CaRT to sell section of River Lea to developer

[NigelMoore]

For those interested in the protection of the national asset: last item on the page -

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/public-notices

 

CaRT's Property Department, led by development consultant Stuart Mills, are proposing to sell off the freehold to 420 square metres of the actual waterspace of the River Lea in eastern London to a property developer, in order that he can expand his building plot into the river by piling and filling in a bit over a metre width, along 380 metres of riverbank.

 

The Notice alleges compliance with the Charities Act 2011 respecting disposition of its assets; it utterly fails to acknowledge that such disposition of the operational land held in trust for the nation demands [at the very least] assent from the Secretary of State. If that has been obtained, they have not seen fit to reveal that in the Notice.

 

BW fraudulently obtained registration of the river Lea back in 2007 [as a natural river above the tideline the riparian owners would have owned to the centre, not the navigation authorities]. The only section the true owners got back after legal action for Rectification of Title was that owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners; they at least, had the necessary clout.

 

The CEC were probably the only party whose attention was drawn to BW’s fait accompli, and then, only because BW had promptly evicted the boats on the section – who were all Crown tenants, and complained to their landlord!

 

No other landowners will have even known about this; certainly the Land Registry told nobody [not even the CEC as they were legally obligated to do].

 

No doubt there will be those who will applaud all this because it raises revenue for the authority – but we are talking here of gaining a one-off lump of capital, not ongoing income, and raised by selling off the network supposedly protected under the Settlement terms. That is a one way street. Even leaving aside the issue of how CaRT came to ‘own’ it, all such land is supposed to be kept in trust for the nation in perpetuity.

 

An observant campaigner came across this Notice and sent in objections to Parry as well as to the officer named on the Notice; no response thus far. If they get away with it this time, they will get away with it in future – and we were supposed to be reassured that ‘our’ network was safeguarded from such flogging off to private development.

[Jerra]

So am I reading this correctly, if the riparian rights hadn't been fraudulently registered then the developers would probably have owned them and been able to go ahead anyway?

[NigelMoore]

So am I reading this correctly, if the riparian rights hadn't been fraudulently registered then the developers would probably have owned them and been able to go ahead anyway?

 

Certainly not. Yes he would have owned his half of the riverbed, but that gives no right to fill in the navigation. The river is subject to the public right of navigation and such infilling would still be a criminal offence.

 

Because CaRT are now the registered owner, everyone will assume that it is theirs to dispose of, and that the developer will be entitled to fill it in because the relevant authority has sold it for that purpose.

 

Perhaps I should apologise for introducing a distracting note with the registration fraud; let us assume that BW DID have perfect title to the river - it is not for disposal for ANY purpose, let alone infilling. In a way, registration to CaRT ought to have ensured the greatest possible protection - what I aim to highlight above all, is that the governmental protection is evidently a farce, the Settlement terms to be ignored at will.

[Jerra]

 

Certainly not. Yes he would have owned his half of the riverbed, but that gives no right to fill in the navigation. The river is subject to the public right of navigation and such infilling would still be a criminal offence.

 

Because CaRT are now the registered owner, everyone will assume that it is theirs to dispose of, and that the developer will be entitled to fill it in because the relevant authority has sold it for that purpose.

 

Perhaps I should apologise for introducing a distracting note with the registration fraud; let us assume that BW DID have perfect title to the river - it is not for disposal for ANY purpose, let alone infilling. In a way, registration to CaRT ought to have ensured the greatest possible protection - what I aim to highlight above all, is that the governmental protection is evidently a farce, the Settlement terms to be ignored at will.

So how is it legal for them to fill it in if they buy it now?

[NigelMoore]

It isn't - but refer to my 2nd paragraph above.

[NilesMI]

 

... what I aim to highlight above all, is that the governmental protection is evidently a farce, the Settlement terms to be ignored at will.

 

Why not write to the Sec. of State and ask why CRT are disposing of assets without consent?

[Jerra]

 

Why not write to the Sec. of State and ask why CRT are disposing of assets without consent?

Why not write to Rory the Tory Sorry Rory Stewart MP for Penrith and the Borders and I believe Waterways minister.

[NigelMoore]

 

Why not write to the Sec. of State and ask why CRT are disposing of assets without consent?

It is a good suggestion. The friend who alerted me to this is considering doing so, while also trying a number of other avenues. I can trust him to deal with this; I have enough issues of my own.

 

I agreed with him as to the seriousness of the issue though, and thought others would want to know about it - such as cared to keep the waterways in national rather than private hands, anyway.

Why not write to Rory the Tory Sorry Rory Stewart MP for Penrith and the Borders and I believe Waterways minister.

Same response as above; probably a far more effective suggestion in fact.

[Jerra]

It is a good suggestion. The friend who alerted me to this is considering doing so, while also trying a number of other avenues. I can trust him to deal with this; I have enough issues of my own.

 

I agreed with him as to the seriousness of the issue though, and thought others would want to know about it - such as cared to keep the waterways in national rather than private hands, anyway.

 

Same response as above; probably a far more effective suggestion in fact.

Rory's email address is rory.stewart.mp@parliament.uk

[peterboat]

thin end of the wedge nige,l if it had been sold for waterways use i for one would have no problem, however to fill part of it in mmmm. how long before its lets build houses on it all, because there are only 30,000 boats or so on it, thats the waterways as a whole not just that bit

[NilesMI]

It is quite a thin edge.

 

Here is the plan showing the section (in pink) of river to be sold.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/24309-proposed-land-transfer-plan-for-notice-27-oct-2015.pdf

[kris88]

The property dept of CRT is the biggest threat to the on going survival of the network. I was mistakenly under the impression that forming a trust protected the network from sell off. Far from it, it's in greater danger than before. The property dept is a law unto itself it seems.

So what's the best way to challenge this, email individually or a petition?

 

Regards kris

[CDS]

The property dept of CRT is the biggest threat to the on going survival of the network. I was mistakenly under the impression that forming a trust protected the network from sell off. Far from it, it's in greater danger than before. The property dept is a law unto itself it seems.

So what's the best way to challenge this, email individually or a petition?

 

Regards kris

Its getting that CRT support the boater and the network the same way a rope supports a hanging man

Edited December 4, 2015 by CDS

[LEO]

It is quite a thin edge.

 

Here is the plan showing the section (in pink) of river to be sold.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/24309-proposed-land-transfer-plan-for-notice-27-oct-2015.pdf

 

Interesting, looks as though Cart get a long section of the bank piled and protected and the developer gets control over who moors there in the future .... overall I think CaRT are the winners.

[pearley]

Interesting, looks as though Cart get a long section of the bank piled and protected and the developer gets control over who moors there in the future .... overall I think CaRT are the winners.

Interesting, looks as though Cart get a long section of the bank piled and protected and the developer gets control over who moors there in the future .... overall I think CaRT are the winners.

That bit is already steel piled on both banks.

[John V]

Trying to work out exactly where that is....Is that the bridge over the dual carriage way at Old Ford ?

[Tacet]

Trying to work out exactly where that is....Is that the bridge over the dual carriage way at Old Ford ?

 

Bow flyover is shown to the west.

[monkeyhanger]

 

Bow flyover is shown to the west.

It looks to me that this is the section of water that goes from Bow flyover down towards Three Mills and Tesco. I'm not exactly sure that this particular section IS the river Lea. I suspect that it may be the "Lea Navigation", which is separate from the river at this point. This, if correct, would alter the situation regarding riparian rights, but I'm happy to be corrected on the point.

My feeling is that the river Lea is a couple of hundred yards to the east of this section.

Edited December 4, 2015 by monkeyhanger

[trackman]

If it's a river surely the EA would have to be consulted about any proposal like this and it could not legally proceed without their consent.

It's possible that this might also apply if it's a navigation, I'm not sure about that though.

[NigelMoore]

I suspect that it may be the "Lea Navigation", which is separate from the river at this point. This, if correct, would alter the situation regarding riparian rights, but I'm happy to be corrected on the point.

 

Riparian rights would alter according to whether it was an artificial section or not, but not the public navigation rights. Once an alternative artificial cut is made across bends, for example, of a public navigable river, the navigation right follows the new cut – in the same way that highway rights follow a highway even when it changes course, and regardless of ownership of the subsoil.

 

The classic case is that of Rex v Betts, (1850) 16 QB 1022. The navigation authority were sued for the criminal offence of obstructing the PRN in allowing the railway bridge to be built across the Witham just upstream of Boston Lock.

 

The authority pleaded, amongst other things, that the section involved was an artificial cut, straightening the natural river to allow for better scouring when the tide went out. They said the PRN could only apply to the original, natural bend of the river.

 

That argument was rejected; the PRN applied to the whole, artificial bits and all. The authority was still acquitted of the crime however, as the jury at first instance had decided that because the arch of the railway bridge was as commodious as the Lock immediately downstream of it, there could not possibly be any practical obstruction.

 

A dubious legal point, but a matter for the jury’s decision.

 

The fact is, that ownership of the river bed may or may not be a riparian right in a particular instance [sometimes fundus ownership differs from the ripa ownership], but in a public navigable river [natural or artificial section or not] such ownership cannot be used to justify obstruction of the navigation.

 

This instance goes beyond all that however; as I said earlier, however obtained, the entirety of the operational 'track' of the waterways is allegedly held in trust for the nation in perpetuity. It cannot be disposed of without Secretary of State consent [presumably/hopefully, subsequent to consultation]. Not legally that is.

 

The wording of the Notice suggests that CaRT think only adhering to the Charities Act requirement is necessary. They have been asked whether SoS consent has been given, and remain silent.

[RichardN]

 

BW fraudulently obtained registration of the river Lea back in 2007

 

 

It looks to me that this is the section of water that goes from Bow flyover down towards Three Mills and Tesco. I'm not exactly sure that this particular section IS the river Lea. I suspect that it may be the "Lea Navigation", which is separate from the river at this point.

 

Yes, from the plan it looks like the Lee Navigation south of the Bow Flyover where New Era used to be. Not been up there by boat for nearly 2 years but my memory is that the bank on that side was very mixed up with lots of greenery on the corner so a bank needing a fair amount of work.

 

As to fraudulent registration by BW I can remember seeing an 1856 title deed for that length of waterway when I was involved in some of the pre Sports Day works, it was all registered then so way before BWB even existed.

[NigelMoore]

As to fraudulent registration by BW I can remember seeing an 1856 title deed for that length of waterway when I was involved in some of the pre Sports Day works, it was all registered then so way before BWB even existed.

 

I don’t wish to derail the main thrust of this topic, but so far as BW’s voluntary first registration project was concerned, parts were justifiably sought and others not.

 

Sections of the river Brent also, are known to have been purchased in the 18th & 19th Centuries to make short cuts across bends, and the deeds are in evidence. To those sections, they had every right to registration. What they did, however, was to assert ownership of the whole of these rivers, regardless of there being no deeds for the majority of them. That majority ownership was in either private hands or the Crown’s.

 

The Crown managed to get their bit of the Lea back; BW capitulated prior to an Adjudicator hearing and signed up to a lease from the Crown, with a promise to re-locate the boats they had illegally evicted.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/land_adjudication_case_between_b

 

Whether you categorise the 'mistake' as fraudulent or not would depend on whether you believed the Property Department were acquainted with their records and the relevant law, or whether they were ignorant. My belief, bolstered by knowing they sent employees to the Land Registry for special training in this field, is that they were knowledgeable.

 

Reverting to topic - this registration as I said before, however obtained, ought in fact to have granted us greater confidence in the preservation of the waterways. In London particularly, however, such sales of parts of the national asset are no new thing. Some MP's had long warned of creeping privatisation; the registration project, whether legitimate or illegitimate [and a larger amount was legitimate], enhanced the ability to 'sell the family silver' under our noses, even though the Settlement terms of the Trust were supposedly designed to prevent that.

[pearley]

I've asked the IWA what they know about this and they say as far as they are aware that the sale is only of the ransom strip along the edge of the waterway. However, the actual CRT notice refers to 'waterspace' so I've asked them to check what it does involve.

[tidal]

I'm going to need more space at the foot of our stairs!

 

I am notoriously bad when I attempt to become a bookmaker but my bet would be that CaRT will get this rubber-stamped through.

 

But i have e-mailed a couple of people/organisations who should at least be taking an interest
Not that I think they will

[Paul C]

Really need to know the extent of how much land (and how much is covered by the water..........) before can really decide if CRT have been in the wrong here. If its just the ransom strip, it could be viewed as a positive thing. If its half the river.......you get the drift.