Sunken small yacht, Newton Creek IoW

I'm from a different world - Nth Of Watford. however I understand, NT are very good at sending a RIb around shaking the tin for mooring 'contributions' - Should they not ascertain proof of insurance for wreck removal??
 
KevinV said:
Much cheaper to add a £10 (or £5, or whatever) recovery tax to boat insurance - we'll all grumble because yet again it's the law abiding who pay, but it would create a (cheap to administer) fund for actually clearing up the mess. Pay people £50 for anything fibreglass and thieves would soon clear the foreshore for us.
Click to expand...
But who would administer such a fund or would it be like car tax (ok car tax doesn't really exist) and just disappear?
 
Wansworth said:
Why don’t you lot form a committee and organize the situation,you will need to elect a secretary and treasury and allocate other members to tasks…….keep you off the streets
Click to expand...
Down in Cornwall they have done just that for Fal and Truro River dumped boats

Pisses off the supine Cornwall County Council and that its itself may be a worthwhile aim
 
Biggles Wader said:
Even that is probably not necessary. Every harbour authority could simply insist on suitable insurance or you don't park here. That could surely include anchoring in their waters. I'm surprised that anyone can anchor up a river or inlet that is part of the NT without some sort of supervision.
Click to expand...
But
(a) harbour authorities don't exist for a huge amount of sailing waters; and
(b) i would much prefer to have compulsory registration with SSR than compulsory registration with a private harbour authority (or miltiple authorities), as many seem to now require.
 
Chiara’s slave said:
For me, just not allowing your uninsured old grp boat to sink
Click to expand...
I thought the consensus was it was accidental?
Chiara’s slave said:
in a National Trust owned, AONB and SSSI would be a damned good start.
Click to expand...
So it would be ok if it wasn’t owned by the NT, or was less pretty?
Chiara’s slave said:
You’d think that the boating community were mostly a good lot, but we’ve had 2 uninsured boat dumps quite close together, time and location.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you think “the boating community” is one homogenous group.
Chiara’s slave said:
If he was in a camper van in an NT car park, he’d have long since been asked as strongly as needed to move along.
Click to expand...
I think you may be optimistic. He might have been asked to move but that doesn’t mean he would, nor does it mean an abandoned vehicle or caravan would be quickly removed, unless NT have unusual powers or are much more efficient than Local Authorities…

Do you want the NT to have the power to ask/tell anyone they don’t like (ribs, fast multihulls?) to move along now please?

An alternative view would be that if the NT wants to own the riparian rights to a piece of tidal waters - there comes with that certain risks. If they don’t want to carry the risk of abandoned or wrecked vessels perhaps they should seek to return the water to genuine public ownership?
 
Years ago, the NY thought they had the right to charge for anchoring, then there was a court case elsewhere that cast doubt on that right, and it was challenged, and the NT backed down. Now, AIUI, Newtown Creek is no different from anywhere else in the Solent (Beaulieu excepted), with a right to anchor. That makes it problematic to remove an undesirable. What legislation are they going to use?

Wreck removal is another question. Ideally, I reckon the best way to do it would be to add an amount to the purchase price of a new boat, or a "tax" on mooring fees to cover its end of life costs, but there are so many wrecks rotting (or not, for GRP) quietly that I don't see how either would deal with them.
 
Biggles Wader said:
Even that is probably not necessary. Every harbour authority could simply insist on suitable insurance or you don't park here. That could surely include anchoring in their waters. I'm surprised that anyone can anchor up a river or inlet that is part of the NT without some sort of supervision.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what do you meant by 'part of the NT'? AIUI with a few exceptions such as Beaulieu the adjacent landowner has very limited rights over an inlet.
 
ImpImp said:
Sorry, but what do you meant by 'part of the NT'? AIUI with a few exceptions such as Beaulieu the adjacent landowner has very limited rights over an inlet.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, except in rare places where other ancient rights exist (e.g. Beaulieu and the Duchy of Cornwall), all land below the high water mark belongs to the Crown Estate.
 
AntarcticPilot said:
As I understand it, except in rare places where other ancient rights exist (e.g. Beaulieu and the Duchy of Cornwall), all land below the high water mark belongs to the Crown Estate.
Click to expand...
The majority of Newtown Creek forms part of the Newtown National Nature Reserve, the ownership and management of which has been devolved to the National Trust.
 
benjenbav said:
The majority of Newtown Creek forms part of the Newtown National Nature Reserve, the ownership and management of which has been devolved to the National Trust.
Click to expand...

Bing copilot doesn't seem sure:

While the National Trust manages the creek and surrounding nature reserve, it's worth checking with The Crown Estate or local authorities to confirm seabed ownership.

It would seem odd if the NT had some kind of 'control' of the seabed, but couldn't legally charge the way Beaulieu can. I'm sure someone who knows will be along shortly.
 
As I understand it the RYA took the matter of charging for anchoring by the NT to court. The court ruled that the NT does not have the right, hence the current 'donations' policy. So I suspect that the NT has no devolved rights over the sea bed.
 
When we anchor there, they come by and invite a donation. They make it very clear that they aren't charging. I can't see the NT doing that out of the kindness of their hearts.

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.
 
Meanwhile, there must be quite a healthy crop of barnacles ( or edible shellfish, given Newtowns historical provenance) on that hull growing nicely by now?

Time and tide wait for no committee
 
ImpImp said:
Fascinating maps, but your point in respect to this discussion is?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top