Canals and River Trust: 'If we lose the canals, we are homeless'

[magnetman]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Except that would need an Act of Parliament...

 

Have you checked this? 

There was a suggestion on a previous thread that reclassification would only need secondary legislation in the form of an Order. 

[Alan de Enfield]

31 minutes ago, Paul C said:

And to correct a previously inaccurate point regarding reclassification/declassification, there is no such classification as "remainder waterway". There's (legally) commercial and cruiseway. If its a navigable CRT canal that's in neither of those, its de-facto "remaining" but its just a phrase, not a legal definition. So, maybe some of the outlying cruiseways will become declassified.

 

Correct, and any canals 'remaining' (remainder) from the list of canals once the commercial and crusing canals have been excluded are classed as 'watercourse / drainage ditches' not identified as suitable for navigation, and are categorised as 'vacant land' for planning permission definition.

 

1968 Transport Act

 

108.-(1) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, any inland waterway in England or Wales comprised in the undertaking of the Waterways Board which is not a commercial waterway or waterways. cruising waterway shall be deemed to be-

 

(a) a watercourse for the purposes of section 259 of the 1936 c. 49. Public Health Act 1936: and 

 

(b) a vacant site for the purposes of section 36 of the PART VII Town and Country Planning Act 1962 ; 

 

and the provisions of Part III of the said Act of 1936, as they apply by virtue of this subsection, may be enforced by a county council as well as by a local authority as defined in that Act, and any local authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1962 (and not only the local planning authority) shall be entitled to enforce the provisions of the said section 36 as it applies by virtue of this subsection.

 

 

Remember also that written in the 1968 Act is that the 'Board' have the right to retain, close, sell (dispose of the remainder waterways) as they wish.

 

..........a new obligation imposed on the Board to deal with all waterways not in the category either of Commercial or Cruising waterways, i.e. the remainder (termed for the sake of convenience the ‘Remainder waterways”) in the most economical manner e.g. either retention, elimination or disposal, as most appropriate.

 

 

Remember also that written in the 1968 Act is that the 'Board' have the right to retain, close, sell (dispose of the remainder waterways) as they wish.

 

..........a new obligation imposed on the Board to deal with all waterways not in the category either of Commercial or Cruising waterways, i.e. the remainder (termed for the sake of convenience the ‘Remainder waterways”) in the most economical manner e.g. either retention, elimination or disposal, as most appropriate.

 

The board has no requirement to maintain the 'remainder' (ie not a commercial or cruising canal covered by the undertaking) canals in a navigable condition

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Have you checked this? 

Ask @Alan de Enfield for confirmation... 😉

Edited July 21, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/889/contents

 

 

K&A reclassified via secondary legislation. 

"

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order)

Section 104 of the Transport Act 1968 provides for the inland waterways comprised in the undertaking of the British Waterways Board to be divided into three categories: commercial waterways as specified in Part 1 of Schedule 12 to that Act, cruising waterways as specified in Part 2 of that Schedule, and “the remainder”. Section 105 of the Act imposes on the Board a duty to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels, and to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft. Section 104(3) enables the Secretary of State by order to add to either of those Parts any inland waterway which is not a commercial waterway or a cruising waterway.

This Order replaces the existing entry in Part 2 of Schedule 12, which specifies the main navigable channel of the Kennet and Avon Canal as a cruising waterway, but only in respect of three sections of that canal. By virtue of the new entry, the main navigable channel of the entire Kennet and Avon Canal has the status of a cruising waterway.

An impact assessment has not been produced in respect of this Order, as it has no impact on the costs of business or the voluntary sector."

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/889/contents

 

 

K&A reclassified via secondary legislation. 

 

Certainly states that is an ORDER and not an ACT.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/889/contents

 

K&A reclassified via secondary legislation. 

 

You're correct, an Act of Parliament isn't needed to reclassify from "cruising" to "remainder", but government legislation (an Order) is and time needs to be found for this -- CART can't just decide it's something they want to do.

 

That doesn't help CART save money on canals which are already classed as "remainder" like the Rochdale and HNC though -- and IIRC the K&A has similar funding provisions which would have to be repaid if it was no longer fit for navigation or closed...

Edited July 21, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

removed duplicate

Edited July 21, 2023 by magnetman

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

You're correct, an Act of Parliament isn't needed to reclassify from "cruising" to "remainder",

 

 

But as I have shown above for a 'remainder canal' C&RT can do what they want with it.

 

Sell it

Give it away

Abandon it

Keep it

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

You're correct, an Act of Parliament isn't needed to reclassify from "cruising" to "remainder", but government legislation (an Order) is and time needs to be found for this -- CART can't just decide it's something they want to do.

 

That doesn't help CART save money on canals which are already classed as "remainder" like the Rochdale and HNC though...

I thought an Order was just a secretary of state signature. 

 

(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.]

[IanD]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But as I have shown above for a 'remainder canal' C&RT can do what they want with it.

 

Sell it

Give it away

Abandon it

Keep it

 

Yes they can, in theory -- but not in reality, which is what matters... 😉

 

But if that canal had been restored and this was paid for by bodies who did this on the condition that it stayed open -- like the K&A, Rochadale and HNC -- then CART would have to pay millions back.

 

Which would dwarf the maintenance savings, so they won't do it.

[magnetman]

 

 

As it has always been my pet theory that the K&A will close again in due course I idly wonder how complicated it would be in reality for the CRT to cause this outcome.

 

I've no idea but it seems interesting. 

Just now, IanD said:

 

...on the condition that it stayed open -- 

Are these legal contracts available for public view? 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I thought an Order was just a secretary of state signature. 

 

(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.]

Yes, but civil servants have to draft and review the documents, just like they did for the K&A reclassification. This takes time and effort, which are both in short supply so priorities matter.

 

It's a bit of a pointless argument anyway -- which canals could/would they do this on, and in reality what would they gain by doing it?

 

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

As it has always been my pet theory that the K&A will close again in due course I idly wonder how complicated it would be in reality for the CRT to cause this outcome.

 

I've no idea but it seems interesting. 

Are these legal contracts available for public view? 

 

They've certainly been quoted multiple times on CWDF, don't know if this was contracts or articles announcing what the terms of the funding were. Anybody got any references?

Edited July 21, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

But if that canal had been restored and this was paid for by bodies who did this on the condition that it stayed open -- like the K&A, Rochadale and HNC -- then CART would have to pay millions back.

 

You keep on saying this but I have never seen any evidence that this is true, or, that there is a minimum time before they do not have to pay anything back, or before the 'must remain open' clause expires

 

You are normally quite good providing supporting eidence for your claims but this just seems to be a repeat of heresay.

[Tonka]

1 hour ago, Heartland said:

Instead of building a battery factory in Somerset why not build it on the Griff Arm in Coventry and supply it entirely by canal boat with interchange sidings on the Coventry and Nuneaton line. 

 

 

they don't put logistic sites near a railway

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You keep on saying this but I have never seen any evidence that this is true, or, that there is a minimum time before they do not have to pay anything back, or before the 'must remain open' clause expires

 

You are normally quite good providing supporting eidence for your claims but this just seems to be a repeat of heresay.

 

Plus I would have thought that statute would over rule it anyway. 

 

The Law seems to say that the CRT are allowed to move canals from one status to another with secretary of state approval and there is even a section about the Trust's financial position. It really looks like if they claim impecuniosity they can make serious changes if the secretary of state approves. 

 

 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You keep on saying this but I have never seen any evidence that this is true, or, that there is a minimum time before they do not have to pay anything back, or before the 'must remain open' clause expires

 

You are normally quite good providing supporting eidence for your claims but this just seems to be a repeat of heresay.

 

As I said, I haven't seen any contracts, however these statements about grant conditions have come from multiple posters on CWDF on multiple occasions, and it seems unlikely that they're all wrong.

 

Maybe somebody with actual references can post them?

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, magnetman said:

 

Plus I would have thought that statute would over rule it anyway. 

 

The Law seems to say that the CRT are allowed to move canals from one status to another with secretary of state approval and there is even a section about the Trust's financial position. It really looks like if they claim impecuniosity they can make serious changes if the secretary of state approves. 

 

 

 

And also written into the BW - C&RT transfer agreement is a clause saying (something to the effect) "If C&RT cannot afford to maintain the canals they do not have to"

 

Cannot remember in which of the myriad of documents it is in.

[magnetman]

 

K&A reopened about 1995 so in less than 2 yars time it will be 30 yars. I wonder if 30 yars was the timescale in the agreements. 

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And also written into the BW - C&RT transfer agreement is a clause saying (something to the effect) "If C&RT cannot afford to maintain the canals they do not have to"

 

Cannot remember in which of the myriad of documents it is in.

I remember @nigelmoore (RIP) mentioning this. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

As I said, I haven't seen any contracts, however these statements about grant conditions have come from multiple posters on CWDF on multiple occasions, and it seems unlikely that they're all wrong.

 

That's the problem, one post gets repeatedly regurgitated  until it becomes 'gospel' this is why I get accused of Cut & Paste so often as I try and provide evidence of my statements.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Plus I would have thought that statute would over rule it anyway. 

 

The Law seems to say that the CRT are allowed to move canals from one status to another with secretary of state approval and there is even a section about the Trust's financial position. It really looks like if they claim impecuniosity they can make serious changes if the secretary of state approves. 

 

 

 

Statute can't override a contract in that way; if the government did that then the responsibility for repaying the money (assuming this was in a contract) would move from CART to the government, who would get sued instead.

 

If this wasn't the case nobody would ever fund something like this if the terms can be arbitrarily nullified in future by the stroke of a pen...

 

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That's the problem, one post gets repeatedly regurgitated  until it becomes 'gospel' this is why I get accused of Cut & Paste so often as I try and provide evidence of my statements.

 

So let's see if anyone can come up with any actual information.

 

I'd be surprised if it isn't correct, bodies don't give out tens of millions of pounds to do something like reopening a canal without some kind of guarantee that it won't just be closed a year later if somebody decides they don't like it any more...

Edited July 21, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

So let's see if anyone can come up with any actual information.

 

I'd be surprised if it isn't correct, bodies don't give out tens of millions of pounds to do something like reopening a canal without some kind of guarantee that it won't just be closed a year later if somebody decides they don't like it any more...

 

 

I agree, in all likelihood it is correct but maybe the required 25 years (?) has already elapsed.

Maybe it should cease to be repeated as 'fact' until some evidence emerges, or a 'rider' that this is the alleged situation but so far unproven.

[Paul C]

49 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

But as I have shown above for a 'remainder canal' C&RT can do what they want with it.

 

Sell it

Give it away

Abandon it

Keep it

 

Pragmatically speaking, the option to sell/give away would probably occur before the abandonment. There will be some local user group who can form a (smaller) charity of their own, to try run the canal in some sort of navigable (or just boat-floatable) condition. Of course, if it were to remain connected, there would be water supply and licensing issues derived from that, just as CRT canals connect currently to other waterways and reciprocal agreements exist etc.

 

Think of it as a 'decentralisation' than 'the end'.

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I agree, in all likelihood it is correct but maybe the required 25 years (?) has already elapsed.

Maybe it should cease to be repeated as 'fact' until some evidence emerges, or a 'rider' that this is the alleged situation but so far unproven.

 

IIRC 50 years was also mentioned -- but again, no hard facts to back this up...

 

If this is going to stop being repeated as fact, then the same should apply to claims that CART can easily close down canals to save money -- sauce for the goose etc... 😉

[Chris Lowe]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

I didn't say they were all to be used for housing. This would obviously be regional and you would find much higher density in urban areas for example. 

 

There are a lot of other uses which publicly owned land can be put to which don't include heavy boats and people living there because it is cheap. 

 

 

 

More likely a Sustrans super cycleway.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

If this is going to stop being repeated as fact, then the same should apply to claims that CART can easily close down canals to save money -- sauce for the goose etc... 😉

 

I have posted (a number of times) the written evidence that they can (remainder canals) it is even quoted in the ppost above yours.