For Your Information.

R

rotrax

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 Dec 2010
Messages
16,458
Location
South Oxon and Littlehampton.
Visit site
I dont know if Thames Forum members are aware of the 144 post thread titled "Liveaboards being evicted" on the Liveaboard Forum.
Also a bit on in the lounge but much the same.
Worth a look I think, some may have relevance to Thames/EA issues.
Good to see CRT exercising its powers in the correct manner.

IMHO, of course....................
 
No Regrets said:
Yep, good to see many of the liveaboards kicked, hopefully the bona-fide good ones will be OK of course!
Click to expand...

Yes- it appears only those who for whatever reason will not move on to comply with the enforcement teams order are being subject to court action.
It should clear a few eyesores and make mooring for others easier in the old bottlenecks full of illegals.
I hope so.
 
Be careful what you wish for.
CRT are only able to do what BW couldn't be bothered to do because the body that runs the canals owns the riverbed.
The thames is a jumble of riparian rights,the body that ends up running the thames will still only have 'ownership' of the middle third,same as now.
Some may decide to migrate onto the thames,easy enough access.
 
Flynnbarr said:
The thames is a jumble of riparian rights,the body that ends up running the thames will still only have 'ownership' of the middle third,same as now.
Some may decide to migrate onto the thames,easy enough access.
Click to expand...
The "middle third" issue only relates to the EA's responsibility to maintain the navigation "fairway". The EA very definitely have ownership of the whole of the waters of the non-tidal Thames and are able to enforce by laws etc.

I do wish someone would offer some facts and verified statistics regarding the incidence of 'undesirable mooring' on the Thames rather than the interminable plaints that appear to be largely based on perceptual and/or emotional considerations.

Given that a boat is "permanently" occupying a mooring there are very clear issues that need to be addressed
1. Who is the owner of the mooring and have they, implicitly or by default, given their consent? Overstaying on EA 24 hour moorings is clearly an offence and can be enforced by the EA. In the case of non EA moorings, mooring without the consent of the landowner is a matter for the landowner to pursue.
2. Does the boat have a current EA licence - this will include the requirements for BSS and 3rd Party Insurance? If not, this is an offence and can be enforced by the EA regardless of mooring issues.
3. Is the "boat" infringing or failing to comply with any other statutes or by-laws.
4. Do the people occupying the boat own the boat or are they occupying with the owners consent.
All of these issues can be addressed by the exercise of current legislation and it is not, nor should it be, the responsibility of the EA to act except where it is itself responsible - e.g. licence fees, sewage discharge etc.

I have reasonable reason to believe that at least some of the complaints received by the EA regarding "illegal" mooring are made not by boaters but by local residents who simply object to the presence of the boats, particularly if they are "unattractive". How many boaters on this forum have made a direct specific complaint to the EA about overstayers?
 
Last edited:
Boatone.
You are far more knowledgeable than myself regarding these matters.
All I can say is that quite a few of us boatowners had an 'informal' chat with two guys on the EA launch a couple of years ago concerning human waste/toilet paper drifting past our boats on the taplow moorings.the moorings owner has had conversations with them as well.its not huge amounts but enough to put you off swimming/canoeing/messing about in the river which is what a few of us used to do before we got liveaboards.

What I wrote before is what the EA keep telling us,they told me personally they only have jurisdiction over the middle third,nothing they can do.
Now I am confused,are they just fobbing us off if the info you have is correct?
We also reported that someone,where the boats are in the old mill backwater,had destroyed a kingfisher nest,we were told we would have better luck with the RSPB,fair enough,but could they not liase with other interested parties?
Why,if as you say,they have enough legislation concerning sewage etc,are they doing nothing to address the issues we as boat owners have raised or were we fobbed off?
The riparian rights issue was given to us as a reason they cannot do anything.
 
Flynnbarr said:
What I wrote before is what the EA keep telling us,they told me personally they only have jurisdiction over the middle third,nothing they can do.
Now I am confused,are they just fobbing us off if the info you have is correct?
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware. the only documented instance of the "middle third" is on page 5 of the Customer Charter "We maintain a navigation channel, normally the middle third of the river, and work with landowners to remove trees and other objects obstructing it." As you can see this specifically refers to the navigation channel and in no way relates to their wider responsibilities for the waterway and the environment.

There seem to be several issues getting mixed up here. Discharge of sewage or other pollutants into the waterway is certainly a breach of regulation and I believe that comes under the EA's remit. Certainly, there are EA by laws about boats not discharging sewage into the waterway. Unfortunately the presence of sewage may indicate an offence but proving who was responsible may be extremely difficult unless caught in the act.
Again, reporting destruction of a birds nest is unlikely to get much action without identification and evidence of offenders.

This news story clearly indicates that the EA do have responsibilities such as I indicate above but note the EA comment about the Thames not being designated bathing water:
http://www.riverthamesnews.com/News167.html

Were you fobbed off? Perhaps not deliberately but I believe you were certainly misinformed. One thing I do know is that the current level of staffing is woefully inadequate to provide a fully functioning service in all these aspects of their responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Were you fobbed off? Perhaps not deliberately but I believe you were certainly misinformed. One thing I do know is that the current level of staffing is woefully inadequate to provide a fully functioning service in all these aspects of their responsibility.

Nail and head.
Give the CRT a go at it
The EA have been dreadful with enforcement concerning these matters in the boulters to bray reach and as you have said before 'it will only get worse'.
 
Flynnbarr said:
Give the CRT a go at it
The EA have been dreadful with enforcement concerning these matters in the boulters to bray reach and as you have said before 'it will only get worse'.
Click to expand...

We were never given enough information about how a transfer of responsibilities for the navigation to C&RT might have been accomplished, so were unable to consider whether it might have been a good move or not, and there are many "Thames'ites" that actively lobbied to stop it happening. Unless there is a serious rethink at Government level, the opportunity would seem to have passed for the foreseeable future and it would appear that continued austerity cuts will erode services even further over the next year or two at least. Also, this is the last year of the current 3 year "agreed" formula for licence fees to rise by CPI + 2% so there is going to need to be some strong bargaining before next years fees are set.

Future services will likely be dependent on just two issues - what is Government prepared to continue funding and what we, as users, are prepared to pay for.
 
Last edited:
Completely without any knowledge or information, I can't see how CaRT could do anything much more than manage the navigation - and by that I mean lock keeper services.

Managing water flow on a Thames scale is completely beyond their current capabilities. The EA water flow system is huge and partitioning off just a part of that would be daft (IMHO)
[cynic ON} so certain to happen [cynic off] .
BUT as nobody anywhere has seen fit to make public exactly what was proposed to be transferred we're all in the dark. (nothing new there). I have a sneaking suspicion that when DEFRA / whatever looked at the concept in detail, they were frightened at the complexity and possibilities for disaster.

Thus the excuse for shelving it was that, Cart having been shafted over what they wanted to run the canals, said "not blurry likely, give us lorra, lorra money" and Dave said "can't afford it".

Still I do like to dream. Otherwise I'd have to draw the conclusion that all of our elected representatives are completely and utterly bonkers.
At the moment I'm content with thinking only some of them are.
 
Who were the 'thames'ites' and why did they actively object?
The EA haven't exactly covered themselves in glory for many a yr and I don't mean the guys we see day to day so why
Old timers scared of change,not wanting to be lumped in with canals or something profound that I missed
Or was it just simply that old chestnut,money
 
Flynnbarr said:
Thanks for the info boatone.
Ahh the ATYC...I understand now:)
Click to expand...
Not fair to single out the ATYC as there were many others supporting the representations to prevent the transfer. The few that were prepared to stay open minded were pretty much drowned out and seemed reluctant to state their opinions. We do not even know that it was these representations, and not a simple political funding dilemma that actually carried the day in deciding to defer.

The TMBA have consistently stated that only when full facts are made available regarding the form and construct of a proposed transfer will river users be able to make an informed decision. This never happened and is even less likely to happen in the near future, even though the Government has reconfirmed its eventual intent to transfer the EA navigations to the C&RT when financial circumstances improve.
 
Last edited:
Flynnbarr said:
Who were the 'thames'ites' and why did they actively object?
The EA haven't exactly covered themselves in glory for many a yr and I don't mean the guys we see day to day so why
Old timers scared of change,not wanting to be lumped in with canals or something profound that I missed
Or was it just simply that old chestnut,money
Click to expand...



This bears no resemblance to any situation real or other wise.

You have an ornamental lake surrounded by uniformed staff catering to your every whim, your launch glides from one halcyon glade to another untroubled by the world outside .
Suddenly a lot of chaps have been placed in charge of a new entity which was supposed to have been created to wean the waterways off its addiction to public money. This is fine for the lock handle wielding sorts on assorted semi industrial ditches outside the M25 who must jolly well learn to pay their way. Market forces and all that.

Some navigations however are more equal than others. One in particular more or less declared UDI.:)
 
oldgit said:
This bears no resemblance to any situation real or other wise.

You have an ornamental lake surrounded by uniformed staff catering to your every whim, your launch glides from one halcyon glade to another untroubled by the world outside .
Suddenly a lot of chaps have been placed in charge of a new entity which was supposed to have been created to wean the waterways off its addiction to public money. This is fine for the lock handle wielding sorts on assorted semi industrial ditches outside the M25 who must jolly well learn to pay their way. Market forces and all that.

Some navigations however are more equal than others. One in particular more or less declared UDI.:)
Click to expand...



You are a bad man:):)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top