Poignard
Well-Known Member
Make sure the notice doesnt`t hang over the stern too much. Otherwise they might charge you for the extra length.
Anchoring rights
- Thread starter boatmike
- Start date
bilbobaggins
N/A
Re: \"anchoring in the course of navigation is part of the public right
It amazes me how quick yooz English are to throw away your rights, without even an disgruntled murmer. It rather seems from the ST campaign and the researched legal opinions of an eminent 'legal beagle' that quite a number of harbour authorities around our coasts have simply taken it on themselves to charge for anchoring, without bothering to seek an appropriate legal authority. That is an abuse of authority and may well be proven unlawful in several cases . I understand that one such authority - was it Harwich? - was forced to repay several hundred thousand pounds levied illegally.
Many others remain in an undetermined legal limbo, for it will require costly legal actions to have a court determine what's what.
In the meantime, there is little doubt that *some* harbourmasters are charging us for exercising a common law right - and being bl**dy rude about it!
I do not now go into Salcombe, due to the studied discourtesy of the HM's staff. And I encourage friends to go elsewhere. On the other hand, I do visit Fowey whenever practicable, and have no grumbles about the people there. Similarly in Falmouth, I've often anchored on the north side of the harbour and never been asked for fees - and never resented them when using the visitors' pontoons. It's all down to the management....
It amazes me how quick yooz English are to throw away your rights, without even an disgruntled murmer. It rather seems from the ST campaign and the researched legal opinions of an eminent 'legal beagle' that quite a number of harbour authorities around our coasts have simply taken it on themselves to charge for anchoring, without bothering to seek an appropriate legal authority. That is an abuse of authority and may well be proven unlawful in several cases . I understand that one such authority - was it Harwich? - was forced to repay several hundred thousand pounds levied illegally.
Many others remain in an undetermined legal limbo, for it will require costly legal actions to have a court determine what's what.
In the meantime, there is little doubt that *some* harbourmasters are charging us for exercising a common law right - and being bl**dy rude about it!
I do not now go into Salcombe, due to the studied discourtesy of the HM's staff. And I encourage friends to go elsewhere. On the other hand, I do visit Fowey whenever practicable, and have no grumbles about the people there. Similarly in Falmouth, I've often anchored on the north side of the harbour and never been asked for fees - and never resented them when using the visitors' pontoons. It's all down to the management....
michael_w
Well-Known Member
Re: \"anchoring in the course of navigation is part of the public right
Just leave a space amongst all the poxy moorings so I can anchor
Just leave a space amongst all the poxy moorings so I can anchor
G
Guest
Guest
This discussion is frustrating because none of us knows the answer, and everyone's quoting fragments of law which are taken out of context.
I don't know the answer either, but from the little I've read about it I have a suspicion that the harbour commisioners are pushing their luck, and may be acting downright illegally.
Some observations on the fragments quoted: first, the fact that harbour commissioners have the right to direct where you can anchor does NOT necessarily mean that they have the right to charge for anchoring. One possible explanation (without doing lots of research I couldn't say if it's the right one) is that if people have had the right for centuries to anchor in the place in question free of charge, then there is a public right to do so (this would depend on particular practise in a particular harbour over the centuries, and also what rights might for example have been granted in a particular harbour by eg. royal charter in the past).
Assuming there was a historic right to anchor free of charge, then the question is whether the Act that gave the Harbour Commissioners the right to direct anchoring was intended to remove the ancient public right and empower the Commissioners to use their powers to impose charges. Or was it just intended to make sure that the harbour was safe to use. You'd have to look at the wording of the Act and also work out the intention of Parliament when it was adopted, but I suspect that the powers were just intended to ensure that the harbour was safe to use, and that, if it was the practise in the past that you could anchor in that particular harbour free of charge, then you could continue to do so.
The problem is that, by not objecting to the fact that they are charging, the ancient rights to anchor free of charge, if they exist, will soon be lost, because the Harbour Commissioners will be able to establish that custom has become that people pay for it. Even though they are (let's say) in the wrong, after a while they will get something akin to squatters' rights!
The bits quoted from international law are not really relevant to us here, because international law is scarcely going to impinge on what national law says goes on in harbours. The international law on the subject is really concerned about giving the rights neeed for safe coastal navigation.
I don't know the answer either, but from the little I've read about it I have a suspicion that the harbour commisioners are pushing their luck, and may be acting downright illegally.
Some observations on the fragments quoted: first, the fact that harbour commissioners have the right to direct where you can anchor does NOT necessarily mean that they have the right to charge for anchoring. One possible explanation (without doing lots of research I couldn't say if it's the right one) is that if people have had the right for centuries to anchor in the place in question free of charge, then there is a public right to do so (this would depend on particular practise in a particular harbour over the centuries, and also what rights might for example have been granted in a particular harbour by eg. royal charter in the past).
Assuming there was a historic right to anchor free of charge, then the question is whether the Act that gave the Harbour Commissioners the right to direct anchoring was intended to remove the ancient public right and empower the Commissioners to use their powers to impose charges. Or was it just intended to make sure that the harbour was safe to use. You'd have to look at the wording of the Act and also work out the intention of Parliament when it was adopted, but I suspect that the powers were just intended to ensure that the harbour was safe to use, and that, if it was the practise in the past that you could anchor in that particular harbour free of charge, then you could continue to do so.
The problem is that, by not objecting to the fact that they are charging, the ancient rights to anchor free of charge, if they exist, will soon be lost, because the Harbour Commissioners will be able to establish that custom has become that people pay for it. Even though they are (let's say) in the wrong, after a while they will get something akin to squatters' rights!
The bits quoted from international law are not really relevant to us here, because international law is scarcely going to impinge on what national law says goes on in harbours. The international law on the subject is really concerned about giving the rights neeed for safe coastal navigation.
Poignard
Well-Known Member
Re: \"anchoring in the course of navigation is part of the public right
Thought I`d have a quick look at the ST website to see if there`s any mention of the campaign. Their picture of a boat called Clovelly caught my eye. Reminded me that they really do know how to suck blood in Clovelly, they even charge you for walking down the street! Rotten old street as well, not even been tarmac`d.
Thought I`d have a quick look at the ST website to see if there`s any mention of the campaign. Their picture of a boat called Clovelly caught my eye. Reminded me that they really do know how to suck blood in Clovelly, they even charge you for walking down the street! Rotten old street as well, not even been tarmac`d.
boatmike
Well-Known Member
The harbour they regulate, organise and govern. You think it belongs to you?
boatmike
Well-Known Member
As far as I am aware most places (including Salcombe) that are currently charging HARBOUR DUES which apply to moored and anchored boats have done so for a very long time. Or is it that you believe that apart from the insidious and constant increases in dues, which is another matter, these places have only just decided to charge? If so which ones?
fireball
Well-Known Member
yup - we own the government don't we? .... /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
boatmike
Well-Known Member
Not me mate! I disowned them long ago.......
fireball
Well-Known Member
A bit like a naughty child then - you tell them not to do something so many times and then eventually disown them .... still yours though arn't they!
G
Guest
Guest
If Salcombe have levied dues for anchoring for hundreds of years then you may be right.
I don't know the geography of Salcombe harbour having never visited, but it seems to me that practically speaking there should be a difference between a large natural harbour which has space for anchoring, and an artificial harbour where space is tight. In the former I rather doubt that charging for anchoring would have been normal historically (or even nowadays for that matter, at least I've never come across it).
It's quite possible that they have the right to charge, none of us know. But what IS clear is that before taking your money they should be able to prove they have the right. THE ONUS IS ON THEM. One would be perfectly justified in saying, when dues are demanded: "yes, I'm quite prepared to pay if you can show me on what basis you believe you have the legal right to charge me." If they have no adequate answer, then tell them to go away and come back when they can.
If my boat were moored closer to Salcombe, I would try it just to find out! If they persuaded me, then I would pay.
I don't know the geography of Salcombe harbour having never visited, but it seems to me that practically speaking there should be a difference between a large natural harbour which has space for anchoring, and an artificial harbour where space is tight. In the former I rather doubt that charging for anchoring would have been normal historically (or even nowadays for that matter, at least I've never come across it).
It's quite possible that they have the right to charge, none of us know. But what IS clear is that before taking your money they should be able to prove they have the right. THE ONUS IS ON THEM. One would be perfectly justified in saying, when dues are demanded: "yes, I'm quite prepared to pay if you can show me on what basis you believe you have the legal right to charge me." If they have no adequate answer, then tell them to go away and come back when they can.
If my boat were moored closer to Salcombe, I would try it just to find out! If they persuaded me, then I would pay.
Poignard
Well-Known Member
I am so angered by this that I have decided to destroy the economy of Salcombe by boycotting the place.
ShipsWoofy
Well-Known Member
I have just had a thought.
As most of these little creeks we are talking about have trees n things down to the waters edge, what if you do not anchor but find a tiny bay and tie up to trees somehow. Nothing touches the sea bed, so no charges levied?
I wonder if you could confuse the HM, or just me lol.
As most of these little creeks we are talking about have trees n things down to the waters edge, what if you do not anchor but find a tiny bay and tie up to trees somehow. Nothing touches the sea bed, so no charges levied?
I wonder if you could confuse the HM, or just me lol.
Swagman
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
If I visit an area which is on a sheltered river, like Salcombe and drop my pick, they have no more right to charge me than a car park attendant who finds your car parked somewhere in the same town as his car park.
[/ QUOTE ]
Few actually realise you've no automatic rights to park your car anywhere on a public road and whilst a car park attendant (and I don't see the a harbourmaster as a marine equivalent by the way) can't book you - a copper could.
If a policman chose to say 'no parking' at any time, or even drop a no parking cone after you've parked up and left the vehicle locekd, you can still be charged.
And I know 'cos its happened to me.
Cheers
JOHN
If I visit an area which is on a sheltered river, like Salcombe and drop my pick, they have no more right to charge me than a car park attendant who finds your car parked somewhere in the same town as his car park.
[/ QUOTE ]
Few actually realise you've no automatic rights to park your car anywhere on a public road and whilst a car park attendant (and I don't see the a harbourmaster as a marine equivalent by the way) can't book you - a copper could.
If a policman chose to say 'no parking' at any time, or even drop a no parking cone after you've parked up and left the vehicle locekd, you can still be charged.
And I know 'cos its happened to me.
Cheers
JOHN
dulcibella
Well-Known Member
Another irritation is Beaulieu River. Apparently my Lord Montagu is in the exceptional position of owning the river including the bottom and the anchoring rights, so his maritime minions take substantial sums off innocent sailors who anchor in the Gull Island reach, miles from the "facilities" at Buckler's Hard that provide the notional justification for the charge. One would think that such a classy gent wouldn't stoop to such meanness ... or would one?
