Jump to content

Reading doesn't want boaters anymore!


Featured Posts

from the new bridge walk along to opposite the boat yard on the Island, turn down the road away from the river and you can see the Aldi sign which is at the bottom of that road!

 

Simples!

 

Nipper

Link to post
Share on other sites

Half a mile! that must be plumbers miles!

 

If you have the nerve, you could walk through the gate of the electric board, cross the car park and trip over the curb and hit your nose on Aldi's front door!

 

cheers.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll tell Steve about the HMP warden next time I see him wink.png

That's fine (anyway I think he's got a sense of humour) 'cos I keep my forum and real identities quite separate!!!

 

He does a good job keeping the other "undesirables" out of Henley which I imagine the good people of Henley appreciate laugh.png keep the River looking beautiful and all that

 

Yes- I hadn't thought of that!

 

It's difficult to explain to other visitors and some frequent Thames boaters as well that - rather like the canal towpath telegraph in days of yore - there are folks around who love the River and do their best to keep it going in spite of current pressures -

Folks like Steve

Lockies who will dive in and rescue people and dogs (despite 'management' saying otherwise)

Others - as above.

 

I'm sure the canal system is much the same, but CaRT staff are less visible - they move too fast....

 

Boating is under pressure - lack of funds, new staff have to acquire any affinity etc, etc.

I must stop now, getting a bit maudlin

 

I'll tell Steve about the HMP warden next time I see him wink.png

That's fine (anyway I think he's got a sense of humour) 'cos I keep my forum and real identities quite separate!!!

 

He does a good job keeping the other "undesirables" out of Henley which I imagine the good people of Henley appreciate laugh.png keep the River looking beautiful and all that

 

Yes- I hadn't thought of that!

 

It's difficult to explain to other visitors and some frequent Thames boaters as well that - rather like the canal towpath telegraph in days of yore - there are folks around who love the River and do their best to keep it going in spite of current pressures -

Folks like Steve

Lockies who will dive in and rescue people and dogs (despite 'management' saying otherwise)

Others - as above.

 

I'm sure the canal system is much the same, but CaRT staff are less visible - they move too fast....

 

Boating is under pressure - lack of funds, new staff have to acquire any affinity etc, etc.

I must stop now, getting a bit maudlin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must of passed me! I'm on the park moorings, and i have no intention of paying!

 

And now the new bridge is up and running, Aldi is but a short walk away!

 

Nipper

I would have done...

 

And those new pilings around the bridge look ideal to tie to and pop to Aldi...which is my only reason to stop in Reading

Link to post
Share on other sites

There apparently was room around the back of the Island.

 

But if you did tie up to the bridge, all your ropes would be covered in rust!

 

But it looks nice tonight, all lite up!

 

Could of come along side! You would of been welcome!

 

Then i could of explained the reason why i am not paying and nor should you!

 

Nipper

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware, the legal position would be that as riparian landowner they can more or less charge what they like for mooring . . . However once you put a gangplank across the gap you might be deemed as moored, and otherwise how are you going to get your shopping unless you have a tender, which itself will need to be moored to the bank?

 

Standard riparian rights dictate that the bank owner’s consent is required to make any contact with the bank, however momentary; the public right of navigation, where that exists, does not counteract that [it is one of the clear distinctions between our Common Law and the Roman Civil Law under the Justinian code, as exemplified in Alphonso the Great’s Las Siete Partidas [still extant in some of the US states]. Ball v Herbert in 1789 is the starting point.

 

However – the common law rights of natural persons do not apply to creatures of statute such as the Borough Councils, who have no powers to charge for anything not expressly granted under their enabling Acts. Riparian Boroughs along the Thames are gradually awakening to the need for specific byelaws to enable them to levy such charges.

 

Against this, some [Kingston most recently to my knowledge] have initiated action against moored boats in reliance on an interpretation of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972, which prima facie suggests that the London Boroughs are granted all the rights of natural persons. I am personally extremely dubious as to whether such blanket over-riding of the common law and long established case history can be supposed to lawfully reside in such an interpretation of that Act.

 

In those recent actions by Kingston all the boats concerned accepted undertakings to remove their boats to avoid continued proceedings with the costs implications, and the argument remains untested.

 

One of the curious twists in the Kingston cases objecting to boaters accessing their bank, was that the ‘towpath’ along the relevant banks was dedicated public highway, so that to exclude access from the river as distinct from access across Council’s land, was definitely ultra vires, because discriminatory.

 

Those Boroughs that have succeeded in having relevant byelaws approved by the Secretary of State, however, hold an indisputable right to levy such charges as those byelaws permit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Standard riparian rights dictate that the bank owner’s consent is required to make any contact with the bank, however momentary; the public right of navigation, where that exists, does not counteract that [it is one of the clear distinctions between our Common Law and the Roman Civil Law under the Justinian code, as exemplified in Alphonso the Great’s Las Siete Partidas [still extant in some of the US states]. Ball v Herbert in 1789 is the starting point.

 

However – the common law rights of natural persons do not apply to creatures of statute such as the Borough Councils, who have no powers to charge for anything not expressly granted under their enabling Acts. Riparian Boroughs along the Thames are gradually awakening to the need for specific byelaws to enable them to levy such charges.

 

Against this, some [Kingston most recently to my knowledge] have initiated action against moored boats in reliance on an interpretation of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972, which prima facie suggests that the London Boroughs are granted all the rights of natural persons. I am personally extremely dubious as to whether such blanket over-riding of the common law and long established case history can be supposed to lawfully reside in such an interpretation of that Act.

 

In those recent actions by Kingston all the boats concerned accepted undertakings to remove their boats to avoid continued proceedings with the costs implications, and the argument remains untested.

 

One of the curious twists in the Kingston cases objecting to boaters accessing their bank, was that the ‘towpath’ along the relevant banks was dedicated public highway, so that to exclude access from the river as distinct from access across Council’s land, was definitely ultra vires, because discriminatory.

 

Those Boroughs that have succeeded in having relevant byelaws approved by the Secretary of State, however, hold an indisputable right to levy such charges as those byelaws permit.

I would think that the way that Boroughs are going to go is the way of Richmond who have brought in by-laws under Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 which allows them to implement bylaws for the suppressions of nuisances. These were approved by the Secretary of State and mooring became a Criminal Offence which means that rather than some charge for mooring they can summons you and should you fail to give them sufficient details to enable the service of a summons I assume that they can ask the local constabulary to effect your arrest. I think it's called playing hardball.sad.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hounslow is another of those following Richmond’s lead. They have tried all sorts of bluff over the years, with only partial success, but now that plans are afoot for replacing the old gasworks riverworks with a fancy “marina”, they need the specific byelaw powers to remove the resident boats.

 

Richmond's byelaws DO allow you to get their consent to moor for longer than the stated restrictions, such consent being subject to their conditions [which doubtless will include commensurate charges]. Mooring per se is not criminalised under their byelaws, only mooring for longer than permitted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hounslow is another of those following Richmond’s lead. They have tried all sorts of bluff over the years, with only partial success, but now that plans are afoot for replacing the old gasworks riverworks with a fancy “marina”, they need the specific byelaw powers to remove the resident boats.

 

Richmond's byelaws DO allow you to get their consent to moor for longer than the stated restrictions, such consent being subject to their conditions [which doubtless will include commensurate charges]. Mooring per se is not criminalised under their byelaws, only mooring for longer than permitted.

Agreed but the permitted period is only for 1 hour, anything beyond that requires the prior written consent of the council (are they likely to give this?). In the case of an emergency they will allow you up to 24 hours to sort the problem out but after that you'll need the prior written consent of the Council (not quite sure how you get prior written consent for a breakdown unless you know beforehand that it is going to happen unsure.png ). The bottom line however is that , unlike the CRT overstaying 'charge' which it seems agreed is pretty much unenforceable, these by-laws can get you arrested!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fully up to date with the Teddington situation however all the fancy movements by LB Richmond appears to have had little real effect I noticed whilst cruising past earlier this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hounslow is another of those following Richmond’s lead. They have tried all sorts of bluff over the years, with only partial success, but now that plans are afoot for replacing the old gasworks riverworks with a fancy “marina”, they need the specific byelaw powers to remove the resident boats.

 

Richmond's byelaws DO allow you to get their consent to moor for longer than the stated restrictions, such consent being subject to their conditions [which doubtless will include commensurate charges]. Mooring per se is not criminalised under their byelaws, only mooring for longer than permitted.

 

A little OT, but not too much I hope (and I promise I won't hijack the thread :)

 

Can a Borough/Local Body use bye-laws to influence mooring on a canal towpath?

 

NB: the question is intended to be limited to mooring, and to exclude "indirect" regulations that might affect boats, such as noise, air pollution, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A little OT, but not too much I hope (and I promise I won't hijack the thread smile.png

 

Can a Borough/Local Body use bye-laws to influence mooring on a canal towpath?

 

NB: the question is intended to be limited to mooring, and to exclude "indirect" regulations that might affect boats, such as noise, air pollution, etc.

 

It would appear so :

 

"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."

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A little OT, but not too much I hope (and I promise I won't hijack the thread smile.png

 

Can a Borough/Local Body use bye-laws to influence mooring on a canal towpath?

 

NB: the question is intended to be limited to mooring, and to exclude "indirect" regulations that might affect boats, such as noise, air pollution, etc.

Please clarify this, did you mean canal?

Alan de Enfield answered as if you were referring to Richmond, where the council are attempting to influence (to put it mildly) mooring to their riverbank. On the canals, a lot of different laws apply and there are many other topics discussing it, but the general answer would be no because most canals are run by CRT who own the towpath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one for M'lud Moore -

Apart from the rights and duties of mooring to the bank or a structure fixed to that bank,

what is the position regarding anchoring away from the bank?

The Thames bylaws say you may anchor (subject to rules of obstruction etc) - implying - to the uninitiated that riparian rights extending to the mid point of the river are overridden? Or is it that the bylaw for navigation purposes only?

 

I recall reading somewhere - authoritative or not - that the special conditions on the Thames meant that the general riparian rule of halfway across was not valid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one for M'lud Moore -

Apart from the rights and duties of mooring to the bank or a structure fixed to that bank,

what is the position regarding anchoring away from the bank?

The Thames bylaws say you may anchor (subject to rules of obstruction etc) - implying - to the uninitiated that riparian rights extending to the mid point of the river are overridden? Or is it that the bylaw for navigation purposes only?

 

I recall reading somewhere - authoritative or not - that the special conditions on the Thames meant that the general riparian rule of halfway across was not valid?

 

That may be born out by the fact the Commissioners (pre Conservancy) had to construct a sunken towpath on the river bed below what is now Bray lock. If the riparian owners were able to prevent a land based towpath I would image they could also have prevent on on the river bed if "normal" riparian rights existed. (note, Thames barges were hauled by gangs of men, not horses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to Reading.

This is the scene outside Tesco's this morning.

Note, no visiting boaters shopping, but the constant moorers are still there!

So, this goes some way toshow that the charges do nothing towards Readings constant mooring problem, whilst driving visiting boaters away.

Well done Reading, I wonder how much you pay the person who came up with that!

Nipper

post-1000-0-90378000-1445254848_thumb.jpg

Edited by nipper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading council have helped run and in the main paid for the Reading Waterfest for the last 25 years, up to and including this year and there will be another next year and for the foreseeable future. I therefore would disagree that Reading council does not want visiting boats. What they do not want are boats clogging up the visitor mooring whether outside Tesco or anywhere else because that causes problems for visiting boats and probably in this case complaints from Tesco.

The charge will be a first step, if it doesn't work they can no doubt find something which will.

 

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading council have helped run and in the main paid for the Reading Waterfest for the last 25 years, up to and including this year and there will be another next year and for the foreseeable future. I therefore would disagree that Reading council does not want visiting boats. What they do not want are boats clogging up the visitor mooring whether outside Tesco or anywhere else because that causes problems for visiting boats and probably in this case complaints from Tesco.

The charge will be a first step, if it doesn't work they can no doubt find something which will.

 

Ken

It doesnt work does it, no one is going to risk paying £9.25 to moor in their shitty park overnight let alone shop at Tesco for half an hour as shown in the picture on the earlier post, the cmers have simply moored on the unsigned areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to Reading.

 

This is the scene outside Tesco's this morning.

 

Note, no visiting boaters shopping, but the constant moorers are still there!

 

So, this goes some way toshow that the charges do nothing towards Readings constant mooring problem, whilst driving visiting boaters away.

 

Well done Reading, I wonder how much you pay the person who came up with that!

 

Nipper

What a great picture - autumn colours (and the liveaboards almost out of shot...)

 

That reinforces my earlier point - previously 'residents' kept their boats in the slightly less comfortable length in the foreground where most shoppers wouldn't stop (OK for NB's 'cos at least in one part the trees are 60' apart.

Now they've raised their profile and pinched the staging part and drawn attention to themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What they do not want are boats clogging up the visitor mooring whether outside Tesco or anywhere else because that causes problems for visiting boats and probably in this case complaints from Tesco.

The charge will be a first step, if it doesn't work they can no doubt find something which will.

A £9.25 charge to stop for an hour or two to do your shopping will certainly cause problems for visiting boaters, and I imagine few will be willing to pay. I doubt Tesco are supporting this - it would be a bit of an own goal for them. Although I imagine the total volume of boat-based trade at the store is insignificant compared with their total sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Law abiding citizen that I am, I just phoned Reading Council on 01189 372724 to pay my £9.25 to moor at Kings Meadow by credit card (the ONLY option) as instructed by the sign. Firstly, they didn't have a clue what I was talking about, put me 'on hold' for several minutes then cut me off. A further call met with a similar response.

 

I asked for further information on the basis for the charge and was just told "Well, you always have to pay to moor anywhere on the Thames". I replied that in fact that was incorrect but never the less I would really like to pay as instructed by the sign. "You can't" they said.

 

After much protest (and being put on-hold again for long periods I was eventually put through to "the department that deals with it". They were no more helpful - I still couldn't pay - and neither could they tell me how the charge was authorised, by whom, when, under what legislation, or what they would do if I didn't (or couldn't) pay.

 

To be fair, they did suggest that I put my concerns in writing so they could respond in due course. I explained my fears that the suggestion would not allow me to moor my boat 'legally' today and so I would instead put my concerns in writing on this forum.

 

So nice try Reading Council. I suppose if it deters a few long-stayers it may be worth the cost of some signs but for a council to rely on nothing but sheer bluff is really a bit naive.

 

And there was me thinking that it was only the Environment Agency that made it all up as it went along!

Edited by erivers
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Can a Borough/Local Body use bye-laws to influence mooring on a canal towpath?

 

NB: the question is intended to be limited to mooring, and to exclude "indirect" regulations that might affect boats, such as noise, air pollution, etc

Please clarify this, did you mean canal?

Alan de Enfield answered as if you were referring to Richmond, where the council are attempting to influence (to put it mildly) mooring to their riverbank. On the canals, a lot of different laws apply and there are many other topics discussing it, but the general answer would be no because most canals are run by CRT who own the towpath.

 

Yes - I definitely mean canal.

 

 

What caught my eye is that Reading council seems to have created or changed a bye-law regarding mooring relatively quickly, and (as I understand it) has the ability to impose significant charges/fines without going through an expensive court case. I've read many times on this forum that this option isn't easily available to CaRT, if it all - i.e. that it's difficult for CaRT to change the underlying legislation or the related bye-laws, and even if they did they have to use the courts to collect any fines due for infractions of the bye-laws.

 

I know the laws are different for canals and rivers, and that the canal towpaths belong to CaRT, not the Borough/Council/LB, while the river bank (and any associated rights) can belong to a Borough. This means I can't assume that an LB can do the same thing regarding towpath mooring on a canal. It doesn't mean it's impossible though, hence my question.

 

FWIW I'm expecting the final answer to be "no".

Edited by Gordias
Link to post
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.