C&RT License Survey

[magnetman]

Fair enough but that would mean you would have to be moving for 24 hours a day. Very unusual I would suggest. 

 

Continuously Cruising is a term which has arisen directly from the 1995 BW Act and the whole story around this is that the wording is open to interpretation. 

 

That is what is going on here. 

 

I still think the CRT with the help of their militant wing the NBTA are gradually moving the subject and that off grid under the radar boat living is on the way out now. 

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It was actually written into the transfer documents as being forbidden, so C&RT knew they could not get an income that way.

 

C&RT cannot, without the Governments approval :

(List of things -)

 

2.4.3 restricting pedestrian access to any part of the towpaths within the Infrastructure Property; for example by charging a fee for access, save that consent will not be needed for any temporary restrictions..............

Yes, I didn't explain my point clearly, CRT are trying to "monetise" the towpaths and canalside environment for walkers, joggers, cyclists and others without charging. i.e. getting them to donate to support/maintain something that they have always used for free, and that will be freely available to everyone regardless of whether they have donated. 

Not an easy sell, as there are far more "deserving" charities asking for cash,  and organisations like the National Trust are better established and give you something in return for your donation/membership- free entry to properties.

[Alan de Enfield]

58 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think you could even find the "reasonable in the circumstances" part extending to people who have commitments such as work or children. 

 

 

Not for work, but for familes with school age children (apparently there are some octogenarians living on the K&A that are still at school) C&RT (following intervention from MPs) have amended their school term time requirements (in contravention of the 1995 Act and C&RTs own CC guidleines).

 

Example given in the C&RT presentation of acceptable term time movements :

 

You can stay within a 3-mile radius of School, but must extend to the  20 mile radius in the holidays.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

London Enforcement Manager Simon Cadek sent an email to a boater who was warned that they were on course for failing their six month restricted licence, telling them what they would need to do to pass.
The email is on public record as part of advice to boaters in the London Boaters Facebook group 

“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:

· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.

. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.

· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.

While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.
Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.
This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.

· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.

We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.
The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.
Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only).
Generally speaking, the smaller the range the less we’d expect to see boats back at the same locations. Of course people need to turn around and they’re perfectly free to re-visit places they have been to before, it’s living in a small area on this kind of licence that would cause a problem.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

I like the wording "it would not be right to modify or relax the legal requirement". 

 

Very good ! Its not up to the CRT to do either of those things and perhaps this form of words is rather telling. 

 

I still think the right approach here is to transfer towpaths, including mooring rights, to local councils as they are in most cases a local amenity. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I like the wording "it would not be right to modify or relax the legal requirement". 

 

But, we will do it anyway !

[magnetman]

While it may seem like a burden there do appear to be quite a lot of people who like to use the facility of mooring against said towpaths so there could be some income for councils arising from taking advantage of this privilege. Only a theory !

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

While it may seem like a burden there do appear to be quite a lot of people who like to use the facility of mooring against said towpaths so there could be some income for councils arising from taking advantage of this privilege. Only a theory !

Richmond Council have enacted byelaws that only allow a maximum of 1 hour mooring per 24 hours and after 1 hour the fines start to kick in, and every day a new offence is committed so it is easy to rack up a reasonable 'income' for the council

 

 

[magnetman]

I know about the Richmond thing. The teddington boat village. Thread started by me (outinthedinghy) on Thames forum some yars ago  in 2010 ! 

 

https://forums.ybw.com/index.php?threads/teddington-lock-the-boat-village.235283/

 

A punitive sanction like this is not what I was thinking of.

 

Out of interest Hounslow copied the Richmond byelaw word for word despite them not actually having any non tidal Thames side land. 

 

Anyway I was thinking of encouraging mooring rather than banning it. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by magnetman

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I know about the Richmond thing. The teddington boat village. Thread started by me (outinthedinghy) on Thames forum some yars ago  in 2010 ! 

 

https://forums.ybw.com/index.php?threads/teddington-lock-the-boat-village.235283/

 

A punitive sanction like this is not what I was thinking of.

 

Out of interest Hounslow copied the Richmond byelaw word for word despite them not actually having any non tidal Thames side land. 

 

Anyway I was thinking of encouraging mooring rather than banning it. 

It would make sense for councils, where they own the land, to rent it for residential moorings, council tax and all.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It would make sense for councils, where they own the land, to rent it for residential moorings, council tax and all.

 

But, on the bulk of (all off ?) the canals, they don't own the land under the water, so only relevant on Rivers. 

I suppose they could always pay the 'Farmers rate' or NAA of 9% of the available number of moorings to C&RT, it'd give C&RT a bit more income.

[magnetman]

This also makes sense for the CRT. 

 

My inner London residential mooring is CRT owned. They do get a good deal of money from it rather than letting a marina management take the profits. 

 

Seems quite a good option and yes one can have it paid for by Universal Credit if one can demonstrate a need as it is residential mooring with council tax. 

 

Seems to be a win win situation but you need to have people who actually want to live on boats and are not just taking advantage of how cheap it is to have a cc licence. 

 

I wonder how many of these people exist in the real world. 

 

Of course there are also constraints around land ownership and people who live by canals quite often hate to see boats. 

 

I still think the CRT could install a lot more residential moorings IF there was the demand. 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

This also makes sense for the CRT. 

 

My inner London residential mooring is CRT owned. They do get a good deal of money from it rather than letting a marina management take the profits. 

 

Seems quite a good option and yes one can have it paid for by Universal Credit if one can demonstrate a need as it is residential mooring with council tax. 

 

Seems to be a win win situation but you need to have people who actually want to live on boats and are not just taking advantage of how cheap it is to have a cc licence. 

 

I wonder how many of these people exist in the real world. 

 

Of course there are also constraints around land ownership and people who live by canals quite often hate to see boats. 

 

I still think the CRT could install a lot more residential moorings IF there was the demand. 

 

Undoubtedly CART could make more residential moorings available at £2k per year (or more Dahn Sarf), but so long as the CMers can get away free with not paying for one they will so the demand won't be there.

 

If CART do apply a biggish CC surcharge -- say £1k per year -- then the cost saving from CMing would halve, and the demand for residential moorings would go up because more people would decide it's worth paying £1k a year extra to get the advantages -- and maybe some CMers would leave the system entirely because of the cost increase.

[magnetman]

Exactly. This is what I am advocating.

Also if moorings have residential status as I said before people who can demonstrate that they can not afford it can claim it on state benefits. The result of this would be that a canal system which badly needs funding could gain at least a proportion of this funding from the state. 

 

I think this would be a Good Thing but it does rely on people wanting to live on boats! 

[IanD]

Just now, magnetman said:

Exactly. This is what I am advocating.

I think it will take a stick (e.g. 100% CC surcharge) as well as a carrot (more online residential moorings) to make CMers move onto them...

[magnetman]

Of course it will. 

 

It is risky to build residential moorings and find nobody wants to occupy them. 

 

Tricky really plus planning permission is not all that easy to deal with and the CRT are not a housing authority. 

[IanD]

Just now, magnetman said:

Of course it will. 

 

It is risky to build residential moorings and find nobody wants to occupy them. 

 

Tricky really plus planning permission is not all that easy to deal with and the CRT are not a housing authority. 

Indeed they're not, but short of hoping that all the CMers magically vanish and/or start mooring sensibly and obeying the CC rules, it would be better to have them legalised and inside the tent and paying money to CART than doing what they do today...

[magnetman]

We do agree on this. 

 

It is interesting the way the NBTA like to steer this. I wonder how much of a kickback they get from the CRT. 

 

 

As I mentioned it IS interesting that "continuous cruiser licence" is now written on a .gov website. 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

We do agree on this. 

 

It is interesting the way the NBTA like to steer this. I wonder how much of a kickback they get from the CRT. 

 

 

As I mentioned it IS interesting that "continuous cruiser licence" is now written on a .gov website. 

 

I would have thought that the NBTA are a PITA as far as CART are concerned, they are effectively encouraging boaters to bend/break the CC rules -- by which I mean the original ones, not the fudge that CART came up with about families with schools (posted above) which directly contradicts them, and which I gather happened when CART effectively caved in to NBTA/press lobbying...

[magnetman]

The NBTA is basically a militant wing of the CRT engaged in attempting to force change and shine a great big lime light on off grid inland boat living..

 

At first glance it looks like they are a nuisance for the CRT but over time they will help cause the desired outcome even if they do so unwittingly and maybe not intentionally. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

12 minutes ago, magnetman said:

We do agree on this. 

 

It is interesting the way the NBTA like to steer this. I wonder how much of a kickback they get from the CRT. 

 

 

As I mentioned it IS interesting that "continuous cruiser licence" is now written on a .gov website. 

 

I believe the NBTa’s tack is that there is only one license, there is not a continuous cruiser license.

Just one standard leisure/pleasure license for which you either declare a home morning or not.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The NBTA is basically a militant wing of the CRT engaged in attempting to force change and shine a great big lime light on off grid inland boat living..

 

At first glance it looks like they are a nuisance for the CRT but over time they will help cause the desired outcome even if they do so unwittingly and maybe not intentionally. 

 

 

yes, it could all really back fire

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The NBTA is basically a militant wing of the CRT engaged in attempting to force change and shine a great big lime light on off grid inland boat living..

 

At first glance it looks like they are a nuisance for the CRT but over time they will help cause the desired outcome even if they do so unwittingly and maybe not intentionally. 

 

 

How on earth can the NBTA be "a militant wing of the CRT" when they're nothing to do with them?

 

As far as I can see they're simply an association of boaters acting as a pressure group to try and push CART to bend/change the rules so CMers are effectively legalised... 😞

[Momac]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Fair enough but that would mean you would have to be moving for 24 hours a day. Very unusual I would suggest. 

A balance is somewhere in between the dictionary definition and bending the rules to their maximum - accepting the maximum rule banding may be tolerated  in winter or due to a stoppage.

 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

A balance is somewhere in between the dictionary definition and bending the rules to their maximum - accepting the maximum rule banding may be tolerated  in winter or due to a stoppage.

 

 

For a lot of CMers the rule-bending is clearly all year round, not just in winter or during a stoppage...

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

How on earth can the NBTA be "a militant wing of the CRT" when they're nothing to do with them?

 

As far as I can see they're simply an association of boaters acting as a pressure group to try and push CART to bend/change the rules so CMers are effectively legalised... 😞

I read a magnetman’s post with what I thought was intended irony,

meaning that NBTA’s protestations will only further CRT’s attempts to change the system

 

 

 

[magnetman]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

How on earth can the NBTA be "a militant wing of the CRT" when they're nothing to do with them?

 

As far as I can see they're simply an association of boaters acting as a pressure group to try and push CART to bend/change the rules so CMers are effectively legalised... 😞

Do you know anyone in the CRT or the NBTA? 

 

If not then how do you know what their motivations are ? 

 

I know it is all a bit London centric and the canals have taken on the same role as squatting residential property did before it was criminalised but the actions of the NBTA will have consequences. 

Edited February 27, 2023 by magnetman
Typo