Simply put George, the changeover to third sector status with the amendment in place means that the new body will have all the powers of a public body to create their own “secondary legislation” without the oversight and critiquing with public scrutiny that primary legislation gets. In other words, they can write their own rule book. That could cover every aspect of the canals and adjacent property, covering all users of the towpath and riparian owners and businesses. Many things they have done in the past anyway, purely by bluff, and bullying those who don’t know better &/or couldn’t afford to fight them. Foe example, when Frasier Timber was Albion, BW tried to hit them for thousands of pounds of annual “permit” charges to retain the overhang roof of their wharf [akin to the warehouses near the railway bridge]. They had and have no right to levy any such charge, but got away with it simply because Albion weren’t prepared to enter into the threatened High Court battle. To avoid the charge Albion simply chopped the overhang off – and it has been an eyesore ever since. If Albion had been prepared to fight, the present laws would have been in their favour. A non-accountable law-making BW could arrange that the law DID specifically provide for such charges. Looking through some of the Board minutes and reading through internal memos encouraging the finding of new sources of revenue reveals the sort of possibilities that they might try on by bluff now, but could legislate for in the future. It could very well affect the type, and eventual cost, of all waterfront property and place limits on use of the waterside, making many uses subject to licences of all description. Much of what they do is illegal, and some of what they do is at the very least challengeable in law [some actions in fact have already been successfully challenged in court, when “big boys” get involved], so they are constantly seeking new legislation to cover those ‘weak’ areas and to give them greater powers. Their ability to do so at the moment is at least constrained by the demands on public bodies of being subjected to public scrutiny; without that safeguard they would be able to criminalise large sectors of the population including all those living near a canal, not just boating users. Frankly, I am disinclined to give specific examples of what they could do to charge for non-boater recreational users of the waterway facilities if they once had power to legislate for what they felt was needed – I don’t want to give them ideas! I’ve probably let this become too long-winded; I suppose I could summarise the potential effects as being, simply, inevitable additional costs and constraints.

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Public Bodies Bill	05/07/11 12:17:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Public Bodies Bill	20/07/11 10:54:00	Jon Hardy
Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/07/11 11:49:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/07/11 18:15:00	George Knox
Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/07/11 19:32:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	22/07/11 12:30:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	30/07/11 14:13:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	12/08/11 11:58:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	16/08/11 21:02:00	Nigel Moore
Public Bodies Bill	17/08/11 20:28:00	George Knox
Re:Public Bodies Bill	26/08/11 13:42:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	02/09/11 22:10:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	12/09/11 20:14:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/03/12 14:43:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/03/12 17:42:00	Sarah Felstead
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	22/03/12 21:01:00	Nigel Moore

Forum Home