C&RT desperate for money ?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

A house owner was flabbergasted after she was billed more than £320 by canal chiefs because she has a back gate leading onto the towpath.

Emma McKenna moved into her home on Wharf Street in Rishton last year, and says she loves the convenience it gives her of being able to walk along the picturesque canal. She also loves to look at the ducks as they pass serenely by her garden.

 

But she was contacted out of the blue earlier in the summer by the Canal and River Trust, who have now billed her an admin charge, engineering call out fee, and annual rent for the gate access to their land.

Emma says the “petty” fees “don’t make any sense”, but the Trust say the cost to her property is higher than elsewhere due to health and safety reasons and because construction work has been carried out on the boundary of the property.

She said: “About a month ago we were first contacted. A man knocked on my door and said ‘who has told you you can have a gate?’

“He said ‘why would you want something so big for a vehicle?’ I said ‘it’s a flowerbed; what are you on about?’”

 

Emma, who lives with her partner, claims everyone else has got gates, but was told theirs was ‘too big’ - with the maximum allowed width 1.2 metres.

She says she has disabled one of the gates accordingly, reducing the size of the opening to exactly 1.2m. She has also changed the hinges so they are on her side of the gate, not the canal side.

 

he added: “I didn’t understand why I was being billed in the first place. I’ve asked the neighbours and none of them have paid.

“What’s it got to do with anybody? It seems really petty. Everybody on the street has got a gate. All the houses around at Church have got gates.

“There’s no way you can get any vehicles through, so I said I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

“I walk up and down the canal all the time. It’s just convenient and I walk the dog there.

“It’s nice when the gate is open and I can look at the ducks when they come past. It’s part of the reason why I bought a place on the canal.”

 

The Canal and River Trust say they have charged a “standard cost” for third party works engineer to attend the site to ensure that no damage has been done to the towpath through alteration works.

They say the landowner has agreed to these terms and conditions.

In a statement, the Trust said: “The Canal and River Trust charity cares for the beautiful Leeds and Liverpool Canal and nearly 2,000 miles of waterways across England and Wales and it is our duty, as guardians of the waterways, to make sure they are looked after, from a health and safety point of view, for the benefit of all the public.

“It is standard practice to require any third-party wanting access to our towpaths to enter into an agreement with our estates department.

“Unauthorised gates opening out onto a towpath could lead to all sorts of problems, including accidents with cyclists and walkers.

“This gate was constructed on our boundary land, without permission, and is right by a busy visitor boat mooring.

“We have met with the owner on site and had several conversations to try and find a way forward that recognises her new access onto the towpath and protects the towpath from any further encroachment or disruption in the future.

 

Home owner baffled at 'petty' £320 bill for being near a canal - LancsLive

[Tracy D'arth]

Homeowner will no be a friend of C&RT or be freely making contributions to the charity then, despite their wellbeing and mental health being improved due to living near water?

[David Mack]

There are lots of houses backing onto the towpath that have gates, and many more where the householder appears to have rebuilt the boundary wall/fence, and others where the householder trims the hedge between the garden and the towpath. Do CRT charge all these people? Do they even have a register showing where they all are? 

 

And what right do they have to charge if the householder has not signed a contract agreeing to the charge? And what do CRT do if the householder refuses to pay.

[Midnight]

Is there an extra charge for those houses adjacent to the towpath who display unofficial 'No Mooring' signs?

Asking for a friend

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Do CRT charge all these people?

 

From the article :

 

“I didn’t understand why I was being billed in the first place. I’ve asked the neighbours and none of them have paid."

[restlessnomad]

the headline seems different from what actually is in news.

seems they installed new gate / engaged in some one sided maintenance activity and them CRT had to work on the towpath to make it safe.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

Looks like the gate opens onto the towpath, and the houseowner has made is double width. Whacking those open could impede cyclists or walkers, if it does open outwards could knock someone off their bike. Be nice to have it wide, get a better view of the canal but I can see why CRT might be suspicious if it was wide enough for a car. And I suppose it depends on whose land the wall is on, and who has to maintain it.

[David Mack]

29 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

And I suppose it depends on whose land the wall is on, and who has to maintain it.

In general, when the canal was built it cut through land owned by others, so the canal companies would have to erect new boundary hedges or fences, which they would presumably then own. But I suppose it is a bit of a moot point whether, some 200+ years on that CRT, as successor to the canal companies, still owns the towpath boundary. I imagine in many cases they would have been been only too glad to shed the maintenance responsibilities to the adjacent landowners.

[dmr]

CRT are in a very difficult position. There are many many places where householders have captured a bit of towpath, and in some places a bit of the canal itself. In other places people have "adopted" and planted a bit of towpath even though it is not next to their property. The Incredible Edible team in Todmorden have really improved a dull bit of towpath.  Trouble is, like tagging and Graffiti, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I suspect than in some places either CRT or the council have financed and/or encouraged this "towpath gardening"

 

I am aware that CRT make a charge for newly installed gates. I assume many many existing gates get away with a sort of Grandfathers rights. I have not heard of an engineers visit before so assume the gate here was maybe a bit more than a typical gate.

 

...............Dave

[Idle Days]

Seems like an under exploited revenue stream just waiting to be tapped.  

[zenataomm]

And of course all of the offside fields that have been eroded away, allowing the cut to eat into farmers' land are seen everywhere.  I hear Waterways Estate's people are queuing up in farm yards with bags of dosh to force onto the victims.

Err, hang on a moment ...... did I make that up, or just dream it? No, neither!  I merely thought sauce for goose and gander applied.

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, dmr said:

 

I am aware that CRT make a charge for newly installed gates.

But what legal power do they have to charge?

[magpie patrick]

12 hours ago, Idle Days said:

Seems like an under exploited revenue stream just waiting to be tapped.  

Along with connection charges to the local highway authority whenever a footpath joins the towpath, and a charge to be able to see the canal from your bedroom window...  

 

10 hours ago, zenataomm said:

And of course all of the offside fields that have been eroded away, allowing the cut to eat into farmers' land are seen everywhere.  I hear Waterways Estate's people are queuing up in farm yards with bags of dosh to force onto the victims.

Err, hang on a moment ...... did I make that up, or just dream it? No, neither!  I merely thought sauce for goose and gander applied.

Quite... 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 hours ago, David Mack said:

But what legal power do they have to charge?

 

Doesn't one of the Waterway Acts give them the powers to charge for any services provided (mooring, water, bins etc etc ?) additional to boat licencing ?

[Tacet]

8 hours ago, David Mack said:

But what legal power do they have to charge?

Only contractually in the same way any owner might for allowing access on to its land.  If you don't take a licence (and pay for it) CRT can physically obstruct the gate or whatever. 

[Pluto]

9 hours ago, David Mack said:

But what legal power do they have to charge?

Charging for access to the towpath was standard before nationalisation, and continued for some time afterwards. I suspect it stopped because it cost more to collect that was paid. There were also payments for windows overlooking the canal if they were provided after the canal was built. It was all part of legal standards for land ownership. I am not sure if it is still in force, but there is plenty of archive documentation showing it existed, and legally.

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, David Mack said:

There are lots of houses backing onto the towpath that have gates, and many more where the householder appears to have rebuilt the boundary wall/fence, and others where the householder trims the hedge between the garden and the towpath. Do CRT charge all these people? Do they even have a register showing where they all are? 

 

And what right do they have to charge if the householder has not signed a contract agreeing to the charge? And what do CRT do if the householder refuses to pay.

Ask a certain marina near Loughborough!

[ditchcrawler]

16 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A house owner was flabbergasted after she was billed more than £320 by canal chiefs because she has a back gate leading onto the towpath.

Emma McKenna moved into her home on Wharf Street in Rishton last year, and says she loves the convenience it gives her of being able to walk along the picturesque canal. She also loves to look at the ducks as they pass serenely by her garden.

 

But she was contacted out of the blue earlier in the summer by the Canal and River Trust, who have now billed her an admin charge, engineering call out fee, and annual rent for the gate access to their land.

Emma says the “petty” fees “don’t make any sense”, but the Trust say the cost to her property is higher than elsewhere due to health and safety reasons and because construction work has been carried out on the boundary of the property.

She said: “About a month ago we were first contacted. A man knocked on my door and said ‘who has told you you can have a gate?’

“He said ‘why would you want something so big for a vehicle?’ I said ‘it’s a flowerbed; what are you on about?’”

 

Emma, who lives with her partner, claims everyone else has got gates, but was told theirs was ‘too big’ - with the maximum allowed width 1.2 metres.

She says she has disabled one of the gates accordingly, reducing the size of the opening to exactly 1.2m. She has also changed the hinges so they are on her side of the gate, not the canal side.

 

he added: “I didn’t understand why I was being billed in the first place. I’ve asked the neighbours and none of them have paid.

“What’s it got to do with anybody? It seems really petty. Everybody on the street has got a gate. All the houses around at Church have got gates.

“There’s no way you can get any vehicles through, so I said I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

“I walk up and down the canal all the time. It’s just convenient and I walk the dog there.

“It’s nice when the gate is open and I can look at the ducks when they come past. It’s part of the reason why I bought a place on the canal.”

 

The Canal and River Trust say they have charged a “standard cost” for third party works engineer to attend the site to ensure that no damage has been done to the towpath through alteration works.

They say the landowner has agreed to these terms and conditions.

In a statement, the Trust said: “The Canal and River Trust charity cares for the beautiful Leeds and Liverpool Canal and nearly 2,000 miles of waterways across England and Wales and it is our duty, as guardians of the waterways, to make sure they are looked after, from a health and safety point of view, for the benefit of all the public.

“It is standard practice to require any third-party wanting access to our towpaths to enter into an agreement with our estates department.

“Unauthorised gates opening out onto a towpath could lead to all sorts of problems, including accidents with cyclists and walkers.

“This gate was constructed on our boundary land, without permission, and is right by a busy visitor boat mooring.

“We have met with the owner on site and had several conversations to try and find a way forward that recognises her new access onto the towpath and protects the towpath from any further encroachment or disruption in the future.

 

Home owner baffled at 'petty' £320 bill for being near a canal - LancsLive

They were very luck that the national Trust doesn't own the towpath. They would probably have wanted a percentage of the value of the property

[ditchcrawler]

I wonder how much these people pay