Jump to content

CC'ers Require 42 day Temporary Moorings


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

54 minutes ago, matty40s said:

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.

AKAIK the entire tlength of the K&A is controlled by C&RT. However, the landowners adjoining most of the River Kennet offside sections have Riparian rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

Ace. 

So haven’t read it either. 

?

It was a joke based on listening to Nick and Panda Smith over many years.

Having seen the NBTA up close several times, and tried to understand some of Panda and Nick Browns outbursts since they formed and appeared at various meetings I have attended.....I despair at some of their tactics. Rather than work with people they try confrontation and legal channels. They get other (naive) people to take BW and now CRT on to further their agenda....even if those poor souls lose their boats. 

I would hate to see CRT manage to get a new Waterways Legislation Act through Parliament post Brexit when they are probaby going to get the EA waterways as well (god forbid- but it will happen) - however, I can see it coming if NBTA keep going for confrontation as they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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. 

Could you please put up a link to this.

I've tried to find it, but failed.

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I wonder why I bother !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It is at the bottom of the Original Post (Post #1)

It is what this whole topic is about.

Apologies, I thought Goliath was bring something different to the table.

 

Bod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read that, it's just a wish list for a perfect world.

Trying to frighten Local Authorities into battling C&RT for them.

There may be a gem or two in there, but so much that's not thought through, they get lost.

 

Bod 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

15 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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.

I don't think it's quite that bad. The DCLG guidance states that the NBTA "may assist" in providing data. It is not a requirement that LA's even consult NBTA, let alone follow their guidance on carrying out an assessment. That said, there is a risk that L.A. staff, with no other information or guidance, may take the easy option.

Edited by David Mack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Goliath said:

Ace. 

So haven’t read it either. 

?

Many Bargee Travellers live with the constant threat of enforcement action, including seizure and removal of their homes by the navigation authority or riparian land owner.

Don't ignore the draconian enforcement policies that Bargee Travellers are often subjected to by navigation authorities such as Canal & River Trust.

 

It is statements like this that just don't show the reality of how most normal live aboard boaters exist. Everything the NBTA does is about confrontation rather than co-existing. 

 

Stating this...

 

For example, in May 2015 Canal & River Trust introduced a new policy imposing a minimum travel range on Bargee Travellers, even though the relevant legislation does not require a minimum distance or range to be travelled in order to demonstrate compliance with the law.

 

After many years of asking what the absolute minimum distance to bona fide navigate is and finally getting some loose guidance/advice from CRT, they twist it into the above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is normal?

there’s a  broad range of ways in which people live on the canal and a major point to this best practice guide is to raise an awareness of exactly that. 

 

I don’t share all the views of NBTA or necessarily agree with their confrontational approach but they do raise issues common to all of us. Such as the basic need for water and sewage points, the difficulty of using a postal address and accessing health care. 

 

 

How about all the folk out there who keep hush hush about living on a leisure mooring for fear of being chucked off? 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Goliath said:

what is normal?

I'm not sure if you're responding to a specific post here, or asking in general. I did a scroll back at recent posts and can't see anything relevant though. I am not sure what context you're asking in.....

19 minutes ago, Goliath said:

there’s a  broad range of ways in which people live on the canal and a major point to this best practice guide is to raise an awareness of exactly that. 

Fair enough - but not really how the best practice guide comes across. Its asking for 42 days of mooring....

19 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

I don’t share all the views of NBTA or necessarily agree with their confrontational approach but they do raise issues common to all of us. Such as the basic need for water and sewage points, the difficulty of using a postal address and accessing health care. 

Who is "us" because some of those issues don't affect the majority of boaters (for example those with a marina mooring, or not living on the boat, would not be affected by 3 & 4, possibly 1&2 too if they don't go out the marina). Of course, its not all about majority. They don't have a mandate so don't really represent anyone except themselves. I'm not sure how relevant the fact that some of the issues they raise affects most/all boaters anyway - we're not talking in general about the strategy of the NBTA, this is about their asking for 42-days worth of mooring, possibly/probably longer.

19 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

 

How about all the folk out there who keep hush hush about living on a leisure mooring for fear of being chucked off? 

 

 

 

No mooring has security of tenure. Of course, all boaters need to respect others, including respecting the rules they signed up to in contracts with others, eg mooring providers. But, living on a leisure mooring is a separate issue in itself, I am not sure how it relates here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

I'm not sure if you're responding to a specific post here, or asking in general. I did a scroll back at recent posts and can't see anything relevant though. I am not sure what context you're asking in.....

Fair enough - but not really how the best practice guide comes across. Its asking for 42 days of mooring....

Who is "us" because some of those issues don't affect the majority of boaters (for example those with a marina mooring, or not living on the boat, would not be affected by 3 & 4, possibly 1&2 too if they don't go out the marina). Of course, its not all about majority. They don't have a mandate so don't really represent anyone except themselves. I'm not sure how relevant the fact that some of the issues they raise affects most/all boaters anyway - we're not talking in general about the strategy of the NBTA, this is about their asking for 42-days worth of mooring, possibly/probably longer.

No mooring has security of tenure. Of course, all boaters need to respect others, including respecting the rules they signed up to in contracts with others, eg mooring providers. But, living on a leisure mooring is a separate issue in itself, I am not sure how it relates here.

I was responding to the previuos post regarding normal boaters. 

 

 

Yes, it (the guide) is asking and recommending for 42 day moorings but it is also pointing towards other needs

 

By saying ‘us’, I meant Cc’s, travellers, itinerants, full time live aboards, whatever you'd like to refer to them/us as. 

 

Yes, we ought to respect each other, and fortunately the majority of us do (and that ‘us’ is inclusive of all boaters)

 

Living on a leisure mooring is also mentioned in the guide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen anything wrong with living on a leisure mooring. Fewer facilities, usually, but so what? There again, I'm biased as that's what I did - never realised there was anything odd about it, and nor did the other 20 or so people on the site. No one kept hush about it, and as far as I know no one cared or ever threatened to kick us off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I've never seen anything wrong with living on a leisure mooring. Fewer facilities, usually, but so what? There again, I'm biased as that's what I did - never realised there was anything odd about it, and nor did the other 20 or so people on the site. No one kept hush about it, and as far as I know no one cared or ever threatened to kick us off. 

Nothing wrong other than it’s not strictly legit. Is it?

I was thinking about leisure moorings in a marina.  

At one marina I was told “don’t mind how many nights you spend on your boat but you’re not to live on it or keep anything on the roof”.

So a blind eye was being turned if you didn’t make it obvious. 

 

I understand with a residential mooring you get a postal address and pay council tax? And residential moorings are harder to come by and more expensive therefore it’s easier and cheaper to get a leisure mooring and live on that. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Nothing wrong other than it’s not strictly legit. Is it?

I was thinking about leisure moorings in a marina.  

At one marina I was told “don’t mind how many nights you spend on your boat but you’re not to live on it or keep anything on the roof”.

So a blind eye was being turned if you didn’t make it obvious. 

 

I understand with a residential mooring you get a postal address and pay council tax? And residential moorings are harder to come by and more expensive therefore it’s easier and cheaper to get a leisure mooring and live on that. 

 

 

 

 

That's a massive simplification. Firstly, its not actually illegal to live on a leisure mooring, I believe its indeterminate until a planning ruling is made. Almost all moorings are like this. Secondly, the cases fall into 2 groups 1) where the mooring provider makes it clear that liveaboard is not allowed; but a boater lives-aboard; then the mooring is cancelled. Nothing untoward here - the boater broke a contract rule, and the moorer declined their custom. And secondly 2) the mooring provider either has/hasn't that rule, but ignores a boater who lives-aboard anyway. Since it is indeterminate, neither boater nor mooring provider is in the wrong here as far as the law is concerned, although the mooring provider retains the option to decline that moorer's custom, reasonably, because they may have written into the contract not to live aboard.

 

Yes its a grey area, but the mooring provider has usually securely covered their side of the situation, leaving the boater to carry a risk. But then, no mooring (not even a residential one) is secure - you could be asked to leave or not have a contract renewed etc.

 

The only solution would be for boaters to gain security - and the only (realistic) way to do that in the UK with its property law, is to actually own the land they're mooring alongside/over (and it have planning permission). Its possible but unsurprisingly, rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Goliath said:

what is normal?

there’s a  broad range of ways in which people live on the canal and a major point to this best practice guide is to raise an awareness of exactly that. 

 

I don’t share all the views of NBTA or necessarily agree with their confrontational approach but they do raise issues common to all of us. Such as the basic need for water and sewage points, the difficulty of using a postal address and accessing health care. 

 

 

How about all the folk out there who keep hush hush about living on a leisure mooring for fear of being chucked off? 

 

 

 

A parallel situation occurs in places where holiday homes have been built with a condition that they are not used for permanent residence. In many cases the developer encourage (or did not actively discourage) buyers from assuming that this was just a formality until the LA discovered the situation and decided on enforcement. Always sad cases.

 

I suspect that this may be somewhat of a legacy issue as I think that most are not very wary of granting permission with these restrictions on the basis that too many people very quickly flout the permission and dare the LA to take action.

15 hours ago, Paul C said:

That's a massive simplification. Firstly, its not actually illegal to live on a leisure mooring, I believe its indeterminate until a planning ruling is made. Almost all moorings are like this. Secondly, the cases fall into 2 groups 1) where the mooring provider makes it clear that liveaboard is not allowed; but a boater lives-aboard; then the mooring is cancelled. Nothing untoward here - the boater broke a contract rule, and the moorer declined their custom. And secondly 2) the mooring provider either has/hasn't that rule, but ignores a boater who lives-aboard anyway. Since it is indeterminate, neither boater nor mooring provider is in the wrong here as far as the law is concerned, although the mooring provider retains the option to decline that moorer's custom, reasonably, because they may have written into the contract not to live aboard.

 

Yes its a grey area, but the mooring provider has usually securely covered their side of the situation, leaving the boater to carry a risk. But then, no mooring (not even a residential one) is secure - you could be asked to leave or not have a contract renewed etc.

 

The only solution would be for boaters to gain security - and the only (realistic) way to do that in the UK with its property law, is to actually own the land they're mooring alongside/over (and it have planning permission). Its possible but unsurprisingly, rare.

I thought that planning law was just that - law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

I thought that planning law was just that - law.

Hmmmmm......I'll bow to someone else's more expert opinion, but no its definitely not that simple.

 

If it WERE simply a case that "you cannot live somewhere unless it has residential planning permission" then every liveaboard CCer would be breaking the law by doing so. AIUI it can remain indeterminate until a ruling is made then an enforcement action is created; whereupon compliance with that action resolves it legally (ie you can do something, have it decided retrospectively then it can be resolved). Because CCers in theory, move regularly, there is never a place where they are "living" more than a few weeks, so there is never the prospect of planning enforcement being taken on a 14 day mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

Hmmmmm......I'll bow to someone else's more expert opinion, but no its definitely not that simple.

 

If it WERE simply a case that "you cannot live somewhere unless it has residential planning permission" then every liveaboard CCer would be breaking the law by doing so. AIUI it can remain indeterminate until a ruling is made then an enforcement action is created; whereupon compliance with that action resolves it legally (ie you can do something, have it decided retrospectively then it can be resolved). Because CCers in theory, move regularly, there is never a place where they are "living" more than a few weeks, so there is never the prospect of planning enforcement being taken on a 14 day mooring.

I did not say it was simple - law never is! However, I was really challenging the apparent assumption that planning issues were not law. Since the planning permission (eg for a marina) will have been obtained by the owner/operator the they probably have the primary duty to comply and to ensure that the use of their facility complies -which would mean taking reasonable steps etc. If the LA decided to pursue the matter then the marina owner would have to show that they had exercise due diligence. For example, they might be able to evidence taking copies of documentation that showed that the moorer has a permanent home elsewhere, but would not be liable if the documents were tendered fraudulently.

 

The first page returned from a quick Google was this https://www.darlingtons.com/blog/breach-of-planning-enforcement-and-some-severe-penalties the headline of which is that "the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which gives them powers to confiscate any financial gains which are made as a result of breach of planning control."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

I did not say it was simple - law never is! However, I was really challenging the apparent assumption that planning issues were not law. Since the planning permission (eg for a marina) will have been obtained by the owner/operator the they probably have the primary duty to comply and to ensure that the use of their facility complies -which would mean taking reasonable steps etc. If the LA decided to pursue the matter then the marina owner would have to show that they had exercise due diligence. For example, they might be able to evidence taking copies of documentation that showed that the moorer has a permanent home elsewhere, but would not be liable if the documents were tendered fraudulently.

 

The first page returned from a quick Google was this https://www.darlingtons.com/blog/breach-of-planning-enforcement-and-some-severe-penalties the headline of which is that "the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which gives them powers to confiscate any financial gains which are made as a result of breach of planning control."

The point is that breach of planning enforcement is a serious matter, but not having permission isn't.

 

If you have been told "no" you must not do. If you haven't been told either way (and indeed if you haven't asked), you can do, but at the risk that you might be told no down the line.

 

So, if you moor to a farmers field, and he has never applied for planning permission for a mooring, no offence is committed.

 

If the Local Authority then notices, and decides to say "sorry, but you can't have a mooring here", then carrying on mooring would be an offence.

 

If they don't notice, or notice but don't care, then eventually you can get deemed permission because you've been openly doing it for years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mayalld said:

The point is that breach of planning enforcement is a serious matter, but not having permission isn't.

 

If you have been told "no" you must not do. If you haven't been told either way (and indeed if you haven't asked), you can do, but at the risk that you might be told no down the line.

 

So, if you moor to a farmers field, and he has never applied for planning permission for a mooring, no offence is committed.

 

If the Local Authority then notices, and decides to say "sorry, but you can't have a mooring here", then carrying on mooring would be an offence.

 

If they don't notice, or notice but don't care, then eventually you can get deemed permission because you've been openly doing it for years

I'd be surprised if your are correct: every place has some form of planning designation - you cannot build a house in a field just because you have not applied for planning permission. Any activity that requires planning permission is not permitted unless granted - surely? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DM is correct.

There is no offence until enforcement action is taken .

My wife has worked in planning all her life and says the same as DM.

I also lived on a leisure mooring with postal address* for 25 years so it can be done. Didn't bother to go for established use after 10 years as the land owner asked me not to.

 

 

*mail was not delivered I had to collect from the sorting office.

 

Edited by Loddon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Paul C said:

That's a massive simplification. Firstly, its not actually illegal to live on a leisure mooring, I believe its indeterminate until a planning ruling is made. Almost all moorings are like this. Secondly, the cases fall into 2 groups 1) where the mooring provider makes it clear that liveaboard is not allowed; but a boater lives-aboard; then the mooring is cancelled. Nothing untoward here - the boater broke a contract rule, and the moorer declined their custom. And secondly 2) the mooring provider either has/hasn't that rule, but ignores a boater who lives-aboard anyway. Since it is indeterminate, neither boater nor mooring provider is in the wrong here as far as the law is concerned, although the mooring provider retains the option to decline that moorer's custom, reasonably, because they may have written into the contract not to live aboard.

 

Yes its a grey area, but the mooring provider has usually securely covered their side of the situation, leaving the boater to carry a risk. But then, no mooring (not even a residential one) is secure - you could be asked to leave or not have a contract renewed etc.

 

The only solution would be for boaters to gain security - and the only (realistic) way to do that in the UK with its property law, is to actually own the land they're mooring alongside/over (and it have planning permission). Its possible but unsurprisingly, rare.

It was a massive simplification, so thanks for expanding and explaining things clearly. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Loddon said:

DM is correct.

There is no offence until enforcement action is taken .

My wife has worked in planning all her life and says the same as DM.

I also lived on a leisure mooring with postal address* for 25 years so it can be done. Didn't bother to go for established use after 10 years as the land owner asked me not to.

 

 

*mail was not delivered I had to collect from the sorting office.

 

All the residents at mine just used the boat name and the farm address. All the mail got dumped in a box and we all just fished our own out. All very civilised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

All the residents at mine just used the boat name and the farm address. All the mail got dumped in a box and we all just fished our own out. All very civilised. 

 

Was the box in the canal? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.