Boating Children Exceed Government's "School Walking Distance"

[magpie patrick]

15 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

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

 

Mooring boats is accepted as being part of the operation or enjoyment of the waterway - mooring a boat per se does not require planning permission 

 

Providing facilities for that moored boat requires planning permission (or may require - depends what the facilities are) - winter moorings do not come with extra facilities

 

Winter moorings are not residential - that's a change of use and requires pp- but the problem is that it is the occupants of the boat that make it residential,  not the boat itself, and by the time the local planning authority have demonstrated that the particular occupier is living on board, winter is over and they've moved on - next winter they would have to start scrutinizing a new boat and occupants.

 

And to what end? To keep a boat moving through winter? One that will move in spring anyway? 

 

Winter moorings are on established mooring spots, from the waterway perspective they allow boaters to stay put in winter but keep visitor moorings for visitors in summer, from a planning perspective only a pedant would make an issue of them. 

[Alan de Enfield]

44 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Winter moorings are not residential - that's a change of use and requires pp- but the problem is that it is the occupants of the boat that make it residential,  not the boat itself, and by the time the local planning authority have demonstrated that the particular occupier is living on board, winter is over and they've moved on

Indeed that is the case.

Mooring a boat is incidental to the use of the canal.

However that does not change the argument that the provision of a mooring for liveaboards of more than 28 days will require PP.

 

You appear to be condoning it on the basis that 'its all right because the LA move so slowly you won't get caught'

 

 

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Indeed that is the case.

Mooring a boat is incidental to the use of the canal.

However that does not change the argument that the provision of a mooring for liveaboards of more than 28 days will require PP.

 

You appear to be condoning it on the basis that 'its all right because the LA move so slowly you won't get caught'

 

 

I'm actually pointing out the reality of the situation, as a chartered town planner and planning consultant who gets asked to advise on these things, sometimes by local planning authorities. 

 

The breach of planning law occurs when the mooring is used as a residence, not when it's allocated as a winter mooring (and this is also true for what must be, as a minimum, many tens to low hundreds of permanent, non-residential moorings nationally as well) - Lutine Bell spent at least one winter on a winter mooring, but as I work in Bath and she was near Oxford it most certainly wasn't my primary residence and therefore no breach of planning law occurred.

 

And it isn't that they will move slowly - it takes quite a while to demonstrate that the MOORING (rather than the boat) is your primary residence - it isn't good enough to prove that you lived on board the day you arrived - you MIGHT then take a flight to Tenerife for the winter. it isn't even good enough to prove you spent 29 days on board, thus going over the 28 day limit. 

 

Even if they did decide to take enforcement action the 29th day after the boat arrived, the first action is to ask that the situation be rectified, and then they have to check you did leave, then send another letter... you arrived first November and it's now after Christmas, and you'll be on your way at the end of March anyway

 

And what problem are the LA solving? To enforce they have to be satisfied it is in the public interest to do so - unless winter moorings create a problem that is clearly contrary to the public interest (e.g, become a blimmin nuisance to local residents) it would be very difficult to make the case that enforcement was in the public interest. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I'm actually pointing out the reality of the situation, as a chartered town planner and planning consultant who gets asked to advise on these things, sometimes by local planning authorities. 

 

The breach of planning law occurs when the mooring is used as a residence, not when it's allocated as a winter mooring (and this is also true for what must be, as a minimum, many tens to low hundreds of permanent, non-residential moorings nationally as well) - Lutine Bell spent at least one winter on a winter mooring, but as I work in Bath and she was near Oxford it most certainly wasn't my primary residence and therefore no breach of planning law occurred.

 

And it isn't that they will move slowly - it takes quite a while to demonstrate that the MOORING (rather than the boat) is your primary residence - it isn't good enough to prove that you lived on board the day you arrived - you MIGHT then take a flight to Tenerife for the winter. it isn't even good enough to prove you spent 29 days on board, thus going over the 28 day limit. 

 

Even if they did decide to take enforcement action the 29th day after the boat arrived, the first action is to ask that the situation be rectified, and then they have to check you did leave, then send another letter... you arrived first November and it's now after Christmas, and you'll be on your way at the end of March anyway

 

And what problem are the LA solving? To enforce they have to be satisfied it is in the public interest to do so - unless winter moorings create a problem that is clearly contrary to the public interest (e.g, become a blimmin nuisance to local residents) it would be very difficult to make the case that enforcement was in the public interest. 

 

 

I respect your experience  and knowledge but it still seems to be a case of 'getting away with it' despite the illegality (?) of the boat-owner's actions. (I accept that the mooring is not officially provided by C&RT as a residential mooring, but it would appear to be intended to be used that way by liveaboard's)

 

Looking at the advice given to LA's (of which I am sure you are aware - maybe you even wrote it)

This advisory document has been produced as a tool to help inform local planning authorities, navigation authorities, mooring providers and residential boaters about relevant matters relating to residential use on water.

 

 

Examples of residential use and the likely requirement for planning permission

 

Residential use of a vessel at a designated location in winter but which continuously cruises in summer (i.e. seasonal cruisers).

PP needed Y/N : Planning permission may be required for any stay at a mooring longer than 28 days in any calendar year.

[Arthur Marshall]

12 hours ago, mark99 said:

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.

Actually, the answer is that the NBTA set up their own schools - home schooling is perfectly legal and the Government is in favour of free schools anyway. But, of course, that would mean them doing something rather than expecting it to be done for them... 

[David Mack]

47 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I respect your experience  and knowledge but it still seems to be a case of 'getting away with it' despite the illegality (?) of the boat-owner's actions. (I accept that the mooring is not officially provided by C&RT as a residential mooring, but it would appear to be intended to be used that way by liveaboard's)

 

Looking at the advice given to LA's (of which I am sure you are aware - maybe you even wrote it)

This advisory document has been produced as a tool to help inform local planning authorities, navigation authorities, mooring providers and residential boaters about relevant matters relating to residential use on water.

 

 

Examples of residential use and the likely requirement for planning permission

 

Residential use of a vessel at a designated location in winter but which continuously cruises in summer (i.e. seasonal cruisers).

PP needed Y/N : Planning permission may be required for any stay at a mooring longer than 28 days in any calendar year.

Or to look at it another way, if you move off your mooring for a short trip (e.g to fill with water or empty the loo) every four weeks and then immediately return to the same spot no breach of pp has occurred.

 

And in the event of a dispute the onus would surely be on the local authority to prove that a breach had occurred, not on the boater to prove it hadn't. And that would require full time (24/7)  monitoring, not just visits every few days.

[Paul C]

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Or to look at it another way, if you move off your mooring for a short trip (e.g to fill with water or empty the loo) every four weeks and then immediately return to the same spot no breach of pp has occurred.

 

Disagree

[David Mack]

14 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Disagree

It would be helpful if you set out your reasoning.

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I respect your experience  and knowledge but it still seems to be a case of 'getting away with it' despite the illegality (?) of the boat-owner's actions.

It is, can't argue with that and not going to try

 

24 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Or to look at it another way, if you move off your mooring for a short trip (e.g to fill with water or empty the loo) every four weeks and then immediately return to the same spot no breach of pp has occurred.

No, temporarily vacating the moorings doesn't mean it isn't your residence, only permanently vacating it does that 

 

25 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

And in the event of a dispute the onus would surely be on the local authority to prove that a breach had occurred, not on the boater to prove it hadn't. And that would require full time (24/7)  monitoring, not just visits every few days.

The bit in bold, absolutely

 

Proving somewhere is a primary residence isn't as straightfoward as simply observing whether they spend a lot of time on the boat though - to need residential consent it must be proven that the mooring is a primary residence - 28 days is only a guide in those circumstance, the 29th day doesn't make it your primary residence, although it would support an argument in that direction.

[Paul C]

 

14 minutes ago, David Mack said:

It would be helpful if you set out your reasoning.

Well, its absurd. I think each case would need to be evaluated on its own merits, though, rather than citing or saying some blanket guideline of a time period which can be applied to everything. 

 

For example, a strict test might be that the time period away would need to be 28 days - in other words, if you're residing somewhere, you're still residing there until you're residing somewhere else. Or perhaps, an overnight away (but getting a bit more ridiculous now....) Look at the analogy with someone living in a house. If they spend a night away, or even 2 weeks holiday, there is no argument that just before going away and just after returning, that they are clearly residing in the house. Or we could say that while the boat is away from the mooring, another boat needs to use it (to prove conclusively its not just for that boat...) Remember that almost all marina mooring contracts have a clause that (in theory) they can change which berth is rented out, so that it doesn't become permanent to that boat.

 

We could even interpret it that day 15 in any one place is "residing" (even if you shuffled round), since up to 14 days in any one place is defined as the limit for mooring, when continuous cruising - thus, if you're living on the boat, going outside of that set of rules must place you into another situation.

 

I know there might be some weird incentive to try and prove you're not residing (on a mooring) but we need to keep some kind of common sense here.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Paul C

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

I know there might be some weird incentive to try and prove you're not residing (on a mooring) but we need to keep some kind of common sense here.

 

Surely the common sense occurs when the local authority acknowledges that a boat used as primary residence has (in most cases) no more impact than the same boat moored at the same location, not used as a primary residence. And so not worth expending limited resources on enforcement.

[magpie patrick]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Surely the common sense occurs when the local authority acknowledges that a boat used as primary residence has (in most cases) no more impact than the same boat moored at the same location, not used as a primary residence. And so not worth expending limited resources on enforcement.

yep, that's about the measure of it

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

 

Surely the common sense occurs when the local authority acknowledges that a boat used as primary residence has (in most cases) no more impact than the same boat moored at the same location, not used as a primary residence. And so not worth expending limited resources on enforcement.

Totally irrelevant to the (rather abstract) question of whether the mooring is in fact being used as a residence though. 

 

Remember the context - someone suggested why not simply make some of the canal towpath "term time only mooring" - the reason is because they can't, due to planning permission. It is sure to be analysed to the nth degree and challenged by others if they did that. So it must be sure to not fall foul of the law (ie planning permission) if there were any probability that it could be interpreted as breaching it. The actual interpretation or enforcement of that breach might be a complex process, or costly to do, though.

 

What would happen if CRT offered this, then 5 months into it had to withdraw it due to a legal challenge it couldn't afford to contest, or would you prefer CRTs resources were redirected to fighting a legal challenge they would probably lose anyway? Would it really benefit the boater concerned, or the children involved in the dispute, if that occurred? Also remember that simply having school age children isn't a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (and AFAIK there are no other regulations which apply to CRT in this case either) so this type of mooring would need to be offered to everyone, to be fair.

 

Although the circumstances were a bit different, they've "been there and done that" with roving mooring permits. 

[matty40s]

.....and which organisation led the legal challenge against the roving permits...oh, yes, the NBTA...

[ditchcrawler]

On 29/06/2019 at 09:14, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

  if Brexit were to be set aside.

 

Just a thought.....

 

 

 

 

I thought it was, Long grass and touch come to mind.

[NigelMoore]

On 30/06/2019 at 11:40, matty40s said:

.....and which organisation led the legal challenge against the roving permits...oh, yes, the NBTA...

I think NABO were actually the greatest influence, having obtained legal opinion on the subject, which they shared with CaRT -

 

“We do not agree with community mooring/roving mooring permits, and do not think they will work. We have said so consistently for many years.”

 

https://www.nabo.org.uk/index.php/reference/press-releases/476-nabos-position-on-mooring-regulations

[Alan de Enfield]

Deleted - wrong thread.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Alan de Enfield