Been told no right to Anchor?

[WilliamUK]

Quite simple really, by owning things you are living of the proceeds of the crimes you complain of. Or is it one rule for them and another for you?

Didn't put much thought into understanding it then?

If you can point to the bit where I said something along the lines of "all property is theft" I'll concede, but I didn't, you can't and I won't.

Curtilage of a house is rightly private.
A house is a product of natural resources and labour. It's fabricated.
The same goes for cars, boats and whatever else has been made and traded.

Rivers, countryside and so on are strictly limited in supply. We can't make more or multiply it.
I have no issue with a farmer having exclusive use of a piece of land for cultivation (because cultivated land has been developed) but I do have a problem with them having exclusive right of access to that land.

I have no issue with someone building a harbour/marina, laying/maintaining moorings, building pontoons and berths and charging for their use (natural resource + labour).
Preventing people from laying and maintaining their own mooring or anchoring directly on the a riverbed or in a natural harbour, I do have a problem with.

It's really not that hard.

The topic of this thread is someone being told by someone appointed by a member of the royal family that they can not anchor on the riverbed without paying.
That's a natural resource that nobody has done anything to develop. They have no right to claim ownership of the riverbed. They can lay moorings and charge for them, or build a marina and charge for that - but to charge for lying to a hook is no different to charging for breathing "their" air.

Compress that air (natural resource + labour), stick it in a scuba tank and charge away, but while it remains an undeveloped natural resource it belongs to nobody.

 

[maxi77]

Didn't put much thought into understanding it then?

If you can point to the bit where I said something along the lines of "all property is theft" I'll concede, but I didn't, you can't and I won't.

Curtilage of a house is rightly private.
A house is a product of natural resources and labour. It's fabricated.
The same goes for cars, boats and whatever else has been made and traded.

Rivers, countryside and so on are strictly limited in supply. We can't make more or multiply it.
I have no issue with a farmer having exclusive use of a piece of land for cultivation (because cultivated land has been developed) but I do have a problem with them having exclusive right of access to that land.

I have no issue with someone building a harbour/marina, laying/maintaining moorings, building pontoons and berths and charging for their use (natural resource + labour).
Preventing people from laying and maintaining their own mooring or anchoring directly on the a riverbed or in a natural harbour, I do have a problem with.

It's really not that hard.

The topic of this thread is someone being told by someone appointed by a member of the royal family that they can not anchor on the riverbed without paying.
That's a natural resource that nobody has done anything to develop. They have no right to claim ownership of the riverbed. They can lay moorings and charge for them, or build a marina and charge for that - but to charge for lying to a hook is no different to charging for breathing "their" air.

Compress that air (natural resource + labour), stick it in a scuba tank and charge away, but while it remains an undeveloped natural resource it belongs to nobody.

The problem is all land in the UK has been deemed by William the B*st*rd to be his so even though your plot is 'owned' by you that ownership is dependant on his grant of that land to some one and the subsequent trade of that land. If it is wrong for the crown to own land the effectively you are claiming all land ownership is wrong and to a large extent by derivation all property should not be owned, but clearly you are on the one rule for me and another for them kick

 

[WilliamUK]

The problem is all land in the UK has been deemed by William the B*st*rd to be his so even though your plot is 'owned' by you that ownership is dependant on his grant of that land to some one and the subsequent trade of that land. If it is wrong for the crown to own land the effectively you are claiming all land ownership is wrong and to a large extent by derivation all property should not be owned, but clearly you are on the one rule for me and another for them kick

Sure thing... whatever you say, boss.

If you fancy addressing what I've actually said and not what you fancy cooking up by yourself, we can talk. Otherwise, whatever makes you happy. I'm not here to repeat myself over and over until you get it.

 

[pappaecho]

If the anchorage was free before and now is payable for what ever reason, make an enquiry regarding the "change of conditions resulting in a "restraint on trade"

Article 81 section D (1956) of the treaty of Rome, covers "differing terms and conditions to equivalant transaction "restrain trade by applying different terms and conditions, resulting ina restraint on trade.

No organisation is allowed to move the goalposts, regardless of "old law" or medieval covenants, unless they were in force when we entered the EEC in 1973.

However, an organisation can apply for an exemption certificate for certain reasons, but only before they apply charges.

Ask the Duchy to send you a copy of the exemption certificate. If they cant produce one, make a complaint to the Trade Commissioners Office in Brussels... it will cost you a second class stamp

 

[DaveS]

The problem is all land in the UK has been deemed by William the B*st*rd to be his so even though your plot is 'owned' by you that ownership is dependant on his grant of that land to some one and the subsequent trade of that land.

Given that said William conquered England some 640 years before the UK came into existence that's some achievement.

 

[Ben Dockrell 22]

when i emailed to ask about anchoring, this is part of the reply...


The charge is for a license for permission to use or be on the River owned
by The Duchy of Cornwall. There are no visitors anchorage in the upper
regions of the River.
All dues must be paid according to the length of boat . £65 per year for
boats under 30' £100 per year from 30' to 40' ( weekly , Monthly ,or
Daily charges no not apply).

Compared to most marinas and inland waterways those prices are the cheapest i have seen and i dont have money to waste, they are the best prices i have seen yet though i understand its a big let down from once being free, i have not included any inland waterway licence fees you might be liable to pay though.

 

[Ben Dockrell 22]

Also i think if you keep moving your boat, spending only one or two weeks in any given waterway you dont need to get a licence though i may be wrong.

 

[Searush]

Compared to most marinas and inland waterways those prices are the cheapest i have seen and i dont have money to waste, they are the best prices i have seen yet though i understand its a big let down from once being free, i have not included any inland waterway licence fees you might be liable to pay though.

That's because they are Harbour Dues which are generally incorporated in marina fees. You pay the marina for use of their pontoons, breakwater, lock gates, loos etc & the Harbour dues are added on to make the fee you actually pay.

It is VERY rare to be charged harbour dues when anchored - even when inside a physical harbour.

 

[maxi77]

Given that said William conquered England some 640 years before the UK came into existence that's some achievement.

Despite the reality that many aspects of Norman property law apply in Scotland too. Scottisn kings adopted many of the Norman feudal concepts back in then. Had the English kicked him out when they had the chance a great deal of our law would be very differeb=nt on both sides of the border.

 

[elioti]

That's because they are Harbour Dues which are generally incorporated in marina fees. You pay the marina for use of their pontoons, breakwater, lock gates, loos etc & the Harbour dues are added on to make the fee you actually pay.

It is VERY rare to be charged harbour dues when anchored - even when inside a physical harbour.

In Salcombe, ( near to the river avon/estuary i am on about ), they charge harbour dues to anchor. I know, i live near there. Read a post on a forum about the Salcombe harbour who chased a guy around start point for one nights dues as he spent from 10pm to early in the morning just in the harbour for a quick sleep! The thing is, yes its cheap for a year, but i cannot enter the river ( basically is an estuary) to anchor for a night, thats what the guy in charge is saying, there is no anchorage, and not short term rates to moor. So basically no visitors! or pay £65 per for a visit. also the local parish council say there is a byelaw where no-one can sleep overnight on their boat! Its crazy. Have paid my 65 today for a mooring, but as said cant visit in my bigger boat!

 

[Leighb]

It is VERY rare to be charged harbour dues when anchored - even when inside a physical harbour.

It is certainly (or was) the case in Salcombe. Many years ago some friends of ours arrived late one night and dropped their hook off South Sands bay. They were woken at 7am by the HM demanding harbour dues and that they move as they weren't in an authorised ancorage,

 

[elioti]

Regarding harbour dues: the Dartmouth harbour authority website says ( it did last year anyway) that if you do not declare that you have entered the harbour and pay your dues, you can be chrarged 3 times the dues as you are deemed to be trying to evade the dues! I dont mind paying the dues ( well i do actually!) but on the avon, am told i cant anchor at all, not even given the option to pay dues.

 

[Ben Dockrell 22]

Perhaps some councils are thinking about the ollie mpic games so want to charge for moorings due to the large numbers of international visitors we hear being expected.

just a thought!

 

[alant]

Hi, could i have some advice please regarding the right to anchor. Have had my boat on the river Avon , Aveton Gifford, Devon. The Duchy own the fundus and is tidal. The Duchy have recently appointed somone to take control of the moorings as before it was free for all. I asked the person in Charge appointed by the Duchy to control the moorings, and he has informed me there is no right to Anchor in the estuary! How can i not be allowed to Anchor. I recently moved my boat back to the river/estuary and put the Anchor down. I am informed i cannot. Where do i stand please? Also, if this person in chrge decides to change his mind and allow me (unlikely) can he charge? This person appointed has very litlle experience with the marine environment, and the Duchy are leaving the rules to him. Can anyone help please? Thanks!

Contact RYA legal dept, if your a member.

 

[elioti]

yes i am a member, will be interesting to see what they say, thanks