MoominPapa Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 Looks like the creative ambiguity at Castle Mill Stream has come to an end, and the boats mooring there are going to have problems. From our agent in the Oxford area comes this photo. MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie patrick Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) This could get interesting.... First, I wonder on what basis Network Rail claim ownership of both sides - I'm not saying they don't as I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if they do - If they are claiming ownership of the western bank on the basis that their predecessors bought the land for the railway, it's more likely C&RT own the bank bewteen the canal and the stream (not that this improves things much) as successors to the Oxford Canal Company Second, there is a right of navigation on the stream - that's why there is a carefully crafted gap in the boom below Isis Lock, to allow small vessels though - this doesn't give a right to moor but it complicates enforcement Third, I wonder who put NR up to this? They normally can't be bothered about what goes on on land that is safely distant from their operations and of no value for development (which would describe the strip between the canal and the stream). Are they just covering themselves for the day Oxford City Council get nasty with the boaters? Edited to add - "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is a statement with no legal weight behind it at all, at least in England and Wales Edited February 13, 2019 by magpie patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mack Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 1 minute ago, magpie patrick said: Third, I wonder who put NR up to this? They normally can't be bothered about what goes on on land that is safely distant from their operations and of no value for development (which would describe the strip between the canal and the stream). Are they just covering themselves for the day Oxford City Council get nasty with the boaters? My reaction was to wonder why NR, if they do own the land, aren't seeking to monetise it by charging for mooring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty40s Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 Network Rail don't claim ownership, its a sign with the NR logo on it saying private property. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athy Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 20 minutes ago, matty40s said: Network Rail don't claim ownership, its a sign with the NR logo on it saying private property. ....from which we may infer that they think it's theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrsmelly Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 12 minutes ago, Athy said: ....from which we may infer that they think it's theirs. When I was a kid it used to say " OXO " on the sides of buses but they didnt sell em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayalld Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 hours ago, magpie patrick said: Edited to add - "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is a statement with no legal weight behind it at all, at least in England and Wales In general, this is true, but there are some limited circumstances in which trespass is a criminal offence, and trespass on railway property is one of those Section 16, Railway Regulation Act 1840 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie patrick Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 14 minutes ago, mayalld said: In general, this is true, but there are some limited circumstances in which trespass is a criminal offence, and trespass on railway property is one of those Section 16, Railway Regulation Act 1840 That's a moot point that would keep the lawyers busy - it doesn't say railway property, it says... or if any person shall wilfully trespass upon any railway, or any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith To me (and I have some experience) this doesn't mean anything the railway owns, it means anything connected with "the railway", which means what? If parliament had wanted to mean land owned by they could have said so, but presumably they saw the risk in all the adhoc bits of land that railways did (and still do) own. The distinction of "the railway" and "stations..." would suggest parliament meant the permanent way and associated works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Williams Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 Possibly something to do with the long-closed London & North Western Railway, they had extensive sidings and goods yard here. There was also a stone works of some sort back along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayalld Posted February 13, 2019 Report Share Posted February 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, magpie patrick said: That's a moot point that would keep the lawyers busy - it doesn't say railway property, it says... or if any person shall wilfully trespass upon any railway, or any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith To me (and I have some experience) this doesn't mean anything the railway owns, it means anything connected with "the railway", which means what? If parliament had wanted to mean land owned by they could have said so, but presumably they saw the risk in all the adhoc bits of land that railways did (and still do) own. The distinction of "the railway" and "stations..." would suggest parliament meant the permanent way and associated works. Lawyers need to eat too! I suspect that it would indeed be a moot point, but they would have a go to pile the pressure on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Davis Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 23 hours ago, magpie patrick said: This could get interesting.... First, I wonder on what basis Network Rail claim ownership of both sides - I'm not saying they don't as I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if they do - If they are claiming ownership of the western bank on the basis that their predecessors bought the land for the railway, it's more likely C&RT own the bank bewteen the canal and the stream (not that this improves things much) as successors to the Oxford Canal Company Second, there is a right of navigation on the stream - that's why there is a carefully crafted gap in the boom below Isis Lock, to allow small vessels though - this doesn't give a right to moor but it complicates enforcement Third, I wonder who put NR up to this? They normally can't be bothered about what goes on on land that is safely distant from their operations and of no value for development (which would describe the strip between the canal and the stream). Are they just covering themselves for the day Oxford City Council get nasty with the boaters? Edited to add - "Trespassers will be prosecuted" is a statement with no legal weight behind it at all, at least in England and Wales Can't answer the first bits, but in relation to the highlighted, trespass on Railway land has a lot more legal weight behind it than on other land, and is subject to Railway By-Laws which carry much higher penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now