|
Post by Andyberg on Jun 19, 2018 21:22:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 19, 2018 21:36:25 GMT
Alistair Trotman is involved, facing 'eviction' notices' on the basis that the local Council consider the boats to be trespassers not entitled to the same access to the park as pedestrians accessing from the road. It raises the old issues of whether councils can differentiate between users of the public park, even though boats may not be attached to their land - and how far the Localism Act permits actions as though they were natural persons. Present byelaws do not address this situation. The way forward legally, is to follow Richmond's example of course; meanwhile, the usual bluffs work well for them in the County Courts.
The EA legislation allows for byelaws preventing 'nuisance' to riparian owner's houses, but a public park hardly qualifies. At a stretch, riparian residents from across the river could possibly demand EA action on the one relevant generalised byelaw, but that is not the approach being taken.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jun 19, 2018 21:47:56 GMT
The elderly woman was right with saying :"People have to live somewhere".
The nutter in his speedboat saying that it was an eyesore for the people (who are they anyway) in the palace having to look out over them.
The people in the palace have a whole bunch of other palaces and other properties all over the country, and even in other countries.
For most of the people on the 'slum'boats, that's all they have, if someone would come up with an acceptable proposition for them to moor elsewhere, they would possibly go there.
It's always so easy to talk about the annoying problems of other people if you've got no problems yourself.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jun 19, 2018 22:56:52 GMT
NIMBY at it's best/worst.
Sonoma uglier part of the river ffs.
I hope more boats turn up. the residents deserve it.
I especially liked the and the odd bbq too. really.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Jun 20, 2018 5:49:12 GMT
If a boat is all you have to live in then thats what they should be allowed to do...as for it being outside Hampton Court or any exclusive area...why not?...Why should the elite be protected from the sight of those who live on the breadline? Will it prick their conscience?...doubtful...it just spoils their view..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 6:44:36 GMT
There is an overall negative impact on other boaters.
Alistair Trotman used to moor his boats down at Ham lands above Teddington lock. Council ( Richmond) sorted a bye law and now nobody is allowed to moor there. Before he turned up it was a perfectly nice mooring for a few days. No problem and a very nice spot without a mooring fee.
Now NO MOORING.
logical outcome is this will happen in more places as it successfully dealt with the problem.
If other boaters like people on this forum would like to support this then feel free.
I don't because the outcomes will be negative for all ordinary boaters. Especially people living on boats and not causing any problems.
And just to correct anyone's misunderstandings. The boats are not housing. They are slum temporary accommodation. The only reason they exist is to generate income. Nothing else.
I actually quite like the business model in principle but it should be done officially on proper moorings otherwise it forces negative changes to the useability of the river for everyone else.
I have been boating on the Thames since the 1980s so I do know the impact that it has had.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 7:29:10 GMT
Alistair trotman brings up lots of results on google with regards to councils and moorings.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Jun 20, 2018 7:34:43 GMT
There is an overall negative impact on other boaters. Alistair Trotman used to moor his boats down at Ham lands above Teddington lock. Council ( Richmond) sorted a bye law and now nobody is allowed to moor there. Before he turned up it was a perfectly nice mooring for a few days. No problem and a very nice spot without a mooring fee. Now NO MOORING. logical outcome is this will happen in more places as it successfully dealt with the problem. If other boaters like people on this forum would like to support this then feel free. I don't because the outcomes will be negative for all ordinary boaters. Especially people living on boats and not causing any problems. And just to correct anyone's misunderstandings. The boats are not housing. They are slum temporary accommodation. The only reason they exist is to generate income. Nothing else. I actually quite like the business model in principle but it should be done officially on proper moorings otherwise it forces negative changes to the useability of the river for everyone else. I have been boating on the Thames since the 1980s so I do know the impact that it has had. the voice of reason. I've been boating on the Thames, on and off, since 1957 and I also hate the impact of permanently moored slum boats, the presence of which does no favours to the other 95% of the boating community.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jun 20, 2018 8:15:16 GMT
If you have a look at old photo'sof the Thames from '57 onwards, you'll see that things along it's banks have changed quite a lot.
Look at all the then non-existing expensive houseboat moorings everywhere, to start with they weren't all that expensive.
All of a sudden living on the river has become a cult for the wealthy, and not for the people that started this, often because they couldn't afford house prices, but as they were handy, and had handy friends, they managed to create comfortable living accomodations afloat.
Regulary people like this have to leave their moorings, because very wealthy people want their Millions costing design houseboat to moor there, and they are prepared, and can afford to pay more than £100.000 for a years mooring fee, and still have plenty left for their yearly new Lamborghini, their beach house in California etc.
What you see now, that happened little by little, and for a long time there wasn't much done about it until the people with well filled pockets started to moan about it.
I agree with everybody that it doesn't look like a harbour in Monaco, but were to go if you're really broke ?
Here's a video about how it started for the beginners of that "cult"
Peter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 8:22:37 GMT
The problem is that someone putting very large unslightly vessels like this puts pressure on people who are living on the water and minding their own business.
These boats are basically slum temporary accommodation. Its simple. Its about making money (a lot of it) and it is having a negative impact on people who have been living on boats for many years.
Its funny you mention houses and Lamborghini's because i'm pretty sure the money generated by these boats would buy those things. And the people who suffer ? Those people with very little money who have been living on the river for years.
I have a friend who lives on a couple of narrow boats with his missed and two kids. They used to moor on Ham lands no trouble kept themselves to themselves they are friendly people. Then trotman forced the bye law change and they have had to take a paid midstream mooring. Much less safe in winter than a bankside mooring and it costs money.
All caused by the slum boats.
This is a fact. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jun 20, 2018 8:55:15 GMT
The problem is that someone putting very large unslightly vessels like this puts pressure on people who are living on the water and minding their own business. These boats are basically slum temporary accommodation. Its simple. Its about making money (a lot of it) and it is having a negative impact on people who have been living on boats for many years. Its funny you mention houses and Lamborghini's because i'm pretty sure the money generated by these boats would buy those things. And the people who suffer ? Those people with very little money who have been living on the river for years. I have a friend who lives on a couple of narrow boats with his missed and two kids. They used to moor on Ham lands no trouble kept themselves to themselves they are friendly people. Then trotman forced the bye law change and they have had to take a paid midstream mooring. Much less safe in winter than a bankside mooring and it costs money. All caused by the slum boats. This is a fact. Simple. There will always be piss takers (like this Trotman guy, and several others) that spoil it for the others, but measures should be taken to only punish the guilty.
These boats are an eyesore to you too, but aren't your main problem, as you have your own (fairly expensive private) moorings, which these people haven't and can't afford, for you it's more an inconvenience that they're there
Finding good- and humane solutions won't be an easy task, that's a fact, simple.
Peter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 8:57:34 GMT
Actually one of my boats is currently moored on a squat mooring above Molesey lock Bet that surprises you doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jun 20, 2018 9:21:37 GMT
Actually one of my boats is currently moored on a squat mooring above Molesey lock Bet that surprises you doesn't it. It takes a lot more to surprise me .
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 20, 2018 9:42:53 GMT
Alistair trotman brings up lots of results on google with regards to councils and moorings. Could this be another 'Grenfell'? No-one knows who actually lives on the boats, cram them in and skim the rent? Let's start with them finnish migrants cluttering up northern waters, one with very oily hands, could slimy Finn be the word? I've heard they are planning to stay in Gargrave more than 14 days. Changes need to be rung, sink em!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 9:55:41 GMT
Alistair trotman brings up lots of results on google with regards to councils and moorings. Could this be another 'Grenfell'? No-one knows who actually lives on the boats, cram them in and skim the rent? Lets hope not.
|
|