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

[MtB]

5 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Planning laws appear to be remarkably flexible when anyone wants to build an inappropriate housing estate or turn an old pub into flats. I would think councils would bite the hand off CRT if they were offered a load more places liable to CT.

 

In my own experience the last thing local council planning committees want on their patch is a load of water gypsies on their patch with the legal right to stay put in perpetuity.

 

 

(Apologies for the tautology.)

 

 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

In my own experience the last thing local council planning committees want on their patch is a load of water gypsies on their patch with the legal right to stay put in perpetuity.

 

(Apologies for the tautology.)

 

 

But that's what they've already got in effect in the honeypots like K&A and London, except with no CT (revenue for the council) or mooring fees (revenue for CART). They might not be there legally or with the right to stay there in perpetuity, but nevertheless they *are* there.

 

If nobody's going to effectively enforce the CC/mooring rules (which seems to be the case, and is probably impossible to do anyway), wouldn't it be better to accept the reality and at least squeeze more money out of the CMers?

[Arthur Marshall]

20 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

In my own experience the last thing local council planning committees want on their patch is a load of water gypsies on their patch with the legal right to stay put in perpetuity.

 

 

(Apologies for the tautology.)

 

 

Properly managed, residential moorings would be just that. No different from managing a council estate - bad tenants can be evicted. Rules can be imposed which can't be on illegal moorers. And perpetuity is nonsense - this doesn't even apply to council housing any more, let alone a tenancy, which is about as insecure as you can get. Until, with luck, a new government sorts crap landlords out, of course, but even then there would be legal resource for evicting nuisance tenants.

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

If nobody's going to effectively enforce the CC/mooring rules (which seems to be the case, and is probably impossible to do anyway), wouldn't it be better to accept the reality and at least squeeze more money out of the CMers?

 

Of COURSE it would be. But try explaining that to yer average, bigoted, thick as mince planning committee member....

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

And perpetuity is nonsense -

 

Cobblers.

 

When I sounded out the local council about a planning permission for my own plot of riverside land, I certainly had in mind the PP being in perpetuity. 

[magnetman]

There is of course a risk that if living on a boat suddenly becomes reasonably expensive a lot of people might realise that they don't actually want to live on a boat. There is a good chance if the CRT were allowed to and did convert towpath moorings to residential, including services like electric and water supplies that people would decamp and the moorings would be empty.

 

The cost of installing services must be fairly high so it would be necessary to charge good money for the moorings and of course there is the thorny issue of council tax.

 

Do we think people actually want to live on boats or is it perhaps popular because it is so much less expensive than living on land?

 

Business strategy seems to say no to residential moorings except in very popular high rent areas. You spend money but don't get it back.

 

I suspect this may have been thought about by some bean counters.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Of COURSE it would be. But try explaining that to yer average, bigoted, thick as mince planning committee member....

 

Cobblers.

 

When I sounded out the local council about a planning permission for my own plot of riverside land, I certainly had in mind the PP being in perpetuity. 

The planning permission may well be in perpetuity, but the tenancy isn't. That's the point.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The planning permission may well be in perpetuity, but the tenancy isn't. That's the point.

 

What tenancy? I was writing about my own land and I was the water gypsy wanting to live on it.

 

Try reading what I wrote. 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

35 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

What tenancy? I was writing about my own land and I was the water gypsy wanting to live on it.

 

Try reading what I wrote. 

 

Try taking part in a discussion. Not everything is about you.

Describing a post as "cobblers" and then stating something irrelevant that is just relating to your own situation as disproving it when it does nothing of the kind is somewhat typical of your style.

[Paul C]

16 hours ago, Lady C said:

Income?  Reduce (or manage) congestion in busy areas?  Of course, charging CCers more could offset any financial gain from them taking a CRT mooring.

Do CMers typically have large reserves of cash, and/or loads of disposable income, to afford said moorings if they were created? Sure, a few would consider it but I don’t think it would make any significant impact on income for CRT or the ‘problem’, if there is one, of CMers.

[Arthur Marshall]

36 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Do CMers typically have large reserves of cash, and/or loads of disposable income, to afford said moorings if they were created? Sure, a few would consider it but I don’t think it would make any significant impact on income for CRT or the ‘problem’, if there is one, of CMers.

As has been said many times, benefit claimants get their mooring fees paid (same as housing benefit). So, yes, it would make a significant difference on both illegal mooring and income, both for CRT and councils.

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As has been said many times, benefit claimants get their mooring fees paid (same as housing benefit). So, yes, it would make a significant difference on both illegal mooring and income, both for CRT and councils.

It’s a nice theory, I still think planning would be the hurdle.

[MtB]

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Try taking part in a discussion. Not everything is about you.

Describing a post as "cobblers" and then stating something irrelevant that is just relating to your own situation as disproving it when it does nothing of the kind is somewhat typical of your style.

 

You really seem incapable of following the line of debate at all. I'll leave you to you strange little world of weirdness.

[Mike Todd]

On 20/03/2023 at 12:32, Arthur Marshall said:

Planning laws appear to be remarkably flexible when anyone wants to build an inappropriate housing estate or turn an old pub into flats. I would think councils would bite the hand off CRT if they were offered a load more places liable to CT. Factor in the number of people who simply ignore planning restrictions,  build anywhere  and get retro permission as councils can't afford to challenge in court and I can't see why planning would be a problem. Most planning restrictions have been deregulated over the last few years, for some reason.

The problem lies in the policy adopted by the present Gov a few years back of sustainable development - otherwise there is a presumption in favour of building houses. In practice there is little a local council can do to impede a determined developer (with money). 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The problem lies in the policy adopted by the present Gov a few years back of sustainable development - otherwise there is a presumption in favour of building houses. In practice there is little a local council can do to impede a determined developer (with money). 

 

 

Exactly the discussion I had with the Chief exec of my LA

 

Extract of my letter :

 

It seems to me that the ethos of the NPPF is ‘planning permission should be granted unless the planning officer can find good reason to refuse it”, whilst the ethos of your planning department appears to be “planning permission should be refused unless the applicant can provide, and justify, a  multitude of reasons why it should be granted”

 

It seems to me that a considerable percentage of the correspondence received from your Planning Department requires ‘challenging’ as they have either, deliberately ignored facts, made erroneous assumptions or have misinterpreted previous information provided, all resulting in additional work and costs.

 

Wouldn’t it make a great headline in the tabloids :

 

“National Government eases planning laws whilst local Government make it more difficult”

 

or

 

Local Planning Officer costs homeowner £ 1000’s with incorrect advice”

Edited March 21, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

Just supposing that CRT were actually interested in making some residential moorings.....I wonder how much the admin would cost to obtain professional advice, prepare the planning application etc, then submit it, then 'develop' the moorings (signage, publicity, maybe install rings, maybe install, fix or upgrade other services nearby), then administer it (take payments, take appropriate action for non-payment etc).

 

And would this be towpath side? What about the issue of some boaters paying, and others simply mooring there thinking they have a "right" to do so (because its towpath side), staying and not paying?

[magnetman]

i had a mooring at Loughborough quite a number of yars ago (2003) while attending the University there. The mooring was a Long Term leisure mooring just above Bishop Meadow lock opposite the AstraZeneca site. my mooring was futher away from the lock and had no services. Closer to the lock on the same side (non towpath side but there was a road) there were several residential moorings with electric. 

 

Full of crazy nutters but all seemed to be okay and the different status didn't seem to be an issue unless this what all the fights were about. 

 

Needless to say I only lasted a couple of months at the uni and escaped back to the GU main line during the christmas stoppage break for more good boating. 

 

 

[matty40s]

We took a winter mooring there in 2016,it was still the same, and still full of nutters. 

[magnetman]

I think it is the thing about being trapped on a ditch between the Pharmaceutical site and a massive sewage works. Sort of does one's head in. The river Soar just down from there was lovely. 

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

Just supposing that CRT were actually interested in making some residential moorings.....I wonder how much the admin would cost to obtain professional advice, prepare the planning application etc, then submit it, then 'develop' the moorings (signage, publicity, maybe install rings, maybe install, fix or upgrade other services nearby), then administer it (take payments, take appropriate action for non-payment etc).

 

And would this be towpath side? What about the issue of some boaters paying, and others simply mooring there thinking they have a "right" to do so (because its towpath side), staying and not paying?

I would assume they would handle towpath side moorings the same way they handle existing towpath side moorings (Waterside Moorings signs threatening £150 a day fines)

 

Still, if as you suggest administering and maintaining moorings isn't a profit centre for CRT at current rates, they obviously need to charge more for them.

 

 

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

 

 

Still, if as you suggest administering and maintaining moorings isn't a profit centre for CRT at current rates, they obviously need to charge more for them.

 

 

 

I suggested no such thing. By all means, review my previous posts and quote me if that's not the case.

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, enigmatic said:

I would assume they would handle towpath side moorings the same way they handle existing towpath side moorings (Waterside Moorings signs threatening £150 a day fines)

 

Still, if as you suggest administering and maintaining moorings isn't a profit centre for CRT at current rates, they obviously need to charge more for them.

 

 

There are plenty of CRT long term towpath mooring around the system. Some have been so overpriced that they're largely deserted, but they're still technically there.

[cuthound]

On 18/03/2023 at 10:08, Lady C said:

It is not much fun walking alongside a derelict canal.  Also I think that many towpath walkers enjoy seeing boats, especially moving boats.

 

I quite enjoy exploring the remnants of disused canals, trying to imagine what they used to be like and I don't think I am alone in this.

[Lady M]

So do I but I am a boater.  I also have a longstanding image in my mind of what I saw at Caen Hill locks, before restoration.  It was a hot day and there were dead or dying fish in a small puddle of water.  There were also unedifying views of half burnt lock gates.  Of course, where the derelict canal has been tidied up/landscaped and made pleasant for towpath walking - as it more often the case these days - it would be different.

[cuthound]

On 18/03/2023 at 11:48, magnetman said:

Perhaps the CRT need to put up the NAA percentage and increase take from EOG moorings. 

If they only get an average of £66 per moorer something is very wrong. 

 

I wish CRT only charged me £66 per annum for my EoG mooring. It is almost 15 times that.

[George and Dragon]

On 19/03/2023 at 08:00, Higgs said:

Yes, it is stipulated in the NAA. It doesn't make it a legal requirement, only an addition to the marina's T&Cs, with no more significance than any common or garden other rule the marina may wish to add. 

 

I may be rather dense but I don't understand what relevance this has. If the marina's T&Cs require moorers to have a CRT licence then the marina will expel any moorer who refuses to comply. They may have other rules which might from time to time be broken but the same would apply - a moorer who refuses to comply would become an ex-moorer. 

 

Quite honestly I don't know why I've bothered: one poster thinks he can should stand against CRT on behalf of all the marinas that have a NAA. If those marinas want to stay in business they will comply with the terms of their NAA and require their moorers to have a valid licence. Yes, it's a circular argument. That's the kind of thing lawyers and politicians do. It keeps them in rolexes, champagne and oysters.

On 20/03/2023 at 18:31, magnetman said:

Do we think people actually want to live on boats or is it perhaps popular because it is so much less expensive than living on land?

 

A very small number actively choose to live on a boat. I wouldn't unless I had no choice as I'm far too messy and disorganised.