Jump to content

Declaring a home mooring


Guest

Featured Posts

5 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I got 7 from using the ridiculously small distance of 1 mile per day, which would equate to 365 miles a year, which is significantly more than the IWA seem to be wanting.

 

It is hard to see that 8 miles a week would ever be “not OK”, now that we are where we are, and CRT have painted themselves into a corner.

 

If the IWA got their way, a bit less than 7 miles a week would be OK, yet the “travellers” organisation seem to think having to “travel” a ridiculously small distance per day/week/month/year is somewhat onerous.

 

 

The distance that the IWA are calling for is not the biggest problem for continuous cruisers, it’s the range they’re demanding.

The IWA are asking for continuous cruisers to travel a range of a 100 miles from the start of the licence period to the end - so they’d expect continuous cruisers to have gone from London to beyond Stoke Bruerne. That requirement would limit continuous cruising to those who no longer have to work or those who are lucky enough to be able to work from home, simple as that. Forget families, with children at school, who live on boats. It would be absolutely impossible for them to comply with the IWA’s interpretation of continuous cruising.

 

Because the CRT don’t consider a weekend jaunt 20 miles from where you normally cruise as bona fide navigation, you would have to spend most of your time away from where you normally live because who can do a 100 mile range cruise on a weekend or a week or even a fortnight? That’s a cruise of 200 miles. I did this when I moved up north from London to Leeds and that took two weeks and I was gunning it because I had a job to go to. Who wants to do 200 miles in a couple of weeks?

 

Based on current guidelines, that one journey of 200 miles wouldn’t count for bona fide navigation if I spent the rest of the year milling around a small area of Leeds thinking my 200 mile journey was enough.

 

It ain’t the distance, Richard, it’s the range!

 

Quote

You need to be genuinely navigating around our waterways, not staying in a small area. For example - if you boat in a five-mile area for most of your licence and then went on one 60-mile trip over the course of two weeks, this wouldn’t meet our requirements for bona fide navigation.

 

 

The long and short of it is that organisations such as the RBOA and IWA don’t want people living on boats unless they’re stuck nose to tail in marinas, keeping off “their” waterways.

 

Edited by NB Caelmiri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NB Caelmiri said:

It ain’t the distance, Richard, it’s the range!

 

The long and short of it is that organisations such as the RBOA and IWA don’t want people living on boats unless they’re stuck nose to tail in marinas, keeping off “their” waterways.

1) What range would you deem appropriate? I think the Travellers would like it to be zero?

 

2) The RBOA and IWA seem quite happy for people to live on their boats but, if they only pay for a CC licence, they would like them to travel 11 miles every 14 days, with a range of at least 100 miles. It really doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

3) I suppose CRT could admit defeat on this and, with the appropriate changes to legislation and stuff, charge these travellers a few thousand a year for their mooring, or for the freedom to cruise within a small radius, or similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Richard10002 said:

1) What range would you deem appropriate? I think the Travellers would like it to be zero?

 

2) The RBOA and IWA seem quite happy for people to live on their boats but, if they only pay for a CC licence, they would like them to travel 11 miles every 14 days, with a range of at least 100 miles. It really doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

3) I suppose CRT could admit defeat on this and, with the appropriate changes to legislation and stuff, charge these travellers a few thousand a year for their mooring, or for the freedom to cruise within a small radius, or similar.

100 mile range is completely unreasonable unless you're one of the IWA's retired members. It would make CCing impossible for those with ties to certain areas. The IWA's proposals would turn the canal network into a place almost exclusively for hobby boaters or those with the financial capacity to pay for a mooring. In my opinion, a range of 20-30 miles allows more than just those two demographics to enjoy and use the canal network. Up the required mileage by all means but a 100 mile range is unfair and unachievable for the majority of continuous cruisers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

100 mile range is completely unreasonable unless you're one of the IWA's retired members. It would make CCing impossible for those with ties to certain areas. The IWA's proposals would turn the canal network into a place almost exclusively for hobby boaters or those with the financial capacity to pay for a mooring. In my opinion, a range of 20-30 miles allows more than just those two demographics to enjoy and use the canal network. Up the required mileage by all means but a 100 mile range is unfair and unachievable for the majority of continuous cruisers.

BW / C&RT have repeatedly said that those 'with ties to an area' are unlikely to be able to comply with the requirements of a 'boat with no home mooring' declaration. It can be achieved in certain areas, such as around Birmingham where there is a spiders-web of usable canals, but is not easy.

 

Current C&RT Website guidance :

 

"Boats without a home mooring must be engaged in genuine navigation throughout the period of the licence". Basically, make the effort, 'in good faith', to navigate around our waterways. You’ll need to continually move from place to place over a total range of 20 miles (32 kms) or more rather than just shuttling back and forth between two or three places. If you can't do this easily, especially where you rely on access to local places such as schools or work, you should find a home mooring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

BW / C&RT have repeatedly said that those 'with ties to an area' are unlikely to be able to comply with the requirements of a 'boat with no home mooring' declaration. It can be achieved in certain areas, such as around Birmingham where there is a spiders-web of usable canals, but is not easy.

 

Current C&RT Website guidance :

 

"Boats without a home mooring must be engaged in genuine navigation throughout the period of the licence". Basically, make the effort, 'in good faith', to navigate around our waterways. You’ll need to continually move from place to place over a total range of 20 miles (32 kms) or more rather than just shuttling back and forth between two or three places. If you can't do this easily, especially where you rely on access to local places such as schools or work, you should find a home mooring

And I'm fine with this. I'm not fine with the IWA's proposal of increasing the range to 100 miles. Both they and the CRT need to understand usage of the canal network is changing. 

Edited by NB Caelmiri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes I larf!

25 years ago the "guidance" was move to a different parish/place 10 lock/miles from your present place no mention of range. All the whining and whingeing from various parties has not got them anywhere, you still have to move. If people had not decided to take the piss and challenge BW/Cart then it would still be relaxed like it was then.

You reap what you sow.

Edited by Loddon
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

And I'm fine with this. I'm not fine with the IWA's proposal of increasing the range to 100 miles.

It is not so long ago that a review of licensing made a proposal that the CC licence should be charged a premium as they use more of the facilities.

The proposal was that a CC licence should be 2.5x that of a licence for a boat with a home mooring.

 

Sounds reasonable.

 

 

 

3.4. The main drivers for licence price variations should be:


(a) size of boat: but we should drastically reduce the number of length categories and introduce a ‘beam’ factor. There is little rationale for the large number of differentials we have at present. The main reasons for retaining some elements of pricing according to size are:
* the practical difficulties of implementing a change involving complete removal of this factor - there would be unacceptably large numbers of losers and winners
* likelihood of sharing locks
* a marketing case for an attractive entry-level rate to encourage new boaters


The ultimate target could comprise as few as three categories, but this would need to be phased in over say, five years. For example
* market entry’ boats, typically under 7m – to encourage new customers
* medium sized family boat, up to 12m – another popular entry level category
* boats over 12m which are typically the choice of people with high commitment to boating.


Initially we would recommend adoption of just 6 length categories, perhaps using the existing short term licence structure, plus a premium factor for craft with a beam over 2.13 m.
(b) Duration of licence: we recommend a relative reduction in the price for short term access combined with a restriction on the number of such licences that an owner could purchase during a year. The purpose of this is to increase visiting craft and new market entrants.
(c) intensity of use: extensive use indicated by continuous cruising/occupancy, commercial hiring, multi-user arrangements etc. should pay a premium
(d) extent of geographic access: craft using only isolated stretches such as Monmouth & Brecon, Bridgwater & Taunton and Lowlands waterways should pay less than those with full access. Consider increasing the number of geographic zones, possibly implemented via card readers at zone boundaries. This could be refined to allow for additional charges for access to particularly intensively used areas, and lower costs for less popular zones. It would involve some users paying more and some less.
(e) Policy objectives such as encouraging new entrants to boating, use of electric power, encouraging hire operators to adopt ETC quality standards, encouraging use of less popular areas. We could also consider verifiable user concessions – dependent on introducing proof of identity requirement. For example, we might consider a lower rate for loyal senior customers – 10+ years or more licensed continuously

 

 

Screenshot (201).png

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

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It is not so long ago that a review of licensing made a proposal that the CC licence should be charged a premium as they use more of the facilities.

The proposal was that a CC licence should be 2.5x that of a licence for a boat with a home mooring.

 

Sounds reasonable.

 

 

 

3.4. The main drivers for licence price variations should be:


(a) size of boat: but we should drastically reduce the number of length categories and introduce a ‘beam’ factor. There is little rationale for the large number of differentials we have at present. The main reasons for retaining some elements of pricing according to size are:
* the practical difficulties of implementing a change involving complete removal of this factor - there would be unacceptably large numbers of losers and winners
* likelihood of sharing locks
* a marketing case for an attractive entry-level rate to encourage new boaters


The ultimate target could comprise as few as three categories, but this would need to be phased in over say, five years. For example
* market entry’ boats, typically under 7m – to encourage new customers
* medium sized family boat, up to 12m – another popular entry level category
* boats over 12m which are typically the choice of people with high commitment to boating.


Initially we would recommend adoption of just 6 length categories, perhaps using the existing short term licence structure, plus a premium factor for craft with a beam over 2.13 m.
(b) Duration of licence: we recommend a relative reduction in the price for short term access combined with a restriction on the number of such licences that an owner could purchase during a year. The purpose of this is to increase visiting craft and new market entrants.
(c) intensity of use: extensive use indicated by continuous cruising/occupancy, commercial hiring, multi-user arrangements etc. should pay a premium
(d) extent of geographic access: craft using only isolated stretches such as Monmouth & Brecon, Bridgwater & Taunton and Lowlands waterways should pay less than those with full access. Consider increasing the number of geographic zones, possibly implemented via card readers at zone boundaries. This could be refined to allow for additional charges for access to particularly intensively used areas, and lower costs for less popular zones. It would involve some users paying more and some less.
(e) Policy objectives such as encouraging new entrants to boating, use of electric power, encouraging hire operators to adopt ETC quality standards, encouraging use of less popular areas. We could also consider verifiable user concessions – dependent on introducing proof of identity requirement. For example, we might consider a lower rate for loyal senior customers – 10+ years or more licensed continuously

 

 

Screenshot (201).png

I can see the sense in a higher licence fee for ccers.  But 2.5x the cost is ridiculous.  That would mean I would pay an additional £1500.  I could get a mooring for less than that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

I can see the sense in a higher licence fee for ccers.  But 2.5x the cost is ridiculous.  That would mean I would pay an additional £1500.  I could get a mooring for less than that!

Which part of me feels like is the long game they're playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I can see the sense in a higher licence fee for ccers.  But 2.5x the cost is ridiculous.  That would mean I would pay an additional £1500.  I could get a mooring for less than that!

That could be the answer - get a cheap mooring (I doubt there are many at £1500, but maybe I'm wrong) and never use it, then you don't have to comply with the CC requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Which part of me feels like is the long game they're playing.

It's a stupid long game then.  In some parts of the country you definitely can't get a mooring for that price.  In others you can.  So it would be a no-brainer for harrassed boaters on the K&A for a mooring up north which they don't use (but is available for them).  Then they would save money and get CRT off their backs.  And up north, the boatyards and boat clubs would be empty of boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That could be the answer - get a cheap mooring (I doubt there are many at £1500, but maybe I'm wrong) and never use it, then you don't have to comply with the CC requirements.

Cross posted there.

 

FYI  there aren't many but - https://www.watersidemooring.com/345-halifax-arm-l1/Vacancies#berth4135

 

I could buy it right now and continue shuffling around Bath if I wanted.  Now imagine I would actually save money by doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

The distance that the IWA are calling for is not the biggest problem for continuous cruisers, it’s the range they’re demanding.

The IWA are asking for continuous cruisers to travel a range of a 100 miles from the start of the licence period to the end - so they’d expect continuous cruisers to have gone from London to beyond Stoke Bruerne. That requirement would limit continuous cruising to those who no longer have to work or those who are lucky enough to be able to work from home, simple as that. Forget families, with children at school, who live on boats. It would be absolutely impossible for them to comply with the IWA’s interpretation of continuous cruising.

 

Because the CRT don’t consider a weekend jaunt 20 miles from where you normally cruise as bona fide navigation, you would have to spend most of your time away from where you normally live because who can do a 100 mile range cruise on a weekend or a week or even a fortnight? That’s a cruise of 200 miles. I did this when I moved up north from London to Leeds and that took two weeks and I was gunning it because I had a job to go to. Who wants to do 200 miles in a couple of weeks?

 

Based on current guidelines, that one journey of 200 miles wouldn’t count for bona fide navigation if I spent the rest of the year milling around a small area of Leeds thinking my 200 mile journey was enough.

 

It ain’t the distance, Richard, it’s the range!

 

 

 

The long and short of it is that organisations such as the RBOA and IWA don’t want people living on boats unless they’re stuck nose to tail in marinas, keeping off “their” waterways.

 

No wonder some people prefer the term 'boaters without a home mooring' rather than 'continuous cruisers' . . . 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

1) What range would you deem appropriate? I think the Travellers would like it to be zero?

 

A bit like the travellers on the travellers sites around here who don't travel.

I know CCers who hate stopping in one place for more than a few days, but you never hear from them .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

It seems to me that the IWA proposal, like others before it is intended not to make cc'ing impossible, (though it would have that effect for many) it's to make it impossible to fake it. I think that's the nub of the matter is faking it. How do you fake it? Well first you have to know what it looks like. Some people do huge mileage over a wide area, sod faking that! Got anything cheaper? Some do a lesser mileage like for instance the full length of the K&A. Got anything cheaper? This is I think the reason for the constant calls for an exact definition, so people know exactly what to fake, if it's too onerous then it's rejected as ultra vires. Fake or genuine? Back to bona fide. It was decided that Davies was faking it, not on grounds of distance but because he was trying to pass off a counterfeit bona fide. I could see a way that a boater could remain between Bradford on Avon and Bath without faking it but it would mean actually wanting to go boating and would definitely involve few 14 day stays. Suggest that and the reaction is that the law allows for 14 days. Yes it allows for it but it's not compulsory and if you want to go boating you would not often use it unless you were in an unfamiliar area you wanted to explore. Cruising a limited area always staying for the maximum time and cruising the minimum range whilst calling for a closer definition of the minimum requirements looks like, and almost certainly is, faking it.

Here we go again, people unilaterally deciding what a proper boater is.  The guidance from CRT doesn't ask for what you suggest and neither does the law.  The IWA's idea isn't backed up by law either.  Why does it even bother you if someone wants to stay in one place for 14 days?  What harm are they doing to you?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I think you have pulled it out of your arse, as you so eloquently put it.

 

Everything I am still seeing from a variety of medical sources, (YouTube vids mainly), still say that it can live for days in hard surfaces, and 3 days seems to be the minimum suggested. In fact, where places are opening up, there is much use of the words, “deep clean”, “sanitising “, and the like. If what you are saying is correct, there would be none of this.

 

Fear may have diminished, but that doesn’t mean that this particular risk has.

 

You might, of course, be correct, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest so.

There isn’t one. You should carry on as you were :) 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-sunlight-coronavirus-quickly-scientists.amp

 

Although this study has yet to be peer reviewed it is from a reputable group/institute so isn't fake news. I have access to most scientific journals via work so will check back for it later. Confirms the scientific consensus that being outside is safer, including touching outside surfaces. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Cruising a limited area always staying for the maximum time and cruising the minimum range whilst calling for a closer definition of the minimum requirements looks like, and almost certainly is, faking it.

How is it faking it? If staying for 14 days (where you can) and cruising the minimum range required by the CRT, then that isn't faking it by definition. It's complying by the requirements to the word. You can call it faking it all you wish but you'd be incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

How is it faking it? If staying for 14 days (where you can) and cruising the minimum range required by the CRT, then that isn't faking it by definition. It's complying by the requirements to the word. You can call it faking it all you wish but you'd be incorrect.

 

Maybe 'faking it' is not the correct terminology, but Bona-Fide (which is what is legally required) it is certainly not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe 'faking it' is not the correct terminology, but Bona-Fide (which is what is legally required) it is certainly not.

The CRT would seemingly disagree with you. This is what they have defined as the minimum requirements for bona fide navigation.

 

Quote
  • you are genuinely cruising a fair range of our network. Our team looks at the range of the furthest points your boat has visited over the year. If you’re cruising only a small range, you may run into trouble when it comes to renewing your licence. What's important is that you're genuinely cruising, we would expect a range of 20 miles (32km) or more
  • you’re not staying longer than 14 days on regular (unsigned) stretches of the canal, or longer than what the short stay mooring signs tell you without our agreement. You may occasionally need to stay somewhere longer due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies but you do need to get agreement from your local boat licence support officer if this happens
  • you need to be genuinely navigating around our waterways, not staying in a small area. For example - if you boat in a five-mile area for most of your licence and then went on one 60-mile trip over the course of two weeks, this wouldn’t meet our requirements for bona fide navigation.

20 miles range and 14 days. ?‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

The CRT would seemingly disagree with you. This is what they have defined as the minimum requirements for bona fide navigation.

 

20 miles range and 14 days. ?‍♂️

It seems quite common for some to invent new cruising rules based on what they'd like to be true rather than what is true.  In doing so, they reveal their own prejudice.  The IWA's guidance is an extreme example of this.  They should change their name to the GOTIWA (the Gentrification Of The Inland Waterways Association)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

The CRT would seemingly disagree with you. This is what they have defined as the minimum requirements for bona fide navigation.

 

20 miles range and 14 days. ?‍♂️

That is of course the minimum requirements.   If that is all you are aiming to do I doubt it would class as bona fide.   To me the point is historic.

 

IIRC at one time everybody had to have a home mooring and those who were genuinely cruising the length and breadth of the country campaigned to be allowed to do so without having to have a home mooring.   This was granted.   That is why IMO the words bone fide were used i.e. if you were genuinely cruising all over the place as opposed to having ties to one area and requiring to stay within a few miles of that area.

 

No doubt somebody will tell me my memory is faulty.

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often wonder when reading one of the many threads on here about how to get round the "rules" why folk don't research the rules BEFORE they buy a boat to use on a canal. If they don't like the rules or don't think they can comply, why buy a boat?  You wouldn't buy a car without checking the "rules" and if you wanted for example to drive a car on the right side of the road you would realise that having a car is not for you and you wouldn't buy one to use  in the UK. If you want to buy a house you will realise that there are conditions attached  and you won't buy one if you can't meet the conditions. Whats so different about buying a boat that makes folk think they can "get round" the rules which most boaters abide by? 

 

haggis

  • Greenie 2
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
  • 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.