A broad view of canal boat licence fees (The other side)

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT in 'in a bad place' with very few options. The cannot invent requirements, they cannot make new laws, or, amend old laws.

but CRT are inventing new requirements:

mooring restrictions from 14 days to 2 days or whatever, wherever?

surcharges for those without a home mooring?

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

but CRT are inventing new requirements:

mooring restrictions from 14 days to 2 days or whatever, wherever?

surcharges for those without a home mooring?

 

 

 

 

 

 

But they do have the power to do that under the 1971 & 1983 Acts of Parliament.

 

They are not 'inventing new requirements' (or laws)

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

20 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

But they do have the power to do that under the 1971 & 1983 Acts of Parliament.

 

They are not 'inventing new requirements' (or laws)

inventing/tweaking/adopting/changing/adapting/ improving which ever way we look at it, I’m not against any if it’s for a betterment of things. 

anyway, for me to get a traders license there are a few hoops for me to jump through, not many, nothing serious, all doable. And every now and again another hoop is added. Things are a little stricter (perhaps just a tad) than they were when I first applied for a trading license 8 years ago. Not much, it’s all still very simple, very very simple, but it perhaps shows (to me) an effort by CRT to  take a stock of what’s going on. 
 

Why can’t CRT add a few hoops for those (like me) without a home mooring?

Simple stuff such asking “ where do you intend to cruise?”

then when someone says the Peak Forest Canal between Whaley Bridge and New Mills they can be told in advance how that ain’t gonna work. 
 

Now I’m not getting into whether CRT can refuse selling a license but they could advise better. 

Perhaps agree or encourage a more personal pattern of movement before/whilst issuing a license? 

or should CRT issue licenses regardless and take the money?

it is much needed money in the bank after all?

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

The problem is, if they give advice, it will be taken out of context, publicised and widely condemned/criticised by a vocal faction of boaters. So they are careful to stick within the law, which is DELIBERATELY vague to allow a wide variety of cruising styles and canal use cases. 

[DandV]

Changes in use patterns have rendered the current governing legislation increasingly deficient.

It needs a complete rewrite, or at least substantial amendment.

CART are hamstrung both by the legal  deficiencies in their prime governing legislation, and by the growing deficit between government funding and the required spending to maintain the stability of their assets, especially in an environment of climate change.

This deficit is now  much larger then any further  gains in efficiency could offset.

The debate needs to be, What now for your inland waterways? What are the current priorities, and what are growing, or declining priorities?

More maintenance? or protecting affordability?

 

Britain is far from alone in having increasingly unaffordable housing. Reversing this, should undoubtedly even a much bigger priority for your government, and ours, then stabilising the navigation ability on your inland waterways.

But using the inland waterways as a resource to solve fundamentally a housing problem is both an acceptance of housing degradation, and an acceptance of the consequential degradation of the canal network as a recreational resource and landscape amenity.

 

Really the only viable answer, is political. And that will only follow political activism.

A  political solution will only come about with grass roots activists leading grass roots movements. 

At this stage the grass roots activists protecting the affordability of the more recent mass canal living are more organised,  than any activists promoting maintaining the navigability of your canals.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

Isn't it partly because "places" are relative? Because commuting is easier, you could define most of the wider London area as one place, while it's arguable that, say, Congleton and Stoke, or Macclesfield and Marple are different places, although the actual distance between the points is less. It is, as the artists might say, more conceptual than concrete and so comes down to opinion, or, if necessary, court - which is only opinion anyway, and often, as we know, barmy.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

43 minutes ago, Paul C said:

The problem is, if they give advice, it will be taken out of context, publicised and widely condemned/criticised by a vocal faction of boaters. So they are careful to stick within the law, which is DELIBERATELY vague to allow a wide variety of cruising styles and canal use cases. 

so we’re left with issue licences, take the money and deal with the consequences,

fine by me

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, DandV said:

.

But using the inland waterways as a resource to solve fundamentally a housing problem is both an acceptance of housing degradation, and an acceptance of the consequential degradation of the canal network as a recreational resource and landscape amenity..

 

The relatively few people using the system as cheap housing makes as much a dent in the overall housing problem as sending a planeload of refugees to Rwanda does to the number of amnesty seekers in the country, ie none. Neither are a solution, as people just want to be somewhere vaguely safe, or at least safer than they would otherwise be.

Living on a boat solves the problem for a few individuals (as it did for me) but it's looking at it from the wrong angle. The need is to find a way to make the squatters legal, which could be done by providing proper moorings - the fact most of the relevant folk are broke isn't relevant as benefits would pay. We know CRT can monetise towpath moorings, or could encourage cheap marinas with decent communications.

There's no reason councils should whinge, the boats are there already and grandfather rights would ensure those already in situ got first pick of moorings, and they'd get the taxes. Whether the politicians in charge of UC would appreciate a sudden increase of claims from newly legit boaters is another matter!

[Mike Todd]

On 27/04/2024 at 18:50, MtB said:

 

At last, someone else points this out too. I'm tired of pointing it out in these debates!

 

The boat has to be being "used bona fide for navigation" for the 14 day stops to be legal. And throughout the period of the licence. Not for 30 minutes every two weeks. 

And any general statement now also has to take into account those for whom a reasonable adjustment has been made ie a yellow card.

On 27/04/2024 at 19:20, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

👍agreed,

 

which leads me to ask perhaps  CRT should/could be more discerning who they give a licence to?

are CRT just taking easy money with a license fee without making some assurance the boater is able (or willing) to comply with the 14 day  rule?

 

They have very limited powers not to grant a licence to a boater who fulfils the legislated minima. But, if 'reasonable' they can fail to be convinced that a boater intends a bona fide navigation.

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The relatively few people using the system as cheap housing makes as much a dent in the overall housing problem as sending a planeload of refugees to Rwanda does to the number of amnesty seekers in the country, ie none. Neither are a solution, as people just want to be somewhere vaguely safe, or at least safer than they would otherwise be.

Living on a boat solves the problem for a few individuals (as it did for me) but it's looking at it from the wrong angle. The need is to find a way to make the squatters legal, which could be done by providing proper moorings - the fact most of the relevant folk are broke isn't relevant as benefits would pay. We know CRT can monetise towpath moorings, or could encourage cheap marinas with decent communications.

There's no reason councils should whinge, the boats are there already and grandfather rights would ensure those already in situ got first pick of moorings, and they'd get the taxes. Whether the politicians in charge of UC would appreciate a sudden increase of claims from newly legit boaters is another matter!

Perhaps local councils should be required to construct new canals where none or insufficient exist.  Might be helpful to agree how many moorers per mile us acceptable. 

[DandV]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The relatively few people using the system as cheap housing makes as much a dent in the overall housing problem as sending a planeload of refugees to Rwanda does to the number of amnesty seekers in the country, ie none. Neither are a solution, as people just want to be somewhere vaguely safe, or at least safer than they would otherwise be.

Living on a boat solves the problem for a few individuals (as it did for me) but it's looking at it from the wrong angle. The need is to find a way to make the squatters legal, which could be done by providing proper moorings - the fact most of the relevant folk are broke isn't relevant as benefits would pay. We know CRT can monetise towpath moorings, or could encourage cheap marinas with decent communications.

There's no reason councils should whinge, the boats are there already and grandfather rights would ensure those already in situ got first pick of moorings, and they'd get the taxes. Whether the politicians in charge of UC would appreciate a sudden increase of claims from newly legit boaters is another matter!

I think there are two distinct problems with the only common ground, being actually water.

Firstly CART do not already have enough income to offset the degradation of the network, caused by natural ageing, wear and tear, and an increasingly stormy weather. Regardless of how efficient, or not, they are. This is going to become even more pronounced as the Government further reduces it's funding. 

Secondly, the growth of the number of boats on the network, moving and parked up, just like cars on our roads, is causing environmental degradation, and a decline service delivery. Providing more roads, and even more carparking, is easy compared to enlarging the waterways and waterways facilities, to cope. And for how many more?

 

The debate, now for the waterways, exactly parallels that for the roading network. Ever enlarging the facilities is just kicking the can down the road.

So how is future supply going to be rationed? before roading and waterways systems become constipated and service levels decline to near useless?

Pricing is the obvious tool, but the consequence would be that the UK's CART waterways would become far far less egalitarian, and therefore loose a lot of their diversity, colour if you like, and for me, a huge amount of  their charm.

They would become much more like the masses of salt water marinas,  in temperate, and tropical climates, inhabited very largely by a monoculture of smug  well healed, and very largely boring. More like the Thames if you like. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

21 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

They have very limited powers not to grant a licence to a boater who fulfils the legislated minima. But, if 'reasonable' they can fail to be convinced that a boater intends a bona fide navigation.

Yes,

but why wouldn’t/shouldn’t they grant a license to a boater who fulfils the legislated minima?

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

32 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

.

.  Might be helpful to agree how many moorers per mile us acceptable. 

At various bits of the Shroppie, it's as many as you can get in. If it's acceptable offside, it's acceptable towpath. Just charge for it.

9 minutes ago, DandV said:

. Secondly, the growth of the number of boats on the network, moving and parked up, just like cars on our roads, is causing environmental degradation, and a decline service delivery. Providing more roads, and even more carparking, is easy compared to enlarging the waterways and waterways facilities, to cope. And for how many more?

 

 

It's only a problem in certain, easily defined areas. So, legitimise the moorings, let them stay where they want, and collect the mooring fees. The dossers won't care, it'll be paid by benefits and everyone, inc CRT, are happy.

[MtB]

18 minutes ago, DandV said:

The debate, now for the waterways, exactly parallels that for the roading network. Ever enlarging the facilities is just kicking the can down the road.

So how is future supply going to be rationed?

 

One way would be to stop issuing additional new registrations and filling up the cut with ever more boats.

 

A 'One new boat in, one old boat must be scrapped' kind of policy. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28 by MtB
Clarify.

[DandV]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

At various bits of the Shroppie, it's as many as you can get in. If it's acceptable offside, it's acceptable towpath. Just charge for it.

It's only a problem in certain, easily defined areas. So, legitimise the moorings, let them stay where they want, and collect the mooring fees. The dossers won't care, it'll be paid by benefits and everyone, inc CRT, are happy.

Bit like roads really. The non problem areas are not a problem. Perhaps providing legitimate paid for path for long term occupancy here at least reduces the problem here. 

But the problem areas are growing, and the problems within them are growing.

It is here that the disconnect between the problems that the current legislation was designed to address, and the actual problems, now occurring, is enlarging. I don't think the changes required are that large, being mainly centred around clarifying boaters obligations around movement in  and giving the waterways authorities more licence type options, with differing fees.

And making enforcement more straightforward and less resource intensive.

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

One way would be to stop issuing additional new registrations and filling up the cut with ever more boats.

 

A 'One new boat in, one old boat must be scrapped' kind of policy. 

 

 

 

 

An idea not without merit.

[Alan de Enfield]

Something else to discuss.

 

In 1954 BW were granted the powers to make Bye Laws.

And then ...........

 

Section (5) of the BW 1975 Act extended the byelaw making powers of 1954, which from that point on “shall be construed to have effect as if the power thereby conferred to make byelaws for regulating the use of the canal included the express power to make byelaws for excluding any vessel from the canal, prohibiting the use by any vessel of the canal or prohibiting the use of the canal except in compliance with any such conditions as the Board may prescribe . . .”

 

 

 

 

An extract from a post by Nigel Moore

 

The pleasure boat licence was a direct and immediate result of these new powers, but no further conditions were attached, non-compliance with which could exclude any boat. Instead of promoting such conditions to the licence through byelaws, BW instead pursued the perfectly legitimate route of primary legislation – hence s.17 of the 1995 Act, which still contain the only grounds upon which licences may be refused or revoked.

Arguably CaRT inherit to right to create enforceable terms and conditions to this licence therefore, through the medium of new byelaws – but only via that route. Perhaps, though, as I have wondered aloud before, it might be that the terms of the 1995 Act have actually closed that door for good; if so, then BW really shot themselves in the foot well and truly, overlooking essential protective wording in their zeal to introduce new enforceable powers over boaters.

Not that they nor their successor have ever bothered their heads about such niceties – they swiftly discovered that re-inventing the nature of the licence was something boaters and the County Courts would let them get away with.

Edited April 28 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

they swiftly discovered that re-inventing the nature of the licence was something boaters and the County Courts would let them get away with.

re-inventing 👍

perhaps I should have said that earlier up the thread 

[Alan de Enfield]

 

A few days later, in the same thread Nigel posted :

 

 

It might be appropriate to revisit the SC Minutes yet again, on this topic of the enforceability of licence T&C’s outwith the 1995 Act.

BW’s QC correctly informed the Committee that his advice was that the Licence T&C’s “is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.”

 

Asked: “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”?  he replied: “Ultimately we could do one of two things or possibly both things. One would be to revoke the licence as it would be, as the owner or the holder of the licence would be in breach of the pleasure boat conditions. The alternative would be to revert again to the section 8 powers, which we talked about earlier. In both those cases, the Board believes that this action would be inappropriate. We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” – hence, he explained, the perceived need for the mooring restriction powers they sought in the Bill – which did not pass scrutiny and which were consequently omitted from the 1995 Act.

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/142106359/Dodd-on-Status-of-Licence-Conditions

 

Such of the T&C's as repeat statute and byelaws, are of course enforceable - but only as per the legislated routes, not via revocation of licence and/or s.8.

[Paul C]

2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

so we’re left with issue licences, take the money and deal with the consequences,

fine by me

 

 

 

That's basically what they do now - they give the benefit of the doubt to new boaters.

 

2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Yes,

but why wouldn’t/shouldn’t they grant a license to a boater who fulfils the legislated minima?

 

 

 

There isn't a legislated minimum distance though - its described qualitatively as "bona fide for navigation" etc. And there is a MAXIMUM time to stay in a place, not a minimum.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

 

There isn't a legislated minimum distance though - its described qualitatively as "bona fide for navigation" etc. And there is a MAXIMUM time to stay in a place, not a minimum.

Yes, we understand that..

[Paul C]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

which could be done by providing proper moorings......................... We know CRT can monetise towpath moorings................

 

The elephant in the room is planning permission. Planning laws are very powerful and deemed very important in the UK, thus are fiercely enforced and protected. There's much bigger fish than canal residential moorings which can't get the development they need due to planning. Basically, its seen as forming the fabric of what makes UK what it is now, so its unlikely any noticeable change in philosophy will come about from any of the powers-that-be.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

The elephant in the room is planning permission. Planning laws are very powerful and deemed very important in the UK, thus are fiercely enforced and protected. There's much bigger fish than canal residential moorings which can't get the development they need due to planning. Basically, it’s seen as forming the fabric of what makes UK what it is now, so it’s unlikely any noticeable change in philosophy will come about from any of the powers-that-be.

But CRT don’t need planning permission for further visitor moorings or leisure moorings?

 

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

But CRT don’t need planning permission for further visitor moorings or leisure moorings?

 

But we're not talking about visitor moorings or leisure moorings.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

What are we on about ?

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Something else to discuss.

 

In 1954 BW were granted the powers to make Bye Laws.

And then ...........

 

Section (5) of the BW 1975 Act extended the byelaw making powers of 1954, which from that point on “shall be construed to have effect as if the power thereby conferred to make byelaws for regulating the use of the canal included the express power to make byelaws for excluding any vessel from the canal, prohibiting the use by any vessel of the canal or prohibiting the use of the canal except in compliance with any such conditions as the Board may prescribe . . .”

 

 

 

 

An extract from a post by Nigel Moore

 

The pleasure boat licence was a direct and immediate result of these new powers, but no further conditions were attached, non-compliance with which could exclude any boat. Instead of promoting such conditions to the licence through byelaws, BW instead pursued the perfectly legitimate route of primary legislation – hence s.17 of the 1995 Act, which still contain the only grounds upon which licences may be refused or revoked.

Arguably CaRT inherit to right to create enforceable terms and conditions to this licence therefore, through the medium of new byelaws – but only via that route. Perhaps, though, as I have wondered aloud before, it might be that the terms of the 1995 Act have actually closed that door for good; if so, then BW really shot themselves in the foot well and truly, overlooking essential protective wording in their zeal to introduce new enforceable powers over boaters.

Not that they nor their successor have ever bothered their heads about such niceties – they swiftly discovered that re-inventing the nature of the licence was something boaters and the County Courts would let them get away with.

 

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A few days later, in the same thread Nigel posted :

 

 

It might be appropriate to revisit the SC Minutes yet again, on this topic of the enforceability of licence T&C’s outwith the 1995 Act.

BW’s QC correctly informed the Committee that his advice was that the Licence T&C’s “is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.”

 

Asked: “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”?  he replied: “Ultimately we could do one of two things or possibly both things. One would be to revoke the licence as it would be, as the owner or the holder of the licence would be in breach of the pleasure boat conditions. The alternative would be to revert again to the section 8 powers, which we talked about earlier. In both those cases, the Board believes that this action would be inappropriate. We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” – hence, he explained, the perceived need for the mooring restriction powers they sought in the Bill – which did not pass scrutiny and which were consequently omitted from the 1995 Act.

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/142106359/Dodd-on-Status-of-Licence-Conditions

 

Such of the T&C's as repeat statute and byelaws, are of course enforceable - but only as per the legislated routes, not via revocation of licence and/or s.8.

 

IMHO they should forget about applying T&Cs - like literally not have any, at all. Just like when you get a driving licence, you don't sign some T&Cs (but of course you are obligated to obey the law).

 

Instead they should use their power to make byelaws to amend them as relevant and actually enforce them.

[DandV]

12 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

 

IMHO they should forget about applying T&Cs - like literally not have any, at all. Just like when you get a driving licence, you don't sign some T&Cs (but of course you are obligated to obey the law).

 

Instead they should use their power to make byelaws to amend them as relevant and actually enforce them.

I am not disagreeing. Just interested.

Making byelaws, and amending byelaws, seems to be a way of giving  the waterways authorities more flexibility in changing in line with changing circumstances.

 

I think the biggest changes have been a dramatic change in the ratio of boats whose primary purpose is recreational touring, to that of boats whose primary purpose is now residential. With this has been a trend away from the more mobile narrowboats, towards fatties.

Narrowboat construction seems to have slowed,  so these extra boats on the canals must  be largely new build fatties,  and imports from coastal waters.

 

And now, the reducing Government funding, has made increasing revenue collection a necessary  priority.

Expecting donation income to cover the shortfall was at best only wishful thinking.

Optimistic delusion more likely.