Anchoring up the river Yar?

[RichardS]

Not so I#m afraid you are wrong! Parliment passes acts and statutes which cannot surpass common law.
The home secretary said what I quoted on tv a forum that even surprised me admitting not only we are a common law country but the statement that we are 'policed by consent' which opens a can of woms in its self. I can interpret her words fine thanks and I feel you have not grasped the nettle.

Statute law, as passed by an Act of Parliament, always supersedes common law.

There are many areas of law in the UK where there is no statute so, of course, in those areas common law is superior. However, this is only because those areas have not been addressed by Parliament.

Richard

 

[robertj]

Statute law, as passed by an Act of Parliament, always supersedes common law.

There are many areas of law in the UK where there is no statute so, of course, in those areas common law is superior. However, this is only because those areas have not been addressed by Parliament.

Richard

Richard

You are wrong. Common law supercedes acts of parliament. That why we are a common law country unlike France who is governed by acts of their parliament.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Not so I#m afraid you are wrong! Parliment passes acts and statutes which cannot surpass common law.

(https://www.contactlaw.co.uk/statute-law.html)

 

[RichardS]

Richard

You are wrong. Common law supercedes acts of parliament. That why we are a common law country unlike France who is governed by acts of their parliament.

The UK is, indeed, different to the UK in the the French system is based wholly on statue/constitutional law whereas the UK system is based on common law but, only in the absence of an applicable statute, does common law reign supreme.

Richard

 

[JumbleDuck]

The UK is, indeed, different to the UK in the the French system is based wholly on statue/constitutional law whereas the UK system is based on common law but, only in the absence of an applicable statute, does common law reign supreme.

I wonder if we have a "freeman on the land" among us.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

 

[harry potter]

Let's all excercise our 'rights', demand free anchorage in the Yar, and f*** the wildlife. Small minded or what?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Let's all excercise our 'rights', demand free anchorage in the Yar, and f*** the wildlife. Small minded or what?

What damage do you think free anchoring does to what wildlife? How does paying reduce the damage?

 

[harry potter]

The Yar Estuary is a wildlife sanctuary, not a leisure centre. It's a fragile place,

The tranquility of the estuary is precious and indeed essential for the wildlife.

Growing visitor numbers — including sailors, kayakers and paddleboarders exploring the creek — will damage the estuary and drive away wildlife, including rare birds that nest there.

If paying for the privilege discourages use, I'm all for it.

 

[robertj]

I wonder if we have a "freeman on the land" among us.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

Sir Patrick Sinclair
stated that common law supercedes the acts placed by Harbour Authorities regarding anchoring. They are charging pleasure and shouldnt but are allowed under the acts placed on them to charge commercial traffic.
He went on to write the only river where free anchoring didn't apply was Beaulieu

 

[JumbleDuck]

Sir Patrick Sinclair
stated that common law supercedes the acts placed by Harbour Authorities regarding anchoring. They are charging pleasure and shouldnt but are allowed under the acts placed on them to charge commercial traffic.
He went on to write the only river where free anchoring didn't apply was Beaulieu

The only on-line references I can find to his advice in such matters is that the common law right of navigation at Mistley Quay applied unless superseded by statute law (or as you put it, "allowed under the acts placed on them"). Isn't the point about Beaulieu that it's the place without a harbour authority which can charge for anchoring?

 

[BelleSerene]

Sir Patrick Sinclair
stated that common law supercedes the acts placed by Harbour Authorities regarding anchoring.

If course he didn’t! Harbour authorities don’t ‘place’ Acts, or in any other way create them. That’s what we as a representative democracy have a parliament to do.

Common Law is the body of tradition and law courts’ previous interpretation of existing Acts of Parliament. If you think it over-rides subsequent laws that our Parliament makes, why do you think Parliament bothers?!

See JumbleDuck’s passage at post #26 above, or Google for a minute.

 

[richardsn9]

My understanding is that common law is a based upon accepted custom and practice. Parliament (or originally the crown) can then change it via a statute (normally an act of parliament). Recent legal cases have focused upon highlighting the loopholes in the statutes, and suggesting the harbour authorities have given themselves powers beyond those envisaged by the original acts.
Coming back to the Yar, it seems reasonable for the harbour authority to control the various moorings, berths etc above the bridge, but it seems harsh to ban all anchoring up there. It may be to stop it becoming an overflow anchorage when the harbour is full, akin to New town on a summer weekend, but I struggle to see this happening.

 

[robertj]

The only on-line references I can find to his advice in such matters is that the common law right of navigation at Mistley Quay applied unless superseded by statute law (or as you put it, "allowed under the acts placed on them"). Isn't the point about Beaulieu that it's the place without a harbour authority which can charge for anchoring?

No he actually owns the river it’s not under crown estates.

 

[Seven Spades]

My understanding is that common law is a based upon accepted custom and practice. Parliament (or originally the crown) can then change it via a statute (normally an act of parliament). Recent legal cases have focused upon highlighting the loopholes in the statutes, and suggesting the harbour authorities have given themselves powers beyond those envisaged by the original acts.
Coming back to the Yar, it seems reasonable for the harbour authority to control the various moorings, berths etc above the bridge, but it seems harsh to ban all anchoring up there. It may be to stop it becoming an overflow anchorage when the harbour is full, akin to New town on a summer weekend, but I struggle to see this happening.

Isn't the point that the anchorage is actually outside the remit of the Harbour Master or have I read this thread wrongly?

 

[BelleSerene]

Isn't the point that the anchorage is actually outside the remit of the Harbour Master or have I read this thread wrongly?

No, it's not. The remit of Yarmouth Harbour Master goes right up to the Causeway bridge which is well into drying territory. The 'inner harbour' is from the breakwater right up to there, and the 'outer harbour' is, um, of course not a harbour at all but is anyway statutorily defined as an area outside what you and I would call Yarmouth harbour. So the YHM does have jurisdiction in the area Peter Bruce writes about.

However, he is not within his rights to deny anchoring South of the swing bridge, except where that anchoring is in the fairway or so as to obstruct navigation. There are two things he can do:

First, he can issue 'general directions' - that's to all people and all ships. There's a consultation and publication process for these and you can find them at the harbour office and online. The scope of these can include directing anchoring.

Second, he can issue 'special directions' - that's to you or me or our specific vessels. There are restrictions on what these can be - and they cannot include directing anchoring (except in a defined set of exceptional circumstances such as fire or safety, but that clearly does not apply to the OP's case or normal cases.)

So any power the YHM has to direct anchoring can only come from a 'general direction' (GD) - ie a published direction to everyone. If a restriction on anchoring is in the published GDs, it's valid; if it's not, then apart from the exceptional safety reasons it's not. Only one of the GDs (no 31) governs anchoring and it only prohibits anchoring (a) as far up as the swing bridge, (b) in the fairway, (c) so as to obstruct navigation, and (d) in the 'outer harbour' (that's outside the breakwater) outside than in the identified preferred anchorages. So inland of the swing bridge, he can only regulate anchoring where it's in the fairway or obstructs navigation.

So, the harbour master is wrong and is acting outside his authority.

Whilst he cannot prevent you from anchoring, there is the usual issue of charging for being in the harbour, which is covered by the vexatious matter of 'harbour dues' for which one element is 'ship dues' which includes simply being in the harbour's waters. As you need to be in waters in order to anchor in them, the HM's charge is supported by statute (the Harbours Act 1964).

 

[JumbleDuck]

No he actually owns the river it’s not under crown estates.

That's precisely the point, yes. Common vs statute law has nothing to do with it.

 

[Seven Spades]

No, it's not. The remit of Yarmouth Harbour Master goes right up to the Causeway bridge which is well into drying territory. The 'inner harbour' is from the breakwater right up to there, and the 'outer harbour' is, um, of course not a harbour at all but is anyway statutorily defined as an area outside what you and I would call Yarmouth harbour. So the YHM does have jurisdiction in the area Peter Bruce writes about.

However, he is not within his rights to deny anchoring South of the swing bridge, except where that anchoring is in the fairway or so as to obstruct navigation. There are two things he can do:

First, he can issue 'general directions' - that's to all people and all ships. There's a consultation and publication process for these and you can find them at the harbour office and online. The scope of these can include directing anchoring.

Second, he can issue 'special directions' - that's to you or me or our specific vessels. There are restrictions on what these can be - and they cannot include directing anchoring (except in a defined set of exceptional circumstances such as fire or safety, but that clearly does not apply to the OP's case or normal cases.)

So any power the YHM has to direct anchoring can only come from a 'general direction' (GD) - ie a published direction to everyone. If a restriction on anchoring is in the published GDs, it's valid; if it's not, then apart from the exceptional safety reasons it's not. Only one of the GDs (no 31) governs anchoring and it only prohibits anchoring (a) as far up as the swing bridge, (b) in the fairway, (c) so as to obstruct navigation, and (d) in the 'outer harbour' (that's outside the breakwater) outside than in the identified preferred anchorages. So inland of the swing bridge, he can only regulate anchoring where it's in the fairway or obstructs navigation.

So, the harbour master is wrong and is acting outside his authority.

Whilst he cannot prevent you from anchoring, there is the usual issue of charging for being in the harbour, which is covered by the vexatious matter of 'harbour dues' for which one element is 'ship dues' which includes simply being in the harbour's waters. As you need to be in waters in order to anchor in them, the HM's charge is supported by statute (the Harbours Act 1964).

Thanks for clearing that up. On the "vexatious matter of 'harbour dues'" I think that they will charge you for anchoring outside the harbour as well.

 

[BelleSerene]

Thanks for clearing that up. On the "vexatious matter of 'harbour dues'" I think that they will charge you for anchoring outside the harbour as well.

Yes, they will, and sadly can. The ‘harbour’ is the ‘inner harbour’ (breakwater up to the Causeway road bridge) plus the ‘outer harbour’ whose limits are lines between a set of lat/long positions at sea. The YHM is entitled to prohibit anchoring in the waters of the ‘outer harbour’, which ain’t no harbour anyway, which he does outside defined ‘preferred anchorages’, and to charge harbour dues in the rest of it. Outb******rageous.

 

[bdh198]

No, it's not. The remit of Yarmouth Harbour Master goes right up to the Causeway bridge which is well into drying territory. The 'inner harbour' is from the breakwater right up to there, and the 'outer harbour' is, um, of course not a harbour at all but is anyway statutorily defined as an area outside what you and I would call Yarmouth harbour. So the YHM does have jurisdiction in the area Peter Bruce writes about.

However, he is not within his rights to deny anchoring South of the swing bridge, except where that anchoring is in the fairway or so as to obstruct navigation. There are two things he can do:

First, he can issue 'general directions' - that's to all people and all ships. There's a consultation and publication process for these and you can find them at the harbour office and online. The scope of these can include directing anchoring.

Second, he can issue 'special directions' - that's to you or me or our specific vessels. There are restrictions on what these can be - and they cannot include directing anchoring (except in a defined set of exceptional circumstances such as fire or safety, but that clearly does not apply to the OP's case or normal cases.)

So any power the YHM has to direct anchoring can only come from a 'general direction' (GD) - ie a published direction to everyone. If a restriction on anchoring is in the published GDs, it's valid; if it's not, then apart from the exceptional safety reasons it's not. Only one of the GDs (no 31) governs anchoring and it only prohibits anchoring (a) as far up as the swing bridge, (b) in the fairway, (c) so as to obstruct navigation, and (d) in the 'outer harbour' (that's outside the breakwater) outside than in the identified preferred anchorages. So inland of the swing bridge, he can only regulate anchoring where it's in the fairway or obstructs navigation.

So, the harbour master is wrong and is acting outside his authority.

Whilst he cannot prevent you from anchoring, there is the usual issue of charging for being in the harbour, which is covered by the vexatious matter of 'harbour dues' for which one element is 'ship dues' which includes simply being in the harbour's waters. As you need to be in waters in order to anchor in them, the HM's charge is supported by statute (the Harbours Act 1964).

That's really helpful. Thank you.

I shall make sure we keep a note of the General Directions for Yarmouth Harbour alongside Peter Bruce's article next time we venture South of the swing bridge!

 

[Seven Spades]

I have a feeling the Harbour Master is going to be busy with vessels keen to try the Peter Bruce recommended anchorage.