Shasterian Noble

This is sound advice. You will be absolutely stunned at how much effect the flowing water or wind can have on a long shallow boat. Don't forget there's way more above water to catch the wind than below to counter it. My best advice from years of navigating rivers with rowing eights (even more pronounced effect than a narrow boat, and only a credit-card for a rudder) is to think well ahead of what you want to do. In heavy winds or currents you want to be thinking three steps ahead of your actual tiller movements! When it comes to flowing water, it's like a pencil in a stream - long and thin so as soon as you turn away from centre the stream will have an amplified effect: turning is faster with the stream against you, and steering will be more sluggish if you are travelling with the stream (not to mention you are travelling faster at lower revs than you might expect so things can happen faster. Obviously this is far more noticeable on rivers than canals, but in lock streams it's the same principle. Mark

You do realise that under the latest EU rulings, this is no longer an acceptable way of referring to those of the shorter stature... I believe we must now be referred to as 'altiophobic'.

I'll be very interested indeed to hear how you get on with this! I'm moving onto a boat in the summer and have been known to spend the odd rainy evening playing online games!

How much data are people generally using in a month out of interest? (Obviously depends on the usage, but would be interested to hear how far a Gb goes!)

That's just brilliant. Some may say that's a touch of genius in that you are able to view the world in a completely different way to the rest of us... that the tint is in the glasses is subjective, and just like Schrodinger's Cat maybe it was both that the world was tinted and the glasses were tinted at the same time... Damn, confused myself again... what's this boating lark we're talking about?

ah! I'm with you now. There's a six week notice rule on demolition of a building which was introduced to allow authorities to spot list and request English Heritage consider formal listing. It came in after the firestone factory disgrace in the late 80s but if the building's not nominated for listed during that period it lapses and there's no restriction. Pullin this back on topic, the buildings on this site were notified for demo, nominated for listing, rejected by EH, and so now there's no restriction remaining. I think a full 12 month period with no other applications on the site has to elapse before the 6 week rule is enforceable again. I think the quote is from a Local authority FAQ site so tries to make it a bit more black and White. You have to inform them but strictly speaking it's not that you 'need their permission'.

That is correct, though I'm not familiar with that rule myself? Either that was before my time or for a specific circumstance?

Yes, developers are urged to exhaust all other avenues first, but that doesn't mean it's actually an offence to demolish it. Additionally having a structure on the site to start with can make a difference to the amount of development that will be acceptable under the policies for that area - I'd suggest that is the only reason the developer in your village kept that building for so long. Eventually the stalling was costing them more than it was worth so they got rid of it. Anyone, Parish, individual or organisation can potentially throw up an obstacle (which has to be based on planning reasons) and I agree that it can be quite possible to stall the process for substantial lengths of time (e.g. state there are bats living there - takes another few months to get the survey to prove there aren't) but ultimately you won't stop them demolishing it if they are set on it. Fire's are all too convenient methods of achieving this but ultimately amount to the same thing. There are a number of good reasons to keep the building on site until permission is granted, but that won't stop them if these reasons pose less problem and therefore cost, than the hundreds of people who keep objecting and stalling their operation. **** Just to clarify, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I happen to know the planning system from the inside but I'm not suggesting that I agree with the proposals in this case. Also: it's English Heritage who list structures, not Local Authorities. Anyone (even you or me) can request a building be considered for listing (form on EH website).

That's true, but only for the replacement, not the demolition. The only other thing that can potentially be used is an argument which maintains that demolition is not acceptable until a suitable replacement has been approved, but this usually only relates to sites in urban areas to prevent the site becoming wasteland attracting undesireables, and has a very patchy history of success as an argument at appeal in case law. EDIT: And even that argument only applies in a Conservation Area. In fact, having racked my brains, and a few documents to hand, the demolition could potentially be undertaken tomorrow if the occupants moved out. It's not listed, and I doubt it's in a Conservation Area. As such, I wouldn't think that demolition requires consent in this instance. 2nd EDIT: Having said all this, I think it's a great shame to lose the site, and I'm positive that in BWs heritage protection statements it would identify this kind of site as being those they would try to protect, but they will obviously push this to one side if the profits are tempting enough for them.

Great idea this. As long as the varnish is tough enough to withstand the give in the cork I'd imagine this gives a nice enough finish with some give and warmth (provided one avoids the dubious practice of covering every possible surface and going for the 70's love nest look!!).

I have to agree with the majority of this. Unfortunately it IS down to money, even where heritage is involved. (Idealistically this shouldn't be the case, but c'est la vie.) If brownfield contaminated sites aren't 'viable', i.e. after clearing the contamination they are cutting their profits below the c.200% profit margins, they won't do it. (And yes I do realise that their profits would still be ridiculously huge, but they won't accept less untill there are no other options.) This is clearly a site that would attract some kind of development interest - desireable location, low perceived intensity of use, and previously developed land (i.e. not greenfield). I stress the 'percieved' because not many councillors or general public for that matter will appreciate the nature of canal usage. To them, a few people loading the odd bag of coal and emptying a porta-potty don't even make the needle on their dial move. As for the planners, if BW tell them that they have an alternative site for the operations, present a case to show it (however sham it might be), then the law dictates that you have to accept them at their word. Ergo, no reason to object to the loss of the warehouse etc. Conservation professionals at local authorities are not allowed to protect things without designation if there are clear benefits above the starting position presented by BW. If the situation above is put in front of them, they therefore can't do much at all about stopping the warehouse being demolished. (Though I would imagine they would fight tooth and nail to stress the importance of the Wharf structures like the crane and older buildings on the site capable of conversion or reuse*.) *Incidentally it's very hard to argue that it would be desireable to re-use a warehouse when its of this age and there is a case to say anything inside can be relocated. I would also imagine, though it's true that I don't know the site, that it's not a great location on paper for an employment site.

this sounds brilliant! What manufacturer are the solar panels produced by? They must be pretty high efficiency! I have thought about solar but was hesitant about just how effective it would be for what can be a significant outlay initially.

ahem, TAXI FOR ONE!

hi there, thanks for the post. I can find almost zero info on the agenda 21 moorings. They sound ideal but info is either non existent or rather closely guarded. @lady_muck don't worry, it's interesting debate anyway. When I used to holiday with family as a kid it surprised me that they didn't charge actually. You think of the pretty tourist places by car and parking charges are astronomical. However, I'm not for a second saying that it's right but I can't see them dropping it as it will make easy money.

surely as a part of this they would impose a limit on the maximum extension? Otherwise an awful lot of people as you say would fork out £3.5k per annum happily for what is in effect a convenient permanent mooring!?

Alan, thanks so much for all the advice. Some really useful stuff in there. (is there a poll for most helpful post!?) from the sound of it there's no substitute for getting down to the moorings and talking to people.

Ah, thanks @bottle. This is what I was referring to before in that if I do decide to go for it before I've found a residential mooring I'd look at doing this over the winter (I'm hoping to take to the water end of August/sometime in September). It seems to give the opportunity to find ones feet and give things a go with some security apart from anything else. I forget who suggested it, so I apologise, but someone mentioned that getting a boat on a residential mooring is the simplest way of doing it. I see your point, and if I can find one in the right sort of area I'll seriously consider it. With regards my initial comment about hating the commute, I think what I meant was rather less easy to define than 'commute'. It was the wrong word really but I mean something along the lines of the daily grind or 'work-car-cook-tv-bed-shower-car' life. It's dull as ditchwater and I'm itching to be doing something physical that has a tangible effect on my lifestyle. I hardly ever run the central heating at home because I prefer the log burner in the lounge - even if it does mean that I'm in one room the whole evening. To the Jeremiah's on this thread full of gnashing of teeth and wailing and Thomas' who don't believe anything will work until it's been done, I completely agree that leaping in unprepaired can lead to disillusionment and potential disaster, but I'm doing as much research as possible and without actually giving it a go, I'm never going to know. I may get burnt and run away with my tail between my legs, but then again I might not... If that's the case then I continue to offer the hand of gratitude to all those constructive comments and wise words of caution, and remind you that my kettle will always be on for those of you who come a'knocking. I'd rather say 'I gave it a go', than forever wish I'd had the guts to try it. Incidentally, I never said that I intended to CC from day one. I'd love to, but know that as a long term solution it's not going to be ideal in current circumstances. I had always intended to go the residential mooring route, taking off at weekends and when I get some leave, but was commenting on the lack of mooring spaces in this area. That's why the thread is titled 'Live-aboard but no residential moorings', not 'How to liveaboard CC and commute'. Can we please leave the sniping about 'stupid pie-eyed young-uns bucking the system and clogging up our waterways' behind now??

I've done this a few times now at different times of year and loved it... Probably loved it way too much I should think as it's not really the same-battery goes flat and someone comes to sort it etc. I'm not living in cloud cuckoo land I promise! (well, no more than the next chap anyway!) I'm sure it will have much bigger tribulations than I experienced renting not least because I was with my partner, so I'm sure locking the first few times single handed will have it's own special challenge! Heh.

Wow, a comprehensive reply, and a polite poster. Thanks to carlt, leonie, grahoom and anyone else contributing constructively. As you say it's a big lifestyle shift but I'm preparing myself for that as much as one can. It sounds as though an hour commute may give me the flexibility needed but to be honest I may well wait till I can sort a mooring (at least over the winter months end of the year when I will be hoping to take the plunge.) Would at least give me the benefit of experiencing the worst months first so preparing me for the low points!

I neither expect nor want the rosy picture you seem to hate so much all of the time. I'm not even sure why you chose this thread to vent like that. I've lived in more difficult circumstances and you are in no position to comment on my motives. It might make your blood boil but that's no reason to jump to prejudicial conclusions. I find your inferred accusations about dodging the system etc pretty offensive. I will live within the law and pay whatever is right and proper. Having said that, I appreciate your concerns and take your point but please don't patronise me or immediately assume that because i'm new to this forum that I haven't had anything to do with boating in the past. Finance is only a tiny part of my reasoning, and no, I will not be like some who claim it has nothing to do with things. It's certainly not number one on the list though! If I may be a little presumptuous myself I'd say there are a few (thankfully only a few) who enjoy their lifestyle so much that they are resentful of anyone new sharing it.

haha this actuallyade me laugh out loud in the office! Whether you believe in superstitions or not I always feel a little suspect if I don't follow the traditions. It's probably just placebo effect but who cares if it helps! What was the reason for the choice of naughty-cal out of interest?

@laurie_booth thanks for the kind words!

Can I not just accidentally just drink all the champagne and offer the canal and the boat some Schloer or something!? Seems like a terrible waste otherwise! Heh.

Heh, thanks. I'm not really superstitious, just wondered if there were conventions. I'm a stickler for tradition, so wouldn't like to upset the gods of 'Its-bin-dun-like-that-for-centuries'!

That's interesting Carl, thanks. I'm getting the feeling from looking on other boards, and trawling the net that I may well have to wait until I get the mooring before even considering purchasing the boat. The lack of canals near here is upsetting (was rather different 100 years ago though!) so I though CC'ing may be too constricted as I may not be able to get enough distance between moorings to stay within the law for any length of time.