Residents' Association Forum

Ok Fishermen from where ever you come from (not around here, that's for sure), I give up!

As a local resident who needs to walk the dog quickly (and responsibly)  before work in the morning, I feel I can no longer go to Albany Reach.  Not only will my dog spend time sniffing through the piles of rubbish now littering the place in the hope of a bit of left over pizza, he will disappear into the bushes and find a nice tasty pile of fisherman crap to feast on (still pizza, but second-hand).  Then of course I have to come home and wash my dog's face in order to get any residual crap off his face.  Nice!

Jenny James at the Council told me that she believes the riverbank should be available for all.  I believe that too.  But unfortunately, it is not the case in reality.  I met a local resident walking her dogs near Garson Farm this morning, she won't go to Albany Reach for the same reason. 

So the local residents can't use the riverbank and have to drive somewhere to walk their dogs, but chavvy, littering fishermen from God-knows-where can.

And by the way, I was a supporter of getting rid of the bins, but now I am not.  Nice try Council, but it hasn't worked.  Maybe you should install poo bins and bags for the humans!

Yes - as long as they are allowed to camp overnight - their bivouacs by some obscure definition are not "tents" - they will defile this lovely stretch of the reach.  Bring it up again at the next RA Open meeting - after three years of trying this and that, it hasn't worked so some firm action is needed.

What about fencing and gating and prohibiting access 0100 - 0600??  (Just a thought to play with...)

That would be a bit of a shame...  we have gone there quite late on occasion with a bottle of wine (hope thats allowed... ! never know these days) and sat by the river past 12 at night (don't think ever late as 1 though).  And I have definately gone for an early morning walk at sunrise (but that was in the height of summer of course when sunrise was about 5:30. 

Incidentally - if its past pub closure time - I recommend a wander down there (wine in hand) ! Its strangely eerie with the lights of the rods of the fisherman swinging around.

Re: the trash etc from the fishermen
I reckon like most things its probably a few of them that ruin the reputation of the others. 

Could we possibly just try and speak to one of them? They don't look very social to each other but if anyone knows someone who does use the bank, just a quiet word and then everybody would be ok?

Been done.  Background to this long-running saga is in the link from the news piece I've just posted, after a visit to the reach this morning with camera. 

Carp fishers and the lager-and-crisps brigade are spoiling it for all.

there is some law that they can have a shelter not fixed to the ground or something. they do clearly stay there all night though. quite rude some of them too. and they throw back the fish, usually after they have killed them, stupid.

I could not agree with the previous posts anymore, these fisherman are the cancer of Albany Reach, some light searching clearly shows the history of this issue as it has come up time and time again, and likewise the same answer, Increase Patrols!, the same problem still exists, the Open Space Patrol (07894 836213 - will go through to the phone in the van) do what they can but are very stretched trying to manage all the open spaces, I have called them lots of times regarding fisherman, and they do come and walk through The Reach but I think are limited as to what they can do, hard action is what is required in my opinion, get the fisherman out, forever! A complete ban on fishing at The Reach I think is the way forward as this makes it much easier to enforce, no dithering about what is a tent and what isn't, do they have a license?, does it have a groundsheet?, they just should not be fishing there full stop!, The Reach is being ruined and it is up to the Residents to save it. In light of all this I would like to draw your attention to the following:

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/thereachforresidents

http://s787.photobucket.com/home/TheReachForResidents

Thanks for the supportive comments and the person who posted the pictures on the news section. Looking at the pictures of litter and the 'other stuff', I think this weekend must have been the worst.  We had some friends visiting from Italy and we took them for a walk down by the river, we were so embarrassed .  We have never seen it so bad. Such a shame.  And it would be a shame to ban fishing from that spot, but I would rather see that than a night ban.  A fishing ban would probably be more enforceable.  What irks me is that OUR council tax is going towards paying Burleys to clean up, and yet as residents we do not feel able to use this stretch of river.  The friend who I mentioned in my first post had said that two german shepherds belonging to fishermen had attacked her mate's 11 year old labrador! 

Regarding the bin removal.  I was really supportive of this originally, and thought the first trial worked well.  However, it was right to do a trial in the summer months.  I am sorry to report, that I don't think it is going to work. Maybe a different type of  crow proof bin would work?  I notice that Burleys have sawn the bolts off the bin sites.  What are they going to do when they try to put them back now?

A distant memory from my own days as an angler is that there is some ancient law about citizens' rights to fish in the Thames (with a rod licence, which is a separate matter regardless of fishing rights)  so it might not be possible to get a ban on fishing along Albany Reach, even if it were desirable to penalise local kids and responsible daytime anglers in that way for the defilement of a handful of overnight camping 'carp hunters.'

Can anyone point to other lengths of the Thames in the Home Counties where there is a ban on fishing (other than within a few yards of locks?), or even a ban on night fishing, which might serve as helpful illustrative precedents?

Patrols were (and are) carried out, fishermen approached,  and Albany Reach is one of the Neighbourhood Police Team's priority areas although I believe the emphasis is on 'antisocial' youths and underage drinking, rather than on litter.  I think we can fairly conclude that over the past three years of effort regarding Albany reach, patrolling while necessary for several reasons does not provide the answer to the problem of litter and crap.

It is reprehensible that in a village renowned in past centuries as a fine spot for the sport of angling, where at least four inns made a significant part of their trade from visiting recreational fishermen, the coarsening of coarse fishermen has shamed the sport.  And it is a sport no longer: bait your shock rig (the fish hooks itself), drink your lager, and go to sleep in your tent until the electronic bite alarm tells you you have a carp; reel it in from a largely clean and weed-free stretch, to a nice shelving bank where it's easy to net: where's the 'sport' in that?!  Get up at dawn, crap in the bushes, pack up and leave your empty cans, crisp packets and cigarette wrappers, and go tell your mates in the pub all about your prowess....

Jenny James of EBC is scheduled to address our Open meeting on 28 September and answer questions on the subject of Albany Reach.  I'll put something in the front page splash item the week before, to remind.  I'd encourage all those who care for the Reach to attend, and hope that we can have a constructive discussion.  To which end, it might be helpful to summarise the results of the past three years beforehand (at least as I have followed them, camera in hand):

After Brian Rawles' demarche in 2007 considerable effort was put into:
a. increased patrolling
b. challenging fishermen to ensure they were within the law and the regulations
c. Putting up signage

This did not solve the problems completely but there was a detectable improvement in 2008/9.

It transpired that although no 'camping' is permitted, the tent-like 'bivouacs' of anglers, with separate groundsheets, did not qualify within regulations as 'tents' (which seems daft to anyone who remembers scout camp without integral groundsheets).  It was therefore deemed not possible to prevent anglers from 'bivouacking' there overnight.

There were problems with accumulated piles of rubbish around the overflowing bins.  However, no additional bin capacity was provided by the Council.  If anglers are 'bivouacking' overnight, it is natural that they will feel a call of nature in the morning, but there are no toilets available anywhere near the Reach.  No portaloo was offered.

Instead, the Council subsequently decided to experiment with removing the waste bins in the hope that people would take their litter away with them, and did so at a time of year when carp fishing had virtually ceased (carp feed only when the water temperature is reasonably warm).  This led to protest that the experiment had not been conducted properly.  The Council agreed to reinstate the bins and wanted to repeat the experiment during the summer.  Bins were removed in August 2010.  The effects are noticeably worse.

It seems to me reasonable to conclude that:
a.  Removing bins has failed to solve the littering problem.
b.  The main litter problem is attributable to overnight fishermen and some to groups of youths.
c.   Neither group can be relied upon to be good citizens and take their litter (or crap) home.  
d.  The littering and crapping occur primarily in summer at weekends.
e.  Patrolling and challenging is necessary (and has been, is being done) but as the littering mostly occurs at weekend evenings and overnght, patrols are likely to be less frequent at those hours and the chances of catching someone in the act of littering or crapping are pretty remote.  Patrolling cannot therefore be reasonably expected to provide the definitive solution.
f.  It would be a shame to penalise responsible anglers, by preventing fishing.  The main problem with the anglers derives not from the fishing but from the overnight camping.  That must be stopped, one way or another.
g.  It is quite reasonable for groups of young people to meet and socialise on the riverbank.  Indeed, rather nice.  It is unrealistic to expect them to carry their cans and crisp packets with them to their next venue or to home.  They have nowhere to leave their litter.  There must be proper provision of litter bins in adequate sizes, and regular emptying of same.  That's what we pay our taxes for.
h.  If for whatever reason overnight camping cannot be prevented, and overnight fishing continues, then either we should consider restricting access for all to the reach  during the wee small hours (a 'curfew' approach which would have to be patrolled occasionally at those hours), or the Council should provide loos as well as bins.  Loos might bring their own problems.

Lastly, there has been quite enough experimentation in the past three years to enable these conclusions to be drawn.  There would be little point in adopting some bureaucratic approach of further pious hopes and trials in the hope that somehow, the bad citizens who spoil the reach may be educated, enlightened and reformed.

This is a very good summary of the situation.  I would like to see a ban on fishing in this area.  I know this penalises the responsible and I am very sorry about that.  The reason being that it is such a small area of bank that it is becoming overused as a fishing area.  One weekend last year I counted 9 tents on this one area.  When I walk from Hampton Court to Kingston Bridge (which I do every Sunday morning), I usually count that many along a stretch of nearly 4 miles.  As it is such a small area, Aragon Av becomes congested with cars, the rubbish situation is concentrated, the toilet situation is unbelievable. I just don't think a partial ban would work.  The Thames is a long river.  The fishermen have Cigarette Island, and the opposite bank to use.  I am sure there are toilets in the BP station and Hampton Court station they can use.  

Replacement bins should be provided for picknickers.  You will never get rid of all litter, but at least some people would use them and make the Reach better for the locals.

If thats the only resolution then thats the only resolution. A shame - I hate the concept of 'banning' things (except speed bumps - speed bumps should be banned!).

Also it will generally take longer as a resolution. Ideally an amicable solution is a win win for everyone but I guess not to be here.

As for bins - well if we don't have the carp fishermen - do we need to worry about bins?

We like to 'picnic' in lots of places (though my loose definition of picnic often just means a bottle of wine... maybe some carrots and homous!) -> and I find most don't have bins. I've never found it an issue to take trash back (and this way you can also recycle).

My theory is that if you can carry it there well then you can definately carry it back - especially as it should be lighter!

Latest info is that Jenny James will now attend our open meeting on 9 November and not the one on 28 Sept.

I gather that the contractors did a litter-pick along Albany reach this morning, before I could get down there to monitor the litter after the weekend!  (EBC must have been reading the website....).  Daily Counts/reports from volunteers walking the Reach would be welcome in this forum column.  I count every piece of litter bigger than around two inches, from the end of Aragon Avenue where you enter the Reach to the point where the riverside path leaves the reach to go up the Mole/Ember cut.

Now that the summer is over, the weather turning, and the water cooling the anglers should soon disappear and the teen coke-and-crisps groups stop congregating of a Friday afternoon.  Will the council then argue that 'the experiment is working..'?  

Having just come home from Albany Reach I came across a flyer taped to the entrance gates, it reads:










This is far too little, far too late, in my opinion, the petition (found at: http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/thereachforresidents) only has a rather poor 11 signatures so far. One would hope for less apathy and more action.

I think that many residents would not want to see a ban on fishing (even if it could be done, see Admin's post above).  It is a few of the fishermen camping overnight who cause some of the mess, and some of the youths who have nowhere to put their litter.  That could be why you don't have many signatures, even though lots of us want to see the reach cleaned up.  It's a good thing that responsible fishermen are trying to get other fishermen to be responsible.

I admit that a ban on fishing at Albany Reach is not an ideal solution, but how long has this issue been tossed around ?, and still it exists, the only reason Thames Anglers Conservancy are now involved is because fishermen think there may be a chance of losing a very pleasant spot, even IF they did clean up there act it would only be until it has once again blown over, things would soon return to as they are now, it is only because they have caught wind of a petition that they now see it fit to "take your litter home, be polite and friendly, respect your surrounding and local byelaws", should they not have been doing all this already?
Besides the litter, dangerous equipment left on the bank, crap in the bushes, disregard, lack of respect and danger to wildlife, in my opinion I don't think Albany Reach is anywhere near large enough to accommodate local residents and fishermen, this small area of open space simply cannot be enjoyed the way it should be by local residents during fishing season which let's not forget is 2/3 of the year. 
I visit once if not twice a day and in my experience the majority of fishermen are the problem, there are some who are being tarred with the wrong brush but not many. Individual monitoring is not possible, a blanket solution is the only way.
Soon we will be told that residents are spoiling it for the fishermen, I would imagine they will stick together like glue if push came to shove and take what ever action they see necessary to protect their space. 
What other solutions are their that will neither cost nor punish residents for the behaviour of the fishermen, that have not already been tried, and failed. 
This discussion will be in this Forum next year, and the year after and so on, unless action is taken, I believe a ban is the solution, it may not be 100% fair on all the fishermen but how fair is the fishermen's abuse of the Reach on local residents, they do not care for the space or residents.
As for the teens issue, it is frustrating, and although it is not an excuse, they are young and will soon realise what they are doing and become responsible, the fishermen I suspect have always been like it, and will always be like it, and for a group of people that apparantly have an interest in wildlife they have a funny way of showing it. I think this issue should be taken by the horns and dealt with firmly, ban it, maybe this would also go someway to setting a benchmark and hopefully protect other local and national open spaces in the future.

The newly-formed Thames Anglers' Conservancy web site is worth a visit: http://www.rivertac.org/site/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8001827/Anglers-furious-over-poster-suggesting-they-have-small-rods.html

ROFL.

as a member of the TAC, I agree with the sentiment that it is a few ruining it for the many, however as our club has filled 94 bin bags with litter since march 14th from teddington to desbrough island we know where it comes from, and thats all river users, we even filled 20 bin bags from the bankside adjacent to the river mole bridge, obviously commuters going to and from hampton court station have no respect either, sorry some commuters, just because I tread in dog pooh or have a dog urinate on my fishing umbrella does not mean dogs should be banned, quite the contrary, education and financial penalties are the order of the day
your reach is an attractive proposition to those who dont want to walk far with their mountains of kit, but the guy who travels from kent after work to fish and leaves in the small hours should not be denied his fishing, 
the vast majority of anglers are like yourselves, hard working, considerate and want to enjoy being beside the river, it is the few who leave litter, let their dogs pooh anywhere, moor illegally, lob their full bin bags of the back of the boogie boat in the middle of the night, speed and create wash, leave the locks open, fail to take home their soiled nappies, leave timber, sheet metal, motorcycle frames, surfboards and pallets to name a few are the problem
as to why our club has not been involved before, we represent anglers from staines to dartford, an awful lot of riverbank to care for, I think you'll find that once we were made aware of the problems, we acted speedily and with diplomacy, obviously we dont want to lose our fishing rights, we pay £26,000,000 to the environment agency to protect and improve it, and we dont get value for money
what is needed is dialogue, education and fines for those who break the law, anglers sport is dependant upon a healthy environment, both under and above water, the vast majority uphold these values, 
please check out our website www.rivertac.org to see for yourselves

here's a conundrum for you, in the 1980's margaret thatcher sold the water companies, they were granted a temporary license to put raw sewage into the river, this year, nearly a generation later that temporary license was renewed, so thames water puts 32 billion litres of untreated sewage in our river every year, and the european government is taking our government to court because it is illegal under european law
thats the O2 arena filled 15 times or, for every bottle of wine imported into the uk, 60 are filled with yours and mine pee and pooh and legally put into a first world countries major river
squeak later folks and rest assured that the TAC will be adding albany reach to the others that it tends to on a weekly basis,

A good post.

The weakness in the 'fines' approach is that most of these uncivilized practices take place on weekends or nights.  Peak times for the police and others, when other crimes are being committed in towns and streets and yobs are outside bars making trouble.  Officials are really not likely to visit Albany reach at those times and if they did I reckon they would be very unlikely to happen along and catch someone in the act of littering or excreting particularly if it's at five in the morning or two at night.

Welcome to the forum, TAC, and thank you for a  readable and informative addition to this debate.  Although it is a couple of decades since I went a-fishing, I am glad to hear that the principles of conservancy which underpinned angling in my youth are still very much alive.

It is the camping that causes most of the problems along the reach which are attributable to anglers (and I'm not forgetting the other half of the problems, attributable to other citizens - picnickers and youths).  The loophole that a bivouac tent is not regarded as 'camping' seems to me the one to close.  And also one which could more realistically be enforced, unlike crapping and chucking litter which Dittonian points out is hard to catch in the act.  What say you to that?

In my view if the few who spoil the reach cannot really be stopped, then there must at least be provision for them to chuck their litter in a nearby bin and to have a loo to crap in during the summer crapping carping season.

As stated in my last post, I visit Albany Reach at least once a day, and in my experience it is not a minority tainting the majority, it is the majority of the fishermen that the issues lay with. Some interesting points raised above but is this column not about Albany Reach, a local matter, as far as I understood this was about protecting our own, small but pleasant area of Open Space so as that it can be enjoyed by local residents, which at present is not possible.  Are we now saying that it is OK for the fishermen to abuse and defile Albany Reach as long as TAC cleans up after them, with regards to education, educate who?, surely these people already know they are behaving in a way descent people find unacceptable, with regard to fines, are there not already possible fines for littering, lack of license and the breaking of byelaws, it has no effect, extra patrols, contacts for different organisations, all to no avail, all these measures are already in place and or have been tried before -EPIC FAIL. 
A loo? their is no way I would be happy to pay for a toilet out of my taxes thus condoning the overnight stays of these fishermen, the Reach does not need a toilet, it never has. 

TAC member could you tell me or post a link to information showing how many larger, better equipped sites there are for fishing not too far away, as I do feel (also mentioned in my last post) that the Reach is simply not big enough, on top of all the other issues. It does not take many fishermen spread out along the banks of Albany Reach to totally dominate it and render it a no go zone for local residents, regular users and dog walkers are confined to the path side of the Reach.
I am sorry to see what seems like a lack of willing to get involved, indecision and apathy will end up in this problem continuing forever more, perhaps I and other local residents should just not use this small but beautiful Open Space, let the fishermen litter and crap to their hearts content.
Rant over.

its patently obvious that if you ban these rude, litter leaving louts, they will annoy someone else, in the same way a plastic bottle thrown in the river at shepperton will deposit itself on someone elses reach, if you're happy to move the problem elsewhere because it doesn't affect you, then I fear dialogue is a waste of time,
we at the TAC are doing our utmost to make the river environment as pleasant for everyone as possible, hence our communicating with yourselves, the swan sanctuary, boating sailing and canoe clubs, the EA, surrey butterfly club, thames young mariners, CARA, hillingdon council, RUG 8, youth club and many more besides, it is only by talking and listening to one another, that our great waterway will be better for generations to come

it is unjust to label the majority as the problem, as the majority of anglers dont fish overnight
interesting points, 32 billion litres of human waste, should be more than interesting
the TAC has no intention of justifying illegal behaviour irrespective of who cleans it up
educate those that throw litter over hampton court bridge on their way to work, then others may follow their lead
gotta agree about the loo
it is free fishing from the staines stone to the estuary, written in medieval stone
if you are unable to find common ground, then the only alternative is to restrict it to yourself, or choose to walk on the opposite bank where these problems aren't prevalent, well not until anglers are unable to fish albany reach
I agree about camping and that the existing laws were not designed for modern structures
finally anglers contribute £26,000,000 to the rivers upkeep, and theres the rub, if people pay for it, they wanna use it

a T.A.C. representative visited the reach yesterday and filled three quarters of a bin bag with litter, the contents and amount were roughly the same as the monday previously

Many thanks for letting us know.  Keep us posted.  It is important that the Elmbridge Council officials who are monitoring the effects on litter of the 'binless approach', take these litter-picks into account.  Some individual residents also pick litter from the reach rather than seeing it lie there with no bins to put it in.  If these factors are not taken into account there is a risk that the Council will blithely say: "Oh, look - no litter!  The experiment has worked..." whereas frequent visitors to the Reach know that it hasn't worked.

I have been trying to think of a solution to this problem which would be inclusive rather than exclusive.  I am sure this is not something that hasn't been thought of before.. but how about:

An official pathway to be placed under the railway bridge from the end of the Reach up to the vicinity of the petrol station on the Hampton Court Way.
A superloo placed in the area like the one in the car park in TD.
On the steep banks which go down onto the Mole a bit more of the undergrowth is cleared in spaces to encourage fishermen to use that end of the reach so as to spread them out a bit along the whole stretch of the reach.  The bank there is steep so no risk of dogs bothering them or the chance of being able to camp.
A policed ban on night time fishing with new notices to that effect, together with more strongly worded notices about litter and toilet facilities.
If the council are not prepared to put the bins back at least have some sort of 'skip' like bin similar to the one the residents have on the Island, during the summer months.
Increased patrols during the summer to cut down on anti-social behaviour, barbeques on the grass etc.
Residents parking only in Aragon Avenue.

Good constructive thinking, and I haven't heard some of the suggestions before - well done.  Initial comments:
Some cost would be involved but worth exploring.  There are also periodic ideas to put a bridge over the Mole to Cigarette Island alongside the Thames, which would probably be better and more feasible.  Aside from cost, the counter argument has generally been that while this would be a nice facility for residents walking to Hampton Court, it could also allow 'all kinds of people' (code for druggies from the former JB site/ciggy island) easy access to Albany Reach.
A number of us would support this, at least for the summer months - if (and only if) it proves impossible to prevent overnight bivouacking - which is what occasions the bankside jobbies.
This sounds like an original and worthwhile idea to examine.
I don't think it will be legally possible to ban fishing at any time other than in places (e.g. close to lock gates) where there are safety issues/direct interference with other river users.  What we should I think focus on is properly banning camping, including 'bivouacking' overnight.  My understanding is that there are three things governing fishing:
a.  Rod licence - nothing to do with where the fishing takes place, this is a legislative requirement aimed at raising revenue and providing some regulation of fishing techniques/behaviour.
b.  Fishing rights: in this part of the Thames, enshrined in law as available to all citizens.
c.  Access to the bank: here, public land.  Access can't be selectively controlled but it could be controlled by gating and fencing, locks and bolts as for a public park - which would affect all users of the reach.  Costly; has to be locked/enforced.
We must press the council to reinstall bins.  Things were improving a couple of years ago, until they re-ignited the issue (and the problem) by removing the bins.  What might work for National Trust areas where you have fewer users of the coarse and irresponsible type than we seem to have on the Reach, doesn't seem to work in this particular location.  If contractors don't want to have to walk along the whole reach to empty bins, or if, in summer, bins tend to overflow, then a larger bin strategically placed at the entrance to the Reach from Aragon Avenue, at least in summer, might be a good idea.  It would be on the camping anglers' and village chavs' exit route, and convenient for the garbage contractors to empty it.  Easily removed for winter months if necessary for aesthetic or economic reasons.
This happens already, and is reinforced by the regular Police Panel meetings with the community where local priorities are set by residents attending.
I can see that this might be attractive to some, but after forty years of parking consultations in the village, including the really intensive consultations over the past four years, the issues have been beaten to death and to reopen the matter of residents' parking (especially in current circumstances where councils are clearly going to regard it as a revenue-raising milch cow) doesn't bear thinking about!  Also, I can't help feeling that it is quite wrong for a fishing issue to drive a parking issue - especially a parking issue such as that, which would have knock-on repercussions in a wider area with markings, notices on poles, permits, wardens.....

Lastly - afterthought:  one of the council's concessions for the bins trial has been that they have introduced manual litter-picks.  This is of course how they expect to monitor the trial (but the fact that residents, TAC and others are also picking litter will skew the results).

There is something to be said for manual litter picks as compared with passive bins (I am not really convinced, but open minded)  The downside is that the litter lies around and about before it is picked up (notably at weekends); another risk is that the council would reduce the frequency of litter picks as budgets continue to be squeezed.....

@TAC
You may well be right that to ban "these rude, litter leaving louts" from fishing Albany Reach that it will shift the problem from one location to another, unfortunately I would be inclined to think that this would then be in the hands of another Boroughs Residents to decide on a best course of action, there are many problems and issues Borough, County, Country and Worldwide that are in need of great solutions, but neither am in a position to challenge them nor would I discuss them on the Thames Ditton Residents Association Forum, this is a local issue affecting local residents, if it were to be banned one would hope it would be a case of lesson learnt and these issues need never raise their ugly head again regardless of location, it is not a case of out of sight out of mind but more what is within my juristiction and power to try and defend, I would not begin challenging issues local to another Borough when there are such problems on my very own doorstep. I think that if we all did this then collectively we could make this world a very pleasant place to live.

I do of course appreciate that you do some good work but I also realise that this work can be used as leverage and a great bargaining and blinding tool in discussions such as this, and I also take into account the organisations you are in communication with but this does not always mean a great deal e.g a "travellers" work van will be covered in membership badges and apparent accreditations but I would not employ them, for anything, this is by no means a similie, merely an example, and I do wonder of the response of such organisations were they to frequent areas like Albany Reach that are regularly defiled by fishermen.

As a daily visitor to the Reach I confidently say that it is the majority of the fishermen's behaviour that is undesirable, I would imagine that daily visitors such as myself are far better equipped to judge whether the problem lay with the few or the majority, as stated I go with the majority.

"interesting points, 32 billion litres of human waste, should be more than interesting", of course I do not mean to deny the severity of this but I do not feel that it is wholly relevant to this particular discussion.
With regard to education, the type of person that behaves in this way surely knows that it is wrong, they just do not care and they will continue not to care, it is left up to the good people to pick up the pieces.

"if you are unable to find common ground, then the only alternative is to restrict it to yourself, or choose to walk on the opposite bank where these problems aren't prevalent", why should I or other local resident users of the Reach walk on the other side of the river?, we are not the ones causing the prevalent problems yet you see fit for us to be penalised.

"and theres the rub, if people pay for it, they wanna use it", good point!, of course this is also applicable to Residents who through taxes contribute toward this local amenity themselves.

The litter picking, I am obviously not going to devalue the admirable work of litter picking by TAC but no amount of litter picking will stop the fishermen at Albany Reach camping overnight, scorching the grass, dropping litter initially, crapping in the bushes, leaving dangerous equipment behind endangering wildlife, and on this note I have also spoken to Hampton Court Security who tell me they have witnessed fishermen hit Swans with sticks, this was whilst myself, HC Security and a number of members of the public stood horrified on Barge Walk as a Swan bleeding heavily swam along the river (Swan Sanctuary were called out to rescue), although it is unkmown how this particular injury occurred.

@Speerroadres
I do like the idea of using the banks further along that slope down to The Mole, maybe some clearance of the brambles etc and some good signage clearly indicating fishing and non fishing zones could be a sensible resolution, as you say the gradient of the banks would eliminate the possibility of camping, bivouacing etc, but I do not think I want my Council Tax paying for a Super Loo which would, at least initially and in purchase be predominantly for fishermen, and in relation to this I have to say, Keith: love the term "bankside jobbies". 
The Open Space Patrols are already in effect but undermanned, covering many Open Spaces and being unable to act in Police-like capacity unfortunately do not have the desired effect.

The Bins
I was in favour of the "no bin" trial, but sadly it does not work, I will be emailing EBC to inform them of this and I would recommend others do the same, the generic email for the relevant department is leisure@elmbridge.gov.uk


Well I am, after this post, thoroughly exhausted and bid you farewell for now.

loving the banter folks, new ideas and entrenched opinions make for plenty of fields, fields of possibilities, but it doesn't stop himalayan balsam spreading from nearby reaches, you've got to go to those reaches and pull it up, in the same way litter thrown over the road bridge, over the river mole, will undoubtedly be deposited on your reach, irrespective of which, you're overlooking one thing, people go fishing to catch fish, hence they go to places where they are likely to catch the species of fish they want, 
we, the many hundreds of TAC members, have a genuine desire to make a positive difference to the river and its environments, we readily admit that we look at the bigger picture, but we dont ignore the smaller details either, we don't sit around talking, we get out there and tend to the dirty details, as well as the many consultative document responses to government departments
we are genuinely appreciative of the opportunity to post on this forum, and sincerely hope that in the years to come, we can both look back and chuckle at our earlier experiences, maybe even label it as 'only a ripple in the ocean of life, not a tsunami' 
squeak soon folks and see you at the meeting

<tease> This statement bears some examination in the light of both observation and experience LOL!  Or at least, holding at an angler's considerable arms' length!

....other motives can include getting away from 'domestic bliss' (or being told to get out of house by everloving spouse); avoidance of household chores; communing with nature.... male bonding in hunting parties (most carp anglers seem to be partnered up)...gearheads whose main pleasure is in owning the latest deadly reel </tease>
....and one doesn't see many fish of over three inches caught.  Then again, it would be sooooo boring if you hooked a whopper every cast, every time, that anglers would soon pack it in.

The reason is that variable response reinforcement (i.e. getting your reward only once in an unpredictable while) produces the most deeply entrenched behaviours, that are the hardest and longest to extinguish.  B. F. Skinner's early experimental work was good, before (like so many) he tried to extend it to the Whole Of Life and went off the rails somewhat.

I wrote a email to EBC in July as I was fed up with the broken glass and rubbish etc when i took my dog there. I got a reply from Jenny James in August, which states ....
'the first part of this trial was undertaken during October and November last year with the findings being very encouraging with only a small amount of litter collected during litter picks or found in the dog bins. However, as this was considered to be ‘out of season’ ' and... 'Once this trial has been completed the findings will be presented to Ward Members for a decision on the re-installation of the litterbins at this location'. 

Apparently the scheme ended on the 31st August but i have not been down there at all since mid August due to the fact that it became so unpleasant. If the scheme ended on the 31st Aug have they since reinstated the bins until a 'final' decision is made by the ward councilors? or is the scheme continuing by default until this decision?? 

Simplistic I know - but surely three simple actions could improve the situation without draconian measures (which won't happen anyway) implemented by EBC & TAC.
1. Reinstate litter bins
2. Permanent signs asking for fishermen to please be respectful and not leave litter, waste etc
3. Ban on overnight camping, including 'bivouacking' overnight as mooted by Keith.

The issue is on the agenda for the next Residents' Association Open Meeting on 9 November (8 pm, Vera Fletcher Hall) where Jenny James will expound on the results.  It's important that all those who use and care for the Reach try to attend and ensure that decisions reflect the broadest possible views and support.  Meanwhile I don't know whether the council intends to reinstate the bins before the outcome of the meeting.


Yes, I think these are the practical steps, along with (4) some bankside clearance along the Mole as speerroadres suggested (it should be more attractive for serious specimen hunters as the 'Molember Estuary' has almost no boat traffic; while as the proposer ingeniously observes, the steep banks there prevent bivouacking).  And (5) continued patrolling, seasonally adjusted, by our police and council enforcement officers (for we must not forget the other part of the litter problem - the summer gatherings of less responsible citizens).  The continuing active engagement of an angling conservancy organisation such as the TAC seems to be, can only help.

It seems likely that the council will argue to the death against reinstating bins - one cannot help but wonder whether the bin contractors' practices and desires, and budgets, are behind that.  As others have also been picking up litter left on the reach because there are no bins, the results of the council's own litter picks are likely be skewed and I feel it is important that others produce evidence so that a more accurate and objective assessment can be made at the meeting.

And - write or email to your councillors, the Ward Members to whom Jenny refers.

Footnote: at the police panel meeting on 28 September, the police representative said that they favoured the provision of litter bins.

That all sounds very sensible to me.

.... and welcome to the forum, rudi.

a TAC rep filled a carrier bag with litter, late afternoon today

I was walking the dog this morning and on the slipway going down to Kingston Grammar boathouse was a black bin liner full of rubbish and half a drum-kit!  Bizarre... 

Sounds like fly-tipping - like the episode in June with that old safe in a wheeliebin, dumped in the river at the same accessible spot.

"In 1535 the Act 27 Henry VIII was passed, prohibiting the casting of rubbish and pollution into the Thames.  It recites that... of late divers evil disposed persons had habitually cast in dung and filth......whereof if anyone thereafter should do anything 'in the annoying of the stream of the said river of Thames' similar to these offences, he should pay 100s on each occasion, half to the king and half to the city."

100s was worth £100 when Thames historian Thacker wrote that in 1914, so about £50,000 now??  A £50,000 fine ought to deter even the hardest-pressed carpfisher from crapping in the reeds.

A dog walker walker went along the Reach yesterday (Me!), and I saw and moved two sharp edged food tins and beer cans, found another fishermen crap and toilet roll next to the 2nd tree along the Reach, and a bag overspilling with numerous bottles and cans and a throw away barbecue, some please tell me again why we are now trying to think of a way to continue sharing our beautiful Open Space with these animals!

Well, as you know I am among the first to publicise these excesses with articles and camera.  As people have been picking up litter from the reach on Monday mornings, I decided to do a check yesterday (Sunday of a fine sunny weekend) at 15.00.  

Along the Reach I counted just 8 pieces of litter - the lowest ever in my occasional checks over the past three years.  I spotted one food can by the riverside (the kind of thing one would find with camping anglers) and one plastic bag filled with other rubbish six feet behind a poop bin (the kind of thing one would find with bankside users who have nowhere to leave their litter - must be the bag you mention) and the rest were picnicker-type items.  I failed to spot the human crap in the bushes which you record. There were eight teenagers, boys and girls with bikes having fun in a group, and I noted two drinks cans and an empty crushed bottle of water under their bikes - I don't know whether they eventually took them home, or in the absence of bins left them along the Reach.

There were five fishermen, none camping, four of them catching (very) small chub and one lad spinning for perch who told me he often picks up litter.  I spoke to three of the fishermen - they were all residents in the vicinity.

The grass along the reach had been cut and I thought it was looking as well as I've seen it lately.  With the water temperatures now cooling, carp won't be feeding often and the incidence of anglers who camp to catch them drops right off.  I was attributing the low littter count to that (confirmation that last year's binless trials were at entirely the wrong time of year).

If TAC picked up litter this morning I'd be interested to know how much this time.

Incidentally, cycling around the place this morning I spotted rather more litter on Giggs Hill Green and on Weston Green near Milbourne Pond (at both of which venues there are litter bins) than there was on Albany Reach.  No crap, though!

This was before student lunchtime on a weekday.  But might suggest that the benchmark levels of litter in general are more likely to be set by thoughtless young residents or pupils socialising outdoors than by specific user-groups (though the camping anglers are beyond reasonable doubt responsible for the crap and certain kinds of litter along the Reach).

we are continuing our litter picks and failed to fill a carrier bag, it appears the volumes of litter are disappearing as quick as the signs we put up

Walking along the Reach this morning with the dog I came across...................1 open and empty "Bacon Grill" food tin, 1 empty fishing accessory wrapper (I have no idea what used to be in it), McDona........... (I cant bring myself to type the word) fries wrapper and straws,  dirty toilet roll, though it looked as though someone had trodden in something and attempted to clean it off their shoes with the toilet roll, and last but by no means least................................a broken up polystyrene base from a Hotpoint Washing Machine when delivered, also covered in the same muck as the toilet roll, which all got stuffed in to the "poo bin" I am afraid to say.

I also picked up around 20 "poop bags" from the bushes, and stuffed them back in to the dispenser, it looked as if someone had just grabbed the lot and thrown them in the bushes.

This was all from directly around the first bench, I did not get any further, I had to get to work!

a TAC rep visited the reach this afternoon, figuring that with the big tides and subsequent backing up of the river, combined with the recent rains, there would be some flotsam and jetsom in the bankside margins, in total he collected over half a bin bag of mostly plastic bottles, wrappers and polystyrene 

2 campers this morning! packing up after staying the night, so no doubt this probably means another Fishermen "jobby" secreted in the bushes somewhere! Lovely.

The ban on camping really needs to be enforced properly, and silly discrimination between tents with an integral groundsheet and a tent without one must be abandoned. 

A resident told me lately that at another venue in Elmbridge (not too far away) he got into conversation with one of the environment patrolmen who told him that they generally tipped the wink to anglers camping overnight.

Three tents down there this morning.  No sign of life by any of them.  Assuming fishermen tucked up nicely having snoozed over night.  Maybe the Environment Officer goes round tucking them in and reading them a bedtime story...zzzzzz... 

It is just after 2pm and I have just returned from the lunchtime dog walk, the 3 lots of campers that were down there this morning also noted by Speerroadres above are still there!

I hope they found a proper lavatory then.

Hmnnnn.... d'you think we can establish a seal colony there?  The prolonged presence of a seal along that stretch of river this summer suggested it might be viable....reduce the fish population*, seals raiding campers for cans of food.....would act as a natural, ecofriendly way of curbing one piscatorial predator using another......well within the quirky traditions of this endearing village...hmnnnn

Then again - how much mess do seals make?  We need to think this through.

* a quick Google indicates that a seal eats 35lb of fish a day.  

Well I am almost positive that the 2 "tentouacs" that were at the Reach this morning were 2 of the 3 that were there yesterday morning and afternoon and presumably the night before that, I am sure that the chap sitting next to them this morning was the same chap I saw there yesterday lunchtime, the "tentouacs" seem to have been  moved along slightly.

Well the two campers who have been there all week are still there inspite of a phone call I made to Jenny James... but don't worry about the human poo because my dog just ate it for lunch!  Great.  

a TAC rep visited the reach this afternoon, despite combing the waterside vegetation all that could be collected was approximately 2 carrier bags, this included a piece of blue tarpaulin and the remains of a pizza takeaway

Another sunny Sunday, so I visited the Reach to check on litter at lunchtime.

With the colder weather there are fewer youths and camping fishermen although regular walkers, duck-feeders and dog-owners were in evidence.  I counted just five pieces of litter along the Reach, of which one (coke bottle) was of youth-type litter and one (top cut off tin) of camping-type litter.  It confirms the view that the litter problem is seasonal (and I am coming to think that it is more youth and picnic related than camping-related, although the more sordid litter is from campers)

There were two older day fishermen, both peaceable, pleasant & local; and on the Molember bank near the junction with the Thames there were three tents of substantial size - but separate groundsheets - with younger fishermen.  Also peaceable.  One told me they would be there for the whole week.  I asked what they did about sanitation and he replied that they used the BP garage across Hampton Court Way.

If three tents for one week is not camping then the English language has become irretrievably twisted.  The signs at the entrance to the Reach clearly state:
"The erection of tents, lighting of fires and leaving of litter are expressly forbidden.  Failure to comply may result in legal action being taken."

But will it be taken?  You can safely bet that it won't, and indeed that the enforcement officers will do nothing about enforcement - just as in the whole of Elmbridge in the last five years there has been not one case against dog mess and I haven't asked under FOI about litter yet but what do you reckon are the chances that anyone has been prosecuted for knowingly dropping litter?  A quick check of the Esher College students on a sunny day at £200 per time might yield a thousand or two in fines to supplement the council's budget....

11.30 am Monday morning.  Two people just waking up in a tent at the top of the Molember.  Another tent further down along the main bank.  Where are the patrols?

I went to the Reach around 1:30pm today, there was a couple with 1 tent setting up about halfway along, I also noticed that the EBC signs regarding fishing situated at the beginning of the path toward the pond had gone missing?  and then 2 tents set up on the path between the Mole and the pond, 1 of these right next to the water and the other nearly on the path, I also saw a freshly severed tree branch about 3m away from these tents which they had obviously removed to facilitate camping, I informed Jenny James of EBC. 
I am in agreement that the littering teens are seasonal as they are only present in the nicer weather, but to call the fishing seasonal to me is stretching it somewhat as they can be present for 3/4 of the year. Great!

I'd also reported it to EBC btw and have asked for notification of what action they take.

Anglers will be around all year (if you include a season for salmon and trout that is largely theoretical) but the carp fishermen are generally the ones who camp.  Carp often feed better at night & when there is no boat traffic.  The longer stay of the campers also means that ground-bait they put in the targeted swim will be around for several days to attract fish and get them used to it.

Carp feed when the water temperature is around 10C or more.  Below that they may feed very occasionally, if they have gone long without, or there is a slight warming of water temperature.  In the colder months, therefore, the daytime offers more prospects than camping overnight.  In consequence of all that:
a. the campers are mainly after large carp
b. the coarse fishing season legally opens 16 June and for all practical purposes the water temperature means that the season for carp is ending about now.

a TAC rep visited the reach today, all that was collected was a single pizza box, 2 plastic bottles, a solitary beer can and half a dozen sweet wrappers

Story gathered so far on this intended week-long camp (although I have not had formal details from EBC)  is that both our admirably active neighbourhood police and EBC have visited the site, the River Officer was notified and the water bailiff called to ascertain licensing and other things in order.  I do not know whether the campers were moved on, but at any rate when I visited the Reach this afternoon there were none there.  

The place where they had been was tidy.  The grass has also been cut again and, apart from a couple of pieces of litter along the KGS sports ground perimeter(Reach side), the worst feature was the grass at the entrance churned up by KGS contractors resurfacing the all-weather hockey pitch on Ditton Field.  Along with a comely dog-walker, a swan and a pair of amorous mallards I had this Elysium all to myself.

a TAC rep visited the reach today and struggled to fill a carrier bag despite searching the undergrowth, one rusty bivvy pole that had been wound in by a fisherman was also collected

Thank you again, TAC.  It is pretty clear that the peak period for littering coincides with the warmer months when carp anglers and antisocial picnickers alike frequent the Reach.

I have now received them.  EBC say that these camping anglers are "definitely flouting the byelaws in regard to erecting of tents" (my bolding, EBC words)

Police and ERC Security and Patrol Teams were requested to visit the site and speak to the individuals concerned. More regular patrols of the site have been requested.

Surrey Police are the enforcement authority on such matters, EBC note (which answers the 'who ya gonna call' question).

Yes, and I bet if you ring the police, they will tell you to ring the council.  That's the problem I had.

Well, we've got the police panel next Tuesday night (with PC Katie Kennedy replacing Andy Grapsas) AND Jenny James from EBC Env care so we can thrash that out.  I trust you and all others who care for the reach and want to get this sorted out, will attend!

Spotted last night around 7.15pm - Community Police patrol on the Reach. Great, keep it up! He even asked me if I was alright (that place is a bit scary after dark, even with a torch).

a TAC rep visited the reach today and collected a carrier bags worth of flotsam and jetsom from the waterside
there was no litter from any users of the reach, save for a couple of pooh bags

Open Meeting 9 November:  presentation of results of the 'binless trial' by EBC officials & discussion of state of the Reach:

Bins:
During summer months EBC had collected roughly two sackfuls of litter a week by litter-picking.
Exhaustive discussion.  Arguments both ways.  Officials' preference not to have bins.
Vote to reinstate bins carried by substantial majority (the Association's Executive had also been of unanimous opinion that bins should be reinstated)
EBC officers  agree to reinstall bins.  Their exact type and location to be subject of further consideration.

Signage:
Argument both ways (usefulness versus unsightliness) 
EBC will 'look at it'

Camping:
Call for more effective enforcement of by-law against erecting of tents.  A Surbiton angler pointed to Godalming as a successful example where anglers are permitted umbrellas but not anything like a tent where they can sleep, around noted carp-fishing venue Broadwater Lake.  EBC will investigate.  The by-law may have to be revised to enable proper enforcement.  It is still necessary to resolve the 'who ya gonna call' problem between council enforcers and police.  Part of the problem was said to be the quirkiness of English laws - but that may need looking into.  For the present, call EBC who will act or relay action as necessary (comment: unless there is an antisocial behaviour or other problem requiring police attention, in which case call police).

Angling:
Several speakers made the point that the Reach should remain to be enjoyed by all legitimate users, anglers included.  No move to ban fishing - probably not possible under existing laws concerning freedom to fish this part of the Thames.

Portaloo:
Arguments heard both ways.  Vote taken - overwhelming majority against provision of portaloo.

The presence of the angling fraternity was appreciated, with both the TAC representative and a representative from Surbiton anglers making useful contributions and constructive suggestions towards resolving the problems.

It was also apparent that EBC set considerable store by the number of complaints they receive.  So to ensure that impetus is retained and the statistics reflect concern, please send them your complaints about litter and campers as the problems occur.

The TAC would like to thank all the residents at last nights meeting, for the unprejudiced and balanced opinions that were expressed. At no point were we made to feel unwelcome, in fact it was heartening to have the ears of so many pleasant people.
We hope that this is only our first step in a long and successful relationship, which ultimately will bring about a better environment for everyone. 
In the meantime if you could make use of our experiences, or have any questions, then please contact us at admin@rivertac.org  alternatively check our website out at www.rivertac.org

squeak soon folks and many many thanks to you all

Well unfortunately I was unable to attend the meeting but from what I can see I don’t think I missed much, so the bins will be going back I would guess once into next years budget following some sort of un-agreeable consultation, we still have nobody to call and will not have for at least the foreseeable future, the Police don’t really want to know, the changing of by-laws will take an absolute age if it ever happens at all and the Reach has no Portaloo, I fail to see how this has moved on at all, in fact I can only see that the Reach is now more vulnerable than ever with signs missing, no bins, fishermen still free to camp, dominate the banks, crap in the bushes and no authority to regulate, teens will still drop litter and residents will complain, I hate to be defeatist and I am sure you will say I am just being negative and maybe your right, but I would be very surprised if there is a noticeable change next year, if there is then I will nibble on a “bank side jobby” my-self, although I am hoping that with TAC now interested it may curb the behaviour a little but I am sceptical, they take no notice of the Law and the Patrol. I must confess that my energy to think about this is flagging somewhat, I want to be positive but it is very depressing to think that this has already been kicked about for 3-4 years already and unfortunately I can see it still being kicked around in 3-4 years time, I want these issues to be resolved but realistically I cannot see it happening. And as an FYI it is the Leisure and Cultural Services Dept responsible for the Open Spaces, Parks and Recreation section of which Jenny James is Parks Development Officer.

Thanks for the reminder/correction.  I've  amended the above slightly.

It is unfortunate you were unable to attend; for all views were sought: we try to move on democratically with a majority view but inevitably some won't feel able to endorse it.

I'll continue to take a close interest in this issue myself.  We will be nagging EBC for progress on bins and proper consideration of signs as well as by-laws.  One advantage of bins is that others - such as TAC and individual public-spirited residents - who pick up litter from the Reach will have somewhere to put it (without leaving plastic bags that the foxes worry open).

The continuing involvement of the TAC will be very welcome.  

Come next summer, those attending the police panel meetings can set the Reach to be made a priority concern for the summer months and for the by-laws to be more robustly enforced.  We will have to continue to write and phone both EBC and police with particular complaints, else they may assume there is now no problem.

I believe that the bulk of the litter, apart from the offensive excrement from campers staying overnight, comes from teens and users other than anglers.  Sparked by the situation along the Reach, I've been looking at other areas of public green space where there are problems: Giggs Hill Green, and Weston Green.  The problems at least in part seem to derive from thoughtless youngsters who ignore bins where they are present and we should I think be working with Elmbridge to mount  campaigns in schools.  "Keep Elmbridge Tidy" is not the catchiest slogan (it sounds a bit like 'keep your room tidy' and may arouse resistance rather than compliance).  Perhaps 'Don't Trash The Planet' or 'You chuck your litter on the ground, we put up Council Tax' might ring the bell?  Readers' ideas would be welcome!

I was at the meeting on Tuesday and everyone was trying to be constructive in order to resolve the issues on Albany Reach.  It is hard to get a decision out of anyone on a council these days, and I am sure they are not looking forward to the Sysyphean task of 'tweaking' a bye-law on tents.  

I abstained from voting on the bins because I was really sad to see the experiment fail; but fail it has.  My view would still be to put in a seasonal wheelie bin (like the one on the Island) for summer time use, but I guess I am just fooling myself thinking that everyone would use it.  Scavenger proof bins will be an answer, with possible notices to say if there is no room in the bin, please take litter home, or words to that effect.  I was down on the Reach this morning, and have to say it was absolutely spotless, largely due to a small number of people (TAC included) who go round and pick up.

The view on the Portaloo was unanimous because it was universally agreed that it would attract even more fishermen to this lovely spot.  The TAC rep (sorry didn't get your name) suggested what I have done in the past, which is to put some sort of parking restriction down Aragon Avenue then people will not bring the big tents etc because they would have to carry them.

The other positive thing that arose from the meeting was the presence of the police officer.  She was able to hear first hand exactly what the problems are and hopefully she will make patrols a priority, especially at the start and the end of the fishing season and also when the schools break up. 

In the meantime, I will take on board what was said, and I will still ring the number on the sign at the Reach if I see anything awry. 

what has hopefully been achieved, is to set down the roots to make an improvement, only by getting on with it ourselves will there ever be a difference, 3 or 4 years of expecting others to resolve the problems have apparently achieved very little, its a case of dont expect others to do for me, do it myself, if you doubt this mantra, then ask yourself who voted for a coalition government 

The problem with a wheelie-bin or a skip (especially near the Aragon Avenue entrance) is that it would likely be used by dumpers.  Further away from the entracnes it's less likely that a wheelie would be abused that way, but still....  Anyway, EBC are going to look at the available designs of bins to put back there, with an eye to foxes and dumpers and aesthetics as well as capacity.

I don't entirely agree with TAC that we have to do it all ourselves: a considerable measure of slef-help, yes; we have to be consturctively engaged (and keep engaged) yes: but we can't form a vigilante group and go about enforcing; and we pay taxes to get the rubbish collected, and the grass cut; and we can't just stick whatever bin we like there.

Isn't that what everyone has been trying to do, find the person/s responsible get them to stop and/or enforce regulations rules etc, or am I missing the point?  Wasn't there someone fined recently for 'cleaning up' council owned land without authority?  And what has voting for a coalition government got to do with it? Money would be tight whoever was in power but I'm sure providing a litter bin or two is not going to break the bank and maybe those requiring 'big job' toilet facilities should be encouraged to use the doggie poop scoops/bins.  

Unfortunately we seem to have become a nation of inconsiderates and jobs worths but not sure how you tackle those problems!

Long term the Albany Reach is going to change. Any day now the Court Ruling will come out and either Gladedale and Network Rail will get the green light for their ghastly development, or common sense will prevail. If the planning application is quashed, the long term future is returning the land (near Hampton Court Station) back to the public and making it accessible to all. 
Either way, there likely be a push for a bridge over the Mole (adajacent to the Thames). Either schemes will take time.  

regrettably due to the lack of litter a TAC rep will no longer be visiting the reach every week, 
our efforts are best put to use elsewhere,
we wish you well in your endeavours 

Understood - the litter has greatly reduced with the onset of colder, greyer weather.

We hope that TAC members will re-engage come next June and the opening of the coarse fishing season.

--------------------------

btw: have there been any Thames trout caught in this stretch of the river over the past fifty years?  If so, please email me for I am compiling an article on the history of fishing locally....

See: 

http://www.memoryscape.org.uk/Download.htm

A rather nice tale of one man's meander from Molesey to Teddington. Lots of details that I didn't know. 

The TAC will indeed be primed for next summers arrivals, however we rely on others such as yourselves to keep us up to date, please feel free to contact us.
Regarding the trout within the river, there are quite a few brownies present which are caught infrequently.
Sadly the sea trout run at molesey was ruined by the seal that took up residence at molesey weir, numbers caught in the fish trap can be ascertained from the EA.  

Will do

Thanks - is there a Thames trout fishers' forum?  [[ Edit - OK I've found http://www.salmonfishingforum.com  and http://www.flyforums.co.uk/trout-grayling-fishing/54445-thames-trout.html ]]

I didn't know there was a sea-trout run - and last time I looked (two years ago) there were no salmon at all.  Do you think the seal followed them up?  Have any been caught on rod and line?

2, more than umbrellas, not quite tents but more then bivouacs were present at around 3pm today, I called EBC, I have no doubt they will still be there later

Two guys on the Reach with bivouac open style tents, were being spoken to yesterday by a security officer from Elmbridge.  However, they are still there this morning?  Don't see how they could have slept in those tents in that cold last night, but I am sure they did.  

Thanks for reporting in - let's keep at it.

Yes they are still there now in there Umbivoutents (13:30hrs ish), I have just returned from the Reach, I have again informed EBC.

FYI: EBC apparantly do not record every call regarding the Reach as a complaint, if we call Leisure Services they in turn call the Security Patrol, the Patrol will log the call, in order for EBC to record it I would recommend sending your Official Complaint in writing to leisure@elmbridge.gov.uk, this will then be logged as an "Official Complaint" by the very polite Admin Team and then passed on to the correct Officer, otherwise who knows what will happen to it, it seems that statistics are the only way to be believed in this situation, I for one will be sending an "Official Complaint" email from now on at the sight of every breach, and asking for feedback as to how it has been followed up. First one away:

Nature of Contact: Official Complaint

Area in Question: Albany Reach Thames Ditton

Issue: Camping

Dear Sirs,

I would like to log a complaint regarding 2 tents at Albany Reach, Thames Ditton, positioned near the end of the Reach where the path starts to the wooded area, they were there yesterday lunchtime (15.11.10), I informed Elmbridge’ Leisure Services Department, the 2 tents in question are still there now (16.11.10), over 24hrs later. I would like to point out that these “shelters” are supported by poles and are fixed to the ground. I would very much like to be updated as to what action was taken yesterday and will be taken today. I would also ask that this complaint is recorded officially and that you let me know the reference it has been recorded under.

Regards

Yes, I use email.

It might also be a good idea to cite the by-law that is clearly posted there:

"The erection of tents, lighting of fires, and leaving of litter are expressly forbidden.  Failure to comply may result in legal action being taken."

Repeated failure to take legal action could prompt thoughts of what action residents can take.  The Coalition programme foresaw Neighbourhood Justice Panels. I rather doubt they will deliver on that too.

Yes good point, I will be sure to include this in the future.

howdy folks, I thought anglers were to be welcomed on the reach, that was the impression that was given at the residents meeting
as has been stated before, campers camp and anglers use a bivvy or umbrella
it seems that as the litter has decreased, and no ablutions taken in the bushes, you're now focussing on fishermans shelters
you give them silly names, demean the individuals enjoying themselves within the law, and waste tax payers money and your own time

earlier in the year you didn't want people fishing over night because of litter and ablutions, why dont you want them there now, when these incidents are not occuring

Anglers can use the Reach but the erection of tents is prohibited.  We don't want camping along the Reach at any season of the year . Camping is camping - erection of tents, sleeping in them overnight etc.  Tents are tents and anyone of sound eyesight and judgement knows what a tent looks like whether or not its groundsheet is integral.  Umbrellas to keep the rain or sun off are fine.  This is not about angling - it's about camping whatever the ostensible reason for sleeping overnight in a tent along the Reach may be.

Surbiton anglers helpfully pointed to Broadwater Lake as an example of a public recreational and carp-fishing venue where umbrellas are allowed but tents are not.  Elmbridge is looking at how that may be enforced along the Reach - a far  more sensitive spot from the point of historic location and beauty.

Interesting, I see a new line of thought here, maybe an easier way to manage this would be that instead of trying to outline what is or is not a tent or shelter then perhaps if it were only Umbrellas allowed for shading purposes there would be less room for misinterpretation, I would imagine that it would make overnight stays less appealing too.

I dont know a huge amount about this so i shan't wade in too deep but it strikes me that nobody has anything against the anglers per se, Its the people who come and camp out for days on end to fish that bother them because of the issues discussed previously, correct?

Yes, that's right.  Overnight campers are the more likely to light fires, crap in bushes, leave food tins.  The bottom line is that erecting tents is forbidden explicitly, full stop. 

Angling by contrast has many positives: communing with nature as you stalk your prey with skill and finesse; paying alert attention to your rod and tackle to be able to respond instantly to a bite or keep it out of the way of some blundering waterfowl; deepening your knowledge of freshwater ecology, and sometimes admiring a passing kingfisher as it perches on your rod-tip; conserving the fishery for the pleasure of all; and possibly under the shade of an umbrella.  Keeps your sons off the streets too.

you paint a pictorial scene more akin to life in the country, than in the burbs, although kingfishers are not uncommon in certain areas
thankyou for the clarification regarding anglers standing, when these anglers leave the reach it will be interesting to know, if there has been any ablutions in the bushes, or litter left, particularly as a number of you are monitoring them and the length of time they stay

An undoubted benefit from having long stay anglers on the bank, is the lack of crime associated with such areas. 
Something for you to nibble on in the snow.

a minor correction to the minutes of the residents association meeting, the surbiton gentleman represented the local fishing tackle business's, he owns one himself
the TAC represent anglers to anglings governing body and subsequently to government, hence it was strange to find a councillor asking a businessman about anglers code of contact

here's hoping you've got two lumps of coal, and your carrot doesn't droop 

question for you TAC.. why do so many anglers let the fish die in the catch nets? Seems a shame when you cant put them back to catch again. it seems many want to see the total haul at end of the day but whilst I'm no avid save the fish campaigner it seems a bit of a shame to just let them die. i totally get it for the sport or to eat but just to leave dead fish in the water seems wrong.

There are quite a few kingfishers along the Reach - notably in the banks along the MoleEmber bit there.

I never did get one to perch on my rod though....

I think I could safely say that since we waved goodbye to the warmer months and the volume of visitors to the Reach including both teens and fishermen my dog has not uncovered any more "jobbies" in the bushes, I have not removed any empty food tins, throw away BBQs, scorched patches, empty bait boxes, beer cans, piles of cigarette stubs, and have not seen any used loo roll, dead fish at the waters edge nor what seems the inevitable ring of rubbish left by the younger groups, of course some of this could be coinsedence I suppose. 
I would also say that for the fishermen that camp I do not think they see it as the noble, at one with nature type of sport that maybe it should be, I fail to see how sitting, getting drunk and waiting for an alarm to go off could in anyway be called a sport, more of a way to escape "er indoors" I would be inclined to think, on a more upbeat note, the Reach was beautiful this morning following last nights snow, what a picture! 

And I can also say that I have seen Kingfisher fly along the bank when sitting next to the river.

so many anglers, perhaps should be so many fisherman, killing fish is frowned upon by anglers, placing them in a net to admire later is an individual choice, unless in a competition, this once common behaviour has for the large part discontinued, except within the fish eating fraternity and those that engage in family fish weekends, basically the lowest form of behaviour can be witnessed where the lowest form of cost is involved
its fantabulous to hear that kingfishers are regular visitors to your reach, a sure sign that juvenile fish are present, however has the over grazing by the alien species, the canadian goose, affected crane fly populations, who knows or will ever know
it appears that monitoring is showing, that the type and number of fishing people that visit the reach, changes, many of them now changing the species they wish to catch and fishing in the nocturnal hours unobserved
whether sitting in a bivvy for hours on end for one bite and a fish of over 20lbs, is more enjoyable than the traditional method for smaller fish, is an individuals choice, in the same way that chelsea tractors driven by people who dont know how to engage four wheel drive is
I wonder that those that care for the reach, aren't putting out wild bird seed, surely a fiver a week is within budget and would aid to beautify the reach with a greater variety of bird life, at this time of year many birds and small mammals head to human habitation for warmth and food, and fall prey to the domestic cat

Yes, there are masses of juvenile fish in late Spring/early Summer, particularly a few hundred yards further downstream in the cut around TD Island, and they congregate in schools in ths shallows for safety from aquatic predators and other disturbance (which makes them ideal breakfast for the occasional kingfisher).  There are also kingfishers along Boyle Farm Island.  

I can assure you there are also plenty of surviving crane flies in season too!

The wild areas of trees and scrub around the MoleEmber outlet and the top of  Ditton Field attract a number of birds and there are nuthatches, woodpeckers and the usual range of finches and other small birds to go with the great-crested grebes that nest in several places along this stretch of river, and of course the crafty herons of which there are a number (I have to keep netting over my garden pond or else within a few days a heron appears!).

So much bird food is put out in TD gardens that it's a wonder more branches are not broken by fat blackbirds landing on them...

For specimen-hunters there are large barbel and chub and potentially record-breaking perch as well as good roach, all of which can be caught mainly by day as with the possible exception of barbel, they use eyesight to help locate food.  The carp are a fairly recent addition to the species in the river.  I haven't heard of other introductions being caught lately, such as zander, but they are said to be in the river.  That stretch of river is clean and gravelly with few obstructions so it's easy to fish - the main problem being the amount of boat traffic.  In short, there's plenty for a sporting and nature-aware angler to fish for, without using a wheelbarrow load of groundbait (the amount they put in should be regarded as potentially polluting), having a barbie and a dozen tinnies then crashing out to sleep in their tent while their untended rods wait for a carp to hook itself on the shock rig (or some blasted bream to be disposed of or maybe, after dawn, a large waterfowl snarled up) and an electric bite alarm to rouse them so that they can reel it in on their powerful carbon-fibre rod and jail it in a keep-net to photograph in the morning before they find a bush in which to relieve themselves one way or the other....  I prefer the Compleat Angler to the Complete Plonker!

I applaud you're attempt at trying to explain what inhabits your reach, and what lurks within the waters that flow past. 
Sadly much of what you state is incorrect. Akin to the delight that having a resident seal generated.
Fully understanding all inhabitants of the reach, is essential to protecting what you've got. 
Remember that rivers and railway lines are the conduits our wildlife use to travel.
We should all be concerned about canadian geese, or the latest arrival egyptian goose, the decline of the house sparrow. As well as the proliferation of crow species within the burbs. The colonisation of himalayan balsam, floating pennywort, or american red signal crayfish and chinese mitten crab.
Further to this is the 32 billion litres of raw sewage entering the river annually, the installation of hydropower, the 47 itinerant boaters that inhabit the staines to teddington stretch. Thirty of which have been dumping their waste in the thames at teddington for over 3 years or the individuals that dump asbestos roofing, fridges, TV's and to many other things to list here.
Its all spokes in the wheel folks, when one becomes weakened, it affects the rest.

Are the TAC permitted to put up signs, advising people to respect their environment ?.  

I think the main point about the Reach - as with other public spaces - is that they should be there for all to enjoy, whether they are fishermen, families with kids, people just fancying a peaceful stroll etc.
When any one group appears to be 'taking over' an area so that other people feel threatened or unwelcome or out of place then the balance is wrong.

I haven't actually been down there in a long time, as I won't go on my own since a very uncomfortable incident with a group of teenage lads. May have been nothing in it, but I didn't feel safe.
I don't feel threatened by the fishermen, but when there are a lot of them and they've set up camp it does make access to the river more difficult and I have been glared at on more than one occasion when doing no more than walking by, chatting at a reasonable volume, and it made me feel unwelcome.

So I think it's to do with balance and even if the fishermen aren't making a mess, setting up camp there (regardless of style of 'tent'!) is a bit too much like staking a claim on the area. I would feel the same about any other group of people doing the same.

I expect others will disagree with me, but that is how I feel.

I dont think a ban is the option, this will only move the problem elsewhere.  I do fish, mainly with my 9 year old son, we fish perhaps half a dozen times a year, mainly in Kent, its more scenic, and less populated with both other anglers and people. We have never fished a long the reach, although we do visit to walk occassionally. I do remember some years back probably 30 or so, walking along the bank with me Grandad, and a angler hooking a salmon. Oddly this was hooked in the body of the fish and it was dead, it was a large fish. The Salmon, although it had perished, showed it was a clean river 30 years ago, and can onlybe cleaner now.

Overnight fishing I assume is banned, (unsure if it is or not) then why isnt the area patrolled and why arent the fines being issued? Where are the community officers. Its easy in these times to break the rules and get away with it, there is no enforcement. You will probably find that the anglers returning are not local, and if fined, wont go back. You may even find that they dont have a rod licence, and also fishing with to many rods. Have the Environmental Agency been notified of the issue. I know they blitzed Bushy Park not so long ago, and caught several illegal anglers, and along with a fine confiscated their rods and tackle.

The area along the Mole and Ember, along Grove Way in Esher/Thames Ditton,  experiences the same problem. We havent fished there for a year so, but did return in October and noticed the main strech was relatively clean, although the head area as aways was littered with Stella cans and pizza boxes.

By the way, keep this to yourselves, but young Barbel have been caught in the River Rythe, along with several small chud,  and plenty of minnows. 

Finally, Kingfishers have also been seen along the River Rythe along Angel Road and Thorkhill Road. All caught this summer, looking forward to catching the salmon next spring.

Good to hear about the Rythe too (there are reports of quite large chub of 3lb or so in there in pools not far from the Thames, but private banks prevent most anglers getting to them).

Nearly all my comments were backed by direct observation and matters of record  including the birds mentioned, at least three grebes' nests within two hundred yards of Hampton Court Bridge this year; the teeming juvenile fish in late Spring, and the large specimens of carp, barbel, bream and chub caught in quantity in recent years.  There was a record-breaking perch illegally caught without a rod licence a couple of years ago in Ditton marina, one of several very big ones.   The lower Thames match-fishing championships along Molesey this September produced bulging bags too, we read.   I see that sizeable zander are being caught in recent years below Walton (the zander being one unfortunate introduction to the river) and there are several recent reports of another unfortunate introduction by anglers avid for a heavyweight quarry - the Wels catfish (one of around 50lb was caught at Kingston two years ago). 

Along with the highly predatory zander and catfish the spread of mitten crabs, american crayfish and alien invasive weeds are regrettable negatives, particularly mal vus by anglers whose bait they eat and whose lines get snagged.  While illicit residential boats and sewage in the river are reprehensible along with illicit camping and sewage on the bank.

As for birds, I for one hope that on Albany Reach where birds are generally cherished we do not see individuals exercising the general licence for shooting, the destruction of eggs and nests,  and the use of traps to kill woodpigeon, wild pigeon, crows, rooks, magpies, jackdaws, jays, collared doves, Canada and Egyptian Geese (which along with swans and ducks disturb fishermens' swims)  or ring-necked parakeets where they are thought to be a pest.  Or there is likely to be a riot.

31 Dec:  http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/britains-rivers-come-back-to-life-2172580.html

if things were all tickety boo, then the water companies wouldn't need to be exempt from freedom of information requests

a very recent court case resulted in the ruling that water companies are exempt, basically no-one has the right to know what they do

thames water readily admit to discharging 32 billion litres of sewage into the river thames annually , so whats the real figure

we have no legal right to know what an australian owned company is doing to our river, and it stinks on both counts

Well whilst walking the dog at lunchtime we were fortunate enough to come across human excrement, next to the ivy covered tree halfway along the Reach along with associated toilet roll, is this really the way it is going to be for the Reach year in year out?

I have of course notified EBC via leisure@elmbridge.gov.uk

Walking the dog along the Reach yesterday, I picked up a bundle of clingfilm, 2x empty drinks bottles, 1x gas can (aerosole size) for portable gas fire and a couple of baby wipe tissues, all this from where the 1st of the 6 lots of fishers were the day before. Lovely! bring on the summer!

First signs of Spring.... keep us informed on whether it gets noticeably better or worse after the coarse-fishing close season begins on Wednesday 16 March.  From then until 15 June, litter is unlikely to be attributable to anglers but to other users.  Let's keep an eye on it.

If you find anglers fishing for coarse fish in rivers during the close season they are in breach of the law.

I would have to say that in my opinion it was undisputably fishermens rubbish, fresh packed lunch remnants and the gas can right next to the water at the concrete steps close to the boatyard exactly where the first lot were sitting, but as I say there were 6 lots of anglers and only this rubbish so only 1 out of 6 litterers is good, I am also wondering when we shall be seeing the litter bins re-installed along the Reach and proper informative signage, has anybody asked these questions of EBC yet?

we thought we would share with you all, a list of the rubbish our volunteers have collected, it is one fishing seasons worth and was collected between teddington and shepperton

1m x 1m sheet of steel plate, 6ft x 8in x3in planks of timber, boat ladder, inflatable dingy, 7 broken chairs, 2 broken umbrellas, 3 blankets, lengths of 4in x 4in timber plus fire accelerant, 3 bicycles, 1 bicycle wheel, section of steel fence, 3 televisions, 5 gallon metal petrol can part filled with engine oil, skateboard, tarpaulin, fridge,5 x 5gallon plastic containers part filled with liquids, top half of a car engine, 7 car wheels complete with tyres, a car front wing, motorbike seat, large boat battery, carpet, 2 xmas trees, section of plastic barrier, enormous metal wheely bin, lengths of scaffolding tubes, windsurf board, double bed base, 3 man wooden kayak, a pallet, 13 shopping trolleys and filled 164 bin bags with litter

I'm sure I speak for everyone in thanking TAC for these splendid efforts to help clear up the environment, and in condemning the blackguards who defile the river with junk and litter of every kind.  Astonishing.

Someone dumped a whole, heavy, steel safe into the river at Albany Reach last year.  It's time we had a modern version of the village stocks to deal out summary punishment for this kind of antisocial activity!

Well it is probably about time this thread was dug up again. I have not visited the Reach much recently so have not been logging any findings, but here is the first, 19:30 today 3 shelters that will most probably be used overnight, they were not there at lunchtime. Secondly, I have just cleared a massive amount of rubbish, filling a discarded bait bucket and 2 carrier bags, the rubbish consisted of lots of sweets and crisp wrappers, a large but empty bottle of Glens Vodka and 2ltr Lemonade, also empty, lots of soft drink cans, water bottles and a few Special Brew lager cans, a pair of flip flops with the label Atmosphere, black straps with a cluster of large diamante' on each, a plain white t-shirt, a lighter, numerous cigarette packets and this may or may not be related of course but a schedule of sports events with the 11:45 Junior Boys Long Jump highlighted and the name Will Mckeline or Mckelvie, not sure on 2 letters, Mckel??e, written at the top in biro.

I have just returned from a rather wet lunchtime walk along the Reach, there was evidence of fire next to the waters edge (burnt charcoal and twigs) and also human excrement in the wooded area (first left into the woods then follow the path to the left), a big pile surrounded by used toilet roll, and 2 other clusters of toilet roll though no accompanying "jobbies", no fishermen, shelters or teens present.

Im on the river most evenings between the island and Hampton court and in the last 10 days there have rarely been less than 3 seperate "camps" and usually up to 5 different ones so whilst not all of them may be doing any harm, it only takes 1 or 2 to create what you've found.

Whilst its disgusting behaviour its clearly not something that is going to end anytime soon.

Are the local pcso's any help ref this type of thing admin?

They are, and they do patrol, and they do what they can; but as you know from previous posts the 'law' on camping is an ass in that bivouac tents without integral groundsheets are apparently not classed as 'tents' and anglers bicouacking is not apparently classed as 'camping'.  It is a totally ridiculous state of affairs.  Couple that with the responsibility for litter laws resting with EBC officials, and that for rod licenses and fishing practices being with the EA, and you have a right muddle, and a shameful one.

I will however email both EBC and the neighbourhood team to remind them that with the onset of the fishing and teen partying seasons the situation is again brewing.

The reason I am not commenting on this thread is that I just don't go there anymore.  It is the same old story, nothing ever changes, the police can't do anything, and no 'facilities' are there.  I now walk my dog up through the Dell and up the path at the back of Longmead and into the woods.  Once you get through the disgusting litter strewn pathway, the woods are really quite pleasant.  I would advise other dog owners to do the same.  Like the thread said, I give up! As a local person, I resent having to do this, but it is better for my sanity.

thats really sad

very sad indeed, The Reach is such a beautiful Open Space, but I must admit that through the summer months I find it so depressing, heart breaking and extremely infuriating to walk through The Reach while it is being ravaged, but it is the only way to collect evidence and report where necessary.

I raised this at Tuesday's RA Open Meeting.  Time to refocus the authorities on this seasonal problem, with both anglers and teens.  I have spoken to our neighbourhood police team and Sandra Dennis is reminding EBC officials.  We must leave the issue of camping, where the law is flouted on a technicality, to them.  Where residents visiting the reach can do so, I think it would be helpful if they engage anglers in polite conversation, ask them please not to leave litter, and check that they know that the nearest toilets are at The Albany and the BP station.  Teens - who seem to be responsible for more of the can-and-wrapper litter than the anglers - may or may not be a little harder to engage.

Not bad at all today - 14.30 Sunday.  Grass neat and very little litter on the bank; bins being used.  One tent with three anglers camping in it at the mouth of the Molember, who had caught just two average bream; box of beer cans but no litter spread there.  A little way up the path there was the remains of a fire with scorched grass.  One load of crappy tissue, but the culprit was no angler but a parent of a small baby, and had disgustingly left a full disposable nappy (pink lined) in the brambles there.

no excuse for that really, aside from it being disgusting, nappies take about 500 years to biodegrade.

Just an FYI really: (apologies for the huge post)

Bye-Laws

Made under Section 164 of the Public Health Act, 1875, Section 15 of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, and Sections 12 & 15 of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, by the Council of the Borough of Elmbridge with respect to the Pleasure Grounds shown in the attached schedule.

1. Throughout these bye-laws the expression ‘the Council’ means the Council of the Borough of Elmbridge.

And the expression ‘the Pleasure Ground’ means the pleasure grounds shown in the attached Schedule.
2. An act necessary to the proper execution of his duty in the pleasure ground by an officer of the Council, or by any person or servant of any person employed by the Council, shall not be deemed an offence against these bye-laws.
3. A person shall not in the pleasure ground
i) wilfully, carelessly, or negligently soil or defile any wall or fence in or enclosing the pleasure ground, or any building, barrier, railing, post or seat, or any erection or ornament;
ii) climb any wall or fence in or enclosing the pleasure ground, or any tree, or any barrier, railing, post, or other erection;
iii) wilfully, carelessly, or negligently remove or displace any barrier, railing, post or seat, or any other part of any erection or ornament, or any implement provided for use in the laying out or maintenance of the pleasure ground.
4. A person shall not, except in the pursuance of a lawful agreement with the Council, or otherwise, in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege, bring or cause to be brought into the pleasure ground any cattle, sheep, goats, or pigs or any beast of draught or burden.
5.
i) A person shall not, except in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege, bring or cause to be brought into the pleasure ground any barrow, truck, machine or vehicle other than – 
a) a wheeled bicycle, tricycle or other similar machine;
b) a wheelchair or perambulator drawn or propelled by hand and used solely for the conveyance of a child or children or an invalid;
Provided that where the Council set apart a space in the pleasure ground for the use of any class of vehicle, this bye-law shall not be deemed to prohibit the driving in or to that space by a direct route from the entrance to the pleasure ground of any vehicle of the class for which it is set apart.
ii) A person shall not, except in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege, ride any bicycle, tricycle or other similar machine in any part of the pleasure ground.
6. A person who brings a vehicle into the pleasure ground shall not wheel or station it over or upon
i) any flowerbed, shrub, or plant, or any ground in course of preparation as a flowerbed, or for the growth of any tree, shrub or plant;
ii) any part of the pleasure ground where the Council by notice board affixed or set up in some conspicuous position in the pleasure ground prohibit its being wheeled or stationed.
7. A person shall not affix any bill, placard or notice, to or upon any wall or fence in or enclosing the pleasure ground, or to or upon any tree, or plant, or to or upon any part of any building, barrier, or railing, or of any seat, or of any other erection or ornament in the pleasure ground.
8. A person shall not in the pleasure ground walk, run, stand, sit, or lie upon any flowerbed, shrub, or plant, or any ground in course of preparation as a flowerbed, or for the growth of any tree, shrub, or plant.
9. A person shall not in the pleasure ground
i) wilfully, carelessly, or negligently foul or pollute any ornamental lake, pond, stream, or other water;
ii) take, injure, or destroy, or attempt to take, injure, or destroy any fish in any such water, or wilfully disturb or worry any water fowl.
10. A person shall not cause or suffer any dog belonging to him or in his charge to enter or remain in the pleasure ground unless such dog be and continue to be under proper control, and be effectually restrained
i) from causing annoyance to any person;
ii) from worrying or disturbing any animal or water-fowl;
iii) from entering any lake, pond or stream, or any paddling, swimming or swimming or boating pool or other water, or any sand pit or similar place equipped for children’s play.
11. Where the Council set apart any such part of the pleasure ground as may be fixed by the Council, and described on a notice board affixed or set up in some conspicuous position in the pleasure ground, for the purpose of any game specified on the notice board, which, by reason of the rules or manner of playing, or for the prevention of damage, danger, or discomfort to any person in a pleasure ground may necessitate, at any time during the continuance of the game, the exclusive use by the player or players of any space in such part of the pleasure ground – a person shall not in any space elsewhere in the pleasure ground play or take part in any game to specified in such a manner as to exclude persons not playing or taking part in the game from the use of such a space.
12. A person shall not in the pleasure ground drive, pitch or chip a solid golf ball.

Provided that where the Council set aside a space in the pleasure ground for the purpose of a putting green this bye-law shall not be deemed to prohibit the putting of a solid golf ball within the space.
13. A person resorting to the pleasure ground and playing or taking part in any game for which the exclusive use of any space in the pleasure ground has been set apart shall
i) not play on the space any game other than the game for which it is set apart;
ii) in preparing for playing and in playing, use reasonable care to prevent undue interference with the proper use of the pleasure ground by other persons;
iii) when the space is already occupied by other players not begin to play thereon without their permission;
iv) where the exclusive use of the space has been granted by the Council for the playing of a match, not play on that space later than a quarter of an hour before the time affixed for the beginning of the match unless he is taking part therein;
v) except where the exclusive use of the space has been granted by the Council for the playing of a match in which he is taking part, nor use the space for a longer time than two hours continuously, if any other player or players make known to him a wish to use the space.
14. A person shall not in any part of the pleasure ground which may have been set apart by the Council for any game, play or take part in any game when the state of the ground or other cause makes it unfit for use and a notice is set up in some conspicuous position prohibiting play in that part of the pleasure ground.
15. A person shall not in the pleasure ground fly any power-driven model aircraft being a model aircraft driven by the combustion of petrol-vapour or other combustible substance.
16. A person shall not in the pleasure ground
i) except as hereinafter provided erect any post, rail, fence, pole, tent, booth, stand, building, or other structure;

Provided that this prohibition shall not apply where, upon an application to the Council, they grant permission to erect any post, rail, fence, pole, tent, booth, stand, building, or other structure, upon such occasion and for such a purpose as are specified in the application;
ii) sell, or offer or expose for sale, or let to hire, or offer or expose for letting to hire, any commodity or article, unless, in pursuance of an agreement with the Council, or otherwise in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege, he is authorised to sell or let or hire in the pleasure ground such commodity or article;
iii) deliver any public address
17. A person shall not in the pleasure ground wilfully obstruct, disturb, interrupt, or annoy any other person in the proper use of the pleasure ground, or wilfully obstruct, disturb, or interrupt any officer of the Council in the proper execution of his duty, or any person or servant of any person employed by the Council in the proper execution of any work in connection with the laying out or maintenance of the pleasure ground.
18. Every person who shall offend against any of these bye-laws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
19. Every person who shall infringe any bye-law for the regulation of the pleasure ground may be removed therefrom by any officer of the Council, or by any constable, in any one of the several cases hereinafter specified: that is to say –
i) where the infraction of the bye-law is committed within the view of such officer or constable, and the name and residence or the person infringing the bye-law are unknown to and cannot be readily ascertained by such officer or constable;
ii) where the infraction of the bye-law is committed within the view of such officer or constable, and, from that nature of such infraction, or from any other fact of which such officer or constable may have knowledge, or of which he may be credibly informed, there may be reasonable ground for belief that the continuance in the pleasure ground of the person infringing the bye-law may result in another infraction of the bye-law, or that the removal of such person from the pleasure ground is otherwise necessary as a security for the proper use and regulation thereof.
Repeal of Bye-Laws
20. The bye-laws relating to pleasure grounds which were made by the Urban District Council of Esher on the 2nd day of October, 1961, and were confirmed by the Secretary of State on the 28th day of November, 1961, are hereby repealed.
21. The bye-laws relating to pleasure grounds which were made by the Urban District Council of Walton and Weybridge on the 13th day of November, 1951, and were confirmed by the Secretary of State on the 15th day of February, 1952, are hereby repealed.
22. The bye-laws relating to the pleasure ground at Cowey Sale which were made by the Urban District Council of Walton and Weybridge on the 13th day of August, 1955, and were confirmed by the Secretary of State on the 5th day of October, 1955, are hereby repealed.

I just read the bye laws and intrigued about rule 12 - I was not aware of this and assume these rules apply to the rec ground between Alexandra Road and Summer road as well?

Do they?

12.   A person shall not in the pleasure ground drive, pitch or chip a solid golf ball.

Provided that where the Council set aside a space in the pleasure ground for the purpose of a putting green this bye-law shall not be deemed to prohibit the putting of a solid golf ball within the space.

Excellent - thanks Dittonite.

An operative paragraph here:
16.   A person shall not in the pleasure ground
i)   except as hereinafter provided erect any post, rail, fence, pole, tent, booth, stand, building, or other structure;

Provided that this prohibition shall not apply where, upon an application to the Council, they grant permission to erect any post, rail, fence, pole, tent, booth, stand, building, or other structure, upon such occasion and for such a purpose as are specified in the application;

and here:

18.   Every person who shall offend against any of these bye-laws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
19.   Every person who shall infringe any bye-law for the regulation of the pleasure ground may be removed therefrom by any officer of the Council, or by any constable

These seem to make it absolutely clear that a tent, booth, stand, or 'other structure' - which would surely include 'bivouac tent' - may not be erected without prior permission of the council (which as far as one is aware has NOT been given by the council, otherwise we should  be rattling our pitchforks); and that any council official or constable is empowered to act.  Whereas we have been told that both council officials and police are powerless to act to remove campers using bivouac tents.  Is there a lawyer in the house who can confirm and perhaps take this further?

Another FYI, Faster Response to Anti Social Behaviour:


http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/news/news.htm?mode=10&pk=4012

Just a quick ask/reminder of any visitors to the Reach to continue posting any sightings of camping or anything camping related on this thread. Thanks.

im off for next 2 weeks, i'll keep a diary as I'l be passing every day on boat

folks, wot r u like
albany reach is a different place to last year
whatever circumstances have brought this about should be celebrated
instead you pursue long neglected byelaws to further reduce the activities of those that do not necessarily reside locally, why
in one year look at the difference, encouraging people with the right mindset to visit the area has been successful

if your concerns are litter or human faeces, as expressed last year, then why pursue other restrictions
if your concerns are anti social behaviour, then new restrictions will move the problem elsewhere

Albany Reach has improved considerably since the efforts of two years ago and the restoration of the rubbish bins.  However there are still some problems and each year the area is put on the list of local priorities for our neighbourhood Police team, especially during the summer months when there's potentially a bit more ASB and the new season's fishing problems need to be nipped in the bud.

PC Madelin reports that leaflets have been delivered to all residents along Aragon Avenue to help improve the information police receive about issues.  And on Monday 25th February an Environmental Visual Audit was conducted by PC Madelin, the Elmbridge Borough Council Parks Manager and local residents, to identify and record the issues noted at Albany Reach including historical instances. 

The reach has been well maintained by EBC and their efforts are recognised and appreciated by residents.  Amongst responses identified on the day were the creation of a ‘Friends of Albany Reach’ group, &  the improvement of signage (both the Environment Agency and Elmbridge Borough Council will look to replace and improve the existing signage). The Council will also reduce the hedgerow running alongside the Kingston Grammar School sports field to limit encampments, litter and other disorder. Patrols by the Environment Agency, Elmbridge Borough Council and Safer Neighbourhood Team will continue to deter offending and monitor the amount of litter deposited. An additional bin and signage will be considered along the Summer Road pathway / entrance.

It is good to see our local Neighbourhood team responding - as they usually do.

Pulling up the hedgerow sounds more like an excessive cost saving exercise on maintenance rather than for the reasons suggested?