Mooring Land

[gemmaze]

Hi I have been offered some land to buy unexpectedly along side the canal, I am aware of all the CRT requirements but wondered what land along the canal offside is classed as?

Is it leisure use for example due to boating and fishing?

thanks.

[Keeping Up]

That's not a concern of CRT, as a rule, but of the local Council. It is up to you to come to an agreement with them, and some councils have different rules from others. Many will accept for example that is non-residential if you go cruising for at least 4 (not necessarily consecutive) weeks per year. We are not full time residential on ours but I had problems with the Council who wished to class it as a mobile home, and hence as a second home upon which they could charge Council Tax even when we were away (they said - though I dispute that) but I found a useful legal definition that a mobile home is less than 20m long. They agreed to class it as leisure use. 

[gemmaze]

24 minutes ago, Keeping Up said:

That's not a concern of CRT, as a rule, but of the local Council. It is up to you to come to an agreement with them, and some councils have different rules from others. Many will accept for example that is non-residential if you go cruising for at least 4 (not necessarily consecutive) weeks per year. We are not full time residential on ours but I had problems with the Council who wished to class it as a mobile home, and hence as a second home upon which they could charge Council Tax even when we were away (they said - though I dispute that) but I found a useful legal definition that a mobile home is less than 20m long. They agreed to class it as leisure use. 

Thanks, yes I thought it would be the council and wondered if it would be case of if or when they turn up and have something to say if at all hopefully.

What was the legal defintion you used ?

I know of someone who had council tax slapped on the entire mooring site simply becasue one boater claimed for their mooring cost so IM kind of dubious of actually going for it.

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

Thanks, yes I thought it would be the council and wondered if it would be case of if or when they turn up and have something to say if at all hopefully.

What was the legal defintion you used ?

I know of someone who had council tax slapped on the entire mooring site simply becasue one boater claimed for their mooring cost so IM kind of dubious of actually going for it.

 

I think the Land Registry will show the existing registered use, if you wish to change it then you will need to apply to the Local Authority for 'change of use'.

[gemmaze]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think the Land Registry will show the existing registered use, if you wish to change it then you will need to apply to the Local Authority for 'change of use'.

Is that a difficult process to do Alan?

[Keeping Up]

22 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

Thanks, yes I thought it would be the council and wondered if it would be case of if or when they turn up and have something to say if at all hopefully.

That is probably the best approach. Most councils would rather you stay "under the radar"

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, gemmaze said:

Is that a difficult process to do Alan?

No, you can go online 'feed n' the co-ordinates pay (I think it is £15 ish) and you will be told, what land it is, who owns it and (probably) the price they paid for it, in addition to any covenants or planning / use.

 

https://www.landregistrytitledeeds.co.uk/title-plans?gclid=Cj0KCQjwu8r4BRCzARIsAA21i_Ceer6WSX5F4bYkgpjgoYJoYUcq78bg_JqPLquDogU33INehI8X_cIaAg52EALw_wcB

 

or

 

https://www.landregistrytitledeeds.co.uk/title-registers?gclid=Cj0KCQjwu8r4BRCzARIsAA21i_Aji2VdO7qAeKJ8oLwD1IJGPg5i3OAR9Dgt6tvRWrUU-rBC5_rAvVQaAtPSEALw_wcB

[gemmaze]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No, you can go online 'feed n' the co-ordinates pay (I think it is £15 ish) and you will be told, what land it is, who owns it and (probably) the price they paid for it, in addition to any covenants or planning / use.

 

https://www.landregistrytitledeeds.co.uk/title-plans?gclid=Cj0KCQjwu8r4BRCzARIsAA21i_Ceer6WSX5F4bYkgpjgoYJoYUcq78bg_JqPLquDogU33INehI8X_cIaAg52EALw_wcB

 

or

 

https://www.landregistrytitledeeds.co.uk/title-registers?gclid=Cj0KCQjwu8r4BRCzARIsAA21i_Aji2VdO7qAeKJ8oLwD1IJGPg5i3OAR9Dgt6tvRWrUU-rBC5_rAvVQaAtPSEALw_wcB

Sorry I mean changing the use of the land.

[Alan de Enfield]

I depends on your local LA.

I had a lying, cheating, horrible planning 'officer who was fully supported by her Manager, long story short they were ignoring the law and making up their own rules, so I ended up going to my Local MP and a Queens Council and he wrote to the LA Chief Executive and told him that his Planning Manager & Planning Officer were interpreting the Planning laws incorrectly and that I was correct and would he please ensure that the matter was resolved to my satisfaction.

I had threatened to go to the papers and highlight their incompetence and the fact that 'something was rotten' inside the LA.

 

It was resolved and I was awarded compensation for 'the inconvenience'  as long as I signed to say I would not 'go to the papers', or discuss it with anyone.

 

You need to know your legal position  when undertaking any discussions with 'authority, be it the Boat Safety Scheme, C&RT or the local Authority.

Don't let them grind you down if you know you are right stick with it.

 

I have assisted others with applications and some LA's can be an absolute pleasure to deal with, helpful, giving guidance how to meet their requirements and very positive. 

[gemmaze]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I depends on your local LA.

I had a lying, cheating, horrible planning 'officer who was fully supported by her Manager, long story short they were ignoring the law and making up their own rules, so I ended up going to my Local MP and a Queens Council and he wrote to the LA Chief Executive and told him that his Planning Manager & Planning Officer were interpreting the Planning laws incorrectly and that I was correct and would he please ensure that the matter was resolved to my satisfaction.

I had threatened to go to the papers and highlight their incompetence and the fact that 'something was rotten' inside the LA.

 

It was resolved and I was awarded compensation for 'the inconvenience'  as long as I signed to say I would not 'go to the papers', or discuss it with anyone.

 

You need to know your legal position  when undertaking any discussions with 'authority, be it the Boat Safety Scheme, C&RT or the local Authority.

Don't let them grind you down if you know you are right stick with it.

 

I have assisted others with applications and some LA's can be an absolute pleasure to deal with, helpful, giving guidance how to meet their requirements and very positive. 

Good grief now your signiture makes sense!!!

thanks I think I will try the beg for forgiveness rather than ask for permission approach and take my chances lol.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

Good grief now your signiture makes sense!!!

thanks I think I will try the beg for forgiveness rather than ask for permission approach and take my chances lol.

 

 

[Detling]

1 hour ago, gemmaze said:

Hi I have been offered some land to buy unexpectedly along side the canal, I am aware of all the CRT requirements but wondered what land along the canal offside is classed as?

Is it leisure use for example due to boating and fishing?

thanks.

I thought CRT had said no more online moorings, but maybe I am just confused.

[BEngo]

No, rather  the opposite.  CRT will now accept more end of garden applications and have ceased closing on-line moorings when a marina is opened locally.

N

[zenataomm]

1 hour ago, Detling said:

I thought CRT had said no more online moorings, but maybe I am just confused.

Wasn't that BWB, a coup or so back?

[Tracy D'arth]

3 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

Wasn't that BWB, a coup or so back?

BW declared that no new linear moorings would be allowed in 1998.

[gemmaze]

1 hour ago, Detling said:

I thought CRT had said no more online moorings, but maybe I am just confused.

Has there been a court ruling from a judge on that stance I wonder.

Surely if I have a suitable site that causes no obstruction then how could they reasonably object.

Better build a slipway then I suppose.

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

Has there been a court ruling from a judge on that stance I wonder.

Surely if I have a suitable site that causes no obstruction then how could they reasonably object.

Better build a slipway then I suppose.

Owning land adjacent to a canal gives you no 'rights' to use, or moor, your boat over the land (canal bottom) and water which are owned and the responsibility of C&RT.

The same as you own your house, but you are unlikely to own the mineral rights in the ground below your house.

 

However, if you own land adjacent to a River, you will also own the land beneath the river up to the mid-line (where the land owner on the other side owns up to his side of the mid-line)

You can build a mooring on your own land (including 'your half of the River) subject to examination from the EA that you are not restricting the Rivers flow, or causing any obstruction.

 

Planning permission may be required from your Local Authority, and almost certainly will be, if it is to be for a residential mooring.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

Has there been a court ruling from a judge on that stance I wonder.

BRITISH WATERWAYS (BW) -GENERAL INFORMATION SHEET RELATING TO OFFSIDE (END OF GARDEN) MOORINGS (NON TOWPATH)

 

1. Canals and canalised parts of rivers that are owned by BW:

 

The power to charge for "end of garden" moorings arises from the combined effect of common law and the provisions of the Transport Acts 1962 and 1968. All use of BW's canals is permissive i.e. by licence of the landowner (British Waterways) Section 105(5) of the Transport Act 1968 ("the 1968 Act") provides that any local enactment passed with respect to (BW's owned or managed) inland waterways, so far as it "confers any public or private right of navigation over the waterway shall cease to have effect".

 

Section 115 of the 1968 Act provides that ". ..reference to any right of navigation over a waterway or canal includes references to any right to use or keep any vessel or craft on the waterway or canal: ..." (emphasis added).

 

These two sections effectively abolished any statutory public rights to use or keep boats on BW's owned or managed canals and substituted a system of permissive use.

 

Section 43(3) of the Transport Act 1962 ("the 1962 Act") provides "... the [British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority] shall have power to demand, take and recover [or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit."

 

Section 43(8) of the 1962 Act provides "The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section included, in the case of British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat".

 

BW is the successor in title to the original constructors of the canals it now owns. Unlike rivers (where common law rules of riparian ownership 1 usually apply) canals are artificial structures built on land bought by the companies that built them (usually under powers of compulsory purchase). Therefore, the ownership of the bed of the canal (and towpath) is separate from that of adjoining dry land on either side.

 

Accordingly, a boat moored in a BW canal is floating over the bed of the canal which is in BW's ownership and BW has the common law right of a landowner to give or withhold consent for such use of its land and to charge for that use (even though the boat may be adjacent to the end of a garden in other ownership). In the absence of such consent, the boat is trespassing (a BW boat licence does not give the right to moor long term).

 

The terms and conditions of a BW boat licence do not include a right to moor long term (mooring is only permitted 'ancillary to cruising'). The majority of holders of BW licences moor their boats off the network, paying private mooring operators for the right to do so. If a boater moors his or her boat on a BW's canal (i.e. in BW's waterspace and over BW's land) without consent (even if at the end of their garden), they do so unlawfully (unless it is a temporary mooring ancillary to cruising).

 

Those that moor their boats on BW canals with consent pay a market rate for the right to such exclusive use of BW's owned land and waterspace. The mooring charge for offside moorings (where access to the boat is over dry land not in the ownership of BW) is discounted to the normal market rate for an online mooring where access to the boat is over dry land in the ownership of BW.

 

In summary: .

* There is no public right to keep or use a boat on BW's canals -such use is permissive only;

* The beds and waterspace of BW's canals are in the ownership of BW and use without consent is trespass at common law;

* A BW boat licence entitles use of a boat on a BW canal for cruising and casual mooring ancillary to cruising, but not long term mooring;

* Long term mooring on a canal requires a separate mooring agreement that grants exclusive use of the BW waterspace at that site; and

* The powers of BW to charge and impose terms for use of its services and facilities are derived from Section 43 of the 1962 Act, as supplemented and enlarged by subsequent legislation

 

2. Natural parts of rivers managed by BW but which are not owned by it:

 

Where BW is navigational authority but does not own the bed of the river, a boater needs a licence from BW to cruise the river. However, the boater does not need to pay BW a mooring fee as well because BW does not own the river bed.

 

As mentioned earlier common law rules of riparian ownership usually apply (the owners of the properties on either side of the river bank own the bed up to the middle of the river). Therefore, the owners of the properties on either side of the river bank may ask a boater to pay them a charge for mooring over their land.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[gemmaze]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Owning land adjacent to a canal gives you no 'rights' to use, or moor, your boat over the land (canal bottom) and water which are owned and the responsibility of C&RT.

The same as you own your house, but you are unlikely to own the mineral rights in the ground below your house.

 

However, if you own land adjacent to a River, you will also own the land beneath the river up to the mid-line (where the land owner on the other side owns up to his side of the mid-line)

You can build a mooring on your own land (including 'your half of the River) subject to examination from the EA that you are not restricting the Rivers flow, or causing any obstruction.

 

Planning permission may be required from your Local Authority, and almost certainly will be, if it is to be for a residential mooring.

 

 

I can remember reading somewhere before about a chap who basically stated that whatever CRT claims he can claim double as there is no mooring without the land to access it only an anchorage so good luck with that one.

CRT backed off because the guy was a headache due to being one of these Magna Carta characters who simply would t entertain made up fictional acts of Parliament or pantomime as he put it.

They write these wonderful long winded paragraphs referencing this made up act and that made up act and some people go a long with it and some don’t either way it’s their choice I sit back and watch it all play out, my original question was about the land use and the terminology Im all to aware of CRT and how they carry on so I have that side of things boxed off in my mind anyway.

Edited July 18, 2020 by gemmaze

[zenataomm]

And that's just the waterside aspect of it.

Twice I have looked at available non towpath land.

Both had approved or a history of continuous use as moorings.

One had a wooden cabin, the other  (previously mentioned in this thread) had the remains of a caravan.

Both had all services laid on.

I'm not going into long boring details, both had a myriad of non acceptable conditions and issues.  None of which had anything to do with Waterways, moorings or residential status.

 

The first was managed by a trust, your investment bought you the cabin and use of the land rent free.  However, if you broke any of the myriad of conditions which were varied and petty they could make it damn near impossible for you to access your cabin.  The only way to escape the situation was sell your cabin.  You could only do that through the Trust.  Incidentally like caravan sites they could also condemn your cabin's condition and insist you replace with new. They weren't remotely bothered about moorings or what you tied up to the bank, that was Waterways issue and much simpler to handle.

The second was a parcel of land amongst others on a straight piece of canal.  You bought it freehold and most of the neighbours have a large shed or caravan/camper van, but everyone lives on their boat with approval and all above board.  The unacceptable issues for me in this case was that access was over somebody else's land, which could be withdrawn at any time and without cause. That may no longer be the case due to other developments within that area. 

However the other niggle was that all of the domestic services were laid across his land as well.  So not only did you pay the rate he had set your meters to, but he also controlled the availability of the services.

The third opportunity I learnt of but didn't even bother visiting was a  freehold strip of field waterside Grand Union.  The farmer concerned had shortened his field leaving a wide'ish strip along the water edge.  He put a gate in the new separating fence and allowed crossing of his field to get to the original gate out onto the road.  My issues here were it was down to the new owner to obtain Waterways permission to create moorings.  I knew there was an embarkment in that pound without any form of narrows, which could cause objections.  Ignoring the need to dredge it extensively.  The main problem was the reliance upon the farmer and his successors to continue to allow grace and favour access.

 

So my experience is Waterways may not be cut and dry and have their hoops you need to jump through.  There are distinct and non negotiable reasons for them refusing moorings.  Safety, navigation obstruction, pollution etc. and local authorities all have different concerns the least of which not being road access and planning.  Even taking those into account I wouldn't be comfortable leaving my day to day living needs in the hands of a third party or their successor  who could withdraw permission to park my car, get it close to my home, switch off my power or water etc.

[Movin' on]

and.............if you do find anything - don't talk about it on here!??

[Alan de Enfield]

7 hours ago, gemmaze said:

I can remember reading somewhere before about a chap who basically stated that whatever CRT claims he can claim double as there is no mooring without the land to access it only an anchorage so good luck with that one.

CRT backed off because the guy was a headache due to being one of these Magna Carta characters who simply would t entertain made up fictional acts of Parliament or pantomime as he put it.

They write these wonderful long winded paragraphs referencing this made up act and that made up act and some people go a long with it and some don’t either way it’s their choice I sit back and watch it all play out, my original question was about the land use and the terminology Im all to aware of CRT and how they carry on so I have that side of things boxed off in my mind anyway.

Ok, if you are a "Freeman of the Land" then all rules are 'off' and you are able to do whatever you want. These 'fictional acts of Parliament' can legally have no effect on your life, or how you choose to live it. 

 

Go for it, &, good luck. 

[gemmaze]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Ok, if you are a "Freeman of the Land" then all rules are 'off' and you are able to do whatever you want. These 'fictional acts of Parliament' can legally have no effect on your life, or how you choose to live it. 

 

Go for it, &, good luck. 

The Magna Carta has nothing to do with the Freeman type Alan and I have not said I am one of them I was referring to someone else who sent CRT packing.

If I bought the land my boat would be on sleepers while it was worked on so the mooring will be some time off for me hence why I’m not concerned with CRT just now.