Boat owners lose appeal over moorings possession order in favour of Environment Agency

Mr Justice Bourne noted many of the grounds overlapped but found none was made out.

Boat owners brought the appeal from an order made by HHJ Simpkiss at Staines County Court granting possession of the moorings to the Environment Agency (EA), which is the freeholder of the riverbed of the Thames.

The court heard the claimants owned and/or occupied houseboats with licences from the EA but that it wanted to move their boats elsewhere and argued their occupants were trespassers.

According to the EA, the moorings are only for short-stay purposes, but these boats had been moored long term.

Elmbridge Borough Council had served a number of enforcement notices and refused retrospective planning permission for residential mooring.

HHJ Simpkiss ruled in the EA’s favour and said the owner of a riverbed can claim possession based on trespass by an occupier of a vessel in the water above, and could bring a claim under section 37 of the Environment Act 1995, as permanent mooring rights were not conferred by any licences the owners held.

It was proportionate and not in breach of ECHR Article 8 for the EA to exercise its duties for the wider public benefit of navigation on the Thames by stopping unauthorised permanent or long-term and residential mooring and that there was no public law defence to the claims, HHJ Simpkiss had found.

Bourne J said: “The key point, in my judgment, is the location in question.”

He continued: “It is clear that the [EA] over a period of years pursued its wish to improve the amenity of the open stretch where the defendants' boats are moored.

“It was entitled to adopt that regulatory course and substantial weight must be given to its decision to do so. In addition, as the judge said, protecting its asserted proprietary interest in the riverbank was also a legitimate factor and weight must also be given to the claimant's decision in that regard.”

Bourne J said he must also give substantial weight to the EA’s ownership of the riverbed and the defendants being trespassers.

He said: “The failure of their reliance on riparian rights means that, subject to Article 8 and the Human Rights Act 1998, they have no defence in domestic law.”

The judge also dismissed the argument that boat occupants would be made homeless, pointing out boats could be moved elsewhere on the waterways.

An EA statement said: “The boats effectively dropped anchor to remain moored to the bank at West Molesey for years and wouldn’t move. Their refusal to go obstructed access to stop at the riverbank for holidaymakers or anyone cruising on the water.

“After the boats ignored requests to leave, the Environment Agency resorted to legal action.”

Colin Chiverton, EA environment manager for the Thames, said: “The ability to stop at designated short-stay locations or other selected parts of the Thames for up to 24 hours allows for crews to refresh, recharge and refuel, but the boat-owners in this case refused to move, blocking others from docking.”

Mark Smulian