Parking on the Gloucester Sharpness

[Alan de Enfield]

45 minutes ago, sharpness said:

See Case 966 re CCing on the G&S.

 http://www.waterways-ombudsman.org/publications/case-summaries/2017-18-case-summaries/

 

So, the Ombudsman has decreed that you cannot CC on the G&S

[David Mack]

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So, the Ombudsman has decreed that you cannot CC on the G&S

The Ombudsman decreed that you could not CC on the G&S when the required range of movement was 15-20 km. CRT now require a range of 20 miles, so it is now even harder to CC on the G&S.

[Lewisdb]

3 hours ago, frangar said:

Tough! It’s a forum.  If you don’t like others replying don’t ask a question 

You might try answering the questions.

14 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The Ombudsman decreed that you could not CC on the G&S when the required range of movement was 15-20 km. CRT now require a range of 20 miles, so it is now even harder to CC on the G&S.

But doing 200 miles on other parts of the network and spending 3-4 months on the G&S would be fine?

[David Mack]

5 minutes ago, Lewisdb said:

 

But doing 200 miles on other parts of the network and spending 3-4 months on the G&S would be fine?

 

It might be, or it might not. The rules are not precise. The Ombudsman case linked to show how CRT interpreted the rules in one particular case. But remember, the obligation is on the boater to satisfy CRT, not the other way round.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, Lewisdb said:

You might try answering the questions.

But doing 200 miles on other parts of the network and spending 3-4 months on the G&S would be fine?

 

It would be fine in your interpretation, maybe before you get too deeply into expenditure, ask C&RT if they would consider it acceptable.

 

If they do, then you have the answer in writing and can show any Enforcement officer if questioned.

 

It'd be easier than going thru all the stress of Enforcement, restricted licences, court cases, losing your boat etc. whilst you argue you are correct.

[Murflynn]

isn't everybody missing the point?

 

if the OP intends to continuously cruise then why would he need to park a car anywhere near the canal?    get a bike and keep it on the foredeck.

 

is it any wonder that folk get pee'd off when a newcomer clearly wants to use one of our waterways as a cheap living space by suggesting he will somehow successfully navigate the requirements set by the Trust, albeit in the most unlikely of locations?

[Graham Davis]

11 hours ago, Lewisdb said:

But doing 200 miles on other parts of the network and spending 3-4 months on the G&S would be fine?

My reading of the current rules are no it would not be fine.
That "pattern" is NOT continuously cruising is it?
Sorry, but if you want to do it like that I suggest that you are going to have to find and pay for a permanent mooring on the G & S. 

[Murflynn]

11 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

My reading of the current rules are no it would not be fine.
That "pattern" is NOT continuously cruising is it?
Sorry, but if you want to do it like that I suggest that you are going to have to find and pay for a permanent mooring on the G & S. 

......................  with a car parking space.    if you don't pay local council tax it is unfair to park your car in a nearby housing estate.

[Captain Pegg]

13 hours ago, Lewisdb said:

But doing 200 miles on other parts of the network and spending 3-4 months on the G&S would be fine?

What sort of boat will this be? If it’s a widebeam your entire connected cruising range on CRT controlled waters may only be 60 miles or so and most of that would be river navigation with a third of it not suitable for mooring. That could complicate things.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

What sort of boat will this be? If it’s a widebeam your entire connected cruising range on CRT controlled waters may only be 60 miles or so and most of that would be river navigation with a third of it not suitable for mooring. That could complicate things.

If he is prepared to do the Sharpness-Bristol route he will also have access to the K&A, and the GU, Lee & Stort under CRT as well as the Thames, Wey, Basingstoke, and Warwickshire Avon as non CRT waterways. Plenty of mileage for a genuine CCer.

[doratheexplorer]

17 hours ago, sharpness said:

See Case 966 re CCing on the G&S.

 http://www.waterways-ombudsman.org/publications/case-summaries/2017-18-case-summaries/

Living where we do if we use the car we have to cross at least one of the bridges, I can only think of 2 of the 18 with 2 way traffic, REA bridge that Dora used as an example is no way 2 way (except for pushbikes). The 2 which are 2 way are the only lift bridges, the rest are swing bridges, all manned at this time of year, some handraulic,  some powered.

The only parking which I can think of  which is "unchecked" and used regularly by boaters long term  is roadside N of Parkend Bridge. 

I didn't say the bridge was 2 way.  I said the road leading to it is 2 way, which it clearly is.

[TheBiscuits]

3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

If he is prepared to do the Sharpness-Bristol route he will also have access to the K&A, and the GU, Lee & Stort under CRT as well as the Thames, Wey, Basingstoke, and Warwickshire Avon as non CRT waterways. Plenty of mileage for a genuine CCer.

 

True, but Stourport locks to Sharpness junction is about 58 miles.  As CRT claim not to be too bothered above a 20 mile range that's plenty far enough.

 

The trick is timing it correctly so you get logged at the various points along the route.

 

I have also wondered how far apart CRT's system thinks Tewkesbury and Stratford-upon-Avon basin are.  It's not a long journey via the Warwickshire Avon, but the logging system might count it as being via Worcester on CRT waters ...

[doratheexplorer]

For those who didn't click the link:

 

"Case No 966 – complaint about the issue of a restricted six month licence for a boat without a home mooring

Mr and Mrs D are liveaboard boaters, based in Gloucester on the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal (G&S). As they do not have a home mooring they are subject to the Trust’s continuous cruising requirements. The Trust was not satisfied with the boat’s cruising pattern and decided only to allow them, on renewal of the licence, to have a restricted six month licence. In making their complaint, Mr and Mrs D said that the Trust restriction did not take into account the fact that the G&S is only 16 miles long, and that to cruise further meant taking their boat onto the River Severn, which they regarded as potentially hazardous. They also said that the Trust had not provided a full explanation for the restriction, that there was no clear guidance about what a “neighbourhood” or “locality” was, that the tone of the Trust’s correspondence was threatening, and that they were being discriminated against due to their age (i.e. that they are still working and that it is difficult to get the time to cruise further afield).

The Trust’s evidence showed that the majority of the cruising had been within a 15 km range, although there were two periods when the boat was sighted outside this range, which were at the end of April 2016 and in the middle of June 2016. The Trust said that the 15km cruising range did not meet the requirement at the time which was that the cruising range should be not less than 15-20km over the period of the licence. While it accepted that there two periods when this range was exceeded, it did not meet the requirement that the stated range should be met or exceeded “over the period of the licence”.

As to whether allowances should be made for boaters on the G&S because of the geographic limitations, the Trust said that while it did accept that there were some difficulties in cruising away from the canal, it did not accept that the difficulties were of such a nature that it was prepared to reduce the maximum cruising range. That is a policy matter for the Trust which I cannot influence.

The Trust’s key point was that no matter how frequently a boat moved, it could not remain on the G&S for the licence period and be compliant. It said that compliance could be achieved only if the boat left the G&S. It added that in this case the time spent away from the G&S was not sufficient to achieve compliance.

I concluded that the Trust did recognise the difficulties of navigating beyond the extremes of the canal, in particular at the southern end, where exit into the Severn estuary would require a pilot. However, while it also accepted that a northbound exit might be difficult in certain conditions, it did not accept that navigation up the River Severn was not possible.

I was satisfied that the Trust had, either before or during the complaint process, provided an explanation of why the complainants had been issued with a restricted licence, and also what a neighbourhood or locality was.

On the issue of whether the Trust had discriminated against the complainants because of their age, and the fact that they work, I did not conclude that it had. Under the Equality Act 2010 age is a protected characteristic. However, I could not see that the Trust could be regarded as having discriminated against the complainants on the basis of their age. The complainants said that the discrimination was based on the fact that they still worked, but being employed is not a protected characteristic. I said that given that the Equality Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of age (apart from any exceptions which must be justified) there could be no link between age and being employed, adding that a person above the state pension age, for example, but still in employment, could equally make the same argument.

Having considered all aspects of the complaint, I did not uphold it. The complainants said that they had a widebeam boat and that it was difficult to find permanent moorings, but I could not regard that as a reason for the Trust to disapply its continuous cruising guidance."

 

As the OP has made clear, he wouldn't be cc'ing solely on the G&S and only occasionally popping onto the Severn, so it looks to me like he'd be fine.

 

The issue about him parking his car is entirely irrelevant unless you're a bored and interfering nimby.  As long as he's taxed and insured he can park wherever he damn well likes.  Occupants on housing estates near canals do not own the roads which serve the estate, nor do they have any control over who uses them.  It's bad enough when I have to explain this to residents who see me as some kind of undesirable, but it really saddens me that we have boaters on here defending that position.  I cruise with a car.  I'm considerate where I park but I'm not going to be bullied away from parking legally on the public highway.  The last time that happened, the householder was determined that I shouldn't park anywhere near the houses, even though I wasn't causing any problems to anyone.  His opinion was that as I was a boater, I should park down the end of the lane, which would have mean't blocking a gateway which provided access to emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulance).  His defence?  That gate never gets used.  He clearly couldn't grasp how emergencies work.

[Captain Pegg]

25 minutes ago, David Mack said:

If he is prepared to do the Sharpness-Bristol route he will also have access to the K&A, and the GU, Lee & Stort under CRT as well as the Thames, Wey, Basingstoke, and Warwickshire Avon as non CRT waterways. Plenty of mileage for a genuine CCer.

I recognise that but I’m not sure about the reality of including the Severn estuary as part of a CCing regime or more particularly how CRT take into account time spent off their network when assessing compliance.

 

I appreciate we can no more tell people categorically what does work than we can what doesn’t work.
 

It does strike me though that a very literal application of the law regarding boats without home moorings would give a progressive journey along the G&S and back again of about 4 months duration. Do the same northwards to Worcester and Stourport, and maybe up the canals thereafter if the boat is capable, and the basics of a legitimate cruising regime are there.

 

The difficulty is that Gloucester to Tewkesbury is merely transit.

 

JP

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

The issue about him parking his car is entirely irrelevant unless you're a bored and interfering nimby.  As long as he's taxed and insured he can park wherever he damn well likes.  Occupants on housing estates near canals do not own the roads which serve the estate, nor do they have any control over who uses them.  It's bad enough when I have to explain this to residents who see me as some kind of undesirable, but it really saddens me that we have boaters on here defending that position.  I cruise with a car.  I'm considerate where I park but I'm not going to be bullied away from parking legally on the public highway.  The last time that happened, the householder was determined that I shouldn't park anywhere near the houses, even though I wasn't causing any problems to anyone.  His opinion was that as I was a boater, I should park down the end of the lane, which would have mean't blocking a gateway which provided access to emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulance).  His defence?  That gate never gets used.  He clearly couldn't grasp how emergencies work.

Technically and legally incorrect. 
Any vehicle left on the Highway can be deemed to be "causing an obstruction" even if left in a legal area. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

As the OP has made clear, he wouldn't be cc'ing solely on the G&S and only occasionally popping onto the Severn, so it looks to me like he'd be fine.

 

The issue about him parking his car is entirely irrelevant unless you're a bored and interfering nimby.  As long as he's taxed and insured he can park wherever he damn well likes.  Occupants on housing estates near canals do not own the roads which serve the estate, nor do they have any control over who uses them.  It's bad enough when I have to explain this to residents who see me as some kind of undesirable, but it really saddens me that we have boaters on here defending that position.  I cruise with a car.  I'm considerate where I park but I'm not going to be bullied away from parking legally on the public highway.  The last time that happened, the householder was determined that I shouldn't park anywhere near the houses, even though I wasn't causing any problems to anyone.  His opinion was that as I was a boater, I should park down the end of the lane, which would have mean't blocking a gateway which provided access to emergency vehicles (police, fire, ambulance).  His defence?  That gate never gets used.  He clearly couldn't grasp how emergencies work.

We had a similar issue come up on our estate but not our particular road.

 

We have a pub nearby and pre lockdown it hosted quite large functions including weddings and wakes. Their car park is puny so the guests often park in the entrance road to the estate.

 

One of the residents got frustrated one Saturday and she insisted the police attend as she claimed access to the estate by emergency vehicles was prevented. The police didn't agree and took no further action against the drivers apart from the ones who were obstructing the pavement. The ones on the pavement were given a 'stern talking to' and had to move their vehicles.

 

Their stance was that as long as there was no actual obstruction to the highway being caused or a parking prohibition in place there was no offence being committed.

 

She argued it was 'difficult' to get off her drive and the stance on that was, 'but you can get off, yes?', end of that little avenue of complaint. (The copper did actually say that obstructing a driveway doesnt actually constitute an obstruction of the highway any way).

 

It might irritate and annoy some people but that is not an offence.

[Captain Pegg]

10 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

We had a similar issue come up on our estate but not our particular road.

 

We have a pub nearby and pre lockdown it hosted quite large functions including weddings and wakes. Their car park is puny so the guests often park in the entrance road to the estate.

 

One of the residents got frustrated one Saturday and she insisted the police attend as she claimed access to the estate by emergency vehicles was prevented. The police didn't agree and took no further action against the drivers apart from the ones who were obstructing the pavement. The ones on the pavement were given a 'stern talking to' and had to move their vehicles.

 

Their stance was that as long as there was no actual obstruction to the highway being caused or a parking prohibition in place there was no offence being committed.

 

She argued it was 'difficult' to get off her drive and the stance on that was, 'but you can get off, yes?', end of that little avenue of complaint. (The copper did actually say that obstructing a driveway doesnt actually constitute an obstruction of the highway any way).

 

It might irritate and annoy some people but that is not an offence.

It’s not about whether an offence has been committed. You have a right to ‘pass and repass’ a public highway which means you have no right to stop. Hence you can be moved on. The reality though is borne out by your example above. The police are unlikely to take action unless you are genuinely causing a nuisance.

 

JP

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

It’s not about whether an offence has been committed. You have a right to ‘pass and repass’ a public highway which means you have no right to stop. Hence you can be moved on. The reality though is borne out by your example above. The police are unlikely to take action unless you are genuinely causing a nuisance.

 

JP

I hear what you are saying but surely the only way that it can be shown that a person is causing or has caused an actual real obstruction to the highway is if it is enforced?

 

How do you enforce it if no offence is commited by the act of obstructing? What other tools are available?

Edited August 19, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[matty40s]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I hear what you are saying but surely the only way that it can be shown that a person is causing or has caused an actual real obstruction to the highway is if it is enforced?

 

How do you enforce it if no offence is commited by the act of obstructing? What other tools are available?

Winch, or jack and wheel nut removal, bricks. 

They wont park there again if you stack their wheels next to the car when they park there, or drag it /bump it between two lampposts or signs.

 

[Captain Pegg]

26 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I hear what you are saying but surely the only way that it can be shown that a person is causing or has caused an actual real obstruction to the highway is if it is enforced?

 

How do you enforce it if no offence is commited by the act of obstructing? What other tools are available?

That argument seems backwards to me. Surely you have to observe that an obstruction has been caused before you do the enforcement. It’s pretty hard to show that there’s an obstruction once you’ve towed the vehicle.
 

My point though was that you don’t actually need to have committed any offence to be required to move along a public highway. Obstruction is only an offence if it is done wilfully. If you breakdown in a motorway contraflow you’re going to get towed whether you want to or not, but you won’t get fined or penalty points added to your licence.

 

JP

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

That argument seems backwards to me. Surely you have to observe that an obstruction has been caused before you do the enforcement. It’s pretty hard to show that there’s an obstruction once you’ve towed the vehicle.
 

My point though was that you don’t actually need to have committed any offence to be required to move along a public highway. Obstruction is only an offence if it is done wilfully. If you breakdown in a motorway contraflow you’re going to get towed whether you want to or not, but you won’t get fined or penalty points added to your licence.

 

JP

We are on the same page I think?

 

So if a boater leaves their car and goes boating but doesnt leave it in way that can be shown it was done willfully to cause a problem they are OK.

 

Which of course is perfectly sensible.

 

Ps I have been in an accident in a motorway contra flow and the speed with which I was scooped up was impressive.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Captain Pegg]

16 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

We are on the same page I think?

 

So if a boater leaves their car and goes boating but doesnt leave it in way that can be shown it was done willfully to cause a problem they are OK.

 

Which of course is perfectly sensible.

 

Ps I have been in an accident in a motorway contra flow and the speed with which I was scooped up was impressive.

 

 

I thought we were in agreement on that from the outset. Maybe I didn’t understand your post before last. I don’t always understand my own when I re-read them.

[Guest]

?

[Graham Davis]

13 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

We are on the same page I think?

 

So if a boater leaves their car and goes boating but doesnt leave it in way that can be shown it was done willfully to cause a problem they are OK.

 

Which of course is perfectly sensible.

 

Ps I have been in an accident in a motorway contra flow and the speed with which I was scooped up was impressive.

 

 

No. Anything parked on the highway in any way can be considered an obstruction at any time. 

For example:
1/ Our town has a street market every Saturday morning. Any car that is parked in the street that morning can be removed (and has been) because they were obstructing the Highway and impinging on the Market space.
 

2/ Boater leaves his car on the side of the road whilst going for a cruise. Whilst away road needs to be repaired and it's in the way. The car is therefore causing an obstruction and can be removed. 

 

[matty40s]

3. Boater moors up and leaves it for 2 weeks to go away in his car. CRT are going to dredge the section. CRT cancel the dredging and tarmac the towpath introducing duck crossing signals and voles tunnels.