Private 'No Mooring' signs

[Klanky]

Correct.

 

Apart from giving a reason why the area is being monitored. IIRC, that's not a requirement.

 

And bear in mind that the signage doesn't actually say if the towpath itself is covered by CCTV. If the cameras are purely onsite surveillance - then no contact details are required. Although I doubt very much that the cameras are set not to cover the perimeter. Pretty poor system if it's not covered.....

[Klanky]

 

This one has been discussed before.

 

Basically, the position is that the chemical works is a high hazard area, and their risk assessment says that they can't have boats moored within a certain distance of the relevant part of the works.

 

They choose to erect signs that prohibit legitimate activity on land that they don't own. Clearly the correct way to proceed would be to ensure that the hazards are contained on their land.

 

 

That will be the case.

 

I don't have the company name, but I reckon I'll be correct in assuming it is a COMAH site. The operators will have a duty under Health and Safety and COMAH regs to ensure the safety of those in the immediate offsite vicinity to the plant.

 

Unless CRT turn round and say that it is a 'no mooring' site, then there's very little that the company can do if someone decides to tie up there. But bear in mind that the company has a duty to make the area as safe as possible for the public - hence the signs. They're not trying to bully anyone, merely covering their own corporate arses. Plus no security outfit likes people hanging about right next to their perimeter - it makes them very twitchy

[furnessvale]

 

 

That will be the case.

 

I don't have the company name, but I reckon I'll be correct in assuming it is a COMAH site. The operators will have a duty under Health and Safety and COMAH regs to ensure the safety of those in the immediate offsite vicinity to the plant.

 

Unless CRT turn round and say that it is a 'no mooring' site, then there's very little that the company can do if someone decides to tie up there. But bear in mind that the company has a duty to make the area as safe as possible for the public - hence the signs. They're not trying to bully anyone, merely covering their own corporate arses. Plus no security outfit likes people hanging about right next to their perimeter - it makes them very twitchy

The company name is Schnectady (apologies if the spelling is wrong) and the site is, I believe, Four Ashes, the former Croda Chemicals site.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

PS The land opposite is earmarked for a new railfreight depot so, with my interest in railfreight, I for one will be stopping from time to time to look at things.

 

Maybe the company will have gone bang in the meanwhile (whoops! freudian slip), I do of course mean bankrupt.

Edited April 7, 2016 by furnessvale

[john6767]

 

 

That will be the case.

 

I don't have the company name, but I reckon I'll be correct in assuming it is a COMAH site. The operators will have a duty under Health and Safety and COMAH regs to ensure the safety of those in the immediate offsite vicinity to the plant.

 

Unless CRT turn round and say that it is a 'no mooring' site, then there's very little that the company can do if someone decides to tie up there. But bear in mind that the company has a duty to make the area as safe as possible for the public - hence the signs. They're not trying to bully anyone, merely covering their own corporate arses. Plus no security outfit likes people hanging about right next to their perimeter - it makes them very twitchy

In a case like this you would think the company would have approached CRT and asked for the site to be made no mooring. Presumably CRT said no, or else there would be CRT signs. But in doing so the company would have covered its self as it has done all it can do.

 

Could CRT have any liability in the case of an incident, as they had the opportunity to prevent mooring?

[Captain Pegg]

The company name is Schnectady (apologies if the spelling is wrong) and the site is, I believe, Four Ashes, the former Croda Chemicals site.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

PS The land opposite is earmarked for a new railfreight depot so, with my interest in railfreight, I for one will be stopping from time to time to look at things.

 

Maybe the company will have gone bang in the meanwhile (whoops! freudian slip), I do of course mean bankrupt.

It is that site and the rail freight depot proposal is quite an old one so unless you know it's been resurrected recently I am not sure it will actually happen. As a recall the proposal was the opposite side of the railway so maybe you know of a new one on the disused part of the chemical works on the opposite side of the canal.

 

In general it's probably best to think about why you wouldn't want to moor there rather than question whether the sign has any authority. I would take notice but I am generally not too fond of other boaters telling me what I should do when I pass their boat.

 

JP

[Laurie Booth]

They are probably afraid of a fire like the one in Avonmouth.

 

I lived near the works and we were evacuated.

 

[Paul C]

In a case like this you would think the company would have approached CRT and asked for the site to be made no mooring. Presumably CRT said no, or else there would be CRT signs. But in doing so the company would have covered its self as it has done all it can do.

 

Could CRT have any liability in the case of an incident, as they had the opportunity to prevent mooring?

 

Here's a theory might/might not stand up:

 

1. Company asks CRT to make it no mooring

2. CRT declines

3. Company puts up unofficial "no mooring" signs anyway

 

If an incident occurs and someone was moored there, the company is still liable but the penalty/fine/whatever is much reduced because they took reasonable steps in mitigating the danger by 1 and 3. The boater concerned would have to shoulder the difference, not CRT, because CRT's action in 2 is based on the fact they'd deliberately limit themselves to placing "no mooring" areas where they themselves are responsible for the danger, eg a weir or other water feature. If they were to put a "no mooring" sign it might indicate an 'ownership' or acceptance of the risk, which later leads to a liability.

[Arthur Marshall]

The fact that the sign says "thank you" implies that it has no legal authority. However, a chemical works is a high risk environment and I personally would be thankful that they told me it was there so I could avoid it, rather than whinging when I get blown up or if the paint got stripped off the boat by fumes. However, each to their own idea of fun. And if you can tell me how an explosion can be limited to a specific area, I'll pass it on to the army ...

[john6767]

 

Here's a theory might/might not stand up:

 

1. Company asks CRT to make it no mooring

2. CRT declines

3. Company puts up unofficial "no mooring" signs anyway

 

If an incident occurs and someone was moored there, the company is still liable but the penalty/fine/whatever is much reduced because they took reasonable steps in mitigating the danger by 1 and 3. The boater concerned would have to shoulder the difference, not CRT, because CRT's action in 2 is based on the fact they'd deliberately limit themselves to placing "no mooring" areas where they themselves are responsible for the danger, eg a weir or other water feature. If they were to put a "no mooring" sign it might indicate an 'ownership' or acceptance of the risk, which later leads to a liability.

That is a good point.

[ditchcrawler]

 

This one has been discussed before.

 

Basically, the position is that the chemical works is a high hazard area, and their risk assessment says that they can't have boats moored within a certain distance of the relevant part of the works.

 

They choose to erect signs that prohibit legitimate activity on land that they don't own. Clearly the correct way to proceed would be to ensure that the hazards are contained on their land.

That is my thoughts as well and if it should be a "No Mooring" are CRT should have signage to show that.

[Paul C]

The fact that the sign says "thank you" implies that it has no legal authority. However, a chemical works is a high risk environment and I personally would be thankful that they told me it was there so I could avoid it, rather than whinging when I get blown up or if the paint got stripped off the boat by fumes. However, each to their own idea of fun. And if you can tell me how an explosion can be limited to a specific area, I'll pass it on to the army ...

 

One way would be to do it the other way round - oblige the chemical works to own a much larger area of the surrounding land, than they do. This could then be re-purposed for uses other than the chemical works itself, eg they may own a vast area of land some of which might have an industrial estate where they let units, or even just agricultural land. Being the landlord, they can impose additional terms or restrictions relevant to its proximity to the chemical works.

 

Of course, having a canal with public access through it messes all that up......similarly so would rights of way, footpaths, roads etc.

[ditchcrawler]

The company name is Schnectady (apologies if the spelling is wrong) and the site is, I believe, Four Ashes, the former Croda Chemicals site.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

PS The land opposite is earmarked for a new railfreight depot so, with my interest in railfreight, I for one will be stopping from time to time to look at things.

 

Maybe the company will have gone bang in the meanwhile (whoops! freudian slip), I do of course mean bankrupt.

Not sure if the company name is correct but it is Four Ashes, looking on Google maps the off side of the canal looks a bit different today https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6797524,-2.1247982,241m/data=!3m1!1e3 I bet that link wont work

[cuthound]

One way would be to do it the other way round - oblige the chemical works to own a much larger area of the surrounding land, than they do. This could then be re-purposed for uses other than the chemical works itself, eg they may own a vast area of land some of which might have an industrial estate where they let units, or even just agricultural land. Being the landlord, they can impose additional terms or restrictions relevant to its proximity to the chemical works.

 

Of course, having a canal with public access through it messes all that up......similarly so would rights of way, footpaths, roads etc.

Unless of course the chemical works chose that location years ago, which predated H&S legislation, to benefit from cheap transportation of raw materials and finished products.

[PaulG]

Not sure if the company name is correct but it is Four Ashes, looking on Google maps the off side of the canal looks a bit different today https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6797524,-2.1247982,241m/data=!3m1!1e3 I bet that link wont work

I think it is now owned by a USA based outfit called SI Group:

 

http://www.siigroup.com/

 

If you go to their "contact us" page they list this Four Ashes site as SI Group UK.

[Klanky]

Found it.

 

Four Ashes is owned by SI Group-UK. they're listed as a COMAH Top-tier site. In other words, things could potentially get very interesting if they went wrong.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/197904/response/484396/attach/html/3/COMAH%20TOP%20and%20LOWER%20Tier%20Sites%20Public%20List%20February%202014.xls.html

 

(COMAH stands for Control Of Major Accident Hazards Regulations)

 

It confirms what I suspected. Even though there may be no legal standing for the deterrent signs, COMAH sites like to discourage people as much as possible for hanging around near the perimeters - for safety and potential security breach reasons.

 

All they could do is politely explain the situation to you and suggest you move to a more suitable location. They cannot force you and they have no authority to physically move you or the boat. Even SIA badged security have no authority outwith the site.

 

Bear in mind that you could potentially also be reported to SO15 under 'Operation Lightning' guidelines for looking dodgy near a COMAH site.....

[ditchcrawler]

I think it is now owned by a USA based outfit called SI Group:

 

http://www.siigroup.com/

 

If you go to their "contact us" page they list this Four Ashes site as SI Group UK.

Did the map link work?

[PaulG]

Did the map link work?

It worked fine for me!

[Jerra]

They're not trying to bully anyone, merely covering their own corporate arses. Plus no security outfit likes people hanging about right next to their perimeter - it makes them very twitchy

I find it interesting that anybody should find a sign like this by a company who has no ownership/control over the land isn't bullying but signs by people who have ownership/control over the land (CRT) are often viewed (by a proportion of the boating population) as bullying and threatening.

[Paul C]

I find it interesting that anybody should find a sign like this by a company who has no ownership/control over the land isn't bullying but signs by people who have ownership/control over the land (CRT) are often viewed (by a proportion of the boating population) as bullying and threatening.

 

I think its more to do with the underlying reason/circumstances behind why the sign is there. If its a chemical plant and there's an elevated level of danger, high enough to discourage mooring but not high enough to prevent the canal (and towpath) users going through the area (because then the exposure to that danger would be limited to a few minutes), then its a valid reason. If its merely for security, then I'd say its arguable.

[Athy]

I find it interesting that anybody should find a sign like this by a company who has no ownership/control over the land isn't bullying but signs by people who have ownership/control over the land (CRT) are often viewed (by a proportion of the boating population) as bullying and threatening.

Surely it's in the public interest to warn people that there is potential danger, and can thus be seen as a public service, not bullying.

[mayalld]

Surely it's in the public interest to warn people that there is potential danger, and can thus be seen as a public service, not bullying.

 

Surely, as a public service, they should ensure that any danger is located sufficiently far into their own land that restrictions outside that land are not needed.

[Captain Pegg]

Surely, as a public service, they should ensure that any danger is located sufficiently far into their own land that restrictions outside that land are not needed.

I don't think a private chemical factory counts as a public service; not that I suspect that makes any difference. The law will require them to take reasonable steps under their duty of care to their neighbours but in the case of a chemical works - with an attendant risk of explosion, fire and fallout - it would seem feasible that there is no reasonable way they could guarantee containing an event to their own land. The consequences of enforcing what you propose would either render the operation of many industrial facilities uneconomical or require many square miles of residential areas to be permanently evacuated and compulsorily purchased. Neither is a reasonable outcome.

 

JP

[Athy]

I don't think a private chemical factory counts as a public service;

I didn't say that it did. I said that the erection of the warning signs was.

[Klanky]

I find it interesting that anybody should find a sign like this by a company who has no ownership/control over the land isn't bullying but signs by people who have ownership/control over the land (CRT) are often viewed (by a proportion of the boating population) as bullying and threatening.

 

Corporate responsibility for those around them in this case, not bullying.

 

I work on one of the biggest COMAH sites in Europe and we have a similar problem with a public road (dead end) that runs past our main gate and fence. We'd prefer folk not to hang around there as if there was a major incident (and they do happen) we have no way of accounting for anyone offsite who may be caught up in a gas cloud/firestorm/whatever. Usually, for us, it's just people touring round and who just stop for a quick gawp - so easy to deal with.

Anyone onsite is logged under the COMAH system so everyone can be checked out if it comes to site evacuation...not so any poor sods who may be tucked up on a nearby narrowboat at 3 in the morning.

 

From a security aspect, sadly we live in a world were we have to be alert at all times. Any site that is classed as a top-tier site could potentially be seen as a target for terrorism. As I pointed out earlier, security services get a bit twitchy about folk who hang around for no good reason next to a perimeter fence, however, this has to be balanced out with a bit of good old-fashioned common dog. An elderly couple or family on a private narrowboat are probably way down the list of ne'er do wells. A couple of young men with holdalls would be a different matter.

 

As I said earlier, security should be logging any 'suspicious' movements or activity within their immediate area with SO15. Easy in some places, not so easy when there's a towpath running along your perimeter. It's down to the quality of the people employed to deal with it politely and tactfully and decide whether anything needs reporting in the first place. Also, bear in mind that if anyone outwith the perimeter dug their heels in and refused to move then there's bugger all anyone can do about it. They ain't breaking any law.

 

So really, as far as I'm concerned, it's a bit of a non-event. Although I can see why people could quite easily get shirty about the sign. But in this case pontificating over the legalities and 'knowing your rights' won't mean effall if there's a bloody big bang.

 

Park at your own risk.

[Captain Pegg]

I didn't say that it did. I said that the erection of the warning signs was.

It wasn't you that I quoted