LadyInBed
Well-known member
My Pilot said "no anchoring off Cowes" is that so?
If so, where are the limits?
If so, where are the limits?
The right to moor
- Thread starter chuns
- Start date
PeterGibbs
New member
Re:anchoring charges- what are they for?
The essence of any transaction is that there is consideration on both sides. You pay and someone provides a service etc. On private land a parking charge is a clear case - you park and they provide the space. Even the government only charges for running a car on the road if it is actually on it - if on private land no charge can arise etc. It is the distinction between a charge for a service provided, and a tax.
In an estuary the waterway is technically the province of the crown, most unlikely the local authority. The crown could demand a payment for anchoring, much as a tax, but in most cases has not got around to organising such. Beyond this provision, casting an anchor on to the river bed involves no services provided by anyone.
I suspect almost all demands made around the coasts of this country are bogus, and only have some momentum becasue like sheep the British, usually, accept the right to charge. So I refuse to pay for anchoring except where it can be shown that a legitimate concession to tax has been granted by a competent authority.
In summary - if no service is provided, such as a mooring buoy would constitute, no charge can be made. Any other impost is a tax, and only the government has the right to raise taxes.
Incidentally can anyone think of a situation in Europe where an anchoring charge is legitimately made?
Peter Gibbs
The essence of any transaction is that there is consideration on both sides. You pay and someone provides a service etc. On private land a parking charge is a clear case - you park and they provide the space. Even the government only charges for running a car on the road if it is actually on it - if on private land no charge can arise etc. It is the distinction between a charge for a service provided, and a tax.
In an estuary the waterway is technically the province of the crown, most unlikely the local authority. The crown could demand a payment for anchoring, much as a tax, but in most cases has not got around to organising such. Beyond this provision, casting an anchor on to the river bed involves no services provided by anyone.
I suspect almost all demands made around the coasts of this country are bogus, and only have some momentum becasue like sheep the British, usually, accept the right to charge. So I refuse to pay for anchoring except where it can be shown that a legitimate concession to tax has been granted by a competent authority.
In summary - if no service is provided, such as a mooring buoy would constitute, no charge can be made. Any other impost is a tax, and only the government has the right to raise taxes.
Incidentally can anyone think of a situation in Europe where an anchoring charge is legitimately made?
Peter Gibbs
terence
New member
well i have been asked for money while at anchor and i use the term sod off and if that does not work im unlocking the gun locker that allways works ?!
yes mostley its local fishermen..................stop
yes mostley its local fishermen..................stop
charles_reed
Active member
My understanding is that we all have the right, under both Common and International Law, of free maritime passage.
This includes the right to anchor, wherever we want FOC.
However anchoring in a shipping channel is considered "bad form", besides being dangerous and probably (inside territorial limits) against the local law.
Many (not only E Med countries) have off-limit areas for alleged "national security" requirements.
Environmental legislation is also on the way to making a right "pig's ear" of the basic and unalienable right of free passage.
The English Crown has the right to any flotsam or jetsam withing the tidal foreshore - this is probably the right that the Crown Commissioners have happily extended to cover the sea-bed.
Harbour authorities generally have the right (under oddments of legislation dating between the 15th-20th centuries) to charge harbour dues on any vessels entering their marked harbour area - this is as payment for the use of the navigation marks that they have provided.
Some bodies, owning the shoreline around a body of water, could legally charge for the right of landing on their property, the case law on this is a little confused but the NT are unlikely to back down on Newtown having won at least 2 challenges in the past.
I always confuse the issue (on NT property) by producing my Members' card and demanding my rights.
I vaguely remember a post (about the Beaulieu R I believe) where someone anchored, was asked for his fee and responded by suggesting the importunator do something improbable with themselves. His dinghy was nicked by the River Police launch.
This would appear to be not only improper but illegal.
I suppose the dichotomy comes down to the Anglo-Saxon vs the feudal view - do you own the State or does the State own you.
Nearly all State-employees (an ever-increasing proportion of the population) in their heart-of-hearts, subscribe to the latter view, as do most of our Continental cousins.
I spend about 8 months a year sailing round mainland Europe and have yet to be approached for a fee when anchored (exception being St Evette and did I have a go at Guy about that...).
So no-fee anchoring is accepted in the heart of the feudal area - the demands we come across can only be down to good, old, Anglo-Saxon entrepreneurial instinct.
This includes the right to anchor, wherever we want FOC.
However anchoring in a shipping channel is considered "bad form", besides being dangerous and probably (inside territorial limits) against the local law.
Many (not only E Med countries) have off-limit areas for alleged "national security" requirements.
Environmental legislation is also on the way to making a right "pig's ear" of the basic and unalienable right of free passage.
The English Crown has the right to any flotsam or jetsam withing the tidal foreshore - this is probably the right that the Crown Commissioners have happily extended to cover the sea-bed.
Harbour authorities generally have the right (under oddments of legislation dating between the 15th-20th centuries) to charge harbour dues on any vessels entering their marked harbour area - this is as payment for the use of the navigation marks that they have provided.
Some bodies, owning the shoreline around a body of water, could legally charge for the right of landing on their property, the case law on this is a little confused but the NT are unlikely to back down on Newtown having won at least 2 challenges in the past.
I always confuse the issue (on NT property) by producing my Members' card and demanding my rights.
I vaguely remember a post (about the Beaulieu R I believe) where someone anchored, was asked for his fee and responded by suggesting the importunator do something improbable with themselves. His dinghy was nicked by the River Police launch.
This would appear to be not only improper but illegal.
I suppose the dichotomy comes down to the Anglo-Saxon vs the feudal view - do you own the State or does the State own you.
Nearly all State-employees (an ever-increasing proportion of the population) in their heart-of-hearts, subscribe to the latter view, as do most of our Continental cousins.
I spend about 8 months a year sailing round mainland Europe and have yet to be approached for a fee when anchored (exception being St Evette and did I have a go at Guy about that...).
So no-fee anchoring is accepted in the heart of the feudal area - the demands we come across can only be down to good, old, Anglo-Saxon entrepreneurial instinct.
adarcy
New member
Re Beaulieu
Charles I seem to remember the Beaulieu is one of only 2 rivers in England that is privately owned, the bed and the inter tidal areas. Sold or something by the Crown ages ago, don't know when.
Does this mean, if true, that anchoring there IS quite different to sea estuaries etc? as it could be construed as trespass.
Anthony
Charles I seem to remember the Beaulieu is one of only 2 rivers in England that is privately owned, the bed and the inter tidal areas. Sold or something by the Crown ages ago, don't know when.
Does this mean, if true, that anchoring there IS quite different to sea estuaries etc? as it could be construed as trespass.
Anthony
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
Re: Crown Estate Commissioners
From the S T detail, It appears that some one has got to be brave enough to take this to the House of Lords. It could cost a fortune.
My own Club - Hayling Isalnd Sailing Club - pays something like £30,000 per annum to the CEC, 10 years ago it was £500.
I cannot however see the club members (mooring holders are only a small percentage of the membership) agreeing to take on such a risk.
So this club - being ripped of to the tune of £30,000 per annum is unlikely to launch an action - when they must be one of the biggest single victims.
The only way anything will happen is if the RYA gets involved and lead a consortium of ever affected body as one.
Pigs might fly. However if all the mags take it up, perhaps the RYA will have to do something.
From the S T detail, It appears that some one has got to be brave enough to take this to the House of Lords. It could cost a fortune.
My own Club - Hayling Isalnd Sailing Club - pays something like £30,000 per annum to the CEC, 10 years ago it was £500.
I cannot however see the club members (mooring holders are only a small percentage of the membership) agreeing to take on such a risk.
So this club - being ripped of to the tune of £30,000 per annum is unlikely to launch an action - when they must be one of the biggest single victims.
The only way anything will happen is if the RYA gets involved and lead a consortium of ever affected body as one.
Pigs might fly. However if all the mags take it up, perhaps the RYA will have to do something.
chuns
New member
Re: PS...
So, James, can you influence YM to join with ST in their campaign? If they do not want to, may we know the reasons the magazine do not feel it appropriate to campaign on behalf of its readership?
So, James, can you influence YM to join with ST in their campaign? If they do not want to, may we know the reasons the magazine do not feel it appropriate to campaign on behalf of its readership?