Private Beaches - How do you know?

t sure about the Erme estuary in this regard - believe it may also have some 'privete element' but this is too far back in my memory for my little grey cells to remember what and why..................someone cruising the area will know?

I can however remember the reefs very clearly!

isn't the internet wonderfull..........

Erme Estuary............ panorama here

wonder why it doesn't get more press on here - apart from the lack of shelter from anywhere S I suppose - and the availability of the Yealm aand Salcombe.......
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, so all beaches are open to Tender landings and the Shore based Land Owner can only complain once you try to enter his land (assuming no public right of way).


[/ QUOTE ]
I seem to remember from my long distant past that there is one exception - The little beach in Osborne Bay - something to do with Queen Victoria's bathing beach.
May be wrong here as it may have been idle gossip a good few years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
It applies to all of the IW, land can be owned down to MLWS, so landing in such places is forbidden. Queen Victoria had an Act of Parliament passed to that effect.
 
Re: Springs!

There's potential for quite a lot of fun here. Who's for a raiding party on an exclusive private beach somewhere and a nice little Forum Barbecue/Disco starting about three hours after HW? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I was going to suggest the harbourside shore of the Sandbanks Peninsular but I'm not sure there's enough tidal difference to give us a decent run at it......
 
Re: Springs!

I am sure I am complicating things but can someone explain how Beaulieu fits in to this. It's tidal and privately owned and I get charged for my mere presence let alone landing. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Re: Springs!

Not sure, but I think it's one of the few places where the sea(river)bed is privately owned, some sort of concession to Lord M. who is responsible for the place.

dv.
 
We used to live at Hornesea on the Holderness coast and the firing and bombing range at Cowden (just along the beach) would hang out red flags when they were operational. If you wandered along below HWM they had to stop. However stopping Tornados was a bit more tricky.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Isn/t it true that in legal terms the firing ranges have no legal right to enforce any boat out of the firing area? OK - boats do obey and stay clear but the firing range control, in fact, have no legal right to enforce exclusion from the range?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct. When live firing is in progress, sentries watch for boats and stop the firing until the boat has cleared the area.

Altcar ranges at Formby is a good case in point.
 
Erme is private - think both sides belong to the same estate. They used to discourage landing, or so I'm told, but I don't know the current attitude.

Mouth of the Avon is private on E bank (Bantham) - belongs to the Evans Estates. However I've never seen any "no landing"/"no trespassing" signs, but also never seen anyone attempt it. Perhaps because it's a reasonable surfing spot so not that easy to beach a dinghy on.
Often see dinghies beached on the other side of the estuary at Bigbury, which has a more sheltered anchorage, close in to the beach.
 
Re: Springs!

Up to the MHWS from seaward is officially "the Queens bottom" or somesuch, and public as opposed to "private".

Lord M's estate is different as his former lot was awarded the river et al by the King. Thus as far as I'm aware he is the only bloke in the UK who actually owns the river and the banks to MHWS and beyond. Hence able to charge you for being there even at anchor........
 
Re: Springs!

[ QUOTE ]
Its the MHWS line, so as long as you remain to seaward you are Ok .

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, technically everything between MHWS and MLWS is termed 'foreshore' and is public land. Everything beyond MLWS (except the Beaulieu river) is Crown land. The other exception to this that I know of is Studland beach, where the National Trust claims to own the beach down to MLWS and their byelaws (that they wouldn't send me a copy of) forbid the landing of motorised tenders.
 
Re: Springs!

[ QUOTE ]
That is interesting. Has anyone challanged the NT on that by landing there?


[/ QUOTE ]

lots of landings but from time to time the NT have a go about

1. tenders with OB and props littering the beach (reasonable)
2. any one landing a boat (unreasonable)
3. anthing in between...........

also BBQs - but areas now much better even if they are subject to afternoon shade /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I haven't had a tender prob but I know Wiggo has.......
 
Re: Springs!

From Wiggo, last year:

###

Got a reply back to my query about tenders on Studland Beach:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NT Byelaw actually states that no unauthorised person 'shall moor, park or leave on NT property any conveyance except in mooring sites or parking places provided by the NT.'
Therefore all the beach except authorised use of the slipway/boatpark is unauthorised.
In reality it is unlikely that the boat would be removed/ owner asked to move it unless it was causing an offence and the beach was excessively crowded and a high tide but as the landowner we do have this right at any time. We are also very concerned with swimmer safety and the less powered craft coming onto contact with swimmers the better.

I hope that clears up your questions.


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



So there you have it: boaters 'tolerated' unless it gets crowded, or you are 'causing offence'.

###
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top