Declaring a home mooring

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

I don't know why we are all in such a mess about this. Cruising to me is a leisure activity (ie you are not doing it in the course of a business) so continuously cruising implies a leisure activity on a continuous basis and you wouldn't expect to want to do this on the same section of canal. I would expect someone cruising to move a reasonable distance say at least  10miles on maybe 4 days each week bearing in mind most cruising folk would normally do a lot more and you are unlikely to be able to do this if you are working or have children at school. If your intent is primarily to live on board at or near one location without a permanent mooring then buying a cc licence is doing a great injustice to true continuous cruisers. If that is the case you should find a fixed mooring for your boat. I have no objection to people living on boats but I fear that unless some action is taken by CaRT to only issue cc licences to genuine ccers we will all find draconian measures being introduced with the result that we will lose the freedom of the canals we have enjoyed for many years. We have seen this on the Thames already on some public moorings with threatening signs and penalties. All this stuff about working out range is only being done because people aren't doing what they should be as ccers.

But that is your interpretation of cruising. Which of course you are entitled to, other people have different interpretations which is why we have this mess - although I have to say that the cruising patterns of other boaters has no impact on my life or my ability to go boating. So I care not a hoot what other people do on and in their boats.

 

And again not everyone is in a position to get a mooring for whatever reason - financial difficulties or perhaps there just isn't a mooring available near them. Certainly other than the one I'm staying on now, there wouldn't be a mooring available to me for over 20 miles in either direction. It's not as simple as just finding a mooring.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

….using London as an example, that boaters would have to go from there to beyond Northampton for their range, and spend time around there rather than closer to where they live.

Surely they 'live' where the boat is ?

Or are you suggesting that its OK to stay in an 'area' where you have work / family / medical / school ties and yet still be a CCer ?

[WotEver]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Surely they 'live' where the boat is ?

Or are you suggesting that its OK to stay in an 'area' where you have work / family / medical / school ties and yet still be a CCer ?

That was my initial reaction to that line, but Caelmiri does go on to expand his point later in the post.

[TheBiscuits]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Surely they 'live' where the boat is ?

Or are you suggesting that its OK to stay in an 'area' where you have work / family / medical / school ties and yet still be a CCer ?

Depends on the area.  @doratheexplorer showed a map that easily allows staying within a few miles of a fixed point but allows cruising on dozens of miles of different waterways.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Surely they 'live' where the boat is ?

Or are you suggesting that its OK to stay in an 'area' where you have work / family / medical / school ties and yet still be a CCer ?

I am saying that but I also recognise that it doesn't necessarily go along with the spirit of "bona fide navigation". I do think you can do both. I think I did both mostly successfully in my time in London, without upsetting anyone.

 

The rules probably need to change to either recognise that some people want to/have to live in a particular area (and a mooring isn't an option) and will do so on their boat, or to hell with those people and bring in the IWAs proposal which will certainly remove "continuous moorers" from the waterways, either of their own volition or by rule of law. Which I think would be a shame.

[Arthur Marshall]

London is an anomaly, with an insatiable demand for low paid workers and nowhere affordable for them to live. Trying to make general rules based on that is bound to damage everywhere else, which is what much of current politics does. Leave London out if it and you've got a chance.  Everywhere else, you can probably CC legally and always be in transport range of work and schools.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

Depends on the area.  @doratheexplorer showed a map that easily allows staying within a few miles of a fixed point but allows cruising on dozens of miles of different waterways.

No argument there.

Many folks have successfully CC'd around the 'Venice of the Midlands' without any enforcement.

 

London, Bristol etc does not have the luxury of a spiders-web of waterways.

[Arthur Marshall]

Anyway, it's a short term problem. The Upper Macc and Peak Forest are shut for the foreseeable future. There are more collapses, leaks and shutdowns every year. I reckon we should just enjoy what we've got for the few years it's got left in it without bothering too much about the edges of the legalities. Banning diesel in a year or so will dent it and climate change will probably finish the system off completely.

[Guest]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

Anyway, it's a short term problem. The Upper Macc and Peak Forest are shut for the foreseeable future. There are more collapses, leaks and shutdowns every year. I reckon we should just enjoy what we've got for the few years it's got left in it without bothering too much about the edges of the legalities. Banning diesel in a year or so will dent it and climate change will probably finish the system off completely.

I like your optimism! ?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I like your optimism! ?

It is the 'crumbling system' and lack of proper management leading to a lack of maintenance that, for me, was the final straw, so, after 30+ years we moved off canals and went "back to sea" last October.

 

I see a fairly short future for many of the navigable canals. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[PhilR]

On 04/06/2020 at 09:31, Arthur Marshall said:

Well, in 30 years of boating, I've never paid more than £450pa for mooring a forty foot boat, plus CRTs permit.

I'm not sure that would let me spend all my time in Bath, though.

I presume your CRT mooring permit is over £600, so your total mooring cost will be over £1000 p.a.

 

[Sir Nibble]

Aren't there any monasteries or similar communities around Bath where one could move in for the accommodation and attend the minimum of services whilst secretly being an atheist?

 

[ditchcrawler]

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Thats why I couldn't see a problem with the change to the T&Cs, which now demand CC type rules for home moorers out and about.

The problem does lie in the lack of affordable moorings in the popular residential spots. CRT solved the grief for tourists at Llangollen by building a marina and charging sensibly for it. Maybe canal towns should seriously look at doing the same. It's the affordability which is the problem -if I'd had to keep my tub in a marina I wouldn't be boating now. But a town would gain from mooring fees and rates.

And at the same time they charged for the Towpath, I have not moored in Llangollen  since.  

[Alan de Enfield]

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Thats why I couldn't see a problem with the change to the T&Cs, which now demand CC type rules for home moorers out and about.

Where would you draw the line with C&RT amending their T&Cs in contravention to their powers or the law ?

 

Would you be happy (for example) if they decide to drop the '"60%" of licence fee for a Rivers only 'licence' ?

 

They have already amended the T&Cs such that they can now notify 'anyone they decide' with your personal details irrespective of the confidentiality laws (GDPR)

They have already amended the T&Cs to allow them to enter/board your boat without notice (contravening the law)

 

When will you say "no, that's now going too far" - will it be when one affects you personally ?

[tehmarks]

3 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

I don't think continuous cruising should be prevented and unless you are shuffling back and forth over the same small area I don't see any problem. If the intent is to liveaboard in one place only moving as little as can be got away with then that is not in the spirit of the cc licence. Just look at the organized swapping of moorings that takes place in London every week just to comply with the regulations.

 

I agree. The solution though isn't to introduce draconian rules which will stop a significant number of legitimate continuous cruisers in their tracks. People should have every right to tie up and stay put for two weeks* - not all of us want to do significant mileage every week.

 

I'm sef-employed with an often insane work schedule, and all my work is in London. In the past I've spent most of my time cruising leisurely between Watford and Milton Keynes, because it's a beautiful stretch of canal, it's convenient and there are plentiful train stations to be able to get in to work without driving. Is that against the spirit of the licence?

* - where signage doesn't prohibit it, obviously...

[Mike Adams]

50 minutes ago, tehmarks said:

I'm sef-employed with an often insane work schedule, and all my work is in London. In the past I've spent most of my time cruising leisurely between Watford and Milton Keynes, because it's a beautiful stretch of canal, it's convenient and there are plentiful train stations to be able to get in to work without driving. Is that against the spirit of the licence?

It is up to the Trust to decide what is or is not acceptable since it was their predecessors who got them in to this mess. At the time I remember the argument for CC licences was from a group of people who agrued that they were cruising all over the country full time and didn't need a mooring base. Personally I would not think that if someone spent a long time, say a year on a section of canal that would normally take only a few days at most to cruise that would be within the spirit of the CC licence.

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, tehmarks said:

 

I'm sef-employed with an often insane work schedule, and all my work is in London. In the past I've spent most of my time cruising leisurely between Watford and Milton Keynes, because it's a beautiful stretch of canal, it's convenient and there are plentiful train stations to be able to get in to work without driving. Is that against the spirit of the licence?

* - where signage doesn't prohibit it, obviously...

I did similar when I was down there, Leighton Buzzard to Waltham Abbey, with a couple of jaunts to Hertford/Bishops Stortford......but it was far easier to moor in Central London only 10 years ago. Only Victoria Park was impossible to moor at then.

[tehmarks]

3 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

It is up to the Trust to decide what is or is not acceptable since it was their predecessors who got them in to this mess. At the time I remember the argument for CC licences was from a group of people who agrued that they were cruising all over the country full time and didn't need a mooring base. Personally I would not think that if someone spent a long time, say a year on a section of canal that would normally take only a few days at most to cruise that would be within the spirit of the CC licence.

But how abut someone who spends six weeks on the BCN, then cruises south and spends a month around Milton Keynes, and then heads leisurely towards London before going on to the Thames and back up to the Oxford Canal - but does all of that by moving on to a new place every fortnight? Setting arbitrary figures which are incompatible with remaining moored for 14 days is patently against the letter and spirit of the law.

1 minute ago, matty40s said:

I did similar when I was down there, Leighton Buzzard to Waltham Abbey, with a couple of jaunts to Hertford/Bishops Stortford......but it was far easier to moor in Central London only 10 years ago. Only Victoria Park was impossible to moor at then.

I've never strayed further into London than Southall - not my cup of tea. I like open spaces and small communities. Rickmansworth though - I could easily spend some time around Rickmansworth and Watford.

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Sorry, I did start to reply and then got distracted. Cruising 14 miles a fortnight again isn’t a problem but for the IWA to suggest a range of 100 miles, that means, using London as an example, that boaters would have to go from there to beyond Northampton for their range, and spend time around there rather than closer to where they live. I think 300 miles distance over a year is possible but it’s still a meaningless, arbitrary distance the IWA have come up with no good basis. Why 300? Why not 200? Or why not 400 if you’re going to propose 100 mile range? The IWA guy who came to the London meeting a couple of years ago didn’t have an answer - it was a case of “well, we thought an average cruise that people go on would be X miles”, or words to that affect.

 

I’d moved on from the IWA proposal and was just trying to establish what you thought was reasonable.

 

Range: Over 20 miles - determined by length of canal, and not as the crow flies

Movement: every 14 days, or sooner if the mooring requires

Annual distance: ?

 

It is a fact that any distance chosen is going to arbitrary, so I can’t do anything about that. I settled on a mile a day because it seems a ridiculously short distance. At 14 miles a fortnight, it remains a ridiculously short distance. This would equate to 365 miles a year, thus could fairly be described as a ridiculously short distance.

 

You ask: Why not 200 or 400? I’m not bothered, apart from it should not be so ridiculously short a distance to become meaningless. 50 miles a year is a mile a week - I would suggest that that is not far enough - it is meaningless. Your previous comments, where you said that Range was the issue, suggested that you agreed that 14 miles every fortnight was fine. It would be hard to argue that it was unreasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, PhilR said:

I presume your CRT mooring permit is over £600, so your total mooring cost will be over £1000 p.a.

 

Thats anout right. But I gather marinas charge twice that?

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

And at the same time they charged for the Towpath, I have not moored in Llangollen  since.  

On the grounds they installed water and elec, neither if which I've needed. Last time I nipped into Llangollen, shopped, spent an hour or two in the bookshop and shoved off again. I think you get 4 hours free.  I resent paying, too.

[ditchcrawler]

16 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Thats anout right. But I gather marinas charge twice that?

On the grounds they installed water and elec, neither if which I've needed. Last time I nipped into Llangollen, shopped, spent an hour or two in the bookshop and shoved off again. I think you get 4 hours free.  I resent paying, too.

I objected at the time, now we are slowly getting paid for moorings in London. A few more and it will be a nice little earner

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I’d moved on from the IWA proposal and was just trying to establish what you thought was reasonable.

 

Range: Over 20 miles - determined by length of canal, and not as the crow flies

Movement: every 14 days, or sooner if the mooring requires

Annual distance: ?

 

It is a fact that any distance chosen is going to arbitrary, so I can’t do anything about that. I settled on a mile a day because it seems a ridiculously short distance. At 14 miles a fortnight, it remains a ridiculously short distance. This would equate to 365 miles a year, thus could fairly be described as a ridiculously short distance.

 

You ask: Why not 200 or 400? I’m not bothered, apart from it should not be so ridiculously short a distance to become meaningless. 50 miles a year is a mile a week - I would suggest that that is not far enough - it is meaningless. Your previous comments, where you said that Range was the issue, suggested that you agreed that 14 miles every fortnight was fine. It would be hard to argue that it was unreasonable.

I don't think 14 miles a fortnight is unreasonable but I don't see why it's necessary. What are we actually trying to achieve by enforcing distances on boaters? Is it so that we abide by the "spirit" of bona fide navigation? To what end? So that particular areas don't get clogged up and everyone gets a fair go at a mooring in a nice location? Maybe?

 

But is that really a problem outside certain areas? I certainly remember the vast majority of the canals and rivers I visited on my big cruise last year that most days I saw a handful of boats outside moorings and on some days I wouldn't see another boat.

 

I realise it's difficult to apply certain rules to certain areas and so a wide brush is far easier to apply.

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I realise it's difficult to apply certain rules to certain areas and so a wide brush is far easier to apply.

 

The answer is really quite simple (but the Baton Twirlers would be up in arms)

Just make all moorings within (say) 1 mile each side of a 'popular area' limited to 24 or 48 hours and leave the remainder at 14 days. That would mean that nice spots (or in the centre of cities) could not be hogged and would become free for more users.

 

It would need enforcing and the enforcement penalties applied but It would only take a few cases (examples being made) before it was realised that C&RT were serious.

[Arthur Marshall]

30 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I don't think 14 miles a fortnight is unreasonable but I don't see why it's necessary. What are we actually trying to achieve by enforcing distances on boaters? Is it so that we abide by the "spirit" of bona fide navigation? To what end? So that particular areas don't get clogged up and everyone gets a fair go at a mooring in a nice location? Maybe?

 

But is that really a problem outside certain areas? I certainly remember the vast majority of the canals and rivers I visited on my big cruise last year that most days I saw a handful of boats outside moorings and on some days I wouldn't see another boat.

 

I realise it's difficult to apply certain rules to certain areas and so a wide brush is far easier to apply.

This goes back to your original reason for the question. Not having a home mooring drops you into the position of having to justify your cc status to CRT and all the grief this thread has generated in unresolvable arguments. Having a registered mooring, deregistering when you actually mean to go cruising, and so on solves the hassle.

Having no enforced rules at all means you'll never get within three miles of a shop for permanently moored boats. How important that is,is another matter.

There's also the philosophy of what the canals are for. It was transport, now it's leisure. It's not really housing, that's just a side effect of CC. You wouldn't want a load of static .caravans in your local park. You can decide to a change of use, but it needs planning.

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The answer is really quite simple (but the Baton Twirlers would be up in arms)

Just make all moorings within (say) 1 mile each side of a 'popular area' limited to 24 or 48 hours and leave the remainder at 14 days. That would mean that nice spots (or in the centre of cities) could not be hogged and would become free for more users.

 

It would need enforcing and the enforcement penalties applied but It would only take a few cases (examples being made) before it was realised that C&RT were serious.

Makes sense to me.

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Not having a home mooring drops you into the position of having to justify your cc status to CRT

I think that a lot of new CCers (and maybe some old-timers) don't realise that it is the legal responsibility of the boater to convince C&RT that they are 'bona fide' navigating, it is not beholden on C&RT to prove they are not.

 

C&RT's suggestion that the boater keeps a log book is often viewed as an unnecessary intrusion into the 'freedom of boating'.

 

Keeping a log book on 'lumpy-water boats' is the norm, and is actually a legal requirement for any boat leaving the 'Port Limits' and you can be boarded and asked to produce the log and papers of all aboard. (This happened to us when heading South from Hull along the Norfolk coast en-route to Plymouth. We were stopped by Border Control and asked to prove the nationality of all aboard)

 

Different requirements come into play for vessels over 25 tonnes (and commercial vessels) and an 'Official Log Book' is required.

 

A Log book can be demanded in a court of law and is often used to give evidence for either the defence or prosecution.

 

Extract from a Google search :

 

The rules are tucked away in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and associated Statutory Instruments. It is true that ships under 25 GRT and pleasure yachts are exempt from the requirement to carry an "Official Log Book". But you will know that the "OLB" is not quite the same thing as your yacht's deck log as purchased from the local chandler (or ruled up in an old school exercise book). Under SOLAS chapter V you are legally required (any vessel) to complete a voyage plan when navigating outside (broadly) port limits). It might be most convenient to keep your formal record of meeting this requirement in your deck log. In any event, when the snow is piled up against the window your deck log can be an excellent record of of your voyaging in sunnier times so is probably worth keeping anyway.

 

Edit Spooling mistooks

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Alan de Enfield