Jump to content

Developments at Castle Mill Stream, Oxford.


MoominPapa

Featured Posts

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 by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

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

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

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.