Jump to content

Orwellian

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    378

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Orwellian

  2. More C&RT Dishonesty?

    in General Boating

    Posted

    So Ovo offered more for what was not for sale. That you know the unsuccessful bidder is immaterial. Auction is regularly used by charities to ensure they receive proper value

    9 minutes ago, peterboat said:

    Yes Ovo offered them the 2. Odd million for the straddle to expand into, they wanted the water below it as well. So it went to auction along with the arches and made just over 1 million. I know the owner of OVO and the sale is public reco

     

  3. More C&RT Dishonesty?

    in General Boating

    Posted

    2 hours ago, peterboat said:

    Clearly you haven't read about the sale of the straddle and arches in Victoria quays? They had an offer for the straddle at 2. something million but in the end sold it for half that 

    Can you provide any evidence to support that comment?

  5. Countryfile

    in General Boating

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

    That's as may be, but I suspect the government will get in anyway. And it won't be much bothered about a failing canal system, being, as usual, more concerned with sorting out well paid employment for when it gets kicked out again.

    The government always gets in Arthur.

  6. Countryfile

    in General Boating

    Posted

    The fundamental issue is that those who were running BWB prior to 2012 campaigned successfully to become a charity independent of Government which they considered to be an improvement. The 15 year grant was consideted to be much better than the annual deficit grant it replaced. The trustees at the time resolved that they could take on the waterways on that basis. They made a virtue of being free from government 'constraints'. Now they complain about it and are campaigning for it to continue. They made a huge error.

    • Greenie 1

  7. Countryfile

    in General Boating

    Posted · Edited by Orwellian
    correct spelling

    11 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

    Part of justification for BW becoming a charity was the efficiences it could acheive by change of legal status ...

     

    There is a basic difference between CRT and councils in that reduction and elimination of funding was agreed between the parties informally at the outset.

     

     

     

    The DEFRA objective of eventually removing public (ie government) financial support was contained in a formal signed Memorandum of Understanding completed alongside the statutory transfer and grant agreements. See Annex 8 in attached.

    Canal-rivers-MOU.pdf

  11. Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended

    in General Boating

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

    The key words that this section applies to are “Services and facilities”. However a licence is neither a service nor a facility, it is a statutory right assuming the conditions are met. It does for example allow CRT to attach conditions and charges to eg the use of a water point or elsan. It might stretch to the use of a lock. But it certainly doesn’t encompass the licensing process which arises out of statute and is not a service or facility. 

    If you had read the whole of sec 43 a little further you would have come across the following -

     

    "(8) The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board [F17and Canal & River Trust], the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat."

     

    Is that clear enough for you?

     

     

    • Greenie 2

  12. Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended

    in General Boating

    Posted

    20 minutes ago, nicknorman said:


    As I understand it from people much cleverer than me, one cannot attach conditions to something laid down in statute. So their attempt at applying Ts and Cs is illegal and therefore void.

    No doubt it would have to go to court by as we know, CRT have never allowed it to go to court, they have always backed down beforehand (at the last minute, when the claimant has had the maximum expenditure on legal fees). And that surely tells you all you need to know.

    .

    I think you are overlooking sec 43 of the Transport Act 1962 which gave BWB (and by statutory transfer) CRT the right to make charges and apply terms & conditions to the use of vessels on their waterways. This provision was not repealed by the 1995 Act which therefore only added aditional provisions to the issuing a boat licences rather than replacing those made in previous acts of parliament.

    • Greenie 2

  18. Incident with bridge keeper-Licence suspended

    in General Boating

    Posted

    Looks like CRT have invoked clause 12.3 of their T&Cs viz:-

     

     

    12.3. If You repeatedly breach these Conditions, fail to pay for the Licence or We reasonably believe that there is serious risk to people's health and safety, or of damage to any property or pollution, We may do one of the following: 12.3.1. immediately suspend Your Licence. We will investigate to decide whether the breach can be put right. Whilst Your Licence is suspended You may not use the Boat to navigate on Our Waterways. The Boat must remain moored where We tell You whilst We investigate.  We will tell You when and if the Boat can leave this mooring location.  You may move the Boat before We complete Our investigation if You remove it from Our Waterways; or 12.3.2. terminate Your Licence immediately. This can happen if We decide the breach cannot be put right. We will also terminate the Licence when the number of repeated breaches is unreasonable and/or likely to risk the health and safety of others. We will not refund any suspension period or remaining licence period if the Licence is terminated under this Condition 12.3.

    • Greenie 3

  22. Government CRT funding statement

    in Waterways News & Press

    Posted

    18 minutes ago, David Mack said:

    BW/CRT inherited the Tees from the development corporation which built the Tees barrage back in the 80s/90s. I assume that with the development corporation being wound up they needed to hand over the barrage and lock to a successor body with some knowledge of navigation structures. 

    Similar reasons behind the handing to BW of Liverpool's southern docks and London's West India Docks when their respective development corporations were wound up.

    In the case of the Tees and Liverpool Docks the development corporations that created them invited bids from relevant organisations to take them over in exchange for a financial dowry to cover future maintenance costs. My understanding is that in both cases British Waterways were successful because they required the lowest dowry. Both are regulated by their own unique statutory regimes and not the ones that apply to the main CRT network.

  23. Government CRT funding statement

    in Waterways News & Press

    Posted

    Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

     

     

    But on the Witham (as it is a drainage ditch) you need permission from the EA to build a mooring or to do anything that might affect the flow and drainage capability.

    It was the EA that, a few years ago, did all the flood defence work on the Witham, raising the height of the banks using clay sourced from South Kyme Golf Course.

    Agreed. The river navigations do have overlapping responsibilities. Basically CRT navigation EA drainage and flood prevention. For some dual purpose structures responsibilities can be allocated by agreement between the parties.

×
×
  • 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.