Unsightly houseboat in Lower Upnor on the Medway

[oldgit]

Update from MSBA .

Case against the barge owner upheld.
Assume barge and all works have to be removed.
Appeal against judgement being held in Rochester Corn Exchange 16th April.

 

[oldgit]

A very expensive City QC with a team of 3 assistants handling the appeal for the appellant who declined to take the stand.
Inquiry held over 3 .days.
This must be costing somebody a lot of money.
The two legal eagles gave their summeries.
The inspector has gone home to consider the case.
We should know the outcome in few weeks time.

The owners of the Shed -onna - Lighter are claiming the wharf has been in constant use since 1940s as a residential mooring and therefore they are simply carrying on that practice.
They also suggest that they will be homeless if evicted as no other moorings for something that size easily available .

 

[aquaholic]

A very expensive City QC with a team of 3 assistants handling the appeal for the appellant who declined to take the stand.
Inquiry held over 3 .days.
This must be costing somebody a lot of money.
The two legal eagles gave their summeries.
The inspector has gone home to consider the case.
We should know the outcome in few weeks time.

The owners of the Shed -onna - Lighter are claiming the wharf has been in constant use since 1940s as a residential mooring and therefore they are simply carrying on that practice.
They also suggest that they will be homeless if evicted as no other moorings for something that size easily available .

Well I used those toilet facilities for two years when working on the boat in Patmans Wharf….never saw any moored boats in that time.

 

[oldgit]

Well I used those toilet facilities for two years when working on the boat in Patmans Wharf….never saw any moored boats in that time.

It was suggested by defendants KC that a Thames barge called the Viper was moored there at some point in the the 1960s and was used as living accomodation.

Notice near ME1 1QT, ME1 1SN and 21 more | Public Notice Portal
"Against the enforcement notice(s) served by Medway Council.
The notice(s) allege(,):
Without the benefit of planning permission (a) the material change of use of the Land for the mooring of a water borne vessel used for residential purposes (b) the operational development consisting of piles being driven into the riverbed of the River Medway within the Land to enable the mooring of water borne vessels and the construction of a jetty and steps to create an access onto the riverbank on the Land."

 

[Concerto]

I have sailed on the Medway since 1965 and can certainly say no Thames barge was ever moored at the place this houseboat is moored. There certainly were Thames barges moored outside the Pier pub and one may have been lived on, but this is definitely some distance upstream of the houseboat. Just downstream of Medway Yacht Club used to be a concrete lighter that had one man living on it and sold some chandlery until he died in about 1972 and the barge was then removed. Betty Copper, who used to run Cabin Yacht Stores in Upnor, would certainly be able to confirm the above as she has lived in Upnor since before 1965. I believe she still lives in the building that was Cabin Yacht Stores.

 

[oldgit]

Today

Circa 1960.


Google Earth.
Observation of the top image reveals that rather than just the 2 piles required to secure a single lighter, more than 6 + others have been driven
into the river bed again without permission.
Some might suggest that additional craft could be expected to suddenly turn up one dark evenin
Surely not.

 

[Concerto]

Just because something was done before 1965, surely it does not give people in 2023 the same rights due to lack of continuing use.

 

[RivalRedwing]

A very expensive City QC with a team of 3 assistants handling the appeal for the appellant who declined to take the stand.
Inquiry held over 3 .days.
This must be costing somebody a lot of money.
The two legal eagles gave their summeries.
The inspector has gone home to consider the case.
We should know the outcome in few weeks time.

The owners of the Shed -onna - Lighter are claiming the wharf has been in constant use since 1940s as a residential mooring and therefore they are simply carrying on that practice.
They also suggest that they will be homeless if evicted as no other moorings for something that size easily available .

If they can afford a QC and assistants then homelessness is likely something which can readily be avoided, even if they have to rent some bricks and mortar...

 

[oldgit]

The appellants KC also suggested that after the shed on lighter had been suddenly "evicted" from its previous mooring, there was an urgent need to find somewhere to moor in a hurry.
The " hurry" included finding and buying a bit of land from PEEL Ports, then sourcing a dozen large piles from scratch and finding they only contractor prepared to ignore the rules regards planning permission and other bothersome restrictions to drive the piles.
The contractor concerned is notorious on the river.

 

[ROBMH]

It was suggested by defendants KC that a Thames barge called the Viper was moored there at some point in the the 1960s and was used as living accomodation.

Notice near ME1 1QT, ME1 1SN and 21 more | Public Notice Portal
"Against the enforcement notice(s) served by Medway Council.
The notice(s) allege(,):
Without the benefit of planning permission (a) the material change of use of the Land for the mooring of a water borne vessel used for residential purposes (b) the operational development consisting of piles being driven into the riverbed of the River Medway within the Land to enable the mooring of water borne vessels and the construction of a jetty and steps to create an access onto the riverbank on the Land."

this was where the marine artist John Chancellor lived but i thought that was further along where Owen Emerson had his yard

 

[oldgit]

this was where the marine artist John Chancellor lived but i thought that was further along where Owen Emerson had his yard

As it happened the appellants brief introduced a scan of a painting by the above gentlemen as proof that a residential boat had been moored there at some point in the past .
The councils brief unkindly suggested that unless the appellants could persuade the artist to rise from his present resting place to appear before the court and affirm that the painting was a genuine represention of a scene from life as opposed to a artists free interpretation of what the river bank would look like with a boat, that little weight should be given to this " proof"