I understand your point of view as a landowner of a desirable portion of London but everyone has to be somewhere and many have died to make that point.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Dave Clinton

[magnetman]

 

 

I was on the point of agreeing with there but then I thought I'd seek clarification first.

 

Can you give me the evidence please for your allegation (I've helpfully put it in bold above).

 

or is it simple prejudice?

 

As to your last point, I think you need to research 'public right of navigation' before frothing at the mouth and composing letters to the Daily Mail.

There are no sewerage facilities at Teddington.

 

So. Does the Pope sh.t in the Vatican?

[cereal tiller]

There are no sewerage facilities at Teddington.

 

So. Does the Pope sh.t in the Vatican?

Water samples were taken in the vicinity and found to contain effluent.

 

CT

[bassplayer]

And of course there is always the option to stop because your jabsco impeller is shredded / alternator belt snappes and the local boatyard won't be open until the morning

If I did break down there the last thing I would need is the fear of a £100 fine. There are legitimate signs and P taking signs. Unfortunately P taking signs cause unnecessary stress as do P taking boaters.

[magnetman]

Water samples were taken in the vicinity and found to contain effluent.

 

CT

Surely not

 

 

Edited

Edited August 5, 2015 by magnetman

[nipper]

Morning all!

 

When I came on the river yesterday, I paid about £210 for a visitors licence for a month.
I now have to display this white strip of paper in full view telling the world that I am a visitor and to what date I am licensed too!
If I hadn't, I wouldn't be allowed past the first lock, and when it runs out I have to leave the river!

It's my understanding that you cannot get full license to cruise on the river full time, unless I have a mooring. It's also my understanding that full time cruising cannot be done with visitor licences.

My point is that, if these people abuse the licensing of the river and will probably not have licences, and it should be quite easy to see if they are, because there will be no visitor licence displayed.

Surely it is not the local councils responsibility to sort this out, It is the River Licensing authorities, i.e. The Environment Agency's, job to do that, after all they are the ones that collect all the cash!

Lets also face it, this effects all the river users from skiffs to the big jobs with the flying bridges, because we all have to stop somewhere, otherwise what's the point of a boat, whatever the size!

A boat less River is, as far as I am concerned, is a dead river!

 

Nipper

 

Edited for a little more diction!

Edited August 5, 2015 by nipper

[magnetman]

Morning all!

 

When I came on the river yesterday, I paid about £210 for a visitors licence for a month.

I now have to display this white strip of paper in full view telling the world that I am a visitor and to what date I am licensed too!

If I hadn't, I wouldn't be allowed past the first lock, and when it runs out I have to leave the river!

 

It's my understanding that you cannot get full license to cruise on the river full time, unless I have a mooring. It's also my understanding that full time cruising cannot be done with visitor licences.

 

My point is that, if these people abuse the licensing of the river and will probably not have licences, and it should be quite easy to see if they are, because there will be no visitor licence displayed.

 

Surely it is not the local councils responsibility to sort this out, It is the River Licensing authorities, i.e. The Environment Agency's, job to do that, after all they are the ones that collect all the cash!

 

Lets also face it, this effects all the river users from skiffs to the big jobs with the flying bridges, because we all have to stop somewhere, otherwise what's the point of a boat, whatever the size!

 

A boat less River is, as far as I am concerned, is a dead river!

 

Nipper

 

Edited for a little more diction!

I can't seen the EA being able to do a lot as they are being hit by funding cuts anyway.

 

They have "evicted" boats from the reach above teddington several times but the 'die hards' just don't move. We're coming up through Teddington on Saturday for our month holiday up to Oxford. I came down past there about a month ago and still several boats were moored on the now forbidden part including the 1 star hotel boats

 

Can't really see where they would go as they are so bloody big

[magnetman]

As there is a small sub-section of society that does the latter for various reasons, society needs to look at these reasons and how it provides for these people before simply poking them with a big stick and saying 'get orf of my land'.

 

You are in danger of making assumptions about people's situations.

 

I know some of the people who 'squat" the moorings down the bottom end of the non tidal Thames. A lot of them have houses or flats but prefer to live on the water and collect rent from tenants while it is possible to do this and remain in a local area with the boat.

People who have no backup land dwellings and are dedicated to boats -tend to- follow regulations more and look for moorings in my experience.

 

We aren't talking about a load of people who society needs to look after. Ok some of them fall into that category of course but I can assure you that a lot of people are taking advantage of a lax situation while it exists. If things change never mind still got the house how handy.

 

Its not universal but it is a very common situation.

[OldGoat]

Morning all!

 

When I came on the river yesterday, I paid about £210 for a visitors licence for a month.

I now have to display this white strip of paper in full view telling the world that I am a visitor and to what date I am licensed too!

If I hadn't, I wouldn't be allowed past the first lock, and when it runs out I have to leave the river!

 

It's my understanding that you cannot get full license to cruise on the river full time, unless I have a mooring. It's also my understanding that full time cruising cannot be done with visitor licences.

 

My point is that, if these people abuse the licensing of the river and will probably not have licences, and it should be quite easy to see if they are, because there will be no visitor licence displayed.

 

Surely it is not the local councils responsibility to sort this out, It is the River Licensing authorities, i.e. The Environment Agency's, job to do that, after all they are the ones that collect all the cash!

 

Lets also face it, this effects all the river users from skiffs to the big jobs with the flying bridges, because we all have to stop somewhere, otherwise what's the point of a boat, whatever the size!

 

A boat less River is, as far as I am concerned, is a dead river!

 

Nipper

 

Edited for a little more diction!

 

 

Firstly - methinks you have been somewhat misinformed and that is due to the 'special status' of the Thames.

It may seem daft BUT the Thames 'licence' is not a licence because there is a public right of navigation on the whole of the Thames. So to collect fees (so that the navigation can be maintained) EA charge you to register your boat for a given period. So you may cruise where you like for that given period.

 

Unlike the canal system EA don't own the River just some of the structures - locks and weirs etc. The river is (sort of) owned by whosoever people / organisations own the banks and there lots of them. Because it's their land they can charge you to moor and possibly drop your anchor (to avoid tying up to the bank...) but then you can't get to the pub.

 

All the EA can do is to chase you for a registration fee.

 

There are an ever increasing number of liveaboards - some escaping CaRT's regime coming on to the River and taking up permanent residence. Many of them have no affinity for the River's style or traditions, which brings me on to your point highlighted above. Leisure boaters are beginning to abandon cruising so the traffic is decreasing and as you say is becoming a dead river. That will discourage funding for amenities from local councils and the like.

[nipper]

So, they come on the river with or without a registration fee being paid!

 

Well, why don't we all do that and save ourselves the money! I merely jest!!

 

My point is that rules are rules. if they are not enforced, then why bother? Why try and enforce a rule of £100 when the enforcement for less is never taken up!

I'm generalising here, but you see the point!

 

Wether it is a licence or registration, it really means is that we have to pay! Not pay in any other walk of life and you wont get!

 

Try not paying your council rates, your rent! your mortgage? You are risking loosing what you have. Why not your unregistered or licensed boat?

 

Anyway, enough of that, I pay my way and enjoy the ambeance of river and canals, and now I shall draw up the mooring pins and go find another mooring later!

 

Lets hope there are some!

 

Nipper

Edited August 5, 2015 by nipper

[OldGoat]

So, they come on the river with or without a registration fee being paid!

 

Well, why don't we all do that and save ourselves the money! I merely jest!!

 

My point is that rules are rules. if they are not enforced, then why bother? Why try and enforce a rule of £100 when the enforcement for less is never taken up!

I'm generalising here, but you see the point!

 

Wether it is a licence or registration, it really means is that we have to pay! Not pay in any other walk of life and you wont get!

 

Try not paying your council rates, your rent! your mortgage? You are risking loosing what you have. Why not your unregistered or licensed boat?

 

Anyway, enough of that, I pay my way and enjoy the ambeance of river and canals, and now I shall draw up the mooring pins and go find another mooring later!

 

Lets hope there are some!

 

Nipper

 

It's a sad reflection of modern life.

The River's scheme was designed in a more gentlemanly era when everybody played the game and followed the rules (!!).

Now too many folks take the p.... even to the extent of making artificial reasons why they shouldn't pay. There are few sanctions that the EA can employ. Court proceedings cost more than they raise (fines go into the public purse).

Removing a boat is also costly.

Impounding a boat more so - and many would break up if lifted out!

 

and NO you don't have to pay and stay within the rules.

EA general moorings (not those at locks) are free for the first night, with £5 foe the next and then upwards

There are sufficient acceptable (by the locals) moorings for no charge - Pangbourne, Beale Park are examples

Many more ad-hoc banksides where you can tie up overnight.

If you don't mind tying your bow to a tree and the stern to another or a small anchor at the back end, then there are even more.

If these locations were published, then there would be wall to wall boats moored.....

Edited August 5, 2015 by OldGoat

[magnetman]

 

The River's scheme was designed in a more gentlemanly era when everybody played the game and followed the rules (!!).

 

Full of wealthy boat owners and not so wealthy people simply hired boats for enjoying the River. There was nothing like the volume of residential boats there are now. Even in the 80s the River was must less busy with itinerant liveaboards. I was a teenager with a dinghy to go out in living in Teddington and that mooring near the lock was never occupied by more than one or two boats in the late 80s and early 90s.

 

Its all gone mad in the last 20 odd years . Partly to do with house prices but other factors come into it as well.

[kris88]

Its all gone mad in the last 20 odd years . Partly to do with house prices but other factors come into it as well.

Ah yes, the good old days.

[b0atman]

Yes the good old days when effluent was just tipped into the canal .

And the towpaths where covered in Horse sh ##

[magnetman]

I guess when my children are adults they will be able to sit in an east London park and look round nostalgically saying "I remember when this was all tower blocks" its a symptom of ageing I guess.

 

I'd have thought if a local council had a "problem" with too many boats then they could install proper moorings and let people pay for them. Seems more of an advanced option than just telling everyone to go away but I suppose they might just end up with a lot of empty moorings and a big bill for the construction of said moorings.

 

Does anyone actually want to live on a boat ? Why?

[abraxus]

 

 

I was on the point of agreeing with there but then I thought I'd seek clarification first.

 

Can you give me the evidence please for your allegation (I've helpfully put it in bold above).

 

or is it simple prejudice?

 

As to your last point, I think you need to research 'public right of navigation' before frothing at the mouth and composing letters to the Daily Mail.

 

No prejudice, I was simply stating the reasons given by the local council and residents.

 

Not sure what you're going on about regarding any public right of navigation, as no-one is being prevented from navigating. Rights to navigate don't include the right to moor indefinitely on private land.

 

[magnetman]

I think he was frothing at the mouth probably due to having not researched riparian ownership rights in the River Thames

 

Yes it is a public navigation but no you do not have a right to leave a boat on private land unless authorised to do so by the owner . Apparently you are not even allowed to 'annoy' riparian owners so anchoring off someones land against their will is not an option even though most people think it is a way of getting round mooring restrictions .

 

Riparian owners are well looked after legally for obvious reasons when the history of the River is taken into account.

Edited August 5, 2015 by magnetman

[magnetman]

 

(Thames conservancy act part 79)

Thames Conservancy Act 1932 - Legislation.gov.uk

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1932/37/contents/enacted&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwj0-vvYn5LHAhUDDiwKHXg8AGY&usg=AFQjCNHAXtKHDWC26zC1R1Sq_p17xB2HuA