Is this a good idea?

[Midnight]

Currently doing the rounds on Faceache. A petition to ask the Government to designate the canal system as a National Park. I live in the NYMNP but apart from stricter planning laws and rights of way stuff, I can't see if this would be an advantage for the waterways. Any thoughts?

"The government recently announced the search for a new National Park. We believe our canal network offers a green space throughout the country that should be preserved as a National Park for future generations."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652357?fbclid=IwAR2bwSHDhc2Iv7fzsAsoEXzpnIXqvD0MdDn0aujA5r-3YmL4vvy_1igbQX8

 

 

 

Edited January 7 by Midnight

[Rob-M]

I feel it would make repairs more costly and more time consuming as I am sure it would add additional rules and more people in any process.  There are already enough hoops to jump through to get the simplest bits of maintenance completed.

[Jon57]

4 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Currently doing the rounds on Faceache. A petition to ask the Government to designate the canal system as a National Park. I live in the NYMNP but apart from stricter planning laws and rights of way stuff, I can't see if this would be an advantage for the waterways. Any thoughts?

"The government recently announced the search for a new National Park. We believe our canal network offers a green space throughout the country that should be preserved as a National Park for future generations."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652357?fbclid=IwAR2bwSHDhc2Iv7fzsAsoEXzpnIXqvD0MdDn0aujA5r-3YmL4vvy_1igbQX8

 

 

 

Yep don't let CRT contractors cut the grass and trees 🌴😁

[magnetman]

Parks have fences around them. 

[Arthur Marshall]

33 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Parks have fences around them. 

I don't think the Lake District does... not all of it, anyway. Some nice walls, though.

[ditchcrawler]

Thing of the National Trust Park remit, Navigation would be no where near the fop. Even the Norfolk Broads had the sense to see that, that is not a National Park although they like to say they are, its just part of the NT family. This was specifically to protect the Navigation side  otherwise the creepy crawlies and weeds have more rights than the boats. See this from the Norfolk Broads Forum

 

• 
• Full Members
• •  14.7k
• Location: Oulton Broad

 

Posted February 20, 2018

I have been in correspondence with the Council For National Parks. I won't bother you with the debate but I have now received confirmation that the Broads is NOT a national park!!!!

Dear Mr Waller

 

You are of course right, it isn’t a Park but for shorthand we, and others, refer to it as being part of the National Parks family. Apologies. I appreciate the decision by the Broads Authority to refer to it as a Park was and is controversial.

 

As you say, there is no legal boundary of the Broads NP as it isn’t a National Park as set out in the 1949 Act. But there is a legal boundary to the Broads and the protections set out in the 1988 legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework apply to it.

Edited January 7 by ditchcrawler

[Tonka]

53 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Parks have fences around them. 

Eryri doesn't 

[magnetman]

National Trust is interesting. 

 

The river Wey is a whole nother experience. Essentially it is simply a canalised river but it is managed completely differently. Of course it helps that it doesn't go anywhere but is interesting. And expensive last time we were on there about 6 yars ago 40ftx9ft Boat it was about £100 for a week. 

 

CRT would love to charge that and they manage vastly more waterway infrastructure. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7 by magnetman
typo and unitended complex philosophical argument

[ditchcrawler]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

National Trust is interesting. 

 

The river Wey is a whole nother experience. Essentially it is simply a canalised river but it is managed completely differently. Of course it helps that it doesn't go anywhere but is interesting. And expensive last time we were on there about 6 yars ago 40ftx9ft Boat it was about £100 for a week. 

 

CRT would love to charge that and they manage vastly more waterway infrastructure. 

 

 

 

 

It would be £52 to visit the canals for a week 

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Parks have fences around them. 

Many National Parks don't!

 

23 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Eryri doesn't 

Nor Bannau Brycheiniog or Pembrokeshire Coast NP

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

It would be £52 to visit the canals for a week 

Interesting. So about half as much for 50 times more available waterway. 

 

 

River Wey 20 miles. 

 

CRT network 1,000 miles ? Maybe more

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Interesting. So about half as much for 50 times more available waterway. 

 

 

River Wey 20 miles. 

 

CRT network 1,000 miles ? Maybe more

Can you do a1000 in a week in a 40 foot boat ?

[magnetman]

One would have to be a continuous cruiser. 

Only offering weekly licences would be quite an interesting approach. Auto renew unless you do something Bad. 

 

 

That'd keep people on their toes. 

[Bee]

The South Stratford from Lapworth to Stratford was NT for a while, I think they were glad to get rid of it to BWB, The NT are not set up to handle a whole canal network. I very much doubt that they are behind this idea and would be horrified if this landed on their plate, I'm afraid this is CRT's baby and the success or failure is, like the NHS, or the state of the roads entirely dependent on how much funding comes from central govt. and every tax cut means a funding cut.

[dmr]

It would be good if this would stop the endless building of canalside housing estates and other inappropriate developments, but I suspect it wouldn't.

I also half remember that CRT looked at this option and rejected it.

[ditchcrawler]

45 minutes ago, Bee said:

The South Stratford from Lapworth to Stratford was NT for a while, I think they were glad to get rid of it to BWB, The NT are not set up to handle a whole canal network. I very much doubt that they are behind this idea and would be horrified if this landed on their plate, I'm afraid this is CRT's baby and the success or failure is, like the NHS, or the state of the roads entirely dependent on how much funding comes from central govt. and every tax cut means a funding cut.

 

 

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Thing of the National Trust remit, Navigation would be no where near the fop. Even the Norfolk Broads had the sense to see that, that is not a National Park although they like to say they are, its just part of the NT family. This was specifically to protect the Navigation side  otherwise the creepy crawlies and weeds have more rights than the boats. See this from the Norfolk Broads Forum

 

• 
• Full Members
• •  14.7k
• Location: Oulton Broad

 

Posted February 20, 2018

I have been in correspondence with the Council For National Parks. I won't bother you with the debate but I have now received confirmation that the Broads is NOT a national park!!!!

Dear Mr Waller

 

You are of course right, it isn’t a Park but for shorthand we, and others, refer to it as being part of the National Parks family. Apologies. I appreciate the decision by the Broads Authority to refer to it as a Park was and is controversial.

 

As you say, there is no legal boundary of the Broads NP as it isn’t a National Park as set out in the 1949 Act. But there is a legal boundary to the Broads and the protections set out in the 1988 legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework apply to it.

I should have said National Park remit, not National Trust

[Jerra]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Parks have fences around them. 

I hadn't noticed the fence round the Lake District National Park.

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Jerra said:

I hadn't noticed the fence round the Lake District National Park.

 

And is there much boating on the lakes? I've never been to look. 

 

Under what terms if there is? Do they allow CCing for example?

 

 

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

And is there much boating on the lakes? I've never been to look. 

 

Under what terms if there is? Do they allow CCing for example?

 

Most lakes (well the ones that aren't reservoirs) have boating.  There are speed limits to prevent waterskiing 10mph on all lakes.

 

What happens varies from Lake to lake.  Some you need to register boats with an engine some you need a permit.

 

The longest lake is 10.5 miles so CCing isn't really a possibility.

 

As far as I am aware nobody lives aboard, yes people do sleep in cruisers for a short while (remember the CO poisoning) but not for any length of time.

[Barneyp]

Not sure why people think CCing would be banned if the canal system received some kind of National Park status, loads of people live in NP's. 

NP status would highlight the fact the canals are a national asset for everyone to enjoy, which may cause problems for CMers who pile there stuff all over the towpath.

 

National Parks are meant to preserve the landscape, the canals are industrial heritage and boats definitely count as part of that landscape so NP status would be good for boaters.

 

National Park status would give the canals protection against development or being sold off, which would be a good thing as it would highlight the need for maintenance/funding which would put pressure on the government to provide that funding.

 

National Parks are separate from the National Trust, and are not just about environmental protection, people are encouraged to visit and use them, so this wouldn't lead to canals being closed to boats to "save the fish/plants/birds etc". Most canals are not great places for wildlife - because they are man made ditches full of rubbish - there are other places (including many non navigable rivers) that are a higher priority for ecological conservation.

[jam]

7 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't think the Lake District does... not all of it, anyway. Some nice walls, though.

Same goes for the Peak District National Park especially since the 1932 trespass protest

[Jerra]

11 hours ago, Barneyp said:

 

NP status would highlight the fact the canals are a national asset for everyone to enjoy, which may cause problems for CMers who pile there stuff all over the towpath.

Playing devil's advocate.  It may cause problems as well.

 

Making people think they have a right to do things as it "belongs to the nation".  The Lakes NP is owned by individuals, the NT etc.   They have, particularly since Covid, had great problems with rubbish.  Cheap tents used and then walked away from, cooking equipment abandoned, food waste, food packaging, excrement etc.

 

The culprits seem to think because of its national status there will be somebody paid to clear up after them.

[MtB]

17 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The culprits seem to think because of its national status there will be somebody paid to clear up after them.

 

A proportion of boaters already seem to think this.

 

 

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Playing devil's advocate.  It may cause problems as well.

 

Making people think they have a right to do things as it "belongs to the nation".  The Lakes NP is owned by individuals, the NT etc.   They have, particularly since Covid, had great problems with rubbish.  Cheap tents used and then walked away from, cooking equipment abandoned, food waste, food packaging, excrement etc.

 

The culprits seem to think because of its national status there will be somebody paid to clear up after them.

 

But is that anything to do with it being a NP or just some people being inconsiderate a*seholes wherever they go?

 

If it wasn't a NP but they still camped and crapped there, my suspicion is they'd behave exactly the same... 😞

Edited January 8 by IanD

[Pluto]

10 hours ago, jam said:

Same goes for the Peak District National Park especially since the 1932 trespass protest

Concern about trespass on canal property comes up in the minutes of the L&LC Co several times, going back at least to the 1860s. In 1911 there was a mass trespass of 600 people when the Company tried to close the footpath around Foulridge Lower Reservoir. The three 'ring leaders' were prosecuted. I have attached an 1891 notice which from the Bradford Archives includes trespass.