CRT Winding Hole Survey

[ditchcrawler]

I thought this was an excellent idea until I came to fill out the form (for Hurdsfield on the Macc, where we couldn't get 70 foot round the other week). It's a horrible form, not at all user friendly and the suggestion that the whole exercise is being done under protest certainly explains a lot.

Agree and when I persevered I found they had not logged a complaint I sent in about the Stoke on Trent one last December

[Athy]

 

 

The curve of normal distribution will show that some of the target audience will have mental age of seven. Although I do not know if boaters fit a normal demographic, or whether there is a greater or fewer number who have cognitive difficulties, there is no reason at all to try and snipe at CRT if they are trying to be inclusive and make sure they communicate with all their stakeholders.

 

Actually it would be better if you were critical of them because they do not make their written material accessible. As matter of fact, readability is key factor in good communication, the Sun newspaper has a reading age of 8-9 years and the Guardian 13-14. The piece you mention has a reading age of 16-17. I suggest that if the letter were written personally to you, then you would be justified in feeling patronised, but to suggest that CRT should only address those of average to above average cognitive ability when they publish open letters, is discriminatory.

 

The Campaign for Plain English would prefer that shorter words and shorter sentences were used in all official documents.

 

However - good communication is best served when there is nothing that gets in the way - and incorrect spelling does get in the way. With word processing there is no excuse for that.

That's a very balanced assessment, have a greeno. I don't think, however, that anyone was suggesting that CART "should only address those of average to above average cognitive ability".

[ditchcrawler]

 

I have no objection to signs saying no landing, or no entry, or private, or whatever, but no turning has no authority at all - and can be ignored. In fact CRT advised me on this point some time ago when I first raised it with them, that for signs to be 'official' they will be identified as such by appropriate wording - and the CRT logo.

 

 

Like the one below Star lock at Stone

[Athy]

 

 

 

 

Here's the problem, a number of places wide enough to turn have had notices put up to say NO TURNING.

And whilst there might be I good reasons for this (in the eyes of the person putting up the sign) I would argue that they have no authority whatsoever to say no turning.

 

I have no objection to signs saying no landing, or no entry, or private, or whatever, but no turning has no authority at all - and can be ignored.

 

 

I don't think this is always the case. For example at Forge Farm alias Clattercote Wharf on the Oxford the farmer/ wharf owner has a private winding hole which has a "Private - no turning" sign. I think he excavated it himself from part of his own land, in which case he can probably enforce such a sign (he's certainly been known to in the past).

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

 

The missing one I was thinking of is Calcutt Top lock, that is very most certainly a winding hole.

Are you sure it not just a wide bit from where they put the wide locks in

[john6767]

I don't think this is always the case. For example at Forge Farm alias Clattercote Wharf on the Oxford the farmer/ wharf owner has a private winding hole which has a "Private - no turning" sign. I think he excavated it himself from part of his own land, in which case he can probably enforce such a sign (he's certainly been known to in the past).

But you would have thought when CRT (or BW before them) gave permission for that excavation they would have made it a condition that the winding hole be made available for general use.

Are you sure it not just a wide bit from where they put the wide locks in

No, that part is where the water point is. The winding hole is before that.

[Athy]

But you would have thought when CRT (or BW before them) gave permission for that excavation they would have made it a condition that the winding hole be made available for general use.

 

Actually I would not necessarily have thought that. It was his land, if he wanted to dig it up, why would he need permission from someone who didn't own it? As for the water ingress when the hole had been dug, that's another story, and one to which I don't know the outcome.

[Laurence Hogg]

Don't worry about the winding holes just look at the dimensions given for navigations, they appear to have measured the chamber length not the distance to the gate apex, can a 74.5ft boat really do the southern Oxford???

 

Follow this link: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/navigating-the-waterways-boating/notices-and-stoppages/planning-your-boat-trip and click on "download waterway dimensions"

[john6767]

Actually I would not necessarily have thought that. It was his land, if he wanted to dig it up, why would he need permission from someone who didn't own it? As for the water ingress when the hole had been dug, that's another story, and one to which I don't know the outcome.

Because he has joined it to the canal. Surely CRT would require that the excavation be done to a certain standard, for example to ensure that there was no water loss.

[GoodGurl]

out of the 19 winding holes on the montgomery only 3 are in the restored section and only 2 of them are windable.(if thats a word)

[Athy]

out of the 19 winding holes on the montgomery only 3 are in the restored section and only 2 of them are windable.(if thats a word)

It is now!

 

Because he has joined it to the canal. Surely CRT would require that the excavation be done to a certain standard, for example to ensure that there was no water loss.

Yes, quite possibly, in theory. (The last bit added because I know the farmer and his personality!)

[Jerra]

It is now!

 

Yes, quite possibly, in theory. (The last bit added because I know the farmer and his personality!)

So CRT could pop some pilings across which would solve his problem of boats turning.

[furnessvale]

Regarding right of use for winding holes. There is one in Waverton on the Shroppie which has a sign saying no turning. Not surprised about this one as it is quite tight and the wooden piling will easily get damaged, judging by how much damage gets done to concrete edges. I don't think the sign is an offical C&RT one, although it has been painted to look like one.

 

AIUI this WAS a winding hole but when the new houses were built one or more of the landowners registered the winding hole with Land Registry as being their property.

 

BW/CRT remissly did not object at the time. I think there is still some legal process going on but I fear it may be a lost cause.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Athy]

So CRT could pop some pilings across which would solve his problem of boats turning.

You're a bad man, sure you are.

[MtB]

So CRT could pop some pilings across which would solve his problem of boats turning.

 

 

No they couldn't. According to Greg Forge farm wharf has a rather unusual legal status where the wharf owner owns both the land and the canal bed out to a certain distance, and has a historic legal right to moor boats there. I believe he pays no EOG fees or NAA, although there is apparently an ongoing dispute about this. Gregg recently dredged his moorings at his own expense, so I understand. Not something CRT would have allowed if they could stop it.

 

CRT are not Gregg's favourite organisation.

[Athy]

 

 

No they couldn't. According to Greg Forge farm wharf has a rather unusual legal status where the wharf owner owns both the land and the canal bed out to a certain distance, and has a historic legal right to moor boats there. I believe he pays no EOG fees or NAA, although there is apparently an ongoing dispute about this. Gregg recently dredged his moorings at his own expense, so I understand. Not something CRT would have allowed if they could stop it.

 

CRT are not Gregg's favourite organisation.

I did not think it politic to name the fellow in question, but yes, that's the man!

I would have thought that if someone offered to dredge part of a canal at their own expense, CART would be overjoyed.

Mike Ballinger, the former moorings warden at Cropredy, mentioned some similar old law to me once; he reckoned that anyone on the Oxford Canal (or perhaps part of it) had the right to moor on the water adjoining their land, presumably as long as they did not obstruct traffic.

[MtB]

I did not think it politic to name the fellow in question, but yes, that's the man!

 

 

Hmmm perhaps. But Gregg is certainly a member here and has posted several times. I was under the impression he had gone public about who he was. I'm also pretty sure I'm not the first person to refer on here to him by his first name.

Ok I've just checked, and Greg is registered on here, using his real name.

[BD3Bill]

Actually I would not necessarily have thought that. It was his land, if he wanted to dig it up, why would he need permission from someone who didn't own it? As for the water ingress when the hole had been dug, that's another story, and one to which I don't know the outcome.

And he has recently dredged said hole at his expense, be nice if CRT dredged some of theirs ?

X'd posts

[Athy]

And he has recently dredged said hole at his expense, be nice if CRT dredged some of theirs ?

X'd posts

Yep. By the way, were you out and about between Cropredy and Banbury last Saturday? We saw a black boat which we thought we recognised but I couldn't place it until later.

[BD3Bill]

Yep. By the way, were you out and about between Cropredy and Banbury last Saturday? We saw a black boat which we thought we recognised but I couldn't place it until later.

Twas not us mate. Cheers !

[Mike Todd]

A few weeks back I did send in some info re other features as requested. The form was then new and it mandated a photo. I contacted CaRT and had a useful explanation but also a promise to make it optional. I will bear in mind the request for reports - forgot all about it last trip!

[mark99]

I hope Greg put the arisings to good use! Spread a bit of fertiliser. Still remember Gregs lettuces. Never tasted better.

[Horace42]

I don't think this is always the case. For example at Forge Farm alias Clattercote Wharf on the Oxford the farmer/ wharf owner has a private winding hole which has a "Private - no turning" sign. I think he excavated it himself from part of his own land, in which case he can probably enforce such a sign (he's certainly been known to in the past).

 

This is a good example of a genuine reason for the sign, and a good reason why CRT needs to clarify the situation on the map, and no doubt authorise an official sign for such purposes.

 

If the land really is private there is nothing to stop the owner erecting a barrier - a rope or chain to keep boats out - as some do - but again I say that if there is room to turn without encroaching on the private property (within the waters owned by CRT), then there is no justification to say no turning - and if there is a sign then boaters are free to ignore it

 

I don't mean this in a hostile way. It can be done with courtesy. The boater much take great care not to cause damage.

 

CRT need to let us know what to do.

[ditchcrawler]

But you would have thought when CRT (or BW before them) gave permission for that excavation they would have made it a condition that the winding hole be made available for general use.

No, that part is where the water point is. The winding hole is before that.

The water point in in the old lock. I know where you mean as I wind there myself, its just I am not sure it was built as a wining hole or just became one when they widened it for the broad lock.

[Ray T]

Can someone please clarify if it is allowed to wind using the entrance to Barby Marina on the North Oxford? There are a couple of signs saying no winding and telling people to wind using the hole near to Hillmorton Wharf.

 

I may have it wrong but I thought that when a new marina was created allowing winding in the entrance was part and parcel of the consent?

 

ETA the signs are not official CRT ones.

 

Thank you.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Ray T