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

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

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 few

 

 

It's the same in that it means you don't have to pointlessly move every 14 days, and in return you pay a fee -- presumably a smaller one than for a winter mooring with facilities, which could be defined as one of the "honeypot" areas.

Edited May 2 by IanD

[Paul C]

I think anything where the thrust of the argument is "its similar to the winter moorings, and that seems to work" is on shaky grounds.

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I think anything where the thrust of the argument is "its similar to the winter moorings, and that seems to work" is on shaky grounds.

 

What exactly is/was the problem with winter moorings -- councils, bolshy boaters, NBTA, CART lawyers...?

 

If the problem was that they were "designated moorings" (like car parks) then the "moor anywhere outside honeypots for longer" idea shouldn't fall foul of this, should it?

Edited May 2 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

It's the same in that it means you don't have to pointlessly move every 14 days, and in return you pay a fee -- presumably a smaller one than for a winter mooring with facilities, which could be defined as one of the "honeypot" areas.

what I’m seeing at the moment is congestion around Railway Station towns, so I can’t see your proposal working for those boaters, last place they want is out in the sticks. 
they’d prefer to move to the next town every 14 days for no extra charge. 
 

 

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

what I’m seeing at the moment is congestion around Railway Station towns, so I can’t see your proposal working for those boaters, last place they want is out in the sticks. 
they’d prefer to move to the next town every 14 days for no extra charge. 
 

 

One of the usual objection to the 14 day rule -- from several people on CWDF! -- is "I moor out in the middle of nowhere, why should I have to keep moving? And lots of other people could do this with no problem...". Let's solve one problem at a time...

 

If the problem is congestion around station towns then that's the "honeypot" problem, just like in London or Bath. That needs solving too. Any suggestions?

 

(or if they do move every 14 days, the existing rule is working and doesn't need fixing...)

Edited May 2 by IanD

[Andyaero]

Noob question on a similar theme......

If I've declared a home mooring (marina) but close by there's a nice touristy/picturesque area I'd like to frequent quite often through the summer months, but it has 48hour limitations, can I.......moor there for 48 hours, go back to marina or down the canal for a couple of days and then return to said nice area and repeat?

I guess I'm asking with these 48hour moorings is it similar to car parking restrictions where they say "no return within (add timescale)".

[Paul C]

Just now, Andyaero said:

Noob question on a similar theme......

If I've declared a home mooring (marina) but close by there's a nice touristy/picturesque area I'd like to frequent quite often through the summer months, but it has 48hour limitations, can I.......moor there for 48 hours, go back to marina or down the canal for a couple of days and then return to said nice area and repeat?

I guess I'm asking with these 48hour moorings is it similar to car parking restrictions where they say "no return within (add timescale)".

Yes

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

One of the usual objection to the 14 day rule -- from several people on CWDF! -- is "I moor out in the middle of nowhere, why should I have to keep moving? And lots of other people could do this with no problem...". Let's solve one problem at a time...

 

If the problem is congestion around station towns then that's the "honeypot" problem, just like in London or Bath. That needs solving too. Any suggestions?

I have never heard that usual objection in the sense of “I” that you refer to. I have heard “if THEY are out in the country does it matter?” and the odd ones here and there don’t matter really in the scheme of things. For me they’re familiar landmarks and I’d find it strange if they weren’t there next time I passed. 
 

the Railway Towns I’m referring to have no interest for the tourist boater, but those that may hold an interest have designated VM’s for 48hrs or plus and long stretches of 14 day moorings. Might need a gang plank mind. 
the London commuter boater is not interested in those VM’s

Why would they want to move every 48hrs? They’re looking for 14 day spots. 
 

I came through Enfield today. Quite chocker with boats. But apart from the Greyhound pub I don’t think there’s any reason to hang around other than the Train. 
However there were two spots I could have got in and another bloke said he was off. 
 

There’s so much room along the Lee to tie up away from everything and there’s also VM’s in the towns that need them. 
 

I over stayed on one VM and was very quickly reminded by CRT of 14 day rule, they clocked me within 4 days on a 2 day mooring. 

[Mike Todd]

15 hours 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 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... 😞 

 

 

There is no real difficulty - in law - to enforcement of the existing rules. The procedure is well known and used. Alas, it is (deliberately) expensive and lengthy and CaRT have finite resources, which would remain the case whatever the rules, so long as they impose a restriction (opening up fully unrestricted mooring with no time limits is too problematic to contemplate)

 

To propose and alternative set of rules to the present lso brings the responsibility to define how and at what cost, the 'better' enforcement would occur.

 

Permission to moor indefinitely is not the same as winter moorings which have a defined subset of the months in a year. In any case, beware rocking that boat as its legal basis is a tad debateable and the previous attempt at winter moorings was scuppered by folk who wanted to challenge its legitimacy (wanting better terms I think, so they got nothing!)

 

You have to remember that whatever change is proposed there will 'winners' and 'losers' with the losers always willing to put up a legal challenge. In your case, there is a real risk, I suspect, that some Nimbys, or a group of them, will go down the route of planning law to prevent and might even, in the process, obtain more unjustified No Mooring signs.

 

I think you need to justify the Straw Man challenge if you wish to repeat it. 

[IanD]

22 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

There is no real difficulty - in law - to enforcement of the existing rules. The procedure is well known and used. Alas, it is (deliberately) expensive and lengthy and CaRT have finite resources, which would remain the case whatever the rules, so long as they impose a restriction (opening up fully unrestricted mooring with no time limits is too problematic to contemplate)

 

To propose and alternative set of rules to the present lso brings the responsibility to define how and at what cost, the 'better' enforcement would occur.

 

Permission to moor indefinitely is not the same as winter moorings which have a defined subset of the months in a year. In any case, beware rocking that boat as its legal basis is a tad debateable and the previous attempt at winter moorings was scuppered by folk who wanted to challenge its legitimacy (wanting better terms I think, so they got nothing!)

 

You have to remember that whatever change is proposed there will 'winners' and 'losers' with the losers always willing to put up a legal challenge. In your case, there is a real risk, I suspect, that some Nimbys, or a group of them, will go down the route of planning law to prevent and might even, in the process, obtain more unjustified No Mooring signs.

 

I think you need to justify the Straw Man challenge if you wish to repeat it. 

 

It doesn't need stating that with any rule changes there will be winners and losers, and resistance from the losers. The key is whether the rule change improves things overall; given the uselessness of the current CART mooring rules/enforcement in so many ways (e.g. forcing those to move who shouldn't really have to, and not making those who should move do so, while not extracting enough money from either group, *and* pi**ing off the rule-followers by allowing the rule-breakers to ignore the rules) it's difficult to see how a change could makes things worse.

 

On straw man, the discussion was about allowing extended stay moorings instead of forcing needless moves every 14 days, specifically on the CART-owned canal towpaths "out in the sticks".

 

You argued against this by suggesting that this was unworkable because it would be unacceptable for people to be allowed to build lots of houses (or park caravans?) anywhere they wanted, for example on farmers fields (or village greens?).

 

Since boats are not houses and the CART-owned towpaths are not farmers fields, and nobody (including me) was suggesting what you said, this is a straw man argument.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.^[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition."

 

.

Edited May 3 by IanD

[Paul C]

Its not a straw man argument because it is too similar - in other words, it is not actually a different argument than the one under discussion. This is because ultimately, the changes you and others propose, would be subject to challenge and would (IMHO) quite clearly fall foul of planning laws, unless a change of land use were made. If you believe it is sufficiently different that it wouldn't attract this kind of opposition, fair enough.

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Its not a straw man argument because it is too similar - in other words, it is not actually a different argument than the one under discussion. This is because ultimately, the changes you and others propose, would be subject to challenge and would (IMHO) quite clearly fall foul of planning laws, unless a change of land use were made. If you believe it is sufficiently different that it wouldn't attract this kind of opposition, fair enough.

 

 

It might be illuminating to examine why the current "moor in the sticks for up to 14 days at a time" rule does not breach planning laws, when a longer period might (as some appear to assert). 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

33 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

 

Permission to moor indefinitely is not the same as winter moorings which have a defined subset of the months in a year. In any case, beware rocking that boat as its legal basis is a tad debateable and the previous attempt at winter moorings was scuppered by folk who wanted to challenge its legitimacy (wanting better terms I think, so they got nothing!)

 

You have to remember that whatever change is proposed there will 'winners' and 'losers' with the losers always willing to put up a legal challenge. In your case, there is a real risk, I suspect, that some Nimbys, or a group of them, will go down the route of planning law to prevent and might even, in the process, obtain more unjustified No Mooring signs.

 

I think you need to justify the Straw Man challenge if you wish to repeat it. 

I think the one that was scuppered was the "moor anywhere in a defined area" thing, not winter moorings which were certainly being offered last winter. Which was scuppered because the overstay brigade would have had to pay for something they now do for free.

[Paul C]

I think its because "transit moorings" can be justified as part of navigating a canal, its use for which it was originally built (and thus, allowed). The length of time of a transit mooring might be debatable, for example there is an argument that overnight only is sufficient; or 1-2 days max; or 14 days; or 28 days.

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

It might be illuminating to examine why the current "moor in the sticks for up to 14 days at a time" rule does not breach planning laws, when a longer period might (as some appear to assert). 

 

 

Or, of course, why living on a boat anywhere apart from a fixed residential mooring, breaches them.

Not that any of that matters, planning permission or not, lots of people are living on boats where technically they didn't ought to be. And, as they're not going anywhere, because there's nowhere for them to go, the logical thing is to sort the planning out so they can stay and everyone gets a bit of money from them, except the government who will largely pay for it in housing benefits, but then they'd be doing that wherever these people lived because that's the system (and comments about that should be in the politics ghetto, not here!).

 

Edited May 3 by Arthur Marshall

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Or, of course, why living on a boat anywhere apart from a fixed residential mooring, breaches them.

 

 

Interesting point. This is the "elephant in the room" isn't it?

 

Any opposition to CRT charging for general towpath mooring (whatever the length of stay) could end up bringing under examination the overall legality of living aboard at all (except perhaps, on a resi mooring).

 

It is after all, not allowed without approval of "the Board" under the General Canal Byelaws 1965

 

30. No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board

be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

 

Maybe in future we might see another declaration being required by CRT in addition to the 'Home Mooring" declaration, that the vessel will not be used as a dwelling. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 3 by MtB
Refine it

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Interesting point. This is the "elephant in the room" isn't it?

 

Any opposition to CRT charging for general towpath mooring (whatever the length of stay) could end up bring under examination the overall legality of living aboard at all (except perhaps, on a resi mooring).

 

It is after all, not allowed without approval of "the Board" under the General Canal Byelaws 1965

 

30. No vessel on any canal shall without the permission of the Board

be used as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat.

 

 

So, don't forget to go home, somewhere that isn't your boat, when you've moored up? 

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

Oh Gawd, I've set him off spouting his nonsense again....

 

 

😱

[Higgs]

Just now, MtB said:

Oh Gawd, I've set him off spouting his nonsense again....

 

 

😱

 

Listen, you're all going on about paying what you think boaters should owe, for using the towpath. I can go on about boaters not paying for things that are not due to CRT, because they are neither on 'CRT water' or using the canal.

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Listen, you're all going on about paying what you think boaters should owe, for using the towpath. I can go on about boaters not paying for things that are not due to CRT, because they are neither on 'CRT water' or using the canal.

 

 

 

 

 

We're not, at least not recently on this particular thread. The topic area is the legality of living aboard/having a residential mooring.

[Naartjie - Duck Hatch]

Here we go again 🙄

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

 

We're not, at least not recently on this particular thread. The topic area is the legality of living aboard/having a residential mooring.

 

Doesn't happen in a vacuum. Are you saying that CCers must have another home? Trying to make CCing somehow illegitimate?

 

 

1 minute ago, Naartjie - Duck Hatch said:

Here we go again 🙄

 

Can you quack?

 

 

[Paul C]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 Are you saying that CCers must have another home? Trying to make CCing somehow illegitimate?

 

 

 

 

Hang on, we're talking about living aboard a boat, not CCing - (why) are you assuming all CCers also live aboard?

 

No. No.

 

For further details on what I have said, please refer above to my recent posts.

Edited May 3 by Paul C

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

No. No.

 

For further details on what I have said, please refer above to my recent posts.

 

I was with you, when you alluded to necessary transit moorings being a part and parcel of navigation. I don't really see mooring as an extra. If it was within the small print of legislation, I'm sure in would have been included, at the time of CCing becoming a right.

 

 

Edited May 3 by Higgs

[Paul C]

13 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I was with you, when you alluded to necessary transit moorings being a part and parcel of navigation. I don't really see mooring as an extra.

 

 

I agree, mooring alone is tenuous as a provided "service". Except if its in a popular area. A corollary might be that one can park their car on a road without restriction - unless there are restrictions.

 

Other services obviously incur a cost to provide, for example water points, refuse disposal, towpath maintenance, mooring rings, piling, hard/concrete edge, dredging edge as well as centre channel. 

Edited May 3 by Paul C