Freedom of Information handling

S.43 did not require it of them; s.43 abolished the prior BTC Act that required their charges etc to be reasonable. True, later more general public Acts have intervened over the course of decades, and the free reign granted under s.43 inevitably has to be curtailed by that later legislation [as reflected in the company's Articles]. On my understanding, s.43 is thus utterly irrelevant in this day and age, except insofar as it abolished all previous strictures upon the terms offered for the services for which they were already entitled to charge.

Non-residential/non-commercial moorings per se, do not require planning consent because they are considered an integral element of the natural use of canals [as argued by Nigel Johnson in the Ladies Bridge PINS Appeal]. No change of use = no planning consent needed. Arguably, though, any significant building elements more than just installing moorings rings etc, might engage planning law [for example if a sizeable landing stage; high posts, lighting, sheds etc were involved, that could potentially trigger Council interest]. Residential or commercial use of boats on a mooring would, however, entail a change of use, hence the need for planning consent for those.

CaRT are limited to what they can do by reason of the rules governing creatures of statute [though I am sure Johnson intended to try [unavailingly] bypassing that through the privatisation device]. The classic case is that of Stourbridge v Wheeley - though that is but one of many such cases from the 19thC to the present. In that case, the canal company sought to impose charges for use of their property [the canal] solely on the grounds that it belonged to them, thus [on their argument] giving them the right, as landowners, to charge for using it. The court determined otherwise, noting that as a creature of statute, they did not possess the common law rights of a natural person, but were constrained by the terms of their statutes. If - as in their case - the statute provided only for charges to be levied for passing through locks, then no right existed to charge boats that did not use those locks.

Ah. The 'creature of statute' idea's one i'm still struggling to get my head arund - I was under the impression a CofS was one that was made by a statute - i.e. 'there shall be a public corporation called the British Waterways Board' or similar in an Act. I must have that wrong? The selling off of the property is a terrible and irreversible and shortsighted shame 

I cannot see that you have anything wrong. Everything that CaRT inherited from BW was tied to the preceding legislation establishing numerous ‘creatures of statute’ in the form of private enterprises authorised by Parliament to control to various extents natural [but to be improved] and wholly artificial, inland navigations. Most – but not all – of those were nationalised under the British Transport Act of 1947, all to remain subject to the terms of their original [and as amended] Statutory Acts.


As the former BW Head of Legal, Nigel Johnson acknowledged in an address to the Parliamentary Waterways Group, respecting the original enabling Acts [“around 370 separate Acts of Parliament specifically relating to BW and its waterways”] dating from 1424 onwards – “nearly all have some provisions that still have an effect today.”


Pertinent to the statutory limitations topic, unless any of those Acts specifically authorised the levying of a charge for a specific service, that lacunae acted as a prohibition on the navigation authorities to charge for such a service. Contrary to the received wisdom of the BW/CaRT legal apologists, s.43 expressly excluded application of that section of the 1962 Act to all such “otherwise” prohibitory clauses. That exclusionary clause has been applied to CaRT in the amendation of the 1962 Act following the British Waterways Transfer of Functions Order 2012.

I hope this isn't considered off topic as it does illustrate similar problems on another waterway ..... if it is, I apologise

Following the massive flooding in Hull in June 2007 there has been massive piling and general repairs on the River Hull and associated drains.
All understandable and laudable, however the massive piling being used is (where piling is occurring on both banks) reducing the width of the river by 4 metres.
Although this does not restrict the navigable width of the river it is already causing a major problem for the tanker barges using this waterway.
They are so long that on the tight bends they cannot help but scrape the piling. SAM_1295 by mudlarker2, on Flickr

I came through London yesterday west to east and not quite sure which lock you are referring to. I am guessing you mean Camden. Or Kentish town lock.

All locks were usable. There is a (hopefully) temporary towpath closure between Kentish town lock and the middle of the three but that is not a problem for a "proper boater".

Other than that I can't think of any problems other than the obvious wind tunnel issues which always happen with urban development by canals.