NBTA Challenge a Licence Refusal

[Alan de Enfield]

Here is C&RTs background to the case

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/the-publication-scheme/governance/legal-documents/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/40218-court-order-andrzej-szymanski-tynesider-index-524113.pdf

 

It looks as if they gave him 'another' 8 months  (including a Winter mooring) to give him extra time to comply with the Court ruling.

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[alan_fincher]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Would that give it much of a cruising range?

I don't know the history here, including where it was seized from.

As the typical barge used on the Regents, Lower Lee and Lower Grand Union was typically well over 70 feet long, and generally 14 feet wide, and as many pictures show light weight cargos piled 6 feet or more above the boat, what is in the picture looks capable of passing through most bridges and tunnels in the London area to me.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

I don't know the history here, including where it was seized from.

As the typical barge used on the Regents, Lower Lee and Lower Grand Union was typically well over 70 feet long, and generally 14 feet wide, and as many pictures show light weight cargos piled 6 feet or more above the boat, what is in the picture looks capable of passing through most bridges and tunnels in the London area to me.

Thank you.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Would that give it much of a cruising range?

The only places I can imagine this boat may struggle would be the Islington tunnel, and maybe the Maida Vale tunnel but other than that, from Bulls Bridge to say Enfield or beyond is over 30 miles - well over the required range.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, NB Caelmiri said:

The only places I can imagine this boat may struggle would be the Islington tunnel, and maybe the Maida Vale tunnel but other than that, from Bulls Bridge to say Enfield or beyond is over 30 miles - well over the required range.

Thank you.  I am just trying to get my head round the situation.  I didn't expect the bridges to be so big.  Having just looked up the dimensions of a few static vans they seem to be about 3.75m (12.25 ish feet for those still in the past) from ground to apex so I suppose the van on a boat would be about the same.  Width 4.5m (14.75 ish feet) at the gutters body width 4.2m (13.8 ish feet) so as it doesn't seem to have gutters this would be its width.

 

I wish I lived nearer I would like to see it navigating.  Does anybody know how it if powered or steered?

 

 

[Guest]

As someone who CCed in London for over 3 years, and did over and beyond the range required by the CaRT, I'm honestly struggling to understand how anyone couldn't not do the required range in London. CCing in London couldn't be easier.

 

From Rickmansworth to Enfield is over 40 miles. That's double the minimum range required and it's easy to get into central London from Rickmansworth or Brentford or Uxbridge or Enfield. They're all less than an hour to central London. Obviously if you have a boat that doesn't go under certain bridges then you've got a task ahead of you but for the rest of us who have generic narrowboats, there really is absolutely no excuse whatsoever and I don't have much sympathy for anyone flagged by the CaRT for not meeting the requirements. I worked in Islington yet I was perfectly able to either cycle in from out of central London or get on the tube if it was looking like a bit further than I'd like to cycle in.

 

I'm now up north, currently in Hebden Bridge where I will be CCing around the area. It's going to be much more of a struggle to CC here because of the public transport infrastructure but I'll certainly manage it one way or another.

[matty40s]

1 minute ago, NB Caelmiri said:

As someone who CCed in London for over 3 years, and did over and beyond the range required by the CaRT, I'm honestly struggling to understand how anyone couldn't not do the required range in London. CCing in London couldn't be easier.

 

From Rickmansworth to Enfield is over 40 miles. That's double the minimum range required and it's easy to get into central London from Rickmansworth or Brentford or Uxbridge or Enfield. They're all less than an hour to central London. Obviously if you have a boat that doesn't go under certain bridges then you've got a task ahead of you but for the rest of us who have generic narrowboats, there really is absolutely no excuse whatsoever and I don't have much sympathy for anyone flagged by the CaRT for not meeting the requirements. I worked in Islington yet I was perfectly able to either cycle in from out of central London or get on the tube if it was looking like a bit further than I'd like to cycle in.

 

I'm now up north, currently in Hebden Bridge where I will be CCing around the area. It's going to be much more of a struggle to CC here because of the public transport infrastructure but I'll certainly manage it one way or another.

I did Leighton Buzzard to hertford,  bishops Stortford, bike/train/tube, was rarely more than 1 1/2 hours commute.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

As someone who CCed in London for over 3 years, and did over and beyond the range required by the CaRT, I'm honestly struggling to understand how anyone couldn't not do the required range in London. CCing in London couldn't be easier.

The RBOA (Residential Boat Owners Association) seem to have a slightly different take on CCing ;

 

RBOA Chairman, Alan Wildman, submits that “Irrespective of the uncertainty emanating from the 1995 Act, continuous cruising should apply to boaters who have a primary intent to cruise extensively around the inland waterways. In most cases this will not be compatible with having lifestyle connections with one place – for example: education of children, employment or health needs. These are individual decisions and responsibilities (in which the RBOA will support its members as best it can); it should not be assumed that either navigation authorities or local authorities should be providers in every situation.”

RBOA envisages that some form of progressive journey is implemented. This need not be rushed but as purely an example of our thinking, cruising for one day in the allowable 14 days moored at one place would equate to between 200 miles and 300 miles per year. RBOA is aware that many of its members who are continuous cruisers  travel far greater distances than this. They have the same rights as leisure boaters to moor where they wish in the course of their cruising and RBOA receives concerns from members that the excessive number of boats in locations such as London and Bath detracts from their visitor experience.

https://www.rboa.org.uk/continuous-cruising-a-new-approach-from-the-rboa/

[MtB]

 

2 hours ago, carlt said:

No escalation from you calling someone a liar despite admitting you know nothing about the case. 

That is childish, confrontational and pretty sloppy. 

As I said... Most sub judice discussion has to be hypothetical. 

 

 

And it is equally confrontational, childish and sloppy to conflate me saying "I don't believe" with me accusing NBTA of lying, which I did not. 

 

 

[carlt]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

 

And it is equally confrontational, childish and sloppy to conflate me saying "I don't believe" with me accusing NBTA of lying, which I did not. 

 

 

As I said in another thread... I have no problem with the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" 

Saying that you do not believe the words said by someone is pretty much calling them a liar by the way. Parliamentary type euphemism doesn't work here. 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The RBOA (Residential Boat Owners Association) seem to have a slightly different take on CCing ;

 

RBOA Chairman, Alan Wildman, submits that “Irrespective of the uncertainty emanating from the 1995 Act, continuous cruising should apply to boaters who have a primary intent to cruise extensively around the inland waterways. In most cases this will not be compatible with having lifestyle connections with one place – for example: education of children, employment or health needs. These are individual decisions and responsibilities (in which the RBOA will support its members as best it can); it should not be assumed that either navigation authorities or local authorities should be providers in every situation.”

RBOA envisages that some form of progressive journey is implemented. This need not be rushed but as purely an example of our thinking, cruising for one day in the allowable 14 days moored at one place would equate to between 200 miles and 300 miles per year. RBOA is aware that many of its members who are continuous cruisers  travel far greater distances than this. They have the same rights as leisure boaters to moor where they wish in the course of their cruising and RBOA receives concerns from members that the excessive number of boats in locations such as London and Bath detracts from their visitor experience.

https://www.rboa.org.uk/continuous-cruising-a-new-approach-from-the-rboa/

Of course, that is their intrepretation of continuous cruising! Which is not too different from the IWA's interpretation. For many liveaboard CCers, it's lucky for us the CaRT and BW before that interpreted it differently!

 

In reality for me, it's not that much of an issue as I have a job where I work remotely and so even if RBOA's view of CCing came into law, I'd still be fine - and I've done over 300 miles this year anyway - but my preference is to spend some time in a particular area and enjoy being part of the community - I'm hoping to spend perhaps 6 months in and around Hebden Bridge/Todmorden/Mytholmroyd.

 

I suppose everyone has their own interpretation of what the canals are for and how they choose to enjoy them, from the RBOA/IWA's interpretation of continuous cruising to retired Bill and Marjorie who believe no one should be cruising any faster than tickover - incidentially I was following one of those on Monday. They were going so slow that my boat was in tickover and I still kept on creeping up behind them and had to stick my boat in reverse to stop me from pranging into them. Fair play to them to go slower than my boat can go unless it was in neutral.

 

Who is to say who is right, at the end of the day? I get that the "London issue" is something that needs to be addressed as it is making it problematic for boaters who do want to visit the capital but elsewhere in the country where mooring isn't such a problem, I'm not sure why IWA and RBOA insist that boaters need to travel such a distance over the course of a year. There are any number of reasons why someone might not want to travel beyond the Leeds/Liverpool or the Aire and Calder, either as retired CCers or as liveaboard, working CCers.

Edited July 31, 2019 by NB Caelmiri
Typos

[NigelMoore]

51 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Ok fair enough but it is a minor point - the main point being that CRT are not legally required to issue a licence if they are not satisfied that the boat will be used bona fide ...etc. 

I think the main point in this instance - which the NBTA should be arguing if they have not – is that CaRT ARE legally obligated, in the circumstances of the initial reason for revoking the licence, to refrain from unreasonably withholding consent to the movement or use of the vessel subject to such reasonable conditions as they may determine.

 

From the information cited by Alan (if that is correct), instead of allowing use of the vessel subject to reasonable conditions relating to the safety issues, they abandoned that line and relied instead on a 3 year old injunction - subsequent to which, they had re-licensed the vessel (presumably because modifications to it had then permitted it to navigate through the pinch points which it had previously been unable to do). The validity of such reliance is effectively what the NBTA appear to be questioning. Does an injunction continue to operate regardless of later compliance with the statutory conditions as accepted by CaRT?

 

If it does, then once such an Order has been obtained any vessel could be removed at whim regardless of compliance with licence conditions ever after.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, carlt said:

As I said in another thread... I have no problem with the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" 

Saying that you do not believe the words said by someone is pretty much calling them a liar by the way. Parliamentary type euphemism doesn't work here. 

 

Yes it does work. Lying is deliberate misleading which we all know NBTA would never do. I expect they have made an error inadvertently which is why I don't believe them when they say he has everything needed to get a licence. They may have, for example, forgotten about the requirement to satisfy the board, etc etc. 

 

 

Bear in mind we are talking hypothetically, and this can be nothing to do with the OP as you point out.

 

 

[carlt]

14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes it does work....snip

 

 

Yes of course Mike...and anyone who hasn't seen your many snipes at NBTA will accept your waffle at face value. 

 

Just my opinion of course. 

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, carlt said:

Yes of course Mike...and anyone who hasn't seen your many snipes at NBTA will accept your waffle at face value. 

 

Just my opinion of course. 

To be fair Carl the NBTA in realty need to drop the " T " its certainly not appilicable to many of their members.

[carlt]

3 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

To be fair Carl the NBTA in realty need to drop the " T " its certainly not appilicable to many of their members.

I'm not entirely sympathetic to their cause because, like most single issue organisations, they fail to see the bigger picture but that doesn't mean that they are always wrong or deliberately misleading. 

This case may or may not have merit and neither side are pure as the driven snow. 

It will be interesting to follow though. 

[NigelMoore]

Just a reminder of what navigation authorities aspire to – while CaRT are not entitled to refuse a licence application from anyone just because they have previously been the subject of enforcement – and from the information quoted here that is exactly what they have done - the Middle Level Bill sought exactly that. Somehow I could not persuade their Lordships that such was the effect of the relevant section of the Bill, but thankfully the Commissioners themselves saw the light, and graciously volunteered an essential amendment of their own to mitigate the effect of the noxious clause.

[Chewbacka]

10 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Just a reminder of what navigation authorities aspire to – while CaRT are not entitled to refuse a licence application from anyone just because they have previously been the subject of enforcement – and from the information quoted here that is exactly what they have done - the Middle Level Bill sought exactly that. Somehow I could not persuade their Lordships that such was the effect of the relevant section of the Bill, but thankfully the Commissioners themselves saw the light, and graciously volunteered an essential amendment of their own to mitigate the effect of the noxious clause.

Not quite, in that a previous and ‘closed’ enforcement action probably can not be used but in this case in my poor understanding from the info above it seems that there is still an order that is ‘live’ requiring the boat to be removed.  Or am I wrong?

[NigelMoore]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Not quite, in that a previous and ‘closed’ enforcement action probably can not be used but in this case in my poor understanding from the info above it seems that there is still an order that is ‘live’ requiring the boat to be removed.  Or am I wrong?

I think you are wrong, although obviously CaRT hold that view. The 2017 Order and injunction related to a previous incarnation of the boat, in different ownership. Since that Order the boat was apparently burnt out, and subsequently rebuilt to dimensions allowing it to comply with a more extensive cruising range, and on that basis CaRT re-licensed the vessel, albeit under a new name and owner. Having accepted the rebuilt vessel and issued a fresh licence, it is stretching thngs very far indeed to rely upon that 2017 Order.

[Detling]

6 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

I don't know the history here, including where it was seized from.

As the typical barge used on the Regents, Lower Lee and Lower Grand Union was typically well over 70 feet long, and generally 14 feet wide, and as many pictures show light weight cargos piled 6 feet or more above the boat, what is in the picture looks capable of passing through most bridges and tunnels in the London area to me.

The mobile home is at least 7 foot (look at the doors) plus the block of something on the roof and that is sitting about a foot above the water, giving an air draft of 8 or 9 feet. The bridge at little Venice is about 7 foot and there are many bridges of similar height usually flat road bridges probably 8 foot on average (depends on water levels) The arched bridges are higher in the centre but I don't know what height they are for a 12 foot wide box to pass under.  As you get nearer limehouse the bridges are fewer and bigger, and remember many barges worked the docks and Thames and did not venture miles up the grand union as they carried coal, hay, horse exhaust, and rubbish around London.

[peterboat]

I agree with Carl and Nigel, for me its an ugly "boat" however it seems that CRT have slipped up badly with this one, I would like to see their report saying and proving its not safe for the water and that for me is an important point, also the movement log would be interesting to peruse as well.

Time will tell who is going to win this one so I will stand back an watch quietly I think

[David Mack]

8 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

 

I'm now up north, currently in Hebden Bridge where I will be CCing around the area. It's going to be much more of a struggle to CC here because of the public transport infrastructure but I'll certainly manage it one way or another.

 

Perfectly good public transport infrastructure along the canal in this area. Railway stations at Mills Hill, Castleton, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, Walsden, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd, Sowerby Bridge and Brighouse are all within a short walking distance of the canal, with frequent services to Manchester, Halifax, Bradford and Leeds, as well as plenty of local bus services. What more do you need?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Perfectly good public transport infrastructure along the canal in this area. Railway stations at Mills Hill, Castleton, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, Walsden, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd, Sowerby Bridge and Brighouse are all within a short walking distance of the canal, with frequent services to Manchester, Halifax, Bradford and Leeds, as well as plenty of local bus services. What more do you need?

That's fair! I have only just landed in Hebden so a brief look at the map and your comment shows me to be wrong!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, NB Caelmiri said:

That's fair! I have only just landed in Hebden so a brief look at the map and your comment shows me to be wrong!

Plenty of buses run through the valley too. 

 

Day tickets are great for exploring the country boozers. 

Plus the ‘Brontë Bus’ for a day out is fun. 

 

 

[dmr]

10 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

 

I'm now up north, currently in Hebden Bridge where I will be CCing around the area. It's going to be much more of a struggle to CC here because of the public transport infrastructure but I'll certainly manage it one way or another.

Decent Train service (though it is Northern Rail) and a good bus service. The problems are the huge number of Locks and the very limited services, only two or three water taps on the entire Eastern section, you can't really call the thing at Hebden Bridge a tap, We spent ten months up there and got a few warnings from CRT, mostly because they kept spotting us at Todmorden which has by far the best water tap and also a very good pub. If you plan to stay long term it might be worth talking to CRT and telling them your cruising plan as they will likely not spot you at all in the more remote sections.

 

..............Dave