Illegal Mooring, Richmond Bylaws, and a Campaign.

[Alan ashore]

I was forwarded the email below. It alerted me to the consultation period and the actual wording of the draft bylaws, which aim to limit mooring at most of the locations managed by LBRuT to ONE hour, and at a very few locations to 24 hours. Per LBRuT's website, objections (or presumably supporting comments) may be lodged until 7th November.

While supportive of the initiative, I'm not sure about one hour.....

Anyway, here's the details of a campaign to support the bylaws and exert pressure on authorities to enforce them: (BTW let's not argue about how to spell bylaw. I see LBRuT and I differ!)

> From: CARA Kingston <cara.kingston@gmail.com>
> Date: 17 October 2014 16:07:26 BST
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> Subject: Illegal riverside moorings - launch of 'Reclaim our Riverbank'
>
> CARA members may be interested in a new group formed to ‘Reclaim our Riverbank’ from the illegal moorings between our area and Teddington Lock. They have asked us to pass on the following message and request for support and help:
>
> Our aim is to use pressure from residents to convince Richmond and Kingston Councils, the Environment Agency and the police that dealing with the illegal mooring should be of the highest priority. An aim which we believe you agree with.
>
> The more residents and local organisations we can attract to the campaign the more pressure we can exert and the greater our chance of success. Our contacts list is steadily increasing. If you have neighbours who are concerned about the illegal mooring please ask them to e mail us at reclaimourriverbank@gmail.com so we can increase our numbers and keep them in touch with what is happening. Please pass the word!
>
> You can opt out of receiving e mails from the group at any time – just let us know. We guarantee not to share contact details with anyone and to use your details only in connection with the Reclaim our Riverbank campaign.
>
>
>
> THE RICHMOND BYELAW
> Richmond Council is to introduce a byelaw which will help them control illegal mooring. This has reached a vital stage and Central Government are asking residents for their views. The Council ask that as many people as possible write and support the byelaw.
>
> The consultation period is until Friday 31 October 2014.
>
> The address for comments is:
> Department for Communities and Local Government, 2 NE, Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, Westminster, London, SW1P 4DF or email byelaws@communities.gsi.gov.uk.
>
> The byelaw can be seen at http://www.richmond.gov.uk/byelaws_and_local_legislation.
>
> WANT TO HELP?
> We need more people to help us. Anything from delivering leaflets, acting as a street representative or maybe you have a special skill – for example journalism, graphic design, a knowledge of the law or access to printing facilities! We also need someone from Royal Park Gate on our Steering Group
>
> Please e mail reclaimourriverbank@gmail.com if you would like to help.
>
> THANK YOU!
> Reclaim our Riverbank Steering Group
> 17 October 2014

 

[Actionmat]

Thanks for posting this. 1 hour sounds like a joke, but as I said before, these loafers were always going to ruin it for everyone else and the worst outcome would be that LBRuT would start acting like Henley.
What use is 1hr if you want to shop, eat, or go out for the evening? No benefit to the local economy whatsoever.

 

[Alan ashore]

Yeah,
Do take a look at the map of 1hr and 24hr areas ( http://www.richmond.gov.uk/moorings_boroughwide_plan.pdf ). It puts the whole thing into context.

I must say I'm slightly surprised that we haven't seen more about the specifics of the bylaws and the current consultation period. There is a press release dated 12th September buried on the LBruT website, but I can't say I've seen any reference to it in the press.

It's also disappointing not to find some explanatory material about their strategy, why one hour, etc.

BTW for those not local, quite a lot of the bank in question is semi or fully tidal, and bankside mooring is rather impractical anyway. In that context, it's not quite clear whether a rowing boat nosed between the trees for a romantic lunch is mooring, nor a dinghy pulled up on the foreshore.

But all that said, good on Richmond for taking a significant step to deal with a growing problem.

 

[Pump-Out]

Has someone told the chap who lives on a raft by Glovers Island?

PO

 

[oldgit]

But all that said, good on Richmond for taking a significant step to deal with a growing problem.

Quite surprised at this, must have taken ages for Richmond to find other areas willing to accept the people being moved on. Most places seem,unlike Richmond, purely want to dump the problem on the next borough...........
Good old Richmond eh !

 

[Actionmat]

That link is bad for the eyes. I can't even find Teddington lock

 

[Chris_d]

The Richmond banks are mostly tidal and the 1 hour rule is clearly just a catch all to allow for people breaking down etc.. and needing to hang on to the bank without breaking the law, looking at the map you wouldn't want to spend an hour at those locations anyway.

This is all very well but as OG says where are they relocating the evicted?

 

[Flynnbarr]

The Richmond banks are mostly tidal and the 1 hour rule is clearly just a catch all to allow for people breaking down etc.. and needing to hang on to the bank without breaking the law, looking at the map you wouldn't want to spend an hour at those locations anyway.

This is all very well but as OG says where are they relocating the evicted?

The Mudway

 

[Alan ashore]

The Richmond banks are mostly tidal

True, but their non-tidal bits are of significance - Terrace Gardens and Garrick's Lawn for example.

I personally feel that it is entirely appropriate that ALL local authorities should establish the legal framework to allow them to take control of their river banks in a way which serves the interests of the majority of their residents and of river users, to whom free-for-all bank squatting is unacceptable.

I'd suggest that other boroughs may wish to follow suit, quickly. I do agree that in parallel with getting the legal framework in place, there is a need to take a more systemic view and establish a pragmatic strategy for encouraging (and if necessary and appropriate, ASSISTING) people to find accommodation which does not abuse public amenities.

 

[Flynnbarr]

All very commendable but.....councils don't have the money,the willpower,the manpower or the gumption to sort it out....and as soon as they realise they will be responsible for re homing then it will be forgotten.
Plus the illegals may or may not be oiks but some are clever oiks.

My friend ran rings round south bucks district council for 7 years concerning a mooring matter.Councils really are hopeless,have you dealt with any lately,my friend tells some fab stories
Apart from that I agree completely with you Alan ashore

 

[oldgit]

The Mudway

.......Ta.

At least down here some attempt has been made to accommodate (cash in on) this growing phenomenon, rather than the b*gger my neighbour approach on the Thames.
One large marina down here caters specifically for livaboards and very successful it is too.
However it has bought with it the problem of the raw sewage generated by such a large collection of residential boats in one place.
This frequently ends up on the adjacent riverbank.

* Please insert u or e.

 

[Actionmat]

This is all very well but as OG says where are they relocating the evicted?

That should only concern those who have caused the problem in the first place. They've had a good run of it and plenty of time to find an alternative. A boat is a luxury, not a necessity, there are plenty of rooms for rent.
I still suspect that this a lifestyle choice and not a last resort. Or should I tell the chap who owns my mooring, that I won't be paying my dues this year, or moving as it would breach my human right to own a boat and sleep on it?
Don't be fooled into having any sympathy for these people, because I assure you that they couldn't give a damn about anybody else, let alone the river.

 

[Chris_d]

That should only concern those who have caused the problem in the first place. They've had a good run of it and plenty of time to find an alternative. A boat is a luxury, not a necessity, there are plenty of rooms for rent.
I still suspect that this a lifestyle choice and not a last resort. Or should I tell the chap who owns my mooring, that I won't be paying my dues this year, or moving as it would breach my human right to own a boat and sleep on it?
Don't be fooled into having any sympathy for these people, because I assure you that they couldn't give a damn about anybody else, let alone the river.

Don't get me wrong I have zero sympathy but those wrecks won't just disappear, they will end up somewhere. Unless the Council finds someway to destroy them.

 

[Actionmat]

Some of those things could only be loosely described as boats, but they've got to be worth something. It's cost the council tax payers enough, perhaps an auction would claw some cash back? I know I'm dreaming, but it would be wonderful if they put it towards some finger pontoons.

Or perhaps a memorial pump out station at Teddington would be appropriate?