Canal & River Trust’s mooring guidance endorsed by the High Court

[Lady Muck]

Well I think Brown should be given a medal, and possibly police protection. I also think that despite the fears of some, if any attempt is ever made to curtail the freedom of CCers to cruise the waterways, needing no mooring and living on their boats then this forum and the wider boating fraternity would rise as one to oppose it. I do my boating in the much quoted western K&A and I can tell you that there were short term visitor moorings taken over for residential use even to the extent of having boat names painted on them. Due to the spotlight put on the issue in recent years this is no longer the case and the local liveaboards are little if any bother bar one or two total twats. The people responsible for these abuses are the enemy of the boater with no home mooring, by their selfish actions they have brought this nemesis down upon the wider floating community who by and large keep a low profile and use the waterway sensitively. By making cause with the senseless selfish and treating the entire system as a drooling retard Mr Brown has now comprehensively shafted a lot of good people who fundamentally do no harm.

 

Way to go superman.

 

I'm in two minds about what he's done. Half of me says, 'yes the guidance needs testing,' and I agree with Jenlyn on that, but the other half says, 'but some of the reasons he's given are just so daft, for instance how can you compare being a liveaboard to having protection for your religious beliefs?. Isn't this a dangerous game to play? The conspiraloon in me thinks that the CRT paid him to do this and he's undercover and I agree it could all go so horribly wrong for those, 'good people' as you say.

Anyway, there will always be a small minority who take liberties. Ware Visitor mooring (in Ware town centre on the Lee) has just been 'taken over' by one of these. They've moored thier boat there, fenced it off, added a gate and removed the visitor mooring sign! Mental! It's up there with the man who decided to build a narrowboat entirely out of non-marine ply on the GU towpath a few years ago.

My partner reckons the waterways often encourage a 'pioneer spirit' in new boaters who just discovered them, they do these things because they think they're the first person to discover this place and, 'why didn't no one think of doing this before?'

[Sir Nibble]

A lot aren't interested in the "I pay for a mooring so CCers should pay more" policy. Just thought I'd add a little balance and understanding. Maybe you could change the word 'most' to 'some', in the future.

 

And, why should you think that only a CC'er could appreciate the characters we have around the cut. You use alot of language that is simply very biased. I don't think that comments made on here, about certain problems with other CC'ers, are generally a figment of the imagination. On what basis for any higher degree of authenticity can your comments provide. I would say non, but neither dismissed.

Worth pointing out I think that cruising into an area, staying a week or so and moving on all you see is moored boats, you don't see moored boats that never move apart from the occasional weekend cruise taking up prime moorings for months or years on end with no one living aboard just saving themselves the cost of a mooring moving every 14 weeks if you're lucky and always returning to the same "home mooring". So you see no problem where local boaters see entire stretches of nicely piled bank where it is actually possible to get alongside effectively pinched and turned into a free marina.

[John V]

Well I think Brown should be given a medal, and possibly police protection. I also think that despite the fears of some, if any attempt is ever made to curtail the freedom of CCers to cruise the waterways, needing no mooring and living on their boats then this forum and the wider boating fraternity would rise as one to oppose it. I do my boating in the much quoted western K&A and I can tell you that there were short term visitor moorings taken over for residential use even to the extent of having boat names painted on them. Due to the spotlight put on the issue in recent years this is no longer the case and the local liveaboards are little if any bother bar one or two total twats. The people responsible for these abuses are the enemy of the boater with no home mooring, by their selfish actions they have brought this nemesis down upon the wider floating community who by and large keep a low profile and use the waterway sensitively. By making cause with the senseless selfish and treating the entire system as a drooling retard Mr Brown has now comprehensively shafted a lot of good people who fundamentally do no harm.

 

Way to go superman.

 

 

I'm sorry but I have read this entry through carefully three times and I still can't work out where you are coming from or going to

Edited November 20, 2012 by John V

[Tuscan]

So where do we think the people who currently get worked up most about "non-compliant CCers" are expecting these 28 day "roving" mooring sites to be created ?

 

I think I have heard the proposal of "not more than 10 boats at each", (maybe I'm imagining, but I don't think so?), so we are going to need a lot of them aren't we, if it is really to take the pressure off other places?

 

And surely they'll need to be in places that presumably don't upset the "non rovers", but where the "rovers" will actually be happy to sojourn, and not see as some kind of "ghetto"?

 

And, if we allow them to stay for 28 days, rather than a current max of 14, then presumably it will be judged by some "non rovers" that that is quite a perk? So they will expect to be seeing these people charged a fair amount additional for their "roving permit", will they not? Or they will still be complaining that they are getting something either cheaply, (or, worse still, if free!), that others have to pay heavily for.

 

So how many of the current non-compliant CC-ers do we judge might actually be happy to pay, (for I presume they would need to be charged significantly), to stay longer, but at places the "non rovers" would judge as not being key locations that they do not wish to see taken over for such purpose?

 

I think this will be a very interesting debate, but I'm far from convinced it is a "solution"!

 

 

 

 

I think a bit like Alan (sorry if i'm wrong) I consider myself a quasi CC'er by that I mean that i have a marina mooring but actually CC for around continously in the summer. Whilst I can afford it and its getting tough I will continue to do this.

 

I am a bit confused where this only have to move 30kms a year has come from however if that is now accepted as the new reality then I think all the pontificating is pointless and CRT should review enforcement just to cover the hot spot visitor moorings and spend any money saved on infrastructure and dredging. I may consider coming out of the marina next year but moor opposite so that I can continue to use the facilities as the near £3k saved on my 72' will come in handy but security keeps me there at the moment. Assuming CRT does nothing and the number of residential towpath boaters continue to increase so the competition for more rural moorings will also increase I expect.

 

i had hoped to be a full time CC'er in the next 12-24months but if we just get new regulations that penalise the already "law abiding" CC'ers who cruise in what I consider to be the spirit of CC'ing and those that choose to ignore the exisiting regulations will continue to flaunt any new ones I am not sure that I will.

[Phoenix_V]

So where do we think the people who currently get worked up most about "non-compliant CCers" are expecting these 28 day "roving" mooring sites to be created ?

 

I think I have heard the proposal of "not more than 10 boats at each", (maybe I'm imagining, but I don't think so?), so we are going to need a lot of them aren't we, if it is really to take the pressure off other places?

 

And surely they'll need to be in places that presumably don't upset the "non rovers", but where the "rovers" will actually be happy to sojourn, and not see as some kind of "ghetto"?

 

And, if we allow them to stay for 28 days, rather than a current max of 14, then presumably it will be judged by some "non rovers" that that is quite a perk? So they will expect to be seeing these people charged a fair amount additional for their "roving permit", will they not? Or they will still be complaining that they are getting something either cheaply, (or, worse still, if free!), that others have to pay heavily for.

 

So how many of the current non-compliant CC-ers do we judge might actually be happy to pay, (for I presume they would need to be charged significantly), to stay longer, but at places the "non rovers" would judge as not being key locations that they do not wish to see taken over for such purpose?

 

I think this will be a very interesting debate, but I'm far from convinced it is a "solution"!

 

Its BWs idea not mine 28 day roving moorings. There is clearly little or no room in East London, Hertford and much of the Stort but elsewhere in the London area it would be doable. presumably chargeable to cover at least the management costs. I would rather see online towpath moorings like they have in your neck of the woods but ms Ash has inexplicably ruled this out.

 

The problem, as I see it, is what does that mean?

 

As I said in a previous post, even CRT, the IWA, RBOA, etc, all seem to be accepting now that if a boat has moved on some relatively small amount every year, (lets arbitrarily say at least 30Km, although a lot of time the distance being talked about is actually less!), then it has complied with the act. BW, and now CRT, have continued to water down their interpretation of the act, presumably because they accept that they couldn't guarantee to win any court case based on the older interpretations?

 

So it seems to me, (though I'm sure others will violently disagree!), that BW have no powers when somebody makes a completely new license application, with a "no home mooring" declaration, to actually refuse it, and can subsequently only legally enforce to the level of however the underlying act can be interpreted.

 

That may not be what many people would like to be the situation, but it seems to me to be broadly what the actual reality is.

 

So, if we allow a new boat on the system, and it progressively moves on (arbitrarily) 30Km every year, it is "complying", and does it mean no enforcement action needs considering? In real terms, if we consider what people are describing as "the CM-er problem", what huge difference does that make - compared to if it actually moves on far less, or not even at all?

 

Perhaps I'm missing something here?

 

I agree in so far as the present population is concerned if they just move around they still occupy the same number of slots as if they didnt move at all, better they have cheap towpath or 28 day roving moorings. For newcomers if they move 30km per year (and I think more would be justified) they will eventually depart the hotspots of East London the Stort and upper Lea which is the area where congested mooring is the big problem in the south east.

 

Like it or not whether or not the ccers cmers or shiny boaters are the cause these areas are congested and some form of rationing is needed.

[alan_fincher]

I am a bit confused where this only have to move 30kms a year has come from however if that is now accepted as the new reality then I think all the pontificating is pointless and CRT should review enforcement just to cover the hot spot visitor moorings and spend any money saved on infrastructure and dredging. I may consider coming out of the marina next year but moor opposite so that I can continue to use the facilities as the near £3k saved on my 72' will come in handy but security keeps me there at the moment. Assuming CRT does nothing and the number of residential towpath boaters continue to increase so the competition for more rural moorings will also increase I expect.

Without re-quoting all the previous attempts to establish actual numbers, I believe we have established about as accurately as we can that CRT are claiming the following, (some is repeated in the quote below, anyway).......

 

Total CRT boat licences: Circa 34,000

Of those - Total licences declared as "no home mooring", (aka "CC-ers") 4,400

Of those - Total believed to move less than 10Km per year 2,000 (yes honestly - and John Dodwell has openly stated that!...)

Of those - Total believed to move less than 5Km per year, (or not at all) 1,000 (These seem to be the only ones that serious enforcement action is being claimed against, based on answers we have flushed out).

 

So, taken on that basis, actually moving in excess of 10Km seems to currently be being treated by CRT as not needing to be the subject of enforcement. Let me repeat that just 10 KILOMETERS OR MORE!

 

So I actually think my arbitrary 30Km was being over generous, (as I actually said!) - nobody in anything I have seen recently has yet set the bar that high!

 

At the moment I see CRT, the IWA and RBOA all cosying up together, and making positive statements that they endorse "solutions", but all they are actually doing just agreeing that if some token enforcement is done against "worst offenders", then a tick can go in the box, and it is "problem solved".

 

Read again carefully this RBOA press announcement for example, and study what they have actually implied in their words - the only way they can actually be interpreted, in fact.

 

We are pleased that CRT is improving its data input to help identify the extent of the problem. Of the 34,000 (all approximate figures recorded June 2012) boats licensed on their waterways 4,400 are declared as CC. Of these approx. 2,000 have been recorded as, in the opinion of CRT, not moving a minimum distance to justify CC. That is a significant number, although it does not justify the ‘nearly all.’ comments that we hear; the 2,400 who follow CC responsibly and legally are entitled to follow their chosen life style without harassment from other waterways users.

 

What RBOA have said there is if you actually move more than 10Km in a year, you are a responsible CC-er who is cruising legally, and do not need to be hassled by CRT.

 

So are all those who complain about low moving (or no moving) CC-ers suddenly going to stop complaining if it could be demonstrated all were suddenly being persuaded to move on at least 10Km per year? You bet your life they are not all going to be suddenly placated, are they?

 

I don't seem to be able to adequately convey in a way that people understand why I think a lot of nonsense is being talked in much of the current blustering by CRT and some of the associations. But I remain convinced they are all patting themselves on the back about "solutions" that are in fact not "solution" at all.

Edited November 20, 2012 by alan_fincher

[Lady Muck]

Like it or not whether or not the ccers cmers or shiny boaters are the cause these areas are congested and some form of rationing is needed.

I would say that since Roydon marina opened the moorings on the Lee and Stort are really not enough - (try boating on a sunny weekend and see what I mean) and have actually been reduced - you cannot moor at Amwell as they've dicovered a gas main and you cannot moor above Lower Lock as they've put reeds in. As well as better sharing of space we need a push for better moorings - maximising the space that we do have (like on the Shroppie). Not everyone is happy to moor halfway out into the middle of the river and balance on a plank. I guess the Stort has a little bit in common with the K&A in that respect (although I've never been there).

Just the same as it's been said, 'we can't keep filling up the canal with boats,' I think we haven't considered the impact of filling the canal up with more marinas. Especially not on a river navigation.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Lady Muck

[matty40s]

Its BWs idea not mine 28 day roving moorings. There is clearly little or no room in East London, Hertford and much of the Stort but elsewhere in the London area it would be doable.

For newcomers if they move 30km per year (and I think more would be justified) they will eventually depart the hotspots of East London the Stort and upper Lea which is the area where congested mooring is the big problem in the south east.

 

 

I was part of the research group that investigated BW's alleged "congestion" on the Lee and Stort Navigation in 2010. There is actually VERY little congestion over very large stretches of the L&S, boats are crammed into a couple of hotspots.

I cruised the entire L&S in the month following the BW Moorings Proposals publication, and the only times I was unable to moor anywhere (especially on lock landings), was because BW boats were moored there.

I took pictures of the supposed "congestion" and it didn't exist, Stanstead Abbots was the only pretty full area, however, I could moor.

There was 1 boat at Bishops Stortford(but not on the VM), 2 at Hertford, and a couple at Ware. There were quite a few at Stonebridge Lock, but the shiny boats don't like mooring there anyway.

[churchward]

Without re-quoting all the previous attempts to establish actual numbers, I believe we have established about as accurately as we can that CRT are claiming the following, (some is repeated in the quote below, anyway).......

 

Total CRT boat licences: Circa 34,000

Of those - Total licences declared as "no home mooring", (aka "CC-ers") 4,400

Of those - Total believed to move less than 10Km per year 2,000 (yes honestly - and John Dodwell has openly stated that!...)

Of those - Total believed to move less than 5Km per year, (or not at all) 1,000 (These seem to be the only ones that serious enforcement action is being claimed against, based on answers we have flushed out).

 

So, taken on that basis, actually moving in excess of 10Km seems to currently be being treated by CRT as not needing to be the subject of enforcement. Let me repeat that just 10 KILOMETERS OR MORE!

 

So I actually think my arbitrary 30Km was being over generous, (as I actually said!) - nobody in anything I have seen recently has yet set the bar that high!

 

At the moment I see CRT, the IWA and RBOA all cosying up together, and making positive statements that they endorse "solutions", but all they are actually doing just agreeing that if some token enforcement is done against "worst offenders", then a tick can go in the box, and it is "problem solved".

 

Read again carefully this RBOA press announcement for example, and study what they have actually implied in their words - the only way they can actually be interpreted, in fact.

 

 

 

What RBOA have said there is if you actually move more than 10Km in a year, you are a responsible CC-er who is cruising legally, and do not need to be hassled by CRT.

 

So are all those who complain about low moving (or no moving) CC-ers suddenly going to stop complaining if it could be demonstrated all were suddenly being persuaded to move on at least 10Km per year? You bet your life they are not all going to be suddenly placated, are they?

 

I don't seem to be able to adequately convey in a way that people understand why I think a lot of nonsense is being talked in much of the current blustering by CRT and some of the associations. But I remain convinced they are all patting themselves on the back about "solutions" that are in fact not "solution" at all.

I understand what you are saying but the CRT definition of valid CCing is not just about the distance covered is it. There are other factors too such as time spent in one place and the interval between returns to that place.

 

If the various bodies do not have a "real" solution what is yours?

 

Personally I do think it is possible for people to genuinely continue to CC within the license conditions that have now been "tested" in court. CRT as the authority need now to make sure that people abide by them. This will mean better enforcement than previously.

 

I am all in favour of those that want to cruise the system. I am not in favour of those that want to twist the rules to suit their own ends and abuse the system because they don't want to pay for their choice of lifestyle. Of course those unable to pay due to hardship is another matter and those need to be helped.

[mayalld]

Run out of greenies Nibs so you'll have to have a virtual one....

 

I would have given one on your behalf, but as I've given one on my own behalf, I can't.

[Lady Muck]

I was part of the research group that investigated BW's alleged "congestion" on the Lee and Stort Navigation in 2010. There is actually VERY little congestion over very large stretches of the L&S, boats are crammed into a couple of hotspots.

I cruised the entire L&S in the month following the BW Moorings Proposals publication, and the only times I was unable to moor anywhere (especially on lock landings), was because BW boats were moored there.

I took pictures of the supposed "congestion" and it didn't exist, Stanstead Abbots was the only pretty full area, however, I could moor.

There was 1 boat at Bishops Stortford(but not on the VM), 2 at Hertford, and a couple at Ware. There were quite a few at Stonebridge Lock, but the shiny boats don't like mooring there anyway.

 

TBH Matty, we did have more difficulty than usual this summer, of course you can moor pretty much anywhere on some bits and much of the Lee is totally empty, great if you want to moor, 'middle of nowhere' and we usually do, but I was supposed to get a train from Stanstead Abbots this summer and we couldn't find anywhere to moor until we got towards Ware and even then we ended up mooring somewhere not really suitable - had to use a plank, couldn't get into the side properly, couldn't get pins in so had to tie to the wooden shuttering which is not good.

Didn't bother going into Hertford as I'd been there on the train and it was full and on the Stort, although I don't think it's congested, there just aren't enough decent moorings (as in you can get a boat in and get on and off without a plank) for the amount of boats of all types that want to cruise there. It's only this year we've had difficulty. There was nowhere all the way through Sawbo, ended up tied to a railing of a towpath overbridge and wobbling about. When we got up the next morning a couple of short boats had had to jam in the tiny gap infront of us, guess they were stuck as well. As I said before, a few 'Shroppie-esque' improvements would remove any 'congestion' 'problem' rather than the reality which is planting reeds everywhere and taking moorings away.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Lady Muck

[Phoenix_V]

Ware Visitor mooring (in Ware town centre on the Lee) has just been 'taken over' by one of these. They've moored thier boat there, fenced it off, added a gate and removed the visitor mooring sign! Mental! I

I wondered about that, there were 2 boats there a while ago one had a "permission given to stay" BW sticker, the other had fenced off the mooring and I wasnt quite sure whether that was part of the visitor mooring.

Its unnecessary too there are plenty of towpath moorings in Ware.

[Sir Nibble]

I'm sorry but I have read this entry through carefully three times and I still can't work out where you are coming from or going to

OK to clarify.

 

Knobs were taking the piss so much as to become a real problem and were actually stealing moorings for their own exclusive use and even having the neck to advertise the fact.

 

BW put a spotlight on the issue and began to deal with it (K&A moorings "consultation" Davies case).

 

The liveaboard boaters with no home moorings, most of whom were not part of the problem and BW began a slow ballet of campaign and counter campaign drifting slowly towards a compromise.

 

Nick Brown leaps to the defence of the knobs and loses resulting in the undermining of all the work done by the liveaboard community and renders compromise obsolete overnight, empowering CaRT to turn the screws right down as much as they wish.

[alan_fincher]

I understand what you are saying but the CRT definition of valid CCing is not just about the distance covered is it. There are other factors too such as time spent in one place and the interval between returns to that place.

 

If the various bodies do not have a "real" solution what is yours?

I'm not claiming to have a "solution" - but equally a lot of people seem to have difficulty defining the "problem" too.

 

It however seems to me that CRT are rapidly backing off to a situation where they concede that if a small amount of movement takes place, and the other obvious requirements are met, (the most obvious of which would seem to be "no more than 14 days in one place"), they don't actually have the powers to do very much about that particular CC-er.

 

I don't think many of those who think there is a "problem", (whatever their reasons for thinking it is a "problem"), are likely to be placated if largely the same boats are all still lined up out there somewhere, but are simply just made to move on a bit occasionally.

 

I'm struggling to see why getting a typical "non compliant CC-ers mileage up from "under 10Km" to "over 10Km", (which it seems some like the RBOA are then saying is "enough" if they don't otherwise transgress), is doing much to appease those who strongly feel something needs doing. What has really changed?

 

Frankly, (and tongue slightly in cheek here, I admit!), because I like to boat (lots!), not stay tied up anywhere for long, I'd rather they are not just constantly moved around, adding to congestion, and using up precious water reserves at times when we who actually want to move get faced with restrictions. Lets not clog up the locks too much for those who do want to be moving!

[Phoenix_V]

TBH Matty, we did have more difficulty than usual this summer, of course you can moor pretty much anywhere on some bits and much of the Lee is totally empty, great if you want to moor, 'middle of nowhere' and we usually do, but I was supposed to get a train from Stanstead Abbots this summer and we couldn't find anywhere to moor until we got towards Ware and even then we ended up mooring somewhere not really suitable - had to use a plank, couldn't get into the side properly, couldn't get pins in so had to tie to the wooden shuttering which is not good.

Didn't bother going into Hertford as I'd been there on the train and it was full and on the Stort, although I don't think it's congested, there just aren't enough decent moorings (as in you can get a boat in and get on and off without a plank) for the amount of boats of all types that want to cruise there. It's only this year we've had difficulty. There was nowhere all the way through Sawbo, ended up tied to a railing of a towpath overbridge and wobbling about. When we got up the next morning a couple of short boats had had to jam in the tiny gap infront of us, guess they were stuck as well. As I said before, a few 'Shroppie-esque' improvements would remove any 'congestion' 'problem' rather than the reality which is planting reeds everywhere and taking moorings away.

A much more realistic picture.

Hertford and Stansted are always full or almost full and they have given half the space over to winter moorings now, lunacy. Hertford will be worse as the local council have put a gate across the backstream where people used to moor on the Meads below Hertford lock because of overstaying. So we have all lost out.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Phoenix_V

[Sir Nibble]

I'm not claiming to have a "solution" - but equally a lot of people seem to have difficulty defining the "problem" too.

 

It however seems to me that CRT are rapidly backing off to a situation where they concede that if a small amount of movement takes place, and the other obvious requirements are met, (the most obvious of which would seem to be "no more than 14 days in one place"), they don't actually have the powers to do very much about that particular CC-er.

 

I don't think many of those who think there is a "problem", (whatever their reasons for thinking it is a "problem"), are likely to be placated if largely the same boats are all still lined up out there somewhere, but are simply just made to move on a bit occasionally.

 

I'm struggling to see why getting a typical "non compliant CC-ers mileage up from "under 10Km" to "over 10Km", (which it seems some like the RBOA are then saying is "enough" if they don't otherwise transgress), is doing much to appease those who strongly feel something needs doing. What has really changed?

 

Frankly, (and tongue slightly in cheek here, I admit!), because I like to boat (lots!), not stay tied up anywhere for long, I'd rather they are not just constantly moved around, adding to congestion, and using up precious water reserves at times when we who actually want to move get faced with restrictions. Lets not clog up the locks too much for those who do want to be moving!

I'm not sure you are hitting the point Aln. I don't have a source, just what seems to make sense to me. I think that CaRT taking action against those moving less than 10km is not legitimising 11km, it is just a target. I suspect if they achieved it they would set a new one at 20km. Further, if in order to avoid action a boater must move on 10km per year then what you have is:

 

I need to be at A.

 

I will move 20km west of A.

 

Having been recorded I now move 10km west of A for a year and commute that fairly short distance.

 

I now move to A for a year, good oh!

 

I now move 10 km east of A for a year and commute.

 

I have now had 3 years to make other arrangements and from now on it is going to become progressively more difficult year on year to remain tied to A. I would contend that this is a "period of grace" intended to give people space to sort themselves out. Mooring availability for those who wish to remain at A is covered by these 28 day permit holder moorings.

 

Thus the situation becomes "normalised" over a period of years with no one getting any nasty shocks unless they really ask for it.

 

I suspect that all bets are off now.

[Lady Muck]

Hertford will be worse as the local council have put a gate across the backstream where people used to moor on the Meads below Hertford lock because of overstaying. So we have all lost out.

That's such a shame.

[churchward]

I'm not claiming to have a "solution" - but equally a lot of people seem to have difficulty defining the "problem" too.

 

It however seems to me that CRT are rapidly backing off to a situation where they concede that if a small amount of movement takes place, and the other obvious requirements are met, (the most obvious of which would seem to be "no more than 14 days in one place"), they don't actually have the powers to do very much about that particular CC-er.

 

I don't think many of those who think there is a "problem", (whatever their reasons for thinking it is a "problem"), are likely to be placated if largely the same boats are all still lined up out there somewhere, but are simply just made to move on a bit occasionally.

 

I'm struggling to see why getting a typical "non compliant CC-ers mileage up from "under 10Km" to "over 10Km", (which it seems some like the RBOA are then saying is "enough" if they don't otherwise transgress), is doing much to appease those who strongly feel something needs doing. What has really changed?

 

Frankly, (and tongue slightly in cheek here, I admit!), because I like to boat (lots!), not stay tied up anywhere for long, I'd rather they are not just constantly moved around, adding to congestion, and using up precious water reserves at times when we who actually want to move get faced with restrictions. Lets not clog up the locks too much for those who do want to be moving!

Actually I think rather than it being difficult to define a solution a lot of people like the waters (excuse the pun) to be as muddy as possible as it keeps everyone arguing and the folk who abuse the system continue to do what they want and not pay for the privilage.

 

Of course in a perfect world those of us that do want to navigate always want the locks to be available to us without wait and preferably set in our favour!

 

For me the issue is straight forward it is one of fairness and equity. If you want or need to stay in one place or area and want to live on a boat get a home mooring. If anyone wants to CC and explore our marvelous canal system then they can do that.

 

I do think that more could be done to accomodate residential moorings and encourage folk to use them.

[Hastings]

You have ignore a bit more than the planing permission and council tax issues - you have ignored the fact that many private marinas specifically don't allow it, and you would quickly be chucked out.

 

Your suggestion has some merit if someone can actually find vacant places in a marina where they will not just move from one set of issues to another

 

I know that I ignored the fact that residential moorings in most marinas are rarer than hen's teeth, but in practice most marinas do allow it. I also know that marina vacancies aren't necessarily exactly where people want them, and I agree that they are in short supply around the hotspots of London, western K&A and Oxford etc.

 

It's all a question of balance - you have to find somewhere to live within a reasonable distance of fixed things like work, relatives etc. What's a reasonable distance? It might depend on what you earn; in my working life, I thought nothing of a 45 mile/one hour drive, but I could afford it. Obviously, others might need a mooring much closer. These are facts of life - no different whether you live on a boat or on the land. Which you live in is your choice, and you cannot expect any different treatment as a residential boater. Local councils have their rules (for house dwellers), and CRT has its rules (for boat dwellers). You make your choice, then keep to the rules. Mr Brown didn't keep to the rules, and has expensively found out that he cannot just do what he likes, and blame someone other than himself.

 

Some boaters may not like the way BW/CRT is now going re resident boaters without a "home mooring", but this is a democracy and the rules themselves have been pretty clear and constant for much of the 50 years I have been boating. Yes, people have ignored the rules, and BW didn't bother to enforce them much, but the rules haven't really changed. If you decide to live on a boat, it's reasonable to assume that you have done your homework, and know what the rules are. I really don't think that if you live in a house, your local council will be much impressed if you unilaterally choose not to pay council tax, or your lanlord if you don't pay your rent!

 

So in summary, I have every sympathy for the residential boaters who will have to relocate as a result of the High Court case, as moving may be difficult, and they may need a few months to relocate, but they should have anticipated that this day would come. They have had several years' warning, with the Davies case etc.

[Fat Boat]

Without re-quoting all the previous attempts to establish actual numbers, I believe we have established about as accurately as we can that CRT are claiming the following, (some is repeated in the quote below, anyway).......

 

Total CRT boat licences: Circa 34,000

Of those - Total licences declared as "no home mooring", (aka "CC-ers") 4,400

Of those - Total believed to move less than 10Km per year 2,000 (yes honestly - and John Dodwell has openly stated that!...)

Of those - Total believed to move less than 5Km per year, (or not at all) 1,000 (These seem to be the only ones that serious enforcement action is being claimed against, based on answers we have flushed out).

 

So, taken on that basis, actually moving in excess of 10Km seems to currently be being treated by CRT as not needing to be the subject of enforcement. Let me repeat that just 10 KILOMETERS OR MORE!

 

So I actually think my arbitrary 30Km was being over generous, (as I actually said!) - nobody in anything I have seen recently has yet set the bar that high!

 

At the moment I see CRT, the IWA and RBOA all cosying up together, and making positive statements that they endorse "solutions", but all they are actually doing just agreeing that if some token enforcement is done against "worst offenders", then a tick can go in the box, and it is "problem solved".

 

Read again carefully this RBOA press announcement for example, and study what they have actually implied in their words - the only way they can actually be interpreted, in fact.

 

 

 

What RBOA have said there is if you actually move more than 10Km in a year, you are a responsible CC-er who is cruising legally, and do not need to be hassled by CRT.

 

So are all those who complain about low moving (or no moving) CC-ers suddenly going to stop complaining if it could be demonstrated all were suddenly being persuaded to move on at least 10Km per year? You bet your life they are not all going to be suddenly placated, are they?

 

I don't seem to be able to adequately convey in a way that people understand why I think a lot of nonsense is being talked in much of the current blustering by CRT and some of the associations. But I remain convinced they are all patting themselves on the back about "solutions" that are in fact not "solution" at all.

 

 

Alan, i have seen the 30km thing on this forum, i even printed a copy off but cant find it and unfortunatly lunch break is over so i cant search for the thread

 

Wasnt it linked in a thread about the k&a and was a report about the results of their actions and how many boats had moved on etc

 

Im sure it mentioned that they didnt think it was adviseable at this time to try to get everyone moved on by the national target of 30 kms and that was the target they should aim at over the next few years

 

I'll try to get back here later but i know i saw it posted on here

 

Steve

Edited November 20, 2012 by Fat Boat

[Lady Muck]

I saw the 30km IRT a report made by enforcement re. Oxford Canal.

 

ETA download pdf here

Edited November 20, 2012 by Lady Muck

[matty40s]

Alan, i have seen the 30km thing on this forum, i even printed a copy off but cant find it and unfortunatly lunch break is over so i cant search for the thread

 

Wasnt it linked in a thread about the k&a and was a report about the results of their actions and how many boats had moved on etc

 

Im sure it mentioned that they didnt think it was adviseable at this time to try to get everyone moved on by the national target of 30 kms and that was the target they should aim at over the next few years

 

I'll try to get back here later but i know i saw it posted on here

 

Steve

 

Steve, there was the study that BW carried out on the lower Oxford area, and I believe the targets were over 10km to qualify as being left alone for now, and over 19km to satisfy the criteria of CC-ing!!

 

 

 

"Based on this research and taking into consideration the effort that it has taken in order to

see an increase in craft movements during this period, it is evident that it will be impossible

to meet the National objectives set to enforce against all craft not moving more than 30km.

It would be more realistic to look at dealing with craft not moving more than 5km initially and

then increase the distances gradually. A consistent approach nationally is vitally important."

Edited November 20, 2012 by matty40s

[haggis]

Would a possible solution out of what appears to be a stand off situation not be for all those currently (like today, not next month) who are classed as continuous moorers be allowed to carry on as they have been doing. Like an amnesty. BUT every licence application from OTHERS who do not have a home mooring be granted a licence only if they can demonstrate that they WILL comply with the regulations. If a subesquent check indicates that they are not complying, no licence the following year.

If an "amnesty" boat changes hands, the new owner must comply and if an amnesty person changes his boat, he must comply.

It would take a few years, but hopefully would end up with all boats being treated fairly in every ones eyes.

 

Might be tricky to administer but if we arrive at a syatem which is thought to be fairer by almost all boaters, then it might be worth it.

 

haggis

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Steve, there was the study that BW carried out on the lower Oxford area, and I believe the targets were over 10km to qualify as being left alone for now, and over 19km to satisfy the criteria of CC-ing!!

 

 

 

"Based on this research and taking into consideration the effort that it has taken in order to

see an increase in craft movements during this period, it is evident that it will be impossible

to meet the National objectives set to enforce against all craft not moving more than 30km.

It would be more realistic to look at dealing with craft not moving more than 5km initially and

then increase the distances gradually. A consistent approach nationally is vitally important."

 

What happened, I think, is that Head of Enforcement Denise Yelland was told earlier this year that all boats not moving least 30km during their licence period should be within the enforcement process.

 

I guess that 30km was chosen as being 'reasonable' based on the Davis case.

 

However, as stated above the objective was unrealistic.

 

One of the outcomes appears to be that, by concentrating on liveaboards, CaRT's 50 strong enforcement team has allowed licence evasion to rise.

[matty40s]

 

One of the outcomes appears to be that, by concentrating on liveaboards, CaRT's 50 strong enforcement team has allowed licence evasion to rise.

 

.........which one of your fellow journo's also pointed out was because they are refusing and cancelling licences of non-compliant CC'ers, making the S8 process swifter......

They havn't allowed it, they have caused it, short term rise for long term result.