Such a lot of misinformation! As journalism goes the article is not too bad, but of course it can only relate what it has been told, and too much of that is simply incorrect.It is [as has always been my opinion] a good thing for the Council to finally get their act together over the Waterman’s Park moorings – it has been costing them thousands of pounds per annum to keep up the PLA Riverworks Licence, while all the time being set against rationalising the situation so that they could get a return on it.As the article has quite properly noted, many of the boaters there would be only too delighted to legitimise their status, paying mooring fees and Council tax, thereby providing them with some degree of security of tenure. It is only the pusillanimity of the Council over the decades [embracing leadership of both major parties] that has prevented them from doing their duty in making provision for those people.I would remark also, that many of those boaters have both engaged in official Thames Clean-ups, and organised their own, in gradually removing the worst of the rotting hulks and associated wreckage which has proved such a hazard to health and to navigation – all due to the decades of neglect by the Council.Under such circumstances, the repeated references to unlicensed boats and the social need to be rid of them leaves a very sour taste.It is to be wondered just what incomplete rubbish legal advice they have been receiving – or perhaps, they have simply interpreted that advice without any clear understanding of the issues or even of the vocabulary.What exactly do they mean, for example, by saying “none are licensed”? Ifthey mean the boats are there without permission of the Council, then that would be accurate. However, it reads as though they believe the boats themselves should be licensed by some navigation authority – and if so, they are talking absolute ignorant nonsense.Are the boats there illegally? Yes, if by that it is meant without the riparian landowners consent – but an authority which has deliberately refrained from shouldering their responsibility to remove the wrecks in order to prevent [fruitlessly as it turns out] other boats settling there, is in a poor position to get moral about it, and even from the viewpoint of fiscal responsibility – what was the big problem in welcoming each new arrival and signing them up to a mooring agreement? Anyone refusing could have been subject to simple County Court action for the debt instead of the tortured and hopeless pass-the-parcel litigation between the Council and an equally misguided PLA.The situation has only grown unwieldy from the Council’s viewpoint, by reason of their reluctance to get a grip on the situation properly for all these years.The sad thing is that their approach now, is very far from being either legally or morally correct, and is, moreover – because of this approach – going to be beset with more difficulty than they anticipate, while displaying appalling PR in terms of an authority showing care for their community.“Mooring fees being shared between the Port of London Authority, [PLA], the Council and the agent . . .”? Since when has the PLA been statutorily entitled to a share of mooring fees properly the province only of the landowner/Riverworks Licence holder?I suppose one should be pleased that “a council spokesman” said it was not ruling out the possibility of existing boat dwellers getting first refusal – but I am not; this should not be considered a possible opportunity, it should be at the forefront of any proposal.Once again – what is this “duty to ensure all vessels are licensed” that the Council leader is talking about? If boats get mooring permits, they will be there legally – there is no statutory requirement, nor even any infrastructure, for the licensing of private craft on the tidal Thames.“The Council says it has a duty to remove the boats under the terms of its licence with the PLA”? What balderdash. Have they drafted some new agreement then? The PLA is empowered to grant Riverworks licences, and the Council inherited that of the old Gas Works. There is no power vested in the PLA to impose restrictions on what boats may or may not use the riverworks – that is entirely a matter for the licence holder.As for the various comments respecting the riverbed ownership – that is all so much irrelevance. Ownership of the riverbed has nothing to do with the PLA powers to grant riverworks licences, and having such a licence – as the Council does - carries with it the right to use those works. No further authority is required, and the riverbed ownership is a mere red-herring.Sara is perfectly correct regarding the sewerage. The greatest pollution of the Thames comes from the overcrowded land developments stretching the available facilities beyond their capabilities. Nor is it yet illegal to discharge from the vessels into the tideway - which is not to say that provision of sewerage facilities together with power and water would not be most desirable.
Nigel Moore ● 3988d