Day boat, license, and Riperian Rights

[arpeeuk]

Well yes, exactly. Even i could manage to drag the boat onto our patio, it does occasionally flood, so it would require a license.

 

I guess if our lounge flooded we might need a license for the floating sofa too?

 

at least if theres a drought, it won't need a license, although in that case it might make having a boat a bit pointless!

 

I think I might just investigate building a boat lift. The whole boat with engine probably weighs about 60 kilos, so a small lift would be able to pull it out the water. As i said before, it will be over the water, and will occupy the same space, but if its not touching the water....

 

I could probably build one for the same price as a years license anyway

 

How about installing some davits and hanging the boat over the water? It would stop having to use your garden for boat storage.

 

 

Rik

[MtB]

 

No - the boat would be on his bit of the river, same as when it was moored. He doesn't need a license to moor the boat - he can keep it on his bit of the river for ever with no license. If he wants to use the rest of the river - CRTs bit, he needs a license, and CRT will only sell him a 12 month one

 

Richard

 

 

There are about 100 houses along there all with similar river frontage and I imagine, identical rights.

 

If the OP only wanted to navigate on his own bit of water, and his neighbours' equivalent bits of water, all outside the navigable chanel, and a handy distance of about 1/2 km, could he do THAT without a CRT licence?

 

MtB

[carlt]

 

How about installing some davits and hanging the boat over the water? It would stop having to use your garden for boat storage.

 

 

Rik

Would CRT claim to own the air above the water though?

 

They could then charge planes a licence fee for flying over canals.

[Rob S]

Would CRT claim to own the air above the water though?

 

They could then charge planes a licence fee for flying over canals.

Lol.

 

I'm sure they would if they could...

 

...maybe we should all team up and start charging BA to fly over our houses!

How about installing some davits and hanging the boat over the water? It would stop having to use your garden for boat storage.

 

 

Rik

Thinking this might be the way forward if they start questioning it.

 

Although i need permission from them to build next to the river, so they could refuse and force me to have to keep my boat in the water.

 

How would that work with regards to my rights??

[carlt]

Although i need permission from them to build next to the river, so they could refuse and force me to have to keep my boat in the water.

 

 

Would digging a couple of sockets to house davits constitute "building"?

[Paul C]

Do you have vehicle access to the rear too?

 

A launching ramp would be beneficial anyway, because you could do maintenance work etc on the boat out the water; or you could trailer your boat to other locations (possibly non-CRT waters...) and use it there. And of course, would also mean you can use short term licence(s) instead of having to buy a yearly licence. And the ramp would add value to the property. Admittedly if there's no vehicle access to the rear, the value is much more limited.

[NigelMoore]

 

I'm sure they would if they could...

 

...maybe we should all team up and start charging BA to fly over our houses!

 

Standard legal presumption in English property law is that the owner of land owns everything underneath to the centre of the earth and everything above. That is subject to over-riding statutes, and the rights themselves are not absolute.

 

As explained earlier [i think], the owner of a navigable riverbed does not own the water, not any rights to the use of it, unless he is also a riparian owner – in which case he derives his rights to the use of the water solely by virtue of owning the bank, not the bed.

 

If he is owner of a non-navigable stream, then the owner of the bed could sue for trespass over it. Because the same principle applies to the air above, I believe an Act was brought in in the early days of air travel, to circumscribe rights of trespass through the air above your land, else flying would have become legally & practically impossible. So neither you nor CART can charge for licence to use your/their air space; [Neither CART nor any other statutory navigation authority can condition use &/or charge for anything not specifically provided for under their founding statutes anyway].

 

Something similar must hold true universally. Governments retain the right to control use of their country's airspace, and do have no-fly forbidden zones.

 

It was just such a concept, though, which led the lead character in Heinlein’s “The Man Who Sold The Moon” to send agents all round the world buying up all the land falling beneath the moon’s orbital path, to prevent the owners claiming ownership of the moon as it passed over their air space.

[NigelMoore]

 

There are about 100 houses along there all with similar river frontage and I imagine, identical rights.

 

If the OP only wanted to navigate on his own bit of water, and his neighbours' equivalent bits of water, all outside the navigable chanel, and a handy distance of about 1/2 km, could he do THAT without a CRT licence?

 

 

As a river with pre-existing public rights of navigation, he is free to navigate the whole of the river – unless some proscriptive over-ride is included in the Enabling Acts for canalisation – hence the need to search through the relevant Acts. It is folly to make presumptions based on the general Common Law alone.

 

In terms of BW river waterways, the constriction of boat certification being limited to use of the main navigational channel [which would allow non-certified use outside of that, on secondary channels, as per your query] is applicable only to the sections of rivers listed in the ’71 Schedule as amended; the Kennett is not one of those. The Common Law therefore still prevails so far as specifically BW legislation is concerned, unless something in the prior Enabling Acts for this navigation has already circumscribed the public rights.

[Rob S]

Do you have vehicle access to the rear too?

 

A launching ramp would be beneficial anyway, because you could do maintenance work etc on the boat out the water; or you could trailer your boat to other locations (possibly non-CRT waters...) and use it there. And of course, would also mean you can use short term licence(s) instead of having to buy a yearly licence. And the ramp would add value to the property. Admittedly if there's no vehicle access to the rear, the value is much more limited.

There is no other access than through the house. It made landscaping the garden and building a conservatory a right pain.

 

I think this is one of the longest terraces in the country, and we're pretty much right in the middle!

Would digging a couple of sockets to house davits constitute "building"?

Probably. Anything that could interfere with the water course i guess.

[NigelMoore]

Although i need permission from them to build next to the river, so they could refuse and force me to have to keep my boat in the water.

 

How would that work with regards to my rights??

 

You do not need permission from them to build next to the river. You would need permission to build from the Local Planning Authority – who would seek the navigation authority’s input as a Statutory Consultee [the consultee can make recommendations only, which the LPA is free to accept or reject].

 

To expand on that: the British Waterways Act 1995 made provision for BW to be able to give or withhold permission for works extending into the waterspace managed by them [regardless of ownership] on the basis of safety concerns alone. It gave no leeway, for example, to refuse a works certificate on aesthetic grounds [although an LPA could factor that in].

 

Furthermore, because the right for riparian owners to construct such works was built into most Enabling Acts [and not abolished in the 1995 Act as BW had wished], there is no provision for them to charge for such certificates; they could only be withheld on grounds that the construction did not satisfy their engineers.

 

Still further, that power is not freely exercisable at whim; before seeking to invoke the power of s.21 on any particular stretch of waterway, that section must be officially appointed for control of moorings by resolution of the Board. No such section of waterway has ever yet been so appointed. I am not even sure whether the section could ever now be actioned, now that the Advisory Committee has been abolished.

 

By way of some comfort to you, should the actioning of s.21 still be possible, s.20 exists to ameliorate its effects. That section very specifically forbids BW to use s.21 as a means of denying private rights of moorings such as yours, and actively warns against using it to interfere with your rights unreasonably. They could just [at no cost to you] sensibly require you to ensure that your davits or landing stage or whatever met their safety requirements.

 

I suspect the EA could just as easily make this a requirement to the LPA anyway, invoking the interests of flood control.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/waterway_sections_appointed_for