Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Alan de Enfield

CC'ers Require 42 day Temporary Moorings

Featured Posts

In a document issued to C&RT and the local Authorities to support the changes in the law (Section 124 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016)

It is stated that 'nomadic liveaboards require a country wide series of 42 day temporary moorings (or longer if their circumstances require it) and that the LA's should not consider enforcement where they are the Riparian Owner so as to allow the 'traveller' to have "employment, education for their children, health care and social participation".

 

The additional Section (3)( b) :

 

LHAs had a statutory duty under Section 225 of the Housing Act 2004 to conduct
accommodation needs assessments of people of a nomadic habit of life; theoretically, Bargee
Travellers should have been included in this but were not. The NBTA had been lobbying the
DCLG since 2009 for Bargee Travellers to be included in LHA accommodation needs
assessments. This objective was achieved in Section 124 of HPA 16. Section 124 states:


'124 Assessment of accommodation needs
(1)In section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 (periodical review of housing needs), after
subsection (2) insert—
“(3)In the case of a local housing authority in England, the duty under subsection (1)
includes a duty to consider the needs of people residing in or resorting to their district
with respect to the provision of—
(a)sites on which caravans can be stationed, or
(b)places on inland waterways where houseboats can be moored.
(4)In subsection (3)—
“caravan” has the meaning given by section 29 of the Caravan Sites and Control of
Development Act 1960;
“houseboat” means a boat or similar structure designed or adapted for use as a place to
live.”
(2)In the Housing Act 2004 omit sections 225 and 226 (accommodation needs of
gypsies and travellers).'

 

The full document attached.

 

Boat Acommodation Needs Assessments.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as how authentic gipsy travellers get booted off land they've bought themselves, and their general lack of success at getting places provided for them, whatever the statutory requirements, I don't think the bargee mob have much chance of 42 day moorings popping up all over the system. 

Anyway, the councils just have to consider their needs. Not actually do anything, even if they had the money these days if they wanted to. 

Edited by Arthur Marshall
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although... London  councils are shipping their homeless all over the country. I suspect they'll just offer the bargee a perfectly satisfactory mooring just outside Glasgow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simply the NBTA's own interpretation of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 requirements for Local Authorities, presented with their particular slant on such matters, and has no 'official' status. That said, some hard-pressed local authority staff, with limited resources and knowledge may be tempted use it as a basis for their decisions and actions.

 

The bit about LA's permitting stays of up to 42 days where they are riparian owners is, I think, aimed at those riverside local authorities who have implemented or are proposing very onerous mooring time limits on public land - specifically to prevent CMers.  I don't think it will have any impact on CRT whose own 14 day limits are based on different legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear the use of the term "Houseboat" will be the main stumbling block to this.

Houseboat has at least 2 different legal definitions, and implies a boat that cannot move.  Thus would be a permanent fixture, and would require full planning permission for that berth.

Residential boats, that require a berth for 42 days before moving on could be much easier to plan for.  How a 42 day limit would work for school age children or working adults, is questionable, unless there are several such mooring close together, and "moving days" are arranged.....

A nice idea but needs a lot more thinking.  It would cost a huge amount for a Council to provide residential marina type moorings, in any urban environment, which appears to be what's needed.

A way forward might be to grant more residential berths in marina's/on-line moorings, etc.  Subject to time limits per stay, similar to holiday homes?  3 months/11 months per year stay then move to another area.

 

Bod 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bod said:

How a 42 day limit would work for school age children or working adults, is questionable,

 

The NBTA are relying on the bit in brackets: " 42 day temporary moorings (or longer if their circumstances require it) ". Some seem to deem the entire duration of their children's education as meeting the "circumstances requrie it" test.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bod said:

I fear the use of the term "Houseboat" will be the main stumbling block to this.

Houseboat has at least 2 different legal definitions, and implies a boat that cannot move.  Thus would be a permanent fixture, and would require full planning permission for that berth.

C&RTs definition allows for it to have an engine - AND cruise.

 

A Houseboat is defined as a boat whose predominant use is for a purpose other than navigation and which, if required for the purpose, has planning permission, for the site where it is moored. A Houseboat may be used for navigation from time to time provided it does not become its predominant use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no implication that the temporary 42 day mooring should be provided free. Could be quite a moneyspinner for a cash strapped council. I can envisage every possible and currently free mooring bit of bank being so designated, policed by the usual car park boys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 225 of the Housing Act applies to local Housing Authorities (Councils or Housng Assciations). CaRT is neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Section 225 of the Housing Act applies to local Housing Authorities (Councils or Housng Assciations). CaRT is neither.

Indeed - but several LA's 'own' moorings and river / canal banks, and some of them are introducing severe mooring penalties, byelaws etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Indeed - but several LA's 'own' moorings and river / canal banks, and some of them are introducing severe mooring penalties, byelaws etc.

on CRT controlled areas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

on CRT controlled areas?

There are 21 Inland Waterways Navigation Authorities which includes several LAs.

We should not consider C&RT to be the sole arbiter of mooring conditions.

 

To answer your question - Yes - I believe that there are several riparian owners alongside C&RT 'controlled' waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There are 21 Inland Waterways Navigation Authorities which includes several LAs.

We should not consider C&RT to be the sole arbiter of mooring conditions.

 

To answer your question - Yes - I believe that there are several riparian owners alongside C&RT 'controlled' waters.

So out of those 21 inland waterway navigation authorities, how many require a mooring for a boat? And how many allow CCing or a close equivalent?

 

Because at the moment, it looks like NBTA trying another angle to get CRT to reinterpret or ignore the CCing rules to their advantage - which is fair enough, given that's what the NBTA do. 

 

Put it another way, is this an NBTA vs CRT issue, or something wider?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

So out of those 21 inland waterway navigation authorities, how many require a mooring for a boat?

I do not have the knowledge of the requirements  (for example) of :

The Basingstoke canal

Chester City Council

The EA

York City Council

The Avon Navigation Trust

The PLA

The MLC

The Bridgewater Canal

The Manchester Ship canal

 

Then there is such as the Broads Authority who are a 'big' moorings provider - would they come under the legislation ?

 

I don't know.

 

I just posted the information so that 'those in the know' could maybe throw some light on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can help first hand with Chester City Council - its an approx 8 mile stretch of navigable river, you need a mooring to have a boat on it. And there is no market for moorings - pretty much all of them are attached to private property and occupied etc. It is disconnected from the rest of the navigable inland waterways and the gate in the weir is basically seized up, so the only option would be launch/retrieve on the slipway, which would be logistically difficult (effectively, to get the equipment able to launch a bigger boat in/out, roads would need to be closed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the usual NBTA nonsense. I think they should be sued for misrepresentation because "Travelling" is the last thing they are interested in.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I can help first hand with Chester City Council - its an approx 8 mile stretch of navigable river, you need a mooring to have a boat on it. And there is no market for moorings - pretty much all of them are attached to private property and occupied etc. It is disconnected from the rest of the navigable inland waterways and the gate in the weir is basically seized up, so the only option would be launch/retrieve on the slipway, which would be logistically difficult (effectively, to get the equipment able to launch a bigger boat in/out, roads would need to be closed).

Sounds an Ideal location for NBTA (National Boats Tied up Association) members.

46 minutes ago, Paul C said:

So out of those 21 inland waterway navigation authorities, how many require a mooring for a boat?

 

31 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Chester City Council - its an approx 8 mile stretch of navigable river, you need a mooring to have a boat on it.

 

There is one answer to your question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being, the "angle" that NBTA have chosen for this latest attempt to influence public bodies, doesn't have legs. 

 

With the prospect of others coming along to disprove it, I am going to say that the intersection between navigation authorities who allow no (home) mooring (1 - CRT) and places under local authority control is basically tiny - far from a national network. We're talking a few moorings on a few rivers under CRT control (the other rivers not under CRT control, all having a well-established requirement for a mooring as part of the boat licensing requirement).

 

Once that's out the way, there's the balance to be struck between the housing obligation (to provide 42 day temporary moorings, or whatever) and providing short stay moorings as a service usable by all river users. In determining this balance, whilst the LA might have a duty (to provide housing....) it is an overall duty across their area, not a duty to provide it specifically where an individual wants it (eg it doesn't necessarily follow, that it must apply to (any) moorings at all, yet alone all of their moorings).

 

And even if the above works out, the LA can charge (reasonably) for that mooring/service, they don't need to offer it for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NBTA document does appear to be based on an extended or even mistaken reading of the legislation and guidance. The start point is the need for LHA's to adhere to the Equalities Act and NBTA make reference to Protected Characteristics (but Navigation Authorities are not LHA's):

 

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

(see https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics)

 

Bargees are not directly referenced in this list but NBTA build their case from the element of race. Certainly there is quite a lot of interest in some quarters regarding the impact of discrimination on Roma and Gypsy communities and the need to combat it.

 

The Roma and Gypsy communities are racial in original and it is right that their interests are protected. It is also true that these two groups generally (but by no means always) fall into the general classification of Travellers, although this characteristic (which is not protected) is principally defined by behaviour than racial origin - anyone can become a Traveller but you can only become a member of the Roma and Gypsy communities by birth (or perhaps be marriage)

 

The following may be helpful in clarifying where the Equalities Act impinges and where it does not.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/gypsies-and-travellers-race-discrimination/

 

In any event, I suspect that the case as presented would need to demonstrate discrimination rather than deprivation - which are two different concepts. A particular group of Bargees may well be deprived/disadvantaged (which sadly happens in a non-egalitarian society) without being discriminated against. Succeeding in court would, I suspect, be very complex.

 

The case seems to have inherent internal contradictions: They assert that a boat is a home (hence the need to view a Bargee's boat in that light) but if a Bargee is living long term on that boat (and hence have the list of needs laid out) then they cannot be considered as homeless. Since there is no right to live exclusively on a boat then the best that could be established is that a LHA has, in the event that they become homeless for reasons not of their own cause, to provide them with a home. That home will be where the LHS (reasonably) offers it, depending on availability. It cannot be precisely demanded by the homeless Bargee, any more than a homeless person in, say Smethwick, could demand a home in, say, Chelsea.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I do not have the knowledge of the requirements  (for example) of :

The Basingstoke canal

Chester City Council

The EA

York City Council

The Avon Navigation Trust

The PLA

The MLC

The Bridgewater Canal

The Manchester Ship canal

 

Then there is such as the Broads Authority who are a 'big' moorings provider - would they come under the legislation ?

 

I don't know.

 

I just posted the information so that 'those in the know' could maybe throw some light on it.

None of those control Kensall Green to Hackney Wick or Hilperton to  Bath K&A.

Leicester City Council owns the moorings through Leicester, CRT operate them for LCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is worrying is (allegedly) The Department for Communities and Local Government ( DCLG ) has advised LA's to contact the NBTA for advice on 'managing boats' in their territory

 

The DCLG produced draft guidance for LHAs in March 2016 and the DCLG has stated that
until the final guidance is published, the draft guidance is current and therefore LHAs must
follow it. The DCLG Guidance states that:
‘The data available for those residing in caravans and houseboats may not be readily
available in other data sources for the rest of the community. The following may assist
local housing authorities in identifying caravans and houseboats: ...Information gathered
by traveller groups or representative bodies e.g. the Showmen’s Guild, the Traveller
Movement, or National Bargee Travellers Association.'

 

One of the organisations listed is the NBTA; the DCLG thus recommends that LHAs consult
the NBTA on how to carry out a BTAA. The conclusions of the LHA must reflect accurately the
advice and data provided by the NBTA, otherwise it will be difficult for LHAs to demonstrate
compliance with their assessment obligations under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985 and
their duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the Children Act 2004, leaving them open to
challenge in the courts.

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done NBTA 

Keep up the good work. 

 

If anyone hasn’t read through the

 

 Best Practice Guide for
 Boat Dweller Accommodation
 Needs Assessments under
 Section 124 of the Housing
 and Planning Act 2016

 

then I suggest you have a look. 

The OP title is a bit of a daily mail headline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Well done NBTA 

Keep up the good work. 

 

If anyone hasn’t read through the

 

 Best Practice Guide for
 Boat Dweller Accommodation
 Needs Assessments under
 Section 124 of the Housing
 and Planning Act 2016

 

then I suggest you have a look. 

The OP title is a bit of a daily mail headline. 

 

Section 3.1a How To Change Gas Cylinder

 

When finding that you cannot cook your dinner as the Oven will not work - ring British Gas Homecare on 0800 111999. Explain the lack of gas to your cooking equipment and demand an engineer immediately. If the operator states its not an emergency - say you smelt gas just before it went out. When you give your address and the operator states that you are not a gas customer, immediately cite your human rights, you cook on gas and currently cannot eat,  and threaten to contact your MP, Licence Support Officer and the gut from the boat near Stanstead Abbotts who got your boat another 4 years grace on the BSS by forging the certificate. 

  • Greenie 2
  • Happy 1
  • Horror 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, matty40s said:

 

Section 3.1a How To Change Gas Cylinder

 

When finding that you cannot cook your dinner as the Oven will not work - ring British Gas Homecare on 0800 111999. Explain the lack of gas to your cooking equipment and demand an engineer immediately. If the operator states its not an emergency - say you smelt gas just before it went out. When you give your address and the operator states that you are not a gas customer, immediately cite your human rights, you cook on gas and currently cannot eat,  and threaten to contact your MP, Licence Support Officer and the gut from the boat near Stanstead Abbotts who got your boat another 4 years grace on the BSS by forging the certificate. 

Ace. 

So haven’t read it either. 

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.