Sunken small yacht, Newton Creek IoW

benjenbav said:
100 miles up the thread there was some speculation as to whether (and, perhaps, on what basis) NT had locus in the clean-up/recovery of the sunken yacht below the HW mark in Newtown.

Merely seeking to supply some background to that.
Click to expand...

Like I said they are fascinating maps and thanks for putting them up, but can you point out what I'm missing as I can't see anything on them that illustrates NT control/rights over the wet bit.
 
Last edited:
ImpImp said:
Like I said they are fascinating maps and thanks for putting them up, but can you point out what I'm missing as I can't see anything on them that illustrates NT control/rights over the wet bit.
Click to expand...
Look at the thick black line on fig 1 and the legend on that drawing.

That states that it shows the extent of the NT estate at Newtown.

Then look at the 1949 Act that I referenced and the subsequent primary and secondary legislation. The presumption that the Crown owns foreshore as a default is a rebuttable one and there are quite a few areas where ownership lies elsewhere, with the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust, some private land owners etc.

This legislation all together shows the position of the NT in the context of this area of foreshore. But it’s all fragmented and a casual yachting forum doesn’t really seem the place to traverse these issues in the sort of detail that would be required in a court of law.

The maps that I linked are absolutely NOT definitive evidence. They form part of an external report commissioned by NT on its interests at Newtown.

I linked them because they are unlikely to be completely wrong owing to the fact that quasi public bodies like the NT are rarely inclined to make land grabs in such an outrageous manner and have quite enough on their plates to manage what they are obliged to manage without paying external consultants to write reports that suggest they have to spend money managing areas that are somebody else’s responsibility.
 
benjenbav said:
Look at the thick black line on fig 1 and the legend on that drawing.

That states that it shows the extent of the NT estate at Newtown.

Then look at the 1949 Act that I referenced and the subsequent primary and secondary legislation. The presumption that the Crown owns foreshore as a default is a rebuttable one and there are quite a few areas where ownership lies elsewhere, with the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust, some private land owners etc.

This legislation all together shows the position of the NT in the context of this area of foreshore. But it’s all fragmented and a casual yachting forum doesn’t really seem the place to traverse these issues in the sort of detail that would be required in a court of law.

The maps that I linked are absolutely NOT definitive evidence. They form part of an external report commissioned by NT on its interests at Newtown.

I linked them because they are unlikely to be completely wrong owing to the fact that quasi public bodies like the NT are rarely inclined to make land grabs in such an outrageous manner and have quite enough on their plates to manage what they are obliged to manage without paying external consultants to write reports that suggest they have to spend money managing areas that are somebody else’s responsibility.
Click to expand...

So in essence, interesting maps (thanks) but they don't provide evidence that NT have authority over the water/seabed, which is hardly surprising in view of the points made above about them not pursuing the court case over their desire to charge for anchoring.
 
ImpImp said:
So in essence, interesting maps (thanks) but they don't provide evidence that NT have authority over the water/seabed, which is hardly surprising in view of the points made above about them not pursuing the court case over their desire to charge for anchoring.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I think that the maps indicate the terrestrial boundaries of the NT's responsibilities, but have the built-in assumption that the HWM is also a boundary that is too complex to indicate, and which would be taken as given in the absence of explicit legislation to the contrary.

I note that the boundary of one property that is an enclave in the NT holding is given as the HWM.
 
ImpImp said:
So in essence, interesting maps (thanks) but they don't provide evidence that NT have authority over the water/seabed, which is hardly surprising in view of the points made above about them not pursuing the court case over their desire to charge for anchoring.
Click to expand...
As I said, it’s all in the legislation.
 
benjenbav said:
Back in the day I’d’ve said, my hourly rate for doing this sort of thing is £’000s. These days, I’m happy for folks to find out for themselves and believe whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Elessar said:
So you’re not bright enough to draw your own conclusion then?
Click to expand...

My conclusion: I suspect the actualité behind that comment is rather more 'can't' than 'won't', but he's achieved his objective of increasing his post count if if not the knowledge of the readership and filled a few minutes of retired life. Oh, and as a billy bonus, got to claim how important he once was.
 
Last edited:
PWLS08 said:
My conclusion: I suspect the actualité behind that comment is rather more 'can't' than 'won't', but he's achieved his objective of increasing his post count if if not the knowledge of the readership and filled a few minutes of retired life. Oh, and as a billy bonus, got to claim how important he once was.
Click to expand...
Well fair play for drawing a conclusion which is one up on the other chap who had to get a computer to be unnecessarily uncharitable on his behalf.

Laughably wrong. Really quite spectacularly so.

But a conclusion nonetheless.
 
Y'know what, I think it's rather sad that efforts to be helpful (linking to what the NT itself says about its position at Newtown; linking to maps commissioned by the NT as to its position at Newtown and references to the legislation that deals with national nature reserves) have been met by demands to produce a silver bullet out of documents that are available to everyone and, on demurring from spending the time that it would take to pull the detail together - it being somewhat fragmented and I having other - more enjoyable things to do, being the recipient of an unflattering AI analysis that the moderators - with no input either from me or from the poster of it - have deleted.

I've enjoyed these forums for 20 years or so, but less so nowadays.

On the topic of the sunken yacht in Newtown Creek, I'm sure that the NT will/won't devote resources to it irrespective of all of our thoughts on here.
 
It was-I thought -a rather unpleasant cheap shot.
But hey, I’ve enjoyed your posts 👍👍
I might even have learnt a thing or two along the ways .
How is that Fairey restoration going? Now that would look very nice indeed with Newtown as the backdrop.
 
Stemar said:
I may be wrong, but my recollection of Alahol2's case is that it never came to court, the NT backed down. This suggests very strongly, the NT not being short of a few bob to spend on good lawyers, that they have no control over the seabed.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what jurisdiction and powers the NT have. However I think it’s a flawed logic that they must have none since they didn’t pursue a court case to the bittter end. That’s simply a case of risk calculus - how much money will we make if we win less the inevitable unrecovered legal and management costs of fighting v’s the amount we can get from a voluntary donation approach.
 
I am too young to remember but was told that users of Newtown in the 1960s would ( or would not) make a donation toward ‘ light dues’ as with every other port of entry.

What you were paying for was the upkeep of the navigation buoys and channel. So effectively you paid once only upon entry.

Before my boat owning days.

How long has the NT been administering Newtown?

EDIT: This thread covers it:
A Document for Those who get charged tp Anchor
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top