Tacet

It's only 20 gauge - so less than 1mm. It's full of holes too with little land between. So the problem will be the strap parting before it is satisfyingly tight.

I'll hazard a guess at a 4TNE84 as that was around in 2002.

If you disembarked the crew at the bottom of a flight and only allow them back aboard when in the top, pound it helps the levels too. At the top of a flight and before descending, they need to stay aboard until the lock gates are closed and sealed. Hope that helps.

How to fill and keep filled the summit level taxed the original canal builder. The summit level could be no higher than could be supplied - hence tunnels and cuttings were used where needed. The preferred solution was to use or divert an existing stream. Pumping water from lower levels was to be avoided due to complexity and expense

In practice, that would be a pragmatic way to share out the tax and least likely to result in disputes and questions. But if you wanted to be pedantic or awkward and the 30 residential berths were marked as composite - that is they are not wholly domestic (e.g. share pontoons, car parking, club house or elsan disposal point), you could say they are therefore responsible for a share of the business rates in addition to the Counciil tax. Or, you could question why a residential berth should have to pay the marina an additional sum to represent the property tax (i.e. CT) when the property tax (i.e. business rates) is included in the mooring fee for non-residential use? If you change a berth from leisure to residential - the marina will save the business rates on that berth. Quick answer is, of course, that is the terms on which the marina owner is prepared to licence its moorings - and if you don't like it etc etc. How a tax bill is divided up between owners and occupiers is a separate question to the total liability FWIW a quick Google does not seem to reveal any Council Tax assessments for Mercia - although a couple of historic band A entries have been deleted. The breakdown of the business rate RV£153,500 is hidden away too - so it is not obvious just what happens in practice there in taxation terms. The General Conditions of a mooring exclude use as principal private residence (unless authorised) and makes a berth holder liable for any Council Tax that may become due. I have no idea about Mercia or anywhere else, but being realistic, the VOA is going to be busy if it wishes to run up and down every pontoon on a regular basis trying to work out just what comprises a hereditament and whether it is liable for Council Tax, Business rates or both. If there is planning permission for 30 residential berths it is likely to be locationally specific (the planning officer is unlikely to want to play games counting types of berths) so that might be a start. But if there is no readily identifiable pontoons for CT, it is a reasonable guess that he is hoping to find that every berth is non-domestic and thus liable for business rates only. In a similar vein, he may not be looking to identify any composites to which he can turn a blind eye. All for a quiet life.

Hmmm - I need to try again. Composite means only part of the hereditament is domestic - and does not relate to the number of moorings in a single hereditament. Having 30 moorings in a hereditament does not make it composite. And having only one mooring in a hereditament does not make it non-composite. As the definition of composite is in the Council Tax legislation, it is not explicitly stated, but the other part of a composite hereditament is, by firm implication and practice, non-domestic. Therefore a single, composite hereditament is liable for both Council tax and business rates. A common example would be a public house with non-self contained owner's accommodation. It is a single hereditament - but the pub part is assessed for business rates and the flat for Council Tax - albeit with a note that it is a composite assessment. The practical effect is that the flat is liable to be assessed at a lower value/band/tax as (for example) it shares a kitchen with the pub. And the pub would have a lower rateable value as it shares the same kitchen. So, broadly speaking, the kitchen is not taxed twice. If the flat was self-contained - there would be two hereditaments, one liable to business rates and one liable to Council Tax. And not composite. Turning to your example, a hereditament with only one mooring (non-composite) will probably be in band A (say £1000) - whilst a hereditament with 30 (non-composite) moorings will probably be in band H and therefore taxed at £3,000. The rate per mooring for the latter is only £100. Happy days as you say if you can reach agreement to share nicely. I should probably stop here. But either the single mooring or the 30 mooring hereditament could be composite should the circumstances align. If the hereditament includes non-domestic property, it is composite and will be subject to non-domestic (i.e. business) rates and Council tax. For example, (and I don't want to be drawn on the ifs-and-buts of specific examples) if the residential mooring comes with a right to use a club house or car park or slipway or elsan disposal point that is non-domestic (e.g. also used by leisure moorings or for other business purposes) and therefore assessed for business rates, the residential mooring(s) becomes composite and in addition to paying your £1,000 or £3,000, there is a liability for the business rates - so, in simple terms at least, the cost is more for that composite hereditament. Whether the total property tax for all the hereditaments that make up a marina is increased or decreased will depend on several factors including valuation. But looking only at a residential mooring or moorings, you (probably) don't want to be composite. I think it is just conceivable to have circumstances with two or three berths (no more, no less) where the impact on the composite putting one in a lower banding (and thus save that tax) will outweigh the business rates. But it won't be often.

It's a very dry subject - and any difference between us is probably irrelevant. But the BWML you quoted earlier is simply wrong: Q1. What is the difference between COMPOSITE and INDIVIDUAL assessment? An individual council tax assessment is relevant when a boat has exclusive use of the same berth for 12 months or more. By contrast a composite assessment applies where the boat does not enjoy exclusive use of a specific berth and demonstrates as such by occupying at least 2 separate berths within a 12 month period. Back in the mid 1990's, I was working for a large firm of Chartered Surveyors which had a contract from the VOA to address Council Tax appeals. Some of the appeals related to matters of principle rather than pure assessment - so I was reasonably up to speed at that time. Since then, I have made very effort to keep away from the rating side of the profession- but inevitably one gets drawn in whilst working on other aspects of the job.

See s64(9) Local Gov Finance Act 1988 -"A herediatment is composite if part only of it consists of domestic property)". It is a matter of terminology only, but a composite hereditament is one with both domestic (residential) and non-domestic (e.g. leisure) elements. If any number multiple berths are grouped together to form a single hereditament that is wholly domestic or wholly non-domestic - then it is not a composite hereditament. So, there are two separate issues - multiple berths (not directly relevant to whether composite or not) and mixed domestic/non-domestic use (determinative of whether composite or not). Also as per VOA. BWML is either wrong or ambiguous in places. The reason that the principle (of a substantially reduced tax liability) does not work with non-domestic is because non-domestic rating is not banded - and the charge is largely a linear function of the rateable value. So, broadly speaking, 1 x 10 berth intermediate will be liable for much the same tax as 10 x 1 berth. Not exactly the same charge - there might be quantum allowances and/or small business reliefs etc. The Council Tax banding system is such that the highest band H pays only three times that of the lowest band A. So, if you have 10 or 100 berths in a hereditament, it will be much cheaper overall than each berth forming its own hereditament. But little to do with composite or otherwise. In fact, if 100 liveaboard berths were assessed as composite (let's not go into why that might be) rather than purely domestic, the total tax would be greater. So, generally speaking, the taxpayer of moorings will not wish to be assessed as composite. In a very few peculiar instances, that may not be the maths. The boat shuffling and non-exclusive use of a single spot etc will be influential on ascertaining the nature/extent of a hereditament (i.e. how many berths make up a single liability) and whether the boat is sufficiently annexed to form part of the assessment. If the unit-of-shuffling extended to mixed domestic and non-domestic berths - that might well trigger a composite assessment but it is the mixed use that does so - and not the multiple berths in itself

A composite hereditament is something other than this. It is a single unit in both domestic (Council Tax) and non-domestic (Business rates) use. For example, a pontoon used for both residential and leisure boats. If a pontoon is used solely for residential (or solely for leisure) purposes, insofar as it is a hereditament, it is not composite. What makes a hereditament is more complicated - it could be a single mooring, a pontoon or even a complete marina. In Council Tax terms, due to the banding system, it is less tax to have one large hereditament than umpteen smaller ones. Hence the boat shuffling in an effort to create one, large hereditament. The principle doesn't work with non-domestic (i.e. leisure uses) and the advantage will be more modest with a composite hereditament so there are usually better ways to arrange a marina if tax minimisation is the object.

Largely correct. But √ B = √ (C² - A²) should be √ B² = √ (C² - A²) although you have the maths right. And, if I understand you correctly, the 50mm half width of the keel effectively reduces the half-beam (A) and thus increases rather than decreases B (the draft) so I make it 1.96m

Or a syphon weir

I spent the Saturday before last bouncing a club hammer off 3m lengths of 4mm glass in a conservatory roof. I had thought the glass would not come out without breaking - and it would best be bust in situ - and when I was expecting it, hence the hammer. But after it refused to break, I managed to remove every pane intact. And on Wednesday, a 6mm fixed pane in a shower screen broke, without warning, . No idea why. It was a hot day - but the room faces north and it broke spectacularly around 10.00 pm. Unfortunately, the conservatory glass will not fit the shower.

I doubt there are enough stern wheeler narrowboats for there to be standard drive, bit I recall Jethro Tull was chain driven to a large sprocket at one end of the paddle wheel. Steering was by two rudders linked together in a parallelogram fashion and operated by a tiller that reached over the stern wheel.

Jethro Tull drove through its stern wheel when we followed it along the K & A the year Devizes re-opened (1990?). It travelled at a good speed to - but it was noisy due to the paddle slapping the water.

We kept a boat on the Bow Backs and then further up the Lee and there was a period in the 1970s and 1980s when you simply didn't stop between Little Venice and Limehouse. And neither did you use Limehouse Cut after 11.00 am.