Our British Waterways - Private Property?

[Malarky]

I don't know about the actual canal, but certainly much of the towpath was not owned by BWB, but they had "permissory access", a couple of years ago they registered a lot of this at the land registry as theirs. They are thieves.

[Tim Lewis]

I don't know about the actual canal, but certainly much of the towpath was not owned by BWB, but they had "permissory access", a couple of years ago they registered a lot of this at the land registry as theirs. They are thieves.

 

I was under the impression that it was the public that had permissary access as most towpaths are not public rights of way.

 

Tim

[Guest]

I was told in a telephone conversation with a moorings officer that a mooring which appeared to be vacant, was not available, and when asked to justify this statement I was told that it was private land and it was up to BW what they used it for. Clearly it is up to them to 'manage' it in whatever way they see fit, but I took issue with the description of it being private land which, as has been said, has a specific legal connotation.

 

So that's a total of 2 occasions then what about the several others??

 

 

Nor do I, but railway goods yards and station platforms are not generally directly accessible from the road - they have fences and signs stating that access is restricted.

 

I was talking about the principal of parking on such land - I could have referred to land which is often accessible than runs along side railways.

 

 

Maybe you've never been in a Court room?

 

Or maybe in fact I have.

[Guest steve jenkin]

just tell the BW guy to f off if he gives you grief, they only pick on what they consider to be easy targets, if they come across a guy with tatoos or a hard stare, they tend to avoid, have watched em do it.

[Boatgypsy]

just tell the BW guy to f off if he gives you grief, they only pick on what they consider to be easy targets, if they come across a guy with tatoos or a hard stare, they tend to avoid, have watched em do it.

The two instances I quoted have both happened to me. Other instances are anecdotal as they have been reported to me by friends and aquaintances who have had similar things happen to them. I fail to see the relevance of my reporting them all again verbatim. The issue is whether or not it is becoming apparent that BW are now considering public property as private property.

 

Level crossings aside, I'm not sure that the HSE would be too happy if there were places where you could drive onto land adjacent to rail lines. But it's a nonsensical comparison. Apart from trainspotters, who would want to? There is also an issue of contravention of the Railways Act 1993. However, a piece of land that is effectively a car park with access to the canal and adjacent to the road is very likely to be used by the public to park and walk the canal.

 

I don't think that anyone can reasonable argue that the public do not have unfettered access to the canal system, with the exception of specific sites, such as offices and work sites, where safety is an issue. But I repeat, again, my point is about BW considering public property as "their" private property.

 

I shall have to get that spider web tattoo on my face and start practicing me best hard stare!

[magpie patrick]

The comparison with railways is spurious, at the time of nationalisation there was a lot of head scratching over "rights of way" (I don't mean legal rights, which is a different matter). At the time it was decided that railways were "private" rights of way, only available to the operator, whereas canals were "public" rights of way, available to anyone who paid the appropriate toll and fulfilled the legal requirements. Although the legal "right of way" disappeared to a large extent with the 1968 Transport act the concept above still applies in general terms, and BW are supposed to manage the waterways for the users who have paid their tolls and complied with the rules.

[Malarky]

I was under the impression that it was the public that had permissary access as most towpaths are not public rights of way.

 

Tim

 

So I suppose that you assumed that it was BWB that grants the permission rather than have been granted permission. The begginning if the cycle that ends us with us public that grant the permission being marginalised from our land, and BWB extending the bank into the canal to confuse the surveyable proof, even if we did have the resorces to stand up to them and their punters on our own.

 

It's a shame as this has dammed any potential of getting the locks widened and killed the chance of most land owners next to the canal being able liase with or trust BWB. I believe a lot of those bonuses were hush money to stop knowledge of this theft getting out, and to use the canal to manipulate water levels to enable all the property development that has hit the flood plains over the years, on previously cheep land.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Malarky

[magpie patrick]

So I suppose that you assumed that it was BWB that grants the permission rather than have been granted permission. The begginning if the cycle that ends us with us public that grant the permission being marginalised from our land, and BWB extending the bank into the canal to confuse the surveyable proof, even if we did have the resorces to stand up to them and their punters on our own.

 

It's a shame as this has dammed any potential of getting the locks widened and killed the chance of most land owners next to the canal being able liase with or trust BWB. I believe a lot of those bonuses were hush money to stop knowledge of this theft getting out, and to use the canal to manipulate water levels to enable all the property development that has hit the flood plains over the years, on previously cheep land.

 

Malarky,

 

for the non towpath side there are issues, but unless you are thinking of rivers rather than canals I don't know where you get the idea that the towpath is not BW's property (assuming it's BW's canal). The only time a canal towpath wouldn't be BW property is where it is also part of a highway, which happens occassionally (although even then the highway may be BW's, adopted highways are "maintainable at the public expense" and are not necessarily owned by the highway authority) and they are generally protected from becoming rights of way by the enabling legislation that allowed the canal to be built.

[Albatross]

BW is a publicly owned organisation.

 

What's theirs is ours.

 

See my post, no3.

[carlt]

See my post, no3.

I've seen it and it is irrelevant.

 

The public has free access to the vast majority of the inland waterways and is unfettered by issues of health and safety or national security, unlike your examples.

[Malarky]

Malarky,

 

for the non towpath side there are issues, but unless you are thinking of rivers rather than canals I don't know where you get the idea that the towpath is not BW's property (assuming it's BW's canal). The only time a canal towpath wouldn't be BW property is where it is also part of a highway, which happens occassionally (although even then the highway may be BW's, adopted highways are "maintainable at the public expense" and are not necessarily owned by the highway authority) and they are generally protected from becoming rights of way by the enabling legislation that allowed the canal to be built.

 

This happens in areas where the towpath moves to the other side, then becomes part of school playing fields, village greens, allotments etc. and people are given permissory access to use the opposite side to traverse from the towpath and back onto it. Effectively in these instances BWB no longer own either side!

Obviously, as you can see, this can cause problems with holding onto the rights of use as people find it hard to believe!

[David Schweizer]

There is a great deal of confusion being spread about here between Publicly owned property and Publicly accesible property.

 

The Waterways system managed by BW is Publicly owned, but apart from the crews of licenced boats, the general public do not have an automatic right of access to most of the towpath which comes within the Legal catagory of "Permitted Access", not "Public Right of Way". This means that the owners/Managers of the towpath allow the public to have access, but can deny that access without giving any notice or reason.

 

There are some exceptions where the towpath has been designated a Public Right of Way, which cannot be removed without due legal process, and there are also some sections where the local Authority or Voluntary organizations such as Sustrans have entered into an agreement to permit full public access (usually involving some joint funding) The rest of the towpath can only be used by the public at the will of BW, which is how thay managed to close all the system with immediate effect during the Foot and Mouth epidemic, wheras Local Authorities had to make a Legal application to the Courts before they could close the Public Footpaths.

 

When I was a Lad, one could purchase a Towpath Walking Licence for 1/6d or a Towpath Cycling Licence for 5/-. and they were sold by the GU towpath Warden John Williams, who patrolled his patch on a 150cc BSA Bantam.

Edited July 21, 2009 by David Schweizer

[magpie patrick]

This happens in areas where the towpath moves to the other side, then becomes part of school playing fields, village greens, allotments etc. and people are given permissory access to use the opposite side to traverse from the towpath and back onto it. Effectively in these instances BWB no longer own either side!

Obviously, as you can see, this can cause problems with holding onto the rights of use as people find it hard to believe!

 

 

That's an interesting scenario but how often does it happen? If the towpath is the "wrong" side for any distance then you'll get to a bridge and won't be able to get under it.

 

I don't know the entire system (sadly) but I'm struggling to come up with too many locations of this type

[Albatross]

I've seen it and it is irrelevant.

 

The public has free access to the vast majority of the inland waterways and is unfettered by issues of health and safety or national security, unlike your examples.

so ??

[carlt]

so ??

What do you mean "so?" I was answering your question.

 

BW is a publicly owned organisation managing publicly owned property, on which the public are pretty much free to wander, unlike all your examples, therefore....

 

Just because something is owned by the Govenment and therefore the people of the country doesn't mean you are free to wander all over it.

Be it a railway line, a naval dockyard, a canal, or Stonehenge etc.

 

So??

Edited July 21, 2009 by carlt

[Malarky]

That's an interesting scenario but how often does it happen? If the towpath is the "wrong" side for any distance then you'll get to a bridge and won't be able to get under it.

 

I don't know the entire system (sadly) but I'm struggling to come up with too many locations of this type

 

This is how you get over, then you used to return at St Edds bridge further south.

[NB Alnwick]

Edited because at first sight, the image kept disappearing! That looks like another lift bridge that needs to be left up by all users otherwise single-handed navigation below it will be testing . . .

Edited July 21, 2009 by NB Alnwick

[Malarky]

The image is a bit slippery . . .

Well it's quite a trip!

 

In fact most boat's used to turn round at Wolvecote(now the village green) to avoid going any further south where it gets slimey!

Edited July 21, 2009 by Malarky

[grahoom]

Edited because at first sight, the image kept disappearing! That looks like another lift bridge that needs to be left up by all users otherwise single-handed navigation below it will be testing . . .

 

it needs to be down at present, as the tow path is closed due to the bridge being built (A34 ? ) .

 

there is a ring in the ground for single handers to chain the bridge open... or if anyone is lucky enough to arrive at the bridge when I am about to cycle over it, I'll open it for them.

[Albatross]

What do you mean "so?" I was answering your question.

 

BW is a publicly owned organisation managing publicly owned property, on which the public are pretty much free to wander, unlike all your examples, therefore....

 

 

 

So??

 

So... what is this thread all about?

So... Are canals private or not?

 

How about this for an answer?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

Edited July 22, 2009 by Albatross

[carlt]

So... what is this thread all about?

So... Are canals private or not?

 

How about this for an answer

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

I don't like quoting that font of all assumptions, Wikipedia, to prove my point but, as you gave the link:

Private property differs from personal property[1], which refers to possessions owned by individuals, and public property, which refers to state-owned assets.

 

According to your authority, they are public.

[David Schweizer]

So... what is this thread all about?

So... Are canals private or not?

 

How about this for an answer

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

The canals are in Public ownership, which means (using your definitions) that they are Public property, but as I have already explained in some detail ,which everyone has chosen to ignore, the public do not have a legal right of free access.

[CanalWalker]

There are good things about there not being public right of way on canals, it does mean that BW can ask people to leave the towpath. Something they could not do if there was free access.

[The Toad in the Hole]

Perhaps the best analogy might be land "owned" by English Heritage, Natural England/CCW/SNH or the national parks. This is land in public ownership, managed by a government agency, like BW, but may have restrictions, or conditions on entry (eg no dogs, or not during the nesting season) or which might charge an entry fee. Some EH/ Cadw sites charge an entry fee, others have unrestricted access. Or it might be let to others. The ownership is still public, but the tenant controls access.

 

BW may be subject to covenants regarding access, or their property may be crossed by rights of way (the surface of which belongs to the relevant highways authority) but in general, access to their property is at their discretion. Given the nature of the waterways, I'm not sure it could be any other way.

[Hairy-Neil]

We choose to pay for a licence which (allegedly) gives us unlimited use of BW waters.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Unless you have a trail boat and take it to Scotland, where you find your BW licence is invalid on BW canals....