Dispute at Pillings

[Peter X]

Do you have any evidence for these "exploratory talks?"

(A blurred image of figures on a grassy knoll, for instance)

 

In the aerial photo posted by NigelMoore #4375, there’s an interesting feature just left of centre, surrounded on three sides by a little ditch. Looks like a grassy knoll to me. So that’s where the exploratory talks between BWML and Pillings suggested by Allan(nb Albert) took place?

If this feature survived the construction of the marina, where better for Paul Lillie and Philip Ridal to have stood in 2011 to debate the finer points of canal-related law than a vantage point offering a clear view of where the winding hole or whatever had been?

 

I am of course offering this fatuous diversion to cover up my lack of effort in getting my head around all the ancient but potentially relevant legislation NigelMoore discussed in #4369. There’s enough material in there to see this topic smash all records (or has it already?). I’m off to look for the Leicester Canal Act 1791; that looks more relevant to me than the River Soar Navigation Act 1776, because isn’t the marina entrance on the canal (just)?

[GoodGurl]

that grassy knoll is the winding hole and is still there, the marina entrance is further up.

[bigcol]

Looking to the future!!

 

What are the chances of this marina, and the whole free hold being bought cheap by CRT/ BWML. From Steadman?.

 

Steadman will have a choice. A very big pond,Cafe and land

Or say,hell to it and just sell as is to BWML, getting rid of PL within the process.

 

This of course maybe achieved by steadman just saying I'm not playing no more, or CRT enforcing ist or 2nd charges against the property, and waiting for PL to mess it up all over again.

 

Long term strategy?

 

Was I posting this in my sleep?

 

Col x

Edited March 16, 2014 by bigcol

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Looking to the future!!

 

What are the chances of this marina, and the whole free hold being bought cheap by CRT/ BWML. From Steadman?.

 

Steadman will have a choice. A very big pond,Cafe and land

Or say,hell to it and just sell as is to BWML, getting rid of PL within the process.

 

This of course maybe achieved by steadman just saying I'm not playing no more, or CRT enforcing ist or 2nd charges over the property, and waiting for PL to mess it up all over again.

 

Long term strategy?

 

Was I posting this in my sleep?

 

Col x

I believe a new business plan for BWML will be put to the board in a couple of weeks.

 

I suspect more consideration will be given to disposing of BWML than expanding it due to its poor performance against plan and its reputational impact on the Trust.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[costalot]

I suspect if BWML had a spare £2+m available to purchase PLM then the Board of CRT would identify more important things to spend the money on!

 

If BWML is contributing to CRT revenue then I can't see CRT selling BWML in the current depressed economic environment.

[johnlillie]

Just another thought, respecting the state of things reference access – the aerial shots of the marina while it was still a quarry indicate that the entrance already existed as either a lay-by or possibly winding hole, maybe even a loading inlet.

 

 

That suggests that Steadman could have a case for arguing that any connection between his site and the canal already existed, and that any extension of the waterway into the excavation took place entirely within his own property – the access between his property and the canal proper, already existing.

 

That would be a matter of fact to be determined by those with knowledge of the site's history, but it could certainly be enough of a potential factor to give CaRT a further good reason for treading carefully.

no it didn't. (already exist)

[paneuro]

no it didn't. (already exist)

what do you mean,it's there pre-marina !?

[matty40s]

what do you mean,it's there pre-marina !?

yes, there was a winding hole there a long time before someone decided to build a marina and rip BW/CRT/all boaters off.

It was just past bridge 31. This was filled in and a new one built in the location in the sat pic to allow the gravel barges to fill.

 

 

 

edited to add,

obviously J.Lillie was hard digging the marina and never , ever looked at any paperwork ever, m'lud.

Edited March 16, 2014 by matty40s

[johnlillie]

the quarry excavations were just finishing when we first visited the site, the winding hole was there, but it was on the border of the site, a stream which had to be diverted, ran around the perimeter. The entrance to the site was constructed by a private company (could have been Land and Water) by the then owners as part of the deal. There never was any access to the canal fro the quarry site before then.

the stream was culverted under the canal to the river. I personally have never ever seen any barges loading from this site, as far as I am aware, all the excavations (sand, gravel etc) left via flesh hovel lane. During the years prior to completion of the excavations, I boated continually on the canal, and never saw a working barge in the area. I lived at the side of the river Soar from 1994 to 2002,at Barrow upon Soar, then from 2002 to 2007, I lived beside the river Soar at Kegworth,. Never saw a working barge go that way either, so where you get this idea that barges loaded from the winding hole amazes me!!!! ( the excavations only started a couple of years prior to our purchase of the site)

Edited March 16, 2014 by johnlillie

[Peter X]

the quarry excavations were just finishing when we first visited the site, the winding hole was there, but it was on the border of the site, a stream which had to be diverted, ran around the perimeter. The entrance to the site was constructed by a private company (could have been Land and Water) by the then owners as part of the deal. There never was any access to the canal fro the quarry site before then.

the stream was culverted under the canal to the river. I personally have never ever seen any barges loading from this site, as far as I am aware, all the excavations (sand, gravel etc) left via flesh hovel lane. During the years prior to completion of the excavations, I boated continually on the canal, and never saw a working barge in the area. I lived at the side of the river Soar from 1994 to 2002,at Barrow upon Soar, then from 2002 to 2007, I lived beside the river Soar at Kegworth,. Never saw a working barge go that way either, so where you get this idea that barges loaded from the winding hole amazes me!!!!

 

It was only speculation that barges might have previously loaded from there, perhaps based upon that silvery-looking thing at the end of the winding hole in the photo. But I think you've thoroughly cleared up this point, thank you.

 

This tends to suggest that Mr Steadman could not rely upon previous access to the canal to claim exemption from needing a NAA, but nevertheless I think given all the points which NigelMoore raised, and the possibility that Mr Steadman might get somewhere by seeking a judicial review, I can understand why the CRT may hesitate to push him into a corner by demanding money for a new NAA as I suggested. I still think the CRT would have a good chance of victory, but a good chance is not enough because the cost of losing would be huge. Sometimes in law you just have to accept that going to court is too much of a gamble.

[NigelMoore]

 

Sometimes in law you just have to accept that going to court is too much of a gamble.

 

Now that's the truth!

 

Edit to add: However - subject to the relevant enabling Act containing the provisions common to most - I would disagree as to CaRT's chances, and if a gambling man would lay odds on Steadman winning. The only thing in CaRT's favour [and certainly never to be discounted] would be the unacknowledged bias of the establishment tool in favour of the establishment.

 

Edited March 16, 2014 by NigelMoore

[chazzy]

I expanded Nigel's google map and what I think is the entrance to the marina is below the winding hole, where I have placed an X

 

[Peter X]

Is there any buried treasure there for CRT?

[RLWP]

That's what your forum name means !

 

Richard

[GoodGurl]

yes you are correct chazzy

Edited March 17, 2014 by GoodGurl

[Willber G]

Here is more up-to-date imagery (2010):

 

http://www1.getmapping.com/Webshop/Web/CommonPages/Main/preview.aspx?srid=27700&x=456365&y=318460&searchType=&height=100&width=100

Edited March 17, 2014 by Willber G

[johnlillie]

the silvery looking thing in the older photo is a pile of sheet pilings left there presumably by BW many moons ago

[NigelMoore]

Out of curiosity, I tried to get a copy of the title deeds from the Land Registry, to see exactly what the boundaries were, and came across something I’ve never encountered before.

 

The Land Registry website recognises the property, but states – Tenure: n/a; price paid/value stated: n/a, and adds: “Sorry, we do not have a record of any titles for this property. This does not necessarily mean that the property is unregistered.”

[Alan de Enfield]

Presumably QMP, then the IP and now Stedman have had sight of the freehold / LR documents ?

[NigelMoore]

Presumably QMP, then the IP and now Stedman have had sight of the freehold / LR documents ?

 

Of course. But it appears no-one else can. I just do not understand how the LR could claim to "not have a record of any titles for this property". I could understand perhaps, their saying that the records were unavailable for some reason [withheld from public scrutiny during insolvency proceedings etc], just not that they have no records in a case of registered land.

[Swallowman]

Out of curiosity, I tried to get a copy of the title deeds from the Land Registry, to see exactly what the boundaries were, and came across something I’ve never encountered before.

 

The Land Registry website recognises the property, but states – Tenure: n/a; price paid/value stated: n/a, and adds: “Sorry, we do not have a record of any titles for this property. This does not necessarily mean that the property is unregistered.”

 

That's actually quite common. I was trying a few years ago to find out who actually owned the rights of way shown on an Ordnance Survey map and the LR returned my fee saying exactly the same thing. Everyone in the area knew exactly who owned the land across which the bridleway and access road to several properties in a forest passed but because it had never been registered, the owner could not be forced to maintain it. It was maintained by the property owners themselves until the extremely wealthy owner of the track started to drive large trucks down it destroying what the property owners had done. His reaction when asked to repair the damage? Guess - but it generally involved two fingers pointed skywards!

[NigelMoore]

 

That's actually quite common. I was trying a few years ago to find out who actually owned the rights of way shown on an Ordnance Survey map and the LR returned my fee saying exactly the same thing. Everyone in the area knew exactly who owned the land across which the bridleway and access road to several properties in a forest passed but because it had never been registered, the owner could not be forced to maintain it. It was maintained by the property owners themselves until the extremely wealthy owner of the track started to drive large trucks down it destroying what the property owners had done. His reaction when asked to repair the damage? Guess - but it generally involved two fingers pointed skywards!

 

But as you say, in your example the property was unregistered. This LR comment says that their having no records does not mean that the property is not registered! I would have thought it impossible for this property to not be registered, because title has been transferred in very recent times, when registration would have been compulsory.

[MtB]

 

But as you say, in your example the property was unregistered. This LR comment says that their having no records does not mean that the property is not registered! I would have thought it impossible for this property to not be registered, because title has been transferred in very recent times, when registration would have been compulsory.

 

My understanding is that land can remain unregistered, but registration is forced when ownership changes. This is certainly the case with residential property, I'm not so sure about commercial, agricultural or quarries.

 

The absence of registration of the car park leases also suggests they either weren't registered after all, or you are looking in the wrong place!

 

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

 

My understanding is that land can remain unregistered, but registration is forced when ownership changes. This is certainly the case with residential property, I'm not so sure about commercial, agricultural or quarries.

 

The absence of registration of the car park leases also suggests they either weren't registered after all, or you are looking in the wrong place!

 

 

MtB

 

You are right about forced registration when ownership changes, and that applies to all property, residential, commercial or whatever.

 

Car park leases, if actually registered [as they should have been] would be noted in the overall property title. I didn't look for those, but certainly I was looking in the right place for the property as a whole. I only typed in the name and postcode in the official LR website search, and the result came up with the correct full address, so there was no possibility of error as to the property concerned.

[MtB]

 

You are right about forced registration when ownership changes, and that applies to all property, residential, commercial or whatever.

 

Car park leases, if actually registered [as they should have been] would be noted in the overall property title. I didn't look for those, but certainly I was looking in the right place for the property as a whole. I only typed in the name and postcode in the official LR website search, and the result came up with the correct full address, so there was no possibility of error as to the property concerned.

 

 

Fascinating. ISTR John Lillie saying the leases were properly registered at the LR, and at least one moorer confirming this way back in the early days of this thread. Or maybe it was Pillingsmoorer, the PL stooge guy.

 

MtB