Richmond Upon Thames - Mooring Byelaws Confirmation Application
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Richmond Upon Thames - Mooring Byelaws confirmation application Following the Council’s advertising of the draft byelaws for a month, we have now received the Council’s confirmation application along with the Council’s response to the objections received. In total there were 4 objections received, 3 of which came within the deadline (6 November) and 1 that followed the deadline. While all four objections were forwarded to the Council, it remains within the Council’s discretion whether to address any points raised in the objections within those that arrived after the deadline. In this case the Council have addressed points raised in all four objections. The representations at Annex A have been received in support of the proposed byelaws. 62 residents wrote to support the proposed byelaws. In addition 14 groups wrote to support the proposed byelaws. There is some overlap in that a handful of the residents are also part of the 14 groups that have written in. The representations received are in the majority from families and people who live near to the stretches where the byelaws will apply, and all are strongly in support of the proposed byelaws. The main arguments cited in support can be generalised as follows: • A large number of the representations have made reference to the area being blighted by nuisance, noise and anti-social behaviour from illegally owned boats in past few years and support the proposed byelaws to bring back “peaceful enjoyment of the riverside”, with some suggesting time limits will drive a more responsible pattern of behaviour; • A large number have cited rude behaviour, loud music at night, littering which has made a number of families unable to let their children play outside or walk the towpath; • blocking of pathway and narrowing the river for use which presents a potential navigational hazard are blocking up the moorings from registered boat owners and those who genuinely want to cruise; • A number of residents have also said the illegally moored boat owners who bring cars with them is impacting on residents’ parking and walking along the towpath/riverbank; • A number have pleaded with restoring amenities which the residents argue have been compromised by the illegal moorings, and the fact that these residents already pay heavy taxes to live by the River and this is not helped by boat owners who do not contribute and who allow the riverbank to become a junkyard with river banks and lawns damaged; • A number of the representations have raised concern around environmental pollution through discharge of waste into river. The four objections received can be summarised as follows: National Bargee Travellers Association Anonymous (after deadline) • That they ignored the Environment Agency advice that one hour moorings were too short as it would not allow for use of local amenities and stop for a break; • There is scope for a longer mooring period right outside Richmond town green. The example given is that it is normal to have 2 weeks mooring for canals and canal space being more precious that river space • That there are very few moorings in the riverbank where the proposed byelaws will apply which suggest these mooring byelaws are not required/ the byelaws would affect “so few” boaters • That there is a lack of bank side mooring facilities for mooring, i.e. Council are trying to control resource that they are not providing • That the byelaws would be ultra vires – the objector has stated the byelaws would be contrary to the Magna Carta which allows for “public right of navigation” including River Thames which falls within the jurisdiction of Richmond. The objector has also cited the Thames Navigation and General Byelaws 1993 as well as caselaw to support mooring unless they ”loiter” or delay “for longer than a reasonable time” and as such the proposed byelaws would “rescind” existing legislation covering moorings; • The Byelaws seek to control and prevent moorings in emergencies, and does take account that the tidal range at Teddington would mean that Richmond would not be able to provide a “safe haven”; • The byelaws are unreasonable as they do not take into account that boat owners may need to wait until danger has passed (in case of tidal wave may need to moor for longer than an hour) and this risks boat owners feeling they need to exercise dangerous manoeuvres as a result of a lack of safe haven from Richmond. The Association has cited accidents that have taken place in such instances; • Time limit makes no allowance for floods; • Richmond Council already have trespass powers to deal with unauthorised moorings • Byelaws will simply transfer the problem to other neighbourhood local councils; • That Richmond did not undertake a consultation with boat dwellers and other ”travellers” as it is obliged to do especially as the proposed byelaws had the potential to affect a wide number of outside travellers • The proposals would make some boat dwellers “homeless”, and that being the case there is no evidence that Richmond Council has taken into account the housing needs of boat dwellers as it would be required to do under the Housing Act 2004 and its statutory duty and ECHR caselaw; • There is no evidence that an Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken; • The 1 hour mooring does not need to be apply to Plan 13-18 as mooring is available by the Teddington Lock and operated by the EA. The objector also says the areas with 1 hour mooring are on the narrowest stretch of the river which also entertains canoes and other clubs and that no other area of the river has one hour mooring on the maps. • Plan 1-6 near Garrick’s Eyot will prevent boat club users gaining access • Plan 7 site near Broom Rec will prevent park users having a view of the river – this being of the busiest sections of the river for sailing hence navigation needing to be as wide as possible • The byelaws would make it financially inaccessible for some residents to live on houseboats. • In summarising the Council’s response, the objections received can be categorised in the following five headings: Lack of wider consultation The argument is that given the potential for the proposals to affect boat dwellers and travellers there was a lack of consultation. The Council have stated they consulted with the main regulatory bodies, including Port of London, Environment Agency and Metropolitan Police Service Marine Policing Unit. This has been verified by documentation showing support from all the three bodies. Seeking and receiving support from these bodies is very important to our consideration of the Council’s confirmation application as they aid the validity of the byelaws as well as ensure that the proposals are reasonable. The fact that all three bodies are supportive of these proposals indicates a robust application. It is also worth making the point that there is no statutory requirement to consult ahead of submitting an application to the Department. Nonetheless we understand in submitting an initial application back in 2013 this was informed by a public consultation in 2012. The further statutory consultation undertaken by the Council resulted in strong support from a significant number of residents who are in favour of bringing in time restrictions to moorings to address anti-social and nuisance behaviour which they say has affected the peaceful enjoyment of the area. It is noteworthy that a number of residents have made the same points about anti-social and nuisance behaviour and that existing powers relating to trespass and arising boat owners to move on as not worked. Public Right of Navigation and Mooring The objectors refer to ECHR law, caselaw and existing byelaws to suggest these proposed byelaws would be ultra vires. The Council have re-iterated that the banks of non-tidal river belong to the owners (Richmond Council) and where public right of navigation (i.e. in the water) exists it does not generally extend to moorings hence their assertion that the owners (Richmond Council) permission is required to moor. They have further clarified that public right of navigation granted to moor or remain stationary for a reasonable time prevents loitering. In determining what is reasonable the Council have said this would only apply to boats moored while exercising public right of navigation as opposed to mooring alone and have re-asserted boats therefore having no right to moor on the riverbanks of the non-tidal Thames. On the tidal parts, the Council have explained the public right of navigation only applies to the river bed and foreshore. Mooring Times There have been concerns raised that the 1 hour mooring times will not be sufficient to allow for users to use local amenities and stop for a break and so this argument raises the concern as to whether the mooring byelaws are reasonable. We understand the EA also suggested that the mooring times might be too short. The Council have said the proposed byelaws allow for 1 hour to 24 hours along stretches of the Riverbank allowing boaters to stop and moor up the riverbanks temporarily during the course of navigation. The Council have reiterated their view that most of the mooring for up to 1 hour is not suitable for mooring and that where mooring is permitted for 24 hours these are adjacent to parks which the Council wishes to promote, and that more generally the combination of 1 to 24 hour mooring is intended to address the concerns of ensuring movement of vessels so every user can find a spot, ensure daily users can gain access and prevent people avoiding paying for a permanent mooring licence. The Council have also said there is no suggestion made in the objections that 24 hours is too short.