CRT Commission

[Tonka]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

Yes

Do CRT actually check that you actually have a mooring, or do we all declare we are moored on the Thames.

 

Or do they insist that you have either a gold licence or a visitors licence

[alias]

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

Do CRT actually check that you actually have a mooring, or do we all declare we are moored on the Thames.

If you declare a new home mooring when licensing they ask for written proof of the contract. 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Yes I know that, but do you qualify for the reduced CRT licence as you have a home mooring

 

I thought the 'standard' licence fee was based on having a home mooring, and, if you don't you pay an additional 'premium', not the other way around.

 

See section 5:5 of the T&Cs where they explain the 'no home mooring surcharge' is based on a percentage of your licence fee.'

[Ian Mac]

The Thames is not the only other waterway outside the C&RT net. This is an EA  water. The River Avon, Cam commissioner, NT, Basingstoke, Bridgewater are others. not sure if that is the full list. Some have reciprocal agreements Gold Licence for the EA and C&RT.

For the Bridgewater canal the rules are very different as they saw what was happening and reacted accordingly. The standard licence is very expensive, many Thousands of pounds, and interestingly a figure which is divisible by 365. If you have a home mooring there is a substantial reduction, but you are only allowed so much towpath mooring time. If you overstay on a towpath mooring you are charged at the standard fee on a per day rate.
They also have a reciprocal agreement with C&RT which allows access to some C&RT waters. There is also a method of purchasing a licence from C&RT for various periods of time, this comes with a substantial reduction.

As an aside when this was first agreed, it was also agreed that only the principle licensing authority boat index number had to be displayed, as this is where the home mooring for the boat is. C&RT never really understood this, so their system can not cope with index numbers which are alphanumeric. CC1019 for example.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:

The Thames is not the only other waterway outside the C&RT net. This is an EA  water. The River Avon, Cam commissioner, NT, Basingstoke, Bridgewater are others. not sure if that is the full list.

 

The AINA (Association of Inland Navigation Authorities) has 21 members - each responsible for the navigation (rules, regs, conditions, etc etc) for waters under their control.

 

 

The Association of Inland Navigation Authorities (AINA) is the industry body in Great Britain for those authorities with statutory or other legal responsibility for the management and operation of navigable inland waterways for navigation and wider use for public benefit.
AINA’s key strategic objectives are to develop, share and promote good practice for waterway management and operation as well as represent the collective views of navigation authorities to Government, regulators and other policy makers and opinion formers.
There are 21 AINA members drawn from the public, private and third sectors. They include British Waterways, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority, in addition to national park authorities, local government authorities, private canal companies, internal drainage boards and a variety of public and charitable trusts.
Most AINA members are defined as navigation authorities by their own Acts of Parliament (some of them over 250 years old) which regulate the operation of their waterways. Others, such as local government authorities, have inherited the status of navigation authority through various statutes.
Between them, AINA members have responsibility for over 5,500 km of navigable, non-tidal inland waterways which include canals, river navigations and lakes.

[ditchcrawler]

Before the requirement to prove you have a mooring I was moored on the Middle Level for a year and the Little Ouse for a year, for all this period I had a gold licence issued by CRT and displayed a CRT number. My home mooring was declared as not on CRT waters. Not sure how that would work today.

[Mike Todd]

18 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Mr Ward managed over 10 years from the commencement of enforcement to them actually removing his boat

He used perfectly legitimate means to delay equally proper enforcement for a action contrary to the rules.

[Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch]

On 16/12/2024 at 19:13, 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

 

 

 

I have just asked CRT for their internal Policy, Processes and Guide Lines when issuing an Overstay Notice.

The answer came back " We do not have any."

They don't need to change the law ...they just need to get their finger out.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch said:

I have just asked CRT for their internal Policy, Processes and Guide Lines when issuing an Overstay Notice.

The answer came back " We do not have any."

They don't need to change the law ...they just need to get their finger out.

 

There is a document for being unlicenced, for which I believe, the 'overstay process'(initially), follows the same procedure (well assuming they know about the BW one they inherited) - it is a 13 page document (which I have a copy of)

 

example of one of the pages :

 

 

Edit to add : The document is known as "Section 8 Proc. Options"

 

 

I'd argue that they do have a 'lack of movement' enforcement process, as they explained about it on their 'clearance' of the K&A in 2014/15

 

They have 'actions' "Pre CC1", CC1, CC2 and CC3 which are applied to overstayers'

 

Edited December 20, 2024 by Alan de Enfield

[Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch]

46 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There is a document for being unlicenced, for which I believe, the 'overstay process'(initially), follows the same procedure (well assuming they know about the BW one they inherited) - it is a 13 page document (which I have a copy of)

 

example of one of the pages :

 

 

Edit to add : The document is known as "Section 8 Proc. Options"

 

 

I'd argue that they do have a 'lack of movement' enforcement process, as they explained about it on their 'clearance' of the K&A in 2014/15

 

They have 'actions' "Pre CC1", CC1, CC2 and CC3 which are applied to overstayers'

 

Well I asked for Procedures, Processes and Guide lines under the freedom of information act

The answer in writing was we don't have any. 

So .......any organisation worth it's salt should have procedures in place.  Especially when they involve applying compliance with an act of parliament.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Naartjie AKA Duck Hatch

[Momac]

22 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

 My home mooring was declared as not on CRT waters. Not sure how that would work today.

You would need to prove you have a full time mooring contract. C&RT would not just take your word for it and they would not just accept whatever evidence you send. C&RT would enquire with the mooring provider to verify you have a long term contract with them. 

 

C&RT do not seem to make checks generally on the mooring agreements of existing license holders providing there is  no change to the boat or mooring location. 

 So once any home mooring including an off C&RT mooring was  established it seem like it would probably be accepted on an honesty basis at the next license renewals. Of course there could be random checks carried out by C&RT so if anyone made a false claim they might be in trouble. 

 

 

 

[Rob-M]

For marinas on CRT waters they check several times a year as I saw the license checker in the marina at least twice this year.

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

For marinas on CRT waters they check several times a year as I saw the license checker in the marina at least twice this year.

I expect those checks are for unlicensed boats.

I would say they are not checking whether any boat that has declared that place as a home mooring is located in the marina.

 

 

[frangar]

25 minutes ago, Momac said:

You would need to prove you have a full time mooring contract. C&RT would not just take your word for it and they would not just accept whatever evidence you send. C&RT would enquire with the mooring provider to verify you have a long term contract with them. 

 

C&RT do not seem to make checks generally on the mooring agreements of existing license holders providing there is  no change to the boat or mooring location. 

 So once any home mooring including an off C&RT mooring was  established it seem like it would probably be accepted on an honesty basis at the next license renewals. Of course there could be random checks carried out by C&RT so if anyone made a false claim they might be in trouble. 

 

 

 

I now have an EoG mooring at the house. I’ve been spotted about once a month there for the last year…..which if nothing else means I haven’t been boating enough this year…..

[Momac]

Just now, frangar said:

I now have an EoG mooring at the house. I’ve been spotted about once a month there for the last year…..which if nothing else means I haven’t been boating enough this year…..

On my C&RT online account there is only one sighting for my boat . It was in August 2023.

I think the sightings only remain on the C&RT account for a couple of years.

 

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, frangar said:

I now have an EoG mooring at the house. I’ve been spotted about once a month there for the last year…..

 

This is all getting very 1984-ish....

 

YOU'VE been spotted and recorded there? 

 

As well as your boat? 

 

😄

[ditchcrawler]

Just now, Momac said:

On my C&RT online account there is only one sighting for my boat . It was in August 2023.

I think the sightings only remain on the C&RT account for a couple of years.

 

Well that means they havent seen you sat in the same spot for 3 or 4 weeks or longer, if you had there would be loads of sightings

[frangar]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This is all getting very 1984-ish....

 

YOU'VE been spotted and recorded there? 

 

As well as your boat? 

 

😄

With the amount of time the house has taken up I’ve rarely been out the door!!

[Alan de Enfield]

It gives the Baton Twirlers something to talk about over Christmas.

[Dave123]

An interesting thread, and it will be very interesting to see what CRT want out of this commission. I was surprised to hear of it, I thought CRTs main (only?) problem was lack of money...but presumably it is not as simple as more money, as they can and have put up licence fees already (unless they are currently limited in how much they can do this? Or need boat usage better defined by law for the purpose of increasing licence fees?). Do they want better enforcement powers, eg being able to issue actual fines (not overstay "charges" of £25)? Someone mentioned technology to monitor boats (I actually think the spotting process is pretty good)

 

I doubt they want to get rid of continuous cruising either, I can't see what benefit that brings if it was even feasible, which I think it is not. Creating more marinas obviously is out of their power and resource and couldn't be done in the parts of the country that need it anyway (there are enough partially empty marinas in Staffordshire already🤣).

Creating more towpath permanent moorings would mean the loss of visitor moorings, and likely at popular spots in towns, and so would be at the detriment of cruising boats, (unless they actually improve bank currently too shallow for mooring), which will affect holiday boats as much as liveaboards. 

Its fairly clear Ccing will be a focus of the commision though? Something growing in popularity, like Ccing, does need managing properly, i.e. charging enough and making rules that work and are enforced. But the waterways are changing, how they are used and who uses them is changing and CRT can't try to fight that but need to work with it.

 

I doubt they will try to increase how far boats have to travel, as again that brings no benefit and just increases wear and tear on the system. 

A big challenge will be what to do with increasing numbers of elderly boaters who want to stay put or not really cruise far for health reasons (and so have CRT permission to do this). Enforcement or fines isn't a solution here and, my observations at least, is that a fair few boats hogging prime visitor spots and annoying holiday boats fall into this category.....

At least there is a boating rep on the commission! Fingers crossed it works.

[TheBiscuits]

6 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

A big challenge will be what to do with increasing numbers of elderly boaters who want to stay put or not really cruise far for health reasons (and so have CRT permission to do this). Enforcement or fines isn't a solution here and, my observations at least, is that a fair few boats hogging prime visitor spots and annoying holiday boats fall into this category....

 

Why? Either the rules apply to everyone, or they don't apply at all.  Why should age mean you can hog a visitor mooring semi-permanently but someone in their twenties can't?

 

Without enforcement this will happen more and more.  I don't have a problem with CRT giving exceptions to allow overstays when reasonable, I've just never understood why it seems to be given to boats slap bang in the middle of a visitor mooring.  Twenty feet off the end of the VM would be reasonable longer term.

[David Mack]

47 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

it will be very interesting to see what CRT want out of this commission.

If you read the Terms of Reference it is pretty obvious what the issue is:

 

2.2 in the last 30 years or

so since the last Act obtained by British Waterways (in the form of the British

Waterways Act 1995), which first introduced the current 2 categories of boat

licence based on home mooring or continuous cruising, the latter intended to

cover a small group of truly nomadic boaters who navigated continuously

around the network, typically carrying and delivering goods as their

predecessors had done for over 100 years, and successfully petitioned

Parliament in the bill state of the 1995 Act to remove their need to obtain a

home mooring.

2.3 The biggest change of use over this period has been the steadily increasing

numbers of boaters licensed as continuous cruisers and use of vessels for full

time residential purposes. In reality, a significant and growing number of those

boats licensed as a continuous cruiser cannot reasonably be said to be

genuinely navigating throughout their licence period and, instead, remain in

one relatively small part of the network for most if not all of the time, to live

and work in that area without obtaining a home mooring.

2.3 These vessels tend to be concentrated in areas of high demand (driven largely

by the cost of home moorings or alternative accommodation in those areas

and the economic opportunities available) which has created challenges for the

Trust both from an operational, financial and reputational perspective,

2.4 These trends have resulted in high levels of non-compliance and consequent

enforcement action which can result in the Trust removing residential boats

from its waters, sometimes in difficult circumstances, creating tension

between the Trust and boaters subject to enforcement action and other

boaters and local stakeholders who expect the Trust to actively manage non-

compliance and congestion by continuing to uphold the full requirements of

the current legislation.

[Dave123]

9 hours ago, David Mack said:

If you read the Terms of Reference it is pretty obvious what the issue is:

 

 

Ah thanks, I had missed the link to that. So it does seems to be mostly about enforcement. If it is enforcement of the current rules (with presumably a specific minimum cruising range defined) then I would hope everyone is in agreement. 

 

If they seek to significantly increase the expected cruising range I can see a lot of objections, mostly on the Western K&A, as opposed to London. In London it's easy to go significantly further than the current ~20 miles that is bandied about as what CRT expect, and still be within the city or suburbs. On the K&A, a significant increase will mean many more boats going up Caen hill, as currently I believeit is just about possible to satisfy CRTs requirements by moving between Bristol and the bottom of Caen hill (Foxhangers). I'm not actually sure this is in anyone's interest. As an occasional summer visitor every 2 or 3 years, my observations of the Western K&A are: 1) this extra movement would be mostly in the summer, as the flight shuts most winters, and most summer there is barely enough water in the summit and long pound with the few boats that do use the flight.

2) the "long pound" also has limited moorings so can't really take a big influx of extra boats, it can already be pretty hard to get mooring here (the banks are generally too shallow for easy 'wild mooring').

 

Enforcement of 14 days or the shorter time limits achieves the same effect of making boats circulate and giving visiting boats a fair chance at prime moorings. Hopefully something they consider, (ie I hope CRT are thinking about the specifics of any changes they bring in...doubling or tripling the range in the midlands doesn't particularly change anything for anyone, or present any challenges, to be honest Birmingham needs a liveaboard community like London, to make the canals outside Gas street feel safe and look interesting 🤣)

 

But I believe it is partly due to the specific geography and infrastructure of the Western K&A, ie the popularity of Bath/Bristol combined with the "natural barrier" of Caen hill, that has caused the density of boats there. It's still easy enough getting moorings there provided you aren't expecting to arrive at 8pm outside the pub. More money for facilities is the main thing required, making all those boats go further along the K&A doesn't particularly solve anything (in my opinion as an unbiased outsider/visitor🤣)

Edited December 24, 2024 by Dave123

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Dave123 said:

More money for facilities is the main thing required, making all those boats go further along the K&A doesn't particularly solve anything (in my opinion as an unbiased outsider/visitor🤣

It rather depends what you're trying to solve. The simple fact is that over most of the system, and certainly over the congested bits, continuous cruisers rarely do anything that resembles continuous cruising. The majority either use the towpath for a series of short term moorings with movement calculated purely to avoid enforcement or with no movement at all.

There is no argument that some genuinely travel round the system, and I suspect CRT are trying to find a way to treat those fairly while significantly increasing the income from the rest. The blanket CC licence increase of course penalises everyone.

A residential licence, specifically allowing someone to live on their boat would be another blunt instrument, but at least would let CRT get rid of the mostly abandoned dumpers or force them into moorings. And, if those living on choose to do so on the leisure licence, CRT could remove their boats without bothering with the court order (that they don't really need) as the owner had de facto stated they weren't resident. Much cheaper.

Strict enforcement could then be targetted at the residential licence holders, with CRT making towpath mooring available for reasonable rent to those who wanted to stay in a restricted area.

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

There is no argument that some genuinely travel round the system, and I suspect CRT are trying to find a way to treat those fairly while significantly increasing the income from the rest.

 

Trackers would be the obvious way.

 

(If you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear from the trackers.)