Paul C

But is there a toll, or has is been replaced by the licence (which they can and do refuse all the time)?

They could just refund (or even part-refund) Bridgewater licence costs. With an agreement that with the refund, there be no further action. And not accept any new or renewal applications. Within a year, "the problem" has gone.

I think the above is pretty accurate of what will happen. I can't see specific distances and times written into the legislation though. What I think will happen this time round is MUCH MORE power given to CRT, in a much more robust way, to decide what's a reasonable distance to be moved, and/or time stayed in one place/mooring spot. And a step change in how its enforced so its not the burden it is now, or might be in the future with some other profile of movement required. It will be a package of measures including the requirement to display licence number, be tracked, possibly with compulsory trackers, ANPR or both, etc etc. To put it another way, they may very well see the current legislation as full of loopholes, and close them up tighter than a duck's arse so they're "future proofed" for another 30 years.

You keep saying that but a boat can be multi-purpose, and a cruise can be multi-purpose too. For example, you can nip to the shops while also testing out the engine and stopping for water along the way. What's the purpose here? If the cruise is a single purpose only, then you would not be allowed (under your logic) to stop for water. Or, go shopping if its just to test the engine. There's an argument to be made, that a continuous cruiser can't NOT be a liveaboard (but I won't make it because they can...)

Good point - it can and does happen to others. For example, https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/contact-and-sinking-of-narrow-boat-drum-major-while-descending-in-steg-neck-lock-on-the-leeds-and-liverpool-canal-near-gargrave-england-with-loss-of-4-lives Having read that report, I adopted the rule of "everybody outside when locking" when I go boating (but then there's only 2 of us, so its pretty easy to adopt).

Its not considered because it doesn't happen. How do you "send it back" to the bow to tie it on, once you've (for example) looped it through a mooring ring? Throw it, then walk to the middle of the boat, pull the centre line, then get on the back of the boat, then climb onto the roof or walk along the gunnels (stepping over the centre line, of course)?

Its a "no" from me, purely from the extra effort required to stretch over and grab the bowline EVERY TIME you need to moor up. Its much easier to do the various tasks needed with the bowline from within a well deck. It wouldn't take too much extra distance from bank to boat (you know, at those shallow canal edges, curved sections, missing armco, irregular bank, etc) to put that bowline tantalisingly out of reach (where on a normal boat, it would be a stretch but possible to get into the well deck) and then you're walking along the gunnel or walking along the roof, as IanD has explained the access route is. Turns a 5 minute mooring task into a PITA. I agree that the "no escape access" isn't really the big issue, because the likelihood of needing to do it are so small an inconvenience there can be tolerated.

The problem with crying wolf all the time, is that if/when it does actually happen, nobody will support them. "Keep your powder dry", I think, is the appropriate saying here.

A boatbuilder who makes their living from building boats would hold more sway than the average forum poster, though. So, broadly, you'd have to take the fact that they've put their name to it and says it complies, at face value.

PCA

Effectively it already has - it used to be the case that sailaways got an Annex III (part complete) declaration, then the subsequent owner/DIY fitter out either completed the boat and did all the RCR admin too; or didn't sell it for 5 years. That interpretation of the rules was later deemed wrong, and RYA(?) gave up their role in administering the issuing of numbers for DIYers, someone else (BMA?) took over and clarified the situation to say all those boats aren't built right and in theory need a PCA. That's why there's so many >1997 boats without RCR. In theory another, tighter, interpretation could occur officially too, but I don't think its likely. I'd not worry too much, because you haven't bought a boat yet, you're aware of the situation.

There's 2 aspects: 1) The loss in market value due to not having RCD documentation etc. This is obviously an opinion and a perception but that's what determines market value anyway. 2) The fact that a similar boat WITH RCD is likely to be better quality due to its builder being more diligent etc. This is moot too; but could be determined to be so with a detailed physical examination of the boat. Possibly even an entire PCA process done on the boat. If the non-documented one "passed" the PCA without any work or mods needing doing, it could have had an RCD anyway...... So long as you are aware and you can negotiate an appropriate reduction in price (or have an accurate valuation done etc) then there's nothing to be concerned about.

I know you like historical C&Ping of Nigel's thoughts on the existing rules, but they're potentially irrelevant since this is a discussion on how the rules might look in the future, when CRT Commission (well, the process that follows) changes them. And on that topic, indeed planning permission may be relaxed to the extent of allowing liveaboards to stay in one place much longer (possibly with a charge on them). I think its more likely they will alter canal-specific rules to make it worse for CCers, than alter planning permission to their benefit. Just a guess. Regarding trackers, there is an easy way around the privacy concerns. Simply offer the licence at the "max rate, highest priced-area" basis. To earn a discounted licence, you have to have a tracker (with a bunch of necessary rules regarding not interfering with it, etc, much like tacho regulations on HGVs) and the discount is earned against (for example) a monthly payment option of the licence.

If they're not moving, or not moving enough, then they're living there illegally. Something happening which is illegal, isn't a reason in itself to relax it or change the rules in their favour (otherwise, why not set the speed limit on the M5 south of Bristol, at 85mph?) The underlying reason(s) behind the requirement for planning permission, and the likelihood of PP being denied, is the reason not to do this.

This is often suggested but it would mean the change of use of the land (planning permission). Also, why just the canal? I think it was this thread I mentioned it on before, but if one were taking a holistic approach on looking at "more housing", one would choose the green bits not the blue bits.