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

[Orwellian]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Kingfisher Marina at Yardley Gobion was closed off with campshed piling by BW when they dug it out without permission. 

 

 

I was thinking of the marinas that have been built without requiring an NAA. Presumably there is some sort of agreement where they do not extend the size of their mooring basins. 

 

 

If they are all on rivers then it is obviously a different story. 

Yes the NAA specifies precisely what has been agreed to including the gross mooring capacity and the physical characteristics of the mooring basin.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Orwellian
correct spelling

[magnetman]

Just now, Paul C said:

 

You can't extract water or add water to the canal without permission. And you can't connect to it without permission. 

 

Apparently there are marinas which do not have an agreement with the navigation authority, or at least they have a permanent agreement. 

 

I wonder if this is in fact the case or is there actually something in the contract giving the navigation authority some sort of power over what happens in the marina after it is constructed. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Yes the NAA specifies precisely what has been agreed to including the gross mooring capacity and the physical characteristics of the mooring basin.

I was referring to marinas which do not have a NAA and how the canal owners must have been protected from this in the original enabling acts. 

 

Also slightly interesting to know when and how the NAA came about in the first place. 

 

I'm sure it has been done before on here. 

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Apparently there are marinas which do not have an agreement with the navigation authority, or at least they have a permanent agreement. 

 

I wonder if this is in fact the case or is there actually something in the contract giving the navigation authority some sort of power over what happens in the marina after it is constructed. 

 

 

I was referring to marinas which do not have a NAA and how the canal owners must have been protected from this in the original enabling acts. 

 

Also slightly interesting to know when and how the NAA came about in the first place. 

 

I'm sure it has been done before on here. 

 

 

We were loking to buy a marina and this is what we were given regarding the NAA :

 

 

NETWORK ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR MARINAS AND OFF LINE MOORINGS SUMMARY OF MAIN TERMS

 

• Is granted under the provisions of Section 43 Transport Act 1962.

• The purpose of the NAA is to authorise connection to our waterway network and to charge marina operators for CRT services facilities including the impoundment, supply and re-supply of water to enable navigation between the marina and the waterway and within the marina.

• It deals with other issues such as entry upon and access across CRT land and other statutory rights and powers.

• Lasts for a period of 150 years from a date that anticipates the date of connection.

• Has to be completed before you begin any works affecting CRT. (see Application Process).

• Has a start date that will be agreed between the parties and will be the anticipated date of the physical connection to the network.

• If the physical connection to the network is delayed the phasing in of payments will not be deferred. Conversely if the physical connection is achieved earlier than planned the phasing will not be brought forward so there is a financial incentive in completing the connection to the network as soon as possible.

• Specifies an agreed gross mooring capacity in metres which can only be changed by mutual agreement.

• Has a standard payment to CRT of 9% of the gross mooring capacity multiplied by the mooring rate (net of VAT) charged at the marina. This will be paid by equal 3 monthly payments in advance. It will be reviewed annually to reflect any increases in the marina mooring rate. Interest is payable on late payments.

• The payment will be phased in as follows. 1st year no payment, 2nd year 50% capacity, 3rd year 100% capacity.

• Is transferable to another party who is the freehold owner or head lessee of the whole marina with CRT consent (such consent not be unreasonably withheld or delayed).

• Requires the operator to construct and keep the marina and connection to the canal in good and watertight repair and to be properly dredged.

• Gives CRT the right to enter the marina to carry out inspections and testing relating to the marina basin and effect of the marina on the waterway.

• Prohibits any taking of water from the marina or waterway.

• Prohibits the discharge of anything into the marina or waterway without CRT consent. If at the design stage the marina or the waterway is seen to offer the best solution to disposing of surface water from the marina’s land and buildings this will be assessed by our engineers and if the waterway can accommodate the flows a separate agreement will be granted but no additional charge will be made.

• Requires the marina operator not to allow any boat to be moored in the marina which does not have a current valid CRT pleasure boat licence, to keep records of the owners of all boats in the marina and to allow CRT to have access to the marina to inspect boats and these records. This is to assist us in minimising licence evasion which is in everyone’s interest.

• Gives CRT step in rights in case of default and to seal off the access if necessary in order to protect the waterway and allow for de watering of the waterway for maintenance purposes. This should also preserve water levels in the marina while the waterway is de-watered.

• Contains dispute resolution provisions.

 

P Spencer 23/12/200

[Tam & Di]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

Presumably the marinas with no NAA fee to pay have a permanent agreement with the navigation authority excluding them from this payment.

If they have a renewable contract then surely the CRT could decide to bring them into the NAA system. Or is this just to do with canal bank ownership?

I've written this a few times before, but most of the original Canal Enabling Acts contained Clauses to the effect that owners of the land through which the canal was dug were given various compensatory Rights, including the Right to "Construct Places for Boats to Moor and Lie". BW tried to have all these Acts repealed in their 1994 Bill, and me and Di argued against this in the Lords Committee. Happily the committee agreed with our case. BW withdrew that part of their Bill and these Enabling Acts remain in force.

BWB introduced the NAA to try to circumvent this decision, and people wishing to dig a new marina mostly found it simpler to agree an NAA than to get involved in the time and cost of legal arguments. However several existing marinas at the time found such a Clause in the Act for the canal where they were based, and refused to sign any NAA. So it is not the case that they have any special agreement - they simply rely upon their pre-existing Rights and do not require one.

 

Tam

Edited March 19, 2023 by Tam & Di

[magnetman]

Thank you for posting this Tam. 

 

 

I was just idly interested in how it would work if someone dug an unreasonably deep hole but to be fair the cost of doing so would probably be more than any gain so it would never happen.

[Momac]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Interesting to know what proportion of people in marinas who do not require licence actually don't opt to buy one. 

I have no idea what proportion but some will be licensed 12 months, others 6 months or 3 months and some not at all.  C&RT have lost out since they  withdrew the short term licenses for boats on water connected to C&RT water . Those people who would have bought a day ticket do not go out.  Or some of them  go out unlicensed.

 

[magnetman]

Something here is speaking to the principle of pay as you go tolls on waterways. 

 

 

[kris88]

11 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

I don't understand why the navigation authority is not protected from this problem. It seems that someone could dig a massive hole in their own land and drain the entire contents of the canal and there is nothing the navigation authority could do about it. 

 

Given that they had stop locks with a few inches each side it is clear that water is an asset so why are people allowed to take it and not pay? 

 

I don't understand this oversight. 

This is exactly what happened at shardlow marina. They have tried to expand it recently using the same trick. Apparently it was the council that stopped the expansion happening not crt. What I don’t understand is how all the people living in static caravans there get away with not paying council tax?

[Orwellian]

3 minutes ago, kris88 said:

This is exactly what happened at shardlow marina. They have tried to expand it recently using the same trick. Apparently it was the council that stopped the expansion happening not crt. What I don’t understand is how all the people living in static caravans there get away with not paying council tax?

Shardlow Marina is connected directly to the River Trent so CRT have no legal basis to require an NAA or any other form of agreement. If they have concerns re harm to their statutory interests all they can do us object to any planning application as a statutory consulted

[kris88]

7 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Shardlow Marina is connected directly to the River Trent so CRT have no legal basis to require an NAA or any other form of agreement. If they have concerns re harm to their statutory interests all they can do us object to any planning application as a statutory consulted

As I say it was the council who stopped its expansion.

[Peanut]

It seems to me, that if the cost of having a Home Mooring were less than the Licence for a Continuous Cruiser, then the demand for Home Moorings would increase.  Since you are not required to keep your boat on your Home Mooring, then you could cruise or moor around London to your harts content.

 

On a separate note, having pay as you go tolls might dissuade some people from going anywhere, unless they have to move to comply with their licence.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Peanut said:

It seems to me, that if the cost of having a Home Mooring were less than the Licence for a Continuous Cruiser, then the demand for Home Moorings would increase.  Since you are not required to keep your boat on your Home Mooring, then you could cruise or moor around London to your harts content.

 

On a separate note, having pay as you go tolls might dissuade some people from going anywhere, unless they have to move to comply with their licence.

Check your terms and conditions. These now impose the same cruising condition on home moorers as on continuous cruisers. You don't like it, take CRT to court. Oddly, nobody has. Can't imagine why.

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

We were loking to buy a marina and this is what we were given regarding the NAA :

 

 

NETWORK ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR MARINAS AND OFF LINE MOORINGS SUMMARY OF MAIN TERMS

 

• Is granted under the provisions of Section 43 Transport Act 1962.

• The purpose of the NAA is to authorise connection to our waterway network and to charge marina operators for CRT services facilities including the impoundment, supply and re-supply of water to enable navigation between the marina and the waterway and within the marina.

• It deals with other issues such as entry upon and access across CRT land and other statutory rights and powers.

• Lasts for a period of 150 years from a date that anticipates the date of connection.

• Has to be completed before you begin any works affecting CRT. (see Application Process).

• Has a start date that will be agreed between the parties and will be the anticipated date of the physical connection to the network.

• If the physical connection to the network is delayed the phasing in of payments will not be deferred. Conversely if the physical connection is achieved earlier than planned the phasing will not be brought forward so there is a financial incentive in completing the connection to the network as soon as possible.

• Specifies an agreed gross mooring capacity in metres which can only be changed by mutual agreement.

• Has a standard payment to CRT of 9% of the gross mooring capacity multiplied by the mooring rate (net of VAT) charged at the marina. This will be paid by equal 3 monthly payments in advance. It will be reviewed annually to reflect any increases in the marina mooring rate. Interest is payable on late payments.

• The payment will be phased in as follows. 1st year no payment, 2nd year 50% capacity, 3rd year 100% capacity.

• Is transferable to another party who is the freehold owner or head lessee of the whole marina with CRT consent (such consent not be unreasonably withheld or delayed).

• Requires the operator to construct and keep the marina and connection to the canal in good and watertight repair and to be properly dredged.

• Gives CRT the right to enter the marina to carry out inspections and testing relating to the marina basin and effect of the marina on the waterway.

• Prohibits any taking of water from the marina or waterway.

• Prohibits the discharge of anything into the marina or waterway without CRT consent. If at the design stage the marina or the waterway is seen to offer the best solution to disposing of surface water from the marina’s land and buildings this will be assessed by our engineers and if the waterway can accommodate the flows a separate agreement will be granted but no additional charge will be made.

• Requires the marina operator not to allow any boat to be moored in the marina which does not have a current valid CRT pleasure boat licence, to keep records of the owners of all boats in the marina and to allow CRT to have access to the marina to inspect boats and these records. This is to assist us in minimising licence evasion which is in everyone’s interest.

• Gives CRT step in rights in case of default and to seal off the access if necessary in order to protect the waterway and allow for de watering of the waterway for maintenance purposes. This should also preserve water levels in the marina while the waterway is de-watered.

• Contains dispute resolution provisions.

 

P Spencer 23/12/200

Second point blows all Higg's complaints out, so to speak, of the water. It's CRT's water, enabling navigation within the marina, so they are quite justified in insisting on a licence. End, thank god, of the argument, though I'm sure it won't be.

[TheBiscuits]

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Requires the marina operator not to allow any boat to be moored in the marina which does not have a current valid CRT pleasure boat licence,

 

Ooh!  I haven't got one of those.

 

It's a good job I also don't have a marina mooring then ...

[Adam]

6 hours ago, Tam & Di said:

I've written this a few times before, but most of the original Canal Enabling Acts contained Clauses to the effect that owners of the land through which the canal was dug were given various compensatory Rights, including the Right to "Construct Places for Boats to Moor and Lie". BW tried to have all these Acts repealed in their 1994 Bill, and me and Di argued against this in the Lords Committee. Happily the committee agreed with our case. BW withdrew that part of their Bill and these Enabling Acts remain in force.

BWB introduced the NAA to try to circumvent this decision, and people wishing to dig a new marina mostly found it simpler to agree an NAA than to get involved in the time and cost of legal arguments. However several existing marinas at the time found such a Clause in the Act for the canal where they were based, and refused to sign any NAA. So it is not the case that they have any special agreement - they simply rely upon their pre-existing Rights and do not require one.

 

Tam

Did the Yardley Gobion case set legal precedent this can only be a layby type affair and not a full on marina?

[Higgs]

It's ironic that the person persisting with the question of Freeman of/on the Land is the one inclined to see the flouting of the law as acceptable.

 

 

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Second point blows all Higg's complaints out, so to speak, of the water. It's CRT's water, enabling navigation within the marina, so they are quite justified in insisting on a licence. End, thank god, of the argument, though I'm sure it won't be.

 

It isn't CRT water. CRT charge their access fee. Even if you accept the supply function, it doesn't make the marina a CRT waterway. 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

17 minutes ago, Higgs said:

It's ironic that the person persisting with the question of Freeman of/on the Land is the one inclined to see the flouting of the law as acceptable.

 

 

 

That’s a bit vague, which law is being broken and by whom?

[Higgs]

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Check your terms and conditions. These now impose the same cruising condition on home moorers as on continuous cruisers. You don't like it, take CRT to court. Oddly, nobody has. Can't imagine why

 

So, have you stopped expecting preferential treatment?

 

 

12 minutes ago, Paul C said:

That’s a bit vague, which law is being broken and by whom?

 

The contract law that requires a marina to impose costs on moorers which can only legally be imposed by CRT, and CRT can't do it on private property, therefore, the cost is not legally supported as bona fide legitimate, for the purpose of legitimising a licence.  

 

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

 

 

The contract law that requires a marina to impose costs on moorers which can only be legally imposed by CRT, and CRT can't do it on private property, therefore, the cost is not legally supported as bona fide legitimate, for the purpose of legitimising a licence.  

 

 

The trade body for marinas agreed upon it, and no marina has legally challenged it. When a company potential new marina is planned, they would be aware of it and plan their operating costs accordingly.

 

Or do you know details of a successful legal challenge to it that is not in the public domain?

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

The trade body for marinas agreed upon it, and no marina has legally challenged it. When a company potential new marina is planned, they would be aware of it and plan their operating costs accordingly.

 

Or do you know details of a successful legal challenge to it that is not in the public domain?

 

Place yourself in the marina operator's position. Would you say no? The cost, after all, is not going to be met by the marina. CRT hold a monopoly. I'm not telling, but it is being challenged.

 

 

[magnetman]

Pillings lock?

[Tam & Di]

32 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The contract law that requires a marina to impose costs on moorers which can only be legally imposed by CRT, and CRT can't do it on private property, therefore, the cost is not legally supported as bona fide legitimate, for the purpose of legitimising a licence. 

You are probably correct in the case of existing marinas with boats already in situ being compelled to sign a NAA when they were introduced, as they would be compelled to kick out any boats that had no licence. It's not now quite the same with new marinas being built as they can simply refuse to accept an unlicensed boat - though it does get back to the same issue if an occupant refused to renew his cruising licence when it expires. At the end of the day though, very few marina operators are going to want to spend the time and money contesting the issue, especially as most boat owners are rightly or wrongly willing to accept the condition.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Tam & Di

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Pillings lock?

Are they the ones who removed parts off of moored boats, disabling them?

 

Whatever happened to them?

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

You are probably correct in the case of existing marinas with boats already in situ being compelled to sign a NAA when they were introduced, as they would be compelled to kick out any boats that had no licence. It's not now quite the same with new marinas being built - they can simply refuse to accept an unlicensed boat - though it does get back to the same issue if an occupant refused to renew his cruising licence when it expires. At the end of the day though, very few marina operators are going to want to spend the time and money contesting the issue, especially as most boat owners are rightly or wrongly willing to accept the condition.

 

The NAA contract will need to be challenged. Marinas and moorers need to be given a choice. But while under contract, a marina is obliged. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Are they the ones who removed parts off of moored boats, disabling them?

 

Whatever happened to them?

 

The company wound up and the "Saturday Boy" (Student) was appointed as the Director of the new Phoenix company. They are still operational.

[Paul C]

9 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The NAA contract will need to be challenged. Marinas and moorers need to be given a choice. But while under contract, a marina is obliged. 

 

 

“Is being challenged “ or “will need to be challenged “?

 

After all, there is a subtle difference…..