Following MRAG's meeting with the EA on 19 Sep 23 (Update 37 refers), Dominic Raab  wrote to Therese Coffey MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).  A copy of his letter is attached.

The letter raised three points  - Transfer of EA owned land in Molesey to EBC; The EA's recent Consultation on the procedure to remove unregistered boats;  Removal of illegal moorings at Hurst Park.

A substantive response was sought to each. 

NB Please note the date of the MRAG meeting with the EA was 19 Sep 23 and not 21 Sep 23 as stated incorrectly in Update 37).

 DR20230921_Letter_Out_DefraSoS_EA.pdf

A copy of MRAG's record of their meeting with the Environment Agency (EA)'s Area Director Thames and her staff on 21 Sep 23 is contained below.  (You will see that our MP,  the Cllr for Elmbridge's Esher and Walton Ward as well as EBC's CEO and his staff also attended).   The meeting was noteworthy for a number of points, not least the fact that EA have been looking afresh at how they carry out enforcement on the Thames in Elmbridge and the commitment on the removal of certain boats 'within two months'.

Dear Emma,

It was good to meet you (and your team) at yesterday’s meeting. On behalf of MRAG I would like to thank you (all) for taking the trouble to attend in person rather than via Teams.

At the meeting you kindly invited me to contact you direct if I there were matters I wished to bring to your attention. I therefore decided to send you my write-up of matters raised at yesterday's meeting (which I will also be circulating to MRAG supporters). I would welcome any suggested amendments, corrections etc which you and others included on the distribution may wish to make.

Details as follows:

Those present: EBC: Adam Chalmers, AC (CEO) chaired the meeting, Ian Burrows, IB (Head of Culture, Leisure and Environment);

EA: Emma Hill, EH (Area Director, Thames), Maria Herlihy, MH (Operations Manager), Nick McKee-Smith, N M-S (Head of Enforcement), Nick Myatt, NM (Team Leader Area G);

Dominic Raab, DR, MP, Cllr John Cope, JC (Esher and Walton Ward)

MRAG: Peter Aron, PA, Steve Collins,SC, Jill Sanders, JS

a) EA's long-term enforcement strategy. We were very pleased to hear that you have been looking afresh at how you carry out enforcement on the Thames in Elmbridge, the introduction of twice weekly patrols and the commitment to allocate additional resources. But of course the proof of the pudding….. and if MRAG reps sounded sceptical (on the grounds we’ve been assured of action which failed to materialise in the past) I would like to assure you that we will be very happy to throw our weight and full support behind your enforcement teams' efforts if we start seeing a reduction in the numbers (116 as at 31 July 23) of allegedly unregistered overstaying boats - and particularly of the highest profile persistent abusers.

As their line manager we also understood your need to defend your front-line enforcement staff from what you perceived to be our criticism of their performance. But I would like to assure you these were not aimed at NM and his Team (particularly as we believe they are now beginning to deliver some results). Nor at you personally as you have only recently assumed your role (and we have already detected some more willingness on the part of the Thames Waterways Team to engage with us) or at your newly appointed CEO. But it is a fact that whilst the number of boats moored without consent in Elmbridge was next to none in 2013, we now have, arguably, the greatest number of any stretch of the Thames. And this has occurred over a 10-year timescale in which neighbouring Councils (Kingston (Richmond, Spellthorn) have all managed largely to resolve the problem of un-consented mooring in their areas. We would argue that this has occurred because those three Councils all own at least the majority of their riverside land (and have been responsive to local residents’ demands to remove unconscented moorers), whereas the vast majority of riverside land in Elmbridge is owned by the EA.

In light of the above (and even though we accept that some of them are no longer around to respond) we believe it is reasonable that our criticism - and the frustration and concerns expressed by local residents, see 10 pages of comments about EA performance in the Attachment* below - should be directed at the previous hierarchy of the EA, all the way up to the then CEO, for their failure, as we see it, to provide the necessary leadership, direction and resources to enable your enforcement teams to do what our neighbouring Councils have done. Instead of trying to resolve the complaints, formal and informal, which we, EBC, our MP, local Councillors and others have brought to their attention over the past five or six years, they chose to brush them aside. But the message we took away from yesterday’s meeting is that all that is in the past and that you are now committed to overcoming the problem - and in doing so we will be happy to work with you in order to develop a relationship based on good will and cooperation. *I suspect these comments will make upcomfortable reading for the EA, but they are a fair reflection of the justifiable strength of feeling of long-suffering local residents who have had to contend with the adverse impacts growing numbers of unauthorised, overstaying. un-consented moorers have had on their lives and neighbourhood for too many years now.

b) Overstaying vessels currently moored on EA owned land in Hurst Park.  We understand that these two vessels are still either owned or under the control of Mr A Trotman, although we are aware that a different owner was listed on the enforcement notices served upon Hui. Mr Trotman’s third vessel Kupe has been seized by the trustees appointed by the official receiver and is due to be removed and scrapped by Richmond and Kingston Council working together. We expect the EA to honour their commitment to remove Hui and RoR within the two month window mentioned by Steve Collins before flow levels on the Thames restrict removals.

Elsewhere on Hurst Park we expressed appreciation (after the meeting had ended) to NM for having recently moved on some boats. However it was noted these will since have moored again further up the riverbank so could not be regarded as having reduced the overall number of overstaying boats moored on the riverbank in Elmbridge. This emphasises the need for continual and ongoing action by Nick Myatt's enforcement team in order to keep moving boats on until the owners get the message that they should find long-stay moorings, for which they would of course be required to pay mooring fees. It also raises the question of whether the EA are currently seeking payment of mooring fees from boats remaining for more than 24 hours on EA owned land.

c) Article 16 Consultation. The EA National Navigation Team promised the RUG8 Chairman in 2020 that they would carry out a consultation of the “users of their waters” in the implementation of Article 16 in the Environment Agency (Inland Waters) Order. They procrastinated for three years and have now produced a procedure which RUG8 has rejected as unworkable. AC confirmed EA oppose it too. DR asked to be informed if the EA nevertheless decide to proceed with the implementation of the revised procedure. If so, it was something he would wish to pursue further.

Legal advice obtained by MRAG on the Consutation document is as follows:

“It should be the case that an owner must prove that the vessel is his primary place of residence. Furthermore, the safeguards for residential vessels should exclude any vessel that is providing residential accommodation for commercial purposes. The proposed procedure for consideration of using the Article 16 powers is simply derogating the purpose of the Article, and if Parliament had intended for the proposed procedure to be a pre-condition for the enforcement powers under Article 16, then it would have provided so within the IWO 2010. The additional factors on page 7 in the consultation, in my opinion, must be taken into account and override any requirement of two previous prosecutions. If the EA maintains its proposed procedure then I do consider that it could be subject to legal challenge”. 

d) Pollution of the river. The Chair of Friends of Hurst Park has produced a report on raw sewage pollution of the river by boats which fail to journey at frequent intervals to the pump-out facility at Molesey Lock (there being no such facilities at Teddington or Sunbury locks). A boat surveyor has also provided advice on other forms of pollution arising from discharges of oil/diesel fuels, engine oil and other forms of liquid waste (eg blue loo etc) from long-stay un-consented moorers.  Copies of both reports can be made available on request. EBC’s attention has been drawn to the increasing numbers of wild and other swimmers, paddle-boarders, kayakers, child paddlers etc that enjoy entering the water at Hurst Park. This is not a new phenomenon because, until it burnt down in 1966, Hurst Park had its own Council funded Bathing Station. The only reason the latter was not re-built was because bathing habits had changed to the extent that swimmers no longer needed a Bathing Station from which to bathe. But in the absence of the Bathing Station, large numbers of people continued to swim in the river at Hurst Park and we suspect a case could have been made for the river at Hurst Park to be a designated bathing area when the list of such facilities was drawn up. The reason we raise this now is that, whilst all rivers appear to be polluted too some extent by water company discharges, agriculture run-offs etc, the problem on the Thames in Molesey is aggravated by added discharges of raw sewage and other forms of pollution from so many unregistered, unauthorised un-consented boats. When this was mentioned at the meeting you kindly offered to send me details of how we might go about applying for the inclusion of Hurst Park in the next revision of the list of designated bathing areas (which would of course result in the water quality at Hurst Park being tested on a regular basis).

Although NM-S offered to initiate proceedings in the event we were able to provide evidence of discharges from boats, we believe it is unlikely we will ever be in the right place at the right time to observe such discharges. So from the point of view of local residents, swimmers etc a better solution would be for EA to take action to remove the large number of un-consented moorers from our stretch of the river so that the problem of discharges from these boats would no longer arise.

e) Overstaying unconscented boats moored in the vicinity of Cherry Orchard Gardens and on EBC/SCC owned land in Elmbridge. We note your next Court Case concerning ownership of the riverside land near Cherry Orchard Gardens is scheduled to take place at Staines County Court on 31 October and that, on this occasion, 3 days has been allocated for the hearing (compared to 2 hours for the previously adjourned hearing). Although your enforcement team made clear you do not intend to take any action to remove the overstaying boats pending the outcome of that hearing, we did question why it had not been possible to take such action some years ago, bearing in mind there is no dispute over your ownership of the riverbed above which the boats are moored and that one of the boat owners had informed the Planning Inspector at the Planning Appeal Hearing in March 2022 that he had been moored there for seven years and had ’never once been asked to move by the EA’. Had the boats been removed some years earlier it is unlikely the owners would have fenced off the riverside land in that location - and the EA would have been spared the vast legal expenses now involved in establishing ownership of the land. More importantly local residents would have been spared the adverse impacts detailed in the Attachment, the majority of which relate to the boats in the vicinity of Cherry Orchard Gardens. That said, we are grateful for you support of JS’s proposal to submit detailed evidence in the form of a Victim Statement on behalf of local residents to the 31 Oct hearing. MRAG would also like to be treated as an interested party at the Hearing (on which we would welcome more details if these re available to you please). We may also decide to commission our own independent legal advice.

On 'land-grabbing' of the riverbank by the owners of boats moored in the vicinity of Cherry Orchard Gardens, a local resident has sought advice on whether there is a danger of the land being acquired by the owners of the boats if there has been no public right of way over that land for over a year. If that is the case then it would make sense if either the EA or EBC would take action to dismantle the barricades for at least a day each year. Action: A response from the EA or EBC on this point would be to appreciated please. 

Cigarette Island and Albany Reach. MRAG urges EBC as the landowner and EA as the riverbed owner to go ahead with a joint injunction to address unconsented mooring in this area. Surrey County Council should probably also be involved as the owner of the adjacent wharves on the downstream and upstream side of Hampton Court Bridge (as experience shows that the National Bargees and Travellers Association will seek to exploit any absences of potentially interested parties).

 On removal of overstaying boats on EBC/SCC owned land elsewhere in Elmbridge, Ian Burrows commented that further action was on hold pending the outcome of the Cherry Orchard Gardens court case on 31 Oct. However it was noted that EBC/SCC’s ability to take action against overstaying boats was severely hampered by EA’s failure to take action on unregistered boats moored on EBC/SCC owned land. As a result, in the absence of information on a boats ownership it was not possible for EBC/SCC to issue fines for unpaid mooring fees or to issue injunctions for other offences or to issue PSPOs. The EA were therefore urged to speed up actions to ensure all boats on the Thames in Elmbridge are registered.

f) Gifting of EA Riverside land in Elmbridge to EBC. You mentioned that EA were likely to oppose this proposal, although you were still awaiting a formal response from the EA’s lawyers. DR and MRAG expressed an interest in seeing the formal response when it is received and if necessary being given an opportunity to respond to it. If the proposal is rejected we will be disappointed, not least because your predecessor had stated at a meeting with RUG 8 on 2 Dec 2019 that the EA have 'no operational need to own large stretches of riverbank within Elmbridge BC boundaries' and that she was 'open to the idea of transferring ownership to EBC’.

g) Update on appointment of external contractor to manage EA moorings. Given that the EA’s mooring enforcement contract with District Enforcement (DE) had been halted due to a procedural error on the part of the EA’s procurement department and not as a result of any failing on the part of DE, we questioned why it was now necessary for the EA to initiate re-tendering of the contract. SC also drew attention to the fact that the short list of companies interested in bidding for such contracts is very small and is likely to consist only of DE and Thames Visitor Moorings. Also, bearing in mind that DE carry out enforcement on behalf of neighbouring Richmond, Kingston and Spellthorn Councils, there would surely be great advantages in terms of information sharing, processing etc if DE (rather than an in-house EA team or another contractor) were also to carry out enforcement in Elmbridge. In light of the foregoing, we have no confidence that a new ‘holistic’ mooring enforcement model produced by the EA National Navigation would be as effective as the proven DE model. You agreed to take this into account in considering the matter further.

Kind regards,

Peter

NB To avoid overload, a copy of the Attachment mentioned in the above email is not attached but a copy of it can be obtained on request by emailing [email protected]

In Aug 23, the EA circulated to river users a draft proposed procedure for the removal of unregistered vessels on Environment Agency waterways.  See copy in the Attachment below.

MRAG considered the new procedure would make it even more difficult than at present to remove unregistered vessels, an opinion shared by our legal adviser.  See copy of the latter's comments in the second Attachment below.

On 6 Sep 23 River User Group 8 (RUG8) held an Extraordinary General Meeting to consider the Consultation document and an extract from the record of that meeting recording the Chair of RUG8's response to the EA reads as follows:

" I sent to the EA our unanimously voted-on resolution condemning their proposals as bureaucratic and unworkable and as you requested cited a couple of examples; one being that if their new procedures were followed the Trotman boats would never leave Hurst Park! "

Since we understand that other River User Groups were similarly opposed to the proposed procedure, we trust the EA will take accounts of the comments they received and come up with something more acceptable. 

Proposed EA unregistered vessel removal procedure - July_23_FINAL DRAFT.pdf

LEGAL OPINION ON EA CONSULTATION.docx

NB To avoid overload, copies of Attachments mentioned in the above email are not attached but may be obtained on request by emailing [email protected]

NB To avoid overload, the Attachments mentioned in the above email are not attached, but (if required) copies are a available on request from mragchair @gmail.com

MRAG had another meeting with Elmbridge Borough (EBC) on 6 July and a record of that meeting is as follows: 

Attendees: EBC - Adam Chalmers (Chief Executive, AC), Ian Burrows (Head of Culture, Leisure and Environment, IB); MRAG - Peter Aron (PA), Steve Collins (SC), Jill Sanders (JS).

• Update on EBC’s meeting (via Teams) with the Environment Agency (EA) on 14 June. A copy of record of meeting is now available on EBC’s Tackling unauthorised mooring website.
• District Enforcement (DE). It was noted the EA contract with DE was halted due to an error in the procurement process that had been challenged. On EBC’s own contract with DE, difficulties are being experienced because many of the vessels moored without consent on EBC land are unregistered. In response to a MRAG question, IB confirmed this prevents EBC being able to charge mooring fees on such vessels (including the 12 boats overstaying on EBC owned land at Cigarette Island). This highlights yet another failing by the EA since it is they that are responsible for taking enforcement action against owners who fail to register their boats.
• EA resources. Despite EA claiming their failure to carry out enforcement was due to constrains on their resources, we find it hard to accept this as EA have not suffered cutbacks on anything like the scale of eg local authorities. It was noted EA’s two enforcement officers on our stretch of the river have not initiated a single prosecution this year, despite the significant number of unregistered boats on the Thames in Elmbridge.
• AC informed us their application for possession at Cigarette Island had been rejected by Kingston County Court on 15 May 23 as the trespassers were not ‘in possession’ of the land - as the boat was moored over the EA owned riverbed. SC stated that if MRAG had been aware of the case before it went to court, he could have drawn EBC’s attention to the need for EA to be included. Action: AC said EBC would ensure MRAG were made aware of future cases.
• EBC are considering an injunction at Cigarette Island and Albany Reach and have sought EA participation as a joint applicant through their ownership of the riverbed.
• IB agreed to obtain the name of the Court at which EA’s case (for civil trespass proceedings against boats at Cherry Orchard Gardens moored over the EA owned riverbed in that location) on 24 July is to be heard. Action: IB
• PSPOs. EBC’s Cabinet has agreed the implementation of PSPOs on EBC owned land relating to BBQs and Fishing offences from 16 July. But following concerns raised in the consultation, a second phase of consultation will be undertaken with more detail as to how a potential PSPO for unauthorised moorings would be implemented and enforced.
• Future actions. (i) In response to pressure for action on the Thames in Elmbridge (and ‘recognising the challenges in the patch’), EA will start to carry out regular patrols on Tuesdays and Thursdays each week, commencing on 17 July. (ii) EA will also be ‘improving and streamlining some of their processes, installing new signage and have already recruited additional officers to carry out patrols’ in our locality; (iii) EA will also be publishing a regular newsletter with local statistics and actions to help engagement with the local community and (iv) holding a separate follow up meeting with EBC to discuss current action at key locations and review how cases are being progressed. EBC encouraged EA ‘to prioritise the two large vessels on Hurst Park’ (Hui and RoR).
• Update on MRAG complaint to PHSO. We informed EBC of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s rejection of our complaint and mentioned that we are now seeking advice from our legal adviser (who is obtaining an opinion from Counsel) on initiating a Judicial Review.
• Gifting of EA owned land in Elmbridge to EBC. At their last meeting EBC and EA had discussed the potential transfer of ‘management’ of the riverbank to EBC. EA had agreed to seek their own legal advice on this and would ‘formally reply to EBC within two weeks’. In the event they had failed to reply within this timescale but had informed EBC they will do so shortly. MRAG pointed out their proposal was in fact that EA should ‘gift ownership’ of their riverside land to EBC. Action: AC agreed to bring this to EA’s attention.
• Date of next meeting. EA have confirmed their willingness in principle to meet MRAG at a joint meeting with EBC. Action: EBC to arrange. MRAG also mentioned their intention of arranging a separate meeting with the Council Leader and Deputy.
• AOB. 1. We drew attention to recent emails received from a local resident about anti-social behaviour by the owner of a vessel that had arrived in February and had been moored ever since without consent upriver from the old Hurst Park school site. We agreed to send the details to EBC so that they are available for the further meeting with the EA mentioned at 1.7(iv). 2. JS suggested EBC’s legal department might consider liaising with Kingston and Richmond Councils on legal issues concerning unauthorised mooring. They share the same legal service provided by South-west London Legal Service.
• PA
• 8 July 23

As the link https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/reclaim-the-elmbridge-riverbank/ to the above in Update 29 didn't open, I'm reproducing the MRAG comments on the Environment Agency's answers to Dominic Raab's questions below:

EA WRITTEN RESPONSE TO QUESTION POSED BY DOMINIC RAAB 

The Environment Agency works with partner agencies to improve compliance on the non-tidal Thames, sharing outcomes with local authority areas and stakeholders alike. However, intelligence and ongoing enforcement actions are not shared with the public due to legal privilege and GDPR rules and regulations. More information relating to enforcement on the non-tidal Thames can be viewed on the Non-Tidal River Thames Regulation and Enforcement Plan 2023/2024: Non-Tidal River Thames Regulation and Enforcement Plan 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

RESPONSE FROM MRAG  The EA routinely hide behind the cloak of GDPR to avoid sharing any information, yet we have never asked for any personal data of any individuals on the river. We know that the former owner of the vessels Hui and RoR is Mr Alistair Trotman because his name is in the public domain after his numerous court appearances. We know the name of the new owner of HuI because the EA inadvertently posted his name on an enforcement notice posted in public view on the vessel in December. 

We have no idea who the new owner of RoR is, nor do we want to know. We just want the EA to take effective enforcement action against him or her. If the name and address of new owner of ROR is not registered with the EA, then ownership rests with Mr Trotman. 

Similarly, legal privilege is routinely quoted as another reason for withholding information. We were quoted this recently as the reason why we could not be told why the EA had cancelled their contract with District Enforcement for managing their moorings in Elmbridge. It has subsequently emerged that the contract was cancelled due to a ‘technical reason’ in the procurement process. This despite the fact the process was handled by the EA’s national procurement team who should know what they are doing. We believe that the contract was cancelled due to behind the scenes lobbying by groups representing ‘residential boaters’. Elmbridge and Kingston councils, and Historic Royal Palaces continue to employ District Enforcement to manage their moorings without any administrative issues. 

Although the EA state they work ‘with partner agencies to improve compliance on the non-tidal Thames, sharing outcomes with local authority areas’  we know this is not the case since they neither ‘work with’ nor ‘share outcomes’ with Elmbridge Council, as evidenced by letters from EBC’s Chief Executives dated 18 July 21 and 16 March 23.

NON-TIDAL THAMES REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT PLAN 

MRAG has no confidence in this wish list of aspirations which is published annually but never evaluated. As far as we know, the only recent successful prosecution was the owner of a small cabin cruiser upstream in Abingdon. None of the persistent abusers on the Elmbridge stretch have prosecuted. 

The key section in the plan which is of direct interest to MRAG is the section entitled ‘Our designated moorings and open riverbank’ (reprinted in italics below). Unfortunately, none of the actions listed have taken place against the numerous overstayers on the Thames in Elmbridge (or neighbouring Boroughs). The EA have: 

• Failed to keep their designated short stay moorings clear for legitimate use in line with their mooring position statement 
• Cancelled their contract with an authorised moorings management provider to issue charges 
• Issued enforcement notices to Hui and RoR in April and December 2022 but failed to follow them up 
• Not issued any formal possession orders 
• Not initiated or proceeded with any civil action through a County Court, or as criminal action through a Magistrates Court against the owners of HuI and RoR or any other overstaying vessels 
• Failed to remove any boats owned by persistent abusers. 

Our designated moorings and open riverbanks 

We know that mooring space can be highly sought after particularly at popular locations, and that users of the RiverThames value our moorings. We aim to keep our designated short stay moorings clear for legitimate use in line with our mooring position statement. We aim We aim to keep our designated short stay moorings clear for legitimate use in line with our mooring position statement We will regulate and enforce this through a combination of approaches that we deem appropriate to the mooring location. Our regulation and enforcement responses for unauthorised mooring activity may include a combination of; 

• charges issued by an authorised moorings management provider; 

• an enforcement notice issued by ourselves; 
• formal issue of possession proceedings. 
• These actions may either proceed as civil action through a County Court, or as criminal action through a Magistrates Court. 

Our mooring locations will have clear signage our local lock staff can also provide this information. In cases of persistent abuse we will take enforcement action that may include: 

• removing the boat and charging the owner for the cost of doing so 
• prosecuting the owner of the boat 

Doing so protects public safety and the environment as well as deterring future misuse and promoting navigation. 

MRAG

19 May 2023

With thanks to TheyWorkForYou my Society* for providing copies, the Minister responsible for the Environment Agency provided the following written answers on 19 May 23 to two question put by our MP Dominic Raab.  Both cover  mooring related issues on the Thames in Elmbridge:

Question 1. Dominic Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the Environment Agency’s enforcement of illegal moorings in the non-tidal Thames.

Answer to Question 1 by Rebecca Pow, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

Operational matters on inland waterways are the responsibility of the relevant navigation authority, such as in this case the Environment Agency’s enforcement of illegal moorings on the non-tidal Thames.

The Environment Agency waterways department as part of Defra is aware of all mooring issues or potential reported issues on its land. The intelligence is captured and collated in the Environment Agency navigation enforcement team’s Tactical Assessment (Thames). The document includes mooring and trespass issues on Environment Agency land only and helps prioritise and deliver outcomes. Trespass and mooring issues not relating to the Environment Agency fall under riparian landowners’ or other navigation authorities’ responsibilities.

The Tactical Assessment is a classified document and deemed as sensitive and would not be shared with the public. The Thames Enforcement Plan for the Environment Agency Non-Tidal Thames, which gives an overview of enforcement actions and priorities for 2023/2024, can be viewed here: Non-Tidal River Thames Regulation and Enforcement Plan 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Question 2: Dominic Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the Environment Agency shares data on the enforcement of illegal moorings in the non-tidal Thames with her Department; and if her Department will publish that data by local authority area.

Answer to Question 2 by Rebecca Pow, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: 

The Environment Agency works with partner agencies to improve compliance on the non-tidal Thames, sharing outcomes with local authority areas and stakeholders alike. However, intelligence and ongoing enforcement actions are not shared with the public due to legal privilege and GDPR rules and regulations. More information relating to enforcement on the non-tidal Thames can be viewed on the Non-Tidal River Thames Regulation and Enforcement Plan 2023/2024: Non-Tidal River Thames Regulation and Enforcement Plan 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). 

Comments on the answers received by MRAG so far include: "The EA continues to fob our MP and the minister off with claims that they are working in partnership with stakeholders (not us!) and local authorities (not EBC - as emphasised by their ChiefExecutive’s letter to the Chief Executive of the EA dated 16 March 23 on EBC's Tackling unauthorised moorings website)".  "The usual mealy-mouthed gobbledegook from the EA".   "And still they do nothing".    Our MP intends to challenge these answers and to pursue these issues further at a forthcoming meeting with the EA.  Meanwhile, MRAG's own comments on these answers (forwarded to Dominic Raab's office) are contained in the link below:  

In order to carry out more effective management of mooring and related issues, Molesey Riverside Action Group (MRAG) and others have proposed that the Environment Agency should gift their riverside land in Elmbridge to Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC).   To allay some of the concerns expressed on the EBC  website about additional costs to be borne by the Council if the proposal was accepted, Jill Sanders (Friends of Hurst Park and a member of the MRAG Committee) produced the following paper which provides some reassurance on the likely costs of maintaining the riverside land.

The paper was forwarded to EBC following MRAG's meeting with EBC on 20 April 2023.

Jill's paper:

Jill has lived midstream overlooking Hurst Park and been familiar with the reach for over 30 years. She was able to reassure officers that there had been no spending on the river bank strip of land between the water’s edge and the Thames Path that she had seen. What occurred over time was a happy result of benign neglect: a mixed river edge habitat of trees, lower level vegetation and open grass. In places beaches had formed and were welcomed by the TLS and the EA under a policy of “making space for water”. Where trees and vegetation had flourished there were now valuable habitats along an important wildlife corridor for flora and fauna, with significant benefits for water fowl, insects and aquatic life. It could be said this semi-natural strip was self-managing, responding to the ways it was used by the human species: small sheltered spaces for visiting the water’s edge, feeding birds, quiet moments, a bit of photography; or where it was more open for picnics, sunbathing, splashing in the river in warm summers, family and friends. There were now unusual grasses and seasonal wild flowers on the open areas upstream of the ferry landing which added to the charm of this varied riverbank. People – residents and visitors – liked the environment as they found it, and expressed concerned to think it might be “managed” by a parks department. The only expense Jill had seen over the years was if a fallen tree had to be removed because it had blocked the Thames Path (SCC cost) or the navigation (EA cost). Trees and branches that fell within the strip of land caused no harm and were better left there for ecological reasons. This sort of benign neglect very much mounted to re-wilding along the river, with chances for opportunistic native species. There was a hope and an expectation that authorities would allow it to continue and improve nature.

Those familiar with the riverside at Hurst Park appreciated that the unwanted elements, such as unauthorised mooring, “land-grabbing” and other anti-social behaviour, could be better tackled with EBC ownership under a clear and single responsibility. There might, with resolution of the current problems and with robust measures in place, be opportunities to manage moorings for authorised visiting boats and generate income from recognised stopping points.

JS (21 Apr 23)

A copy of the record of the above meeting is contained below.

1.Attendees from EBC:  Adam Chalmers AC (CE); Ian Burrows IB (Head of Culture, Leisure and Environment); Victoria Strachan VS (Head of Legal and Compliance); Attendees from MRAG: Peter Aron PA, Steve Collins SC, Jill Sanders JS. Apologies:Paula Gilder, Jenni Haile, Alastair Sturgis (all MRAG).

2.1 Question to Council Leader on 19 Apr 23 re illegal mooring. AC read us the text of Steve Bax (SB)’s question to the Council Leader at yesterday’s Full Council meeting and the latter’s response. In sum, Steve asked (in light of EA’s failure to carry out effective enforcement action on the Thames in Elmbridge), if EBC would now consider acquiring and managing EA owned land in Elmbridge.

2.2 The Leader’s response was that they were prepared to consider the proposal but that, before doing so, EBC would await the EA’s reply (due by tomorrow if EA are to meet their published response times) to the two letters sent by AC and the Leader to the EA in March 2023 requesting a meeting with EA ‘before 31 March’ to ‘start to make some progress’ in overcoming the current issues. The Leader also responded positively to SB’s request that resolving the problem of overstaying boats and illegal mooring should be pursued as a ‘cross-party issue’.

3.1 Meeting with EA. Given the hiatus following the departure of EA’s CE at end Mar and the arrival of his successor (Phillip Duffy) at the beginning of July, EBC will be pushing for their meeting to take place asap with other senior EA staff. In addition to pressing EA to carry out more effective enforcement, they will also be raising the question of EA gifting their land to EBC. In answer to MRAG questions: AC confirmed that EBC have no hidden agenda to oppose ownership and that EBC will be taking an even-handed approach on the matter. Also, we were assured that EBC will produce a record of the meeting and place it on their website. IB stated that EBC had not yet initiated action on preparing a properly costed estimate for taking on ownership. But in view of concerns about costs expressed on the EBC website, JS provided some reassurance on the likely cost of maintenance – see attachment in following update..

3.2 EBC confirmed they had had sight of our exchanges with our MP,  Dominic Raab, on his own meeting with EA (which EA had postponed but was still due to take place before end April). AC welcomed the tripartite approach (MP, EBC and residents) and hoped it would continue.

4.Update on PSPOs. IB reported that so far EBC had received over 700 responses to their consultation on introducing PSPOs, with over 70% in favour. As expected, the National Bargees and Travellers Association had lodged an objection and had encouraged their members to submit them too. The consultation would be resumed following May’s local elections, so there is still time to respond. If approved the introduction of PSPOs is on track to be implemented by the Autumn (but they will of course only be effective on EBC owned land).

5.Taking legal action against EA. Having forwarded a copy of MRAG’s draft Judicial Review (JR) document to EBC before the meeting, we sought VS’s view on whether a JR of EA’s ineffective enforcement was likely to succeed. VS’s view was that, due to some flaws she had identified in the case we had put forward, our complaint was unlikely to be upheld. However, for insurance liability reasons, she was not able to provide us with legal advice on how we might overcome these. Nor, on the basis of cost and possible outcome, would she be recommending to EBC leadership that EBC pursue their own (or a joint EBC/MRAG) JR against EA. (Given the above, MRAG have since decided not to pursue the JR option).

6.Petition. In the light of EBC’s decision to pursue the question of EA gifting their land at their forthcoming meeting, MRAG are likely to put their petition proposal on hold for the time being.

7.Date of next meeting. It was suggested that, post the forthcoming elections, MRAG should meet both the Council Leader and Deputy Leader. It was also agreed we should continue to meet with EBC leadership in order to pursue our cooperation in resolving the problems associated with overstaying boats. Date to be agreed in due course. In the meantime we should aim to keep each other informed on major developmemts. NB One such development is that MRAG were informed on 21 April that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) have now allocated our complaint to a Caseworker (despite having previously informed us it would be Sept/Oct before they were able to do so).

Completely out of the blue on 21 April 23 I received a call from Anna Wharf who informed me she was a Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) Caseworker and that she had been asked to deal with our complaint against the EA.  I expressed surprise since we had been told in December that it would be nine months before our case was even allocated to a Caseworker.  Anna said the reduced timescale arose because PHSO had been working hard to get through their backlog of cases.

Anna proceeded to ask me some detailed questions about our complaint and informed me she was likely to have more once she had had a chance to read up on the substantial quantity of paperwork submitted as attachments to our case.  She will also be in touch with the EA officials concerned and would need to await their responses before she is in touch with us again.

At this stage I have no idea how long the PHSO consideration of our case will take but I will of course keep our supporters updated on developments.  However it is good news that the review has started some four months or so earlier than we had previously been advised.

Peter (on behalf of Molesey Riverside Action Group, MRAG) 

The following is the text of a Molesey Riverside Action Group (MRAG) email to supporters on the above proposal

Dear MRAG Supporters,

You may not have received an invitation to participate in Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC)’s consultation on whether to introduce Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) to protect EBC-owned green spaces and riverside land.   (I hadn’t until it was forwarded to me by a member of Hampton and Molesey Riverside Trust).  The consultation started on  21 Feb and was due to end on 20 March 2023, but I understand EBC will still accept responses.  It can be accessed via this link:  

 seeking your views on whether we should introduce a new Public Space Protection Order (PSPO)

You will see that EBC’s consultation seeks views on the use of PSPOs in connection with a variety of activities (eg BBQs, fishing, littering) in addition to illegal mooring, whereas Dominic Raab’s recent survey focussed solely on illegally moored and overstaying boats.   Whilst PSPOs will not enable EBC to remove illegally moored boats from Environment Agency (EA) owned land (where the majority of the illegally moored boats on our stretch of the Thames are moored) they will nevertheless assist EBC to remove unregistered boats from EBC owned land.  So to that extent, MRAG supports the introduction of PSPOs to assist EBC to remove unregistered overstaying boats from their land.

To clarify the present position we should explain that EBC already have the powers they need to enable District Enforcement (DE), who take enforcement action on their behalf against overstaying registered boats moored on their land (which is mainly downstream from Molesey Lock).  But if boats are unregistered (which is the case with many of the overstaying boats) DE have to wait for the ineffective EA to take action to get the boats registered before they are able to initiate enforcement action.  The benefit of PSPOs is that DE, with assistance from Surrey Police where necessary, will be able to take action to remove the boats without having to wait for EA to take action to get them registered.

In view of the above, Molesey Riverside Action Group (MRAG) urge all those in favour of removing illegally moored and overstaying boats to participate in the consultation exercise and register their support for the introduction of PSPOs to prevent boats from overstaying (Question 14). 

However it is disappointing these PSPOs cannot be used to prevent mooring without permission on EA owned land.  EA have confirmed they have all the powers they need to remove overstaying boats on their land but for reasons best known to themselves they won't use them.   We therefore encourage those of you participating in the consultation to use question 16 (Do you have any further feedback on the proposal?) to express your dissatisfaction that EBC will not be able to use PSPOs to take enforcement action on EA owned land.

Suggested wording to paste into Question 16 is as follows:  I note that EBC will not be able to use PSPOs to take enforcement action on overstaying boats moored on EA land.  Since use of PSPOs to take enforcement action on overstaying boats would not be necessary at all if EA use the powers already available to them to remove overstaying boats, I urge EBC Councillors and Council officers, with the support of our MP, to to put pressure on the EA to carry out their enforcement responsibilities without further procrastination and delay. 

Please feel free to circulate this email to others - or to email me if you have any questions on the above.

Peter (on behalf of Molesey Riverside Action Group, MRAG) 

The following is the email exchange with EBC’s Chief Executive and Head of Leisure and Governance on the above subject.

Email to EBC dated 9 March 2023:

Dear Adam and Ian,

The link below describes how the owner of a small boat on the Thames in Abingdon received a 'hefty' fine for failing to register his boat.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/choppy-waters-for-thames-river-boat-owner

In that case the Environment Agency attached a warning notice to the boat in August 22 and the boat owner was convicted by a court seven months later in Feb 23.

Yet here in Molesey we have unregistered overstaying boats moored on our riverbanks for years with no apparent action being taken by the EA. Even when the EA issue enforcement notices it seems that no meaningful follow up action is taken. For example a Twitter post on 7 April 22 by an EA Operations Manager, contained the following report:

"Nav ENF today issued 12 boats on hurst park all have had registration enforcement notices and advised that we will be back in 14 days to enforce directions to move and issue notices for fly tipping on towpath."

Nearly a year later, many of those boats (some of them large and unsightly compared to the small seemingly well-maintained boat in Abingdon) are still there - and have been joined by others - and some of them appear still to be unregistered. As far as we are aware no prosecutions resulting in convictions have taken place as a result of the notices issued in April 22, or if they have the outcomes have certainly not be publicised as was the case of the small boat in Abingdon.

We thought the disparity in treatment is something you might usefully raise at your next partnership meeting with the EA.

Best wishes,

Peter

Response from EBC Head of Leisure end Governance

Good afternoon Peter

I have raised the below with the EA, and they have provided the following update for your information:

The Environment Agency has taken action against boat owners in the Molesey area, an example of this is the case that was brought against Alistair Trotman, which was publicised at the time;

Kingston boater fined for illegal moorings - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

This case took significant time and resource from the Agency to progress and our enforcement team are still looking at all options available to us following this successful conviction.

We continue to carry out patrols in the Molesey area to identify unregistered craft and will look to follow the necessary process against any boats that we identify who are unregistered.

We have recently served “directions to move” notices on boats moored at our Hurst Park visitor moorings. This has resulted in a number of boats which had been moored there for a considerable time being moved.

Prosecution is only one of the enforcement tools available to us. Many boats register before we get to that point, which is the outcome the our registration enforcement work is trying to achieve.

I will continue to seek updates at each regular meeting and update our website accordingly

Kind regards

Ian

MRAG comment on the EA response:

The above email above provides a good example of EA giving the brush off (in this case to EBC) to a legitimate enquiry about follow-up action on unregistered overstaying boats.

The best the EA could come up with in response to the enquiry was a Jan 22 action against a persistent offender which had nothing to do with a registration offence. In fact it related to a refusal to obey a harbour-master’s instruction to move - and the only reason they took any action in that case was because the owner (a persistent offender)’s two vessels (Kupe and RoR, moored in a lock cut) 'were likely to affect the navigation of other vessels in a stretch of water narrowed by the boat owner’s illegal mooring’. One of the boats (RoR) was subsequently moved to a mooring on EA owned land near the Hurst Park slipway.

We do not regard an outcome in which a boat moved by EA from an illegal mooring on EA owned land is permitted to move half a mile upstream to another illegal mooring on EA owned land (where it has remained for four years so far) to be a success for the EA to crow about.

The following is the record of our meeting with Elmbridge Council's Chief Executive on 24 Feb 23:

Attendees EBC: Adam Chalmers (AC, CE), Ian Burrows (IB, Head of Leisure); Cllr Steve Bax; MRAG: Peter Aron, (PA) Steve Collins (SC), Jill Sanders), Alastair Sturges; Apologies: Cllr Peter Pope

1.Following introductions PA made an opening statement on behalf of MRAG (att at end of record).

2. Reasons behind EBC’s decision to use PSPOs to remove overstaying and illegally moored boats. This is mainly because EBC’s existing contract with District Enforcement does not enable them to remove unregistered overstaying boats moored on their land. The EA have responsibility for pursuing owners who fail to register their boats but they have been ineffective in carrying out their responsibilities. EBC will be able to use PSPOs to issue fixed penalty notices to overstaying unregistered boats.

3. EBC to explain how they intend to use PSPOs to remove overstaying boats (whether occupied or unoccupied and including those moored on land not owned by EBC).

3.1. In his opening response to this Agenda item AC informed us he wanted to make it clear EBCs current consultation does not extend to using PSPOs to deal with boats moored against EA owned land (see FAQs https://news.elmbridge.gov.uk/Home/News/consultation-for-proposed-green-spaces-pspo). Since the vast majority of overstaying boats on the Molesey – Sunbury stretch of the river are moored on EA owned land, it followed that PSPOs could not be regarded as a solution to this problem. AC said it was important to be clear on this point because recent surveys and correspondence sent to local residents promoting the use of PSPOs has raised expectations that they will overcome the problem – whilst the reality is they wont. For PSPOs be effective on EA owned land (in the absence of EA support in enforcing them), EBC would first have to acquire ownership of EA’s land.

3.2. Even on EBC owned land, it cannot be taken for granted that the use of PSPOs will be approved since the consultation exercise has not yet concluded and been considered by EBC’s Cabinet. Although it is likely some strong objections to their use will be put forward by various organisations (eg those supporting the rights of live-aboard boat owners as at Cherry Orchard Gardens), EBC are hopeful their use will be approved. In which case the likely start date for their implementation on EBC owned land is likely to be July/Aug this year.

3.3 Following the disclosure that PSPOs will not be used on EA owned land, discussion turned to the question of EA gifting their land to EBC. Although MRAG had agreed to put their proposal to initiate a petition on this on hold in light of EBCs decision to introduce PSPOs, the failure of PSPOs to deal with the problem on EA owned land meant there was now no other available alternative. Whilst AC said he could understand why MRAG had reached this conclusion, he reiterated EBCs understandable concerns about taking on unquantified financial commitments. In response, MRAG drew attention to an email from a Hampton Councillor providing details of LBRuT’s significantly lower costs than EBC’s uncosted £200k estimate. However we all agreed a realistic estimate of costs, including those of enforcement but noting the availability of volunteers, was a necessary prerequisite. The outcome of the discussion was that AC offered to raise the subject with the Leader and Deputy Leader of EBC to assess their initial response to MRAG’s petition proposal.

4. EBCs working relationship with EA. 

4.1 SC raised the issue of the formal complaint letter sent by AC’s predecessor Robert Moran to Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive of the EA in July 2021. SC asked how had EBC responded to EA’s failure to respond? IB reported that he and Robert Moran had held a Zoom meeting in August 2021 with Maria Herlihey and Colin Chiverton of the EA. No minutes had been taken. EBC officers continue to be frustrated by the lack of enforcement action by the EA.

4.2 SC also asked IB whether he knew the reason why the EA had cancelled the contract with District Enforcement to manage moorings on their land. IB said that he did know the reason but was unsure if this information was already in the public domain (NB IB can confirm now this was following the identification of procedural problems in the EA’S first procurement process).

4.3 IB confirmed EA used to chair meetings with local authorities in the so-called TOPAG (Thames Operational Partnership Group). SC commented these meetings had been held under a cloak of secrecy, no minutes were kept and River Users saw no practical outcomes.

4.4 In their answer to the written questions posed by members of EBC’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee the EA stated that they led on a “Non-tidal Thames Multi-agency Partnership”, and that they worked with other riparian councils to share practice. MRAG representatives responded to this statement with complete scepticism. They and River Users continue to see no evidence of effective partnership working from the EA.

4.5 PA quoted a reply to an email which he had sent to Ms Julia Simpson EA Area Director Thames, which posed the question: who is in charge of mooring enforcement on the stretch of the riverbank owned by the EA but located within EBC boundaries? PA was shocked by the reply from Ms Simpson to the effect that: “no one agency takes the lead on mooring regulation, each agency – EA, EBC and Surrey FRS has its own aegis of responsibility”. PA passed a hard copy of this email to AC.

4.6 EBC Officers and MRAG representatives are in complete agreement that responsibility for mooring regulation on land owned by the EA on the stretch of the river between Molesey and Walton rests with the EA. They are: 1) the landowner, 2) the owners of the riverbed and 3) the navigation authority.

ATT:  MRAG OPENING STATEMENT AT 24 FEB 23 MEETING WITH EBC CE

• MRAG formed in Mar 22 in response to failure of Authorities to resolve problem of overstaying boats on between Molesey Lock and Sunbury Lock. EA, owners of majority of this land, admit they have “all the powers they need” but do nothing; EBC say they can do nothing abouts boats moored against land they do not own; our MP has been pushing the case for PSPOs but these need to be implemented by EBC, who until now have not favoured their use.

• This has been a long-standing unsolved problem. John Inglis (Friends of Hurst Park) first raised concerns with Elmbridge 11 years (his email of 23 Feb 12) that Richmond Council’s introduction of bye-laws to solve their problem of illegally moored boats would lead to an influx of boats to the Elmbridge banks. EBC replied they were confident they had the necessary powers to move boats on, but it transpired this applied only to registered boats and those moored on EBC owned land. Seven years later, David Garrett (Rescue Our Riverbank 2) included the following statement in an e-mail (dated 16 April 19) to the then Leader of Elmbridge Council and others: “For shame, Gentlemen. For shame that your organisations are prepared to pass the buck, proffer excuses, bicker between themselves about responsibilities, and generally prevaricate and wring their hands while unconstrained boaters run riot over this beautiful gem of a river.”    As at Mar 23 the problem is still unsolved.

• To overcome the problem, MRAG supported a boaters’ (RUG 8 and RoR 2) proposal that EA gift their land to EBC so that EBC (accountable to voters) carried out more effective management of moorings on the lines of Kingston and Richmond Councils. EBC rejected the proposal, mainly on grounds of (uncosted) estimates of resources. They urged MRAG to pursue our concerns with the EA.

• This we have done for the past 10 months: acquiring Crowd Funding to obtain legal advice on pursuing our complaints through Stages 1 and 2 of EA’s complaints process and, following their rejection, submitting our complaint to the PHSO in Dec 22. However, we have since been informed that it will be 9 months before our complaint is even looked at by a PHSO Caseworker.

• Having tried but failed to achieve results by doing what EBC asked us to do, MRAG had intended to initiate a petition that EBC invite EA to gift them their land. We believe we will be able to exceed the 2,600 threshold for the proposal to be put to EBC’s Cabinet and that Councillors with wards bordering the riverbank would be able to lobby other Councillors to achieve a majority in favour (particularly as we believe EBC’s uncosted estimate was overstated).

• However in light of EBCs change of mind on PSPOs, we have put this proposal on hold for the time being. We would therefore be interested to hear:

• what brought about EBCs change of mind on use of PSPOs:

• what assurances EBC are able to provide that PSPOs will be effective in removing unauthorised overstaying boats on the Molesey riverbank (whether occupied or unoccupied and whether on land owned by EA or others).

• Over to EBC… (agenda items 3 and 4).

The following is the text of an email sent to Rob Behrens (Executive Chair of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, PHSO) on 2 Feb 23 expressing our disappointment on being informed of a 9 month delay before our complaint is allocated to a PHSO Case Worker  (To date we have received no reply):

Dear Mr Behrens,

I am emailing you in my capacity as Chair of the Molesey Riverside Action Group to say we were hugely encouraged by an article in The Times on 23 May last year   which quoted you as saying Government Departments were covering up serious wrongdoing and "fobbing off” members of the public who complain.  At that time we were pursuing a complaint with the Environment Agency (EA) about their failure to use their statutory legal powers to remove two large and unsightly unoccupied commercial accommodation barges (see photos attached) moored for years without consent on EA owned land. 

The reason we were encouraged by your article was because we felt that “fobbing off” and all the other comments attributed to you in the article accurately described the treatment we had received both before and since from the EA .  It was good to know that you and your officials had recognised this trait in the way in which officials dealt with complaints from members of the public..

Having taken our complaint through two stages of the EA’s laborious complaints procedure - which resulted in our failure to achieve anything remotely resembling a satisfactory outcome, we obtained the support of our MP to submit our complaint to your office on 23 Nov 22 (see copy attached).

It then came as a tremendous shock and disappointment  (after all the hard work put in by our action group) to be informed in a letter dated 1 Dec 22 (attached) that it would be up to nine months before our case was even allocated to a case worker.   It is no exaggeration to say that this left us feeling massively dispirited and even, to use your phrase, fobbed off by the very body that we were relying on to overcome the ‘fobbing off’ we had already suffered at the hands of the EA.

Of course we recognise the pressures your staff must be under if the experience of others in dealing with government departments is anything like our own dealings with the EA.  But I wanted you to be aware, if you are not already, of the impact a delay of nine months has on those who feel that they have already suffered an injustice at the hands of officialdom.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Aron        

  PHSO to Mr Aron (01.12.22).pdf

A copy of our letter to Julia Simpson (EA Area Director, Thames) dated 19 Dec 22 expressing dissatisfaction with the outcome of the 'Independent' Inspector's investigation into our complaint and outlining possible future action is attached. 

Peter Aron

MRAG to EA (JS) 19 Dec 2022-1.docx

EA Frequently asked questions.pdf

First the good news:   The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)'s office has informed us our complaint has got through its initial scrutiny and is now to be assigned to a Caseworker.  

Second the bad news:   The following is an extract from the PHSO letter informing us of the above:  

Best wishes, 

Peter

First the good news:   The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)'s office has informed us our complaint has got through its initial scrutiny and is now to be assigned to a Caseworker.  

Second the bad news:   The following is an extract from the PHSO letter informing us of the above:  

Best wishes, 

Peter

Dear Supporters,

Our Complaint about the EA's failure to remove Hui and RoR from the short-stay mooring at Sadlers Ride, Hurst Park, was forwarded to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) as an Attachment to a letter from our MP Dominic Raab on 23 Nov 11. 

A copy of the covering letter and of the completed PHSO complaint form are contained in the Attachment below.  (A copy of the EA's letter containing the rejection of our Stage 2 complaint is also contained in the Attachment, but this was circulated to you with the previous Update). 

Peter Aron

scan.pdf

Having received no reply to our request on 5 Nov for a copy of the EA Independent Inspector's report into our Stage 2 complaint, we submitted a further request to see it under the Freedom of Information Act on 15 Nov.   Today we received a copy of the report (see Attachment), together with a statement from the EA that they were intending to send it to us all along! 

We consider the report to be light on detail, despite taking four months to compile.  It says nothing about the failures of leadership and management, which the Inspector would have been competent to comment on, despite our having given him examples of such failures.  Nor does it include any feedback from his interviews with operational staff, despite our knowing that some of them share our frustrations and told the Inspector so when he interviewed them.  There are also other statements in the report with which we disagree. 

But the essential point is that the investigation into our complaint has not resulted in the removal of Hui and RoR, despite both vessels having been moored without consent alongside EA owned land at Hurst Park for over three years.  We therefore feel fully justified in submitting the next stage of our complaint (currently with our MP for sign-off) to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

 THMC16031 Independent internal report Formal complaint review - template report.pdf

On 1 Nov 22 we received a letter from an EA Director rejecting our Stage 2 complaint (see first Attachment).

Although our immediate reaction was one of dismay (to put it mildly), we are not deterred and our campaign to remove Hui and RoR from the Elmbridge riverbank continues. Our next step is to elevate our complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) via our MP.

Even though we had been informed we would receive a copy of the Independent Inspector’s report into our complaint (which has been under investigation since August), it was not attached to the rejection letter and we have not yet succeeded in obtaining a copy of it (see email exchange in second attachment). But here again our efforts continue and, if necessary, we will seek to obtain it by submitting a Freedom of Information request.

Two points raising concerns in the rejection letter are as follows:

a)  The EA Director signing off the rejection is the line manager of both the Independent Inspector and the Area Director for the stretch of the Thames at the centre of our complaint. At least until we have sight of the Independent Inspector’s report, this raises a question about the line manager’s impartiality;

b)  The rejection letter contains the following statement: “ I believe that given the recent change of ownership of these vessels.…”   Whilst this raises questions we would obviously wish to pursue, the EA’s further statement that: “...the Environment Agency will not discuss ongoing enforcement matters with 3rd parties...."  will inevitably inhibit our ability to do so.

THMC16031 EA response to Mr Aron.pdfEMAIL EXCHANGE WITH EA FOLLOWING REJECTION OF COMPLAINT.docx

Update 14 provided details of some questions we put to EA officers at a meeting on 23 July (also attended by Dominic Raab MP and Cllr Steve Bax).  Having chased up a response, we received the EA reply on 23 October.  Answers to the questions (and for ease of reference a copy of the email in which we raised them) are contained in the emails pasted below.  

Begin forwarded message:
From: Peter Aron <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: WW2022-1024 - 220803/SRi03 - UNAUTHORISED MOORING ON THAMES IN ELMBRIDGE
Date: 21 October 2022 at 15:47:21 BST

At last we have answers to our questions, but these raise a number of further questions which I suggest we should delay following-up until we receive the response to our Stage 2 complaint (due by the end of  this month). 

On c, the response on fly-tipping seems odd given that on 7 Apr the EA Twitter post mentioned that the “...EA would be back in 14 days to enforce directions to move and issue notices for fly-tipping on the towpath”.   If dealing with fly-tipping on the towpath is not within the EA’s remit, why did they bother to mention they would be back to issue notices for fly-tipping if they had no intention of doing so?  It just re-enforces illegal moorers’ belief that EA threats can be ignored with impunity.

Regards,

Peter 

Begin forwarded message:
From: WaterwaysThames <[email protected]>Subject: WW2022-1024 - 220803/SRi03 - UNAUTHORISED MOORING ON THAMES IN ELMBRIDGEDate: 21 October 2022 at 11:31:02 BSTTo: Peter Aron <[email protected]>Cc: WaterwaysThames <[email protected]>
Dear Peter,

Following your meeting at the end of July with Andrew Croxford & myself, along with MP Dominic Raab and Cllr Steve Bax, you wrote to us asking for clarification on a number of points. Firstly, can I apologies for the delay in getting back to you but hopefully the below answers all your questions.

1. Stage 2 Complaint: Your Stage 2 compliant is being investigated by Simon Moody, Deputy Director for our Solent & South Downs Area. Simon has confirmed that the interviews and review are completed, and he hopes to provide you with a response by the end of October.

2. Hui and RoR: I have discussed your request regarding the registration status of these two vessels with our enforcement team. They have informed me that we do not share the registration status of boats with third parties, so unfortunately, I cannot confirm if they are or are not registered.

3. Registration Enforcement Notices: Following our action on the 7^th April we didn’t issue any directions to move on the 10 boats that we issued registration enforcement notices on. We did return to Hurst Park 14 days later and issued follow up notices on the boats that were still there. Following this action 2 of the boats have registered. Unfortunately, the remaining boats haven’t been followed up due to resource constraints and our enforcement priorities across the entire length of the River.

We didn’t issue any fly-tipping notices during this time as this isn’t within the Environment Agency’s remit. This activity may have been carried out by the Local Authority.

4. Changes to our Bye-laws: Our by-laws cover the whole of the non-tidal River Thames and fall under our Primary Legislation the Thames Conservancy Act. We aren’t currently looking to change or amend them for a specific area of the River. We are always looking at how we can use our existing powers more effectively to achieve positive outcomes across the non-tidal Thames.

 Enforcement contract: Our contract with District Enforcement was terminated due to an issue with the tendering process. Enforcement of Environment Agency moorings is currently being undertaken but our own staff we are looking into if this could be carried out by a third party. If this option is taken off it would be a national contract that would be available for all areas of the Environment Agency where we are the navigation authority and not just Thames Area.Consultation with river users about the implementation of Article 24 of IWO 2010, hasn’t taken place yet. This work is being led on by our National Colleagues but is unfortunately behind schedule. However, we do not agree that this has hampered our enforcement of the boats at Hurst Park.

Again, many apologies in the delay in getting back to you following your meeting at the end of July and I hope that above answers you question

Yours sincerely,James AdamsSenior SpecialistEnvironment Agency

  Begin forwarded message:

From: Peter Aron <[email protected]>

Subject: UNAUTHORISED MOORING ON THAMES IN ELMBRIDGEDate: 

23 July 2022 at 13:12:20 BSTTo: [email protected], 

Cc: [email protected], 

Dear James,

It was good to meet you and Andy at the meeting with our MP Dominic Raab and Cllr Steve Bax yesterday afternoon. I thought you might find it helpful to have the following details of the points you kindly agreed to pursue:

a) Our Stage 2 complaint. We asked if you would let us know the name and job title of the EA official who is to carry out the independent review and also the time scale in which it will be completed in line with your service standards. We agreed a timescale of up to about six weeks seemed reasonable.

b) Hui and RoR. We asked if these vessels were currently registered under the Inland Waterways (Environment Agency) Order 2010. You kindly agreed to find out and let us know.

c) Registration Enforcement Notices. On 7 Apr 22 an EA Twitter post mentioned that "12 boats on Hurst Park had been issued with registration enforcement notices and added that EA would be back in 14 days to enforce directions to move and issue notices for fly-tipping on the towpath”. We asked for details of the outcome of this enforcement action but you said that legal constraints prevented you from providing these. Whilst recognising these constraints in connection with any ongoing action, we would nevertheless welcome an outline summary of the outcome of this enforcement activity. We believe you should be able to provide this without breaching your confidentiality requirements. If you were able to provide details of eg the number of boats complying with your registration notices, obeying or refusing directions to move and also the number of fines or other action resulting from the issuing of fly-tipping notices, this would go a small way towards overcoming the frustration felt by local residents who are otherwise left with the impression that the EA is failing to take or follow ups any enforcement action.

d) Bye-laws. We touched on Kingston and Richmond Councils' introduction of bye-laws which had significantly reduced the incidence of unauthorised mooring on the stretches of riverbank that they own. This had resulted in the displacement of overstaying boats to the Elmbridge riverbank, where no similar bye-laws exist. In response to our enquiry, you agreed to look into the possibility of the EA introducing such bye-laws on their land in Elmbridge.

Enforcement contract.  Whilst emailing you, there are two other matters on which we would welcome your advice. The first concerns your contract with District Enforcement. In an email dated 19 Nov 19, Julia Simpson commented as follows to a river user who had complained about the lack of enforcement:"I am sure you will be encouraged to know that we are engaged in the procurement process for a company to manage our mooring sites. This will be at our dedicated mooring sites and at sites where we are the landowner but do not encourage, facilitate or allow stays beyond 24 hours. Desborough Island is an example of the former and the riverbank upstream of Sunbury’s Ait and example of the latter. We hope to have appointed the successful bidder and have new arrangements in place well before the start of the new boating season.”In the event District Enforcement, who have a good track record on enforcement, were awarded the contract but it was terminated shortly thereafter. We should be grateful if you would let us know why the contract was terminated and also if it is intended that a further contract for an external company to manage your mooring sites is currently under consideration.

And finally, consultation with river users about the implementation of IWO 2010.Article 24 of that Order requires the EA to:

"consult with sue organisations as appear to be representative of users off the 

waterways in relation to the introduction of registration requirements"

Despite being a long outstanding requirement, we understand that no such consultation has yet taken place. We should therefore be grateful if you would explain why this is the case and when you expect it to be undertaken. Local residents consider this to be an urgent requirement since we believe the failure to carry out this consultation has inhibited the EA from being able to implement some of the enforcement powers which would otherwise be available to the Agency under the terms of the IWO.We are grateful to you and Andy for making the time available to attend our meeting. Now that we have met, we feel it will be beneficial for both the EA and ourselves if we keep in touch on issues such as those raised above. We hope you will agree and we look forward to receiving your responses to these enquiries.

With thanks and kind regards,

Peter

Having originally been informed the EA's response to our Stage 2 Complaint would reach us by the end of September, we were subsequently informed it would be by about the middle of October and more recently we've been assured it will be by the end of October (ie the day after tomorrow!).  Copies of our recent exchanges with the EA on the date we can expect to receive it are pasted below:

Dear Peter

Apologies for the delay in this update. Both Simon and I have been out of the office recently.

I have spoken to Simon, and he has confirmed he has all the information he needs, and we have allocated space in his calendar over the next few weeks in order for him to complete his report, which will be with you by the end of October.

Kind regards

Jo

Jo Lima

PA to Simon Moody, Area Director, Solent and South Downs

Environment Agency | Guildbourne House, Chatsworth Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 1LD


From: Peter Aron <[email protected]>
Sent: 18 October 2022 11:31
To: Moody, Simon <[email protected]>
Cc: Lima, Jo <[email protected]>;

Dear Simon,

Please let me know when we can expect to receive the update you mention below.

Thank you.

Peter

On 23 Sep 2022, at 14:42, Lima, Jo <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Peter

Just to give you an update on the interviews that Simon has been overseeing.

Five out of the six interviews have now taken place and the final one is due to take place next week. They have taken slightly longer than expected due to staff absence.

Simon will update you again within the next few weeks.

Kind regards

Jo

Jo Lima

PA to Simon Moody, Area Director, Solent and South Downs

Environment Agency | Guildbourne House, Chatsworth Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 1LD

The EA's response to our Stage 2 complaint was expected by the end of September but we have since been informed that 'interviews with the relevant staff have taken longer than expected due to staff absences'.  An email dated 23 Sept assured us we would receive a further update 'within the next few weeks'.  So we will chase up a response if we have heard nothing further by mid October. Meanwhile, we were due to receive a response by 16 September to queries we had raised with EA officers following a meeting hosted by MRAG on 23 July (also attended. by our MP Dominic Raab and Cllr Steve Bax).  We have since drawn the attention of the EA Director investigating our Stage 2 complaint to the EA's failure to reply to this and other questions we have raised ov er the past year or so and we expect reference to be made to this in the Investigator's response.   A copy of the email chain containing the queries we raised following the 23 July meeting is pasted below for your information.

Peter Aron

Email chain:

On 23 Sep 2022, at 06:32, Peter Aron wrote
Dear Andy,
As 16 September has come and gone, some indication of when you expect to be able to reply to my email of 23 July will be much appreciated please.
Thank you.
Peter

On 18 Aug 2022, at 08:02, WaterwaysThames <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Peter, I am sure you can appreciate that in order to answer these questions, discussions will need to be had with our Enforcement, Legal and possibly National teams. James is seeking the information for a response and we will aim to get back to you with answers before 16 September. If we are unable to meet this date with all the answers, we will update you beforehand.   

Andrew CroxfordLocal Development Lead Environment AgencyThames Waterways Operations

From: Peter Aron 

Subject: UNAUTHORISED MOORING ON THAMES IN ELMBRIDGEDate: 23 July 2022 at 13:12:20 BST

To: [email protected], [email protected]Cc: [email protected],

Dear James,It was good to meet you and Andy at the meeting with our MP Dominic Raab and Cllr Steve Bax yesterday afternoon. I thought you might find it helpful to have the following details of the points you kindly agreed to pursue:

a) Our Stage 2 complaint. We asked if you would let us know the name and job title of the EA official who is to carry out the independent review and also the time scale in which it will be completed in line with your service standards. We agreed a timescale of up to about six weeks seemed reasonable

b) Hui and RoR. We asked if these vessels were currently registered under the Inland Waterways (Environment Agency) Order 2010. You kindly agreed to find out and let us know.

c) Registration Enforcement Notices. On 7 Apr 22 an EA Twitter post mentioned that "12 boats on Hurst Park had been issued with registration enforcement notices and added that EA would be back in 14 days to enforce directions to move and issue notices for fly-tipping on the towpath”. We asked for details of the outcome of this enforcement action but you said that legal constraints prevented you from providing these. Whilst recognising these constraints in connection with any ongoing action, we would nevertheless welcome an outline summary of the outcome of this enforcement activity. We believe you should be able to provide this without breaching your confidentiality requirements. If you were able to provide details of eg the number of boats complying with your registration notices, obeying or refusing directions to move and also the number of fines or other action resulting from the issuing of fly-tipping notices, this would go a small way towards overcoming the frustration felt by local residents who are otherwise left with the impression that the EA is failing to take or follow ups any enforcement action.

d) Bye-laws. We touched on Kingston and Richmond Councils' introduction of bye-laws which had significantly reduced the incidence of unauthorised mooring on the stretches of riverbank that they own. This had resulted in the displacement of overstaying boats to the Elmbridge riverbank, where no similar bye-laws exist. In response to our enquiry, you agreed to look into the possibility of the EA introducing such bye-laws on their land in Elmbridge.

Enforcement contract.  Whilst emailing you, there are two other matters on which we would welcome your advice. The first concerns your contract with District Enforcement. In an email dated 19 Nov 19, Julia Simpson commented as follows to a river user who had complained about the lack of enforcement:"I am sure you will be encouraged to know that we are engaged in the procurement process for a company to manage our mooring sites. This will be at our dedicated mooring sites and at sites where we are the landowner but do not encourage, facilitate or allow stays beyond 24 hours. Desborough Island is an example of the former and the riverbank upstream of Sunbury’s Ait and example of the latter. We hope to have appointed the successful bidder and have new arrangements in place well before the start of the new boating season.”  In the event District Enforcement, who have a good track record on enforcement, were awarded the contract but it was terminated shortly thereafter. We should be grateful if you would let us know why the contract was terminated and also if it is intended that a further contract for an external company to manage your mooring sites is currently under consideration.

And finally, consultation with river users about the implementation of IWO 2010. Article 24 of that Order requires the EA to: 

"consult with such organisations as appear  to be representatives of users of the waterways in relation to the introduction of registration requirements."  

Despite being a long outstanding requirement, we understand that no such consultation has yet taken place. We should therefore be grateful if you would explain why this is the case and when you expect it to be undertaken. Local residents consider this to be an urgent requirement since we believe the failure to carry out this consultation has inhibited the EA from being able to implement some of the enforcement powers which would otherwise be available to the Agency under the terms of the IWO.

We are grateful to you and Andy for making the time available to attend our meeting. Now that we have met, we feel it will be beneficial for both the EA and ourselves if we keep in touch on issues such as those raised above. We hope you will agree and we look forward to receiving your responses to these enquiries.                                   

With thanks and kind regards, Peter

We have been informed that EA Officers have recently been posting notices threatening legal action against various boats "moored without consent" (their preferred term) on the Thames in Molesey.  The example we have seen related to one of the illegally moored boats at Cherry Orchard Gardens, but there was no sign of one on RoR or Hui when I looked this afternoon.

Whilst the issue of these Notices is good news of sorts (and just may have resulted from our Stage 2 complaint about EA failings), EA have done this before and the deadlines for action come and go.  In this case the deadline for vacating the site is 3rd October (ie today).  So it will be interesting to see if anything happens.....

Kind regards,

Peter

EA Legal Letter Sept 2022

We held an online meeting on 16 Aug 22 with the Independent Investigator of our Stage 2 Complaint about the EA's ineffective enforcement of their mooring regulations in relation to unconsented mooring on EA owned riverbank land in Elmbridge.  Salient points from the meeting are recorded in the Word Doc below:MeetingPoints160822.docx

On 28 Jul 2022, at 18:01, Simpson, Julia <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr Aron, Complaint reference: THMC16031 (previous reference THMCU14644) I am sorry for the delay in confirming the details of the independent investigator, this took slightly longer than normal due to annual leave. I can now confirm that Simon Moody has been appointed to undertake the review under Stage 2 of our policy and that Simon is qualified as an Area Director for our Solent and South Downs Team, with considerable previous experience as an independent investigator. Simon is undertaking an initial review of case files and will provide you with an indication of timescales once he has had time to consider this. In response to your question on which Agency takes the lead on activities against unauthorised vessels overstaying on EA land in Elmbridge. I can confirm that no one Agency currently takes a lead. This is because each Agency has its own legal aegis and responsibilities. Whether that is Elmbridge DC, Fire and Rescue, or ourselves. We will liaise and work in support of each other and continue to share our intelligence. 

Yours sincerely Julia Simpson Area Director - ThamesEnvironment Agency [email protected] 

On 12 Jul 2022, at 11:17, Peter Aron <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Ms Simpson and/or Miss Hill,

Thank you for arranging for this complaint to be escalated to Stage 2 of your complaints procedure.

It would be helpful if you would let me know the name/job title of the independent investigator appointed to carry this out and also an indication of the timescale in which we can expect it to be completed. 

I note from your email that you 'continue to work with professional partners to combine enforcement activity', but I would be interested to know whether it is the Environment Agency or some other organisation that actually takes the lead on this activity.

Answers to these questions will be very much appreciated please.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Aron

On 5 Jul 2022, at 16:21, Simpson, Julia <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr Aron, Thank you for your correspondence dated 14 June 2022 and 1 July 2022 regarding unauthorised vessels on Environment Agency land in Elmbridge and I apologise for not responding sooner.I acknowledge your request to escalate this matter to stage 2 of our complaints procedure and would be happy to put measures in place to action this. I will be appointing an independent investigator to review our management of this matter.My staff are aware of their responsibilities associated with us being the Navigation Authority and we will continue to work with professional partners to combine enforcement activity, where appropriate to do so. Please do not hesitate to contact [email protected] if you have any further queries. Yours sincerely, Emma Emma HillActing Area Director - ThamesOn behalf of Julia SimpsonArea Director – ThamesEnvironment Agency

1 July 2022

Dear Ms Simpson, 

RHYTHM OF THE RIVER (ROR) AND HUI MOORED AT HURST PARK 

I have tried calling you by phone to discuss this matter before sending this letter but your Customer Service staff told me you were not available.

Further to my letter dated 14^th June which followed the complaint letter sent you on my behalf by Chris Millar on the 5^th May (to neither of which have we received a reply) I am writing to ask you to escalate our complaint to Stage 2 of the Environment Agency’s complaints procedure, ie the independent investigation of our complaint that you have failed to remove Mr Trotman’s two boats Rhythm of the River (ROR) and Hui from their mooring at Hurst Park.

Quite simply, our patience is exhausted, and we feel we have reached the end of the line with our initial complaint as ROR and Hui have not been moved and you won’t tell us whether or not you are going to use your harbourmaster powers, or any other powers ceded to you under Thames or national waterways legislation to remove them. Indeed, we feel you have lost control of this case as we believe that you do not know who now owns or controls these vessels. We posit that this is a clear case of maladministration.

You claim to be supporting Surrey FRS in the action that they are taking against the owner of these two vessels, but they have told us that their prosecution is completed and that their only concern now is to reclaim the court costs owed to them. You also claim to be working in partnership with Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC), but we see no evidence of this. All we see is an excoriating letter of complaint addressed to your Chief Executive from the EBC Chief Executive published on the EBC website, to which you have not had the courtesy to reply.

You could, of course, save everyone the time and trouble of carrying out Stage 2 and (in the event it does not result in a satisfactory outcome) the subsequent referral of our complaint via our MP, Mr Dominic Raab who has agreed to sign it before forwarding it on to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (who has already allocated us a reference number C-2074752) by using your powers under S85 of the TCA 1932 to relocate the two vessels to your Sunbury Depot or your backwater at Penton Hook Marina. Then invite any interested parties to submit a claim for ownership, as you have done for the vessel Hope 4.

If you decide to take such action, we are prepared to put our request that you escalate our complaint on hold for a period of two weeks from the date of this letter. If however you have no intention of removing ROR and Hui by that date we should be grateful if you would escalate our complaint with immediate effect and confirm that you have done so.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Aron

1 July 2022

Dear Ms Simpson,

RHYTHM OF THE RIVER (ROR) AND HUI MOORED AT HURST PARK

 I have tried calling you by phone to discuss this matter before sending this letter but your Customer Service staff told me you were not available.

Further to my letter dated 14^th June which followed the complaint letter sent you on my behalf by Chris Millar on the 5^th May (to neither of which have we received a reply) I am writing to ask you to escalate our complaint to Stage 2 of the Environment Agency’s complaints procedure, ie the independent investigation of our complaint that you have failed to remove Mr Trotman’s two boats Rhythm of the River (ROR) and Hui from their mooring at Hurst Park.

Quite simply, our patience is exhausted, and we feel we have reached the end of the line with our initial complaint as ROR and Hui have not been moved and you won’t tell us whether or not you are going to use your harbourmaster powers, or any other powers ceded to you under Thames or national waterways legislation to remove them. Indeed, we feel you have lost control of this case as we believe that you do not know who now owns or controls these vessels. We posit that this is a clear case of maladministration.

You claim to be supporting Surrey FRS in the action that they are taking against the owner of these two vessels, but they have told us that their prosecution is completed and that their only concern now is to reclaim the court costs owed to them. You also claim to be working in partnership with Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC), but we see no evidence of this. All we see is an excoriating letter of complaint addressed to your Chief Executive from the EBC Chief Executive published on the EBC website, to which you have not had the courtesy to reply.

You could, of course, save everyone the time and trouble of carrying out Stage 2 and (in the event it does not result in a satisfactory outcome) the subsequent referral of our complaint via our MP, Mr Dominic Raab who has agreed to sign it before forwarding it on to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (who has already allocated us a reference number C-2074752) by using your powers under S85 of the TCA 1932 to relocate the two vessels to your Sunbury Depot or your backwater at Penton Hook Marina. Then invite any interested parties to submit a claim for ownership, as you have done for the vessel Hope 4.

If you decide to take such action, we are prepared to put our request that you escalate our complaint on hold for a period of two weeks from the date of this letter. If however you have no intention of removing ROR and Hui by that date we should be grateful if you would escalate our complaint with immediate effect and confirm that you have done so.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Aron

14 June 2022

Dear Ms Simpson

I am writing to you to express my disappointment at your failure to respond in a timely fashion to the complaint letter to you dated 5 May 2022, on behalf of MRAG, by Mr Chris Millar of Downs Law. I also wish to signal our intention to refer our complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The PHSO has provided us with a case reference number (C-2074752) and we will be asking our MP Dominic Raab to support our case.

In his letter Mr Millar made the following serious accusation:

“It is sadly, yet again the case, that the Environment Agency is seeking to evade its legal duties and obligations to the public to regulate and enforce the lawful use of the Thames, within its jurisdiction”

In the absence of a reply from you in your position as Area Director, we have had to rely on an email summary of a telephone conversation between your colleague Colin Chiverton and Steve Collins, former Chair of the local Thames River Users Group. In his email dated 26^th May, Mr Chiverton stated that:

“I did not state that we would not be taking out an injunction [against Mr A Trotman]. I was very clear that all enforcement options continue to remain available to us. I reiterated that we would not indicate what, when or how we would be pursuing further action.”

The use of the double negative is a classic obfuscation. Mr Chiverton is carefully avoiding making any statement that could be interpreted as a decision that could be subject to a judicial review. Indeed, Mr Chiverton reaffirmed the Agency’s legal position that they would defend any such action and “seek full cost recovery, as enforcement action is funded by Grant in Aid and is taxpayer’s money.” 

This is deeply ironic because we are taxpayers ourselves and, as Mr Miller stated in his letter:

“This sadly begs the further question whether the Environment Agency has been inept and wasteful of the taxpayers’ money in its actions against Mr Trotman, when compared to the speedy and successful action taken by the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames”

In any case, it would seem that the time has passed for any effective enforcement action to be taken against Mr Trotman to require him to move his two vessels, as it has been suggested by the EA that he has either sold them or ceded control to persons unknown.

In which case, I should be grateful if you would let me know the current status of the action to which the third para of your email to Mr Millar dated 26 Apr 22 relates, in light of your statement that ‘The enforcement relating to this matter is ongoing as the defendant to the recent prosecution has made an application to have the case stated.’ In this connection I should explain that it is our understanding that Surrey Fire and Rescue are/were not aware of any such action.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Aron

(On behalf of Molesey Riverside Action Group)

From: Christopher Millar <[email protected]>
Sent: 05 May 2022 15:48
To: Simpson, Julia <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Mr. Trotman - Our reference: THMCU14251_CT16636

Dear Ms. Simpson,

I thank you for your email below.

Please see attached letter and enclosures, for your attention.

Regards

CHRIS MILLAR

herlihy posting.pdfLO julia simpson  order 29.04.2022.pdf

From: Christopher Millar <[email protected]>
Sent: 25 April 2022 15:01
To: Simpson, Julia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Mr. Trotman

Dear Julia,

I refer to my email below and regret to note that I have received no response whatsoever.

In the absence of any substantive response by the end of this week, my client and myself will have no option than to assume that the Environment Agency is not proposing to take any action to effect and enforce the removal of Mr. Trotman’s illegal mooring of his two boats.

In passing, I would refer you to the attached extract from the Environment Agency’s Enforcement Plan for the year to the end of March which has just elapsed. It appears to be the case that sadly the Environment Agency publicises its good intentions, but fails to adhere to them.

Regards

CHRIS MILLAR

From: Simpson, Julia <[email protected]>
Sent: 26 April 2022 16:21
To: Christopher Millar <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXT] Mr. Trotman - Our reference: THMCU14251_CT16636

Dear Mr Millar,

Thank you for your emails dated 30 March 2022, 11 April 2022 and 25 April 2022 regarding vessels named Rhythm of the River and Hui, currently moored at Hurst Park, Molesey.

Unfortunately, I am unable to provide the substantive response you have requested as this correspondence would be disclosable should a Freedom of Information request, Environmental Information Request or Subject Access Request be made.

The enforcement relating to this matter is ongoing as the defendant to the recent prosecution has made an application to have the case stated. I believe this has now happened and that we have been given until 29 April 2022 to make further representations. You will be aware that we do not discuss ongoing enforcement matters with third parties as these need to remain private and confidential.

The amount that a Defendant can be ordered to pay back per month is determined by the Court and it is the Judge who, on hearing the Defendant’s circumstances, sets the figure.

It has not been appropriate to take action whilst the prosecutions from us and Surrey Fire and Rescue are on-going. Furthermore you will be aware that on several occasions, since March 2020, we lifted restrictions on time periods for mooring due to issues related to Health and Safety as a result of Coronavirus. Please use this link for more information - Coronavirus (COVID-19) updates.

Article 16 is one of the options available to us but is not necessarily the most appropriate. A decision on whether further enforcement action is needed and if so what, will be taken in due course once the ongoing existing actions by ourselves and Surrey Fire and Rescue are deemed complete. We continue to work with Surrey Fire and Rescue to assist in the furtherance of their legislation.

My staff continue to align their activities to our 2022/23 Regulation & Enforcement Plan, which was updated on Gov.UK on 31 March 2022.

Please do not hesitate to contact [email protected] if you have any further queries.

Yours sincerely,

J.E. SimpsonEA

Area Director – Thames

Environment Agency

[email protected]

Another related riverbank development to bring to your attention is that on Friday 29 April, at the Royal Courts of Justice, Kingston Council was granted an injunction requiring Alistair Trotman (the owner of the two accommodation barges illegally moored near the Sadlers Ride slipway) to remove his third boat, Kupe, from Queens Promenade in Kingston within 48 hours.  The injunction also prevents Trotman mooring Kupe on any other other land owned by Kingston Council.  However (unless Trotman appeals) this seemingly good news comes with a sting in the tail, since it raises the prospect of Trotman moving Kupe upstream to Hurst Park to join his other two boats, where on past form he probably hopes they will continue to remain undisturbed by the ineffective Environment Agency (despite being illegally moored on EA owned land and above the EA owned riverbed).

Postscript:  Following an appeal by Trotman, the 48 hour deadline for him to move Kupe from Queens Promenade was extended to Friday 5 May.  But as at today's date (Wednesday 11 May 22) Kupe is still moored at Queens Promenade. 

In December 2020, Elmbridge Council refused retrospective planning applications for moorings/residential moorings (including the enclosure of riverside land) by five houseboats/pleasure craft moored on the Thames upstream from Cherry Orchard Gardens, West Molesey.   The refusals were appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and the Hearing of the appeals was heard on 15 March 22.  On 26 April 2022, with one exception, the Planning Inspector upheld Elmbridge Council's decision to reject the applications.  The one exception (arising as the result of the presence of a child) was time limited and subject to some fairly stringent conditions. 

On 7 April 12 boats illegally moored on Hurst Park (including, we understand, the two accommodation barges near the Sadler's Ride slipway) were issued with registration enforcement notices by the Environment Agency (EA) and warned that in 14 days the EA would be back to 'enforce directions to move'.  

The 14 days is up tomorrow, 21 April, and we will be interested to see what form the EA's directions to move will take.    

A Twitter post on 7 April by Maria Herlihy, an EA Operations Manager, contains the following report:

"Nav ENF today issued 12 boats on hurst park all have had registration enforcement notices and advised that we will be back in 14 days to enforce directions to move and issue notices for fly tipping on towpath."

We don't know if this welcome activity is a response to the MRAG solicitor's letter to the EA,  but the timing suggests it is.  The 14 days ends on 21 April, so it will be interesting to see how the EA enforces the 'directions to move'.  Watch this space!

The top solicitor engaged by MRAG has now written to Julia Simpson (Environment Agency Area Director) requesting the removal of the two accommodation barges moored on EA land at Hurst Park.  He has asked for a substantive reply within 21 days ( ie by 20 April).  Copies of the letter and a supporting document (the judgement in the case brought by Surrey Fire and Rescue) are both attached   A further update will be issued after 20 April.  

In the meantime, our Crowd Justice funding campaign is going well, thanks to the support of those viewing this web page.  We have now extended our target figure in the knowledge that we may have to take further legal action to pursue our case against the EA for failing to carry out its responsibilities in respect of these two barges and other illegal moorers. letter.pdf     judgment.pdf