Jump to content

C&RT license checkers


colmac

Featured Posts

Thats interesting stuff, and a bit worrying if CaRT ever decide to start disposing of bits of the system. Can they themselves nominate sections as remainder?

The Weaver was very much a commercial waterway for big vessels and above the bridge is not navigable for anything large so I had assumed that the navigation as such, and BW's interest, had always ended at the bridge or even some way below it, and the rest was little more than a "water supply channel". The flash was popular for pleasure boating but that was 100 years ago. 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dmr said:

Thats interesting stuff, and a bit worrying if CaRT ever decide to start disposing of bits of the system. 

I'd certainly like to think that, as a large proportion of CRT's funding comes from the tax payer, CRT won't do anything which is against the public's interest. Maybe that's rather naive thinking though?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dmr said:

Thats interesting stuff, and a bit worrying if CaRT ever decide to start disposing of bits of the system. Can they themselves nominate sections as remainder?

The Weaver was very much a commercial waterway for big vessels and above the bridge is not navigable for anything large so I had assumed that the navigation as such, and BW's interest, had always ended at the bridge or even some way below it, and the rest was little more than a "water supply channel". The flash was popular for pleasure boating but that was 100 years ago. 

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

No. The classifications of the waterways as ‘Commercial’; ‘Cruising’, or ‘Remainder’ is a matter of statute, and therefore can only be amended by Ministerial Order, which Order is subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament. CaRT could ask for such an Order, but could not unilaterally dispense with it. However the Bottom Flash would necessarily, as I have said, have been already classified as 'Remainder'.

Although [at least for public consumption] there appears to be no very precise description of what property has been placed within the Waterways Infrastructure Trust in perpetuity for the nation, it would be logical to assume that any actual waterway whether ‘Remainder’ or not, would be included, and therefore cannot now be disposed of without authority of the Secretary of State. Of course, that is little enough protection if an attractive financial offer comes along, and Parry claims to have successfully applied for such permission for a number of Infrastructure properties, including riverbed where fraudulent application for that has been successful.

So far as the Bottom Flash part of the river Weaver, is concerned though, this is parcelled up amongst various private owners and the Winsford Flash Sailing Club, and as registered land from [in parts] the 19thC at least, was largely safe from the BW land grab prior to the 2012 Transfer. Ownership of various parcels has been transferred between parties in modern times largely due to salt and minerals companies divesting themselves of their holdings. The sailing club only bought their [very significant] portion of the southernmost area of the Flash in September of 2011, from individuals who had purchased the riverbed from ICI Ltd back in 2005, who had themselves only purchased it back in 1961.

The actual freehold ownership then, as with all natural rivers, is privately owned and neither CaRT nor the local Council can dispose of it; only transfer of statutory jurisdiction and obligation can take place. It appears that CaRT at least are happy to quietly disown responsibility and forget about it – although, as I say, the statutory mechanism existed to have formally transferred that responsibility to the local Council [whether that ever happened or not I do not know].

2 hours ago, rowland al said:

I'd certainly like to think that, as a large proportion of CRT's funding comes from the tax payer, CRT won't do anything which is against the public's interest. Maybe that's rather naive thinking though?!

You know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of interest relevant to the presumptive interests of riparian owners, the fine dotted lines on the Plan indicate the original course of the river and a tributary. The title deeds of the sailing club reflect those boundaries. The widening of the river on both sides of the original course came about when the adjacent land collapsed/sunk due to the salt mining activities for which the area is famous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dmr said:

Thats interesting stuff, and a bit worrying if CaRT ever decide to start disposing of bits of the system. Can they themselves nominate sections as remainder?

The Weaver was very much a commercial waterway for big vessels and above the bridge is not navigable for anything large so I had assumed that the navigation as such, and BW's interest, had always ended at the bridge or even some way below it, and the rest was little more than a "water supply channel". The flash was popular for pleasure boating but that was 100 years ago. 

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

Only in as far as if they acquire new stuff - what is "Cruising Waterway" and "Commercial Waterway" is listed in the 1968 act with subsequent amendments (e.g the K and A)  so they can't just change it willy nilly.

Edited to add - I see Nigel got there first and said it far better than me

I'm curious as to how they laid any claim at all on the Lower Flash, the navigations they have are generally as successors to the companies that built or operated them under act of parliament, and I'm not aware that any company ever had authority over the lower flash, as the Weaver Navigation was only created as far as Winsford Bridge.

 

 

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

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.

 

11 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

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.

It was in response to the first line of your reply where you say they can impose the same restrictions as any riparian owner, surly if they own the towpath they are the riparian owner, or is that all to simple and a lot more behind it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the bit where I qualified the riparian ownership of off-side bank.  Canal companies compulsorily purchased land for canal and towpath, all of which was to be available for the use of the public subject only to whatever tolls were imposed. Additionally, they could purchase offside land by voluntary agreement with the land owners, for development as wharves etc, which they were free to charge for, as were the riparian owners free to develop wharves and moorings etc on their own land, and to charge for use of that.

Towpath land was subject to public use; private land [including the voluntarily purchased company offside land] was subject to separate treaty [though even there, restrictions were in place that did not apply to the same extent as applied to private owners - private owners could pick and choose their clientele, the canal companies had to offer the facilities to all].

This was all laid out in statutes; the powers of control were based upon the statute, not the land ownership. Where, for example, rivers were "made navigable", ownership was not acquired, yet similar powers and obligations were granted to the proprietors making the improvements. The tolls were recompense for the expenditure on improved navigation - with hopefully some profit left over of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I'm curious as to how they laid any claim at all on the Lower Flash, the navigations they have are generally as successors to the companies that built or operated them under act of parliament, and I'm not aware that any company ever had authority over the lower flash, as the Weaver Navigation was only created as far as Winsford Bridge.

I have come across no suggestion that BW ever laid any possessory or jurisdictional claim on the southernmost Weaver prior to 1990, though for all I know it might have been included within nationalised waterways – easily enough checked I suppose, but I do not have the time just now; they just asked Parliament to give them the same control over it that they enjoyed over the other rivers and river navigations included within Schedule 1 of the 1971 Act. Regardless of who, if anybody, previously exercised control, jurisdiction under the powers of the 1971 Act were conferred by government fiat.

It may be of interest to note that in the same way that the 1968 Act provided that transfers of undertakings could be effected from the remainder waterways of BW to other bodies, so too did the 1983 Act provide for  additional waterways to be transferred to BW, if all parties were agreeable [still requiring a Statutory Instrument to effect].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

so too did the 1983 Act provide for  additional waterways to be transferred to BW, if all parties were agreeable [still requiring a Statutory Instrument to effect].

As is currently happening with the Basingstoke Canal

 

'Hampshire and Surrey County Councils have announced new discussions with Canal & River Trust to find a feasible way of transferring management of the Basingstoke Canal to the Trust. Over the next five years, the two Councils will explore ways to make the Canal as sustainable as possible, by increasing income generation and undertaking capital works to reduce the backlog of repairs. The plan is to transfer the management of the waterway and its assets to CRT, so that it is no longer reliant on public sector funding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

As is currently happening with the Basingstoke Canal

 

'Hampshire and Surrey County Councils have announced new discussions with Canal & River Trust to find a feasible way of transferring management of the Basingstoke Canal to the Trust. Over the next five years, the two Councils will explore ways to make the Canal as sustainable as possible, by increasing income generation and undertaking capital works to reduce the backlog of repairs. The plan is to transfer the management of the waterway and its assets to CRT, so that it is no longer reliant on public sector funding

That's a bit optimistic.

Everytime we use the Bridgewater it occurs to me that it might be better if "owned" by CaRT, but even if Peel holdings allowed this they would surely keep all the land that had any income potential which makes the canal a real liability. Will the Basingstoke come with any property income or will CaRT just get the maintenance liability???

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dmr said:

That's a bit optimistic.

Everytime we use the Bridgewater it occurs to me that it might be better if "owned" by CaRT, but even if Peel holdings allowed this they would surely keep all the land that had any income potential which makes the canal a real liability. Will the Basingstoke come with any property income or will CaRT just get the maintenance liability???

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

Will they care about the maintenance liability? The rationale of removing the Basingstoke from reliance on public sector funding is ridiculous, it just takes responsibility away from the local authority to the presently pblic subsidised CaRT. The combined sources of both boater income and public funding is supposedly incapable of bearing the statutory maintenance obligations of the waterways CaRT already rule - what happens when the guaranteed funding comes to an end, and by 2020 the condition of the canals has deteriorated according to expectations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

You missed the bit where I qualified the riparian ownership of off-side bank.  Canal companies compulsorily purchased land for canal and towpath, all of which was to be available for the use of the public subject only to whatever tolls were imposed. Additionally, they could purchase offside land by voluntary agreement with the land owners, for development as wharves etc, which they were free to charge for, as were the riparian owners free to develop wharves and moorings etc on their own land, and to charge for use of that.

Towpath land was subject to public use; private land [including the voluntarily purchased company offside land] was subject to separate treaty [though even there, restrictions were in place that did not apply to the same extent as applied to private owners - private owners could pick and choose their clientele, the canal companies had to offer the facilities to all].

This was all laid out in statutes; the powers of control were based upon the statute, not the land ownership. Where, for example, rivers were "made navigable", ownership was not acquired, yet similar powers and obligations were granted to the proprietors making the improvements. The tolls were recompense for the expenditure on improved navigation - with hopefully some profit left over of course.

Thanks, that makes it clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

Will they care about the maintenance liability? The rationale of removing the Basingstoke from reliance on public sector funding is ridiculous, it just takes responsibility away from the local authority to the presently pblic subsidised CaRT. The combined sources of both boater income and public funding is supposedly incapable of bearing the statutory maintenance obligations of the waterways CaRT already rule - what happens when the guaranteed funding comes to an end, and by 2020 the condition of the canals has deteriorated according to expectations?

Well that's exactly why we've got all these damn high speed cyclists and towpath cycletracks. CaRT know that they have to get continued public funding and see cycling as part of the argument for this. They are probably correct in some ways, cycling is an important future alternative to the motor car, but this approach does carry some big risks.

I personally would be prepared to pay 2 or even 3 times the licence cost if it saved our waterways without the need for high speed and aggressive cycling but I realise that many others would find this difficult. I do suspect that the licence increase would need to be even more than this to offset the public funding.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

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 

In general the towpath is not a Public Right of Way, although there are some short sections that are so designated.
Correctly it should be described as a path with Permissive Access, that can be closed to the public by the owner at any time. It used to be the case that it had to be done for a period of 24 hours each year but that seems to have been removed possibly following the passing of the CRoW Act. 
EDIT
See also Nigel's reply above about the CaRT transfer.

Edited by Graham Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

In general the towpath is not a Public Right of Way, although there are some short sections that are so designated.
Correctly it should be described as a path with Permissive Access, that can be closed to the public by the owner at any time. It used to be the case that it had to be done for a period of 24 hours each year but that seems to have been removed possibly following the passing of the CRoW Act.

Not quite correct, though close. General members of the public could be denied access, but not most boaters. What has changed relatively recently is not the effect of the CRoW Act [I was going to ask whether that was something Magpie Patrick would know more about], but as a result of the conditions laid down for transfer to CaRT under the 2012 Transfer Order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/10/2017 at 23:24, dmr said:

Thats interesting stuff, and a bit worrying if CaRT ever decide to start disposing of bits of the system. Can they themselves nominate sections as remainder?

The Weaver was very much a commercial waterway for big vessels and above the bridge is not navigable for anything large so I had assumed that the navigation as such, and BW's interest, had always ended at the bridge or even some way below it, and the rest was little more than a "water supply channel". The flash was popular for pleasure boating but that was 100 years ago. 

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

This is rubbish! I have just been out for a dog walk and there are some good "interpretation" boards here (a rare thing) with some lovely old photos. The lower part of the lower flash was once quite industrialised, hard to believe looking at it now, and there was a boatyard with some quite big boats right on the flash where BW/CaRT claim a navigable channel. These boats appear to have masts which might have been droppable but more likely I suspect Town Bridge was once a swing bridge. I am going to see what old photos I can find on www.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2017 at 12:29, NigelMoore said:

Not quite correct, though close. General members of the public could be denied access, but not most boaters. What has changed relatively recently is not the effect of the CRoW Act [I was going to ask whether that was something Magpie Patrick would know more about], but as a result of the conditions laid down for transfer to CaRT under the 2012 Transfer Order.

I deal a lot with rights of way, we should be grateful that the towpaths are not generally designated as such. One curiosity is they often became rights of way when a canal was abandoned, and thus abandoned canals can often, but not always be followed on footpaths.

Some towpaths have been designated as RoW for a reason, the towpath over Marple Aqueduct was so designated at the insistence of Cheshire County Council when they paid for the repair of the aqueduct in the 60's for example

As a general rule when opening new routes (e.g. abandoned railways) I recommend that they are designated as permissive routes: that permission is usually general and subject to some restriction, that's not a contradiction, "general" as in "the general public", some restriction, "pedestrians only". Should the route need diverting later (because for example of improvements or availability of a new route) it's much easier, and if one decides that access was a bad idea, closing a PRoW is a difficult process with no guarantee of success - I am dealing with a situation at present where there was a realistic prospect of having to reopen a path across a factory stockyard because of a failure to close it prior to construction and opposition to closure after the event. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmr said:

This is rubbish! I have just been out for a dog walk and there are some good "interpretation" boards here (a rare thing) with some lovely old photos. The lower part of the lower flash was once quite industrialised, hard to believe looking at it now, and there was a boatyard with some quite big boats right on the flash where BW/CaRT claim a navigable channel. These boats appear to have masts which might have been droppable but more likely I suspect Town Bridge was once a swing bridge. I am going to see what old photos I can find on www.

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

Stop off near New Bridge there are some on the right hand bank going down stream below the bridge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

. . . closing a PRoW is a difficult process with no guarantee of success . . .

What is now, where I am in Brentford, but a footbridge crossing the Brent, was previously a turn-over bridge for use by towing horses to cross from the towpath on one side to the other, and the incarnation before that one was a timber swing-bridge, statutorily designated part of a public road, allowing vehicular traffic for the locals to use carts for collecting the left-overs from the Lammas lands south of the river.

The decline from road bridge to livestock to foot passage only, came about through a combination of natural disasters and changing use of the land to the south – without, so far as I have learned, any statutory process being followed. The previous Turn-Over bridge had been demolished by BW back in the sixties, and a public pedestrian right of way exists now only by virtue of the GLC building the present footbridge for their own access to the Dock Estates, and the Council's later adoption of the route as public footpath.

When nobody pipes up to object, such things can happen [not that I would want the situation reversed in my case!]

The same principle operated here with regard to the rights of way along branches of the public navigable river. The only court action over filling in the rivers was last seen back in the 18thC, when boaters objected to obstructions of the southern branch by the Copyholder of the land. That was airily dismissed by the magistrate with the assurance that it would be resolved with the improvements to be made by the Grand Junction Canal Company, when their proposed Bill was granted consent.

However the proposed line was later altered prior to passage of the Act, to use the eastern branch instead, and with nobody continuing to object, the southern branch’s filling in proceeded to take place over ensuing years to create more arable land. Then Brunel came along, and filled the whole area in many feet deep, obliterating all of the previously navigable southern branches – and not a squeak of recorded protest against the illegality of it.

In that latter instance of course, there may have been a statutory consent given in order to facilitate construction of the railway sidings; I really don’t know.

So far as the current situation with public rights of navigation is concerned, CaRT continue the more than 30 year criminal blockade of the remaining navigable channels to the north of the Thames Locks – and with nobody in officialdom caring two hoots, that is likely to remain. The PLA, to their credit, raised the issue in the recent Public Inquiry into the area’s proposed CPO Order, but it did not occur to them to raise the through-passage issue, and besides, as their jurisdiction does not extend to this area, the evidence of their representative was fairly soundly trashed as irrelevant.

Statutory rights and common law rights persist – in practical terms - only so far as someone is willing to fight to uphold them.

1 hour ago, dmr said:

This is rubbish! I have just been out for a dog walk and there are some good "interpretation" boards here (a rare thing) with some lovely old photos. The lower part of the lower flash was once quite industrialised, hard to believe looking at it now, and there was a boatyard with some quite big boats right on the flash where BW/CaRT claim a navigable channel. These boats appear to have masts which might have been droppable but more likely I suspect Town Bridge was once a swing bridge. I am going to see what old photos I can find on www.

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

If you find some, it would be great to see them posted up.

42 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I deal a lot with rights of way . . .

I just knew magpies would know about crows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There some good old photos of the Weaver here:

http://www.winsfordhistorysociety.co.uk/galleries/river-weaver/

Mostly the early days of pleasure boating (including an early continuous moorer!) but there are a couple of photos of the old working boats. There is also a picture of Town Bridge (Co-op Wharf) which I assume to be the Winsford bridge at the bottom of the flash but it looks like a fixed bridge to me, though higher than the present bridge.

This bridge photo does not quite fit in with the pictures on the interpretation board which suggest other building near to the bridge.

There is much housing development going on along the Weaver and demolition of some big industry, change continues!

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rasputin said:

Bottom Flash, what is the problem with calling it it's correct name?

 

Yes, sorry, I meant to say the lower end of the bottom flash but the words came out wrong. I should have said we are moored at the bottom of the bottom flash but then the forum pedants would have had a field day!

Winsford is a sad town. Its still got a couple of good buildings but the high street was destroyed to build a horrible dual carriageway and now the town is sort of lacking a heart and centre. The Weaver and the flash (and the riverside Red Lion) are the best things here. Its a shame that there is not better access for walking round the flash.

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

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.