Trustees and Council give green light for mooring rules

[jenlyn]

Would anyone on here be interested in attending a public meeting with john dodwell? another boater has arranged it and john dodwell is happy to attend. He is leaving a date and place up to us.

[Chris Pink]

 

As to the latter, how about the following:

 

Divide the network/country up into zones or area’s, a bit like a typical city bus zone system. Make all the boundaries fall at a particular lock. Monitor that lock either with a CaRT employee or camera and register every passage (It wouldn’t need that many crossing points, I am thinking maybe 10 or so zones, so not much staffing). Then state how many days weeks or months any CCer is allowed to spend in any given zone in any given year. Say for example, 90 days total in any given zone, that would ensure good geographical movement but still give lots of flexibility to suit everyone’s lifestyle. The 90 days would not have to be in one block so it would allow for lots of visits to the same zone or one longish period.

 

Such a system is capable of easy and varied fine tuning, would be absolute and easy to police.

 

?

 

problem is, see, there's a number of laws that say exactly under what conditions someone can operate a boat on the waterways. Just because you don't like how one bunch chooses to operate within that law doesn't mean you can make up rules to stop them that ignore that law.

 

The reason BW CRT doesn't go back to parliament, I would contend, is that they know exactly what parliament intended in 1995 and it would be futile to ask for the same things that were refused then.

 

 

 

..

Edited October 28, 2012 by Chris Pink

[Higgs]

You suggest then a prosecution for the activity the canal was specifically built for?

 

And a boat, moored in a marina that comes out every Friday, cruises to the next town 4 miles away and returns to the marina on sunday? Is this bona fide navigation?

 

 

 

I am trying to find out what you mean by 'navigation'. Nothing to do with licensing.

 

 

I should think that any waterway suitable for boats is navigable. It allows the passage of boats. Distance a boat travels a navigable waterway is neither here nor there to define which is navigating a waterway or not navigating by virtue of the short distances travelled.

 

I'd say that 4 miles is as good any to define navigation.

[Paul C]

You suggest then a prosecution for the activity the canal was specifically built for?

 

And a boat, moored in a marina that comes out every Friday, cruises to the next town 4 miles away and returns to the marina on sunday? Is this bona fide navigation?

 

 

 

I am trying to find out what you mean by 'navigation'. Nothing to do with licensing.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone is prosecuted in your example. I'm also not the one which defines "bona fide navigation" - this is in the British Waterways Act 1995 and an interpretation is given by C&RT.

[Joshua]

problem is, see, there's a number of laws that say exactly under what conditions someone can operate a boat on the waterways. Just because you don't like how one bunch chooses to operate within that law doesn't mean you can make up rules to stop them that ignore that law.

 

The reason BW CRT doesn't go back to parliament, I would contend, is that they know exactly what parliament intended in 1995 and it would be futile to ask for the same things that were refused then.

 

 

 

..

 

I thought it was because they are not exact that we are having this debate?

[George94]

You've lost me, I'm afraid.

 

What John, I, or anybody else can do or actually do isn't relevant to the debate is it ?

 

You are expressing a view that to comply with being a boater that has no home mooring one needs to cover say 200 miles a year.

 

But at the end of the day, it is just your view, nothing more.

 

It hardly gives a basis for CRT to take someone to court if they can be demonstrated to have only covered 150 miles, does it ?

 

EDITED TO ADD:

 

I'm sure I could Google it, but who is Lord Copper ?

 

Please read what I said before. A view had been expressed that C&RT would regard moving 18 miles in a year as being compliant with Section 17 (3) © (ii)

of the 1995 Act. I was simply pointing out that if C&RT were to use miles travelled per year as a definition of continuous navigation, then 200 miles would be more likely than 18.

 

I don't personally believe that miles travelled is the best way to deal with the perceived problem, and I agree with all the points you have made. I don't think there is any need to labour this particular point any further.

 

Lord Copper was the overbearing newspaper magnate in Waugh's novel "Scoop". When his underlings agreed with him they said "Definitely, Lord Copper". When they didn't, they said "Up to a point".

 

Waugh, as I am sure you know, was the author of "Brideshead Revisited". And no, I am not suggesting that you are overbearing in the least.

[George94]

problem is, see, there's a number of laws that say exactly under what conditions someone can operate a boat on the waterways. Just because you don't like how one bunch chooses to operate within that law doesn't mean you can make up rules to stop them that ignore that law.

 

The reason BW CRT doesn't go back to parliament, I would contend, is that they know exactly what parliament intended in 1995 and it would be futile to ask for the same things that were refused then.

..

 

There is only one law that is pertinent to this matter, and that is the British Waterways Act 1995.

 

What it says is:

 

the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

"Relevant consent" means licence.

"One place" means different things to different people!

 

Around those few words a great edifice was constructed by BW. The words are vague and open to differing interpretations because (in my view) Parliament knew what a can of worms was involved in trying to define how a berthless vessel should be used, and decided to duck the issue.

 

I thought it was because they are not exact that we are having this debate?

 

Exactly. See above.

Edited October 28, 2012 by George94

[Chris Pink]

is the river full yet?

You would think so, no, after 210 years or so.

 

I thought it was because they are not exact that we are having this debate?

 

I don't agree, they are exact and clear, drawn up over 7 years after much debate.

 

That BW didn't get precisely what they initially demanded they have spent the next 17 years trying to subvert the letter of the law.

 

Obviously managing to confuse people like yourself along the way that this game of definitions is the way to secure the canals how you would like them.

 

There is only one law that is pertinent to this matter, and that is the British Waterways Act 1995.

 

Exactly. See above.

 

 

Exactly. See above.

[Lady Muck]

Why are on-line moorings a problem? The problem with the Shropshire Union Canal is lack of 14 day moorings.

 

I agree. We didn't moor on any of the vm's, anyhow we wanted to spend 3-6 days moored up each time between moving. So we moored away from the vm's (which means bashing your hull against the Shroppie shelf).

 

It would be such a shame if all the vm's went 48 hours - ok not such a problem on some canals where you can get a boat in to the side but a big problem on others.

[adam1uk]

I'm sure I could Google it, but who is Lord Copper ?

 

He's the newspaper proprietor in Evelyn Waugh's Scoop. The Foreign Editor isn't brave enough to openly disagree with him, so instead of saying "no", he says "Up to a point, Lord Copper".

[Sir Nibble]

A boat loads stone at Sir John knill's wharf takes it to the river at Bath, 3 miles away and returns empty. It makes this trip on average 5 times a week.

 

In your opinion is this bona fide for navigation?

It certainly is. The boat is being used for navigation, primarily in the movement of stone from one place to another five times a week but that is an awful long way from doing the same trip once a fortnight where the primary use of the boat is to stay alongside as a home and the navigation is an irksome duty. I don't think distance is the thing. Bona fide for navigation in my interpretation means navigating because one wants to and taking what oppertunity one can to do so, as opposed to navigating because time's up and it's time to move to ones other address for a fortnight. In your marina based scenario, one 4 mile trip in a year because the boater WANTS to boat and for no other reason is more bona fide than 24 short trips in a year because the boater has to move like it or not. Your example shows a boat moving 15 miles per week, that level of movement would pass any test I am sure.

[Chris Pink]

Exactly my point Sir

 

Strangely enough also the opinion of the judge in Mr Davies case

 

I think you'll also find that most of the boaters listed as a 'problem' on this thread would agree also.

 

Paul Davies decided to argue a point that turned out to be wrong but, as do often happens, in doing so he painted himself into a corner where he ignored Ratty's observation.

 

There is only one law that is pertinent to this matter, and that is the British Waterways Act 1995.

 

you are wrong about that. There are several laws that apply. CRT place much store in the 1962 Waterways Act Section 43 to try and justify their (mis)management of GU moorings.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Chris Pink

[Joshua]

...............

I don't agree, they are exact and clear, drawn up over 7 years after much debate.

 

That BW didn't get precisely what they initially demanded they have spent the next 17 years trying to subvert the letter of the law.

 

Obviously managing to confuse people like yourself along the way that this game of definitions is the way to secure the canals how you would like them.

 

 

 

 

Exactly. See above.

 

The trouble is Chris, there are lots of people who think the rules are very clear, they just don’t all share your interpretation of what that is, I don't believe they are all merely ‘confused’.

 

The huge controversy raging about this issue is proof in itself that the rules are not exact. Surely a law can only be defined as clear if the vast majority of people share an understanding of it.

 

 

[George94]

you are wrong about that. There are several laws that apply. CRT place much store in the 1962 Waterways Act Section 43 to try and justify their (mis)management of GU moorings.

 

I said there was only one law "pertinent to this matter" - this matter being the definition of continuous cruising. Section 43 of the '62 Act is irrelevant in this context.

[Chris Pink]

I said there was only one law "pertinent to this matter" - this matter being the definition of continuous cruising. Section 43 of the '62 Act is irrelevant in this context.

 

I refer you to the topic title.

[George94]

The trouble is Chris, there are lots of people who think the rules are very clear, they just don’t all share your interpretation of what that is, I don't believe they are all merely ‘confused’.

 

The huge controversy raging about this issue is proof in itself that the rules are not exact. Surely a law can only be defined as clear if the vast majority of people share an understanding of it.

 

 

There are a great many people who would like to know exactly what the rules mean. It is great that Chris knows, and no doubt he will be happy to tell us.

[Ray]

We keep our boat in a marina. We indicate the whereabouts of that marina on our licence renewal form. We therefore have, as I understand it, a home mooring.

 

To the best of my knowledge because I declare a home mooring I have no restriction placed on me as to where, when or how much boat movement I make (if indeed I make any) provided that if, when cruising, I comply with any restrictions regarding the amount of time I remain moored up away from the marina. I could, I believe, quite legitimately moor on one side of a bridge for 13 days and then move to the other side of the bridge for another 13 days and I would not be breaching any conditions (assuming that the places that I moored didn't have more restrictive mooring time allowances).

 

As far as I can interpret what has been said here and what the act contains, it is only people who do not declare a home mooring that are expected to (shall we say) move a little further than I have to between two consecutive mooring places.

 

There are day hire (and trip) boats operating from the marina where I moor. These boats return to the boatyard at the end of each trip (and sometimes don't venture out of the boatyard). The have a home mooring and are allowed to do this.

 

One presumes that if someone with no declared home mooring was able to find a friendly marina who didn't charge them for mooring for (say) several months without moving, they would not be infringing the act because they wouldn''t be moored on-line.

[George94]

I refer you to the topic title.

 

And I refer you to the discussion in the thread.

[Leni]

Would anyone on here be interested in attending a public meeting with john dodwell? another boater has arranged it and john dodwell is happy to attend. He is leaving a date and place up to us.

Yes.

[sueb]

Has anyone any idea what happened to the group that formed on the GU several years ago? Bags comes to mind but I could be wrong. This subject comes up regularly and I had files going back at least 20 years with all the same arguments. I called it Sally's job creation scheme.

[cotswoldsman]

We keep our boat in a marina. We indicate the whereabouts of that marina on our licence renewal form. We therefore have, as I understand it, a home mooring.

 

To the best of my knowledge because I declare a home mooring I have no restriction placed on me as to where, when or how much boat movement I make (if indeed I make any) provided that if, when cruising, I comply with any restrictions regarding the amount of time I remain moored up away from the marina. I could, I believe, quite legitimately moor on one side of a bridge for 13 days and then move to the other side of the bridge for another 13 days and I would not be breaching any conditions (assuming that the places that I moored didn't have more restrictive mooring time allowances).

 

As far as I can interpret what has been said here and what the act contains, it is only people who do not declare a home mooring that are expected to (shall we say) move a little further than I have to between two consecutive mooring places.

 

There are day hire (and trip) boats operating from the marina where I moor. These boats return to the boatyard at the end of each trip (and sometimes don't venture out of the boatyard). The have a home mooring and are allowed to do this.

 

One presumes that if someone with no declared home mooring was able to find a friendly marina who didn't charge them for mooring for (say) several months without moving, they would not be infringing the act because they wouldn''t be moored on-line.

 

What Act are you reading that says that?

 

 

 

 

 

Cotswoldman admits that he moves slowly, and still managed to clock up over 300 miles last year, so I don't think my suggestion of 200 (allowing for slow progress in winter) is too far off the mark.

 

Ah but next year I might only do 100 miles, everyone is different. The year I went to the Lancaster canal I was restricted to the 25 mile length of the Canal.

[Pykebird]

Yes Jenlyn, I have just read this topic and think its a good idea.The problem will be getting people to "put their money where their mouth is" and actually bother to attend! I am fed up with people moaning about this and other subjects but when you suggest they go to a meeting to discuss it they are not interested, they would rather just moan! In fact we offered to give a lift to the last user group one to 2 people, both of whom refused!

We stand more chance of being listened to if we join forces and get our camp in order, sorry rant over

[cotswoldsman]

Would anyone on here be interested in attending a public meeting with john dodwell? another boater has arranged it and john dodwell is happy to attend. He is leaving a date and place up to us.

 

Is this meeting just for CCers?

[matty40s]

Would anyone on here be interested in attending a public meeting with john dodwell? another boater has arranged it and john dodwell is happy to attend. He is leaving a date and place up to us.

 

Yes, I would love to attend,....

 

 

pLease can we arrange it at the water point in about three weeks when I am close to running out and need to get rid of all these black bin bags of rubbish..

Edited October 29, 2012 by matty40s

[alan_fincher]

Is this meeting just for CCers?

It seems that (Peter) Novascotianboy has billed it that way in his other thread, but Steve (Jenlyn) had already suggested I try and attend, which I certainly intend to, if I can, unless Peter indicates he wants it to be exclusive to live-aboards..

 

I think it is short-sighted to assume that some of the current proposals are only aimed at making like difficult for CC-ers ("compliant" or otherwise). Whatever the intentions, I can see the result could be otherwise.

 

Certainly I can see issues for people like me who don't live-aboard. Even though my normal boating pattern means I seldom tie up anywhere for more than a day or two, it certainly doesn't mean I never need to.