Tring Summit - 300 acre 1400 houses development proposed........

[LEO]

I see planning proposals are afoot for a large scale 300 acre / 1400 houses development at  a 'grey land site' at Marshcroft farm. The land adjoins the canal and runs from Tring station bridge to Marshcroft bridge. The canal at this point runs in a deep cutting and the land has 'non towpath' frontage, but it will be interesting to see if the development could extend to include land up to the edge of the canal....

 

It's going to be an interesting decision as there are strong demands to provide substantial numbers of new homes in the area.

[Wafi]

5 hours ago, LEO said:

I see planning proposals are afoot for a large scale 300 acre / 1400 houses development at  a 'grey land site' at Marshcroft farm. The land adjoins the canal and runs from Tring station bridge to Marshcroft bridge. The canal at this point runs in a deep cutting and the land has 'non towpath' frontage, but it will be interesting to see if the development could extend to include land up to the edge of the canal....

The OS map shows a public footpath that appears to run along the edge of the fields (ie above the embankment) on the non-towpath side; the ends of the footpath are visible in Google Streetview. My guess is that the development wouldn't extend beyond that footpath.

[Tonka]

Is that within a stone throw of a narrowboat ?

[David Mack]

5 hours ago, LEO said:

The canal at this point runs in a deep cutting and the land has 'non towpath' frontage, but it will be interesting to see if the development could extend to include land up to the edge of the canal....

The cutting sides will belong to CRT, so won't be part of the development. But as in similar locations elsewhere, some individual householders may colonise the slope.

[Tonka]

41 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The cutting sides will belong to CRT, so won't be part of the development. But as in similar locations elsewhere, some individual householders may colonise the slope.

According to Sir Jim Radcliffe that will be by immigrants

[Chris John]

Hopefully the housing developers will be required to do some enhancements to the towpath or canal as part of the planning approval as happened at Market Harborough 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

According to Sir Jim Radcliffe that will be by immigrants

At least they'll be paying taxes, unlike Sir Jim. Perhaps tax-dodging billionaires should be de-Sir-ed?

[Tonka]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

At least they'll be paying taxes, unlike Sir Jim. Perhaps tax-dodging billionaires should be de-Sir-ed?

Are you saying that INEOS and Man Utd don't pay taxes 

[IanD]

Just now, Tonka said:

Are you saying that INEOS and Man Utd don't pay taxes 

No, Sir Jim personally -- he moved to Monaco to avoid them.

[JoeC]

I am sure that if we all had options not to pay tax then we would jump at the chance.

[IanD]

34 minutes ago, JoeC said:

I am sure that if we all had options not to pay tax then we would jump at the chance.

Really?

 

https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/

 

Would you think it was OK to not pay any tax while still making use of any of the benefits of living in the UK that are paid for out of taxation? You know, like the NHS, police, fire, water, roads, social services, pension? Or would you take the Ratcliffe route and just b*gger off to somewhere cheap and perhaps sunny? Neither is very patriotic though, is it?

 

Regardless of that, if Jimbo wants to deliberately move to Monaco so he doesn't have to live here or pay any UK tax, he no longer has any right to comment on UK policies. In fact I'd say he should have his title removed, why should be be "Sir" since he obviously doesn't care about personally supporting or contributing to the UK?

Edited February 16 by IanD

[Tonka]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Really?

 

https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/

 

Would you think it was OK to not pay any tax while still making use of any of the benefits of living in the UK that are paid for out of taxation? You know, like the NHS, police, fire, water, roads, social services, pension? Or would you take the Ratcliffe route and just b*gger off to somewhere cheap and perhaps sunny? Neither is very patriotic though, is it?

 

Regardless of that, if Jimbo wants to deliberately move to Monaco so he doesn't have to live here or pay any UK tax, he no longer has any right to comment on UK policies. In fact I'd say he should have his title removed, why should be be "Sir" since he obviously doesn't care about supporting or contributing to the UK?

Oh so he is employing loads of people at INEOS and Manchester Utd but according to you he is not supporting the UK.

He is doing more for the UK then Mrs Sunak

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Oh so he is employing loads of people at INEOS and Manchester Utd but according to you he is not supporting the UK.

He is doing more for the UK then Mrs Sunak

He personally is a tax exile, regardless of what magic his companies supposedly do for the UK economy -- BTW have you looked at the Ineos subsidies?

 

If he want's to f*ck off to Monaco to avoid tax then he can leave his title behind and stop spouting rubbish about immigrants or anything else UK-related, he lost any moral or legal right to do that when he upped sticks and left.

Edited February 16 by IanD

[Tonka]

so what about Sir Lewis Hamilton

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Tonka said:

so what about Sir Lewis Hamilton

Same. You want to keep using a UK title, keep paying UK taxes. Not unreasonable, is it?

 

Though it should also be pointed out that unlike Radliffe, Hamilton hasn't been spouting misleading b*llocks about immigrants -- but then he wouldn't, would he? 😉 

Edited February 16 by IanD

[alias]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Regardless of that, if Jimbo wants to deliberately move to Monaco so he doesn't have to live here or pay any UK tax, he no longer has any right to comment on UK policies.

 

"No representation without taxation!" or something similar was popular at one time.  Shocking waste of tea though.

[JoeC]

On 16/02/2026 at 16:29, IanD said:

 On 16/02/2026 at 16:10, JoeC said:

I am sure that if we all had options not to pay tax then we would jump at the chance.

Really?

How many boaters do not pay the recommended 60 / 40 tax split when buying red diesel?

Edited February 17 by JoeC

[Lady M]

I don't believe the 60/40 tax split was exactly 'recommended'.  I think it was a level suggested by a consultation.  My understanding is that one would not expect to be challenged on a 60/40 split.  I once met a boater who was declaring 80% propulsion.  

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, JoeC said:

How many boaters do not pay the recommended 60 / 40 tax split when buying red diesel?

I pay it. How about you?

 

Either way, your claim that "I am sure that if we all had options not to pay tax then we would jump at the chance" is self-evidently not true, is it? 😉 

 

Though of course there's also a difference between legal ways to deliberately reduce your tax bill -- "tax avoidance" -- and illegal ones --"tax evasion".

 

Almost everyone does the first, in one way or another -- for example getting tax reliefs on pensions, ISAs and so on -- and this is generally seen as morally acceptable, if the government offers you a legal way to do this then you'd be a bit silly not to take advantage of it, as any online financial advice will say (e.g. from Martin Lewis).

 

The second one means various tax fiddles which are definitely breaking the law, such as lying on your tax return (if you fill one in) -- or making deliberately inaccurate claims on fuel duty... 😉 

 

(though I'm sure many boaters who do this just see it as "sticking it to the man", a way to rebel against unwanted rules and regulations that doesn't hurt anyone -- a bit like shoplifting...)

 

The fact that the odds of being caught are close to zero doesn't make it any less dishonest... 😞 

[Wafi]

It's thermodynamically impossible to use 60% of your diesel for propulsion, so you could argue that 60/40 is generous to the tax man.

[Lady M]

How do you work that out please?  Apart from engine starting, my little old boat only uses electricity for lighting and the water pump so I think 60% propulsion is pretty generous.

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Wafi said:

It's thermodynamically impossible to use 60% of your diesel for propulsion, so you could argue that 60/40 is generous to the tax man.

On the same argument it's thermodynamically impossible to use 100% for heating either, since at least 20% typically goes up the flue... 😉 

 

(unless you count heating up the outside world...)

Edited February 17 by IanD

[Wafi]

25 minutes ago, Lady M said:

How do you work that out please?  Apart from engine starting, my little old boat only uses electricity for lighting and the water pump so I think 60% propulsion is pretty generous.

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but the World's most efficient diesel engines turn about 55% of the fuel's chemical energy into useful work; I'd be surprised if many narrowboat engines manage 40%. Here's a high-level explanation.

 

More seriously, the remaining chemical energy is converted to heat. If you use a reasonable proportion of that to heat your radiators and calorifier, you could logically claim that was domestic usage. Even more so if you hang your washing over the engine (which is really just a giant space heater) to dry.

 

NB: The above is not tax advice, if the taxman had a working knowledge of thermodynamics he'd probably be doing something more interesting than collecting taxes!

 

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

(unless you count heating up the outside world...)

Every newspaper I read is full of articles about the importance of global warming.

Edited February 17 by Wafi

[ditchcrawler]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

On the same argument it's thermodynamically impossible to use 100% for heating either, since at least 20% typically goes up the flue... 😉 

 

(unless you count heating up the outside world...)

Bit like the heaters outside pubs. Its not heating inside the boat its heating outside, still being used for heating . Shall we carry on this silly argument

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Bit like the heaters outside pubs. Its not heating inside the boat its heating outside, still being used for heating . Shall we carry on this silly argument

Does Sir want the five-minute argument, or the full half-hour? 😉 

 

19 minutes ago, Wafi said:

I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but the World's most efficient diesel engines turn about 55% of the fuel's chemical energy into useful work; I'd be surprised if many narrowboat engines manage 40%. Here's a high-level explanation.

 

More seriously, the remaining chemical energy is converted to heat. If you use a reasonable proportion of that to heat your radiators and calorifier, you could logically claim that was domestic usage. Even more so if you hang your washing over the engine (which is really just a giant space heater) to dry.

 

NB: The above is not tax advice, if the taxman had a working knowledge of thermodynamics he'd probably be doing something more interesting than collecting taxes!

 

Every newspaper I read is full of articles about the importance of global warming.

All the taxman cares about is what thing the diesel used goes into -- as far as he's concerned if it goes into a diesel engine connected to a propeller it's being used for propulsion purposes, if it goes into a boiler or diesel stove used to warm the boat or hot water up it's being used for domestic purposes.

 

Where the energy in the fuel actually ends up in either case, he neither knows nor cares... 😉 

 

Though that should mean his head explodes when considering a boat like mine -- propulsion is electric, power comes from a mixture of shoreline solar and a diesel generator. But that power is also used for domestic purposes such as cooking, and an immersion heater for hot water, as well as propelling the boat. And when the generator is running it also heats up the hot water in the calorifier which is definitely a domestic purpose. Then there's a diesel boiler which provides both central heating and hot water -- as does any excess solar power, which can lso be used for propulsion.

 

I could claim 100% domestic (and have been offered this when refilling the tank) on the grounds that all the power for propulsion *could* come from solar, but that would be pretty dishonest so I stick with 60/40. Which means I'm paying *more* tax than I could do, even given an easy choice which would probably never be found out -- what kind of idiot does that make me?... 😉 

Edited February 17 by IanD