|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 8, 2019 17:02:22 GMT
Just brought to my attention – Hounslow are publishing their intention to introduce mooring byelaws :-  Written representations are invited to be sent to :- Mike Sudlow, Director, Asset Management & Major Projects, London Borough of Hounslow michael.sudlow@hounslow.gov.uk The relevant documentation can be found at :- www.hounslow.gov.uk/downloads/download/432/byelaws_relating_to_moorings Unfortunately the maps provided – as indeed the Schedule 1 list, do not cover all areas described in the news item. That specifically includes Brent river frontage alongside Boston Manor, and the byelaws relate to all riparian land “owned or managed” by the Council – what constitutes “managed by” is open to question in the absence of comprehensive plans. While I have always advocated the byelaw approach to such control, in place of the usual and legally questionable civil proceedings usually taken (not to mention expensive – the Council claim it has cost them a half million pounds in court actions thus far), the lazy adoption of (part only) of the Richmond moorings byelaws is reprehensible and ridiculous. Only 1 hour stays are permitted unless prior agreement is obtained, which is scarcely enough for anyone to tie up long enough to do some shopping locally, and on the tidal sections (most of the area affected) would be impossible to comply with anyway, if stranded by low tides. Anyone interested should put their oar in, with suggested modifications as they see desirable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 17:29:20 GMT
Seems very draconian.
Any thoughts of specific objections would be welcome by me.
I'm new to boating and only know that area from years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 20:20:13 GMT
"Tidal and non tidal stretches of the river Thames".
I wonder which stretches of the non tidal Thames they are referring to. Maybe the bit in the isle of Wight.
I imagine this has been brought on by the Watermans park "issues".
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 8, 2019 20:40:50 GMT
Lazy and ill-informed drafting. There are no non-tidal stretches of the Thames in Brentford! They may have meant for the expression to embrace the Brent as well, as an arm of the Thames, but given that the newspaper notice refers to the Brent at Boston Manor, that would be stretching terms somewhat. Possibly they meant to refer to Thameside marinas such as Chiswick, though even there it can be subject to the highest of tides (as can Soaphouse Creek).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 21:06:47 GMT
Seems very draconian.
Any thoughts of specific objections would be welcome by me.
I'm new to boating and only know that area from years ago.
Are you secretly posh then?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 21:08:26 GMT
Lazy and ill-informed drafting. There are no non-tidal stretches of the Thames in Brentford! They may have meant for the expression to embrace the Brent as well, as an arm of the Thames, but given that the newspaper notice refers to the Brent at Boston Manor, that would be stretching terms somewhat. Possibly they meant to refer to Thameside marinas such as Chiswick, though even there it can be subject to the highest of tides (as can Soaphouse Creek). Of course this is bad news. What do you suggest we do Nigel? |
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 8, 2019 21:23:59 GMT
Whatever your ideas are, positive or negative, send in your suggestions to the email given.
Personally, I feel the one hour limit is not only ridiculous and unnecessary, it is almost unworkable unless staff are monitoring the sites continuously. Far more practical to allow 24 hour stays, which is more than adequate to prevent people taking up permanent residence, which is what seems to be giving the Council the most angst.
As magnetman has postulated, this will have been largely driven by reactionary instincts over the long drawn out Watermans Park debacle. Some positive suggestions would be in order. If enough reasoned objections are raised, the matter will have to go to an Inquiry by the Secretary of State.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 21:31:07 GMT
Whatever your ideas are, positive or negative, send in your suggestions to the email given. Personally, I feel the one hour limit is not only ridiculous and unnecessary, it is almost unworkable unless staff are monitoring the sites continuously. Far more practical to allow 24 hour stays, which is more than adequate to prevent people taking up permanent residence, which is what seems to be giving the Council the most angst. As magnetman has postulated, this will have been largely driven by reactionary instincts over the long drawn out Watermans Park debacle. Some positive suggestions would be in order. If enough reasoned objections are raised, the matter will have to go to an Inquiry by the Secretary of State. ...deleted single malt induced post! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 21:33:47 GMT
I jest of course  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 21:49:43 GMT
Seems very draconian.
Any thoughts of specific objections would be welcome by me.
I'm new to boating and only know that area from years ago.
Are you secretly posh then? Only to the Canvey Island dwellers of the family
Will put my concerns into an email tomorrow - hope it adds to other voices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2019 22:02:09 GMT
Are you secretly posh then? Only to the Canvey Island dwellers of the family
Will put my concerns into an email tomorrow - hope it adds to other voices.
I’m scared...very scared. When I met you, I thought you were a good bloke.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 8:17:52 GMT
Whatever your ideas are, positive or negative, send in your suggestions to the email given. Personally, I feel the one hour limit is not only ridiculous and unnecessary, it is almost unworkable unless staff are monitoring the sites continuously. Far more practical to allow 24 hour stays, which is more than adequate to prevent people taking up permanent residence, which is what seems to be giving the Council the most angst. As magnetman has postulated, this will have been largely driven by reactionary instincts over the long drawn out Watermans Park debacle. Some positive suggestions would be in order. If enough reasoned objections are raised, the matter will have to go to an Inquiry by the Secretary of State. Nigel. When they say the Brent at Boston Manor is this the stretch of canalised river between Han well Bottom and Osterley Lock? Is the towing path "owned" by the council there ? There is an old BWB Piling Competition display board by that pound which makes me think it must be CRT land. That bit below the bottom of the flight is quite a popular "2 week" mooring which most people would probably assume was a CRT mooring. It has become more popular over the years so I suppose it could be viewed as a "problem" area by some. Eta could this also include the section of the canalised Brent between Clit heroes lock and the railway bridge? that bit by the A4 is a really handy spot with plenty of rings. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 9, 2019 10:07:29 GMT
I believe that what the Council are referring to is the area of the natural river Brent running parallel to the lock cuts. They own Boston Manor Park, hence the river running through it, whereas CaRT own the portions of the GU that were cut through land on order to provide the locks. BW did, of course, claim much of the natural river on (in my view) illegitimate grounds, but will nonetheless control use of the towpath which the Council will have limited if any control over (the exception to that statement being that much of the towpath is - despite BTC objections at the time - a registered public right of way under the 1949 National Parks & Access to Countryside Act.)
There is a disturbing lack of transparency over this, and the maps and Schedule make no reference that I can see, to anywhere on the Brent. People have, in the past and evidently currently, taken up residence in these 'backwaters' outside of BW/CaRT jurisdiction. It seems the Council is taking the opportunity to include all such areas within the byelaws, yet I cannot discover any identification of these areas within the proposed legislation, which is worrying. Too much room for arbitrary application of the byelaw prohibitions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 10:24:11 GMT
There is a disturbing lack of transparency over this, and the maps and Schedule make no reference that I can see, to anywhere on the Brent. People have, in the past and evidently currently, taken up residence in these 'backwaters' outside of BW/CaRT jurisdiction. It seems the Council is taking the opportunity to include all such areas within the byelaws, yet I cannot discover any identification of these areas within the proposed legislation, which is worrying. Too much room for arbitrary application of the byelaw prohibitions. I looked through all the plans/rules/maps and whole heartedly agree with the bits in bold. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 12:15:13 GMT
I believe that what the Council are referring to is the area of the natural river Brent running parallel to the lock cuts. They own Boston Manor Park, hence the river running through it, whereas CaRT own the portions of the GU that were cut through land on order to provide the locks. BW did, of course, claim much of the natural river on (in my view) illegitimate grounds, but will nonetheless control use of the towpath which the Council will have limited if any control over (the exception to that statement being that much of the towpath is - despite BTC objections at the time - a registered public right of way under the 1949 National Parks & Access to Countryside Act.) There is a disturbing lack of transparency over this, and the maps and Schedule make no reference that I can see, to anywhere on the Brent. People have, in the past and evidently currently, taken up residence in these 'backwaters' outside of BW/CaRT jurisdiction. It seems the Council is taking the opportunity to include all such areas within the byelaws, yet I cannot discover any identification of these areas within the proposed legislation, which is worrying. Too much room for arbitrary application of the byelaw prohibitions. Ah yes I see now. The bit behind Clitheroes lock is an interesting area where boats have sometimes taken up residence. Maybe that's what they are targeting. |
|
