Illegally moored boats moved from the Thames

[boatone]

If I had been on Windsor and Maidenhead Council I would have moved them on too.

But there would need o be 'due cause' to justify them being moved on. They can only be 'moved on' by the EA if they are on EA moorings. If they are unlicensed they can be 'removed' once due legal process has been observed but that would not be 'moving them on'. WMDC could, presumably have various local procedures to 'evict' them from the moorings if they are under their control - I suppose that could be considered 'moving them on'.

The ybw news article headline says "Illegally moored boats moved from Thames" - moved from is not the same as being 'moved on' and suggests they were removed from the river (I clearly anticipate your accusation of pedantry Ian )

 

[TrueBlue]

This thread is

going round and round in circles...

To my mind undue weight is being attributed to a bit of journalism where descriptions should not be over analysed.

We are not that regular down this stretch but I have noted that earlier in the year there were a mixture of vessels on the eyot side; a couple of dutch barges and various workboats, later on this was reduced, the barges went as did a couple of "projects" - one of which has moved below the bridge.

Last week I noticed that the eyot side was reasonable clear.

However, throughout all my years use of the River, the landward side has always had a motley collection of ill assorted boats occupying a relatively short stretch of the towpath by the remaining boat yard. I assumed that these moorings were owned by said boat business??

This argument going back and forth is about the piles by the eyot - where there have been very few items moored this year If I'm correct what is the issue?

If I were a "rich banker" I'd be more concerned about the stuff moored on the road side....

Just because some piles have been in place for 50 years doesn't give anyone other than their owner the right to use them and the owner is at liberty to remove them as and when he pleases.

As river users get more aggressive and assume that they have mooring rights, I can understand that riparian owners might want to remove anything that would encourage unauthorised mooring. It's their property and their right, so don't bang on.

Some people see the River and other locations as a cheap (less expensive) place to live and have little regard for the environment that they invade and because Maidenhead has good communications it becomes a good place to moor. The problem is that whatever space is available becomes congested and those that pay land taxes start to complain. Perhaps that is what is happening here.

This Country is pretty tolerant of all sorts and conditions of folk, but it is becoming increasingly stretched by people taking advantage and overloading the local resources, with the result that the residents react.

Upstream there are a number of liveaboards who move around quietly, don't occupy spaces which are likely to upset local residents, but which still gives them access to whatever resources they need (transport, water etc,etc).


I've bothered to put my oar in because those that have no care for the character of the Thames are beginning to ruin it for those who wish to cruise the water, stop overnight and carry on their travels without upsetting the locals or leaving any trace that they've been there in the first place.

This Country is fast becoming a place where residents have to encase themselves within gated communities - that is bad, see what happens across the Pond.....

 

[teddington_lock]

^ Well said.

 

[Brayman]

^ Well said.

Agreed

 

[boatone]

To my mind undue weight is being attributed to a bit of journalism where descriptions should not be over analysed.
This argument going back and forth is about the piles by the eyot - where there have been very few items moored this year If I'm correct what is the issue?

As far as I'm concerned this is NOT all about the piles by the eyot. It IS about this, and other issues, relating to the river being reported in a superficial way without people like us ever being made aware of the full facts.

I would think far more of ybw reporting this issue if, rather than simply syndicating a story on the BBC website -which most of us that pay attention have been aware of since the original story last June (THREAD HERE)- if they were to do some real investigative journalism that might raise the profile of the river and help all of us - including the EA and riparian owners - to achieve a better future for the river and its users.

PS whats the licence fee and registration class for items ?

 

[duesouth68]

going round and round in circles...
t

Just because some piles have been in place for 50 years doesn't give anyone other than their owner the right to use them and the owner is at liberty to remove them as and when he pleases.
-------------------------------------------------------------
If these piles are under the control( ie the owner) of Maidenhead and Windsor District Council and they have been removed it is very much the issue...because and this is my opinion they will never come back...and who has lost out in this not the residents.....but all of you.
I have a theory and Boatone i am just thinking out aloud.
This pilling is very old they are wood aprox 10" square.i think they should have been upgraded by steel pilling some time in the past two issues here if they are owned by local authority 1. Cost 2. Noise from pile driving ..is the local authority just taking an easy road here.But i am thinking aloud again does the local authority have a statutary obligation to upgrade public amenties.

 

[Seajet]

As I understand it, one cannot own, or dictate, a 'view'.

However if potentially lucrative property is proving difficult to sell - and most places are at the moment - I can easily imagine a quiet word passing between property developers and those responsible for the moorings or river, etc; I'm not saying this is what's happened, just a theory.

I'm basically with DueSouth on this one, too much history and heritage is lost because of recently arrived NIMBYS - the 1942 airfield I used to work at, birthplace of the Hunter, Harrier & Hawk aircraft ( all major export successes for the UK ) is now in the hands of property developers...

At the public meeting, quite a few of these chinless wonders who had moved in near an airfield said " you're not going to have any nasty noisy aeroplanes are you ? " !!!

Same goes for those who build or buy beside a river with moorings on it, not to mention the shortage of moorings country-wide.

There is another issue I'll take this opportunity to point out too; it will soon be illegal / near impossible to establish a new mooring on the seabed, and I expect this will extend to rivers particularly, all due to the incoming MCZ rules.

If you have, or know of, a disused mooring in an established location, for ****sake resurrect it now, either to use or as an investment, or it will be lost forever and future generations of boat users will not thank us !

 

[duesouth68]

.



Just because some piles have been in place for 50 years doesn't give anyone other than their owner the right to use them and the owner is at liberty to remove them as and when he pleases.

As river users get more aggressive and assume that they have mooring rights, I can understand that riparian owners might want to remove anything that would encourage unauthorised mooring. It's their property and their right, so don't bang on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am afraid you have bang on about it..to get some people to see the wood from the piles but in this case you can see the wood because the piles are not there anymore!

 

[Chris_d]

I am afraid you have bang on about it..to get some people to see the wood from the piles but in this case you can see the wood because the piles are not there anymore!

I think its good your looking into this, clearly someone has been taking an interest in the river at Maidenhead and so far it hasn't been good, loss of long standing moorings, charges introduced on previously free public moorings. Maidenheads river front has lost severall boatyards and Chandlers over the years to "developments" with no interest in the river and the current trend does not look positive.

I think we should stop arguing about technicalities and at least agree that the interests of river users have not been taken into account here.

 

[cereal tiller]

as i understand this situation ,the large boats that were moored on the island side at maidenhead were moored there a few years ago.

those posts were used for moorings,but some of the boats on them were being used for residential purposes.

the EA were chasing several of the owners for not being licenced,and the local council got grumpy about the usage of the 24 moorings on the main bank by small craft being used as
"ferries" by the barge owners.

the island that those barges were moored next to,is in fact a nature reserve and people are not allowed to set foot on it,let alone use it for storing boat paraphenalia.

i can only imagine that the posts have been removed to prevent further abuse?

 

[duesouth68]

as i understand this situation ,the large boats that were moored on the island side at maidenhead were moored there a few years ago.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Duesouth68

So if what you are saying is correct the moorings do have a history as established moorings...so appears the local authority have removed everybody whether they are law abiding or not.

I still think the complaints have arisen from the recent property developments because how would the council have known.

As for the nature reserve as children we have camped and explored these island for years and so have many other Maidenhead children in the past..it is really funny how the islands become a nature reserve when there is a adjacent property development

So far today i have been in touch with the Environment Agency who want me to put my request for information in writing which i have done ,Maidenhead District Council and i am waiting for a return telephone call .... and i will make a fresh appeal to both parties under The Freedom of Information Act

 

[duesouth68]

Cereal Tiller




Can you be more specific to your knowledge Re the licences ... ..did the vessels have licences ,or the moorings didnt have licences for residential use... or the moorings had licences but just for mooring...... or the moorings did not have licences at all...........and the moorings i am talking about are the ones that are near the island not the road side....

 

[teddington_lock]

the usage of the 24 moorings on the main bank by small craft being used as
"ferries" by the barge owners.

Ah , much the same as at Hampton ( Bell Hill ) with the dinghies left there ( on the public moorings ) by the residents of the island to get back and forth

Shame that the few have to spoil it for the many ....

 

[dash300]

going round and round in circles...

To my mind undue weight is being attributed to a bit of journalism where descriptions should not be over analysed.

We are not that regular down this stretch but I have noted that earlier in the year there were a mixture of vessels on the eyot side; a couple of dutch barges and various workboats, later on this was reduced, the barges went as did a couple of "projects" - one of which has moved below the bridge.

Last week I noticed that the eyot side was reasonable clear.

However, throughout all my years use of the River, the landward side has always had a motley collection of ill assorted boats occupying a relatively short stretch of the towpath by the remaining boat yard. I assumed that these moorings were owned by said boat business??
This argument going back and forth is about the piles by the eyot - where there have been very few items moored this year If I'm correct what is the issue?

If I were a "rich banker" I'd be more concerned about the stuff moored on the road side....

Just because some piles have been in place for 50 years doesn't give anyone other than their owner the right to use them and the owner is at liberty to remove them as and when he pleases.

As river users get more aggressive and assume that they have mooring rights, I can understand that riparian owners might want to remove anything that would encourage unauthorised mooring. It's their property and their right, so don't bang on.

Some people see the River and other locations as a cheap (less expensive) place to live and have little regard for the environment that they invade and because Maidenhead has good communications it becomes a good place to moor. The problem is that whatever space is available becomes congested and those that pay land taxes start to complain. Perhaps that is what is happening here.

This Country is pretty tolerant of all sorts and conditions of folk, but it is becoming increasingly stretched by people taking advantage and overloading the local resources, with the result that the residents react.

Upstream there are a number of liveaboards who move around quietly, don't occupy spaces which are likely to upset local residents, but which still gives them access to whatever resources they need (transport, water etc,etc).


I've bothered to put my oar in because those that have no care for the character of the Thames are beginning to ruin it for those who wish to cruise the water, stop overnight and carry on their travels without upsetting the locals or leaving any trace that they've been there in the first place.

This Country is fast becoming a place where residents have to encase themselves within gated communities - that is bad, see what happens across the Pond.....

Totally agree with above. Was enjoying the to and fro of this one but now getting bored. Unfortunately we ain't going to turn the clock back to the good old days of wooden boat builders lining the Thames,but at least we should support all legal attempts to prevent the floating gettos which are springing up along the river.

 

[cereal tiller]

Cereal Tiller




Can you be more specific to your knowledge Re the licences ... ..did the vessels have licences ,or the moorings didnt have licences for residential use... or the moorings had licences but just for mooring...... or the moorings did not have licences at all...........and the moorings i am talking about are the ones that are near the island not the road side....

the 2 large vessels did not have EA licences,the moorings were never approved for residential use.
they may have had EA licences at the time of enforcement,but not for the first 2-3 years of taking up the mooring

 

[duesouth68]

the 2 large vessels did not have EA licences,the moorings were never approved for residential use.
they may have had EA licences at the time of enforcement,but not for the first 2-3 years of taking up the mooring

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for the information..just one other question to your knowledge how many vessels were being lived on at these 13 moorings and due you know where they have gone so i can talk to them first hand /.....many thanks for help

 

[duesouth68]

Ah , much the same as at Hampton ( Bell Hill ) with the dinghies left there ( on the public moorings ) by the residents of the island to get back and forth

Shame that the few have to spoil it for the many ....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


It does appear at the moment there was only small amount of dinghies used to carry people back and forth at the Maidenhead site and i was under the impression that a tender that was carried on the parent vessel was exempt

 

[duesouth68]

fro of this Unfortunately we ain't going to turn the clock back to the good old days of wooden boat builders lining the Thames,but at least we should support all legal attempts to prevent the floating gettos which are springing up along the river.

You tell that Freebodys, and the many other timber boat restorers up and down the country ,plus the owners that have pride in craftsmanship, and thank god we still have people like that.

With reference to folk living on the river, they have been doing that for hundreds of years and in more recent times in the 70s,i went aboard houseboats adjacent to Windsor Castle grounds ,that were not in best state of repair but you did not see enforcement officers crawling all over them.


With reference this issue in Maidenhead it would nice to hear the other side of the story,the side of the story from MWDC is more than a bit lacking in detail.....

 

[dash300]

You tell that Freebodys and the many timber boat owners that have pride in craftsmanship and thank god we still have people like that.

With reference to folk living on the river they have been doing that for hundreds of years and in more recent times in the 70s,i went aboard houseboats adjacent to Windsor Castle grounds ,that were not in best state of repair but you did not see enforcement officers crawling all over them.


With reference this issue in Maidenhead it would nice to hear the other side of the story,the side of the story from MWDC is more than a bit lacking in detail.....

Yes Freebodys,Dennets, et al are all to be applauded for keeping going and we would all be the poorer for their demise. However those few trad builders that manage to continue to exist, do so in a market of diminishing returns and they have to maintain turnover, cashflow and profit.

We cannot cling on to a rose tinted view of the past and keep the relics of old buildings now obsolete; to be used and abused by itinerants who flout planning and licensing regulations.The river cannot be a free for all and must be regulated and enforced.

 

[duesouth68]

There is some very good photographs from "inlandnewbie" thread photos from the recent hot weekend...the first one shows a very tranquil downstream approach to Boulters Lock .....i dare say the no of boats would have given local residents and vistors ..a touch of the vapours ! and the silence only broken by them reaching for the phone to complain to the local district council.........