Jump to content

Continued Cruising and the 28 day rule?


gemmaze

Featured Posts

59 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Right, here we go

 

The 28 day rule does not relate to residency it relates to use of a pitch or an area for camping or caravaning, it isn't for 28 consecutive days either, but for any 28 days within a given period of time, nor does it matter whether it's one caravan for 28 days or 28 caravans for one day each -  On the 29th day, use of the pitch contravenes planning regulations. That is not a test of whether the location has become a residence, it is a test of whether it has become a pitch that needs planning consent.

 

A mooring, as has been demonstrated, is not subject to the same issue. A boat on a mooring for 29 days has not broken any planning regulation. 

 

The fact that a boat is a primary residence doesn't, of itself, make a mooring into a primary residence. If it did then every time a CC liveaboard stopped for the night they'd be in breach of planning regulations.  Mooring for the 29th night doesn't either, that rule doesn't apply to boats - think about it, how many people spend 29 nights aboard their boat in a non-residential marina - it's only just over a weekend every month. Think further, a boater making their way to and fro, staying one or two weeks at each location, would be contravening planning regulations when their total stay at the same place passed 28 nights, even if it was four separate weeks. You could cover a reasonable distance in a summer, say the entire southern Oxford, three times, does that make the third time you stop above Nell's Bridge against planning regulations? Or make that stop a residential mooring? No it doesn't. 

 

The test of whether a mooring is residential is whether that mooring is your primary residence, not how long you've stayed there, and "primary residence" would be tough call on a mooring that had been rented for five months with no option to extend. I think it would take appeals and case law to sort this one out, and I'm not at all sure it would go against CRT or the boater.

 

Thank you a clear and concise explanation.

 

It would appear that the AINA and many marinas have got the 'wrong end of the stick'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Exactly - they do become Residential moorings and do require Planning Consent, but, the enforcement process  moves so slowly that anyone is unlikely to be prosecuted . It doesn't however change the fact that C&RT are breaking the law.

 

I think I earlier gave the example of speeding, if you think you will get caught (cameras) you don't speed, if you think you can get away with it, you will speed, however it doesn't change the law.

Since boat moorings are sui generis then it could well be legal if the planning authority are persuaded. As it stands, the only thing that you can say with any reliability is that the illegality is your firm opinion. Short of an enforcement action and subsequent court case . . .  even then I suspect that it would not establish a general precedent and it would always be open to other applicants to justify their cause (that PP is not needed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The Roving Mooring Permit, that meant you paid C&RT a considerable sum to be able to  be able to 'overstay' and could use it anywhere, not just on 'a home mooring'. It was basically a mobile home mooring, 'get out of jail free' licence. If you had the licence, Enforcement would not be taken if you overstayed.

 

Extract 

 

Boaters are being offered a way out of the enforcement process that means paying a substantial extra fee (£800 per year for a 60 foot boat) to do what s.17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 already permits them to do. This is tantamount to demanding money with menaces.

CRT cannot lawfully create a ‘Roving Mooring Permit’. If it did so, it would be creating a third licensing category in between the two that were created by the British Waterways Act 1995. 17(3)(c) of the 1995 Act created two licence categories: (i) with a home mooring and (ii) without a home mooring. To create a third category would require change in the law, in other words an amendment to s.17(3)(c) of the British Waterways Act 1995.  CRT would be acting beyond its legal powers if it created a Roving Mooring Permit without such a change in the law. CRT maintains that the Roving Mooring Permit is a type of home mooring, not a new category of licence, but this is not borne out by the facts. It does not provide a place where the boat “can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left” as is required by s.17(3)(c)(i) of the 1995 Act,  ........................................

My understanding is that this is an argument advanced by the baton twirlers.

 

The CRT legal position, namely that a Roving Mooring Permit created no additional category, because it was a permit to keep the boat in a place (in fact several places) is perfectly good.

 

The RMP foundered on an entirely unconnected legal point, namely that it was only available to boaters who had previously been CCers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I will re-post this :

 

The question that arises is whether the mooring of such a vessel requires planning permission as a material change in the use of land. The point at which the mooring of a residential boat on a waterway departs from an ancillary use of the waterway (which usually would not need planning permission) and moves to a material change to residential use (which usually would need planning permission) needs to be decided on the basis of fact and degree as well as the particular circumstances of a case. The use of the mooring for this purpose is not included in any of the classes prescribed in the Use Classes Order. It is therefore sui generis (not C3 Dwellinghouses).

 

In this context it is also worth noting that planning permission is usually not required where the residential use of a mooring is for no more than 28 days in any calendar year, since such temporary use is permitted development under Part 4 of the GPDO13 .

Yeah, I read it the first time.

 

I will re-post this:

 

Specifically which law are CRT breaking?

 

How long would you say a boat could stay in one place, with someone living aboard, before planning permission for change of use would be required?

18 hours ago, Loddon said:

No matter how many times you post that 

Not complying with PP is not breaking the law, ignoring the enforcement order is.

Greenie.  Someone else grasps the difference.

18 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

Which was answered in my post;

 

 

No it wasn't.  All you said was that up to 28 days, no planning permission is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Right, here we go

 

The 28 day rule does not relate to residency it relates to use of a pitch or an area for camping or caravaning, it isn't for 28 consecutive days either, but for any 28 days within a given period of time, nor does it matter whether it's one caravan for 28 days or 28 caravans for one day each -  On the 29th day, use of the pitch contravenes planning regulations. That is not a test of whether the location has become a residence, it is a test of whether it has become a pitch that needs planning consent.

 

A mooring, as has been demonstrated, is not subject to the same issue. A boat on a mooring for 29 days has not broken any planning regulation. 

 

The fact that a boat is a primary residence doesn't, of itself, make a mooring into a primary residence. If it did then every time a CC liveaboard stopped for the night they'd be in breach of planning regulations.  Mooring for the 29th night doesn't either, that rule doesn't apply to boats - think about it, how many people spend 29 nights aboard their boat in a non-residential marina - it's only just over a weekend every month. Think further, a boater making their way to and fro, staying one or two weeks at each location, would be contravening planning regulations when their total stay at the same place passed 28 nights, even if it was four separate weeks. You could cover a reasonable distance in a summer, say the entire southern Oxford, three times, does that make the third time you stop above Nell's Bridge against planning regulations? Or make that stop a residential mooring? No it doesn't. 

 

The test of whether a mooring is residential is whether that mooring is your primary residence, not how long you've stayed there, and "primary residence" would be tough call on a mooring that had been rented for five months with no option to extend. I think it would take appeals and case law to sort this one out, and I'm not at all sure it would go against CRT or the boater.

Virtual greenie there.  I think you explained it better than I would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 13/08/2020 at 12:33, magpie patrick said:

Okay - I think there may be some confusion here

 

Caravan pitches in use for more than 28 days a year require planning consent

 

Moorings for boats on a navigation don't

 

Some years ago a planning inspector dismissed an enforcement notice served by (I think) Wiltshire County Council  on the basis that moored boats are part and parcel of the operation of a canal. 

 

With Caravans and boats it isn't the caravan or the boat the needs consent, it's the pitch or mooring  - the caravan or boat changing doesn't affect the need (or otherwise) for planning consent.

 

Moorings only need planning consent if (1) infrastructure is required for their provision, in which case the infrastructure needs consent or (2) they are, or have become, residential.

 

The above is  vox pop summary, not a binding ruling. There may be exceptions 

Thank you.

Can you define infrastructure in context, for example if the navigation,bankside and land access already exist does this mean consent is needed?

What does part and parcel of the canal mean legally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/08/2020 at 16:27, magpie patrick said:

Right, here we go

 

The 28 day rule does not relate to residency it relates to use of a pitch or an area for camping or caravaning, it isn't for 28 consecutive days either, but for any 28 days within a given period of time, nor does it matter whether it's one caravan for 28 days or 28 caravans for one day each -  On the 29th day, use of the pitch contravenes planning regulations. That is not a test of whether the location has become a residence, it is a test of whether it has become a pitch that needs planning consent.

 

A mooring, as has been demonstrated, is not subject to the same issue. A boat on a mooring for 29 days has not broken any planning regulation. 

 

The fact that a boat is a primary residence doesn't, of itself, make a mooring into a primary residence. If it did then every time a CC liveaboard stopped for the night they'd be in breach of planning regulations.  Mooring for the 29th night doesn't either, that rule doesn't apply to boats - think about it, how many people spend 29 nights aboard their boat in a non-residential marina - it's only just over a weekend every month. Think further, a boater making their way to and fro, staying one or two weeks at each location, would be contravening planning regulations when their total stay at the same place passed 28 nights, even if it was four separate weeks. You could cover a reasonable distance in a summer, say the entire southern Oxford, three times, does that make the third time you stop above Nell's Bridge against planning regulations? Or make that stop a residential mooring? No it doesn't. 

 

The test of whether a mooring is residential is whether that mooring is your primary residence, not how long you've stayed there, and "primary residence" would be tough call on a mooring that had been rented for five months with no option to extend. I think it would take appeals and case law to sort this one out, and I'm not at all sure it would go against CRT or the boater.

Thank you.

Is this reply you paraphrasing or is it law?

For example to my knowledge in planning the onus is on the accused to prove their position and provide evidence of not living at that place in question.

Providing an alternative address for example would satisfy this, but if one were a Bargee Traveller then the boat would be their residence, how would planning deal with this if at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/08/2020 at 11:26, mrsmelly said:

Ahh thanks for proving you are a freeloader, I wasn't sure at first and posted a nice and truthful post. The good news is you will not be around too long and hopefully before your attitude spoils it for the many who comply with the few easy rules. The human rights act is oft quoted by pee takers and members of such groups as the bargee non travelling society. I know Matty and although his politics are woefully lacking he is a bloke of integrity who would rather help than hinder ?

You appear to be a very angry bigoted person making judgemental comments towards not only myself but members of a minority group who you seem to wish to bring into the completely ignorant unfactual slur you are making towards me that is in fact completly without any factual substance, but thats bigots for you unfortunatley!

What saddens me even more is that its tolerated here which is a poor show indeed.

The human rights act exists for a very clear reason.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act

Edited by gemmaze
Arthur being helpful
  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

You appear to be a very angry biggoted person making judgemental comments towards not only myself but members of a minority group who you seem to wish to bring into the completely ignorant unfactual slur you are making towards me that is in fact completly without ay factual substance, but thats biggots for you unfortunatley!

What saddens me even more is that its tolerated here which is a poor show indeed.

The human rights act exists for a very clear reason.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act

Lol. Not angry at all, just bored with freeloaders not wanting to pay their way or abide by a few easy rules that are putting my 31 years of minority lifestyle in jeopordy. Whenever anyone asks about overstaying rules etc it simply means they don't want comply or contribute ?

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Lol. Not angry at all, just bored with freeloaders not wanting to pay their way or abide by a few easy rules that are putting my 31 years of minority lifestyle in jeopordy. Whenever anyone asks about overstaying rules etc it simply means they don't want comply or contribute ?

IM not sure what you find amusing.

You have attacked a minority group of travelers and made acusations based on thin air while the other members have understood the original question and provided intellectual appropiate replies.

Your sweeping statement about someone asking questions being guilty of being a freeloader is nothing more than ignorant.

Edited by gemmaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

IM not sure what you find amusing.

You have attacked a minority group of travelers and made acusations based on thin air while the other members have understood the original question and provided intellectual appropiate replies.

Your sweeping statement about someone asking questions being guilty of being a freeloader is nothing more than ignorant.

Sorry but you come across as someone trying to dodge the very few very easy rules that more newbies are trying each year. If you stopped using the term Bargee travellers it would help your cause as the nbta are a group that avoid travelling at all costs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Sorry but you come across as someone trying to dodge the very few very easy rules that more newbies are trying each year. If you stopped using the term Bargee travellers it would help your cause as the nbta are a group that avoid travelling at all costs 

I may just be someone who owns land next to the canal researching the possibility of providing leisure moorings without falling foul of the law but your bigot perspective refuses you to see such possibilities.

Managing to 'stay under the radar' because you managed to pay a license and move every two weeks does not make you above anyone else or of any superior social standing, all you have done is served yourself frankly.

Ironically if someone had dropped the N bomb you would be banished but dropping a slur towards Bargee Travellers appears acceptable behaviour.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/08/2020 at 20:55, gemmaze said:

if I got a 6 month over stay permit hypothetically for whatever reason, winter mooring, stoppage, health and so on, why would I not need planning permission for being on that land above the water beyond 28 days even if the situation was temporary?

 

5 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

I may just be someone who owns land next to the canal researching the possibility of providing leisure moorings without falling foul of the law

 

One of those statements would be more coherent than using both of them.

 

If you want to set up a leisure mooring, talk to Richard Delves in Leeds about your new business proposal.  If you want to overstay somewhere, don't talk to him!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

I may just be someone who owns land next to the canal researching the possibility of providing leisure moorings without falling foul of the law but your bigot perspective refuses you to see such possibilities.

Managing to 'stay under the radar' because you managed to pay a license and move every two weeks does not make you above anyone else or of any superior social standing, all you have done is served yourself frankly.

Ironically if someone had dropped the N bomb you would be banished but dropping a slur towards Bargee Travellers appears acceptable behaviour.

 

Perhaps because they don't seem to do what that word says!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

 

Ironically if someone had dropped the N bomb you would be banished but dropping a slur towards Bargee Travellers appears acceptable behaviour.

 

I dont find anything ironic about that statement, ridiculous perhaps...

 

I would think you will get far more advice and support off this organisation. http://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/

Just be careful they dont ask you to stand in court as a test case and put your home at risk, something they are quite good at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not a boater so got no skin in the game but OP does sound like a rule bender if not free loader... may be rephrasing the question and not asking secret tips on direct message will help.

Usually I blame the oldies for not being welcoming to new members but, I think some of the adverse reaction is not really without reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, restlessnomad said:

not a boater so got no skin in the game but OP does sound like a rule bender if not free loader... may be rephrasing the question and not asking secret tips on direct message will help.

Usually I blame the oldies for not being welcoming to new members but, I think some of the adverse reaction is not really without reason.

Present some fact,

tell me exactly what I am getting for free ?

My boat?

My license?

My tax return?

Present the hard facts of me doing anything against any rules or guidelines I have willingly entered into contract and signed up to.

Tell me one factual thing that I get for free to substantiate your slander.

You along with a few others here seem to think you have some kind of devine right to be personally abusive and that behaviour is unacceptable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, matty40s said:

I dont find anything ironic about that statement, ridiculous perhaps...

 

I would think you will get far more advice and support off this organisation. http://www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/

Just be careful they dont ask you to stand in court as a test case and put your home at risk, something they are quite good at.

matty40s Making derogatory unfactual hateful comments based on someones ethnicityincluding Travellers is no different to calling a person of colour the N word, but you and your mate seem to think you can split hairs when it comes to your racisim to suit your own distorted perspectives.

You are no friend of the canals and you certainly dont represent the values you pretend to represent on your business website in the way you have attacked me and basically trolled me.

You have chosen to be negaive rather than simply stick to facts or not answer at all.

You are the very fraud you claim to find so distasteful in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gemmaze said:

matty40s Making derogatory unfactual hateful comments based on someones ethnicityincluding Travellers is no different to calling a person of colour the N word, but you and your mate seem to think you can split hairs when it comes to your racisim to suit your own distorted perspectives.

You are no friend of the canals and you certainly dont represent the values you pretend to represent on your business website in the way you have attacked me and basically trolled me.

You have chosen to be negaive rather than simply stick to facts or not answer at all.

You are the very fraud you claim to find so distasteful in the first place.

Dear me.....calm down dear, you will have a nose bleed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

Present some fact,

tell me exactly what I am getting for free ?

My boat?

My license?

My tax return?

Present the hard facts of me doing anything against any rules or guidelines I have willingly entered into contract and signed up to.

Tell me one factual thing that I get for free to substantiate your slander.

You along with a few others here seem to think you have some kind of devine right to be personally abusive and that behaviour is unacceptable.

 

there are no fact, mere opinion, which you are free to ignore.

abusive... lol sure... all I mean to say was you sound dodgy... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

Present some fact,

tell me exactly what I am getting for free ?

My boat?

My license?

My tax return?

Present the hard facts of me doing anything against any rules or guidelines I have willingly entered into contract and signed up to.

Tell me one factual thing that I get for free to substantiate your slander.

You along with a few others here seem to think you have some kind of devine right to be personally abusive and that behaviour is unacceptable.

 

I get the impression that you are getting narky because people aren't agreeing with you.
 

 

1 minute ago, gemmaze said:

 

 

3 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

matty40s Making derogatory unfactual hateful comments based on someones ethnicityincluding Travellers is no different to calling a person of colour the N word, but you and your mate seem to think you can split hairs when it comes to your racisim to suit your own distorted perspectives.

You are no friend of the canals and you certainly dont represent the values you pretend to represent on your business website in the way you have attacked me and basically trolled me.

You have chosen to be negaive rather than simply stick to facts or not answer at all.

You are the very fraud you claim to find so distasteful in the first place.

Those comments show you know absolutely nothing about members of this Forum. 

 

2 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

A Traveller does not have to travel to be a Traveller but either way that does not excuse hatred and attacks.

 

I wonder what the dictionary definition is of a "traveller"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I get the impression that you are getting narky because people aren't agreeing with you.
 

 

Those comments show you know absolutely nothing about members of this Forum. 

 

I wonder what the dictionary definition is of a "traveller"?

There is a difference between slander and disagreeing.

Just as there is a difference between travelling on holiday as Jo Bloggs and a Traveller by Enthnicity.

5 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I get the impression that you are getting narky because people aren't agreeing with you.
 

 

Those comments show you know absolutely nothing about members of this Forum. 

Those comments are in direct response to the way the member has presented themselves so they are facts unlike the slander I have experienced which are based upon utter nonsense without any facts to substantiate them.

5 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

 

I wonder what the dictionary definition is of a "traveller"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Dear me.....calm down dear, you will have a nose bleed.

Shhhhh boy...

3 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

 

One of those statements would be more coherent than using both of them.

 

If you want to set up a leisure mooring, talk to Richard Delves in Leeds about your new business proposal.  If you want to overstay somewhere, don't talk to him!

They were not used at the same time in the context as you have presented them though were they!!

Edited by gemmaze
  • Unimpressed 1
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.