Radio 4 Now

[wrigglefingers]

BW on On You and Yours' now residential mooring issues .....

[blackrose]

BW on On You and Yours' now residential mooring issues .....

 

Thanks, I will have a listen later on 'listen again'.

[wrigglefingers]

Thanks, I will have a listen later on 'listen again'.

 

Okay, I listened to it, took some scrappy notes and have a brief synopsis which I think is close ......

 

Reporter shown round boat in Kensal Green. Owner has a number of gripes, rising cost of mooring (full resi) lack of services. When challenged by the reporter that £5000 was cheap for West London the owner made an analogy to mooring costs to ground rent, pointing out that he provided the boat.

 

Sally Ash outlined BW's current position. There are thought to be twice as many liveaboards than 5 years previously, that they now had a 'open' system for setting mooring fee (although how that freely sets a level when there's a reserve price I don't know), that there was no 'churn' of mooring spaces in London and that historically mooring feees had been far lower than the market would allow. Therefore by pushing up prices they were allowing the market to set price (that doesn't work for me either, but I digress). She admitted that services to moorers could be improved but were braodly inline with the fees moorers paid. She denied there was link between rising fees and underfunding.

 

Rex Walden outlined the RBOA's case - no robust stats but numbers are rising, about 90% of liveaboards (that would be moored liveaboards) are doing so illegally as planning permission was not given for residential moorings. That historically, there had been very little or no chance of residential permission being given as local councils were forced to considered the provision residential moorings as though they were bricks and mortar although once impact on local services had been taken into account there had never been an approval problem.

 

The Local Govt declined to comment as beyond their evel of expertise and the Department of Communities and Local Govt suggested it was not appropriate to comment on a national position as this was a local issue and decisions needed to be taken at a local level.

 

Rex Walden pointed out how insecure this was whilst acknowledging that BW was not a provider of housing.

 

Sally Ash pointed out the the recent consultatiosn had encouraged private entrepreneurs to build moorings suitable for residential houseboats. As the position stands at present, BW turn a 'blind eye' to liveaboards if they're are not causing problems, acknowledging that moorers are living on leisure moorings but are not enforcing the mooring conditions. However, they are seeking to formalise this situation stating that if the Local Authority serves an enforcement notice on BW, then BW will sit down with the local council and the boaters concerned to work out a solution.

 

If anybody else listened and wants to add anything please add it on.

 

Jill

Edited February 1, 2010 by wrigglefingers

[Chris Pink]

Reporter shown round boat in Kensal Green. Owner has a number of gripes, rising cost of mooring (full resi) lack of services. When challenged by the reporter that £500 was cheap for West London the owner made an analogy to mooring costs to ground rent, pointing out that he provided the boat.

 

It was £5,000 (a year) and the point was that it had gone up to this from £2,000 in 1997.

 

 

I thought it interesting the way Sally Eichmann claimed it was BW's idea that the auctions should be open rather than being forced to after the tender system collapsed.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Chris Pink

[wrigglefingers]

It was £5,000 (a year) and the point was that it had gone up to this from £2,000 in 1997.

 

Yes sorry, Chris, should have reread the post and corrected the error. I was listening on the radio and trying to type on my phone at the same time and as it's freezing here I have very cold fingers .....

 

What is interesting to my mind is the number of mooring auctions that are not reaching the reserve price. I would challenge the claim that the market is setting it's own level due to the presence of the reserve.

 

edited to say that I've now corrected the synopsis as I should have done ...

Edited February 1, 2010 by wrigglefingers

[alan_fincher]

What is interesting to my mind is the number of mooring auctions that are not reaching the reserve price. I would challenge the claim that the market is setting it's own level due to the presence of the reserve.

I would also say that where some are going at "reserve", (or at least below "guide"), that the winning bidder is actually someone who already has a mooring there under old arrangements, and is prepared to take the hit of giving that up, to secure a fixed 3 year contract at less pounds.

 

I can't prove that - but there is every evidence of it, (multiple times).

 

I'll certainly bid again on where we have moved to, (once the initial "6 months can't leave") penalty is up, if I think I can get the same thing cheaper.

 

I've tracked what's happened on the GU in recent months, and there really is no easy rule you can say on which will not make "reserve" or "guide", and which will go way over, (some are letting at mouth watering 190% of what current moorers pay ).

 

If there is a rule, then the longer the mooring, and closer to London, the higher it will go, even if it's "tow-path" with few facilities.

 

Some of it may, of course be, about where it is known that a blind eye is turned to "unofficial residential", and where it is not. I'm not close enough to the facts to be able to assess if that has a strong bearing or not.

 

If I'm honest, what I have tracked seems to say BW is on average (overall) getting more out of moorings let this way, even though quite a few are clearly going at less than current moorers pay. I've only followed the GU, though, I admit.

[Oliver1954]

And for anyone that may have missed it and wanted to listen; You and Yours!

[blackrose]

On one hand, as an informal resident myself, I feel like joining the struggle against the opprrression of ourrrrrr piple.

 

But on the other hand, I don't really have much of an answer to anyone who says "Surely you knew your mooring was non-residential before you started living there? Didn't you sign something to that effect? Yet now you expect BW and the council to accommodate the fact that you've been breaking the rules all these years?"

 

Isn't it like the person who buys a canalside property and then starts complaining about boats?

 

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't say no to some sort of improved status, but I'm not making any demands. In the meantime I'm happy living in the twilight zone and if there's any agg I'll just leave (and probably break some other rules )

Edited February 1, 2010 by blackrose

[wrigglefingers]

On one hand, as an informal resident myself, I feel like joining the struggle against the opprrression of ourrrrrr piple.

 

But on the other hand, I don't really have much of an answer to anyone who says "Surely you knew your mooring was non-residential before you started living there? Didn't you sign something to that effect? Yet now you expect BW and the council to accommodate the fact that you've been breaking the rules all these years?"

 

Isn't it like the person who buys a canalside property and then starts complaining about boats?

 

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't say no to some sort of improved status, but I'm not making any demands. In the meantime I'm happy living in the twilight zone and if there's any agg I'll just leave (and probably break some other rules )

 

I understand your point of view, Mike, and in many respects I agree with you. This however, a strong case to be made for those people who set off with the best of intentions, understand the insecurity and the need to be self sufficient, but then, through no fault of their own or simply cling on for too long, need help. I think there should be help for those people; it's the mark of a mature, generous and tolerant society that we take care of those who need it. The problem is the highly distasteful task of sorting the deserving from the undeserving; I don't have the skills or in indeed the right to do that and I don't think anybody else does either. Much of the argument around rights, centres on this judgment and we are no closer to solving the conundrum than we were in the 18th century and earlier.

 

This argument, however, is something of a red herring. I've been thinking about the radio article this afternoon and realised that it was particularly unfocused and in trying to sidestep the original complaint - 'Our rent is rising relentlessly and BW are not providing what we have paid for' Sally Ash opened up a whole different can of worms namely what to do with the legions of liveaboards not legally living on the cut. I wonder whether it was timed to coincide with the ruling today about the rights of continuous cruisers as bargee travellers? On one hand, she highlighted the ability of Local Authorities to enforce the planning rules but on the other, it now seems, attempted to place on record BW's role in the resolution of such proceedings. This to me seems like an attempt to present BW's role as proactive in this debate when as we know, they are entirely reactive. I suspect in truth that BW know that they lack the resources to do anything about this; numbers have reached the point where enforcement of the mooring conditions cannot be made and instead they are relying on local councils to kick up a fuss. I also suspect that that councils will not kick up a fuss if the ruling today remains in place. What we may see is councils beginning to sort out the planning mess and allow more resi moorings; which, in turn, would at least allow them to collect CT on them.

 

To my mind, the answer to the original complaint by the residential moorer is that BW are not fulfilling their contract (with this moorer and many others) because they are hamstrung by their funding crisis and their own managerial incompetence. The argument about market rates for moorings, residential or otherwise is immaterial.

[blackrose]

I understand your point of view, Mike, and in many respects I agree with you. This however, a strong case to be made for those people who set off with the best of intentions, understand the insecurity and the need to be self sufficient, but then, through no fault of their own or simply cling on for too long, need help. I think there should be help for those people; it's the mark of a mature, generous and tolerant society that we take care of those who need it. The problem is the highly distasteful task of sorting the deserving from the undeserving; I don't have the skills or in indeed the right to do that and I don't think anybody else does either. Much of the argument around rights, centres on this judgment and we are no closer to solving the conundrum than we were in the 18th century and earlier.

 

This argument, however, is something of a red herring. I've been thinking about the radio article this afternoon and realised that it was particularly unfocused and in trying to sidestep the original complaint - 'Our rent is rising relentlessly and BW are not providing what we have paid for' Sally Ash opened up a whole different can of worms namely what to do with the legions of liveaboards not legally living on the cut. I wonder whether it was timed to coincide with the ruling today about the rights of continuous cruisers as bargee travellers? On one hand, she highlighted the ability of Local Authorities to enforce the planning rules but on the other, it now seems, attempted to place on record BW's role in the resolution of such proceedings. This to me seems like an attempt to present BW's role as proactive in this debate when as we know, they are entirely reactive. I suspect in truth that BW know that they lack the resources to do anything about this; numbers have reached the point where enforcement of the mooring conditions cannot be made and instead they are relying on local councils to kick up a fuss. I also suspect that that councils will not kick up a fuss if the ruling today remains in place. What we may see is councils beginning to sort out the planning mess and allow more resi moorings; which, in turn, would at least allow them to collect CT on them.

 

To my mind, the answer to the original complaint by the residential moorer is that BW are not fulfilling their contract (with this moorer and many others) because they are hamstrung by their funding crisis and their own managerial incompetence. The argument about market rates for moorings, residential or otherwise is immaterial.

 

I more or less agree with all of that. The mooring and licence fee hikes are scary when it's your home that's at issue.

 

I never tought it would end up like this when I was CCing 10 years ago. Why is it that everything gets more difficult year on year? Nothing ever seems to get easier.