doratheexplorer
-
Posts
3,514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by doratheexplorer
-
-
4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Your search location was based around Birmingham as per your link :
Looking at the map there are non between Luton and Sheffield
You have to put in some kind of location, it's how that site works. The search was national. What happened is you decided to comment without actually looking at the link.
For the OP - Aquavista may well have resi moorings available at 3 of their marinas, according to their website. Worth giving them a call:
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
I think its because most people seem to want them in a marina which is where the problem is.
Like this then?
https://www.watersidemooring.com/356-tinsley-marina-residential-l1/Vacancies#berth4318
20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:The OP has specifically said he does not want to be in or near Birmingham.
I'm sorry, but which of the moorings in the link I provided were in Birmingham?
Hint: none of them.
-
3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
I am surprised that Ocker Hill is not listed as it looks half empty.
From experience I've found that asking the local moorers can turn up resi moorings which CRT are unaware of. I wouldn't be suprised if there were resi moorings avaialble now at Ocker HIll, Hockley Port and Cuckoo Wharf. And maybe Silver Street.
In any case, those on here saying that resi moorings are virtually impossible to find don't know what they're talking about.
-
14 hours ago, David Mack said:
It has been said several times already on this thread, but it bears repeating: Official residential moorings with full planning permission etc. are AS RARE AS HEN'S TEETH. The chances of you finding one are virtually nil (let alone at a price you can afford!). So by all means keep looking for one, but if you are not going to CC you should base your plans on the assumption you will be living (unobtrusively) on a leisure mooring.
If you're not too fussy about where your mooring is, resi moorings are quite easy to find.
Here's a list of 11 which are currently available
-
On 04/02/2023 at 23:07, George and Dragon said:
Apparently one quarter of the UK population has assets worth more than US$1million which puts them in the global 1%.
Evidence please.
-
On 03/02/2023 at 22:58, Richard10002 said:
The fact that these developers are "allowed" to wriggle out of their planning requirements, and they are not enforced, is entirely the fault of councils/government.
This is exactly why Government/councils should take the responsibility for actually building the needed social/affordable homes, (council houses).
Until such a time, (which might be "never"), without the provision of homes by the private rented sector, (PRS), where are all the currently housed going to live.
In addition, given that, as things are gradually introduced to make the PRS less attractive, more and more private landlords will leave the market**, thus reducing supply, when demand is actually increasing, therefore increasing the rents for all those who need/want to rent.
** Not necessarily a bad thing for those who wish to buy, because it increases supply, thus making it easier.
1. Many Councils would love to build Council house, but they don't have any money to.
2. The rules which allow developers to wriggle out of their commitments are entirely set by the Government.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, IanD said:
If by "root cause" you mean the prioritisation of property building/ownership/tenancies for profit as opposed to providing decent places to live, then I'm in complete agreement with you 🙂
And that root cause could be easily addressed with a direct wealth tax. Of course, any politician advocating such a thing would be thoroughly vilified in the press and many, many people would obediently genuflect to that vilification, all the while telling themselves that they've made up their own minds.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, IanD said:
I never said that the shortage of new houses being built was the *only* problem, in fact I mentioned many of the others -- but it's the underlying root cause which indirectly causes many of the others, and without fixing it the problem isn't going to go away. No. Shortage of new homes is one of many symptoms of the root cause which I identified in my previous post
All the other issues (housebuilders avoiding affordable homes, RTB, BTL, property as an investment not a place to live, taxation on housing, lack of infrastructure, many others....) are indeed big contributors to the problem, but not the root cause. See above.
The simple fact is that what the UK really needs (a good supply of affordable new houses of decent quality, and lower house prices) is in direct opposition to the interests of the developers who build almost all UK housing and whose primary target is profit. Because as companies, that's their job, not doing what's right for the country -- that's the government's job, at least in theory if not in practice today... 😞
-
17 hours ago, Peanut said:
Currently, the triple lock on state pensions is under threat, the Institute of Fiscal Studies says that it is unsustainable. Look out if you rely on it for your living. There is a concerted effort by some to change it. As always, the poorest will be hit the hardest. Not everyone has a company pension, or has earned enough to save for a decent private one. Some self-employed and those in low paid work.
The triple lock hasn't been hung onto because of fairness, it's just because those who benefit from it have a high tendancy to go out and vote. Much of the poorest in society are of working age, but don't get enough help because of the triple lock and the state funding which supports it. In an ideal world, everyone would be provided for but right now the state biases it's help towards those most likely to vote, not those in most need.
38 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:I think lots are interest only, not repayment. So in reality the owner is renting off the lender and reletting to the tenant
Bang on. An often overlooked fact.
-
17 hours ago, IanD said:
I disagree. Every in-depth analysis shows that the underlying cause of the UK housing market fiasco is that we aren't building enough new houses, and haven't done for many years, which is exactly what he says. This is a misrepresentation of reality, just as the article was. Building more homes is needed but please don't fall into the trap of thinking that it's the only relevant factor. It's far more complicated than that and includes shorthold tenancies, right to buy, tax avoidance schemes, barriers to conversion of existing property, barriers to downsizing, lack of imagination regarding housing arrangements and many, many more. The writer of the article chooses to ignore all of that because he makes more money the more houses are built. IMO the primary reason for the state of the housing market in this country is that those who have influence over our decision makers have chosen to protect the interests of those who own property. This has happened countless times over the last 40 years or so. A particularly obvious example was the bailing out of the bank c.2008.
NIMBYism is undoubtedly another of the contributors to the problem -- and this applies not just to houses but things like wind turbines and solar farms. And 5G masts, for those wearing tin hats... 😉
It's obvious that if you build more houses you need to services to support them -- not just infrastructure like roads and sewers but public transport and facilities and community centres and doctors and shops and pubs and... -- and not doing this is another problem with many developments. And these are skimped on or ignored because the housebuilders have no incentive to provide them, it just reduces their profits. Like them trying to wriggle out of their agreed percentage of social housing... It may be obvious but the article makes no mention. The problem is that of all the options available to help address the housing market issues, new build housing puts the greatest demand on new infrastructure. And the real reason developers don't usually build mixed use development is because of specialism within the sector. Typically a developer will specialise in only building homes and just wont consider anything else. The government's narrow definition of 5 year housing supply ensures that developers are able to push through new planning applications with little consideration of associated infrastructure, leaving it to local authorities to try and provide them through planning gain contributions.
But none of this pointing out the faults of housebuilders and the planning system changes the fact that we're not building enough houses, and especially not affordable or social housing because expensive executive homes make a lot more money for the housebuilders. That's not strictly true either. Expensive executive homes make sense in certain areas, but not others where high density flats and small houses give a better return. The main reasons affordable homes don't get built is because developers are able to wriggle out of affordable housing commitments. Let me explain: typically a local authority will have fixed policies on providing affordable housing on new developments which are larger than a certain threshold, say 10 new houses. Above that, the developer will have to provide a percentage of affordable homes. But there is a get out. No affordable homes are needed if the developer can demonstrate that the development would be financially unviable with the affordable housing included. So they appoint a company to do a viability assessment which will invariably come to the conclusion that it is unviable. This is then looked at by an overworked district valuer who has neither the time nor the energy to argue with it. So the development goes ahead with no affordable housing. The ridiculousness of this situation becomes all too apparent when there are two neighbouring development sites, one developed by a housing association with 100% affordable housing and the other developed by a private house-builder with 0% affordable housing because it's 'unviable'.
-
3 minutes ago, magnetman said:
What happens when the state can't afford that much money to provide people with basic needs ie shelter?
Trouble here.
They borrow more.
-
1 hour ago, Peanut said:
An article from Mortgage finance Gazette, from Feb 17, gives some reasons in the author's opinion.
https://www.mortgagefinancegazette.com/features/influence-buy-let-uk-housing-06-02-2017/
God that was a depressing read. Not suprising though, coming from a banker. All he wants is 'more houses, more houses, more houses' and attributes the lack of house building to red tape and nimbyism, implying that simply building more houses is the answer to everything. Absolutely nothing mentioned about the infrastructure needed to support those new houses. A prime example of the bloodsuckers who spend their lives ruining the world.
1 hour ago, magnetman said:Does anyone who advocates renting out property to others have any suggestions about how this will work out in the long term?
Once people end their productive working lives they will have less income. What do they do if they have nowhere to live?
You could get significant problems here which would presumably be transferred onto the state which is not in a position to deal with it.
I am not an example but a lot of people have ended up owning their home in retirement. That must be nice. Why would it be acceptable to help ensure others don't ever have this security?
Rental is fine while people are working. What happens when they are old and infirm?
Seriously. What happens.
They live off whatever their pension provides and the state picks up the difference.
-
11 minutes ago, Athy said:
This was alluded to earlier, and I enquired why it should be so. Do you have an answer?
Anyone who already has a property is considered a lower risk for two main reasons:
1. The have already proven themselves at making mortgage payments.
2. The property they already own provides security against the loan.
First time buyers do not have that advantage. Lenders mitigate that risk by being more reluctant to lend, by lending smaller amounts or by charging more interest.
It's just one of the many delightful ways our economy ensures that wealth continues to be directed upwards rather than redistrbuted.
-
4
-
-
24 minutes ago, Athy said:
I still don't see it. A young professional couple with steady jobs, as Mrs. Athy and I were when we bought our first house, will be viewed as a good risk by mortgage lenders. A landlord who may already be paying multiple mortgages may appear less secure.
W e're in the BTL game in a small way,, with just two rental properties, and when we bought them we found the estate agent most accommodating, but I have always thought that this was because we didn't need mortgages to buy them, not because we wanted to rent them out rather than live in them.
Ahh, the good old days when there were steady jobs!
-
3 minutes ago, MtB said:
I think once you factor in that houses tend to rise in value over the long term at at least £1,000 a month while boats (with some notable exceptions) tend to stay steady or drift down in value as they age, its hard to make the case that boat living is all that much cheaper than housing in the long term.
If we are to compare boat living with renting a house, I think we should use boat renting prices as a comparison. Or at least the cost of renting the money to buy the boat!
Not entirely fair, the vast majority of those in the circumstances discussed are unable to get a mortgage, so must rent, but are able to buy a relatively cheap boat. The lady in the youtube videos is one of those so it's only reasonable to make that specific comparison.
-
27 minutes ago, matty40s said:
I accept that a CC non moving boat life could be very cheap if you like to sit there with no TV, eating value beans on Tesco value bread with no butter, drinking lukewarm stove kettle tea with no milk, placing a maximum of 2 nuggets of coal a day on your stove. Moving rarely and praying for sunshine so your solar panel gives you another evening with your single LED bulb going.
...and yes, people like this exist, but that's pretty much all they do.
I accept that too, but I also accept that in many areas boat life is also much cheaper than house/flat life in a modest boat with a reasonable level of comfort, eating a good diet, keeping warm and going out as much as you want, while meeting the cc guidelines.
As you point out it's possible to go even cheaper than my description because boaters have far more control over their expenditure due to far lower fixed costs. When your rent + bills is already way over £1000pcm then it's not hard to live afloat for cheaper than that.
-
20 minutes ago, matty40s said:
I didnt assume anything, I gave a breakdown of my costs and rough guide to other expenses, I am fully aware that others may or may not have cars, dont pay TV licences, tax or other items.
I think the confusion is that you seemed to imply that the cost of car tax is one reason why boat life isn't cheap. It looked like you were claiming that it's a cost which all boaters face.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, matty40s said:
Where in my post do I assume that she has a car, motorbike or jet ski etc
No kebroad scurriers here.
You assumed when you mentioned car tax. It's not usual to pay car tax if you don't have a car.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, MtB said:
But looping back to the objection(s) about her calling it "Maggie" being objected to, it seems unlikely that any historic boat owner who genuinely appreciates and understands the historical value of their possession would call their boat by a name other than its own.
That's all really. None of our business though. But this IS a discussion forum so people here are entitled to discuss whatever they like. Including what people choose to call their boats.
Isn't it the case that working boats sometimes changed their name while they were still working?
-
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, MrBadger said:This is laughable for those in the real world. My rent was £1000pcm - Council Tax something around £200. This isn't in somewhere like Oxford or London either! Electricity is huge and rising (not issue with solar panels) gas is insane and a lot more expensive than coal. Also, licence for my boat is £72.50 and the mooring £208 a month, which we will disappear when cruising. We are saying over a thousand quid on rent and council tax alone. There is also far less interest than taking on a mortgage even if you got a loan for a boat. You are assuming she has a car or that most young boaters have a car too, we do not.
Some people struggle to rent with pets too and as she said, she cannot get a mortgage.
The only people not grounded in reality are the keyboard warriors on this post.
You're new here so you are probably a little suprised by the responses on this thread. It's par for the course for this forum. Most of the posters are hopelessly out of touch with how unaffordable things have become for those who didn't get on the housing ladder 20+ years ago.
It's almost as if they want to willfully ignore how widespread liveaboarding has become in the most expensive parts of the country, until they want to moor up there of course!
Most of those thousands who liveaboard around London now would not be doing it if they had a viable cheaper alternative. They are victims of a broken housing market and yet many forum members seem to enjoy blaming them for their plight, rather than directing their blame at those who caused it.
-
7
-
22 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:
I'm now able to confirm that the finishing point will be Factory Junction, Tipton and boats will congregate at the Malthouse Stables upon finishing. I'm just in conversation with Sandwell council regarding details of the use of the facilities at the stables.
Entry forms have been sent out to last year's participants and all those who have contacted me via the forum. The forms will also be available on the BCNS website shortly.
Excellent choice of finshing spot. With boats arriving from 3 directions!
-
So let me get this straight:
We don't like it when volockies help.
We don't like it the volockies don't help.
Seems fair.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, LadyG said:
It's illegal to offer up a soiled glas to a beer tap, it's called hygiene.
Pour your new pint in to the old glass.
No it isn't. The worst that might happen is that the council food hygiene inspector might see it happen and give the premises a lower score.
-
13 hours ago, blackrose said:
Yes you're probably right and I'd come to that conclusion earlier in the thread. Some people say they burn half a bag of coal a week but then it turns out they're burning loads of wood. I think there is a tendency amongst boaters to under-report their consumption along with their spending. I'm not sure why that is - probably something to do with a predilection for the virtues of an austere lifestyle.
I think so too. It's a type of virtue signalling.
Best place in England / Mooring- for having a midlife crisis!
in New to Boating?
Posted
Agreed. But my original response was to those claiming that resi moorings were virtually a myth and it wasn't even worth trying to find one.