|
Post by erivers on Feb 9, 2019 12:49:17 GMT
Absolutely ridiculous and an unnecessary over-reaction by Hounslow. Why on Earth make byelaws that are patently unenforceable? I'm certain that there are far more pressing problems in that borough that need urgent attention.
It is certainly worth pointing out to Hounslow the sheer stupidity of their proposals. However, I would be inclined to save some of the more technical/legal matters for when (and if) the proposal goes to the Secretary of State for approval. Experience shows that DEFRA is pretty thorough in considering valid technical and legal representations both in general and in specific waterways terms put to them in their own statutory consultation period and certainly is most unlikely to approve the current nonsense.
Hounslow will soon get fed up as it is all passed back and forth and the vast sums of council tax being squandered here are pointed out to their electors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 12:55:22 GMT
Richmond did it. The result was removal of some very unattractive multiple occupancy vessels from their (LBRUT) land at Ham above Teddington lock. This was the intended outcome. The vessels are now a problem for another area... Hounslow have some similar problems at Watermans park. You need to go and see it to understand the subject. Locals don't want unsightly wrecks around.
It has got worse over the last few years as quite a few of the boats have been abandoned. This is a fully tidal area so if one of those boats, and there are some big ones, splits a rope and goes adrift it could be a big problem.
It is draconian but I can see the object.
Being tidal it is quite technical to moor safely so I believe the idea is to try to ban mooring then clear the site. No use clearing it if it just fills up again.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 9, 2019 13:06:56 GMT
I can see the object too, but 1 hour time limits are absurd, and longer periods would encourage visitors and still have the desired effect.
Part of the problem with Hounslow's draft is that they have lifted the content word for word from the Richmond byelaws, even though some of it is entirely inapplicable - e.g. there are no non-tidal areas of the Thames within Hounslow's boundaries!
Draconian as Richmond's byelaws are, at least they provided for 24 hour moorings at some locations; Hounslow has not even bothered with those.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 6, 2019 17:48:00 GMT
A reminder to any concerned – deadline for comment to michael.sudlow@hounslow.gov.uk runs out this Friday the 8th.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 6, 2019 18:28:02 GMT
This is a fully tidal area so if one of those boats, and there are some big ones, splits a rope and goes adrift it could be a big problem. It has been a problem in the past, though through deliberate action rather than through dereliction – ‘Ambulant’ was cast off from alongside Watermans some years back while the owner was out at work, and had to be rescued from where it jammed up against Kew Bridge. The biggest problem with the derelicts was when they broke up, and semi-submerged items made their way up and down with the tides. I was woken about 0430 years back, with a frantic phone call from Gilly to say her boat was capsizing; she had been woken by breaking glass as everything slid off the shelves. I got around there in record time, to find ‘Gilgie’ tipped almost 45 degrees. I propped it as best I could, fumbling around in waist deep water, and lashed extra ropes to the adjacent ‘Ciconia (whose bollards threatened to tear out from the deck planking). When the tide went out enough, we could see an old diesel tank had somehow made its way underneath her, and caught on the underneath of the hull as the tide began to run out. It took a lot of taping up of doors and blocking hull apertures to ready the boat for floating again on the next tide without filling up, while a rope lashed to the tank meant I could haul it out once Gilgie floated again. Very scary. We later got a team from the PLA to drag the offending item away from where I fastened it out of harm’s way. To this day, I still cannot grasp how it could have got where it did. Partially full it obviously had near negative buoyancy, and bumped along the riverbed – but still would have to have skirted the large barges upstream and climbed up the slope! Again, this resulted from some vandals setting fire to one of the derelicts some days earlier, so everything was loose and susceptible to breaking away. Later still we brought Gilgie into the boatyard for some work, and strangely, Gilly never did hanker to return to the Hollows with her.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 6, 2019 21:32:55 GMT
That is one amazing picture. How it dident go over or flood is a testament to clever thinking and hard work. Well done. I'm not surprised she was worrying, I am sure it would scare many boaters.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 6, 2019 22:24:34 GMT
I just had time enough to get a couple of thick timbers under the starboard edge of the hull near the bow – which you can make out in the photo – before the whole boat dropped further. Without that, I suspect the props and ropes alone could not have saved her. I also slackened off the stern ropes so that she slewed out at a bit of an angle. Difficult decisions, because it was impossible in the depth of water to understand exactly what was happening, and very little time in which to make them. Gilly in yellow, looking anywhere but at her boat, not wanting to think about what could happen when the tide returned. I put a pump in the front well, which is what the yellow hose is connected to, in case water came over the gunwales before she righted. It didn’t, but it was a close thing.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Mar 7, 2019 6:35:58 GMT
Interesting photos...
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 7, 2019 8:04:21 GMT
well ......that's one way of putting it
|
|