Objects of the Articles - Property

Property

2.2 To protect and conserve for public benefit sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;

Nobody could argue with that one, except of course those who would build new walls around Jericho, and I'm sure the historic buildings and site at Marsworth Junction will be more effectively protected and conserved by building a housing estate there. Or it needs to test its Section 3.13 powers now and again: to 'dispose of or deal with all or any of its property with or without payment and subject to such conditions as the Trustees think fit'. You don't know it works till you try. There are references to 'protected assets', but without reading the Trust Settlement, which is not linked to, I can't tell you what or where they are. Presumably not Marsworth Junction.

2.3 To further for the public benefit the conservation protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;

Again it looks good, though the 'public' who might benefit isn't defined in the Schedule and, there is just a little question mark over the enthusiastic population of that landscape with serried ranks (ranks are ALWAYS serried) of boats in marinas.

Restoration

2.4 To promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways;

Love this, the Thames and Severn, the northern Lancaster, the west end of the Chesterfield, the Cromford, the Grantham, the Lichfield, the Carr Dyke (yes, that IS included in the definition given in the Schedule, despite being unnavigable for 1,600 years or more).... just wait till they've got a bit of money left over from preserving, protecting, operating etc. such property as they haven't disposed of.

2.5 To promote and facilitate for public benefit awareness, learning and education about inland waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;

Again of course subject to availability of spare cash, and not being disposed of. We must not allow future generations to forget the days when there was a sculpture at EVERY lock.

Development

2.6 To promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any inland waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by:

2.6.1 the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and

2.6.2 the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources; and

The Schedule defines 'sustainable development' as:

development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

This of course is where marinas, Marsworth, Jericho and so on come in. If the 'needs of the present' are defined as the requirement to raise quick cash, you can't fault it, as long as it leaves some bits of land somewhere else for others to pick at later. I don't know much about Oxford demographics, and it must be a delicate balance between skilled jobs in boatyards and minimum-wage cleaners in much-needed bijou apartments (travelling time not paid), but when there is a conflict, prudence is our guide. And it's very prudent for anyone with the power to dispose etc. as they see fit to make sure that the recipients are in a position to reciprocate (sorry, recognise one's unique skills) later if required. See the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13 ). Not of course that anyone in CaRT will be looking to go on to better jobs (sorry, greater challenges) with anyone connected with such developments.

And finally:

2.7 to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with inland waterways; provided that in each case where the Trust undertakes work in relation to property which it does not own or hold in trust, any private benefit to the owner of the property is merely incidental.

As I said, it advises consultation with a good solicitor. Maybe he or she will be able to explain why CaRT should be exclusively charitably working on someone else's property for no benefit. I suppose it allows them to work for Peel Holdings to keep the Bridgewater running so we can do the Cheshire Ring.

That's what it exists for; why it exists at all occupies just one of the 59 Articles, and navigation (for freight only) just one line of one sub- paragraph. The vast majority of the 33000 occasionally inhabited, non-freight-carrying ships or boats which (partly) fill up all those marinas simply aren't anything to do with it. We should be grateful that it allows us to use its property at all.