Wiltshire canal boat family face eviction 'for not moving enough'

[Andrew Denny]

1 hour ago, carlt said:

 

I've wracked my brains and, nope, I can't think of a single way they have made my life harder. 

That is not to say CRT shouldn't go through the due process of enforcement.

 

It's just none of my business. 

Going past moored boats make it harder, because they narrow the channel and you have to slow down for them, and on bends it is even harder.  Occasionally it's nice to see a moored boat and not be alone.

But when it's a long, long line of moored boats,

and the boat on the move is crawling all the time,

and the other boats haven't tied up properly

and their lines are loose,

and they are scowling out of the window at you because their idea of slow is different from the passing boater,

and the boat on the move can't find a mooring himself because there are too many moored,

and the towpath is tatty with their rubbish because they have no room on their boat,

then, yes, it can life harder and it is everyone's business. 

 

 

[Graham Davis]

27 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I can't because I've got nothing else to go on other than what's reported in the article.

That's your interpretation of the story. I don't think everyone is quite as spiteful.

I see no-one being spiteful here. What I do see is people commenting about the story and the known issues of people in this area who will not abide by some simple rules that come with owning a boat. 

[carlt]

2 minutes ago, Andrew Denny said:

Going past moored boats make it harder, because they narrow the channel and you have to slow down for them, and on bends it is even harder.  Occasionally it's nice to see a moored boat and not be alone.

But when it's a long, long line of moored boats,

and the boat on the move is crawling all the time,

and the other boats haven't tied up properly

and their lines are loose,

and they are scowling out of the window at you because their idea of slow is different from the passing boater,

and the boat on the move can't find a mooring himself because there are too many moored,

and the towpath is tatty with their rubbish because they have no room on their boat,

then, yes, it can life harder and it is everyone's business. 

 

 

Sorry can't see that making life "harder" though I can see how some folk are more easily irritated than others. 

[cuthound]

59 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

Your first statement would be correct, assuming they are not tax excempt. However, Planning Regulations would recognise that if the property already has mooring rights there would be no "change of use" unless the mooring rights had a specific designation such as agricultural wharfage.

 

 

 

Technically correct, but I used to moor on an end of garden owned by someone else, and when BW tried to charge mooring fees, the owner produced his deeds which gave specific rights transferred from the original owners for the right to moor against his property without charge. From recollection that was after 2002 and BW withdrew their legal threats.

 

 

 

Yes I believe some deeds allowed this. When I bought my property I specifically asked the solicitor to check what my deeds said with respect to an EoG. She came back telling me CRT were responsible for maintaining the bank, which is concrete piled with what appears to be a railway line running parallel to, but above the water, and that I must allow CRT access to the final meter of my garden whenever then need to inspect or repair the bank.

Edited September 2, 2019 by cuthound
Missing space

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I see no-one being spiteful here. What I do see is people commenting about the story and the known issues of people in this area who will not abide by some simple rules that come with owning a boat. 

Isn't that between the CRT and the boat owner? What I see here is a load of curtain twitchers.

[cuthound]

35 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I believe that times have changed.

 

CRT are less than keen on on-line moorings, and their policy is that they won't give permission for EOG Moorings unless the owner of the property is the moorer

 

Definitely the case.

 

Naturally before buying my property I wanted to be sure I could develop the mooring. CRT wanted the owner to apply. He didn't want the hassle. Only after I escalated it to director level did CRT agree to my applying, and then only with a covering letter from the then owner.

 

Once I had the permission from CRT to develop the property I made an offer on the property.

 

However I don't think your first point is correct for EoG moorings. Even the CRT website says that permission will generally be granted, providing the mooring isn't close to a structure such as a lock or bridge. My first question to CRT was what was there policy regarding the proximity of the structure, 10 metres, 100 metres etc, because the property I now own is adjacent to  a bridge. Turns out they dont have a policy and you have to apply (fee was then £90) to see if they will give permission. Apparently the local manager decides on a case by case basis.

[Dyertribe]

15 hours ago, Goliath said:

Spiteful?

Not spiteful. 

 

Hateful would be a better word. 

 

Oh, grow up! What MTB says is true, not all landlords are arses and not all tenants are perfect. 

[David Schweizer]

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

I believe that times have changed.

 

CRT are less than keen on on-line moorings, and their policy is that they won't give permission for EOG Moorings unless the owner of the property is the moorer

That may be C&RT's preferred position, but many of the properties adjoining the canal offside have historic mooring rights, and C&ART cannot circumnavigate their legal rights without taking the matter to Court, where they would probably loose the case. They know that, and have in the past resorted to bullying tactics, which could land them in Court seeking to defend the idefensible, which is why they always concede in those circumstances when legally challenged.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by David Schweizer

[doratheexplorer]

41 minutes ago, Andrew Denny said:

Going past moored boats make it harder, because they narrow the channel and you have to slow down for them, and on bends it is even harder.  Occasionally it's nice to see a moored boat and not be alone.

But when it's a long, long line of moored boats,

and the boat on the move is crawling all the time,

and the other boats haven't tied up properly

and their lines are loose,

and they are scowling out of the window at you because their idea of slow is different from the passing boater,

and the boat on the move can't find a mooring himself because there are too many moored,

and the towpath is tatty with their rubbish because they have no room on their boat,

then, yes, it can life harder and it is everyone's business. 

 

 

This is just a minor irritation. 

 

The bigger picture is that if there's no enforcement towards making continuous cruisers move then any boater can give up their mooring to take up residence on the towpath.  I wouldn't bother paying for a mooring if I could just permanently moor anywhere.  This would lead to a massive drop in mooring income for both CRT and private businesses.  That would have implications.  I don't need to spell it out surely?

 

The canals would become the oft touted 'linear housing estate' but there would be less money to maintain the system.  And fewer boatyards with their facilities as they need their mooring income to turn a profit.  We'd end up with a watery slum.

 

As things stand CRT are doing their best to enforce against continuous moorers but that's costing them money to do too. 

 

The answer is for boaters to comply with the continuous cruising guidelines - they really aren't that onerous.

 

Why this isn't obvious to people like Carlt, I can't imagine.

[David Mack]

51 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I believe that times have changed.

 

CRT are less than keen on on-line moorings, and their policy is that they won't give permission for EOG Moorings unless the owner of the property is the moorer

 

Not so. The application form for an EoG mooring at https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/631

.pdf specifically covers the case where the boat owner is not the property owner. They will allow an application from a boatowner where the landowner provides a letter confirming agreement.

 

The form also notes that new EoG moorings will not generally be allowed on the K&A. 

[mayalld]

19 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Isn't that between the CRT and the boat owner? What I see here is a load of curtain twitchers.

The boat owner has chosen to go public, inviting us all to sympathise.

 

It is, I would suggest, open to us to sympathise with either the Boater or CRT, as we see the rights and wrongs of it.

 

In my view, it is entirely proper for a boater to hold an opinion on how CRT conducts enforcement.

 

The extent to which people get away with breaking the rules directly affects CRT income, which affects what CRT want from the rest of us, and a lack of enforcement can only lead to ever more people ignoring the rules.

[doratheexplorer]

Just looked at the Council Tax topic and I'm now wondering if this family are paying Council tax to Wiltshire council, since the BBC article strongly implies that they rarely if ever moor outside the county?

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Dave123 said:

I think part of the issue with doing more than 20 miles for cc'ers based around BoA is that it is just under 20 miles from Bath to the bottom of Caen hill. So to considerably extend their range means a trip onto the River Avon or going up Caen hill. The Avon is frequently on strong stream and CRT advice has been to avoid unnecessary movement onto or over the summit and long pound of the K&A for most of the summer as the pumps were AWOL and water low...

It's not like other parts of the system where it is easy to 'just do some more miles'. But that said, many other's manage to cc in the area without problems...

You can travel from Bathampton to the  safe waters of Bristol Floating Harbour, covering the entire length of the non/semi tidal section of the River Avon in a day. I did it both ways earlier this summer. 

(But you would then have to pay a wodge to the Bristol Harbour Commissioners).

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

Just looked at the Council Tax topic and I'm now wondering if this family are paying Council tax to Wiltshire council, since the BBC article strongly implies that they rarely if ever moor outside the county?

Even if they do cc entirely within one local authority area, there is no mechanism to enable them to pay council tax.

[David Schweizer]

4 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Just looked at the Council Tax topic and I'm now wondering if this family are paying Council tax to Wiltshire council, since the BBC article strongly implies that they rarely if ever moor outside the county?

 

Probably not, but in fairness to them that may be as much the County Council's fault as theirs. When my friend who was continuosly cruising mainly within Wiltshire, sought to be registered for Council Tax, the Officer stated that their regular residential movement made it too difficult to assess, and told them registration was not neccessary.

 

Edited to add:- David Mack beat me to it

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by David Schweizer

[doratheexplorer]

5 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Even if they do cc entirely within one local authority area, there is no mechanism to enable them to pay council tax.

Because it has to be levied on a specific address?

[cuthound]

10 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Not so. The application form for an EoG mooring at https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/631

.pdf specifically covers the case where the boat owner is not the property owner. They will allow an application from a boatowner where the landowner provides a letter confirming agreement.

 

The form also notes that new EoG moorings will not generally be allowed on the K&A. 

 

That is a later revision to the one i have signed. I note it now allows someone other than the property owner to apply, potentially allows living on the boat, and includes clauses regarding condition of the boat and tidyness of the mooring area.

[Sir Nibble]

That's a point. The article says the family are off to Bristol harbour. It would cost a mint to live there wouldn't it?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

29 minutes ago, Dyertribe said:

Oh, grow up! What MTB says is true, not all landlords are arses and not all tenants are perfect. 

What you on about? Who rattled your cage?

 

 

[Richard10002]

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

What you on about? Who rattled your cage?

 

 

I think it was you  

[dmr]

16 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

That's a point. The article says the family are off to Bristol harbour. It would cost a mint to live there wouldn't it?

No sign of them here, we are currently waiting at Nethom lock for the spring tide to pass so maybe will pass them on the river.

We have just paid almost £200 for a week in Bristol Harbour so its not a cheap place to live, and there are no hiding places from the harbourmaster.

 

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

[David Schweizer]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

 

Not so. The application form for an EoG mooring at https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/631

.pdf specifically covers the case where the boat owner is not the property owner. They will allow an application from a boatowner where the landowner provides a letter confirming agreement.

 

The form also notes that new EoG moorings will not generally be allowed on the K&A. 

How are they going to achieve that? A significant proportion the K&A is canalized river, where the adjoining offside landowners have historic Riparian Rights, which precede the building of the canal.  There are also Riparian Rights which were granted to agricultural landowners  within the enabling Act (also known as the Geordge III Act) when the canal was built. Whether current landowners have inherited those rights will depend upon whether they were transferred when the land was sold.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by David Schweizer

[mayalld]

7 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

How are they going to achieve that? A significant proportion the K&A is canalized river, where the adjoining offside landowners have historic Riparian Rights, which precede the building of the canal.  There are also Riparian Rights which were granted to agricultural landowners  within the enabling Acts when the canal was built. Whether current landowners have inherited those rights will depend upon whether they were transferred when the land was sold.

 

 

I believe that the operative word is "new"

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

53 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I think it was you  

 

I think you’re right. 

 

Well.... when I get fed up reading some rants, I sometimes like to offer my own mini diatribe. Whether it’s founded on truth or not doesn’t matter does it?

 

 

[Chewbacka]

1 hour ago, dmr said:

No sign of them here, we are currently waiting at Nethom lock for the spring tide to pass so maybe will pass them on the river.

We have just paid almost £200 for a week in Bristol Harbour so its not a cheap place to live, and there are no hiding places from the harbourmaster.

 

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

Maybe they are hoping that when they explain the reason for leaving crt waters the nice man will let them stay for free.  

[Horace42]

3 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Your first statement would be correct, assuming they are not tax excempt. However, Planning Regulations would recognise that if the property already has mooring rights there would be no "change of use" unless the mooring rights had a specific designation such as agricultural wharfage.

 

 

 

Technically correct, but I used to moor on an end of garden owned by someone else, and when BW tried to charge mooring fees, the owner produced his deeds which gave specific rights transferred from the original owners for the right to moor against his property without charge. From recollection that was after 2002 and BW withdrew their legal threats.

 

 

I think they (CRT) get round it now by granting a license (for a fee) for exclusive use of the amount of water needed for the boat at the at the place where the boat is moored.

The landowner only provides access to and from the boat, for which permission is needed to use the land, and for CRT to identify the site to grant exclusive use of the water.