Geoff Brown
New member
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
BBC River Access Story
- Thread starter Geoff Brown
- Start date
F
Fred Bonney
Guest
Well found Geoff, certainly worth keeping an eye on this.
The canoe club said the "main issue" was the claim made by Mr Jayes that his company was entitled to charge fees to paddlers who were passing along the River Dee and come down through his site without using any of his parking or changing facilities.
Surely you have to acknowledge, or pay touse anybodies land?
The club added: "Jim Jayes asserts this right by virtue of his lease of the river bed but the document is not publically available and has never been published by Jim Jayes, so far as we are aware.
Hedoesn't have to prove anything,if it's his land,let them take him to court if they know otherwise!<!-- S IIMA -->
<!-- E IIMA -->
"Many paddlers believe that if there was a test case the courts would confirm that there is a general right for the public to navigate any river in England and Wales and that therefore Mr Jayes claim is unfounded in law. "
Well, if they are that confident, why don't they spend their money on a test case?
The canoe club said the "main issue" was the claim made by Mr Jayes that his company was entitled to charge fees to paddlers who were passing along the River Dee and come down through his site without using any of his parking or changing facilities.
Surely you have to acknowledge, or pay touse anybodies land?
The club added: "Jim Jayes asserts this right by virtue of his lease of the river bed but the document is not publically available and has never been published by Jim Jayes, so far as we are aware.
Hedoesn't have to prove anything,if it's his land,let them take him to court if they know otherwise!<!-- S IIMA -->
<!-- E IIMA -->
"Many paddlers believe that if there was a test case the courts would confirm that there is a general right for the public to navigate any river in England and Wales and that therefore Mr Jayes claim is unfounded in law. "
Well, if they are that confident, why don't they spend their money on a test case?
Mark Wintle
Well-known member
There have been test cases on navigation rights especially on the application of the Highways act to rivers in the Derwent case which went to the Law lords where it was found that this act whereby usage could establish a right of way similar to footpaths etc. did not apply to waterways. Other case law established the right of riparian owners to claim damages from canoeists for disturbance. Whether the bother of claiming is worth the while is another matter but the canoeists' beliefs are far wide of the mark in law.Canoeists have also been successfully prosecuted for disturbing spawning fish. It's a shame the journalists involved don't bother doing the research. If on the other hand there is a right of navigation on the stretch mentioned then the riparian owner is unlikely to be able to charge such fees even if he owns the river bed.
A similar example is that on BW owned canals there is no right of navigation (I'd have to double check the way this is controlled).
A similar example is that on BW owned canals there is no right of navigation (I'd have to double check the way this is controlled).
Bryan Baron 2
Well-known member
If he wins then it will be very expensive to paddle.
Every stretch could charge a fee.
The farmers will be rubbing there hands.
Every stretch could charge a fee.
The farmers will be rubbing there hands.
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
Seems like if there is a right of navigation on a <u>river</u> then the land owners cannot charge since the right is held by the EA in England and Wales. Canals being artificial and wholly maintained are a different issue.
However, if the river has no means for a boat (not a canoe) to traverse its course without locks etc. then there is nor can be any navigable rights unless specifically granted by the owners.
Even on the Thames, there is a navigable course - using locks. Canoeists that come tumbling over the weirs are therefore breaking the law or trespassing, but little seems to be done about it.
Does that seem like common sense? It does to me.
However, if the river has no means for a boat (not a canoe) to traverse its course without locks etc. then there is nor can be any navigable rights unless specifically granted by the owners.
Even on the Thames, there is a navigable course - using locks. Canoeists that come tumbling over the weirs are therefore breaking the law or trespassing, but little seems to be done about it.
Does that seem like common sense? It does to me.
Bryan Baron 2
Well-known member
Question.
As the water is owened/cvontrolled by the EA. Then if the canoe does not land or touch bottom are they tresspassing.
As it would be like a plane flying over your land. They would be depriving the EA of services rendered as there using the water.
or are they?
As the water is owened/cvontrolled by the EA. Then if the canoe does not land or touch bottom are they tresspassing.
As it would be like a plane flying over your land. They would be depriving the EA of services rendered as there using the water.
or are they?
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
<blockquote class=quoteheader>Bryan Baron 2 wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>
Question.
As the water is owened/cvontrolled by the EA. Then if the canoe does not land or touch bottom are they tresspassing.
As it would be like a plane flying over your land. They would be depriving the EA of services rendered as there using the water.
or are they?</blockquote>
Good analogy with the airplane, Bryan.
In this country, no-one owns the air space above their property, but the CAA (is it still?) control the flightpaths etc for passenger airplanes, less so for gliders and such.
In Manhatton, the land owners DO own a certain amount of air space which is why churches, whose buildings can only be so tall, could sell off their remaining 'right to airspace' to neighbouring landowners to build enormous skyscrapers. Nothing to do with rivers, but interesting all the same.
A pity we don't own the air space above our house with a nearby airfield I could charge a hell of a lot to all those who fly over. I always wondered what the tyremarks on our roof were when we first moved in.
Question.
As the water is owened/cvontrolled by the EA. Then if the canoe does not land or touch bottom are they tresspassing.
As it would be like a plane flying over your land. They would be depriving the EA of services rendered as there using the water.
or are they?</blockquote>
Good analogy with the airplane, Bryan.
In this country, no-one owns the air space above their property, but the CAA (is it still?) control the flightpaths etc for passenger airplanes, less so for gliders and such.
In Manhatton, the land owners DO own a certain amount of air space which is why churches, whose buildings can only be so tall, could sell off their remaining 'right to airspace' to neighbouring landowners to build enormous skyscrapers. Nothing to do with rivers, but interesting all the same.
A pity we don't own the air space above our house with a nearby airfield I could charge a hell of a lot to all those who fly over. I always wondered what the tyremarks on our roof were when we first moved in.
Graham Whatmore
Senior Member
It all seems a bit of a nonsense to me, I wouldn't mind betting it never goes to court. I wonder if they would think someone swimming was also liable to payment for using their navigable waters?
C
Chris Bishop
Guest
"However, if the river has no means for a boat (not a canoe) to traverse its course without locks etc. then there is nor can be any navigable rights unless specifically granted by the owners."
Most of the rivers in the Fens are navigable and boats can freely pass regardless.
Fishing, mooring etc is subject to the owners' rights, controlling club etc.
I'm sure there was a test case with canoeists staging a protest paddle on a river not so long ago.
Most of the rivers in the Fens are navigable and boats can freely pass regardless.
Fishing, mooring etc is subject to the owners' rights, controlling club etc.
I'm sure there was a test case with canoeists staging a protest paddle on a river not so long ago.