|
Post by cygnus on Apr 26, 2018 14:21:43 GMT
Tony,
Thankyou for taking the time to explain. I'm going to read through it a few times to make sense of it. I know that if ABP take over this patch in Goole things may well change a lot.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 26, 2018 14:43:57 GMT
I think the point is that Dunkers and Nige have one view which of course they consider to be gospel. The only problem is that nearly everybody else that matters, disagrees with them at least to some extent! Yes I see what you are saying, but doesn't everyone ask for advice from people who are more knowledgeable about a particular subject ? The trick is knowing whether the advice received is good, or not. Or somewhere in between. Most definitely agree!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 26, 2018 15:04:44 GMT
What happens though if Dunkerley comes along and says what the cr&t say is not true, do you not pay the full licence like these others, risk a section 8 and lose your boat? I would challenge C&RT with more conviction. I'm sure rich Russian oligarchs associated with Putin and his Russian Mafia have absolutely no problem with anyone who wishes to 'try it on'.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 27, 2018 8:44:20 GMT
Tony, Thankyou for taking the time to explain. I'm going to read through it a few times to make sense of it. I know that if ABP take over this patch in Goole things may well change a lot. Joe From as far back as the early 1990's the boundary between the easternmost end of the Aire & Calder and Goole Docks, in other words ABP waters, has become less clearly defined than it once was, whilst also developing a tendency to migrate back along the canal. The process began when BWB closed down Goole Repair Yard and "temporarily" filled in the drydock so that ABP could use the land to develop their new and somewhat ill-defined 'Caldaire' terminal. I haven't been in Goole for quite a while, so I'm not up to date on the progress, or any changes to the plans/proposals for the new Dog & Duck Terminal, . . where have they got to with it all so far ?
|
|
|
Post by cygnus on Apr 27, 2018 12:13:15 GMT
Well nothing much has happened. Surveyors have been all over, on land and water. Some fencing work on the Dog & Duck side, but that's about it. In addition to the proposed Goole Intermodal Terminal, Siemens are building a train factory next door to it. So it looks like big changes to this area of Goole. There are doubters regarding the new wharfe, no denying. I await further developments. It will certainly be weird watching ships sailing by my mooring if it dies take off.
|
|
|
Post by cygnus on Apr 27, 2018 12:26:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 27, 2018 18:28:08 GMT
There are folk claiming that they have been paying for a Rivers Only licence on "Navigations" in my area, and have suggested that I am also entitled to do so, being on the Aire & Calder Navigation at Goole. I queried this with the C&RT and they say I have to have a full Canals & Rivers Licence. Is this correct? I think it is, but don't know for sure. I have looked at the C&RT Terms and Conditions specifically Rivers Only Licences and Navigations, and it seems to confirm that being on the Aire & Calder Navigation, or the Sheffield & South Yorkshire Navigation that I do require a full licence. However other people are adamant that the C&RT are misleading people on this. The distinction between waterways retaining their PRN and those with their PRN abolished under the 1968 Transport Act, depends upon the originating status of the PRN. Natural and ‘improved’ rivers enjoy a common law PRN; purely artificial canals can only date a PRN to that conferred by their enabling legislation. The 1968 Act abolished only such conferred rights, and “ references to rights conferred by an enactment do not include references to rights which are merely confirmed by it and which, if that enactment had not been passed, would subsist otherwise than by virtue of any such enactments as aforesaid.” S.115(2). So you have to look at the history of a river navigation – natural, canalised or ‘made navigable’ – to determine whether the PRN status existed independently of a specific conferring of such status. If so, then that status is retained, the 1968 Act having no effect. Where rivers retain a PRN, then only expressly stated legislation can impose a registration requirement – as was done with the 1971 Act, as amended in 1974 and in 1995 [when extra lengths were added to the list of scheduled river waterways]. If a public navigable river is not included in the scheduled river waterways, then neither registration nor licence is required. The tricky bit is that it was left open for BW to subsequently acquire other river navigations via Orders to that effect from the Secretary of State, and those Orders could entail the incorporation of the new rivers into the 1971 scheme, without mention being made in the primary legislation amending the 1971 Schedule. Tracking down those more obscure acquisitions has proved awkward in the past, although I believe that all has since been revealed – the Yorkshire Ouse, for example, definitely retains its PRN, but under the terms of the relevant Transfer Order, it falls under the river registration requirement of the 1971 Act, even though not appearing in the scheduled lists. I have no idea what the status is of the navigations you refer to, and cannot take the time to explore the doubtless interesting relevant history – but anyone could do so, and all you need do is bear in mind the basic principles above, in working out if a river registration rather than a licence is demanded, and indeed if either is required at all. Without commenting on whether they are correct or not in this instance, it is only sensible to forbear treating anything CaRT claim in their T&C's as definitive proof of a waterway's status.
|
|
|
Post by cygnus on Apr 27, 2018 20:41:16 GMT
Thanks Nigel, I'll read through your post and see if I can make sense of it. Joe
|
|