Cruiseway Or Remainder

[pearley]

Do the distinctions between cruiseway and remainder waterways still exist or are all waterways now equal with some being more equal than others?

 

Regards

Pete

[Guest]

Do the distinctions between cruiseway and remainder waterways still exist or are all waterways now equal with some being more equal than others?

 

Regards

Pete

 

My memory could be faulty on this but wasn't it around this time last year (??? year before) that the K&A was granted 'cruise-way' status, so I guess the distinction still exists until relatively recently at least.

[mayalld]

Do the distinctions between cruiseway and remainder waterways still exist or are all waterways now equal with some being more equal than others?

 

Regards

Pete

 

The distinctions still exist

[billS]

Where can you find out what canal has which status? Is it published anywhere?

[RLWP]

I have a feeling this is in the act that created BW

 

Richard

[mayalld]

Where can you find out what canal has which status? Is it published anywhere?

 

The original list was established as Schedule 12 of the Transport Act 1968

Additional Waterways were added by Schedule 3 of the British Waterways Act 1983. This was curious, because no primary legislation was needed, as the 1968 Act provided for changes of status by secondary legislation.

 

Subsequently, the reclassification of waterways has been by secondary legislation amending Schedule 12

The British Waterways Board (Sheffield and Tinsley Canal) (Reclassification) Order 1996

The British Waterways Board (Forth and Clyde and Union Canals) (Reclassification) Order 2011

The British Waterways Board (Kennet and Avon Canal) (Reclassification) Order 2011

 

[RLWP]

The Transport Act 1968 is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/schedule/12

 

and the 1983 act here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1983/2/pdfs/ukla_19830002_en.pdf

 

It lists the Commercial and Cruiseways, what's left being unlisted - the remainder

 

Richard

Edited August 7, 2013 by RLWP

[pearley]

So what about the Rochdale and Huddersfield Narrow which were officially abandoned at that time?

 

Regards

Pete

[mayalld]

So what about the Rochdale and Huddersfield Narrow which were officially abandoned at that time?

Pete

They are remainder waterways

[David Mack]

So what about the Rochdale and Huddersfield Narrow which were officially abandoned at that time?

 

Regards

Pete

The Huddersfield is a Remainder. The Rochdale Canal was never classified as at the time of the 1968 Act it was owned by the privately-owned Rochdale Canal Company.

[mayalld]

The Huddersfield is a Remainder. The Rochdale Canal was never classified as at the time of the 1968 Act it was owned by the privately-owned Rochdale Canal Company.

And remained privately owned (by the Waterways Trust) until the transfer to CRT

 

At the point where it transferred to CRT it became a remainder waterway

[Heartland]

I do wonder if those navigations restored to use all fall in the remainder category, if they were outside the control of BW/CRT.

 

Ray Shill

[magpie patrick]

I do wonder if those navigations restored to use all fall in the remainder category, if they were outside the control of BW/CRT.

 

Ray Shill

 

Despite Dave's assertion there is a very big grey area over any waterway that wasn't with BW at the time of the act or scheduling and on which no subsequent scheduling has been made. Why?

 

Well, the 1968 act laid down proviso's as to how BW was to treat each waterway, and remainder waterways are to be treated in the most cost-effective manner consistent with public safety. However, where BW have taken on a waterway since 1968, they have had to satisfy their masters that it would not place a further burden on core funding, and so agreements were reached. Not surprisingly, the agreements differed from canal to canal and didn't take the form of "the most cost-effective manner consistent with public safety", if they had, BW might well have closed the waterway again within a few years of it's opening.

 

The Rochdale Canal is particularly convoluted as TWT leased the canal and then let a contract to BW for it's maintenance. Although TWT have now merged with BW as part of CRT, the canal is still leased and the contract still provides the framework for maintenance as that is what the funding is based on.

 

It's also as yet untested as to what CRT powers such as their General Permitted Development Powers would be on a canal such as the Rochdale or the Droitwich. These vary between Commercial, Cruiseway and Remainder canals, as they relate to the operation of the canal. Facilities for freight, for example, do not need planning permission on a commercial waterway, but do on a cruiseway. Powers for a remainder waterway come under a different section and in an unintended consequence are surprisingly far reaching: Three Mills Lock did not need planning permission for example, as the Prescott Channel is a remainder waterway, whereas it certainly would have done on a cruiseway.

[mayalld]

 

Despite Dave's assertion there is a very big grey area over any waterway that wasn't with BW at the time of the act or scheduling and on which no subsequent scheduling has been made. Why?

 

Well, the 1968 act laid down proviso's as to how BW was to treat each waterway, and remainder waterways are to be treated in the most cost-effective manner consistent with public safety. However, where BW have taken on a waterway since 1968, they have had to satisfy their masters that it would not place a further burden on core funding, and so agreements were reached. Not surprisingly, the agreements differed from canal to canal and didn't take the form of "the most cost-effective manner consistent with public safety", if they had, BW might well have closed the waterway again within a few years of it's opening.

 

The Rochdale Canal is particularly convoluted as TWT leased the canal and then let a contract to BW for it's maintenance. Although TWT have now merged with BW as part of CRT, the canal is still leased and the contract still provides the framework for maintenance as that is what the funding is based on.

 

It's also as yet untested as to what CRT powers such as their General Permitted Development Powers would be on a canal such as the Rochdale or the Droitwich. These vary between Commercial, Cruiseway and Remainder canals, as they relate to the operation of the canal. Facilities for freight, for example, do not need planning permission on a commercial waterway, but do on a cruiseway. Powers for a remainder waterway come under a different section and in an unintended consequence are surprisingly far reaching: Three Mills Lock did not need planning permission for example, as the Prescott Channel is a remainder waterway, whereas it certainly would have done on a cruiseway.

 

An interesting piece, but I will stand by my original assertion.

 

My reasoning is based upon the text of Section 104 of the 1968 Act;

 

104 Classification of the Board’s waterways.

 

(1)For the purposes of sections 105 to 111 of this Act the inland waterways comprised in the undertaking of the Waterways Board shall be divided into—

 

(a)the waterways for the time being specified in Part I of Schedule 12 to this Act, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the commercial waterways”) to be principally available for the commercial carriage of freight;

 

(the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the cruising waterways”) to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes; and

 

©the remainder.

Notice that whilst we talk of "remainder waterways", as if it we a specific class, the legislation simply defines the Commercial and Cruising waterways. Remainder Waterways are simply those waterways that have not been defined as Commercial or Cruising Waterways.

If we look further at the provisons to do with remainder waterways;

107 Amendments as to general duties of Board.

(1)The duty of the Waterways Board under subsection (1) of section 10 of the Act of 1962 to provide services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them shall extend only to the commercial waterways and cruising waterways.

(2)It shall be the duty of the Board—

(a)to secure that each of the inland waterways comprised in their undertaking which is not a commercial waterway or cruising waterway is dealt with in the most economical manner possible (consistent, in the case of a waterway which is retained, with the requirements of public health and the preservation of amenity and safety), whether by retaining and managing the waterway, by developing or eliminating it, or by disposing of it;

Notice that this section doesn't talk about remainder waterways, just about the duties of the board in respect of waterways owned or managed by them, that are not Commercial waterways and are not Cruising waterways. It would be a seriously sharp lawyer who could get away with a suggestion that this doesn't apply to the Rochdale (The HNC, even though abandoned remained a BW Waterway, and so was a Remainder waterway throughout)

That brings us to "dealt with in the most economic manner possible"

Clearly, one could argue that leaving the HNC derelict was the "most economical manner possible", as it removes the necessity to renew lock gates and dredge etc.

However, you touch on the various agreements, all of which were designed to ensure that the restored canal didn't impose an additional financial burden (In the case of the HNC, there is a dowry that secures the operation of the canal for 125 years) so NOT restoring the canal would reduce costs, but would also reduce income, which means that restoring is just as economical as leaving it derelict.