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

[Orwellian]

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

But be careful as there were former 'remainder' waterways that have been reclassified to Cruising since 1968 so the original schedule is not wholly correct.

Here's a link to the amended Schedule 12 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/schedule/12

 

But despite it's claims it doesn't seem to take account of Schedule 2 of the British Waterways Act 1983.

[zenataomm]

As is regularly pointed out, Britain's Inland Waterways are nothing to do with housing associations. 
You wouldn't blame the closing of Post Office Counters for the lack of visitors to Cheddar Gorge because you once saw a pamphlet in one.

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

As is regularly pointed out, Britain's Inland Waterways are nothing to do with housing associations. 

 

Eh?

 

Plenty on here think CRT are a housing authority and frankly, when it comes to section 8-ing the piss-takers you'd be hard pressed to realise they are not a housing authority, given how hard they bend over backwards to swerve having to lift out when its liver board.

 

Jus' sayin'...

 

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

On 22/07/2023 at 14:30, IanD said:

<sigh> as has nobody -- but what has been said repeatedly is that the money was given on condition that the canal remained usable for navigation for <xx> years, which is hardly a surprising condition.

 

If CART either formally close it or reduce maintenance so it's effectively unusable, that's a clear breach of contract. Assuming that's what it said, which nobody has presented any proof of yet... 😉

Unusable by whom? If a canoe can go down it, it's by definition navigable. Doesn't have to be a hunk of steel with a heavy chunk of engine in the back. And any agreement would have been with BW, not CRT. And, of course, contract law only works in one direction - try telling your employer they can't change the terms of your contract whenever they like, then watch them laugh when you try it.

The majority of lottery funded projects, especially the millennium ones, have closed as money was given purely for capital expenditure with no provision for running costs. The canal restoration societies are, to coin a phrase, in the same boat.

As far as the housing thing goes, that's about the only new income stream available to CRT if they can work out how to monetise it.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Unusable by whom? If a canoe can go down it, it's by definition navigable. Doesn't have to be a hunk of steel with a heavy chunk of engine in the back.

 

 

There is a waterways Act that defines what sized vessels must be able to navigate each canal, and it is 'generally'a working NB size and not a canoe.

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

There is a waterways Act that defines what sized vessels must be able to navigate each canal, and it is 'generally'a working NB size and not a canoe.

 

True, but weren't all the more recently restored ones remaindered in the Frankel report and the 1968 Act?

 

Has anyone got copies of the actual  agreements for places like the Hudd narrow, or are we all jumping to conclusions about what they may contain?

[IanD]

3 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

True, but weren't all the more recently restored ones remaindered in the Frankel report and the 1968 Act?

 

Has anyone got copies of the actual  agreements for places like the Hudd narrow, or are we all jumping to conclusions about what they may contain?

Yes they're remaindered, but that wouldn't affect the terms of any donated funds, it would all be down to the terms of the funding.

 

If anyone has got copies of these that would be great, or any reports of the donation terms mentioning this would also do.

 

Several CWDF posters have said on several occasions that terms like this were in the contracts, I don't have any direct knowledge of this -- but it would be crazy not to put such terms in given that the purpose of the funding was to reopen the canals and then keep them open... 😉

[Tonka]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

There is a waterways Act that defines what sized vessels must be able to navigate each canal, and it is 'generally'a working NB size and not a canoe.

Has the law changed then because I am sure that it was a canoe going along the Stratford on Avon canal that stopped its abandonment

 

[TheBiscuits]

19 minutes ago, IanD said:

Yes they're remaindered, but that wouldn't affect the terms of any donated funds, it would all be down to the terms of the funding.

 

I think we're agreeing here - the remainder canals in the 1968 act didn't have any boat size requirements - or indeed any need to keep them open!

 

The T&C's in later restoration funding (if any) are the important information, but I've never seen them, just heard speculation on here.

[David Mack]

57 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Has the law changed then because I am sure that it was a canoe going along the Stratford on Avon canal that stopped its abandonment

 

But that was under earlier legislation. The Council sought a Warrant of Abandonment on the basis that the canal was unused, but campaigners produced a toll ticket which had been sold to permit a canoe to use the canal, demonstrating that the owners (DIWE? BWB? back then) had acknowledged that the canal was still in use.

[Stilllearning]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-66425863

The BBC website today is making the situation more visible to the wider public.

[Tonka]

10 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-66425863

The BBC website today is making the situation more visible to the wider public.

That is old news. The Daily Post had a similar article about the Llangollen Aqueduct closing due to lack of funding 3 weeks ago. We shall ignore the fact that the Llangollen takes water from the Dee all the way to the reservoir at Hurlston so as Crewe can have drinking water

[Stilllearning]

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

That is old news. The Daily Post had a similar article about the Llangollen Aqueduct closing due to lack of funding 3 weeks ago. We shall ignore the fact that the Llangollen takes water from the Dee all the way to the reservoir at Hurlston so as Crewe can have drinking water

(Tongue in cheek emoji), let's hope the people of Crewe are happy to pay for the upkeep of the canal then?

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

(Tongue in cheek emoji), let's hope the people of Crewe are happy to pay for the upkeep of the canal then?

They probably will but it does not have to have locks for them as a weir would be sufficient for the water

[Stilllearning]

2 hours ago, Tonka said:

They probably will but it does not have to have locks for them as a weir would be sufficient for the water

And a couple of aqueducts..   

[Tonka]

4 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

And a couple of aqueducts..   

Are you saying they do not need the aqueducts

[magnetman]

Is the aqueduct used for water transfer? Seems a bit unlikely given how much higher up it is than the river. 

 

 

[Stilllearning]

3 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Are you saying they do not need the aqueducts

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Tonka]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Is the aqueduct used for water transfer? Seems a bit unlikely given how much higher up it is than the river. 

 

 

Yes it is, how else does the water get across the river

14 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Your answer was very open so ii asked the question 

[magnetman]

I was forgetting the canal itself was fed by the river it goes over ! 

[ditchcrawler]

28 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Yes it is, how else does the water get across the river

 

A big pipe would work just as well and then a full width cycle track on top

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

A big pipe would work just as well and then a full width cycle track on top

But would need a handrail on the offside

[Arthur Marshall]

5 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I think we're agreeing here - the remainder canals in the 1968 act didn't have any boat size requirements - or indeed any need to keep them open!

 

The T&C's in later restoration funding (if any) are the important information, but I've never seen them, just heard speculation on here.

It doesn't really matter what's in the T&Cs, contracts or anything . If there isn't enough money, some canals will close to navigation permanently, rather like they did temporarily last year. You only get what you pay for, and nobody wants to pay for anything - it's always someone else's problem.

[tree monkey]

2 hours ago, Tonka said:

Are you saying they do not need the aqueducts

They can bypass the big one, there's a pumping station at the bottom of the valley 

 

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Is the aqueduct used for water transfer? Seems a bit unlikely given how much higher up it is than the river. 

 

 

Yup, from the horseshoe in falls in Llan all the way to Hurlston 

[ditchcrawler]

16 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

They can bypass the big one, there's a pumping station at the bottom of the valley 

 

Yup, from the horseshoe in falls in Llan all the way to Hurlston 

Down hill all the way so one long pipe would do it, going up and down