Claiming the towpath

[larryjc]

Just arrived at Middlewich from the north for the first time as in the past I've always turned into the link from the south.  We moored just below the big lock and did some shopping then took the hound for a walk to look at the next 3 locks.  Just before the first one is Andersen boats and a lovely looking, empty wharf just by a small park, perfect for the dog.  Good - 'lets move up here so we are ready to go through tomorrow', we thought.  it was then that we noticed that someone had painted 'private no mooring' in faded yellow paint all along the wharf which is on the towpath side.  No one was on the wharf and there were no CRT signs anywhere. Also it wasn't part of the lock landing.  Anyone know why?  Do Andersen own it?  I didn't think that was possible, mind you all the other charter companies we come to seem to think they own the canal.  We've even seen them filling up a winding hole compeletely with moored boats in the past.  I have to say I was tempted to move up anway just to see what would happen.

[ditchcrawler]

It to shallow for me to get in there but if it had been weekend it would have been full of boats from one space below the lock to the end of the park. Its the same thing above the Middlewich Locks with Middlewich Narrowboats.

[larryjc]

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

It to shallow for me to get in there but if it had been weekend it would have been full of boats from one space below the lock to the end of the park. Its the same thing above the Middlewich Locks with Middlewich Narrowboats.

Yes but is it private?  Personally I don't think it can be.  There is another place, at the end of the moorings at Aynho on the Oxford where a farmer keeps putting up an illegal no mooring sign.  One of the regulars there told me they occasionally take it down and he then puts it back up.

 

 

[Graham Davis]

If it is on the tow path side then it cannot be private.

Ignore the sign.

[ditchcrawler]

29 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

If it is on the tow path side then it cannot be private.

Ignore the sign.

Far to simple

[Bunny]

There are a few spots in the system where there are private towpath moorings , admittedly not many , but there are a few . Bunny 

[nicknorman]

Probably (almost certainly) not privately owned, but possibly leased  to Andersen by CRT. Mind you if so, you'd think there would be official signage. I imagine that if you moored there out of office hours, no-one would notice but you might risk a knock on the boat at 8am.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Can CRT "lease" the towpath ?

I doubt it ?

[nicknorman]

Whether or not they can legally do so is debatable, but they certainly do.

[David Mack]

9 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Can CRT "lease" the towpath ?

I doubt it ?

Why is that any different from long term moorings on the towpath?

[dor]

10 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Can CRT "lease" the towpath ?

I doubt it ?

I've often wondered about this bit in Middlewich referred to.  It is well past the Anderson base and I doubt if they legally have the exclusive rights to it.

However the Anglo welsh base at Bunbury on the Shroppie does have the rights to the towpath moorings south of the lock.  This may be tied up with  the fact that Anglo Welsh do not own the Bunbury site, but lease it from C&RT (formally BW).   In fact, the old stables and warehouse, now used by AW, are a subject of a possible renovation project by C&RT.

[ditchcrawler]

And all the moorings on the Middlewich branch at Barbridge

[David Schweizer]

38 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Can CRT "lease" the towpath ?

I doubt it ?

Yes they can, and it is legal/ With a few exceptions, the towpath is not a legal right of way, and the public (including boat owners) only have  permitted access, and C&RT can permit or refuse access to whoever they choose, without any redress or explanation.  There are numerous examples all over the system where stretches of the towpath are leased to commercial operators, usually hire boat companies, and whist the public are usually still permitted to walk on the towpath, mooring can be restricted to the commercial operator and their clients.

[larryjc]

Well - I e-mailed CRT about it as there no signs of their own there.  From my experience these charter companies are a law unto themselves and as a bona fide grumpy old git, maybe I might score one for the poor downtrodden people who has to manoevure passed their overcrowded sites.  And sit alongside while their customers charge past at full bloody throttle because they haven't been briefed properly etc etc etc.

 

 

I enjoyed that rant.

[WotEver]

12 minutes ago, larryjc said:

I enjoyed that rant.

It's good for you

[haggis]

The yellow signs have been there for years and the last time we went past last year, the paint looked pretty faded.  I think Andersen boats used to moor their hire fleet there but do they not now use the off side?

maybe the signage just needs pressure washed off.

 

haggis

[mrsmelly]

3 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

If it is on the tow path side then it cannot be private.

Ignore the sign.

Sorry but that is complete bunkum. I moor towpath side on private moorings at oxfordshire narrowboats. The moorings towpath side here north of bridge 206 up to " The narrows " a length about 150 yds ish is part of the boatyard and rented by the said company, there are several at other locations around the country such as this.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

There would have to be specific legislation authorizing long term moorings on the towpath I think, on the principle that an organisation like CRT can only do what they are specifically permitted to do by law, while an individual can do anything except what is not permitted by law. I believe the law states that if there is any doubt about the legislation there must be a bias toward the public good in the interpretation.  Despite what CRT seem to think the change to a trust didn't hand over the waterways to them as private property, they are still public property.

 

26 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Sorry but that is complete bunkum. I moor towpath side on private moorings at oxfordshire narrowboats. The moorings towpath side here north of bridge 206 up to " The narrows " a length about 150 yds ish is part of the boatyard and rented by the said company, there are several at other locations around the country such as this.

That doesn't prove that the moorings are lawful, just that they exist. 

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

There would have to be specific legislation authorizing long term moorings on the towpath I think, on the principle that an organisation like CRT can only do what they are specifically permitted to do by law, while an individual can do anything except what is not permitted by law. I believe the law states that if there is any doubt about the legislation there must be a bias toward the public good in the interpretation.  Despite what CRT seem to think the change to a trust didn't hand over the waterways to them as private property, they are still public property.

 

That doesn't prove that the moorings are lawful, just that they exist. 

Talk about Bees in bonnets. You do talk some crap. The owner of Oxfordshire narrowboats a good friend of mine has a 30 year lease from CART which includes the aforementioned stretch of towpath side moorings for which he pays rent. Do you have a problem with all forms of authority or duristiction or is it just CART?

[nicknorman]

9 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Talk about Bees in bonnets. You do talk some crap. The owner of Oxfordshire narrowboats a good friend of mine has a 30 year lease from CART which includes the aforementioned stretch of towpath side moorings for which he pays rent. Do you have a problem with all forms of authority or duristiction or is it just CART?

There's no doubting that Oxfordshire Narrowboats has a lease from (probably BW actually, or) CRT. The question is, are BW and their successors empowered to give bits of the canal infrastructure to their mates (ON, in this case) in return for some readies - ie are they empowered to lease it off? Some say not.

[MtB]

Muddy Ditch Rich (aka onion bargee) posted earlier today without including a crazed rant about CRT. 

Staggering. Is he unwell?

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

There's no doubting that Oxfordshire Narrowboats has a lease from (probably BW actually, or) CRT. The question is, are BW and their successors empowered to give bits of the canal infrastructure to their mates (ON, in this case) in return for some readies - ie are they empowered to lease it off? Some say not.

The lease is from CART it was renewed recently. CART run the show now and before them BW who also leased out the same bit of towpath for umpteen years, its the way things have gone on for years. If you murdered someone what section of what act do you think you would be charged under? Dont bother with google its there isnt an act and section its purely at common law so why dont we challenge that?

[ditchcrawler]

42 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

There would have to be specific legislation authorizing long term moorings on the towpath I think, on the principle that an organisation like CRT can only do what they are specifically permitted to do by law, while an individual can do anything except what is not permitted by law. I believe the law states that if there is any doubt about the legislation there must be a bias toward the public good in the interpretation.  Despite what CRT seem to think the change to a trust didn't hand over the waterways to them as private property, they are still public property.

 

That doesn't prove that the moorings are lawful, just that they exist. 

Even Branston has them, Longterm from the Stop House and below the bottom lock for UCC Even when the British Waterways Board was formed and the waterways nationalised access to the towpath was restricted often by locked gates in towns and citys

[David Schweizer]

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

There would have to be specific legislation authorizing long term moorings on the towpath I think, on the principle that an organisation like CRT can only do what they are specifically permitted to do by law, while an individual can do anything except what is not permitted by law. I believe the law states that if there is any doubt about the legislation there must be a bias toward the public good in the interpretation.  Despite what CRT seem to think the change to a trust didn't hand over the waterways to them as private property, they are still public property.

 

That doesn't prove that the moorings are lawful, just that they exist. 

May I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the various Waterways and Transport Act which provide the Navigation Authority with the legislation authorising their management of the canals and towpaths, rather than waste our time making unwarranted and unsubstanted claims about C&RT and their powers.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

18 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

May I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the various Waterways and Transport Act which provide the Navigation Authority with the legislation authorising their management of the canals and towpaths, rather than waste our time making unwarranted and unsubstanted claims about C&RT and their powers.

If you actually knew what they were you would have cited them.