Continued Cruising and the 28 day rule?

[gemmaze]

9 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The other "meber" likes to try to wind me up, and follows me around.

Take advice from my first post or ignore me. 

I have no dissatisfied customers from work I have done for them.

 

Ok thank you.

9 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The other "meber" likes to try to wind me up, and follows me around.

Take advice from my first post or ignore me. 

I have no dissatisfied customers from work I have done for them.

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by gemmaze

[matty40s]

5 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

 

Ps  what is a 'meber'. See how easy it is to make a simple mistake?

Look at my quote and try again....

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Look at my quote and try again....

Try what again?

 

You misspelt 'member' an easy mistake to make. So did the poster you quoted.

 

Which is a simple mistake.

 

If you are reducing your argument to a spelling competition then there will be loads to go at on an internet forum.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[gemmaze]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Remember the forced withdrawal of the Roving Mooring Permit ?

 

It has to be withdrawn because it was deemed illegal.

 

The fact that "Winter Moorings" are granted, has on a number of occasions  been viewed as not complying with planning regulations, but each time the discussions are quietly closed with such comment as "why are you trying to stop a benefit that boaters get ?"

Is there any case law on that Alan?

[matty40s]

12 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Try what again?

 

You misspelt 'member' an easy mistake to make.

 

Which is what I said.

The OP misspelt, hence the many and continued edits to original posts.

Given up, stay as long as you like gemmaze, dont worry about messing it up for everybody else who likes to stay under the radar. Dont forget, you are the most important person. Hey ho.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Athy
Removing abusive language.

[Guest]

Just now, matty40s said:

The OP misspelt, hence the many and continued edits to original posts.

Given up, stay as long as you like gemmaze, dont worry about ******* it up for everybody else who likes to stay under the radar. Dont forget, you are the most important person. Hey ho.

And matty as ever reverts to type when his argument runs out of steam.

 

 

 

 

[dabchic23]

Somewhat confused as to why the issue of staying somewhere for 6 months is being worried about.. If you anticipate in advance the need to stay put somewhere for this length of time perhaps the decision should be taken to get a permanent mooring. Or have I missed the point somewhere? 

 

[gemmaze]

1 minute ago, dabchic23 said:

Somewhat confused as to why the issue of staying somewhere for 6 months is being worried about.. If you anticipate in advance the need to stay put somewhere for this length of time perhaps the decision should be taken to get a permanent mooring. Or have I missed the point somewhere? 

Its not so much as a worry but an exploration of planning law.

Some people simply cant afford a permanent mooring or like myself at the time got caught out due to circumstances and unexpected emergency repairs beyond my control with no morrings available, so thankfully CRT grant an overstay, the point being anything longer than 28 days in any other secnario requires planning permission but CRT somehow manage to swerve this.

1 minute ago, dabchic23 said:

 

 

[gemmaze]

29 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The OP misspelt, hence the many and continued edits to original posts.

Given up, stay as long as you like gemmaze, dont worry about fucking it up for everybody else who likes to stay under the radar. Dont forget, you are the most important person. Hey ho.

Stay as long as I like?

What are you on ?

IM not staying anywhere at present I am having a discussion.

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by gemmaze

[gemmaze]

28 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

And matty as ever reverts to type when his argument runs out of steam.

Quite funny really as I seem to have let the cat out the bag amongst his naughty little pigeon operation haha.

 

 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

8 hours ago, gemmaze said:

Its not so much as a worry but an exploration of planning law.

Some people simply cant afford a permanent mooring or like myself at the time got caught out due to circumstances and unexpected emergency repairs beyond my control with no morrings available, so thankfully CRT grant an overstay, the point being anything longer than 28 days in any other secnario requires planning permission but CRT somehow manage to swerve this.

 

I think you have misread the detail that was cited earlier. (This often happens with folk trying to discover the boundaries of mooring rules!)

 

As the quote stated, stays of less than 28 days do not require PP. That is the easy bit.

 

Stays longer than 28 days may require PP depending on the circumstances. PP is never a guaranteed process whatever the application - hence planning consultants can make a good living giving applicants advice. 

 

In the specific case you described, it seems very unlikely that a Planning Authority would wish to take enforcement action (until then nothing illegal has happened, only if the enforcement order is ignored) Prima facie there is a good case for saying that boaters who normally CC (within the rules this is legitimate) but who have a special case to plead to CaRT are still within the context of mooring as part of their lawful use of the canal. Remember, that CC is dependent on convincing the Board (now CaRT) that the boater is making a genuine progressive journey. There are no absolutes in this matter either. What is certain is that ability to pay does not come into the boating rules. That is a matter for other authorities and is addressed by such means as Council Tax rebates and Rent subsidies.

 

All of this is, in my view, a good and wholesome thing as it allows flexibility for those concerned to take into account specific circumstances and to offer justice in the broadest sense. Prescriptive rules inevitably remove that flexibility and lead to hard cases. Push for greater clarity and it is very likely that the overstay 'permission' described would become a thing of the past and, again in my view, that would not be a good thing. However, pushing at boundaries too obstinately inevitably endangers the status quo. (You want a clear rule? OK, so here is the rule but it may not be the one you wanted!)

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, gemmaze said:

Is there any case law on that Alan?

One of the Canal 'Associations' took legal advice and it was concluded that it was illegal, the information was presented to C&RT, who then took legal advice (although why they hadn't already and just 'did it anyway' is beyond comprehension) and their advisors agreed that it was illegal so the permits were withdrawn.

 

As far as I am aware it never got to a court.

[Rambling Boater]

13 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

However, pushing at boundaries too obstinately inevitably endangers the status quo. (You want a clear rule? OK, so here is the rule but it may not be the one you wanted!)

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying the OP is pushing at boundaries, but there are thousands of CC'ers who enjoy the freedom to roam the country without having to have a mooring they would never use. Think of the consequences if the flexible wording of the current law changed and we went back to all of us having to have a home mooring.

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Rambling Boater

[mrsmelly]

9 hours ago, gemmaze said:

Its not so much as a worry but an exploration of planning law.

Some people simply cant afford a permanent mooring or like myself at the time got caught out due to circumstances and unexpected emergency repairs beyond my control with no morrings available, so thankfully CRT grant an overstay, the point being anything longer than 28 days in any other secnario requires planning permission but CRT somehow manage to swerve this.

 

To be honest if someone can't afford a mooring and are staying in one place then they shouldn't be on a boat. We all have to comply with the very few very relaxed easy rules, I have managed full time for over 30 years. I can't afford a bugatti vayron so I don't have one. Having children has been happening since day one but today is sometimes used as some sort of specialist excuse to flout the rules. No I am not having a go but as Matty says at present we are faced with too many new liveaboards flouting too many rules rather than playing the game and staying under the radar,  this in the fullness of time will ruin many peoples way of life as further rules will be weeded in. ?

[Captain Pegg]

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

One of the Canal 'Associations' took legal advice and it was concluded that it was illegal, the information was presented to C&RT, who then took legal advice (although why they hadn't already and just 'did it anyway' is beyond comprehension) and their advisors agreed that it was illegal so the permits were withdrawn.

 

As far as I am aware it never got to a court.

It’s not clear to what you are referring here. What was illegal and was withdrawn?

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

It’s not clear to what you are referring here. What was illegal and was withdrawn?

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,  ........................................

Edited August 13, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[gemmaze]

6 minutes 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,  ........................................

So does this still exist Alan or is it under the table?

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour 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,  ........................................

Thanks. I wondered if you were referring to the winter mooring permits which are of course still available. I don’t honestly recall the above, possibly pre-dates my boat ownership.

 

JP

Edited August 13, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[gemmaze]

49 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

To be honest if someone can't afford a mooring and are staying in one place then they shouldn't be on a boat. We all have to comply with the very few very relaxed easy rules, I have managed full time for over 30 years. I can't afford a bugatti vayron so I don't have one. Having children has been happening since day one but today is sometimes used as some sort of specialist excuse to flout the rules. No I am not having a go but as Matty says at present we are faced with too many new liveaboards flouting too many rules rather than playing the game and staying under the radar,  this in the fullness of time will ruin many peoples way of life as further rules will be weeded in. ?

Ohh the double standards are precious.

Thankfully CRT and the law disagress with you hence the equality act and the human rights act otherwise based on your mindset along with those who have appaluded you the same mindset would be applied to all those illegally living on leisure moorings without full planning permission and those running such oprations like Matty who seem to think their piss taking is special because they have paid to take the mick.

One must ensure their soap box comes with a rope incase they slip on their own delcious delusions of integrity and f themselves with it.

Good grief whatever next haha.

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Thanks. I wondered if you were referring to the winter mooring permits which are of course still available. I don’t honestly recall the above, possibly pre-dates my boat ownership.

2014

[Naughty Cal]

I assume you are not getting the responses you expected based on your posts?

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, gemmaze said:

So does this still exist Alan or is it under the table?

No, it was completely withdrawn.

 

As stated earlier, the Winter Moorings option is available but the legality of just using a "length of bankside for 4, 5, or 6 months without Residential PP" is certainly outside of C&RTs Permitted Development powers and is questionable.

 

Takes us 'full circle'.

3 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

I assume you are not getting the responses you expected based on your posts?

 

I'm thinking that few have actually read and understood the OPs question.

 

It asks how C&RT can allow moorings of Residential boats for longer than 28 days without infringing the 28 day Planning Rule.

 

There seems to be a feeling that the question was "how can I avoid paying for a mooring"

[PhilR]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Remember, that CC is dependent on convincing the Board (now CaRT) that the boater is making a genuine progressive journey.

 

 

The intent of the last three words seems to have been relaxed considerably in recent years

Edited August 13, 2020 by PhilR
typo

[doratheexplorer]

14 hours ago, gemmaze said:

Does the planning 28 day rule apply to boaters who are not moving but usually move every 2 weeks as required in CRT terms?

 

Going back to the original question, the simple answer is no, it does not apply.  This is what the relevant legislation actually says in Schedule 2, part 4 of the GPDO;

 

"Class B – temporary use of land
Permitted development

B.  The use of any land for any purpose for not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, of which not more than 14 days in total may be for the purposes of—

(a)the holding of a market;

(b)motor car and motorcycle racing including trials of speed, and practising for these activities,

and the provision on the land of any moveable structure for the purposes of the permitted use."

 

The relevant point here from a planning perspective is that online mooring of boats is a long standing and established activity which is considered an ancillary activity to the canal's use as a navigation.  Therefore there is no 'temporary use'.  Planning legislation places no restriction on how long a moored may stay moored on the towpath.  Your would need to look at waterways legislation (acts and by-laws) for that. 

 

If however, a person is living permanently on the boat, then the situation is a little different, but it still has nothing to do with the 28 day rule.  Whether or not a change of use application is required to C3 Dwellinghouse is a matter of judgement (planners like to use the phrase 'fact and degree').

 

Even if the LA decides that a residential change has happened, they still may well choose to do nothing.  Planning enforcement is a discretionary not a statutory function.  Considerations may include; Is there any harm being caused?  Would a prosecution succeed?  Can the matter be resolved using other legislation?

 

The answers to these three questions would likely be; Probably not.  No.  Yes.

 

In other words, this scenario just leads down a pointless rabbit-hole. 

 

Imagine someone did plonk themselves on a bit of towpath and then applied to the LA for residential planning permission?  There's nothing to stop them.  They pay the fee and submit the form and supporting documents, and sign the correct certificate of ownership and notify the owner (CRT).  Now imagine, that miraculously, their application met with all local and national policies, site allocations etc.  The Council would probably approve it.  Would the boat be able to stay indefinitely?  Of course not.  Unless CRT gave permission for them to and charged a mooring fee.

 

On a seperate point, the roving permit was withdrawn because it amounted to extortion.  CRT were 'selling' something but all the were really selling was immunity from enforcement.  Nothing to do with planning rules.

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, gemmaze said:

Ohh the double standards are precious.

Thankfully CRT and the law disagress with you hence the equality act and the human rights act otherwise based on your mindset along with those who have appaluded you the same mindset would be applied to all those illegally living on leisure moorings without full planning permission and those running such oprations like Matty who seem to think their piss taking is special because they have paid to take the mick.

One must ensure their soap box comes with a rope incase they slip on their own delcious delusions of integrity and f themselves with it.

Good grief whatever next haha.

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 ?