A CC supporter on You Tube

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

 

The facts speak for themselves though. You eventually left that marina.

 

Yes, I did. Now I pay for a licence I actually need. And no mooring fee. 

 

but I was never as miserly as Arthur Marshall, in the choice of moorings, and have probably spent many more thousands than he. So, how he has the gall to criticise, and have me down as a miser is hard to fathom. That's all I have to say to tight-fisted AM.

 

  

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Since that appears to be sufficient as a basis for what they want to do, re NAA, why do you keep banging on about the lack of a statutory right as if that meant they were acting illegally or that they could not enforce their arrangements. I have done lots of thing for which I have no specific statutory right simply by working under contract. After all, statute does give force to the concept of a contract and the circumstance's under which it is enforceable.

 

I think we can dispense with the pretence of CRT having any statutory rights in a private place. To go along with there being no statutory basis for a boat licence.

 

 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

What do think I'm wishing for. Just because people think CRT should be funded, it doesn't mean fair or foul means are the same, and that no account should be taken of ethical considerations.

 

 

The law does allow for circumstances under which a contract is not enforceable - such as demonstrating that its conditions are not reasonable. AFAIK, no-one has mounted a challenge to the fundamental basis of the NAA and even Pillings, who tried to get away with not paying, ended up having to agree. Plenty of contracts are made between parties of unequal power (I have little power against the electricity company who supply us) - in cases in which one party's power is necessarily extreme then the Govt has established mechanisms to limit the abuse of monopolies (even if what they are allowed to do feels very close!) 

 

I cannot see that CaRT are either in such a monopolistic situation nor is what they supply (in this case access) sufficiently a basic necessity that it justifies a controlling body like OFGEM. It is open, however, to anyone who disagrees, to make a reference to the Monopolies body (whatever name they go by these days!)

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But - they do both "demand money with menaces" (protection money)

Not sure what menaces you mean but CaRT (as I know) do go to great lengths to ensure that they only apply such measures as the law permits when enforcing against boaters that do not comply, unlike Mafia who reputedly use methods that are clearly not sanctioned by law.

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The law does allow for circumstances under which a contract is not enforceable - such as demonstrating that its conditions are not reasonable. AFAIK, no-one has mounted a challenge to the fundamental basis of the NAA and even Pillings, who tried to get away with not paying, ended up having to agree.

 

And what happens when they do? There has to be money and support to drive over the critics.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Not sure what menaces you mean but CaRT (as I know) do go to great lengths to ensure that they only apply such measures as the law permits when enforcing against boaters that do not comply, unlike Mafia who reputedly use methods that are clearly not sanctioned by law.

 

 

The fact that C&RT tell a CC'er that if they pay 'protection money' they will not enforce the legal requirement to move every 14 days and they can stay in one place for up to 5 months, even tho' they have made a CC declaration to get the licence.

 

A bit like the ULEZ - don't come in our area with your dirty, polluting, car - think of the children !

On the other hand, yes, go on, you can come if you pay us £12.50 (or whatever) and 'sod the children'

Edited January 2 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The fact that C&RT tell a CC'er that if they pay 'protection money' they will not enforce the legal requirement to move every 14 days and they can stay in one place for up to 5 months, even tho' they have made a CC declaration to get the licence.

 

 

When CRT take money for a winter mooring from a CCer, it is "de facto" a "home mooring", albeit not a yearly renewed one. Since you can't be a CCer AND a home moorer, the boater concerned is no longer a CCer. So its not really protection money, any more than any other towpath-side, online mooring is or isn't a similar thing.

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

When CRT take money for a winter mooring from a CCer, it is "de facto" a "home mooring", albeit not a yearly renewed one. Since you can't be a CCer AND a home moorer, the boater concerned is no longer a CCer. So its not really protection money, any more than any other towpath-side, online mooring is or isn't a similar thing.

 

How did winter moorings creep in? 

 

 

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

How did winter moorings creep in? 

 

 

How did your off-topic post on people who moor in a marina, needing to pay for a licence, who never use the canal, creep in?

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

How did your off-topic post on people who moor in a marina, needing to pay for a licence, who never use the canal, creep in?

 

I don't think it's worth my time to answer that. You could always read the thread through. It isn't that big. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

50 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Yes, I did. Now I pay for a licence I actually need. And no mooring fee. 

 

but I was never as miserly as Arthur Marshall, in the choice of moorings, and have probably spent many more thousands than he. So, how he has the gall to criticise, and have me down as a miser is hard to fathom. That's all I have to say to tight-fisted AM.

 

 

 

About as sensible as anything you write. Currently I pay over a grand in mooring charges, most of it direct to CRT, so why I'm being miserly when I'm paying what's due without whinging I don't know. And I never said you were a miser, just a hypocrite unwilling to stand up for the "principles" you preach about. I notice you ignore that point, while typically shifting the argument to something I never said. By the way, I moor on farms because I like them and I could afford them. Not all of us are rolling in money, but we still pay our way without complaint.

If you define yourself as a cheapskate, that's fine, but don't bring me into it. I'll not respond to anything else you write, because it really is just a waste of time and I've got euphoniums to play.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Paul C said:

When CRT take money for a winter mooring from a CCer, it is "de facto" a "home mooring",

 

 

I wondered who be the one to suggest this.

 

It cannot be a mooring as it would require planning pemission if used by the same boat for over 28 days :

 

From the AINA :

 

3rd Example - Winter Moorings

 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

About as sensible as anything you write. Currently I pay over a grand in mooring charges, most of it direct to CRT, so why I'm being miserly when I'm paying what's due without whinging I don't know. And I never said you were a miser, just a hypocrite unwilling to stand up for the "principles" you preach about. I notice you ignore that point, while typically shifting the argument to something I never said. By the way, I moor on farms because I like them and I could afford them. Not all of us are rolling in money, but we still pay our way without complaint.

If you define yourself as a cheapskate, that's fine, but don't bring me into it. I'll not respond to anything else you write, because it really is just a waste of time and I've got euphoniums to play.

 

I have yet to see what principles qualify you as a better. 

 

 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I wondered who be the one to suggest this.

 

It cannot be a mooring as it would require planning pemission if used by the same boat for over 28 days :

 

From the AINA :

 

3rd Example - Winter Moorings

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your quote uses the words "may be required" and "on case by case basis". So you can't assert that it cannot be a mooring.

 

What's pragmatically more likely to have happened, is that CRT have decided to offer these in the past, there has been no challenge on planning permission requirement, but more recently (even without a challenge) they have decided in certain areas, to no longer offer them, because they believe for that area/circumstances, on balance they might need planning permission.

 

The planning permission angle is quite interesting though.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I wondered who be the one to suggest this.

 

It cannot be a mooring as it would require planning pemission if used by the same boat for over 28 days :

 

From the AINA :

 

3rd Example - Winter Moorings

 

 

 

 

 

No more a "home mooring" than one paid for at Llangollen, or if a Ccer puts the boat in a marina for a few weeks while on holiday elsewhere. I think there's another thread somewhere which implied a home mooring had to be taken for a full year. And as we know CRT can charge for towpath moorings if they wish, so no problem.

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I have yet to see what principles qualify you as a better. 

 

 

That doesn't even make sense.... any chance of a translation into English? On second thoughts...

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

No more a "home mooring" than one paid for at Llangollen, or if a Ccer puts the boat in a marina for a few weeks while on holiday elsewhere. I think there's another thread somewhere which implied a home mooring had to be taken for a full year. And as we know CRT can charge for towpath moorings if they wish, so no problem.

 

When it is being applied throughout the length, it will affect all uses., whenever they are not on their home mooring. Having a home mooring is a choice of extra. The licence fee shouldn't be discounted for home moorers. Obviously, online moorers.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2 by Higgs

[magnetman]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I wondered who be the one to suggest this.

 

It cannot be a mooring as it would require planning pemission if used by the same boat for over 28 days :

 

From the AINA :

 

3rd Example - Winter Moorings

 

 

 

 

 

How does that apply to pre existing long term moorings on towpaths?

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

...more likely to have happened, is that CRT have decided to offer these in the past, there has been no challenge on planning permission requirement, but more recently (even without a challenge) they have decided in certain areas, to no longer offer them, because they believe for that area/circumstances, on balance they might need planning permission.

 

The planning permission angle is quite interesting though.

 

 

 

I reckon in the inner London areas there was a challenge either by councils or a vested interest. The thought that the CRT stopped them for another reason is interesting though. 

 

 

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

How does that apply to pre existing long term moorings on towpaths?

 

PP is not required to moor a leisure boat. 

 

But those who break the terms of their leisure boat moorings agreement by living aboard are putting CRT at risk of PP enforcement. 

 

Hence the need to STFU about it.

 

Oh, hang on....

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, magnetman said:

How does that apply to pre existing long term moorings on towpaths?

 

I'd be guessing but I'd say that C&RT do not need PP for a leisure mooring unless it is deemed to be a 'material change in use of the land'.

The vast majority of C&RTs long term towpath moorings are 'leisure' use rather than residential.

 

C&RT do have some rights under the "Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995  Schedule 2 Part 17 (Development by Statutory Undertakers), Classes B, C and D"

 

Navigation authorities, and others, are, where appropriate, able to benefit from general permitted development rights such as those in Part 2 (Minor Operations), Part 3 (Changes of Use) and Part 4 (Temporary Buildings and Uses). Part 4 includes the ‘28 day rule’ under which land may be used for any purpose for not more than 28 days in any calendar year, subject to certain limitations.

 

Mooring providers seeking to introduce online or offline mooring berths for residential use will need to consider whether they have any riparian owner rights and what consents they may be required to obtain. The main considerations are identified below.

 Planning permission;

 Riparian owner rights;

 Flood defence consent;

 Water use consents;

 Navigation authority consent; and

 Other requirements that may be specific to the location of the site.

 

The question that arises is whether the mooring of such a vessel requires planning permission as a material change in the use of land. The point at which the mooring of a residential boat on a waterway departs from an ancillary use of the waterway (which usually would not need planning permission) and moves to a material change to residential use (which usually would need planning permission) needs to be decided on the basis of fact and degree as well as the particular circumstances of a case.

The use of the mooring for this purpose is not included in any of the classes prescribed in the Use Classes Order. It is therefore sui generis (not C3 Dwellinghouses).

In this context it is also worth noting that planning permission is usually not required where the residential use of a mooring is for no more than 28 days in any calendar year, since such temporary use is permitted development under Part 4 of the GPDO13 .

Furthermore, occasional or extended holiday stays on a vessel may not, as a matter of fact and degree, be considered to amount to a material change of use i.e. to permanent residential use. A number of examples will illustrate the range of issues:

 The use of a long-term mooring on a canal for the ‘parking’ and/or maintenance of a vessel between cruises will not usually require planning permission as such an activity is ordinarily ancillary or incidental to the use of the canal for navigation. That will be so even if the vessel at the mooring is occasionally used for overnight stays.

 Where, however, a vessel or floating structure (a) does not cruise or is incapable of cruising and (b) is used for residential purposes as a person’s sole or main residence, many local planning authorities will regard it as being materially different in nature or character from any previous non-residential use of the planning unit and/or, where appropriate, as having actually created a new planning unit. In such circumstances, it is likely that planning permission will be required for the residential use of the mooring.

 More difficult may be the situation where a vessel is used for residential purposes, as a person’s sole or main residence, but does cruise regularly between stays amounting to more than 28 days at its mooring base. Whether there has been a material change of use in the location of the mooring will be a matter of fact and degree having regard to the planning unit and the nature or character of the previous and existing use.

 

Source ; AINA Residential Use of The Waterways

Edited January 2 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'd be guessing but I'd say that C&RT do not need PP for a leisure mooring unless it is deemed to be a 'material change in use of the land'.

The vast majority of C&RTs long term towpath moorings are 'leisure' use rather than residential.

 

C&RT do have some rights under the "Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995  Schedule 2 Part 17 (Development by Statutory Undertakers), Classes B, C and D"

 

Navigation authorities, and others, are, where appropriate, able to benefit from general permitted development rights such as those in Part 2 (Minor Operations), Part 3 (Changes of Use) and Part 4 (Temporary Buildings and Uses). Part 4 includes the ‘28 day rule’ under which land may be used for any purpose for not more than 28 days in any calendar year, subject to certain limitations.

 

Mooring providers seeking to introduce online or offline mooring berths for residential use will need to consider whether they have any riparian owner rights and what consents they may be required to obtain. The main considerations are identified below.

 Planning permission;

 Riparian owner rights;

 Flood defence consent;

 Water use consents;

 Navigation authority consent; and

 Other requirements that may be specific to the location of the site.

 

The question that arises is whether the mooring of such a vessel requires planning permission as a material change in the use of land. The point at which the mooring of a residential boat on a waterway departs from an ancillary use of the waterway (which usually would not need planning permission) and moves to a material change to residential use (which usually would need planning permission) needs to be decided on the basis of fact and degree as well as the particular circumstances of a case.

The use of the mooring for this purpose is not included in any of the classes prescribed in the Use Classes Order. It is therefore sui generis (not C3 Dwellinghouses).

In this context it is also worth noting that planning permission is usually not required where the residential use of a mooring is for no more than 28 days in any calendar year, since such temporary use is permitted development under Part 4 of the GPDO13 .

Furthermore, occasional or extended holiday stays on a vessel may not, as a matter of fact and degree, be considered to amount to a material change of use i.e. to permanent residential use. A number of examples will illustrate the range of issues:

 The use of a long-term mooring on a canal for the ‘parking’ and/or maintenance of a vessel between cruises will not usually require planning permission as such an activity is ordinarily ancillary or incidental to the use of the canal for navigation. That will be so even if the vessel at the mooring is occasionally used for overnight stays.

 Where, however, a vessel or floating structure (a) does not cruise or is incapable of cruising and (b) is used for residential purposes as a person’s sole or main residence, many local planning authorities will regard it as being materially different in nature or character from any previous non-residential use of the planning unit and/or, where appropriate, as having actually created a new planning unit. In such circumstances, it is likely that planning permission will be required for the residential use of the mooring.

 More difficult may be the situation where a vessel is used for residential purposes, as a person’s sole or main residence, but does cruise regularly between stays amounting to more than 28 days at its mooring base. Whether there has been a material change of use in the location of the mooring will be a matter of fact and degree having regard to the planning unit and the nature or character of the previous and existing use.

 

Source ; AINA Residential Use of The Waterways

 

 

I said much the same in my post immediately above yours, but using only about 20 words.

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I said much the same in my post immediately above yours, but using only about 20 words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed you did which is why you could post a few minutes before I did. - but it appears that whilst forumites might accept your 20 words - when I do that I'm asked for evidence, copies of documents and links, and under what legislation and circumstances may PP be required -  althought it takes longer to search and provide the information, to save having to make further posts I post it 'all in one go'.

[ditchcrawler]

54 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

PP is not required to moor a leisure boat. 

 

But those who break the terms of their leisure boat moorings agreement by living aboard are putting CRT at risk of PP enforcement. 

 

Hence the need to STFU about it.

 

Oh, hang on....

 

 

Historically all moorings were residential when the family lived on a working boat, there may have been different families there but they were living aboard 

 

[___]

I think the majority of winter moorings are probably taken by non-liveaboards. That's certainly the case where my boat is currently moored.

 

A winter mooring is clearly a home mooring based upon CRT's own definitions. Yet it doesn't directly qualify for a licence rebate under the new charging regime. It could of course be built into next year's winter mooring prices but I'm not optimistic that it will.

 

Edited January 2 by Captain Pegg

[MtB]

18 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Historically all moorings were residential when the family lived on a working boat, there may have been different families there but they were living aboard 

 

 

Historically, PP didn't exist! 

 

 

 

[Jerra]

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

The licence is a legal entity. Condition of use and need apply, in a legal framework. The T&Cs of a marina is not the legislature that give authority to the licence conditions.

 

 

The agreement regarding the marina and CRT has nothing whatever to do with licence conditions.  IIRC there are three licence conditions and they have nothing to do with any business agreement between the marina and CRT.

 

So basically I don't understand why you are trying desperately to link the two.

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Be ok, if we were discussing it. But I'd challenge CRT to take the clause out of the NAA, specifically relating to the need for boaters to have a licence on the marinas private property. Then we will know if the marina will then choose to apply that to its T&Cs.

I realise you won't accept this but I spent 40 years trying to get recalcitrant young folk to understand things so I might as well try with you.

 

CRT have a problem, they need to ensure all boats (well as far as is reasonably possible) are licenced. They go for the most cost effective solution.  That is to come to an agreement with a business that produces a win-win situation.  All perfectly normal and legal.  They agree with the business that the business can have a private entrance to their system (as opposed to lifting boats over the bank) in return the business agrees to have a requirement in its T&Cs that boats must be licenced.  All perfectly normal and fully legal.

 

Just as it is legal for a business to lay down conditions in its T&Cs e.g motor vehicles must be taxed and insured.

 

What law has been broken?  What business agreement is not normal?  Why do you consider such everyday practices make CRT like the mafia?

[Higgs]

17 hours ago, Jerra said:

 

CRT have a problem, they need to ensure all boats (well as far as is reasonably possible) are licenced.

 

 

Boaters have a problem..., being able to use the canal. 

 

There are marinas on the cut that do not make the moorers pay for a licence. To run the marina business, they do not feel the need to demand the moorers are licensed. There is nothing binding on these marianas to force moorers to pay into the CRT pot. These marinas haven't signed away their independence and that of their moorers to choose. And I'm sure CRT would like to remove this freedom some marinas have.

 

And those marinas that have signed the NAA, yes, they've been obliged to demand that moorers are licensed.  Those licences are, however, meaningless within the marina. There is no legitimacy about them. Marinas are neither the legal body that issues them, nor the legislature, so cannot give that power to CRT, and cannot make the licence a legal permit within the marina confines.  

 

And now that some people have seen fit to load use of the canal onto some licence holders, moorers that never leave the confines of a marina are due a big, big discount. If the unfair practice of forcing moorers to buy an unnecessary licence isn't stopped, I'd suggest at least a 75% discount.

 

 

Edited January 3 by Higgs

[frangar]

And the cash to run the system comes from where??