George Ward evicted.

[Tacet]

27 minutes ago, MrsM said:

For a large group of people who want to CM  What are they (the CMers) supposed to do? Councils are obliged to find sites for travellers that don't want to travel so why can't we do the same for CMers? Why not create more residential mooring sites where the more 'earthy' CMers can live comfortably, without judgement, without encroaching on visitor moorings and without being under constant pressure to be seen to be moving? Spend the money on providing a facility and turning unacceptable behaviour into something that is acceptable for all sides, rather than in prosecuting them. Quite how and where is another matter altogether.

It is less than simple.  Creating more residential moorings has similarities to building more houses.  Before long, those that reside on the moorings will reasonably expect access to services such as education, health, utilities, fire fighting, public transport and others.  Proper planning requires a lot.

[David Mack]

14 minutes ago, MrsM said:

What are they (the CMers) supposed to do?

How about not living on a boat?

The whole problem of CMers exists because of the conjunction of two factors: Buying or renting conventional housing is too expensive for many people, and a loophole in the 1995 BW Act which was intended to exempt those who travel extensively over the waterways network from having a home mooring has been exploited by those whose primary interest is not to travel but to live relatively cheaply in a single locality.

The first issue is much broader than just the waterways, and has also seen people living in vehicles, tents and the like, and is not CRT's problem to address. The second has not been helped by lax and inconsistent enforcement by BW and CRT, such that the genie is now out of the bottle.

I have thought for some time that CRT should grasp the nettle on this by announcing clearly and unequivocally that all new applicants for a licence without a home mooring will be required to travel much more extensively as a condition of keeping their licence, and that a corresponding set of criteria of what is needed to 'satisfy the Board' should be published. Applicants should be required to sign that they will comply with these requirements. And all existing licence holders without a home mooring should be given a period of (say) five years within which they will either have to comply with the new requirements or take a home mooring. That should give those who have work, education or similar commitments that keep them in one area time to adjust.

[dmr]

30 minutes ago, Bacchus said:

I have often thought that Councils could provide the aquatic equivalent of social housing; basic, functional marinas where people could live on boats and pay a small/token/subsidise rent. It can't cost an order of magnitude more to provide and maintain what is essentially a hole in the ground than it does to build and maintain a council estate?

 

I have thought that there might be a market for a "sheltered" marina where old boaters go to live out their last few years with a support worker or two on site, but I don't think a low cost marina for social housing would work. It costs a lot of time and money to build a marina but the rent then gives the return, If a council had to build a marina and then pay (via DHSS) people to live in it then its not a good deal. Would you want a social housing marina near you? 😀  There is little space for a marina in a city and I suspect thats were most CMers want to live.

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, dmr said:

Would you want a social housing marina near you? 😀 

 

I remember visiting Sawley Marina with Coasty many years ago for a look around. Cramped and with high concentration of liveaboards, we were impressed at the 'down-at-heel' and scruffy nature of the place. And these were boaters paying to live there.

 

Once populated by boaters who don't actually want to live on a boat and are only doing it because it's cheap and the council are giving them the mooring free, I can imagine a council-run marina turning into the equivalent of a sink council estate within days of opening. 

 

[David Mack]

49 minutes ago, Bacchus said:

I have often thought that Councils could provide the aquatic equivalent of social housing; basic, functional marinas where people could live on boats and pay a small/token/subsidise rent. It can't cost an order of magnitude more to provide and maintain what is essentially a hole in the ground than it does to build and maintain a council estate?

Councils have a duty to provide housing to certain people, although they are so short of funding that the number of people who can be housed is far short of the demand. So why should they have to fulfil part of that duty by providing a 'social housing marina'? I suspect most CMers (by virtue of the fact they have enough means to own a boat) are already too well off to be eligible for social housing in the current circumstances.

[dmr]

5 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Councils have a duty to provide housing to certain people, although they are so short of funding that the number of people who can be housed is far short of the demand. So why should they have to fulfil part of that duty by providing a 'social housing marina'? I suspect most CMers (by virtue of the fact they have enough means to own a boat) are already too well off to be eligible for social housing in the current circumstances.

 

dunno about that, you can get a derelict plastic cruiser for very little money, or buy it off your mate for a promise of payment in the future, then build a shed on the back with scrap materials.

To be fair we have met a few people on "shed boats" who have used this as a step onto the boating ladder and then moved on to bigger and better things (usually a Springer 😀)

Building a shanty marina would (as you almost infer) create the problem that it brings semi-homeless people into the area and the council might then need to rehome them onto the land, or at least meet their social and health needs.

[Peanut]

The first step on Council housing is in hostel. Very few people would want to live on one.  They are far better off on a boat away from all that bureaucracy and keep their independence. Even if it is a tip, it is their own.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Peanut
autocorrect

[MrsM]

9 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Building a shanty marina would (as you almost infer) create the problem that it brings semi-homeless people into the area and the council might then need to rehome them onto the land, or at least meet their social and health needs.

But aren't they already in the area, which is why they are a problem. And in a marina it would potentially be easier to meet their needs and address issues before they get out of hand.

[magnetman]

As the CRT seem to like tinkering with the t&c for licences it seems to me they could do some interesting things. 

 

For example if you apply for a licence without having a residential mooring for the boat you could have a condition attached which confirms that the boat is not your residence. 

 

This would make it far easier for the CRT to enforce boat removals if people had already declared that they do not live on the boat. 

 

Other tinkering could be done around the edges with t&c. 

 

I know the t&c may be ultra vires but they still apply them to licence applications. I think this is where the CRT have some powers available to them. 

 

 

[MrsM]

31 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I remember visiting Sawley Marina with Coasty many years ago for a look around. Cramped and with high concentration of liveaboards, we were impressed at the 'down-at-heel' and scruffy nature of the place. And these were boaters paying to live there.

 

Once populated by boaters who don't actually want to live on a boat and are only doing it because it's cheap and the council are giving them the mooring free, I can imagine a council-run marina turning into the equivalent of a sink council estate within days of opening. 

 

Plenty of council estates are not 'sink' estates, but seem to be decent places to live. There is no reason why a well run social marina couldn't be the same. (Not speaking from personal experience of living in social housing, but my brother is a mental health crisis social worker).

Edited June 13, 2023 by MrsM

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, MrsM said:

......

...What are they (the CMers) supposed to do? Councils are obliged to find sites for travellers that don't want to travel so why can't we do the same for CMers? Why not create more residential mooring sites where the more 'earthy' CMers can live comfortably, without judgement, without encroaching on visitor moorings and without being under constant pressure to be seen to be moving? 

My guess is that like a lot of travellers the more "earthy" CMers won't want to live in a council provided mooring/marina.

[MrsM]

1 minute ago, Barneyp said:

My guess is that like a lot of travellers the more "earthy" CMers won't want to live in a council provided mooring/marina.

You are probably right but just as you can't park a caravan and live wherever you want on land, if proper provision is made but you choose to reject it, it would then be reasonable to prevent you from living wherever you want on water. However, my point is that there doesn't seem to a be viable alternative at present.

[Bee]

People are quite ingenious when it comes to finding a home. There are at least half a dozen motorhome / vans 'continuously cruising' around here and doubtless many more living under the radar, I did the same for a while years ago. Then there are tents in the woods, horrible dark corners in every town and of course boats all over the place. Boats are a bit different though, if you are a canal enthusiast it is OK to live on your boat. If you are looking for somewhere to live that is cheaper or in fact hopefully affordable then that opens you up to all sorts of hostility. We seem to have 'deserving boaters' and 'undeserving boaters' The CRT rules treat them - and us - all the same. Some of us can afford our boats, I think we should back off a bit before criticising people who just do the best they can with what they've got as we run the risk of sounding 'entitled' just because we made a bit of cash when it was easier to do so. There endeth todays lecture.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Bee said:

There are at least half a dozen motorhome / vans 'continuously cruising' around here and doubtless many more living under the radar,

 

Indeed there are. I know one such chap quite well and he makes extensive use of CRT facilities. Elsans, car parks and water taps in particular. In fact he would find life a lot more difficult without CRT kindly providing such facilities. 

 

And rubbish disposal too, probably. 

 

[Bee]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Indeed there are. I know one such chap quite well and he makes extensive use of CRT facilities. Elsans, car parks and water taps in particular. In fact he would find life a lot more difficult without CRT kindly providing such facilities. 

Interestingly in France, Belgium and Holland many overnight moorings are alongside camping sites and eveybody just uses the facilities. 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

How about not living on a boat?

The whole problem of CMers exists because of the conjunction of two factors: Buying or renting conventional housing is too expensive for many people, and a loophole in the 1995 BW Act which was intended to exempt those who travel extensively over the waterways network from having a home mooring has been exploited by those whose primary interest is not to travel but to live relatively cheaply in a single locality.

The first issue is much broader than just the waterways, and has also seen people living in vehicles, tents and the like, and is not CRT's problem to address. The second has not been helped by lax and inconsistent enforcement by BW and CRT, such that the genie is now out of the bottle.

I have thought for some time that CRT should grasp the nettle on this by announcing clearly and unequivocally that all new applicants for a licence without a home mooring will be required to travel much more extensively as a condition of keeping their licence, and that a corresponding set of criteria of what is needed to 'satisfy the Board' should be published. Applicants should be required to sign that they will comply with these requirements. And all existing licence holders without a home mooring should be given a period of (say) five years within which they will either have to comply with the new requirements or take a home mooring. That should give those who have work, education or similar commitments that keep them in one area time to adjust.

An accurate and concise summary of the situation, and a reasonably fair proposal to fix the CM problem 🙂

 

However it would still need a better way of detecting/tracking the CMers who fail to follow the rules, and a quicker/cheaper way of sanctioning them -- and these are the two stumbling blocks given CART manpower and legal restrictions... 😞

[dmr]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

How about not living on a boat?

The whole problem of CMers exists because of the conjunction of two factors: Buying or renting conventional housing is too expensive for many people, and a loophole in the 1995 BW Act which was intended to exempt those who travel extensively over the waterways network from having a home mooring has been exploited by those whose primary interest is not to travel but to live relatively cheaply in a single locality.

The first issue is much broader than just the waterways, and has also seen people living in vehicles, tents and the like, and is not CRT's problem to address. The second has not been helped by lax and inconsistent enforcement by BW and CRT, such that the genie is now out of the bottle.

I have thought for some time that CRT should grasp the nettle on this by announcing clearly and unequivocally that all new applicants for a licence without a home mooring will be required to travel much more extensively as a condition of keeping their licence, and that a corresponding set of criteria of what is needed to 'satisfy the Board' should be published. Applicants should be required to sign that they will comply with these requirements. And all existing licence holders without a home mooring should be given a period of (say) five years within which they will either have to comply with the new requirements or take a home mooring. That should give those who have work, education or similar commitments that keep them in one area time to adjust.

 

Yes, a good idea, and applying it to new boaters makes it easier to implement

BUT, the world has changed and very much in favour of the rule benders, all they have to do is mention equality, human rights or a disability and the rules are gone, and having a "personality disorder" (new speak for behaving like an arse?) is now a disability and something that some people are almost proud of 😀.

 

The decine of good behaviour from boaters is just a microcosm of the decline of our wider society.

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Yes, a good idea, and applying it to new boaters makes it easier to implement

BUT, the world has changed and very much in favour of the rule benders, all they have to do is mention equality, human rights or a disability and the rules are gone, and having a "personality disorder" (new speak for behaving like an arse?) is now a disability and something that some people are almost proud of 😀.

 

The decine of good behaviour from boaters is just a microcosm of the decline of our wider society.

TBH I don't think the real problem is the list of reasons you've mentioned (which also smack of old-school prejudice...), it's that given attitudes like "there is no such thing as society" and "greed is good" and "me me ME" a lot of people are just plain more selfish than they used to be, and do what they want regardless of any effect on others or what other people think of them. See also littering, fly tipping, CMing... 😞

Edited June 13, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

17 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Yes, a good idea, and applying it to new boaters makes it easier to implement

BUT, the world has changed and very much in favour of the rule benders, all they have to do is mention equality, human rights or a disability and the rules are gone, and having a "personality disorder" (new speak for behaving like an arse?) is now a disability and something that some people are almost proud of 😀.

 

The decine of good behaviour from boaters is just a microcosm of the decline of our wider society.

 

 

Good post. This could be an early indicator of societal collapse. There is a theory that if civilisations do collapse over time the people who are most likely to survive are those who live off the grid and are able to survive outside of the existing societal norms. 

 

Increasing population coupled with attitude change is bound to put more pressure on land use. Canals are just land which someone put water on top of at some point. 

 

 

[IanD]

49 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Good post. This could be an early indicator of societal collapse. There is a theory that if civilisations do collapse over time the people who are most likely to survive are those who live off the grid and are able to survive outside of the existing societal norms. 

 

Increasing population coupled with attitude change is bound to put more pressure on land use. Canals are just land which someone put water on top of at some point. 

 

 

The lack of affordable housing in the UK is nothing to do with land use or population increase (or immigration...) as such, the UK population has increased more rapidly in the past but this was dealt with by sensible government policies such as building council houses and rent controls, and other countries with the same pressures have done a far better job of coping with them.

 

What has broken the system is government policies like "the market always knows best" and right-to-buy and an unworkable NIMBY and developer-biased planning system, all of which have lead to a massive shortage of affordable housing, either to buy or rent.

 

Other countries with similar or larger population increases and/or land "shortages" have dealt with this far better by having governments with more enlightened housing policies, which put a higher priority on giving people a safe secure affordable place to live and lower priority on making money out of residential property.

Edited June 13, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The lack of affordable housing in the UK is nothing to do with land use or population increase (or immigration...) as such, the UK population has increased more rapidly in the past but this was dealt with by sensible government policies such as building council houses and rent controls, and other countries with the same pressures have done a far better job of coping with them.

 

What has broken the system is government policies like "the market always knows best" and right-to-buy and an unworkable NIMBY and developer-biased planning system, all of which have lead to a massive shortage of affordable housing, either to buy or rent.

 

Other countries with similar or larger population increases and/or land "shortages" have dealt with this far better by having governments with more enlightened housing policies, which put a higher priority on giving people a safe secure affordable place to live and lower priority on making money out of residential property.

 

You are right.  

 

I'd ban multiple property ownership for a start. Nobody needs more than one home. Its just greed pure and simple. 

 

However what we have in the real world is a system which rewards greed. I don't see this changing in a hurry ! 

 

It would be political suicide for an elected government to do something which makes people either feel poorer or actually be poorer. They just won't vote you back in. 

 

It is a self fulfilling greed driven system which would take enormous effort by very dedicated people to turn around. 

 

Tell Mr Joe Bloggs his house is going to be worth 30% less on two yars time and he isn't going to be happy is he.

 

So yeah. Pressure on land use and increasing population is a problem. This is due to the political systems we have ruling the place but can it change? No. 

 

 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

You are right.  

 

I'd ban multiple property ownership for a start. Nobody needs more than one home. Its just greed pure and simple. 

 

However what we have in the real world is a system which rewards greed. I don't see this changing in a hurry ! 

 

It would be political suicide for an elected government to do something which makes people either feel poorer or actually be poorer. They just won't vote you back in. 

 

It is a self fulfilling greed driven system which would take enormous effort by very dedicated people to turn around. 

 

Tell Mr Joe Bloggs his house is going to be worth 30% less on two yars time and he isn't going to be happy is he.

 

So yeah. Pressure on land use and increasing population is a problem. This is due to the political systems we have ruling the place but can it change? No. 

 

 

That's not just defeatist, it's very unlikely to be true.

 

There have been massive changes in society which many people in the past wouldn't have believed possible because "people won't stand for it" -- for example largely getting rid of smoking, which many people enjoyed but was certainly detrimental to society. The same is going to happen with the transition from ICE to EV. It's all a question of who wins out and who loses out -- and right now a very large number of people -- mostly younger -- are losing out on housing (owned or rented) in the UK, and a smaller number of people -- mostly older, including many MPs, mostly Tory -- are making a lot of money out of it.

 

You're right that telling people their house "value" may drop is not going to be popular -- but equally you could tell them that this might let their 30-yo kids finally leave home 🙂

 

The system can change, but it needs a government with the will to change it -- and getting that is the problem... 😞

Edited June 13, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

25 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The lack of affordable housing in the UK is nothing to do with land use or population increase (or immigration...) as such, the UK population has increased more rapidly in the past but this was dealt with by sensible government policies such as building council houses and rent controls, and other countries with the same pressures have done a far better job of coping with them.

 

What has broken the system is government policies like "the market always knows best" and right-to-buy and an unworkable NIMBY and developer-biased planning system, all of which have lead to a massive shortage of affordable housing, either to buy or rent.

 

Other countries with similar or larger population increases and/or land "shortages" have dealt with this far better by having governments with more enlightened housing policies, which put a higher priority on giving people a safe secure affordable place to live and lower priority on making money out of residential property.

All of which means the problem is essentially political. As, in fact, are most of the problems ordinary people are tangling with currently, from rent or mortgage costs, GP or dentist appointments, policing and potholes to moorings. But, as there is no political will to do anything about any of them, either from politicians or the voting public, we have to look after ourselves.

Ward was a total nuisance and will remain so as a tenter, and would be as a homeless dosser. The only solution for him will come when he dies, which is the usual end to homelessness. Most are there because they can afford nothing else. 

The only solution is to forget past rules and start from where we are. Reality tends to happen, however much people prefer to live in a fantasy world based on a distant past which never really existed. The canals were built for commercial purposes, not a playground. Cheap houseboat moorings for those that need them in towns and cities, and dump the difference between CC and moorers. If you MUST have a CC option, limit it to those living on their boats.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

All of which means the problem is essentially political. As, in fact, are most of the problems ordinary people are tangling with currently, from rent or mortgage costs, GP or dentist appointments, policing and potholes to moorings. But, as there is no political will to do anything about any of them, either from politicians or the voting public, we have to look after ourselves.

Ward was a total nuisance and will remain so as a tenter, and would be as a homeless dosser. The only solution for him will come when he dies, which is the usual end to homelessness. Most are there because they can afford nothing else. 

The only solution is to forget past rules and start from where we are. Reality tends to happen, however much people prefer to live in a fantasy world based on a distant past which never really existed. The canals were built for commercial purposes, not a playground. Cheap houseboat moorings for those that need them in towns and cities, and dump the difference between CC and moorers. If you MUST have a CC option, limit it to those living on their boats.

Agreed that all the problems you list are political, and many have got far worse in the last 13 years of Tory rule -- but if problems are made politically, they can also be fixed politically. The problem is getting a government into power with the will to do this, which is difficult but not impossible, especially given the mess the Tories are in right now.

 

But there's no way the canals can make even the tiniest dent in the massive housing problem; the shortage of affordable housing affects many millions of people, and even if you filled every honeypot area on the canals where boaters want to live with wall-to-wall boats moored two deep this wouldn't even help 1% of the people in need. It's the other 99% who need a real solution, and that's housing not canal boats.

[kris88]

5 hours ago, dmr said:

 

I have thought that there might be a market for a "sheltered" marina where old boaters go to live out their last few years with a support worker or two on site, but I don't think a low cost marina for social housing would work. It costs a lot of time and money to build a marina but the rent then gives the return, If a council had to build a marina and then pay (via DHSS) people to live in it then its not a good deal. Would you want a social housing marina near you? 😀  There is little space for a marina in a city and I suspect thats were most CMers want to live.

There are a few marinas like this around the country. Shardlow springs to mind. But that’s a cross between a retirement home, a holiday camp, a mental institution and an open prison. If your not suitably subservient enough to the lord of the manor your out. 
Do people really pay to live in these places?