Hastings

It is true that there is a temporary wooden structure adjoining the brick lengthsman's "hovel" (6' x 6') that CRT are objecting to. They have told Danny George to remove it. He is permitted to put up a shed, but at some distance (about 15-20 metres). This makes operating his meat and vegetable shop just about impossible. CRT's reason is that the wooden structure detracts from a historic building. Were this really so.... true, there's been a hovel here since the late 19th century, and part of this brick building is original. But it has been left to it's own devices for decades, and as necessary much has been repaired in unsypathetic materials (machine made bricks) in the 1960s/1970s, so it's a bit like Trigger's broom! The building was in danger of collapsing when Danny arrived, and he has underpinned it to prevent this. CRT say they are wanting to help Danny keep his shop open, but it seems to be that he has to do what he's told, with little scope for common sense. CRT seem to forget that he is a customer - they certainly don't treat him as that, or consider his business needs. The canals need individualistic/idiosyncratic businesses, and Danny has done nothing to harm the "historic" building. Let's hope that CRT soon see how silly they are being.

I suggest that you go to http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=51501&st=20 and look at item #29. Alan Fincher has just provided a list of all known major historic boat events next year.

The Audlem Festival of Transport is on Sunday 28 July 2013 - we expect 40+ boats

High Court judgments set precedent for all lower courts, which is where any other claimant would have to start in similar circumstances. This recent case was an application for permission to apply for judicial review of guidance first published by BW in 2004, then revised in 2011, concerning their interpretation of s.17.3©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. Brown was not granted permission, so the BW papers on mooring that were contended by him now stand as valid rules and guidance on mooring etc. In any future court case, they must be applied, and without any need to consider their legitimacy, which this case effectively determines. Whether Mr Brown decides to appeal the decision is up to him, and only time will tell. If you read the judgment and the various bits of legislation, it is hard to find any grounds on which Mr Brown could appeal, and I suspect that an appeal would be an awful waste of money. CRT, as inheritors of the rules, can now enforce them or not, as they see fit, and as long as they do this reasonably, no-one can legitimately complain or do anything about it - except perhaps to lobby to have the rules changed in the future. I suspect that the Brown case will be the end of legal approaches re ccing, mooring etc., but there may be more discussions!

It's really not about getting boat owners to pay more. For decades, there have been under the BW/CRT rules, effectively two types of boaters: 1 Continuous cruisers, who move their boat pretty regularly along one canal, then the next, on a never-ending journey; they just pay for a boat licence. 2 Any other boats, which must pay both for a boat licence and also usually for the right to moor (either to CRT for a line mooring, or to a private operator such as a marina). If anyone who doesn't genuinely continuously cruise hasn't been paying a mooring fee, it's probably because they have chosen to ignore the rules, as Mr Brown did in the current case. He's discovered that he has to pay, or keep moving his boat. So, nobody needs to pay more. If you are moored relatively permanently in one area, you will now either have to move on, and on and on, or pay up. What's the problem? If you disagree, then I would suggest that you think sensibly and realistically - your freeloading days are now over, and you have been lucky that they lasted so long! Finally, why do people expect to use the canals and not pay the market rate to do so?

I know that I ignored the fact that residential moorings in most marinas are rarer than hen's teeth, but in practice most marinas do allow it. I also know that marina vacancies aren't necessarily exactly where people want them, and I agree that they are in short supply around the hotspots of London, western K&A and Oxford etc. It's all a question of balance - you have to find somewhere to live within a reasonable distance of fixed things like work, relatives etc. What's a reasonable distance? It might depend on what you earn; in my working life, I thought nothing of a 45 mile/one hour drive, but I could afford it. Obviously, others might need a mooring much closer. These are facts of life - no different whether you live on a boat or on the land. Which you live in is your choice, and you cannot expect any different treatment as a residential boater. Local councils have their rules (for house dwellers), and CRT has its rules (for boat dwellers). You make your choice, then keep to the rules. Mr Brown didn't keep to the rules, and has expensively found out that he cannot just do what he likes, and blame someone other than himself. Some boaters may not like the way BW/CRT is now going re resident boaters without a "home mooring", but this is a democracy and the rules themselves have been pretty clear and constant for much of the 50 years I have been boating. Yes, people have ignored the rules, and BW didn't bother to enforce them much, but the rules haven't really changed. If you decide to live on a boat, it's reasonable to assume that you have done your homework, and know what the rules are. I really don't think that if you live in a house, your local council will be much impressed if you unilaterally choose not to pay council tax, or your lanlord if you don't pay your rent! So in summary, I have every sympathy for the residential boaters who will have to relocate as a result of the High Court case, as moving may be difficult, and they may need a few months to relocate, but they should have anticipated that this day would come. They have had several years' warning, with the Davies case etc.

Personally, the Judges view is well reasoned and clear but the judgement is flawed being based on what BW has invented over the years rather than law. I'm sorry, but that's a misunderstanding of the legal position. In simple terms, the powers of British Waterways (as was) originated in several Acts of Parliament, and as a statutory body (i.e. 100% government owned), it was given powers under the legislation to introduce any rules it considered necessary to run its operations. These are of course the rules that Mr Brown and other earlier litigants are complaining about. Essentially, all a court has to do is to see that these rules are reasonable in the circumstances. The court does not have to find them in the base legislation. Now, what the majority of boaters regard as fair and what Mr Brown regards as fair seem to be very different, but obviosly it's the majority that count, and that is what a judge will tend to consider (though doesn't have to). Having said that, it doesn't actually matter legally if the majority don't like the rule, as long as BW could persuade a judge that there was good reason for the rule. So, had this current High Court judgment been decided under BW rule, pre July, Brown was bound to lose. Anybody who advised him otherwise just couldn't have understood the legal and constitutional background to BW. The arrival of CRT actually makes things simpler, I believe, for those that run CRT. It inherited all the legal stuff from BW, but the important difference is that it is now simply a limited company - albeit a charity, but nevertheless, it's a company limited by guarantee. It doesn't need legislation now, and can introduce whatever rules it considers reasonable to run its affairs. Any boater, holiday or residential, ccer or permanent stayer (as is Mr Brown) is only a customer, and has few rights. As long as we all accept this, we will get on fine. CRT want our income, and in return let us do all sorts of things like drive our boats up THEIR canals, moor more or less where we like, generally for up to 14 days, etc. The time for challenging the rules is over. We have a binding High Court judgment, which means that any future similar claims will fail. The law is so clear now that permission to appeal might not be granted, as there seems little point. Let's just move forward. Those boaters who are moored illegally (because of this judgment) should now say to themselves that they had a good time for many years, but they now need to move their boats around the system, or rent a mooring. Whilst I fully understand that many people have made a lifestyle choice to live on a boat and have family or work commitments that means they need to be in a certain place, the law does not support this, unless they have a "home mooring". And, as I said in an earlier post, there are plenty of moorings around, though not necessarily near Bradford upon Avon or other popular spots.

I suspect that of the 2000 non ccers you quote (if that's the right figure, though I have no way of knowing), many could cc if they choose, i.e. they may have chosen to stay in the same place, but there may be no work or family reason why they can't cruise around the system. So yes, that would put a bit more pressure on the system. However, we live by one of the most used canals, and there are not many times, except perhaps in August, when there isn't room for more boats. Once people move away from the western K&A, London, the Oxford area, Braunston and the Lee/Stort, canals can in the main accommodate a significant increase in boat traffic. Also, for those boaters who should now move as a result of the judgment, there's an over supply of marina vacancies in most areas (except perhaps in the locations I've listed above), so if they want to stay in one place, they can. OK, it will cost them, but it's only fair that they should pay to moor, like I and most boaters willingly do. I have of course ignored the issues of residential planning permission and council tax, which should of course apply to residential boats not moving around, but one step at a time! Personally, I think that Mr Brown should give up now. The judgment is well reasoned and clear, and it reflects both the legislation and the intention behind it (both are important). Having read the judgment and relevant legislation, I suspect than an appeal will be futile. But it's ok with me if Mr Brown wants to waste his money, as long as he accepts that there will probably be very significant costs to pay if he loses. The money might be better thrown into a hole in the ground. Could I recommend the breach at Dutton on the Trent & Mersey, or his choice of canal restoration project.

The Birmingham area had a very significant Great Western Railway presence. The original Snow Hill station, which was demolished a few decades ago apart from a few bits of wall that can still be seen, was a major through station on the GWR main line from Paddington through High Wycombe and Leamington Spa to Chester, via Wolverhampton Low Level station. Indeed, the GWR had a major locomotive building and repair works at Wolverhampton until the early part of last century. This line was broad gauge (7' 0.25") until late nineteenth century, hence the wide cuttings and clearance now. The Snow Hill station we all now know and love(?) today is of course modern, dating from the 1980s. Moor Street station, just the other side of the tunnel from Snow Hill, was built mainly as a terminus to relieve pressure on Snow Hill, and was largely used for commuter services etc. into Warwickshire and other areas to the south. Until Dr Beeching closed the GWR main line in the 1960s, many people preferred to use this route to travel to London from Birmingham. This might be because many fast trains were operated by the amazing "King" class locomotives, but probably more realistically because of the overall service quality, which largely hung over from GWR days. Chiltern Railways have recently reinstated the whole line from Birmingham to London as a very fast main line, though trains now terminate at Marylebone, the old Great Central Railway terminus. There were local GWR lines from Birmingham too - mainly to the west, into Staffordshire (Bilston, Tipton) and Worcestershire (Dudley, Stourbridge, Halesowen). From these routes there were tracks into many of the transhipment basins, e.g. Withymoor, where cargoes were transferred from rail to canal boat or vice versa for onward transmission. The GWR of course had a fleet of Bantock boats at their disposal for this work.

I don't know Mike Handford, and wouldn't want to comment on him. However, I agree that restoration of the Forest Line is unlikely. It goes from the back of a pub in Nanpantan, a village a mile or two from Loughborough, to nowhere in particular, via nowhere else of any significance. Whilst you could probably say much the same of several proposed restoration projects, there are differences: The Forest Line doesn't connect to any other canal, and cannot unless you demolish scores of houses in Loughborough, and run it through the shopping streets. Much of the line of the connecting tramway has gone. The canal was one of the first actually fully built to be abandoned - over 200 years ago - and there were good reasons (reservoir breach, lack of traffic, inconvenience of transhipment at both ends). There's not a lot left, and quite a bit is part of a golf course, or under the M1 or railway lines (although the railway is closed). Road crossings were dropped in Victorian times or before. I suspect that if the failed Blackbrook reservoir is anything to go by, construction methods might have been a bit questionable - though to be fair, parts held water for the 200 years after closure. To justify getting the enormous sums to restore a canal, one would need to show forecasts of significant socio-economic benefits, e.g. leisure use, jobs created, tourism potential etc. The last of these is possible, but the canal itself wouldn't be used, as no boat can get to it, so no, or few, jobs would result. But there are some local canals that do need restoring - the Wreake/Melton Mowbray Navigation and the Derby Canal from the T&M to the Erewash ....And they would be used, as they go somewhere (particularly the Derby Canal, which would create another ring). Before it's too late, it might be better to do a detailed survey of the Forest Line, and produce a book which amplifies what is in the 1974 WEA course book

Yes, I do believe that Ray is right re the type of rails of the tramways, which were built some 30 years before "proper" railways arrived. The first of the "proper" railways in this area was the Leicester & Swannington, opened in 1832 - one of the first few railways built in the UK. There were several tramways connecting to the Forest Line at the western end. The canal of course had two separate end points. The Leicestershire coalfields had some of the earliest tramways in the country. The tramways used cast iron fish bellied rails, just over a yard in length. Each weighed about 40 lbs. The top flange was oval, about 3/4" wide. The lower flange spread out at one end to form a foot plate, which was spiked to stone blocks. The gauge (width between rails) of these tramways happened to be 4' 8.5", which became standard for UK railways, and most around the world. The waggons were of course horse drawn, but there were gradients of up to 25% (1 in 4), although the gradient of most of the tramway at the eastern end, running into Loughborough, was much less. Peter

Advance notice - next year's gathering of boats for the Audlem Festival of Transport is over the weekend of 27/28 July 2013. We had 35 historic boats this year, an increase of 50% on last year, but can accommodate just over 40. Owners of boats that have attended in the past will be contacted, but if you haven't been before, and would like to bring your boat to this informal, friendly and strictly non-commercial gathering, please contact Audlem Mill on 01270 811059 or info@audlemmill.co.uk.

Ray is of course right - the canal name has been changed over the years, and now seems to be the Charnwood Forest Canal. It was built as the Forest Line, though it never had a water connection to its host, the Leicester Navigation - only a long tramway link from the basin at Nanpantan (near the Priory pub) to the basin in Loghborough. Of course, other canal names have been informally changed over the years, e.g. the Llangollen Canal is a fairly recent name for the Ellesmere Canal. I lived in Loughborough in the mid 1970s, and attended a WEA course in Local History Studies. I and a few other people spent a lot of time looking at the remains of the canal, and finding the routes of the connecting tramways. Surprisingly, much of the canal still existed then (in a very sorry state), but of course quite a bit had been obliterated by (1) farming, (2) the fairly recently built M1, and (3) the building of the railway in the nineteenth century from Loughborough through Shepshed, that closed not many years before our study. The Junction House was still largely extant, and many bits of the canal had water in. The WEA group the next year (1974) produced a very interesting 20 page A4 booklet - "The Forest Line - An exploration of the lost Charnwood Forest Canal". I have a copy; I also took lots of photos in 1973, but unfortunately they were lost in house moves a long time ago. Restoration has been mooted over the years, but one has to ask what would be the point, as it does not connect to any other. The canal is only a few miles long, and never really served any useful purpose, because of (1) lack of reliable water supply, and (2) the need to tranship on to tramway waggons for onward transmission in Loughborough. Golfers at Nanpantan Golf Club, which spans the course, might not be impressed, and burrowing under the M1 embankment and old railway tracks might be a tad expensive.

I think you've really answered your own question. If the mooring is non-residential, then the "rule" is that you can't live on your boat there - at all. That's the strict rule, but in practice, as others have said, it all depends ... on the landowner's views, other moorers, etc., and above all CRT, as the canal owner. They may well turn a blind eye, as they frequently do, or they may not. Most people would suggest just living quietly, and not causing any problem to anyone, and hopefully this will work. Don't tell the local authority you are there, as there will be no planning permission for residential, and they may want you to move. You certainly shouldn't get yourself on to the electoral register at this mooring!

We are aiming to be there.....hope it all still goes ahead and isnt cancelled due to the weather.....does anyone know whereabouts visiting modern boats can moor btw?? The event in itself won't be affected by the weather - it will go ahead whatever. But the weather may affect (i) the number of visitors coming to see the 35 historic boats and 300 old vehicles, and (ii) actually how many of the vehicles turn up, as many old vehicles don't seem to venture out in the rain! Re mooring for boats not actually entered into the event, there's 3/4 mile of moorings (14 day) immediately below (to the north of) the Audlem flight, with convenient winding hole, or there may be some spaces between locks 11 and 12 (48 hour limit). This pound takes about nine boats. Otherwise, there's nowhere to moor on the flight, except for a few 48 hr spaces between locks 2 and 3. Mooring for 14 days is permitted above the flight (above lock 1), but this is a walk of a mile to the event. Hope this helps - any queries, ring organisers Audlem Mill on 01270 811059

Sorry, I should have said in my last post that the website is no longer in use. As I did say, ownership of the Guides has changed hands, and updating will follow later, but won't be available this year. Meanwhile, you can get 'hard' copies of the Guides from us at www.canalbookshop.co.uk, but the website and updates haven't been available since last year, and won't be for quite a while yet. Watch this space ... (though perhaps not till early next year!) Peter

I've been boating for 47 years, and can only think of a handful of occasions when a bow thruster might have been useful. That infrequency doesn't justify the space they take up, nor particularly the very significant cost (up to 5% of the cost of a boat). Grudgingly, I acknowledge that they might help get you into a lock or off the mud, or possibly when you're single handing and can't easily get to the front, but I don't think that skilled boaters really need one. What's wrong with a pole? I see bow thrusters regularly used to move aaway from an overnight mooring. That's just plain laziness - the traditional approach is to push the bows out, then the stern as you get on the boat. The damage that the thrust does to unprotected canal edges .... Rant over, but I'd rather spend the £3000 on something useful!

All the First Mate Guides are still available. However, ownership changed late last year, and updating online is not currently available. Having contacted the new publisher, we gather that some updating mechanism may be available by next season. None of the Guides has been updated this year, but again, updating is envisaged. Meanwhile, you can order any of the seven First Mate Guides at www.canalbookshop.co.uk, or call in to Audlem Mill on the Shroppie

Just to remind you that the Gathering of Historic Boasts at Audlem is on Sunday 29 July. There will be around 35 boats moored in the three bottom pounds of the Audlem flight. This number is 50% up on last year, and that was a superb event. Free entry, and there's also the benefit of nearly 300 old vehicles on the village playing field.

Whilst second hand books are obviously cheaper, it's worth noting if you can't get them,that many of Tom Rolt's books are still in print, and we have many of his titles in stock - together with several hundred other canal books, guides and maps. Please visit Audlem Mill on the Shroppie or go to www.canalbookshop.co.uk

I've got that edition too .... and I believe I'm right in saying that this particular bit of legislation has never been repealed, and I also believe that the penalty for throwing stones into what is now the Grand Union main line is still transportation. Might be a cheap way of visiting the rellies in Australia - though no return ticket is provided!

There are in fact quite a few types of guides.... Nicholsons - until recently, seven volumes, but now an extra one for the Broads. Very detailed, and lots of information. Probably more for the anorak, keen boater and CCer. Based on OS mapping, and well respected. Cover just about all BW waterways, plus some others. Pearsons - more user friendly than Nicholsons, with colour pictures and maps, but a little less information. Nine books, covering all the more poular waterways. Ideal for holiday trips. Geo and Heron maps - Geo produced over 20 excellent fold out maps, plus one of the whole system. Production stopped two years ago. Around half are now out of print, but may be found by ringing round shops. Heron (staffed by ex Geo people) have introduced half a dozen or so of the out of print titles, redrawn and updated. Many more will follow. Richlow guides are the best (and often the only) guides for the various waterways of the north east and Lincolnshire. They are regularly updated, and printed in small batches. Imray guides cover East Anglia - the Fenland waterways, Nene, Great Ouse and adjoining waterways. And we must not forget First Mate Guides - they're not maps or cruising guides as such, but provide the best information on facilities close to the canal, from pubs through vets to post offices and churches. Seven volumes. Hope you don't mind the plug - all these guides are available from www.canalbookshop.co.uk

Moorings are getting pretty tight, but you should find somewhere, even if there's a bit of a walk involved. The programme of events is at http://www.audlemfestival.com/whats-on.html, and also look at the village website www.audlem.org for more information of events and fringe activities. Attendance at all events is free, and this promises to be a superb few days of music and arts. Finally, pop into Audlem Mill and try and get a tune out of a didgeridoo. The best contestant will win a didgeridoo!

Has anyone got any contact details for Arnie Kinbrum? We've been a major retailer of the Guides for several years, but are running out, and need new supplies! Please leave details here, or ring 01270 811059. Thanks

As noted above, the RN had a submarine narrow boat for recruiting. It was part of a small fleet. They are all described in a book, Britannia Rules the Cut, by Andy Wood. This book explains how and why a miniature canal based fleet of two destroyers, a frigate and a submarine under the White Ensign came into being in the 1970s. Softback, the book is £5.00 plus postage, from CanalBookShop at Audlem Mill - http://www.canalbookshop.co.uk, then go to Boats & Craft in the menu. I remember seeing the boats in Little Venice, but didn't know the reason for their existence. Bit different from Jason's Trip, I thought!