Boating Children Exceed Government's "School Walking Distance"

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

Or ten minutes by bus 

Maybe there is an opportunity for a 'water-bus' cruising along the canal picking up school children ?

[matty40s]

59 minutes ago, dogless said:

C&RT are very supportive (on the whole) when overstays are required on medical grounds.

An aquaintance was permitted an extended stay in Paddington basin during his chemo.

The problem was resolved when he sadly died.

Rog

Other solutions are available.

 

Fantastic news that boaters kids are fitter and healthier than other kids, meeting Government guidelines for reducing obesity and increased exercise.

 

 

[cuthound]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Parliamentary time could probably be found to do it if Brexit were to be set aside.

 

Just a thought.....

 

 

 

 

 

But having had 3 years of doing nothing, would our MP's have the inclination? ??

 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by cuthound
To remove a duplicate post

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

But having had 3 years of doing nothing, would our MP's have the inclination? ??

 

 

If they continue to do nothing for the next 4 months - they won't need to do anything, it'll all be done automatically.

[Jerra]

4 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

No they won't,  there is no legal distance that is "too far" for you. You could catch a train from Rochdale to Berkhamsted for all the government care - no legal distance as your education is not obligatory. 

 

The three mile threshold came in the first education act (1873?) which made education compulsory - one exception was those children who lived more than 3 miles from their nearest school - they were exempt - the motor omnibus having not yet been invented. Even into the 1920s one option was for local education authorities to put children in bed and board accommodation if the lived more than 3 miles from school 

The limit isn't distance from the school it is how far is the maximum a child should be walking to school.   Our local town has pupils travelling 20 - 25  miles to school.   Some at their parents expense because they have chosen a school outside their own catchment area.

 

Personally I don't see why families with children should be given special consideration.   Having children is a lifestyle choice just as where you choose to work.   If you can be given special consideration for one life style choice why not another?

[Chewbacka]

If crt is happy to assign certain canal side places as winter moorings (for a fee) why not assign certain canal side spaces for those with children as term-time moorings for a fee?  It would be Interesting to see how many take up the option.

[TheBiscuits]

7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Personally I don't see why families with children should be given special consideration.

Nor me.  I read the CRT plan as simply being an explanation to the boater of how they can comply with CC guidelines over the course of a school year.

 

That pattern is pretty much exactly what I was describing on the other thread as an acceptable cruising pattern to CRT.   I don't think it's a special exemption in any way.

 

The NBTA are simply trying to claim it is an exemption so they can argue they should get one as well.

 

9 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The limit isn't distance from the school it is how far is the maximum a child should be walking to school.

Didn't Tebbit have a phrase for this many years ago?!!

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

If crt is happy to assign certain canal side places as winter moorings (for a fee) why not assign certain canal side spaces for those with children as term-time moorings for a fee?  It would be Interesting to see how many take up the option.

I don't think they legally can, due to planning permission. It might also be that winter moorings are illegal for the same reason. It would come down to the proportion of time spent on the mooring.

[TheBiscuits]

3 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

If crt is happy to assign certain canal side places as winter moorings (for a fee) why not assign certain canal side spaces for those with children as term-time moorings for a fee?  It would be Interesting to see how many take up the option.

They tried that with the Roving Mooring Permits and then scrapped them after a legal challenge. 

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

If crt is happy to assign certain canal side places as winter moorings (for a fee) why not assign certain canal side spaces for those with children as term-time moorings for a fee?  It would be Interesting to see how many take up the option.

True it would be interesting to see the result.  However do you suggest they do the same for people who need to be near work?    Or are people with children entitled to special consideration because of a lifestyle choice.

[Chewbacka]

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

They tried that with the Roving Mooring Permits and then scrapped them after a legal challenge. 

These would not be roving, but fixed places with specific boats, same as winter moorings.  Out side of term time they would not have a mooring and would have to move.  The canals seem to be most busy during school holidays, so ‘term time ‘ moorings would be available for all to use as visitor moorings during busy periods.

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

True it would be interesting to see the result.  However do you suggest they do the same for people who need to be near work?    Or are people with children entitled to special consideration because of a lifestyle choice.

Not for work as this is basically a permanent mooring requirement.  Term time only mooring releases the mooring for all to use during school holidays 

[dccruiser]

9 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

If crt is happy to assign certain canal side places as winter moorings (for a fee) why not assign certain canal side spaces for those with children as term-time moorings for a fee?  It would be Interesting to see how many take up the option.

Or they could just get a mooring like a lot of folk do if they need to stay in a particular area for work, schools etc.  rather than trying to get special dispensation for CM ing or if that is out the question on grounds of cost , they clearly should decide if boating is a lifestyle choice they can afford.

 

Rick

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Not for work as this is basically a permanent mooring requirement.  Term time only mooring releases the mooring for all to use during school holidays 

However the moorings would not be available during the time many, without children, prefer to cruise avoiding the busy period of school holidays.   Is that fair?

 

As a father of two I see no reason why any authority should bend over backwards to make it possible for me to follow my chosen life style to the detriment of others.

 

I also don't see why parents should have any more special consideration than any worker.

 

Just my opinion others are available.

[Chewbacka]

As term time moorings would probably cost about 75% of a full time mooring I doubt the take-up would be that high, but having them available would mean crt could avoid making special movement requirements for boats with school age children.

[Paul C]

Just now, Chewbacka said:

As term time moorings would probably cost about 75% of a full time mooring I doubt the take-up would be that high, but having them available would mean crt could avoid making special movement requirements for boats with school age children.

They can't just make them available

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Chewbacka said:

crt could avoid making special movement requirements for boats with school age children.

See above.  I don't think they are or were making an exception, just giving an example of a valid cruising pattern. 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

They can't just make them available

 

Winter Mooring provision (without the required Planning permission would appear to be illegal.

 

I quoted the 'rules' a few days ago (but losing track of which thread it was in)

 

An extract :

 

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 Dwellinghouses).
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

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

Having children is a lifestyle choice just as where you choose to work. 

 

As is, obviously, living on a boat. 

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

See above.  I don't think they are or were making an exception, just giving an example of a valid cruising pattern. 

CRT DID make an exception, I know quite well one family who were given that dispensation officially.....whether they were the family mentioned previously I know not.

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

See above.  I don't think they are or were making an exception, just giving an example of a valid cruising pattern. 

Not so much a valid cruising pattern as one that would satisfy the Board that the boater was engaged in bona fide navigation. That is the only test allowed as I understand it. 

[mark99]

The answer to NBTA whinging is clear. CART should have set up mobile schools based on a barge following the NBTA association members botes around the system. Bloody CART; useless.

Edited June 29, 2019 by mark99

[Detling]

The three mile thing is not mandatory. In my wife's school, before she retired, there were dozens of children who lived further away some over 10 miles. Some traveled because mum had moved since they started school, some because mum had specifically chosen the school for various reasons (it was a church school). The local authority only provided transport for those children it had placed there who came from over 3 miles away, some were refugee children and some were children at risk who had to be moved. Anybody who elected to attend that school had to pay or make their own way if they lived more than the three miles, this would be the situation any CC'er would be in, it is their choice, they could move the children to another school every few weeks.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Detling said:

The three mile thing is not mandatory. In my wife's school, before she retired, there were dozens of children who lived further away some over 10 miles. Some traveled because mum had moved since they started school, some because mum had specifically chosen the school for various reasons (it was a church school). The local authority only provided transport for those children it had placed there who came from over 3 miles away, some were refugee children and some were children at risk who had to be moved. Anybody who elected to attend that school had to pay or make their own way if they lived more than the three miles, this would be the situation any CC'er would be in, it is their choice, they could move the children to another school every few weeks.

 

 

Government (Department for Children Schools & Families) advice :

 

.....................….The advice explains what the law says and describes some good ideas about school attendance for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils. For the purposes of this advice only, the term ‘Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families’ means:

a)      

i. Gypsies inc. Romanies, Romanichals, Welsh Gypsies/Kaale, Scottish  Gypsies/Travellers;

 ii. Irish Travellers, Minceir;

iii. Roma from Eastern and Central Europe;

 iv. Showmen (Fairground people);

v. Circus people;

vi. Boat Travellers/Bargees;

vii. New Travellers or New Age Travellers;

 

and

 

b) the parent/carer is engaged in a trade or business of such a nature that requires them to   •      'travel from place to place'.

 

 

This advice on school attendance only applies to families who meet the criteria at both a) and b) above. In this advice the term ‘travelling’ means travelling as part of the parents’/carers’ trade or business. It does not mean travelling as part of a holiday or extended holiday.

 

There is about another 10 pages of how to be registered at a number of schools etc, but the deciding factor as to the provision of a 'travellers education' is that 

 

THE PARENT(S) MUST BE TRAVELLING AS PART OF THEIR TRADE OR BUSINESS.
    

School    attendance    law    in    relation    to    children    from    Gypsy,    Roma    and    Traveller    families

 

15. The law recognises that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families may have an additional reason to keep their children from school, which is different from non-Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families. This is that children are of ‘no fixed abode’ (see paragraphs 17 and 18) and their parent(s) are engaged in a trade or business that requires them to travel from place to place and therefore prevents them attending school. Nevertheless, each child must attend school as regularly as that trade or business permits, and children over six years old have to attend at least 200 sessions in each rolling 12-month period.

 

16. This law does not automatically reduce the number of days that children from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families are expected to attend school; schools and local authorities should seek to secure these pupils’ regular attendance at 380 sessions each school year.

 

17. The law makes no reference to a physical dwelling. So, a Gypsy, Roma or Traveller family that lives in a house, but travels in the course of their trade or business, can be classed as of no fixed abode. Local authorities are therefore strongly advised to seek legal guidance from their chief legal officer before taking action in any specific case.

 

18. Local authorities can still issue school attendance orders to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families in exactly the same way as they do to any other family.

 

19. Schools and local authorities should use the full range of interventions and parental responsibility support measures with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families, in the same way as they would for any other family. The use of legal interventions with parents, including seeking an education supervision order for a child, may be appropriate if that child has high levels of unauthorised absence.

 

20. Close liaison with the Traveller Education Service (TES) is advised when the local authority or school is considering any action to improve attendance. 

[Detling]

' THE PARENT(S) MUST BE TRAVELLING AS PART OF THEIR TRADE OR BUSINESS. @

 

says it all.  very few are travelling as part of their business (ie their living income) then the traveller rules don't apply.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Detling said:

' THE PARENT(S) MUST BE TRAVELLING AS PART OF THEIR TRADE OR BUSINESS. @

 

says it all.  very few are travelling as part of their business (ie their living income) then the traveller rules don't apply.

Indeed - I have quoted the document several times in previous discussions on the subject.

 

Maybe C&RT & the NBTA don't read the forum or do their due-diligence before implementing schemes.