Jump to content

Constant cruising


Jon Cartwright

Featured Posts

24 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

People who move the minimum distance allowed are saving water, pollution, congestion,  and wear and tear on the infrastructure, whilst not doing anyone any harm.

 

Look at it as a benefit. 

What's the minimum distance allowed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

What's the minimum distance allowed?

 

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

Now that's a good question

 

C&RT have answered that a number of times - here is the answer from the Enforcement Manager :

 

Enforcement Manager Simon Cadek sent an email to a boater who was warned that they were on course for failing their six month restricted licence, telling them what they would need to do to pass.

The email is on public record as part of advice to boaters in the London Boaters Facebook group and dates from the end of 2016.


When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:


· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.


. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.


· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.


While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.


Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.


This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.


· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.


We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.


The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).


Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

C&RT have answered that a number of times - here is the answer from the Enforcement Manager :

 

Enforcement Manager Simon Cadek sent an email to a boater who was warned that they were on course for failing their six month restricted licence, telling them what they would need to do to pass.

The email is on public record as part of advice to boaters in the London Boaters Facebook group and dates from the end of 2016.


When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:


· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.


. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.


· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.


While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.


Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.


This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.


· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.


We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.


The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).


Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

 

So what is the minimum distance, all I can see is a suggested range

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CompairHolman said:

People who move the minimum distance allowed are saving water, pollution, congestion,  and wear and tear on the infrastructure, whilst not doing anyone any harm.

 

Look at it as a benefit. 

Costs both boaters and CRT a bit in lawyer's fees and court costs though, while you work out a definition of "minimum". Not sure how much that improves the maintenance budget. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So what is the minimum distance, all I can see is a suggested range

“ While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.”

 

Seems clear enough. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

“ While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.”

 

Seems clear enough. 

 

What, more than a little bit? whats a few Km, 2 or 10 ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

C&RT have answered that a number of times - here is the answer from the Enforcement Manager :

 

Enforcement Manager Simon Cadek sent an email to a boater who was warned that they were on course for failing their six month restricted licence, telling them what they would need to do to pass.

The email is on public record as part of advice to boaters in the London Boaters Facebook group and dates from the end of 2016.


When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:


· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.


. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.


· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.


While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.


Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.


This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.


· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.


We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.


The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).


Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

 

Nice to have the info BUT needs to be taken with a massive pinch of salt - this appears to be one Enforcement Officer's interpretation, of a bunch of rules, to ONE boater in ONE particular area/region of the country. Of course we would like to pretend that he was simply repeating some kind of CRT policy which is consistent across everywhere but it would be foolish to assume this is the case and that it can be applied more widely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Do I need to answer?

I can't tell you if you need to answer or not. Its an internet forum, you are free to provide your own opinion on matters discussed. If you believe that what I said has been invalidated because I labelled the CRT bloke an enforcement officer rather than an enforcement manager, then it would be wise to detail how that is so, in support of whatever argument you're trying to make. 

 

But, ultimately, its up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I can't tell you if you need to answer or not. Its an internet forum, you are free to provide your own opinion on matters discussed. If you believe that what I said has been invalidated because I labelled the CRT bloke an enforcement officer rather than an enforcement manager, then it would be wise to detail how that is so, in support of whatever argument you're trying to make. 

 

But, ultimately, its up to you.

I’ll agree with Alan he answered succinctly enough. 

 

Not sure I’m making an argument?

 

Just a response to what I thought was sarcasm. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was also in 2016. Has anyone ever known a manager (especially a CRT one)  to maintain a consistent point of view for as long as three whole years? Or even stay in post, the way  CRT have been reorganising themselves. 

It's just what someone with no real authority said to one other bloke a few years back, means even less than the Mayer's ruling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CompairHolman said:

People who move the minimum distance allowed are saving water, pollution, congestion,  and wear and tear on the infrastructure, whilst not doing anyone any harm.

 

Look at it as a benefit. 

Fine, as long as they are in a Marina, or elsewhere off the main line.  What we don't need is long lines of boats moored on the main line, so you have to slow right down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/03/2019 at 12:34, Alan de Enfield said:

It does raise the question over the "intent", and the meaning of 'Bona Fide navigation'.

 

In C&RT Vs Myers the Judge said :

 

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.

 

Thus, it is not the distance moved, but 'why you moved'.

 

If you simply move every 14 days to comply with the Law, then you are not Bona Fide navigating.

 

If you move every 14 days because you enjoy boating then you are Bona Fide navigating.

 

However, it is up to the boater to convince C&RT that they are moving because they want to, and not because C&RT or the Law requires them to move.

There is enough nonsense delivered over the meaning of “bona fide for navigation” to make any sane person despair – and some of it comes from over-worked County Court judges, relying heavily on submissions made by clever barristers, in specialised fields with which the judges are unfamiliar.

The oft-cited Davies judgment, seeking as it did to pin down the genuineness or not of navigation in terms of intent, was not only inherently absurd, but was contrary to established precedent case-law.

 

It was inherently absurd, not least because it would not solve the authority’s problems with boats hogging certain spots to the detriment of other boaters. The idea that a pattern of movement would be acceptable or not depending upon the intent of the boater is ridiculous – what practical difference would it make to anybody whether the boater was simply following guidance as to application of the 1995 Act requirement, or whether they were using the same pattern regardless of the requirement? The judgment would make ANY pattern of movement unlawful if followed only because it was law. And since when has obedience to law (reluctant or otherwise) been grounds for a conviction that a crime has been committed on the basis that the law was only complied with in order to comply?

 

As to binding precedent (which neither Davies nor Meyers qualifies as), in order to apply a meaningful definition to the word “navigation” in the context of the BW legislation, the CC judge ought to have looked for cases in the context of recreational boating. In that context the definitions found in the Cairngorm case, and in the Appeal Court case Evans v Godber [QB 1974] are the most applicable. Of particular relevance - given the County Court finding in Davies – is the conclusion in the Evans v Godber case as to what “navigation” of pleasure boats embraces where rights of navigation exist.

 

The leading judge very properly observed certain essential differences between land-based public highways and the right of navigation on water: “By contrast, the right of navigation in tidal waters is a right to move at will throughout the area where the water is tidal. No doubt most people when they set out on a voyage intend to get somewhere, as did the defendant on this occasion, but those entering Pagham harbour are under no obligation to follow a particular route or have a motive or reason to come in; their right as an exercise of the common law right to navigate is a right to go in tidal waters as and when they please.

 

Such boats are, in other words, “bona-fide navigating”, despite following no particular route, nor having any particular motive or reason for the pattern of their navigation. The same principle has to apply to waters where the right to navigate is by permission via a boat licence, with the added proviso re: navigating CaRT waterways that the 14-day guidance (however interpreted) must be factored in. The relevant case law thus contradicts the Davies finding as to the supposedly essential factor of intent.

 

Anybody wishing to discover the essential criteria envisaged by BW when framing the relevant clause in the ’95 Act, need only read the specific representations made by their QC while promoting the clause during Select Committee deliberations on the 1990 Bill. For perhaps understandable reasons, BW and now CaRT have always objected to the relevant material being considered in any of the court deliberations on the subject. Suffice to say that it sought, generally speaking, to apply 'common sense' criteria to avoid inconsiderate leaving of boats near and alongside essential services, to the detriment of other boaters whose use of those would be obstructed.

 

Sadly, 'common sense' and consideration for others can be as absent in boaters as in the navigation authority's departmental officers.

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

I’ll agree with Alan he answered succinctly enough. 

 

Not sure I’m making an argument?

 

Just a response to what I thought was sarcasm. 

 

We live in the era of job title inflation, everybody is an officer, manager, consultant or even deputy vice president, even the most junior of part time shop assistants is a customer services manager (or even a customer experience manager), arguing about job titles is meaningless.

 

Dave (client partner and consultant for transparent solutions integration)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.