Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Canal World is funded by our loyal members. Please feel free do donate to us by clicking here. Thank you 

erivers

Member
  • Content count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About erivers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,086 profile views
  1. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    No, only the motion to approve the third reading will be put to the House again on the 20th. If there is another (or repeat) objection it may be referred back several times before a debate is scheduled. (I assume that the date was intended to be TUESDAY 20th February, not Thursday as recorded).
  2. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    This morning in Parliament: Middle Level Bill - Third reading Well, that was clear!
  3. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    Clause 4, concerning arrangements with other authorities certainly needs some reconsideration. 4 Arrangements with other authorities (1) The Commissioners may enter into arrangements with any other authority which is authorised to require registration of vessels navigating any waterway under the jurisdiction of that authority for the purpose of coordinating― (a) the exercise of the functions conferred under this Act and under any navigation byelaws regarding the registration of vessels or the collection of charges; and (b) the exercise by that authority of any functions conferred on them regarding the registration of vessels or the collection of charges in respect of vessels of the same or a similar class or description. Given that the committee was given the following undertaking by the proposers: “We note the undertaking provided by the proposers that the power under this clause to exercise enforcement powers under the arrangements entered into with another authority will only be used in relation to the registration requirements that have effect in the Middle Level.” What place or purpose does sub clause (1) (b) have in the amended Bill?
  4. CRT Not To Get EA Navigations, Yet

    I agree. The provision in the Primary Legislation could be something as simple as requiring the Authority to "make reasonable provision of facilities suitable for the numbers and types of vessels registered to use the waterway".The definition of "reasonable" might then open up a whole new debate but at least the quid pro quo would be recognised to some extent. There is to some extent a saving grace in the important amendment suggested by the committee's counsel after hearing the petitioners that registration fees can only be spent on the navigation. At least there is the possibility that any "surplus" funds after general maintenance will be directed to improvements instead of being spent elsewhere.
  5. CRT Not To Get EA Navigations, Yet

    Read all of my bold! Moorings, particularly "visitor moorings" are an important recreational "navigation facility" and clearly would never be provided by an authority (or expected to be provided) where they could be a hindrance to navigation.
  6. CRT Not To Get EA Navigations, Yet

    Utter Rubbish. The EA Anglian waters have a STATUTORY PUBLIC RIGHT OF NAVIGATION. The fee is a Registration fee and although now prescribed under the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 was first introduced by the Water Resources Act 1963. To quote the Authority at the time "The Boat Registration Byelaws were made with the support of local boating organisations who wished some control to be exercised in the interests of all concerned and who welcomed the payment of registration charges as being the only means available for providing a small revenue for the maintenance and improvement of the navigation facilities."
  7. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    Nigel, you should now have a copy!
  8. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    Thanks Nigel for making clear that the power to remove vessels whose mooring constitutes a trespass is in now the Primary Legislation and thus a byelaw will not be needed. However, in the important clarification of the definition of "without lawful authority" within the Bill, have they not just created a further potential ambiguity over the "trespass" issue? Am I right that in civil law an action for trespass can only be taken by the owner or occupier of the land where the alleged trespass takes place? Does that not therefore inform the general meaning of "trespass"? Without the word being further defined with the Act, i.e. to include trespass to land not owned by the Commissioners, would not the MLC be unwise to rely on a much broader and unusual definition of "trespass" to remove vessels moored to land in private riparian ownership?
  9. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    Yes, I agree. But it's interesting to compare the relevant byelaw making powers of the Cam Conservators with those in the (current version of) Middle Level Bill. The relevant Cam Conservators powers are at Section 25(1) of the Cam Conservancy Act 1922: (a) For the regulation and management of the rivers and waters within the Cam Conservancy area and the navigation thereof and for the prevention of obstructions to such navigation. (b) For the regulation of vessels boats and other craft on the said rivers and waters and of traffic on the towing paths both on ordinary and on special occasions. The corresponding sections of the byelaw making powers in the Middle Level Bill are: (a) Regulating the use of the waterways by vessels, and the use of the banks of the waterways and any works, water control structures, facilities or services in or adjoining the waterways, including rules prescribing which vessels may enter such waterways. (b) Prescribing rules for navigation in the waterways ............. It is not clear (to me at least) how the primary legislation provisions in the Middle Level Bill differ significantly enough to over-ride the previously stated position that byelaws should not be created to protect individual landowners' interests ...
  10. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    When in 1993 the Cam Conservators sought a new byelaw, pursuant to their powers under the Cam Conservancy Act 1922, to prohibit trespassing upon the property of riparian owners by users of the river, they were told by the Home Office that "such a byelaw should not be created to protect individual landowners' interests because trespass is generally a matter for the civil law."
  11. Bridgewater permits and licenses

    The MSC Acts of 1900, 1904, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1936, 1945 and 1949 include no such provision. The MSC Act of 1919 authorises an increase in existing authorised MSC tolls by a specified amount but excludes the Bridgewater undertaking. The MSC Act of 1920 extending the provisions of the 1919 Act to the Bridgewater (but again only in respect existing authorised tolls). The Bridgewater had since 1913 been subject to a guaranteed minimum income by the Board of Trade and that subsidy was ended in 1920. The MSC Act of 1950 removed some of the provisions of the 1894 Tolls Order in relation to the Bridgewater (i.e. the existing authorised tolls). It further authorised the Secretary of State to make, by Statutory Instrument, an Order further amending the Bridgewater Rates. (I can find no evidence of any such order ever having been made.) The MSC Act of 1952 authorised an increase in existing Bridgewater tolls. The MSC Act of 1956 authorised an increase in MSC tolls but excluded the Bridgewater. The MSC Act of 1960 is well-known for its Section 9 which authorised removal of vessels (including from the Bridgewater) under clearly defined circumstances and subject to prescribed periods and forms of notice (excluding abandoned vessels). The MSC Act of 1962 contains nothing apparently relevant. The seven Harbour Revision Orders 1970 - 1992 contain nothing apparently relevant. But the 2012 Transfer of Undertaking Order does authorise the company to make byelaws including registration of vessels and other conditions (for use of the Bridgewater Canal) and "in the exercise of its statutory powers and duties in the Bridgewater Canal" to make charges. No such byelaws have ever been made and I have yet to identify any existing statutory powers for charges for pleasure vessels but I'm happy to pointed towards them if anyone knows better.
  12. Bridgewater permits and licenses

    That is inconsistent then with the Grand Junction Canal Act 1793 which has previously been quoted to compare wording. The GJC Act at S.74 does specifically authorise free use of pleasure boats and remove any possible ambiguity by the addition of the phrase "of pleasure or otherwise" to wording which is otherwise very similar to S.29 of the 1759 Bridgewater Act. But at Section 99 of the GJC Act is a specific authorisation for riparian owners to use pleasure boats free of charge (broadly similar to the section in the Bridgewater Act of 1766 to which Nigel has previously referred).
  13. Bridgewater permits and licenses

    But does Section 29 of the 1759 Act not provide the right for "all persons" to "navigate upon the said Cut or Canal" upon payment of such rates or duties as shall be demanded by the said Duke etc. "not exceeding the rate hereinafter mentioned". The "rate hereinafter mentioned" is restricted to charges for merchandise carried by vessels. Those charges are amended by the 1894 Tolls Order which still recites that nothing in its (new) schedule shall apply to pleasure boats or affect the tolls or charges, if any,which the Company are authorised to charge or make in respect of such boats under the provisions of any Act of Parliament. Bridgewater Canal Act 1759 Section 29 Provided always, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all persons whatsoever shall have free liberty to use with horses, cattle, and carriages the private roads and ways, and with boats or other vessels the navigable Cuts or sluices to be made by virtue of this act, for the purpose of conveying coal, stone, timber, and other goods, wares, merchandise and commodities whatsoever to or from the said Cut or Canal trenches or passages, and also to navigate upon the said Cut or Canal, trenches or passages, with any boats or vessels not exceeding thirty tons burthen, and to use the said wharfs or quays for loading and unloading coals and other goods, and the said towing-paths for haling and drawing such boats and vessels, upon payment of such rates or duties as shall be demanded by the said Duke, his heirs, or assigns, not exceeding the rate hereinafter mentioned.
  14. Bridgewater permits and licenses

    But there is no reason for the OP to "mount a legal challenge". It is for Peel to seek redress through the courts if the OP (or anyone else) refuses to pay. In the OP's case, Peel have refused all invitations to do just that and so there is no action to him to defend. Perhaps your "not willing to mount a challenge because he knows he is wrong" comment is in fact more applicable to Peel.
  15. Bridgewater permits and licenses

    As he is busy, I hope Nigel won't mind me answering Dave's request:
×