is a towpath a right of way? [in England]

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

I am a member of many wildlife organisations and can't think of a single case where they have wanted change to how land they don't own is used.  If the government was to gift the canals to say the RSPB there might (just might) be some pressure in some areas.

 

The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust blocked the restoration of the River Derwent to navigation.

The Montgomery Canal has annual boat movement number restrictions, enforced by CRT, as it is an SSSI.

When Aston Locks on the Montgomery were being restored, offline 'nature reserves' had to be created so that certain water plants could be relocated from the main navigation channel.

The previous owner of the Coombe Hill Canal dredged it sufficiently to operate a trip boat over its length, but through navigation onto the Severn was only prevented by a flood control sluice installed when the canal was disused. The canal was later acquired by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust who have stopped all navigation.

Need I go on?

[Jerra]

13 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust blocked the restoration of the River Derwent to navigation.

The Montgomery Canal has annual boat movement number restrictions, enforced by CRT, as it is an SSSI.

When Aston Locks on the Montgomery were being restored, offline 'nature reserves' had to be created so that certain water plants could be relocated from the main navigation channel.

The previous owner of the Coombe Hill Canal dredged it sufficiently to operate a trip boat over its length, but through navigation onto the Severn was only prevented by a flood control sluice installed when the canal was disused. The canal was later acquired by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust who have stopped all navigation.

Need I go on?

Yes because non of those match the situation with canals.

 

Yorks WT blocked restoration not insisted on changes made to a current situation

The same with the Montgomery canal that had been disused and was changes to status quo.

The same with the example of the Gloucs WT.

 

I am saying there is no example I have found where naturalist have said "we don't own this land you must stop what you are doing and return it to state X"

 

Your examples are all some land has been allowed to develop important natural communities and then somebody is wanting to destroy/change them.

 

There is from the nature/biodiversity position a massive difference, I suspect you will not agree.     Can you give an example where say canals (we are after all discussing canals) have say been told this is a fully functioning canal with no restrictions so now you must stop something e.g using it during March to June.

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Can you give an example where say canals (we are after all discussing canals) have say been told this is a fully functioning canal with no restrictions so now you must stop something e.g using it during March to June.

 

Leeds & Liverpool and the Rochdale ...

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Leeds & Liverpool and the Rochdale ...

But... But ..... thats not a fully functioning canal ....................

 

Its just an 'occasional canal'

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Leeds & Liverpool and the Rochdale ...

What were boaters prevented from doing and by whom?

[Dave123]

On 19/11/2020 at 15:23, David Mack said:

 

The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust blocked the restoration of the River Derwent to navigation.

The Montgomery Canal has annual boat movement number restrictions, enforced by CRT, as it is an SSSI.

When Aston Locks on the Montgomery were being restored, offline 'nature reserves' had to be created so that certain water plants could be relocated from the main navigation channel.

The previous owner of the Coombe Hill Canal dredged it sufficiently to operate a trip boat over its length, but through navigation onto the Severn was only prevented by a flood control sluice installed when the canal was disused. The canal was later acquired by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust who have stopped all navigation.

Need I go on?

I think an argument for the opposite case could be made for canals currently in use; that they NEED regular boat movement for the wildlife. It keeps the water muddy which is the type of environment everything has adapted too. This was demonstrated by the spring lockdown causing excessive growth of non-native weed because the water had become clearer from lack of boats.

[peterboat]

On 19/11/2020 at 15:23, David Mack said:

 

The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust blocked the restoration of the River Derwent to navigation.

The Montgomery Canal has annual boat movement number restrictions, enforced by CRT, as it is an SSSI.

When Aston Locks on the Montgomery were being restored, offline 'nature reserves' had to be created so that certain water plants could be relocated from the main navigation channel.

The previous owner of the Coombe Hill Canal dredged it sufficiently to operate a trip boat over its length, but through navigation onto the Severn was only prevented by a flood control sluice installed when the canal was disused. The canal was later acquired by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust who have stopped all navigation.

Need I go on?

The trent end of the Chesterfield the other year was cleared of weed which upset the wildlife fanatics, I think it was one of clubs that hired a weed clearing boat to do it? Around their area and maybe a bit beyond.  I do know a couple of years ago CRT was doing it because I watched them 

[LadyG]

7 hours ago, peterboat said:

The trent end of the Chesterfield the other year was cleared of weed which upset the wildlife fanatics, I think it was one of clubs that hired a weed clearing boat to do it? Around their area and maybe a bit beyond.  I do know a couple of years ago CRT was doing it because I watched them 

Plenty of weed on the Chesterfield, very difficult to find a good mooring, just as well boats are few and far between, I'm probably aground every other day, so it's pretty shallow.

[Heartland]

There are some lengthy and complicated posts associated with this topic. Comments about cyclists relate to the behaviour of some cyclists and perhaps the inability to exact enforcement. It is just the same on the footpaths where there are penalities and equally a lack of enforcement. It is factors such as this that enable rogue cyclists to speed along the towpath with impunity, and sadly all cyclists are grouped together in this regard. 

 

With legislation, cycling on towpaths became a late aspect of canal affairs and the invention of the safety bicycle. In modern society there are the  quad bikes, e bikes and e scooters, which no doubt deserve further control.

 

With towpath improvement the benefits are for all, not for a specific group. Looking at the comments about footfall, the greatest erosion was caused by other factors. The lack of maintenance was once a factor and then the wash of powered boats was another. There were times  where walking certain lengths of path became impossible and the path ceased to exist.

 

Now with improvements, the path is a better place for leisure. Such improvements come with a joint responsibility for all that use them. For the waterway owner there is also a responsibilty and may be the option of temporary closing off sections of towpaths be considered to deal with issues of specific concern. Where speeding has been proved and has become a matter of concern, the introduction of a barrier at either end of the section, where walkers and boaters might only pass through, could be an option.