Jump to content

Bridgewater


Arthur Marshall

Featured Posts

On 24/06/2017 at 19:21, dmr said:

Where is this sign? We did Preston Brook to Manchester Castlefield yesterday, and then out through Leigh today, I did not notice the sign, though was not looking out for it. Also as far as I am aware nobody took our number unless it was very discretely done. Got flagged down by a Bridgewater workboat but they only wanted us to transport a laptop computer from one side of the canal to the other.

..............Dave

I hope you charged the going "private sector" rate for this service.

How about £40, that would cover it.

George

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/06/2017 at 19:21, dmr said:

Where is this sign? We did Preston Brook to Manchester Castlefield yesterday, and then out through Leigh today, I did not notice the sign, though was not looking out for it. Also as far as I am aware nobody took our number unless it was very discretely done. Got flagged down by a Bridgewater workboat but they only wanted us to transport a laptop computer from one side of the canal to the other.

..............Dave

There's one right by the bridge in Leigh:

 

DSCN0470-1024x768.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They get all of the income from licenses and all money for mooring permits, from their marinas and several online moorings. They also have the income of the short term licenses.

There is also a lot of income from and round the canal that does not go to any canal related account. Several thousands of pounds are paid for taking water out of and putting water into the canal. This money goes directly to Peel Ports rather than the Bridgewater Canal Company. 

The amount of land that came within the Bridgewater Canal estate is slowly running out so no more developments can really take place. Peel Holdings are therefore looking at other possible sources of income such as extra moorings at Astley etc. and plans in the pipeline for more marinas in the future.

Any developments being carried out in terms of repairs and maintenance or upgrades is usually 99% of the time paid for by another party such as the Bridgewater Way upgrade along the canal, funded by Sustrans and the various councils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes. Today a marine service provider told me that a boat had been charged at Lymm. Apparently the enforcement officer takes a photo of the CaRT registration number which is both gps and date stamped as proof the the boat had been on the Bridgewater less than 28 days before. As an aside the same marine service provider said his business has nose-drived ever since the enforcement of the 28 day rule. How indicative that is of reduced traffic, I am not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update on the new Vicars Hall Bridge. The concrete is now being faced in brick and will consequently look a lot smarter.

A little further away towards Leigh the East Lancs road bridge is having a lot of work done at the moment with a huge amount of steel work being installed prior to jacking the whole structure up. 

Lots of boats moored these days in Leigh on the C&RT side of bridge 66  opposite Aldi and the rather fine old warehouse now the Waterside Inn. This is good to see. In addition lots of graffiti has been removed in an around Leigh and it is all looking much better.

20170713_122752.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/07/2017 at 18:33, Derek Porteous said:

Yes. Today a marine service provider told me that a boat had been charged at Lymm. Apparently the enforcement officer takes a photo of the CaRT registration number which is both gps and date stamped as proof the the boat had been on the Bridgewater less than 28 days before. As an aside the same marine service provider said his business has nose-drived ever since the enforcement of the 28 day rule. How indicative that is of reduced traffic, I am not sure.

Lots of boats just passing through on their holidays  have been charged over the past 12 months or so.  There also seems to be a collection of people who continually pay the £40 per week so they're able to stay on the canal,  often in the same location. Whilst this may be convenient for the boaters it does seem a fairly expensive way of doing things.

It's an interesting comment about local businesses nose diving. I myself haven't noticed any decrease in traffic passing through the canal. Since the Boothstown stoppage ended at the end of May there's been a constant stream of CRT boats out and about. I'd probably say that the overall number of CRT boats hasn't decreased, I'd say they just don't seem to be hanging around for as long.

The majority of my sales do come from the resident Bridgewater folk but in summer a fair amount of trade does come from CRT boats passing through and I've not really seen any noticeable decrease in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Liam said:

Lots of boats just passing through on their holidays  have been charged over the past 12 months or so.  There also seems to be a collection of people who continually pay the £40 per week so they're able to stay on the canal,  often in the same location. Whilst this may be convenient for the boaters it does seem a fairly expensive way of doing things.

It's an interesting comment about local businesses nose diving. I myself haven't noticed any decrease in traffic passing through the canal. Since the Boothstown stoppage ended at the end of May there's been a constant stream of CRT boats out and about. I'd probably say that the overall number of CRT boats hasn't decreased, I'd say they just don't seem to be hanging around for as long.

The majority of my sales do come from the resident Bridgewater folk but in summer a fair amount of trade does come from CRT boats passing through and I've not really seen any noticeable decrease in this.

Set off at 10pm with names and numbers covered and go for it non stop? :-)

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting (at least, I think it is) that all the reports of being charged are hearsay.  I would have thought at least one person reading this forum would have been up and down the Bridgewater by now but no-one has admitted being charged.  I'll probably know more after the summer as I'm expecting to hit the L&L and will almost certainly be back on the Bridgewater within the 28 day period.  I'll have a chequebook ready...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are up and down the Bridgewater regularly and have yet to meet the latest mooring and licence official. We moor in all the usual busy spots, Stockton, Lymn, Castlefield  but very rarely have we spent more than seven nights or returned within the 28 days.

We did meet the previous officer who was a lovely man and we gave him lifts ( with tea and biscuits) at times because back then he couldn't cycle.

The canal is gently busy right now with many delightful mooring spots. Facilities are fair. It's a real pity if anyone feels they have to rush. Its not exciting in terms of locks but its wide and deep.

It's a pity when this great navigation is done down. It's clean and well kept. I hope boaters never feel they have to hurry. Support the businesses here and enjoy the scenery and urban parts. Manchester is a great place to spend a night or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On ‎14‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 16:31, Arthur Marshall said:

It's interesting (at least, I think it is) that all the reports of being charged are hearsay.  I would have thought at least one person reading this forum would have been up and down the Bridgewater by now but no-one has admitted being charged.  I'll probably know more after the summer as I'm expecting to hit the L&L and will almost certainly be back on the Bridgewater within the 28 day period.  I'll have a chequebook ready...

Have you made the return trip yet Arthur?

Interesting reading on another forum (wouldn't dare post there) that it's possible that passing boaters cannot be charged if making a return trip within 28 days. Has anyone had any recent experiences?

Hypothetical question. If I was to make return trip within 28 days but didn't stop between Preston Brooke and the Rochdale, presumably CRT would pass on my details and I would get an invoice through the post. If I just ignored it what could Peel do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

You have agreed that cart can pass details to anyone who asks, in the new T&C's.

Not quite 'anyone who asks' as they have a 'duty of care' etc so the requester has to have a valid reason.  Hopefully a murderous psychopath would not be given your name & address.......... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Not quite 'anyone who asks' as they have a 'duty of care' etc so the requester has to have a valid reason.  Hopefully a murderous psychopath would not be given your name & address.......... 

Sonny? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

You have agreed that cart can pass details to anyone who asks, in the new T&C's.

Probably - so CRT give Peel my details if I cruise the entire length without stopping - how do Peel make me pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/08/2017 at 14:59, Jim Riley said:

You have agreed that cart can pass details to anyone who asks, in the new T&C's.

That isn't how I read the T & Cs.

It says:

7.9 You agree that where we believe you have failed to comply with the Conditions, we may exchange information relating to you and/ or the Boat with third parties who are assisting us in managing the situation such as contractors, mooring providers, individuals or organisations with a legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you.

Couple the assisting us with the exchanging information and I am not sure it is just any organisation who asks.   I agree they probably would supply the information but not just to anybody as you suggest.  However Peel Holdings would have a legitimate reason for asking for the information.  Just as if you have had your car damaged by another car on private ground and all you have to go on is the registration number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jerra said:

That isn't how I read the T & Cs.

It says:

7.9 You agree that where we believe you have failed to comply with the Conditions, we may exchange information relating to you and/ or the Boat with third parties who are assisting us in managing the situation such as contractors, mooring providers, individuals or organisations with a legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you.

Couple the assisting us with the exchanging information and I am not sure it is just any organisation who asks.   I agree they probably would supply the information but not just to anybody as you suggest.  However Peel Holdings would have a legitimate reason for asking for the information.  Just as if you have had your car damaged by another car on private ground and all you have to go on is the registration number.

Given the current relations between CRT and Peel over this issue I doubt they will be in any hurry to respond to any enquries about boat ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Given the current relations between CRT and Peel over this issue I doubt they will be in any hurry to respond to any enquries about boat ownership.

Perhaps that is a good thing.  I was commenting really on the implication they would supply your details to anyone who asked.  

I realise it would penalise Bridgewater boaters but using reciprocal arrangements might help to clear their minds a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Señor Chris said:

How would CRT know?

Peel would ask for them if their enforcement team spotted me 

Presumably then Peel would send me an invoice.
I would ignore that so get a summons.
I tell the court I didn't believe Peel had any powers to charge me.

Would I have to prove they didn't or would Peel have to prove they did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Midnight said:

(snip)

I tell the court I didn't believe Peel had any powers to charge me.

Would I have to prove they didn't or would Peel have to prove they did?

Peel would have to prove that they did.

My conclusion, however, as discussed at length in the other place, is that all they would have to do is cite Article 7 of The Bridgewater Canal (Transfer of Undertaking) Order 2012.

This does, however, contain the proviso " This article does not authorise the making of any charge in a case where an enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge."
It would then be up to you to find the elusive enactment before the case came to Court.
 

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.