When did the rules change?

CONCENTRATING on canals, and ignoring rivers, where the land ownership is generally different, when did the rules, if there are rules, for mooring on canals change? Asks Jimmy Lockwood.

Look at any photograph taken in the days of horse boating and many craft can be seen moored on the non-towpath side. The reason is obvious—to avoid snagging towlines.

General acceptance

So what were the rules then and who owned the off-side canal bank? Were there ‘unwritten agreements' between land-owners and the canal companies? Usually the horse stayed on the towpath and more often in a stable, but if not, one assumes the horse ate the landowner's grass and the useful remains emerged from the other end so there may well have been some general acceptance of benefits by both parties.

In this age of motorised pleasure craft mooring at non-designated sites has almost totally moved to the towpath—for one obvious reason that pedestrian access is easier in most places.

Is it illegal?

However, is it illegal to moor against the off-side bank? I suspect not although some land-owners may quite reasonably object. Okay, getting a boat to the off-side bank may also be impossible in many places.

If it is illegal to moor against the off-side bank when were the rules changed and by whom? Over recent years British Waterways have staunchly maintained that historically it owns three metres (was it not three yards?) of all off-side banks.

A very convenient position if you are attempting to receive income from canal-side developers but did  British Waterways really own the land or has it just ‘claimed' it? A close look at the original Acts under which construction was agreed may well supply a definitive answer.

Further questions

This poses further questions: If CaRT owns the bank why can't craft be moored at any time as they used to in former days? Alternatively, if the off-side bank is owned by the land-owner why should CaRT have any claim on craft mooring against it or on the land-owner?

I suspect CaRT will claim ownership as long as the bank does not require maintenance. Then CaRT will declare it is the land-owners responsibility.

CaRT can't have it both ways—or can it?