Jump to content

C&RT license checkers


colmac

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Time to sell your boat then!

The 'freedom from restriction and beaurocracy' you value so much is an illusion.

I thought the relevant bits in the 1995 Act were put there after boaters wanted to explore the system freely without having to pay for a home mooring they wouldn't use. 

Perhaps the intent of the Act was more to do with preventing all boaters from staying in one place for more than 14 days (reducing possible vagrancy issues) and providing an excuse to track everyone (as in big brother). ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/10/2017 at 10:56, rowland al said:

I thought the relevant bits in the 1995 Act were put there after boaters wanted to explore the system freely without having to pay for a home mooring they wouldn't use. 

 

They were. I also understand the requirement for a home mooring was to address mounting problems with boats cluttering up the popular bits and never moving. powers to move boats on were needed.

 

On 28/10/2017 at 10:56, rowland al said:

Perhaps the intent of the Act was more to do with preventing all boaters from staying in one place for more than 14 days (reducing possible vagrancy issues) and providing an excuse to track everyone (as in big brother). ;)

 

I'm sure the last thing BW wanted was to track boaters and play at being Big Brother. They (and CRT) would far rather all boaters behaved reasonably and played by the rules. But a small minority won't so the tracking is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Time to sell your boat then!

The 'freedom from restriction and beaurocracy' you value so much is an illusion.

Not so.

I am talking of PETTY restrictions, and POINTLESS bureaucracy - not the necessary administration required to maintain a decent canal environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

They were. I also understand the requirement for a home mooring was to address mounting problems with boats cluttering up the popular bits and never moving. powers to move boats on were needed.

 

 

I'm sure the last thing BW wanted was to track boaters and play at being Big Brother. They (and CRT) would far rather all boaters behaved reasonably and played by the rules. But a small minority won't so the tracking is necessary.

Well I'm not convinced how a bunch of boaters could get an act of parliament changed. Certainly the powers that be at the time could. 

I've not managed to find any history on this bunch of boaters either, although the tinternet wasn't quite as prolific at the time. 

You may be right though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/10/2017 at 11:10, Rebotco said:

Not so.

I am talking of PETTY restrictions, and POINTLESS bureaucracy - not the necessary administration required to maintain a decent canal environment.

 

There isn't any. 

 I don't experience any PETTY and POINTLESS bureaucracy, but you do, which is perhaps revealing.  

I find myself wondering if the rules you consider petty and pointless are the rules you don't want to comply with, but are now being forced to.

 

 

Edit to moderate my earlier, more forceful comments.

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

There isn't any. 

Given that I don't experience any PETTY and POINTLESS bureaucracy but you do, I suspect the rules you consider PETTY and POINTLESS are the ones you don't want to comply with, but are now being forced to.

That's an unusually foolish remark for you to make.

If you properly read the thread, you will see that the whole point is that I do comply with all the rules, and therefore do not need to be forced to do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

There isn't any. 

 I don't experience any PETTY and POINTLESS bureaucracy, but you do, which is perhaps revealing.  

I find myself wondering if the rules you consider petty and pointless are the rules you don't want to comply with, but are now being forced to.

 

 

Edit to moderate my earlier, more forceful comments.

I suppose that depends on who really benefits from rules. Never an easy balance to get right, as I've said before, especially when there are those not as fortunate as others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Well I'm not convinced how a bunch of boaters could get an act of parliament changed. Certainly the powers that be at the time could. 

I've not managed to find any history on this bunch of boaters either, although the tinternet wasn't quite as prolific at the time. 

You may be right though. 

He is right. 

They did not get an existing Act changed, they got the wording of the Bill that became the Act changed. It is open to anybody affected by provisions in a proposed bit of legislation to lodge a petition against it. If discussion with the promoters cannot resolve the differences, the matter goes before a Select Committee, and all sides present their arguments for and against, with any proposed amendments. Sometimes, the process is effective in bringing about relevant amendments to the Bill, so that the subsequent Act as passed is worded very differently, and with added and omitted provisions.

This process is being followed with the Middle Levels Bill, with a Select Committee yet to be appointed. It is doubtful, however, that this committee will be anything like as thorough and conscientious as that chaired by George Mudie MP. Empowerment of the people seems to be slipping these days, but also, fewer people are showing themselves sufficiently interested to engage in the process. Back in the nineties, boaters were more widely active in protecting the interests of both themselves and the system they enjoyed. I wonder whether, perhaps, that is because these days it is far easier to vent one's opinions in public on a keyboard, rather than expending the considerably greater effort and commitment of personally participating in the Parliamentary process.

The 'history' of the 1990 Bill as it went through its unusually long progress through Parliament, is all within the Parliamentary Archives down in London. I have posted up all of the Select Committee minutes both from the Commons and House of Lords, on the scribd site. You can find them all listed if you navigate the site aright; first of the Commons SC here -

https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239606/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-1-1993

There is a great deal more than this to read through of course, with the Petitions themselves, and the evidence adduced, including publicity surrounding the issues at the time. I have most of it, though have not yet published it.

Edited by NigelMoore
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I also understand the requirement for a home mooring was to address mounting problems with boats cluttering up the popular bits and never moving. powers to move boats on were needed.

Powers to move boats on were already ‘enjoyed’ in s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. That is largely why the mooring control provisions of the 1990 Bill were excised; the committee felt that existing provisions were adequate. BW did NOT get the potentially useful extra powers – not so much because boaters did not recognise their usefulness, but more because the Committee found the BW desire to criminalise breach of the controls to be too distasteful, and while professing confidence in the reasonableness of the 'present Board', were alarmed at the prospect of giving severe powers to a body whose future control might vest in less reasonable people.

Would they have changed their minds had they been able to see into the future and observe CaRT's handling of the waterways?

Instead, limited extra powers to control moorings were incorporated, with only one providing for criminal sanction [if the nature of the obstruction endangered safety]. The powers to direct where boats could moor and for how long, and to signpost such restrictions, were discarded.

It is notable that those abandoned clauses from the 1990 Bill were reproduced in the draft 2010 Byelaws, and these [even if modified somewhat] would prove very helpful; they are unlikely to be given effect however, and in truth, CaRT probably sees no need when they can bamboozle a sufficient majority that they have such powers anyway.

Besides, they have formulated and perfected their preferred enforcement approach with maximum sanctions via s.8(2) – directly contrary to everything they said to Parliament. It may not involve criminalisation, but it results in an even more satisfyingly drastic punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rebotco said:

Quite so.

For me, the main attraction of boating is to escape from all the petty restrictions and pointless bureaucratic interference that dominate modern life.  It is that freedom that I value most highly in boating.

If you want freedom from restrictions and bureaucracy then you will have to trade your canal boat for a sea-going boat.

4 hours ago, Rebotco said:

Not so.

I am talking of PETTY restrictions, and POINTLESS bureaucracy - not the necessary administration required to maintain a decent canal environment.

The restrictions and bureaucracy are neither petty or pointless. They are designed to stop a few selfish people taking the p155 and spoiling it for the many.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rowland al said:

Anyone know how this worked before the 1995 Act? Didn't everyone have to have a home mooring (well on paper) so there was no need to be tracked. 

Could you in those days moor up for as long as you liked when away from your home mooring? 

I moved aboard in 1989 and the bloke I bought the boat from told me about the 14 day rule then and he didn't have a mooring he cmed er sorry cced on the Coventry. We bought the boat with no home mooring no questions asked and cced it until we sold that one in 94 and bought boat number 2 and much of our time has been without a mooring and no hassle ever since. A few rules have changed since then such as compulsory third party insurance has come into force and the boat MOT.

Edited by mrsmelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

He is right. 

They did not get an existing Act changed, they got the wording of the Bill that became the Act changed. It is open to anybody affected by provisions in a proposed bit of legislation to lodge a petition against it. If discussion with the promoters cannot resolve the differences, the matter goes before a Select Committee, and all sides present their arguments for and against, with any proposed amendments. Sometimes, the process is effective in bringing about relevant amendments to the Bill, so that the subsequent Act as passed is worded very differently, and with added and omitted provisions.

This process is being followed with the Middle Levels Bill, with a Select Committee yet to be appointed. It is doubtful, however, that this committee will be anything like as thorough and conscientious as that chaired by George Mudie MP. Empowerment of the people seems to be slipping these days, but also, fewer people are showing themselves sufficiently interested to engage in the process. Back in the nineties, boaters were more widely active in protecting the interests of both themselves and the system they enjoyed. I wonder whether, perhaps, that is because these days it is far easier to vent one's opinions in public on a keyboard, rather than expending the considerably greater effort and commitment of personally participating in the Parliamentary process.

The 'history' of the 1990 Bill as it went through its unusually long progress through Parliament, is all within the Parliamentary Archives down in London. I have posted up all of the Select Committee minutes both from the Commons and House of Lords, on the scribd site. You can find them all listed if you navigate the site aright; first of the Commons SC here -

https://www.scribd.com/doc/297239606/SC-Minutes-1990-Bill-Day-1-1993

There is a great deal more than this to read through of course, with the Petitions themselves, and the evidence adduced, including publicity surrounding the issues at the time. I have most of it, though have not yet published it.

Thank you Nigel. 

Do you believe the views 'all sides' get a fair hearing at these select committees by the time everything gets filtered upwards? I wonder why many petitions were 'withdrawn'? 

I totally agree with your sentiments regarding public venting via a keyboard, although I find it is a useful way to gauge opinion. However I question the effectiveness of venting via the government process having tried it regarding a completely different subject. 

I can see why public demonstrations and media exposure can produce better results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rowland al said:

Thank you Nigel. 

Do you believe the views 'all sides' get a fair hearing at these select committees by the time everything gets filtered upwards? I wonder why many petitions were 'withdrawn'? 

I totally agree with your sentiments regarding public venting via a keyboard, although I find it is a useful way to gauge opinion. However I question the effectiveness of venting via the government process having tried it regarding a completely different subject. 

I can see why public demonstrations and media exposure can produce better results.

I should make it clear that I am not decrying participation in online forums such as this – I am doing it myself, after all, because I believe it has value. My query [rather than statement] was whether the ease of airing opinions this way removed any feeling of urgency or need to do anything further, and to be more active.

Producing results requires influencing those in a position to deliver; public demonstrations and media exposure have always been effective means to that end, engaging the attention of ministers and provoking action whether from cynical or genuine motives. It still needs considerable numbers to get out on the streets and in the papers; back in the day, boaters and non-boating enthusiasts for the canals were hugely active in this way, and engaged the genuine support of people in government.

At the end though, appropriate legislation has to follow a Parliamentary process, in which it is possible to also engage directly. If sufficient numbers of articulate members of the public do this, whether alone or as representatives of organisations, the possibility does exist of making a difference. The 1995 Act was significantly influenced by individuals such as Simon Greer, Janice Christianson, John Dodds Kay, and Lord Burton; Boating business operators and riparian freeholders represented by Lindy Foster [as then was]; organisations such as NABO, Brentford Boaters Association, RYA, Frog Lane Association of Boaters, the British Marine Industries Federation and the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators, and bodies such as the National Rivers Authority, Severn Trent PLC and Yorkshire Water PLC. Even prior to consideration by Parliament, there were many others who participated in consultations, and in 1992 meetings with BW included the Association of Private Moorers; the Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs; the IWA; the IWAAC, and the Residential Boat Owners Association.

Compare that lot to the miserably few petitions seeking modification of the proposed Middle Levels Bill. No boating businesses or riparian owners or marina operators - only one club; the NBTA, and three individuals. The Commissioners themselves are making considerable hay out of the lack of protest from marinas, for example.

So – will the participants have much chance of making a difference with this Bill? I have to agree that your questioning of the effectiveness of engaging in the government process has validity, but in large part, with this particular Bill anyway, that is because of the almost complete lack of the background demonstrations, public debate, media exposure, and engagement in consultation, that had characterised the passage of the BW 1990 Bill.

Will participants ‘get a fair hearing’? Sadly, that is wholly dependent upon the character of those appointed to the Select Committee.

In 1993 the chair of the Select Committee began by saying: “Before Mr Drabble starts, can I say that I am approaching this in a very flexible manner, but if anybody wishes to say that it is too flexible at any point in time I will not take offence, but I find it better, if we are trying to frame legislation that affects people, to let as much dialogue take place as possible.” A splendid sentiment, but as he later noted: “I can only say I am appalled by how legislation goes through this house . . . This is an opportunity, a real opportunity, with legislation that goes through for us to take the time and in an unpartisan way actually to say what we see out in the streets there.” So there was recognition there that the opportunity taken by that committee, to ensure a fair hearing for all, was a rare occurrence!

My own experience too, in BW Select Committee investigations, and in the Public Bodies Bill, backs up your own experience, confirming Mr Mudie's observation, in that bad legislation can be railroaded through with only token nods to objectors. Nonetheless, as Lindy Foster wrote to the House of Lords back in 1991 –

Should the special quality of our canals ever be ruined by negligence or default, those in a position to speak out, if they remained silent, would share in the blame.”

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rowland al said:

I wonder why many petitions were 'withdrawn'? 

This is an example of the potential effectiveness of well drafted petitions when the promoters of a Bill are amenable to reason. Consultation and discussion between promoters and petitioners is a required element of the overall process, and can result in changes being made to the wording of the Bill before it goes before a Select Committee. Alternatively, wording might remain unchanged, but Undertakings provided to ensure that 'misinterpretations' of the wording are warded off. With appropriate reassurances and/or amendments of the Bill, the basis of the petition can be removed, and it can therefore be withdrawn - the purpose achieved.

As an example, NABO received a number of Undertakings, notable amongst them being that no boat that was not being lived on as the owner's home, would be treated as a 'houseboat' with the more draconian provisions regarding those.

http://nabo.org.uk/files/BW Undertakings to NABO 1993.pdf

A further Undertaking concerned the definition of 'main navigable channel' when BW sought to include the southern stretch of the river Weaver in the Schedule 1 river waterways of the 1971 Act. The Royal Yachting Association had objected that this would demand registration of the numerous sailing boats enjoying hitherto free use of the Winsford Bottom Flash. BW provided an Undertaking that the main navigable channel, for the purpose both of the 1968 Transport Act maintenance obligation, and the registration requirements of the 1971 BW Act, would be confined to a channel running alongside the NE bank, such that no registration would be demanded of boats not entering that channel. The registration-free zone was indicated as a 'protected area' by diagonal black hatching on the map provided.

For clarity, I have overlaid it on a coloured modern map -

 

BW RYA Undertaking map overlay.jpg

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

This is an example of the potential effectiveness of well drafted petitions when the promoters of a Bill are amenable to reason. Consultation and discussion between promoters and petitioners is a required element of the overall process, and can result in changes being made to the wording of the Bill before it goes before a Select Committee. Alternatively, wording might remain unchanged, but Undertakings provided to ensure that 'misinterpretations' of the wording are warded off. With appropriate reassurances and/or amendments of the Bill, the basis of the petition can be removed, and it can therefore be withdrawn - the purpose achieved.

As an example, NABO received a number of Undertakings, notable amongst them being that no boat that was not being lived on as the owner's home, would be treated as a 'houseboat' with the more draconian provisions regarding those.

http://nabo.org.uk/files/BW Undertakings to NABO 1993.pdf

A further Undertaking concerned the definition of 'main navigable channel' when BW sought to include the southern stretch of the river Weaver in the Schedule 1 river waterways of the 1971 Act. The Royal Yachting Association had objected that this would demand registration of the numerous sailing boats enjoying hitherto free use of the Winsford Bottom Flash. BW provided an Undertaking that the main navigable channel, for the purpose both of the 1968 Transport Act maintenance obligation, and the registration requirements of the 1971 BW Act, would be confined to a channel running alongside the NE bank, such that no registration would be demanded of boats not entering that channel. The registration-free zone was indicated as a 'protected area' by diagonal black hatching on the map provided.

For clarity, I have overlaid it on a coloured modern map -

 

BW RYA Undertaking map overlay.jpg

That is interesting because CRT say that their jurisdiction ends at the road bridge in Windsford just off the bottom of the map. No mention of a navigatable channel 

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

That is interesting because CRT say that their jurisdiction ends at the road bridge in Windsford just off the bottom of the map. No mention of a navigatable channel 

Maybe we should ask them to dredge it and what implications would it have for the proposed connection to the Middlewich Branch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

That is interesting because CRT say that their jurisdiction ends at the road bridge in Windsford just off the bottom of the map. No mention of a navigatable channel 

Maybe we should ask them to dredge it and what implications would it have for the proposed connection to the Middlewich Branch

It IS curious, that having gone to the trouble and expense of adding this to the scheduled river waterways, they have since disowned it. The stretch concerned added the river from Winsford Bridge to Shrew Bridge in the County of Cheshire, so quite a significant length.

If there has been some later official removal from their jurisdiction [possible I suppose] then I have never heard of it. Then again, it is somewhat of a curiosity anyway – although apparently within their jurisdiction, it does not appear within the lists of commercial or cruising waterways of the 1968 Act, so would have to be considered amongst the ‘remainder’ waterways for which no maintenance obligation exists [even though they specifically mention that in the Undertaking].

Had it not been for that, I would have thought they might have dropped it in order to avoid maintenance, which would probably cost far more than they could ever hope to claw back from boaters using it. Re-designation requires execution of a Statutory Instrument at the least; whether that has taken place I do not know – it was peculiar not to have had it designated at least a cruising waterway under the 1968 Act while they were getting re-designation as a river waterway under the 1971 Act. If the existing designation of the stretch above Winsford was continued, then it would have to be treated as a commercial waterway.

It is all a bit odd, to say the least – but I was interested in it only really for the graphic representation of a main navigable channel within a wider area of contiguous water. For me, it convincingly gives the lie to the Ravenscroft judgment that such a restriction of the registration requirement could be countenanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

It IS curious, that having gone to the trouble and expense of adding this to the scheduled river waterways, they have since disowned it. The stretch concerned added the river from Winsford Bridge to Shrew Bridge in the County of Cheshire, so quite a significant length.

BWB probably put this into the Bill (that became the 1995 Act)) as a contingency plan for reconnecting the Weaver to the Trent & Mersey if the early 1990's plans to restore Anderton Lift didn't work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/10/2017 at 10:02, rowland al said:

Checks for licence evasion, yes. The obsession with boat movement no, unless the law is broken (then again is it CRT's job to enforce the law?). 

Wasn't the 14 day law bIt derived from the vagrancy act? Someone here might know.

No [although some BW employees in the last century proffered similar such explanations]. Not that it matters. There was never any obligation for BW to allow more than overnight stays on the towpath [by way of comparison, see the Bridgewater statutes], but for reasons uncertain even to BW back in 1990, 14 days had been “traditionally” deemed a reasonable time for pleasure boaters [mostly with jobs during the week] to leave their boats between travels.

Despite persistent probing by the Select Committee on the question, BW admitted that there was no legislative pre-history behind the choice of period. Since passage of the 1995 Act, however, that is the period enshrined in law as the period to be used as the maximum [subject to mitigating reasons] towpath mooring while still qualifying as being engaged in use ‘bona-fide for navigation’.

It IS CaRT’s job to enforce such law as is statutorily mandated as being within their jurisdiction, with statutory remedies prescribed for them to apply. Their empowerment is restricted to those, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

No [although some BW employees in the last century proffered similar such explanations]. Not that it matters. There was never any obligation for BW to allow more than overnight stays on the towpath [by way of comparison, see the Bridgewater statutes], but for reasons uncertain even to BW back in 1990, 14 days had been “traditionally” deemed a reasonable time for pleasure boaters [mostly with jobs during the week] to leave their boats between travels.

Despite persistent probing by the Select Committee on the question, BW admitted that there was no legislative pre-history behind the choice of period. Since passage of the 1995 Act, however, that is the period enshrined in law as the period to be used as the maximum [subject to mitigating reasons] towpath mooring while still qualifying as being engaged in use ‘bona-fide for navigation’.

It IS CaRT’s job to enforce such law as is statutorily mandated as being within their jurisdiction, with statutory remedies prescribed for them to apply. Their empowerment is restricted to those, of course.

Where does it say in law that it is in CRT's jurisdiction to enforce 7 day, 48h, 24h and less restrictions? 

Where does it say in law that CRT can charge fees to allow one to extend their mooring time beyond 14 days?

Edited by rowland al
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rowland al said:

Where does it say in law that it is in CRT's jurisdiction to enforce 7 day, 48h, 24h and less restrictions? 

Where does it say in law that CRT can charge fees to allow one to extend their mooring time beyond 14 days?

The short answer is: nowhere. Not along the public towpath, anyway; they can control and condition their own off-side moorings on any terms they please, as can any private riparian owner.

It is sensible to think things through very carefully though, as to the ramifications of insisting on a particular position. One historical reason for there being no rights to charge for mooring to the towpath is most likely to be because there was never any right for anybody to moor to it in the first place. Given that the towpath was provided as a means of towing boats, any moored boat would prove an obstruction to such use – and both ancient and modern legislation provides remedies for dealing with that. Only the 1995 Act provides specific rights of mooring for up to 14 days at a time for boaters applying under s.17(3)( c )(ii) only – if one was to get very pedantic and legalistic about it.

Again, looking at legislation in the strictest terms, CaRT do not even have to enable ANY narrowboat to have sufficient water depth to reach the bank in the first place – in any legislation ancient or modern – especially since the Transport Act 1968. They need only dredge a channel sufficient to allow such boats passage from one destination to another, along the centre of the waterway [on my understanding of ‘main navigable channel’ anyway].

Come to that, no legislation I know of has ever abolished provisions in original enabling Acts that banned private pleasure boats from using the canal towpath AT ALL, even for towing. So should CaRT decide to cut the Gordion knot of control of towpath mooring, they would be entitled to tow away any pleasure boat [other than a CC’er, and perhaps even then] using the towpath anywhere along, for example, the Grand Union Canal. It would be foolish, probably impractical, and certainly counter-productive, but I simply point out a purely legal position. In fact, any pleasure boat using the GUC [that part at least, that constituted the original Grand Junction Canal] is moored to the towpath unlawfully, hence subject to s.8! Even the 14 days mooring is only valid where otherwise lawful.

Something to think about.

  • Greenie 2
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

That is interesting because CRT say that their jurisdiction ends at the road bridge in Windsford just off the bottom of the map. No mention of a navigatable channel 

Maybe we should ask them to dredge it and what implications would it have for the proposed connection to the Middlewich Branch

I am in that flash right now, in the grandly named Winsford marina. well, not actually in the marina due to the total absence of a navigable channel :D The front is in, though not quite at the bank, the back is hanging out into the flash. CaRT signage certainly say their waters end at the bridge, and the signage right here indicates that this water is controlled by the local council. But still, how interesting, I knew nothing about this, did CaRT ever own it? I assume it must be something to do with trying to establish control in case of the proposed link to the Middlewich arm.....which it looks like CaRT are now supporting.

The last time we were on the Weaver CaRT staff actually warned us that if we went into the flash and got stuck there was nothing they could do as it was not their water.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dmr said:

I am in that flash right now, in the grandly named Winsford marina. well, not actually in the marina due to the total absence of a navigable channel :D The front is in, though not quite at the bank, the back is hanging out into the flash. CaRT signage certainly say their waters end at the bridge, and the signage right here indicates that this water is controlled by the local council. But still, how interesting, I knew nothing about this, did CaRT ever own it? I assume it must be something to do with trying to establish control in case of the proposed link to the Middlewich arm.....which it looks like CaRT are now supporting.

The last time we were on the Weaver CaRT staff actually warned us that if we went into the flash and got stuck there was nothing they could do as it was not their water.

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

Watch that decking when its wet, its like a sheet of ice

25 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

The short answer is: nowhere. Not along the public towpath,  

But who owns that tow path because as I understand it BWB used to control access to the Towpath, it wasnt a right of way 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In virtually all instances CaRT will own the towpath - what difference does that make?

You are correct; historically it was never a right of way for any other than boaters, and not even for all of those; that changed only with the 2012 Transfer Order, when public access to the towpath was a condition of the transfer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

Watch that decking when its wet, its like a sheet of ice

It'l be fine, its an inch deep in non slip twigs that have blown off the trees!

Sad place, very smart "marina" though a bit more water would be good. Several locals launching little boats here today but I suspect its not much used by narrowboats, Winsford really is out of the way with not a lot to offer, in fact the "marina" is the No3 of things to do in Winsford according to Trip Advisor.

As usual we spent a few nights on the lock landing at Hunts lock. A few boats came up to look at the lock and turn, but only one went up.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dmr said:

CaRT signage certainly say their waters end at the bridge, and the signage right here indicates that this water is controlled by the local council. But still, how interesting, I knew nothing about this, did CaRT ever own it?

They do not need to own it in order to have jurisdiction; they own none of the natural rivers, other than, often, the artificial cuts made for installing locks.

The 1968 Act provided that jurisdiction of any BW remainder waterway could [by agreement] be taken over by another body –

109 Power of certain bodies to maintain or take over waterways and connected works.

(1) Without prejudice to their powers apart from this section, but subject to subsection (3) of this section, the Waterways Board shall have power—

( a ) to enter into an agreement with any body to which this section applies for the maintenance by that body of any inland waterway comprised in the undertaking of the Board which is not a commercial waterway or cruising waterway, or of any part of, or of any works connected with, any such waterway;

( b ) by agreement with any such body, to transfer to it any such waterway, part of a waterway or works as aforesaid belonging to the Board, together with any powers or obligations (whether statutory or otherwise) of the Board in respect thereof;

and any body to which this section applies shall have all such powers as are required to enable it to enter into and carry out any such agreement as aforesaid or as are required to be exercised by it in consequence of any such transfer as is mentioned in this subsection.

(2) The bodies to which this section applies are as follows—

( a ) a local authority;

( b ) the National Rivers Authority

( c ) a highway authority, not being a local authority;

( d ) a public gas supplier within the meaning of Part I of the Gas Act 1986;

( e ) a public electricity supplier within the meaning of Part I of the Electricity Act 1989;

( h ) a water undertaker;

( j ) a water authority;

( k ) a water development board,

and, as respects any particular agreement or transfer, any other body having public or charitable objects which is certified by the Minister or, where the particular agreement or transfer relates to a waterway or part of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers as a body appearing to him or, as the case may be, them to be capable of discharging the responsibilities falling on the body in consequence of that agreement or transfer.

(3) Subject to subsection (5) of this section, no such agreement or transfer as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be made with or to —

( a ) any local authority unless what is to be maintained or transferred—

(i) is situated in the area of the authority; or

(ii) though not situated in that area, is so situated that persons residing in that area have convenient access to it;

( b ) the National Rivers Authority unless the Ministers (for the purposes of Schedule 2 to the Water Resources Act 1991) have consented to the agreement or transfer;. . .

(4) Any agreement under this section whereby a waterway or part of a waterway is to be maintained by, or transferred to, a body to which this section applies may include provision for securing that the body in question makes the waterway or part available for public use.

(5) The Board may make an agreement for maintenance or transfer under this section with two or more bodies jointly on such terms as to the sharing of expenses between those bodies and otherwise as those bodies may agree; and, notwithstanding subsection (3)( a )(i) . . . of this section (but without prejudice, . .to subsection (3)( a )(ii) of this section), a local authority may be a party to such an agreement if part of what is to be maintained or transferred is situated in their area and the remainder in the area or areas of one or more other authorities who are also parties to the agreement.”

It is possible, therefore, that some such arrangement has been made with the local Council since 1995. If they did so, transferring all statutory obligations as above, one wonders whether the Council would have been aware of just what they were legally then obliged to maintain, and to what standard - if indeed any re-designation occurred [but then, if so, it could not be transferred under s.109]?

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.