Should the waterways provide for housing overspill?

[canaldrifter]

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Waterways on Waterways was reconvened a couple of weeks back to scrutinise the move to NWC. They heard evidence suggesting that 5,000 residential moorings could be provided on BW's navigations over the next few years.

 

That'd be another about-face for Sally Ash, then, who used to state blandly that BW is not in the housing business and jacked up houseboat fees in the London area to extortionate rates on the pretext that if residents can't afford it they can get out.

 

Now it seems that providing another 5,000 residential moorings is seen as another source of income for the BWT or whatever. How times change.

 

Tone

[ymu]

If you really really mean that, particularly if some of your days are joined together at weekends, and you don't take winter moorings, then surely arguing the toss about BW's interpretation of the law is irrelevant ?

 

It's not BW CC-er guidelines you are not abiding by, you are clearly also not abiding by the clearly worded law behind them, where you should not be exceeding 14 consecutive days without moving.

 

Even if you just do single days at regular intervals to meet the law, I reckon you need to move on at least 26 days of any year. As soon as any of your days are multiple days in the same weekend, then it needs to be more than 26 days in any year.

 

I am not discussing here whether I think it matters that you are breaking the law, I am simply discussing whether you are breaking the law.

 

Have I misinterpreted what you are trying to say, or do you admit that you are not complying with the law ?

 

You seem to want to keep telling us that you are doing the rest of us who want to boat a big favour by actually doing what the law does not allow ?

Keep yer hair on!

 

A day's cruising is nine hours (on average, over the year). We rarely move more than 2-5 miles, because we keep a car with us and it saves a lot of cash if I can walk back. And there is nowhere on the cut that this is not in accordance with the guidelines.

 

So we do the equivalent of a day's cruising (excluding stops for water and rubbish, which are lengthy, another reason we don't often do long days), every 6-8 weeks. Or 15 days a year with visitors.

 

We bought our boat from Pelsall and we're moving slowly down to Keynsham, to spend next summer with my sister and her kids, and my mum. Then to London to see the in-laws and round the Fens for my brother and his two kidlets in Cambridge. Then maybe as close to Kendal as we can get to see my dad easily.

 

So that's ... <counts on fingers> ... a five to six year plan at the pace we move.

 

See what I mean about us just not speaking the same language? 'Continuous' is not meant literally.

 

My clients could be anywhere, but mainly the very expensive SE,and mostly via the internet, and he keeps my life chaos in order so we figured we didn't really need to live anywhere. Hence, permanent holiday and no mooring needed. We're lucky, I know.

Edited May 21, 2011 by ymu

[canaldrifter]

We rarely move more than 2-5 miles, because we keep a car with us and it saves a lot of cash if I can walk back.

 

I used to move a car around too, but as I can't walk far I'd wave a windlass and thumb a lift on a boat going t'other way. Met some great folks doing that.

 

Tone

[Dominic M]

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Waterways on Waterways was reconvened a couple of weeks back to scrutinise the move to NWC. They heard evidence suggesting that 5,000 residential moorings could be provided on BW's navigations over the next few years.

If they intend to create those online I smell trouble ahead. BW encouraged substantial investment from the private sector to construct new marinas. One of the carrots was that they would reduce their on line moorings, which obviously work in direct competition with those private marinas.

[David Schweizer]

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Waterways on Waterways was reconvened a couple of weeks back to scrutinise the move to NWC. They heard evidence suggesting that 5,000 residential moorings could be provided on BW's navigations over the next few years.

That can only be a statement of speculative intention by BW. Although they do have limited powers to grant themselves Planning Consent, BW's right are restricted to the need for maintenance and emergency works and does not extend to the granting of Planning Consent for residential purposes. That is within the remit of the Local Planning Authiority, who may not share BW's enthusiasm for permanent residentiol mooring in their area.

 

BW tried to secure Planning Consent for Residential moorings some while ago at the western end of the K&A,betwen Dundas and Bradford on Avon, and received a resounding rebuttal from the West Wiltshire District Council. I was Clerk to our Parish Council at the time and saw the consultation representations submitted by all the Parish Authorities, there was not one which was in favour of proposal. We have a new planning Authority now, but my observations would suggest that the views of the Local people will have not have changed very much.

 

We may have to wait and see.

Edited May 21, 2011 by David Schweizer

[ymu]

I used to move a car around too, but as I can't walk far I'd wave a windlass and thumb a lift on a boat going t'other way. Met some great folks doing that.

 

Tone

One of the reasons I'm semi-retired at 41 is a circadian rhythm disorder (and my partner at 37 with cluster headache). We can't guarantee to be up early enough feeling well enough to be hitching lifts back, and even if we were I've rarely seen the canal busy enough to guarantee it. That's why I just don't recognise some of the complaints of holiday boaters. We moor up late most of the time, often after dark, and we have to find approximately three times as many places to moor per stretch of canal travelled, because we move in short days not long ones. And it's never, ever been a problem, despite a lot of the better mooring spots available being permit only or sign-restricted to 14 days.

 

It is nice when you do hook up with folk, though I agree. mrsmelly was one of the first people we spoke to when we were considering this adventure, and within days we had more numbers for people who could help us in a crisis (of which we have had many) than I knew neighbours in ten years living in outer Brum.

 

It's a great place, but we're somewhat reclusive loons. So we don't really fit normal assumptions.

[Tonka]

It would not be so bad if the people who lived on the canals actually cared about them but in my opinion 80 % are just selfish and are only interested in living cheap and would not care if the water they were in did not go anywhere.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

If they intend to create those online I smell trouble ahead. BW encouraged substantial investment from the private sector to construct new marinas. One of the carrots was that they would reduce their on line moorings, which obviously work in direct competition with those private marinas.

 

Marina construction has been justified on old (2007) projections of increased demand. The latest figures I have are that 15.6% (5,612) of all moorings are vacant.

 

That can only be a statement of speculative intention by BW. Although they do have limited powers to grant themselves Planning Consent, BW's right are restricted to the need for maintenance and emergency works and does not extend to the granting of Planning Consent for residential purposes. That is within the remit of the Local Planning Authiority, who may not share BW's enthusiasm for permanent residentiol mooring in their area.

 

BW tried to secure Planning Consent for Residential moorings some while ago at the western end of the K&A,betwen Dundas and Bradford on Avon, and received a resounding rebuttal from the West Wiltshire District Council. I was Clerk to our Parish Council at the time and saw the consultation representations submitted by all the Parish Authorities, there was not one which was in favour of proposal. We have a new planning Authority now, but my observations would suggest that the views of the Local people will have not have changed very much.

 

We may have to wait and see.

 

It was not BW that made the statement but one of the parties invited to give evidence.

 

However, earlier this year BW's board agreed to provide up to £4m to BWML to 'expand by acquisition'. The idea behind this is that planning permission for residential use will be obtained in the marinas purchased. BWML already has had some success in this field with its existing marinas.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Josher]

These people clearly think of their boat as their home (they can spell too!)

 

 

Narrowboats and rowboats arranged on the Regent’s Canal near Broadway Market

 

"Local river dwellers step up their efforts to preserve their way of life as the consultation deadline for British Waterways’ controversial plans is extended to 31 May" Hackney Citizen Here

[ymu]

It would not be so bad if the people who lived on the canals actually cared about them but in my opinion 80 % are just selfish and are only interested in living cheap and would not care if the water they were in did not go anywhere.

That's not my experience at all.

 

This winter people were taking a lot of care to use their ashes well to reduce the slippery pathways and fill in puddles. Someone put a silver jacket and winter coat over the one remaining working tap, and a blowtorch would appear any time it froze.

 

 

There are plenty of areas where it would be difficult to use were it not for other 'middle of nowhere' CCers (our preference too) hacking down the scenery long before BW ever get around to it. We have reported a couple of leaks early in the winter, soon enough to schedule works whilst it is still quiet, and regularly stop by canal-side businesses and make a point of letting kids play safely around our boat.

 

If it were not for the liveaboards, which is virtually all CCers and an unknown proportion of leisure-mooring permit holders (many of whom are effectively CCing with a mooring they never use), there would be very few canalside businesses. Perhaps 10,000 boaters needing facilities (diesel, rubbish, sewage, water) and supplies (village shops) on a regular basis, and BW facilities such as showers getting good use and therefore value for the money invested in them.

 

The cut, and some of its adjoining rivers, is an organic whole, with a delicate funding eco-system. And what is going on here is reflecting what is going on with housing and, yes, poverty on land. We're gonna need to be helping each other through some difficult times, not making it even harder for local authorities to house all their workers.

[blackrose]

There seem to be 4, maybe 5, people, on this forum, that make a lot of noise about the conflict between different types of boaters.

 

Do we disregard the silent majority who just get on with their boating and don't shout about it?

 

Some people, who have their eyes fixed on the boaters whose practices they disapprove of, just don't seem to notice the spaces that others say are available, the wonderful things about the waterways you mention and the pleasant human beings, they miss interacting with, because they're too busy sneering, determined not to enjoy themselves.

 

Glass half full or empty?

 

I agree.

 

This subject gets raised on the forum every few months. Perhaps one of the moderators should pin one of these threads somewhere so that it doesn't need to be re-hashed again and again...

Edited May 21, 2011 by blackrose

[RLWP]

Which ducks the question, somewhat.

 

Yeah, them Ruddy Ducks for a start

 

Bloody foreigners

 

Richard

 

Time for my medication I think...

[DaveG]

At the risk of wading into another maelstrom......one solution might be the construction of small marinas with very basic facilities; perhaps water, sanitation and rubbish disposal but none of the other glitzy marina-type stuff. Even these wouldn't necessarily be required if such facilities were within practical cruising distance. However, even in minimalist form there is obviously a cost involved. These marinas could be provided and maintained on a not-for-profit basis by local councils, charitable trusts or co-operatives but, even so, there would be initial capital outlay required. The obstacles to this are twofold - firstly, the majority of the canal network runs through boroughs which, politically, do not support investment in social housing unless the funding comes from the private sector. I suspect this will be further exacerbated when the government's Localism Bill currently in progress becomes law. Depending on the amount of power devolved to local communities, particularly in the planning process, it is likely that there would be resistance to any such schemes particularly in "greenfield" sites and I can imagine there would be all sorts of emotive opposition,"floating ghettoes" etc, from local people. At the same time, I am sure there are many city/town sites which would benefit from such a scheme which could lead to urban regeneration - it would just be dependent on a group of people brave enough to take up the challenge - and I'm not talking here about luxury apartment and retail developments, simply the creation of a boating community. Also, there's cost involved, and if we are discussing social housing there has to be eligibility for housing benefit, etc. so it's as much a political issue as a practical one. I don'[t think releasing miles of towpath moorings is the answer, though, as whilst we accept that cruising is a leisurely way of life spending hours on end on tickover would, I suspect, soon begin to deter users from the waterways. That the waterways are the answer to the housing shortage I very much doubt but they could contribute to a broader plan.

Edited May 21, 2011 by DaveG

[RLWP]

At the risk of wading into another maelstrom......one solution might be the construction of small marinas with very basic facilities; perhaps water, sanitation and rubbish disposal but none of the other glitzy marina-type stuff.

 

<snip>

 

Unfortunately, the business model of a marina means that they make money out of offering services as well as moorings. In all probability, they're not viable without the 'glitzy' stuff

 

Richard

[ymu]

People don't need or want the facilities. They already have access to facilities. They just want the right to trundle up or down a 40 mile stretch once a year, preferably tracking train and bus routes to work, or good roads (we stay within an hour and a half's drive of my main clients, mostly).

 

It's perfectly unobtrusive and reasonable as it is. Just enforce the rules on the piss-takers, whatever their licence status.

[DaveG]

Unfortunately, the business model of a marina means that they make money out of offering services as well as moorings. In all probability, they're not viable without the 'glitzy' stuff

 

Richard

Agreed - it depends on whether the driver is profit or social provision and there would need to be quite a shake up in current social attitudes to achieve this. At the same time, who then provides the "house"? Obviously, with social housing there is a capital asset which remains in the hands of the provider (ignoring right-to-buy) whilst, traditionally, boats are all privately owned so you would still be dependent on folk being able to afford to buy their own accommodation in the first place.

[Dominic M]

People don't need or want the facilities. They already have access to facilities. They just want the right to trundle up or down a 40 mile stretch once a year, preferably tracking train and bus routes to work, or good roads (we stay within an hour and a half's drive of my main clients, mostly).

 

It's perfectly unobtrusive and reasonable as it is. Just enforce the rules on the piss-takers, whatever their licence status.

I'm not criticising this practice, but in many people's view that is piss taking. Certainly in BW's view it is.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

That'd be another about-face for Sally Ash, then, who used to state blandly that BW is not in the housing business and jacked up houseboat fees in the London area to extortionate rates on the pretext that if residents can't afford it they can get out.

 

Now it seems that providing another 5,000 residential moorings is seen as another source of income for the BWT or whatever. How times change.

 

Tone

 

I understand Ms Ash repeated the mantra of not being in the housing business at at the first of the L&S open meetings to such an extent that serious consideration was given by some to starting a book on how many times she would say it at the second meeting.

 

Someone must have had a word with her and reminded her that in the three years 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BW stated they would build about 18,000 homes with many being affordable (I am reasonably sure about that figure but the relevant document is no longer on BW's website so I can't check it).

 

In the second meeting she only mentioned that BW was not a housing provider once.

 

I wonder how many of those 18,000 homes were built and are now occupied?

Edited May 21, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Smelly]

 

 

A suitably rapturous ditty for such a momentous day...

[fender]

Browsing through other topics on here, and not taking a position one way or the other, it is unarguable that in areas that provide high employment coupled with high property prices, the waterway has become a housing option. Is that right? Should the inland waterways be a housing alternative? Greater London, Bristol and Bath are prime examples. Are the Lea & Stort, or the western K&A, or the Southern Oxford, cruiseways or provision for houseboats? It is plain that the volume of live aboards in these areas has impacted adversely on those who wish to cruise them for leisure. Do the leisure cruisers have the right to prevail over those who CC over a short stretch of waterway?

 

It does not matter where or what, if the opportunity is there people will take it. If its the waterways, or a new colony on the Moon, Mars, people will go for it. Due to massive population explosions, humans are destined to reach every corner possible, and there is very little that can be done about it, no matter what your beliefs, paradigms or political stances are.

 

The most uninhabitable places are becoming habitable, and the waterways are clearly a very easily habitable place without having to go to extremes. It is high time to have new visions instead of posturing about it because it is clear that no matter what you do or say (or the kleptomaniac organisation that is called BW does) these issues of the 21st century will not be solved easily.

[sociable_hermit]

I have no problem with anyone living on a boat provided they like boats and know what it's all about. By which I mean understanding the lifestyle, making room for people, taking your time, appreciating the environment. It is odd when people move onto boats and then try to change the way the canals work in order to meet their expectations, rather than changing their expectations to match the reality. These folk can be hard work.

 

I do have a particular problem with anyone so selfish that it's one law for them and one for everyone else - blocking visitor moorings for months on end, for example. It's not that common around my normal boating area but I've experienced a fair amount of it on the lower GU and quite frankly I can do without the hassle. Trying to persuade others to do what they should be doing in the first place, i.e. boating with genuine consideration, can be a thankless task. I don't wish to lump everyone into the same category, I'm talking about the small number of idiots who think they deserve sympathy and special treatment ("everybody picks on us 'cos we're different") whilst at the same time making no allowances for anybody else ("it's a free country, innit, so I'll do what I like"). You can't expect to have it both ways. If you're nice, it's likely you'll be treated nicely. If you act like a git, don't whinge when the complaints start coming in, because you had it coming. What makes you so special that the designated 48hr mooring is your God-given right for 48 days?

 

I do think that those with no interest in boating, or the lifestyle and sense of community that goes with it, really ought to be housed elsewhere. How anyone would ever assess or implement that, though, is a different debate entirely. And not one I particularly wish to get embroiled in, either!

 

*gets popcorn*

[Smelly]

 

 

[fender]

I have no problem with anyone living on a boat provided they like boats and know what it's all about. By which I mean understanding the lifestyle, making room for people, taking your time, appreciating the environment. It is odd when people move onto boats and then try to change the way the canals work in order to meet their expectations, rather than changing their expectations to match the reality. These folk can be hard work.

 

I do have a particular problem with anyone so selfish that it's one law for them and one for everyone else - blocking visitor moorings for months on end, for example. It's not that common around my normal boating area but I've experienced a fair amount of it on the lower GU and quite frankly I can do without the hassle. Trying to persuade others to do what they should be doing in the first place, i.e. boating with genuine consideration, can be a thankless task. I don't wish to lump everyone into the same category, I'm talking about the small number of idiots who think they deserve sympathy and special treatment ("everybody picks on us 'cos we're different") whilst at the same time making no allowances for anybody else ("it's a free country, innit, so I'll do what I like"). You can't expect to have it both ways. If you're nice, it's likely you'll be treated nicely. If you act like a git, don't whinge when the complaints start coming in, because you had it coming. What makes you so special that the designated 48hr mooring is your God-given right for 48 days?

 

I do think that those with no interest in boating, or the lifestyle and sense of community that goes with it, really ought to be housed elsewhere. How anyone would ever assess or implement that, though, is a different debate entirely. And not one I particularly wish to get embroiled in, either!

 

*gets popcorn*

 

Your post is another one sided typical moan from the typical boater. Your views are inconsequential compared to the pressure and demand for an increasing populace to be housed. Welcome to the waterways system of the 21st century run by people who want to hold onto old fashioned aspirations. If no-one had rescued the waterways, they'd have all been filled in and become linear housing estates by now with perhaps even more social problems than before.

 

At least the waterways are serving a purpose even if it is not for freight as many had hoped. Look at the waterways and how they began and how they soon changed to become the homes of hundreds of working boat families. That was a major shift that the original canal builders or sponsors had never envisaged. No-one complained about these working boat families but rather sought to accommodate them in the best ways possible. It was the economic situation that forced this upon the canals. There is a new economic and political climate that is forcing similar changes to all areas of society and no doubt the canals will get similarly affected as well.

[starman]

It does not matter where or what, if the opportunity is there people will take it. If its the waterways, or a new colony on the Moon, Mars, people will go for it. Due to massive population explosions, humans are destined to reach every corner possible, and there is very little that can be done about it, no matter what your beliefs, paradigms or political stances are.

 

The most uninhabitable places are becoming habitable, and the waterways are clearly a very easily habitable place without having to go to extremes. It is high time to have new visions instead of posturing about it because it is clear that no matter what you do or say (or the kleptomaniac organisation that is called BW does) these issues of the 21st century will not be solved easily.

 

Just out of curiosity does the same argument apply to lay-bys, parks, Tesco car parks, motorway hard shoulders etc etc?

[Graham Davis]

People don't need or want the facilities. They already have access to facilities. They just want the right to trundle up or down a 40 mile stretch once a year, preferably tracking train and bus routes to work, or good roads (we stay within an hour and a half's drive of my main clients, mostly).

 

It's perfectly unobtrusive and reasonable as it is. Just enforce the rules on the piss-takers, whatever their licence status.

 

 

Like those highlighted!!

 

Charge them 4 or 5 times what they would pay if they kept to the rules!!