100s of revolting boaters

[Thomas C King]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

What I am not entirely sure about is why people are driven to the more central and trendy parts of London if they are simply driven to boats by poverty.

Could there be another story here ? 

 

Good to discuss these things.

 

I think we know (or can guess at) the answer. It's the type of work they do, and probably cultural life as well. Amongst the need for housing, what gets lost is that there are plenty of cities that have the types of work and to some extent culture that many Londoners desire. It doesn't make sense to address housing in London when there are other solutions involving other cities (being made more desirable). We need a mixed approach.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Thomas C King

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Using a relative definition or not, the level of poverty associated with slums (according to wikipedia etc.) is "very poor". I don't think a very poor person could afford the average London boat (granted, some aren't "owned" but rather found abandoned and done-up, and some are floating sheds). That is, whether "very poor" is relative to London or the UK as a whole.

It's not a poverty related slum it is a condition of dwelling related slum. 

 

Also in some areas there is a serious issue with waste, often of a hazardous nature, being left on towpaths. 

 

Apart from being an obvious elfin safety issue this must be part of the definition of slum housing because existing your dwelling to be confronted by piles of rubbish is not conducive to good health.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Thomas C King said:

 

I think we know (or can guess at) the answer. 

Are they all sex workers? I mean I have met a few on the boats but didn't realise there were that many

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Yes of course poverty is relative. 

 

It's an interesting question about the housing alternatives. I do know that the Tower Hamlets housing list is around 20,000 people for 2,000 properties so certainly takes a while to get something. My other half and our children live in a Tower Hamlets owned council flat near Mile End so I know how the system works. 

 

What I am not entirely sure about is why people are driven to the more central and trendy parts of London if they are simply driven to boats by poverty.

Could there be another story here ? 

 

Good to discuss these things. 

 

Not so - it can be absolute as well.

[Tacet]

One of my first jobs was compulsorily acquiring and demolishing houses for the London slum clearance programme - mainly in the East End.  One of my colleagues had the duty of acquiring the Kray's family home in Vallance Road.

 

The local authority had (still l has, I think) a duty to clear dwellings that were unfit and not capable of repair at reasonable cost.  In deciding whether a dwelling was unfit, the following factors were regarded:

 

(a)repair;

(b)stability;

(c)freedom from damp ;

(d)natural lighting;

(e)ventilation;

(f)water supply;

(g)drainage and sanitary conveniences ;

(h)facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water ;

 

Sometimes an owner was required to demolish its property without compensation; it was not all that popular!  More typically a Clearance Area would be declared - and all the dwellings acquired and demolished.  In such cases the basic (there were supplements as time progressed) compensation was the value of the cleared site.  But as the sites were typically very small and insufficient to take a new house, the sums paid were very modest.  I recall £500 for a house in Stepney being reasonably typical in the early 1980s.

 

The houses I recall were truly awful; no doubt some mistakes were made - but I have not seen such examples of abject poverty since.  If the houses were tenanted, the resident were re-housed and we were provided with a list as it bore upon compensatory matters.  Sometimes, there would be a list of six or eight people - all removed from "Back room, second floor".  

[magnetman]

Hell's teeth ! A Victorian terraced house in Stepney is knocking on the door of a million pounds these days ! 

 

And since you mentioned Vallance Road 

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/60797499/

 

£2.5 million ?? (ETA I see this is a Zoopla joke advert, it's more like £450k for a two bed flat. Don't think there are any houses there now. 

 

I was invited for a "blow job and sex' by a young woman on Vallance road a few weeks ago on an evening wander around. I politely declined as she did not look like she would have been able to afford it.  

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by magnetman

[Peanut]

Another consideration might be that not only is rent just dead money, but also you have no ownership.  You are paying to support a landlord who, “grows rich in his sleep,” and who may increase your rent or evict you from your home when they feel like it.

 

Whereas, in buying a boat, you have a property that is your own, however humble, or in whatever state.  It may be a depreciating asset and require maintenance, but it is your own, free from any landlord.  The way of life may not appeal to you, but it is your home.

 

True, you have to pay for your licence, insurance and BSS, but the cost is less than paying your hard-earned money to someone who might be quite well-off. 

 

When you move to land, you can sell the boat and recoup some of your money, that might even help with a deposit on a house.  This beats paying rent hands down.

 

There may be, probably are, some “slum boats,” however that is defined, with unhygienic and anti-social behaviour from some boaters, but not everyone should be tarred with the same brush.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

There is certainly a huge financial incentive to live on a boat on a towpath in London. Massive incentive. So massive that you could almost get away with living on a boat !

 

[Tim Lewis]

On 27/03/2022 at 14:04, MtB said:

 

Presumably being those moored for 14 days at a time along the towpath? 

 

Times move on. Anyone using a horse to tow their boat must pretty think-skinned and know they are being a total PITA to everyone else on the cut, surely. 

 

It was on the River Wey where 14 day mooring is not a thing

[Tim Lewis]

9 hours ago, Laurie Booth said:

A two bed flat in Bath is £750 per month, so quite affordable for two sharing.

 

 

You are looking at different rental sites than me, 

[Slow and Steady]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Hell's teeth ! A Victorian terraced house in Stepney is knocking on the door of a million pounds these days ! 

 

And since you mentioned Vallance Road 

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/60797499/

 

£2.5 million ?? (ETA I see this is a Zoopla joke advert, it's more like £450k for a two bed flat. Don't think there are any houses there now. 

 

I was invited for a "blow job and sex' by a young woman on Vallance road a few weeks ago on an evening wander around. I politely declined as she did not look like she would have been able to afford it.  

 

 

 

Times change eh? I was looking the other day at a 4 storey detached villa I used to squat in South London in the early eighties. It had been a council house, then given to a housing association who were happy for us to squat until they had funds to do it up for rental. One of the top floor flats is up for £345,000 so it's obviously no longer housing association. And this is part of the housing problem - everyone views houses as cash cows.

 

I find it interesting that the moorers you describe as slum dwellers are really no different to yourself are they? Or does the simple act of paying for a mooring lift your boat out of this bracket? Genuine question. 

[magnetman]

2 hours ago, Slow and Steady said:

 

 

I find it interesting that the moorers you describe as slum dwellers are really no different to yourself are they? Or does the simple act of paying for a mooring lift your boat out of this bracket? Genuine question. 

I would agree with this if the mooring did not have mains electric, water, sewerage, letter box, council tax etc attached. Some LTM sites are quite bad and CRT do have to constantly manage things liked items stored on towpaths. 

 

Also there are conditions attached to the occupation of the mooring which -in theory- prevent degradation into slum conditions.

 

I actually think that ribbon development of London's canals into linear residential moorings with proper services would be an excellent idea but I somehow doubt there is the market for it. People won't want to live in floating metal boxes if there is a cost associated with it which is comparable to renting a flat or paying for a mortgage. 

 

In the majority of cases I believe the choice to live on a boat, in the capital, is one which is made because it is (currently) very cheap, based on the 1995 BW act. 

 

Could be wrong and the only way to prove it would be to build more residential moorings and find out. 

 

Moorings with residential PP and a land address give much more security than a towpath. If you have no money and can demonstrate this then you can probably claim housing benefit to pay for the mooring. 

 

Obviously living on a boat is a fundamentally non secure way of existing. Even on a residential site you don't get security of tenure but everyone knows that and presumably moves onto a boat with their eyes open. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by magnetman

[doratheexplorer]

16 hours ago, magnetman said:

Non sequitur in the second sentence. If it was a poverty thing canals would always have been full. Regardless of current property prices there have always been poor people in London and there always will be. They are not on boats

 

When you say "otherwise the canals of London would have always been full" this is clearly not the case because people like their comforts. 

 

Things like mobile phones make living on a boat a lot less scary for some people, then you get all the TV programmes saying how wonderful it is etc. 

 

 

You're missing the point.  In the past, there were other options for those in poverty.  Those options have been reduced.

[Slow and Steady]

6 hours ago, magnetman said:

I would agree with this if the mooring did not have mains electric, water, sewerage, letter box, council tax etc.

 

 

That seems mostly a list of differences rather than betterment. Paying council tax and having a postal address - lack of these do not make a slum residence. Water and sewerage - ok, yours are more convenient but the CCers do have these.

The only substantial quality of life improver you have is the mains electric, which from reading your other posts... you barely use?

Any security you have relies on out bidding others for your mooring?

I remain unconvinced that by your own terms you're not also living in a slum. The main difference I see is that you're paying a lot more than CCers to do so.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

In the past, there were other options for those in poverty

 

 

[Peanut]

That was in living memory, a short while ago. A patient of mine's father died when she was a child, she was one of six children. The mother went into service and the children to the workhouse.  She had to work with the housekeeper in the laundry.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Peanut said:

That was in living memory, a short while ago. A patient of mine's father died when she was a child, she was one of six children. The mother went into service and the children to the workhouse.  She had to work with the housekeeper in the laundry.

 

It was one of the 1st 'modern' workhouses and had a long life - it was just 'up the road' from where most of my formative years were spent and was a well know facility.

 

Built in 1824, it was the prototype of the 19th-century workhouse, and cited by the Royal Commission on the poor law as the best example among the existing workhouses, before the resulting New Poor Law of 1834 led to the construction of workhouses across the country.

 

This austere building, the most complete workhouse in existence, was built in 1824 as a place of last resort for the destitute. It was designed to house around 160 inmates, who lived and worked in a strictly segregated environment with virtually no contact between the old and infirm, able-bodied men and women and children. The building’s architecture was influenced by prison design and its harsh regime became a blueprint for workhouses throughout the country.

In the 1920’s, the whole site was re-named Greet House after the nearby River Greet. In 1929 the New Poor Law system was disbanded, and workhouses were handed over to local authorities. Most continued either as hospitals or, like The Workhouse in Southwell, as institutions for the poor, homeless and elderly.

After the development of the modern welfare system in 1948, the building provided temporary homeless accommodation until 1976. It was later used for staff accommodation and storage until the late 1980s, while the rest of the site became a residential home for the elderly.

The building remained in use until the early 1990s, (used to provide temporary accommodation for mothers and children) but was then bought by the National Trust in 1997 after being identified as one of the top 10 best preserved workhouse buildings in the country.

Since then, restoration work is ongoing, and many rooms have been redecorated as they would have looked in the 19th century. Buildings, walls and privies, demolished in the 20th century, have also been reinstated.

The Workhouse, Southwell today

Bring the family and experience a full programme of living history events, interactive tours and exhibitions to learn more – told from the perspective of those who lived and worked here by volunteer costumed interpreters. Younger visitors can enjoy children’s trails, games and dressing up with activities and crafts. A recreated Victorian vegetable garden can also be explored.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

well magnetman referring to boaters as pikeys living in slums, 

if we put your prejudice and imagination aside what do you think of the specific proposals below?

 

An example of some of the mooring changes in London.

Not familiar with all the places, I’d like to hear how it works or doesn’t from continuous cruisers in the London area.

If this sort of change was introduced in Birmingham, which is a place more familiar to me, I’d be a tad pissed off.

14 day moorings down to 7 and 48hr with additional charges.

Are 14 day moorings ever ‘free’ if you’ve paid a license fee to navigate?

Edited March 29, 2022 by Goliath
None, didn’t edit,

[magnetman]

2 hours ago, Slow and Steady said:

 

Any security you have relies on out bidding others for your mooring?

 

This is not correct. Once on the mooring provided the t&c around reasonable use are adhered to the mooring is available to the occupier as long as they keep paying for it and the boat is legal ie license/pbc and bs/insurance kept up to date

 

I suppose CRT could close the site if they found it became unprofitable. 

 

My mooring is a CRT site. I prefer to pay the navigation authority who keep water in the cut rather than a profit making private operator. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Goliath said:

well magnetman referring to boaters as pikeys living in slums, 

if we put your prejudice and imagination aside what do you think of the specific proposals below?

 

An example of some of the mooring changes in London.

Not familiar with all the places, I’d like to hear how it works or doesn’t from continuous cruisers in the London area.

If this sort of change was introduced in Birmingham, which is a place more familiar to me, I’d be a tad pissed off.

14 day moorings down to 7 and 48hr with additional charges.

Are 14 day moorings ever ‘free’ if you’ve paid a license fee to navigate?

 

 

 

I'd be very careful about stirring things up too much, they tend to have consequences that the complainees rarely think about.

 

C&RT are allowed (in Law) to charge for any additional services (above navigation) they provide, moorings, water, toilets, waste removal etc etc are all legally chargeable.

C&RT  (and their predecessors) have not, in general, charged for moorings or other services but, it is starting to creep in and appears to have been accepted in other 'high-use' areas such as Llangollen.

 

As C&RT suffer from a shortage of money (rememebr the DEFRA grant stops in a few years) I can see more and more charges being applied.

 

The requirement to book and pay for some moorings in London has eased the situation for visiting boats, and why should not further vising boats be encouraged - the canal is not a 'long strip-residential area' there should be maximum stays that are realistic for transiting boaters not based on 'constant moorers'.

[Laurie Booth]

14 hours ago, Tim Lewis said:

 

You are looking at different rental sites than me, 

London is another matter

 

[Tonka]

16 hours ago, Tacet said:

One of my first jobs was compulsorily acquiring and demolishing houses for the London slum clearance programme - mainly in the East End.  One of my colleagues had the duty of acquiring the Kray's family home in Vallance Road.

 

The local authority had (still l has, I think) a duty to clear dwellings that were unfit and not capable of repair at reasonable cost.  In deciding whether a dwelling was unfit, the following factors were regarded:

 

(a)repair;

(b)stability;

(c)freedom from damp ;

(d)natural lighting;

(e)ventilation;

(f)water supply;

(g)drainage and sanitary conveniences ;

(h)facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water ;

 

Sometimes an owner was required to demolish its property without compensation; it was not all that popular!  More typically a Clearance Area would be declared - and all the dwellings acquired and demolished.  In such cases the basic (there were supplements as time progressed) compensation was the value of the cleared site.  But as the sites were typically very small and insufficient to take a new house, the sums paid were very modest.  I recall £500 for a house in Stepney being reasonably typical in the early 1980s.

 

The houses I recall were truly awful; no doubt some mistakes were made - but I have not seen such examples of abject poverty since.  If the houses were tenanted, the resident were re-housed and we were provided with a list as it bore upon compensatory matters.  Sometimes, there would be a list of six or eight people - all removed from "Back room, second floor".  

If this is true, can I question item c

Freedom of damp

Why does the government promote cavity wall bodgers and spraying roof innards with foam. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

(rememebr the DEFRA grant stops in a few years

That’s not a given (yet)

 

35 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The requirement to book and pay for some moorings in London has eased the situation for visiting boats, and why should not further vising boats be encouraged - the canal is not a 'long strip-residential area' there should be maximum stays that are realistic for transiting boaters not based on 'constant moorers'.

I agree more should always be done to encourage visitors.

But in principle I can’t agree with the introduction of extra charges because it leads to exclusivity.

Any charges won’t be used for improvements, but instead used to pay for daily checkers and enforcement.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Goliath said:

That’s not a given (yet)

 

Yes it is a 'given' the DEFRA grant has a finish date so unless something changes thats it.

 

C&RT had their "10-year review" last Summer which didn't go well. The final conclusions of the review have not yet been published but the failures to achieve the KPIs can only result in a 'they set low standards which they consistently fail to achieve'  report.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes it is a 'given' the DEFRA grant has a finish date so unless something changes thats it.

 

C&RT had their "10-year review" last Summer which didn't go well. The final conclusions of the review have not yet been published but the failures to achieve the KPIs can only result in a 'they set low standards which they consistently fail to achieve'  report.

so we haven’t heard it definitely has?

surely they’ll give their bullshit reasons why they fail to achieve and blame them on uncontrollable forces?

And blag further monies or an extension.

 

I can’t remember, I thought they had a sum of money guaranteed for 15 years, and there is an additional sum under an earlier review.

 

 

You say “..can only result....”

not 

..has resulted.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Goliath said:

so we haven’t heard it definitely has?

surely they’ll give their bullshit reasons why they fail to achieve and blame them on uncontrollable forces?

And blag further monies or an extension.

 

I can’t remember, I thought they had a sum of money guaranteed for 15 years, and there is an additional sum under an earlier review.

 

 

You say “..can only result....”

not 

..has resulted.

 

 

 

It may be worth you looking at the Grant Agreement paperwork :

 

GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS AND CANAL & RIVER TRUST

 

where it details everything - yes it was for 15 years from 2012 and consists of 2-parts.Part A & Part B

 

“Grant Period” means the period for which the Grant is awarded starting on the Commencement Date and ending on 31 March 2027.

 

9.3 Notwithstanding the regular content and cycle of Review Meetings, in the financial year 2021/22 a review will take place to consider whether, and if so, the extent to which there is a case to continue to support by Grant the public benefits (including, but not by way of limitation, provision of land drainage, flood mitigation and other public safety benefits) provided by the waterways under CRT’s stewardship beyond the end of the Grant Period. The 2021/22 Review shall take into account, among other matters, CRT’s performance of its obligations arising under the Grant Agreement. Defra shall issue a report setting out the 12 conclusions of this review with regard to continued support of CRT by Grant beyond the term of this Grant Agreement on or before 1 July 2022.

 

So we are awaiting the findings of the review to see if the grant may be extended. Until that review is published the Grant definitely ceases 30th march 2027, it may or may not be renewed when the report is published.

 

I am sure youare aware of the schenanigans that went on last year with 3 versions of the KPI results being presented to different 'markets'

 

You may wish to check for yourself but from memory there were one set which were published in the Company Accounts and filed with Companies House, one set of modified results for the "Management" and a final further modified set for DEFRA.

 

@Allan(nb Albert) Has chapter and verse - he may be tempted to repost ?

Edited March 29, 2022 by Alan de Enfield