Strange Question On Mooring!

[Mowjo]

This has bugged me for years but I've never got around to asking! suppose I pulled up at somewhere like Salhouse, dropped a mudweight front and back, but never tied up to the post and never stepped off the boat, could they still make me pay the mooring fee, my thoughts are they only own the quay heading and not the water, so technically I'm not moored on their land I'm on free water, and only liable to pay if I tied to their post or stepped off the boat onto their land,

[Viking23]

Let's be precise, let's take Salhouse, if you are mud weighted with no access to land, you pay no fee.

If someone tries to charge you, it's a scam. Take their details and report to the Broads Authority.

The land around Salhouse and the small island on the river and some of the riverside is chargeable, payment as per the signs.

Wroxham Broad is technically chargeable, as per the signs at the entrance,  I am not aware of anyone charging a fee this season. YET ! 

Hoveton little Broad ( Black Horse Broad) near Horning, clearly says no mooring, but as far as I am aware it means no landing. We and many others have mudweighted overnight with no issues.

Barton Broad, Hickling, Horsey mere all free to mud weight. 

South Walsham inner Broad, no mooring, no mudweighting, no landing, cruise around and leave. Take your time, tickover works fine lol.

On the Southern, no restrictions, but clearly do not moor on Breydon water !

Hope it helps.

Richard

 

[Mowjo]

I'm not talking about Mudweighting on a Broad itself, but on the Riverside moorings where you pay the £4.00, if your not tied to their post and not stepping on their land are you technicaly mudweighting on free water??

[MauriceMynah]

I could be wrong here but I believe technically, to mudweight the boat must be more than the length of that boat and it's anchor warp away from land

[BuffaloBill]

I'm with John on this. If you are moored so as to prevent

anyone else from doing so at that particular location, then

you should be charged as it's a loss to the land owner

through your actions. IMHO.....

[Chelsea14Ian]

I agree with the last two posts.Icant see the point of mud weighting close to the moorings. Would  you  hope to jump off? Thus close  enough  but not moored to posts.As others said in doing so  you prevent others foment mooring

[Mowjo]

There is no point to it! it was just something I thought about ages ago, and I found this: which is one of the reasons I asked, although you are still moored, your not moored on their land or quay heading and if you don't step on their land why do you need to pay? it's not something I would do I just wondered if there were rules and regs about it, I think Maurice and Bill might be right, but I can't find anything anywhere that says you can't do it, as it's private land surely it would be a civil matter and not under BA's control,

MOORING.

Mooring refers to any permanent structure to which a vessel may be secured. Examples include quays, wharfs, jetties, piers, anchor buoys, and mooring buoys. A ship is secured to a mooring to forestall free movement of the ship on the water. An anchor mooring fixes a vessel's position relative to a point on the bottom of a waterway without connecting the vessel to shore. As a verb, mooring refers to the act of attaching a vessel to a mooring.

[JawsOrca]

I believe (I maybe wrong as always) that you aren't allowed to do this (Under colregs...  colregs don't apply but the BA are just a dumbed down version) as you shouldn't moor in a river where your mooring restricts the width the of river and thus is a danger to other boats/navigation. Unless it's an emergency.. I'm sure the rangers would, quite rightly, ask you why you are doing and will probably tell you to move off or sort yourself out.

I don't think you mean to suggest you would actually do this, but if I saw someone do this to avoid paying a couple of quid, which is used to provide services then I would happily report such crew as if that's not taking the you know what I don't know what is and it's certainly a long way from the real spirit of boating. A couple of quid in terms of other costs is irrelevant. 

[Mowjo]

If your moored up at a mooring spot but not actually touching or using their post or land, surely you couldn't be restricting the width,  it's a hypothetical question and I wondered what would happen if you did it, it sort of came about because someone I know reversed into a spot at a well known Inn at Horning to turn around and the guy ran out with his little book to collect the mooring money, he looked pretty miffed when they drove out, so I wondered if he had just dropped his mudweight and stayed just off the quay what the position would be, part of me thinks it would be a civil matter as I can't find anything that says you couldn't do it,,

[Guest]

I think you will find somewhere in the byelaws that you must not anchor in a channel except in an emergency. The river is the channel.

[dnks34]

Is it not a case of a landowner owning the land underneath the water rather than the water itself?!

[TheQ]

I believe technically all broads are owned by someone even if that person is unknown. Oulton broad I believe has no known owner.

Most (Not Wroxham) broads have a right of navigation, this doesn't give a right to moor or mud weight. However for most owners it is not economic to collect the money, paying someone to row around Salhouse all day would not bring in anywhere near enough money to pay the minimum wage.

Therefore the owners don't bother to attempt to collect any money even though they are entitled to.

Wroxham broad although they don't bother to collect mud weighting fees, NBYC as they hold the lease, are entitled to ask you to move ( and will) should you go and drop anchor somewhere awkward like the start line.

The crown estate collects to money from many rivers ( where they become salt water) round the country for moorings in those rivers. This money goes to the government along with all other crown estate monies to pay the civil list though most is retained by the government giving the equivalent tax rate of about 90%.

Had Breydon water been suitable for mooring it would have been possible that the crown may have claimed fees for there.

Rivers.

Mooring on mud weights outside of some house would probably be viewed the same as parking across someone's drive, a denial of access. Out in the country that would not be the position, but you would have to moor where you are not obstructing the right to navigation.

[Mowjo]

9 minutes ago, Alone1 said:

I think you will find somewhere in the byelaws that you must not anchor in a channel except in an emergency. The river is the channel.

So by mooring up at say Salhouse, if you pay to moor there your not obstructing a channel, but if you moor next to the bank on mudweights you are??  no wonder I'm more confused than ever,,

[Chelsea14Ian]

I still think if you are close to the moorings,using a mud weight. You are stopping someone  who wants to tie up and pay.At the very least I feel it's wrong. Why not ask the same question  to BA and see what they say.I agree with Alan if I saw someone  doing this I would report  them.

 

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, TheQ said:

I believe technically all broads are owned by someone even if that person is unknown. Oulton broad I believe has no known owner.

Most (Not Wroxham) broads have a right of navigation, this doesn't give a right to moor or mud weight. However for most owners it is not economic to collect the money, paying someone to row around Salhouse all day would not bring in anywhere near enough money to pay the minimum wage.

Therefore the owners don't bother to attempt to collect any money even though they are entitled to.

Wroxham broad although they don't bother to collect mud weighting fees, NBYC as they hold the lease, are entitled to ask you to move ( and will) should you go and drop anchor somewhere awkward like the start line.

The crown estate collects to money from many rivers ( where they become salt water) round the country for moorings in those rivers. This money goes to the government along with all other crown estate monies to pay the civil list though most is retained by the government giving the equivalent tax rate of about 90%.

Had Breydon water been suitable for mooring it would have been possible that the crown may have claimed fees for there.

Rivers.

Mooring on mud weights outside of some house would probably be viewed the same as parking across someone's drive, a denial of access. Out in the country that would not be the position, but you would have to moor where you are not obstructing the right to navigation.

Oulton Broad is owned and the owners are known, your's truly owning a bit of it. At one time Oulton Broad was largely owned by the Coleman's mustard dynasty before being handed over to the Borough of Lowestoft. The main navigable channel is part of the Norwich to Lowestoft navigation and therefore owned by the successors of the railway company that bought the canal company out of bankruptcy. The only advantage of owning a portion of Oulton Broad's bottom is that I can have a mooring buoy and can, although never have, turf noisy oiks off who have dropped their mudweight onto my mud. The disadvantage is that the BA won't dredge my mud for free! 

[JawsOrca]

Peter am I also right in thinking that as a land owner with mooring rights you own up to a certain point out.. on rivers you would own up to half way over too. So technically someone owns all of the rivers and can demand payment even if at anchor. If the lands not in private hands then the crown estate owns it anyway?

[MauriceMynah]

I do understand Mowjo's question to be 'a point of law' and not for practical purposes so perhaps we should 'retract our claws' just a bit

We all agree that the only reason to do this would be to save on the mooring charge... but is it?

Take the ex ba 24 hour moorings near Thurne mouth. It's "no mooring" there now, but should someone anchor for and aft, it would be a tricky one to argue. Obstruction to navigation? Why wasn't it an obstruction when craft were allowed to tie to the bank?  see my point?

 

 

Oh I do love to stir it up a bit

[dnks34]

I think the comment I made about a landowner owner not only the bank but an amount of land beneath the water indicates why you could still be charged a mooring fee or asked to move on, JM has also indicated the same. 

[JennyMorgan]

Alan, strangely I do not own Oulton Broad to a point half way across, just 163 feet out from the bank. I suspect that this dates back to when the Broad, some of which was a mere, was divided when the remaining Broad was dug for peat. Other riparian owners own greater or lesser amounts of land under the water.

I believe that the Crown Estate only owns tidal river beds rather than broads. There was a recent planning dispute at St Olaves, by the marina, where the CE claimed ownership of the river bed thus preventing the marina owners from driving piles into the river bed.

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

I think the comment I made about a landowner owner not only the bank but an amount of land beneath the water indicates why you could still be charged a mooring fee or asked to move on, JM has also indicated the same. 

If the course of a river has been diverted, such as Oulton Dyke or the New Cut, then the bottom may well be in private hands and the 'owners' may well be entitled to move you on. 

[ChrisB]

1 hour ago, JawsOrca said:

Peter am I also right in thinking that as a land owner with mooring rights you own up to a certain point out.. on rivers you would own up to half way over too. So technically someone owns all of the rivers and can demand payment even if at anchor. If the lands not in private hands then the crown estate owns it anyway?

My parents were riparian owners twice. The river in West Dorset was non tidal and they owned half way out.

However their river in South Devon was very tidal, here they owned up to a "normal" high tide mark.

[Mowjo]

Thank you Maurice! You seem to get where I'm coming from! lets make one thing clear! I have no intention of ever doing it and never have, it's simply something I have wondered about and what could happen if you did it, I can't find anywhere that gives any information about it, or where you would stand legally if you did it, it dosn't seem to break any BA byelaws, so would it be a civil matter and how would they inforce it? from what I can see unless it's covered by BA byelaws or something the rangers have no power to do much, the river police couldn't do much as your not trespassing if your not on their land or tied to their post, I did say at the start it was a weird question and so far there's no real answer, If Peter, Maurice and Q can't tell me for sure it's turned into a good question, tomorrow I will mail the BA being carefull to explain it's hyperthetical and see what they say, this has got me really curious now,,

[MauriceMynah]

 

We know that one cannot be prosecuted for tresspass, you can however be sued for damage caused, and that damage can be pretty minor. So, any damage however small done by the mudweight on the riverbed/broadsbed could be sufficient to see you in trouble.

If the bank owner and the riparian owner are one and the same, they would have the authority to pursue the matter with right on their side.Alternatively they could just throw bricks at your boat and play Des O'Connor records at volume near you.

Just my theory!

[JennyMorgan]

I quite like Des O'Connor records, it's Barry Manilow that I draw the line at.

[BroadScot]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

I quite like Des O'Connor records, it's Barry Manilow that I draw the line at.

Should that not be a ¿ JM ? 

Iain