Long Island Result. I rest my case me Lord!!

robyonfrome

robyonfrome

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Jun 2008
Messages
280
Location
Wareham river Frome
Visit site
I have had a very quick response from the Crown Estate which is below. This must unequivocally
prove that the Rempstone Estate does not own the foreshore and can therefore not take it upon themselves to ask you to leave. I rest my case me Lord!!

Our ref: 16 00 01
Dear Mr
Thank you for your email (copied below) received yesterday, via our website. I have checked our records and confirm the foreshore of Long Island, Poole Harbour, being the area between the mean high and the mean low water marks does belong to The Crown Estate. Our title is registered with the Land Registry under title numbers: DT366111 and DT366193.
In general The Crown Estate operates a permissive access policy to its foreshore, although this does not give rise to automatic access to land above the mean high water mark which is often the top section of a beach and this would be a matter for the individual landowner concerned.
Yours sincerely
Charles Green

Charles Green MRICS
Coastal Manager



The Crown Estate
16 New Burlington Place
London W1S 2HX
Tel: 020 7851 5184
Fax: 020 7851 5125
Email: Charles.Green@thecrownestate.co.uk
 
Well done !

My email from Rempstone's solictor didn't argue about the definition of the foreshore just argued there wasn't an automatic right to access - OK.

But you email say the *owner* (Maj) of the foreshore has just given you access. So I can't see any way this can be aruged with.

Although obviously this does only mean acess to the foreshore not the rest of the island.

Are you going to go back to Rempstone's solicitors with "your" email. Look forward to their reply to this one.
 
From what I see Rempstone's solicitors are actually deliberately stating the law incorrectly and thus just trying to bluff.

If that is the case then it is totally unprofessional, and there would be a case of referring them to the LS
 
Hold on! Do not read too much into this. You are taking an "access policy" to mean that you are free to do anything you want. Rempstone is not arguing ownership, nor access, only that access is limited for certain activities related to navigation and fishing, or access to other land where you do have rights.

If they are correct you would not be able to land to have a barby, or even walk your dog. However, what might be worth pursuing is whether they have the right to exclude you from an area they do not own.

Before making your protest I suggest you get a clear commitment from the Crown Estate that they will permit access for purposes other than seems to be the law. It would also be useful to have them confirm that the owner of the land above the high water mark does not have a right to deny you access to the foreshore for these purposes. Then you would have "proper" permission from the owner rather than a presumed right.
 
They stated the law, but the lack of a general right doesn't mean that something is forbidden, as the Crown Estate letter clarifies.
 
[ QUOTE ]

They stated the law, but the lack of a general right doesn't mean that something is forbidden, as the Crown Estate letter clarifies.

[/ QUOTE ]

they said

"As you have referred me to Halsbury's Laws, may I return the compliment. Volume 49(2) paragraph 30 deals with the extent of the right of passage that people may have over the foreshore. The only rights over the foreshore are in the exercise of of navigation or fishery, or in respect of a lawfully dedicated right of way from one place to another over the foreshore. There is no general right of landing or embarking for pleasure on any part of the foreshore except in the case of peril or necessity.

You will no doubt be aware that the guide to the harbour issued by the harbourmaster specifically draws attention to the fact that there is no right to land on the foreshore of the islands in the harbour. Accordingly the estate does not accept that yachtsmen have the right to land on the foreshore."

IMHO.. they are being deliberately misleading by putting two statements together and then drawing an inappropriate conclusion.

The conclusion implies the the estate has the right to restrict access ... when in fact access in the area between LW and HW has absolutely nothing to do with them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The conclusion implies the the estate has the right to restrict access ... when in fact access in the area between LW and HW has absolutely nothing to do with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - and the actual owner has indicated that they operate a permissive access policy to their foreshore. Clearly that's hedging their bets in case someone (for example) moors a barge there /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif but generally it indicates that they will not prevent access to people so long as they behave themselves.

I think Rempstone Estates may come to regret starting this whole business....
 
They are probably right in the second statement - however, as pointed out above this does not necessarily mean they have the right to prevent anybody from landing. Only Crown Estates would seem to be able to do this. Therefore it is important to get from the Crown Estates clarification that they will allow access for activities in addition to those allowed by law and that you have their specific permission.
 
Your reasoning is correct, but I'm not sure that "I disagree with their conclusion" is going to hold much sway with the LS.
 
Interesting aside;I recently read a book by H.Alker Tripp later Sir I believe.(Solent & southern waters or something like that)Wonderful.
He was Commissioner of the metropolitan police or something like that between about 1920 & 1945 I believe & in it he describes a confrontation with someone in Pool harbour over a very similar incident.He did'nt beat about the bush telling the bloke where to go.It all hinges around the fact I believe (as already stated) that below the high water mark is free to all.Just make sure that you don't stray above it!
 
[ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning is correct, but I'm not sure that "I disagree with their conclusion" is going to hold much sway with the LS.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I would argue that their conclusion was wilfully designed to mislead and as such it is unprofessional behaviour.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting aside;I recently read a book by H.Alker Tripp later Sir I believe.(Solent & southern waters or something like that)Wonderful.
He was Commissioner of the metropolitan police or something like that between about 1920 & 1945 I believe & in it he describes a confrontation with someone in Pool harbour over a very similar incident.He did'nt beat about the bush telling the bloke where to go.It all hinges around the fact I believe (as already stated) that below the high water mark is free to all.Just make sure that you don't stray above it!

[/ QUOTE ] I wonder if it was Brownsea Island? It used to be owned by an eccentric Englsihwoman who employed a strapping Scandanavian woman as a general factotum.

One of her duties (according to my Dad, who lived in Sandbanks as a kid) was to chuck unwanted intruders into Poole Harbour! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting aside;I recently read a book by H.Alker Tripp later Sir I believe.(Solent & southern waters or something like that)Wonderful.
He was Commissioner of the metropolitan police or something like that between about 1920 & 1945 I believe & in it he describes a confrontation with someone in Pool harbour over a very similar incident.He did'nt beat about the bush telling the bloke where to go.It all hinges around the fact I believe (as already stated) that below the high water mark is free to all.Just make sure that you don't stray above it!

[/ QUOTE ] I wonder if it was Brownsea Island? It used to be owned by an eccentric Englsihwoman who employed a strapping Scandanavian woman as a general factotum.

One of her duties (according to my Dad, who lived in Sandbanks as a kid) was to chuck unwanted intruders into Poole Harbour! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it was or I would have recognized the name.
I would urge anyone really interested in sailing to read his books.I have just finished "Shoal Water & Fairway" that is about the East Coast.He blends history with real hard sailing experience in a way that I find simply enchanting.They almost read like poetry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top