Jump to content

Can they do that??


Humphrey

Featured Posts

Grand Union - Leicester Line Bridge 18

Having previously owned and lived on a narrowboat and enjoyed the scenery etc we had to sell the boat unfortunately due to ill health but still enjoy visiting the canals. On holiday in the Crick area we walked along the towpath toward Yelvertoft and came up to Bridge 18, we decided to walk up and look down on the boats from the bridge. To our horror we found the bridge had been fenced off two thirds of the way across with a combination lock on a gate, not only fenced off but had barbed wire on the bridge and electric cables nailed to the inside of the bridge obviously done by the Marina. We can understand that the other side of the bridge (marina side) would be private but to do what they have done must be illegal! They could have put the fence on their side of the bridge to stop people entering the marina. It is appalling that narrowboat users etc who pay for the upkeep of the waterways, bridges etc are stopped from using them. Surely the Marina involved should be made to remove these obstacles so people can stand on the bridge. I think the fence and main power cables should be removed as a matter of urgency. We have contacted C&RT with the photos but no reply yet.

 

DSCF1707.jpg

 

DSCF1708.jpg

 

 

{URL=http://s861.photobucket.com/user/PigletHill/media/DSCF1708.jpg.html]DSCF1708.jpg[/url]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Grand Union - Leicester Line Bridge 18

Having previously owned and lived on a narrowboat and enjoyed the scenery etc we had to sell the boat unfortunately due to ill health but still enjoy visiting the canals. On holiday in the Crick area we walked along the towpath toward Yelvertoft and came up to Bridge 18, we decided to walk up and look down on the boats from the bridge. To our horror we found the bridge had been fenced off two thirds of the way across with a combination lock on a gate, not only fenced off but had barbed wire on the bridge and electric cables nailed to the inside of the bridge obviously done by the Marina. We can understand that the other side of the bridge (marina side) would be private but to do what they have done must be illegal! They could have put the fence on their side of the bridge to stop people entering the marina. It is appalling that narrowboat users etc who pay for the upkeep of the waterways, bridges etc are stopped from using them. Surely the Marina involved should be made to remove these obstacles so people can stand on the bridge. I think the fence and main power cables should be removed as a matter of urgency. We have contacted C&RT with the photos but no reply yet.

 

 

 

It depends. Many bridges over/under canals and railways are accommodation or occupation bridges for the exclusive use of the landowner on one or both sides.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For accommodation bridges, I'm sure they can do that. After all, the bridges were built to restore access between the plots of private land severed by the canal. The canal company (and now CRT) only pays because without the canal, there would be no need for a bridge. Unless there's a public right of way or highway over the bridge, the access to it is at the whim of the landowners on either side.

 

MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When canals were built bridges were provided for public roads/paths and to connect land severed by the canal (accommodation bridges). These were paid for, and owned by the canal company, but any road surface over the top usually belongs to the highway authority or landowner. For roads or railways built over an existing canal, the structure was paid for by whoever built the road/railway. The same is true where a highway authority has replaced a bridge with a new bridge (e.g. to carry more or heavier traffic).

 

So unless there has been a specific transfer of ownership, the structure of original accommodation bridges over the canal belongs to CRT (as successor to the original canal company), whereas the access over it belongs to the landowner. In many cases there is no access to the bridge from the towpath anyway.

 

As the access over the bridge belongs to the landowner, it is up to him what he does with it, and who he allows or does not allow to use that access (provided it does not carry a public right of way). As such he is perfectly within his rights to fence it off or to lay cables over it.

 

But as it is private land, anybody wandering up from the towpath onto the bridge is technically trespassing on private property.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Grand Union - Leicester Line Bridge 18

Having previously owned and lived on a narrowboat and enjoyed the scenery etc we had to sell the boat unfortunately due to ill health but still enjoy visiting the canals. On holiday in the Crick area we walked along the towpath toward Yelvertoft and came up to Bridge 18, we decided to walk up and look down on the boats from the bridge. To our horror we found the bridge had been fenced off two thirds of the way across with a combination lock on a gate, not only fenced off but had barbed wire on the bridge and electric cables nailed to the inside of the bridge obviously done by the Marina. We can understand that the other side of the bridge (marina side) would be private but to do what they have done must be illegal! They could have put the fence on their side of the bridge to stop people entering the marina. It is appalling that narrowboat users etc who pay for the upkeep of the waterways, bridges etc are stopped from using them. Surely the Marina involved should be made to remove these obstacles so people can stand on the bridge. I think the fence and main power cables should be removed as a matter of urgency. We have contacted C&RT with the photos but no reply yet.

 

 

Accomodation bridges were built by the canal company for the use of the landowner whose access was interupted, and there is generally no right of way other than for the landowner and successors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a canal severed a public highway, the proprietors were obliged by law to provide an alternative means of continuance of the highway. So, for example, if they cut through a “King’s Highway” they were compelled to build a bridge across the cut, or even if, in the course of rendering navigable an existing watercourse, they scoured a ford deeper, they were required to build a bridge as an alternative means of continuing the highway.

 

That’s why the “Turnover Bridge” at Brentford had to be built in replacement of the original swing bridge, that had been required to replace the ancient Brent ford, that continued the ancient British trackway which, in pre-Roman times, had provided the main North-South link for the whole of SE Britain.

The ownership and upkeep responsibilities would vest in the canal company, and this responsibility endures today. See -

 

http://www.bbtrust.org.uk/seymour-papers/s-56/s56%20History.pdf

 

In the matter of Seymour v British waterways (Leeds Crown Court - 7 Hearings between 1983 and 1986) the Board failed to comply with the Order to rebuild a bridge over the canal at Methley near Leeds. The Complainant brought an action for Contempt and the Board were severely reprimanded and given specific instructions by the Court as to future conduct. The bridge was consequently built within the newly set time.”

 

If the canal severed private lands, then the situation is as others have described above, and the ownership together with rights of use vested in the landowner/s. In fact, arguably riparian owners even today, if they wished to have a bridge constructed to join the properties either side of a canal, could demand that CaRT build one at CaRT’s expense, in default of which the owner/s could build it themselves and apply for the costs involved. Certainly, that was true at the time of canal construction, whereas the only modern litigation relating to the issue simply confirmed the right of the landowners to build bridges without needing BW’s consent, and to do so free of charges. [Swan Hill Developments v BWB]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the canal severed private lands, then the situation is as others have described above, and the ownership together with rights of use vested in the landowner/s. In fact, arguably riparian owners even today, if they wished to have a bridge constructed to join the properties either side of a canal, could demand that CaRT build one at CaRT’s expense, in default of which the owner/s could build it themselves and apply for the costs involved. Certainly, that was true at the time of canal construction, whereas the only modern litigation relating to the issue simply confirmed the right of the landowners to build bridges without needing BW’s consent, and to do so free of charges. [Swan Hill Developments v BWB]

 

Interesting.

 

One presumes that the right applies only to severed parcels of land that were in common ownership when the canal was built, and that the right cannot be created simply by purchasing land on opposite sides of the canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One presumes that the right applies only to severed parcels of land that were in common ownership when the canal was built, and that the right cannot be created simply by purchasing land on opposite sides of the canal.

 

Well no. This was in fact one of the key arguments BW put forward in Swan Hill – that the right only attached to what they termed “double riparian owners”. The court disagreed, noting that “cut through” could divide lands in separate ownership. They backed that up with comparison with the form of conferred fishing rights.

 

A further interesting aspect is the endurance of the right where original common ownership has been subsequently divided and then re-united. That was, I think, part of the burden in Robertson v Network Rail. Again, the decision was that the rights endure, although the legal arguments why got very technical.

 

The idea that present day purchasers of relevant land could not avail themselves of rights because they only inured to the landowners alive at the time of the enabling Acts, was comprehensively squashed in several related cases as I recall, having also been canvassed in the justifications for the 1990 Bill.

Just for completeness, for others to check up because my recollection is vague, but at some point I seem to have read an abolition of the obligation to maintain bridges, whether in public use or perhaps private use. Can't even think of the type of source material I was reading, it is just a niggle at the back of my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking At the photos I can clearly see that there is plenty of room to tuck and roll under the gate so I would personally do exactly that as I do all the time I never drop litter and often pick up other peoples ,always close gates and respect peoples property I have even on occasion rescued the odd sheep, so as a free spirited person I would consider it my right of passage and as far as I know the only place in the land were trespass is actually a criminal offence is on land belonging to British rail I would just press on regardless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . as far as I know the only place in the land were trespass is actually a criminal offence is on land belonging to British rail . . .

 

Not just National Rail. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 now makes any trespass on Crown land a criminal offence.

 

National Rail trespass involves a £1,000 fine; Crown trespass involves up to 6 months in prison with up to a £5,000 fine.

 

Plus, "aggravated trespass" anywhere is a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking At the photos I can clearly see that there is plenty of room to tuck and roll under the gate so I would personally do exactly that as I do all the time I never drop litter and often pick up other peoples ,always close gates and respect peoples property I have even on occasion rescued the odd sheep, so as a free spirited person I would consider it my right of passage and as far as I know the only place in the land were trespass is actually a criminal offence is on land belonging to British rail I would just press on regardless

So on the strength of that you would be happy to come and wander around my back garden whenever you feel like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking At the photos I can clearly see that there is plenty of room to tuck and roll under the gate so I would personally do exactly that as I do all the time I never drop litter and often pick up other peoples ,always close gates and respect peoples property I have even on occasion rescued the odd sheep, so as a free spirited person I would consider it my right of passage and as far as I know the only place in the land were trespass is actually a criminal offence is on land belonging to British rail I would just press on regardless

Why?

 

Are those barriers blocking access to some essential facility that you need to access or is it just blocking access to someone's private land. So far the answer to that would seem to be the latter so I see no reason as to why you would need to access it.

 

You actually don't have a 'right of passage' it would seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

Are those barriers blocking access to some essential facility that you need to access or is it just blocking access to someone's private land. So far the answer to that would seem to be the latter so I see no reason as to why you would need to access it.

You actually don't have a 'right of passage' it would seem.

. I think if you read Nigel's post and I don't belt anybody on my way I would not be breaking the law and would if I was out walking cross under the barrier and continue on my journey ,I walk in the country regularly and as I said above treat all land with respect but feel that I have or should have the right to freely move around our green and pleasant land, it may not fit your ideal world but suits mine sorry if it offends

Not just National Rail. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 now makes any trespass on Crown land a criminal offence.

 

National Rail trespass involves a £1,000 fine; Crown trespass involves up to 6 months in prison with up to a £5,000 fine.

 

Plus, "aggravated trespass" anywhere is a crime.

. Thanks that's somewhere else to avoid cheers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I think if you read Nigel's post and I don't belt anybody on my way I would not be breaking the law and would if I was out walking cross under the barrier and continue on my journey ,I walk in the country regularly and as I said above treat all land with respect but feel that I have or should have the right to freely move around our green and pleasant land, it may not fit your ideal world but suits mine sorry if it offends

It doesn't 'offend' I just wonder why given the miles and miles you can walk in this country without the need to trespass why you would choose to walk somewhere you are not permitted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't 'offend' I just wonder why given the miles and miles you can walk in this country without the need to trespass why you would choose to walk somewhere you are not permitted to.

. I would,nt choose to go there ,but often my wander in the country is across land I am unfamiliar with so if that obstacle was causing me a very long diversion ,say a mile to the next bridge then a mile back to my route I would hop the fence or squeeze under ,I do so quite often and have never really had any problems with anyone I have met and some times have met some very interesting people. One more thing I would add is if you take a long walk in the country side you will be surprised how many obstacles will cause you to change your route Edited by craftycarper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't 'offend' I just wonder why given the miles and miles you can walk in this country without the need to trespass why you would choose to walk somewhere you are not permitted to.

 

I think its' a 'rambler' thing. The red sock brigade fiercely defend their 'right to roam'.

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . I would not be breaking the law . . .

 

Just to make it absolutely clear craftycarper, I am afraid that even ‘merely’ civil trespass is still breaking the law, it is just not criminal in the main. So although you cannot be ‘prosecuted’ for civil trespass, you can be pursued for relief through the courts by the landowner.

 

For an appraisal of the differences, see –

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its' a 'rambler' thing. The red sock brigade fiercely defend their 'right to roam'.

 

 

MtB

. Not quite mike as they pursue a right to walk on ancient footpaths even if it cuts through your garden were as I have the sense and freedom to walk around even if I,m walking on land that has know public right of way I don't really know which is right or wrong but think my way is less confrontational And for Martin feeling slightly smug I,m sure you will find that to take anything from me in a civil case would mean I would need to own something of worth and I,m afraid I don't so it's another set of rules I opt to take little notice of , I like walking in the countryside I don't want to hurt or anger anyone and will continue to do so for as long as I can
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.