Declaring a home mooring

[Guest]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

That describes my wife and I very well when we had WotEver.  Work commitments meant that we were never able to cover much of the system (even so, we did well over 20 miles a year), so we paid for a mooring in a marina.  Simple, and upsets no-one, including CRT.

Luckily you were in a position to pay for a mooring in a marina. Others may not be or not want to be in a marina for many reasons. I can't imagine I'd want to be in a marina, certainly not at this point in my life - luckily I have a mooring with only one other boat. But does that preclude others from being on the water because they limit themselves to the guidelines suggested by the CRT?

 

35 minutes ago, Jerra said:

However as you know it is an unanswerable question.   If you read the thread it is suggested many CC because they can't afford a mooring.   Many don't go on the canals because they can't afford a boat let alone a mooring.   Where do we draw the line in this search for letting everybody enjoy things.

 

A line will always be drawn by those who have power/control etc it will always please some and not others.   There are some who would want the IWA suggestion, others will be happy with current guidance and others will want to be allowed to tie up where they want for as long as they want.

 

As I said unanswerable.

That's fair. Of course not everyone can have what they want but it feels to me like the IWA are purposely setting their proposals to limit access to the waterways. They have no good basis on which to propose a 100 mile range and 300 mile distance. The guy from the IWA who came to the NTBA London meeting pretty much acknowledged that. I think the guidelines set out by the CRT are probably fair given the diversity of users and usages of the canal network.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I seem to recall Nigel saying that only those without a home mooring had the right to stop for 14 days, and the rest of us have no rights at all, but are allowed to on a concessionary basis.

 

A couple of paragraphs of a long post by Nigel :

 

Over the latter part of the 20th century, longer temporary use of the towpath for mooring became tolerated on a pragmatic basis, with 14 days fixed upon as a rough guideline for reasons lost in obscurity (for all that BW came up with postulated origins during the Select Committee hearings on the 1990 Bill).

 

Obstruction remains on the statute books as an offence, updated even in the 1995 Act, and overstaying stated times on selected sections has been used with County Court approval to qualify the boat – being thereby regarded as an obstruction - for being moved under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act. Anything longer than an overnight stay, as I see it, is simply permissive – with the exception of boats without home moorings, for whom only, the right to 14 days (or more if circumstances dictate) is enshrined in law.

 

For boats with home moorings when cruising away from those, the 14 day limit would apply only as a permissive one based on a fair-play comparison with the ‘continuous cruisers’. It is simply, in other words, that CaRT would find difficulty in justifying the application of differing standards based only on the nature of the boat licence application.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Sir Nibble]

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

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?

It doesn't bother me one iota. The only bit of the law up for debate is bona fide. That is boating because you want to not because you have to. It's difficult to "satisfy the board" that your inclination to go boating happening every 14 days is just coincidence.

[ditchcrawler]

36 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Luckily you were in a position to pay for a mooring in a marina. Others may not be or not want to be in a marina for many reasons. I can't imagine I'd want to be in a marina, certainly not at this point in my life - luckily I have a mooring with only one other boat. But does that preclude others from being on the water because they limit themselves to the guidelines suggested by the CRT?

 

That's fair. Of course not everyone can have what they want but it feels to me like the IWA are purposely setting their proposals to limit access to the waterways. They have no good basis on which to propose a 100 mile range and 300 mile distance. The guy from the IWA who came to the NTBA London meeting pretty much acknowledged that. I think the guidelines set out by the CRT are probably fair given the diversity of users and usages of the canal network.

The IWA have done more than any other organisation to make the inland waterways accessable to boaters.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

The IWA have done more than any other organisation to make the inland waterways accessable to boaters.

I think they have very good intentions and I certainly acknowlege what they have done, however they also have a very blinkered view on what is boating and who boaters are.

[doratheexplorer]

13 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

The IWA have done more than any other organisation to make the inland waterways accessable to boaters.

This was true for many years.  More recently they've sought to balance things up by making waterways less accessable to many boaters.

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I think they have very good intentions and I certainly acknowlege what they have done, however they also have a very blinkered view on what is boating and who boaters are.

We all have, being limited by our experience. Any rule maker has to walk a line between those who expect everything for nothing, those who want to pay loads to get a privileged experience, and the masses who are willing to pay an affordable rate and put up with some disadvantages. Most of us are in the last group, arguing about what affordable means.

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

I think that is people who want to enjoy the waterways but aren't in a position - for financial, work or any number of other reasons - to go away for weeks/months at a time exploring the canal network. Should we deny people access to the waterways because they're unable to cruise 300 miles a year with a range of 100 miles? Surely not. If they're not having a negative effect on other users of the canal then if Joe Bloggs is only cruising 50 miles a year then so be it.

You seem to agree that a boater with a CC licence should move at least every 14 days, or more often if the mooring is a shorter term one, that they should cruise with a range of at least 20 miles and, whilst you mention 50  miles in the above, you also seemed agreeable to a requirement to cruise 300 or so miles a year - I think you said "It's the range that is the problem", when I talked about a mile a day, (14 miles a fortnight).

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

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?

The reason that the topic is so sensitive is because some folk do think that what other folk do (or say) does them harm - usually insofar as it diminishes their ability to utilise a facility that they think they should have access to.

 

It is just in such situations that laws are created. If the way in which the canals are regulated came higher up the political agenda I have no doubt that we would have had legislation long ago but Westminster is so consumed by specific matters that they don't have time to sort out us lesser mortals! At least there would be a more effective way of making enforceable regulations (look at the amount of effort that it took to put the Middle Level changes into place) That would at least mean that things can be fine tuned when it is found that new situations are badly handled by rules drawn up for a very different purpose. As it is we just ave to make do and mend.

2 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

It doesn't bother me one iota. The only bit of the law up for debate is bona fide. That is boating because you want to not because you have to. It's difficult to "satisfy the board" that your inclination to go boating happening every 14 days is just coincidence.

Moving once every 14 days may quite easily satisfy the Board, if done in the right way.

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

The reason that the topic is so sensitive is because some folk do think that what other folk do (or say) does them harm - usually insofar as it diminishes their ability to utilise a facility that they think they should have access to.

 

What always amazes me is how many of the selfish, visitor-mooring-hog boats seem to evaporate between about October and April. 

 

Surely if it was only us water pikeys doing it the same behaviour would take place all year round ...

[Sir Nibble]

5 hours 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.

There isn't a minimum range required. It would be ultra vires to set one. CaRT have said that anyone cruising a range of less than 20 miles would be unlikely to satisfy them but that's not the same as saying more than that satisfies the law. The law requires that the board is satisfied that the boat will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence. As has been demonstrated in court that requires that the use to which the boat is put is not simply to satisfy some arbitrary requirements of distance. Bona fide is about wanting to go boating not having to go boating. 

[Dave123]

One of the curious things about the 300 mile range the IWA proposed is what it would mean for CRT waters disconnected to the rest of CRT waters, specifically the K&A. This is important because obviously the K&A is one of the so called hot spots of enforcement issues and overcrowding (although I've never found it to be so and in face think it has the best community anywhere on the canals). In order to make a 300 mile range boats would have to leave the K&A and go onto the EA run Thames (ignoring Sharpness). I doubt CRT could ever legally require boats to leave CRT waters in order to comply with the terms of a CRT licence, it's nonsense if you think about it, nevermind the other glaring issues such as how or whether the miles covered on the Thames would be counted. So would it mean you couldn't have a "cc'ing" licence on certain canals (I know the Lancaster could also be included as its only connected tidally even though CRT manage the link, but haven't heard it is as busy up there!). So either IWA actually thought about this and want to empty the K&A, which would make local and national news I suspect and become unworkable, or they plucked the 300 miles out of their heads to satisfy certain elements of their membership knowing full well it was never a workable proposal!?‍♂️

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

This is important because obviously the K&A is one of the so called hot spots of enforcement issues and overcrowding (although I've never found it to be so and in face think it has the best community anywhere on the canals).

 

From a C&RT report :

 

Local initiatives
Kennet & Avon Canal, west of Devizes
In August we produced the first quarterly report (covering May – July) on the Kennet & Avon Local
Plan and presented it to the local Waterway Partnership for their information. The report, which is
published on our website, showed that a total of 6,954 boat sightings (1,291 individual boats) have
been recorded in the K&A Local Plan area between Bath and Foxhangers.
On visitor moorings, 99 boats were sighted as having exceeded the free mooring period on a first
occasion and were contacted to remind them about the plan. 22 boats were sighted as coming to the
end of their free mooring period on a second occasion. Of these, four boats have exceeded the free
mooring period on more than one occasion and been issued with extended stay charges.
In terms of moving between neighbourhoods, during the period six 14-day sighting reports have been
completed. 147 boats have not moved since the last 14 day sighting. They have been contacted by
text, email or phone to remind them to move, or if there is a reason that they cannot move to contact
the Trust. 93 have been contacted once, 36 have been contacted twice, 12 have been contacted

three times and 6 have been contacted on four or more occasions. As a result of receiving multiple
14 day reminders, 18 boats have been sent a letter reminding them that if they do not follow the Local
Plan they may attract the attention of enforcement officers.

 

 

End of trial :

 

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Dave123]

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

From a C&RT report :

 

Local initiatives
Kennet & Avon Canal, west of Devizes
In August we produced the first quarterly report (covering May – July) on the Kennet & Avon Local
Plan and presented it to the local Waterway Partnership for their information. The report, which is
published on our website, showed that a total of 6,954 boat sightings (1,291 individual boats) have
been recorded in the K&A Local Plan area between Bath and Foxhangers.
On visitor moorings, 99 boats were sighted as having exceeded the free mooring period on a first
occasion and were contacted to remind them about the plan. 22 boats were sighted as coming to the
end of their free mooring period on a second occasion. Of these, four boats have exceeded the free
mooring period on more than one occasion and been issued with extended stay charges.
In terms of moving between neighbourhoods, during the period six 14-day sighting reports have been
completed. 147 boats have not moved since the last 14 day sighting. They have been contacted by
text, email or phone to remind them to move, or if there is a reason that they cannot move to contact
the Trust. 93 have been contacted once, 36 have been contacted twice, 12 have been contacted

three times and 6 have been contacted on four or more occasions. As a result of receiving multiple
14 day reminders, 18 boats have been sent a letter reminding them that if they do not follow the Local
Plan they may attract the attention of enforcement officers.

 

 

End of trial :

 

 

I don't follow...this isn't anything to do with the IWA 300 mile range proposal? Which is what I was talking about. I suppose I should have left out comment on the extent of enforcement issues on the K&A to avoid being sidetracked as that wasn't my point. I fully support enforcement of those that don't follow the rules, and if anything this report demonstrates that the existing rules can deal with any problems provided there is the will to enforce them. I was trying to highlight the absurdity of IWA plucking 300 miles out of their heads rather than looking at the actual length of canals and real life situations. Essentially if they had said some 140 miles to allow boats to remain on the K&A this would at least have shown they had thought of the practicalities of their proposal.

Edited June 5, 2020 by Dave123

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Dave123 said:

I don't follow...this isn't anything to do with the IWA 300 mile range proposal? Which is what I was talking about. I suppose I should have left out comment on the extent of enforcement issues on the K&A to avoid being sidetracked as that wasn't my point.

It was in response to your comment that you had not found it was a 'hotspot of enforcement and overcrowding'.

[Dave123]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It was in response to your comment that you had not found it was a 'hotspot of enforcement and overcrowding'.

Yes - I realised that.

[Sir Nibble]

The IWA proposal is absurd and serves only to torpedo their credibility. 

[Dave123]

19 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

The IWA proposal is absurd and serves only to torpedo their credibility. 

Yes - it prompted me to cancel my membership with them. Some increase on the range might be fair but the unique positioning of the K&A means boats would have to be allowed to remain on that canal and still have a 'ccing' licence. I can't see how anything else would work. You clearly can't require boats to leave CRT waters to comply with a CRT licence.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Yes - it prompted me to cancel my membership with them. Some increase on the range might be fair but the unique positioning of the K&A means boats would have to be allowed to remain on that canal and still have a 'ccing' licence. I can't see how anything else would work. You clearly can't require boats to leave CRT waters to comply with a CRT licence.

There is the other option, in that C&RT could say "we are not satisfied that boats on the K&A* can CC and meet the requirements so all boat on the K&A must have a home mooring".

 

* could also include other non-connected canals.

 

There is already a separate cost structure for the 'licence' for Rivers Only at 60% of a 'full licence'.

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, Dave123 said:

One of the curious things about the 300 mile range the IWA proposed is what it would mean for CRT waters disconnected to the rest of CRT waters, specifically the K&A. This is important because obviously the K&A is one of the so called hot spots of enforcement issues and overcrowding (although I've never found it to be so and in face think it has the best community anywhere on the canals). In order to make a 300 mile range boats would have to leave the K&A and go onto the EA run Thames (ignoring Sharpness). I doubt CRT could ever legally require boats to leave CRT waters in order to comply with the terms of a CRT licence, it's nonsense if you think about it, nevermind the other glaring issues such as how or whether the miles covered on the Thames would be counted. So would it mean you couldn't have a "cc'ing" licence on certain canals (I know the Lancaster could also be included as its only connected tidally even though CRT manage the link, but haven't heard it is as busy up there!). So either IWA actually thought about this and want to empty the K&A, which would make local and national news I suspect and become unworkable, or they plucked the 300 miles out of their heads to satisfy certain elements of their membership knowing full well it was never a workable proposal!?‍♂️

You make some interesting points, but it's a 100 miles range not 300 miles.

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, Dave123 said:

One of the curious things about the 300 mile range the IWA proposed is ..........

.............. that the IWA have not proposed a 300 mile range.

 

I know it's already been pointed out, but it bears repeating as a few people might take what you say as the facts, rather than a mistake.

 

I'm not sure what the range of the network is, but I'd guess that a 300 mile range would cover most of it.

[doratheexplorer]

12 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

.............. that the IWA have not proposed a 300 mile range.

 

I know it's already been pointed out, but it bears repeating as a few people might take what you say as the facts, rather than a mistake.

 

I'm not sure what the range of the network is, but I'd guess that a 300 mile range would cover most of it.

 

Roughly 220 miles range for the entire CRT system.  Makes you realise the ridiculousness of a 100 mile range doesnt it?

[TheBiscuits]

20 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Roughly 220 miles range for the entire CRT system.  Makes you realise the ridiculousness of a 100 mile range doesnt it?

 

It suggests you have misunderstood what CRT mean by range.

 

100 miles range along a waterway is for example Parbold to Leeds on the L&L, despite them only being 52 miles apart as the crow flies.

[Arthur Marshall]

If there was proper enforcement at popular visitor moorings the problems would largely go away. I now always assume that I won't be able to moor overnight at Stone, Nantwich aquaduct, Wheelock or Marple, for instance. Saves a lot of aggravation. Last time I did squeeze in at Stone the guy next to me cheerfully said he'd been there a week and wasn't planning on moving for another few days.

Against that, I don't really want heavy handedness on the cut, there's enough elsewhere. And it's just the result of a system creaking at the seams, doing what it was never designed for, and, of course, like most of the rest of the grumblers, I'm mostly out there in the summer.

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It suggests you have misunderstood what CRT mean by range.

 

100 miles range along a waterway is for example Parbold to Leeds on the L&L, despite them only being 52 miles apart as the crow flies.

I don't think you're right and I'm not aware of CRT defining range in the way you have.  This is what they currently say:

 

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.  It talks about a five mile area.  In theory there could be 20 linear miles of canal in that 5 mile area.  But they still say it wouldn't meet their requirements.

 

If elsewhere they have said different, then this is confusing at best.