The National Bargee Travellers Association has slammed plans to raise licence fees on canals like the Kennet and Avon

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

 

They may get a shock . . .

 

 

Let's hope so, because currently CRT just leave them alone to get on with their free boating.

 

 

[David Mack]

23 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

If you've looked around, after a good rain. ponds crop up spontaneously in fields. The structure itself is not a permanent fixture. I think that does have a bearing on gaining permissions, and less likely to need any. 

 

But it is private property, and is something for the owner of that property to deal with. 

 

 

 

 

Change of use from agricultural to boat mooring is likely to require planning permission.

Excavation of a hole that size may well constitute 'development' which requires planning permission.

In either case I think it would be hard to argue that it was part of legitimate agricultural use which is covered by permitted development rights.

Yes the landowner must be involved, but unauthorised development is a matter for the local planning authority. Although whether, in these resource-constrained times, it would come high enough up their agenda for action is another matter.

Edited March 14, 2023 by David Mack

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

Remember that usage of land is as much a part of Planning as any structure itself.

 

It is for the private landowner to work out, with the local planning office, I presume. In that respect, it has nothing to do with the canal.

 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

Excavation or a hole that size may well constitute 'development' which requires planning permission.

 

As I understand it, earthworks carried out by hand do not need permission. 

 

Once any sort of powered machine is used to shift earth about, then it counts as development  and PP is likely to be necessary. 

[Chewbacka]

12 minutes ago, David Mack said:

………….but unauthorised development is a matter for the local planning authority. Although whether, in these resource-constrained times, it would come high enough up their agenda for action is another matter.

It would if Clarkson had done it at Diddly Squat farm…….

[Athy]

18 hours ago, magnetman said:

How did it get there ?

The word on the cut at the time (and it's been there at least ten years) was tghat they dug the 'ole first and then, presumably under cover of night, removed the bit of bank between canal and 'ole, inserted the boat, and replaced the bank. From memory, for some while there was a scar on the bank where this had been done.

[Hudds Lad]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Wasn't there last time I passed. Anyone seen it the last couple of years?

Pic taken 17th April 2022

 

 

[Athy]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

This would make a great caption competition.

I'll start:

 

"CART are behind schedule with their dredging again, then".

 

I'm sure there will be wittier captions, but this is just to get the ball rolling.

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

5. If the new fee structure does indeed include a higher rate for CC's then it would be foolish indeed to assume that it will be easy to cheat. Assuming that by CCer we mean someone without a home mooring then the only way to evade is by making a false declaration about having a home mooring. Gradually, CaRT have better records about the total number of available home moorings as they ensure that EOG's (or more often end of farm) are properly recorded and paid for. Any marina built in recent times will be under the NAA from which CaRT can derive quite accurate information alas well as the right to to make visits to check. If it becomes material, expect marinas to be even more cautious about harbouring boats for evasion purposes as their own licence will be at risk. It will only take the threat of closing down a marina for breaches of the NAA to persuade everyone else that it is perhaps a good idea to comply! (Many will have hefty loans to service)

Won't the real challenge come from people claiming to have moorings on non-CRT navigations (or the minority of older marinas with grandfathered rights to waterway access without NAA restrictions?) Some of them might even see selling "moorings" without any actual space or use associated with them as easy money and actually be prepared to send CRT documentation confirming the mooring agreement!

 

I guess in theory CRT can start denying boaters using non-CRT approved home moorings licences (or giving them short term licences only) but that might get legally messy.

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, enigmatic said:

 

I guess in theory CRT can start denying boaters using non-CRT approved home moorings licences (or giving them short term licences only) but that might get legally messy.

 

Maybe the way around this is to have a fixed charge for a licence fee and give a discount to people who have approved moorings. Those who don't have approved moorings pay the full rate. If you have somewhere the boat can legally be kept or left according to law this does not give you any protection from increased licence fee so presumably it would be up to the board to decide whether or not the place you have available to leave the boat is an approved mooring. 

 

"home mooring" and "continuous cruiser" are two terms which are not included in the 95 act but have been made up over time. 

[enigmatic]

Just now, magnetman said:

Maybe the way around this is to have a fixed charge for a licence fee and give a discount to people who have approved moorings. Those who don't have approved moorings pay the full rate. If you have somewhere the boat can legally be kept or left according to law this does not give you any protection from increased licence fee so presumably it would be up to the board to decide whether or not the place you have available to leave the boat is an approved mooring. 

 

"home mooring" and "continuous cruiser" are two terms which are not included in the 95 act but have been made up over time. 

 

I can definitely see that happening (possibly not even with the discount, but simply a reduction in the cost of CRT-managed moorings and a reduction in EOG and marina charges which the private operators may or may not choose to pass back to their customers...) which is another reason why I suspect people with moorings ticking boxes to suggest higher fees for CCers might be passing on more costs to themselves than they think...

 

I guess people with completely legit moorings somewhere like the Nene might just opt not to get the much more expensive Gold Licence for their occasional visits to CRT waterways...

[Higgs]

13 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

 

I can definitely see that happening (possibly not even with the discount, but simply a reduction in the cost of CRT-managed moorings and a reduction in EOG and marina charges which the private operators may or may not choose to pass back to their customers...) which is another reason why I suspect people with moorings ticking boxes to suggest higher fees for CCers might be passing on more costs to themselves than they think...

 

I guess people with completely legit moorings somewhere like the Nene might just opt not to get the much more expensive Gold Licence for their occasional visits to CRT waterways...

 

The only reduction discussed in this thread is a reduction in liability that the home mooring mouthpieces are all for. The premise is - when they use the towpath, they don't actually use the towpath. We have to imagine them still on their home mooring. And when they use the locks, they're not actually using the lock, they're still on their home mooring. If they use the towpath, this is a figment of everyone's imagination, they're still on their home moorings. 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

38 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Maybe the way around this is to have a fixed charge for a licence fee and give a discount to people who have approved moorings. Those who don't have approved moorings pay the full rate. If you have somewhere the boat can legally be kept or left according to law this does not give you any protection from increased licence fee so presumably it would be up to the board to decide whether or not the place you have available to leave the boat is an approved mooring. 

 

"home mooring" and "continuous cruiser" are two terms which are not included in the 95 act but have been made up over time. 

Surely CRT will just define anyone without a CRT registered mooring as a CC? They already thank me politely each year for choosing to moor with Waterside Moorings  although I don't. But the mooring site is registered.

[Paul C]

33 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Surely CRT will just define anyone without a CRT registered mooring as a CC? They already thank me politely each year for choosing to moor with Waterside Moorings  although I don't. But the mooring site is registered.

What is a CRT registered mooring?

[magnetman]

21 minutes ago, Paul C said:

What is a CRT registered mooring?

I think it would be one where the CRT have an interest in other words they get part of the income. EOG, Towpath LTM, offside CRT moorings and some marinas. 

 

Not sure how this would work for offside mooring sites not run by CRT and not classed as "end of garden" by the CRT. 

 

Also moorings on CRT scheduled rivers could be interesting. 

 

Approved may be a better word. Not a mooring on a field near Lechlade on Thames. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by magnetman

[Paul C]

58 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The only reduction discussed in this thread is a reduction in liability that the home mooring mouthpieces are all for. The premise is - when they use the towpath, they don't actually use the towpath. We have to imagine them still on their home mooring. And when they use the locks, they're not actually using the lock, they're still on their home mooring. If they use the towpath, this is a figment of everyone's imagination, they're still on their home moorings. 

 

 

 

 

One way to look at it is, those who have a home mooring (say, in a marina which pays 9% of the moorings prices as their NAA fee....) get 9% of the year out, during which they can use the towpath too. Those who use it more (CCers and hire firms) will, or already do, pay more.

[magnetman]

Paying by use of the actual infrastructure is an interesting question. Someone who never moves does not need locks to be working. They could just be weirs. All you need is water. Therefore why pay any licence at all? 

 

On the other hand someone who has signed a document saying they arrr going to move bona fide for navigation to another place every 14 days throughout the period of the consent can never achieve this if locks are stanked and converted to weirs. 

 

Someone "cc ing" would be forced to break the law if the locks don't work therefore they rely on the locks working to avoid being a criminal. Someone who has a mooring does not rely on locks working to avoid being a criminal. 

 

Who should pay for locks to be maintained?

 

 

[Bristolfashion]

On 12/03/2023 at 09:57, Athy said:

So, droughts, storms and heavy rain are recent inventions?

I rather think that our canals were built to withstand such conditions.

It's the frequency and severity that will change. 

[Paul C]

26 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Paying by use of the actual infrastructure is an interesting question. Someone who never moves does not need locks to be working. They could just be weirs. All you need is water. Therefore why pay any licence at all? 

 

On the other hand someone who has signed a document saying they arrr going to move bona fide for navigation to another place every 14 days throughout the period of the consent can never achieve this if locks are stanked and converted to weirs. 

 

Someone "cc ing" would be forced to break the law if the locks don't work therefore they rely on the locks working to avoid being a criminal. Someone who has a mooring does not rely on locks working to avoid being a criminal. 

 

Who should pay for locks to be maintained?

 

 

 

Pay by use is generally seen as unpopular, the idea being that CRT want boaters to boat, so its an attraction for others who come to the canal for picnics, sightseeing, etc. So, its (as much as possible) single lump sum gets everything, and if you use it, you get your money's worth. If you spend all year in a marina (but bought the licence because the nasty moorings manager made you do it) then you get incredibly poor value for money, despite a connection to the canal and at least 2 different directions to go once you actually leave it.

 

ETA I think we're a bit too far into the future crystal ball gazing, or overthinking hypotheticals, if we are saying all locks no longer work. At the moment, some locks don't work and CCers are expected to plan around stoppages; and/or they can stay longer than 14 days "if reasonable in the circumstances" or something like that in the already-quoted actual wording of the law. Some CCers are great at planning around so they can keep cruising and seeing the canals, others seem brilliant at always having the bow pointed at a stoppage.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Paul C

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Pay by use is generally seen as unpopular, the idea being that CRT want boaters to boat, so its an attraction for others who come to the canal for picnics, sightseeing, etc. So, its (as much as possible) single lump sum gets everything, and if you use it, you get your money's worth. If you spend all year in a marina (but bought the licence because the nasty moorings manager made you do it) then you get incredibly poor value for money, despite a connection to the canal and at least 2 different directions to go once you actually leave it.

 

Pay by use (e.g. tolls) is also very difficult and expensive to monitor and enforce, where a fixed fee which needs no monitoring or enforcement is not...

 

You pay the same road tax (yes, I know...) regardless of whether you drive 10 miles a year or 10000, a license fee is like this -- if you don't use it much then it's poor value.

 

The other type of usage tax is done by fuel taxes in cars, which is proportional to use (and fuel consumption). But most cars use far more fuel per year than most canal boats, so to get an equivalent sum would probably mean a massive tax increase on propulsion diesel, possible to £5 a litre or so -- and this would then cripple people using it for heating so we'd be back to the two-tier red/white pricing but with a *much* bigger cost difference (5x?) and therefore a *much* bigger incentive to commit fraud... 😞

Edited March 14, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Someone "cc ing" would be forced to break the law if the locks don't work therefore they rely on the locks working to avoid being a criminal. Someone who has a mooring does not rely on locks working to avoid being a criminal. 

 

 

 

and becoming Stoke on Trent could lead to a Flowery Dell?

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, enigmatic said:

Won't the real challenge come from people claiming to have moorings on non-CRT navigations (or the minority of older marinas with grandfathered rights to waterway access without NAA restrictions?) Some of them might even see selling "moorings" without any actual space or use associated with them as easy money and actually be prepared to send CRT documentation confirming the mooring agreement!

 

I guess in theory CRT can start denying boaters using non-CRT approved home moorings licences (or giving them short term licences only) but that might get legally messy.

The issue of boats visiting from non-CRT waters is already addressed through visitor licences. Not messy.

 

see https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/licence-your-boat/short-term-visitor-licences

[TheBiscuits]

4 hours ago, Paul C said:

This would make a great caption competition.

 

Making life better. Bye water!

 

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

Pay by use is generally seen as unpopular, the idea being that CRT want boaters to boat, so its an attraction for others who come to the canal for picnics, sightseeing, etc. So, its (as much as possible) single lump sum gets everything, and if you use it, you get your money's worth. If you spend all year in a marina (but bought the licence because the nasty moorings manager made you do it) then you get incredibly poor value for money, despite a connection to the canal and at least 2 different directions to go once you actually leave it.

 

ETA I think we're a bit too far into the future crystal ball gazing, or overthinking hypotheticals, if we are saying all locks no longer work. At the moment, some locks don't work and CCers are expected to plan around stoppages; and/or they can stay longer than 14 days "if reasonable in the circumstances" or something like that in the already-quoted actual wording of the law. Some CCers are great at planning around so they can keep cruising and seeing the canals, others seem brilliant at always having the bow pointed at a stoppage.

Any scheme proposed on the grounds of fairness (or other objective) has also to consider the efficiency of collection. This is the main argument in favour of a lump sum (mostly annual) A pay-by-use scheme is always going to to be much, much more expensive to administer. Either customers have to pay (overall) for the costs or accept a reduced service from CaRT - probably less maintenance.

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

Pay by use is generally seen as unpopular, the idea being that CRT want boaters to boat, so its an attraction for others who come to the canal for picnics, sightseeing, etc. So, its (as much as possible) single lump sum gets everything, and if you use it, you get your money's worth. If you spend all year in a marina (but bought the licence because the nasty moorings manager made you do it) then you get incredibly poor value for money, despite a connection to the canal and at least 2 different directions to go once you actually leave it.

 

ETA I think we're a bit too far into the future crystal ball gazing, or overthinking hypotheticals, if we are saying all locks no longer work. At the moment, some locks don't work and CCers are expected to plan around stoppages; and/or they can stay longer than 14 days "if reasonable in the circumstances" or something like that in the already-quoted actual wording of the law. Some CCers are great at planning around so they can keep cruising and seeing the canals, others seem brilliant at always having the bow pointed at a stoppage.

Stoppages are not necessarily accepted by CaRT as a 'reasonable excuse' for not moving.

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, enigmatic said:

 

I guess in theory CRT can start denying boaters using non-CRT approved home moorings licences (or giving them short term licences only) but that might get legally messy.

Not exactly. The '95 Acts requirements for what is generally termed a 'home mooring' are:

 

"(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere;"

 

So there is no requirement for CRT to 'approve' home moorings. It is up to the boater to satisfy them that he has a place where the boat can be kept. A receipt from a marina or mooring provider would be one way of showing this, buts it is not the only way.