Studland Seahorses, Studland Parish Council comments

Robin

Robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
18,088
Location
high and dry on north island
Visit site
Below is taken from today's local paper, Bournemouth Echo letters to the editor and adds another local comment to the discussion concerning Studland Beach. Certain factions previously have had a field day giving only their very biased views.

Thank goodness for some commonsense.


Trust on its high horse
7:00am Tuesday 30th June 2009

Comments (0) Have your say »



WITH reference to reports about the Studland seahorse habitat I wish to respond to some of the claims and comments made and perhaps provide a few corrections.

There is no evidence, as the Seahorse Trusts suggests, that anchors cause a huge amount of damage. The seagrass is in a very healthy condition.

The seahorses have been resident in Studland Bay for more than 50 years, residents have found them in their prawn nets. They have not recently been discovered, as is suggested by the Seahorse Trust.

The Crown Estates have commissioned the survey and there is to be a voluntary ‘no anchor’ zone.

The parish council will vigorously oppose any ‘naming or shaming’ of boats. Sailors are at liberty to use the bay without infringement of their civil liberties.

The use of CCTV cameras will also be resisted.

Studland Parish Council were never consulted or invited to join the Studland Seagrass and Seahorse Study Group, we only attended when we were made aware of the its existence.

The real danger now is that with all this publicity the very animal that we all wish to protect will be endangered.

There is very little support of this group and the tagging of seahorses.

The message from Studland is “Leave them be”.

SARA BROWN, chairman, Studland Parish Council
 
I take it that it is good common sense because it fits in with your view of things?

Sounds more like axes to grind to me.
 
Not at all. The Seahorse Trust have been VERY active locally and on national and local TV in promoting their views, starting with the Springwatch programme last year on BBC. The media in general have taken their views as gospel and published them without any challenge or comments from other interested parties, by that I mean the Crown Estates, Natural England, Studland Parish Council and of course the local boaters. Not surprisingly, Joe & Joan Public see this as a battle between the cuddly little seahorses and rich yotties and no prizes for guessing which side they are on.

Why should Studland Parish Council have any axe to grind? They get no income from boats anchoring in Studland, they are merely adding the same comments that many of us have made that the eel grass is not vanishing but flourishing. What is new to me is that seahorses have been seen there for 50 years as being occasionally caught in prawn nets. Of course the underwater paparazzi wasn't present back then and are a relatively recent phenomenon unlike the seahorses who have coexisted it seems happily with anchorers for years and years.
 
My, you are having a bad day, and not a little uncharitable in this thread and others today.

This is a reporting of the Council view, not a made up rant.
It is balancing the long and ultimately biased thread from recent.

I am pleased that there is a confirmation of the position for boating in the bay,at least for now.
 
I have tried to take a balanced view and I hope I shall continue to able to anchor in Studland. The problem I see is that when views becomes as polarized as they have in some quarters over this, common sense can go out of the window. I tend to agree with much of what the letter says, but it does ignore the issue that the sea horses have this year been made a protected species.

The real issue is whether the eel grass meadows are thriving or not and I support a proper survey to assess that, without some action the Sea Horse Trust will continue to make their unsubstantiated claims If they are not effected then there is no issue, but if they are damaged by anchors we should look at how to minimize that damage.

There is the secondary issue that I believe the Bankes Arms mooring and indeed any other moorings in the Bay have never had permission from the Crown Estates, and it is these mooring that are claimed to be responsible for some of the damage that is alleged.
 
Maybe you are right........I am on 24 hour call out this week, so not getting my usual sleep quota.

Got yanked out last night at just after 2200, not long been back, so off to kip for me. Sorry if I was offensive didn't intend to be, just felt that the Parish Council woman was probably feeling a tad peed orf because they hadn't been consulted.

Now I may have misunderstood the situation, but is it not the case that they are only setting up an exclusion zone of 100 square meters? Also is it not the case that the exclusion zone is only suitable for very small vessels to anchor in anyway?

I thought that the underwater photos posted on here were pretty self explanitory.

Still, that's just my take on things.
 
[ QUOTE ]
but is it not the case that they are only setting up an exclusion zone of 100 square meters?

[/ QUOTE ] No - it's 100 meters square ... slightly larger area!!

IIRC the zone is so close to the shore that no many would anchor there anyway ...
 
The reason the moorings are laid "without permission" is because the Crown Estate does not own the seabed. It is an open roadstead and anybody can lay a mooring.

Can't put my hand on it right away but there was a longrunning series of articles in Sailing Today on the subject a few years ago.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I thought that the underwater photos posted on here were pretty self explanatory.


[/ QUOTE ]

They were certainly illustrating the case put by the Seahorse Trust.

However the worst effect on eel grass was seen to be from the fixed buoys, not surprisingly perhaps since these are present year round. There are very few of these buoys in fact, not sure how many these days as we never have used them, they are laid by the Bankes Arms pub to attract customers. There are a very few other moorings for small (like large dinghy size) fishing boats. All of the moorings are fairly close in under the shore. None of the moorings are licenced I believe so there is no income to the local Studland Bay Parish Council or indeed to Crown Estates or Poole Harbour Commission. There are also a few small buoys marking the 5mph speed limit.

What the underwater photographs of course do not show is the rest of the bay where most vessels anchor, and this is a very large area indeed. It extends from Old Harry Rocks in the south to Shell Bay Beach in the north, a distance of around 1.75nm along the beach or cliffs and extending over 0.5nm offshore.

What those unfamiliar with the area will not realise either is that this is not a protected year round anchorage or a mooring area by any means. It is exposed to winds from SE to NNW and VERY rough in easterlies and even in a southerly wind the swell makes it untenable unless you really like rock and roll. The anchorage is largely deserted for most of the year, it is crowded in summer on hot weekends with winds that are westerly but even then will still be largely empty during the week. We usually leave for a weekend cruise on a Friday afternoon and as we go out of Poole can see that Studland is pretty well empty, the weekend mob will not be there until next day - if the wind suits.

I would personally have no objection to all fixed moorings being removed, or removed say between October and May so that their scouring on a continual basis year round is limited. Anchoring is another matter entirely because I believe that is a right we should fight to protect.

In case you think I have a personal axe to grind, this is my last season here before selling up and moving to the USA for good. It is entirely possible that we will not anchor at all in Studland this year or at best for one weekend so I have the same indifference to this as to the e-borders scheme as far as either would affect me personally.
 
Quote from the Crown Estates document detailing the survey:

"Although The Crown Estate owns the seabed in Studland Bay its ownership is subject to the public rights of fishing and of navigation (which includes anchoring). This means that the landowner cannot take unilateral action to prevent anchoring and any associated damage to seagrass that this may, or may not cause, because it does not have any legal basis upon which to do so. "

I also found this explanation of the position regarding permissions and the laying of moorings, it is from the RYA.

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

Laying of Moorings in Tidal Water

The foreshore, namely the ground between high water and low water, and the seabed extending twelve miles out to sea is primarily owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners (CEC), unless a statute, Royal Charter or lease has vested interest in the seabed, the fundus, in another party. The CEC retain ownership of a little less than 50% of the foreshore and estuarial waters used for moorings.

The current law is generally interpreted to mean that the owner of the foreshore and seabed may charge for the laying of moorings on their property. Prior to 1968 there is little or no evidence of landowners charging commercial rents for mooring rights on their fundus. In Fowley Marine (Emsworth) Limited v. Gafford (1968) however it was held that there was no Common Law right, therefore no public right, to lay or maintain permanent moorings, since it would be little less than fantastic that, in the absence of statute or proved local custom, the law should allow anyone navigating a ship or vessel, including every amateur yachtsman, to place bulky objects on another person s land without permission and to retain them there, presumably forever, as being an ordinary incident of navigation . Although this judgement has been subject to some criticism in recent years (see below) the practice has developed in nearly all mooring areas, between 1968 and the present, of landowners demanding, and mooring holders paying, mooring rents.

Trespass

A person laying and maintaining a permanent mooring without permission may be trespassing and accordingly liable to the owner of the seabed, riverbed etc. on or in which the mooring is placed.

The Crown Estate Commissioners, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster may bring an action for the recovery of land in the foreshore at any time before the expiration of sixty years from the date on which the right of legal action accrued, namely the date from when the mooring was laid without permission. Other owners of the foreshore and seabed must bring any legal action for the recovery of the property within twelve years of the legal action accruing.

Methods of dispossession

As already stated, the current understanding is that there is no public right to lay and maintain moorings on another person s land without their permission. Such a right may possibly be acquired by lost modern grant a type of legal fiction which assumes that at some time in the past a document granting the right may have been in existence but has now been lost or forgotten.

A person may also seek to prove local custom on the grounds that everybody has done it over many years and nobody has complained .

The dispossession of the original owner s right may also be given by statute. An example of this is the Water Act 1973 which gave to Regional Water Authorities considerable rights previously owned by others. Recently, in the case of Ipswich Borough Council v Moore and Duke (2001), the Court of Appeal recognised that although the Council owned the soil under the water, any right to charge rent for moorings which the Council may have had in that soil had been vested by in the Port of Ipswich Authority. The Court of Appeal held that where a mooring holder had received a mooring licence from a harbour authority acting under its statutory powers, the owner of the fundus was not entitled to charge any rent. It was held that the Ipswich Borough Council had wrongly been charging yachtsmen for laying and maintaining moorings and the Council was required to refund all mooring holders who could be traced.

It is likely that a similar judgement would be given in any other case where a harbour authority issues licences for moorings and landowners charge rent. The only exception is likely to be where the local harbour act specifically preserves the rights of the landowner. In practice the position of the CEC is specifically preserved in many local harbour acts.

Practical steps to legally lay moorings

Clubs seeking to lay moorings for its members should first identify whether the water in which they intend to lay the moorings falls within a statutory habour authority area. If the water is not regulated by a harbour authority, then the club should contact the Crown Estate Commissioners to identify whether the water is controlled by them or has been leased to a tenant. Further, the club should identify any local statutes, regulations or practices which may cover the intended mooring site.

Having clearly identified the status of the intended mooring area, the club will then know whether they must seek permission from an authority to lay and use the moorings. The owner of the seabed will usually demand a fee for permitting the moorings to be laid on his property. Advice may be gained from the RYA Legal and Government Department as to the level of rent which the club should expect to pay.

The club may need to seek authority to lay the moorings from more than one body, namely the harbour authority, if within a harbour area, otherwise the CEC or private owner, and the club may need to seek further consent from the Planning Authority and the Department of Transport.

Department of Transport

Section 34(1)(b) of the Coast Protection Act 1949 prohibits persons, without written consent of the Secretary of State for Transport, to deposit any object or any material on any such part of the seashore, this being the area of fundus from the high water to a distance of six miles from the low water mark. Material is defined as being minerals and turf, including coal, stone and any metallic substance. Persons in breach of this statute will be liable to pay a fine.

Therefore, the club should consider very carefully the type of mooring tackle which they intend to lay and what effect that tackle would have on navigation.

Within a harbour area, the requirements of s.34 Coast Protection Act 1949 may be supervised by the harbour authority.

Planning Authority

The laying of a mooring can sometimes amount to development and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority. Therefore, a Planning Authority may refrain a person from laying a mooring by serving an Enforcement Notice. Local Government areas are fixed by the Local Government Act 1972 and include every accretion from the sea, whether natural or artificial, and down to the medium low water mark. The medium low water mark is calculated to be the point of low water at a date halfway between neap and spring tides. An area may also be included within the parish either by historical settlement or because the natural line of a watercourse has changed. It is possible to check parish boundaries on some charts.

The case of The Fagernes (1927) considered the question of what land lay within the British jurisdiction. The court took into account the historical method of determining whether navigable water fell within a parish boundary, namely that the water will be within a county if a person standing on the shore can see what is done on the opposite shore,

That arm or branch of the sea which lies within the fauces terrae, where a man may reasonably discerne between shore, is, or at least may be, within the body of a county, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the sheriff or coroner.

Where different parishes are on the opposite shores, then, unless by other historical settlement, the boundary line extends to the middle of the water. However, the onus of proof that water falls within the planning authority will rest on the person asserting the fact. The recipient of a Local Council notice, such as an Enforcement Notice, may call upon the Local Council to prove that the fundus does come within their jurisdiction.

Development is defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 55 as the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, over or under land. The digging into the fundus of a concrete block or disc with an anchor bar to which the mooring line is fixed may be considered to be a development. The issue may not arise where the mooring rests on the fundus.

Harbour Authorities and marina owners

Harbour Authorities may derive their powers over harbour waters from Private Acts of Parliament or from the Harbours Act 1964 or both. Such Acts generally direct the Harbour Authority to regulate moorings and anchorage, and to charge for moorings. Therefore, the Harbour Authority will have the right to prohibit the laying of unauthorised moorings.

Treading water carefully

A growing body of yachtsmen are starting to question the charging of fees for regulating moorings and anchorage, especially where there is no statute permitting such a charge to be made. It has been argued that the High Court judgment in Fowley Marine v Gafford overlooked the ancient public right to lay and maintain a mooring to facilitate the navigation of a vessel. This judgment is significant given that an earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, Attorny-General v. Wright (1897), specifically and unanimously stated that the laying of a mooring for navigational purposes was a public right. Clubs should tread very carefully over the issue of negotiating an fees for laying their own moorings as it is possible that a major test case in the near future could re-establish the pre-1968 position of mooring in tidal waters being treated as a common law right for all. (For a fuller analysis of the legal arguments, readers are recommended to read the Article by Chancery Barrister Sir Patrick Sinclair, Bt. in the September 2002 edition of Sailing Today).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This story from the Dorset Echo shows the position of the Parish Council and that of Steve Trewhella who does state that he wants a compete ban on anchoring which would in my view be a complete over reaction.

Dorset Echo
 
Robin

Thanks for bringing this letter to our attention. What some people are missing is that this letter is not necessarily representing or beating a drum for a particular group it is in fact in the main correcting some of the inaccuracies published by a single interest group that has focused on the local area of Studland, an area that is very well known to the Parish Council.

I strongly believe, if seahorses have been in the area, and in fact thriving, for 50 years, a bunch of people poking around their habitat can only do damage. Surely, and the danger is, that ultimately, anchored boats will be given the blame if there is damage to the seahorses, it would be so easy for there presence to be given the blame.
 
With due respect, someone from a parish council stating that eelgrass is thriving carries about as much weight as someone from the seahorse trust saying it is not. It's all hearsay by people who have not carried out a detailed scientific investigation, and should not be used as evidence in an argument for one side or the other.

Personally, unless and until I see something a bit more scientific than much of the heated opinion posted here, I remain open minded.
 
[ QUOTE ]
With due respect, there is no way of knowing what the seahorse population was 50 years ago except through hearsay.

One thing's for sure, the wee beasties didn't suddenly materialise out of nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

With due respect, I question YOUR scientific credentials. Can you prove seahorses cannot teleport?
 
[ QUOTE ]
No, but they certainly can't set their phasers to stun, or there'd be no pesky divers spying on their love lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I never thought I'd ever use that smiley!
 
The seahorses have been resident in Studland Bay for more than 50 years, residents have found them in their prawn nets. They have not recently been discovered, as is suggested by the Seahorse Trust

***************************************************

I have got two seahorses here that came from Studland in the late 50s.......Shhhhhhhhhhhhh don t tell anyone or I might get arrested ....


/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


The real danger now is that with all this publicity the very animal that we all wish to protect will be endangered.

There is very little support of this group and the tagging of seahorses.

The message from Studland is “Leave them be”.

SARA BROWN, chairman, Studland Parish Council

[/ QUOTE ]


This statement is a very real concern to me.
English Nature decided to 'protect' the Seal population at Donna Nook on the East Coast.
Part of the protection included a fence that was erected between the beach and the sand dunes.

for thousands of years the seals had given birth in the sand dunes, but were now prohibited from getting to the higher sand dunes due to the fence erected by English Nature.

For three years this was not a problem as the seals evolution had carefully chosen their tides however 'an unforeseen' tidal surge came that drown many seal pups, English Nature blamed the deaths of that years seals on the tidal surge but it was only unforeseen by English Nature, the seals tried to give birth on the higher sand dunes but couldn't.

Would you believe that English Nature are so arrogant that the fence was not removed and as far as I am aware the fence remains there now.

If they dont remove it soon a whole generation of seals will not realize that they should be giving birth in the higher ground and the evolutionary knowledge will be lost for ever.

If this is brought to your attention John, please wake up and remove it !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top