Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
gigoguy

Bridgewater permits and licenses

Featured Posts

4 hours ago, Midnight said:

Thank you Nigel for that and your patience with those of us who don't fully understand the way the courts work.

It is the least I can do. Apropos “the way the courts work”, there is a vital distinction that needs to be recognised between the result of open discussion as to the true legal state of affairs, and the result of a court decision as to those. At County Court level, where judges have scant time to pay attention to more abstruse questions of law, no precedent is set, while at higher levels judges are often more concerned with where they wish the law to go than with pure accuracy of construction. The increasing ‘discretion’ such judges are being permitted tends to militate against findings in favour of the public against promoters of Acts, despite the legal tenets that would dictate otherwise.

Edited by NigelMoore
capitalisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I doubt that ‘everyone’ will review Wikipedia – but you are, in principle, correct as ‘anyone’ can review and submit correct information (or their version of what they consider ‘correct’ to be)

 

It rarely happens and therefore anyone looking to build a case on un-proven internet comments is a fool.

No, everyone could review Wikipedia if they wanted to. 

Wikipedia is under threat. The UK is listed in the highest category of internet censorship in the world (on par with North Korea). I wonder why?

Just remember our kids will judge us in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

With reference to my previous comments regarding riparian rights of pleasure boat use [rather specific, hence not a general public right], the 1766 Act, s.XCIII provides:

And it is hereby provided and further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful to and for the owners and occupiers of any lands adjoining to the said Canal, to use any pleasure boat and boats upon the said Canal, not passing through any lock without the consent of the said company of proprietors, their successors or or assigns, and without paying any rate or duty for the same; so as the same be not made use of for carrying any goods, wares, or merchandize; and so as the same shall and do not obstruct or prejudice the navigation of the said intended Cut or Canal, or the towing-paths on the sides thereof.”  [my bold]

 Unless – as is of course possible – that very specific freedom from pleasure boat charges for riparian owners/occupiers was rescinded in some later legislation, then that exemption applies still, under the most recent provisions re: charges. That does not help the question of charges for passage through the canal by non-riparian boat owners, but does address the question over whether pleasure boat use was contemplated in the earliest Acts, with the accompanying express freedom from charges for qualifying owner/occupiers.

Surely, the fact that free use of pleasure boats by riparian owners was given free of charge means that free use by others was not given. The exception proving the rule.

In any case, the early 20th century legislation made the Bridgewater subject to MSCC tolls, so this act is almost certainly moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, gigoguy said:

I think the point is being missed here, or intentionally by some, hidden.

Peel Holdings are a property company. Their interests are in real estate not canasl, shopping centres, media cities or anything other than property and it's procurement, development and sale. They strip every ounce of profit from something and then dispose of the shell.

Yes, and?

 

Peel may well be all those things, they may be satan incarnate, but that doesn't mean that the law will prevent them being beastly people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Yes, and?

 

Peel may well be all those things, they may be satan incarnate, but that doesn't mean that the law will prevent them being beastly people.

 

I thought the whole point of the law was to keep 'beastly ' people in line. I suppose it depends who the 'law' represents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rowland al said:

No, everyone could review Wikipedia if they wanted to. 

Wikipedia is under threat. The UK is listed in the highest category of internet censorship in the world (on par with North Korea). I wonder why?

Just remember our kids will judge us in the end.

The bit about the UK being in the highest category of internet censorship came from here -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surveillance_by_country

Having delved down into the references, I'm not so convinced now, which kind of proves the vulnerabilities of Wikipedia. :-/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mayalld said:

Surely, the fact that free use of pleasure boats by riparian owners was given free of charge means that free use by others was not given. The exception proving the rule.

We are in agreement on that point then. Nice when it happens, even if not so useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont want to start more controversy but earlier the OP said that Bridgewater boats get a 50% discount on BW waters I think, the thread is to long to find it now. I have just been reading the latest NABO news and they have an article on the licence consultation and the only other waterway they list for a discount is the Avon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rowland al said:

I thought the whole point of the law was to keep 'beastly ' people in line. I suppose it depends who the 'law' represents. 

To quote Oscar Wilde;

"The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means"

The purpose of the law is to keep everybody to the same rules. That will not always mean that the good come out best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mayalld said:

To quote Oscar Wilde;

"The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means"

The purpose of the law is to keep everybody to the same rules. That will not always mean that the good come out best.

I still reckon the main point of the law is the protection of property for the benefit of the property owners, and always has been.  Anything else (equality, better working conditions, health & safety etc) has to be fought for by those generally regarded as the underclass, and will be got rid of whenever possible by those who regard themselves as superior and therefore quite rightly in charge.

Rules don't seem to apply to those who can afford the lawyers to avoid them!

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mayalld said:

To quote Oscar Wilde;

"The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means"

The purpose of the law is to keep everybody to the same rules. That will not always mean that the good come out best.

I think we would all agree we need rules as having no rules would probably be a lot worse. Anarchy in fact.

The problem occurs when people start to make up rules which are against the interests of the vast majority just to please a small minority.

Equally a problem occurs when a small minority don't respect rules which are in the interests of the vast majority, 

It's a fine balance is the law! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/10/2017 at 15:33, cuthound said:

I thought the reciprocal arrangement was that Bridgewater Canal licenced boats could travel as far as Banbridge Junction (end of the Middlewich Branch of the Shropshire Union) without payment to CRT? 

At least there used to be a sign there that said this was as far aso a BCC licenced boats could travel.

That sign was there on Wednesday. I’d never noticed it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 11:23, Arthur Marshall said:

I decided I couldn't face the hassle.  I had planned a trip on the L&L which would have meant coming back onto the Bridgewater within the 28 day period and that, combined with doing the Wigan flight solo twice and a knackered knee, convinced me not to bother, so I just went up to Lymm for a couple of days and then legged it to the Montgomery! Never saw anyone remotely interested in how long I'd been on the canal.  I can understand anyone getting upset about it if their boat is their home and for work purposes they need to traverse the canal regularly, I suspect the rest of us will just either avoid it or work round it.  I've still not heard of anyone actually being charged apart from gigoguy on this thread.

Just done a return trip on Bridgewater.As we spent less than 7 days in total I didn’t see any need to buy a licence, couldn’t actually work out how to and no-one appeared at any point to be interested. 

We did have one strange experience when I took a photo of a boat with the same name as our granddaughter and was challenged by the owner as to why I had done this ( he ran after us for a hundred yards or so). Maybe an illustration of the tensions there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Peter Thornton said:

Just done a return trip on Bridgewater.As we spent less than 7 days in total I didn’t see any need to buy a licence, couldn’t actually work out how to and no-one appeared at any point to be interested. 

We did have one strange experience when I took a photo of a boat with the same name as our granddaughter and was challenged by the owner as to why I had done this ( he ran after us for a hundred yards or so). Maybe an illustration of the tensions there?

It could have been gigoguy :lol:

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 23:10, mayalld said:

Surely, the fact that free use of pleasure boats by riparian owners was given free of charge means that free use by others was not given. The exception proving the rule.

 

That is inconsistent then with the Grand Junction Canal Act 1793 which has previously been quoted to compare wording. 

The GJC Act at S.74 does specifically authorise free use of pleasure boats and remove any possible ambiguity by the addition of the phrase "of pleasure or otherwise" to wording which is otherwise very similar to S.29 of the 1759 Bridgewater Act.  But at Section 99 of the GJC Act is a specific authorisation for riparian owners to use pleasure boats free of charge (broadly similar to the section in the Bridgewater Act of 1766 to which Nigel has previously referred).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter Thornton said:

We did have one strange experience when I took a photo of a boat with the same name as our granddaughter and was challenged by the owner as to why I had done this ( he ran after us for a hundred yards or so). Maybe an illustration of the tensions there?

Blimey, if I ran after everyone who took a photo of our canalside garden, i'd be running the equivalent of a marathon a day! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 23:10, mayalld said:

In any case, the early 20th century legislation made the Bridgewater subject to MSCC tolls, so this act is almost certainly moot.

The MSC Acts of 1900, 1904, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1936, 1945 and 1949 include no such provision.

The MSC Act of 1919 authorises an increase in existing authorised MSC tolls by a specified amount but excludes the Bridgewater undertaking.

The MSC Act of 1920 extending the provisions of the 1919 Act to the Bridgewater (but again only in respect existing authorised tolls).  The Bridgewater had since 1913 been subject to a guaranteed minimum income by the Board of Trade and that subsidy was ended in 1920.

The MSC Act of 1950 removed some of the provisions of the 1894 Tolls Order in relation to the Bridgewater (i.e. the existing authorised tolls). It further authorised the Secretary of State to make, by Statutory Instrument, an Order further amending the Bridgewater Rates.  (I can find no evidence of any such order ever having been made.)

The MSC Act of 1952 authorised an increase in existing Bridgewater tolls.

The MSC Act of 1956 authorised an increase in MSC tolls but excluded the Bridgewater.

The MSC Act of 1960 is well-known for its Section 9 which authorised removal of vessels (including from the Bridgewater) under clearly defined circumstances and subject to prescribed periods and forms of notice (excluding abandoned vessels).

The MSC Act of 1962 contains nothing apparently relevant.

The seven Harbour Revision Orders 1970 - 1992 contain nothing apparently relevant.

But the 2012 Transfer of Undertaking Order does authorise the company to make byelaws including registration of vessels and other conditions (for use of the Bridgewater Canal) and "in the exercise of its statutory powers and duties in the Bridgewater Canal" to make charges.  

No such byelaws have ever been made and I have yet to identify any existing statutory powers for charges for pleasure vessels but I'm happy to pointed towards them if anyone knows better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/83402-bridgewater-canal-charges/

https://canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/83402-bridgewater-canal-charges/

Does anyone remember either of these threads or taking part, and can they get more info on the people who said they paid or had contact?

Please

If only to get confirmation of a few facts that some on here have questioned.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, erivers said:

The MSC Acts of 1900, 1904, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1936, 1945 and 1949 include no such provision.

The MSC Act of 1919 authorises an increase in existing authorised MSC tolls by a specified amount but excludes the Bridgewater undertaking.

The MSC Act of 1920 extending the provisions of the 1919 Act to the Bridgewater (but again only in respect existing authorised tolls).  The Bridgewater had since 1913 been subject to a guaranteed minimum income by the Board of Trade and that subsidy was ended in 1920.

The MSC Act of 1950 removed some of the provisions of the 1894 Tolls Order in relation to the Bridgewater (i.e. the existing authorised tolls). It further authorised the Secretary of State to make, by Statutory Instrument, an Order further amending the Bridgewater Rates.  (I can find no evidence of any such order ever having been made.)

The MSC Act of 1952 authorised an increase in existing Bridgewater tolls.

The MSC Act of 1956 authorised an increase in MSC tolls but excluded the Bridgewater.

The MSC Act of 1960 is well-known for its Section 9 which authorised removal of vessels (including from the Bridgewater) under clearly defined circumstances and subject to prescribed periods and forms of notice (excluding abandoned vessels).

The MSC Act of 1962 contains nothing apparently relevant.

The seven Harbour Revision Orders 1970 - 1992 contain nothing apparently relevant.

But the 2012 Transfer of Undertaking Order does authorise the company to make byelaws including registration of vessels and other conditions (for use of the Bridgewater Canal) and "in the exercise of its statutory powers and duties in the Bridgewater Canal" to make charges.  

No such byelaws have ever been made and I have yet to identify any existing statutory powers for charges for pleasure vessels but I'm happy to pointed towards them if anyone knows better.

 

Thank you erivers for that. I know you've put loads of time into this and it really is appreciated. As is all the help from everyone. 

From what others are saying, privately at the moment. It's looking like Peel Holdings have been breaking the law big time for a long time.

I hope it costs them an absolute fortune in the end. And I hope they do lose the canal. There will be third way or charitable trusts extremely interested. And as for myalld's question where will the money come from.

I know he's not that naive. For a project like that the money would come don't you worry. 

And \i expect they'll erect a statue of the bin man in Lymm when everyone get's their license money back for the last 30 years......well everyone except him. He'll have to pay because he lives aboard. Poetic justice

Edited by gigoguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13 October 2017 at 10:33, ditchcrawler said:

I dont want to start more controversy but earlier the OP said that Bridgewater boats get a 50% discount on BW waters I think, the thread is to long to find it now. I have just been reading the latest NABO news and they have an article on the licence consultation and the only other waterway they list for a discount is the Avon. 

There certainly used to be a discounted CRT licence fee for Bridgewater licence holders (as recently as 2015, it's still mentioned on the out of date licence info on the Bridgewater website), but this wasn't mentioned at all in the recent CRT consultation survey. Has it been done away with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Peter Thornton said:

That sign [relating to the limit of navigation for Bridgewater licence holders at Barbridge Junction] was there on Wednesday. I’d never noticed it before.

Been there at least 20 years to my knowledge! The sign is on the Middlewich facing side of the bridge, so technically you'd need an additional licence to go under the bridge to wind there ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AndrewIC said:

There certainly used to be a discounted CRT licence fee for Bridgewater licence holders (as recently as 2015, it's still mentioned on the out of date licence info on the Bridgewater website), but this wasn't mentioned at all in the recent CRT consultation survey. Has it been done away with?

I did write to CaRT about the discount and I was on one of the consultation days ( Northwich) It was mentioned in passing there but we got no response. So I wrote to CaRT and asked why they weren't removing the discount until Peel stopped charging a return fee.

I was told it was part of the reciprocal agreement and wasn't up for discussion during the consultation.

I have written to CaRT numerous times about the fact that they are doing nothing about this charge. I have explained that Peel can't just change the agreement. It's either an agreement or it's not. So what are CaRT agreeing to.........................anything Peel tell them to obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AndrewIC said:

Been there at least 20 years to my knowledge! The sign is on the Middlewich facing side of the bridge, so technically you'd need an additional licence to go under the bridge to wind there ;)

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/26465-bridgewater-reciprocal-agreement.pdf show how far they can travel

 

Edited by ditchcrawler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

That isn't the reciprocal agreement. This is the reciprocal agreement, that is what Peel changed it to in 2013. It's not an agreement and CaRT, in public at least, don't agree with it.

Bridgewater Canal 1967 page 2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

That isn't the reciprocal agreement. This is the reciprocal agreement, that is what Peel changed it to in 2013. It's not an agreement and CaRT, in public at least, don't agree with it.

Bridgewater Canal 1967 page 2.jpg

Surely, in 2013, they knew that BW no longer existed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.