Rights of mooring to private river bank or structure?

[DHV90]

Hi everyone, I was just curious as to whether the right to moor alongside a piece of riverbank comes with the ownership of it, along the Thames, or if there is another system involved as well? Just hypothetical really.

Also, if someone owns a structure that extends into the river in an area that anchoring would be safe (ie, not in a shipping channel or a designated no stopping zone) what would be the law regarding tieing up to it? Or anchoring and running an extra line to a structure for extra security? Is it just a matter with whoever owns the structure or does the legal system change when you go from anchored to moored?

thanks for the help

 

[byron]

Just because one owns river bank does not confer the right to moor unless there is an established right or you have obtained Planning Consent.

If someone owns a structure you have no right to tie up or on to it without consent.

 

[DHV90]

If someone owns a structure you have no right to tie up or on to it without consent.

Yeah I had sort of assumed that was the case but I was interested to know whether that consent is solely that of the owner to give or if there is another organisation that can withhold consent? Does PLA have any influence or if the owner has permission and says yes that is all the legal requirement?

 

[byron]

Yeah I had sort of assumed that was the case but I was interested to know whether that consent is solely that of the owner to give or if there is another organisation that can withhold consent? Does PLA have any influence or if the owner has permission and says yes that is all the legal requirement?

Now the PLA indicates tidal Thames and is a whole new can of worms. I really don't know about those structures. I guess it all depends on a whole raft of things. i.e. There's a couple of structures tidal that have been the Turks name for several generations. Who knows what ancient rights they may have.

 

[teddington_lock]

Why is it you want to know this ?

Curiosity , or something else ?

 

[DHV90]

Sorry, what is 'the Turks name' referring to? Not familiar with that!

Teddington, it's just curiosity really, does it matter? It's hard to walk along the tidal banks and wonder why certain areas are overpopulated with boats yet some mooring cleats and rings haven't seen use for decades.

 

[byron]

Sorry, what is 'the Turks name' referring to? Not familiar with that!

Turks are the second oldest boating family on the Thames dating back to Henry V111. Mike Turk still owns a surprising amount of stuff including grand old Steamers like the Empress of India and the Windsor Castle. As a matter of interest the Grand Turk is also his. This was the galleon used in the first Hornblower TV series. His uncle John Turk (Cap'n John) was the Queens Swan Marker for many many years. The oldest Thames family is the Freebody family which precede the Turks by a short time.

 

[oldgit]

On most of the tidal Medway , any driven pile ,ground chain, sinker/anchor laid on the river bed has to have permission of one particular organisation.
A well known Medway marina assumed that because it owned the land alongside the river it had the right to install mooring pontoons.

The Rochester Oyster and Floating Fishery has been in existence since time immemorial. It was all formalised in the 1400s due to the fact that the locals got fed up with having to get their rights renewed with every "here today gone tomorrow" king that appeared on the scene.
"In 1446, “Owing to doubts and ambiguities in previous Charters”, King Henry VI granted a Royal Charter to the “Bailif and Citizens of the City of Rochester”. Amongst the rights granted was the exclusive right to take “fish both great and small and other things pertaining to regality as former sovereigns had had” from the waters of the “Medeway” from “Sherenasse to Hawkewode”."

Fish weirs impeding the free navigation of the Medway were one of many the whinges mentioned in the that charter signed at Runnymede,

 

[TT_WO]

Just because one owns river bank does not confer the right to moor unless there is an established right or you have obtained Planning Consent.

/QUOTE]

A recent appeal court decision regarding riparian rights would suggest that a 'positive right to moor' is perhaps not the important factor as indicated by the following quotes from an appeal court summing up;

Police Commissioner [1979] 1 Ch 344 at 357C:

England, it may be said, is not a country where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted: it is a country where everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden.

Mummery LJ reasoned as follows:

Although the common law does not recognise a positive riparian right to moor alongside the bank permanently, the absence of that right does not necessarily connote the commission of a wrong and the presence of an unlawful mooring. If what the claimant was doing was not a legal wrong, he was entitled to do it. If he was entitled to do it, he was not doing it “without lawful authority”, because the law allows him to do what it did not prohibit at common law or by statute.

 

[byron]

What a long way of saying what I said :-

"Just because one owns river bank does not confer the right to moor unless there is an established right or you have obtained Planning Consent"

 

[JumbleDuck]

What a long way of saying what I said :-

"Just because one owns river bank does not confer the right to moor unless there is an established right or you have obtained Planning Consent"

It seems to me to be saying something quite different; that unless there is a legal prohibition on mooring you may go ahead and do it.

 

[byron]

It seems to me to be saying something quite different; that unless there is a legal prohibition on mooring you may go ahead and do it.

But there is. . . you need Planning Permission unless the right is pre-established. i.e.historical.

 

[TT_WO]

But there is. . . you need Planning Permission unless the right is pre-established. i.e.historical.

I am not sure that a legal prohibition and lack of planning is the same thing. There is a presumption that planning would be granted unless there is a good reason why it should not be.

I am aware that a vessel used for residential purposes and kept on a riparian frontage requires local authority planning permission.

I would imagine that if non residential vessels are kept on a riparian owner frontage that are not owned by him/her and charged for, planning permission would be required. (Change of use?)

I am surprised that a non residential vessel owned by a riparian owner and kept on his frontage would require planning consent.

Surely it would be reasonable to assume that all riparian frontages have at some time provided a mooring for a vessel and therefore have pre-established rights.

I am not trying to be argumentative, I along with many others, I am sure, would like to know what the rules are. The navigation authority referred to in an earlier post clearly thought they knew their rights and it cost them in excess of £250,000 million to find out they were wrong.

Any further light you can shed would be appreciated.

 

[byron]

I am not sure that a legal prohibition and lack of planning is the same thing. There is a presumption that planning would be granted unless there is a good reason why it should not be.

I am aware that a vessel used for residential purposes and kept on a riparian frontage requires local authority planning permission.

I would imagine that if non residential vessels are kept on a riparian owner frontage that are not owned by him/her and charged for, planning permission would be required. (Change of use?)

I am surprised that a non residential vessel owned by a riparian owner and kept on his frontage would require planning consent.

Surely it would be reasonable to assume that all riparian frontages have at some time provided a mooring for a vessel and therefore have pre-established rights.

I am not trying to be argumentative, I along with many others, I am sure, would like to know what the rules are. The navigation authority referred to in an earlier post clearly thought they knew their rights and it cost them in excess of £250,000 million to find out they were wrong.

Any further light you can shed would be appreciated.

I can only speak of my experiences here, my neighbours land and what happened 20 odd years ago at the Shillingford Bridge Hotel above the Bridge.
If there is established use then it's OK. Otherwise Planning Permission is needed, there is no absolute right to a permanent mooring just 'cos you own the land. I can point to two plots on this reach (Cleve-Benson) where South Oxon has stopped moorings. My own property was the subject of a massive fight (before my time) which went to a Public Enquiry where both parties sort of won. The key is 'established use'

 

[DHV90]

That's really fascinating, and established use does seem to be a yard stick for provision or no provision, but surely almost every mooring ring that I walked past in Greenwich has some degree of established use so is it really possible that mooring has been actively prohibited across areas like that? or is it just from disuse?

And also, what case are you referring to where the 'navigation authority referred to in an earlier post....' not sure I know what that case is?

 

[byron]

That's really fascinating, and established use does seem to be a yard stick for provision or no provision, but surely almost every mooring ring that I walked past in Greenwich has some degree of established use so is it really possible that mooring has been actively prohibited across areas like that? or is it just from disuse?

And also, what case are you referring to where the 'navigation authority referred to in an earlier post....' not sure I know what that case is?

Tidal waters are a whole new playground complicated by all sorts of whatfors and whyfors and even royal foreshores. I am here speaking purely about the non tidal Thames.

 

[TT_WO]

I can only speak of my experiences here, my neighbours land and what happened 20 odd years ago at the Shillingford Bridge Hotel above the Bridge.
If there is established use then it's OK. Otherwise Planning Permission is needed, there is no absolute right to a permanent mooring just 'cos you own the land. I can point to two plots on this reach (Cleve-Benson) where South Oxon has stopped moorings. My own property was the subject of a massive fight (before my time) which went to a Public Enquiry where both parties sort of won. The key is 'established use'

Thanks for the information, as so often is the case, information just raises more questions.

Shillingford Bridge Hotel is commercial so I am not surprised that planning involvement was a requirement.

A few years ago at Shepperton, home owners with long established moorings, adjacent to their properties, were told that they had no mooring rights as the council owned the land on the towpath/road. Could there have been similar reasons why South Oxon stopped the use of moorings you refer to?

I fully agree that there is "no absolute right to a permanent mooring just 'cos you own the land." for example if your frontage is in a lock cut, mooring is prohibited, I would guess, as a result of a bylaw.

If riparian owners who keep their own non residential vessels on their frontage where there is no legal prohibition, still require planning consent or need to prove pre-established rights the majority of such boats are illegally moored. I find it difficult to believe that this is the case.

The EA only state that residential vessels need planning permission. They do tell people that they are only allowed to moor their own boats on their property. I have often pondered the legitimacy of this statement but could understand it if providing a mooring for somebody else's boat would require planning consent.

 

[TT_WO]

That's really fascinating, and established use does seem to be a yard stick for provision or no provision, but surely almost every mooring ring that I walked past in Greenwich has some degree of established use so is it really possible that mooring has been actively prohibited across areas like that? or is it just from disuse?

And also, what case are you referring to where the 'navigation authority referred to in an earlier post....' not sure I know what that case is?

The appeal court judgement to which I refer is Moore v BW, a quick Google should provide much info. This case relates to riparian moorings on the River Brent, a tidal river connected to the Grand union Canal, like the Thames there is a Public right of navigation (PPN)

I would expect the judgement in this case to be used as case law in future riparian mooring disputes both tidal and non tidal.

 

[boatone]

Not specifically a mooring rights issue but the EA are currently paying considerable attention to the issue of enforcement relating to accommodations. For those who may not know an "accommodation" is any structure in the river for mooring purposes and can be a small jetty or even just a couple of mooring piles and such structures require a licence. It would appear that there are many such "accommodations" which do not have a current licence and, indeed, may not have done so for years. The licence is a small circular plate which is secured to the structure.
Any new structure also requires EA consent: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802...550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/gese0112bwbq-e-e.pdf

Also found an interesting EA document with information for riparian owners: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/LIT_7114_c70612.pdf

 

[TT_WO]

Tidal waters are a whole new playground complicated by all sorts of whatfors and whyfors and even royal foreshores. I am here speaking purely about the non tidal Thames.

The ownership of the bed of the river would seem to have some bearing on riparian owner mooring rights;
Moore v British Waterways Board

[2013] EWCA Civ 73; [2013] WLR (D) 59

CA: Mummery, Jackson, Lewison LJJ: 14 February 2013

"At common law a riparian owner who did not own the river bed had no right to moor vessels there permanently."

This would suggest that a general rule would be (planning conditions aside) that tidal rivers where the bed is owned by other than the riparian land owner there is no common law right to moor permanently but on non tidal rivers where riparian rights generally extend ownership of the land to the middle of the river bed, there exists a common law right to permanently moor.

The selected section of the appeal decision that I used earlier in the thread was referring to the tidal river Brent and so stated that there was no common law right to moor here permanently however as it turns out "even in the absence of an established riparian right to moor", unless there is a legal prohibition the riparian owner is allowed to moor permanently.

Any moor thoughts.