FullCircle
Well-known member
A Royal Flush beats a Pair Bru!
Great post.
Great post.
Rivers Orwell/Gipping
- Thread starter toyboy
- Start date
Koeketiene
Well-known member
sailorman
Well-known member
A Prial of 3s & a brilliant post, Bru
Sixpence
Active member
Not often that I read a long post, but that was faskinating, game, set, and match, methinks :encouragement: nice one Bru
toyboy
New member
I am sorry Peter but you seem to have missed the point. The Thames Barrier is on a river bed that belong to the crown I expect but that is not my area. I am just agitated my money is being used to improve ABP property while ABP is trying everything to prevent us accessing what we are paying for.
The CEO of Suffolk County Council (SCC) used to be the CEO of EEDA which I believe translates into the East of England Development Authority at the time EEDA gave £33 million to improve the dock. With the various flood barriers that is now about £100 million of our money and at the same time it is being used to keep us out and close the Gipping.
With regard to the licence, it should not have been re-instated without an investigation of conditions as they are today. Dredging spoil is to be dumped at sea according to the very old licence. Since that licence a boat has been sunk after colliding with a dredger out at sea.
Also since that licence work already completed has been overtopped which was considered impossible so there is another serious flaw that needs looking into before giving our cash to ABP.
The above are material changes Peter.
You are correct obviously that maybe some people will support the spending of our cash but that is usually because they are getting a slice of it or they are ignorant of the circumstances and so I post details to help them understand the consequences of the River Orwell silting up again.
toyboy
New member
I am sorry but I do know my home town and I am not fighting because I stand to gain from these proposals. There are two spots on the river locally known as roman roads. This is not accurate but generally believed. They are in fact wharves that had to be built because boats could not get up the river to be unloaded/loaded because the river was silted up. This will happen again if the EA gets its way.
Habebty
Well-known member
Toyboy
The ECF way forward is probably to sit you down, buy you a pint, and explain slowly where you are going wrong with your assumptions, in a nice friendly setting.
But please be assured the people who have replied in detail to you, know what they are talking about.
Unfortunately, the balance of wisdom is not in your favour. But it is good that you care, even in a misguided way.
Regards
The ECF way forward is probably to sit you down, buy you a pint, and explain slowly where you are going wrong with your assumptions, in a nice friendly setting.
But please be assured the people who have replied in detail to you, know what they are talking about.
Unfortunately, the balance of wisdom is not in your favour. But it is good that you care, even in a misguided way.
Regards
toyboy
New member
Toyboy also repeatedly makes the mistake of assuming that ancient rights (of access, navigation etc.) are forever and for all time
They're not as I know all too well after decades of involvement with both the inland waterways and public rights of way*
Rights of way, land access and rights of navigation are routinely abrogated and superceded by subsequent legislation, planning decisions and both local and national government orders under a variety of legislative processes
And that is assuming that such claimed ancient rights were ever formalised in the first place.
In the case of the Gipping, the right of navigation, created when an Act to improve the navigation was made in the 1700s, was formally and legally extinguished when in 1932 the then Trustees, unable to meet their maintenance obligations under the 1789 Act enabling the navigation, applied for the Act to be revoked. Ownership of the river bed passed back the original riparian owners (or their descendants etc.) and that was that. It would be nonsense to claim that there is any right of navigation on the Gipping today as the Revocation Order trumps any other legal basis for doing so
And furthermore, the Gipping / Orwell / Ure (take your pick) that the Saxons, Danes and Norsemen used to reach inland, possibly as far as Rattlesden (where my mothers family has its roots by the way so I'll claim to be a local too
As far as Ipswich Docks is concerned, there is a Restricted Byway around the road to the East and North. That means the public have a right of access on foot, bicycle, horse and by vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles. In other words, you can drive a horse and cart around there but you can't drive a car round it! (Bizarre I know but there is a sound reason for the definition of a Restricted Byway which I'll bore you all with if you insist). There is a due legal process to apply to change the status of a Public Right of Way but the chances of changing a Restricted Byway to a Byway Open to All Traffic are virtually nil (as a starting point, you would have to be able to prove categorically that the route was used as of right by motor traffic between the wars. Proving the "as of right" bit is almost always impossible)
Again, that is the current legal position and it trumps any claims to older more ancient rights. It is a basic principal of Public Rights of Way legislation that it it isn't marked on the definitive map it is not a public right of way. As I said above, the procedures are in place, and quite straightforward if you've got the evidence, to have PRoW added to the definitive map or upgraded if they're wrong. I've successfully added, or I should say to be accurate played a major part in adding, a significant mileage of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways to the definitive maps of Northants, Beds and Cambs. We were much less successful with Byways Open to All Traffic (and between you, me and the gatepost I buried the evidence for a couple that probably would have been successful because the lanes in question were quite simply unsuitable for use by 4x4s) and following the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2002 it became (as alluded to above) all but impossible to create BOATs with the introduction of RBs
For those who don't know and do care, if indeed there are any such, the framework of our national rights of way network is actually very modern. It dates back only to 1953, prior to which the right of the public to pass and repass, to use the standard legal jargon, over a path, lane or road a dependent on thousands upon thousands of different Acts and documents. The 1953 Rights of Way Act created the system whereby each County Council maintains a Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way which, as it's name implies, is definitive. In order to create the initial DM, each parish was required to make a return stating where and of what status the rights of way in the parish were at that precise moment in time. It is remarkable how few carriageways made it onto the DM! For the most part, if an old road hadn't been surfaced by then, it went on the map as a bridleway at best, or a footpath or in many a case it didn't make it onto the map at all (because the people in the parish making the returns were often the local landowners who had a vested interest in not having RoW across their land). The Ramblers Association (cough, splutter, spit) and horsey groups and even the much maligned green laners etc. have spent the decades since using the due process to correct the errors
* For those who don't know, I have been in the past both a trustee of the Inland Waterways Association and the Rights of Way Practice Officer for the Green Lane Association)
Bru. Riparian rights are for river bed owners, not river users. The right to navigate the Gipping has never been rescinded and even though much of it is no longer tidal. It was tidal a lot further than it is now but the Environment Agency built wears along it and I am not sure if the right to navigate exists on fresh water. I believe a good lawyer could make that case though.
The ancient rights for the River Orwell were established in 1200 by the Royal Charter granted by King John. They were also recognised in the Ipswich Mooring case about 2001 in the High Court and the Appeal Court. I also don’t agree with you that rights to navigate on the Gipping have been extinguished and I know of no legislation that would allow that. I am obviously aware of legislation that can be used to extinguish rights of way on land but they have to be advertised and can be challenged as you obviously know. (By the way I appreciate debating with somebody who knows his subject. I used to be the Ipswich Correspondent for the Open Spaces Society and I spent a year as a volunteer Trustee of the OS too*)
You are slightly mistaken about the RoW around Ipswich Dock which were claimed by my company (Suffolk Rights Of Way Ltd) and established at a Public Inquiry in about 2011. The route that passes the Custom house is indeed a restricted byway (RB) even though cars use much of it. The route along the New Cut West is a Byway Open to All Traffic. (BOAT) and that is the one being assaulted now unfortunately all legally. Yes it was virtually impossible but I done it. I am also sorry but you are wrong again about rights of way not existing unless they are on the definitive map and I am surprised someone who obviously understands RoW law and custom should make such a basic mistake. The inclusion of a RoW on a definitive map (DM) does prove its existence but it absence does not prove it doesn’t exist. (How could you make that basic mistake?)
The 1953 Act only recognises what is already there and many RoW are hundreds of years older. The Ipswich Dock Acts (which recognises RoW) date from 1800 and the most recent the 2012 Act was made to thwart me by Anglo Norden bending the ear of SCC.
I am sure you will accept this as you obviously know what you are talking about but in this instance you have dashed off a reply without due diligence
toyboy
New member
toyboy
New member
Toyboy
The ECF way forward is probably to sit you down, buy you a pint, and explain slowly where you are going wrong with your assumptions, in a nice friendly setting.
But please be assured the people who have replied in detail to you, know what they are talking about.
Unfortunately, the balance of wisdom is not in your favour. But it is good that you care, even in a misguided way.
Regards
Habety, I think you will find I am not wrong and a couple of posters who made valid posts were in fact not as right as many thought they were
toyboy
New member
Sorry Bru is wrong.
FullCircle
Well-known member
I am not at all sure you are as right as you think you are.Habety, I think you will find I am not wrong and a couple of posters who made valid posts were in fact not as right as many thought they were
Are you the NickC of Ipswich?
If so, please keep to facts and keep this relevant. I for one, am not interested in your personal interpretations of that which has not been tested in law.
Bru
Well-known member
Who brought riparian rights into it? The ownership of the river bed was returned to the riparian owners when the navigation Act was revoked
Yes, it has. It was revoked as I described. If you think you know better then kindly quote your facts and sources because making unfounded claims is just silly and irritating
What on earth are you on about? The tidal Gipping upstream of Ipswich ceased to be tidal when Handford Sea Lock and bypass weir were built in the early 1790s. The Gipping has NOT been tidal above Ipswich since that time, from that time forward it became a navigation established by Act of Parliament and that Act automatically superceded any previous ancient "rights" and when the Comissioners could no longer maintain the navigation and the Act was revoked ALL existing rights of navigation ceased
The weirs that exist now are the remains of the navigation lock chambers and the navigation bypass weirs (although I think I'm right in saying that the Handford bypass weir was later, perhaps recently, replaced with a more substantial structure)
Ah, I begin to understand. You are conflating the tidal Orwell, as it is known today, with the ancient Gipping. You need to read up on your navigation law. See above for the mechanism by which the right of navigation over the Gipping navigation upstream of Handford lock was extinguished (the mechanism was simple in that at the moment that the Act enabling the navigation was revoked the right of navigation ceased to exist)
Matters are entirely different on tidal waters which would include the river (by whatever name) up as far as the first weir and lock unless specific legislation applied. Tidal rights of navigation are outside of my field of experience so upon that lower stretch I can make no informed comment
Well, I;d argue that I'm not mistaken because I didn't mention the route along New Cut West which is indeed marked as a BOAT on the OS map (which although not the DMM is generally a good reflection of the recent DM status). If it's legally a BOAT and they're trying to restrict access to it without obtaining a legal closure order, more power to your campaigning elbow on that one. However, ...
It was a simplification, not a mistake. This is a hugely complicated area of law which the layman is not going to be interested in. But technically you are quite right, however the practical realities are that claiming a right of way over a route not on the defintive map other than by the due process of applying for a map modification order is a risky and potentially costly business because the law is not clear cut
(There is however a basic principal of "once a highway, always a highway" unless the rights are specically extinguished. This will however no longer apply from 2026 onwards and it does not take precedence over subsequent Acts and orders which modify or remove those ancient rights)
The 1953 Act only recognises what is already there and many RoW are hundreds of years older. The Ipswich Dock Acts (which recognises RoW) date from 1800 and the most recent the 2012 Act was made to thwart me by Anglo Norden bending the ear of SCC.
I am sure you will accept this as you obviously know what you are talking about but in this instance you have dashed off a reply without due diligence
Only in so far as I wasn't looking at that side of the river. But there are some holes in your argument too. The 1953 Act doesn't only recognise what is there ,it also set up a due process for correcting mistakes in the original Definitive Map (a process you've obviously used to some success). But you;re still clinging to the erroneous belief that once created a right of way exists for all time. I don't know the details of the docks Acts in question (and I'm about done with this subject which is only of passing interest) but if, say, the 2012 Act to which you refer extinguishes the right of way in question that is that
If the RoW has not been specifically extinguished, the 1800 Act would be (and I assume was) good evidence for an modification order to create the BOAT or nowadays more likely an RB. However, the due process also exists for the BOAT to be closed either completely or downgraded to a lower classification. More than half the Byways Open to All Traffic in the UK are not, in fact, open to all traffic. At the time when I left my post with the Green Lane Association shortly after CRoW 2000 pulled the rug out from under us, the majority of the byway network was already subject to closure or restriction orders preventing vehicular access. Since the many miles of BOAT have been reclassified as Restricted Byways and many more have been closed to vehicles by permanent Traffic Orders
I have a dozen document cases full of evidence of ancient rights of way that are still not on the Definitive Map and in many cases never will be. (I would hand them over to the Ramblers Association but I loathe that organisation for their attitude to other RoW users and the horsey lot aren't interested. The Trial Riders shafted the Green Laners royally with our local council so they can go swivel too!). That does not make those routes Rights of Way. It just means there is the potential for obtaining a Definitive Map Modification Order and that there may be a right to pass and repass along those routes in the meantime if you're happy to risk becoming embroiled in a costly legal battle
By the way, as a final point, that "right to pass and repass" isn't all it seems. The right to pass and repass, the basic legal right we use when we walk, ride or drive along public highways, does not include the right to stop and linger. It means you can use the highway (which in this context is anything from a footpath to a six lane plus motorway) to get from A to B whilst going about your lawful business. Where the highway is on private land this is particularly pertinent. You cannot drive on a RoW for any purpose other than as part of your journey between two points. This oft ignored legal gem has been used against a number of groups using byways to gain access to land illegally and in one case I know of against a group who were using a bridleway to gain access to an airport perimeter (they took umbrage at being moved on by the airport security because they were on a public right of way but withdrew the case when a QC advised them they would lose on the grounds that they were stationary for an extended period of time plane spotting and therefore they were not passing and repassing as the law allows
Anyway, my final point is that if your campaigning is to be credible it needs to be absolutely accurate. Not for the first time I've been confused by your tendency to broad statements without sufficient fact or detail which is not helping your case. In some respects you do have some good and valid points, if perhaps somewhat unrealistic and without regard to the practical realities
Anyway, this has been a not unwelcome distraction from the complete shambles our house move has turned into but I must get on with something useful!
Hadenough
Well-known member
Wow!
Bru
Well-known member
PS ... One final clarification
The key problem with claiming the right to pass and repass over a claimed ancient right of way that is not on the definitive map is that the onus is on you, the traveller, to prove that such a right exists. You had better be damn sure it does!
You might, for example, have an ancient land grant or charter dating back centuries that supports your case but you may be oblivious to a later Inclosure Act which supercedes your ancient charter. You lose! (And I can cite a specific example about 400 yards from my back garden where that is the case. The old highway between our village and the next village still exists as a trackway and it is indicated as such in old maps and documents of the parish and the Montagu estate. One single sentence in the 1790 Inclosure Act for the parish abrogates all pre-existing rights of way. The Act then goes on to set out new rights of way which did not in fact include Gate Lane. Even so, it ended up on the DM as a bridleway
The point about the Definitive Map being definitive is that if a right of way is on the map it is incontrovertibly a right of way.
The key problem with claiming the right to pass and repass over a claimed ancient right of way that is not on the definitive map is that the onus is on you, the traveller, to prove that such a right exists. You had better be damn sure it does!
You might, for example, have an ancient land grant or charter dating back centuries that supports your case but you may be oblivious to a later Inclosure Act which supercedes your ancient charter. You lose! (And I can cite a specific example about 400 yards from my back garden where that is the case. The old highway between our village and the next village still exists as a trackway and it is indicated as such in old maps and documents of the parish and the Montagu estate. One single sentence in the 1790 Inclosure Act for the parish abrogates all pre-existing rights of way. The Act then goes on to set out new rights of way which did not in fact include Gate Lane. Even so, it ended up on the DM as a bridleway
The point about the Definitive Map being definitive is that if a right of way is on the map it is incontrovertibly a right of way.
Sixpence
Active member
Somehow I don't think so, but please take note of the comments from FullCircle if you intend to continue, also, the ECF is well known for being the more polite of the forums, please, let's keep it that way. To use a tennis analogy, few like those who play like McEnroe (not a tennis follower but I understand he was a trifle aggressive)
Bru
Well-known member
I have been known to be wrong. I've even been known to admit it. Not often mind! And Toyboy rightly took me to task for being somewhat vague on one point which I've clarified
And I'm only superficially aware of the relevant provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 which has changed the legal landscape around Rights of Way significantly (and not in any way that will be helpful to anyone who is trying to claim motorised vehicular rights of way either)
toyboy
New member
Yes I have known the Ramblers to fail on that and whatever we feel about them their archive and some of their member are good. When I gained the rights of way around the dock I used John Trevelyan as an expert witness and he is a President of the Ramblers but as you remarked a few post back they have lost their way.
Sixpence
Active member
I'm easily amused these days, but that tickled me a little
toyboy
New member
Nearly all of what I have posted has been tested in Law except for navigation rights on non tidal waters as far as I know and I think I could make a case myself which would establish that and I am not a lawyer. In this case though I am right even if you do not agree. When the River Orwell silts up again we as sailors will have let down our grandchildren.