Illegal boat hurst park

Alan ashore said:
Case adjourned as Judge felt more time required than the half day allotted.

Intrigued that:
He [the judge] added that the technical point that there was a different common law right, separate and distinct from navigation, was an interesting one and that Mr Trotman might need further legal advice on it in order to prove a right going over above any statutory right - a point denied by the Agency. Such a right if proved could permit a boatowner to put a boat wherever they wished. There could be adverse possession of the riverbed, for example. Mr Trotman replied there was no adverse element - he had a right to be moored. The Judge commented he would be interested to see some further argument.
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued to know how Mr Trotman can claim to be on the minimum wage, when he's collecting rent from dozens of people on at least 3 boats, with the lowest overheads on the Thames.
 
The official release from the Environment agency says: ‘On Monday 22nd February, we attended a half day hearing at Kingston County Court to proceed with our River Thames Possession Proceedings, this relates to land belonging to The Environment Agency, upstream of Teddington Lock and upstream of Molesey Lock. Consent Orders were agreed with 6 named Defendants that the Agency is granted a Possession Order, these are suspended between one, two and three months. Those named Defendants therefore have this time in which to repair and prepare their vessels for navigation, and to move voluntarily, else the Order can be transferred up to the High Court and enforced by High Court Enforcement Officers. This then leaves three other named Defendants and for all other ‘persons unknown.’ We will return to County Court for a final full day hearing, which will be held after 1st June, when the first full day can be allocated to us by the court.’
Environment Agency staff will monitor compliance with the Court Orders. If successful this should ensure that at least a further six boats leave within 3 months. Regrettably, the three Defendants who believe they can defeat the EA action and are due to return to court after 1 June include the operator of the boarding house cluster and the boat at Hurst Park which means that the local communities will have to live with the effects of these for a bit longer. Whilst the delays within the court processes are very frustrating, this does now represent valuable progress and the Environment Agency are committed to seeing this through and confident that they can be successful when cases return to court.
We are still awaiting a date for a meeting with the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, obtained through the intervention of our local MPs, to discuss the failure of the EA to take earlier action in relation to the mooring.
Richmond bye law enforcement: Richmond have continued to enforce the bye law and a further case will be heard in early March. Some of the boats which are the subject of EA action are also those that have infringed the bye law. The Council tell us that their intention is to continue collecting evidence on any boat they believe is in breach of the bye law and to proceed with court action where required.
 
Actionmat said:
We are still awaiting a date for a meeting with the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, obtained through the intervention of our local MPs, to discuss the failure of the EA to take earlier action in relation to the mooring.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. What didn't the EA do?
 
I should have added that that part of the statement was from the Canbury Residents Association in Kingston(and copied and pasted from their site). I think they're justifiably frustrated with the EA as it's been dragging on for about 10 years.
 
As long as that? i didn't think the EA could do anything about illegally moored boats though, unless they were illegally moored against their own land. Was that the case with these boats? Or have I got that wrong?
 
The council changed a by law to stop them from fouling the bank and the remaining boats banged scaffold poles in the river bed to get round it. Which shifted the problem on to the environment agency. I still think it would have been cheaper to catch them dumping sewage and fine them that way, or for the council to prosecute a rogue landlord with a floating fire hazard, but no doubt the EA knows best.
 
I'm not so sure you know. If any boat owners had been discharging the contents of their loos into the river (which I assume is what you mean) then I would imagine catching them at it is very difficult. For any case to stand up in court, I expect you'd need to have video footage showing the discharge clearly coming from the boat in question. And that would require a 24 hour surveillance operation. Even then, if a boat owner was prosecuted and fined, how long would that case take to come to court and would any fine make the boat owner move on? It might stop them from discharging any more toilet contents into the river, but would it make them move? Probably not. As for the council not prosecuting someone who's renting rooms that arguably aren't fit for human habitation, I don't see how the blame for that can be laid at the EA's door. That would be a matter for the council, and the council alone, wouldn't it?
 
At RUG8 last November, the EA waterway manager made the point that the growth in liveaboard boats, moored unlawfully, is a growing social problem that the navigation authority regulations (Thames Conservancy Acts etc) are not designed to cope with.

So far, all the authorities have done is to treat the symptoms not the causes and displace the problem to someone else's property. This issue needs a joined up solution. Most of these liveaboards want a simple, cheap or free mooring with gash and sewage disposal facilities. The RUG community could bring pressure on all the various riverside authorities to find a solution rather than just moan about it. Perhaps the RTA should take the lead on this.
 
capnfishy said:
A Most of these liveaboards want a simple, cheap or free mooring with gash and sewage disposal facilities.
Click to expand...

The problem is that someone has to pay for this. Waste and Sewage disposal costs money, do you think the Liveaboards would pay council tax/water rates like the rest of us have to in order to have our waste disposed of. I think not, they probably want to get away from paying for the things that everyone else pays for.
 
Did spot two "yellow perils" moored close together somewhere around Kingston on our way down river last weekend.
 
One of them has been on those public moorings since September and her sister ship was recently removed from the river Mole:(. It use to be one of the Ham flotilla until the EA towed it away, merely shifting the problem from one council to the next.
 
Affordable moorings. Like affordable housing?

Let's say LBRUT decided to convert the "problem area at ham" above teddington lock layby (ham) into residential moorings with riser poles, boarded walkway, pumpout and a holding tank, electric and water and rubbish bins. A bit of a job but probably technically do-able.

How does one decide who is eligible? A residential mooring with a pump and/or elsan hopper, 'electric and rubbish bins is something which some people would pay good money for (the type of people who like living on boats for reasons other than it being the cheapest housing option) so the likely market rate would be far too much for the existing "illegal" moorers to afford or wish to pay anyway.

I definitely think more moorings could be constructed but I doubt it would make any difference really.
 
Whatever the cost it has to be cheaper than spending council tax payers money on legal fees to obtain a byelaw and continue to pursue those who cant afford to pay through the courts. If Kingston evicts the liveaboards or confiscates their boats, they will have to rehouse the boat owners, again at local taxpayers expense.

I can hear the harrumphing in Wraysbury from here!
 
BBC news article about the hotel barge by the old racecourse.

Nice bit of advertising - luxury historic houseboat - stay at Hurst Park 15 minutes walk from Hampton Court station wot has relatively fast trains to central London. River views. Ducks swans rowers, irritated dog walkers, other scruffy boats etc. The River is lovely at this time of year with coots fighting and performing mating procedures. Apparently at night you can hear the sound of ghost horses galloping. And the generator.

Bargain at £29 a night. Possibly even cheaper now airbnb have removed it so less overheads!!

Oh dear

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35871064
 
Last edited:
This story was feautured on the 10o'clock news. Mr Trotman stated that he used fire proof paint amongst other safety features and maintains his stance that he has a right to moor there. His case will be heard(again)in the summer.
If and when he's fined it's unlikely to reflect the income he's made over 10 years, the many thousands he hasn't paid in mooring fees and the huge cost of getting rid of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top