Jump to content

Marina Live aboards


b0atman
 Share

Featured Posts

There seems to be a trend to move live aboards out of Marinas .I believe this is because of illegal pressure from councils with marina owners who are not aware of the rules set by Government Rating valuation Office. Very few Marina owners will back the boaters nowadays due to the plentiful supply of leisure boaters who new to the system have plenty of disposable income ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, b0atman said:

There seems to be a trend to move live aboards out of Marinas .I believe this is because of illegal pressure from councils with marina owners who are not aware of the rules set by Government Rating valuation Office. Very few Marina owners will back the boaters nowadays due to the plentiful supply of leisure boaters who new to the system have plenty of disposable income ,

 

 

Marinas don't support boaters, they support business - theirs'. Marina live aboards, living as residentials, within the correct rules of valuation, are a stable source of income for the marina. Some, as I believe Mercia marina do, have over 200 residential moorers. Not going to kick them out in a hurry.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, b0atman said:

There seems to be a trend to move live aboards out of Marinas .I believe this is because of illegal pressure from councils with marina owners who are not aware of the rules set by Government Rating valuation Office.

 

What law are they breaking, please?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, b0atman said:

There seems to be a trend to move live aboards out of Marinas .I believe this is because of illegal pressure from councils with marina owners who are not aware of the rules set by Government Rating valuation Office. Very few Marina owners will back the boaters nowadays due to the plentiful supply of leisure boaters who new to the system have plenty of disposable income ,

If a marina does not have planning permission for residential use, then the fact that there exists a valid rating/council tax mechanism does not make residential use legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Residential is use marina 365 days a year and needs planning permission and incurs liability to council tax. Live aboard is time restrained to not being at mooring for more than 10 months per year no planning permission required . Some go out boating some go to Spain for winter break are examples of complying C.Councils know this is within the rules but do the heavy hand approach to marina owners.As a live aboard last winter my marina got £700 extra from me for winter fuel electric & gas My neighbour nothing above the mooring fee.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Ratings Valuation who where behind me when a council tried it on The RV office is from a different area when you appeal. Second marina when council reckoned i needed planning permission I laid it on the line and they backed off 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, b0atman said:

Live aboard is time restrained to not being at mooring for more than 10 months per year no planning permission required .

Actually 28 days usage would require Residential PP which is why Winter Moorings appear to actually contravene PP.

 

Planning permission is also required for a marina to offer 'leisure' moorings.

 

The description of 'leisure' will depend on what the operator agrees with the council when the planning request is applied for.

 

Ours is that from Jan 4th to Feb 3rd all services must be switched off and no one residing on site, Owners can access for maintenance but not stay over night.

 

Our Marina does has some fully residential moorings (open all year) and they seem to apply for more each year.

They are currently in the process of applying for Residential PP for about 12 'Floating Homes' (Non-Moving house-boats) It would appear that there is a lot of money to be made by offering 'floating flats' in the middle of a city.

 

 

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 Dwelling houses).
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.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its worth also mentioning that council tax liability and planning permission aren't necessarily linked. For example you could be "spending a long time" on a leisure mooring, then the council sniff it out and decide you're liable for council tax. The fact that there's no planning permission for living there, doesn't negate the liability for council tax; indeed it might be wise to simply pay up rather than kicking up the typical boater "I know my rights..." argument, because you might find the guy in CT tells his mate in PP and then the marina/you get looked into in more detail, etc etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Actually 28 days usage would require Residential PP which is why Winter Moorings appear to actually contravene PP.

 

Planning permission is also required for a marina to offer 'leisure' moorings.

 

The description of 'leisure' will depend on what the operator agrees with the council when the planning request is applied for.

 

Ours is that from Jan 4th to Feb 3rd all services must be switched off and no one residing on site, Owners can access for maintenance but not stay over night.

 

Our Marina does has some fully residential moorings (open all year) and they seem to apply for more each year.

They are currently in the process of applying for Residential PP for about 12 'Floating Homes' (Non-Moving house-boats) It would appear that there is a lot of money to be made by offering 'floating flats' in the middle of a city.

 

 

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 Dwelling houses).
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.

Not required for less than 28 days is not the same as required for more than 28 days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Not required for less than 28 days is not the same as required for more than 28 days

I think it has been discussed before but C&RT only have the ability to authorise change of use for 28 days per annum, they cannot authorise the change of use of the bank to 'residential' for 3-4-5 months (ie Winter moorings)

 

..............In addition to the above, navigation authorities and others are, where appropriate, able to benefit from general permitted development rights such as those in Part 2 (Minor Operations), Part 3 (Changes of Use) and Part 4 (Temporary Buildings and Uses). Part 4 includes the ‘28 day rule’ under which land may be used for any purpose for not more than 28 days in any calendar year, subject to certain limitations.

 

Nigel Moore made the point (some time ago) that "a company can only do what is was allowed to do", whilst an individual can do anything that is not against the law.

 

Extract of Nigel's post :

 

Looking back, I see that we covered the same ground more than 2 years ago. The case law most specifically addressing the issue that I cited back then was:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, b0atman said:

Residential is use marina 365 days a year and needs planning permission and incurs liability to council tax. Live aboard is time restrained to not being at mooring for more than 10 months per year no planning permission required .

I have responded to this in another thread or on another forum, where the OP claimed that any boater has the right to live on their boat in a marina on a full residential basis for up to 10 months of the year. It is simply not true, as it depends on (a) relevant planning permission and (b) specific limitations or permissions in that particular mooring agreement which will typically form the contract between the marina and boater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike on the Wey said:

I have responded to this in another thread or on another forum, where the OP claimed that any boater has the right to live on their boat in a marina on a full residential basis for up to 10 months of the year. It is simply not true, as it depends on (a) relevant planning permission and (b) specific limitations or permissions in that particular mooring agreement which will typically form the contract between the marina and boater.

But if something is repeated enough times it becomes fact - particularly 'when it gives someone something for nothing'

 

If more people read up on the subject instead of just repeating internet rumours there would be far fewer upset " its not fair" or "that's not what I was told" boaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A winter mooring is a winter mooring. Not all moorings are "liveaboard". Still, what CRT did/do is dodgy, in PP context. Is the reason that a boater/boating group hasn't progressed action here, possibly because its a case of "don't rock the boat, especially when you're in it"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

A winter mooring is a winter mooring. Not all moorings are "liveaboard". Still, what CRT did/do is dodgy, in PP context. Is the reason that a boater/boating group hasn't progressed action here, possibly because its a case of "don't rock the boat, especially when you're in it"?

 

When 'Winter Moorings' are given to boater with no home mooring, it would be a reasonable expectation that the vast majority would be liveaboards.

There will obviously still be the 'weekly dumpers'.

 

The fact doesn't really revolve around residential or leisure' but the granting of the use of a piece of land for mooring in excess of 28 days.

 

NABO did 'rock the boat' over the Roving Mooring Permits when the professional advice given was that they were illegal, the RMP was then withdrawn by C&RT.

 

We should not be 'cherry-picking which rules / laws we want and ignoring the ones we don't like. We (rightly) give C&RT a lot of grief when they do it.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I winter moor in the same marina as bOatman . They have an agreement with the local council that says if a long term moorer is not on their boat for 4 consecutive weeks a year, or takes the boat out for the same time, the CC "allow" this.  They made over £2.8k out of me in 6-7 months in winter mooring fees and services in 2018/19, and I was no longer a liveaboard during that time. The new owners want to fill all berths with fully contracted moorers but occupancy rates for most marinas is realistically 75-85%.  I believe there are/were 8 temporary of us so they stand to lose a fair wedge!   However, one of their marinas will allow such occupancy with a £1k uplift in annual fees.

 

And there are other marinas who have T's &C's that only allow a certain amount of "occupancy" while berthed.  CRT don't have a say in it so long as the boats are licensed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rustynewbery said:

CRT don't have a say in it so long as the boats are licensed.

That is another subject - there are many, many marinas that do not require the boat to be licenced.

Only Marinas that have agreed to C&RTs Access Agreements are required to insist their moorers are licenced 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Only Marinas that have agreed to C&RTs Access Agreements are required to insist their moorers are licenced 

 

Laid out in the T&C's of a marina. A licence has no value in the marina. CRT have no statutory powers over the boater, in the marina. CRT's power is used to force a marina, wanting a business contract, to require a moorer to be licenced. Neither CRT or the marina have statutory powers of enforcement in the marina. The only power a marina has is to kick you out. The marinas are acting as third party agents for CRT.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One marina I was in no licence required and charged a realistic mooring fee (less than £2000 55ft) it had i would say above 70% occupancy (over 200 boats) council compromised with some  unnamed council tax payers that owner paid and then surcharged the live aboards / residential to cover his outlay plus some profit so we all paid an extra amount of £50 .Problem was that most boaters had no insurance or BSS as they never went out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, b0atman said:

One marina I was in no licence required and charged a realistic mooring fee (less than £2000 55ft) it had i would say above 70% occupancy (over 200 boats) council compromised with some  unnamed council tax payers that owner paid and then surcharged the live aboards / residential to cover his outlay plus some profit so we all paid an extra amount of £50 .

I think you may have been misinformed - that is not a "compromise" - it is the 'law'

 

It is called 'composite hereditament'

 

8. Multiple Moorings and Composite Hereditaments

8.1 If there are a number of adjacent moorings to which the circumstances in 6.1 (b) apply they will all form part of one hereditament and will be a single "dwelling" subject to one Council Tax band unless, it is clear that the boat owner is in exclusive possession of the mooring, when a separate banding will apply.

8.2 If there are a number of adjacent moorings, some of which are used by boats which are sole or main residences and some of which are used by pleasure boats, but no boat owners have exclusive possession of any particular mooring, there would appear to be a composite hereditament occupied by the owner of the moorings.

 

There are circumstances where both the BOAT & the MOORING become subject to CT

Section 6:1

6.1 The policy that the legislation is intended to achieve can be summarised as follows. Although this specifically refers to boats and moorings the same principles apply to caravans and their pitches.

a) If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence is moored “permanently” at a mooring, then the mooring is domestic property, and both the mooring and the boat are subject to Council Tax.

b) If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence stops at a mooring and moves away for a sufficiently long period (see 6.2), and it seems that when next in use that mooring will be used by that same boat or another boat which is someone’s sole or main residence, then the mooring is domestic but the mooring only is subject to Council Tax.

c) If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence is moored at a mooring and moves away, and it seems that when next in use the mooring will be used by a non-sole or main residence boat, then the mooring is non-domestic and subject to non-domestic rates.

d) If there is a mooring with no way of telling what sort of craft will be moored at it, then it is non-domestic and subject to non-domestic rates.

6.2 Whether the value of the boat or caravan can be included with the pitch is a matter of fact and degree. As a general rule, where a dwelling boat or caravan occupies a mooring or pitch for a substantial period of time - such duration would usually be for 12 months or more - it should be included in the band value, even if it moves away for brief periods of say 2 to 4 weeks, provided it then returns to its original mooring or pitch. The question to be asked is whether the occupation can be characterised as that of a 'settler' or a 'wayfarer'. If the latter, then only the mooring or pitch should be valued.

 

If the boat is 'moved' within the marina then only the mooring becomes subject to CT (hence the reasons that marinas instruct boats to move 2x per annum)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, b0atman said:

got £700 extra from me for winter fuel electric & gas

I suspect not absolutely correct. Electricity cannot be sold at a profit. They can charge a service charge for the infrastructure. Equally the profit they made on your gas purchases was the difference between wholesale and retail cost. they also had to pay staff costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Slim said:

I suspect not absolutely correct. Electricity cannot be sold at a profit. They can charge a service charge for the infrastructure. Equally the profit they made on your gas purchases was the difference between wholesale and retail cost. they also had to pay staff costs.

Totally correct they got £700 from me now what it cost them to get that is their business but my neighbour gave them £0 yet staff where still being paid 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, b0atman said:

Totally correct they got £700 from me now what it cost them to get that is their business but my neighbour gave them £0 yet staff where still being paid 

So what Nett profit (the only one that counts) did they make from you over and above the Nett profit from your neighbor? I suspect little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these "high usage charges" are great. Quite clearly, some people's boats are there for most of the year but the boaters are almost never; while for others, the boaters are too. Of course things like elsan, toilets, water, car parking etc will be used (much) more if the boater is there (much) more. So its only fair to pass these costs on as appropriate. I can't imagine any advantage to the marina to split them other than to reflect the proportion of costs imposed. In fact, its probably the case that the non-high-usage boaters are still paying proportionately more, given how little some of them would be using the facilities.

  • Greenie 1
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
 Share

  • 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.