Divide and Rule is over.

[Chris Pink]

The unrepresentative and therefore misnamed Waterways User and Special Interest Groups met on the 22nd April to discuss a redrafting of the paper they discussed in November 2008.

 

The 'moorings and navigation' draft consultation is back in an even more draconian form.

 

Together with 2,500 of their customers that BW label 'a problem' - 70% of 'continuous cruisers' - on very shaky grounds they have now decided to add those who live on leisure moorings.

 

'A leisure mooring used as someone’s primary residence would generally constitute unauthorised residential use since it normally requires planning consent. '

 

and here are 3 of the proposals to 'deal' with this 'problem'

 

BW to establish that the boater is living at a leisure mooring site and hence in breach of their mooring agreement

Ask the Planning Authority (LPA) to take enforcement action

Introduce changes to mooring site management to make residency difficult or unattractive.

 

I have been unable to find a published copy of this document on the web but it can be obtained from sarina.young@britishwaterways.co.uk.

 

They are, currently, refusing to release the minutes of the WUSIG meeting. Although i believe there are FOI Act requests pending as we speak.

 

Are any of the members of the only representative groups on WUSIG, ie NABO and RBOA (remember them?) taking these issues seriously?

 

It would appear that BW are now determined to label around 10 to 25% of their customers as 'a problem'.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Chris Pink

[cotswoldsman]

There was me thinking that they thought 100% of there cuctomers were a problem.

[greywolf]

Are they not in danger of forcing the people living on moorings to become ccers and thus lose mooring fees.

[fuzzyduck]

What an utter bunch of hoons. (to borrow from guido) let me guess, we pay for this shite?

 

I eagerly await the first 'living on a leisure mooring' horror story to appear soon.

[Billypownall]

The unrepresentative and therefore misnamed Waterways User and Special Interest Groups met on the 22nd April to discuss a redrafting of the paper they discussed in November 2008.

 

The 'moorings and navigation' draft consultation is back in an even more draconian form.

 

Together with 2,500 of their customers that BW label 'a problem' - 70% of 'continuous cruisers' - on very shaky grounds they have now decided to add those who live on leisure moorings.

 

'A leisure mooring used as someone’s primary residence would generally constitute unauthorised residential use since it normally requires planning consent. '

 

and here are 3 of the proposals to 'deal' with this 'problem'

 

BW to establish that the boater is living at a leisure mooring site and hence in breach of their mooring agreement

Ask the Planning Authority (LPA) to take enforcement action

Introduce changes to mooring site management to make residency difficult or unattractive.

 

I have been unable to find a published copy of this document on the web but it can be obtained from sarina.young@britishwaterways.co.uk.

 

They are, currently, refusing to release the minutes of the WUSIG meeting. Although i believe there are FOI Act requests pending as we speak.

 

Are any of the members of the only representative groups on WUSIG, ie NABO and RBOA (remember them?) taking these issues seriously?

 

It would appear that BW are now determined to label around 10 to 25% of their customers as 'a problem'.

The so called continuous cruisers and liveaboards should it seems to me to be excluded from leisure mooring sites and therefore the WUSIG meeting have got a point. These people pay no council tax and therefore contribute nothing to the country's education system,police or fire and other services which are not funded by national government(although they should be).I fail to see why they should have the benefit of services they do not pay for. At least the liveaboards in marinas are paying at least a small sum via the business rates on the marina. Perhaps I am missing something and stand correcting.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Billypownall

[Naughty Cal]

But is living on a leisure mooring not breaking the rules as much as CCers not moving on and speeding?

[Phoenix_V]

The so called continuous cruisers and liveaboards should it seems to me to be excluded from leisure mooring sites and therefore the WUSIG meeting have got a point. These people pay no council tax and therefore contribute nothing to the country's education system,police or fire and other services which are not funded by national government(although they should be).I fail to see why they should have the benefit of services they do not pay for. At least the liveaboards in marinas are paying at least a small sum via the business rates on the marina. Perhaps I am missing something and stand correcting.

 

We (that is my cruising club) operate leisure moorings and we pay business rates on them, the price of which is factored into the mooring charge, as a statutory body i have no idea if BW pay rates but their charges are certainly comparable with those mooring operators who do so I can only assume that any extra they make through not paying rates goes back into the cost of running the waterways which would not be the case if they kicked out the livaboards to turn them into non paying ccers.

 

BW have been trying to divide and rule boaters on these and related issues for some time, it doesnt matter what you feel about these groups, support the attack on them and it could be you next time, united we stand divided we fall. WUSIG may represent special interest groups it has proven not to represent waterway users

Edited April 24, 2009 by Phoenix_V

[fuzzyduck]

Probably, but who really cares?

 

im currently expected to cruise along checking licenses, spotting bridge hoppers, and soon resis on non resi moorings. There wont be any time for boating.

 

even boats on resi moorings round our way don't pay council tax. So thats that arguement screwed.

[Nightwatch]

Don't mention the speed issue.

 

It will now go off topic.

[Naughty Cal]

Don't mention the speed issue.

 

It will now go off topic.

 

Its all just as bad. Breaking rules is breaking rules.

[Daftmare]

People who reside on leisure moorings are probably only doing so because there are not enough residential moorings available. Perhaps these people would not be classed as a "problem" if more residential moorings were made available in the first place.

 

Jo.

[sociable_hermit]

Most liveaboards paying a large amount of cash to do so in a Marina don't, in fact, have residential-status moorings. This is mainly down to local planning politics rather than BW regulation. Would BW's new inspection regime extend to Marina berths? [i know they have the right to inspect licences in a Marina, though this doesn't seem to happen very often].

 

If so, there will suddenly be no point in having a Marina berth, and everyone will be out CCing. This seems slightly counter-productive when BW have been trying for years to get everyone off the cut and into Marinas.

 

Buy shares in Genny manufacturers is my advice, lol.

[carlt]

These people pay no council tax and therefore contribute nothing to the country's education system,police or fire and other services which are not funded by national government(although they should be).

What complete and utter twaddle.

 

You obviously have a complete lack of understanding of the funding of public services, gleaned only from within the pages of the Daily Mail.

 

For example Northamptonshire police receives 2/3 of its budget from central government and 1/3 from Council Tax.

 

Northamptonshire Fire Service accounts for just 3% of the Council's entire budget.

Edited April 24, 2009 by carlt

[Phil Speight]

People who reside on leisure moorings are probably only doing so because there are not enough residential moorings available. Perhaps these people would not be classed as a "problem" if more residential moorings were made available in the first place.

 

Jo.

You are probably right - habitual cheats excepted. However at our wharf , where we moor anything up to 12 boats at a time , we are allowed , by BW and the council , three residential moorings. To have them the landlord is obliged ( as I UNDERSTAND IT ) to provide certain facilities including a sanitary station. This makes the provision of LEGAL residential moorings an expensive undertaking.

I don`t care if people moor on liesure moorings in the least - but unless there are extenuating financial circumstances - as long as council tax exists we should all pay it. It may be I`m sulking though because just at the moment I`m paying it on my boat ( which is tied to industrial premises on which business rates are paid ) and on the little cottage in Scotland. We will remedy this situation very shortly. In the meantime, more fool me !

As for BW - do not ever let yourself think they actually care about you or your boat - it`s not what they are there for apart from anything else. Abide by their rules , right or wrong , or you will be vulnerable.

What we can do to change things , and people are trying , whether its an issue like this one , or a clash about heritage , I have no idea.

Phil

ps - Carl - you`re right - and I`m not being Daily Mail about this ( my mother - in -law actually reads the bloody rag ) - I accept that there can be "extenuating circumstances " and they should be recognized and taken into account by all concerned.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Phil Speight

[koukouvagia]

BW to establish that the boater is living at a leisure mooring site and hence in breach of their mooring agreement

 

If this is true, and it certainly accords with BW policy of squeezing boaters till the pips squeak, then we shall be having a re-run of the arguments residential moorers had years ago. The last attempt to differentiate residential and non-residential moorings collapsed when it was realised just how impossible it was to enforce or even define what constitutes a residential moorer and BW wisely decided not to get bogged down with the issue.

[carlt]

ps - Carl - you`re right - and I`m not being Daily Mail about this ( my mother - in -law actually reads the bloody rag ) - I accept that there can be "extenuating circumstances " and they should be recognized and taken into account by all concerned.

I'm actually undecided about whether liveaboards should pay CT or not, probably because I don't feel the same outrage when someone isn't provided with the mechanism to pay a tax, that others seem to.

 

What is ridiculous, though, is the sweeping statement that people who can't pay CT pay nothing towards local services.

[carlt]

The last attempt to differentiate residential and non-residential moorings collapsed when it was realised just how impossible it was to enforce or even define what constitutes a residential moorer and BW wisely decided not to get bogged down with the issue.

Unfortunately it isn't BW who decides, it's the planning authority.

[Nine of Hearts]

As people who supposedly "bridge hop" whilst on a CC licence are saving on mooring fees, I can understand (although I don't share) the resentment that those playing by "the rules" feel. However, what is a liveaboard on a non-residential mooring saving, bar council tax which they are unable to pay? I was previously moored in a private marina which had no planning permission for residential use. I'm now in a BW marina that does. My mooring fees have gone down considerably.

 

It's also worth pointing out that it's quite easy to avoid paying council tax on a residential mooring. As it happens, I do pay, but as far as I'm aware it's not policed. It was up to me to approach the council and make the offer.

[sueb]

People who reside on leisure moorings are probably only doing so because there are not enough residential moorings available. Perhaps these people would not be classed as a "problem" if more residential moorings were made available in the first place.

 

Jo.

Change boats to caravans and you get travellers. If the planners won't give permission you have no residential moorings. Should caravans be allowed to park where they want aand for people to live in them.

As for user groups being unrepresentive. If they are it is boaters fault. It is so easy to get on a committee and have a voice but boaters would rather winge about npt having representation.

Sue

[EmmaB]

but unless there are extenuating financial circumstances - as long as council tax exists we should all pay it.

 

Wasn't this called poll tax?

[carlt]

As for user groups being unrepresentive. If they are it is boaters fault. It is so easy to get on a committee and have a voice but boaters would rather winge about npt having representation.

Sue

If those user groups make you feel unwelcome and are resistant to change, in order to make them less unrepresentative, what's the point of trying to get on the committee?

[ThePiglet]

If enforcement of 'leisure moorings for leisure use' is stepped up, what's to stop those with leisure moorings who live on their boat from bridge hopping either side of their mooring? They don't need to be making a progressive journey as they're not CCers.

 

We'll end up with a load of rented-but-empty leisure moorings with all of their tenants on the 14 day moorings 100 yards away.

[Nine of Hearts]

Should caravans be allowed to park where they want aand for people to live in them.

 

Isn't this situation more analagous to CCing/Bridge-hopping? The issue under discussion is residential use of non-residential moorings, which to borrow from your metaphor, would be like someone living in a caravan on an already extant caravan site. Which I would find very difficult to get upset about. Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough.

[carlt]

Isn't this situation more analagous to CCing/Bridge-hopping? The issue under discussion is residential use of non-residential moorings, which to borrow from your metaphor, would be like someone living in a caravan on an already extant caravan site. Which I would find very difficult to get upset about. Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough.

The local authorities get very worked up about living in caravans, without RPP, to the extent that they've threatened to bulldoze a "static/mobile" home site, near here.

[Dekazer]

It strikes me that there has been a dearth of campaigning with local authorities over the years. certainly where we are, in the South East, local authorities are under enormous pressure with regard to housing. My local council (Ealing) actually offered BW 100% residential permission when they took on our marina. It's on a new build development, so is a bit of a special case, but nonetheless the LA seemed very open to giving that permission. Part of the payback, of course, is that they can legitimately demand Council Tax from all occupied berths as they are all, by definition, residential.

 

We gladly pay our Band A tax, even more gladly since they froze it for this year, although I wish they'd stop spending it all on roadworks... But that's another story.

 

Does anyone really know how much campaigning has gone on to pressurise Local Authorities into granting more residential permission for mooring sites? Anyone tried campaigning? Where's the block - is it with BW or with the Local Authorities? I'd be interested to know and/or get involved...