magnetman

To be fair the CRT did give quite a lot of advance notice. I recall doing the Thames to Nantwich in 9 days.

If one were to rewind the clock by 250 years one would find land with no water and various natural watercourses ie rivers.

The Parry geyser used the word 'declassify' (ETA may have been reclassify) in an interview before he departed. I have not looked closely at this but it was a reference to moving canals from "cruising" to "remainder" which changes the maintenance obligations. I don't think it needs an Act. As I understand it this may simply need secretary of state signature. No because one can buy land and have a right to occupy it. In the case of the canals they are land parcels which were purchased when the enabling Acts were passed during the canal building era. Land which belonged to someone was compulsory purchased by a canal company. That became their property and they chose to excavate and flood it. That is what happened. The CRT is now the owner / custodian of the land. It is in fact their land. The land may be owned by a public organisation but as we can clearly see the use of the flooded part is subject to permission, byelaws and licensing. If one places a metal box on land one owns there is no need for permission (unless it comes under planning), byelaws and licensing because it is privately owned land. Private ownership of land allows exclusive use.

The CRT would need much less money if the locks were all derelict. Government would pay to use part of the channels for drinking water movement, weirs at locks and the rest could be converted to public amenity land. Cycle tracks and footpaths. Like old railway lines. Also a very good wildlife corridor. Ultimately a canal is just land with water on top. Thats it. The fact one may use a Boat upon the water is a privilege not a right.

Its having the infants which makes the difference.

The OP has a gas water heater already so there is no installation cost. I think moving to 19kg cylinders would be worth looking into. I also read somewhere that if one is on a residential mooring it may be possible to apply for a mains gas connection. I expect it is complicated and obviously location dependent. Having done it myself I would say Good Luck raising infants on a Boat. It worked for us but was no without problems especially if there is someone aboard who had not already spent their entire adult life living on Boats.. It should be ok. Morco or similar yes it costs more to run...the water comes out hot all the time...it depends what you want.

That just costs more money. The CRT, whose charitable objectives must be to promote activities which benefit the public, would be much better served by losing the services altogether, surfacing the land and installing picnic and barbecue areas for the locals. The RSW may be a jolly nice thing to have but at the end of the day it is not part of the licence agreement so technically speaking it is not up to the Navigation Authority to provide these. Thats just a fact. Yes it made sense once but it might not add up any more. If loss of the services or the requirement to pay a private operator puts people off using canals maybe a view would be taken that this loss of licensing income would be worth accepting. It seems a bit unlikely it would put many people off unless the primary aim was to move as little as possible and spend the smallest amount of money contributing to the maintenance of the system or local economies. If that was the aim then the Navigation Authority may take the view that actions which coild help discharge those people from their land/water may be a wise move to help avoid problems and costs later.

This is terribly shocking. Telling people that by paying £5 they are getting something for free is a good wheeze. A bit like "buy one get one free". I only want one so can I please have the free one.

I don't hate anyone at all. It is you who has a dislike for certain types and is trying to put everyone into boxes. That is not in fact my problem. I get on perfectly well with everyone regardless of what type of Boat and where or how they choose to use it. My comment about part (ii) was not supposed to be entirely serious but it is true that it does not mention mooring..

Also the CRT is funded by DEFRA so "the public" ie ordinary tax payers who may or may not give the remotest monkeys about canals are paying to keep the water in them. Hmm. Good use of public funds? The bigger picture is DEFRA funding. If someone in DEFRA has spotted a problem of some sort on the waterways and asked the Navigation Authority to get their house in order... Then the used food could hit the rotary air circulation machine.

Do you realise that your CC licence is in fact only a licence to float upon water above land owned and managed by the CRT? It does not give you a right to services of any sort. The way the law is worded you may remain stationary for two weeks but it is not specified that you arrr in fact allowed to moor or secure the vessel to land. The second one is cc. Mooring the vessel is never mentioned in this paragraph. Reasonable in the circumstances could be "stuck in a lock chamber because there is no water". Obviously people assume a right to moor the vessel but it is not explictly said that you can do this. I would suggest that no permission is granted to moor against CRT owned land in part (ii) if it was permitted then the word "mooring" or "moor" would surely have been used. Remaining in one place is not the same as mooring.

True. However it is worth bearing in mind that these activities are illegal and no accepted by residents in the surrounding area. Most people want to follow the law at least where it is sensible. Suggesting that there would be incressing amounts of fly tipping is a bit defeatist in a way. Maybe it is reality and the canals could be full of low people just waiting to throw their bins and loos in the hedge but it seems likely other solutions would be found by most. People may winge and squeal if the costs go up but most will accept it or do something else. It is a mistake to promote waterways as cheap housing because there is a probability of slums forming. People with no money probably can'y buy Diesel or keep the engine serviceable. Both of these are a basic requirement for "continous cruising" History tells us that slums get cleared. The problem for the CRT is their land (compulsory purchased in the original enabling acts);is something which they need to pay to manage. So if the slums did turn up and it got expensive it is the Navigation Authority who pays to deal with individuals' inadequate housing problems. That can't be right.

That is what I meant. It has nothing to do with being 'anti cc' it has everything to do with understanding that canals need funding or they are at risk of being lost. There are no billionaires leaving legacies. I suppose being happy to argue for something which would be against one's own interests is a hardship caused by a certain type of education.

In case that is me I pay no council tax, my Boat is tied to a tree without a mooring fee or contract and I use bins and elsan provided by the navigation authority (EA in my case). I am guessing you are referring to someone else.

"The public" is over 50 million people. Canalboat owners is approximately 30,000. That is less than 0.1 percent so why would a charity whose aim is to benefit the public be interested in subsidising the behaviour of a fraction of one percent ? It makes no sense. I meant the housing cost not the rates.

The CRT as a charity is also not allowed to do things which cause financial benefit to individuals. One could argue that allowing someone to live on CRT property full time for £2,000 a year to include free domestic and trade waste disposal and unlimited sewage disposal is actually against charity law because it is financially benefiting an individual. The CRT need to establish what the actual housing value is on towpaths and charge people who are using towpaths as housing this amount. Make it official and value it properly. This also means anyone who can demonstrate inability to pay for their housing costs can have it paid by the DwP via Universal Credit housing element. They do pay. This would also mean more state funding for canals and everyone on the water wants that (lol) as people understand that the rather marvellous canal system is in trouble and at risk. This would also mean more protection for those living aboard on the towpaths which can only be a Good Thing given the time situation and ageing. If this causes a few casual parasites looking for the cheapest option to clear off then good.. I would hazard a guess that the real market value of being able to moor residentially on the towpath 365 days a year would be between £500 and £1,000 pcm depending on location. From Alistair (You can call him Al) Charity trustees have a legal duty to ensure that the charity's purposes are carried out for the public benefit and must 'have regard' to the Charity Commission's public benefit guidance when making decisions. This includes being aware of the guidance, taking it into account, and being able to justify any departure from it. The trustees must also ensure that any personal benefits are no more than incidental, meaning they are minor and a necessary result of the purpose Where is the public benefit in providing large rubbish bins and high volume sewage disposal stations to people on Boats? It has always been and will always be an option to use marina provided services. If the bins and elsan are withdrawn there will be other private operators. I ask again. What is the public benefit ? All it is doing is subsidising cheap housing. Is this what canals are for yes/no.

I did say it was I know it is expensive but comfort and practicality can prove to be quite important when there are infants.

It makes much more sense than the CRT spending endless amounts of money on BIFFA contracts and ending up with overflowing bins and blocked elsans. Convert service areas to multiple fresh water taps with high flow volumes and history interpretation boards. Plus a picnic bench. Bins and elsan by Boat or marina. Pumpout means machine not a manual version. Tidy the place up a bit.

I would call that a fact not an opinion. However there is little that can be done now that Putin has authorised the use of nuclear armed ICBMs targeted at Washington. Unsubstantiated rumour? We shall know when we are in the shelters.

Also the hot water tank is constantly cooling itself to the surrounding air even if it is insulated. A problem which does not exist with an on demand instantaneous water heater.

It runs out especially if there is a bath involved. When one has infants the availability of a continuous supply of hot water which does not go tepid is reqlly handy. Damhikt. Girls are 13 and 15 and live ashore but first ten years was on the Boat 24/365. Tank water going cold at the wrong moment is a nuisance. Morco sorted it our.

It must be easy enough to establish. The marina would need to tell customers so it would presumably be on their web site.

At the end of the day a marina is just a hole in the ground of little importance. The canal itself is a precious masterpiece of civil engineering so it seems sensible to prioritise the canal in this situation. I expect they would like to but in the event that the marina is presenting a threat to the canal I know what I would be doing as the Navigation Authority.

I idly wondered if there is a drought clause in the Network Access Agreement which says the marina is obliged to put in stop planks if requested by the CRT to prevent water loss in the marina taking water from the canal. The priority must be to protect the waterway. Planks also stop people navigating which helps.

I have always had wood stoves and always will. Even when we had the mooring it was still solid fuel heated. Its the reliability. No back boiler. No electric needed so there is very little to go wrong.