Jump to content

Slapton offside moorings-now private land


sirweste

Featured Posts

13 hours ago, Tuscan said:

As the Horton pound is often so shallow , we often moored just below the lock

The new bottom lock is nearly water tight, been full to overtopping this week.

 

But yes previously I would agree, I was unable to moor in the Horton pound and thus like you had to moor below the lock, or at the offside old permanent moorings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I do t think its concrete there, just piling

 

So its just hearsay then. 

 

I've the vaguest feeling Nigel once came up with some evidence of it existing on one waterway but it is by no means universal, and may well not be the case at Slapton.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Spelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I've the vaguest feeling Nigel once came up with some evidence of it existing on one waterway but it is by no means universal, and may well not be the case at Slapton.

 

I have no recollection of there being any evidence that canal companies ever had empowerment to compulsorily purchase land on both sides of any canal (though exceptions may exist). Invariably they were given powers to purchase land for ‘canal and towpath’ to a specified maximum width, and it was never in their interests to purchase a strip of land on the offside, or to narrow the canal element for the (then) purposeless ends of having an offside strip.

 

Many canal companies were in fact keen to minimise their land holdings, or to claim lack of exclusive ownership, because of the liability for rates – as established in many enabling Acts.

 

Numerous court cases arose during the 19thC where some such companies denied liability for ‘poor rates’ and tithes on the basis that they had insufficient exclusive occupation of lands to qualify for the rates. Some succeeded, some not. They would never have claimed ownership of any land surplus to their requirements, thus increasing the potential rates burden.

 

So called ‘ransom strips’ are a modern invention from the last years of BW, as they increasingly sought means of acquiring mooring control of the offside banks that had been prohibited under the enabling Acts, and sought to have such strips registered as in their ownership based purely on the fictional assertions of Mills & Co. In some places they will no doubt have succeeded in obtaining registration, though that will usually have been where the offside land had never been registered in the first place.

 

However, I have also heard of instances where farmers had been glad enough to concur in having such strips removed from their titles, upon being faced with potential charges and responsibilities alleged to be owed to BW if ownership was retained by the farmers.

 

This is a different issue from the ability of canal companies to purchase offside land beyond the limits for canal and towpath, in order to build wharves and the like. In those instances the compulsory empowerment usually specified area limits also, though the companies could naturally treat with owners on a purely voluntary basis, where the intention to make profitable use of offside land was seen as a justifiable incentive for the purchase. Such offside land ownership is naturally very localised of course, having nothing to do with any nominal, continuous canalside strip ownership.

 

Regardless, respecting the exhibited letter, if CaRT were registered with title to any claimed 'ransom strip' in the case in question, then Interguide Management Ltd would have no grounds for concern - or indeed any grounds for involvement at all - because nobody would be moored to their property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT have been very responsive and helpful with this.

 

They are "very aware" of the issue with the land there. Apparently the moorings are property of the trust up to a point, but there's an unresolved dispute as to where this 'point' is.

They also stated that [in general] they don't encourage offside mooring at all.

 

I wasn't aboard at the weekend really so haven't as yet moved. I think in conclusion that if you're not the type to fill the bank side with clutter, chairs, tools and general stuff then you're legally OK to moor here. It does seem like the Trust own a yard or three of from the water's edge, which is to where the permanent moorers used to keep gardens. So just tied up to the armco and walking to the boat is ok.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sirweste said:

It does seem like the Trust own a yard or three of from the water's edge, which is to where the permanent moorers used to keep gardens. So just tied up to the armco and walking to the boat is ok.

 

Easy enough to check online with the Land Registry if you wanted to be sure, cost £6 for title deed & Plan. If CaRT do have the bank registered to them, then you could forget about the letter you received. Or at least put it out of mind as a concern - just write back pointing out that it is nothing to do with them, enclosing a copy of the title.

 

https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/eservices/FindAProperty/view/QuickEnquiryInit.do?_ga=2.116602374.1411508985.1571673444-766559973.1551446333

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.