Autherley Junction Towpath Closure?

[MartinC]

The words is that BW are going to allow Napton Narrowbots to close off the towpath in front of their yard, at Autherley Junction, out of working hours. Can anyone confirm this and, if it is correct, has there been any consultation by BW?

 

Martin

[andyB]

I too have read this. One gate will be at the bridge, the other at the end of their premises. The gates will not be able to be opened with a BW key.

This also places the stop lock in the new 'secure' compound.

 

Andy.

[fender]

I too have read this. One gate will be at the bridge, the other at the end of their premises. The gates will not be able to be opened with a BW key.

This also places the stop lock in the new 'secure' compound.

 

Andy.

 

This is flying about on other forums. what i've read are of course questions about operating the stop gates when the Napton boats base is shut. There doesnt seem to have been any consultation. The concern is that this is setting a precedent where other hire companies and other waterway based businesses operate from the towpath side could well be able to follow suit.

[DHutch]

For me, having read the postings on canal-list and not yet much more, the biggest issue is that its a third party key and not a bwb one.

- Its a sad state of mind that causes any fore of gate/lock to be nessary at all. However, be that the case it seam only reasonable that the locks be able to be opened by boaters/licence holders at all times. And also that the gates be designed with horseboats in mind.

 

 

Daniel

[MartinClark]

- Its a sad state of mind that causes any form of gate/lock to be necessary at all. However, be that the case it seems only reasonable that the locks be able to be opened by boaters/licence holders at all times. And also that the gates be designed with horseboats in mind.

Daniel

 

And not just horseboats, Daniel - anyone who has ever had to bow-haul a boat will appreciate that what's good for the horse-drawn boat is also good for the bow-hauler!

[Maverick]

Passed thru ther about 6 weeks back. had to pull in to walk down and open the lock. Cant see how closing the towpath with a gate each end would stop me doing exactly the same so whats the problem to us boaters?

 

Surely it will just stop pedestrians from entering the premises grounds not us on boats or am I missing something?

[MartinC]

Passed thru ther about 6 weeks back. had to pull in to walk down and open the lock. Cant see how closing the towpath with a gate each end would stop me doing exactly the same so whats the problem to us boaters?

 

Surely it will just stop pedestrians from entering the premises grounds not us on boats or am I missing something?

 

 

Afraid you are. If I want to stop people going in to my garden, I put up a fence between the garden and the path,

I don't put gates on the path.

 

Towpaths are a valuable linear recreation area for the general public as well as boaters.

[tobytimothy]

I would have thought that a the towpath in question would qualify as a public right of way and as such any gates/fences would be in breach of the law. It is quite apparent that the public have had regular use of this area for over the 20years nessecary under the Rights of Way Act. This fact was reinforced by the Ramblers Associations success in the case heard in the House of Lords in 1999 (As detailed on their website here;

 

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/footpaths/footpathnews.html

 

In fact I think they would be interested in this proposed BW action.

[Yoda]

It could be a way of stopping the 'rights of way' being started. perhaps a precurser of selling land off. Lots of 'security' reasons end up with being a cover for other activities.

[Maverick]

Afraid you are. If I want to stop people going in to my garden, I put up a fence between the garden and the path,

I don't put gates on the path.

 

Towpaths are a valuable linear recreation area for the general public as well as boaters.

 

If your fighting the corner of pedestrians and the rites to use the towpath then I understand where your coming from Martin.

 

But I repeat it will have no impact on me or many other boaters who just stop to get thru the lock so speaking as a boater who just wants passage thru, I couldn't care less if they put a gate at each end or not.

[grahoom]

looking at the OS map for there, the tow path indicates that it is

 

Footpaths and bridleways along which landowners have permitted public

use but which are not rights of way. The agreement may be withdrawn.

Edited October 1, 2007 by grahoom

[Postcode]

If they intend to close off the towpath from their land out-of hours that appears to be perfectly feasible without closing the towpath.

 

If you look at google earth 52-36-58-34N and 02-08-49-50W you will see a fence from the bridge and connecting their buildings would not close the towpath.

 

A fence at either end of the buildings would not serve any useful purpose since there is access from the park across the lock and their land would still be accessible by boat.

 

Dave

[Maverick]

If they intend to close off the towpath from their land out-of hours that appears to be perfectly feasible without closing the towpath.

 

If you look at google earth 52-36-58-34N and 02-08-49-50W you will see a fence from the bridge and connecting their buildings would not close the towpath.

 

A fence at either end of the buildings would not serve any useful purpose since there is access from the park across the lock and their land would still be accessible by boat.

 

Dave

 

Thats my point Dave. Their land would still be accessible to boaters. If Martins beef is losing access for pedestrians then maybe this post should be on the ramblers association forum where I'm sure he would have no shortage of support.

[Maffi]

For me, having read the postings on canal-list and not yet much more, the biggest issue is that its a third party key and not a bwb one.

- Its a sad state of mind that causes any fore of gate/lock to be nessary at all. However, be that the case it seam only reasonable that the locks be able to be opened by boaters/licence holders at all times. And also that the gates be designed with horseboats in mind.

Daniel

 

 

I maybe wrong but surely horses are not allowed on the towpath except where specifically authorised by BW eg areas where horse drawn boats are allowed to operate.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Maffi

[MartinClark]

I would have thought that a the towpath in question would qualify as a public right of way and as such any gates/fences would be in breach of the law. It is quite apparent that the public have had regular use of this area for over the 20years nessecary under the Rights of Way Act. This fact was reinforced by the Ramblers Associations success in the case heard in the House of Lords in 1999 (As detailed on their website here;

You misunderstand what rights of way are. The towpath in question is not a public right of way. Most towpaths are not public rights of way. Indeed, in the past members of the public were not allowed to go onto the towpath to stretch their legs. In more recent years the public is permitted, even encouraged, to walk along towpaths, but they are permissive footpaths - not right of way. This means that BW can close them at short notice, for example when repairing a lock or wall, without having to go through complicated legal procedures.

I maybe wrong but surely horses are not allowed on the towpath except where specifically authorised by BW eg areas where horse drawn boats are allowed to operate.

Horse riding is not allowed on any towpath, unless that towpath is also a public bridle way (and there are a few like that).Boat horses, on the other hand, are allowed - as the towpath was put there for boathorses, but these days horseboating can only be done with the permission of the local BW authorities. For example, when Sue Day took "Maria" from Manchester to London in 2000 she had to arrange consent with all the BW areas she passed though.

[Scotty]

If it's BW property then i'd have thought a BW key would make sense?

 

I don't know the area, but looking at the image below, if they put a gate on this site of the bridge then there appears to be plenty of room to pass the gate on a boat and then get off to operate the lock.

 

 

[tobytimothy]

You misunderstand what rights of way are. The towpath in question is not a public right of way. Most towpaths are not public rights of way. Indeed, in the past members of the public were not allowed to go onto the towpath to stretch their legs. In more recent years the public is permitted, even encouraged, to walk along towpaths, but they are permissive footpaths - not right of way. This means that BW can close them at short notice, for example when repairing a lock or wall, without having to go through complicated legal procedures.Horse riding is not allowed on any towpath, unless that towpath is also a public bridle way (and there are a few like that).Boat horses, on the other hand, are allowed - as the towpath was put there for boathorses, but these days horseboating can only be done with the permission of the local BW authorities. For example, when Sue Day took "Maria" from Manchester to London in 2000 she had to arrange consent with all the BW areas she passed though.

 

I DID NOT misunderstand what public rights of way are. I DID NOT say the towpath was a right of way, I was actually suggesting that the towpath could qualify as a right of way! I did not make those comments based on little knowledge of the subject, but as someone who dealt with Rights Of Way professionally for over 20years and HAS READ the legislation & also successfully dealt with these matters in court! In fact in one case winning an action over a right of way AGAINST BW!!!!!!

 

I would suggest you would do better if you sourced the facts first, BEFORE making assumptions!!

[StephenA]

Of course if Vandals want to get in then unless the fence and gate is at the far end of the lock (i.e. by Napton's buildings) then they will simply climb down from the bridge onto the lock side, walk across the lock, carry out what they intend to do and then climb back over the bridge wall.

 

A simple gate will stop walkers, it will stop fishermen, it will stop someone walking down the towpath and deciding, on the spur of the moment, to vandalise something. It will NOT stop a determined criminal.

[MartinClark]

I DID NOT misunderstand what public rights of way are. I DID NOT say the towpath was a right of way, I was actually suggesting that the towpath could qualify as a right of way! I did not make those comments based on little knowledge of the subject, but as someone who dealt with Rights Of Way professionally for over 20years and HAS READ the legislation & also successfully dealt with these matters in court! In fact in one case winning an action over a right of way AGAINST BW!!!!!!

 

I would suggest you would do better if you sourced the facts first, BEFORE making assumptions!!

 

Okay, sorry to have accused you of misunderstanding rights of way. Clearly you don't. The assumptions I made were based on misunderstanding what you wrote.

 

You said that it was "apparent that the public have had regular use of this area for over the 20years necessary under the Rights of Way Act" (the evidence required to prove that a right of way is still in use), from which I made the assumption that you were saying that, because the towpath had been used freely for 20 years, this meant the towpath was therefore by default a public right of way. Reading it again, perhaps you meant that, because it had been used freely for 20 years, it should now be re-designated as a right of way?

 

As you will know, the 20 year rule does not mean that anywhere the public have been able to use for 20 years should automatically become a public right of way. Think of places like railway stations, bus stations, parks, etc. where the public is allowed to walk over private land. There could indeed be advantages in making the towpath a PRoW, but there could also be disadvantages.

 

As a footpath expert I am sure you are familiar with permissive footpaths, where (and this is for the benefit of other readers) there is not a right to walk along a path over private land but the landowner permits people to do so.

 

I think there is a good argument for towpaths being permissive paths rather than PRoWs, as that gives BW more flexibility to temporarily close a towpath to carry out work, just as long as they don't over-do things and shut paths unnecessarily. Arguably, allowing a non-BW locked gate across a towpath is overdoing things!

 

I know you didn't say the towpath was a right of way. I emphasised the fact that it was not so because several posters had suggested that this issue was about rights of way. Apologies if you took that to be directed at you.

 

Let's not get into a row about this, as I assume we are on the same "side"!

[tobytimothy]

Okay, sorry to have accused you of misunderstanding rights of way. Clearly you don't. The assumptions I made were based on misunderstanding what you wrote.

 

You said that it was "apparent that the public have had regular use of this area for over the 20years necessary under the Rights of Way Act" (the evidence required to prove that a right of way is still in use), from which I made the assumption that you were saying that, because the towpath had been used freely for 20 years, this meant the towpath was therefore by default a public right of way. Reading it again, perhaps you meant that, because it had been used freely for 20 years, it should now be re-designated as a right of way?

 

As you will know, the 20 year rule does not mean that anywhere the public have been able to use for 20 years should automatically become a public right of way. Think of places like railway stations, bus stations, parks, etc. where the public is allowed to walk over private land. There could indeed be advantages in making the towpath a PRoW, but there could also be disadvantages.

 

As a footpath expert I am sure you are familiar with permissive footpaths, where (and this is for the benefit of other readers) there is not a right to walk along a path over private land but the landowner permits people to do so.

 

I think there is a good argument for towpaths being permissive paths rather than PRoWs, as that gives BW more flexibility to temporarily close a towpath to carry out work, just as long as they don't over-do things and shut paths unnecessarily. Arguably, allowing a non-BW locked gate across a towpath is overdoing things!

 

I know you didn't say the towpath was a right of way. I emphasised the fact that it was not so because several posters had suggested that this issue was about rights of way. Apologies if you took that to be directed at you.

 

Let's not get into a row about this, as I assume we are on the same "side"!

 

Thankyou for having the courtesy to apologise over the misunderstanding. I agree, I hope we are on the same side over this issue. Generally I am concerned that something like this could end up being the thin edge of the wedge. If this action proceeds and is allowed to stay like is being suggested for sufficient time, then BW could infact prevent public access to the land permanently. This could of course include boaters. In turn the circumstances could be used by BW to support similar action in other parts of the country where the action would be considered more serious.

 

BW do not own ALL the land over which the canal network passes, in some parts they only have right of use over the land as the land remained in the original landowners possession. It is sometimes nessecary to refer to the original documents agreed upon at the time when the particular canal was instigated to determine who owns what and what rights exist.

 

I do not have an issue with BW trying to alleviate hooligan issues across the network, in fact I support them. However I am against, any action that could affect the use and enjoyment of the network by the thousands of well behaved users irrespective of whether they are boaters, fisherpersons or walkers. (High speed motorbike & Quad riders excluded)

 

I would have thought that there are other ways that the issue could be dealt with, without the need of putting up gates with non std BW keys.

[carlt]

BW do not own ALL the land over which the canal network passes, in some parts they only have right of use over the land as the land remained in the original landowners possession. It is sometimes nessecary to refer to the original documents agreed upon at the time when the particular canal was instigated to determine who owns what and what rights exist.

Just a quick point. BW do not own any land. They are the govt. dept. with the delegated responsibility of managing public property.

[tobytimothy]

Thats correct of course, but in posting items on this site I choose to use terms any layperson would understand rather than using complex legal jargon they may have difficulty following. To give you an example, your quote "They are the govt. dept. with the delegated responsibility of managing public property" implies they are THE govt. dept who manage public property, but in truth they are only one of the many organisations who carry out that role. This is why I try to stick to simple terms which most would understand. Sometimes it would automatically be assumed that BW "manage certain land surrounding the canals" because it is considered public property when as I was trying to point out some of that land is NOT public property and therefore BW has no control over it whatsoever. Inspite of what they themselves may believe.

Edited October 2, 2007 by tobytimothy

[howardang]

Thats correct of course, but in posting items on this site I choose to use terms any layperson would understand rather than using complex legal jargon they may have difficulty following. To give you an example, your quote "They are the govt. dept. with the delegated responsibility of managing public property" implies they are THE govt. dept who manage public property, but in truth they are only one of the many organisations who carry out that role. This is why I try to stick to simple terms which most would understand. Sometimes it would automatically be assumed that BW "manage certain land surrounding the canals" because it is considered public property when as I was trying to point out some of that land is NOT public property and therefore BW has no control over it whatsoever. Inspite of what they themselves may believe.

On behalf of all the simpletons who read these postings I am most grateful for your consideration in not using those nasty big words.

 

Howard Anguish

[carlt]

Thats correct of course, but in posting items on this site I choose to use terms any layperson would understand rather than using complex legal jargon they may have difficulty following. To give you an example, your quote "They are the govt. dept. with the delegated responsibility of managing public property" implies they are THE govt. dept who manage public property, but in truth they are only one of the many organisations who carry out that role. This is why I try to stick to simple terms which most would understand. Sometimes it would automatically be assumed that BW "manage certain land surrounding the canals" because it is considered public property when as I was trying to point out some of that land is NOT public property and therefore BW has no control over it whatsoever. Inspite of what they themselves may believe.

Blimey

When I posted that comment I thought "he's gonna accuse me of nit-picking." but I'm a mere amateur, I see, now.

 

I am not sure that, inadvertently, suggesting that BW are responsible for all public property (hands up who thought I was saying that) is using "complex legal jargon" btw (by the way).

Edited October 2, 2007 by carlt

[tobytimothy]

Blimey

When I posted that comment I thought "he's gonna accuse me of nit-picking." but I'm a mere amateur, I see, now.

 

I am not sure that, inadvertently, suggesting that BW are responsible for all public property (hands up who thought I was saying that) is using "complex legal jargon" btw (by the way).

 

Thats what I was pointing out Carlt, when you start getting that specific (as when getting into legal matters) every word you use has to been 100% accurate otherwise you are likely to dig a big hole for yourself. This is why I normally use straightforward phraseology when posting. An example of this was when I originally posted the comment about BW owned land. You chose to pick me up on that requiring comments to be much more specific. All I did in my last post was to indicate that going down that route was an example of going legal jargonise, something I was trying to avoid. I simply used your own words to illustrate where you can end up.

 

I would not want to see this forum end up where everybody gets picked up on every word that is considered not to be 100% accurate, particularly when their general postings are quite clear over the point they were trying to make. Why not keep it simple, isn't that better than nit-picking.