|
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? I
am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commissionmust now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
Desmo Paul wrote on 30 December 2009 07:38:35 ...
Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commissionmust now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? I haven't found the whole Act (it doesn't seem to be online at www.statutelaw.gov.uk ), but there's a direct quotation from the relevant section 57, as amended by later legislation, at http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov...3800_7_41m.pdf (see para. 8) -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On Dec 30, 9:39*am, "Richard J." wrote:
Desmo Paul wrote on 30 December 2009 07:38:35 .... Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? *I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. *The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commissionmust now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? I haven't found the whole Act (it doesn't seem to be online atwww.statutelaw.gov.uk), but there's a direct quotation from the relevant section 57, as amended by later legislation, athttp://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/row_order_advertising/co... (see para. 8) -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The 1949 Act is no longer in force (which is why no U.K. current statute database contains any of its terms), but from Butterworths online service, the following preamble is still listed:- "British Transport Commission Act 1949 1949 CHAPTER xxix An Act to empower the British Transport Commission to construct works and to acquire land to empower the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to dispose of certain lands to the Commission to make provision as to the rates dues and charges leviable by the Commission at certain of their docks to authorise the closing for navigation of portions of certain inland waterways to amend in certain respects the River Lee Water Act 1855 as amended by subsequent enactments to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands the completion of certain works and the exercise of certain powers to confer further powers on the Commission and for other purposes. [30 July 1949] And whereas it is the duty of the Commission (inter alia) so to exercise their powers under the Act of 1947 as to provide or secure or promote the provision of an efficient adequate economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport and port facilities within Great Britain for passengers and goods and for that purpose to take such steps as they consider necessary for extending and improving the transport and port facilities within Great Britain in such manner as to provide most efficiently and conveniently for the needs of the public agriculture commerce and industry: And whereas it is expedient that the Commission should be empowered to construct the works authorised by this Act and to acquire the lands referred to in this Act: And whereas it is expedient to authorise the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to dispose of certain lands in the county borough of Birkenhead to the Commission: And whereas it is expedient that the Commission should be authorised to levy at their Holyhead Harbour and Hull Docks rates dues and charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act: And whereas the Commission are the owners of the Swansea Canal authorised by the Act 34 Geo 3 c 109 and the Monmouthshire Canal authorised by the Act 32 Geo 3 c 102 and are the navigation authority in respect of the Aire and Calder Navigation of which the portion of the river Aire in this Act mentioned forms part: And whereas the portions of the said respective canals and of the river Aire in this Act mentioned have not for sometime past been used for purposes of navigation and it is expedient that the Commission should be relieved of their obligations to maintain the said portions of canals and river for navigation: And whereas it is expedient to make provision as in this Act contained with respect to the payments to be made by the Metropolitan Water Board to the Commission under the River Lee Water Act 1855 as amended by subsequent enactments: And whereas as it is expedient that the periods now limited for the compulsory purchase of certain lands the completion of certain works and the exercise of certain powers by the Commission should be extended as provided by this Act: And whereas it is expedient that the other powers in this Act contained should be conferred upon the Commission and that the other provisions in this Act contained should be enacted: And whereas plans and sections showing the lines or situations and levels of the works to be constructed under the powers of this Act and plans of the lands authorised to be acquired by this Act and a book of reference to such plans containing the names of the owners and lessees or reputed owners and lessees and of the occupiers of the said lands were duly deposited with the clerks of the county councils of the several counties and the town clerks of the county boroughs within which the said works will be constructed or the said lands are situated which plans sections and book of reference are respectively referred to in this Act as the deposited plans the deposited sections and the deposited book of reference: And whereas the purposes of this Act cannot be effected without the authority of Parliament: May it therefore please Your Majesty that it may be enacted and be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows:—" Hope this helps! M.M. |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On Dec 30, 1:12�pm, "Richard J." wrote:
wrote on 30 December 2009 12:08:27 ... On Dec 30, 9:39 am, "Richard J." wrote: Desmo Paul wrote on 30 December 2009 07:38:35 ... Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? �I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. �The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commission must now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? I haven't found the whole Act (it doesn't seem to be online at www.statutelaw.gov.uk), but there's a direct quotation from the relevant section 57, as amended by later legislation, at http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov...advertising/co... (see para. 8) The 1949 Act is no longer in force (which is why no U.K. current statute database contains any of its terms), Do you know which Act repealed it, and specifically section 57? �It was still being referred to in Statutory Instruments as recently as 2003. (e.g. in the Transport for London (Consequential Provisions) Order 2003, SI No. 1615) -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Unfortunately, Richard, because of the hotch-potch way legislation operated in this Country, there is no one piece of legislation simply repealing the Act as a whole. It will, over the past 50 years, have been chipped away piece by piece by amending and/or repealing legislation. There is only one cross-reference on the current listing of the Act, which relates to the repeal of Section 53 (all other Sections presumably having been repealed many years ago) and that is "Repealed by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, ss 73(1), 118, Sch 5, para 1, Sch 8." Then, when looking at Schedule 8, all it states is:- "Short title and chapter Extent of repeal British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c xxix) Section 53 " I don't have time to do it now, but the only probable way of finding out what has happened to the old Section 57 of the 1949 Act is to check through the more recent railway legislation, which might somewhere in a Schedule contain a repeal, or replacement, or even a Section itself stating something like "All previous references to British Transport Commission" shall now be as if to "Secretary of State for Transport", but this is unlikely as that would have left Section 57 unaltered save for the replaced words. Sorry I can't be more helpful at the moment! M.M. |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
wrote on 30 December 2009 15:16:29 ...
On Dec 30, 1:12?pm, "Richard J." wrote: wrote on 30 December 2009 12:08:27 ... On Dec 30, 9:39 am, "Richard J." wrote: Desmo Paul wrote on 30 December 2009 07:38:35 ... Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? ?I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. ?The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commission must now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? I haven't found the whole Act (it doesn't seem to be online at www.statutelaw.gov.uk), but there's a direct quotation from the relevant section 57, as amended by later legislation, at http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov...advertising/co... (see para. 8) The 1949 Act is no longer in force (which is why no U.K. current statute database contains any of its terms), Do you know which Act repealed it, and specifically section 57? ?It was still being referred to in Statutory Instruments as recently as 2003. (e.g. in the Transport for London (Consequential Provisions) Order 2003, SI No. 1615) Unfortunately, Richard, because of the hotch-potch way legislation operated in this Country, there is no one piece of legislation simply repealing the Act as a whole. It will, over the past 50 years, have been chipped away piece by piece by amending and/or repealing legislation. There is only one cross-reference on the current listing of the Act, which relates to the repeal of Section 53 Yes, that concerned the transport police. I don't have time to do it now, but the only probable way of finding out what has happened to the old Section 57 of the 1949 Act is to check through the more recent railway legislation, which might somewhere in a Schedule contain a repeal, or replacement, or even a Section itself stating something like "All previous references to British Transport Commission" shall now be as if to "Secretary of State for Transport", but this is unlikely as that would have left Section 57 unaltered save for the replaced words. I'm not convinced that the 1949 Act has been completely repealed, piecemeal or otherwise. The Crown Prosecution Service website contains this: "Railway Offences: Such offences will involve using a variety of statutory offences dating back to the 1840s. ... References in Sections 54-57 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 shall include references to any successor of the British Railways Board." It then goes on to describe offences such as trespass (section 55) and damaging trains (section 56), indicating that the 1949 Act is still in force. The page was last updated in December 2007. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ilway_Offences (from the CPS home page via Legal Resources, Legal Guidance, then look in the A-Z list for Road Traffic Offences (sic), and under that 'Transport Offences', 'Railway Offences'.) -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
Richard J. wrote
I'm not convinced that the 1949 Act has been completely repealed, piecemeal or otherwise. The Crown Prosecution Service website contains this: "Railway Offences: Such offences will involve using a variety of statutory offences dating back to the 1840s. ... References in Sections 54-57 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 shall include references to any successor of the British Railways Board." It then goes on to describe offences such as trespass (section 55) and damaging trains (section 56), indicating that the 1949 Act is still in force. The page was last updated in December 2007. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ransport_offen ces/#Railway_Offences (from the CPS home page via Legal Resources, Legal Guidance, then look in the A-Z list for Road Traffic Offences (sic), and under that 'Transport Offences', 'Railway Offences'.) But to prosecute those offenses all that is required is to prove the Act was passed and amended. It would be up to the defending side to find the repeal if it exists. In many cases a more general offense like Criminal Damage would cover the ground. -- Mike D |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On 30 Dec, 23:27, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
Richard J. wrote I'm not convinced that the 1949 Act has been completely repealed, piecemeal or otherwise. *The Crown Prosecution Service website contains this: "Railway Offences: *Such offences will involve using a variety of statutory offences dating back to the 1840s. *... References in Sections 54-57 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 shall include references to any successor of the British Railways Board." It then goes on to describe offences such as trespass (section 55) and damaging trains (section 56), indicating that the 1949 Act is still in force. *The page was last updated in December 2007. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ransport_offen ces/#Railway_Offences (from the CPS home page via Legal Resources, Legal Guidance, then look in the A-Z list for Road Traffic Offences (sic), and under that 'Transport Offences', 'Railway Offences'.) But to prosecute those offenses all that is required is to prove the Act was passed and amended. It would be up to the defending side to find the repeal if it exists. In many cases a more general offense like Criminal Damage would cover the ground. -- Mike D Thank you all for the input and for the detailed extract. Much appreciated and adds to my limited knowledge. |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On 30 Dec, 12:08, " wrote:
On Dec 30, 9:39*am, "Richard J." wrote: Desmo Paul wrote on 30 December 2009 07:38:35 ... Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? *I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. *The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commissionmust now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? I haven't found the whole Act (it doesn't seem to be online atwww.statutelaw.gov.uk), but there's a direct quotation from the relevant section 57, as amended by later legislation, athttp://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/row_order_advertising/co... (see para. 8) -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The 1949 Act is no longer in force (which is why no U.K. current statute database contains any of its terms), but from Butterworths online service, the following preamble is still listed:- "British Transport Commission Act 1949 1949 CHAPTER xxix An Act to empower the British Transport Commission to construct works and to acquire land to empower the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to dispose of certain lands to the Commission to make provision as to the rates dues and charges leviable by the Commission at certain of their docks to authorise the closing for navigation of portions of certain inland waterways to amend in certain respects the River Lee Water Act 1855 as amended by subsequent enactments to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands the completion of certain works and the exercise of certain powers to confer further powers on the Commission and for other purposes. [30 July 1949] And whereas it is the duty of the Commission (inter alia) so to exercise their powers under the Act of 1947 as to provide or secure or promote the provision of an efficient adequate economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport and port facilities within Great Britain for passengers and goods and for that purpose to take such steps as they consider necessary for extending and improving the transport and port facilities within Great Britain in such manner as to provide most efficiently and conveniently for the needs of the public agriculture commerce and industry: And whereas it is expedient that the Commission should be empowered to construct the works authorised by this Act and to acquire the lands referred to in this Act: And whereas it is expedient to authorise the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to dispose of certain lands in the county borough of Birkenhead to the Commission: And whereas it is expedient that the Commission should be authorised to levy at their Holyhead Harbour and Hull Docks rates dues and charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act: And whereas the Commission are the owners of the Swansea Canal authorised by the Act 34 Geo 3 c 109 and the Monmouthshire Canal authorised by the Act 32 Geo 3 c 102 and are the navigation authority in respect of the Aire and Calder Navigation of which the portion of the river Aire in this Act mentioned forms part: And whereas the portions of the said respective canals and of the river Aire in this Act mentioned have not for sometime past been used for purposes of navigation and it is expedient that the Commission should be relieved of their obligations to maintain the said portions of canals and river for navigation: And whereas it is expedient to make provision as in this Act contained with respect to the payments to be made by the Metropolitan Water Board to the Commission under the River Lee Water Act 1855 as amended by subsequent enactments: And whereas as it is expedient that the periods now limited for the compulsory purchase of certain lands the completion of certain works and the exercise of certain powers by the Commission should be extended as provided by this Act: And whereas it is expedient that the other powers in this Act contained should be conferred upon the Commission and that the other provisions in this Act contained should be enacted: And whereas plans and sections showing the lines or situations and levels of the works to be constructed under the powers of this Act and plans of the lands authorised to be acquired by this Act and a book of reference to such plans containing the names of the owners and lessees or reputed owners and lessees and of the occupiers of the said lands were duly deposited with the clerks of the county councils of the several counties and the town clerks of the county boroughs within which the said works will be constructed or the said lands are situated which plans sections and book of reference are respectively referred to in this Act as the deposited plans the deposited sections and the deposited book of reference: And whereas the purposes of this Act cannot be effected without the authority of Parliament: May it therefore please Your Majesty that it may be enacted and be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows:—" Hope this helps! M.M. Can a legal easement be obtained over land owned by a railway company? Or rather could it be obtained say in 1955 whether latterly repealed or not? It seems railway land was curiously protected? |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Richard J. wrote:
wrote on 30 December 2009 12:08:27 ... On Dec 30, 9:39 am, "Richard J." wrote: Desmo Paul wrote on 30 December 2009 07:38:35 Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commission must now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? I haven't found the whole Act (it doesn't seem to be online at www.statutelaw.gov.uk), but there's a direct quotation from the relevant section 57, as amended by later legislation, at http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov...advertising/co... (see para. 8) The 1949 Act is no longer in force (which is why no U.K. current statute database contains any of its terms), Do you know which Act repealed it, and specifically section 57? It was still being referred to in Statutory Instruments as recently as 2003. (e.g. in the Transport for London (Consequential Provisions) Order 2003, SI No. 1615) What the SI [1] says is (edited highlights): 2. -- (1) The Transport Act 1962 shall be amended as follows. (2) The following provisions -- (b) the provisions of Schedule 2 specified in sub-paragraph (3) shall have effect as if references to the Boards included references to Transport for London or to any of its subsidiaries (within the meaning of the Greater London Authority Act 1999). (3) The provisions of Schedule 2 referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b) are -- (b) in Part III, those relating to sections 54 (arrest), 55 (prevention of trespass), 56 (throwing of stones etc.), 57 (rights of way) and 59 (lights of pre-emption) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 So the mention of the 1949 act is in specifying a part of the 1962 act "relating to" it - in schedule 2, part III. So, let's look at that act [2]: Second Schedule - Transfer of Commission's Statutory Functions Part III - Other Functions under Local Enactments The British Transport Commission Act 1949 Section 57 (Rights of way over Commission's property). For references to the Commission there shall be substituted references to any of the Boards. Basically, there's a table giving changes to make to the 1949 act. I think it's section 32 of the act which puts this schedule into motion: 32. -- (1) The provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall as from the vesting date have effect with respect to the distribution among the Boards of the Commission's functions under the enactments there mentioned. (2) Subject to that Schedule, and to any other provision in this Act, the functions of the Commission under any statutory provision, other than the Transport Act 1947, the Transport Act 1953, and this Act, shall be transferred to the Board or Boards specified in the following provisions of this section. There's nothing here about repealing the 1949 act, so i assume that in 1962, it was still in force. tom [1] http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/documents/2003/1615/uksi [2] http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/documents/1962/46/ukpga -- Few technologies will ever stand up to the will of adolescents trying to do things they're told they're not allowed to do. -- Scott Berkun |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, wrote:
On Dec 30, 9:39*am, "Richard J." wrote: Desmo Paul wrote on 30 December 2009 07:38:35 ... Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? *I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. *The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commissionmust now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? I haven't found the whole Act (it doesn't seem to be online atwww.statutelaw.gov.uk), but there's a direct quotation from the relevant section 57, as amended by later legislation, athttp://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/row_order_advertising/co... (see para. 8) The 1949 Act is no longer in force (which is why no U.K. current statute database contains any of its terms) Are you sure? It's not in the Statute Law Database, certainly, and that does claim to have everything that was in force in 1991 or after. However! There are certainly mentions of it post 1991 which imply that it *was *still in force - the SI that prompted by previous post, and also a proposed amendment in 1994 [1]. In the debate on that amendment, the MP for Thurrock said: I could find only one copy of the primary statute -- the British Transport Commission Act 1949 -- in the Palace of Westminster and that took some discovery late at night on Thursday, before the Bill was published. So perhaps this is an act which is in force, but of which all the copies have gone missing, and hence it's not in the database. It seems like this problem may not be unique to this act; elsewhere in that debate, the minister admits that: No Labour or Conservative Minister since the war has ever been able to give an assurance that complex legislation stemming from the 1945 to 1951 Parliament would be 100 per cent. right. ! Now, i noticed in the schedule to the 1962 act mentioned in my previous post that the 1949 act was listed as a local, rather than a general, act. That means we can pull something else out of our arsenal - OPSI's Chronological Tables of Local Acts [2]. These are tables of all acts classified as local, listing all amendments and repeals which have affected them. They're not normative, but they're the result of a 20-year project by the Law Commission, so they should be pretty solid. The 1949 act is indeed listed [3] (under c.xxix British Transport Commission - and the chapter number matches that given in the 1962 act, so this is the right thing). The entry is huge, and doesn't, as far as i can see, mention any general repeal or consolidation of the act. There is an entry for section 57: 57 am.- Tpt. 1962 (c.46), s.32, sch.2 pt.III; 1968 (c.73), s.156(2), sch.16 para.7; Tpt.(London) 1969 (c.35), s.17, sch.3 para.2(1)(2); London Regional Tpt. 1984 (c.32), s.67(2)(3), sch.4 para.8(2)(3)(d). Which also doesn't mention repeal. I haven't looked at any of the acts listed there, but they are listed as amending, rather then repealing, so i assume they don't fundamentally nobble section 57. (Aside - the bit for section 57 looks like it's under a cross-reference to the Heathrow Express Railway Act 1991 [5], but i've looked at that, and it doesn't mention section 57, so i think this is an idiosyncracy of the layout of the Table) So, in conclusion, i think what we have here is a law that is in force, but isn't listed in the databases. I will drop the SLD chaps a note. tom [1] http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate...94-03-21a.84.3 [2] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/chron-tables/...-to-local-acts [3] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/chron-tables/local/chron174 -- agriculture, animal husbandry, and plains-like landscape |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
Tom Anderson wrote on 31 December 2009 15:09:26 ...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, wrote: On Dec 30, 9:39 am, "Richard J." wrote: Desmo Paul wrote on 30 December 2009 07:38:35 ... Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commissionmust now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? I haven't found the whole Act (it doesn't seem to be online atwww.statutelaw.gov.uk), but there's a direct quotation from the relevant section 57, as amended by later legislation, athttp://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/row_order_advertising/co... (see para. 8) The 1949 Act is no longer in force (which is why no U.K. current statute database contains any of its terms) Are you sure? It's not in the Statute Law Database, certainly, and that does claim to have everything that was in force in 1991 or after. However! There are certainly mentions of it post 1991 which imply that it *was *still in force - the SI that prompted by previous post, and also a proposed amendment in 1994 [1]. In the debate on that amendment, the MP for Thurrock said: I could find only one copy of the primary statute -- the British Transport Commission Act 1949 -- in the Palace of Westminster and that took some discovery late at night on Thursday, before the Bill was published. So perhaps this is an act which is in force, but of which all the copies have gone missing, and hence it's not in the database. TSO are offering a printed copy for £6. ISBN 9780105201557 They say it's printed on demand. If you ask for a copy, they'll print one within 1 to 3 days, which I guess means they have an electronic copy. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
Desmo Paul wrote
Can a legal easement be obtained over land owned by a railway company? Or rather could it be obtained say in 1955 whether latterly repealed or not? It seems railway land was curiously protected? So are urban commons ! There was a legal case in May/June 2007 which held (for Wimbledon Common) that since the trustees had no power to grant an easement it could not be acquired by adverse possession (squatters rights) either. -- Mike D |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On 31 Dec, 20:13, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
Desmo Paul wrote Can a legal easement be obtained over land owned by a railway company? *Or rather could it be obtained say in 1955 whether latterly repealed or not? *It seems railway land was curiously protected? So are urban commons ! There was a legal case in May/June 2007 which held (for Wimbledon Common) that since the trustees had no power to grant an easement it could not be acquired by adverse possession (squatters rights) either. -- Mike D Thanks for that and have now read it - copied below. THE registered proprietors of a house built in the late nineteenth century claimed that their property enjoyed the benefit of an easement, being a pedestrian and vehicular right of way, over Wimbledon Common. They contended that the easement had been acquired by “long prescription” pursuant to section 2 of the Prescription Act 1832, as it had been used openly and as of right for a period of more than 40 years next before the commencement of proceedings. The claim failed before the Adjudicator to the Land Registry, and an appeal to the High Court was dismissed (Housden v. Conservators of Wimbledon & Putney Commons [2007] EWHC 1171, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2543) on the grounds that the Conservators in whom the common was vested lacked capacity to grant an easement over the relevant land and that long prescription, being based on a presumed grant, could not therefore operate in favour of the claim. However, the claimants succeeded before the Court of Appeal ([2008] EWCA Civ 200, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1172, Mummery, Carnwath, Richards L.JJ.) which unanimously held that the Conservators had power to grant an easement over the common. The first issue, that of capacity, involved close interpretation of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871, the statute which established the Conservators and vested the common in them. Section 8 conferred on them the power “to take and hold and to dispose of (by grant, demise, or otherwise) land and other property”, words which without more would indicate that they had power to grant an easement. However, section 35 provided that, “It shall not be lawful for the conservators, except as in this Act expressed, to sell, lease, grant or in any manner dispose of any part of the commons.” This provision, held by the Adjudicator and the High Court to deny the Conservators power to grant an easement over the common, was given a more restrictive interpretation by the Court of Appeal. There can be no doubt that granting an easement over land must amount to a disposal of part of the land, as a new right is being created over land which affects the use to which that land can now be put. However, granting an easement would not necessarily be incompatible with the broad objectives of the 1871 Act to conserve the commons as an unenclosed, and unbuilt on, open space. Adopting a purposive approach, the Court of Appeal held that an express grant of the easement claimed would not contravene section 35 as it would not amount to a disposal of “part of the commons” (as opposed to a disposal of “land” or an “estate, interest or right in land”, words which if they had been used would have clearly denied capacity to grant). That was enough to decide the case. The second issue was whether “long prescription” under section 2 of the Prescription Act 1832 required proof of capacity to make a grant. This much criticised provision states that on 40 years’ enjoyment within its terms “the right thereto shall be deemed absolute and indefeasible” save where it was so enjoyed “by some consent or agreement expressly given or made for that purpose by deed or writing”. Similar words in section 3 of the 1832 Act, which is concerned with prescriptive acquisition of rights of light, led the House of Lords in 1865 to decide that a right of light could be acquired without any recourse to the fiction of a presumed grant, as the terms of the statute themselves conferred the right: Tapling v. James 11 HL Cas 290. Megarry and Wade’s Law of Real Property, (6th ed.) 18–160, considered that as a matter of principle it should therefore be possible for “long prescription” to be effective against servient owners, such as certain corporations, which have no power to grant. In Housden, Mummery L.J. (giving the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal) was sympathetic to this view, not only on a true construction of the statute but also on policy grounds. However, adherence to precedent (the 1866 decision of the House of Lords in Proprietors of Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation v. Proprietors of Birmingham Canal Navigations L.R. 1 H.L. 254) compelled him to come down in favour of the alternative view that the opening words of section 2 (the reference to “claims which may lawfully be made at the common law, by custom, prescription, or grant”) “control the whole section” and import the common law presumption of grant to both short and long prescription periods. It followed that, where a servient owner was legally incapable of granting the easement, the claim must fail, however long the period of use which can be established. As the Court of Appeal noted in Housden, prescription is topical. Not only is it a highly litigious area of the law which has been considered on a number of recent occasions by the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal, it is one of the main items on the agenda of the Law Commission in its current review of the law of easements, covenants and profits a` prendre. The Law Commission’s Consultation Paper, Law Com CP No 186 (2008), published a matter of days after Housden, leaves the reader in no doubt of its provisional view that reform is essential, although it maintains an open mind as to the best way forward for reform of prescriptive acquisition, in particular on the difficult question whether prescription should be abolished outright or whether it should be amended and put into coherent statutory form (see paras. 4.175 to 4.193). The Commission’s tentative exposition of a replacement statutory scheme provisionally proposes the removal of the “unsatisfactory” fiction of grant (see para. 4.171) and the replacement of acquiescence as the underlying basis of prescriptive acquisition by long use. Not only would reform along such lines rid the law of reliance on fictions which spawn the potential for injustice, it would lay the necessary foundations for “the simpler law of prescription” which Mummery L.J. conceded has become, in modern conditions, “of more rather than less concern.” |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
In message . li, Tom
Anderson wrote: The 1949 Act is no longer in force (which is why no U.K. current statute database contains any of its terms) Are you sure? No. The Crossrail Act 2008 refers to it, for a start. 57 am.- Tpt. 1962 (c.46), s.32, sch.2 pt.III; 1968 (c.73), s.156(2), sch.16 para.7; Tpt.(London) 1969 (c.35), s.17, sch.3 para.2(1)(2); London Regional Tpt. 1984 (c.32), s.67(2)(3), sch.4 para.8(2)(3)(d). Which also doesn't mention repeal. I haven't looked at any of the acts listed there, but they are listed as amending, rather then repealing, so i assume they don't fundamentally nobble section 57. The LRT Act simply transfers certain functions from "the Executive" to LRT. So I agree that it's still in force. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
|
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
Desmo Paul wrote:
Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commissionmust now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? Hmm, I found Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Act 1949 (c.11) At http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/ Which transferred functions from the aforementioned commission to the courts. Can't see a British Transport Commission Act though. Could it be a case of the wrong title? I can't find a s57 in that act though, only goes up to s8. Have you tried the '47 Transport Act? Following from Clive's post: In the Crossrail Act 2008, I found reference to: British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix) 1949 c. 29 is, according to statuelaw.gov.uk, "The Consular Conventions Act 1949" ... maybe I don't understand the numbering, or I'm getting the Roman numerals wrong, but I think xxix = x + x + (x - i) = 10 + 10 + (10 - 1) = 10 + 10 + 9 = 29? I also found a reference to the BTC Act 1949 in: The Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1999 (No. 1998) In fact, when I do a full text search, I find 61 results that reference the British Transport Commission Act 1949, the latest being "The Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amount of Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2009 (No. 83)" which specifies the amount of a fixed penalty for certain offences defined in the 1949 act. I've emailed the contact email address at statutelaw.gov.uk to ask why the 1949 act isn't on the database. Rgds Denis McMahon |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Richard J. wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote on 31 December 2009 15:09:26 ... On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, wrote: On Dec 30, 9:39 am, "Richard J." wrote: Desmo Paul wrote on 30 December 2009 07:38:35 ... Does anyone know about the British Transport Commission Act 1949? I am told that it prevents anyone obtaining an easement over land owned by the BTC or their successors. The Land Registry says "Since the passing of the British Transport Commission Act 1949, it has not been possible to acquire a right of way by prescription over land owned by the commission and forming an access or approach to, among other things, any station, depot, dock or harbour belonging to the commission (s.57, British Transport Commission Act 1949). The references to the commissionmust now be read to include successor rail authorities and the BritishWaterways Board." I cannot find any version of the act and am wondering if anyone has the precise text? I haven't found the whole Act (it doesn't seem to be online atwww.statutelaw.gov.uk), but there's a direct quotation from the relevant section 57, as amended by later legislation, athttp://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/row_order_advertising/co... (see para. 8) The 1949 Act is no longer in force (which is why no U.K. current statute database contains any of its terms) Are you sure? It's not in the Statute Law Database, certainly, and that does claim to have everything that was in force in 1991 or after. However! There are certainly mentions of it post 1991 which imply that it *was *still in force - the SI that prompted by previous post, and also a proposed amendment in 1994 [1]. In the debate on that amendment, the MP for Thurrock said: I could find only one copy of the primary statute -- the British Transport Commission Act 1949 -- in the Palace of Westminster and that took some discovery late at night on Thursday, before the Bill was published. So perhaps this is an act which is in force, but of which all the copies have gone missing, and hence it's not in the database. TSO are offering a printed copy for ?6. ISBN 9780105201557 They say it's printed on demand. If you ask for a copy, they'll print one within 1 to 3 days, which I guess means they have an electronic copy. I wouldn't absolutely rule out the possibility that they send someone up to the Commons archives to photocopy it! But yes, you're almost certain right. I wonder how it slipped through the SLD's net, if indeed it has? tom -- There are many ways of going crazy, but the most valuable of them is this one which makes a genius out of an ordinary man. -- Claudio Grondi |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote:
Following from Clive's post: In the Crossrail Act 2008, I found reference to: British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix) 1949 c. 29 is, according to statuelaw.gov.uk, "The Consular Conventions Act 1949" ... maybe I don't understand the numbering, or I'm getting the Roman numerals wrong, but I think xxix = x + x + (x - i) = 10 + 10 + (10 - 1) = 10 + 10 + 9 = 29? I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public acts and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the latter lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a local act, but you've looked for public acts. tom -- There are many ways of going crazy, but the most valuable of them is this one which makes a genius out of an ordinary man. -- Claudio Grondi |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
Tom Anderson wrote:
I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public acts and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the latter lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a local act, but you've looked for public acts. I specified all legislation, and the search won't accept roman numerals. Rgds Denis McMahon |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
Desmo Paul wrote
On 31 Dec, 20:13, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote: There was a legal case in May/June 2007 which held (for Wimbledon Common) that since the trustees had no power to grant an easement it could not be acquired by adverse possession (squatters rights) either. .. Thanks for that and have now read it - copied below. .. THE registered proprietors of a house built in the late nineteenth century claimed that their property enjoyed the benefit of an easement, being a pedestrian and vehicular right of way, over Wimbledon Common. They contended that the easement had been acquired by “long prescription” pursuant to section 2 of the Prescription Act 1832, as it had been used openly and as of right for a period of more than 40 years next before the commencement of proceedings. The claim failed before the Adjudicator to the Land Registry, and an appeal to the High Court was dismissed (Housden v. Conservators of Wimbledon & Putney Commons [2007] EWHC 1171, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2543) on the grounds that the Conservators in whom the common was vested lacked capacity to grant an easement over the relevant land and that long prescription, being based on a presumed grant, could not therefore operate in favour of the claim. However, the claimants succeeded before the Court of Appeal ([2008] EWCA Civ 200, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1172, Mummery, Carnwath, Richards L.JJ.) which unanimously held that the Conservators had power to grant an easement over the common. [...] Thanks for that, I didn't see the report of the Court of Appeal. -- Mike D |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public acts and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the latter lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a local act, but you've looked for public acts. I specified all legislation, and the search won't accept roman numerals. And if the act was in the database, that would have found it, since the site does correctly find roman-numbered acts from arabic-numbered queries. I was just trying to explain why there was a number 29 law that wasn't the one we're looking for. tom -- Mathematics is the door and the key to the sciences. -- Roger Bacon |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public acts and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the latter lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a local act, but you've looked for public acts. I specified all legislation, and the search won't accept roman numerals. And if the act was in the database, that would have found it, since the site does correctly find roman-numbered acts from arabic-numbered queries. I was just trying to explain why there was a number 29 law that wasn't the one we're looking for. Indeed, I now have a response from opsi: "The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily available in electronic format. [deleted text] The OPSI website contains a list of Major Collections of Local Legislation in the United Kingdom. Please use the following link and scroll down to about the middle of the page. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/chron-tables/...-to-local-acts Many of these will also hold general legislation." The link might be of interest to the OP. It contains a list of places where he might be able to consult a printed copy. Rgds Denis McMahon |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public acts and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the latter lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a local act, but you've looked for public acts. I specified all legislation, and the search won't accept roman numerals. And if the act was in the database, that would have found it, since the site does correctly find roman-numbered acts from arabic-numbered queries. I was just trying to explain why there was a number 29 law that wasn't the one we're looking for. Indeed, I now have a response from opsi: "The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily available in electronic format. [deleted text] The OPSI website contains a list of Major Collections of Local Legislation in the United Kingdom. Please use the following link and scroll down to about the middle of the page. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/chron-tables/...-to-local-acts Many of these will also hold general legislation." I got a closely related reply. Here's more of its text: The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily available in electronic format. Although the Statute Law Database does hold Local Acts enacted after 1991, these are not revised. There are a very small selection of Pre-1991 Local Acts that are revised by the SLD Editorial team, but the criteria for doing this is lost in the mists of time! They were inherited from the text of Statutes in Force, but there is nothing in the guide to the edition which explains why they were included. The good news is that we are planning to launch a new website later this year which merges the functionality of OPSI and SLD websites and it is our intention to include pre-1991 Local Acts, but they will only be available in their original form i.e. they won't be revised. So basically, local acts are very much second-class citizens, and will remain so. When local acts are things like the Ormskirk and Wrabness Ferry Slipway Act 1972, fair enough. But this act is actually a pretty major piece of legislation, more important in its concrete impact than most general public acts, i'd guess (it's the basis for the BTP, for instance), and it seems a bit of an omission not to have it, or to have any intention of providing it in amended form. Still, the OPSI/SLD teams have a big job and a small budget, so they can't do everything that we might like. tom -- Swords not words! |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
On 4 Jan, 22:24, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Denis McMahon wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: I think there are separate numbering sequences for general public acts and local acts, with the former having arabic numerals and the latter lowercase roman. The British Transport Commission Act is a local act, but you've looked for public acts. I specified all legislation, and the search won't accept roman numerals. And if the act was in the database, that would have found it, since the site does correctly find roman-numbered acts from arabic-numbered queries. I was just trying to explain why there was a number 29 law that wasn't the one we're looking for. Indeed, I now have a response from opsi: "The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily available in electronic format. [deleted text] The OPSI website contains a list of Major Collections of Local Legislation in the United Kingdom. *Please use the following link and scroll down to about the middle of the page. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/chron-tables/...-to-local-acts Many of these will also hold general legislation." I got a closely related reply. Here's more of its text: * The Act in question is a local Act and therefore is not readily available * in electronic format. Although the Statute Law Database does hold Local * Acts enacted after 1991, these are not revised. There are a very small * selection of Pre-1991 Local Acts that are revised by the SLD Editorial * team, but the criteria for doing this is lost in the mists of time! They * were inherited from the text of Statutes in Force, but there is nothing * in the guide to the edition which explains why they were included. * The good news is that we are planning to launch a new website later this * year which merges the functionality of OPSI and SLD websites * and it is our intention to include pre-1991 Local Acts, but they will * only be available in their original form i.e. they won't be revised. So basically, local acts are very much second-class citizens, and will remain so. When local acts are things like the Ormskirk and Wrabness Ferry Slipway Act 1972, fair enough. But this act is actually a pretty major piece of legislation, more important in its concrete impact than most general public acts, i'd guess (it's the basis for the BTP, for instance), and it seems a bit of an omission not to have it, or to have any intention of providing it in amended form. Still, the OPSI/SLD teams have a big job and a small budget, so they can't do everything that we might like. tom -- Swords not words! The wonderful TSO have sent me the hard copy. Looks like photocpied from somewhere. Two staples down the side to hold it together. It is indeed the item with reference to BTP. If anyone needs an extract I am sure I can pdf and send if permissable..... |
Rights of successors to British Transport Commission
In message
, Desmo Paul wrote: The wonderful TSO have sent me the hard copy. Looks like photocpied from somewhere. Two staples down the side to hold it together. It is indeed the item with reference to BTP. If anyone needs an extract I am sure I can pdf and send if permissable..... Why not send it to the Railways Archive? They have a general permission to republish such materials. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk