Why the Roving Permit

[jenlyn]

WHY THE ROVING PERMITS

 

Let me start by making it clear that the Roving Permit is NOT a compulsory option for cc’ers. It is an option that can be taken up by Live aboard boaters and carries Grandfather Rights. No one will be forced into taking up a roving permit through CRT upping enforcement.

 

Several groups have been formed in the South East region and have been looking at the permit as a solution to a problem. That problem being, lack of online moorings (along with the prices they are fetching) and unaffordability of marina moorings in the area. On top of this, the councils are looking at charging council tax on boats. This has brought about the problem of moorings then needing planning permission, which is becoming ever more difficult for marinas and CRT to obtain. The roving permit takes away the necessity of planning permission, by if you like, developing a floating marina.

What has gone before, regarding people living on boats, CRT not enforcing sufficiently and all the other arguments, do not really matter now. It’s happened and is in the past, like it or not. It’s really about time we put this behind us.

There are only facts now, and in my opinion, these facts are what we have to address. Those facts are

1. An increasing number of live aboard boats.
2. An increasing number of cc’ers
3. Communities developing in certain areas with little movement
4. Continuous complaints by some on forums and websites of non-compliant continuous cruisers

The list could go on, but the four listed above seem to be the most concerning.

I think at this stage, I need to point out that there are not “hundreds” of boats seeking to take up the roving permit. The permit at the moment is being considered as a 12 month trial in some areas. If successful, it COULD be rolled out elsewhere, but again, only as an option. Another myth seems to be “it will allow CRT to define place and area”, this is rubbish. The fact is CRT has been working on defining place and area through development of a mapping system for some time (why not join in and insist we mutually help build it). This is something that will obviously come to light at some stage, and of course will create more debate and argument, and should not be associated with roving permits at this moment in time

.

The arguments for or against could go on forever, some of us would prefer to find a solution.

 

At the moment, a roving permit will entitle you to stop for 14 days at designated areas within roughly a five mile stretch of a local canal. A permit holder will not be entitled to stop overnight on visitor moorings unless they have permission from CRT. The cost has not yet been finalised, but is in the region of £50 per metre per year. Strict guidelines will be attached to the agreement along with efficient enforcement.

 

We also had discussions with CRT about “how far is far enough” for cc’ers. This again was aligned to the areas suggested for the roving permits. We developed a map that was acceptable to ccers in these areas, and CRT was happy to endorse this input and consequently put it to paper. (I will emphasise at this point, I think a tailored solution would be needed for other areas).

Everything we have done with CRT in recent months has been inclusive of all boat owners within the chosen areas. We have absolutely no chance, of pleasing everyone, but we have managed to get a majority who have been willing to look at options and a solution. The process is very much on-going, and is far from ready to roll out.

 

Having now had almost six months of working closely with CRT, I am convinced that they will bring about change, some good, and some bad. My personal belief is that boat owners need to come together and have influence on what the future holds. Steer CRT towards a sensible, workable and realistic future.

It’s up to us

[Berengaria]

£50 a metre is about half I will be paying for my marina mooring so doesn't sound too bad considering the reduced security and presumed lack of towpath facilities.

 

Having said that I'm not supposed to be living aboard in the marina (I'm not either btw!)

Edited May 19, 2013 by Berengaria

[jenlyn]

£50 a metre is about half I will be paying for my marina mooring so doesn't sound too bad considering the reduced security and presumed lack of towpath facilities.

 

Having said that I'm not supposed to be living aboard in the marina (I'm not either btw!)

one of the benefits of the scheme, is the suggestion from CRT that the revenue raised from the permits will be fed back into the area they are raised from. Thus making it a beneficial result for all boat owners within that area.

[Rebotco]

This seems an eminent and pragmatic solution for an historic problem.

There's no future in apportioning blame, as this merely perpetuates the problem and solves nothing.

So I would welcome this as drawing a line under past mistakes, and establishing a more equitable future for all concerned.

My only caveat is that it must ONLY apply to those who have edured the uncertainty of the past for, say, 3 or more years.

It must not apply to newcomers after its introduction, as that would add a bigger problem than it solves, and certainly be abused.

 

So, well done to those who have kept their eye on the ball, and come up with a workable and fair solution.

 

I would be interested to hear what safeguards are in place to ensure it cannot be accessed by new liveaboards though.

[cotswoldsman]

I would just like to mention one other point the RP's are issued to a person not a boat and are therefor not transferable

[jenlyn]

This seems an eminent and pragmatic solution for an historic problem.

There's no future in apportioning blame, as this merely perpetuates the problem and solves nothing.

So I would welcome this as drawing a line under past mistakes, and establishing a more equitable future for all concerned.

My only caveat is that it must ONLY apply to those who have edured the uncertainty of the past for, say, 3 or more years.

It must not apply to newcomers after its introduction, as that would add a bigger problem than it solves, and certainly be abused.

 

So, well done to those who have kept their eye on the ball, and come up with a workable and fair solution.

 

I would be interested to hear what safeguards are in place to ensure it cannot be accessed by new liveaboards though.

yes, there are safeguards. No newcomers to the system will be allowed into the option. The criteria for eligibility into the permit is still being discussed.

[Jerra]

I would just like to mention one other point the RP's are issued to a person not a boat and are therefor not transferable

One thought that enters my mind is what happens to a couple if they split up (or one dies) and the named person leaves the boat or is the one who has died?

[jenlyn]

One thought that enters my mind is what happens to a couple if they split up (or one dies) and the named person leaves the boat or is the one who has died?

I suspect common sense would prevail ;-)

[cotswoldsman]

 

I suspect common sense would prevail ;-)

What Act of Parliament covers that?

[jenlyn]

What Act of Parliament covers that?

section 43.3

[Jerra]

I suspect common sense would prevail ;-)

Providing it could be guaranteed that would be fine. I would personally prefer to see it in the small print somewhere. It could apply to only those living as a couple before the time limit for being eligible for an RP.

[Tuscan]

I can imagine CRT being very happy with this especially as those on the K&A have rejected it. They are now collecting money for a permit which some would say you are permitted to do anyway with your existing CC license which for no extra money has the added advantage of enabling the holder to use Visitor Moorings.

 

However as CRT seem to be introducing a new category of license without the inconvieniance of amending the existing legislation and enforcng their interpretation to the existing legislation which are difficult amd costly to challenge I can understand why some may choose to get one to avoid the hassle. We should also acknowledge the good intentions of those that have been negotiating for this in good faith.

 

Why is there a need to have a charge for this at all, as the boaters will be moving every 14 days and CRT are providing no further facilities.

[jenlyn]

I can imagine CRT being very happy with this especially as those on the K&A have rejected it. They are now collecting money for a permit which some would say you are permitted to do anyway with your existing CC license which for no extra money has the added advantage of enabling the holder to use Visitor Moorings.

 

However as CRT seem to be introducing a new category of license without the inconvieniance of amending the existing legislation and enforcng their interpretation to the existing legislation which are difficult amd costly to challenge I can understand why some may choose to get one to avoid the hassle. We should also acknowledge the good intentions of those that have been negotiating for this in good faith.

 

Why is there a need to have a charge for this at all, as the boaters will be moving every 14 days and CRT are providing no further facilities.

you need to read my post again, you seem to be confusing it with your interpretation of what I am saying. One other point, the similarity to this and the K&A proposals are quite different.

[Tuscan]

. One other point, the similarity to this and the K&A proposals are quite different.

Very true the same problem with different proposals fully understand that you are trying to come up with a solution to your local situation as indeed are they. The only problem with this is that we have a national system with one license that covers boaters across the system and CRT may find themselves in difficulties with different versions of local licenses or permits to cover usage of different canals or localities. I am not advocating any proposal over another just pointing out some of the potential challenges ahead.i am sure CRT would rather have your proposal as this gives them funds and the other doesn't.

[jenlyn]

Very true the same problem with different proposals fully understand that you are trying to come up with a solution to your local situation as indeed are they. The only problem with this is that we have a national system with one license that covers boaters across the system and CRT may find themselves in difficulties with different versions of local licenses or permits to cover usage of different canals or localities. I am not advocating any proposal over another just pointing out some of the potential challenges ahead.i am sure CRT would rather have your proposal as this gives them funds and the other doesn't.

its not a license. Its a mooring permit.

To be honest, I don't see CRT having problems with it, simply because its something boaters want. Therefore where would CRT's "difficulties" come from?

Edited May 19, 2013 by jenlyn

[churchward]

WHY THE ROVING PERMITS

 

Let me start by making it clear that the Roving Permit is NOT a compulsory option for cc’ers. It is an option that can be taken up by Live aboard boaters and carries Grandfather Rights. No one will be forced into taking up a roving permit through CRT upping enforcement.

 

Several groups have been formed in the South East region and have been looking at the permit as a solution to a problem. That problem being, lack of online moorings (along with the prices they are fetching) and unaffordability of marina moorings in the area. On top of this, the councils are looking at charging council tax on boats. This has brought about the problem of moorings then needing planning permission, which is becoming ever more difficult for marinas and CRT to obtain. The roving permit takes away the necessity of planning permission, by if you like, developing a floating marina.

What has gone before, regarding people living on boats, CRT not enforcing sufficiently and all the other arguments, do not really matter now. It’s happened and is in the past, like it or not. It’s really about time we put this behind us.

There are only facts now, and in my opinion, these facts are what we have to address. Those facts are

1. An increasing number of live aboard boats.
2. An increasing number of cc’ers
3. Communities developing in certain areas with little movement
4. Continuous complaints by some on forums and websites of non-compliant continuous cruisers

The list could go on, but the four listed above seem to be the most concerning.

I think at this stage, I need to point out that there are not “hundreds” of boats seeking to take up the roving permit. The permit at the moment is being considered as a 12 month trial in some areas. If successful, it COULD be rolled out elsewhere, but again, only as an option. Another myth seems to be “it will allow CRT to define place and area”, this is rubbish. The fact is CRT has been working on defining place and area through development of a mapping system for some time (why not join in and insist we mutually help build it). This is something that will obviously come to light at some stage, and of course will create more debate and argument, and should not be associated with roving permits at this moment in time

.

The arguments for or against could go on forever, some of us would prefer to find a solution.

 

At the moment, a roving permit will entitle you to stop for 14 days at designated areas within roughly a five mile stretch of a local canal. A permit holder will not be entitled to stop overnight on visitor moorings unless they have permission from CRT. The cost has not yet been finalised, but is in the region of £50 per metre per year. Strict guidelines will be attached to the agreement along with efficient enforcement.

 

We also had discussions with CRT about “how far is far enough” for cc’ers. This again was aligned to the areas suggested for the roving permits. We developed a map that was acceptable to ccers in these areas, and CRT was happy to endorse this input and consequently put it to paper. (I will emphasise at this point, I think a tailored solution would be needed for other areas).

Everything we have done with CRT in recent months has been inclusive of all boat owners within the chosen areas. We have absolutely no chance, of pleasing everyone, but we have managed to get a majority who have been willing to look at options and a solution. The process is very much on-going, and is far from ready to roll out.

 

Having now had almost six months of working closely with CRT, I am convinced that they will bring about change, some good, and some bad. My personal belief is that boat owners need to come together and have influence on what the future holds. Steer CRT towards a sensible, workable and realistic future.

It’s up to us

Sounds like a good idea to try and resolve the current issues.

 

A couple of questions come to mind.

 

1. Those that do not take the option would remain under the current CC rules and be required to move beyond the small area and on a continuous cruise?

 

2. For new ccers I would hope that CRT will enforce the current rules with more effect than BW in the past hopefully. Otherwise there will just be another group of people who think it is OK to stay put in a small area and we will be back where it started.

[jenlyn]

Sounds like a good idea to try and resolve the current issues.

 

A couple of questions come to mind.

 

1. Those that do not take the option would remain under the current CC rules and be required to move beyond the small area and on a continuous cruise?

 

2. For new ccers I would hope that CRT will enforce the current rules with more effect than BW in the past hopefully. Otherwise there will just be another group of people who think it is OK to stay put in a small area and we will be back where it started.

Yes to both of your questions.

[costalot]

It appears to me that if CRT are intending to go down this path in certain "problem" areas then it will give some legitimency to existing non compliant continuous cruisers in those areas. Moreover, if the Roving Permit is issued to a person and not transferrable with the boat....... and CRT don't issue any further permits in the future........ then, as permits lapse, the current "problem" will be resolved over time!

 

Or am I being too devious?

[jenlyn]

It appears to me that if CRT are intending to go down this path in certain "problem" areas then it will give some legitimency to existing non compliant continuous cruisers in those areas. Moreover, if the Roving Permit is issued to a person and not transferrable with the boat....... and CRT don't issue any further permits in the future........ then, as permits lapse, the current "problem" will be resolved over time!

 

Or am I being too devious?

 

no, its not devious. This is of course the intention. A natural decrease in a problem.

[Jerra]

Therefore where would CRT's "difficulties" come from?

The only source of problems I can see is boaters expecting the same conditions on their RP as friends get in another area and/or people in areas where CRT doesn't see sufficient of a problem to introduce RPs demanding the same treatment as others elsewhere.

[jenlyn]

The only source of problems I can see is boaters expecting the same conditions on their RP as friends get in another area and/or people in areas where CRT doesn't see sufficient of a problem to introduce RPs demanding the same treatment as others elsewhere.

 

Its explained to boaters from the start that each area has to be tailored to its geographical layout. Boaters get most of the say on the implementation of the permit and how it should work in their area. Therefore I cannot comment on how it would work elsewhere.

[jenlyn]

To follow on from my reply to jerra, I feel I should point out that throughout these negotiations, John Dodwell and Sally Ash have made it absolutely clear that the system has to be developed by the boaters in the area's concerned. They were obviously intent on getting it right. Before anyone states we were hoodwinked into it, no we were not lol

[larryjc]

Nope sorry I don't get it. I'm new to the waterways and so could you please explain this to a dummy. I have a CRT licence which allows me to stay anywhere for up to 14 days apart from designated places which from what little I've seen so far seem to limit you to 48 hours. So why do I need to pay to stay somewhere for 14 days when my licence allows me to anyway?

I did read the OP carefully but suspect this is an old chestnut that everyone understands but me!!

[jenlyn]

Nope sorry I don't get it. I'm new to the waterways and so could you please explain this to a dummy. I have a CRT licence which allows me to stay anywhere for up to 14 days apart from designated places which from what little I've seen so far seem to limit you to 48 hours. So why do I need to pay to stay somewhere for 14 days when my licence allows me to anyway?

I did read the OP carefully but suspect this is an old chestnut that everyone understands but me!!

 

if you do some research on this site, you will get all the info you need. I am not sure my computer has sufficient memory to start from scratch lol. In brief, its mostly to do with overstaying and mis information over a number of years. Along with legislation and many other ifs, do's, dont's and could-should have's.

[bottle]

Its happened to me now cannot 'bottom post'.

 

This is a fix to a long standing problem in one particular location and it will self right over a long time, depending on the life expectancy of those involved.

 

Nope sorry I don't get it. I'm new to the waterways and so could you please explain this to a dummy. I have a CRT licence which allows me to stay anywhere for up to 14 days apart from designated places which from what little I've seen so far seem to limit you to 48 hours. Correct

So why do I need to pay to stay somewhere for 14 days when my licence allows me to anyway? You do not and anyway this does not affect you, so you cannot join the 'roving permit holders'

I did read the OP carefully but suspect this is an old chestnut that everyone understands but me!!