View report page

121
Wharf, Rotherhithe. In reply to your enquiry as to the Conservators' powers in the matter,
I would point out that the bed, soil and shores of the river up to ordinary high-water mark
are vested in the Conservators, and they are empowered by the Thames Conservancy Act,
1894 (57 and 58 Vic., cap. clxxxvii.) to grant permission for works to be constructed therein
and thereon. In this case the Conservators are advised that the work they have sanctioned
is an improvement to that particular part of the river, and is in no way an interference with
the public right-of-way referred to in your communications, as claimed by the Vestry.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
J AMES HUGHES.
J. J. Stokes, Esq.,
Clerk to the Rotherhithe Vestry,
Town Hall, Lower Road, S.E.
Town Hall, Rotherhithe, S.E.,
4th May, 1898.
Sir,
Referring to the correspondence that has taken place with the Secretary to the Board,
and to your letter of 22nd April last, upon the above subject, I have to inform you that from
a perusal of the Act referred to by you, and also of the Act of 1857, I do not find that the
Conservators are empowered to grant permission to an owner of land fronting the river to
erect works in front of the land of an adjoining owner; and I am directed to state that the
Vestry are not at all satisfied that the Conservators have the powers claimed by you, viz.,
granting permission to an adjoining owner to erect works in front of a public right-of-way,
and that they must adhere to their previous opinion that the erection of the Campshed in
question is an interference with the rights of the Vestry as custodians of such right-of-way,
and unless the Conservators see their way to acknowledge the rights of the Vestry in the
matter, or provide another landing place in lieu of the one obstructed, they propose to
ask for an expression of opinion from the Board of Trade.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant
JAMES J. STOKES,
Clerk to the Vestry.
James Hughes, Esq.,
Solicitor,
Thames Conservancy,