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

[Mike Todd]

12 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Yes,

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

 

 

 

What I was emphasising was that one difference between boaters with and without a home mooring is that the latter have to 'satisfy the `Board regarding their cruising intentions (bona fide is, in part, an intention as much as a reality). If they fail then the Board have the option of not granting a licence but they have to do so 'reasonably' ie not in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. 

 

In fact, they are currently starting to do this a bit more vigorously, esp on K&A, with the use of six month licences as a graduated approach. One of the benefits is that it puts back the point at which the only option is to take court action to remove the boat which is a very lengthy and expensive option.

 

At the moment, starting from a point where boaters staying a very long time in 'one place' lead to growing discontent between groups with differing expectations from the canals. Whilst the current interpretation of what will 'satisfy the Board' is quite limited (the oft misunderstood 20 mile rule) it does have the impact of getting boaters used to moving and not having a piece of towpath as their long term personal 'loft'. This has proved to be a process, couples with the 'reasonable adaptation' agreements for those covered by specific discrimination laws, by and large to be an humane one and has garnered more support than antagonism (both are inevitable!) I suspect we can anticipate that over time this experience will be rolled out more widely and with gradually better definitions. As far as I can see, those who seek to challenge the navigation authorities in court - generally ending up losing - only help the NAs by establishing case law which can then be cited in later interactions. (See recent cases on Thames)

 

To expand the use of the canals for deliberate residential purposes is more than simply allowing boats to stay in one place for long periods. The greater problem is with the provision of services which are rarely at a level that can cope with larger numbers. This has become a growing issue in London, for example, where a surprisingly small number of taps have to be shared by hundreds of dwellers. Sewage and rubbish are also very overloaded. The latter has become a larger problem as the collection companies become ever more restrictive on what places they will collect from. hence the closure of a number of traditional sites. (see Stone for example) Car parking can also be a sore point with local residents (who fail to recognise that the road outsole their house is not their private parking space!) These are, typically, matters that loom large in planning decisions.

Edited April 29 by Mike Todd

[IanD]

32 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

What I was emphasising was that one difference between boaters with and without a home mooring is that the latter have to 'satisfy the `Board regarding their cruising intentions (bona fide is, in part, an intention as much as a reality). If they fail then the Board have the option of not granting a licence but they have to do so 'reasonably' ie not in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. 

 

In fact, they are currently starting to do this a bit more vigorously, esp on K&A, with the use of six month licences as a graduated approach. One of the benefits is that it puts back the point at which the only option is to take court action to remove the boat which is a very lengthy and expensive option.

 

At the moment, starting from a point where boaters staying a very long time in 'one place' lead to growing discontent between groups with differing expectations from the canals. Whilst the current interpretation of what will 'satisfy the Board' is quite limited (the oft misunderstood 20 mile rule) it does have the impact of getting boaters used to moving and not having a piece of towpath as their long term personal 'loft'. This has proved to be a process, couples with the 'reasonable adaptation' agreements for those covered by specific discrimination laws, by and large to be an humane one and has garnered more support than antagonism (both are inevitable!) I suspect we can anticipate that over time this experience will be rolled out more widely and with gradually better definitions. As far as I can see, those who seek to challenge the navigation authorities in court - generally ending up losing - only help the NAs by establishing case law which can then be cited in later interactions. (See recent cases on Thames)

 

To expand the use of the canals for deliberate residential purposes is more than simply allowing boats to stay in one place for long periods. The greater problem is with the provision of services which are rarely at a level that can cope with larger numbers. This has become a growing issue in London, for example, where a surprisingly small number of taps have to be shared by hundreds of dwellers. Sewage and rubbish are also very overloaded. The latter has become a larger problem as the collection companies become ever more restrictive on what places they will collect from. hence the closure of a number of traditional sites. (see Stone for example) Car parking can also be a sore point with local residents (who fail to recognise that the road outsole their house is not their private parking space!) These are, typically, matters that loom large in planning decisions.

 

As well as the real problems (services, planning permission...) in expanding the use of the canals for residential purposes, the elephant in the room is that this is a tiny drop in the very large bucket which is the shortage of truly affordable housing in the UK -- a need which used to be met by council housing at well-below-market rates as a social need, but not any more... 😞 

 

Filling up the canals -- at least, near towns and cities and villages which is where most of the CMers (yes I'm going to use that term, I think everyone knows the meaning) want to moor -- with end-to-end boats would meet rather less than 1% of the UKs need for cheap housing, while making them much less attractive for boaters -- hire and owned -- who want to move around the canals, and who bring more desperately-needed money to the canals than the CMers.

 

So it doesn't solve the housing problem and would have a big negative effect on the canals, which doesn't look like a good deal to me, or I suspect most others who love the canals.

 

I'm not saying that CARTs current license/mooring policies couldn't be improved, but thinking that allowing mass uncontrolled mooring would magically provide lots of homes for poorer people seems deluded -- the solution to this problem is for the government (directly or indirectly) to restart building large numbers of truly affordable homes which are not then sold off to tenants or private landlords.

 

But this is unlikely to happen with the current makeup of the government because it might lower house prices and depress rents, which is exactly what many Tory MPs (who are private landlords) don't want to happen -- look at their caving-in on leasehold and rent reforms... 😞 

Edited April 29 by IanD

[Lord Belvoir]

What grinds my gears is continually growing amount of "Van lifers" that use our facilities ...Elsan,toilets,showers and water all for the price of a key!!!

Cyclists are another group that pay naff all into the kitty!!!!

Boats in marina's that are declared "back waters" that pay no licence at all....how many of these do you buy a month's pass out???

One of these marina's is Chapel Farm at shardlow it is classed too has "back water" now there is no facilities at this marina but the non licence paying boaters use CRT refuge and elsan, so in the light of things I can't see why CC'er's victimised at least we pay into the kitty!

 

[Arthur Marshall]

On 29/04/2024 at 09:44, IanD said:

 

As well as the real problems (services, planning permission...) in expanding the use of the canals for residential purposes, the elephant in the room is that this is a tiny drop in the very large bucket which is the shortage of truly affordable housing in the UK -- a need which used to be met by council housing at well-below-market rates as a social need, but not any more... 😞 

 

Filling up the canals -- at least, near towns and cities and villages which is where most of the CMers (yes I'm going to use that term, I think everyone knows the meaning) want to moor -- with end-to-end boats would meet rather less than 1% of the UKs need for cheap housing, while making them much less attractive for boaters -- hire and owned -- who want to move around the canals, and who bring more desperately-needed money to the canals than the CMers.

 

So it doesn't solve the housing problem and would have a big negative effect on the canals, which doesn't look like a good deal to me, or I suspect most others who love the canals.

 

I'm not saying that CARTs current license/mooring policies couldn't be improved, but thinking that allowing mass uncontrolled mooring would magically provide lots of homes for poorer people seems deluded -- the solution to this problem is for the government (directly or indirectly) to restart building large numbers of truly affordable homes which are not then sold off to tenants or private landlords.

 

But this is unlikely to happen with the current makeup of the government because it might lower house prices and depress rents, which is exactly what many Tory MPs (who are private landlords) don't want to happen -- look at their caving-in on leasehold and rent reforms... 😞 

Luckily, we're not trying to solve the housing problem, which is rather above our pay scale . We're just trying to find a workable solution for the relatively few people who want to live on boats and work, raise a family at the same time, or just be broke and coping.

As it's impossible to get rid of the illegal residential boats, there has to be a solution found. We've put up with them for years, so there shouldn't be any reason why they can't be legitimised, and, at least in some respects, monetised. I can't see any reason why people shouldn't live legally on "leisure" moorings - again, plenty do already (me too, many years ago) under the radar. It makes no difference if someone's there for a week or a year. If the councils want their tax, let them sort it out. Planning permission has been reduced to a joke over the past few years and shouldn't be a problem. Once legalised, the whole mess can be regulated properly.

 

[IanD]

12 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Luckily, we're not trying to solve the housing problem, which is rather above our pay scale . We're just trying to find a workable solution for the relatively few people who want to live on boats and work, raise a family at the same time, or just be broke and coping.

As it's impossible to get rid of the illegal residential boats, there has to be a solution found. We've put up with them for years, so there shouldn't be any reason why they can't be legitimised, and, at least in some respects, monetised. I can't see any reason why people shouldn't live legally on "leisure" moorings - again, plenty do already (me too, many years ago) under the radar. It makes no difference if someone's there for a week or a year. If the councils want their tax, let them sort it out. Planning permission has been reduced to a joke over the past few years and shouldn't be a problem. Once legalised, the whole mess can be regulated properly.

 

 

I agree that sensible longer-term towpath mooring away from crowded areas (and bends, and bridges, and trees, and narrow bits, and locks, and winding holes, and...) poses no problems to anyone, but as it stands it's against CART rules and doesn't bring them in any money (apart from the license fee).

 

If it were to be permitted then there would have to be controls on *where* it was allowed (or not), and a way to get some more money for CART out of it (higher license fee?) -- both to prevent the canals being swamped by cheap now-legal CMers, and to raise funds for CART. Together with actual enforcement of rules on CCers/CMers in honeypot areas (tighter rules? even higher fees?), this would go a long way to solving many of the canal problems today.

 

But CART seem dead set against any expansion of/liberalisation of online moorings, ignoring the fact that the current rules system simply isn't working... 😞 

[MtB]

29 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I agree that sensible longer-term towpath mooring away from crowded areas (and bends, and bridges, and trees, and narrow bits, and locks, and winding holes, and...) poses no problems to anyone, but as it stands it's against CART rules and doesn't bring them in any money (apart from the license fee).

 

If it were to be permitted then there would have to be controls on *where* it was allowed (or not), and a way to get some more money for CART out of it (higher license fee?) -- both to prevent the canals being swamped by cheap now-legal CMers, and to raise funds for CART. Together with actual enforcement of rules on CCers/CMers in honeypot areas (tighter rules? even higher fees?), this would go a long way to solving many of the canal problems today.

 

But CART seem dead set against any expansion of/liberalisation of online moorings, ignoring the fact that the current rules system simply isn't working... 😞 

 

 

The current system is working remarkably well for the CMers. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Working well for me too,

Who isn’t it working well for?

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Working well for me too,

Who isn’t it working well for?

 

 

Anyone inconvenienced by a stoppage, broken paddle, or any other sort of overdue maintenance.

 

I guess you haven't had this problem then? 

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Here’s me thinking you/we were on about mooring and licenses,

but hey flip the subject of conversation,

as it happens I was inconvenienced just the other day waiting for a paddle to be fixed,

very pleasant really chatting to the workers,

an EA lock mind,

CRT wouldn’t be bothered,

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I agree that sensible longer-term towpath mooring away from crowded areas (and bends, and bridges, and trees, and narrow bits, and locks, and winding holes, and...) poses no problems to anyone, but as it stands it's against CART rules and doesn't bring them in any money (apart from the license fee).

 

If it were to be permitted then there would have to be controls on *where* it was allowed (or not), and a way to get some more money for CART out of it (higher license fee?) -- both to prevent the canals being swamped by cheap now-legal CMers, and to raise funds for CART. Together with actual enforcement of rules on CCers/CMers in honeypot areas (tighter rules? even higher fees?), this would go a long way to solving many of the canal problems today.

 

But CART seem dead set against any expansion of/liberalisation of online moorings, ignoring the fact that the current rules system simply isn't working... 😞 

It is not just against CaRT Rules but Planning Law as well. CaRT can regulate usage within the Visitor Mooring regime - generally they can limit rather permit (15 days rule) but also create towpath moorings and permit EOGs. None of these allow CaRT to grant residential usage in ways not permitted by Planning decisions. To change that would open a very much larger Pandora's Box. (or bag of worms, if you prefer) If residential use of land could be granted without restriction then dwellings would appear all over the place - the farmer's field next to someone's beloved  garden, for example.

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It is not just against CaRT Rules but Planning Law as well. CaRT can regulate usage within the Visitor Mooring regime - generally they can limit rather permit (15 days rule) but also create towpath moorings and permit EOGs. None of these allow CaRT to grant residential usage in ways not permitted by Planning decisions. To change that would open a very much larger Pandora's Box. (or bag of worms, if you prefer) If residential use of land could be granted without restriction then dwellings would appear all over the place - the farmer's field next to someone's beloved  garden, for example.

 

But surely there's a difference between a residential mooring -- where you have the right to stay and live there -- and (for example) extending the period of time people are allowed to moor in one place where suitable (and charging them more) without giving them the right to do so indefinitely?

 

The "farmers field" argument is a classic slippery slope/thin end of the wedge/straw man diversion -- nobody is suggesting that dwellings/caravans should be allowed anywhere on land, just that the current canal mooring rules simply aren't working, either from the enforcement point of view or bringing much-needed money into CART.

 

The problem CART have is that the existing mooring rules -- both online/towpath/offline but also CMers overstaying on VMs and other short-term moorings -- are so widely ignored as to be laughable. They don't control problem mooring in honeypot areas, and they don't allow longer-term (not permanent!) mooring in the sticks where it would not cause any problems for anyone.

 

When a law is being ignored/abused to this extent, there are only two sensible courses -- either keep the rules but enforce them better, or change the rules to better reflect reality, and better fit the needs of boaters -- meaning, not just NBTA supporters. Taking the Tory approach and claiming that the rules can't be changed and are being followed/enforced is simply ignoring reality... 😞 

 

 

Edited May 2 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

But surely there's a difference between a residential mooring -- where you have the right to stay and live there -- and (for example) extending the period of time people are allowed to stay in one place (and charging them more) without giving them the right to do so indefinitely?

 

The "farmers field" argument is a classic slippery slope/thin end of the wedge/straw man diversion -- nobody is suggesting that dwellings/caravans should be allowed anywhere on land, just that the current canal mooring rules simply aren't working, either from the enforcement point of view or bringing much-needed money into CART.

 

The problem CART have is that the existing mooring rules -- both online/towpath/offline but also CMers overstaying on VMs and other short-term moorings -- are so widely ignored as to be laughable.

 

When a law is being ignored/abused to this extent, there are only two sensible courses -- either keep the rules but enforce them better, or change the rules to better reflect reality, and better fit the needs of boaters -- meaning, not just NBTA supporters. Taking the Tory approach and claiming that the rules can't be changed and are being followed/enforced is simply ignoring reality... 😞 

 

 

I’m not sure I understand this ‘straw man’ thing you regularly bring up,

I may be wrong but it appears you berate a poster for making a the straw man argument yet return with your own straw man argument. 

may be I don’t grasp the notion of what the straw man argument is?

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I’m not sure I understand this ‘straw man’ thing you regularly bring up,

I may be wrong but it appears you berate a poster for making a the straw man argument yet return with your own straw man argument. 

may be I don’t grasp the notion of what the straw man argument is?

 

 

A "straw man" argument is when you use an argument against something that isn't actually being proposed to try and make your point -- the term comes from the idea of setting up a "straw man" (false argument) and then knocking it down.

 

For example, in response to a suggestion that more permissive towpath mooring in rural/uncrowded areas might be a good thing (what @MtB suggested and I agreed with), saying that this would mean allowing people to build houses anywhere they want to e.g. a farmer's field.

 

I'm fairly sure that CART can change the terms of how long and where they allow people to moor on the towpath (and how much to charge them to do this) without granting anyone (permanent) residential mooring status as a result, which would also means planning law doesn't come into it either -- isn't this exactly what they already do with "winter moorings"?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I’m not sure Mike Todd was proposing a straw man argument. 
For to create residential moorings it may well require a certain amount of planning application and possibly open a can of worms, it was a fair point. 

 

 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I’m not sure Mike Todd was proposing a straw man argument. 
For to create residential moorings it may well require a certain amount of planning application and possibly open a can of worms, it was a fair point. 

 

 

Except that allowing longer-term towpath stays -- like "winter moorings" -- in return for more money is not creating residential moorings, is it?

Edited May 2 by IanD

[Paul C]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

A "straw man" argument is when you use an argument against something that isn't actually being proposed to try and make your point -- the term comes from the idea of setting up a "straw man" (false argument) and then knocking it down.

 

For example, in response to a suggestion that more permissive towpath mooring in rural/uncrowded areas might be a good thing (what @MtB suggested and I agreed with), saying that this would mean allowing people to build houses anywhere they want to e.g. a farmer's field.

 

I'm fairly sure that CART can change the terms of how long and where they allow people to moor on the towpath (and how much to charge them to do this) without granting anyone (permanent) residential mooring status as a result, which would also means planning law doesn't come into it either -- isn't this exactly what they already do with "winter moorings"?

 

Building a house in a farmer's field might be considered a good thing too, by some. Just as others would consider more permissive mooring a bad thing. If a site is permanently occupied (or even if it is not permanent, but predominantly occupied), it doesn't really matter to the people who might consider it a bad thing, if it was "Kingfisher" on Tuesday-Saturday then "A Round Tuit" on Saturday-Wednesday etc

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Except that allowing longer-term towpath stays -- like "winter moorings" -- in return for more money is not creating residential moorings, is it?

It is the reason many were stopped, I believe.

[ditchcrawler]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Except that allowing longer-term towpath stays -- like "winter moorings" -- in return for more money is not creating residential moorings, is it?

Probably not as its not for 12 months, just a max of 5 months per year 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Except that allowing longer-term towpath stays -- like "winter moorings" -- in return for more money is not creating residential moorings, is it?

nope I don’t suppose it is

 

is that what was being suggested? I missed that

 

 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Probably not as its not for 12 months, just a max of 5 months per year 

Which is exactly why I said "longer-term" -- making boaters in the middle of nowhere move on every 14 days is pretty pointless, don't you think? Why not allow them to stay there for longer (e.g. up to 6 months) in return for a bigger license fee?

 

OTOH telling boaters in popular places that they have to move on after 14 days (or 48 hours) to allow others to have a chance of mooring is a good thing -- or it would be if it was enforced... 😞 

 

This is a case where a "one-size-fits-all" rule just doesn't work...

 

5 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

nope I don’t suppose it is

 

is that what was being suggested? I missed that

 

Here it is again then 🙂 

 

"I agree that sensible longer-term towpath mooring away from crowded areas (and bends, and bridges, and trees, and narrow bits, and locks, and winding holes, and...) poses no problems to anyone, but as it stands it's against CART rules and doesn't bring them in any money (apart from the license fee)."

Edited May 2 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm fairly sure that CART can change the terms of how long and where they allow people to moor on the towpath (and how much to charge them to do this) without granting anyone (permanent) residential mooring status as a result, which would also means planning law doesn't come into it either -- isn't this exactly what they already do with "winter moorings"?

 

 

C&RT could designate moorings that a boat could use for 28 days in any calender year - how do they ensure that the same boat does not return to the same mooring within 12 months ?

 

This is the legislation that allows Car-Boot sales to take place without planning permission.

 

 

 

 

 

Winter moorings allowing boaters to stay in one place for up to 5 months obvioulsy contravenes this legislation

 

Basicaly it is 'protection money'  - pay up for a winter mooring and we won't chase you re your lack of movement.

Edited May 2 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Which is exactly why I said "longer-term" -- making boaters in the middle of nowhere move on every 14 days is pretty pointless, don't you think? Why not allow them to stay there for longer (e.g. up to 6 months) in return for a bigger license fee?

 

OTOH telling boaters in popular places that they have to move on after 14 days (or 48 hours) to allow others to have a chance of mooring is a good thing -- or it would be if it was enforced... 😞 

 

This is a case where a "one-size-fits-all" rule just doesn't work...

 

Here it is again then 🙂 

 

"I agree that sensible longer-term towpath mooring away from crowded areas (and bends, and bridges, and trees, and narrow bits, and locks, and winding holes, and...) poses no problems to anyone, but as it stands it's against CART rules and doesn't bring them in any money (apart from the license fee)."

is that what you meant,

ok,

 

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

C&RT could designate moorings that a boat could use for 28 days in any calender year - how do they ensure that the same boat does not return to the same mooring within 12 months ?

 

This is the legislation that allows Car-Boot sales to take place without planning permission.

 

 

 

 

Those all refer to "a designated location/mooring base" -- in other words a restricted place where the boat moors, and where there may well be objections from neighbours/councils if this is then filled up permanently. Though as pointed out above, if all that happens today is the boat shuffle every 14 days where they swap places, in effect there's no difference, it's just one boat instead of a succession o alternating ones... 😉 

 

Whether this applies anyway to "you can moor anywhere on the canals for longer periods except designated honeypot areas" (so not a designated location/mooring base, or residential/home mooring) is an interesting legal question... 😉 

Edited May 2 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Those all refer to "a designated location/mooring base" -- in other words a restricted place where the boat moors, and where there may well be objections from neighbours/councils if this is then filled up permanently.

 

The designated mooring space could be 20 miles from the nearest village / town / bridge etc it does not mean it has to be in a 'residential' (bricks & mortar)  area.

Edited May 2 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The designated mooring space could be 20 miles from the nearest village / town / bridge etc it does not mean it has to be in a 'residential' (bricks & mortar)  area.

 

But "anywhere on the towpath except [honeypots]" is not a designated mooring space, is it?

 

It's exactly the same as the difference between having dedicated car parks (planning permission needed), and allowing cars to park anywhere on roads where it's safe except where it's banned e.g. yellow lines (no permission needed).

 

The areas where this isn't allowed -- for example "honeypots" -- could be anywhere popular in town or country or at a canal junction.

Edited May 2 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

19 minutes ago, IanD said:

"I agree that sensible longer-term towpath mooring away from crowded areas (

but it’s not really an answer if you’re comparing to winter moorings,

winter mooring are generally close to towns and services, the sort of thing one needs, and why one pays the fee

 

Edited May 2 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer