London boaters fight for moorings

[Alan de Enfield]

Closing down of moorings - it is not just London :

 

Dreams sunk as Nile’s Bohemian houseboats ordered to make way | World | The Times

 

..................However, Soueif’s dream has been ended, a victim of Egypt’s new military leader. President Sisi’s mania for redeveloping Cairo has turned its attention to the city’s remaining 32 houseboats, which have received demolition orders giving residents just days to leave.

Fifteen have already been destroyed and the remainder are due to go next week.

It is an inglorious end for a potent symbol of Bohemianism in a conservative society. 

 

 

I think they are in Denial !!!

 

 

[magnetman]

To be fair in the details it does say they are allowed to remain if they take commercial licenses rather than residential. Having said that one does wonder if one would be allowed to reside on a commercial craft. 

 

Here 

 

https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/50/1201/470807/AlAhram-Weekly/Egypt/In-Photos-Threats-to-houseboats-on-the-Nile-.aspx

 

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by magnetman

[IanD]

10 hours ago, Midnight said:

Spoons vary quite a bit from place to place. As it happens here in West Yorkshire there are some very good ones. Brighouse is exceptional. I can afford to drink where I wish but visit spoons often because they offer a great range of beers and good deals on food. There are also some excellent pubs around here but the price of a pint isn't such a consideration.

Brighouse is a fabulous building, and the beer and food and prices (and service) are exactly what you'd expect... 😉

[PaulJ]

How does the UK compare to other countries in regards to people living on boats?

Amsterdam must be a comparable city and is crowded. I know alot of boats have permits/addresses and are connected to services but they must have liveaboards that move around.

[magnetman]

I've not been to dam but you don't see lines and lines of lived on boats in Paris other than on official moorings with services.

 

I Ihink the Mairie/local authority probably get onto it in a way which does not happen in the UK. 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by magnetman

[agg221]

I decided to run a bit of a challenge to the logic around some of this issue.

 

It seems to me that there are three general groups of behaviour - those with a fixed mooring, those who are bona fide continuous cruisers and those without a fixed mooring who do not comply with the spirit of continuous cruising, sometimes termed 'continuous moorers'. The first two do not generally appear to be contentious (although the behaviour of some individuals always will be, but as the exception rather than the rule). The third group is contentious, for a wide variety of reasons ranging from the practical (it makes it difficult for a visitor to find a mooring) to the principle (why should they get away with not paying for something which the law-abiding have to pay for?) but they genuinely are a concern for all boaters because if they are perceived by CRT to be a large enough problem that action is taken, that action may include rule changes (it already has - see bookable moorings) and these could be local or could be national which would affect all boaters in the process.

 

The point at issue then becomes which approach to take, which depends on your perspective.

 

If you see canals as a transport network then reducing restrictions to navigation would be the objective - you would create large 'no mooring' areas to inherently reduce the number of boats which could be in the area, create more short-term moorings to make it easier for boats to stop in transit and you would step up the scrutiny of the use of such moorings with more significant penalties for breaching terms and conditions, for example a fine for overstaying, to be added to your next licence fee.

 

If you see a role for the canals in addressing the localised affordable housing challenge then you establish conditions which allow for more permanent moorings and install the infrastructure to enable this.

 

If you see a need to drive towards financial self-sufficiency for CRT then you consider whether a profit can be made out of creating moorings and of what type (on/offline, chargeable visitor moorings etc) and what investment is needed to enable that so you can calculate your RoI, and then see whether you can obtain a government grant from a different department whose challenge you are addressing (the same principle as behind the money which paid for towpath upgrades).

 

Personally, I think there is a sensible balance to be struck somewhere in the above, which is cost-effective and even revenue generating. I recognise that the legislation may not be in place for it, but I don't see that as a tremendous barrier. If the business case is there then the legislation is likely to be enacted.

 

I also wanted to challenge the financial viability question. Below is a worked example drawn from estimates. It is there to be picked apart to see whether my conclusion stacks up or doesn't - I am not precious about it and won't take offence if my numbers are found to be incorrect. The purpose is to try and quantify some of the statements which are often made, so here is an attempt at some figures:

 

Assume that a continuous moorer owns their boat outright and is capable of being employed. This puts everything in simple terms of income and outgoings.

Assume that they are working in the gig economy, averaging 30hrs/wk on minimum wage = £14k p,a. net

Assume basic costs of boat life (licence, insurance, allowance against maintenance) £5k p.a.

Assume general costs of living (fuel, food, clothes, washing, toiletries etc.) at £10/day = £3650 p.a. (this is the line which would benefit from more detailed scrutiny, but note I derived the figure from how I used to live when I was first working, involving shopping for discounted items at the end of the day, going to the market when it was packing up, Poundland rather than Waitrose etc)

 

This leaves residual income of £5.35k p.a. to cover entertainment (quality of life), transport and other costs. Hypothetically then, if you had a chargeable mooring at £2k p.a. vs. living further out and commuting in at £2k p.a. this would still fall within the available budget, ie my conclusion is that someone who is working at the lower end of the wage scale could still afford to pay for a mooring if the fee was based on cost rather than price, since moorings in other regions are within that bracket and the cost of establishing/maintaining a mooring is unlikely to vary much by region.

 

I acknowledge that the above only covers one very narrow set of circumstances. However, the more complex circumstances where costs are higher often also come with higher net incomes, for example child benefit, means/health derived benefits or more stable/higher paid jobs - the going rate for waiters is considerably higher than minimum wage at the moment, even in Wetherspoons (do you see what I did there...!)

 

Alec

 

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by agg221

[Paul C]

43 minutes ago, agg221 said:

if they are perceived by CRT to be a large enough problem that action is taken, that action may include rule changes ........... and these could be local or could be national................

 

 

 

 

That's a well thought-out post, and positive for the debate.

 

I've highlighted a small section because I believe the solution lies in managing "London" or other hotspot areas a markedly different way than the rest of the country. There are stretches of miles and miles of canal which are underused and hardly anyone moors or boats there, the "London" issue is completely irrelevant so any rule(s) to address it would be mistargeted there.

 

Whether CRT (are able to) actually completely give up management to another body; or gain suitable powers to deal with honeypot and very busy areas effectively (and enforce them) is another matter; or debatable even if they do need to be managed differently than as they are today. Its a shame that certain areas have basically become a "no go" zone for the average boater who moves around though.

[waterworks]

On 30/06/2022 at 07:41, Higgs said:

 

 

 

Canals should not be used to solve housing issues in my opinion, anymore than any other heritage places like parks or historic properties or even farm or woodland. 

 

The causes of the housing crisis should be dealt with not pass the buck onto CRT. 

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

If the moorings are £2k a year how do you allocate them? 

 

I'd like one please. Been living on boats all my adult life including in inner London for ten years, kids at local schools. 

 

My residential mooring is 5 times this.  Yes I DO like living on a boat

 

How would you prioritise such cheap moorings? There would be way too much demand. 

 

ETA if more moorings with residential pp and individual addresses are installed then they can be let for market rate and anyone who can not afford it can demonstrate this and get housing benefit. 

 

This would be a way to filter out people who are genuinely in need of the housing from those who are simply looking for cheap accomodation and probably already have their housing situation dealt with elsewhere. 

 

Of course there is a large problem with this which is that perhaps virtually nobody currently living in a boat would pay for the mooring in the first place so you could end up with loads of empty moorings, which will have been expensive to install if done properly.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by magnetman

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, agg221 said:

you would create large 'no mooring' areas to inherently reduce the number of boats which could be in the area, create more short-term moorings

There are long lengths of towpath around Bathampton on the K&A which are marked as 48 hour visitor moorings where there is extensive vegetation between the water and the towpath, which in practice are of little use as moorings. I assume the intention is to stop these lengths being used by CMers for 14 day stays.

[Arthur Marshall]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If the moorings are £2k a year how do you allocate them? 

 

I'd like one please. Been living on boats all my adult life including in inner London for ten years, kids at local schools. 

 

My residential mooring is 5 times this.  Yes I DO like living on a boat

 

How would you prioritise such cheap moorings? There would be way too much demand. 

 

 

I suppose the same as you do some social housing. Some properties round here are reserved for certain occupations, such as farmworkers, so they could be reserved for essential workers, family connections etc. My last mooring wasn't residential, but the rates for those that were was about £600 plus CRTs fee. It's important to realise that there is no earthly reason why a towpath mooring in London needs to cost more than one in Cheshire - apart from the fact that you can scrape more profit from it if you want to. The provision cost is identical. The farm where I moored made enough from my £450 a year, why should anyone want more? They need to provide no other service.

[agg221]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

There are long lengths of towpath around Bathampton on the K&A which are marked as 48 hour visitor moorings where there is extensive vegetation between the water and the towpath, which in practice are of little use as moorings. I assume the intention is to stop these lengths being used by CMers for 14 day stays.

Assuming that is the intent, does it work?

Alec

[Arthur Marshall]

 

5 minutes ago, David Mack said:

There are long lengths of towpath around Bathampton on the K&A which are marked as 48 hour visitor moorings where there is extensive vegetation between the water and the towpath, which in practice are of little use as moorings. I assume the intention is to stop these lengths being used by CMers for 14 day stays.

I seem to remember the same sort of thing towards Oxford - marked as 48 but impossible to moor to, and presumably just as a legal ruse to stop the CMers. Seemed to work there.

[agg221]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

If the moorings are £2k a year how do you allocate them? 

 

I'd like one please. Been living on boats all my adult life including in inner London for ten years, kids at local schools. 

 

My residential mooring is 5 times this.  Yes I DO like living on a boat

 

How would you prioritise such cheap moorings? There would be way too much demand. 

 

ETA if more moorings with residential pp and individual addresses are installed then they can be let for market rate and anyone who can not afford it can demonstrate this and get housing benefit. 

 

This would be a way to filter out people who are genuinely in need of the housing from those who are simply looking for cheap accomodation and probably already have their housing situation dealt with elsewhere. 

 

Of course there is a large problem with this which is that perhaps virtually nobody currently living in a boat would pay for the mooring in the first place so you could end up with loads of empty moorings, which will have been expensive to install if done properly.

 

 

 

 

A friend lives on The King, a 70' former FMC steamer. He has a residential mooring at Engineer's Wharf which is a secure offside basin in North London, run by CRT. The mooring is fully serviced and within walking distance of a tube station which is how he gets to work. He pays £6k a year and the basin is not always full. Is that at, above or below market rate? It's a 40% saving on your current residential mooring, even if you have a 70' boat.

 

My £2k figure was derived from the comment further up the thread about discussions around a figure for a weekly towpath mooring charge and the current figure for moorings in other parts of the country. I wasn't envisaging much more than an insecure towpath-side mooring, probably breasted up, with water points added at the boats and a sanitary station within walking distance, essentially meaning that a boat moored there did not have to move in the course of being lived on but nothing more. How does that level of service compare with your current level?

 

I'm not sure what the going rate for something that basic in London would be, however as per my original post and @Arthur Marshall's comment, I was looking at a cost+ model rather than maximising profit since the idea was to see whether a figure which met the costs of creating/managing moorings could in theory be viable to charge - my preliminary conclusion was that it is. I was thinking in terms of creating a self-sustaining financial position with the minimum of ongoing checks and balances required by government. Whilst technically you could increase the cost of the moorings and then get a different government department to meet this through housing benefit, I was looking for a figure which was not based on shuffling money between government departments and CRT, although I accept that since CRT is not a government department, if it was effectively extending its business as a landlord to increase revenue then acquiring housing benefit would be a way to meet that objective. One good reason not to maximise profit would be the dynamic between CRT and the boater - it creates a much stronger position for CRT if the boater cannot legitimately argue that CRT has created a position which is unaffordable for them, which they then use to justify acting outside the rules. I would imagine housing benefit would still apply for those legitimately without means of employment, but the numbers would be considerably smaller.

 

Part of what I was doing was exploring whether this represents a possible route forward for CRT to resolve what appears to be a currently unsustainable situation. A big assumption I know, but if you assume that the number of boats currently in London is around static and not set for further substantial growth (based on the assumption that if there are miles on end with no moorings you couldn't fit any more boats in), you could equally assume that the number of improvised plus legitimate moorings does manage to accommodate them. I was thinking of legitimised moorings created over a transition period, in blocks which maximised efficient use of space use, with short-term visitor moorings between the blocks which were suitably policed for infringement. This might take a lot of the heat out of the current situation since making it easier to comply could remove a lot of the arguments, particularly if you now have the majority on your side because most of the community are there living a lifestyle which they see as an improvement over the present need to nominally move. The alternative would appear to be to effect a clearance which I imagine could have quite negative outcomes - desperate people do desperate things. My personal view is that, whilst it would have been better if the present situation had not been allowed to develop and numbers had been restricted to a sustainable level in the first place, the people and the boats are now there and it is, on balance, better to rationalise and manage that position rather than attempt to turn back the clock.

 

The two main principles which would have to be addressed are the creation of new on-line moorings and the creation of residential sites with all that brings, but neither of those can be beyond the wit of man to resolve. This might be a situation where you have to create some 'special case' scenarios with a checklist to identify them based on demand and the availability of legitimate offline mooring sites within a reasonable distance. This would prevent proliferation of the change in principle in general.

 

As to allocation - that wasn't my primary thought process so no strong views but off the top of my head how about an initial lottery allocation amongst those who are already in the area and have been so for a period of time, followed by a waiting list, moorings being assigned to the boat owner rather than the boat, and no right to sub-let? That would appear to address the majority of issues, since there is a reasonable level of turnover of residents across the scale of the area in question. You could also add some form of 'good tenant' clause, drawing on previous licence infringements as a factor in allocation. I'm sure this could be refined further.

 

Alec

Edited July 2, 2022 by agg221

[David Mack]

But as long as the 1995 Act provisions for CCers remain in force, what is to stop the free-for-all on all the areas not designated as your new moorings?

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, agg221 said:

As to allocation - that wasn't my primary thought process so no strong views but off the top of my head how about an initial lottery allocation amongst those who are already in the area and have been so for a period of time, followed by a waiting list,

 

There is a 12 year (estimated) waiting list for a narrowboat mooring and a 20+ year (estimated) waiting list for a widebeam mooring  in Cambridge.

The waiting list has been closed for several years now and will not be re-opened until the waiting list falls below 18 months.

[agg221]

15 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But as long as the 1995 Act provisions for CCers remain in force, what is to stop the free-for-all on all the areas not designated as your new moorings?

In my hypothetical construct, I was envisaging that pretty much the entire area which is currently very heavily occupied would be divided up into blocks of permanently assigned moorings separated by short lengths of short-term visitor moorings (48hrs?) It would be necessary to police those 48hr moorings with the approach of a traffic warden issuing on the spot fines for overstaying. My proposal would be to add this fine to the next licence fee so there is effectively no way to obtain a licence without paying it, and the admin burden is minimised.

 

Outside of those areas if you want to stop them growing you would create an adjacent extended length of 24hr moorings, using the K&A model. Beyond that, if the area is not under excessive pressure you would simply allow the current free-for-all to continue, just as it does around the rest of the country, relying on the fact that the area is less desirable to keep the pressure down.

 

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There is a 12 year (estimated) waiting list for a narrowboat mooring and a 20+ year (estimated) waiting list for a widebeam mooring  in Cambridge.

The waiting list has been closed for several years now and will not be re-opened until the waiting list falls below 18 months.

I lived in Cambridge for a while and still live fairly nearby, regularly visiting friends there. I think the main difference is scale. Cambridge has a very short length of river available for moorings in proportion to its size, further restricted by the need to keep a channel wide enough for two rowing eights to pass. That means some lengths are unavailable and breasting up is essentially impossible. I wouldn't care to make a definitive statement on this but my impression of the London situation is that a fair proportion of the boat dwelling population is younger and more transient, heading back on land once it can afford to do so or has had enough of boat life. The sheer scale will also inherently create some turnover too.

 

It is possible that a very long waiting list would develop - that could be used as an indicator for demand, forming the basis for a business plan. Not sure if anyone has the vision to do that yet though.

Alec

Edited July 2, 2022 by agg221

[Paul C]

Ideas like this have been aired before, but unfortunately the show stopper is that to "create" residential moorings, requires planning permission. That's a step change in complexity/admin etc to do so. And I bet as this "cheap" London accommodation scheme became known, there would be a flood of even more people getting a boat and trying to secure it, since its just the London accommodation - by any means - they're after.

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Ideas like this have been aired before, but unfortunately the show stopper is that to "create" residential moorings, requires planning permission. That's a step change in complexity/admin etc to do so. And I bet as this "cheap" London accommodation scheme became known, there would be a flood of even more people getting a boat and trying to secure it, since its just the London accommodation - by any means - they're after.

 

And that is the problem -- the demand for (cheap) moorings in popular spots like London and the K&A will *always* exceed what is available, no matter how much they are expanded in theory. This means people "squat" on them instead of moving, because if they move somebody else will take "their" place. There could be plenty of moorings "out in the sticks" if CART allowed them but that's not where people want to moor (commuting time and cost).

 

If demand exceeds supply (which can't be increased) then the normal solution is to put the price up so demand reduces -- this would make more money for CART to maintain the canals with, but would cause uproar and (justified) accusations of pricing people off the canals... 😞

Edited July 2, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

36 minutes ago, agg221 said:

I think the main difference is scale. Cambridge has a very short length of river available for moorings in proportion to its size,

 

Indeed, there is a 'fraction' of the space available compared to the London Canals / River, but likewise I'd suggest that the demand for a mooring in Cambridge is a fraction of a fraction of the demand in London.

[agg221]

32 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Ideas like this have been aired before, but unfortunately the show stopper is that to "create" residential moorings, requires planning permission. That's a step change in complexity/admin etc to do so. And I bet as this "cheap" London accommodation scheme became known, there would be a flood of even more people getting a boat and trying to secure it, since its just the London accommodation - by any means - they're after.

The process of applying for planning permission is very easy. I have done it successfully and I am sure CRT has plenty of experience of doing so. The question is whether it would be granted, which I suspect would come down to the pros and cons for the relevant council and the quality of the preparatory work before applying. If I was tasked with this on behalf of CRT I would take the line that the people are there anyway, drawing on council services but not making a contribution to costs. Where they are complying with CC rules, at least to the point where they cannot be removed, there is no option to address this. However, if the same people who are already there and already not moving are now made residential then they will be liable for council tax. That will increase council revenue and cover the costs of providing the services.

 

The council tax cost would then need to be assessed for viability, but it would be minimum band, in my worked example would include single occupancy rebate and my figures suggested there would then be enough budget to cover it in circumstances where it was due.

 

If the only options are residential at a viable, non-inflated tariff or 48hr (or no mooring) and either all available mooring sites are occupied or the demand drops away once the policy is introduced then either outcome solves the current issue. Of course, it doesn't solve the issue of where the other boats then go if boaters moved on because they didn't want to pay for a mooring and council tax, but if that results in them being more dispersed then probably the problem is resolved rather than relocated since it appears to ultimately be a problem of density?

 

Of course I am under no illusion that this will actually happen...

 

Alec

Edited July 2, 2022 by agg221

[Alan de Enfield]

34 minutes ago, agg221 said:

The council tax cost would then need to be assessed for viability, but it would be minimum band, in my worked example would include single occupancy rebate and my figures suggested there would then be enough budget to cover it in circumstances where it was due.

 

Unless a boat is sufficiently connected to the land to make it 'permanent' the boat itself is not normally subject to council tax, it is the mooring that becomes subject to a council tax  and it could be a composite hereditament.

A boat is a chattel.

 

 

From the Government website :

 

6. Whether the value of the caravan or boat is to be included with the mooring in the Council Tax Valuation for Banding Purposes

6.1 Technically the boat or caravan is a chattel which will only become part of the hereditament if its presence has a sufficient degree of permanence to the land.

6.2 In London County Council v Wilkins (VO) 1954 (HL) the question of whether a chattel was rateable was considered. Lord Kilmur said that the test of rateability was whether there is evidence that the structures were enjoyed with the land and enhanced its value. He concluded that, “A chattel to be rateable must be rateable with the land on which it rests”.

6.3 The rateability of a caravan was specifically considered in Field Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding (VO) 1966 (CA) when Lord Denning said,

“Although a chattel is not a rateable hereditament by itself, nevertheless it may become rateable together with land, if it is placed on a piece of land and enjoyed with it in such circumstances and with such a degree of permanence that the chattel with the land can together be regarded as one unit of occupation.”

The Court of Appeal held that the caravan and its pitch were rateable as a separate hereditament notwithstanding the fact that the caravan was a chattel on wheels (and could be moved within half an hour) because it was placed on and enjoyed with land and with such a degree of permanence that the two could together be regarded as one unit of occupation.

6.4 The boat or caravan does not have to be annexed to the land, it is sufficient for either to rest on the land or water by its own weight (see Ryan Industrial Fuels Ltd v Morgan (VO) 1965 RA 327). Nor is it essential for a boat to be attached vertically to the land under the water on which it rests.

6.5 There have been a number of cases in recent years which have considered whether floating hereditaments used for commercial purposes should be assessed (notably Woodbury (VO) v The Yard Arm Club Ltd LT 1989 RA 381 and Westminster City Council v Woodbury (VO) and The Yard Arm Club Ltd CA 1992 RA 1), but the main issues in these cases have focused on the adequacy of the description/exemption rather than rateability of the vessel.

6.6 For a chattel to be part of the hereditament it must be enjoyed together with the land. Land can include water eg above a river bed, canal or dock basin or a lake as in Thomas (VO) v Witney Aquatic Co Ltd 1972 RA 493.

6.7 Whether a boat has its own means of propulsion or has to be towed into position does not affect whether it forms part of the hereditament and is to be included in the Council Tax valuation banding.

6.8 Accordingly where a caravan or boat is enjoyed with the land, and this enjoyment is of a non-transitory nature, the two together form a single hereditament (as defined in Section 115 of the General Rate Act 1967).

 

The following circumstances help to identify the council tax implications for the boat and its mooring where a boat is the sole or main residence of an individual.

Example 1

Purpose built living accommodation based on a flat bottomed barge. The structure is moored to the bank by mooring lines and provided with affixed water, electricity and sewage connections. It may or may not have its own propulsion or engine.

At intervals commonly but not exclusively every 2 - 3 years the structure is moved away for condition surveys and general maintenance. The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is occupied exclusively by one boat for a period of more than 12 months. This provides rateable occupation. 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.

The flat bottomed barge together with its living accommodation is a chattel. As the boat is permanently located on the mooring and only moves away every 2-3 years for maintenance, it can be considered to be enjoyed with the land. The value of the boat should therefore be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

Example 2

A family lives on a barge and pay rent to the riparian (‘of river bank’) owner for a mooring on the river bank. Water is supplied to the river bank. At times during the year, the barge goes cruising 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 that when next in use the mooring will be domestic. However, the barge is insufficiently annexed to the land to be regarded as part of the hereditament, and the mooring only should be valued to determine the appropriate band

Example 3

Where a marina with berths contains both moored pleasure boats and boats whose occupants use them as sole or main residences the outcome may on the facts be either a composite hereditament, a combination of composite hereditament and separate domestic hereditaments or indeed separate domestic hereditaments leading to separate bands .

The presence of a composite hereditament may be indicated by identifying the following features;

• Where boats that are occupied as an individual’s sole or main residence do not have a permanent right to any specific mooring
• Evidence that boats which are an individual’s sole or main residence are actually physically moved on at least two occasions a year.
• The boat that is an individual’s sole or main residence must be moved to a different berth not merely out and shortly afterwards returning to the same berth.

The presence of separate domestic dwellings within the boundary of the marina but not included in the composite hereditament would be indicated by ;

• A boat that is the sole or main residence of an individual remaining on the same mooring for more than 12 months. If in that time it left for a few days , then it returned to the same mooring the few days away would be considered de minimus and by virtue of sec 66 (5) it would be domestic.
• If while the boat is away the marina operator temporarily puts another boat on the mooring; but the berth holder always returns to his original berth, this would indicate a separate hereditament by virtue of the boat owners ability to exclude others and hence rateable occupation.
• Where a marina operator reserves the right to move boats to different moorings but actually does not exercise the right.

It is possible on the facts to find both a composite hereditament and one or more separate domestic hereditaments in the same marina. The final decision to find a composite or not must rest with the specific facts of each case.

Example 4

A boat is beached on a high tide onto an estuary bank. The boat is the sole or main residence of an individual so satisfying the requirements of both a hereditament and domestic. The access to the boat is by way of a raised walkway on stilts which are driven into the mud. The walkway is physically fixed to the boat. To support the boat timber has been driven into the mud which forms a cradle which is attached to the boat and used to support the boat. The extent of attachment to the ground is such that the boat can be said to be enjoyed with the hereditament and forms part of it. For the valuation both the boat and the mooring are considered in the value.

Example 5 - Central List

In the case of waterways where Canal & River Trust are the occupier and a composite assessment is appropriate, the NDR entry will be made in the non-domestic rating list. Canal & River Trust are assessed in the Central NDR List. If the waterway is in their occupation, and thus included in the Central List, any composite assessment will form part of that entry.

In the case of waterways occupied by a different body, a composite assessment would need to be made as appropriate.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[agg221]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Unless a boat is sufficiently connected to the land to make it 'permanent' the boat itself is not normally subject to council tax, it is the mooring that becomes subject to a composite council tax it is much more involved than applying for an extenion to your house.

From the Government website :

The two questions of planning permission and assessment for council tax appear to be separate. I don't really see a problem with either, in as much as for both of them there is an established process that is there to be followed,

 

Alec

[Arthur Marshall]

The whole point of this discussion of a change of approach is that wholesale change is needed. The concept of planning permission, council tax etc etc would have to be part of the changes. There have already been swathing changes to planning mooted by the current goverment, mostly now dumped, but why a low maintenance towpath mooring should actually need planning permission is beyond me. You're not changing anything, just nailing a boat to it.

Likewise, I imagine councils would jump at the chance to get a bit of money from what are probably now squatters. Strong policing by the equivalent of traffic wardens would pay for itself.

It is blatantly obvious to anyone involved in housing that the current situation isn't fit for the purpose, and building expensive housing and investment properties isn't going to solve it. 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Arthur Marshall

[magnetman]

2 hours ago, agg221 said:

A friend lives on The King, a 70' former FMC steamer. He has a residential mooring at Engineer's Wharf which is a secure offside basin in North London, run by CRT. The mooring is fully serviced and within walking distance of a tube station which is how he gets to work. He pays £6k a year and the basin is not always full. Is that at, above or below market rate? It's a 40% saving on your current residential mooring, even if you have a 70' boat.

 

My £2k figure was derived from the comment further up the thread about discussions around a figure for a weekly towpath mooring charge and the current figure for moorings in other parts of the country. I wasn't envisaging much more than an insecure towpath-side mooring, probably breasted up, with water points added at the boats and a sanitary station within walking distance, essentially meaning that a boat moored there did not have to move in the course of being lived on but nothing more. How does that level of service compare with your current level?

 

I'm not sure what the going rate for something that basic in London would be, however as per my original post and @Arthur Marshall's comment, I was looking at a cost+ model rather than maximising profit since the idea was to see whether a figure which met the costs of creating/managing moorings could in theory be viable to charge - my preliminary conclusion was that it is. I was thinking in terms of creating a self-sustaining financial position with the minimum of ongoing checks and balances required by government. Whilst technically you could increase the cost of the moorings and then get a different government department to meet this through housing benefit, I was looking for a figure which was not based on shuffling money between government departments and CRT, although I accept that since CRT is not a government department, if it was effectively extending its business as a landlord to increase revenue then acquiring housing benefit would be a way to meet that objective. One good reason not to maximise profit would be the dynamic between CRT and the boater - it creates a much stronger position for CRT if the boater cannot legitimately argue that CRT has created a position which is unaffordable for them, which they then use to justify acting outside the rules. I would imagine housing benefit would still apply for those legitimately without means of employment, but the numbers would be considerably smaller.

 

Part of what I was doing was exploring whether this represents a possible route forward for CRT to resolve what appears to be a currently unsustainable situation. A big assumption I know, but if you assume that the number of boats currently in London is around static and not set for further substantial growth (based on the assumption that if there are miles on end with no moorings you couldn't fit any more boats in), you could equally assume that the number of improvised plus legitimate moorings does manage to accommodate them. I was thinking of legitimised moorings created over a transition period, in blocks which maximised efficient use of space use, with short-term visitor moorings between the blocks which were suitably policed for infringement. This might take a lot of the heat out of the current situation since making it easier to comply could remove a lot of the arguments, particularly if you now have the majority on your side because most of the community are there living a lifestyle which they see as an improvement over the present need to nominally move. The alternative would appear to be to effect a clearance which I imagine could have quite negative outcomes - desperate people do desperate things. My personal view is that, whilst it would have been better if the present situation had not been allowed to develop and numbers had been restricted to a sustainable level in the first place, the people and the boats are now there and it is, on balance, better to rationalise and manage that position rather than attempt to turn back the clock.

 

The two main principles which would have to be addressed are the creation of new on-line moorings and the creation of residential sites with all that brings, but neither of those can be beyond the wit of man to resolve. This might be a situation where you have to create some 'special case' scenarios with a checklist to identify them based on demand and the availability of legitimate offline mooring sites within a reasonable distance. This would prevent proliferation of the change in principle in general.

 

As to allocation - that wasn't my primary thought process so no strong views but off the top of my head how about an initial lottery allocation amongst those who are already in the area and have been so for a period of time, followed by a waiting list, moorings being assigned to the boat owner rather than the boat, and no right to sub-let? That would appear to address the majority of issues, since there is a reasonable level of turnover of residents across the scale of the area in question. You could also add some form of 'good tenant' clause, drawing on previous licence infringements as a factor in allocation. I'm sure this could be refined further.

 

Alec

Engineers wharf is certainly not in "North London". It's suburban I believe in Middlesex which is probably "greater London" but I don't believe it has a London postcode. 

 

£6k is market rate but it's a lot more than that for places in zone 2 or 1. Islington, for example, would probably achieve a market rate of three times that much for a 70ft narrow boat. 

 

It's all about location innit. 

 

Willow wren wharf by Tesco bulls bridge also around £6k but again, not in London. 

 

Yes there is tube but London it is not.