|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 11, 2021 22:53:57 GMT
It's an interesting claim from TD that mooring is part of the PRN. I think it is sort of correct in the sense you would have to be able to stop overnight but I'm reluctant to take legal advise from someone whose actions have caused the loss of his own boat. . . . . . . . . . I think what TD was saying is that the river authority eg CRT, EA etc, can’t prohibit mooring to private land. Only the landowner has that power. Yes, . . that's so, . . but I'm also saying that the route along which an enduringly successful application via the Courts, or via byelaw making powers, for the control or prohibition of mooring to private land, for the control or prohibition of mooring to publicly accessible land, must go is likely to be a tortuous and difficult one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 22:58:30 GMT
TD said "legal challenge". Yes but who is going to mount that challenge? It's a fairly basic question and one which applies to your own circumstances too. Its one of those stories which I feel have no ending. It's slightly interesting that the geyser (Alastair Trotman) who had the slum barges moored to the Richmond land for quite a while was advised by none other than our departed friend NigelMoore. He really knew his shit Nigel did. I remember him commenting that the byelaws were the correct approach but that they were also badly constructed as they sought to criminalise anyone remaining attached to LBRUT land for more than 1 hour. Not appropriate as a response to abuse as it also takes out normal people wanting to stop for the night but it is on the books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 23:01:53 GMT
. . . . . . . . . I think what TD was saying is that the river authority eg CRT, EA etc, can’t prohibit mooring to private land. Only the landowner has that power. Yes, . . that's so, . . but I'm also saying that the route along which an enduringly successful application via the Courts or via byelaw making powers for the control or prohibition of mooring to private land must go is likely to be a tortuous and difficult one. Private land and council owned land are two distinctly separate things legally. That's the whole point. Private land is up to the land owner. Council land is not up to the council unless they have already got byelaw to control moorings. That's the whole story behind this isn't it. The fact that councils can't do shit all about people mooring to land they own whereas a private landowner can sort it.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 12, 2021 4:42:22 GMT
Yes, . . that's so, . . but I'm also saying that the route along which an enduringly successful application via the Courts or via byelaw making powers for the control or prohibition of mooring to private land must go is likely to be a tortuous and difficult one. Private land and council owned land are two distinctly separate things legally. That's the whole point. Private land is up to the land owner. Council land is not up to the council unless they have already got byelaw to control moorings. That's the whole story behind this isn't it. The fact that councils can't do shit all about people mooring to land they own whereas a private landowner can sort it. Thanks for picking up on that omission from the post you've quoted, Andrew, . . I've just edited and added to what was said. One of the complications I see the BaNES Council being up against with the Mead Lane, Saltford moorings -- or for that matter, any other local authority in control or ownership of land adjoining a (publicly navigable) river and seeking to control or prohibit the mooring of boats by the general public -- is that, regardless of whatever measures are put in place with the intention of controlling or prohibiting mooring, the riverside land at Mead Lane, Saltford is and will remain publicly accessible land, from which no members of the public - including those who just so happen to be exercising the PRN - can be discriminated against by being excluded from, or prevented from making use of for undefined periods of time, . . including that of the temporary mooring of boats.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 12, 2021 7:22:40 GMT
I was following this and this thread made me realise I haven't seen any updates, it then dawned on me that I haven't had the regular updates of speeding hire boats.
I seem to have been removed from the k&a boaters page on FB, I must have done that myself, I don't remember upsetting any snowflakes.
Will pop into the group with Sam's account and have a browse at what is being said locally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2021 9:07:52 GMT
the riverside land at Mead Lane, Saltford is and will remain publicly accessible land, from which no members of the public - including those who just so happen to be exercising the PRN - can be discriminated against by being excluded from, or prevented from making use of for undefined periods of time, . . including that of the temporary mooring of boats. Presumably you are referring to Open Access Land. This is a legal status of some types of land which allows the public to access it -with some restrictions as to activities-. Interestingly, the CROW act specifically disallows use of vessels on or in Open Access Land on non tidal waterways ------- Section 2(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), section 2(1)] does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he— (a)drives or rides any vehicle other than an invalid carriage as defined by..... (b)uses a vessel or sailboard on any non-tidal water, (c)has with him any animal other than a dog, ....... There are lots more, removed for brevity ......... www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/schedule/2------- And you are not allowed to take the cat for a walk either!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 12, 2021 9:34:30 GMT
the riverside land at Mead Lane, Saltford is and will remain publicly accessible land, from which no members of the public - including those who just so happen to be exercising the PRN - can be discriminated against by being excluded from, or prevented from making use of for undefined periods of time, . . including that of the temporary mooring of boats. Presumably you are referring to Open Access Land. This is a legal status of some types of land which allows the public to access it -with some restrictions as to activities-. Interestingly, the CROW act specifically disallows use of vessels on or in Open Access Land on non tidal waterways ------- Section 2(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), section 2(1)] does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he— (a)drives or rides any vehicle other than an invalid carriage as defined by..... (b)uses a vessel or sailboard on any non-tidal water, (c)has with him any animal other than a dog, ....... There are lots more, removed for brevity ......... www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/schedule/2------- And you are not allowed to take the cat for a walk either. No, . . I'm thinking in more general terms and about long-standing, customary access and use of highways and verges by ANY members of the general public, . . including those driving motor vehicles, and anyone parking a vehicle on the verges. For the local authority to discriminate against any individual or group of individuals availing themselves of the use of the public highway and its verges simply because they've arrived by boat in the process of exercising a public right of navigation would surely go against centuries of common everyday practice and custom, . . to say nothing of the 2010 Equality Act.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2021 9:38:10 GMT
It is interesting to consider that yes. If it were true then the byelaw that Richmond acquired to control moorings is worthless and unenforceable.
I won't be the person finding this out.
It basically works as a way of preventing unsatisfactory mooring.
I doubt they would seek to prosecute if someone stopped overnight for convenience and was demonstrably not a problem.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Jul 12, 2021 11:47:44 GMT
It is interesting to consider that yes. If it were true then the byelaw that Richmond acquired to control moorings is worthless and unenforceable. I won't be the person finding this out. That's quite a pertinent thing and one that I am grateful for Tony. No one else is prepared to test CRT( like the council in your post) But he is prepared to lose a lot to test his point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2021 12:05:23 GMT
It is interesting to consider that yes. If it were true then the byelaw that Richmond acquired to control moorings is worthless and unenforceable. I won't be the person finding this out. That's quite a pertinent thing and one that I am grateful for Tony. No one else is prepared to test CRT( like the council in your post) But he is prepared to lose a lot to test his point. I think your last 4 words are unnecessary here
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 13, 2021 5:12:23 GMT
An internal report on Mead Lane moorings, Saltford, prepared by BaNES Council and dated 16 January 2020 makes for an illuminating read with regard to the extent that the C&RT's grubby fingers have been stuck into this particular pie : < kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BaNES-report-for-cabinet-16-1-20-Mead-Lane-Moorings.pdf > Of special interest are the following extracts and passages : -- "There is a requirement for boaters to move on a regular basis to ensure
compliance with their continuous cruising licences (issued by the Canal
and Rivers Trust)." ______________________________________________________________
"In March 2019, CRT data indicated that there are 995 boats operating
between Bath and Foxhangers, of which 403 of these are on continuous
cruiser licences. 48 boats/boaters have licences with reasonable
adjustments in place under the provisions of the Equalities Act 2010.
Overstays are also approved by the CRT in cases of mechanical
breakdown, medical emergencies and where boaters have caring
responsibilities." _____________________________________________________________
"The River Avon at Mead Lane, Saltford is a popular location for leisure and
recreation, and for informal mooring of boats. Until now it has been used as
an unregulated mooring space utilised by live aboard and other boaters. The
area was subject to a temporary mooring trial introducing 48 hour and 14
days’ time limited moorings between December 2016 and October 2018.
Boat dwellers with a continuous cruising licence must move every 14 days
(unless extenuating circumstances arise). The moorings at Mead Lane make
up part of the local mooring network and some of those using the moorings
will have a car to enable them to get to work/school/GP etc.
The Council is owner of this stretch of the river and does not have regulatory
power to enforce mooring compliance. As the Council is the owner of this
stretch, Canal and River Trust do not have the powers to monitor, insect and
report on overstaying, therefore during the mooring trial compliance with the
14 day or 48 hour stays was self-regulatory." ___________________________________________________________________
The extent of the muddled and self-contradictory thinking, on the part of both BaNES Council and the C&RT is only too evident, . . and, it's all founded on the same old load of C&RT garbage about the Trust having the authority and powers to 'licence' the use of a PRN river. In light of the admission in this eighteen month old report that neither the Council, as riparian owners of the riverside land at this location, nor the C&RT as the navigation authority, have powers by which either authority can regulate or prohibit mooring on the river Avon in the way that C&RT is lawfully entitled to do on the manmade canals for the time being under its control, . . it comes as no surprise that the Court was so readily agreeable to 'staying' the Judicial Review. There was, in truth and in no small measure thanks to the exhaustive research and coverage on the KandA website, nothing of any substance for any Court to 'review', . . unless and until BaNES Council begin the process of trying to acquire appropriate byelaw powers to wield in place of the recent bluff and bluster.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 21, 2021 12:09:28 GMT
Anyone labouring under the misapprehension that they're going to achieve a lasting and worthwhile result via the act of simply 'taking' a party with whom they are in dispute 'to Court' absent a well founded and equally well focussed case to argue, backed up with an adequate helping of irrefutable evidence, should take a few moments to read this : -- < kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/the-mead-lane-channel/ >
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 21, 2021 12:11:59 GMT
Anyone labouring under the misapprehension that they're going to achieve a lasting and worthwhile result via the act of simply 'taking' a party with whom they are in dispute 'to Court' absent a well founded and equally well focussed case to argue, backed up with an adequate helping of irrefutable evidence, should take a few moments to read this : -- < kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/the-mead-lane-channel/ > Have you not offered to be a Consultant? Your talents are wasted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2021 16:21:34 GMT
I don't think he would make a very good consultant. It took him 7 pages to get round to understanding about the byelaws when someone had mentioned it in the 7th post !
If it's a pay as you waffle type consultancy he is going to be very expensive.
TB head goon anyone ?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 21, 2021 19:06:08 GMT
Anyone labouring under the misapprehension that they're going to achieve a lasting and worthwhile result via the act of simply 'taking' a party with whom they are in dispute 'to Court' absent a well founded and equally well focussed case to argue, backed up with an adequate helping of irrefutable evidence, should take a few moments to read this : -- < kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/the-mead-lane-channel/ > Have you not offered to be a Consultant? Your talents are wasted. Lost, rather than wasted, . . on the majority, that is, . . and dependent on which side of the divide you stand !
|
|