Jump to content

continue cruising


illia

Featured Posts

3 hours ago, Tacet said:

All respect to Nigel, but I am struggling with the logic here.  Bona-fide navigation and living aboard are not mutually exclusive; you might well decide to live aboard because you wish to navigate widely; I did - having no interest at all in staying put.

 

The Act does not require that navigating is one's only intention - or even that it is one's primary intention.  In life, it is usual to have multiple intentions.

 

 

Of course they're not exclusive. Continuous cruising as a concept was invented primarily because some people wanted to cruise continually so didn't need a mooring, which was otherwise required. How else would they do that if they weren't living on the boat?

It wasn't intended so that hundreds, nay  thousands even, could shuttle a mile or two once a fortnight and clog up the system. That developed out of a rapacious housing system combined with a lack of moorings where people were allowed to live. Change the rules about moorings to make residence legal and the problem  if it is one, would go away. It makes no sense that you can pay to moor your boat somewhere but not be allowed to live on it unless you move it off the mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You obviously didn't get the memo.

Lady G posts are inviolate and should not be questioned irrespective of any falsehoods they may contain

 

^^^This^^^

 

Because Lady G is an "Honorary Bloke" on here.

 

:giggles:

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

By the letter of the law (as per Nigel Moore RIP) a liveaboard cannot actually legally be a CCer.

 

The intention behind the use of the boat is what makes it a CC boat.

A CC boat must be bonafide navigating (ie the intention is purely for navigation). A liveaboard has shown that their prime intention for the use of the boat is to live aboard and not for navigation.

 

Nigels comments :

 

In the Davies case : Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

and :

 

Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. 

 

 

I would disagree that liveaboard= not bona fide navigating.

At one extreme, if my aim was to travel over the entire canal system, it would make sense to live on the boat and the habitation would be secondary to the main objective.

At the other extreme, if I just want to use the boat as a dwelling place, and have no interest in boa\ting or canals, I'd be moving a kilometre or two every second week, and (as per Davies) it would be obvious that I was not engaging in bona fide navigation, or, at least, that I was only doing so for a couple of hours a week, so not "throughout the period".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Iain_S said:

I would disagree that liveaboard= not bona fide navigating.

At one extreme, if my aim was to travel over the entire canal system, it would make sense to live on the boat and the habitation would be secondary to the main objective.

At the other extreme, if I just want to use the boat as a dwelling place, and have no interest in boa\ting or canals, I'd be moving a kilometre or two every second week, and (as per Davies) it would be obvious that I was not engaging in bona fide navigation, or, at least, that I was only doing so for a couple of hours a week, so not "throughout the period".

 

It is going to be one of those that will only be resolved by going to court.

You are either living aboard because you are bona fide navigating, or, you are bone fide navigating because you are living aboard, or you are bona fide living aboard because you are navigating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/11/2021 at 18:48, Arthur Marshall said:

Of course they're not exclusive. Continuous cruising as a concept was invented primarily because some people wanted to cruise continually so didn't need a mooring, which was otherwise required. How else would they do that if they weren't living on the boat?

It wasn't intended so that hundreds, nay  thousands even, could shuttle a mile or two once a fortnight and clog up the system. That developed out of a rapacious housing system combined with a lack of moorings where people were allowed to live. Change the rules about moorings to make residence legal and the problem  if it is one, would go away. It makes no sense that you can pay to moor your boat somewhere but not be allowed to live on it unless you move it off the mooring.

It wouldn't make the problem go away, because the CMers either can't find residential moorings where they want to live (demand always exceeds supply) or don't want to/can't afford to pay for them even if they exist -- and I suspect the majority fall into the second class, not the first one...

 

As you say, the CC license was devised for a perfectly valid reason, it didn't make sense to force people to find and pay for a residential home mooring which they never used because they were actually Continuously Cruising round the system.

 

The boaters (allied with the NBTA and Nick) who want to basically take advantage of the CC license cost saving (and no need to find/pay for a residential home mooring) while not Continuously Cruising are trying to game the system, and persuade people that they should be allowed to continue doing this for spurious reasons.

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, IanD said:

It wouldn't make the problem go away, because the CMers either can't find residential moorings where they want to live (demand always exceeds supply) or don't want to/can't afford to pay for them even if they exist -- and I suspect the majority fall into the second class, not the first one...

 

As you say, the CC license was devised for a perfectly valid reason, it didn't make sense to force people to find and pay for a residential home mooring which they never used because they were actually Continuously Cruising round the system.

 

The boaters (allied with the NBTA and Nick) who want to basically take advantage of the CC license cost saving (and no need to find/pay for a residential home mooring) while not Continuously Cruising are trying to game the system, and persuade people that they should be allowed to continue doing this for spurious reasons.

I agree.  I would just add that it is possible to get financial assistance for those in difficulty paying for basic living costs in the same way one would if living in land based property.  It is not always easy to convince authorities especially local ones that the boaters situation is valid or indeed within their responsibility but persistence can get results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, churchward said:

I agree.  I would just add that it is possible to get financial assistance for those in difficulty paying for basic living costs in the same way one would if living in land based property.  It is not always easy to convince authorities especially local ones that the boaters situation is valid or indeed within their responsibility but persistence can get results.

True, but only if they can find a residential mooring, and the chances of this are zero in areas like Bath/London where the biggest problems are.

 

If CART (or anyone else) massively expanded the number of residential moorings somehow then the demand would simply go up, because it *is* a cheaper way to live in these places than on land, and we'd be back to square one.

 

Residential moorings on the canals simply can't solve the housing crisis (which is what this comes down to, in the end) or even make a significant dent in demand for cheap/affordable housing -- if all the in-demand areas (or even the entire canal network) had continuous double-moored boats on residential moorings, they might meet 1% of the demand...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, churchward said:

I agree.  I would just add that it is possible to get financial assistance for those in difficulty paying for basic living costs in the same way one would if living in land based property.  It is not always easy to convince authorities especially local ones that the boaters situation is valid or indeed within their responsibility but persistence can get results.

 

Indeed I have helped and guided a couple of boaters to obtain financial assistance.

In one case the LA agreed to pay, not only 100% of cost of the mooring, but also the BSS, Blacking and insurance as they were equivalent to costs of maintaining and insuring a house.

They would not fund the C&RT licence as there was no 'house' equivalent they could reference it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Illia has made of the contorted discussion that followed her post, but she seems to have disappeared. She certainly did seem to wish to buy a boat as a UK pied à terre (well, pied à l'eau really) that could be left free of charge when she is out of the country, and there is no way that could be reasonably argued as bona-fide continuous cruising. Her only solution would be to have an official mooring somewhere, but I suspect she would soon find running and maintenance issues difficult to keep on top of.

 

Tam

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/11/2021 at 10:35, IanD said:

It wouldn't make the problem go away, because the CMers either can't find residential moorings where they want to live (demand always exceeds supply) or don't want to/can't afford to pay for them even if they exist -- and I suspect the majority fall into the second class, not the first one...

 

As you say, the CC license was devised for a perfectly valid reason, it didn't make sense to force people to find and pay for a residential home mooring which they never used because they were actually Continuously Cruising round the system.

 

The boaters (allied with the NBTA and Nick) who want to basically take advantage of the CC license cost saving (and no need to find/pay for a residential home mooring) while not Continuously Cruising are trying to game the system, and persuade people that they should be allowed to continue doing this for spurious reasons.

There's two issues here, I think. One is simply that people can't always live where they would like to, either on land or water, but this is a fairly large island and there's room enough for everyone with a bit of adaptability.

The other is the housing situation, and that's a political problem and should be dealt with on that level. The trouble with that is that it is seen very differently by the two main parties, one being more interested in landowners and landlords,  and the other in the insecurity of modern accommodation. Both approaches are valid, and either could solve the problems if they would compromise. Neither will.

There always have been and always will be people living under the radar on boats (happily done it myself on "leisure" mooring). I still fail to see why, if you've paid for a place to moor your boat, you can't live on it. If there are no facilities  you do without, same as you do on land. Then the squatting boats can find farm or EOG moorings somewhere, pay their whack (housing benefit if nec)  and not get hassled. And CRT get their mooring fees from those who don't want to CC, get rid of the few who still game the system, real CCers whiz round, and everyone's happy.

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

There always have been and always will be people living under the radar on boats (happily done it myself on "leisure" mooring). I still fail to see why, if you've paid for a place to moor your boat, you can't live on it. If there are no facilities  you do without, same as you do on land.

Living "Under the radar" is a modern slant on it which came about on BWB waterways. We lived on boats on the tidal Thames in the late 50s and 60s with no-one giving a damn - Joyce Carey's "The Horse's Mouth" has artist Gulley Jimson doing the same in the 40s, as did many artists, actors and musicians, but it obviously took place long before that too. Like many things it works OK and is accepted when it is a rarity, but once it grows and becomes an inconvenience to others there gets to be a reaction against it. Unfortunately that's the case with groups hogging the towpath in certain areas - if that number of boats were spread around the system they'd be hardly noticed, especially if that number of boats were actually engaged in continuous cruising.

 

Tam

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

 Like many things it works OK and is accepted when it is a rarity, but once it grows and becomes an inconvenience to others there gets to be a reaction against it. Unfortunately that's the case with groups hogging the towpath in certain areas - if that number of boats were spread around the system they'd be hardly noticed, especially if that number of boats were actually engaged in continuous cruising.

 

Tam

 

Thats a very good point, but when 199 individual boats enter the enforcement process for 'non-movement' on a single canal (K&A) in a 3 month period it becomes an issue.

 

C&RT 'Project K&A Report'

During this period 199 unique boats were identified that did not move between two or more sightings Boat owners have been contacted by text, email or letter to remind them to move, or to contact the trust if there is a reason that they cannot move. 95 have been contacted once 40 have been contacted twice 16 have been contacted three times 18 have been contacted four or more times The Trust is in contact with the owners of the remaining 30 boats for a number of different reasons. Allowances were made when ice on the canal made movement difficult or dangerous. All of the boats that received multiple 14 day reminders in this period were already in the enforcement process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fulbourne got one of those CRT messages a couple of years ago for being spotted twice on 48 hour moorings at Bathampton a week or two apart. But CRT's system is incapable of recording that those two sightings were at different locations within the same stretch of moorings, the boat was facing the opposite way on the second occasion, and had been to Bristol between the two sightings.  All easily sorted out, but it may mean that not all of the 95 single contact incidences noted above were valid examples of non-compliance with the rules.

  • Greenie 3
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.