The EA / DE needs to get a grip on the moorings ?

Northern Star

Active member
Joined
25 Dec 2020
Messages
314
Visit site
I agree and this is my pic from yesterday so I sent a complaint too, at least they cut down the tree that I and others highlighted as it was dead and dangerous: IMG_5956D.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Outinthedinghy

Well-known member
Joined
18 May 2008
Messages
1,575
Location
Limehouse hole or Cookham
Visit site
Good to hear they took the tree down.

I spent a few weeks there winter before last during some serious red boards conditions. Upstream of the tree although downstream would have been better it's much calmer as there is a slightly bend. It definitely looked dodgy and I did mention it to an EA gang who were out doing something else.

The River really shifts there when it gets going. Quite narrow. Proper torrent and even with it only about 8 inches over the concrete it was quite hazardous getting onto the boat.
 

normskib

Active member
Joined
27 Sep 2010
Messages
176
Visit site
This is the same Houseboat that was moored,and was well on the way to sinking just upstream of Teddington Lock until large floating Pontoons were attached ! Certainly known about by the EA because penalty change notices started to appear !!!
 

boatone

Well-known member
Joined
29 Jul 2001
Messages
12,844
Location
Just a few cables from Boulters Lock
www.tmba.org.uk
The EA strategy seems , to me, to be quite clear. They want to make sure the owner or their insurers pick up the bill snd ensure fhe costs do not become a drain on the EA budget. Unfortunately, in many cases the owner cannot be identified or is a “man of straw”. In this case towpath talk suggests that may not be the case so the EA sre probably content to let it stay whilst they try to ensure the owner complies and picks up the bill.
 

Scapegoat

Active member
Joined
16 Nov 2020
Messages
321
Visit site
The EA strategy seems , to me, to be quite clear. They want to make sure the owner or their insurers pick up the bill snd ensure fhe costs do not become a drain on the EA budget. Unfortunately, in many cases the owner cannot be identified or is a “man of straw”. In this case towpath talk suggests that may not be the case so the EA sre probably content to let it stay whilst they try to ensure the owner complies and picks up the bill.
Agree that the "owner" should be responsible for clearing the structure and any related costs. However, what incentive does he have to do that unless the EA are prepared to take a firm stance and enforce the removal ?
Time and again the EA seem unwilling or unable to take effective action to keep the navigation clear and facilities available for those boaters who support the river through responsible behaviour and registration fees.
Unless this "registration by consent" regime changes to one of more robust management and enforcement of rules for everyone's benefit, it is difficult to see how a continuing deterioration of compliance can be prevented.
 

boatone

Well-known member
Joined
29 Jul 2001
Messages
12,844
Location
Just a few cables from Boulters Lock
www.tmba.org.uk
Agree that the "owner" should be responsible for clearing the structure and any related costs. However, what incentive does he have to do that unless the EA are prepared to take a firm stance and enforce the removal ?
Time and again the EA seem unwilling or unable to take effective action to keep the navigation clear and facilities available for those boaters who support the river through responsible behaviour and registration fees.
Unless this "registration by consent" regime changes to one of more robust management and enforcement of rules for everyone's benefit, it is difficult to see how a continuing deterioration of compliance can be prevented.
If the EA do the work, or instruct contractors, then the costs may not be recoverable. If they can identify the owner and proceed to take the legal route there is still no guarantee they will get paid. The legal process is interminable and also adds further costs which, in many cases the legal dept. decide not in the public interest. Yes, it stinks.
Have you responded to the EA charges consultation?
 

Scapegoat

Active member
Joined
16 Nov 2020
Messages
321
Visit site
If the EA do the work, or instruct contractors, then the costs may not be recoverable. If they can identify the owner and proceed to take the legal route there is still no guarantee they will get paid. The legal process is interminable and also adds further costs which, in many cases the legal dept. decide not in the public interest. Yes, it stinks.
Have you responded to the EA charges consultation?

Unfortunately if the EA do not take prompt action in these cases it sends the message that EA land is a free for all. When other boats pass Laleham they will see this as a strong indication that they can moor indefinitely without consequence.

The first post in this thread said "it is like the wild west on the the Thames" below Penton Hook and it is a pretty fair assessment.

It is not unreasonable to expect competent management of the river and facilities. RBWM, Spelthorne, Cookham, Henley, HCP, to name a few, manage much better so it can be done. But the longer the EA allow the current situation to continue, the more difficult it becomes to revert to a well managed river.

There is supposed to be a FB Q&A soon so it will be interesting to hear the responses before responding to the consultation.
 

Northern Star

Active member
Joined
25 Dec 2020
Messages
314
Visit site
Ok if it needs to be held there but why not put it up the far end out of the way and not right in the middle of the mooring, also there are plenty of EA moorings that are too shallow for boats like mine. If it has been put there by the boatyard then they need to be invoiced for using the mooring or told to shift it.

Laleham is a nice mooring and this is a hazard to the young children who also row past there.
 

boatone

Well-known member
Joined
29 Jul 2001
Messages
12,844
Location
Just a few cables from Boulters Lock
www.tmba.org.uk
There is supposed to be a FB Q&A soon so it will be interesting to hear the responses before responding to the consultation.
The consultation is totally dedicated to what they charge and how they manage the process. It is nit about delivery of specific services or facilities. It proposes increases in registration fees for 2022-24 but also covers many other changes they wish to introduce re craft registration related issues - measurement of boats, craft identification, payment and refund proposals etc.
If you haven't read it you should !
The FB Q&A session you mention is nothing to do with this and doubt it will provide any useful info re the consultation.
 

Scapegoat

Active member
Joined
16 Nov 2020
Messages
321
Visit site
This is interesting (.pdf)

Goes into some considerable detail as to the options available to local councils for control of moorings and associated problems.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2QE5kDtkClWOopi_OIeHpz
The NBTA apparently didn’t like these proposals
https://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk...A-response-to-Elmbridge-PSPO-consultation.pdf

Interestingly, those who live on boats have “superior rights” to leisure boaters. Learn something new every day!

“In seeking to displace Bargee Travellers in favour of what the councils refer to as "genuine leisure cruisers" the PSPO is discriminatory in its effect as well as violating the Article 8 rights of boat dwellers, whose occupation of their boat as their home gives them superior rights to those simply using the river for a leisure pursuit.
 

Outinthedinghy

Well-known member
Joined
18 May 2008
Messages
1,575
Location
Limehouse hole or Cookham
Visit site
Oxford tried the PSPO route and didn't get it through.

Interesting to see that Spelthorne actually do have byelaws to control moorings which I assume helps with the Lawn/cricket club moorings.

Whereas Elmbridge don't and in that document they indicate they are not seeking to use this route.

As for boats I have lived on a variety of them for 27 years continuously sometimes on a mooring sometimes not and I always thought of it as being something which one could do and enjoy but without security.

Claiming the Human rights thing makes me think over entitled squatter types to be honest.
Its not appropriate to claim that itinerant boaters recently on the scene have superior rights.

Perhaps multi generation boat dwellers yes but not someone who just spotted it and got a boat 5 years ago.
 

Northern Star

Active member
Joined
25 Dec 2020
Messages
314
Visit site
Yes but that is the best end so why not put it at the other end out of the way where the car park is and the river is wider?

It doesn't even have an engine so is it actually classified as a boat?
 

Scapegoat

Active member
Joined
16 Nov 2020
Messages
321
Visit site
Just received a response to my email

“ Thank you for your email regarding the house boat like vessel currently located on the short term mooring at Laleham Wharf.

I am aware of the vessel having visited the location personally and have been making enquiries into establishing the owner. I am pleased to advise that I am now in dialogue with the owner, that the vessel is registered to be kept on the non-tidal river Thames and arrangements are being made to move it to a suitable base mooring as a priority.”

Good to know that the EA are on the case. However, I’ll be interested to see if they can find a “suitable” base mooring for it.
 

Other threads that may be of interest

Top