Defra initiative re liveaboards

The original spark in fact came from the MP for Esher and Walton –Dominic Raab, who relayed concerns from one of his constituents and 'The Friends of Hurst Park' in a letter dated 22 August last year “about the situation of ‘slum boats’ and sunken craft on our waterways”. In reply, the Secretary of State, Michael Grove, wrote: “I understand from the EA that this particular matter with slum boats is on the increase as people move to live on the waterways as a cheaper alternative to housing. The government is supportive of local level discussions to take place between the key parties affected to work together and find an appropriate solution. My officials will liaise directly with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the EA to find the appropriate contacts for these discussions to begin.”


The upshot was that Therese Coffey invited the major navigation authorities – not only CaRT and the EA, but the Broads Authority, as well as AINA - and local authorities, to form a group to discuss what approach should be taken to the perceived problem on a nationwide basis. The primary problem, as might be inferred from letters from Ms Coffey, would seem to be how riparian boroughs can legitimately control use of mooring to the publicly accessible banks that they own.


While the Thames boroughs have a straightforward solution in obtaining appropriate byelaws as did Richmond (if one allows that their ultra-restrictive byelaws ARE appropriate), other Councils such as Cambridge and Ely have discovered that that option is unavailable to them, because the Anglian Water Authority Acts limit such powers to the EA (who have no particular desire to get byelaws protecting third parties, which they would become responsible for enforcing.) So the approach has to be multi-disciplinary.


Exactly what their remit is, however, and what tentative solutions are being examined, is unclear, because DEFRA refuse to reveal this - in the interests, apparently, of giving the group space to consider things without the interference of boater contributions. It is promised that such contributions will be invited at some future meeting, but a year down the line no such thing has eventuated.


The natural concern is that the group will cobble together ideas that suit their own particular agendas, and that any subsequent 'consultation' with boater interests will be so tailored and managed as to lend support to what they have decided already – in the usual way of such things.
 
Last edited:
https://www.thefloater.org/



Entertaining read to say the least, first diatribe would have made editiors of any red top newspaper proud with a suitably large helping of self righteous indignation.
Subsquent contributions appear to more measured however who could they possibly be referring to here..

"the holiday boat owners are only concerned if it affects their few weeks out on the system – and even then only whilst they are boating."
Do have considerable sympathy with those merely trying to get some sort of affordable roof over their head, a historic problem which can definately be laid at the door of government .The example of " families for whom a boat is home are too busy working out the latest “guidance” as C&RT continues to change the rules, whilst trying to earn a living." might wash but the real beef is probably this.......
 "boaters will see their prompt payment discount halved from next April and that it is going ahead with hikes in licence fees the following year, including charging more for boats wider than seven feet,"
A horrible old cynic might say the only the folks who have the wherewithal to cough up a years license in advance and take advantage of the discount, aint exactly skint, more likely to be retired - comfortable and enjoying a lifestyle, quite probably retreating back home "to bricks and mortar" during those chilly winter months as well ?
 
Last edited:
In response to a personal message on the point, I should note that I have phrased this awkwardly, and it needs clarification.


It is not the navigation Acts themselves that directly prohibit local authorities from passing mooring byelaws, it is the effect of them having the power to pass such byelaws – one cannot have two authorities with the same power of control over the same thing (Ipswich v Moore 2001 being a case in point), and this was explicitly set out in the Local Government Act 1972.


Both the Cam Conservancy Act 1922 and the Anglian Water Authority Act 1977, each giving power to the respective authority to pass relevant byelaws, constitute an “other enactment” as in s.235(3) of the LGA - “Byelaws shall not be made under this section for any purpose as respects any area if provision for that purpose as respects that area is made by, or is or may be made under, any other enactment.”


Further governmental advice given to Cambridge back in the nineties, was that byelaws should not be made to protect private riparian interests, which already have civil law remedies. It does get involved. One wonders whether statutory bodies such as Councils count as private in this context – I believe not, else Richmond could not have acquired what they did (the byelaws there relate only to Council owned riverbanks and do not pretend to embrace private owners with their own recourse to civil law trespass actions).


Another legal point that could be taken from such advice, is that non-private riparian owners do NOT have the civil law recourse that private owners do, which confirms the principle that Creatures of Statute are limited by their enabling Acts and cannot exercise the powers of natural persons unless specifically granted to them. Not that this is taken any notice of at the usual County Court levels wherein trespass actions are routinely taken by statutory authorities in the absence of appropriate powers. (It should be noted for completeness that the Localism Act 2011, upon which some Councils have precariously relied, purports to grant powers of natural persons to local authorities, yet qualifies that by saying it cannot confer powers not already enjoyed!)


It does all illustrate the legislative complexity that the group must take into account.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top