Dave_P

And what exactly is wrong with mine? Don't make me give you a warning point!!

This is largely true, with a couple of provisos. Don't assume that a Planning Officer will always pick up an incorrectly filled in form. Human error happens (probably quite regularly). Having said that, if a form is found to be filled in wrong, then yes, it will not be validated until resubmitted correctly, irrespective of what that does to the deadline. It's usually very easy to get a deadline extended with the agreement of the applicant anyway, but it's not really in the interests of the officer or the Council, since all that happens is that loads of applications get deferred and then a heap of deadlines all come at once. Not good at all. Without exception, the only times I ask for an extension of time is because the applicant is dragging their feet over providing information.

That's your answer then. Ticking 'yes' in the box would trigger a consultation with both CRT and EA on the same issue, which could lead to contradicting comments. Nobody wants that. So I say again, the form was filled out correctly. As an engineer, the parameters of the documents you produce are determined by the requirements of your client. Not by planning legislation. If your client asks you to include a pond along with other landscape features, then that's what you will do. As an aside, when determining larger planning applications, we are often deluged with reports which have been commissioned by the applicant. Although they must be useful to the development in some way, they are often not relevant to the planning application.

Do you work for a statutory consultee?

If anyone really wants to know, then call North Warwickshire Council. Ask to speak with Peter Gittins. Say you're a moorer and see what he has to say.

So it sounds like moorers who were previously 'under the radar' are no longer so. The Council is desperate for more income so they're looking to get Council Tax from moorers. The moorers have kicked up a stink and the CRT have grossly over-reacted with their '1 week' demand, in order to placate the Council. It all sounds depressingly plausible from CRT and Council Officers who likely don't understand the relevant law, so are hiding their incompetence by playing games with each other, where the only losers are boaters.

Not where planning applications are concerned.

Not necessarily.

No. It may be helpful, but, in practice, our mapping system automatically flags up any application which falls close to any land under CRT control. https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/planning-private/planning-and-design/the-trust-as-a-statutory-consultee-for-planning-applications/tiered-consultation-zone

In planning terms, a canal is not a watercourse. The relevant part of the form is "Assessment of Flood Risk" and the specific question is "Is your proposal within 20m of a watercourse (river, stream or beck). If this is answered with a 'yes' then the Environment Agency are consulted for flood risk comments. The Environment Agency do not comment on canal matters. For that, the statutory consultee is CRT who are consulted on all applications within a specified distance of a canal (including feeders, disused canals etc.) So the correct box was ticked in this case. In general, ponds and lakes are consulted with the local Wildlife Trust, although this may be at the discretion of the planning officer. Usually any issues with ponds are related to great crested newts coming to harm. Edited to add: obviously CRT do not comment on canal for which they are not the navigation authority. As far as I know. I imagine Peel Holdings etc give comments.

My boat draws just over 2' and I am very grateful to those boats with over 3' draft. They bring me coal, and the carve a nice deep channel for me to cruise without much hinderance. If all boats had the same draft as mine, we'd all be scraping along the 'silt'.

It’s difficult to comment further without knowing why the application was withdrawn. Various possibilities come to mind. It’s difficult to comment further without knowing why the application was withdrawn. Various possibilities come to mind.

I'd describe her as useless, but it would be an insult to useless people.

Speaking as a Local Authority Planner, this is incorrect. Planning conditions can be applied to any planning permission as long as it meets the '6 tests' See here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-of-planning-conditions#Application-of-the-six-tests In this case, a possible condition may fall foul of test 4: Enforcable, Test 5: Precise, and Test 6: Reasonable. Any of these, however, could be argued either way, to some extent. In practice, what often happens is that a Planning Officer is compelled (by a Councillor, by a public petition etc.) to impose a condition which he/she knows is on shaky ground. It is then up to the applicant to appeal the condition to the Planning Inspectorate who will make a decision on the validity of the condition. Having said all that, I would be surprised if any of this way relevant to Grendon Wharf. These are not new moorings and it's unlikely that a recent planning application specific to the moorings, has been submitted. Much more likely is that one or more moorers has raised the ire of one or more locals who have complained to CRT. CRT being the generally feckless and easily manipulated organisation that many of us know them to be, have capitulated to the moaners and are seeking to remove the problem by cracking down on said moorer's residential use. I may be wrong though.

From Phylis's link: "20. Mooring of Vessels No person shall moor or place any vessel in any watercourse or to or upon the bank of any watercourse in such manner or by such method as to cause or be likely to cause injury to such bank or in such manner as materially to obstruct or impede the free flow of water in, into or out of any watercourse. 21. Unattended Vessels No person shall leave any vessel unattended without taking due care to prevent such vessel from materially obstructing or impeding the free flow of water in, into or out of any watercourse or any sluice in any bank." So it looks like my hypothetical scenario would be fine. Interesting. But is it physically possible to moor up against the bank? What are the banks like?

They have a website? I could only find IWA info. It's only from may onwards that the navigation depth is maintained. Going earlier could be problematic. If, following heavy rain, the levels are up enough for navigation, and you go through, you run the risk of the sluices being opened and the drains emptied while you're there.

Interesting stuff re. weed growth, but does anyone know the answer to my question? If, say, I holed myself up in a quiet cul-de-sac on the drains from mid-may to September and didn't move, would any authority have any sanction against me? But the drains are not open for navigation until May

Perhaps, but then it's a soggy walk to the pub.

What you need to factor in is that a new boat of, say, 57' could cost anywhere between about £70k and £170k. Maybe more. So a five year old £170k boat will still be worth a heck of a lot more than £70k, if it's been well looked after. Quality and condition count for a lot and often more than age. Look at it this way: houses generally don't depreciate, in fact they increase in value. cars depreciate massively for the first 20 years or so. boats do not depreciate like cars but their values gently slip over many years.

Apologies for dragging up an old thread but I can't find any info on mooring arrangements for the Witham Navigable Drains. Are there designated visitor moorings? Can you just moor up anywhere? If so, how long can you stay in one spot?

At my old mooring site, a friend slipped on an icy pontoon (wintertime) and fell in. As he fell he hit his wrist and broke it. So he finds himself down in the freezing water, the pontoon is high above his head and his wrist is broken. It was also late at night (when trips and slips are more likely). If a fellow boater hadn't heard his screams, i don't see how there is any chance he would have got out. Until you've gone in a deeper part of the canal (especially with high banks), it's hard to appreciate just how difficult it can be to get yourself out. As ever, the risk is several times higher for single-handers. For example, an emergency ladder is only useful if it can be deployed from in the water. How many boats have that facility?

Am I the only one who's a little surprised that Laurence is a Boyzone fan? What next? Bewitched? Westlife? Jedward?

My boat was originally called Beaunne Idyll. Thankful the previous owner changed it.

Anything other than a bone dry bilge can rust. Therefore any moisture down there should be classed as wet. In fact, a thin layer of water will carry more oxygen and cause more rust. It's why external hull sides rust more than baseplates. This is why, in my opinion, it may be pointless try to keep your bilge dry. I dry mine completely with a wet vac and nappies but it only takes a cold spell and/or heavy rain and it's wet again. I try not to dwell on it too much