Paul C
-
Posts
11,904 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Paul C
-
-
What's the cost difference between a cheap garage and a cheap marina that allows a declared split of your choice?
-
13 minutes ago, Higgs said:
I was with you, when you alluded to necessary transit moorings being a part and parcel of navigation. I don't really see mooring as an extra.
I agree, mooring alone is tenuous as a provided "service". Except if its in a popular area. A corollary might be that one can park their car on a road without restriction - unless there are restrictions.
Other services obviously incur a cost to provide, for example water points, refuse disposal, towpath maintenance, mooring rings, piling, hard/concrete edge, dredging edge as well as centre channel.
-
3 minutes ago, Higgs said:
Are you saying that CCers must have another home? Trying to make CCing somehow illegitimate?
Hang on, we're talking about living aboard a boat, not CCing - (why) are you assuming all CCers also live aboard?
No. No.
For further details on what I have said, please refer above to my recent posts.
-
4 minutes ago, Higgs said:
Listen, you're all going on about paying what you think boaters should owe, for using the towpath. I can go on about boaters not paying for things that are not due to CRT, because they are neither on 'CRT water' or using the canal.
We're not, at least not recently on this particular thread. The topic area is the legality of living aboard/having a residential mooring.
-
I think its because "transit moorings" can be justified as part of navigating a canal, its use for which it was originally built (and thus, allowed). The length of time of a transit mooring might be debatable, for example there is an argument that overnight only is sufficient; or 1-2 days max; or 14 days; or 28 days.
-
Its not a straw man argument because it is too similar - in other words, it is not actually a different argument than the one under discussion. This is because ultimately, the changes you and others propose, would be subject to challenge and would (IMHO) quite clearly fall foul of planning laws, unless a change of land use were made. If you believe it is sufficiently different that it wouldn't attract this kind of opposition, fair enough.
-
Just now, Andyaero said:
Noob question on a similar theme......
If I've declared a home mooring (marina) but close by there's a nice touristy/picturesque area I'd like to frequent quite often through the summer months, but it has 48hour limitations, can I.......moor there for 48 hours, go back to marina or down the canal for a couple of days and then return to said nice area and repeat?
I guess I'm asking with these 48hour moorings is it similar to car parking restrictions where they say "no return within (add timescale)".
Yes
-
I think anything where the thrust of the argument is "its similar to the winter moorings, and that seems to work" is on shaky grounds.
-
8 minutes ago, IanD said:
A "straw man" argument is when you use an argument against something that isn't actually being proposed to try and make your point -- the term comes from the idea of setting up a "straw man" (false argument) and then knocking it down.
For example, in response to a suggestion that more permissive towpath mooring in rural/uncrowded areas might be a good thing (what @MtB suggested and I agreed with), saying that this would mean allowing people to build houses anywhere they want to e.g. a farmer's field.
I'm fairly sure that CART can change the terms of how long and where they allow people to moor on the towpath (and how much to charge them to do this) without granting anyone (permanent) residential mooring status as a result, which would also means planning law doesn't come into it either -- isn't this exactly what they already do with "winter moorings"?
Building a house in a farmer's field might be considered a good thing too, by some. Just as others would consider more permissive mooring a bad thing. If a site is permanently occupied (or even if it is not permanent, but predominantly occupied), it doesn't really matter to the people who might consider it a bad thing, if it was "Kingfisher" on Tuesday-Saturday then "A Round Tuit" on Saturday-Wednesday etc
3 minutes ago, IanD said:Except that allowing longer-term towpath stays -- like "winter moorings" -- in return for more money is not creating residential moorings, is it?
It is the reason many were stopped, I believe.
-
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Something else to discuss.
In 1954 BW were granted the powers to make Bye Laws.
And then ...........
Section (5) of the BW 1975 Act extended the byelaw making powers of 1954, which from that point on “shall be construed to have effect as if the power thereby conferred to make byelaws for regulating the use of the canal included the express power to make byelaws for excluding any vessel from the canal, prohibiting the use by any vessel of the canal or prohibiting the use of the canal except in compliance with any such conditions as the Board may prescribe . . .”
An extract from a post by Nigel Moore
The pleasure boat licence was a direct and immediate result of these new powers, but no further conditions were attached, non-compliance with which could exclude any boat. Instead of promoting such conditions to the licence through byelaws, BW instead pursued the perfectly legitimate route of primary legislation – hence s.17 of the 1995 Act, which still contain the only grounds upon which licences may be refused or revoked.
Arguably CaRT inherit to right to create enforceable terms and conditions to this licence therefore, through the medium of new byelaws – but only via that route. Perhaps, though, as I have wondered aloud before, it might be that the terms of the 1995 Act have actually closed that door for good; if so, then BW really shot themselves in the foot well and truly, overlooking essential protective wording in their zeal to introduce new enforceable powers over boaters.
Not that they nor their successor have ever bothered their heads about such niceties – they swiftly discovered that re-inventing the nature of the licence was something boaters and the County Courts would let them get away with.
34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:A few days later, in the same thread Nigel posted :
It might be appropriate to revisit the SC Minutes yet again, on this topic of the enforceability of licence T&C’s outwith the 1995 Act.
BW’s QC correctly informed the Committee that his advice was that the Licence T&C’s “is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.”
Asked: “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”? he replied: “Ultimately we could do one of two things or possibly both things. One would be to revoke the licence as it would be, as the owner or the holder of the licence would be in breach of the pleasure boat conditions. The alternative would be to revert again to the section 8 powers, which we talked about earlier. In both those cases, the Board believes that this action would be inappropriate. We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” – hence, he explained, the perceived need for the mooring restriction powers they sought in the Bill – which did not pass scrutiny and which were consequently omitted from the 1995 Act.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/142106359/Dodd-on-Status-of-Licence-Conditions
Such of the T&C's as repeat statute and byelaws, are of course enforceable - but only as per the legislated routes, not via revocation of licence and/or s.8.
IMHO they should forget about applying T&Cs - like literally not have any, at all. Just like when you get a driving licence, you don't sign some T&Cs (but of course you are obligated to obey the law).
Instead they should use their power to make byelaws to amend them as relevant and actually enforce them.
-
2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
But CRT don’t need planning permission for further visitor moorings or leisure moorings?
But we're not talking about visitor moorings or leisure moorings.
-
Its weird that "Smartgauge Mk2" - the one with the ability to measure current, as well as voltage, and uses a proprietary algorithm to more accurately predict SoC from two inputs instead of one - costs so much. Car manufacturers have been doing battery monitoring for a while now (at least 20 years) and you'd hope some kind of economy of scale would have been passed to boaters by now.
-
2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:
which could be done by providing proper moorings......................... We know CRT can monetise towpath moorings................
The elephant in the room is planning permission. Planning laws are very powerful and deemed very important in the UK, thus are fiercely enforced and protected. There's much bigger fish than canal residential moorings which can't get the development they need due to planning. Basically, its seen as forming the fabric of what makes UK what it is now, so its unlikely any noticeable change in philosophy will come about from any of the powers-that-be.
-
2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
so we’re left with issue licences, take the money and deal with the consequences,
fine by me
That's basically what they do now - they give the benefit of the doubt to new boaters.
2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:Yes,
but why wouldn’t/shouldn’t they grant a license to a boater who fulfils the legislated minima?
There isn't a legislated minimum distance though - its described qualitatively as "bona fide for navigation" etc. And there is a MAXIMUM time to stay in a place, not a minimum.
-
The problem is, if they give advice, it will be taken out of context, publicised and widely condemned/criticised by a vocal faction of boaters. So they are careful to stick within the law, which is DELIBERATELY vague to allow a wide variety of cruising styles and canal use cases.
-
1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
Ok, let’s put it another way,
why shouldn't ALL boat owners have some sort of helms certificate?
See edit above - good suggestion!!
-
2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
why are you hiding behind rules when CRT are readily changing them?
CRT aren't changing legislation.
I am not "hiding behind rules". What do you actually mean when you say that anyway????
ETA: Its not a terrible suggestion - in fact its a rather good suggestion - just that it perhaps ought to be applied to ALL boaters, not just CCers!!?!?
-
2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
??
Driving competency is an interesting idea but it misses the mark because the requirement to satisfy the board ONLY relates to CCers, not home moorers. CRT can't impose a driving test on home moorers, so why should one be imposed on CCers? I suspect such a test would be deemed unreasonable.
Something more appropriate to the anticipated cruising would be more reasonable.
-
1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
Would it be simple enough to begin with requiring some sort of helm certificate as a starter?
(something I’ve been against but times they are a changing)
2 posts ago you didn't realise the applicant needs to satisfy the board at all (on the 'cruising' required). Might be worth reviewing the actual wording of the legislation at this stage.....
"the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."
-
11 minutes ago, Higgs said:
Do you honestly not know what CMing stands for?
Continuous mooring.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Higgs said:
You must be the only member of the forum to be ignorant of what CMing means. You can do it - write it out in long hand.
So, that's the level of debate you're engaging in - playing the man not the ball. I asked of you a fairly simple question, but you chose to attack me rather than respond properly. Why?
-
There's bound to be a separate thread on composting toilets somewhere, best look there for opinions on that aspect.
Solar panels - are you a competent DIYer or would you be having them professionally installed? It affects the cost greatly.
Also, don't underestimate the likely cost of fitting a stove (I am assuming you mean a solid fuel/multifuel one).
Regards the boat, I can't say specifically but 68ft hireboats tend to have more beds/rooms than a similar sized private boat, unless its a luxury one. So you'll probably be having a mini-bonfire and/or some significant remodelling of the interior.
-
3 minutes ago, Higgs said:
You're new here?
It would be useful for us both (all) to agree on what we're discussing. "CMing" is a colloquial term, not a fixed/defined thing. So I'd like you to say what YOU mean by it, before I offer any opinion on it.
Forum joining dates are clearly displayed in each user's profile - maybe I should ask if you are new here, given the relative dates of our joining this forum?
-
1 minute ago, Higgs said:
Do you mean, you have no objections to it happening?
I don't know what you mean by "CMing" - can you define it?
Tried to view a boat - refused a viewing unless I have finance already in place?
in New to Boating?
Posted
Just go back and tell them you now have your own financing in place, and effectively you are a cash buyer.