NBTA London

As I said: Thanks for bumping the thread. Don't forget to sign the petition, people. And thanks to those who already have

The legislation doesn't specify anything. It just says reasonable in the circumstances. The judge in Nigel Moore's case said that it was not possible to say in advance what was reasonable in any given circumstances. I daresay they (CRT) will decide what they think is reasonable in each individual case, and you will need to argue it with them if you disagree. But it's probably advisable to let them know if you expect to be unable to move for any length of time. Also if the circumstances change and you find yourself unable to stick to a previously agreed overstay. They are much more likely to be amenable if you keep them informed. But ultimately, it could be something that a court has to decide if push comes to shove. And if you have a medical/welfare reason for not moving as often, or for staying in certain places, then you should certainly discuss that with CaRT's Welfare Officer. They are legally obliged to take such circumstances into account, and it is the Welfare Officer's job to see that they do that.

We are concerned with saving a project that a lot of people have worked on over a considerable period of time. That is about a meeting of Hackney Council's Planning Committee on 11th March. What one group of people called another group of people in 1846, although no doubt important from a historical perspective, is not relevant to that meeting. Reading back through the thread, you should be able to see that we didn't even get such basics as "from" and "to" right. As I said, we were doing the best we could with no prior knowledge (I had to travel 30 miles by public transport to get there and last night was the first time I had even seen the building. We needed to get something up and running straight away, so we simply didn't have the luxury of employing planning experts, social historians or whatever. I have made it clear that I am getting my information second hand so I have made no claims that it is anything more than the gist of what is going on. We are doing our best to publicise this at very short notice and under conditions that are very far from ideal. And to answer a couple of other points, no CRT is not the freeholder. They are not involved in this in any way. And yes, it sounds as if CAT's plan is to turn it back into a school, at least as far as the layout goes. It seems it will involve modern interactive displays but be in a setting akin to the original schoolhouse (And NBTA is National Bargee Travellers' Association)

It's always incredibly difficult posting anything on CanalWorld as NBTA London. Regardless of the subject, there will always be people who just want to argue about the name of the organisation. I didn't choose it. And, for what it's worth, I didn't write the petition either. I don't know what the Shippy People were called by the Housey Folk and I don't really see why it is fundamental to anything. It seems like pointless irrelevant pedantry to me. If it doesn't matter to you what the building becomes, the answer is simple, don't sign the petition. Some people will care, and I think it would be nice if they could sign it.

Well, as they say, if I were going there, I wouldn't start from here... You first get told to move on and comply with the rules or else you're out. You still don't move enough, so they tell you they are not going to renew your licence next year for being jolly naughty.. You'll get a series of letters during that process. You can reply to those letters, pointing out that your boat is your home (if it is). That means that they will need to go to court to confirm that they are acting proportionately. If you disagree that you haven't moved enough, you can also complain about the notices. You could also notify them at that point that, should things end up in court, you intend to dispute the case so it would not be appropriate to use Part 8. In short, you don't wait until you haven't got a licence to start dealing with it. In general, though, the question sees confused. Would you (hypothetically) be in trouble for overstaying of for not moving far enough? If its the former, you are allowed to stay more than 14 if it's reasonable in the circumstances, so be prepared to have evidence to back up that claim. If it's the latter, make sure you record every journey you make because CaRT's data logging is notoriously patchy. It may be that you have moved a lot more than they have noticed so you may be able to prove that if you have evidence (dated photos, receipts from boatyards, etc.). Or if you are (hypothetically) overstaying without a good reason, not moving and have no intention of moving much, it might just be easier to start talking to your local estate agent.

What Clapton Arts Trust are trying to do is preserve an important part of the heritage of the boating community. The schoolhouse is important to us because it catered for the travelling community, and the boating community in particular. I understand that the Heritage Lottery were not particularly interested in preserving a Victorian schoolhouse - it is the link to boating history that sparked their interest and makes this building special. I don't think anybody has suggested that it is currently being used as a school; its use will obviously have changed over time. But we now have a viable plan to preserve it as an asset, one that links the boating world to the land-based one. As I said earlier, this has all happened very suddenly, but I think I can add some more detail (I am getting all this second hand, so some of it may not be precisely correct, but I think I've got the gist). The freeholder was granted permission to develop the rest of the site on condition that the schoolhouse was retained as an arts centre. He was supposed to grant a lease to Clapton Arts Trust to allow them to do that, but appears to have refused to deal with them at all. I understand that he applied for a change of use in 2013 but that application was withdrawn. There have recently been a number of senior personnel changes at Hackney Planning Department. It seems that the freeholder has taken advantage of these changes by re-applying for the change of use, and using a process that gives the Arts Trust very little time to respond to it. The Planning Committee meets on 11th March, and the Arts Trust have to submit any comments by 4th March. That is why their Facebook page asks people to respond by Monday. that is unlikely to be the final decision as the freeholder will still need to apply for planning permission. For that reason, I understand the petition is likely to continue running beyond 2nd March. There are Councillors involved with Clapton Arts Trust. Unfortunately, none of them are on the Planning Committee. And it seems none of them are available to attend the meeting on 11th March because of prior commitments. So much of this has been left in the hands of people who have little or no experience of dealing with planning matters but who have invested a lot of time and effort in a project that now risks being lost.

I take your point. Information is in rather short supply at the moment because this has all happened at very short notice. The schoolhouse is the last remaining original building on a plot of land that has been turned into flats. It was a condition of the planning permission for the rest of the site that this building should be retained as a heritage arts centre, but it seems the freeholder is trying to circumvent that and build flats in its place. The local arts trust has secured funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund in connection with a project to reopen the building as a significant heritage link to the boating people. It's not as if this building doesn't have a future - we believe it has a greater value to the community than it does as a space for yet more flats.

Oooh, well spotted! It's at risk of being turned into flats

Please sign this! Its an important and valuable link to Land-Based support for our campaigns! And they are supporting our campaign and engaging politicians on our behalf!. Gotta give back! https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-hackney-s-early-victorian-old-boaters-schoolhouse?source=facebook-share-button&time=1425160587

Just fighting for the law to be applied properly. Do you want something other than that?

What is the significance of its not being a part of the decision? It is a County Court decision, so it wouldn't be binding on any other court even if it were part of the judgement. So saying that it doesn't form part of the judgement doesn't diminish it. If what he said is true, then surely it should be persuasive by virtue of that alone. Perhaps the judge was aware of what a big deal this is, and wanted to comment on it without actually being held responsible for it.

I don't think it's quite right to say that there is no minimum distance that can be applied in any given case; it seems to be saying that CaRT cannot set a blanket minimum distance that applies to everyone. So if, for example, somebody needs regular hospital treatment, they could have a reason to make regular journeys to the hospital and, so long as they moved to a different "place" every 14 days in between, that could be bona fide use for navigation.

NATIONAL BARGEE TRAVELLERS ASSOCIATION PRESS RELEASE 8th December 2014 DISTANCE NOT IMPORTANT IN CONTINUOUS CRUISING: THE COURT JUDGEMENT CRT TRIED TO HIDE A recent judgement in a Section 8 case confirms that it would be unlawful for Canal & River Trust (CRT) to set a minimum distance that continuous cruisers must travel to comply with the law. The judgement in the case of CRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be “bona fide navigation” if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat bona fide for navigation is “temporal not geographical”. In addition, Judge Halbert determined that a boat with a permanent mooring is not required ever to use its mooring. Indeed, during the course of argument CRT conceded that if Mr Mayers acquired a home mooring, he would be left undisturbed even if he did not use the mooring, provided that he did not exceed the limit of 14 days in one place. The judgement was handed down in November 2013 but CRT has not published it, unlike other judgements in Section 8 cases. Yet despite knowing about this judgement for a year, CRT is currently attempting to set a minimum distance that continuous cruisers must travel in order to comply with the law. CRT held two meetings with boating user groups on 22nd September and 3rd November 2014 in which it tried to persuade the groups to agree a minimum distance that boaters without home moorings must travel every three months and over their licence year to avoid enforcement action. CRT did not disclose this judgement at either meeting. In 2011, BW re-wrote the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers to remove the words “the law requires a genuine progressive journey (a cruise) around the network or a significant part of it” as a result of the judgement in British Waterways (BW) v Davies. The guidance was renamed Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring. In 2003, British Waterways tried to introduce the Draft Moorings Code or Lock Miles Rules, which would have required continuous cruisers to travel at least 120 different lock-miles every three months without using the same stretch twice. This draconian proposal was dropped by British Waterways following the threat of legal action by a boating user group and in 2004 the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers was published instead. In spite of this judgement CRT started court action in early 2014 against a boat dweller who did not use his home mooring. It has now dropped the Section 8 claim against liveaboard Tony Dunkley. The relevant paragraphs of the CRT v Mayers judgement are reproduced below. 7.22.3 I consider the requirement imposed by CRT that a substantial part of the network is used cannot be justified by relying solely on section 17(3). That section requires “bona fide navigation throughout the period of the licence” not “bona fide navigation throughout the canal network”. The requirement is temporal not geographical. In my view it does NOT follow from: “Such journey or cruise must take place “throughout the period of the licence” that it “therefore requires progression round the network or at least a significant part of it” 7.22.4 If a person who lived permanently on his or her boat had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal between two points sufficiently far apart to be regarded as different places, it would in my view be purposeful movement by water from one place to another and hence “bona fide navigation”. In the course of argument I used the example of someone who lived on his boat but was also using the vessel commercially to move coal from a mine to an iron foundry only a few miles away and then returning empty for another load. 7.22.5 To take an extreme example, in its heyday, the Mersey Ferry operated continuously to and fro over the same stretch of water which is less than a mile wide. No one would ever have accepted the suggestion that the ferry boats were not bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of their operations. 6.3 There are clear anomalies in both positions. CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently resident boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of the licence” but neither is it required ever to use its home mooring. The Act requires the mooring to be available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet and Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused. You can download the judgement here http://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/?page_id=23 NOTES FOR EDITORS 1. For more information contact the National Bargee Travellers Association, press@bargee-traveller.org.uk or 0118 321 4128 2. The National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) is a volunteer organisation that campaigns and provides advice for itinerant boat dwellers on the UK's inland and coastal waters. 3. Boats can be licensed to use Canal & River Trust's waterways without a permanent mooring under Section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. This section states: (ii) 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. 4. The Court granted a Section 8 order to CRT on the grounds that Mr Mayers had deliberately not navigated at all, in breach of the 14-day rule, and had therefore not complied with Section 17(3)©(ii). 5. The CRT v Mayers and BW v Davies judgements are County Court judgements. The County Court is not a Court of Record and therefore its judgements do not form case law or create legal precedents. However, County Court judgements can be persuasive to other judges. The Practice Direction on the Citation of Authorities [2001] 1 WLR 1001 states that County Court judgements may be cited in a County Court “in order to demonstrate current authority at that level on an issue in respect of which no decision at a higher level of authority is available". No other decisions apart from these exist at a higher level regarding the issue of the interpretation of Section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. 6. Normally when CRT wins a Section 8 case against a boater it publishes the judgement (where there is one) and the order herehttps://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publication-scheme/publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways National Bargee Travellers Association 30, Silver St, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 2ST 0118 321 4128 secretariat@bargee-traveller.org.uk www.bargee-traveller.org.uk

We have just been informed that this meeting is now fully booked. As there is obviously a high demand for this sort of thing, it is likely that we will be organising something similar in the future.

Mayalld??? That's a silly name!