Jump to content

Horace42

PatronDonate to Canal World
  • Posts

    1,375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Horace42

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Absolutely not! Taking my narrowboat to sea is a no no. I dread the thought even if you paid me. Good luck.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.....!
  10. 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. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Yes, you have to submit a planning application to get a formal binding answer, But you can find out most of what you need to know beforehand. The planning officers are obliged to answer your questions. Even to the extent of a discrete pre-planning enquiry - a sort of informal planning application without going public. You will learn all the conditions necessary for compliance, and if you meet these conditions, you will get planning permission. It worked two ways. Planning officers are not empowered to give permission any more than refusing it - but they have a jolly good idea of what it will be - and I have found they are quite happy to express a non-comittal opinion. Not perfect but it removes quite a lot of expensive guesswork. Usually, it is likely that you will not meet all the prescribed requirements in precise detail, in which case it has to go to committee. In my case with CRT, they are not giving me the information i need to fill in the forms.
  14. Tom Hayes did mine for the last two inspections. He was at Debbies Day Boats - but that was 4 years ago. My boat is due for another test in Septeber. I will contact them. But if others know of him, or where he is I would like to know please.
  15. Yes. You touch on complications that are foreseable with a little thought - albeit that a great deal of thought has gone into it judging by the quality of replies here. Thanks to everybody. But what you say is a good example of the possibilities open to CRT to exploit the situation and underpins my approach to CRT for an answer. But there is no need for CRT to do anything other than tell me moorings will be permitted. Then everything falls in place. Why make life difficult for everybody by not coming back with a helpful answer that will work here. If the geography of the land and ownership issues deny the definition of EOG - that's fine. Let them say so. If EOG on-line moorings are to be reduced in this area (as per K&A) let them say so. They have to tell me. The basic logic is easy. I ensure my plan includes a fence to separate my land from CRT land. CRT then split their land into 3 plots and then allocate the plots to whichever house owner wants to moor a boat. The house owner then removes their fence to extend their garden to the canal. Simples.
  16. Yes. Good point. But EOG moorings are an asset in the sense that they generate maximum income for zero outlay. And if they have policies already in place for this sort of issue it would be easy enough to tell me. And here it would be 7 houses with no hope of moorings of 1 boat each.
  17. PS: to my previous reply. Underscored in the above text, it is because of these operational or environmental constraints that I have gone to CRT seeking an answer. But it is something in writing that I am asking for as well. I need it for quoting and direct reference and traceable to an authorised source. Also there could be more than one boat because there could be 7 houses with narrow gardens - which on average being about 30ft wide means just about any narrowboat would extend beyond the garden of the house owner. This is accepted as a reason for rejection - but strictly speaking the gardens do not reach the waters edge. They stops at the CRT strip. The strip itself is enough for 3 or 4 boats. It becomes a question of how CRT would allocate their land to each house. Hence my question to CRT, and here, because CRT are a bit backward coming forward.
  18. Thanks. If all these complications are lurking in the back-ground I would have thought that is something the 'experts' at CRT would know about and will be dealing with on a daily basis - and say so.
  19. Thanks for the links. Very helpful. You have summarised the situation the same way I understand it. I assume someone at CRT would say whatever decision is applicable in my case in response to my questions. Other than "fill in a form and we will see". That might be convenient for the person tasked with responding because they don't know the answer, but not a lot of good for running CRT who need to exploit opportunities to maximise income from assets. I can quote here from a recent internal CRT document: Somewhere in which is am implicit requirement to come up with plans to meet their objectives. The Trust has a range of charitable objects including: • To hold in trust or own and to operate and manage inland waterways for public benefit, use and enjoyment; • To protect and conserve objects and buildings of heritage interest; • To further the conservation, protection and improvement of the natural environment of inland waterways; and • To promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any inland waterways for the benefit of the public. For my part, in absence of a definitive reply from CRT, I have totally discounted any involvement of the canal amenity in my development plans at this stage. It is far too complicated. As you say, it is up to the potential owner to apply. But it is within my remit to parcel the land in such a way that stops CRT from getting any commercial benefit from it at a later date. Which I will do if they are unable to cooperate now. Which is a pity. Everyone loses.
  20. Sorry if my description was not clear. The land I own runs alongside the canal and stops at the top edge of the a steep bank. The steep 'bank' down the water's edge is the bit owned by CRT. It is analogous to gardens that stop at the edge of the towpath. CRT own the towpath. Except in my case CRT can't get to their land without crossing mine other than by water.
  21. Yes, you and Dor are probably right. Hence my question to CRT about policy because whoever makes a decision at CRT will need to have guidance on this. And open to challenge if they say no - providing there is a policy to start with of course. There has to be one in principle Either something as basic as 'word-of-mouth' ..."up to the local manager" or in detail and printed as a directive, in which case it would be available on request, I suppose. I am chasing CRT on this. In the meantime I am doing some homework on it. Thanks for your help.
  22. Interesting you should say that. It is a ransom strip in a sense that CRT can charge extra for a license for access to a mooring - if they grant a mooring permit in the first place. I have leased this piece of land charge myself for 30 years for my own narrowboat at a nominal rent and I pay 50% of the local mooring rate for an EOG mooring. The 'ransom' works both ways. The strip owned by CRT is only accessible across my land or from the canal. It is of no use to CRT except for use by adjacent houses for access to a boat (or as an extension to a garden). My basic problem is CRT are non-committal. An answer to the effect that mooring permits can be issued (for how many boats) and there is a charge (how much) for mooring and access, would be fine.....but nothing!
  23. I am trying to find out in advance from CRT if End-of-Garden (EOG) mooring permits can be granted for a piece of off-side land I own so that I can sell some plots for house building with EOG mooring rights. I have been told by CRT that EOG mooring permits can only be considered in response to application forms where decisions will be made on the merits of each case. The only thing I have been told in advance is that permits will not be granted if boats extends beyond the boundaries of each property, That's OK within reason because I can adjust boundaries to suit if necessary. But it might not be necessary because there is a strip of canal-side land owned by CRT between my land and the canal - (available subject to a license for access) with room for 3 full length narrowboats. There is a potential of 7 house plots, so first come first served if more than 3 want moorings. Other than boundary issues, I can't proceed because I can't fill the forms in because I don't know details of the prospective buyers or their boats. And boat owners won't buy if mooring are likely to be refused. I am having trouble getting a useful answer from CRT that I can pass to prospective buyers. What are the 'merits' of granting or denying a mooring permit - is there a CRT policy where we can judge for ourselves - or even challenge a refusal? - does anyone know - because if CRT know they are not telling me!
  24. When mooring I keep as far away from locks as you can (and bridges and bends and narrow stretches and toilets and water points). Imagine you are an approaching boat and consider the inconvenience that would be caused if a boat was moored where you said. As others have said, if moored in an awkward position, you will cause bad feeling and annoyance. You risk getting bumped, cussed, shouted at and even sworn at - (but not necessarily in that order).
  25. "So you would pay £3k to move a boat by road without knowing if the new job you have taken on will work out? I'm prepared to gamble £500, but not £3k." No! not £3k. That would wait till the job was certain. I would only pay £500 deposit to secure the mooring until my job situation became clear.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.