Boat dwellers to be able to claim the £400 energy allowance.

[Paul C]

13 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

You're tying yourself in knots. For water over a farmer's field, CRT have no authority. Not discussing whether someone is planning to build a marina. 

 

 

Eh? I'm not tying myself in knots. I don't disagree - for water over a farmer's field, CRT have no authority (but the landowner does). That includes if the farmer decides to build a marina on it, or if its just a small section of eroded bank.

 

If there's a connection to the canal, CRT could do 3 things: 1) do nothing, 2) seal it up by installing (impermeable) piling or similar, 3) negotiate with the landowner to get them to sign the NAA.

 

If the 3rd option is taken, then CRT still don't have any authority over that private area BUT the landowner certainly does have authority. And if he's offering out mooring to boaters, he can set whatever rules he likes for those boaters in a contract. 

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Eh? I'm not tying myself in knots. I don't disagree - for water over a farmer's field, CRT have no authority

 

That's it. Private property. The assertion is - the water in a marina belongs to CRT, and CRT somehow derive authority from that. It isn't CRT water, it is on private property, it is not part of the waterway authority.

 

 

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Eh? I'm not tying myself in knots. I don't disagree - for water over a farmer's field, CRT have no authority (but the landowner does). That includes if the farmer decides to build a marina on it, or if its just a small section of eroded bank.

 

If there's a connection to the canal, CRT could do 3 things: 1) do nothing, 2) seal it up by installing (impermeable) piling or similar, 3) negotiate with the landowner to get them to sign the NAA.

 

If the 3rd option is taken, then CRT still don't have any authority over that private area BUT the landowner certainly does have authority. And if he's offering out mooring to boaters, he can set whatever rules he likes for those boaters in a contract. 

 

 

You're wasting your effort explaining! 

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

51 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Who would? CRT won't accept responsibility for a farmer's field boundary.

 

 

 

You're tying yourself in knots. For water over a farmer's field, private land, CRT have no authority. Not discussing whether someone is planning to build a marina. 

 

 

Unfortunately, not the case. When the mooring charges came in,  one of the getouts tried was that we were not moored over the canal bed, but over the farmland. I still am. I still pay CRT a mooring fee.

[Paul C]

28 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That's it. Private property. The assertion is - the water in a marina belongs to CRT, and CRT somehow derive authority from that. It isn't CRT water, it is on private property, it is not part of the waterway authority.

 

 

 

I think we're all agreed on that, I don't see anyone disputing that aspect. You can't "label" water as such. Its the ACCESS which is important - hence the name, Network Access Agreement. 

 

However there are the questions of, how does one fill one's duck pond? And if its connected, does it leak or not? They are other technical aspects which I don't want to debate with you.

[Momac]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

So you think if I were to buy a field by a canal then dig a Very Big Hole in it and connect it to the canal there is no law protecting the navigation authority against me draining the entire canal? 

 

This would be silly but is the logical outcome. 

You would require a prior  agreement to make the cut.

These days you would have to pay C&RT for the moorings whether occupied or not

But that was not necessarily so some decades ago.

 

[magnetman]

I would have thought the original promoters would have spotted that someone might nick the water and get something into the enabling Act. 

 

Never checked but it seems fairly obvious and in the days of commercial use of canals water was a terrifically valuable asset. 

 

You can't float a boat when there is no water so it is reasonably important to ensure it doesn't all go somewhere else through devilment or someone seeking commercial gain. 

[TheBiscuits]

8 hours ago, Higgs said:

Fish go where they want. 

 

Do Goldfish need a Gold Licence? 😁

[magnetman]

This seems to be a contenchus idea. 

Possibly an interesting approach but the implementation could be a little ruffe if not done right. 

[Higgs]

17 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

I think we're all agreed on that, I don't see anyone disputing that aspect. You can't "label" water as such. Its the ACCESS which is important - hence the name, Network Access Agreement. 

 

However there are the questions of, how does one fill one's duck pond? And if its connected, does it leak or not? They are other technical aspects which I don't want to debate with you.

 

What about the access? An access fee is levied, as part of the mooring fee. If you were to plank the entrance to a marina, the water on the marina side would be part of the marina's private property. Marina moorers have no legal connection with CRT, inside, there is no CRT authority. And all water comes from the same place, whether for CRT or a marina - it rains. 

 

CRT operate inside a marina, by permission of the marina. That permission is granted, in the NAA. It does not grant CRT the same authority CRT have outside of the marina. 

 

 

17 hours ago, magnetman said:

I would have thought the original promoters would have spotted that someone might nick the water and get something into the enabling Act. 

 

Never checked but it seems fairly obvious and in the days of commercial use of canals water was a terrifically valuable asset. 

 

You can't float a boat when there is no water so it is reasonably important to ensure it doesn't all go somewhere else through devilment or someone seeking commercial gain. 

 

The extraction of water inside a marina is mentioned in the NAA. It is not permitted. That doesn't mean it can't happen. It does happen. 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

99.9% of moorers need the access, to get into the marina in the first place. They will probably want to go out once or twice; and they will want to have the option to leave without incurring truck/crane costs. I think you are in a slim minority of boaters who don't want to boat - most do.

 

What's the cost of 2x road transport, craning in, and craning out; vs the cost of a licence? If you look at the numbers, you'd need to spend a considerable amount of time not paying a licence (if you found a marina which accepted you don't have a licence) to make it financially worthwhile to do this route, vs just having a licence like everyone else.

 

CRT don't need the authority inside the marina; the landowner/marina operator has the authority, including to "kick someone out for having no licence"

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

What about the access? An access fee is levied, as part of the mooring fee. If you were to plank the entrance to a marina, the water on the marina side would be part of the marina's private property. Marina moorers have no legal connection with CRT, inside, there is no CRT authority. And all water comes from the same place, whether for CRT or a marina - it rains. 

 

CRT operate inside a marina, by permission of the marina. That permission is granted, in the NAA. It does not grant CRT the same authority CRT have outside of the marina. 

 

 

 

The extraction of water inside a marina is mentioned in the NAA. It is not permitted. That doesn't mean it can't happen. It does happen. 

 

 

ETA I'll quote you, since you have the habit of going back and editing your posts.

[Higgs]

16 minutes ago, Paul C said:

99.9% of moorers need the access, to get into the marina in the first place. They will probably want to go out once or twice; and they will want to have the option to leave without incurring truck/crane costs. I think you are in a slim minority of boaters who don't want to boat - most do.

 

What's the cost of 2x road transport, craning in, and craning out; vs the cost of a licence? If you look at the numbers, you'd need to spend a considerable amount of time not paying a licence (if you found a marina which accepted you don't have a licence) to make it financially worthwhile to do this route, vs just having a licence like everyone else.

 

CRT don't need the authority inside the marina; the landowner/marina operator has the authority, including to "kick someone out for having no licence"

ETA I'll quote you, since you have the habit of going back and editing your posts.

 

I edit, when I need to. 

 

I have no idea what you're rattling on about. ??  A marina is not a CRT waterway. What's all this to do with cranes? 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

What's all this to do with cranes? 

 

Because they do not pay C&RT for a licence even when not in a marina.

 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Because they do not pay C&RT for a licence even when not in a marina.

 

Ha...., ha.

 

 

[Momac]

36 minutes ago, Paul C said:

....the landowner/marina operator has the authority, including to "kick someone out for having no licence"

Is there a reason why a marina would be concerned whether a boat is licensed or not?

Edited March 12, 2023 by MartynG

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

Is there a reason why would a marina be concerned whether a boat is licensed or not?

 

 

There are many marinas that do not require a boat to have a licence - there are also many marinas whose agreement / contract to allow access to 'C&RT controlled waters' has a clause saying that boats are required to have a licence, simply as a contractual requirement, to ensure unlicenced boats are not 'nipping out' for a weekend.

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Is there a reason why a marina would be concerned whether a boat is licensed or not?

Is there a safety question here? 

 

A boat without a licence does not need a Boat Safety Certificate. 

 

You could have dangerous boats both in the marina and on the cut self declaring for visitor licences. 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

There are many marinas that do not require a boat to have a licence - there are also many marinas whose agreement / contract to allow access to 'C&RT controlled waters' has a clause saying that boats are required to have a licence, simply as a contractual requirement, to ensure unlicenced boats are not 'nipping out' for a weekend.

 

That's a rubbish reason. Why is it that everyone in society is not locked up, by the same logic? Just in case.

 

 

[magnetman]

I suppose put another way can a marina operator legally require a boat to have a BS ticket independently of whether that boat is licensed with a navigation authority.

[Momac]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

There are many marinas that do not require a boat to have a licence - there are also many marinas whose agreement / contract to allow access to 'C&RT controlled waters' has a clause saying that boats are required to have a licence, simply as a contractual requirement, to ensure unlicenced boats are not 'nipping out' for a weekend.

Not sure why that should be the marinas responsibility.

But its a requirement of a contract then fair enough.

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Is there a safety question here? 

 

A boat without a licence does not need a Boat Safety Certificate. 

 

You could have dangerous boats both in the marina and on the cut self declaring for visitor licences. 

 

 

The question of having a licence and keeping the boat safe is not connected.

 

 

[magnetman]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

The question of having a licence and keeping the boat safe is not connected.

 

 

I can't license my boat without having it inspected for BS every 4 yars. 

 

If that is not connected then what do you mean by "connected"?

 

[Higgs]

Just now, MartynG said:

Not sure why that should be the marinas responsibility.

But its a requirement of a contract then fair enough.

 

 

It is a requirement in contract, because CRT have no legal authority in a marina. 

 

 

Just now, magnetman said:

I can't license my boat without having it inspected for BS every 4 yars. 

 

If that is not connected then what do you mean by "connected"?

 

 

Nothing stops you from having your boat maintained to a safe standard.

 

 

[magnetman]

l

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

It is a requirement in contract, because CRT have no legal authority in a marina. 

 

 

 

Nothing stops you from having your boat maintained to a safe standard.

 

 

Yes I know my boat is safe but surely you can understand why independent verification is needed for that ??

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

l

Yes I know my boat is safe but surely you can understand why independent verification is needed for that ??

 

Nothing stops you from having it inspected, surveyed, or whatever.