EA Visiting Marinas

[boatone]

Thanks for reproducing TC Act 1932 S4 and for your researched and fair interpretation.

I think you are accepting that the term Works was not intended to mean Marina when it was used in the Thames definition.

My post neither accepted or implied acceptance of any particular interpretation. I also made no comment regarding your comments about accommodations. I merely quoted what appears to be the relevant part of the Act so that all here are aware if they wish to be.

Frankly, this issue has been done to death on this forum and I have no intention of engaging in further argument about something which will remain academic unless, and until, someone decides to pursue the matter through the courts.

 

[Chris_d]

Surely the word works refers to any man made channel into which the Thames has been diverted, guess in the 30's this would have been boathouses, docks, slipways etc... A marina would seem to be a obvious example of "works" that have diverted the Thames, its was just a catch all word used at the time. The fact a marina for leisure boats didn't exist at the time is irrelavent, that would be the same as saying the legislation doesn't apply to fibreglass boats because they didn't exist either.

 

[oldgit]

Any chance of a quick reply to my enquiry as to why the parties involved have not taken any apparent action themselves and why others have taken up the cudgels on their behalf.
Possibly you represent an organisation they are a member of ?

 

[Ramage]

Any chance of a quick reply to my enquiry as to why the parties involved have not taken any apparent action themselves and why others have taken up the cudgels on their behalf.
Possibly you represent an organisation they are a member of ?

NALD? National Association Of Licence Dodgers... (or should that be Registration Dodgers?).

 

[534l4rk]

It would appear to me that many forum submissions under this heading are made without understanding what TT_WO is getting at. Whether this is intentional due to the possible consequences, I am not sure. It does look as though there is an intentional attempt to belittle him. His point as I see it is that the Secretary of State had the words adjacent waters removed from the IWO. Surely this was because marinas come into the adjacent waters category ? Justifying his assumptions he points out that boats are taken round adjacent waters at planning speeds for sales demonstrations. If this is true then I would have thought that this was because they use adjacent waters and not the Thames.

Perhaps I too am reading it all wrongly but I do understand the situation for the requirement for further funding and believe that those having or using boats on the Thames should pay. Irrespective, from the number of views on this topic it does appear to be attracting interest.

 

[Ramage]

From Bray Marina Renewal Information 2012/2013.

Marina Regulations 2012/13

Article 7 Additional Conditions of Particular Importance for MDL Thames Marinas - Bray/Windsor/Penton Hook.

OWNERS and any other persons shall observe the By laws of the River Thames Authority (Environment Agency) and any other rules and regulations affecting the MARINA, statutory or otherwise. ALL BOATS on a mooring must be in the possession of a valid River Thames licence.

 

[boatone]

For the sake of completeness of the factual information here is an extract from the letter conveying the Secretary of State's decision regarding the Inland Waterways Order 2010 and requiring the removal of the "adjacent waters" clause as being "ultra vires' (i.e.beyond the scope or in excess of legal power or authority)

In spite of this, and the adjacent waters clause does not appear in the final document, the EA appear to have decided that they are acting lawfully under the pre existing legislation.

 

[TT_WO]

From Bray Marina Renewal Information 2012/2013.

Marina Regulations 2012/13

Article 7 Additional Conditions of Particular Importance for MDL Thames Marinas - Bray/Windsor/Penton Hook.

OWNERS and any other persons shall observe the By laws of the River Thames Authority (Environment Agency) and any other rules and regulations affecting the MARINA, statutory or otherwise. ALL BOATS on a mooring must be in the possession of a valid River Thames licence.

MDL are entitled to make any regulations they like including you must be registered if you are on a mooring but that does not mean that the EA can impose a registration charge unless the boat ventures on to the Thames.
The contract probably states you cannot live on board a boat in the marina but we all know that many people live on boats in marinas and I don't suppose that Bray is any exception.
In PH many of those 70' barges pay £7000 a year to moor there, they are on private water they have livaboard owners and they never visit the Thames. The marina manager needs understand that the EA do not have the powers they claim and not just accept their word for it. As I have said before they have the proof. I think their first priorities should be to their customers otherwise they will lose a lot of revenue and have to pay for their accommodations.

 

[TT_WO]

For the sake of completeness of the factual information here is an extract from the letter conveying the Secretary of State's decision regarding the Inland Waterways Order 2010 and requiring the removal of the "adjacent waters" clause as being "ultra vires' (i.e.beyond the scope or in excess of legal power or authority)

In spite of this, and the adjacent waters clause does not appear in the final document, the EA appear to have decided that they are acting lawfully under the pre existing legislation.

For the sake of completeness worth adding para 20 of the same document.

20. An objection was raised that Registration or a charge should not be applied on connected water that is managed by another navigation authority or is privately owned.
A further objection was that registration extension was an attempt by the EA to take control of adjacent waters by stealth.
The EA subsequently agreed that the proposed charging and registration requirements were ultra vires and the provisions have been dropped.

 

[TT_WO]

Surely the word works refers to any man made channel into which the Thames has been diverted, guess in the 30's this would have been boathouses, docks, slipways etc... A marina would seem to be a obvious example of "works" that have diverted the Thames, its was just a catch all word used at the time. The fact a marina for leisure boats didn't exist at the time is irrelavent, that would be the same as saying the legislation doesn't apply to fibreglass boats because they didn't exist either.

This is a use of the word works in the 1932 TC act:

"may regulate as they
think fit the opening shutting and management of the
locks and works on the Thames and the drawing down
or keeping back of the water by means of any of those
locks or works."

the works must be within the confines of the Thames as defined by section 4 ("within the said portions of rivers") cannot possibly be a marina built on private land 30 year later especially as there was no anticipation of future extension of the Thames.


It does not mean a man made channel.

extract from TC act section 79 Public right of navigation.

"Provided that all private artificial cuts for purposes
of drainage or irrigation and all artificial inlets for
moats boathouses ponds or other like private purposes
already made or hereafter to be made................................................
...........shall be deemed not to be parts of the Thames for the
purposes of any provisions of this Act relating to rights
of navigation"

When they printed the registration form they printed the S 4 definition of the Thames but did not include the phrase lock cuts and works within the said portions of rivers. why not if it meant marinas?

 

[TT_WO]

It would appear to me that many forum submissions under this heading are made without understanding what TT_WO is getting at. Whether this is intentional due to the possible consequences, I am not sure. It does look as though there is an intentional attempt to belittle him. His point as I see it is that the Secretary of State had the words adjacent waters removed from the IWO. Surely this was because marinas come into the adjacent waters category ? Justifying his assumptions he points out that boats are taken round adjacent waters at planning speeds for sales demonstrations. If this is true then I would have thought that this was because they use adjacent waters and not the Thames.

Perhaps I too am reading it all wrongly but I do understand the situation for the requirement for further funding and believe that those having or using boats on the Thames should pay. Irrespective, from the number of views on this topic it does appear to be attracting interest.

Thank you. It was after all the EA that defined an adjacent water as a marina.

 

[boatone]

"Provided that all private artificial cuts for purposes
of drainage or irrigation and all artificial inlets for
moats boathouses ponds or other like private purposes
already made or hereafter to be made...............................................
...........shall be deemed not to be parts of the Thames for the
purposes of any provisions of this Act relating to rights
of navigation"

You need to use your emboldenment more carefully .... that clause specifically relates to navigation rights and not requirements to register.

Thank you. It was after all the EA that defined an adjacent water as a marina.

Again you are twisting the words - the EA did not define an adjacent water as a marina. Their wordage inferred that a marina is an adjacent water - a very different interpretation.

When they printed the registration form they printed the S 4 definition of the Thames but did not include the phrase lock cuts and works within the said portions of rivers. why not if it meant marinas?

Don't you know the difference between a conspiracy and a cock-up

I seem to remember that last time you so relentlessly pursued this issue I declined to engage further because of your continued anonymity. I think it is time I did the same again. I, and most of the other posters here, although we all have usernames, am certainly not anonymous being well known, not just on the forum, but also amongst the wider river community.

 

[Chris_d]

Seems like bits of text are taken from here and there to suit the argument, B1's document clearly stated Works and lock cuts as part of the Thames, perhaps not with a right of navigation but craft moored there require registration.

Penton Hook have a side lake they carryout demo's in and exceed the speed limit there, doesn't mean it is legal and you can speed in any "adjacent water" whatever that is, they just get away with it because its empty and nobody is bothered

 

[boatone]

Penton Hook have a side lake they carryout demo's in and exceed the speed limit there, doesn't mean it is legal and you can speed in any "adjacent water" whatever that is, they just get away with it because its empty and nobody is bothered

Many marinas also seem to turn a blind eye to liveaboards although their terms and conditions usually preclude residential use. There are also separate and distinct arrangements for registration of residential craft which must be on designated residential moorings.

Vested interest everywhere and very few people interested in the facts getting in the way of a good emotional bust-up. Anyone here recognise a similarity between these issues and yesterdays government u turn on the West Coast rail franchise? Only difference is that Richard Branson has more clout than I do !

 

[Deefor]

Many marinas also seem to turn a blind eye to liveaboards although their terms and conditions usually preclude residential use. There are also separate and distinct arrangements for registration of residential craft which must be on designated residential moorings.

Hard to differentiate between "liveaboard" and "extended cruising" .

If you do happen to live aboard in a marina but have a postal address elsewhere, does this constitute being a liveaboard? If, on the other hand, you use the marina address as a postal address, then IMO questions should/will be raised

 

[TrueBlue]

Hard to differentiate between "liveaboard" and "extended cruising" .

If you do happen to live aboard in a marina but have a postal address elsewhere, does this constitute being a liveaboard? If, on the other hand, you use the marina address as a postal address, then IMO questions should/will be raised

It's a queston of Council Tax liability rather than a postal address. If you're in the marina 365 days a year then there's a clear liability 364 days - not.

If you're liable then the marina gets a charge as well and not just for your boat.

OTOH some coun cils are getting stroppy and are / have tried to imply that if the marina was used as an address then that made the liveaboard resident.

It's a thorny subject.

 

[TT_WO]

You need to use your emboldenment more carefully .... that clause specifically relates to navigation rights and not requirements to register.

I emboldened exactly what I wanted as I do not want Public Right Of Navigation (PRN) to be confused with definition of the Thames S4 which you will note does not include private cuts There is PPN on all parts of the Thames but not on private cuts because they are private!
There is no PPN on the private artificial cut that leads into PH marina because it and the waters beyond are private.

I should have emboldened the phrase "Hereafter to be made" with respect to private cuts as it indicates that the act was drafted carefully to make sure that there would be no PRN on private cuts created in the future, unlike the word works where there was no anticipation of future expansion of the Thames by adding new works in the future outside of the area defined by the 1932 definition.

Again you are twisting the words - the EA did not define an adjacent water as a marina. Their wordage inferred that a marina is an adjacent water - a very different interpretation.

I am sorry you are wrong! MIKEMANOR posted the following earlier in this thread:

The original 2004 draft included this definition in Part 1 para 2:

2. In this Order—
“adjacent waters” means any lake, pit, pond, marina or other substantially enclosed water adjacent to any of the waterways to which this Order applies and from which a vessel may be navigated (whether or not through a lock or similar work) into the waterway;

This definition does not appear in the final version. No mention is made of adjacent waters, marinas, ponds etc in the final version.

The reason you do not know about it is because you had to request the draft order in 2004, it is the only place it is published.

Don't you know the difference between a conspiracy and a cock-up

You had to ask for a draft copy of the order in 2004 to find out that the EA were intending to charge for unused boats, hence not many people new about it to object.

After 6 years of expensive deliberation with the DEFRA lawyers they are required to remove all the adjacent waters charging provisions from the final version of the order ( DEFRA lawyers advice to Secretary of State).

They do not make it public that adjacent waters legislation is no longer in the Act as passed into law on the 5th April 2010, they did not even tell their own Harmonisation committee when directly asked by a member "could they go into marinas" 1 month after it became law, saying they were looking into it as there had been some recent changes.

In December they were asked by the BMF if it was true that it had been deleted? (8 months after it became law).

The registration form no longer includes any printed definition of the River Thames merely referring to the TC act 1932.
Excetera.

Yes I think I can recognise a con.

 

[CJL]

The letter of the law as you understand or anybody else understands it is largely moot here. It is new legislation and as far as I am aware - untested.

The ONLY way to test your opinion is to keep a boat in a marina and fail to pay. They can then test it in Court as that is the ONLY way they will get to the bottom of it. Otherwise you are simply bashing away at your keyboard for no purpose whatsoever.

Anyway what about the principle - if they keep a boat in a Thames marina that benefits from the services the EA offer then why shouldn't they pay?

CJL

 

[TT_WO]

Seems like bits of text are taken from here and there to suit the argument, B1's document clearly stated Works and lock cuts as part of the Thames, perhaps not with a right of navigation but craft moored there require registration.

I am selecting relevant sections from the legislation to substantiate my claims, what you need to do is to find anything in the legislation that counters my claims or be prepared to accept that I may have a point.

Penton Hook have a side lake they carryout demo's in and exceed the speed limit there, doesn't mean it is legal and you can speed in any "adjacent water" whatever that is, they just get away with it because its empty and nobody is bothered

I think that you are confirming that this does happen in the sidelake? what you may not understand is that PH boat sales and PH Marina are totally independent, other than the fact that PH marina lease part of their land water and pontoons to enable PH Boat sales to
run their business.
In addition they authorise Boat sales to demonstrate at high speed a limited number of times per visit.
This is a valuable to Boat sales as there are few places where you can legally demonstrate performance so close to the Thames.

 

[TT_WO]

The letter of the law as you understand or anybody else understands it is largely moot here. It is new legislation and as far as I am aware - untested.

It is not new legislation. As B1 said "The IWO 2010 relies on the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 for its definition of the River Thames",as adjacent waters legislation had to be removed before it could be passed. We have 78 years of experience and several navigation authorities exercising the law in a totally different way than this authority claims it should be exercised since early 2011.

The ONLY way to test your opinion is to keep a boat in a marina and fail to pay. They can then test it in Court as that is the ONLY way they will get to the bottom of it. Otherwise you are simply bashing away at your keyboard for no purpose whatsoever.

People are liable to be charged unjustly with criminal charges, surely they are entitled to information that they can consider using in order to defend themselves. There is evidence of confusion, not least among the EA and the Marina managers. There is a preference to believe authority figures but we are continually being reminded that they can be economical with the truth. I believe it is time for the EA to do the honourable thing and step back from their intended actions and take further legal opinion.

Anyway what about the principle - if they keep a boat in a Thames marina that benefits from the services the EA offer then why shouldn't they pay?

CJL

But why, if they keep a boat in Private Waters marina and benefit from non of the services that the EA offer should they be required to pay? I believe that this argument persuaded the DEFRA lawyers and the Secretary of State.