Illegally moored boats moved from the Thames

[duesouth68]

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.

There are those words again REGULATED AND ENFORCED that is just the trouble to many regulations.

You would have us living in a very sad world.

 

[cereal tiller]

There are those words again REGULATED AND ENFORCED that is just the trouble to many regulations.

You would have us living in a very sad world.

there are at least 4 boats in the reach above boulters which have been moored there for at least 6 months.

they are moored on the left side(going upstream).on towpath moorings which are in the public domain.

this area of riverbank belongs to everyone,and boatowners should not be allowed to "stake a claim" on it.

i know for a fact that the owners of these boats are doing it to save paying mooring fees.

 

[duesouth68]

there are at least 4 boats in the reach above boulters which have been moored there for at least 6 months.

they are moored on the left side(going upstream).on towpath moorings which are in the public domain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
duesouth68
To your knowledge are any of these 4 vessels the subject of the moving on process alongside the Bridge Eyot /mooring piles.

As understand a vessel on roving a licence you can stay in one place on public moorings for 14 days and then you have to " move on".
I quite agree that these should pay mooring fees but after the 14 days they should be asked to move on ,back in the Thames Conservancy days there were Conservancy launches to patrol the river not just for that but safety afloat as well some of the reaches can be very remote doesn't that go on now with the EA. I remember the TC stopping me in my kayak and having a chat and checking my licence they were very pleasent a bit like village policeman they to use wave when they got to know you but you knew if you didn't have your licence they would check.

If there is a harbour debt due in coastal harbours as understand it the debt is placed on the vessel,if it is not paid the vessel is in pounded and sold to cover the debt.If nobody is checking on these vessels you expect this sort thing to happen.

If we didn't have police checking on speeding and bad driving we would have the same problem

 

[teddington_lock]

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


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

Exempt from what ? being licenced ?

Unfortunately not , i'm afraid.

 

[cereal tiller]

there are at least 4 boats in the reach above boulters which have been moored there for at least 6 months.

they are moored on the left side(going upstream).on towpath moorings which are in the public domain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
duesouth68
To your knowledge are any of these 4 vessels the subject of the moving process alongside the Bridge Eyot /mooring piles.

As understand a vessel on roving a licence you can stay in one place on public moorings for 14 days and then you have to " move on".
I quite agree that these should pay mooring fees but after the 14 days they should be asked to move on ,back in the Thames Conservancy days there were Conservancy launches to patrol the river not just for that but safety afloat as well some of the reaches can be very remote doesn't that go on now with the EA. I remember the TC stopping me in my kayak and having a chat and checking my licence they were very pleasent a bit like village policeman they to use wave when they got to know you but you knew if you didn't have your licence they would check.

If there is a harbour debt due in coastal harbours as understand it the debt is placed on the vessel,if it is not paid the vessel is in pounded and sold to cover debt.If nobody is checking on these vessels you expect this sort thing to happen.

If we didn't have police checking on speeding and bad driving we would have the same problem

the 4 boats above boulters are not ones that were moored at maidenhead on the island or adjacent to it .

one is a live-aboard narrowboat,two of the other vessels are grp cruisers which are in varying states of restoration.

the 4th boat is a timber cruiser which has been moored at the same place for at least 6 months of this year and 4 months of last year!

we use that mooring 10-12 days of each season.

when moored there 2 years ago,a man in a canoe stopped and asked me how long one could moor up for.

i told him a day or two was the accepted time limit.

the following year the same man moored his timber cruiser in that very spot for several months!

and to make matters worse the boat has been moored there this whole summer,and NO MOORING signs have been placed fore and aft of it!

the owner has told local people that he has "owned" the mooring for thirty years.

the location is not owned by the residence it is adjacent to,as far as i am aware it is public towpath.

 

[duesouth68]

Exempt from what ? being licenced ?

Unfortunately not , i'm afraid.

No the bloody dinghy licence.....i suggest you read the posting i made again

 

[TrueBlue]

the location is not owned by the residence it is adjacent to,as far as i am aware it is public towpath.

The fact that there is a public path between a property and the River is not an indication that there are any public mooring rights. Most (perhaps many) public footpaths cross private land.

As an example there are public rights of way of way on both sides of the River below Henley, but no public mooring rights as you will discover when SRB comes to collect his fees.....

IMHO the ONLY public moorings are those "maintained" by EA - pitifully few - the rest are owned by somebody who may decide to collect fees or not.

I can see where this thread is going - people trying to establish squatters rights perhaps???

 

[cereal tiller]

there are at least 4 boats in the reach above boulters which have been moored there for at least 6 months.

they are moored on the left side(going upstream).on towpath moorings which are in the public domain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
duesouth68
To your knowledge are any of these 4 vessels the subject of the moving on process alongside the Bridge Eyot /mooring piles.

As understand a vessel on roving a licence you can stay in one place on public moorings for 14 days and then you have to " move on".
I quite agree that these should pay mooring fees but after the 14 days they should be asked to move on ,back in the Thames Conservancy days there were Conservancy launches to patrol the river not just for that but safety afloat as well some of the reaches can be very remote doesn't that go on now with the EA. I remember the TC stopping me in my kayak and having a chat and checking my licence they were very pleasent a bit like village policeman they to use wave when they got to know you but you knew if you didn't have your licence they would check.

If there is a harbour debt due in coastal harbours as understand it the debt is placed on the vessel,if it is not paid the vessel is in pounded and sold to cover the debt.If nobody is checking on these vessels you expect this sort thing to happen.

If we didn't have police checking on speeding and bad driving we would have the same problem

The fact that there is a public path between a property and the River is not an indication that there are any public mooring rights. Most (perhaps many) public footpaths cross private land.

As an example there are public rights of way of way on both sides of the River below Henley, but no public mooring rights as you will discover when SRB comes to collect his fees.....

IMHO the ONLY public moorings are those "maintained" by EA - pitifully few - the rest are owned by somebody who may decide to collect fees or not.

I can see where this thread is going - people trying to establish squatters rights perhaps???

the EA do own many sections of towpath,as these mooring spots do not have safety ladders,bollards etc.,they are not well known.

topside of boulters lock there is an EA owned mooring just beyond the lockcut,in fact the EA own a lot of the towpath all the way up to the downstream side of the footbridge which just beyond the footpath junction with islet road.

some of the house owners in that area paying mooring fees to the EA so that they can moor their boat next to their riverside property.

the moorings i described with the 4 overstaying boats belong to what was berkshire county council,and have been used as occasional moorings for at least 40 years,that is the time period that i used them.

we all agree that "messing about on the river"is very enjoyable.

i do object most vigorously to to selfish people "messing UP the river!

 

[duesouth68]

the following year the same man moored his timber cruiser in that very spot for several months!

and to make matters worse the boat has been moored there this whole summer,and NO MOORING signs have been placed fore and aft of it!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
duesouth68
This is what i mean nobody is checking it just drifts into months and years ..the contractual arrangement with a licence is you follow the rules ....the vessel should have been towed into weir cut behind the lock the local police should have been informed is not been stolen and the gentleman in question should be asked to go the lock keeper and produce ownership of his rights to moor there simple.....

 

[duesouth68]

T

I can see where this thread is going - people trying to establish squatters rights perhaps???

What are talking about..that is not the case as far i am concerned......

 

[Flying Penguin]

I can see where this thread is going - people trying to establish squatters rights perhaps???

Nail on the head I think


In the absence of clarity around the legal situation, the defences of these moorings seem more and more Dale Farmy....

 

[Flying Penguin]

What are talking about..that is not the case as far i am concerned......

Establishing rights by length of tenure? Squatters rights by another name surely...

 

[duesouth68]

Nail on the head I think


In the absence of clarity around the legal situation, the defences of these moorings seem more and more Dale Farmy....

As i understand the Dale Farm situation the people on the site own each a section of the land that was once a scrapyard the local authority are evicting them from there land by means of trespass saying the land was green belt which it was not...because it was a scrap yard......not the same old boy....

 

[Chris_d]

No the bloody dinghy licence.....i suggest you read the posting i made again

Tenders are only exempt when hanging off the back of the boat, the moment you put them in the water they need a license, there is a small concession in that they can be licensed for half price if declared with the mother vessel when that is licensed.

I suggest you read TD's post again, hes a very helpfull chap by the way

 

[Flying Penguin]

As i understand the Dale Farm situation the people on the site own each a section of the land that was once a scrapyard the local authority are evicting them from there land by means of trespass saying the land was green belt which it was not...because it was a scrap yard......not the same old boy....

And those defending them are saying that they've been there 10 years, leave them alone, they should be sensitive to their traditional way of life.

No. No similarities at all...

 

[duesouth68]

Tenders are only exempt when hanging off the back of the boat, the moment you put them in the water they need a license, there is a small concession in that they can be licensed for half price if declared with the mother vessel when that is licensed.

I suggest you read TD's post again, hes a very helpfull chap by the way

Well doesn't that sound a little crazy to you what is the use of a tender hanging in the davits...i think and i stand corrected if i am wrong coastal harbours tenders are exempt if the are carried on the parent vessel and not left on the mooring.


I am quite sure he is a very nice chap and if get a chance to meet him i will tell him to his face .....and i suggest you read my post re tenders.." i was under the impression that tenders were exempt" i did not say they were so i was open to correction......

 

[duesouth68]

And those defending them are saying that they've been there 10 years, leave them alone, they should be sensitive to their traditional way of life.

No. No similarities at all...

I am afraid this is where there are similarities...the situation should not have been allowed to go on this length of time ( Dale Farm) and boats on non residential moorings.......the problem with Dale Farm is what happens when you move them on the problem moves elsewhere it is a thorny issue that needs addressing but putting millions into moving them and not solving the problem seems to me not the answer.......put that money to solving the problem would seem the right answer then you don't have a problem....or does that sound to simple

 

[boatone]

This thread really is becoming quite bizarre.

The presumptions being made, ill informed comment and downright speculation are breathtaking.

 

[ms1]

Oh come on ... Sir. Surely Dale Farm is about our law and planning permission, not about who owns the land or the purpose for which it was once used. The residents of Dale Farm used the laws of the UK for their appeals for 10 years. They constructed illegally The planning laws applies to all property owners who may wish to build something. Now Dale Farm people need to abide by the laws that they have been using these last years. Use the law - then bide by its decision. And as we now know many of these people have brick and mortar homes in Ireland: they do have homes to go to.

As far as Maidenhead is concerned I think others have put it more eloquently than I could. It doesn't matted how the authorities found out. If there was wrong doing then they are entitled to deal with it.

If there was not wrong doing then the chances are that the moorings (that are clearly dear to your heart .. and quite rightly so) would probably still be there.
As Tedd Lock put it - another case of a few spoiling it for the rest.

It might have been OK in a slower post war Britain, but in today's world we cant just have people doing what they want, where they want, and we cant turn a blind eye just because the problem will/might appear elsewhere.

Life just isn't like that any more. And as far as maritime freedom is concerned ... well the nature of our rivers and their usage have changed ... the sea is out there ... that's where you can please yourself.

Sir, I don't want you making yourself ill over this.

 

[duesouth68]

This thread really is becoming quite bizarre.

The presumptions being made, ill informed comment and downright speculation are breathtaking.

Is that not what a forum is for ...discussion ..if so kind sir put us all right.....