mayalld

Sutton is the smallest of the 4 reservoirs, and doesn't contribute much. Due to the much higher lockage at Bosley, Coombes and Toddbrook feed all the requirements for Marple Locks, and part of the requirements for Bosley (and the annual requirement to flood the recreation ground at Bollington)

I suspect that the point he was making was that there was no question that a lack of funds had led to a failure to properly maintain the reservoir

Actually, yes they do. Toddbrook reservoir was fine, perfect structural integrity, and would have remained fine, just so long as the emergency spillway wasn't running (and it is a rare event for it to run). Once the spillway ran, a small defect allowed running water to start to scour the outer face of the dam. That is a rapidly escalating situation, and as soon as the surface fails, it creates ever more opportunity for the water to cause damage.

In all probability, they will need to keep Toddbrook low, but not actually empty, and it is not the only reservoir for the pound.

Decennial inspections are carried out by an independent assessor, because the law requires it. And probably a good thing too. It actually ensures that CRT cannot ignore serious defects. There will be a CRT principal asset inspection every year, and as he said somebody gives it a once over every couple of days. The issue that we see here is that there was probably nothing that even a decennial inspection would identify as a major issue with this structure. Until 2 days ago, it would probably have passed muster with an independent inspection. What we have is that an emergency spillway, which is almost never used, has clearly suffered a crack. It could be imperceptible, and because there is never any running water, nothing happens, there are no tell-tale stains of earth washing out. then a major amount of rain means that the spillway runs, and runs big-time. Water enters, and starts washing away the earth, and it deteriorates rapidly. In all likelihood, but for a freak storm, the next infrequent small overflow would have shown evidence of an incipient problem that would have been fixed. As it is, they are playing safe. It is true that the dam COULD collapse, but provided they get the water down so that the spillway doesn't run, it is near certain that it will be OK. They are dumping 7,000L/min, which isn't THAT fast (a lock is about 18,000L) into the Goyt, which is already pretty swollen. Closing the flights to boats give them options. They can probably run say 5,000L/min down Bosley, and dump into the Dane as well, which isn't going to swell the Goyt further. There is work that can be done to ensure that the Goyt isn't going to cause flooding downstream by cutting of the compensation flow into the Etherow (there is reservoir capacity at Longdendale to hold it back) I only know of 2 reservoirs on the Macc (Sutton and Bosley), and I believe they both still work. The longer term concern here as a boater is that they decide they can't afford to repair Toddbrook, and the capacity on the top pound is lost

Indeed. The term has long since been superseded by "Gareth"

If we accept the story that the NBTA are telling us, it is hard to see otherwise. CRT obtained a court order against Andrzej Szymanski in 2017. NBTA say that Andrzej Szymanski has had his boat seized, yet it appears that the boat has been licenced on the basis that somebody else owns it. CRT have limited grounds upon which they might refuse a licence, one of which is that they are "not satisfied" that the boat will be used bona fide for navigation. Clearly, this requires them to consider the probability of a boat being so used or not, and whether there is a prior history on non-compliance is a valid input to forming a view on that point. Representing that this is a different boat with a different owner so as to avoid that history being taken into account cannot be other than deception. It isn't just a change of name (from Tynesider to Solaris). This has been represented as being a different boat, and has been allocated a new registration number (525309 rather than 524113), and a different owner, who appears not to actually have any interest in the boat. The question is "Would CRT have issued a licence if it was represented that Andrzej Szymanski wished to licence 524113 Tynesider on the basis of having no home mooring?" If the answer is "no", then this is deception.

So, having been ordered to remove the vessel, he brought it back with a new name, and a change of ownership that doesn't reflect any change in who is using the boat. That does rather look like a deliberate attempt to return the vessel to the canal in defiance of the order by stealth. I don't think that he can rely on the issue of a licence based on deception for anything.

I think there is very much a suggestion that somebody failed to control their dogs such that the incident took place, and it is extremely likely that they have thereby committed a criminal offence.

As I read it, the lock belonged to The Duke, but was still a part of the Rochdale Canal. So the junction is at the foot of Lock 92

I will have to check the price and report back

There are petrol stations that sell red diesel. I know that I go to one on the way to work (Wentworth Business Park Roundabout, Barnsley J35 of the M1)

Which is, of course, a very silly question indeed. It is sensible, to avoid diesel bug, to top the tank up regularly. so after a weekend out, we top up (say 15l in a 250l tank) During a fortnight out, we would usually top up after a week (perhaps 60l), then top up again with 60l at the end. So, let us look at a leisure boater who does 10 weekend trips early in the year, a fortnight away, then another 10 weekends. At the end of Year 1, almost 17% of the diesel in the tank is still red. At the end of Year 2, the tank is still nearly 3% red

Those who object to being tracked can have a Parliamentary licence at £5k instead. It's all about choice init!

The baton twirlers could just get one of my parliamentary licences, pay the 5 grand and do what they want. The majority of their acolytes would soon realise that there were other options available that cost less, and jump ship.

It is, as you say, very possible. Basically, such a scheme might work (at a technical, legal, level) as follows; The starting point is to consider what "a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left" actually means in practice. Clearly, this phrase includes a mooring that one pays CRT or a private provider for, and equally clearly (keeping in mind the powers of a legal person) CRT's right to charge for such a mooring derives from s43 of the Transport Act 1962. We know that some marina groups offer reciprocal moorings in their other marinas, and it seems obvious that this too meets the criteria. By extension, a body that has a lot of mooring spots (such as CRT) could (for a price) grant permissions to occupy them. Indeed they already do grant just that permission for no fee for casual mooring. So, what you do is offer two kinds of licence; Standard Licence under s17(3)(c)(i) - the clause under which licences are issued to moorers at present. Such licences cost much the same as now, and come with a requirement for some kind of mooring. That could be a traditional mooring, or it could be a roving permit, which sets prices based upon how long you want to moor on particular bits of the system. 28 days on the Macc over the year, free, 56 days, £1000 and so on Parliamentary Licence under s17(3)(c)(ii) - the clause under which CCers are licenced at present. Such licences would cost "a lot of money". So, the right to a CCer licence, and to argue the toss about interpretation would exist, but if you are charging somebody £5k to indulge his barrack room lawyering, then CRT won't care. Real (and not-so-real) CCers would have a range of cruising options available to them, at a price that reflects whether they are really CCing or just bridge hopping, and the shorter the cruising range, the more a licence costs. Moorings are available at a reasonable price. They may not be EXACTLY where the boater wants them to be.

Indeed. Basically, we have an Act that is designed to make lawyers rich by its vagueness. Each person will take a line on it that suits what THEY want it to say. So, the person who wants to remain in a 10 mile stretch for ever will adopt a very literal interpretation of the bits that can be measured directly "without remaining in one place", and ignore the bits that are a question of degree "bona fide for navigation". The person who finds it difficult to get a good mooring whilst on holiday because the same boats shuttle back and forth between the desired spots will concentrate on "satisfies the board" as a view that the law appoints an arbiter of questions of degree. Clearly, neither is wholly right. One cannot say "I have only been moored here for 13 days, I am allowed", and disregard the other words. The other words must bring some function. Equally, "the board" cannot be unreasonable in what it requires to be "satisfied" The reason that this is in the law is very instructive in my view. People lobbied because the way they used the canals made it unreasonable for them to have a home mooring. They were moving all the time to different places. That was accepted. However their argument wasn't that there are loads of free moorings on the bank in the local area, so they would just use those. neither was their argument that they didn't want to pay. I take a view (and it is of course a view that counts for nothing in law) that if your cruising pattern is such that you are permanently within a days travel of a central point, then the argument about it being unreasonable to have a mooring don't apply to you. In the end, CRT do have the option of bringing in an increased charge for CCers. That would be a blunt instrument. The CMers would get a mooring, because trundling back and forth isn't worth it if you have to pay. The genuine CCers would be hit in the pocket, having done nothing to deserve such action.

Of course you can get agreement to cut through the bank. Marinas do it all the time, and pay an annual fee to CRT. Whilst they don't have jurisdiction outside their waters, the Network Access Agreement will specify that boats must be licenced. Little-used canals are still CRT canals unnavigable canals are often still CRT canals Rivers are subject to riparian rights, so no fee to CRT. non-CRT canals are subject to different rules. Lifting Operations over CRT waterways have to be with their consent.

Indeed so. Of course, the prosecution for criminal damage to the banks of their canal would be somewhat irksome, and the fact that they came along the next week and sealed your new arm off from the canal. It has been done before.

True, but nobody actually moors at Romiley. There are a few boats on the top pound of the Macc and PF that do say Romiley, so if the OP is heading that way, will almost certainly pass the owners boat along the way.

No they don't. They may SAY that they come from the hosting company, but I could say that I'm calling from Buck House.

And you would assert that people insisted upon falling off Marple Aqueduct? Do you have stats on the number of people in the 200 years that it was unfenced? Of those, how many would have been prevented by the fence that has been erected? How many will fall off in the next 200 years as the fence induces people to jump the channel because it is now "safe"

Failed paddle should only take one day

Was still fenced yesterday. Will drive up later!

I understand that I was having my nappy changed