Sandbanks, private beach?
Discussion
Will be interesting to see how this pans out 
Battle over private beach or not...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15228977/...
Battle over private beach or not...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15228977/...
The article reads to me as if the beach is on their deeds but the title isn’t that sound based on the opposing barristers (retired and commercial) opinion.
It also sounds as if the locals are basing their argument that there is a right to use is based upon the precedent of prolonged previous use (which sort of acknowledges the land does belong to the houses)
It also sounds as if the locals are basing their argument that there is a right to use is based upon the precedent of prolonged previous use (which sort of acknowledges the land does belong to the houses)
Caddyshack said:
The article reads to me as if the beach is on their deeds but the title isn t that sound based on the opposing barristers (retired and commercial) opinion.
It also sounds as if the locals are basing their argument that there is a right to use is based upon the precedent of prolonged previous use (which sort of acknowledges the land does belong to the houses)
Apart from rare exceptions nobody owns the foreshore. (Low water to High Water zone.) So those properties will own down to the high water mark and no more. So most of the time there will be enough beach for everyone and their dog to walk on.It also sounds as if the locals are basing their argument that there is a right to use is based upon the precedent of prolonged previous use (which sort of acknowledges the land does belong to the houses)
Sounds like some moron has built a fence that blocks off some of the foreshore. But a) Nature will deal with that very quickly and b) I doubt that's a serious attempt to claim the foreshore as private property.
So it's a non-story AFAIC.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Caddyshack said:
The article reads to me as if the beach is on their deeds but the title isn t that sound based on the opposing barristers (retired and commercial) opinion.
It also sounds as if the locals are basing their argument that there is a right to use is based upon the precedent of prolonged previous use (which sort of acknowledges the land does belong to the houses)
Apart from rare exceptions nobody owns the foreshore. (Low water to High Water zone.) So those properties will own down to the high water mark and no more. So most of the time there will be enough beach for everyone and their dog to walk on.It also sounds as if the locals are basing their argument that there is a right to use is based upon the precedent of prolonged previous use (which sort of acknowledges the land does belong to the houses)
Sounds like some moron has built a fence that blocks off some of the foreshore. But a) Nature will deal with that very quickly and b) I doubt that's a serious attempt to claim the foreshore as private property.
So it's a non-story AFAIC.
Appreciate you explaining that and it makes total
Sense. Typical media not really telling the whole story
808 Estate said:
I thought anything below high water mark belonged to the crown.
Not everywhere. A good example is the Hopetoun Estate outside Edinburgh where the land offered was ‘whatever a man can ride on horse in a day’ or similar language. The horse did some swimming so they own out into the Firth of Forth as far as the horse swam. In practice I think it’s about 50m out from the low water mark.I know of another example too, also in Scotland.
There were some bits of fence there ten or so years ago, on the one and only occasion I walked there. I remember it because it seemed so pointless at the time, as unenforceable below the high tide mark.
You do get shenanigans down there, and a sense of entitlement so weird even Andrew & Fergie would feel at home!
You do get shenanigans down there, and a sense of entitlement so weird even Andrew & Fergie would feel at home!
w1bbles said:
808 Estate said:
I thought anything below high water mark belonged to the crown.
Not everywhere. A good example is the Hopetoun Estate outside Edinburgh where the land offered was whatever a man can ride on horse in a day or similar language. The horse did some swimming so they own out into the Firth of Forth as far as the horse swam. In practice I think it s about 50m out from the low water mark.I know of another example too, also in Scotland.
s off all the locals by telling people to keep off as it was a private beach but as Scotland has the right to roam no Richie Rich can tell you to keep off their private beach. Most is administered by the Crown Estate though, the exceptions are a tiny fraction of a percent.JagLover said:
I would imagine the high tide mark would be the highest tide of the year?.
In which case any attempts to try and claim it is private would be futile for the vast majority of the year. Any fencing below that point should also presumably be dismantled.
The article specifically mentioned the mean high tide, so it’s an average rather than any extreme level. In which case any attempts to try and claim it is private would be futile for the vast majority of the year. Any fencing below that point should also presumably be dismantled.
My parents have a property in Sandbanks so I know the area and mentality of the people there.
I believe the beach in question runs between the 2 boat yards and is only accessible from the end where the fence is. It runs behind around 7 houses, at least 2 of these are for sale and I believe the one with the fence has recently sold and no doubt will be knocked down to build something bigger. I expect this may include an extension to the garden and possibly a private mooring hence wanting to make it private.
There has always been a small fence there but it’s not what I call a beach, you would not really want to use for anything other than dog walking but this seems to have upset the home owners.
For at least the last 10 years Sandbanks residents are either long term owners like my parents or new money and it seems they like to rub each other up the wrong way. Unfortunately as we have seen in the area with the felling of TPO trees etc it’s the ones with the deepest pockets that cause the issues and ultimately get to do what they like.
I believe the beach in question runs between the 2 boat yards and is only accessible from the end where the fence is. It runs behind around 7 houses, at least 2 of these are for sale and I believe the one with the fence has recently sold and no doubt will be knocked down to build something bigger. I expect this may include an extension to the garden and possibly a private mooring hence wanting to make it private.
There has always been a small fence there but it’s not what I call a beach, you would not really want to use for anything other than dog walking but this seems to have upset the home owners.
For at least the last 10 years Sandbanks residents are either long term owners like my parents or new money and it seems they like to rub each other up the wrong way. Unfortunately as we have seen in the area with the felling of TPO trees etc it’s the ones with the deepest pockets that cause the issues and ultimately get to do what they like.
Alex Z said:
The article specifically mentioned the mean high tide, so it s an average rather than any extreme level.
Thanks, probably got distracted by pictures of Selena Gomez 
I am generally in favour of private property rights, but provision has to made for everyone to enjoy both the coastline and the countryside. I don't think they should be able to put fencing down to the average high tide mark therefore.
I still think this is a non story.
The aerial photo shows all the houses with clearly defined rear fences which clearly demonstrate the land they claim is no more than the land they legally own.
The new fence is probably a couple of panels lower so yeah, at high tide it will limit access, but how long before someone lights a BBQ against it, or the tide washes it away or a heavy local leans heavily on it a bit.
Yeah, it's rude, it shouldn't be there and as things stand it is limiting access at times but it's pretty insignificant and nobody's claiming any land.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qUHe5bp5YnnqciRg8
The aerial photo shows all the houses with clearly defined rear fences which clearly demonstrate the land they claim is no more than the land they legally own.
The new fence is probably a couple of panels lower so yeah, at high tide it will limit access, but how long before someone lights a BBQ against it, or the tide washes it away or a heavy local leans heavily on it a bit.
Yeah, it's rude, it shouldn't be there and as things stand it is limiting access at times but it's pretty insignificant and nobody's claiming any land.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qUHe5bp5YnnqciRg8
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Thursday 30th October 07:49
pheonix478 said:
808 Estate said:
I thought anything below high water mark belonged to the crown.
That's the rule in the Caribbean! Poole Harbour Commissioners are in control of the whole of the harbour up to high water mark. (under an act of parliament - Poole Harbour Act 1895)
I imagine they will be asking for the removal of the fence. They've done so before at Sandbanks.
I carried out a review of a bank's security which included the harbour and port in the 1990s. Fascinating. Much of the bank's security had been washed away in storms over the centuries.
I imagine they will be asking for the removal of the fence. They've done so before at Sandbanks.
I carried out a review of a bank's security which included the harbour and port in the 1990s. Fascinating. Much of the bank's security had been washed away in storms over the centuries.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff