Poole Harbor, Long Island No Landing Ban.

[robyonfrome]

For years we have enjoyed anchoring off long island, rowing ashore and walking around the small island, watching the children play on the sandbank and generally enjoying this delightful unique environment shared by all boaters. Now we see No Landing notices along the shore line, there are no buildings on long island and no one lives on it, so why should things change now, all of a sudden, I must admit a few people spoil it and leave rubbish on the beach of which I have cleared up myself in an attempt not to draw attention.
The first time I saw the notices I was furious, to my belief they can not stop you landing on the shore line between the low and high water lines so is it legal for them to say ‘No Landing’, I called the Harbour Master and he thought I was right and said, he can see no objection to landing on the beach, The Rempstone estate own the island apparently and they have spoiled the enjoyment of hundreds of boaters for no reason. O they do say fire risk on the sign but why not just put up signs saying no fires or barbys. Last weekend I was pleased to see canoeists and boaters ignoring the signs and landing and encourage everyone to do the same. What is the legal point of view because we are getting to the point where we will not be able to land any where in the harbour.

 

[Rustyknight]

Rempstone Estate put the island up for sale about a year ago, so may not own it anymore. If that's the case, I can't really blame the new owners for not wanting people landing there.

In the last few years the damage done to the vegetation has increased greatly, along with the rubbish left behind. The few trees there have branches lopped off by people looking for firewood, and often these fires are left smoldering after everyone has gone home.

Vast swathes of bracken were cut down last year so visitors could camp overnight, the visitors often being bought out in great numbers by RIB's from elsewhere in the harbour. Take a step off the path and more likely than not you'll see the crap and loo paper that's left behind too; let alone all the broken bottles and carrier bags of rubbish that people can't be arsed to take away with them.

Would you want that on your land?

 

[glashen]

Long Island was sold at the beginning of this year. Press story Since then I believe the notices appeared, I too enjoyed landing there with many others , there are still some good spots where who can land around Poole Harbour. I am told you can always land up to the High Water Mark, beyond that you are trespassing.

 

[Seven Spades]

I FOUND THIS:-

1 Foreshore and Sea Bed Ownership

1.1 The Crown's prima facie title
The claim that the Crown is the owner of the foreshore and the sea bed under territorial waters was argued by Thomas Digges in 1568-69, and supported by Robert Callis and Sir Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century. It was resurrected in the nineteenth century, when the land properties of the Sovereign were transferred to the management of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues (now the Crown Estate Commissioners) by the Crown Lands Acts 1810 and 1829.

In A-G v Emerson [1891] Appeal Cases 649, the House of Lords confirmed that the Crown is prima facie the owner of the foreshore. Lord Herschell stated at p 653:

"It is beyond dispute that the Crown is prima facie entitled to every part of the foreshore between high and low-water mark, and that a subject can only establish a title to any part of that foreshore, either by proving an express grant thereof from the Crown, or by giving evidence from which such a grant, though not capable of being produced, will be presumed."

The Crown's right to the territorial sea bed in England and Wales has not been judicially decided, but, in Scotland, Lord Dunpark stated in Crown Estate Commissioners v Fairlie Yacht Slip Ltd 1977 Scots Law Times 19, at p 20:

"the seabed within the territorial limit and the foreshore are ... the property of the Crown (except in so far as the Crown may have made grants of the foreshore to individuals) as part of the realm and are held by the Crown for the defence of the realm and for the benefit of its subjects."

The Crown's ownership of the sea bed is based on the royal prerogative (ie sovereignty) rather than feudal tenure, and includes the right to grant leases and licences: Shetland Salmon Farmers v Crown Estate Commissioners 1991 Scots Law Times 166.

The principle of Crown sea bed ownership was also unquestioned in England in Lonsdale (Earl) v A-G [1982] 1 Weekly Law Reports 887, and is strongly supported by the Australian case of New South Wales v Commonwealth of Australia (1975) 135 Commonwealth Law Reports 337.


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

1.2 Crown grants, leases and licences
The Crown Estate Commissioners retain virtually the entire territorial sea bed and about half the foreshore. Although they are permitted to dispose absolutely of Crown property, they rarely do so now, but instead grant leases for up to 150 years (Crown Estate Act 1961, s 3, amended 1983). Licences are granted for minor works and for dredging. In Scotland, the Crown also owns coastal salmon fishings and oyster or mussel beds within the territorial limit, but much of the foreshore in Orkney and Shetland is privately owned under udal law. The Commissioners' annual revenue includes about £26 million from foreshore and seabed property and from dredging licences.


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

1.3 Accretion and encroachment
The foreshore is a "movable freehold", and property rights follow changes in high and low-water marks caused by accretion or encroachment, provided that the process is gradual and imperceptible: Scratton v Brown (1825) 107 English Reports 1140; Gifford v Yarborough (Lord) (1828) 130 English Reports 1023; Re Hull and Selby Ry Co (1839) 151 English Reports 139; Southern Centre of Theosophy v South Australia [1982] Appeal Cases 706.

If, however, tidelines are changed suddenly (eg by land reclamation) property boundaries remain as before, provided that the original positions can be determined: A-G v Reeve (1885) 1 Times Law Reports 675; A-G of Southern Nigeria v John Holt & Co (Liverpool) Ltd [1915] Appeal Cases 599. If gradual and imperceptible accretion is unintentionally caused by coast protection work, property boundaries change: Brighton and Hove General Gas Co v Hove Bungalows Ltd [1924] 1 Chancery 372.

2 Public and Private Rights

2.1 Public right of navigation
(See W Howarth, Wisdom's Law of Watercourses, 5th Edn, pp 131-133.)

The public has a right to navigate in tidal waters (ie the sea and tidal navigable rivers), and no grant of the soil can interfere with this. They also have ancillary rights, such as anchoring, that are necessary to navigation: Gann v Free Fishers of Whitstable (1865) 11 English Reports 1305. The right of navigation is not suspended when the tide is out, and a vessel may ground in order to continue a voyage on the next tide: Colchester Corporation v Brooke (1845) 115 English Reports 518. But the right of navigation is different from a right of way over land, because vessels are not obliged to follow a defined course: Evans v Godber [1974] 1 Weekly Law Reports 1317. On the other hand, navigation requires planned movement from one place to another for the purpose of transporting persons or cargo, and does not include "messing about in boats": Curtis v Wild [1991] 4 All England Reports 172; Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 163.

A private right of an owner of the foreshore or bed to control and charge for the laying of fixed moorings will be lost if it is inconsistent with the statutory power of a port authority to regulate the mooring of vessels in the same place: Ipswich Borough Council v Moore The Times, 25 October 2001.


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

2.2 Public and private rights of fishery
(See Howarth, op cit, pp 176-182; J Gibson, On the Kingdom of the Shore, Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly (1978) 616.)

The public has a general right to fish in tidal waters: A-G for British Columbia v A-G for Canada [1914] Appeal Cases 153. The public right of fishing includes an ancillary right for fishermen to dig for worms on the foreshore for their own use as bait, but this does not extend to commercial bait digging: Anderson v Alnwick DC [1993] 3 All England Reports 613. The public right of fishery may be excluded by a private fishery, provided that the private right was created by the Crown before 1189; the Crown was seemingly prevented from creating further private fisheries in tidal waters by Magna Carta: Malcomson v O'Dea (1863) 11 English Reports 1155. A private fishery may be re-granted by the Crown after 1189, if it was originally created before that date: Stephens v Snell [1939] 3 All England Reports 622. Evidence of long usage raises a presumption of a pre-1189 grant: Loose v Castleton (1978) 41 Property and Compensation Reports 19. Private rights of shellfishery may now be granted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (or the National Assembly for Wales) for up to 60 years under the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, s 1.


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

2.3 Other public activities (bathing, shooting and collecting)
There are no other general public rights over the foreshore. Thus, there is no right at common law to bathe in the sea, and no public right of access over a private foreshore for that purpose: Blundell v Catterall (1821) 106 English Reports 1190; Brinckman v Matley [1904] 2 Chancery 313. The foreshore is not a public highway: Llandudno UDC v Woods [1899] 2 Chancery 705. There is no public right to shoot wildfowl there: Fitzhardinge (Lord) v Purcell[1908] 2 Chancery 139. Nor is there a public right to collect sea coal washed ashore: Beckett (Alfred F) Ltd v Lyons [1967] Chancery 449.


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

2.4 Crown prerogatives (unclaimed wreck and royal fish)
The Crown is entitled to unclaimed wreck, unless the right has been granted to a subject: Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s 241. "Wreck" means goods washed ashore; if still afloat, they belong to the Crown as flotsam, jetsam, lagan or derelict: Constable's Case (1601) 77 English Reports 218. To constitute wreck, goods must have grounded, but need not be left dry: R v 49 Casks of Brandy (1836) 166 English Reports 401. If the goods have touched ground, but are still floating, their status depends on how they are salvaged: R v Two Casks of Tallow (1837) 166 English Reports 414. Unclaimed goods found outside territorial waters belong to the finder: Pierce v Bemis [1986] Queen's Bench 384.

Royal fish (whales and sturgeons) stranded or caught within territorial waters are Crown property under the statute De Prerogativa Regis 1324, c 13.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, navigation requires planned movement from one place to another for the purpose of transporting persons or cargo, and does not include "messing about in boats": Curtis v Wild [1991] 4 All England Reports 172; Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 163.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit worrying; when did we ever do anything BUT mess a round in boats? Seriously though, I don't think much leisure sailing comes under the heading of "planned movement to transport persons or cargo".

 

[fireball]

So long as you've got crew and you've submitted a passage plan ....... ??

 

[robyonfrome]

Thanks for the reply's. I take it you can land up to the high water mark.