Tees at Dinsdale

[Mark R]

For reasons unclear, I've suddenly started receiving really funny 'you have been warned' email from riparian owners and suchlike demanding that I remove the guide to this section, or else - they'll prosecute you and confiscate your boat apparently if you go choose to enjoy your river heritage in their neck of the woods.

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/teesneasham.htm

Enjoy. It sounds like a lovely section of river.

[naefearjustbeer]

Forward the emails to the police and go paddling.

[Mark R]

Latest news ... apparently the local gamekeepers along with Northallerton Police (who apparently work for the riparian owners) will deal with us. I get a lot of this comedy stuff, but just thought I'd share this one as it's so funny.

[RG]

Its a bit sad on their part, trawling the net and warning people off by email.
Seriously do you get a lot of these threats Mark?

[buck197]

It would be interesting to hear from Northallerton Police to hear their take on these threats?

[Mark R]

Seriously do you get a lot of these threats Mark?

Not many threats. Usually stuff along the lines of 'We have found your site and are shocked to discover that it encourages paddling in our county ...'

[quicky]

show it to North Allerton police.

[Chaucer]

I remember this particularly amusing thread.

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... hlight=aca

They don't seem to learn, do they?

I feel that it is a shame that during my all too brief paddling career in the North East including several trips on different stretches of the Tees, that I missed this section. Maybe I will have to correct this.

[Jim Pullen]

Interesting, that's about three miles from my house!

Can't say I've ever been interested in it, as its pretty flat, but I'd imagine I'd be nice as a scenic touring route. I may have to go and investigate some time!

Out of interest Mark, was this just Riparian land owners, or where any fisherfolk involved? I may know some of the latter...

I wonder why they went to Northallerton police, when Darlo is much closer? Very odd.

[Big Henry]

the local gamekeepers along with Northallerton Police (who apparently work for the riparian owners)

If Northallerton Police work for the riparian owners, of course they would get them involved!

I paddled this section a few years ago, and it was basically flat and scenic. Ideal for beginners, apart from it being a bit long. I'd like to try it when the Tees is tanking down!

[Hudman]

Didn't you and Tim paddle it with your "Let's paddle the whole lot" game?

If not I've got some newbies who would like it, perhaps we could find some open boats and do it in them?

[Big Henry]

Didn't you and Tim paddle it with your "Let's paddle the whole lot" game?

If not I've got some newbies who would like it, perhaps we could find some open boats and do it in them?

Who is this aimed at? If it's me, I don't know any Tim, but I have thought about paddling the whole length of the Tees (Minus CS and HF of course!)

they'll prosecute you and confiscate your boat

They could try to prosecute, but if they try to steal/confiscate my boat they'll find I have another use for my paddles.

[Jim Pullen]

Hudster was aiming that one at me!

Our "lets paddle the whole Tees in a day(TM)" mission was a bit of a woss-out as it only included the white water bits - ie High Force to Winston Bridge!

There's lots of flat stuff on down towards Piercebridge, High Connerscliffe and further still to this section which I haven't got round to investigating. I'd be up for taking some newbies down there with you Paul if nothing better is running!

Amusingly a local landowner wondered over to us as we were getting changed at Winston Bridge after our mission. This being June and Dave being less than discreet in his changing technique, I thought "uh-oh, here we go!" But what he wanted to know was what the section further downstream was like as he'd just bought his son's some boats and was interested in paddling it with them!

[Wilf]

You may remember I've had a few dealings with grumpy fishermen and the police in North Yorkshire.

Richmond (my local police station) has its control room at Northallerton, and are essentially all part of the same team.

I can say that without doubt, North Yorkshire bobbies are a great bunch of officers who have a very sensible outlook on things. They deal with farmers and such like on a day to day basis, and as such have are firmly rooted in reality.

They were very supportive when we got threats from anglers and only supported us by giving them an official warning and opening a case file, but also concluded that nobody in their right minds was ever going to take a an environmentally sustainable form of exercise (paddling) to court and expect to win from a position of being a group of rather sedentry bloodsport enthusiasts who frequently add to the problem of bankside littering.


Wilf

[YvonneB]

nobody in their right minds was ever going to take a an environmentally sustainable form of exercise (paddling) to court and expect to win from a position of being a group of rather sedentry bloodsport enthusiasts who frequently add to the problem of bankside littering.

[/code]

Really? sorry Wilf but the following scene comes to mind ....

Judge: Were you trespassing, Mr Paddler?

Paddler: Well probably, yes, but I'm very green and the plaintiff is fat and not very nice to fish.

Judge (in comedy Texan accent) Case dismissed!


I'm sure the N Yorks police are jolly good chaps but I wouldn't hire them as lawyers, by the sound of it.

[naefearjustbeer]

Really? sorry Wilf but the following scene comes to mind ....

Judge: Were you trespassing, Mr Paddler?

Paddler: Well probably, yes, but I'm very green and the plaintiff is fat and not very nice to fish.

Judge (in comedy Texan accent) Case dismissed!


I'm sure the N Yorks police are jolly good chaps but I wouldn't hire them as lawyers, by the sound of it.

I am sure this would be a better answer.

Judge: Were you trespassing, Mr Paddler?

Paddler: No your Honour. I accessed the river from public land and at the time the angler threatened me with acts of violence I was afloat on the river. I do believe the LANDowner does not own the water as such and I was merely passing through.

[Wilf]

nobody in their right minds was ever going to take a an environmentally sustainable form of exercise (paddling) to court and expect to win from a position of being a group of rather sedentry bloodsport enthusiasts who frequently add to the problem of bankside littering.

[/code]

Really? sorry Wilf but the following scene comes to mind ....

Judge: Were you trespassing, Mr Paddler?

Paddler: Well probably, yes, but I'm very green and the plaintiff is fat and not very nice to fish.

Judge (in comedy Texan accent) Case dismissed!


I'm sure the N Yorks police are jolly good chaps but I wouldn't hire them as lawyers, by the sound of it.

As I understand it (and I'm happy to be corrected by all the Legal Eagles amongst us), to trespass is to access somewhere with the intention of causing damage. Simply being on someones elses property does not constute tresspass. (Which as we have established firmly by now is a civil offence so the Police are only interested in the breach of the peace / harrassment that may ensue it).

The bottom line is exactly as naefearjustbeer suggested, provided access has been gained via a footpath or similar, nobody is going to get excited about it. Anglers know that if they take this to court and they lose, it's open season on rivers.

[YvonneB]

Wilf

I think this has been discussed before - just being on the land is trespass. No intention is required. However unless some damage is caused the plaintiff wont be awarded any damages, cos in civil law you only get damages to compensate for actual loss suffered. So no one much bothers going to court for trespass, unless there is actual damage caused, or the same person or group is repeatedly trespassing, in which they go to court to get an injunction to stop the person doing it again. Depending on the circumstances they could go for nuisance as well. For example if you were in someones garden I think you could get sued for nuisance as in loss of quiet enjoyment, but I'm getting out of my depth here.

Of course the police arent interested in purely civil matters. Landowners are in a very weak position it's true, which is great unless you happen to be the landowner. I own the freehold of a couple of parking spaces in a small private carpark, shared with two other houses, and separated physically from my house. I have no other off road parking. It is interesting that some people think I am very selfish when I tell them they cannot park there.
Tthese people would probably never dream of parking on someone's drive, yet it's no different.

[canoeman]

I am a North Yorks Police officer.

The section of the Tees in question forms the border between North Yorkshire and Durham counties and the relevant police forces. So the force dealing with the incident could be either (or both), in theory the boundary runs along the centre of the river.

I can assure you that Northallerton (or any other police) do not work for the local landowners or riparian rights owners.

The "Neasham Loop" is a really nice stretch of the river, some long flat sections but aslo some boucy grade 1, perhaps gd2 rapids, lots of wildlife. The run is several miles but the shuttle is only a mile. Recently some signs have appeared saying "No Canoeing".

Just to clarify the trespass situation - you commit a tresspass if you enter another persons property without their permission or without a legal right to do so.

This is a civil matter unless there are aggravating factors (I cannot see how paddling would amount to any of the aggravating factors to turn civil tresspass into a criminal matter).

The landowner, or his agent, has the right to require you to leave the property and may use reasonable force to eject you.

The use of force is dependant on the circumstances, taking hold of someone and physically removing them from the property might be reasonable in a situation where the tresspasser was causing damage, nuisance or disturbing others, but just paddling down a river doesn't seem to fit that situation. The role of the police is to prevent a breach of the peace, they are NOT there to act as the landowner's agent.

The police will take the view that either or both parties would be capable of causing a breach of the peace. In 1981, a breach of the peace was defined as being "...a breach of the peace is committed whenever harm is done, or is likely to be done to a person, or, in his presence to his property, or, whenever a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot or other disturbance." (Rvs Howells 1981)

Paddling a river doesn't seem to come into that definition.

I cannot see how anyone would have a right to confiscate equipment, other than by perhaps going to court and getting a court order.

It's been said before but is worth repeating. If you are challenged, stay calm and polite, state your position re access and your intentions, don't get drawn into arguments, just paddle away.

If you are subjected to abuse, threats or violence, contact the local police, anything you can do to identify the offender will be useful. The police are duty bound to investigate any incidents reported to them.

Bear in mind that this is all just my personal views, it does NOT constitute an official police position.

[Mark R]

Thanks for the useful response.

[geyrfugl]

Amusingly a local landowner wondered over to us as we were getting changed at Winston Bridge after our mission. This being June and Dave being less than discreet in his changing technique, I thought "uh-oh, here we go!" But what he wanted to know was what the section further downstream was like as he'd just bought his son's some boats and was interested in paddling it with them!

Winston bridge to Piercebridge is quite a pleasant stretch with nothing more than grade 2, and mostly grade 1. It needs a bit of water, otherwise it becomes a real scrape, especially the second half (getting out at Coniscliffe is recommended if you've bumped a lot further up).

We often use it as a beginners' trip (when I say 'often' I mean every couple of years...). You can put in down the steep and brambly left bank below the bridge, but if your paddlers are happy to start off on a bit of grade 2, then the proper put in is river right about 150m upstream of the bridge. At Piercebridge you can get out river right at the bridge - it's a very steep climb up to the road (we usually pull boats up on a rope), but the pub are usually amenable to you parking at the far end of their car park. Alternatively, you can get out river left a short distance above the bridge (before it comes into view) and follow a track to the some garages which are down a short lane from the village green. This avoids the steep bank and, in our case, it avoided two anglers right in the middle of the river (we paddled in September last time). We didn't speak to those anglers as we considered a tactical withdrawal was reasonable (it was pretty low), but everyone we have ever met on this section has been friendly and interested.

Andy

[Big Henry]

Winston bridge to Piercebridge is quite a pleasant stretch with nothing more than grade 2, and mostly grade 1.

Why not do a write-up for the Rivers section on this site?

[Harry Lime]

Interesting. I recently walked upstream from Dinsdale on the North Bank to notice new "No Canoeing" sign erected on the South Bank. My North bank walk was then interrupted by a sturdy fence and a sign warning of private land *and* dogs.

Nice!

So I then drove down the Sockburn peninsula road to be greeted by a large sign saying "Private Road, Turn Back Now" - contrary to my map and my memory of this area.

So, as English heritage are supporting the renovation of Sockburn Hall and their appears to be no public access, I dropped 'em a line.

This was their response.

The approach to Sockburn Hall can appear rather forbidding. There are two landowners at the southern end of the peninsula ? Mr Cracknell, who owns Sockburn Farm, most of the land, and the private road to the south of the gates where you stopped at High Sockburn; and Mary Gatherall, who owns Sockburn Hall and the land surrounding the ruined church. Mr Cracknell is responsible for the signs at the head of the private road. There is, however, a right of access to the hall along this road, since it connects to the final driveway to the hall a little further south. If you drive or walk down to the hall (making sure to take the signposted turning to the hall rather than continuing down to the farm) Ms Gatherall is usually happy to allow visitors to walk around the grounds and gain access to the church. It would be best to give her a ring (01609 xxxxxx) first, though, just to check that she is at home and that the gates to the hall will be open.   Alternatively, you could time your visit to coincide with one of the conservation volunteer weekends at the hall when there will be plenty of people active on the site.

So certainly, their attitude to land access is one of intimidating signage with no apparent legal basis. But be careful. A bit more Googling made me more worried, but I really daren't post the results.
Take care out there.

[RichA]

Harry, what would worry you about posting your findings on here unless they were personal details about someone? Can you give us a clue so we might find it instead? You can't say things like that and then not tell us!

[tape34]

Our "lets paddle the whole Tees in a day(TM)" mission was a bit of a woss-out as it only included the white water bits - ie High Force to Winston Bridge!

I've often fancied trying to do the full length of the Tees in one go (High Force to the Barrage) but certainly it's more than a day's paddle even with a good flow. Boat selection would be interesting, would you allow a change of craft part-way down?

I used to take our local scouts on the section around Sockburn Hall, (just a bit higher up river than Dinsdale) you get massive river distance for a short shuttle, you got a fabulous view of the hall and the tree growing through the roof and there are some very safe 'rapids' to make an entertaining day out. This is not an area with a fishing/paddling problem in my experience (so long as you avoid angling competitions!)
Pete Ball

[Harry Lime]

Harry, what would worry you about posting your findings on here unless they were personal details about someone?

They are - 'nuff said.

H. Lime.

[Canned]

For reasons unclear, I've suddenly started receiving really funny 'you have been warned' email

Maybe a reaction to the recent and ongoing "Canoing is not a Crime" campaign?

Also wondering if you ever reply to these? Maybe it would be worth having a standard response that would suit the open access ethos? Of course it could very well be a bad idea to encourage further discussion....

[Big Henry]

While we're talking about this area of the Tees, three or four years ago I was told that the section from Croft to Neasham is quite pictureskew, and ideal for beginners. I went to paddle it and parked in the pub carpark immediately downstream of Croft bridge. When I tried to get on I got approached by an irate fisherman claiming to be a bailiff, saying there was a fishing contest on at the time and it was private waters anyway, so s*d off. As there was a competition on, and we had a child in our group (her father didn't want a confrontation) we apologised and left.

This bailiff/warden did, however, say that the stretch immediately above Croft bridge was common water, and after inspecting it we realised it was actually easier to get to the water this way. It would be a good starting place for this stretch.

[tape34]

....... I went to paddle it and parked in the pub carpark immediately downstream of Croft bridge. When I tried to get on I got approached by an irate fisherman claiming to be a bailiff, saying there was a fishing contest on at the time and it was private waters anyway, so s*d off. As there was a competition on, .........

There are often fishing competitions on this section and it's always a good idea to avoid them, not sure how you can check this in advance.

The North bank above Croft bridge is common land but I've been accosted here by a 'bailiff' a few years ago (on the opposite bank), it is an easy get-in here.

Getting on (or staying on) at Neasham takes you round the Sockburn Hall loop and is more varied with lower banks. You can get footpath access from the old chuch at Girsby or Sockburn Lane down to Girsby bridge which can be useful for family trips or if you wish to avoid the get-out at Low Dinsdale road bridge but it's a really steep hill one way and a longish carry the other way.

Pete Ball

[geyrfugl]

geyrfugl wrote:
Winston bridge to Piercebridge is quite a pleasant stretch with nothing more than grade 2, and mostly grade 1.


Why not do a write-up for the Rivers section on this site?

Hmm, thought I'd done exactly that ages ago, but it turns out that it was posted to a different guidebook site, and the mail I sent Mark was only concerned with the new (then) access situation downstream of Barnard Castle. I'm sure I did a big write up of a lot of the River Wear for UKRGB, but can't find any trace of that, either.

Must look into it some more ...

Andy