BW vs Davies

[cotswoldsman]

 

The holiday hire businesses are a major source of BW's income and unless private boat owners behave in a responsible way when it comes to using good mooring sites, we may find that BW is forced to adopt stricter controls. This could include designating more prime mooring sites as 24 or 48 hours only and imposing heavy penalties for overstaying.

 

If 'continuous cruisers' behave responsibly and recognise that staying on a 'good mooring' site for more than 24 hours is not fair to other canal users, I am sure that BW would leave them alone . . .

 

I really am having a few problems with this and that might be due to the fact that I do not understand what it is you are saying.

How would making more moorings 24/48h mean that they would be available in the evenings when the hire boaters arrive. Just out of interest who is going to patrol these moorings. It is also worth remembering that BW can only start there mooring clock from when they sight the boat.

The bit I am have most difficulty with is the "continuous cruisers" having to behave responsibly implying that no one else has to. For your information in four years BW have left me alone, mainly because I behave as other canal users. I pay the same licence fee as other canal users so I have the same rights as other canal users.

 

From listening to the debates at user group meetings, the only time continuous cruisers or continuous moorers ever get mentioned is in relation to hogging prime mooring spots. I don't think mooring away from the 'honey pots' attracts the same level of attention.

 

Graham can I ask what user group you represent?

[blodger]

I really am having a few problems with this and that might be due to the fact that I do not understand what it is you are saying.

How would making more moorings 24/48h mean that they would be available in the evenings when the hire boaters arrive. Just out of interest who is going to patrol these moorings. It is also worth remembering that BW can only start there mooring clock from when they sight the boat.

The bit I am have most difficulty with is the "continuous cruisers" having to behave responsibly implying that no one else has to. For your information in four years BW have left me alone, mainly because I behave as other canal users. I pay the same licence fee as other canal users so I have the same rights as other canal users.

 

 

 

Graham can I ask what user group you represent?

I'm with you in seeing that this 'problem' is perpetrated quite legitimately by the privare leisure boater away from his home mooring and I would say there was no solution, even using their cruising pattern. The problem is not enough moorings for the boats underway and on passage. Perhaps those with home moorings should have restrictions on leaving them

[sueb]

Designated hire boat moorings in prime positions will be next.

The planning rules Carl refers to state buildings. Can boats be buildings?

It's a differant ball game on K&A and has to be seen ro be believed.

Sue

[Minos]

Hi Carl. Good morning. Did you sleep well?

 

This is a forum. It's a place where people have discussions - you know, you say something, I respond, then you say something else and I respond to that.

 

If you don't like the responses you get, asking me to shut up aint gonna work.

 

If you aren't breaking the law, or even if you are breaking the law but in a way that is under the radar, that's your concern.

 

But if you are going to say on this forum that you use a non-residential mooring as a residence, and admit that it is in breach of planning regulations, it's inevitable that someone is going to point out to you that this is not a good thing. It might be good for you - hell, you obviously like it - but that doesn't make the rules go away. And there is something particularly antagonistic about a person who declares on a public forum that they treat the rules with contempt and will verbally abuse anyone who makes something of it.

 

Getting all sniffy and hurt and demanding retractions and apologies is hardly consistent with telling others to "grow up."

[carlt]

Designated hire boat moorings in prime positions will be next.

The planning rules Carl refers to state buildings. Can boats be buildings?

It's a differant ball game on K&A and has to be seen ro be believed.

Sue

I've opened another thread to steer the planning issue away from this one Sue, so, if you don't mind, I'll answer it over there.

 

 

Getting all sniffy and hurt and demanding retractions and apologies is hardly consistent with telling others to "grow up."

You have made a direct accusation, against me, claiming that I have committed fraud.

 

You have failed miserably to substantiate your accusations.

 

If someone calls you a criminal, without any evidence, would you not be aggrieved?

 

I am not upset because I have proved you wrong, except in your mind.

[Chris Pink]

The entertainment value of all this is priceless.

 

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

 

1. You've done it for years - so that proves you're allowed to
   

 

Yes, finally, It took you a while but you got there in the end.

 

Yes, that is the letter of planning law.

 

From listening to the debates at user group meetings, the only time continuous cruisers or continuous moorers ever get mentioned is in relation to hogging prime mooring spots. I don't think mooring away from the 'honey pots' attracts the same level of attention.

 

yes, and from participating in interminable debates, when will you understand that the congestion is not caused by the 10% of boats without home moorings it is cause by the other 29,000 plus?

 

The canals are popular, town moorings are in demand. For years, boaters have been coming out of marinas on Easter weekend and moaning that boats are using locks, moorings etc.

 

A little more thought and a lot less mindless prejudice would go a long way in both understanding what is going on and, more importantly, planning your journeys to take into account that the canals are more popular and busier than they have every been (in recent years).

 

Then people need to moor further away from town? This is a problem? Then why but a canal holiday - the clue is the word 'canal'

 

. Perhaps those with home moorings should have restrictions on leaving them

 

Brilliant! The perfect solution.

 

The perfect boater from Graham and BW's point of view is the one that never moves.

 

hang on a minute - isn't this thread vilifying someone who never moved?

[Phoenix_V]

I've opened another thread to steer the planning issue away from this one

Thank goodness

[luctor et emergo]

Designated hire boat moorings in prime positions will be next.

The planning rules Carl refers to state buildings. Can boats be buildings?

It's a differant ball game on K&A and has to be seen ro be believed.

Sue

 

Sue, please stop making it sound as if every inch of towpath on the (Western) K&A is permanently hogged by scruffy liveaboards. It is not true, and becoming tiresome. Even now, there are spaces free in Bathampton, and in Bath. I go up and down weekly, and there is always somewhere to moor my 68'6'' boat, where I wannt it to.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

yes, and from participating in interminable debates, when will you understand that the congestion is not caused by the 10% of boats without home moorings it is cause by the other 29,000 plus?

 

The canals are popular, town moorings are in demand. For years, boaters have been coming out of marinas on Easter weekend and moaning that boats are using locks, moorings etc.

 

A little more thought and a lot less mindless prejudice would go a long way in both understanding what is going on and, more importantly, planning your journeys to take into account that the canals are more popular and busier than they have every been (in recent years).

 

Then people need to moor further away from town? This is a problem? Then why but a canal holiday - the clue is the word 'canal'

 

 

 

Brilliant! The perfect solution.

 

The perfect boater from Graham and BW's point of view is the one that never moves.

 

hang on a minute - isn't this thread vilifying someone who never moved?

 

Not going to make a habit of this but have a greeny

[Chris Pink]

 

 

But if you are going to say on this forum that you use a non-residential mooring as a residence, and admit that it is in breach of planning regulations, it's inevitable that someone is going to point out to you that this is not a good thing.

 

 

Planning law has, as its basic principle, that if no-one objects it's fine. So it no-one complained there was no breach, I don't know why you find this simple fact so difficult to grasp.

 

And I think you owe Carl an apology, an accusation of 'fraud' - the word you used many times is libelous and pretty nasty.

 

I had a lot of respect for your views, as you know, until this thread, you've managed to lose all of that.

 

there is always somewhere to moor my 68'6'' boat, where I wannt it to.

 

That's because Sue has now gone

[Phoenix_V]

Yes, finally, It took you a while but you got there in the end.

 

Yes, that is the letter of planning law.

 

 

 

yes, and from participating in interminable debates, when will you understand that the congestion is not caused by the 10% of boats without home moorings it is cause by the other 29,000 plus?

 

The canals are popular, town moorings are in demand. For years, boaters have been coming out of marinas on Easter weekend and moaning that boats are using locks, moorings etc.

 

A little more thought and a lot less mindless prejudice would go a long way in both understanding what is going on and, more importantly, planning your journeys to take into account that the canals are more popular and busier than they have every been (in recent years).

 

Then people need to moor further away from town? This is a problem? Then why but a canal holiday - the clue is the word 'canal'

 

 

 

Brilliant! The perfect solution.

 

The perfect boater from Graham and BW's point of view is the one that never moves.

 

hang on a minute - isn't this thread vilifying someone who never moved?

 

Following this line of thought we all need to consider using the lesser used waterways.

 

We went to Birmingham a couple of years ago miles and miles of moorings near facilities if required, no one using them

perhaps more leisure boaters and residentials should be prepared to go off their usual stomping grounds

[Guest]

Sue, please stop making it sound as if every inch of towpath on the (Western) K&A is permanently hogged by scruffy liveaboards. It is not true, and becoming tiresome. Even now, there are spaces free in Bathampton, and in Bath. I go up and down weekly, and there is always somewhere to moor my 68'6'' boat, where I wannt it to.

 

I was expecting to see such images in the recent canal walks program that featured the K&A as based on stuff I had read on here (in the main posted by Sue) that is exactly how I'd envisaged it.

 

I know it was only a short program and it only featured a small part - but to me it didn't look any worse or different from any other...

[Chris Pink]

Following this line of thought we all need to consider using the lesser used waterways.

 

We went to Birmingham a couple of years ago miles and miles of moorings near facilities if required, no one using them

perhaps more leisure boaters and residentials should be prepared to go off their usual stomping grounds

 

There's a lot in this, when I cruised the Oxford canal 20 years ago and it was crowded and slow, mooring was easiest out of town, getting into Oxford and Banbury was difficult. and that's 20 years ago and every time I've been back it's been worse.

 

Bath and Bradford-on-Avon are similar, there are simply not enough moorings for the hire boats. Like a recent thread on the Llangollen, they all go at more or less the same times at more or less the same place. To the extent that it is easily possible to plan a journey on these waterways to avoid all of that.

 

Maybe some attention to the numbers of hire boat licences (and attendant planning permission) issued in already overcrowded places would be more fruitful than making a target of liveaboards. or staggering turn around days?

[carlt]

Following this line of thought we all need to consider using the lesser used waterways.

 

We went to Birmingham a couple of years ago miles and miles of moorings near facilities if required, no one using them

perhaps more leisure boaters and residentials should be prepared to go off their usual stomping grounds

Excellent point!

 

Perhaps BW could concentrate their efforts towards promoting these areas and even providing incentives to Hire companies and marina operators, to set up shop there.

[journeyperson]

Following this line of thought we all need to consider using the lesser used waterways.

 

 

Nooooo!!!

 

Please stay where you are and leave us in peace.

[jenlyn]

There is a real issue (that BW are under pressure to respond to) and that relates to the difficulties now being experienced by holiday hirers who struggle to find good moorings. By 'good moorings', I mean a mooring that is convenient for a pub, restaurant, shops, tourist attraction or town centre. Holiday hirers prefer such moorings because they enable full enjoyment of the canal holiday experience.

 

Many privately owned boats, either stay put or only move in the early morning so that they can nab a 'good mooring' as soon as one is vacated.

 

Holiday hirers tend to boat for long hours in order to get the best out of the four figure sum that they may have paid for a week's hire. When they arrive at their chosen overnight mooring spot (often quite late in the day) they inevitably find that they cannot moor in the vicinity because the area is already congested with moored boats.

 

The result of all this is disappointed hirers, letters of complaint (and potential loss of business) for the holiday hire companies and, subsequently, pressure on BW to do something about it. I have been at user group meetings and have heard the strong commercial arguments from hire companies and marina owners.

 

The holiday hire businesses are a major source of BW's income and unless private boat owners behave in a responsible way when it comes to using good mooring sites, we may find that BW is forced to adopt stricter controls. This could include designating more prime mooring sites as 24 or 48 hours only and imposing heavy penalties for overstaying.

 

If 'continuous cruisers' behave responsibly and recognise that staying on a 'good mooring' site for more than 24 hours is not fair to other canal users, I am sure that BW would leave them alone . . .

I see quite clearly in my mind what this post is saying, and I would like to point out, that we are all allowed use of the canals and moorings! Like it or lump it

[Minos]

I am not upset because I have proved you wrong, except in your mind.

This is getting more entertaining by the minute. We should have popcorn.

 

You have attacked my knowledge and experience as a boater, demanded that I provide legal references, claimed that your personal testimony trumps everything said to contradict you, demeaned my understanding of what you post - in fact, used every ad hominem tactic in the book.

 

I think what I like best is your sense of humour failure.

 

You're absolutely priceless, Carl. I think you're the best thing here.

[Nine of Hearts]

Excellent point!

 

Perhaps BW could concentrate their efforts towards promoting these areas and even providing incentives to Hire companies and marina operators, to set up shop there.

 

Oi! Not in my backyard. These are local waterways, for local people. We'll have none of that K&A riff-raff around here.

 

...perhaps more leisure boaters and residentials should be prepared to go off their usual stomping grounds

 

How wonderfully ironic, as Birmingham is my stomping ground and I'm the regular butt of jokes for not straying further than my hook up cable will allow from my home* mooring.

 

*It's got RPP but I don't live there at the mo, don't tell Minos, for Gawd's sake...

[cotswoldsman]

Nooooo!!!

 

Please stay where you are and leave us in peace.

 

Some bad news John I will be in Birmingham area for a while later this year, after I leave London area, remembering that I can only moor for 24 hours in any popular area as I am a CCer. I know my place!!!!

[carlt]

This is getting more entertaining by the minute. We should have popcorn.

 

You have attacked my knowledge and experience as a boater, demanded that I provide legal references, claimed that your personal testimony trumps everything said to contradict you, demeaned my understanding of what you post - in fact, used every ad hominem tactic in the book.

 

I think what I like best is your sense of humour failure.

 

You're absolutely priceless, Carl. I think you're the best thing here.

You claimed lack of experience, not me.

 

If you accuse someone of a crime then don't you think they have a right to demand substantiation?

 

My personal testimony plus references to law (which you failed to provide) does indeed trump your frothy mouthed rant.

 

I have started a new thread because your accusations, and my defence, has cluttered up this one enough.

 

Perhaps you could respect the wishes of those who want to discuss the Davies case and take your drivel there?

[deletedaccount]

There's a lot in this, when I cruised the Oxford canal 20 years ago and it was crowded and slow, mooring was easiest out of town, getting into Oxford and Banbury was difficult. and that's 20 years ago and every time I've been back it's been worse.

 

Bath and Bradford-on-Avon are similar, there are simply not enough moorings for the hire boats. Like a recent thread on the Llangollen, they all go at more or less the same times at more or less the same place. To the extent that it is easily possible to plan a journey on these waterways to avoid all of that.

 

Maybe some attention to the numbers of hire boat licences (and attendant planning permission) issued in already overcrowded places would be more fruitful than making a target of liveaboards. or staggering turn around days?

 

 

I think staggering turn around days is becoming increasingly necessary. Bradford on avon lock can be a nightmare. Sally boats, Oxford, Avelchurch and Moonraker all seem to let them loose at the same time. That's a lot of boats all trying to go down one lock and moor on one set of visitor moorings. That's on top of the anglo welsh boats (x2) and foxton lot.

 

The holiday hire businesses are a major source of BW's income and unless private boat owners behave in a responsible way when it comes to using good mooring sites, we may find that BW is forced to adopt stricter controls. This could include designating more prime mooring sites as 24 or 48 hours only and imposing heavy penalties for overstaying.

 

 

Really? I was under the impression the licence was only about twice a normal one. Fwiw, all prime mooring spots on the western K&A are already 24 or 48 hours.

[mayalld]

The entertainment value of all this is priceless.

 

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

 

1. You've done it for years - so that proves you're allowed to
2. The mooring providers were complicit, so that proves you're allowed to
3. As long as you understand it's a private planning dispute, you're allowed to
4. Pointing out that you are breaking the law hurts your feelings, and that is far, far worse than breaking the law
5. Anyone who does point out that you are breaking the law is an enemy in the class war anyway
6. If you ignore the bits of the law you don't like, it doesn't matter

 

Carl is toying with you!

 

Planning law is rather more complex than "residential mooring" or "leisure mooring"

 

In fact, there are at least 4 different categories of mooring;

 

1. Mooring with residential PP or a certificate of lawful use.
2. Mooring without PP or Certificate of Lawful use, but which would get a certificate.
3. Mooring without PP or Certificate of Lawful use
4. Mooring with explicit planning conditions prohibiting residential use.

Only the first would be billed as a residential mooring.

 

Whilst use of type 4 for residential use is "unlawful" (as opposed to illegal), no actual offence is committed simply by living there. It is doubtful whether any offence would be committed if the boater sought to conceal from BW that he was living there, because BW is not a planning authority. An offence would be committed if the boater told porkies in response to a statutory enquiry from a planning authority, and an offence would be committed if the boater failed to comply with an enforcement notice.

 

Type 3 isn't even unlawful, merely unauthorised. No permission exists, but equally no prohibition exists, and in the absence of enforcement action, the boater is doing nothing wrong. He must be truthful with statutory enquiries, but that is it.

 

Type 2 is in an even stronger position, because whilst the site doesn't have residential permission, it has been used residentially for so long that the planning authority can no longer take enforcement action, and would be obliged to issue a certificate of lawful use.

 

Clearly, setting up home without planning permission involves an element of chance and the risk that you will have to leave, but it isn't illegal.

 

The following, lifted from Oxford City Council, provides a good summary;

 

Is it illegal to do something without Planning Permission?

Carrying out building works without planning permission is not against the law and is therefore not an offence. However works to protected trees or trees in conservation areas, works to listed buildings or displaying an advertisement without consent is a criminal offence.

 

If building works or changes of use are carried out without planning permission, then this will have been at the owner's own risk and the penalty will be that the money that has been spent in connection with the works or the change of use may have been wasted and further expense may be incurred putting these matters back to how they were before the works or change of use took place.

 

Carrying out works or making changes of use are therefore not good investments and it is always sensible to check with the Council if planning permission is required or if changes are required to your existing planning permission before you start. Make sure you leave enough time to submit a planning application and have it determined before you need to start work as it can take up to 8 weeks or sometimes longer to receive a decision.

 

 

[carlt]

in fact, used every ad hominem tactic in the book.

 

Accusing me of ad hominem argument is a bit rich, when the basis your argument is that I have committed fraud and the evidence you provide is "because you are a criminal" then when asked to substantiate, the evidence you present is "you are a fraudster".

 

I think you are applying laws that you would like to exist but, as yet, have failed to materialise.

 

My last word, on this thread (unless I dive into the actual thread subject, of course).

[Spacebar]

I hope that none of it was a cheap shot from any side.

 

Given what we have gone through, I will freely confess that I am rather over sensitive to people (seemingly) carelessly throwing Afghanistan into an argument, and clearly people who have known me for quite a while are acutely aware of the reasons for that sensitivity. Their friendship is hugely appreciated.

 

If you too have lost somebody over there, then you have my very deepest sympathies, and empathy. We should probably chat about our experiences over a beer.

 

I guess my view is that yes there are big problems in the world, and there are smaller problems, but you can't put off fixing the smaller problems until ALL the big problems are fixed.

Yes Dave fair point I can see how throwing Afghanistan into a debate can be upsetting although personally I only gave it as a comparrison as it gets on my nerves when people bicker and bitch about things they have no control over.

I also have a friend over there now and its very upsetting I do apologise if my comparrison offended you.

MJG you need say nothing you pulled a cheap shot and there were no need for it.

All the best I have a life to go and live.

[Guest]

 

MJG you need say nothing you pulled a cheap shot and there were no need for it.

 

 

??? - no I agreed with someone who had already made the point.