No boat zones

[AngusMcDoon]

Are local councils acting within their rights when they designate large areas of coastal water as complete no boat zones? I don't just mean small areas within and around harbours, but areas extending miles along beaches, for example from the shore to 200m out in width and five miles in length? This is not just a speed limit, but a complete prohibition of any boat.

This reaction has of course been caused by the irresponsible behaviour of jet-skiers and drivers of small speed boats, but affects us all if we are not allowed to anchor within these zones, nor even use a dinghy to reach the beach.

And what about the practicalities of these zones? These areas are often designated by lines of yellow buoys, with an explaining notice on the shore. Yellow buoys are ambiguous and mean nothing in the col-regs. In some places they are used to mark areas where high speed boating is specifically allowed. And notices on the shore are of no use to boats arriving by sea, so how is this system supposed to work?

It seems like our freedom to boat where we want in a slow and safe manner is being curtailed by the high speed idiots' behaviour. I'm just wondering whether the council can legally do this, or if there is a higher and older law allowing free passage and anchoring in all sea areas (military excepted of course) below the low water mark.

 

[jerryat]

Hi Angus,

I entirely agree. We've pondered on this often, not so much in this country, as in the Med., where virtually every beach/cala is buoyed off with lines of yellow buoys often linked with lines.

I suspect you are correct that it is a reaction to our high speed colleagues, since it's difficult to imagine severe/fatal damage occuring to a swimmer from a yacht that close inshore - possible, but highly unlikely IMHO.

If there MUST be warning buoyage, then I believe it should be precisely that - a warning. Entry shorewards should be at the minimum speed necessary to control the vessel, and only for the purpose of anchoring, not for sailing/motoring up and down just posing. Difficult to legislate for though I accept.

However, coming from the southwest, where we have enormous bills from the water company for upgrading and maintaining the beaches (also for the benefit of thousands who only visit!!) I suspect that pollution also plays a part. Perhaps the thought of large numbers of boats 'pumping out' is one of the reasons.

As to the legalities, well I'm still waiting to hear any outcome of Sailing Today's efforts (or rather those of a lawyer writing for them) in challenging the 'rights' of local authorities to charge us for anchoring/mooring etc.

Hopefully there is a lawyer on this forum who could offer advice re this creeping disease of 'safety buoys', as I can't see that any LOCAL authority has rights over the seabad. Could be wrong I guess, but would love to know!

Cheers Jerry

 

[landaftaf]

local councils/authorities have the right to allocate areas in their waters - especially for safety reasons

yellow buoys do have a meaning - and often refer to local byelaws/charts for further info - ignorance is no protection

hope this helps

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[AngusMcDoon]

What constitutes a local authority's water? How far out does their jurisdiction go? It must stop somewhere.

Are these areas of special control ever marked on nautical charts?

If we come across an area marked by yellow buoys, how are we meant to know if it is a speed limit zone, a no-boats at all zone, or a jet/water ski zone? Of course, I could check with every local authority before I go anywhere, but that's not very practical.

 

[landaftaf]

it should be in the admiralty list of lights - all buoyage (and lights) are in there - with special remarks.
plus look in the dialogue on admiralty charts - wealth of info there
dont know where councils authority end but its them who decide - if its not the local harbour authority is doing it on their behalf (with the exception of qhm's of course)

anyway, its supposed to enhance safety so imo there is little point in trying to turn the clock back of this popular issue

/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[pappaecho]

I understood that anything below the High Water mark was Crown Property, and therefore subject of HMG, usually via the local Harbourmaster or Queens Harbour Master if a Naval Port etc. Certainly all regulations in the Solent are overseen by the QHM Portsmouth, but I do not think a Council per se has anydirect jurisdiction over the sea, even though they may have some indirect input, I note that QHM Portsmouth sits on no less that 37 different committees which have some bearing on life in the Solent. One such is the Wildlife Committee, which would have been more appropriate if based either in Gunwharf Quays or possibly Queen St?

 

[Lakesailor]

As there are territorial limits administered by HMG, perhaps it's in their remit to hand over local control to local authorities?

These matters are the sort of thing, like applying speed limits on roads, no-one really knows and assumes the relevant departments have all the facts at the finger tips. Now and then it appears that by-laws and even worse stautes are not in fact legal.

I've noticed a few appeals in posts for a forumite, who would be a lawyer, to wade in with some facts.
Never heard a response yet. No money in giving free advice is there?

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

If the zone is not announced in an LNTM or similar fashion, and could not thus be on the most up to date chart, could it be enforceable? We all know about limits in the Solent and similar places that have existed for long enough to be on charts, even if annotated as "Apr - Sept" or similar, but will Upper Gumptrey District Council know about accepted means of communication with boaters, or just assume that a local byelaw stuck on the Church Hall notice board is all that is needed?

 

[Micky]

May i ask, why would anyone with a boat want to be within 200m of the beach in the first place.
Surly a boat is for venturing out to sea as far as possible, or at least a few miles out.

Sorry, but i could never understand why some boaters spend their time hugging the coastline.

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Complex Question

It is possible for the fundement, sea bed, to belong to or to be administered by authorities or individuals, other than the crown.

Some is owned or administered through historical rights, some through delegated powers from the crowns agents. Access to these areas can also be controled by rights issued over time to bodies or individuals for commercial or amenity reasons. ie Oyster beds. This can give the impression that they are controled by more than one body.

A Local Authority would no doubt excercise it's powers through the implimentation of a bye law. You could find a copy at the central library of most well run authorities. The main reason for obtaining these powers will be public safety or security. If you live locally to the area in question, speak to your councillor about it.

 

[jerryat]

Well we like to anchor from time to time!!! Why shouldn't the same facility that is provided for the 'beach' based people, not also apply to boaters? We all pay our taxes (well most do!) some of which is used for the upkeep and monitoring of these areas.

It is nice to anchor off a beach for the night or just for a swim/BBQ/sunbathing and has nothing whatever to do with passage-making or 'hugging the coastline'!

Many of us have several ocean passages in our log books so do 'venture out to sea as far as possible' too from time to time! I think you are getting a little confused about what the thread is about.

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re:Ridiculous!

Come off it! Holidaymakers etc are perfectly entitled to have access to a bit of safe water; we can't claim every bit of sea. There's plenty of places to anchor along the coast.

You should be directing your venom at the idiots who have made this a safety issue in the first place, not the Councils who are simply trying to protect swimmers.

 

[snowleopard]

Re:Ridiculous!

I'm in favour of swimming zones provided (a) it doesn't shut off traditional anchorages (after all, most of us anchor in 5-10m of water - how many people want to swin in that depth?). (b) access channels to the shore are marked so we aren't cut off from the shore.

 

[duncan]

Re:Ridiculous!

I'm with you on both counts.

Experience has shown that a significant minority will always ignore regulations (byelaws in this case and as the public using the beach (for example) have to obey them too I don't see why boaters should be exempt).

I could understand the med ones, and can understand those off busy beaches in the UK too where large numbers of boats anchor up in the shallows.

Personally I think the French blanket speed limit within 250m of any shore is the best way to go with the onus on the local authority to positively override that in areas that don't suit it.

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re:Hear! hear!

NM.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

Re:Ridiculous!

I would hardly say my original post was venomous. I was wanting to know whether councils have the right to do this, and it seems they have.

As to how a boater arriving at a new area encountering a line of yellow buoys is meant to know what they mean, that doesn't seem quite so clear, unless he has updated his charts with all recent LNTMs and contacted town halls, and has got a ship's complement of marine documentation on board.

I agree that fast boats and swimmers don't mix, we don't own the seas, and bathers have the right to safe areas to swim. However, I was rather surprised when sailing with my son at the weekend to find a complete boat exclusion zone (not just a speed limit) which stretched nearly the whole way from Barmouth to Shell Island, a distance of 6 miles. There were couple of shore access points for boats, but these were miles apart.

Anchoring just inside the yellow buoys at Barmouth we were told to move (by a patrol whizzing around the 'no boat zone' in a high speed RIB). Further north there were high speed craft ignoring the zone completely. Maybe further north the zone is a different area where high speed craft are allowed. Who knows.