Paul C

But it doesn't need to be the primary use, it just needs to be "used........for navigation........"

The problem with that judgement (which is county court, and doesn't set a precedent) is that it assumes something only has one use. A boat is practical enough to be multi-purpose, and can be used for more than one thing at a time. An analogy might be, that a double-cab pick up truck can simultaneously transport passengers, transport building materials, tow a sizeable trailer, entertain the passengers (because it has a stereo) and charge their mobile phones (because it has power outlets).

There's more to it than that. It must also be "bona fide for navigation" (link provided above).

Why is your phraseology of "move around the system" okay, while "continuous cruiser" isn't okay? The requirement is to use the boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence.

Just go back and tell them you now have your own financing in place, and effectively you are a cash buyer.

What's the cost difference between a cheap garage and a cheap marina that allows a declared split of your choice?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 It is the reason many were stopped, I believe.

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.

But we're not talking about visitor moorings or leisure moorings.