CRT Commission

[StevieN]

 

This from Canal and River Trust:

-------‐------------‐------------------------------

Over the past 30 years there have been significant changes in the use of the 2,000-mile canal network in the UK managed by the Canal & River Trust. Today, the Trust has announced it has established a new Commission to review the legal framework around boat licensing, to explore whether it is appropriate for the network’s future.

 

The Commission will start its review in January and is expected to run until September 2025. It will be chaired by Andrew Cowan, a former senior partner at Devonshires. Penelope Barber, one of the elected boating representatives on the Trust’s Council, and trustee Sir Chris Kelly, a former senior civil servant and former boat owner, make up the three-person Commission. 

 

The Commission is expected to consider potential legislative reforms as well as operational changes to the Trust’s boat licensing activities. The Terms of Reference can be found here and will be ratified at the Commission’s first meeting in January.

 

The Commission’s report will be submitted to the Trust Board and its work will be overseen by the newly constituted Boating Sub-Committee of the Board, chaired by David Orr CBE, the Trust’s chair. 

 

David Orr commented: “Our canals and navigable rivers are still used by thousands of boats two centuries after they were first built to act as vital freight routes for the Industrial Revolution. However, as society evolves, so do the ways our canals and rivers are used, and boating is no exception. This Review will allow us to take a fresh look at how we licence boats on our waters and help us formulate proposals for possible changes that better reflect the use of the network today and in the future.”

 

The Commission will actively engage with boaters and other stakeholders ensuring their views are considered. More details will be provided early in 2025, once the Commission has met for the first time.

[Alan de Enfield]

That's another way of telling everyone that the costs are going to increase.

 

I'd bet that 'liveaboards' will get hit hard and better reflect how the waterways are used today

 

Whilst not necessarily always true I would suggest that the term 'CCers' and 'liveaboards' will become interchangable.

[David Mack]

Interesting that this commission is proposed not that long after the licence charges were restructured to make CCers and wide boats pay more. That suggests CRT have already concluded that those changes alone will not make enough of a difference, and now they are taking the bull by the horns and considering moving beyond the constraints of existing legislation. I can see the vagaries of the 1995 Act definition of not having a home mooring coming under the microscope!

[magnetman]

Its about time isn't it. 

 

 

 

I did think the CRT were not technically allowed to ask for legislation but I could easily have got it wrong. 

 

Using my enormous math skill I have calculated that 2025 will be 30 years after 1995 which coincidentally was my first full year of living on a Boat. 

 

It could get interesting. 

 

 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

Hopefully they’ll have a good look at removing non licensed boats and deal with them with a stronger hand and not look solely at getting more revenue from increasing everyone’s licence across the board.

[Arthur Marshall]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That's another way of telling everyone that the costs are going to increase.

 

I'd bet that 'liveaboards' will get hit hard and better reflect how the waterways are used today

 

Whilst not necessarily always true I would suggest that the term 'CCers' and 'liveaboards' will become interchangable.

I suspect not interchangeable but that the CC term will cease to exist, and boaters will either live on their boats permanently with a "residential" licence while they either cruise in accordance with the law, or have a legitimate mooring (which may have to be redefined). The idea that you can continually cruise while living several hundred miles from your boat has always been a nonsense, whatever some strange judgements might have said, and however some may claim that it's within the spirit of the law. "Leisure" licence boaters will have to have a contracted mooring.

It all makes one a bit nostalgic for BW and the days when nobody really gave a toss what you did as long as you didn't make a fuss. Of course, so many have, since them days. And the housing crisis hasn't helped.

[junior]

It could of course change for the better.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, junior said:

It could of course change for the better.

 

 

[jonathanA]

Hmm a lawyer involved with social housing, an elected boater rep and a civil servant... we're saved..... 

 

In fairness it does seem like penelope is a boat owner. 

[magnetman]

10 minutes ago, junior said:

It could of course change for the better.

Given the fact that the CRT are financially constrained it seems rather likely the outcome will involve more money being sought.

 

Of course this outcome would be welcomed by some especially if it involves only certain groups. 

I have long been a little suspicious about the whole 'continuous cruiser' thing. It is only fairly recently that it has become an established term which has appeared on .gov websites. Before that it was really just boater slang. 

 

 

[MtB]

Looks to me as though someone at CRT has finally noticed living aboard is STONKINGLY cheap compared to all other forms of accommodation here in the UK. They've done some joined up thinking and realised they perhaps ought to charge a comparible price for living aboard that doesn't seriously undercut all other types of home as one way of helping address the CRT funding crisis.

 

Also, how anyone can seriously claim to be CCing when moving for one hour every two weeks is beyond me. A minimum of say five hours' cruising a day, five days  week would seem a more accurate match for the term. 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by MtB
Finesse a point.

[magnetman]

Its all about being Bona Fide. If it is reasonable in the circumstances. 

 

Basically the '95 Act wording is far too wooly. Its never going to be genuinely enforceable is it and as always there will be a massive queueue of people looking for the loopholes. 

 

It all went wrong when squatting of houses was criminalised and the squatters all came onto the canals. Coincidentally this was around the same time it went from BW to the CRT.

 

Maybe history will repeat itself and the attitude-ridden troublemakers will do something else. Its definitely nothing to do with Boats. 

 

NOT to say that squatting us wrong. In the right circumstances it was ideal but the idiots took over and they are doing the same with the canals. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too much politics. 

[Yellowback]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

Also, how anyone can seriously claim to be CCing when moving for one hour every two weeks is beyond me. A minimum of say five hours' cruising a day, five days  week would seem a more accurate match for the term. 

 

That would require an increase in maintenance, staff, and an increase in costs to keep those boats moving, which will negate any raise in licence costs.

 

[Mike Todd]

Hooray - about time. As has already been noted, the existing framework is so vague as to be effectively useless. The main challenge will be to strike a balance between allowing CaRT to set their own T&Cs without limit (ie no statutory right to navigate etc or not to navigate) and those who have been able to take advantage of the lack of clarity and need to change. It will not be easy but it is difficult to argue other than it is a necessity. Good luck on persuading government to make time for the legislation - that need is about the only thing certain about the process and perhaps the hardest to achieve.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Mike Todd

[Bod]

British waterways Act 1995

Section 17, para 3 (c)

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The only unclear part of this legislation is what it would take to "satisfies the Board" should  C&RT issue guidelines then all would be clear.

Should C&RT decide to use the Bylaws that are already in place then no other T&C's etc would be needed.

The guide to satisfy the Board, could state that all boats must be blue with yellow spots, the applicant would then know what is expected.  A distance of 27 miles must be covered each month.

 

Bod

 

 

 

[MtB]

36 minutes ago, Yellowback said:

That would require an increase in maintenance, staff, and an increase in costs to keep those boats moving, which will negate any raise in licence costs.

 

Please show you workings.

 

It seems rather unlikely to me that say, an additional £5k to £10k a year collected from every residential boat would not be a massive help to the CRT finances.

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by MtB
Get the quote right!

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, Bod said:

British waterways Act 1995

Section 17, para 3 (c)

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The only unclear part of this legislation is what it would take to "satisfies the Board" should  C&RT issue guidelines then all would be clear.

Should C&RT decide to use the Bylaws that are already in place then no other T&C's etc would be needed.

The guide to satisfy the Board, could state that all boats must be blue with yellow spots, the applicant would then know what is expected.  A distance of 27 miles must be covered each month.

 

Bod

 

 

 

 

There is already suitable legislation in place, outwith of the 1995 Act, which allows C&RT to redefine licence categories and make any charge they wish for each of those categories, subject only to complying with the legal requirement to make the River Registration Certificate a fixed percentage of the full Canal & River Livcence.

 

Some years ago I explained which legislation was appplicable, gave workings and examples of how it could work such that a Liveaboard Licence could be (say) £5000 but there could (would) be no increase in the licence cost of a leisure NB with a home mooring.

 

Nigel Moore agreed and replied to my post that such a system, in his mind, was both legal and workable if the will was there to implement it.

[ditchcrawler]

Has this group actually met yet with everyone deciding what the outcome will be.

[Bod]

55 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There is already suitable legislation in place, outwith of the 1995 Act, which allows C&RT to redefine licence categories and make any charge they wish for each of those categories, subject only to complying with the legal requirement to make the River Registration Certificate a fixed percentage of the full Canal & River Livcence.

 

Some years ago I explained which legislation was appplicable, gave workings and examples of how it could work such that a Liveaboard Licence could be (say) £5000 but there could (would) be no increase in the licence cost of a leisure NB with a home mooring.

 

Nigel Moore agreed and replied to my post that such a system, in his mind, was both legal and workable if the will was there to implement it.

Curious, can you aim me in the direction of this legislation, it's not the 63(?) BWB can set it's own t&c's is it?

This would change my thinking.

 

Bod.

[LadyG]

I think we have been over the cc licence issues time and time again.

Personally I don't see how keeping a boat on a home mooring or not always reflects usage.

As a cc with limited ambitions, I am probably using the services less than a large family who have their boat for weekends and holidays.

There are obviously large numbers who have to buy a boat for residential use, primarily for economic reasons, and I understand  that in London the services are under pressure, thats predictable, but requiring more money from boaters is unlikely to lead to an upgrade of these facilities imho.

2 hours ago, Bod said:

British waterways Act 1995

Section 17, para 3 (c)

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The only unclear part of this legislation is what it would take to "satisfies the Board" should  C&RT issue guidelines then all would be clear.

Should C&RT decide to use the Bylaws that are already in place then no other T&C's etc would be needed.

The guide to satisfy the Board, could state that all boats must be blue with yellow spots, the applicant would then know what is expected.  A distance of 27 miles must be covered each month.

 

Bod

 

 

 

Good heavens, I don't think I want to frantically motor up and down The Rochdale at a rate of knots, even if it were possoble 365 days per annum, certainly not in winter.

It suits me to potter along. That's why I bought the boat, to be relatively free of rules and regulations.

What are they going to do about all the defaulters, putting them on 6 months licences might increase the income by a tiny amount, but at the expense of goodwill and increasing the cost of enforcement, even just the cost of spotting boats every week, rather than once a fortnight.

Edited December 16, 2024 by LadyG

[Lady M]

I happen to think that doing something about the dumpers would be a good start. 

[Sue68]

I'm very happy that Penny has got involved. She has a great deal of knowledge and is not afraid to speak her mind.

[haggis]

I think the reason for setting up the commission is to establish the best way forward for C&RT and boaters and anything said on here or anywhere else is conjecture till the commission reports.

Worry not Lady G - yet 😃

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Bod said:

Curious, can you aim me in the direction of this legislation, it's not the 63(?) BWB can set it's own t&c's is it?

This would change my thinking.

 

Bod.

 

Nope - initially the 1971 Act and then clauses in the 1983 Act (refering to the 1971 Act)

 

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

To which Nigel Moores conclusion was :

 

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

40 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I think we have been over the cc licence issues time and time again.

Personally I don't see how keeping a boat on a home mooring or not always reflects usage..

It doesn't. Someone living on a boat uses their boat all the time, whether they are cruising or on a mooring.

Most leisure boaters use their boats for a few weeks a year, if that, judging by the boats on my mooring which haven't moved in ten years and see an owner every two. They're CRTs milk cows up to now, but the hugely expanded numbers of liveaboards, contributing so much less even after the recent increases must at last have been identified as a reasonable target. If this forces a fair proportion of them into moorings as well, it's a double hit.