Mike Todd

I am sure I managed in the past to locate separate maps of the two canals but not right now. However, as the main purpose of the Barge Canal was to trade salt from the town down to the Severn (and beyond) would they not want to serve the salt mill just above the Barge Lock (on the other side of the main road) as well as the one alongside SaltWay/Vines Park? Otherwise, why build it wide?

I thought that this was the first phase - which is continuing ?

OK, we are talking about road bridges I assumed - there is Worcester Bridge and . . . ?

Canals are much more of a live water object than is oft realised. Even if closed, a canal still needs water management, especially to protect adjacent properties and also to fulfil existing contracts for water in or water out. This has long been a problem for politicians to understand when proposing defunding as they think it is a simple matter of disabling the gates at either end of the canal. If only . . .

And how many are closed?

I dont think tte Act precludes different differentials for various licence categories.

The Act you cite does not refer to a base rate or whatever. It says that Rivers Only must not be more than 60% that the licence for the same boat on the canals and rivers. Hence, if a boat on the canals is a noHM, and thus paying a surcharge, then the same surcharge would apply at 60% for Rivers Only.

The CaRT web site on winter moorings says, " Winter moorings give boaters who don't already have a permanent mooring a chance to moor up for the winter months" It does not specify whether or not you can stay aboard for all of the paid for time.

There is a tendency to forget that the classification is now 'Boaters without a Home Mooring'. One of the less oft debated issues is that of boaters who do not regularly live aboard but who move infrequently. Those who do so within 14 days just about keep within the rules but some do not - MK has been reported a having a particular issue in this regard. It may well be that the market impact of the NoHM surcharge will be more on so-called dumpers than on CCrs

As shown, no access from stern into cabin?

I would not expect it to be able to get a BSSC or insurance any time soon, so don't fret!

So, would you rather that no-HM boaters should not be offered a winter opportunity? Even if it leads to a significant rise in overstaying? Since CaRT have the power to designate locations for mooring (like those run by Waterside) and to charge for them, it is likely that a court would accept the legitimacy of Winter Moorings, by implication that this is not 'protection money'. BTW, I do like your comparison with ULEZ (for similar reasons!) At least they can make a sweet sound! The 'new' classification is a Boater without a Home Mooring - in other words, this is defined by omission rather than commission. The full year bit only impacts if a boater seeks to pay HM rates when in a marina whilst accepting the surcharge when not. If a winter mooring is to be considered a Home Mooring then we get quite a mess with the surcharges! But they would have had a problem if they never moved - no income!

cost much less.

The law does allow for circumstances under which a contract is not enforceable - such as demonstrating that its conditions are not reasonable. AFAIK, no-one has mounted a challenge to the fundamental basis of the NAA and even Pillings, who tried to get away with not paying, ended up having to agree. Plenty of contracts are made between parties of unequal power (I have little power against the electricity company who supply us) - in cases in which one party's power is necessarily extreme then the Govt has established mechanisms to limit the abuse of monopolies (even if what they are allowed to do feels very close!) I cannot see that CaRT are either in such a monopolistic situation nor is what they supply (in this case access) sufficiently a basic necessity that it justifies a controlling body like OFGEM. It is open, however, to anyone who disagrees, to make a reference to the Monopolies body (whatever name they go by these days!) Not sure what menaces you mean but CaRT (as I know) do go to great lengths to ensure that they only apply such measures as the law permits when enforcing against boaters that do not comply, unlike Mafia who reputedly use methods that are clearly not sanctioned by law.

Since that appears to be sufficient as a basis for what they want to do, re NAA, why do you keep banging on about the lack of a statutory right as if that meant they were acting illegally or that they could not enforce their arrangements. I have done lots of thing for which I have no specific statutory right simply by working under contract. After all, statute does give force to the concept of a contract and the circumstance's under which it is enforceable.

Can you cite a single documented instance of CaRT claiming a statutory right in the context you rail against?

I was countering the implication that the hard surfaced towpaths are funded by CaRT (and hence by boaters, if only as a result of less in the pot for canal maintenance). But I also had in mind that when a boater moors, quite often they need/wish to walk to somewhere else. In areas where a high proportion of moorers are liveaboards then they will use the towpath regularly to get to and from work and a bicycle can chew up a non-hard surface quite quickly.

CaRT do not prioritise topaths over navigation. They facilitate tgd dreams of others, especially those with money to pay for it. In any case, towpaths are essential to boosting, even if fir much of a journey you do not need them. Given that living aboard is currently consented, try living with the state of towpaths outside your front door (or whatever). Equally, try going back to the state they were in when we first boated (1960s) I thought it was not so much who owns the water, even that which falls on your garden, but that CaRT have the right to charge for its use.

I suspect that there will be very few genuinely residential towpath moorings offered by private individuals. Apart from having to negotiate an EOG mooring deal with CaRT it is also necessary to obtain planning permission for residential, neither of which is readily granted these days. Apart from the cost of creating the mooring as well.

Was it not the original terminus coming up from the river the locks in between are also wide? The separately named connecting canal to Hanbury provided an alternative link to the existing narrow W & B. I assume that the original Sevrn traffic used wide barges as all the exits are wide.

I only mean diminished in comparison with a 14 ft * 60+ ft wb.

Do the dotted sections indicate an unloaded movement? If so, they managed a pretty good load factor.

This is the point at which the analogy breaks down - the issue with wide beams has largely been about whether or not they incur a greater degree of wear and tear on the infrastructure, not whether they upset or disturb other people.

Not entirely true - there were plenty of wide beams on the canals built for them - eg Liverpool Flats/ Short Boats. One problem in trying to build a liveaboard floating apartment on this template is that they were very low headroom, and conversions have generally struggled to get much window above the gunnels. They are also short which means that the acreage advantage is diminished. One of the factors that is often forgotten when considering whether or not a particular wide design is 'suitable' for a given canal is the above-water profile, not just the waterline beam. It also seems to me that most of the modern wide beams are even more boxy than NBs which leads to issues (as and when they actually move) with the profile. The difficulty is that dimensions other than length and beam are harder to define in ways that could be enforced.

Nah - their sense of entitlement means that engaging in such behaviour is beneath their dignity! Best left to the peasants. (I suppose I'd better add a smiley for the humour-challenged!)