Intensive use of mooring - definition

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

It's the eighth one on the list at time of posting, "Residential Use of Inland Waterways – An Advisory Document"

 

https://aina.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/RUIW-Feb11.pdf

 

Thanks. 

 

So an advisory document, not a document with legal authority or legal basis.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2021 by MtB
Finesse it.

[dmr]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Thanks. 

 

So an advisory document, not a document with legal authority or legal basis.

 

 

 

and at least partly negated by the successful planning appeal by BW over the Ladies Bridge moorings a few years ago.

[magpie patrick]

2 hours ago, dmr said:

Magpie,   I am a bit surprised that you are asking this as I had thought that you were a bit of an expert on canal planning issues.

I confess that I have a vested interest in these things and have spent some time trying to learn about the legalities of leisure vs residential moorings.

 

 

I think you do me a slight disservice  I'm fully aware of both planning law and planning in practice, I was asking what contractual conditions individual marinas and mooring operators had to define heavy or high intensity use, preferably with examples - people have given me that. 

The planning definition of residential has remarkably little to do with how much time one spends on board, whereas the inclusion of high intensity user category within a mooring agreement, at a price, has everything to do with it. 

[pearley]

17 hours ago, MartynG said:

I don't understand why anyone wants a boat but doesn't want to travel anywhere on it but I am grateful to those people for not cluttering the waterways with their craft.

 

There are several 12ft 6in wide boats in our marina. Mile downstream the lock is 11ft 11ins. The upstream lock, 2 miles away is 13ft 1in but after another mile it is 11ft 1in.

[dmr]

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

 

I think you do me a slight disservice  I'm fully aware of both planning law and planning in practice, I was asking what contractual conditions individual marinas and mooring operators had to define heavy or high intensity use, preferably with examples - people have given me that. 

The planning definition of residential has remarkably little to do with how much time one spends on board, whereas the inclusion of high intensity user category within a mooring agreement, at a price, has everything to do with it. 

 

Sorry, I thought it was a compliment 😀

[ditchcrawler]

36 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Sorry, I thought it was a compliment 😀

I saw where you were coming from. Mind you several people read me the wrong way.

 

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 

The planning definition of residential has remarkably little to do with how much time one spends on board, whereas the inclusion of high intensity user category within a mooring agreement, at a price, has everything to do with it. 

 

So marinas' terms and conditions with regard to the difference between 'high intensity' use and normal leisure use are not really determined by planning issues.  Marinas are commercial organisations, and their aim is to make money. So presumably they see 'high intensity' users as a category of customer who is willing and able to pay more in exchange for certain benefits. And each marina (or marina group) determines its own threshold between the two categories, and the corresponding additional charge, so as to maximise their return. No reason then why the same criteria should apply in different marinas.

[Mike Todd]

13 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

So marinas' terms and conditions with regard to the difference between 'high intensity' use and normal leisure use are not really determined by planning issues.  Marinas are commercial organisations, and their aim is to make money. So presumably they see 'high intensity' users as a category of customer who is willing and able to pay more in exchange for certain benefits. And each marina (or marina group) determines its own threshold between the two categories, and the corresponding additional charge, so as to maximise their return. No reason then why the same criteria should apply in different marinas.

More likely somewhere in between: the T&Cs will be set within the context of planning law but are not defined it. It may well depend on the characteristics of the market at which the marina aims.

[David Mack]

4 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

More likely somewhere in between: the T&Cs will be set within the context of planning law but are not defined it. It may well depend on the characteristics of the market at which the marina aims.

Under planning law a mooring may be defined as either residential or non residential. Marina 'high intensity' users may in practice be liveaboards with no other home, but in planning terms are still regarded as non residential. In some cases this may be because they spend enough time away from the marina to avoid the need for a specifically residential mooring, or they may regularly move between different berths in the same marina. In other cases it may be argued that a 'high intensity' user should need residential use planning permission, but the local authority concerned chooses to look the other way rather than get involved in a contentious planning battle with uncertain outcome. In either case the 'high intensity' use takes place without any specific legally enforceable assessment as to whether that use amounts to 'residential' use in planning law terms - a fudge which generally suits all concerned.

[dmr]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

Under planning law a mooring may be defined as either residential or non residential. Marina 'high intensity' users may in practice be liveaboards with no other home, but in planning terms are still regarded as non residential. In some cases this may be because they spend enough time away from the marina to avoid the need for a specifically residential mooring, or they may regularly move between different berths in the same marina. In other cases it may be argued that a 'high intensity' user should need residential use planning permission, but the local authority concerned chooses to look the other way rather than get involved in a contentious planning battle with uncertain outcome. In either case the 'high intensity' use takes place without any specific legally enforceable assessment as to whether that use amounts to 'residential' use in planning law terms - a fudge which generally suits all concerned.

 

I'm not 100% sure about moving between marina berths to avoid residential status, but have not found any definitive info. I think it might be a council tax thing which is related to residential but maybe not the same. The moving berths thing might be to qualify for "composite" council tax rather than full council tax on the boat. Composite tax is where, I think, the marina owner pays the council tax at a reduced rate as part of the marina business rates.

[magnetman]

Interesting topic. 

 

I've got a residential mooring in the same area as Limehouse marina. I pay for my berth (on line mooring with a specific allocated address nobody else could have) and I also pay council tax individually to Tower Hamlets. 

 

I believe that the vessels in the marina do not pay council tax individually but that it is incorporated in the berthing fees. 

 

An interesting side effect of this is the housing benefit question. 

 

I don't have enough contacts in the marina to find out if anyone is claiming HB but I do wonder if the non specific council tax thing could remove that option and could possibly be why marinas do it. Keep the dss away, as they say. 

 

 

A previous occupier of my mooring was claiming HB for the mooring costs, which is quite interesting. 

 

There are residential moorings and there are Residential moorings. 

 

I have also heard of someone claiming HB for a normal on line leisure mooring but not aware of it happening in marinas. 

 

It could be common. Or perhaps not ?

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2021 by magnetman
Edit to remove racist sex references

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, dmr said:

I'm not 100% sure about moving between marina berths to avoid residential status, but have not found any definitive info. I think it might be a council tax thing which is related to residential but maybe not the same. The moving berths thing might be to qualify for "composite" council tax rather than full council tax on the boat. Composite tax is where, I think, the marina owner pays the council tax at a reduced rate as part of the marina business rates.

 

 

Correct - it is a composite vs individual tax.

 

I was in a BWML marina when they introduced the council tax charging and gave people the choice of staying permanently on their mooring or moving twice a year and explained why.

There was uproar - 'this is my mooring I'm not moving' and the moorers committee stuck their line in the sand and told BWML they refused to move.

 

I took them aside and explained :

 

Lets say the marina has PP for 50 residential boats and the composite CT is band F and the total comes to £25,000 per annum. each boat will pay £500 but, to be allowed to do this each mooring cannot be used by the same boat all year, it must move at least twice a year.

The altenative is for each boat to pay individual 'Band A' (the lowest possible) at a cost of £1300 per boat.

 

Do you want to pay £500 or £1300. All you have to do is move 7 feet sideways and swap moorings with the boat next to you.

 

Once explained and the committe presented it to the moorers it was a unanimous vote to go for the composite option.

[Tacet]

4 hours ago, dmr said:

 

I'm not 100% sure about moving between marina berths to avoid residential status, but have not found any definitive info. I think it might be a council tax thing which is related to residential but maybe not the same. The moving berths thing might be to qualify for "composite" council tax rather than full council tax on the boat. Composite tax is where, I think, the marina owner pays the council tax at a reduced rate as part of the marina business rates.

Moving berths, in itself, will make no difference in planning terms.  If a single berth was used consistently for residential purposes, by any number of persons each for short periods, it would still be a residential unit.  If a berth goes in-an-out of residential use (with leisure use in-between) it makes it more difficult to identify whether a material change-of-use has occurred

 

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Correct - it is a composite vs individual tax.

I was in a BWML marina when they introduced the council tax charging and gave people the choice of staying permanently on their mooring or moving twice a year and explained why.

There was uproar - 'this is my mooring I'm not moving' and the moorers committee stuck their line in the sand and told BWML they refused to move.

 

I took them aside and explained :

 

Lets say the marina has PP for 50 residential boats and the composite CT is band F and the total comes to £25,000 per annum. each boat will pay £500 but, to be allowed to do this each mooring cannot be used by the same boat all year, it must move at least twice a year.

The altenative is for each boat to pay individual 'Band A' (the lowest possible) at a cost of £1300 per boat.

 

Do you want to pay £500 or £1300. All you have to do is move 7 feet sideways and swap moorings with the boat next to you.

 

Once explained and the committe presented it to the moorers it was a unanimous vote to go for the composite option.

Incorrect.  In the rating world "composite" refers to a hereditament that has both domestic and non-domestic property (e.g. a pub and flat - with  a single kitchen).  It is entered into both Council Tax and Business Rates lists with a note of its composite status to avoid double-counting.

 

The berth-shuffling can make the rating unit (hereditament ) the pontoon rather than each berth, with a consequent aggregate economy, as per your principle.  But the highest band F tax in the country is around £3,200 and the lowest band A is £550

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, Tacet said:

Moving berths, in itself, will make no difference in planning terms.  If a single berth was used consistently for residential purposes, by any number of persons each for short periods, it would still be a residential unit.  If a berth goes in-an-out of residential use (with leisure use in-between) it makes it more difficult to identify whether a material change-of-use has occurred

 

Incorrect.  In the rating world "composite" refers to a hereditament that has both domestic and non-domestic property (e.g. a pub and flat - with  a single kitchen).  It is entered into both Council Tax and Business Rates lists with a note of its composite status to avoid double-counting.

 

The berth-shuffling can make the rating unit (hereditament ) the pontoon rather than each berth, with a consequent aggregate economy, as per your principle.  But the highest band F tax in the country is around £3,200 and the lowest band A is £550

 

From the VOA:

 

The following examples illustrate circumstances where boats used wholly as living accommodation may or may not be regarded as part of the hereditament together with the mooring, and therefore to be included in the Council Tax banding valuation.

 

Example 1

A couple lives in a purpose-built houseboat comprising a timber-clad building on a pontoon. They pay rent for a mooring on the river bank with its own anchor points, access way, water supply and drainage connections. The houseboat has been moored in that location for several years, although it is moved every 2 or 3 years to carry out maintenance to the pontoon.

 

The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is occupied exclusively by one boat for a period of more than 12 months. The mooring is also domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) because it is occupied by a boat which is someone's sole or main residence. Although a chattel, the houseboat can be regarded as enjoyed with the land with such permanence as to enhance its value, and should be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

Example 2

A family lives in a barge which has been converted to provide living accommodation. They pay rent to the riparian owner for a mooring on a river bank with its own water supply and sewage connection. During the year, the barge moves away at weekends and holidays of more than 2-4 weeks duration leaving the mooring vacant until its return.

 

The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is used exclusively by one boat during the year. When the barge is present, the mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) because it is occupied by a boat which is someone's sole or main residence. When the barge is absent, the mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(5) because it appears when next in use the mooring will be domestic. However, the barge is insufficiently permanent to be regarded as part of the hereditament, and the mooring only should be valued to determine the appropriate band.

 

Example 3

A man lives on a motor cruiser with living accommodation on board. He rents a berth in a marina comprising a finger pontoon at right angles to the bank with water supply and sewage pump-out. The marina operator controls access to the site and reserves a continual right to move the boat from its mooring. When the boat is absent, as it frequently is for weekends and holidays, and even though the boat owner pays rent continuously in order to reserve a berth at the site, the marina operator allows other boats to use the mooring.

 

Although the mooring is virtually in permanent use and affords self-containment to any boat with living accommodation, the cruiser owner's occupation of the mooring is non-exclusive and insufficiently permanent for him to be liable for Council Tax. The marina operator is in paramount occupation of the mooring for the purposes of his business of running a marina. If the other boats which use the mooring are also someone's sole or main residence, only the mooring would be domestic property and subject to banding. The boat itself would not be included in the valuation.

 

If the other boats which use the mooring are not someone's sole or main residence or there is no way of knowing what their use would be, the mooring will be non-domestic. If there are two or more such moorings in the marina, all the moorings and land under the control of the marina operator should be treated as one hereditament by virtue of the Multiple Moorings Regulations. The marina operator will be in permanent occupation.

 

Example 4

A couple live on a narrow boat as their sole or main residence. They pay a mooring fee to the British Waterways Board for one of several moorings along the towing path and a licence fee to be on the canal. They share a water tap with the other boats, but the nearest sewage disposal facility is some distance away. Periodically, they move the boat to dispose of sewage; and every few years the boat is taken into dry dock for essential maintenance. British Waterways Board reserves a continual right to allocate a different mooring, for example, in order to accommodate boats of different length at the site, but in practice the boat returns to the same mooring, which is not used by other boats in its absence It has a postal address and post is delivered direct to the boat.

 

The mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) and sufficiently defined as to form a separate hereditament. The boat is moored with a sufficient degree of permanence as to be enjoyed with the mooring and therefore should be regarded as part of the hereditament and be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

If however the separate moorings along the canal bank are not easily identified, either in the agreement with BWB or on the ground, and can vary each time a boat is moored, as the boat always returns to a different position, then the hereditament will comprise of the whole length of moorings along that part of the canal, and the rateable occupier will be the BWB. The boat will not form part of the hereditament because it lacks sufficient permanence to be enjoyed with the land.

 

If the moorings are solely occupied by boats which are the sole or residence of an individual, then there will be a single Council Tax banding of all the moorings. However, should pleasure boats also use the moorings, the moorings should be treated as a composite hereditament. In many cases a common sense view will need to be taken of the extent of the domestic and non-domestic parts, and regulation 7(1) of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992 requires a band to be ascribed which reflects the value which would reasonably attributed to the domestic use. The distribution between domestic and non domestic use will therefore reflect how the market would view the use of the hereditament, if it were made available with vacant possession. The actual use of the moorings at compilation date, or a notional distribution based on the prevailing pattern of use along moorings in that locality can be adopted.

 

Where a single composite hereditament is appropriate, the non domestic part in this example will be included in the Central List assessment for BWB, and a single Council Tax band will be entered in the valuation list for the residential moorings.

[Mike Todd]

17 hours ago, David Mack said:

Under planning law a mooring may be defined as either residential or non residential. Marina 'high intensity' users may in practice be liveaboards with no other home, but in planning terms are still regarded as non residential. In some cases this may be because they spend enough time away from the marina to avoid the need for a specifically residential mooring, or they may regularly move between different berths in the same marina. In other cases it may be argued that a 'high intensity' user should need residential use planning permission, but the local authority concerned chooses to look the other way rather than get involved in a contentious planning battle with uncertain outcome. In either case the 'high intensity' use takes place without any specific legally enforceable assessment as to whether that use amounts to 'residential' use in planning law terms - a fudge which generally suits all concerned.

Same argument we keep having on another matter - contract law is enforceable by law. 

10 hours ago, Tacet said:

Moving berths, in itself, will make no difference in planning terms.  If a single berth was used consistently for residential purposes, by any number of persons each for short periods, it would still be a residential unit.  If a berth goes in-an-out of residential use (with leisure use in-between) it makes it more difficult to identify whether a material change-of-use has occurred

 

Incorrect.  In the rating world "composite" refers to a hereditament that has both domestic and non-domestic property (e.g. a pub and flat - with  a single kitchen).  It is entered into both Council Tax and Business Rates lists with a note of its composite status to avoid double-counting.

 

The berth-shuffling can make the rating unit (hereditament ) the pontoon rather than each berth, with a consequent aggregate economy, as per your principle.  But the highest band F tax in the country is around £3,200 and the lowest band A is £550

I think the aim is touse the shuffle as evidence that it is not residential - arises from the ambiguities in, separately, planning and council tax.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Same argument we keep having on another matter - contract law is enforceable by law. 

 

Unless the contract T&Cs are at variance with the law, in which case the relevant condition cannot be enforced.

 

Despite BWs assertion (in court) that an internal email superceded an Act Of Parliament by reason of its later date.

It left the barrister nonplussed. All he could come out with once back on his chair, was – “Oh, so BW have declared UDI have they?”

 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Same argument we keep having on another matter - contract law is enforceable by law. 

I didn't say it couldn't be enforced. I merely noted that it isn't enforced. Hence my use of the term 'fudge'.

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

From the VOA:

 

The mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) and sufficiently defined as to form a separate hereditament. The boat is moored with a sufficient degree of permanence as to be enjoyed with the mooring and therefore should be regarded as part of the hereditament and be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

If however the separate moorings along the canal bank are not easily identified, either in the agreement with BWB or on the ground, and can vary each time a boat is moored, as the boat always returns to a different position, then the hereditament will comprise of the whole length of moorings along that part of the canal, and the rateable occupier will be the BWB. The boat will not form part of the hereditament because it lacks sufficient permanence to be enjoyed with the land.

 

If the moorings are solely occupied by boats which are the sole or residence of an individual, then there will be a single Council Tax banding of all the moorings. However, should pleasure boats also use the moorings, the moorings should be treated as a composite hereditament. In many cases a common sense view will need to be taken of the extent of the domestic and non-domestic parts, and regulation 7(1) of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992 requires a band to be ascribed which reflects the value which would reasonably attributed to the domestic use. The distribution between domestic and non domestic use will therefore reflect how the market would view the use of the hereditament, if it were made available with vacant possession. The actual use of the moorings at compilation date, or a notional distribution based on the prevailing pattern of use along moorings in that locality can be adopted.

 

Where a single composite hereditament is appropriate, the non domestic part in this example will be included in the Central List assessment for BWB, and a single Council Tax band will be entered in the valuation list for the residential moorings.

Correct, of course.  But it is not, as previously advanced. the shuffling of boats that makes a hereditament composite.  It is the combined domestic and non-domestic use - which is another matter.

 

If you shuffle residential boats then (probably) the hereditament is enlarged from a single mooring to a multiple mooring - with likely savings in Council tax due to the banding system.  But no savings (in very broad terms) for business rates  via shuffling.

 

If you mix domestic and non-domestic moorings by shuffling leisure and liveaboard boat, a composite hereditament will be created resulting in a liability for both Council tax and business rates.   The financial consequences will depend on numbers and values - but most probably the total tax will increase - again as a consequence of the banding system.  You would most likely pay less tax if all the moorings within a hereditament are liveaboard than if the two types are mixed

 

 

 

 

[Jerra]

On 18/12/2021 at 23:38, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The planning permission for our Leisure (mobile homes / static caravans)  site states that we must close the site and disconnect the water and electricity for 1 month (we chose 5th Jan to 5th Feb) per annum and no one is allowed on site.

Caravan use is expected to be 'continuous' for the Summer months and much less so for the rest of the year.

The planning permission for the leisure development we have our holiday let in is words to the effect of "not the same people for more than 13 weeks at a time".   We can have people in every week but under the planning permission couldn't let to the same people for 14 weeks.  Which for land based seems reasonable.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The planning permission for the leisure development we have our holiday let in is words to the effect of "not the same people for more than 13 weeks at a time".   We can have people in every week but under the planning permission couldn't let to the same people for 14 weeks.  Which for land based seems reasonable.

 

 

It seems that each LA can apply the rules as they see fit. When we applied for PP we had to fill a form in with 'what we wanted' and as long as we had one-month site closure everything else was fine.

 

Maybe the difference is that 'our' vans are not hire vans but 'user-owned' (used by the owners) except for one which we use for over flow accomodation when we have parties.

 

It was quite funny when they came to specifying how many waste bins we needed as they said that the LA 'waste department' would only collect from a certain location on the site and only certain sized bins. They were unaware that the LA no longer collected commercial waste having stopped 2 or 3 years previously. We had a contract with Biffa.

[Alan de Enfield]

On 18/12/2021 at 09:55, magpie patrick said:

Just a quick question - some mooring operators have a surcharge for "intensive use" - i.e. being on board at the mooring a lot. Can anyone give examples of how this is defined? 

 

I'm looking for information not confrontation! Just seeking examples rather than questioning the system 

 

Just found my BWML mooring definitions Pdf, (now deleted by AquaVista)

 

 

 

Leisure Mooring

 

This product is for the boating enthusiast and customers wishing to maximise their leisure time allowing unlimited leisure use within the marina throughout the mooring contract, utilising their boat summer and winter is an expectation. It is not permitted to stay on the vessel for more than 28 consecutive days whilst the vessel is moored in the marina in any one contract period. BWML may from time to time request proof of residency away from the marina. A leisure mooring has the following additional benefits over the standard mooring product.

 Electricity upgraded to a maximum 16 amp supply (chargeable) please refer to the Customer Service Handbook regarding electricity supply.

 Water points close by and usable all year round subject to underground freezing caused by severe weather conditions, with the exception Sawley Marina where water will be disconnected during months of November – March to alleviate freezing and burst pipework.

 Parking subject to availability (extra charge could apply at certain locations).

 BWML offer hard standing within this service provision subject to marina facilities, the number of weeks included are set locally please contact your marina office for details. Lifting fees and cradle fees applicable and subject to Marina location. 

BWML_Berth_Definitions_March_2015.pdf