Mooring on my own land

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Surely the first people the OP should be talking to is the navigation authority..............

See post #9

[NigelMoore]

On 24/11/2017 at 08:51, Alan de Enfield said:

I think it will also need pre-approval from the Navigation Authority

Whilst not specifically covering the Severn :

No person shall unless authorised by the Board in that behalf or otherwise legally entitled so to do execute any works of construction maintenance or repair so as to obstruct or interfere with the navigation of any canal or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions attached by the Board to such authority if given.

For that to be useful Alan, you should cite the specific legislation you quote from, even though I know you are presenting a general principle of potential application.

[NigelMoore]

11 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Surely the first people the OP should be talking to is the navigation authority for the Severn? 
 

They may or may not be relevant. The original question is asking whether what they have been told respecting planning permission is correct or not; the introduction of other possibly necessary consents is useful additional food for thought only. For example, where BW/CaRT are concerned, they could only evoke statutory powers of consent for constructions extending beyond the bank [on safety reasons only] if the provisions of the 1995 Act s.21 were applied [they never have been, largely, I suppose, because they could not charge for the certificate, and because in practical terms they successfully allege that they do not need the powers they were granted in that section anyway]. BW always did recognise that they had no standing to approve or disapprove the act of mooring to private land on rivers. The link to the relevant document is no longer live unfortunately.

As indicated by others, the answer depends absolutely on the use of the mooring. Use of the riverbank to moor a boat long term [as it’s ‘home mooring’] is generally considered to fall under general permitted development and/or recognised as an accepted normal use of the land, hence no planning consent required. See the Ladies Bridge Planning Appeal fought by BW back in 2006 –

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/http___www.pcs_.planningportal.gov_.uk_pcsportal_fscdav_READONLY_OBJCOO.2036.300.2.6228648NAME_Decision.pdf

Planning consent comes into the picture whenever there is any ‘change of use’, so while mooring a boat to the bank is considered intrinsic to the normal use, the moment one begins to use the boat for residential or business purposes, a material change of use arises, and the position as to planning permission becomes more complex.

Accommodating Councils have taken various views; Hounslow permits the BW moorings just above the Gauging Locks to be designated “4 day moorings” [as in 4 nights use per week allowed without becoming officially residential], while only 4 out of the 36 berths were granted consent for full residential status.

It would be sensible, as others have suggested, to first research what similar consents in the area have been granted previously [if any], and on what terms, then to discuss your requirements with the local area officers. Any form of construction on the land, unless deemed “de minimus”, would need planning consent. Try to avoid being aggressive; people in those positions can be exultant little hitlers or genuinely helpful, sometimes depending on how you approach them.

You have to remember at all times, that even though you may be perfectly correct that legally you do not need consent, if the authority takes against you that will make no difference unless you appeal their decision [as BW did] – and for individuals, as always, the Inspectorate are likely to come down on the side of the relevant Authority.

When I applied for retrospective planning consent for “home moorings” on my own land, BW fought tooth and nail against it [they had recognised why I wanted it], so despite everything [including the Ladies Bridge decision] I argued, the Council refused it. Even at the Appeal, I could see that the Inspector, in the way she phrased matters for consideration in preliminary notes to both parties, was going to wangle a rejection of my appeal.

Had I not been in the happy position of being able to tell the Council’s barrister pre-hearing that the opinion of 3 Lord Justices of Appeal in their decision of a month earlier, rather out-weighed her own arguments, it would have gone expensively bad for me. The idea that ‘justice will prevail’ is an engineered myth.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

For that to be useful Alan, you should cite the specific legislation you quote from, even though I know you are presenting a general principle of potential application.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD     
GENERAL CANAL BYE-LAWS                                
1965
 
BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD 
BYE-LAWS 
____________________  
 For regulation of the canals belonging to or under the control of the British Waterways Board (other than the canals specified in Bye-law 1) made pursuant to the powers of the British Transport Commission Act, 1954. (N.B. – The sub-headings and marginal notes do not form part of these Bye-laws).  

Application of Bye-Laws 1.

These Bye-laws shall apply to every canal or inland navigation in England and Wales belonging to or under the control of the British Waterways Board except the following canals: -

(a) The Lee and Stort Navigation

(b) the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal

(c) the River Severn Navigation

[NigelMoore]

Thanks.

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

exultant little hitlers

 

What a delightful and apposite expression, Nige!!

[NigelMoore]

Glad you like it!

[NigelMoore]

Relevant to the point by Alan, Graham, and others - the byelaws governing the Severn are published separately from the General Canal Byelaws, but are broadly similar. On the Severn, prohibition of mooring without the consent of the Commissioners [CaRT predecessors here] is limited to land owned by the Commissioners, so private land is exempt from any need for their permission, so long only as the boat does not obstruct the PRN: s.27(1)( b ) -

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/foi/legal/Bye_laws_for_G_and_S_Severn.pdf

[WotEver]

17 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I wonder if he already is, given his lack of response!

OP has not logged on since posting his question yesterday morning. 

[ditchcrawler]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

(c) the River Severn Navigation

So as suggested it does cover the Severn

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So as suggested it does cover the Severn

 

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

.................under the control of the British Waterways Board except the following canals: -

(a) The Lee and Stort Navigation

(b) the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal

(c) the River Severn Navigation

I read that as NOT covering the Severn

As Nigel posted, the Severn has its own Bye-Laws

Edited November 25, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[NigelMoore]

24 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So as suggested it does cover the Severn

You missed a bit - "

"except the following canals: -

(a) The Lee and Stort Navigation

(b) the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal

(c) the River Severn Navigation"

Still, as I have posted, there are other byelaws applicable, but control only mooring to land owned by the authority [other than that this should not obstruct navigation.]

 

edit to add: too slow, Alan got there first.

Edited November 25, 2017 by NigelMoore

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

You missed a bit - "

"except the following canals: -

(a) The Lee and Stort Navigation

(b) the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal

(c) the River Severn Navigation"

Still, as I have posted, there are other byelaws applicable, but control only mooring to land owned by the authority [other than that this should not obstruct navigation.]

 

edit to add: too slow, Alan got there first.

Yes I did, a case of reading what you expect to see. I still think they will need Planing Consent even though it would only be temporary, until the first time the river floods

[NigelMoore]

23 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I still think they will need Planing Consent even though it would only be temporary, until the first time the river floods

Why should the consent [if needed] last only until the first flooding? Are you suggesting the boat will end up on the land? It happens, of course, but is preventable. I have been mooring my boats on tidal waters since 1990, with around a 5’ range between neaps and springs, with occasional flooding of the bank, at times up to 14” deep over the bank twice a day. Once in a very rare while other people’s boats have hung up on the bank [and sunk as the tide went out], but that should not happen with the appropriate cautions being taken.

Indulging in silliness, I would agree that CaRT consent would be required for any planing; aside from speed limits having to be broken to achieve this, other relevant byelaws might militate against the practice. I have seen a photo of a narrowboat built in Brentford by a former business partner of mine, planing down the Thames with a massive outboard at the back. Frankly, I would think getting a boat up on the plane would be even easier on a flooding river if you pointed in the right direction.

Edited November 25, 2017 by NigelMoore

[Graham Davis]

Nigel, the Severn can rise a lot more than 5ft when it floods, esepecially in Gloucester.
And what about the Bore, as that can affect that Parting?

[NigelMoore]

5 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Nigel, the Severn can rise a lot more than 5ft when it floods, esepecially in Gloucester.
And what about the Bore, as that can affect that Parting?

I don't know, Graham; I was just making a point that flooding rivers - while occasionally inconvenient - do not necessarily preclude long term mooring so long as allowances are made. Houseboat along the tidal Thames cope with far greater rise and fall than my moorings, with deeper flooding of the towpath and with at times dangerous flow rates, but of course, for all I know, the conditions at this particular spot being discussed are just too extreme.

[OldGoat]

Notwithstanding all the administrative hassle, to my untutored eye the site looks exceedingly boggy judging by the scrub. Soo I'm wondering whether access will be a problem mebe impracticable? Probably why it's been priced as it is?

[Alan de Enfield]

Council Planning departments,  and even the ’County Solicitors’, are not always fully aware of the Planning laws.

Having signed a confidentiality agreement to avoid public embarrassment of the Council Chief Exec & Counties Legal Advisors, (who had advised the Planning Department that their interpretation was correct), before they would pay me financial compensation, I cannot therefore give full details.

In summary:  The Planning Officer told me I needed Planning permission for a ’certain action’ I was taking,  and said that there was no point applying as they would just refuse it. This 'advice' was contrary to the guidance given by both a Planning Expert and the “General Permitted Development Order 1995 Schedule 2, part 6”

After making me have a full “Environmental Impact Assessment Report”, a full ‘Tree Survey’ and a ‘Field Assessment Report’, at a cost of many £1000’s I had ‘had enough’.

I contacted my MP (who was both a member of the Government’s Rural Planning Group, and a QC), who then wrote to the Council Chief Exec (and copied me with the letter) stating :

“Mr De-Enfield is totally correct in his assertion that he does not require planning permission for his development, would you immediately withdraw your objections and obstructions and arrange to meet with Mr De-Enfield to discuss his claim for compensation”

After this the Council then took another ‘tack’ and decided that I needed PP for the ‘engineering’ work, which involved levelling and filling in a ‘hole’ about 2 feet deep, by 20 feet x 10 feet.

This ‘madness’ was soon overturned.

 

If you think you are on ‘firm ground’, then ‘stand your ground’ and take expert-advice, but do not rely on pre-planning advice from the council if it is contrary to what you want to do.

[Murflynn]

On 24/11/2017 at 09:30, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I would guess it would depend exactly where the land is (above or below the weirs), and then the Council’s definition of ‘tidal’ as only the Big Spring Tides reach Tewkesbury

 

a marine licence is necessary if you just do as little as driving a pole into the bank below high tide level.

 

don't ask me how I know.  

 

interestingly the latest RYA magazine draws attention to the ludicrous system in place at the moment, which is in the process of being rationlised.