Constant cruising

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Don't forget they have your voting records as well. Now you never voted Communist did you?

Oops. 

[Chris Williams]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

I’ve no great interest in cruising the Severn. I have a narrow boat because I was brought up on the narrow canals of the Midlands and that’s where I want to cruise, at normal speed.

I was brought up near the Thames, normal speed used to be 7 knots, through the water, not over the bottom.  So with a 3 knot current, you could do 10 knots.

[Dave123]

12 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

That’s OK in places the public might reasonably visit. I have no problem with moored boats as I like to look at boats too, whether boating or on foot. So to boat into Birmingham past groups of moored boats at Kings Norton, Bournville and The Vale is fine. I am sure another site wouldn’t present a problem but there needs to be the ability to cruise normally between them. The canal is primarily for navigation not mooring or gongoozling. My fear for Birmingham is that it will end up being a continuous line of moored boats from University to Soho i.e. within a couple of miles either side of the city centre. To me that will not be an improvement over the current situation. There are usually plenty of moored boats of all styles in Birmingham city centre to satisfy visitors.

 

I do agree that a mooring site at Spon Lane could be advantageous - and it has good transport links - but I suspect one reason there are relatively few liveaboard boats moored on the towpath in the Black Country is that property is not expensive. I have a feeling though that the BCN has quite a high proportion of long standing liveaboards at established residential sites. The canal is an integral part of the fabric so it’s a genuine lifestyle thing not an affordable housing solution. I make a point of visiting such places.

 

I’ve no great interest in cruising the Severn. I have a narrow boat because I was brought up on the narrow canals of the Midlands and that’s where I want to cruise, at normal speed.

 

JP

Yeah...I agree the lack of liveaboards on the BCN in numbers like London probably has more to do with property prices! So the BCN is never going to become like London. I think the inability to have widebeams there puts off other liveaboards too.

It was an area I was looking at relocating to for work but was in part put off by the loneliness and emptiness of so much of the BCN. To me so much of it just doesn't feel safe to moor in because of a lack of other boats. I know this puts of holiday makers as well as liveaboards and the BCN is chronically underboated. Aren't most of those IWA silver propeller places in the BCN? It's never going to become as swamped as London but equally some increase in boats must be a good thing?

Also I would say that mooring is an integral part of navigating. And that we must recognise that goongoozling is to be encouraged if CRT are to keep getting government money in the future.

 

Not really sure where I am going with all this to be honest?. Other than an attempt to defend liveaboard continuous cruising. I can imagine a future in say 20-30 years when the current generation of baby boomer leisure boat owners have moved on and the next generation are unable to afford a boat unless they can live and work from it. And if the ability to freely do that has been killed off by restrictions to ccing then the canals as a whole will suffer. ?

[Captain Pegg]

25 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Yeah...I agree the lack of liveaboards on the BCN in numbers like London probably has more to do with property prices! So the BCN is never going to become like London. I think the inability to have widebeams there puts off other liveaboards too.

It was an area I was looking at relocating to for work but was in part put off by the loneliness and emptiness of so much of the BCN. To me so much of it just doesn't feel safe to moor in because of a lack of other boats. I know this puts of holiday makers as well as liveaboards and the BCN is chronically underboated. Aren't most of those IWA silver propeller places in the BCN? It's never going to become as swamped as London but equally some increase in boats must be a good thing?

Also I would say that mooring is an integral part of navigating. And that we must recognise that goongoozling is to be encouraged if CRT are to keep getting government money in the future.

 

Not really sure where I am going with all this to be honest?. Other than an attempt to defend liveaboard continuous cruising. I can imagine a future in say 20-30 years when the current generation of baby boomer leisure boat owners have moved on and the next generation are unable to afford a boat unless they can live and work from it. And if the ability to freely do that has been killed off by restrictions to ccing then the canals as a whole will suffer. ?

That last part is possible. One of the reasons I will defend the use of canals by groups I have no particular interest in is that the purpose and usage of canals changes with time and in the wider scheme of things usage is required to secure a long term future. No-one uses canals for their original intended purpose. It just that one type of use has to accommodate all other types of users hence my comments about lines of moored boats. That’s a collective issue about scale not a personal issue with anyone’s particular choices.

 

Good point about wide beams, although unfortunately CRT have set a potentially awkward precedent there with the Port Loop lump.

 

Usage of the BCN is fine on the Main Lines and Netherton Tunnel branch but low on the northern reaches. Maybe satisfying the board that a genuine cruise is being undertaken should include visiting Aldridge, Brownhills, Walsall and Wednesfield during the course of the licence period for BCN liveaboards. ?

 

JP

Edited June 28, 2019 by Captain Pegg

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

And that we must recognise that goongoozling is to be encouraged if CRT are to keep getting government money in the future.

But they are not going to 'keep getting Government money'

 

There is a strict cut-off date (from memory it is 2022 with a possible extension to 2024 if certain conditions are met) by which time C&RT are supposed to be self-funding.

 

C&RTs efforts to raise 'Charitable Income / donations' has so far been considerably below budget.

 

Realising that there is a 'cost' to raising funds (staff, collecting tins, commission to Chuggers, etc) C&RT budgeted for small looses for the first few years and that by 2017/18 financial year they would be generating a surplus of £700,000.

In actual fact they have accrued a loss of £5,500,000.

 

The Trust set themselves a target of recruiting 100,000 'friends' within 10 years (ie by 2022) by last year they had recruited 24,100

 

Total voluntary 'giving' in 17/18 amounted to £3.4 million, costs to achieve that was £3.9 million, a loss of £500,000 in one year.

[Murflynn]

13 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Don't forget they have your voting records as well. Now you never voted Communist did you?

our anonymous voting system is designed for wimps.

 

STAND UP AND BE COUNTED, that's what I say  !!

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Murflynn said:

STAND UP AND BE COUNTED, that's what I say  !!

And after counting - the result is ignored !

 

(oops - wrong thread)

[David Mack]

19 hours ago, Dave123 said:

And if it wasn't for the rise in liveaboards much of the canal away from little Venice (all of Hackney/Kensel/Mile end) would still be a desolate no go zone as opposed to the vibrant colourful community it is now.

 

Thats exactly how it used to be. I moved to London in 1980 and at that time you would only see moored boats at Little Venice, Turner Marinas' moorings east of Maida Hill Tunnel and Cumberland Basin, St Pancras Cruising Club and Battlebridge Basin. Then nothing until Springfield Marina on the Lee. Visiting boats passing through were rare, and it was recommended not to leave the boat unattended anywhere other than Little Venice. 

[Captain Pegg]

Just realised I’ve been referencing Spon Lane Junction when I was really thinking of Bromford Junction.

 

Spon Lane Junction is a bit grim but you are never going to have boats moored under the M5. It is however about 10 minutes walk up the road to Titford Pumphouse.

 

JP

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

It is however about 10 minutes walk up the road to Titford Pumphouse

Handy for a pump-out then ?

Edited June 28, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

I do think the point about change of use is valid. If government funding ceases in a few years, either the system falls to bits completely as a navigation or, possibly, CRT recognises the housing aspect, opens up a stack of residential moorings with basic facilities, charges a commercial but affordable rent for them and gets a bit of money in. The pretence that leisure moorings (which often have no facilities at all) aren't often treated as de facto residential should just go - if a boat has a mooring, what's the difference if someone lives on it? Mooring fees should be set by the facilities available and demand. 

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

if a boat has a mooring, what's the difference if someone lives on it?

Basically - Planning permission.

Temporary (non-residential use) mooring of a boat is ancillary to the use of the canal.

 

 

 

Navigation authorities have no statutory duty - or indeed any responsibility to provide residential moorings - this responsibility is down to the Local Authority and should be included in their planning.

The government has identified 'boaters' as being a 'household group'.

 

People living on their boat as their sole or main place of residence are identified by the Government as an example of a household group. “Strategic Housing Market Assessments – Practice Guidance” by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published in March 2007 to support PPS 3, refers to barges used for residential purposes as a different type of accommodation and minority and hard to reach household group, under chapter 6 on “Housing Requirements of Specific Household Groups”.

Living afloat contributes towards increased choice in housing types and lifestyle and social inclusion. No comprehensive survey of this household group has been undertaken so it is not possible to establish the actual percentage of the total housing accommodation in England and Wales that this household group represents.

Housing is generally the responsibility of local authorities, whereas navigation authorities have no statutory duties relating to the provision of housing. People living afloat need to be taken into account by local authorities as part of their housing needs assessments, in consultation with navigation authorities. Where the supply of residential moorings is identified as an issue within a particular housing needs assessment, it is important that the associated land use implications are addressed within the statutory development plan as part of the plan preparation and/or review process.

 

 

3.1.2 The need for planning permission for moorings used by vessels or floating structures in residential use
As discussed earlier, various different types of vessels or floating structures may be in residential use; that is, in use as a person’s sole or main residence.
The question that arises is whether the mooring of such a vessel requires planning permission as a material change in the use of land. The point at which the mooring of a residential boat on a waterway departs from an ancillary use of the waterway (which usually would not need planning permission) and moves to a material change to residential use (which usually would need planning permission) needs to be decided on the basis of fact and degree as well as the particular circumstances of a case. The use of the mooring for this purpose is not included in any of the classes prescribed in the Use Classes Order. It is therefore sui generis (not C3 Dwelling houses).
In this context it is also worth noting that planning permission is usually not required where the residential use of a mooring is for no more than 28 days in any calendar year, since such temporary use is permitted development under Part 4 of the GPDO13.
Furthermore, occasional or extended holiday stays on a vessel may not, as a matter of fact and degree, be considered to amount to a material change of use i.e. to permanent residential use.

A number of examples will illustrate the range of issues:
 The use of a long-term mooring on a canal for the ‘parking’ and/or maintenance of a vessel between cruises will not usually require planning permission as such an activity is ordinarily ancillary or incidental to the use of the canal for navigation. That will be so even if the vessel at the mooring is occasionally used for overnight stays.
 Where, however, a vessel or floating structure (a) does not cruise or is incapable of cruising and (b) is used for residential purposes as a person’s sole or main residence, many local planning authorities will regard it as being materially different in nature or character from any previous non-residential use of the planning unit and/or, where appropriate, as having actually created a new planning unit. In such circumstances, it is likely that planning permission will be required for the residential use of the mooring.

 More difficult may be the situation where a vessel is used for residential purposes, as a person’s sole or main residence, but does cruise regularly between stays amounting to more than 28 days at its mooring base. Whether there has been a material change of use in the location of the mooring will be a matter of fact and degree having regard to the planning unit and the nature or character of the previous and existing use.

 Also more difficult is where a small number of vessels are used for residential purposes within a larger site of leisure moorings. Here the residential use may be difficult to distinguish from the leisure use, and the scale of environmental impact may be marginal in relation to the existing level of activity at the site or within the planning unit

Edited June 28, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

How about some enterprising council builds a residential marina, I am sure their coffers would (long term) welcome the income.  Or perhaps they could just buy one.   Could compulsory purchase apply?

 

 

OK I admit I am being deliberately silly.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

How about some enterprising council builds a residential marina, I am sure their coffers would (long term) welcome the income.  Or perhaps they could just buy one.   Could compulsory purchase apply?

 

 

OK I admit I am being deliberately silly.

There are 'enough' moorings, just not where some people want them, and not at a price some people are prepared to pay.

 

I have never grasped the concept of 'affordable moorings'.

Maybe moorings should be 'means-tested', and only given to those that cannot afford them.

[Jerra]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There are 'enough' moorings, just not where some people want them, and not at a price some people are prepared to pay.

 

I have never grasped the concept of 'affordable moorings'.

Maybe moorings should be 'means-tested', and only given to those that cannot afford them.

I was thinking (admittedly well out of the box) that a council with marina for social housing would provide an increase in residential moorings.  It could have restrictions so moorings were available to those who need them.  Unlike a business they wouldn't have to make a large profit, while any profit above break even would be a bonus.

[cuthound]

24 minutes ago, Jerra said:

How about some enterprising council builds a residential marina, I am sure their coffers would (long term) welcome the income.  Or perhaps they could just buy one.   Could compulsory purchase apply?

 

 

OK I admit I am being deliberately silly.

 

Why go to the expense of digging a marina and filling it with water? 

 

If it is purely for residential use it would be better tarmac'd over, to reduce the boaters maintenance costs and the council's building costs..

 

Come to think of it, why put boats on it, caravans or even modified shipping containers are cheaper and have more room. ?

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Why go to the expense of digging a marina and filling it with water? 

 

If it is purely for residential use it would be better tarmac'd over, to reduce the boaters maintenance costs and the council's building costs..

 

Come to think of it, why put boats on it, caravans or even modified shipping containers are cheaper and have more room. ?

You forgot the tongue in cheek emoji!    There are a lot of people who want to live in boats and look for residential moorings.  I did however say at the start I was (to a certain amount) being silly.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

You forgot the tongue in cheek emoji!    There are a lot of people who want to live in boats and look for residential moorings.  I did however say at the start I was (to a certain amount) being silly.

Sometimes 'thinking outside the box' and a bit of discussion can lead to some very sensible ideas.

[Murflynn]

59 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Sometimes 'thinking outside the box' and a bit of discussion can lead to some very sensible ideas.

like tying two hulls together and pretending it makes a stable boat.    

 

 

 

......................  trouble with catamarans is that when they turn turtle they stay that way (apart from Hobies with a big ball on the top of the mast).

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

like tying two hulls together and pretending it makes a stable boat.    

 

 

 

......................  trouble with catamarans is that when they turn turtle they stay that way (apart from Hobies with a big ball on the top of the mast).

After a bit of discussion - weld them together with 3x RSJ's across the hulls (Forward,, Midships and stern), lay a reinforced 'bridge across them and you may be onto something.

 

It certainly was a concern that I had - Our cat has escape hatches built into each hull - at the waterline , but when inverted they are well clear and (in theory) escape should be simple.

But, it does take something to capsize a cruising-cat (not like these toy-racer-cats)

 

You can just see the corner of the escape hatch in this photo (bottom RH side)

 

The big benefit of a Cat, is that it has positive buoyancy so unlike a mono, it will not sink if holed or the hull fractured from hitting a whale (or container, etc)

 

 

[Chris Williams]

Travelled on a cat coming back from Ireland - horrible sensation.  It would roll so far, then abruptly stop and roll the other way.  Nothing gentle about it.

[nbfiresprite]

People who fear being tracked and own a android phone should not read this.

 

Google maps reveal new feature

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

People who fear being tracked and own a android phone should not read this.

 

Google maps reveal new feature

 

And now there is this :

 

Google now lets users auto-delete their location and web history

Back in May, Google announced it would be introducing an option for users of its services to automatically delete their online history, and today the tech giant has begun rolling out the update around the globe.

 

https://www.techradar.com/news/google-now-lets-users-auto-delete-their-location-and-web-history

[Murflynn]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The big benefit of a Cat, is that it has positive buoyancy so unlike a mono, it will not sink if holed or the hull fractured from hitting a whale (or container, etc)

 

 

 

another big benefit of a cat is that you can have separate sleeping quarters well away from SWMBO .         

[cuthound]

43 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

another big benefit of a cat is that you can have separate sleeping quarters well away from SWMBO .         

 

And/or the kids! ?