More residential moorings

[Gollywobbler]

Hi Sebrof

However, in London's former docks there are vast acres of water which are totally unused.

I've not been further east than St Katharine Dock for about 20 years. When I lived in London in the 1980s, I used to go dinghy sailing in King George V Dock. (Which was so filthy that it inspired one not to capsize the sailing dinghy and get sent for a swim!) I think it was on the Isle of Dogs?

 

Me and my mates went drinking at St Katharine Dock fairly frequently since most of us (including me) worked in the City and St Kats was a lovely place to go for a drink after work. There was a nice pub and somebody like the Cruising Association also had a licenced clubhouse in one of the buildings. They didn't seem to mind people gatecrashing their club bar!

 

Why haven't they developed all of the docks by now, though? As you say, surely the docks would be excellent places for people to develop new residential moorings? I believe that the public transport links to the rest of London are pretty good nowadays?

 

Who owns the as-yet undeveloped Docks, do you know?

 

Many thanks

 

Gill

 

Sorry Gill, I meant the thread that smelly (dan) had started after the 1st one was ended. No biggy. Rob

 

Hi Rob

 

Thanks very much for this.

 

Dan's (Smelly's) thread is here:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=41001&st=

 

I would have absolutely no objection if the Mods want to merge this thread into Smelly's thread and indeed I would not have started this thread if I had known about his. It would probably be a very good idea to merge the two, I reckon.

 

Thanks again for telling me about it.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Edited September 6, 2011 by Gollywobbler

[Ally]

cross referencing with the car insurance thread a moment.....

perhaps if they are going to encourage more liveaboards, they should be telling car insurers to stop discriminating against us!!!

Edited September 6, 2011 by Ally

[sebrof]

Hi Sebrof

 

I've not been further east than St Katharine Dock for about 20 years. When I lived in London in the 1980s, I used to go dinghy sailing in King George V Dock. (Which was so filthy that it inspired one not to capsize the sailing dinghy and get sent for a swim!) I think it was on the Isle of Dogs?

 

Me and my mates went drinking at St Katharine Dock fairly frequently since most of us (including me) worked in the City and St Kats was a lovely place to go for a drink after work. There was a nice pub and somebody like the Cruising Association also had a licenced clubhouse in one of the buildings. They didn't seem to mind people gatecrashing their club bar!

 

Why haven't they developed all of the docks by now, though? As you say, surely the docks would be excellent places for people to develop new residential moorings? I believe that the public transport links to the rest of London are pretty good nowadays?

 

Who owns the as-yet undeveloped Docks, do you know?

 

Many thanks

 

Gill

 

 

I have no idea who owns the water, but should imagine it is the same people who own the land around. In Canary Wharf, where there is a lot of empty water, I expect that the possible income from letting moorings would be a drop in the ocean compared to the land rents, so nobody has bothered.

 

The CA has unfortunately moved out of its (nice, but expensive) premises in St Kat's, and are now to be found in Limehouse. I used to be a member, but it's too far East now.

[AlanH]

Where are all the boats gong to come from? Boatbuilders are going out of business at the moment.

Maybe this will be the renaissance for them.

[Guest wanted]

Where are all the boats gong to come from? Boatbuilders are going out of business at the moment.

Maybe this will be the renaissance for them.

 

Maybe all those Olympic fatty's will become a housing estate in Canary warf?

[NB Alnwick]

Similar topics merged!

 

Of course we can debate this matter sensibly - but will we?

[nb Innisfree]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; for anything to survive it has to evolve, the way things evolve is for it it to come under pressure and the UK waterways are a prime target for this, they will never survive in the long term if they don't change, nothing evolves by trying to stand still and stay the way they are or were, it's impossible.

 

So therefore I think the govt. proposals, in principle, can only be a good thing in the long term.

 

Only my opinion of course.

Edited September 6, 2011 by nb Innisfree

[Burgiesburnin]

Hi Jim

 

At the moment the suggestions from the Govt are extremely vague. They are making a jumble of different suggestions, I reckon. At the moment the inland waterways seem to be the main target but if the ideas work with those then they ought to work with Harbours as well, I suspect.

 

I can help with some of your questions but not all of them. I think the answers are:

 

I think there is an element of "housing subsidy" in that the Govt say they are willing to pay Local Authorities a New Homes Bonus every time the Local Authority grants planning permission for a new residential mooring. Apparently the New Homes Bonus is a cash bung from central govt. Central govt will pay the Local Authority the equivalent of 6 years' worth of council tax for each new residential mooring that the LA facilitate. This will just be a cash carrot to the Local Authorities, in effect.

 

The Government will only pay the residential mooring fees if the occupant of the boat is on a low income with low savings and who therefore qualifies for Housing Benefit.

 

The Government have added a couple of corollaries to this but I'm not sure whether the corollaries are really only red herrings. At the moment, the group at the top of the list for Social Housing are those who count as being "homeless." At the moment, a Local Authority cannot satisfy its statutory duty to house the homeless unless the LA provides suitable, *permanent* bricks & mortar accommodation ashore with mains water, mains electricity and mains drainage - without all 3, the proposed accommodation is not deemed to be "suitable" and the present legislation insists that nothing except bricks & mortar is even potentially "suitable" because no other type of accommodation is also *permanent.*

 

The Govt say that they intend to relax the statutory provisions so that boats or caravans can, in some cases, be deemed to be "suitable accommodation" and presumably they intend to brush aside questions of *permanent* accommodation. Even Council Houses are not going to provide *permanent* accommodation for new tenants, after all.

 

 

Central Govt want to say that it is. The Local Government Association seem to want to say that it isn't.

 

 

No. The Govt has no intention of buying boats itself and it has no intention that Local Authorities should do so either. The idea is that if Smith can't afford to buy a boat of Smith's own but Bloggs (a private landlord) owns a boat that would provide "suitable" accommodation and he offers to rent the boat to Smith then Smith might be able to obtain Housing Benefit in order to help pay the mooring fees for the boat. Also, if Smith is homeless and the boat provides "suitable accommodation" then the Local Authority will have discharged its own duty of care to Smith if it recommends that he should live on the said boat, which Bloggs (the owner) has told the Local Authority about.

 

 

My impression is that the Govt is only concerned with whether or not the boat would provide "suitable accommodation." If the boat can also move around under its own power, I suspect that this feature would be seen an irrelevant optional extra.

 

 

I think this depends who you believe! Personally, I believe that the answer is "yes." However the Government aren't likely to talk their own idea down. The Housing Minister has never lived on a boat. I have. He claims that doing so can be an enriching, rewarding lifestyle. I think it can be - for some people but for someone who doesn't want to do it then the lifestyle would probably be a foretaste of hell.

 

 

The Housing Minister says "Yes." British Waterways say, "Good." The Local Government Association are less sanguine because they don't think that the Local Authorities will necessarily grant Planning Permission for the extra residential moorings that would be needed in order to make any part of the idea work.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

This is great info Gill. Thanks for your time in replying, I really appreciate it.

 

Regards

Jim

[nina]

In the shorterm, if the current liveaboards, legal or not, are given residential status, that's fine but I cannot see how the plan to increase residential moorings is going to be compatible with all parties.

 

For example, I'm a private moorer enjoying the canals for leisure purposes. Am I going to enjoy paying all the fees just to cruise along finding the waterways have now been turned into a little Venice? No I am not. Are all the rest of the private moorers going to enjoy the same? No they are not. Are we are all going to sell our boats and leave the private marinas? Probably. Because for us private moorers, the dynamics will have changed. It won't be the same leisure industry.

So for starters, BW or the new proposed charity will risk losing money from the private marinas and moorers.

Can they afford this? No, not when they've already got a shortfall of 30 million pounds.

 

Unless, they create a balance of limiting the number of people on benefits (because this is not where the profits are going to be made) and making sure the fees all come from, yes you've guessed it, you guys the current liveaboards. In which case, are you going to be herded into the residential marinas where you'll be made to pay double? How long is a piece of string?

 

It sounds like behind the scenes, the government and BW have done a deal to scratch each others backs. The government gets to resolve the current social housing problem while BW gets a way forward to bring in the shortfall in money.

 

Who's going to pay for it? All the liveaboards and moorers. It has to be. How can anyone on benefits or a homeless person afford to buy a boat?

 

And what about the water? Where is enough water going to come from to fill the proposed new residential marinas?? We are in the driest year since 1976.

 

 

Follow the money:-)

[Yellowback]

What's the difference between a residential floating village and a housing estate.

 

They're both fixed areas, they both need connection to services, they both pay council taxes.

 

What's to stop some one in the future deciding that the village leaks, whether it does or not, so he wants to turn the floating village into a housing estate? He's already got residential planning.

 

This then begs the question that if they get that through the planners, is there a precedent set for building on the rest of the fields alongside the canals, etc, etc.

 

Far fetched, probably, but I'd bet that out there some where is some one with the money, and a friend in a funny wig and a black pinny, willing to give it a try.

[cotswoldsman]

I guess as a CCer I am a legal liveaboard and would certainly not want to have a residential or any other type of mooring. I have no problem with more residential moorings as far as I am concerned the more people living on the canals the better I am sure somewhere within the 2,000 miles there is plenty of room.

[journeyperson]

It is the March of Civilization and an indication of how far we have come. The 1961 Parker Morris Standard set out guidlines for living space needs in Homes for Today and Tomorrow. This standard was adopted by local authorities for public housing and by 1969 was mandatory for all public housing.

 

Maggie Thatcher's government abolished it in 1980, hence all the matchboxes that have been built since. Now boat dwelling is going to be encouraged.

 

Why not just cut out the need for pontoons and the ability to float?

 

Edited September 6, 2011 by journeyperson

[nina]

Having read up this afternoon, I think I can see another agenda behind the agenda. BW must have quite a business brain on board and he must have Carol Vorderman sat next to him because the sums are adding up.

 

I believe the original article by Grant Schapps stated that 15,000 people live on the waterways. I have no idea if they are official liveaboards but let's assume they are not, in the majority anyway.

 

No money is going to be made from anyone on benefits so let's leave them out for now.

 

BW is short of money, the welfare budget is also in the red. If 15,000 people living on the canals were given residential status, that's a good earner for marina's, BW and the local council.

If they paid council tax at 50.00 a month, that's 9,000,000 a year. Imagine if they quadrupled this number to 36,000,000, it more than cures BW's shortfall.

 

Marina's will profit and the government coffers will too. There would also be enough self funding revenue to support a number of those requiring social housing.

 

It's an ideal budget. Some might say it's a canal tax.

 

Someone has seen a market for money by making the canals residential. Bit like your average property developer really.

[Smelly]

How can anyone on benefits or a homeless person afford to buy a boat?

 

 

Follow the money:-)

 

They can afford to rent a boat and with NWC it would no longer be HMG juggling money from one pot to another there would be a nett increase in money into the canals pot, rather than under the current situation whereby although licence/moorings/rent can be met with HB, HMG are free to take it ack with budget adjustments.

 

I still don't like mucky fingerprints on my train set mind (well, other than mine ) however on a larger scale it might enable me to continue in my lifestyle; especially when I chip in to help with the maintenance.

 

Is that following the money?

 

 

 

No money is going to be made from anyone on benefits so let's leave them out for now.

 

 

I know I'm repeating myself but under NWC it's a different all game and the budget could well be increased by benefit claimaints...

[heyjude999]

Where I moor we are in a strange position, in that BW have a number of residential moorings with planning permission and will only allow newly vacated moorings that come up residential status (they transfer them from leisure).

 

Having read their policies on residential (a link from a boater on this forum) this completely goes against what they say they want to achieve by offering residential moorings that do come up to current moorers first.

 

Over a period of time 3 of the moorings have gone for tender and are fully utilised as residential and they have all gone for the minimum bid price showing BW that the increased monies they want for residential is just not going to happen, so we cannot understand why they will not let those who want to be residential be residential.

 

Has anyone ever taken BW to task and complained about such a matter as this and what was the outcome?

 

We have asked our local MP to get involved and he has and the RBOA are trying to help us too.

[matty40s]

Having read up this afternoon, I think I can see another agenda behind the agenda. BW must have quite a business brain on board and he must have Carol Vorderman sat next to him because the sums are adding up.

I believe the original article by Grant Schapps stated that 15,000 people live on the waterways. I have no idea if they are official liveaboards but let's assume they are not, in the majority anyway.

No money is going to be made from anyone on benefits so let's leave them out for now.

BW is short of money, the welfare budget is also in the red. If 15,000 people living on the canals were given residential status, that's a good earner for marina's, BW and the local council.

If they paid council tax at 50.00 a month, that's 9,000,000 a year. Imagine if they quadrupled this number to 36,000,000, it more than cures BW's shortfall.

Marina's will profit and the government coffers will too. There would also be enough self funding revenue to support a number of those requiring social housing.

It's an ideal budget. Some might say it's a canal tax.

Someone has seen a market for money by making the canals residential. Bit like your average property developer really.

 

 

I am not sure that this would work anyway. CC'ers like myself, Cotswoldman,Mac of Cynet etc have probably passed through, or moored in 25-100 local authority charging areas this year already, how is any authority or us supposed to work that one out. The fact that we already pay BW to take our rubbish away as part of our licence fee also means I would be rather put out assisting house dwellers to pay for their rubbish collections.

[sebrof]

I am not sure that this would work anyway. CC'ers like myself, Cotswoldman,Mac of Cynet etc have probably passed through, or moored in 25-100 local authority charging areas this year already, how is any authority or us supposed to work that one out. The fact that we already pay BW to take our rubbish away as part of our licence fee also means I would be rather put out assisting house dwellers to pay for their rubbish collections.

 

There are really only two possible scenarios here.

 

First, that the government leans on BW, councils, river and port authorities to provide/allow more residential moorings. This I see as more likely than scenario 2.

 

Second, councils start moving people onto boats. There are so many practical issues with this suggestion that I consider it highly unlikely. The logistics would be alarming.

 

But stranger things have happened.

[matty40s]

There are really only two possible scenarios here.

First, that the government leans on BW, councils, river and port authorities to provide/allow more residential moorings. This I see as more likely than scenario 2.

Second, councils start moving people onto boats. There are so many practical issues with this suggestion that I consider it highly unlikely. The logistics would be alarming.

But stranger things have happened.

 

I am not sure why you quoted me, you're post has no relevance to it. Some boaters do not want residential moorings, in fact, staying in one place is what we don't do.

[Smelly]

There are really only two possible scenarios here.

 

First, that the government leans on BW, councils, river and port authorities to provide/allow more residential moorings. This I see as more likely than scenario 2.

 

 

and make two titchy amendments to the Housing enefit regs to tidy the scheme up in favour of residential use... :hopeful:

 

Some boaters do not want residential moorings, in fact, staying in one place is what we don't do.

 

Surely you're not griping at more residential moorings made free for those that do?

[matty40s]

Surely you're not griping at more residential moorings made free for those that do?

 

no, however, Nina c is staing that there are 15000 livaboards and should be residential status, ie moorings, and sebrof says there are only two scenarios available.........

 

none of which fits in with the rest of us's way of life.

[nina]

If you break down the benefit system into categories,

 

1. Retired ......would they want to live on a boat?

 

2. Disabled.......probably not practical.

 

3. Single parents with numerous children....... unlikely to be easy or convenient.

 

4. Long term sick leave .........not sure.

 

5. Unemployed.........maybe.

 

6. Students......not enough night life.

 

7. Low income families......again, probably not practical.

 

I can't see the idea of increasing residential moorings to ease the social housing crisis as the main agenda. I think that's just a sweetener. My guess is that the initial plan is to herd people (by dangling the carrot of residential status on the lure of perceived secure tenure) into marinas but further down the track to develop the canals further as a residential development on water.

By doing this, they would raise a considerable revenue in the long term.

 

It could take off and could free up dry land private housing for social housing if people want to live on water. It's really only going to appeal to those who would like to try the waterways life.

[Midnight Rider]

 

BW is short of money, the welfare budget is also in the red. If 15,000 people living on the canals were given residential status, that's a good earner for marina's, BW and the local council.

If they paid council tax at 50.00 a month, that's 9,000,000 a year. Imagine if they quadrupled this number to 36,000,000, it more than cures BW's shortfall.

 

Not sure that I understand this. 'IF' 15k people lived on the waterways, that would not mean 15k boats.

 

Not all of those who live on water would want a residential mooring.

 

What good does Council Tax do for the coffers of B.W.?

[nina]

no, however, Nina c is staing that there are 15000 livaboards and should be residential status, ie moorings, and sebrof says there are only two scenarios available.........

 

none of which fits in with the rest of us's way of life.

 

No, Grant Schapps said 15,000 people currently live on water. I used his figure as a rough guide as to what income could be expected if some or all became residential.

It's not difficult to imagine why they can see a pot of gold when obtaining residential status is in so much demand.

[nina]

Not sure that I understand this. 'IF' 15k people lived on the waterways, that would not mean 15k boats.

 

Not all of those who live on water would want a residential mooring.

 

What good does Council Tax do for the coffers of B.W.?

 

No, but with offers of residential status, you may soon have 1,000's of boats which will affect us all regardless of whether you're a CC, happy hiker on the towpath,or private moorer.

You need some forward thinking. The government and BW need money. Both are businesses trying to stay afloat (excuse the pun). The easiest way to bring in the income is to free up more residential moorings at which point the local authority (aka planning) also gain because they will charge you council tax. BW, the government and local authority all gain.

[Smelly]

 

none of which fits in with the rest of us's way of life.

 

Fair play...

 

I see a worrying correlation between the 15000 residential boats reported by RBOA in their paper on "security of tenure for residential boats" to John Prescott when he was DPM; and the 15000 residential boaters that are reported.

 

If the RBOA "guestimate" was anywhere near close in the mid nineties it will be a lot more than that now. The RBOA report included lumpy water; I doubt the Schnapps comment included sea going boats (although I wouldn't dismiss it).