Illegally moored boats moved from the Thames

boatone; Moorings in the river - piles said:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making a few enquires since the last post..this does not seem a straightward question on non payment of mooring fees or licence......these plies were in the river bed and they removed 14 piles Maidenhead and Windsor Distrtict council owns the Eyot adjacent to the pilling so do they own the piles the EA licence the piles/ moorings the EA and the local authority have been working together on this as stated in there press handout ,and these piles have been there for a long time..so why did they not licence them as before and collect the revenue, they have lost 13 large moorings in this one spot ?..there has to be another reason....:confused:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
duesouth68 said:
.....these plies were in the river bed and they removed 14 piles Maidenhead and Windsor Distrtict council owns the Eyot adjacent to the pilling so do they own the piles the EA licence the piles/ moorings
Click to expand...
Not sure where the info re removing 14 piles comes from - can't see it anywhere in the ybw or BBC news items.
The piles would be owned by the riparian owner which in this case would probably be MWDC who would pay the accommodation charges to the EA. If this is/was the case the MWDC would be quite entitled to decide to remove the piles and the EA would lose revenue as a result. What happens to any boats moored on the piles would be a separate issue but it would still be a matter for MWDC to resolve. This is all presumption because we do not know the precise situation re ownership etc.
the EA and the local authority have been working together on this as stated in there press handout ,and these piles have been there for a long time..so why did they not licence them as before and collect the revenue, they have lost 13 large moorings in this one spot ?..there has to be another reason....:confused:
Click to expand...
What press handout - I see no mention in the news reports which just relate the story. I suspect the EA would have 'helped' if the craft were not licenced but as far as I am aware there is a process to be followed which takes some time - they cannot simply say "you have no licence so we are taking your boat away" The loss of moorings would presumably be a much greater revenue loss to the MWDC than to the EA?
 
boatone said:
Not sure where

What press handout - I see no mention in the news reports which just relate the story. I suspect the EA would have 'helped' if the craft were not licenced but as far as I am aware there is a process to be followed which takes some time - they cannot simply say "you have no licence so we are taking your boat away" The loss of moorings would presumably be a much greater revenue loss to the MWDC than to the EA?
Click to expand...

If you click on the counsellors name on the original posting,it opens up the story and refers to the 14 piles removed...nowhere in this copy is there any reference to the craft not being licensed..it just states they were illegaly moored but were they ever asked for any mooring fees...the fact is that the BBC had stated that there were a large no of unlicensed vessels just helped with impression that these moored vessels were unlicensed,but they do not state that as a fact in any copy....i think the onwership of these piles is the local authority so why get rid of the moorings.....they will not come back and the vessels that were on them did not put them in that was done a long time ago.......
 
I have been looking at the "riaparian" rights issue from the Royal ownership through the TC days on to the more recent authoritys and it seems to boil down to ownership is from the adjoining land to the centre of the river..so it would appear it that as the Eyot is owned by the local authority the pilling is also, so why remove them did the EA refuse or were they never asked for a licence they must have had permmision or a licence in the past..it looks as if the local authority is acting in the interest of the residents and not vessel owners who might live in the area .... they removed 13 large moorings..when there is a shortage...they also state that not all the vessels were unsuitable..which as long as they have licenses should not have any bearing in this issue.....if they get away with this here, they will set a president and they can do it anywhere...............they have overblown the shock horror quotes of the residents and visitors and used that as smoke screen to get rid of the moorings...i suspect they involved the EA because they had the barges and Hi-AB to remove the piles...
 
Last edited:
Well lets see what google earth says it looks like in that neck of the woods!
Doesn't look like much of an eyesore to me - and that scene is pretty much as I remember seeing it. If the report is correct they have 'moved on' the boats we can see on the western side of the island - but as I remember it there was a pretty unsightly clutter of boats moored bankside alongside the road itself and you can see that nearside of picture. No mention of what, if anything, has happened to them!
 
Last edited:
boatone said:
Well lets see what google earth says it looks like in that neck of the woods!
Doesn't look like much of an eyesore to me - and that scene is pretty much as I remember seeing it. If the report is correct they have 'moved on' the boats we can see on the western side of the island - but as I remember it there was a pretty unsightly clutter of boats moored bankside alongside the road itself and you can see that nearside of picture. No mention of what, if anything, has happened to them!

maidenhead.jpg
Click to expand...

Well done...top left looks like an old TC Launch.....the navigation wide enough 55 years ago i used to drive Emonys boats down to Bray from the steps in the foreground..............it does not look bad to me...i have been on to the Maidenhead Advertiser this afternoon and i am speaking to them tommorow is it possable to use this photograph...what date was this photograph taken
 
Last edited:
following the posting of warning notices by the Council and the EA on craft moored illegally on the western banks of council-owned Bridge Eyot all the craft have now moved on
• a total of 14 unlicensed mooring piles have also been removed from Bridge Eyot.
Click to expand...

Note - have now moved on - NOT have been moved on - there is a world of difference - did they jump or were they pushed?

I may be wrong but I would surmise that the EA decided the piles were unlicensed and served notice on someone (the council?) to remove them?

It is possible/probable that the fact that the piles were unlicensed was recognised by an EA Enforcement team who then served an enforcement notice on whoever they decided was the responsible 'owner'. On the other hand, it might have suited some local resident to enquire of the EA if the piles were licensed etc etc etc..........
 
Last edited:
boatone said:
Note - have now moved on - NOT have been moved on - there is a world of difference - did they jump or were they pushed?

I may be wrong but I would surmise that the EA decided the piles were unlicensed and served notice on someone (the council?) to remove them?

It is possible/probable that the fact that the piles were unlicensed was recognised by an EA Enforcement team who then served an enforcement notice on whoever they decided was the responsible 'owner'. On the other hand, it might have suited some local resident to enquire of the EA if the piles were licensed etc etc etc..........
Click to expand...

It still stinks..i am afraid....and it is the waste of a resource..but they must have been licensed at some point
 
Looking at the length of the Eyot and there is a bit to the left that is not in the in the photograph what revenue loss do you think this would be on trot moorings...if you put two vessels on each and there is room to not impair on navigation
 
boatone said:
Well lets see what google earth says it looks like in that neck of the woods!
Doesn't look like much of an eyesore to me - and that scene is pretty much as I remember seeing it. If the report is correct they have 'moved on' the boats we can see on the western side of the island - but as I remember it there was a pretty unsightly clutter of boats moored bankside alongside the road itself and you can see that nearside of picture. No mention of what, if anything, has happened to them!
Click to expand...

What is interesting in this photograph of the Eyot moorings, there is a working barge with a crane on it a launch belonging to or working for the Environment Agency ,so at this point these piles must have been licensed otherwise they are breaking there own rules and in breach of mooring in an illegal way, this photograph must be in early spring ,this photograph has not been taken in the last month because the river is in spate and there is still leaves on the trees now....:confused:
 
Last edited:
duesouth68 said:
What is interesting in this photograph of the Eyot moorings, there is a working barge with a crane on it a launch belonging to or working for the Environment Agency ,so at this point these piles must have been licensed otherwise they are breaking there own rules and in breach of mooring in an illegal way, this photograph must be in early spring ,this photograph has not been taken in the last month because the river is in spate and there is still leaves on the trees now....:confused:
Click to expand...

Whoa - slow down - lots of assumptions and short on facts :D

The picture is a grab from Google Earth, I dont have a clue when it was taken and never represented it as being recent.

"a launch belonging to or working for the Environment Agency" - you might wish to presume that but you cant tell that from that image !!
Anyone could have positioned the piles without EA knowledge or consent including past landlords long since gone. There are many 'accommodations' that are currently unlicensed for whatever reason and identifying them and taking action accordingly is part of the current EA enforcement programme.
 
Hi everyone,

Just to address the comments about the photo - we can't put up an image of someone's boat moored on the Thames because the story would suggest that the owner is breaking the law by mooring their boat illegally.

That is why we have chosen the image used with the story.

Thanks,

Laura
 
Laura Nineham said:
Just to address the comments about the photo - we can't put up an image of someone's boat moored on the Thames because the story would suggest that the owner is breaking the law by mooring their boat illegally.

That is why we have chosen the image used with the story.
Click to expand...

Couldn't the owners of the dumb barge in the picture also draw that conclusion?

What I really object to here is the superficial reporting of the issue which is light on facts and certainly doesnt present a researched view of the issues.
The earlier report on the BBC News website - actually refers specifically to complaints about Boulters Lock - headline "Illegal moorings 'ruining' Boulters Lock in Maidenhead" and has a picture of boats waiting for and exiting the lock which is some way upriver from the area apparently giving rise to the complaints.
 
Last edited:
boatone said:
As for the introduction of the £8 charge for mooring alongside the road that is laughable - exposed, vulnerable, noisy, no facilities, who would want to pay £8 to moor there overnight? And will they actually police it and collect the money?
Click to expand...

I took the signs displaying the new £8 per night mooring fee there to read as "NO MOORING".

For the reasons you mention above, who in their right mind is going to pay £8 to moor there? It is obvious that boats are no longer wanted along that stretch and I think the land owners (rich or not) will get their way - no boats cluttering up their view.
 
DogsBody said:
I took the signs displaying the new £8 per night mooring fee there to read as "NO MOORING".

For the reasons you mention above, who in their right mind is going to pay £8 to moor there? It is obvious that boats are no longer wanted along that stretch and I think the land owners (rich or not) will get their way - no boats cluttering up their view.
Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with the "view from the apartments". There was a whole raft of very ugly boats cluttering up the moorings both on the roadside and on the the island. If I had been on Windsor and Maidenhead Council I would have moved them on too.
 
Let me explain... (1) I did not mention when the photograph was taken but said it was in the spring but which spring it does not matter the fact is that a large barge 80 foot plus with crane and launch are moored there and nobody has that size of kit this far up the Thames unless they are they contracted to work. But the mere fact they are on the moorings does suggest that moorings in the past were licensed....
(2) These piles are old from my memory..and not anybody has pile driving equipment.
(3) These piles were put in before the EA was a twinkle in the goverments eye
 
Last edited:
Brayman said:
I don't think it has anything to do with the "view from the apartments". There was a whole raft of very ugly boats cluttering up the moorings both on the roadside and on the the island. If I had been on Windsor and Maidenhead Council I would have moved them on too.
Click to expand...

This not the issue here the local authority have removed from West side of the Eyot 13 large historical moorings and my opinion for good....
 
Last edited:
Brayman said:
I don't think it has anything to do with the "view from the apartments". There was a whole raft of very ugly boats cluttering up the moorings both on the roadside and on the the island. If I had been on Windsor and Maidenhead Council I would have moved them on too.
Click to expand...

Well all the pillings opposite these apartments that been there as far i can remember for at least 55 years have been removed...and we have a press release from Maidenhead Windsor District council stating that" illegal moorings have been removed",and we have had statements in that press release stateing that complaints from residents about illegal mooring so they must refer to the waterfront apartment as well as others
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top