Jump to content

1968 Transport Act duty regarding Remainder waterways


magpie patrick

Featured Posts

Just looking for a steer if anyone actually knows...

 

The 1968 Transport Act categorised waterways as commercial, Cruiseway or Remainder (section 104), it is often said (and I;ve always understood) that "the remainder" under that section are to be maintained to the minimum level possible consistent with public safety and amenity. The duties for Commercial and Cruiseway waterways are defined in section 105 of the act, but I can't find anything to say the level of maintainance required (or not required) for "the remainder"

 

Anyone got any pointers?  

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that the whole point? The Act places certain named waterways into the categories of "the commercial waterways" and "the cruising waterways", with corresponding maintenance obligations, and the rest are not specifically categorised but simply included in the term "the remainder" - There are no designated "remainder waterways".

There is no duty at all under the Act to maintain the remainder waterways, for navigation, amenity or any other particular purpose.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/part/VII

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the government's financial woes, how long before they make additions to the "remainder"?

 

(3)The Minister [F5or, in the case of a waterway in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers] may by order transfer any waterway from one Part of the said Schedule 12 to the other Part, remove any waterway from either of those Parts or add to either of those Parts any inland waterway for the time being comprised in the undertaking of the Board [F6or Canal & River Trust] which is not for the time being a commercial waterway or a cruising waterway.

[F7(3A)Canal & River Trust may apply to the Minister for the making of an order under subsection (3).

(3B)In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (3), the Minister must have regard to the financial position of Canal & River Trust.]

 

PS Thanks for the link to the legislation.

Edited by jonesthenuke
Typo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Isn't that the whole point? The Act places certain named waterways into the categories of "the commercial waterways" and "the cruising waterways", with corresponding maintenance obligations, and the rest are not specifically categorised but simply included in the term "the remainder" - There are no designated "remainder waterways".

There is no duty at all under the Act to maintain the remainder waterways, for navigation, amenity or any other particular purpose.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/part/VII

 I get that, but where does the duty to maintain consistent with public safety and amenity come from? Is it a default setting that doesn't need to be specified? Is it supposition that's never been tested? Or is it a sub-section somewhere that I'm not finding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 I get that, but where does the duty to maintain consistent with public safety and amenity come from? Is it a default setting that doesn't need to be specified? Is it supposition that's never been tested?

Would that not be a Common Law requirement on BW, pre-existing the various  Acts? IANAL but I think that any owner of any undertaking has long been expected to ensure  public safety. 

 

Amenity may be more nuanced and depends on what 'amenity' is taken to mean. For instance: One might have thought that a towpath was in itself  an amenity, but BW were not permitted to spend public money on paths that were not public footpaths  except where it was a by product of an activity they were required to do.

N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

Isn't that the whole point? The Act places certain named waterways into the categories of "the commercial waterways" and "the cruising waterways", with corresponding maintenance obligations, and the rest are not specifically categorised but simply included in the term "the remainder" - There are no designated "remainder waterways".

There is no duty at all under the Act to maintain the remainder waterways, for navigation, amenity or any other particular purpose.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/part/VII

 

There may not be an official "designated list" of remainder waterways, but it's certainly possible to figure out which canals fall into this category by listing all the canals and crossing out all the ones designated as commercial or cruising.

 

This was discussed on other thread, the only significant remainder ones I could find today are the HNC and the Rochdale but I'm sure people can come up with others... 😉

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, IanD said:

This was discussed on other thread, the only significant remainder ones I could find today are the HNC and the Rochdale but I'm sure people can come up with others... 😉

 

These two waterways are still subject to being paid for by the appropriate local authorities, I am not sure of the details, but I seem to remember that the agreement which was reached for the Rochdale was that the Local authorities would pay some of the maintenance costs until 2050. Of course in Manchester City it is more complex as C&RT are only responsible for the water part, as the city council have the lease for the towpath.
I seem to think that the HVNC had a different structure for how it was funded, which is why the HCS still exist as they were part of the formula.

As to other canals I believe that there are a good number of waterways in the West Midlands which are still remaindered The Walsall canal springs to mind, as being one which is still open for navigation, and I believe receives LA support. Bradely locks is another which is currently closed, but subject to a campaign to re-open.
Then there is the problem of the Ridgeacre Branch, which is currently being ignored by all, as it is very heavy polluted, so would cost a mega fortune to dredge. I last used it was over 20 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:

.
Then there is the problem of the Ridgeacre Branch, which is currently being ignored by all, as it is very heavy polluted, so would cost a mega fortune to dredge. 

CRT and BW before them don't want people using it and stirring the pollution up and causing it to spread into the main line (a cruiseway) or anywhere else that they would actually like to dredge.  That does not seem unreasonable.

 

Since the unforrunate, but probably inevitable spine road scheme there is not much left anyway. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ian Mac said:

As to other canals I believe that there are a good number of waterways in the West Midlands which are still remaindered The Walsall canal springs to mind, as being one which is still open for navigation, and I believe receives LA support. Bradely locks is another which is currently closed, but subject to a campaign to re-open.

I think all of the BCN except the New Main Line and the Netherton Tunnel Branch and that part of the Dudley Canal from Windmill End to the Stourbridge Canal are remainder waterways.

 

1 hour ago, Ian Mac said:


Then there is the problem of the Ridgeacre Branch, which is currently being ignored by all, as it is very heavy polluted, so would cost a mega fortune to dredge. I last used it was over 20 years ago.

The Ridgeacre Branch is beyond the spine road, so permanently lost to all but portable craft. The section from Ryders Green Junction to the Spine road is part of the Wednesbury Old Canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s get the pedantry out of the way first. It’s not the Ridgacre branch. That was entirely beyond the point that the canal was severed by the Black Country spine road. It’s the original main line of Wednesbury Canal.

 

None of the northern reaches of the BCN were scheduled as cruising waterways in the original 1968 act. So unless there has been some legislative(??) change since then it is a remainder waterway. It’s also now physically un-navigable.

 

 

ETA - Dang, beaten to it by milliseconds by DM

 

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the legislation changed with the responsibilities of CRT?

And in addition to Commercial Waterways their seems to be a modern classification of waterways to take wide loads

 

And putting aside the pedantry referred to, since 1968 the canals have changed since then with restoration schemes, some mentioned where closed canals have been restored and now see reasonable traffic

 

 

 

Edited by Heartland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 1968 there has been a number of orders made by the Minister, adding waterways to the list of Cruiseways. The K&A is perhaps the largest, but there  are others. I dont think there have been any orders  adding to the list of Commercial canals, nor any reducing the list of Commercial waterways, but stand to be corrected.

 

N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/11/2022 at 17:52, IanD said:

 

There may not be an official "designated list" of remainder waterways, but it's certainly possible to figure out which canals fall into this category by listing all the canals and crossing out all the ones designated as commercial or cruising.

 

This was discussed on other thread, the only significant remainder ones I could find today are the HNC and the Rochdale but I'm sure people can come up with others... 😉

 

Probably also the Mont (though the legislation is ambiguous); the restored top of the Ripon; the L&L from Aintree to Eldonian Basin; and presumably the Ribble Link, Droitwich, and Liverpool Link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Heartland said:

Has the legislation changed with the responsibilities of CRT?

And in addition to Commercial Waterways their seems to be a modern classification of waterways to take wide loads

 

And putting aside the pedantry referred to, since 1968 the canals have changed since then with restoration schemes, some mentioned where closed canals have been restored and now see reasonable traffic

 

 

 

The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) order 2012 makes many changes to the two Transport Acts (62 & 68). Of particular relevance to this thread -

 

The minister now has to take into account CRT's financial position when making orders which change maintenance or classification of waterways.

 

CRT is given a enhanced statutory proposer power (this means that it can propose changes to maintenance or classification. BW did not have this power)

 

A schedule to the 1968 Act contains a list of waterways falling into the commercial and leisure catagories. This is amended when new waterways are added (e.g. the K&A). 

 

It has always struck me as useless adding to the schedule without stating a maintenance requirement ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The following link is to Schedule 12 of the Transport Act 1968 (as amended by subsequent legislation) -

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/schedule/12

 

If you look at the top you can see when the amendments were made.

 

What is the status of the South Stratford?

 

In 1980s and thereabouts, the possible loss of remainder waterways was a real concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BEngo said:

Since the unforrunate, but probably inevitable spine road scheme there is not much left anyway.

True, however there was(is) a winding hole at the top and a pub on the far side of the spine Rd. It made a nice destination.
I also remember the branch (WOC mainline) being dredged back in the late 80's
And Yes I know it is not technically the Ridgeacre now, but I am old enough to have boated on the Ridgeacre before we lost it, and old names stick.
I use to like around there when the eight locks pub was open, it was a nice place to spend the night.

 

I also note that contrary to what I thought, the Ashton & Lower Peak Forest are not now Cruising  waterways, which is interesting.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ogwr said:

The Caldon was changed from Remainder to Cruiseway to Hazelhurst?

I thought this happened when the Ashton & Lower Peak happened, however they are not in the list, so in practice it has not happened. Need to reread the canal press to see why we think this. Anyone any clues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT is given ah#n enhanced statutory proposer power (this means that it can propose changes to maintenance or classification. BW did not have this power)

 

Is this like, knowing the present trend, a case of the inmates in charge of the Asylum ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that the section of the Oxford Canal between Braunston and Napton Junctions is not included as a cruising waterway. So it must be a remainder!

Also interesting that Schedule 12 refers to the Birmingham and Fazeley extending from Farmers Bridge to Fradley, including the detached portion of the Coventry Canal between Huddlesford Junction (which should be Whittington) and Fradley.

Which all suggests the drafters of the Act weren't familiar with the finer points of waterway geography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers - as well as the obvious parts of the cruising network there are odd bits of canals such as the Swansea, Grantham and Manchester Bolton and Bury Canal and I was looking at how those might be required to be maintained - roughly, the answer seems to be that they are not. 

 

I am told that part of Lapal Tunnel is still in CRT ownership and therefore is a remainder waterway - as the section includes neither portal it is the only waterway in CRT ownership entirely underground!

Edited by magpie patrick
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.