Remainder Waterways

[Heartland]

I have put a question to the CRT that in essence is how many Remainder Waterways (created under the 1968 Transport Act) have become cruiseways. Their answer was the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal and the post 1968 restored parts of the Kennet & Avon. My concern is that waterways like the Ashton & Lower Peak Forest remain "Remainder" although being part of a busy boating route. The CRT, like their predecessors BW, are only obligated to maintain these canals to, I believe, water supply level. If funding falls short will maintenance suffer? In fact could they be in a future danger for closure?

 

Ray Shill

[Richard Fairhurst]

The Ashton, Peak Forest, Caldon, Erewash, Mon & Brec, and GU Slough Arm were reclassified in 1983: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1983/2/pdfs/ukla_19830002_en.pdf

[mayalld]

I have put a question to the CRT that in essence is how many Remainder Waterways (created under the 1968 Transport Act) have become cruiseways. Their answer was the Sheffield & Tinsley Canal and the post 1968 restored parts of the Kennet & Avon. My concern is that waterways like the Ashton & Lower Peak Forest remain "Remainder" although being part of a busy boating route. The CRT, like their predecessors BW, are only obligated to maintain these canals to, I believe, water supply level. If funding falls short will maintenance suffer? In fact could they be in a future danger for closure?

 

CRT has no statutory duty even to maintain a remainder waterway as a water supply, and can legally eliminate a remainder waterway if it isn't providing a drainage function.

 

Indeed, its obligation is to deal with them at minimum cost.

 

However, after that bleak opening, there are other factors that come into play.

 

As Richard has already noted, the canals that you fear for were made Cruiseways (although due to an obvious drafting error in the 1983 Act, Marple locks may actually have remainder status), but to go only a short way from there, let us consider the HNC.

 

The HNC is a remainder waterway, and CRT is legally obliged to spend no more than the bare minimum on keeping it safe as opposed to navigable.

 

The saving here is that as part of the restoration, the partner local authorities entered into a 25 year agreement to pay into a fund to maintain the canal for at least 125 years. This means that CRT has an additional income stream that it only gets for keeping the HNC open, so it is actually no more of a drain on their resources than it would be if it were closed.

 

The funding package also means that if they closed it, they would have to pay back some lottery money.

 

Basically, the HNC has almost no statutory protection against closure, but it has enormous contractual protection.

[Heartland]

Thanks for the information on Huddersfield. On the same thread I understand the section of the Calder & Hebble from Dewsbury to Wakefield has retained its Commercial Status.

 

Ray Shill

[Paul C]

As above really. There is a real concern that if there was a squeeze on funding, that remainder canals may well become unnavigable.

[Mac of Cygnet]

 

 

The saving here is that as part of the restoration, the partner local authorities entered into a 25 year agreement to pay into a fund to maintain the canal for at least 125 years.

 

Basically, the HNC has almost no statutory protection against closure, but it has enormous contractual protection.

 

Thanks for that on the whole heartening info, Dave. Being selfish, that should see out my boating days on the HNC!

 

However, I don't see how a 25 year agreement can ensure maintenance for 125 years. At even normal interest rates, such a fund would have to be huge (and very well protected).

[mayalld]

 

Thanks for that on the whole heartening info, Dave. Being selfish, that should see out my boating days on the HNC!

 

However, I don't see how a 25 year agreement can ensure maintenance for 125 years. At even normal interest rates, such a fund would have to be huge (and very well protected).

 

I believe that is exactly what it is.

 

IIRC, the payments started in 1996, and continue for 25 years, with the intention that the monies paid and the nominal interest would pay for 125 years of maintenance.

[Heartland]

In my request to the CRT was also the details regarding the Trent Navigation from Beeston Weir to Trent Bridge which also appears to be a designated cruiseway in the 1968 act. CRT confirm that boats navigate from Trent Bridge to the designated Corporation Moorings by the Suspension Bridge. The remainder from the disused Beeston Lock to there is not navigable and would require dredging.

 

The disused Beeston Lock was provided for Trent Boats to pass along the Trent and avoid the tolls of the Nottingham Canal. Whether it would be a benefit to boaters, if this part was restored might be an interesting subject for this forum to discuss. Restoration of Beeston Lock chamber may not be an excessive cost.

 

Ray Shill