Brentford river section

[NigelMoore]

Yes – that is what makes it tricky. The tide has to be high enough to allow both gates to be opened, yet low enough for the bow to pass under the bridge until the upper gate can be closed – so it can only be done on the ebb of the tide when entering the Thames.

[J R ALSOP]

Personally I think that any one who thinks of a boat of that size is fit for the UK canals is of their head.

[NigelMoore]

Coming or going I can’t remember, under the Dock Estates’ footbridge, just upstream of the Thames Locks –

[matty40s]

Personally I think that any one who thinks of a boat of that size is fit for the UK canals is of their head.

They probably don't think it is suitable for the canals, which is why they have a mooring on the River Brent and go out onto the Thames.

[WJM]

There is no longer a CaRT (BW) office in the basin - licenses are only issued at Thames Lock.

 

You might want to get into a barney with the lock-keeper by waving about your 1971 legislation, but I have seen unlicensed boats turned away. Until there is test case to settle it, it will be a lottery.

 

I have moored down at Chiswick Pier when the tide times at Brentford didn't suit. From memory it was around £20 per night for a 60' narrowboat. A nice mooring but apart from the very good restaurant there is not much else there. But Hammersmith is a nice walk from there. And you don't have the issue of settling on the bottom. The visitor's mooring is on the outside and permanently wet.

[blackrose]

Personally I think that any one who thinks of a boat of that size is fit for the UK canals is of their head.

This isn't about the canals. We're talking about the river Thames and the semi-tidal section of the river Brent. The boat in question wouldn't fit through Brentford gauging lock so it couldn't get onto the canal in that area in the first place.

Edited March 10, 2015 by blackrose

[Scholar Gypsy]

There is no longer a CaRT (BW) office in the basin - licenses are only issued at Thames Lock.

 

You might want to get into a barney with the lock-keeper by waving about your 1971 legislation, but I have seen unlicensed boats turned away. Until there is test case to settle it, it will be a lottery.

 

I have moored down at Chiswick Pier when the tide times at Brentford didn't suit. From memory it was around £20 per night for a 60' narrowboat. A nice mooring but apart from the very good restaurant there is not much else there. But Hammersmith is a nice walk from there. And you don't have the issue of settling on the bottom. The visitor's mooring is on the outside and permanently wet.

 

... and you have a very convenient lifeboat, if you need it. http://www.chiswicklifeboat.org.uk/

[NigelMoore]

You might want to get into a barney with the lock-keeper by waving about your 1971 legislation, but I have seen unlicensed boats turned away. Until there is test case to settle it, it will be a lottery.

 

I am beginning to wonder whether I should be taking umbrage at these continuing slurs on my communication skills – what was so impenetrable about #6 ? Or is it that people sleep-read through these posts, with selective attention filters set at maximum density?

 

Why would you wave about ‘your 1971 legislation’ – it is precisely the point that this legislation has nothing to do with the situation?

 

"Until there is a test case to settle it"? Hello Rip Van Winkle – there has been one; it has been settled; BW accepted it without appeal, and CaRT have since acknowledged that they must alter their conduct of the past 25 years to suit.

 

You have seen unlicensed boats turned away? Indeed, so have I, both before and after the test case had settled the matter, and approved by the very people in charge who publicly acknowledged that the matter had been settled. That is par for the course with a corrupt organisation that is quick to criminalise boaters while enjoying freedom from consequence for their own, far more serious criminal behaviour.

 

Too nice a day to spend time on this now - I have a gearbox to flush out and refill - but when I am back indoors I will dig up the case that specifically identifies the crime involved in navigation authorities using unauthorised locks to extract passage fees on public navigable rivers.

 

So let me repeat: the fact that an action is criminal is no impediment to it being done, and I agree that CaRT are refusing passage to unlicensed boats even now - my point has been that is remains a criminal act, to the effect that [in answering the OP] there is no legal impediment to an unlicensed boat passing through the Thames Locks, there are is only the illegal abuse of power. That could be dealt with by those with a taste for confrontation or justice, as I said to Captain Zim, while recognising that most people would meekly go along with the situation.

 

This is what they rely upon - ignorance and misplaced respect; they have of course let me bring unlicensed boats through, somewhat to my chagrin.

[WJM]

 

I am beginning to wonder whether I should be taking umbrage at these continuing slurs on my communication skills

Nigel - is your second name Canute?

 

 

Personally I prefer that there is some regulation point to prevent unlicensed craft accessing the canals. I agree, the legal threshold is the Gauging Locks. But to enforce licensing there would require a second lock-keeper employed to man the Gauging Lock. CaRT are not likely to employ two men to do the job of one. So if you push your position, then they will need to keep the Gauging Locks closed to boater use. And when you pass through Thames Locks the lock-keeper would have to close up there, head up to the Gauging Locks to let you through, and then hurry back to deal with the new arrivals, before hurrying back upstream....

 

That is not progress is it? But it will happen if you continue to shake the tree. You will be really popular with the semi-tidal residents who want to do water and pump-outs in the basin too. You didn't really think it through, did you?

[NigelMoore]

You didn't really think it through, did you?

 

Such breathtaking presumption.

 

For 200 years the Grand Junction/Grand Union Canal carried massive, profitable volumes of commercial traffic and latterly leisure boating traffic between the Thames and the Gauging Locks, with the latter the only keeper-operated gateway where tolls/licences were demanded.

 

Only in the mid-nineties were the Gauging Locks converted to boater operation, and the keepers transferred to the Thames Locks only. Suggesting that practicality dictates the present set up is therefore a profoundly ignorant assertion. Add to that the fact that the volume of traffic today is a fraction of what it used to be even 15-20 years ago, and the idea that the current arrangement is ‘progress’ looks absurd.

 

In fact, the infrastructure today is immeasurably improved in terms of staff facilities, with permanent offices alongside the Gauging Locks in addition to the Toll House itself.

 

Even if the present arrangement was retained, there is nothing preventing them from requiring licences for all boats declaring their intent to head on through the next locks, but the staffing is volunteer labour now anyway. Back in the day, the single lock keeper had no difficulty coping with both locks, even with greater traffic levels. Besides: many posters correctly suggest that any boater facing difficulty in complying with 'rules' cannot use that as an excuse for breaking the law - you, however, would promote CaRT's criminality on the basis of convenience and economy? Sauce for the goose etc . . .

 

As to my potential unpopularity with the other local semi-tidal boaters, that is a ridiculous prognostication on a number of levels. In the first place I have lived for years with total lack of practical support from any of them, and animosity for other reasons from some; what difference would it make to me then, even if that was considered important/relevant to the situation?

 

In the second place, throughout the last quarter century that I have been living and working along this stretch, I remain the only one I know to ever have taken boats up through the Gauging Locks to pump out. None of the other resident boats do so [nor do they need to go there for water]. Those on Ham Wharf are connected to mains sewerage; I am uncertain what Hennelly’s Wharf boats do, but all the rest pump or flush straight overboard – did you imagine Courage becoming somehow resentful of being unable to pass through the Gauging Locks without a lock-keeper? She couldn’t even get under Augustus Close bridge, let alone the High Street; she flushes directly into the river. Regardless, as the one local boater who has worked assiduously with BW and CaRT for many years to have us driven from the area - even while we were mainly offline in Workhouse Dock - her opinion is less than nothing to me.

 

Thirdly: every local boat capable of navigating up to and through the Gauging Locks [supposing they desired to do that], has been receiving years’ worth of refunded boat licence fees entirely due to my unilateral unsupported efforts [Courage for example getting close to £10,000 alone, due to her size] – they should resent that fact? I did not start that fight; it was forced upon me – but it is everyone else here that has reaped the financial benefit at my cost. If they resented your suggested outcome, so be it; let them start paying for licences once more, in order to reach the pump-out station. Can you see that happening?

 

Puerile.

[Captain Zim]

 

Such breathtaking presumption.

 

For 200 years the Grand Junction/Grand Union Canal carried massive, profitable volumes of commercial traffic and latterly leisure boating traffic between the Thames and the Gauging Locks, with the latter the only keeper-operated gateway where tolls/licences were demanded.

 

Only in the mid-nineties were the Gauging Locks converted to boater operation, and the keepers transferred to the Thames Locks only. Suggesting that practicality dictates the present set up is therefore a profoundly ignorant assertion. Add to that the fact that the volume of traffic today is a fraction of what it used to be even 15-20 years ago, and the idea that the current arrangement is progress looks absurd.

 

In fact, the infrastructure today is immeasurably improved in terms of staff facilities, with permanent offices alongside the Gauging Locks in addition to the Toll House itself.

 

Even if the present arrangement was retained, there is nothing preventing them from requiring licences for all boats declaring their intent to head on through the next locks, but the staffing is volunteer labour now anyway. Back in the day, the single lock keeper had no difficulty coping with both locks, even with greater traffic levels. Besides: many posters correctly suggest that any boater facing difficulty in complying with 'rules' cannot use that as an excuse for breaking the law - you, however, would promote CaRT's criminality on the basis of convenience and economy? Sauce for the goose etc . . .

 

As to my potential unpopularity with the other local semi-tidal boaters, that is a ridiculous prognostication on a number of levels. In the first place I have lived for years with total lack of practical support from any of them, and animosity for other reasons from some; what difference would it make to me then, even if that was considered important/relevant to the situation?

 

In the second place, throughout the last quarter century that I have been living and working along this stretch, I remain the only one I know to ever have taken boats up through the Gauging Locks to pump out. None of the other resident boats do so [nor do they need to go there for water]. Those on Ham Wharf are connected to mains sewerage; I am uncertain what Hennellys Wharf boats do, but all the rest pump or flush straight overboard did you imagine Courage becoming somehow resentful of being unable to pass through the Gauging Locks without a lock-keeper? She couldnt even get under Augustus Close bridge, let alone the High Street; she flushes directly into the river. Regardless, as the one local boater who has worked assiduously with BW and CaRT for many years to have us driven from the area - even while we were mainly offline in Workhouse Dock - her opinion is less than nothing to me.

 

Thirdly: every local boat capable of navigating up to and through the Gauging Locks [supposing they desired to do that], has been receiving years worth of refunded boat licence fees entirely due to my unilateral unsupported efforts [Courage for example getting close to £10,000 alone, due to her size] they should resent that fact? I did not start that fight; it was forced upon me but it is everyone else here that has reaped the financial benefit at my cost. If they resented your suggested outcome, so be it; let them start paying for licences once more, in order to reach the pump-out station. Can you see that happening?

 

Puerile.

Nicely done.

[NigelMoore]

Ref: #33 -

 

Haven’t had time to find the case itself, but in the interim the reference is:

 

Conservators of the River Thames -v- Smeed Dean & Co [1897] 2 QB 334

 

The Swarb site notes: “The erection of a lock or pound lock otherwise than for the maintenance or improvement of navigation would be ultra vires by a Navigation Authority and in all likelihood a nuisance. "The Conservators are a statutory body brought into existence for the purpose of preserving, improving and maintaining the navigation of the River Thames ... but the powers granted to them by the 1894 Act are all subservient thereto and except for these purposes no powers are granted to them at all”."

 

What these notes do not make clear, as I recall the case, is that the Conservators had felt that as they had built the particular lock in question – even though not specifically authorised to do so – they were entitled to charge toll-thorough. The Court decided that they were not: the demanding of a toll for the use of a section of public navigable river in the absence of express conferring of such power, was a criminal obstruction. Construction of the lock – itself an act beyond their granted powers – could only be excused on the grounds that it was a voluntary improvement to the ability of the public to enjoy the navigation free of charge.

 

The Thames Locks on the Brent were/are in a far more parlous position, being built in contempt of Parliament, contrary to the prohibition of the relevant enabling Act. In modern times the authority’s contempt for law is compounded by the deliberate blocking up of the alternate natural route at spring tides.

[Scholar Gypsy]

Most threads come back to toilets eventually...

 

The PLA have quite a challenge in enforcing their new byelaw preventing the discharge of sewage from boats on the tideway. Has there been any discussion of whether the relevant authorities (EA? C&RT?) plan to do something similar on the tidal Brent?

[blackrose]

All I can say is I'm glad I don't moor anywhere around there any more.

 

Boater seems to be pitted against boater (even neighbours!) and it all sounds so bitter and political that how could anyone actually enjoy the lifestyle?

 

I'm sorry but I really don't care how long anyone has been living there, or the depth and breath of their historical knowledge of the area. I'm afraid all that pales into insignificance because life is far too short for all this petty nonsense...

Edited March 11, 2015 by blackrose

[GillianOlcay]

Has there been any discussion of whether the relevant authorities (EA? C&RT?) plan to do something similar on the tidal Brent?

 

No. Nor are they concerned in practice with all the boats on the “Island” moorings above the Gauging Locks – anyone seen any of those using the pump-out facilities? BW deliberately, according to them in their planning application, refrained from installing sewerage connections, in order to encourage boat movement across to the pump-out and back. It was part of the design for a “lively” canal scene.

 

At least below the Gauging Locks the tide helps move it all out to the Thames on a regular basis.

[GillianOlcay]

Boater seems to be pitted against boater (even neighbours!) and it all sounds so bitter and political that how could anyone actually enjoy the lifestyle?

 

By ignoring the haters and embracing the friends. The back-biters and political fiddlers can be left to their own devices. We are conscious of them, because they impose themselves on us from time to time, but we don’t have to pay any attention, nor let them spoil our enjoyment of the life.

 

Strangely, it is the passing foot traffic and local house-dwellers that are the friendliest and most supportive section of society, not the other boaters. That is enough. And just a few of the other local boaters have stayed friends for years.

[GillianOlcay]

You will be really popular with the semi-tidal residents who want to do water and pump-outs in the basin too.

 

Why would we want to do pump-outs in the basin, in competition with the dozens of other boats doing the same there?