Jump to content

Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal


Paul C

Featured Posts

It seems funny timing that a 21 year lease was awarded to BW immediately before the transfer order bringing the CRT into existence. 

 

Is 21 years normal for this sort of thing? 

 

Maybe it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, dmr said:

I suspect it happens all the time, but if one day a boat is in the canal and the next day its on the land at the side of the canal I reckon that even CRT could put 2 and 2 together and conclude that it had been lifted out without permission 😀

Sorry - I need permission to lift my own boat out? (to clarify - I know I need permission from the landowner to actually lift; I get that I need permission for a large load on a lorry on the highway but do I need CRT permission to reach out over their water and lift a vessel vertically from it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably yes given the navigation authority very often own the land immediately beside the water on both sides. 

 

 

What would happen if the crane slipped into the water ? who would be responsible for dealing with this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 1st ade said:

Sorry - I need permission to lift my own boat out? (to clarify - I know I need permission from the landowner to actually lift; I get that I need permission for a large load on a lorry on the highway but do I need CRT permission to reach out over their water and lift a vessel vertically from it?

 

Yes, I have read in some rules and regulations somewhere that CRT permission is required to lift a boat. This makes sense, even if the boat is lifted onto offside land and not over CRT land it will be lifted over CRT water and so is a potential hazzard to other boaters and the canal infrastructure if not done safely and correctly. I suspect it is also in effect a short term stoppage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, matty40s said:

Well it's not exactly a long distance, but I am sure a regime of moving more than the minimum 1km every 14 days should make this just as compliant as most of the 30 or so boats now permanent on the Weedon pound.

 

Firepool lock to Bridgewater basin

 

Total distance is 14 miles, 2½ furlongs and 6 locks . There are 5 moveable bridges.

This is made up of 14 miles, 2 furlongs of broad canals; ½ furlongs of small rivers; 6 broad locks.

This will take 6 hours and 38 minutes. For initial calculation purposes (before adjusting for such things as overnight stops) this is taken as 1 day of 6 hours and 38 minutes

I would think if the boats couldn't move because of the canal being full of rubbish, is another reason CRT are at fault! As you say that distance would meet the expectations of the board 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dmr said:

Yes, I have read in some rules and regulations somewhere that CRT permission is required to lift a boat.

 

Covered by Byelaw 50, albeit in rather obscure and archaic language:


"No person, unless authorised by the Board so to do, shall operate or interfere with any lock, lockgate, sluice, by-pass, dam, weir, bridge or any other work connected with affecting or forming part of any canal or with any locomotive, vehicle, vessel, crane, jigger, hoist, capstan or other machinery or working appliance upon any canal or except in case of emergency with any fire fighting or life saving apparatus or any rope, tarpaulin, chain or
other equipment of the Board."

 

Or more practically:

 

Detailed Information - Boat Lifting & other crane or lifting operations

 

 Last Updated: 21 March 2017

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/4489.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like charging a "Bridgwater and Taunton licence fee" at around the cost of the evacuated moorings for the special privilege of year round towpath mooring on the Bridgwater and Taunton canal would have been a smarter move for the CRT than telling people to spend money on someone else's crane or else, and then spending money on legal actions to evict them...

 

Unless they're playing the long game of having no obligation to maintain it as navigable because there aren't any boats there

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Yes, I have read in some rules and regulations somewhere that CRT permission is required to lift a boat. This makes sense, even if the boat is lifted onto offside land and not over CRT land it will be lifted over CRT water and so is a potential hazzard to other boaters and the canal infrastructure if not done safely and correctly. I suspect it is also in effect a short term stoppage.

"I stand corrected"

 

"Your honour, I was asked to move the boat, I'm now being charged with moving it without permission?"

 

(although, as a Parish Councillor, I should expect nothing less...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Seems like charging a "Bridgwater and Taunton licence fee" at around the cost of the evacuated moorings for the special privilege of year round towpath mooring on the Bridgwater and Taunton canal would have been a smarter move for the CRT than telling people to spend money on someone else's crane or else, and then spending money on legal actions to evict them...

 

Unless they're playing the long game of having no obligation to maintain it as navigable because there aren't any boats there

 

oops  whats going on here...I pressed the quote button and it posted without my words.......

 

This is probably a good idea, but its a roving mooring permit and the last time CRT tried this it was defeated by the NBTA. CRT need an act of parliment to get out of the stranglehold of the current legislation, and if the government won't give them the much needed grant they are unlikely to give them time in parliment.

The waterways are under attack from all directions, including boaters, and CRT are just a not very good piggy in the middle.

Edited by dmr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Unless they're playing the long game of having no obligation to maintain it as navigable because there aren't any boats there

C&RT would be better off if there were no boats anywhere.

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

It seems funny timing that a 21 year lease was awarded to BW immediately before the transfer order bringing the CRT into existence. 

 

Is 21 years normal for this sort of thing? 

 

Maybe it is. 

 

The transfer to C&RT took place in 2012.

 

Lets say that the BW Lease took place 'just before' in 2011.

 

21 years would take us to 2032. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

 

 

What would happen if the crane slipped into the water ? who would be responsible for dealing with this ?

CRT enforcement team. "You cant park there"

 

9 minutes ago, MartynG said:

C&RT would be better off if there were no boats anywhere.

 

 

That's what Mooseums are for innit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The transfer to C&RT took place in 2012.

 

Lets say that the BW Lease took place 'just before' in 2011.

 

21 years would take us to 2032. 

Oops !

36 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Seems like charging a "Bridgwater and Taunton licence fee" at around the cost of the evacuated moorings for the special privilege of year round towpath mooring on the Bridgwater and Taunton canal would have been a smarter move for the CRT than telling people to spend money on someone else's crane or else, and then spending money on legal actions to evict them...

 

Unless they're playing the long game of having no obligation to maintain it as navigable because there aren't any boats there

What about planning permission? I don't think the CRT is in a position to be able to allow people to live on boats on the towpath without planning permission. Yes the CRT do turn a blind eye but the council might not necessarily do the same thing. 

15 minutes ago, MartynG said:

C&RT would be better off if there were no boats anywhere.

 

 

No Boats Then, Anywhere.

 

There must be an acronym for this sort of thing. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

What about planning permission? I don't think the CRT is in a position to be able to allow people to live on boats on the towpath without planning permission. Yes the CRT do turn a blind eye but the council might not necessarily do the same thing. 

They're "continuous cruising" (even if they don't move very much), and have "satisfied the Board" that this limited amount of movement is a continuous journey by paying them extra cash.

Edited by enigmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

They're "continuous cruising" (even if they don't move very much), and have "satisfied the Board" that this limited amount of movement is a continuous journey by paying them extra cash.

They haven't - only in your mind

 

49 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Seems like charging a "Bridgwater and Taunton licence fee" at around the cost of the evacuated moorings for the special privilege of year round towpath mooring on the Bridgwater and Taunton canal would have been a smarter move for the CRT than telling people to spend money on someone else's crane or else, and then spending money on legal actions to evict them...

 

Doesn't sound very smart to me. It squeaks of "precedent" which could/would be leveraged by piss-takers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

They're "continuous cruising" (even if they don't move very much), and have "satisfied the Board" that this limited amount of movement is a continuous journey by paying them extra cash.

 

Thats an interesting one. If a boat is CC'ing but the canal is so short that the boat is always in the same council area then could that council make an argument for council tax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself wondering if the NBTA are taking an interest in this, or if they don't give a toss as it isn't the western K&A or London. 

 

Oh, an idea. I wonder they and all their members could be persuaded to go and fill up the B&T with their boats and start a campaign to get 14 miles recognised as a legitimate 'range' to be CMing over....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

They're "continuous cruising" (even if they don't move very much), and have "satisfied the Board" that this limited amount of movement is a continuous journey by paying them extra cash.

I was referring to people using leisure moorings. I don't think one can be a CCer and also be paying the CRT for a mooring..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, enigmatic said:

Seems like charging a "Bridgwater and Taunton licence fee" at around the cost of the evacuated moorings for the special privilege of year round towpath mooring on the Bridgwater and Taunton canal would have been a smarter move for the CRT than telling people to spend money on someone else's crane or else, and then spending money on legal actions to evict them...

 

Unless they're playing the long game of having no obligation to maintain it as navigable because there aren't any boats there

It's a 'Remainder Waterway' so CRT don't and never have had a duty to maintain it for navigation whether there are boats on it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MtB said:

I find myself wondering if the NBTA are taking an interest in this, or if they don't give a toss as it isn't the western K&A or London. 

 

Oh, an idea. I wonder they and all their members could be persuaded to go and fill up the B&T with their boats and start a campaign to get 14 miles recognised as a legitimate 'range' to be CMing over....

 

 

 

 

It didn't work on the G&S and ended up with boaters having a restricted licece and then (I think) Licence revocation.

 

Mr and Mrs D are liveaboard boaters, based in Gloucester on the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal (G&S). As they do not have a home mooring they are subject to the Trust’s continuous cruising requirements. The Trust was not satisfied with the boat’s cruising pattern and decided only to allow them, on renewal of the licence, to have a restricted six month licence. In making their complaint, Mr and Mrs D said that the Trust restriction did not take into account the fact that the G&S is only 16 miles long, and that to cruise further meant taking their boat onto the River Severn, which they regarded as potentially hazardous.

The Trust’s evidence showed that the majority of the cruising had been within a 15 km range, although there were two periods when the boat was sighted outside this range, which were at the end of April 2016 and in the middle of June 2016. The Trust said that the 15km cruising range did not meet the requirement at the time which was that the cruising range should be not less than 15-20km over the period of the licence. While it accepted that there two periods when this range was exceeded, it did not meet the requirement that the stated range should be met or exceeded “over the period of the licence”.

As to whether allowances should be made for boaters on the G&S because of the geographic limitations, the Trust said that while it did accept that there were some difficulties in cruising away from the canal, it did not accept that the difficulties were of such a nature that it was prepared to reduce the maximum cruising range. That is a policy matter for the Trust which I cannot influence.

The Trust’s key point was that no matter how frequently a boat moved, it could not remain on the G&S for the licence period and be compliant. It said that compliance could be achieved only if the boat left the G&S. It added that in this case the time spent away from the G&S was not sufficient to achieve compliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lady C said:

Surely not if they don't live on the boat.  CC-ing and residential are not necessarily the same.

There are a few boats proper CC'ing that are not residential, but I suspect we could count them on one hand, or maybe a couple of hands and a foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.