Tuscan

I’m sure if you follow the terms and conditions you will be fine. It’s only if you attempt to follow the relevant act of Parliament you will get into trouble.

After over 30 years of canal experience health and fitness means we are thinking of moving on, Norfolk broads beckons.

The 1965 Act is very clear what constitutes a home mooring. Surely if there is another vessel on the mooring it’s not available and therefore CRT can take enforcement action. If the mooring is confirmed as available then I would say you have a home mooring and you can cruise accordingly. (c)either— (i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere;

probably just playing to the gallery, when asked recently to quantify the problem they were trying to solve CRT were unable to do so beyond admitting it was a small number implying 50 or less “but one would be one too many”. License evasion is said to be at an acceptable level when at 5% so 1750 or thereabouts but ghost moorings at 0.14% requires a change of the terms and conditions for all. the current act has one license with two sub sections ie home mooring or not. The revised terms seem to have created two licences a continuous cruising license and a home mooring private boatin

The requirements to obtain a license are really quite simple if you have a dedicated marina or towpath mooring you are not required to ‘bona fide’ navigate genuine or otherwise. Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless— (a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel; (b)an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists a

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE BRUTON (A.P.) (APPELLANT) Where Lord Hoffmann stated (during a long, long statement) regarding the fact that the whilst the T&Cs of a 'contract' had been signed and 'agreed' : "......Mr. Bruton's agreement is irrelevant because one cannot contract out of the statute..."

Real shame they couldn’t find the time to step back and see how they might repurpose the building. Linking in with the many volunteer groups, environmental and community projects that as a ‘charity’ could and should be promoting. It’s not always about money….

The “highlights of the past year” section should be good

i might want to cruise a to b then back to a along my favourite stretch and pubs rather than the manner described in CRTs guidance for example

however the revised terms and conditions proposed by CRT require boats with a home mooring to ‘bona fide’ navigate when away from their home mooring despite the 95 Act saying this is not required.

It’s a real shame, he’s always been a friendly face at the top of the flightfor many years. Can’t see CRT manhandling supplies along the towpath from the car park as Gary does now so assume the cafe will close. I assume this will become a welcome station for the chuggers to ply their trade. Seems strange they are doing this whilst at Braunston another popular visitor site they have closed the stop house and let the volunteers go.

The elsan on GU between Stockton and Leamington went a while ago if I recall, something to do with access

HNBC have invited members to send questions to be put to Stuart Mills at the AGM . I and several others I understand have raised the closure and possible sale of the Stop House. Richard Parry recently confirmed to NABO that no decision had been made, but that does not fill me with confidence. As Franger states above if you think CRT should be preserving and making use of its canal side historical assets then please tell them. Can’t see the national trust acting in the same way.