Forum Topic

Derelict boats by the river

Taking a leisurely post-Xmas stroll along the Thames this afternoon, I was depressed to see so many floating hulks of scrap metal and dodgy plywood passing for boats moored along the river between Kew Bridge and Brentford. Surely there must be some way of getting rid of them. With few exceptions they are ugly eyesores, apparently abandoned and derelict. Some are roughly converted for living in, but none seemed inhabited when I walked past, and many were just piled up with scrap materials. If I parked a 40 foot container truck by the side of a beautiful and picturesque road and then put a few windows in it and rigged up a mains cable through the bushes to a nearby point with a view to living there, the authorities would have me moved within 24 hours. Why is it, then, that these insults to their surroundings can be left for years by the side of our beautiful river and nothing is done?

Peter Evans ● 3691d23 Comments

I have a number of times over the years witnessed cars being driven into or parked in the park to offload. Can you imagine how else those big bits of timber get down there to be then chopped up by axe on the public footway?

Anne England ● 3671d

Strolling past today, I noticed newish purple signs at either end of Waterman's Park :"London Borough of HounslowNO MOORINGThis land is owned by the London Borough of Hounslow.Mooring against the land or using the land for access purposes is not permitted and those doing so will be trespassing.Trespassing will not be tolerated and the London Borough of Hounslow will be entitled to take appropriate action."Anyone know when these appeared ?It might be interesting to hear the court case where LBH argues its "entitlement" and how appropriate its action is.

Tim Henderson ● 3671d

"The next bit is around Watermans/Max Factor and whilst there is some kind of river path along some of it, it's far from satisfactory and will not be sorted until that site is redeveloped."There's a usable riverside Thames Path along ALL of that stretch. The problem is you then get diverted up Smith Hill to the High Street, presumably because the former occupants of the Westside site failed to continue the Thames Path. Thankfully, the Westside developers are providing a path, though I presume that because Smith Hill goes down to the tidal river, we'll still need to walk a bit uphill to cross over it. A bridge would be an alternative I suppose, but would restrict access to the water.

Bryan Betts ● 3683d

I think it important to note that since the first clean-ups there were others – including a massive turn out from sponsors Timberland boots company under the Thames 21 aegis – and that resident boaters there joined in, and later conducted their own clean ups, with PLA co-operation, of whatever was possible sans heavy machinery.These unilateral efforts by the boaters there is probably unknown, and should be borne in mind when complaining about the general foreshore mess.Another Thames 21 effort followed the incident with Gilly’s narrowboat disaster at the Hollows [one of the wrecks burnt out, and a semi buoyant tank had broken loose, getting caught under her hull as the tide went out].Some ‘usual suspects’ appear in the subsequent article’s photo along with myself and Gilly, notably Jim Lawes and Phil Andrews.

Nigel Moore ● 3688d

Gujo is a special case. Some crooked deal was made with a long-since departed Council officer to have Gujo added to the Council’s PLA works licence. How/if that ever got resolved I don’t know. The Council have several times over many years now, voted to take enforcement action against Gujo for breach of planning law, but the owners have always managed to stave things off somehow. With an income of some £7,000 per month from the flats, they can afford to pay for obstructive tactics.The last I heard, however, was that eviction is now proceeding inexorably, pursued by the site’s new owner, who does not want them there, and is not party to whatever contract Gujo arranged with his predecessor.

Nigel Moore ● 3688d

It's fascinating to see those old newspaper articles carrying the same complaints about derelict 'hulks' back in 1996, nearly 20 years ago. Also revealing are the accounts of enforcement orders and promised removals, which never happened then nor since. I also noticed that the Gujo floating 'block of flats' is still there despite threats/promises to remove it back in 2007.  It seems that some boats and their owners are immune to the attention of the authorities, or the authorities have no real stomach for dealing with them. 

Peter Evans ● 3689d

"One of the challenges for the redevelopment of the Brentford waterside will be to preserve the flavour of this history while removing the dereliction."Couldn't have put it better myself!

Guy Lambert ● 3689d

OK, that worked, so here's the next one -

Nigel Moore ● 3689d

Some here will remember the old BCI Times. Here are a couple of relevant articles from 2005, when the subject of clearing up the genuine derelicts was raised. Never can remember which of the photobucket new codes to use, but will keep trying if not successful first time around, one at a time –

Nigel Moore ● 3689d

If I lived on a boat by Waterman's I'd be tempted to complain about the ugly, mundane and uninteresting flats that have been built in their hundreds just opposite and that now tower over me..

Keith Iddon ● 3689d

Well researched Tim! That was awhile ago.Nothing much has changed since then; the Council have finally decided to do something, but rather than get organised with the boaters and work together to legitimise the moorings with revenue and hopefully co-operative improvements, they have gone the big-business corporate style route.A scheme has been drawn up and approved that will pave the way for more land-based development on the park, while restricting the mooring of boats to the select few who will be able to afford the extravagent fees. Actually, there are not so few who will take them up; such sites are like hen’s teeth.Inevitably, this will involve wholesale evictions, and I believe that some 2 or 3 million pounds of the allocated budget has been set aside for the eviction process [and relocation?] itself. The inevitable defensive litigation has already commenced.The current boaters at Watermans have put together an alternative scheme that would enable all willing boaters to participate in the moorings, but sadly the publicising of that is falling way short of the high mark set by the scheme itself. Needless, perhaps, to say – the Council are disinterested.

Nigel Moore ● 3689d

"Why is it, then, that these insults to their surroundings can be left for years by the side of our beautiful river and nothing is done?"Thanks for the interesting answers that reveal, as ever, that nothing is as simple as it appears. What a saga! On my walk I noticed the upgraded moorings up the River Brent which clearly had superior facilities, presumably reflected in the mooring fees, and boats which actually had people making use of them. I also noticed that the riverside path was more complete than I remember, despite a few convoluted sections, and will be even better when the few missing bits are finished. I agree that Brentford has a tradition of water transport and working boats, but, while there are lots of boats dotted about the various creeks and inlets, many of them look as if they won't be doing any work or going anywhere any more.  One of the challenges for the redevelopment of the Brentford waterside will be to preserve the flavour of this history while removing the dereliction.

Peter Evans ● 3690d

Most of the boats by the river (including the ones outside my home in Ferry Quays) are perfectly fine and a great asset to our community.The council is (finally) trying to resolve the issue of the boats moored by Watermans Park which suffer from a rather murky legal situation (see other posts on this thread) and contain some that are fine and some that are not so pleasing to the eye (and, as I understand it, none that have formal permissions). As to opening up the riverbank, we've made just a little progress: the path down from Morrisons to Ferry Quays has been greatly improved and is now a pleasure to use and the first of the new blocks moving East from Ferry Quays has a river walk. The second one is supposed to have one but they haven't completed it yet. I have been chasing this up via the planners and they say they are going to sort it in the spring. The next bit is around Watermans/Max Factor and whilst there is some kind of river path along some of it, it's far from satisfactory and will not be sorted until that site is redeveloped.Wouldn't it be nice if, 10 years hence, there was a continuous riverside path from Kew Bridge to the lock by the Holiday Inn. That's certainly my ambition and I think we'll get there, by excruciatingly slow degrees!

Guy Lambert ● 3690d

When I was at school the Gas works was still there and the Park was a huge coaling station hidden behind a twenty foot wall the length of the park all the way to the river steps at Ealing Road. There were cranes and a conveyor over the main road.Then it became a depot for Seaflame during the North Sea Gas conversion around 1972.It was a derelict site until Watermans.The Moorings were wharves for coal barges but the Lower River from Teddington Lock to Chelsea has always been home to thousands of people.Hundreds of Houseboats were berthed along this upper tidal section of the river for well over 150 years.People with rose tinted spectacles have forgotten that the Thames is why London and it's outer towns like Brentford exist. It was very industrial and the key artery. It was there to be used and it most certainly was. It still is used but not to anything like it's potentialThese 'derelict boats' are actually as much part of the heritage of Brentford and the Thames towns as many of the listed buildings and heritage structures and sites dotted locally on land.It is now much cleaner. 50 years ago only the poor lived by the river. It stank and was filthy.  Now it is increasingly becoming the preserve of the wealthy and starting to become exclusive.  Something that was discouraged post industrial use and when the clean up commenced and underlined by the Queens 1977 Jubilee decree to open the entire riverfront access from Estuary to Source.  Something developers and too many authorities seem rather keen to bifercate.

Raymond Havelock ● 3690d

On the legality of the boats, is it worth repeating Nigel Moore's comments from the "Community Boat" thread in 2008 ? :http://appasp.brentfordtw8.com/server/app/forum/ShowMessage.asp?ID=367216"....The specific legal position at Watermans' Park is –Interesting!Shelagh's comments are not strictly accurate, but are valid practical observations. Owership of the riparian land vests in the Council, they having purchased the site from the Gas Board. Creating the Park was a bold and welcome move to open the river vista to all. That in itself was a significant waterways consideration, though, typically for the time, restricted in taking no account of USING the river, as apart from just enjoying the backdrop. Consequently the wharves and Pilings etc were allowed to simply decay with neglect.Ownership of the riverbed and foreshore is debatable! From 1195, control of the tidal Thames was vested in the City of London by Royal charter. Following centuries of re-iterated charters, statutes and legislation etc, Queen Victoria suddenly decided that she wanted it. Decades of litigation ensued, finally resolved by the City of London agreeing that the Crown owned it all, in return for the Crown promptly giving it back – but to a group of 'Conservators'. Excepted from the hand-over was all land opposite or adjacent to Royal palaces.The Thames Conservators went through a series of divisions and successors, so that today we have the PLA below Teddington for navigational matters, the EA for all non-navigational matters over the same section, and the EA for all matters above Teddington. The PLA, by virtue of the powers granted in the Parliamentary Acts concerning them, may approve riverworks such as I've described, and levy appropriate charges for licences for the same.Still with me?All the pilings, dolphins etc that were built in the riverbed for use by vessels servicing the Gasworks, were granted a licence by the PLA, pursuant to the powers vested in them. The benefit of this 'Riverworks Licence' was transferred to the Council upon their assumption of ownership of the Gasworks property. The Council have been paying the annual fees for that licence ever since. All vessels making use of the riverworks are consequently liable to the Council for payment of any mooring fees that the Council might wish to impose.So part of an answer to your initial question is - yes, 'mooring fees' are being picked up for the moorings here – whether or not the licenced works are even used by boats! Those fees are paid to the PLA, and the last figure I'm aware of was £7,000 per annum and rising.Whether or not the Council charge the boats that do use the works, is down to the Council. So far, they have been  charging nothing, because they don't wish to 'legitimise' the 'squatters' by entering into contractural relationships wth them. I'll have to leave it to you to figure that one out.The issue has been tossed to and fro between the Council and the PLA for decades, neither really want the responsibility; both say that clearing wrecks and undesirables will only allow more squatters, and etc etc. Meanwhile would-be private operators are given the run-around when desperately trying to propose a take-over of the moorings on a business basis.Quite apart from all that, a question arises as to the legitimacy of the riverworks licence anyway. If the PLA have no ownership or jurisdiction there, (because, as has been argued, it was excluded from the Royal grant being opposite Kew Palace), then ownership remains with the Crown, and the PLA's grant of the licence was ultra vires. The entire jumble of decaying obstructions to public navigation would consequently constitute an ongoing criminal offence! But that's a whole 'nother story.With reference to your last, so far as I am aware, a boat cannot 'squat' a mooring. As a movable chattel it cannot in law so occupy land as to displace others. There is no value therefore to the present incumbants of the Waterman's Park mooring spaces. They might of course have a toe-hold regarding a possible preferential position in any future negotiations.As a final note, the majority of large vessels presently moored at Waterman's Park have, to my knowledge, approached the Council with an expressed willingness to enter into a formal fee-paying agreement. I have given up asking why these overtures are rejected. The only quasi-legitimate agreement seems to have been finagled between 'Gujo' and unknown people in the planning department. That situation is out of sight of the Park, opposite the Lot's Ait boatyard, and they have yet to get residential consent. Meanwhile, the extra cost to the Council for such an 'extension' to their licence also awaits a PLA decision.So  Sarah – the only people paying for these moorings are the rate-payers of Hounslow! And that, for moorings that anyway you look at it, are in fact chargable by the Council, should they ever get their act together. Despite what Shelagh perhaps implies, that option is still open, and should be pursued in the interests of both the boating and the wider community."I wonder if the situation has changed since then, and if the Council legal advisors are ready to tackle the can of worms.

Tim Henderson ● 3691d

Thank you Matthew..I was trying to establish which boats the op meant but he's obviously not bothered about replying to questions.

Keith Iddon ● 3691d

I must just state that the boats moored legally around the Ferry Quays estate are lovely and a great addition to the area.  they are properly managed, lovely boats.  The moorings are well managed and are not cheap to rent.  The people that live on the boats are really nice and caring for the environment.  However, from Watermans to Kew Bridge the boats are a mess on the whole.

Matthew Taylor ● 3691d

I am pretty sure that it is only the boats which are moored along the railings at Waterman's and, most likely, some around the canal/Brent where it meets the Thames which are 'illegal'. The boats along from Kew Bridge up to and including Victoria Quay have been there for years and are, as far as I am aware, there in a legal sense.

Anne England ● 3691d

I agree. From Kew Bridge right up to Brentford Lock there is a huge array of derelict ‘boats’.  It’s been like that for years and nothing is ever done about it. No responsibility is taken by the Authorities (whoever is in charge of these areas no one seems to know). The longer people say nothing the more others take advantage. I am told there are vested interests in that there are companies/company who own the moorings which are then rented out to anything that vaguely resembles a boat.  There is also a lot of metal and rubbish which is easily seen at low tide.  It really is pretty bad that the Thames and also the River Brent are being treated like this. I have also noted that wading birds are not as prevalent in the last few years.

Nada Salisbury ● 3691d

How new are you to Brentford? It is the boats moored alongside Waterman's Park which are, generally, considered to be an eyesore and which are 'illegal'. There are plans afoot to have these boats removed and a marina built although when and whether this will happen is another thing. Boats started to arrive along the length of the railings of Waterman's Park twenty or so years ago - I have lived here for thirty and there certainly were no boats there when I first arrived. Why something wasn't done about the situation a long time ago I don't know although what can/should be done I'll leave others to decide.

Anne England ● 3691d

Evans above..I thought it might be summat like that Phil. Either as you say, or a nimby newbee or both, methinks.

Keith Iddon ● 3691d

Peter's last post was to sing the praises of the Church Street closure.  Presumably his next will be to hail the aesthetic beauty of the wheelie bins.Why do I smell shill?

Phil Andrews ● 3691d

Where exactly is the location of these 'ugly eyesores'?

Keith Iddon ● 3691d