Continuous Cruising In London With Full Time Job. Can it be done?

[jetzi]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

You seemed to be telegraphing in your posts disapproval of the current rules and questioning them, which gives the impression you are seeking the boundaries and ways to argue for less moving. I think with your questions you are just seeking to understand, but that is how it comes across. 

Not at all, in fact I think the rules as they stand are very effective at ensuring that moorings open up regularly, and I wouldn't want to see them changed. My pattern fits within the rules so I don't really need to worry about it.

However what DOES bother me a lot is that that there is a gulf between CCers and PMers both on this forum and in real life. There is a definite difference between when I encounter another CCer (friendly, helpful, jovial) and a PMer (disgruntled, annoyed and dismissive). I don't see why it should be this way. PMers can't seem to accept that CCers like myself are valid waterway users, and I am trying to understand why and what I can do to try to bridge that gap.

 

3 hours ago, BWM said:

I disagree with the premise that rules are sufficient/reasonable, on the basis that why should the majority be unable to moor for longer than 24-48 hours in places previously freely available

Interesting - I think this is an angle I hadn't considered before. PMers got "caught in the crossfire" when tackling CMers and now they have to abide by the mooring duration limitations, even though they (felt that they) weren't really the ones causing the problems?

 

What if PMers weren't subject to the 1/7/14 day limitations? Or if their allowed mooring duration was doubled?

 

3 hours ago, BWM said:

have licences restricted when travelling upwards of 30 miles in a month

Who is having their license restricted when travelling 30 miles a month? PMers? Is this because they do a 30 mile cruise and then want to stay longer than 14 days on a mooring?

 

3 hours ago, BWM said:

The term lock mile is that it is accepted that a lock equates to one mile of travelling. 

Thanks, I guessed as much. The big problem with this term in my view is that it encourages doing more locks. CRT guidelines elsewhere state that routes should be planned to minimise use of locks - for wear and water saving reasons.

 

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think you are getting yourself in a bit of a 'knot'.

I did not say the Law was not strict enough, I suggested that C&RTs interpretation (which at the end of the day is the one that matters) is not strict enough. 

Are you sure, I think it may be you that is tying yourself in a knot! Earlier you said that you don't want to state what you think the minimum should be because people would turn around and say "that's not what the rules say". Then you said "follow what the rules say". Now you're saying "the rules are wrong and should be changed".

 

I'm using "law" and "rules" and "CaRT's interpretation" thereof synonymously. This is not about the law to me, this is about how boaters should treat each other and what they should expect from each other. Codifying this in rules would help, but if you can show me that I'll be a more considerate boater for doing hundreds of lock miles a year instead of my say 100 or so, then I'll try to do more and go further. But no one has helped me understand at all how that follows.

 

But you gave me an answer to my question of what the rules for CCers should be - 480 lock miles per year. That to me just says that you dislike CCers, they shouldn't be on the waterways and you'd like to see them gone. I still can't understand why.

 

What problem would changing the rules so drastically solve?

[Alan de Enfield]

33 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

are you sure, I think it may be you that is tying yourself in a knot! Earlier you said that you don't want to state what you think the minimum should be because people would turn around and say "that's not what the rules say". Then you said "follow what the rules say". Now you're saying "the rules are wrong and should be changed".

 

The 'rules' that we are both referring to are not the law, they are simply the guidelines that the Authority have suggested would be sufficient to minimise the chance of enforcement.

C&RT cannot legally put down figures as they do not have the authority to do so.

Whatever, you, I or any other would wish the guidelines to be makes no difference, we have no power to influence them.

 

The difference between a 'person' and a 'business' is that a 'person can do anything that is not illegal', a 'business can only do what it is authorised in law to be able to do'. C&RT are not empowered to state a required mileage for the grant of licence for a boat without a home mooring.

 

The case law most specifically addressing the issue is :

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...' [my emphasis]

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

 

 

I was reluctant (despite you 'pushing' in earlier posts) to give a 'distance'.

When I eventually said that IN MY OPINION  the 2003 BW proposal was a suitable place to start negotiations, you now take that as :

 

33 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

…… you're saying "the rules are wrong and should be changed".

 

Edited July 14, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[BWM]

34 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Who is having their license restricted when travelling 30 miles a month? PMers? Is this because they do a 30 mile cruise and then want to stay longer than 14 days on a mooring?

Many have been hit with this restriction, one i was closely involved with concerned a friend of mine (sadly deceased) and not, as you wrongly assume a person with a mooring. His cruising range generally consisted of Perivale to Rickmansworth and this would be covered in the space of a month. 

 There are many others that i have spoken to over the last few years that have experienced similar restrictions but cannot verify as i have no knowledge of their movements. 

 I believe you are looking for division in the remarks posted on here, and can state from my own standpoint that i have no issue with continuous cruisers or any other group, being old fashioned i criticise the behaviour, not the group. If i restricted my friendships and conversation to those with moorings i'd have had a very boring, soulless existence on the cut.

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, BWM said:

Many have been hit with this restriction, one i was closely involved with concerned a friend of mine (sadly deceased) and not, as you wrongly assume a person with a mooring. His cruising range generally consisted of Perivale to Rickmansworth and this would be covered in the space of a month. 

 There are many others that i have spoken to over the last few years that have experienced similar restrictions but cannot verify as i have no knowledge of their movements. 

 I believe you are looking for division in the remarks posted on here, and can state from my own standpoint that i have no issue with continuous cruisers or any other group, being old fashioned i criticise the behaviour, not the group. If i restricted my friendships and conversation to those with moorings i'd have had a very boring, soulless existence on the cut.

This sort of thing ?

 

C&RT Press Release :

 

Boaters without a home mooring Monitoring review
Headlines:

During the year just over 5600 licences for boats without a declared home mooring became due for renewal, so in line with the new process their movement patterns were reviewed
 Just under 40% were subject to a more detailed review for a variety of reasons, of which 1130 were offered a restricted licence.
 652 boats have so far taken out a restricted licences as a result of this process
 220 are still within that restricted licence period
 432 have reached the end of their restricted licence - 268 showed improvement and allowed further licence - 96 sold boat or obtained home mooring or moved away from our waters - 68 were refused a further CC licence, of which 45 remain in the enforcement process

 

Of the 652 restricted licences issued 500 were in the "South"  (London 287, South East 114, South West 99) and the remaining 152 in the rest of the UK (roughly above a line North London to North Bristol)

 

Summary
The overall outcomes remain similar to the first summary which was issued in November. Half of those issued with a three month licence, and just over two-thirds of those issued a six month licence, improved their cruising pattern whilst on a restricted licence and were allowed further licences to continue to show an improvement.
At difference stages of the process – from our initial contact regarding our concern, to our letter advising we will not issue a further CC licence, nearly 400 boaters have notified us that they have either sold the boat, obtained a home mooring or removed their boat from our network.

 

860 requests for extended stays or a longer term adjustment under the Equality Act from boaters without a home mooring were granted.

We encourage boaters to get in touch with us if they encounter a problem.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Murflynn]

the British GP was good, innit ??  

 

 

much better than all this polemic about spongers trying to justify how they would like to block our waterways .............................   

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

... this polemic  

 

Is that the result of an eastern European Mother and an Irish Father ?

[Chris Williams]

If people do not want to cruise, or even move every couple of weeks, why do they have a boat?  Go and buy a caravan.

I lived on a boat, working in Oxford, but every weekend we travelled somewhere, because we liked moving, not because we had to.  A nice frosty day in winter, no-one else about - great.

 

Will some Constant Moorer please explain their motives - I just don't understand.

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, Chris Williams said:

Will some Constant Moorer please explain their motives - I just don't understand.

 

Low cost accommodation, obviously. And crt will tolerate total sheds covered in rubbish, unlike most caravan site owners. 

 

What does it cost to moor a cheap resi caravan these days? 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

What does it cost to moor a cheap resi caravan these days? 

 

 

We charge £1750 + VAT for our Leisure (Planning permission requirements 11 months) caravan 'moorings'.

Gas & Electric charged separately. 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

We charge £1750 + VAT for our Leisure (Planning permission requirements 11 months) caravan 'moorings'.

Gas & Electric charged separately. 

 

 

Thanks. So a good deal more than a boat licence then. Looks like a boat really is by far the cheapest way to get a roof over your head. 

 

What would a resi caravan pitch cost? More presumably. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Thanks. So a good deal more than a boat licence then. Looks like a boat really is by far the cheapest way to get a roof over your head. 

 

What would a resi caravan pitch cost? More presumably. 

 

 

Location will have more of an effect - we are 40 miles from the coast but lovely 'nature / country / history / buildings'

We are a no-kids site anyway and the 'more elderly' are generally not looking for 'bucket & spade' stuff.

 

Like with moorings - there are under the radar 'residential' caravan plots.

 

[Chris Williams]

17 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Low cost accommodation, obviously. And crt will tolerate total sheds covered in rubbish, unlike most caravan site owners. 

 

What does it cost to moor a cheap resi caravan these days? 

 

 

That is the answer I was expecting.  Not because they like being on the water, among the wildlife.

Used to put my head out of the hatch for a last ciggy before bed - always plops and rustling noises.

Maybe time CRT stopped tolerating old wrecks, unless they are genuinely being restored.

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Low cost accommodation, obviously. And crt will tolerate total sheds covered in rubbish, unlike most caravan site owners. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chris Williams said:

Maybe time CRT stopped tolerating old wrecks, unless they are genuinely being restored.

 

Static Caravan Parks working within the codes of practice will only accept caravans up to 15 years old, once they reach that age they must be removed from the site or sold to the owners at 'book price'.

 

Part of the Industry standard T&Cs

·         No Holiday Homes to be sold privately without consulting the Park Owners.

·         Commission at the rate of 15% plus VAT will be charged on all site sales at XXXXX Caravan Park and is payable by the vendor. Caravans over 10 years old may not change ownership and must be sold off site.

·         Holiday Homes may stay on the park for a period of 15 years from new.

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Static Caravan Parks working within the codes of practice will only accept caravans up to 15 years old, once they reach that age they must be removed from the site or sold to the owners at 'book price'.

 

So that is it then. If you gave no pride and want the cheapest sheddiest accommodation you can get with minimum hassle from authority, a CCing boat wins hans down. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

So that is it then. If you gave no pride and want the cheapest sheddiest accommodation you can in London, with minimum hassle from authority, a CCing boat wins hans down. 

 

 

Slight amendment to cover a high percentage of the miscreants.

[MtB]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Slight amendment to cover a high percentage of the miscreants.

 

I disagree. If you keep your home like a shed covered in carp then a boat is by far the cheapest and most hassle free option, anywhere. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I disagree. If you keep your home like a shed covered in carp then a boat is by far the cheapest and most hassle free option, anywhere. 

 

 

All I did was add 'London' to your statement - do you now disagree ?

[Murflynn]

1 hour ago, Chris Williams said:

That is the answer I was expecting.  Not because they like being on the water, among the wildlife.

Used to put my head out of the hatch for a last ciggy before bed - always plops and rustling noises.

Maybe time CRT stopped tolerating old wrecks, unless they are genuinely being restored.

My favourite time is 6am in midsummer - a mist rising off the mirror smooth water while I set off in my silent electric cruiser, constantly noticing waterfowl taking flight when I approach.

 

Brilliant !!

 

Old wrecks belong in the scrapyard or the restoration workshop - not fixed to the bank, amid and half-hidden under a jungle of carp, with shrubs growing out of the stern fender and a row of floating tyres masquerading as 'fenders'.

[Señor Chris]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If you strongly disagree with C&RTs interpretation, take some action and get a 'professionals' (court ?) answer.

With the distances I cover I have no problem with CRT interpretation whatsoever. I just wish they would refer to it more accurately so that other boaters wouldn't come out with the "if you're leaving it and going home for a week, you can't be a continuous cruiser" type of nonsense.

 

[mrsmelly]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Location will have more of an effect - we are 40 miles from the coast but lovely 'nature / country / history / buildings'

We are a no-kids site anyway and the 'more elderly' are generally not looking for 'bucket & spade' stuff.

 

Like with moorings - there are under the radar 'residential' caravan plots.

 

I bet that was a good move? The camping here went Adult only just two seasons ago and its taken off big time ever since.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

My favourite time is 6am in midsummer - a mist rising off the mirror smooth water while I set off in my silent electric cruiser, constantly noticing waterfowl taking flight when I approach.

 

Although I love my slow revving vintage diesels I could easily get a taste for that too......... 

 

What I can't abide is the continuous penetrating low rumbling noise of a modern digger diesel along with it's farting exhaust pipe. Most un-boaty. 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2019 by Mike the Boilerman
Add a bit

[jetzi]

17 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Whatever, you, I or any other would wish the guidelines to be makes no difference, we have no power to influence them.

No. But I have no wish to influence them, I think the rules as they stand are just fine. As a CCer (alleged CMer), what I am trying to determine is what about my cruising pattern (and others like me) is so reprehensible to so many of you ( @Murflynn, @BWM, @Alan de Enfield and @Chris Williams at least). The reason I am trying to determine this is to try to find a way to be a more considerate boater, so that I can try to bridge the very obvious divide.

 

The reason I pushed you for an answer on what would be an acceptable cruising distance is exactly for this. How far would you want us to be cruising to make CCers valid waterways users? Or what about my CC pattern do you think I should change?

 

17 hours ago, BWM said:

Many have been hit with this restriction, one i was closely involved with concerned a friend of mine (sadly deceased) and not, as you wrongly assume a person with a mooring. His cruising range generally consisted of Perivale to Rickmansworth and this would be covered in the space of a month. 

Sorry I am trying to figure out what the situation was. I intended it as a question, rather than an assumption - so he was a CCer. Perivale to Rickmansworth is just under 20 miles. I again must assume that he then turned around and went back 12 times over the course of the year. So he ranged less than the CaRT minimum which is why the license was restricted, is this correct? But since he moved very frequently, having his license restricted is not fair. I apologise if I am making incorrect assumptions here, I am just trying to determine why his behaviour is acceptable and other CCers' isn't.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

what I am trying to determine is what about my cruising pattern (and others like me) is so reprehensible

I don't remember saying that your cruising pattern was unacceptable, in fact I think others have said that what you have detailed, is more than acceptable and exceeds the C&RT requirements.

 

You are not a CMer / Bridge hopper.

The thrust of the discussions has been about CMers.

 

5 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

So he ranged less than the CaRT minimum which is why the license was restricted, is this correct? But since he moved very frequently, having his license restricted is not fair.

Why is a restricted licence unfair ?

 

Would moving 100 yards a day, be fair ?

Would 1km every two days be fair ?

Would 20 miles per week be fair ?

 

What is your idea of both a 'fair' movement pattern, and a 'fair' distance ?

 

[jetzi]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I don't remember saying that your cruising pattern was unacceptable, in fact I think others have said that what you have detailed, is more than acceptable and exceeds the C&RT requirements.

 

You are not a CMer / Bridge hopper.

The thrust of the discussions has been about CMers.

 

Why is a restricted licence unfair ?

 

Would moving 100 yards a day, be fair ?

Would 1km every two days be fair ?

Would 20 miles per week be fair ?

 

What is your idea of both a 'fair' movement pattern, and a 'fair' distance ?

 

I'm happy with my pattern, as is CaRT, but it still generates a reasonable amount of discussion as to what is acceptable. That's why I'm trying to figure out how I can "improve" it in the eyes of PMers who would like to see the rules changed to outlaw my pattern.

 

But thank you for your reassurance, I'll continue "doing me".

 

My idea of a fair movement pattern is in line with my interpretation of CaRT's rules - move at least every two weeks, and range at least 20 miles over the course of the license.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

My idea of a fair movement pattern is in line with my interpretation of CaRT's rules - move at least every two weeks, and range at least 20 miles over the course of the license.

Not forgetting - "to a new place every two weeks".

(again - not forgetting that 'place' has a different meaning for a CCer than it does for a boat with a home mooring, as highlighted by a Judge in one of the C&RT vs XXX case)

 

As written you could be suggesting that moving 100 yards every two weeks and one trip of 20 miles is acceptable.