Trotman Slum Boat Saga !
- Thread starter Quint
- Start date
oldgit
Well-known member
at least some action was started early on this one
Unsightly houseboat in Lower Upnor on the Medway
Unsightly houseboat in Lower Upnor on the Medway
Binnacle
Active member
OG
I know you are rightfully keen to see a successful conclusion to the Upnor problem in your link, but can we keep this thread to the Trotman slumboats please ? It looks as if Trotman's appeal has been thrown out and h's left with no further places to hide, plus a £22k costs.
High Court throws out appeal against River Thames conviction
I know you are rightfully keen to see a successful conclusion to the Upnor problem in your link, but can we keep this thread to the Trotman slumboats please ? It looks as if Trotman's appeal has been thrown out and h's left with no further places to hide, plus a £22k costs.
High Court throws out appeal against River Thames conviction
oldgit
Well-known member
No problems.
Outinthedinghy
Well-known member
They looked abandoned when I passed a couple of weeks ago. Front one seems to be sinking.
They would be a lot safer sunk as that would make it impossible for them to come adrift.
They would be a lot safer sunk as that would make it impossible for them to come adrift.
Outinthedinghy
Well-known member
I would not like them coming away and bumbling down the River with a bit of land water and a breeze. Could do an awful lot of damage.
oldgit
Well-known member
Can EA now sieze the vessels or can the defendant spin it out for a bit longer ?
Gibeltarik
Active member
From EA press release / gov.uk
'Boats moored permanently without the consent of the landowner can only remain stationary on the non-tidal Thames for up to 24 hours.'
Not quite - that is EA's policy
Riparian owners may take the view from the Act that craft may stop for a ‘reasonable time’.
As a riparian owner that is a very short time - unless sweetened by wine, payment or exceptional politeness!
'Boats moored permanently without the consent of the landowner can only remain stationary on the non-tidal Thames for up to 24 hours.'
Not quite - that is EA's policy
Riparian owners may take the view from the Act that craft may stop for a ‘reasonable time’.
As a riparian owner that is a very short time - unless sweetened by wine, payment or exceptional politeness!
Outinthedinghy
Well-known member
It will be interesting to see what happens when people below St Aines upon Thames find their riparian ownership does not extend to the riverbed.
Quite an intriguing precedent has been set in the Cherry Orchard Road argument at Molesey. It seems to have been established that the EA do not own the land but they do own the riverbed and can therefore enforce against Boats occupying space above.
This could all get quite complicated. I bet people who have land or gardens adjacent to the River think they own the riverbed. Also do people who construct moorings alongside the banks think they own the riverbed?
Maybe after time limits the ownership is established by use.
Quite an intriguing precedent has been set in the Cherry Orchard Road argument at Molesey. It seems to have been established that the EA do not own the land but they do own the riverbed and can therefore enforce against Boats occupying space above.
This could all get quite complicated. I bet people who have land or gardens adjacent to the River think they own the riverbed. Also do people who construct moorings alongside the banks think they own the riverbed?
Maybe after time limits the ownership is established by use.
Outinthedinghy
Well-known member
Outinthedinghy
Well-known member
I believe this to be accurate and if the EA have succeeded in demonstrating ownership of the riverbed in the Cherry Orchard Road situation it all starts to look a bit dodgy for other riverside land owners.
Unless they can show it in the deeds they may actually not have a right to moor at the end of the garden.
"Below the London Stone at Staines, and as mentioned above, the bed of the River was conveyed to the City of London by the Crown in 1857 and was then re-conveyed to the Thames Conservancy (except in places immediately adjacent to a Royal Palace) in the same year. So, below Staines the ownnership of the bed and soil of the River most likely belongs to the Successors in Title to the Thames Conservancy and not to the Riparian Owners, unless of course their Deeds show otherwise. The Successors in Title to the Thames Consevancy are the Environment Agency between Staines and Teddington and the Port of London Authority below Teddington."
from the above linked page.
Unless they can show it in the deeds they may actually not have a right to moor at the end of the garden.
"Below the London Stone at Staines, and as mentioned above, the bed of the River was conveyed to the City of London by the Crown in 1857 and was then re-conveyed to the Thames Conservancy (except in places immediately adjacent to a Royal Palace) in the same year. So, below Staines the ownnership of the bed and soil of the River most likely belongs to the Successors in Title to the Thames Conservancy and not to the Riparian Owners, unless of course their Deeds show otherwise. The Successors in Title to the Thames Consevancy are the Environment Agency between Staines and Teddington and the Port of London Authority below Teddington."
from the above linked page.
