Strange sight on the South Oxrord

[Alenafour]

 

Do you want to debate it properly, I can split the thread into two if you like.

Do you really think you should use your position as moderator for a bit of point-scoring against Higgs?

 

It seems a bit like abuse of power to me.

 

Whereas, like many contributors, he has a hobby horse, it is entirely relevant to this thread.

 

 

Which, incidentally, is providing me much amusement as the knights of indignation tilt at their windmills.

[Tony Brooks]

Have any forum members been harmed by this action?

 

If it is leaking then yes, I took a ducking (long story) and I know MtB had problems so lost time on his journey, both caused by low water levels in the canal. Oh and the hire boat stuck aground on the offside that probably would not have been it the canal was up to level. I agree nothing major and unless we know if that work has caused a leak we can not attribute the low level to any particular cause.

[Athy]

Well as the water level in the hole is the same as the canal and has been since day one I would suggest he must have damaged the bank as the two are now effectively connected.

When did you measure it? Last time we went past, we noticed that the water level in his mooring hole looked lower than before.

[nicknorman]

When we went past in August the pond level was well above the canal level.

[ditchcrawler]

source?

 

Every time I have gone by the boat has been floating at the same level, it has never been higher after heavy rain or lower after a dry spell so unless the owner is pumping out after rain or filling from a hose in the dry it is still connected to the canal. The hole may or may not, that I dont know be leaking water to the surrounding ground. I agree cattle jamming the puddling away can cause the same problem.

[Delta9]

Every time I have gone by the boat has been floating at the same level, it has never been higher after heavy rain or lower after a dry spell so unless the owner is pumping out after rain or filling from a hose in the dry it is still connected to the canal. The hole may or may not, that I dont know be leaking water to the surrounding ground. I agree cattle jamming the puddling away can cause the same problem.

That's interesting as the two posters above have seen it at different levels and I have also seen it at different levels. You say 'every time I have gone by' but how often do you go by? Is it somewhere you pass regularly or have you just passed by a few times?

[ditchcrawler]

That's interesting as the two posters above have seen it at different levels and I have also seen it at different levels. You say 'every time I have gone by' but how often do you go by? Is it somewhere you pass regularly or have you just passed by a few times?

A few

[carlt]

I'd have thought connecting a sealed pond to a leaky canal would be more likely to adversely affect the pond's level than the canal's.

[Delta9]

A few

So we can conclude that your statement " the water level in the hole is the same as the canal and has been since day one" was complete bullshit/pure speculation?

[billS]

Does anyone know if new marinas, such as that at Cropredy are clay puddled before they are filled?

[David Mack]

Does anyone know if new marinas, such as that at Cropredy are clay puddled before they are filled?

All new marinas have to satisfy a watertightness test before being connected to the canal.

[Emerald Fox]

Have any forum members been harmed by this action?

 

Wouldn't it be fun to put an ant in a matchbox and send him down the canal? The box could be waxed and the drawer just half open, so it would be just like his own little narrowboat! Little pirate flag, perhaps.

[Emerald Fox]

"When did you measure it? Last time we went past, we noticed that the water level in his mooring hole looked lower than before."

 

"When we went past in August the pond level was well above the canal level."

 

Our BSS is due next Spring and when I asked about it I was told a laser theodolite is a new requirement for boats heading along the southern Oxford Canal so we can all check the water level in Matey's duck pond as we sail by.

I see you've both gotten yours already!

 

Does anybody have a list of unlicenced boats on the Rochdale Canal? It would make interestíng browsing for me.

[Guest]

Do you really think you should use your position as moderator for a bit of point-scoring against Higgs?

 

It seems a bit like abuse of power to me.

 

Whereas, like many contributors, he has a hobby horse, it is entirely relevant to this thread.

 

 

Which, incidentally, is providing me much amusement as the knights of indignation tilt at their windmills.

Superb expression

[onionbargee]

It is easy enough with a large farm vehicle to drag a narrow boat over the bank into this pond. You dont need a crane. Unless anyone knows they actually did cut into the bank its just speculation isn't it ?

 

( Mostly what this forum consists of )

[Alenafour]

my thoughts exactly.

[tidal]

Looking at the past pictures I've seen there does seem to be significant disturbance to the bank side.

 

But you're right I can't prove anything

 

 

I guess people just have to use their own judgment

[Emerald Fox]

Looking at the past pictures I've seen there does seem to be significant disturbance to the bank side.

 

But you're right I can't prove anything

 

 

I guess people just have to use their own judgment

 

 

The English Tourist Board could cash in on this 8th Wonder of the World?

[Paul C]

It is easy enough with a large farm vehicle to drag a narrow boat over the bank into this pond.

 

1) No its not (easy)

2) That would have damaged the bank too

[Sea Dog]

Well, whatever the backstory, it looks like a very professional job done with care and skill. Although I can't see them, I'm sure there are some big advantages to keeping a boat in an area of water not much larger than itself. Perhaps he's being very considerate because other boats now don't need to slow down when they pass?

[MtB]

Well, whatever the backstory, it looks like a very professional job done with care and skill.

 

I thought that too! The accurate grading of the sides does not look like the work of an amateur clutz (like, say me) driving a JCB. Unlike the scruffy looking back-filling of the canal bank. Work of two different people perhaps.

 

However from the photo angle it looks to me as though the water level in the photo is so low the chines of the boat must be touching the bottom, assuming the gradient continues at the same angle below the water level. This suggests to me he intended/ to fill the pond to a higher level than the cut after sealing it off. If he has since achieved this, then the pond must be watertight! Dunno if he has though, I haven't passed there for ages.

[carlt]

1) No its not (easy)

2) That would have damaged the bank too

Having done it with Tirfors and land anchors I can assure you it's not rocket science.

 

I've also done it borrowing an ex-army tracked troop carrier which was far less effort than the Tirfors.

 

Carefully positioned telegraph poles meant minimal damage was done to the bank and reinstatement was easy (filling in two grooves).

 

BW either didn't notice or were unconcerned enough not to trouble us.

 

Relaunching was more...err...interesting.

[kris88]

I agree it wouldn't be difficult with a largish tracked vechicle. What I can't understand is why they have left it floating In a puddle, rather than dragging it out.

 

Regards kris

[carlt]

I agree it wouldn't be difficult with a largish tracked vechicle.

It would have been even easier with an anchored tractor with a pto capstan winch.

What I can't understand is why they have left it floating In a puddle, rather than dragging it out.

They may have been misinformed about planning requirements but they may just want to leave it afloat like any other boat.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

It's pretty certain that CRT would not have given permission for breaking through the bank to the landowner's field. The landowner would also need permission to cross the Ransom strip, even to get the boat out of the field.

 

Agreed, they would not have – but it would not have been needed. Given that the terms of the relevant enabling Act expressly permitted riparian land owners to create “places for boats to lie”, and that BW in the Court action against the Yardley Gobion marina [with respect to the GJCC Act provision in identical terms] confirmed that this permitted widening of the canal into the landowner’s property, it follows that CaRT could not have raised any objections even if the bank had not been replaced [supposing that it had been breached and then filled back].

 

It is of course possible that other enactments relating to other authorities such as the Environment Agency could potentially impact upon the works – but that would not involve CaRT's legislative powers. They have the potential to control works that intrude into the canal, under s.21 of the 1995 Act - but even that requires the preliminary step of designating a stretch of waterway for the purpose, and that has never been done for anywhere across the system.

 

Of course, the legality of the work would never have prevented CaRT from objecting to it, and hence, no doubt, the decision to avoid any such confrontation.

 

The “ransom strip” concept whereby CaRT claim to own the banks on both sides of the canal is a carefully crafted myth. Such ownership of offside banks is possible in places, of course, but would have to be demonstrated by deeds of purchase; the enabling Acts in most cases did not provide for separation of canal from private owners under compulsory purchase of anything more than the towpath, the location of which was invariably specified exactly.

 

Proprietors of the Canals could compulsorily purchase portions of offside as required for their own wharfs and other commercial enterprises, but anything more than that would have to have been entered into by way of voluntary contract.