“BOO! BOO! and BOO!”

“I think quite a lot of us, DaveBathwick, would like to hear one further comment from - what your interest is that you are so anxious to prove that the river above Pulteney weir is not navigable. I suspect you have an interest you are not declaring. However, I read the conclusion of the thesis to which aurea flamma gave us the link, and by and large it seems to me fairly clear - a right of navigation is presumed to exist unless specifically stated by statute that it does not, although the legal waters, at least, are a trifle muddy.
However, riparian owners do indeed own the land to the centre of the river, unless someone else does, but they do not own the water - indeed, a responsibility is to keep it clear from obstructing others. It's like air - I own my garden, but I can't stop others flying over it, or put up stuff they might crash into. If you are a riparian owner, not only can you not stop others using the water, you have a responsibility to make sure they can.

Can we all now give this red herring a rest and also give three cheers to the River Regeneration Group for doing a great job - and three boos to those responsible for letting Worst Bus put the bus station where it now is.”

“Thanks for that aurea-flamma -interesting I agree, but as clear as the muddy waters of our dear river itself especially when he says things like ''Essentially roads are made by man. Rivers are made by God. In the days when this was a
God fearing nation it seems likely that the roads would have been be considered to belong
to their creators, that is - publicly made roads would be public, privately made roads
private, unless dedicated for public use. But all rivers would have been considered a gift to
the nation of the eternal creator. ' (p39)
But also;

'Kekewich, J said, 'The word navigable has a popular and also a legal and technical
meaning, although no doubt essentially requiring navigation to be possible, it requires also
something more – namely, the ebb and flow of the tide.
Bouvier wrote, 'In its technical sense, the term navigable, at common law, is only applied
to the sea, to arms of the sea, and to rivers which flow and reflow with the tide, - in other
words, to tide–waters, the bed or soil of which is the property of the crown. All other
waters are, in this sense of the word, unnavigable.'134'
So hopefully you will all appreciate the complexity of the problem involved in re-classifying the reach as 'navigable' which I suppose was the purpose of my original post. And that's it from me on the subject - as you will all no doubt agree, I have said way too much anyway! In future I'll try to be concise and to the point, like 'McFrank'!”

“You may find some interesting legal debate on Navigation Rights here:

http://tinyurl.com/854a3mo

I hope that informs the debate......”

“bath1946- I do think it does have something to do with ultimate access to the sea, but as i've said before, I'm not a legal eagle so don't know for sure. However, the crucial point is how you define 'usable'. When I was a lad the upper reaches of the Dorset Stour were ''usable'' in my canoe, but, as many an irate farmer pointed out not 'navigable' and therefore I was trespassing and had to b*****-off.
Following on from this, Carky321, it is not that I am being overly negative but just to bring to attention the accepted non-navigable status by the Council, Enviroment Agency, BWA, MCA etc and to make you aware of the past problems associated with navigation on this particular reach in order to save time and energy before trying to introduce grndiose plans. Proceed with caution and sort the legal stuff first. And, yes, my understanding of the report is that riparian owners do have a right to not allow passage over their property.(section 4.6) Why they should need to exercise this right is anybody's guess but, at the time the study, riverbank owners were pretty peeved that the natural banks and habitats were being rapidly destroyed by commercial activity. Surely the whole appeal of this section is that it is semi-natural and not lined with concrete walls and sheet steel pilings as it is downstream?”

“DaveBathwick. Sorry If I wasn't clear. My study was from Bathampton weir to the Newbridge Road Bridge. Obviously it's downstream of Pulteney Bridge where the real development opportunities lie.

I really don't understand why you're so keen to highlight reasons why the river might not be navigable upstream. Negative approaches like this are why the river has never been properly developed in Bath.

Whilst property owners whose gardens slope to the river, (including myself) posses riparian rights and therefore a responsibility to maintain their stretch of river bank, we have no right to obstruct anyone from using the river. And why would anyone want to? James Woods and Bath1946 have got the right idea.

I was aware of the background surrounding the introduction of the speed limit on this stretch and the ROAR group, but to be honest I was only 10 at the time, so I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject.”

“DaveBathwick, am i missing something - surely JamesWood is quoting an authority that all waterways that are USABLE are navigable. It has nothing to do with access to the sea.”

“DAH! I'da never fought of that! Uzin wa'a for fings lik init. Maa b we coud use the canal for summit two init! Wat a bril fing 2 fink of init. We kood bring bac lik trams lik init to as wel.
idawish i coud fink lik im an iz mates init lik!”

“The river could be an asset but is not utilised that much.
Back a couple of years ago when the Rapid transit link was all the news , I suggested that the P&R could have a river shuttle and the proposed other P&R at the rugby training ground could also have a river shuttle,yes maybe not the fastest but good for people to get a different view of bath and cut back on the congestion. There could be strategic stops en route , to take in the stores, green park,Morrisons etc etc , However the critics laughed at my suggestions!
They cited but there is a weir,even two to get from newbridge to bathampton.
Obviously they have never heard of weirs.
I also suggested that the Pultney Bridge,Parade Gardens and the Abbey could be lit up with new LED lighting powered by the power of the weir , that too was dismissed.
Funny how things come back around?”

“Pompeybelle- please explain what you mean by 'cannot be taken to seriously', identify your 'much better claimant', and exactly what point you are trying to make.”