Alan de Enfield

Don't folks usually say "I'm going up to London" ?

A couple of Water companies in the South warned yesterday that there needs to be a lot more rain or there WILL be water restrictions in the Summer

That was the plan - the number of times statements are made and some bright spark comes along and says "prove it". Then of course you get accused of just 'cut and paste' - you cannot win 1

We have been thru this subject so many times, I just keep all the info together to make it easier to post ! Pleasure vessels are allowed to discharge sewage in the PLA Thames (Article 10, July 2024) The full text of the Port of London Authority Byelaw 49: General Direction 10 Discharge of Sewage into the Thames General Direction 10 was introduced in 2021 and prohibits all commercial vessels in the Thames from discharging sewage into the river. These regulations accompany the current PLA Byelaw 49, which came into force in 2015, preventing the discharge of sewage in the Thames from houseboats and workboats. General Direction 10 will become live on 1st July 2024, following which the PLA are seeking to understand the plans for compliance of vessels on the river. There are a range of benefits available to operators who are compliant with the new regulations including discounts on annual port dues. To claim these benefits, operators are asked to provide us with suitable evidence of compliance with the General Direction. This webpage provides guidance on the suitable evidence that must be submitted to the PLA by a vessel operator to demonstrate compliance with the General Direction. The full text of the Port of London Authority General Direction 10: Definition of Pleasure vessel : “pleasure vessel" means– (a) any vessel which at the time it is being used is: (i) (aa) in the case of a vessel wholly owned by an individual or individuals, used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner; or (bb) in the case of a vessel owned by a body corporate, used only for sport or pleasure and on which the persons on board are employees or officers of the body corporate, or their immediate family or friends; and (ii) on a voyage or excursion which is one for which the owner does not receive money for or in connection with operating the vessel or carrying any person, other than as a contribution to the direct expenses of the operation of the vessel incurred during the voyage or excursion

Just the marina staff - they are insured for boat moving as the marina has its own hoist (fixed to the ground) I wouldn't want 'random' boaters pulling on the ropes when the boats are stacked, literally, inches apart. Wind Blown's stern platform / fenders ended up overhanging my anchor.

And the Trent. Which state : A discharge or an activity that might lead to a discharge is not a “water discharge activity”— (a)if the discharge is made, or authorised to be made, by or under any prescribed statutory provision, or (b)if the discharge is of trade effluent or sewage effluent from a vessel.

Thats about what we pay at 'our' marina for an 80 / 100 tonne crane, but lifting in/out 15 or 20 boats makes it quite reasonable. No idea why its upside down - it just won't let me rotate it and keep it rotated.

I read that as "The mooring is available subject to a separate rental contract &, to the buyer satisfying the land-lord (Freeholder) they are suitable."

Would that time equate to something like a filter full of fuel ? You may find a partly blocked filter, allowing the 'bowl' to fill but not fast enough to maintain the engine running, so its using the bowl full' and maybe a minute or two more, then the engine dies, the fuel re-fills the filter and off you go. Check your filter element and fuel for black slime or 'jelly'.

Or, whoever fitted it.

You are going to struggle to "fit in" on this forum. The forum will not change to suit you.

Was that when their grant was frozen dues to them making fraudulent claims re the KPIs and changing the accounts package once it had been signed off by the board ? There was no obligation on government to provide funding after 2027 but there was a commitment to carry out a review of CRT's performance and make an announcement by 1 July 2022. This was delayed whilst further enquiries were made into statements made in the accounts. Following an FOI by Allen Richards CRT's 2019/20 Annual Report was used as the baseline for Defra's investigation into CRT's performance carried out last year. The report was fairly upbeat with only 3 KPI's being worse than the previous year. One of those had a detailed explanation, the other two did not. It is suggested that CRT falsified its Annual Report in an attempt to influence the outcome of the investigation. CRT falsified it Annual Report AFTER - approval by its board of trustees, for the chair, Allan Leighton to sign it on their behalf board instructions given to the legal and governance director (and company secretary), Tom Deards to file at Companies House and Charity Commission chief executive, Richard Parry telling the board that he would arrange to publish on CRT's website Richard Parry quoting a KPI at CRT's APM (later falsified) a formal vote by CRT's Council of Members to 'receive' the approved report publication of the approved report on CRT's website filing of the approved report at Companies House Having done the above, CRT falsified the report to alter two KPIs where performance was down on the previous year. As Defra would have already been aware of one of the KPI's, Tom Deards sought Defra comments for a letter to be sent from CRT's chair to the Secretary of State (the letter was a requirement under the grant agreement). He failed to tell Defra that the annual report had already been approved and it was being falsified. He failed to tell Defra that a second KPI was also being altered. Meeting minutes confirm that Defra commented and the letter was sent. Richard Parry had the approved Annual Report removed from CRT's website and replaced by the falsified report. Tom Deards had the falsified Annual Report filed with the Charity Commission. CRT did not file the falsified Annual Report with Companies House (doing so would draw attention) Following a complaint to the Charity Commission, Tom Deards, on behalf of the trustees, admitted that CRT had altered the report and named Richard Parry, Allan Leighton and deputy chair Jenny Abramsky as responsible (Deards failed to mention his own role and why he failed to report the falsification to his board, as was his duty). The falsified reports on CRT's website and the Charity Commission have been reverted to the board approved reports. An information request has determined that no record exists of the board approving the changes made even retrospectively. Allan Leighton will not serve his full term of office but will stand down at the next AGM.

It is not specifically a 'Cat', capsize hatch - it is any opening 'window' (hatch) that is sized to allow egress - normally fitted in the deck. For the Cat it was an RCD requirement that there was a hatch to escape the hulls when inverted, but, I beleive that requirement has now been amended / removed. It's interesting sitting in the cabin watching the water whizz-past.

No but here is an extract from an email from the Enforcement officer to a boater (a few years ago) ...................... London Enforcement Manager Simon Cadek sent an email to a boater who was warned that they were on course for failing their six month restricted licence, telling them what they would need to do to pass. “When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories: 1) Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range. 2) For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation. 3) Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings. While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view. Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time. This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence. 4) Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area. We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway. The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust. Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only). Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.