Horace42
Patron
-
Posts
1,375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Horace42
-
-
My insurance is up for renewal. Am happy with the quote but is legal protection worth having? It only adds about a tenner to the cost but all this tenners add up!
Have you ever been involved in an insurance claim? - especially when your own insurance company nit-picks - that is where the small print comes in - and solicitors love small print - it is their bread-and-butter - meaning it could cost a packet to make, or defend, a claim.
So £10 insurance is a cheap and easy way to cover yourself - just in case.
-
Walked from Tottenham Hale to Ponders End up the Lea recently. Passed two sunken boats, one narrow, one wide. Do they come to London to die?
Nah mate, they came ter london yesterdie'
-
3
-
-
I have no idea of size, or access of the tank, or whatever.
Is the bitumen inside the tank. If it's full of diesel, it won't dry out anyway.
When in use, the bitumen will dissolve in the diesel and will be picked up by the filter or will get burnt.
Or, if safe, set fire to it, or burn it off with a gas lamp, and if accessible, scrape and wire brush, was out with water, and dry it.
-
It was already wet.
-
PS: to my earlier comments, I should have added that the other boat caught us up at the locks the next day, and in passing they said they were puzzled why we move off in the dark and moored up again further down the canal. We said it was to get away from the noise of their generator and loud TV.
They apologised and said they didn't think the generator was noisy because they could hardly hear it, and explained they had never boated before and they thought mooring up close was the friendly thing to do. It takes all sorts!
-
By all means put a notice on your boat if you don't mind someone moving you. For my part I agree in principle with Nightwatch. I would not want someone moving my boat without my permission.
If there is a shortage of space and I am on board I will move my boat myself on request.
But logically, if there is no space of suitable length, where does the approaching boat moor whilst they are moving yours?
As a general principle where it looks like a busy spot, we moor at a discrete distance from any existing boat, leaving room for others to squeeze in.
There are others, of course, who seem to moor central in a gap without giving thought to others who might arrive later. But in their defence it seems a bit antisocial to moor too close to others when there seems to be plenty of room at the time of mooring.
It happened to us once. We were well into the country and the only boat there. Another pulled in and moored up almost touching. That didn't matter at the time, until they set up their portable generator on the towpath to run their TV late into the evening. That was annoying. We didn't say anything - we moved out boat (in the dark) 1/2 mile away.
But you cant't win, whatever you do. It is when the spaces fill up at random, and boats leave at random, do you find your boat is the one that seems to be awkwardly placed.
.
-
If you really want to go via the Severn and Avon - then fine. But as others have said; the Severn is a bit boring.
If it was me, I would go from Chester via the Coventry (wave to us at Polesworth) to North and South Oxford.
Except for a couple of wide locks at your end, it is narrow locks all the way.
Although I am curious about your route from the Avon to Cropredy. Seems a long way round to me. Unless that is what you want. I have no argument with that at all. But you did ask.
PS: You don't mean Severn to Bristol Avon; do you? Wow! a trip down the tidal Severn and up the Caen Hill flight would be an experience.
-
By coincidence of timing I am bogged down with a mooring and housing development issue where the latter has to comply with lots of flood risk control measures. For which a Flood Risk Assessment is required.
Although Environmental Agency guidance has been around for some time, the recent spate of severe flooding has focused attention on flood control and the need to incorporate these in any plans. The 'newness' off these demands means that any existing agreement might need to be modified greatly, for which the 'commercially aware' fraternity will see many opportunities to introduce all sorts of new conditions that reflect in charging much more money.
It seems CRT are well aware of this, and will exploit the situation to their benefit.
The age old problem of CRT having to get enough water to maintain canal levels (and having to pay for it) has morphed to you having to pay them to take your 'flood' water away.
In your case, and me being a complete novice in this respect, I can't say how much affect it will have on your plans - if any.
I mention it for what it is worth. But one thing is certain; if what you are doing involves local authority planning departments, you are likely be hit by these rules.
But it is not all gloom and doom. If your scheme has a net effect resulting in less flooding then you might be a beneficiary.
And as such these things need to be built into any agreement - which do not exist yet.
Good luck.
-
Ok people, when the clocks go forward do I need to change the timing on my engine? Or will it still run ok ?
Now you mention it I don't have to put my clocks forward an hour. We are fine weather boaters, so we are usually moored up late September for the Winter, and don't go out again until April, so our boats clock will be bang on the right time - if the batteries have not run down that is.
As for your engine you need to tell us a bit more about it - size, cylinders, gearbox ratio, prop size etc.
-
Land grab tax? Do you mean the payment to release you from the affordable housing requirement? My only gripe such payments is that they are allowed at all - would be much better all round, on social grounds, if limits were placed on the excessively priced housing developments that are pushing housing out of the range of the vast majority of young(er) people.
Bang on! In both your replies. You seem to be aware of what is going on!. It's the system we are stuck with. The tax will (in theory) create two affordable homes. The same amount of money given to my grandchildren would pay the deposits of 4 homes. There's justice and equity for you.
But back to CRT. I will keep on at them. Thanks for helping.
-
I assume to OP in taking about land in Tamworth here. I would like a house with a mooring but there is nothing at all offside near were we live. Last year there was a house for sale in Tamworth, just before you come out of the built up area by the golf course, which initially seemed interesting and was cheap, so I am not so sure there is much added to the value of the house, perhaps 10% but I doubt more in that example. Whilst the are a number of the houses on that stretch with mooring, many don't even though they could, so again that says the premium on the property value is not there or else more people woul have cashed in on it.
I suppose it depends on the driving force behind the desire to own a boat - and how essential a mooring is. Not forgetting the rural setting and position on the canal network.
I couldn't afford both at the same time, so I reckoned to cut my costs by buying a 'banger' and doing it up. For that I needed an EOG so that I could work on the boat whenever the chance arose.
The idea of loading a car with tools etc, and commuting to a marina everyday for an hour or so was a logistics nightmare - hence an EOG was essential. I bought the house first, then a boat a year later. It wasn't a banger by the way, but an ex-hire boat. It was a bit shabby and dated but fully functional. Then I slowly modernised it.
I mention all this because if someone like me is out there looking for a house with an essential mooring then the least I can do is remove the guesswork over mooring issues. Although it will be the builder doing the selling. The price is up to them.
-
When we were looking for a canalside house, several agents said being next to water added 25% to the value.
Having a mooring facility already there is a personal thing, some will love it, others will be looking for a specific length whilst some will hate it because you cannot have such a private garden.
The house we bought is adjacent to a bridge, and as previously stated, didn't have a mooring.
I asked CRT for clarification regarding their EoG mooring policy stating that permission is generally given, unless close to a lock or bridge. I wanted to know how close the structure had to be before permission was refused. They wouldn't say so in the end the only way I could find out was to apply at a cost of £90. Luckily for me they allowed it. Indeed another mooring on the same road as ours has the boat virtually touching the bridge, so they don't always stick to their policy.
That's very interesting. I do not wish to pry into your personal affairs, but I am curious about the timing and logic of your purchase.
Was mooring an essential requirement?
Did you get mooring permission before you bought the house?
If permission had been refused - would you have still bought the house.
And with permission granted did the price go up?
And would you have paid 25% extra.
We would not have bought our house without mooring rights - that's for sure! However we were assured that mooring would be allowed, so we bought it. We could not apply for a mooring permit as such because we did not have a boat at the the time. That was to come.
But on reflection the circumstance of boat moorings was a bit lax in those days. As long as you had a cruising license (and subject to common sense, good manners and safety) you could moor anywhere (and that applies today within reason). In reality I could have just moored my boat here without a permit.
The fact that the land adjoining my garden was owned by BWB (remember them?) was fairly irrelevant. But for me, as mooring was an essential part of the purchase, I applied for a license when I bought my boat. I didn't have to. I could have moored here for years for free. The chap next door had a boat (almost touching the bridge) moored for free. In fact for a long time he did not have a cruising license because he became disabled and could not use his boat. He sold the boat when BWB caught up with him.
The situation has changed, as we all know, because you can't get a cruising license without a home base, for which you need a permit (CC's excepted),
Have you notice that law abiding citizens who try to do things by the 'book' are the ones put to most inconvenience and cost.
The rogue boaters are one step ahead of CRT, and judging by the lax way my mooring enquiries are being dealt with, it is not surprising.
-
If the gardens have 30ft bankside, I'd say the added value of an EOG mooring in place is somewhat limited. Once you start getting above 50ft or so, it becomes an asset of sorts - but I'd say not massively so, I'd just focus on maximising the profitability from the best way to split the plots, then worry about what you're left with bankside later. Think of the EOG mooring possibility as a bonus, rather than a given.
I am slowly coming around to the fact that I might have to accept your way of thinking. Although to be honest, that was the basic principle underlying my actual planning application. The canal is a geographical fact and nothing more.
It is only my desire to make use of the leisure aspect of the canal that drives me on. And it is damned annoying that a simple question about mooring rights is so difficult to get answered.
I will keep on chasing CRT until I get somewhere.
As a PS I actually have an old BW letter telling me that moorings wll be allowed for 3 boats. It is CRT now of course.
-
If your selling up and your land is worth a lot with planning for 7 houses why not take the money and move on. Why have the hassle of getting permission for EOG moorings. Will the buyers own a boat for sure. Will the property be saleable for an excessive extra amount. If yes then the market will be limited to boat owners.
If your not doing the building why not let the developer work out his best site layout while you enjoy your profits in shelteted accomafation.
Of course if you haven't got planning permission then the EOG is surely irrelavent.
You will see from my other replies that there is an alternative commercial element. But only 3 of the houses are likely to be suitable for moorings. The other 4 canalside houses will be normal
Yes, and why not sell up and go. That was the original plan. Unfortunately the detail has to be solved in order to make a profit, and that means getting planning permission.
And again yes! the builders are likely to have plans of their own for what is best for the site. But that is up to them. At least I will have done my bit to maximise my income from the sale.
And in case anyone is thinking I will make a fortune. Wrong! The local authority have devised a land-grab tax regime that is calculated to cream off the extra value created by planning permission. Such is life.
-
I think you need to look at Arthur's point above, which is pretty much what I would say. Why not just mark out three of the plots with 60ft or so of canalside. You can then sell those plots based on "with mooring, subject to C&RT's approval" and give them a price premium as appropriate.
Whether you would get a premium is another matter; plenty of people have land adjacent to a canal which they have no wish to use as a mooring. Indeed, many seem to want to hide the canal and turn their backs on it.
You are (both) quite close to the nub of the matter. I raised the mooring policy issue on here on Canalworld hoping to get some ideas how to proceed with CRT aimed at achieving a desirable development plan for the site.
Separate from the mooring issue is the alternative conflicting use of the site where commercial gain suggests ignoring the canal completely and packing as many houses on it as possible.
That's my problem, the canal and boating facility is a valuable rural amenity, and having given us years of pleasure, is something I would like to preserve, in fact in my opinion, it should be exploited. That is, by arranging for a smaller discrete development with moorings.
The increase in the house prices due to mooring rights (I hope Arthur is right at £50k- (and each??)) has to off-set the 'loss' of extra houses. It is by no means a certainty that mooring rights will increase the overall value for me. In fact at the moment with CRT not answering my questions - it looks as though I might have picked the worst of both worlds.
-
But theres actually room for more boats than that, as cruisers can be quite small. I can't see how you can expect CRT to give you a definitive ruling just because you want to add fifty grand to the prices of your houses! You'll have to compromise and say EOG moorings may be available per agreement with CRT, and set your prices accordingly.
It is a perfectly valid question to ask CRT if there are mooring restrictions applicable to this stretch of the canal and in particular to my site.. And I think it perfectly reasonable to expect them to know the answer. And to tell me. And to put it in writing.
And as for £50k extra, where did that come from? Are you an estate agent that knows about these thing? It that is an actual fact, then it's added a new dimension to the equation and makes it all the more important to thrash the matter out now.
No boat owner is going to pay that sort of extra money for a house with an EOG unless guarantees exist. In fact I doubt very much that they would even pay the basic price. I certainly wouldn't.
-
I suspect it's just too difficult for them to make a call on it. Have you tried asking for a meeting with the local manager?
OT: have just realised that it's you and your boat name that are responsible for giving me a Gary Puckett ear worm every time I boat through Amington!
Glad to hear were are remembered! and Oh yes! All relevant CRT people have been contacted. That's the problem, if they don't come up with an answer, who do I turn to? And what is difficult about it. If I was in the job it is something I would sort out pronto.
-
I think the policy is fairly clear. They'll allow an EOG mooring for 1 boat, so long as the landowner and boat owner are the same person. This is subject to it being in a normal stretch of the canal eg not near a bridge, lock, winding hole, etc.
That is the problem. But there could be 7 gardens on my land, but only room for 3 boats on CRT land. My fences and gardens can be arranged to suit boat lengths if necessary. But as the gardens do not extend to the canal it could be said they are not EOG moorings. And there is a bridge nearby. No problem for 30 years.
There are enough 'fudge' issues here, one way or the other, for CRT to latch on to. I just want CRT to tell me.
-
I'm considering taking my narrowboat across the Wash from Boston to the River Nene, probably around the first two weeks of June.
I've spoken to the pilot for general details. The maximum number of boats he will take at any one time is four. Anyone fancy joining me and sharing the cost?
Absolutely not! Taking my narrowboat to sea is a no no. I dread the thought even if you paid me. Good luck.
-
In general the claim is that the decision to enter into an NAA agreement with a marina is financially neutral where the policy is to remove a number of in-line moorings on a balancing basis. This clearly helps the marina by increasing their market size. In-line moorings usually expect that passing boats slow down - or at least those with large signs demanding such! - and CaRT are seeking to balance competing demands. EOG moorings are no different from others in this respect.
There seems to be more evidence that CaRT's stance on EOG is more to do with the management of canals for all users than for specific financial gain (which in the end also helps users as it increases the pot for maintenance and improvement)
Whilst one can sympathise with individual owners of property adjacent to a canal, especially if they can see a commercial opportunity for themselves, it also seems appropriate to understand CaRT's current reluctance to collude with any creeping extension to endless lines of moored boats which do generate adverse comments. Especially when the mooring owners think that it is appropriate to build dodgy structures out into the navigable channel.
Thanks Mike Todd for taking the trouble to put the pro's and con's of the in-line mooring issue. I have no argument at all.
I can see both points of view having hired boats for 13 years before buying my own boat, mooring here since 30 years ago. Regretfully having to accept the fact that creeping old age has introduced physical limitations that forces us to recognise the risk we are exposed to when trying to handle a 15 ton boat, heavy lock gates and bridges - made worse by bad weather - and where the days of jumping locks have long gone.
The timing is coupled with the need to consider sheltered accommodation that means selling up and moving. It just happens that my canal-side home has a large garden that can be developed for additional housing, and I am investigating the potential for additional mooring. Notwithstanding there are serious structural issues of steps and landing stages to deal with before it will be safe to moor a boat - but that is a condition that can be dealt with when a lease is issued.
I have no strong views, one way or the other, other than to oppose miles of in-line moorings - logistically for access and convenience it seems 50;50 whether you moor at an on-line canal bank or at a marina. You have much the same hassle of traveling and parking. On the other hand I tend to support limited EOG moorings because they are an intrinsic feature of the waterways environment - and they should be allowed here unless there is some compelling other reason to reject them.
All I need is an answer from CRT. They're the one's coming up with all these clever policies and rules, and it is not my fault that they don't know how to apply them. All I know for certain is that an application form has to be filled in, and a decision will be made on merit.
But as I have said earlier, I can't complete the form because I don't know the boat details. And since I must produce written permission from the owner of the land (ie, CRT) against which the boat is moored, I need a lease from CRT.
But I have not got one. it is not me who will be entering into any contract. I will not be here.
Quite frankly, it's a mess caused by CRT not getting their act together.
But not dealing with my request for information is not acceptable. So I keep chasing them! - it's over a year now since I posed the first question.
-
One of the most charming conditions, inherited from history, is that if a boat full of sewage owned by the Bentima clock company needs to moor to our bank in order to gain access to the Stoke Hammond sewage works, we are obliged to allow them to do so.
Why would a clock company have a boat full of sewage?
Thanks for your help. but I can't answer the last bit. I don't know. Perhaps they were passing time by going through the motions.....!
-
I find that there are many advantages to having my 80ft offside mooring classified as a small marina. For example I can sub-let if I wish, or let it out when I'm away; but most importantly it means I deal with a different part of CRT who are much more capable of conducting sensible negotiations.
How do you get it classified as a small marina. It sounds like a 'business' - which in my case has been ruled out by the 'business' team. That much they have told me.
I can't quite see how this will work as the people buying the properties wont own the bank and you dont own it to include in the sale
The house owners could get a license to lease a chunk of CRT land from their garden to the canal edge regardless of having a boat.
In fact, quite honestly, there is no need for a license. House owners can just extend their garden without a license.
There is not much CRT can do about unless they resort to fences maintained at their own expense - or expensive court cases.
Why bother when they can rent it out to a couple of boaters who pay for EOG mooring and maintain the land for CRT.
A little bit of pro-active cooperation from CRT would work wonders.
-
I wonder if its worth creating one of the gardens to extend to 60ft canalside, with another that gets no canalside? As can be seen from CRT's policies, they won't allow a boat to be moored at an end of garden, if its longer than the bankside there. In theory neighbours could cooperate but in practice.....you can't be guaranteed of this. Having said all that, I imagine being canalside is a feature in itself, worth far more than the differential in price for 60ft of bank vs 30ft. Plenty of people have a canalside home, enjoy the garden because of it, and don't have a boat moored there.
I think you are right. But there are so many combinations of options, most of which require a definite view from CRT in order to make plans. That is why I am chasing them.
-
There's definitely a policy against CRT creating any more online moorings. That's basically why there's no clarity on the issue.
If its a genuine end-of-garden mooring, from an applicant that owns the land and the boat (ie its for their private use) then they'll still accept it but that's it - and its 1 boat/mooring they'll allow. If its a larger length of bank, for 2 boats, then its no longer a simple case (I mean, who owns 2 boats????? (I know some do..)) and they deem it a small commercial mooring/marina of some kind. I think this even applies if you "let out" the 1 boat mooring. And they don't want any more of them. Obviously if its their land and the idea of fencing it off then splitting 6 gardens into 3 moorings is given, they'll decline based on their "no more online moorings" policy.
Bonkers...but they made the policy because they want boats moored off the canal, because a proportion of boaters complained it slows them down when passing, and also because for every new marina built, they automatically get some money via the NAA.
I think you have summed it up quite well. And if you are right, and that could be decision, then I ask CRT to tell me so. They must know perfectly well what the policy is.
Or (switching to cynical mode) is it a CRT ploy to get as many £90 applications as possible, knowing they will be turned down.
Insurance
in General Boating
Posted
Apart from Tony Brooks #6 negative comment, has anybody else had personal positive experience of using a legal insurance policy where it actually worked.
I've had minor insurance no-fault claims (not boating) when nit-picking trivia ran up costly legal bills and delays that gave even more hassle trying to add them to the claim.
If you want to save money, economise on gas - 1 bottle only. Fill tank with just enough fuel to get you to the next boatyard, ....assuming you have a choice (you have the money) ..saving on insurance boils down to peace if mind.