| Topic: | Re:Re:A BETTER DESIGB FOR EVERYONE - Watermans Park Moorings | |
| Posted by: | Nigel Moore | |
| Date/Time: | 29/04/16 17:34:00 |
| In reply to Sarah – “Are the rules of the river such that you have to move on after a month or so? In which case should the arguement be that the land should be freed up for all moving boat owners? . . . I wonder, if this bank of the river forms a part of the free moving access for boat owners, do you have the right to moor up and stop others from using it in this way, and does LBH have the right to build on it and stop free movement?” There are no statutory “rules of the river” in this respect; the only such rules governing use of the river here are those within the enabling PLA Acts and their byelaws. As I explained re: the public right of navigation, you have no right whatsoever to moor to the banks, unless some ancient [rare] right for the public exists; the right to control access to the banks vests in the owner of the bank [the ‘riparian’ owner]. In this case, the riparian owner being a statutory body [Hounslow Council], their rights to control use of their property is limited by the scope of the powers granted to them under statute. This limitation leads to illicit action in some cases; the correct thing to do for a riparian Borough is to apply [after consultation] for approval by the Secretary of State of appropriate byelaws. This is something Richmond have recently done so that they could control the moorings along their stretch of riparian parkland, and it is what Hounslow should do if they were interested in acting lawfully. Subject to such caveats, Hounslow do have the right to build on their land, although the terms under which the park was dedicated to public use may enter the picture. There seems no valid reason why boat owners could/should be excluded from such public rights of access to and use of the park as pertain to all, under whatever terms the park was dedicated for public use. As to building into, over, under or on the riverbed: it matters not who owns the bed, because by virtue of their statutory powers the PLA have control of that; it does not matter if you own the bed or not, you must still gain their approval for any such “riverworks”. Hounslow did in fact inherit the riverworks licence that had been granted to the gas works, and they pay thousands per year to the PLA for this. If [as they were minded to do some years ago] they wished to stop paying for the licence, then the PLA would demand removal of all the decaying works, and restoration of the riverbed [including, whether their entitlement stretches that far or not, de-contamination of the soil]. It was the huge expense of this that decided them that it was cheaper to stick with the status quo The PLA riverworks licence is in effect a licence to close off the affected area from the public right of navigation, so subject only to what ownership rights Hounslow may lawfully exercise [which is where byelaw powers probably become needed], they would have the right to exclude the general public from use of their licensed works. Any private riparian owner would. |