Continuous Cruisers Housing Act 2004

[KenK]

I didn't want to hijack the other topic.

 

It seems that the goverment has recognised CC'rs as Travellers under section 225 of the Housing Act 2004. It therefore now may be a requirement of Local Councils / BW to provide facilities under the act akin to those provided for travellers using the road network.

 

Ken

[carlt]

Do you have a link, Ken?

[Tim Doran]

225 Duties of local housing authorities: accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers (1) Every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68), carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers residing in or resorting to their district.

(2) Subsection (3) applies where a local housing authority are required under section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) to prepare a strategy in respect of the meeting of such accommodation needs.

(3) The local authority who are that local housing authority must take the strategy into account in exercising their functions.

“Functions” includes functions exercisable otherwise than as a local housing authority.

(4) A local housing authority must have regard to any guidance issued under section 226 in—

(a) carrying out such an assessment as mentioned in subsection (1), and

( preparing any strategy that they are required to prepare as mentioned in subsection (2).

(5) In this section—

(a) “gypsies and travellers” has the meaning given by regulations made by the appropriate national authority;

( “accommodation needs” includes needs with respect to the provision of sites on which caravans can be stationed; and

© “caravan” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

 

The full and very long text

 

Wiltshire county council met with some local boaters and seemed supportive. I think that Chris Pink should be better placed to inform.

 

Tim

[carlt]

The full and very long text

 

Wiltshire county council met with some local boaters and seemed supportive. I think that Chris Pink should be better placed to inform.

When I worked for the County Council (ccing at the time), we provided the BW regional office with templates of our questionaires and handouts and our welfare procedure.

 

They found a convenient rug to sweep it under, saying it would never affect them.

 

This was at the same time they were saying that using canals was entirely at your own risk and they were not liable for any accidents, though.

[Chris Pink]

225 Duties of local housing authorities: accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers (1) Every local housing authority must, when undertaking a review of housing needs in their district under section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68), carry out an assessment of the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers residing in or resorting to their district.

 

The main reason this comes into play is that there is a strong case that councils who are responding to the moorings consultation should take this law into account when doing so.

 

I am happy to report, as Tim points out, that Wiltshire have actively engaged with boaters before submitting their consultation responses.

 

B&NES, the other council through whose jursisdiction the Kennet and Avon runs, are at present refusing to obey this law or engage at all with the boaters in their area.

 

I say 'at present' because there are those who will not accept this unlawful stance.

 

Ironically (or not) the 'equality' officer for B&NES lives on a boat. However she is a continuous moorer so this may colour her response somewhat.

 

Mainly, in my opinion, because a prominent B&NES councillor lives by the canal at Bathampton, who has already had his own personal mooring restrictions imposed outside his house by BW, froths pink foam every time liveaboard boats are mentioned.

 

I didn't want to hijack the other topic.

 

It seems that the goverment has recognised CC'rs as Travellers under section 225 of the Housing Act 2004. It therefore now may be a requirement of Local Councils / BW to provide facilities under the act akin to those provided for travellers using the road network.

 

Ken

 

To answer your post directly; it seems that there is a fear amongst local councils that the requirement for provision for traveller sites in boating terms could mean a requirement for council sponsored marinas.

 

Obviously the traveller budgets are not going to be sufficient for this so some other way of meeting these requirements will need to be found.

 

However the main thrust of the law is not so much about providing transit sites as enquiring into the needs of the traveller population.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Chris Pink

[luctor et emergo]

Is this a good thing, or not?

 

Do CC'rs need facilities that are not provided for them at present ( as far as I understand they can moor along the tow path, and basics such as water, sanitation and rubbish disposal are provided)? How many CC'rs buy their own piece of towpath, and pour hard standing on it over the weekend?

Where do they want to take this? Special 'CC Marinas' for Continues Moorers? Separate those with 'bona fide' moorings and those who who can not, or will not, pay for a mooring?

Will there be restrictions or qualifying measures? Special markings on the cabin? 'slegts fir paying moorers' only marinas?

 

I will post my added comment about CC'rs in the other thread, as it is more relevant there.

 

**off to buy a string vest**

[Naughty Cal]

for paying moorers' only marinas?

 

Most marinas are paying moorers only. Thats nothing new

[luctor et emergo]

Most marinas are paying moorers only. Thats nothing new

 

 

Yes, but will there be 'special' marinas for those who can not afford to moor in a commercial marina? The canal equivalent of the council estate?

 

 

 

*edit for poor spilling**

Edited February 2, 2010 by luctor et emergo

[Naughty Cal]

Yes, but will there be 'special' marinas for those who can not afford to moor in a commercial marina? The canal equivalent of the council estate?

 

 

 

*edit for poor spilling**

 

No

[journeyperson]

Yes, but will there be 'special' marinas for those who can not afford to moor in a commercial marina? The canal equivalent of the council estate?

 

 

 

*edit for poor spilling**

 

With a Right to Buy at a discount?

 

This all seems rather bizarre to me. The continuous cruisers I notice most in my part of the world are retired couples who have decided to go for a life afloat for a few years and do keep going around the system. They don't always look very happy but they are getting on with it. I don't think they would want to be seen as Travellers and I'm sure they don't want Social Services following them around every time they approach civilisation, or be part of the Shameless cast.

[carlt]

The continuous cruisers I notice most in my part of the world are retired couples who have decided to go for a life afloat for a few years and do keep going around the system. They don't always look very happy but they are getting on with it. I don't think they would want to be seen as Travellers and I'm sure they don't want Social Services following them around every time they approach civilisation, or be part of the Shameless cast.

It will be based entirely on appearance, I expect.

[journeyperson]

It will be based entirely on appearance, I expect.

 

Appearances can be deceptive. But not often.

[romarni123]

Sorry to be dense but what does this housing act mean

[OffGridManc]

IM confused.

Why cant BW just offer cheap moorings in these little cc moorer parts so people dont have to be continous moorers?

The tow path is already there anyway!

[journeyperson]

IM confused.

Why cant BW just offer cheap moorings in these little cc moorer parts so people dont have to be continous moorers?

The tow path is already there anyway!

 

A continuous moorer is a continuous cruiser and moorings don't come any cheaper than zero cost. I think that is probably what irks people as much as the hogging popular moorings accusation.

[Smelly]

There has been a lot of hoo hah about this but it is overstated. There has been no "ruling" just a concession by an underling that boaters MIGHT be accepted as needing to be considered, depending on their individual circumstances.

 

It holds no force of law until agreed by a Judge...

[romarni123]

There has been a lot of hoo hah about this but it is overstated. There has been no "ruling" just a concession by an underling that boaters MIGHT be accepted as needing to be considered, depending on their individual circumstances.

 

It holds no force of law until agreed by a Judge...

And I thought Iwas gonna be an ethnic minority

[mayalld]

IM confused.

Why cant BW just offer cheap moorings in these little cc moorer parts so people dont have to be continous moorers?

The tow path is already there anyway!

 

Because Continuous Moorers don't want to pay for staying put.

[Smelly]

And I thought Iwas gonna be an ethnic minority

 

In one half of this debate, the fact that boaters, unlike Roma are not "ethnic" hampers some of the debate; you choose to boat, you're not born into a racially distinct group that does it as a matter of practice. It's very difficult to establist discrimination arguments where the distinction is by choice.

 

I would preach caution in celebrating this "ruling" as it's a long way from getting the argument anywhere and could simply be lip service.

[journeyperson]

In one half of this debate, the fact that boaters, unlike Roma are not "ethnic" hampers some of the debate; you choose to boat, you're not born into a racially distinct group that does it as a matter of practice. It's very difficult to establist discrimination arguments where the distinction is by choice.

 

I would preach caution in celebrating this "ruling" as it's a long way from getting the argument anywhere and could simply be lip service.

 

Egad Sir! We're British aren't we? Britannia Rules the Waves and all that.

[mayalld]

In one half of this debate, the fact that boaters, unlike Roma are not "ethnic" hampers some of the debate; you choose to boat, you're not born into a racially distinct group that does it as a matter of practice. It's very difficult to establist discrimination arguments where the distinction is by choice.

 

I would preach caution in celebrating this "ruling" as it's a long way from getting the argument anywhere and could simply be lip service.

 

My great great grandfather was a boatman.

 

Does that mean that I should have special privileges?

[carlt]

My great great grandfather was a boatman.

 

Does that mean that I should have special privileges?

And that is a racially distinct group in what way, exactly

 

That said, though, I know of former working boatmen that were offered a mooring, for life but not their great great grandkids.

[magpie patrick]

having given smelly a PM response, I'll post similar words here

 

Meaning of Gypsies and Travellers for the Purposes of Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004

 

all other persons of a nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, including—

 

(i) such persons who, on grounds only of their own or their family's or dependant's educational or health needs or old age, have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently;

 

At no point do the regs suggest a nomadic life style has to be road based to comply so I'm a bit surprised the minister had to concede it might apply, as it pretty obviously does. However, in terms of the debate raging it isn't all that helpful. For a start, you have to have been nomadic and then you have to have stopped being so on grounds of educational needs, health or old age. At that point the local authority's obligation is to assess your needs. Buying a boat, moving it to one location, and then staying put when you live on your own and are basically healthy but choose not to move isn't going to be covered.

 

Even if a nomadic boater does fit the criteria the authority is then obliged to find somewhere for them to stay rather than turn a blind eye to them "living" in a place that has no planning permission. Of course, they could allocate a piece of bank for this purpose, but they don't control it, and it would need BW approval. The mooring would still need a permit, and presumably the housing authority would have to pay for that (not sure whether travellers pay rent on travellers sites?) and there would have to be agreement between BW and the housing authority on managing the allocated moorings, and BW would have to agree not to let any vacant ones to other boaters. I don't think the tendering system would apply either.

 

All in all, it's going to take a lot more than recognition that boaters are included to get anything done. I suspect neither BW nor most local authorities have the will to do anything.

[carlt]

At that point the local authority's obligation is to assess your needs. Buying a boat, moving it to one location, and then staying put when you live on your own and are basically healthy but choose not to move isn't going to be covered.

The thing is, Patrick, needs have to be assessed, before action can be taken, and that assessment, have I've said elsewhere, can take many months.

 

One wonders what would happen, when the first boater, asked to move on, asks why their welfare needs haven't been assessed.

[magpie patrick]

The thing is, Patrick, needs have to be assessed, before action can be taken, and that assessment, have I've said elsewhere, can take many months.

 

One wonders what would happen, when the first boater, asked to move on, asks why their welfare needs haven't been assessed.

 

Before that though Carl, they'd have to have been nomadic and then stopped being so, so the answer might be, because you have never lived a nomadic lifestyle.