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

[carlt]

I believe that you have to show that your belief is well founded.

 

It isn't sufficient to simply believe that the owner ought to give his consent.

Yes it is sufficient..(my underline)

 

(6)A person does not commit an offence under this section by anything done in the belief that he has lawful authority to do it or that he would have the owner’s consent if the owner knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it.

 

though that is largely irrelevant as taking without consent has to involve travelling a significant distance (more than, say, 70 feet) and the vehicle has to be used as a conveyance, carrying people. Someone walking alongside the vehicle is not sufficient.

[MtB]

I just thought people might be interested in the historical reality of pleasure boating on the canals, from the very first days, which may be contrary to the usual understanding as evidenced by MtB's comment [and shared by myself before finding out a bit more of the real history recently].

 

How interesting, thank you for the insight!

 

And how UNsurprising upon reflection, and since you actually spelled it out....

 

Greeenie dispensed

 

MtB

 

 

(Editied to add, you'll have to put up with a VG, virtual greeenie, it sez I've run out for today. Grrr...,)

Edited November 24, 2012 by Mike the Boilerman

[blodger]

If some boats staying in one spot are charged for a towpath mooring why shouldn't all boats staying in one spot be charged? Should there be an exemption for boats who thing they may move?

I am gobsmacked you can come up with just this repetition as if it is useful if you have been following the thread.

[Graham.m]

In 2005, BW carried out a consultation that explored this idea.

 

The rationale seemed to be that if could pay a different amount for an airline seat to someone else on the same flight then you could pay a different amount for a licence (for the same length of boat).

 

Price discrimination (as it was called) was very quickly abandoned for those without home moorings.

 

Surely with a change of management ie no longer BW but the CART everything is open to change. A time when the new broom can change things.

[jenlyn]

Surely with a change of management ie no longer BW but the CART everything is open to change. A time when the new broom can change things.

 

[blodger]

Surely with a change of management ie no longer BW but the CART everything is open to change. A time when the new broom can change things.

These days there has to be an expensive consultation to change things. BW had one and failed to get the concensus it needed to change things. I would sooner the money for another consultation was spent on something useful instead like dredging.

[Graham.m]

These days there has to be an expensive consultation to change things. BW had one and failed to get the concensus it needed to change things. I would sooner the money for another consultation was spent on something useful instead like dredging.

 

Whilst I agree that money needs to be spent on maintenance surely it is time to try and sort the system out for the future, otherwise things will get worse not better. Not sure of the legal basis on the new limited company of the requirement of a consultation. Also people I know on the canals have no memory of a consultation so was it only with the few organised groups and badly publicised.

[jenlyn]

This is a misconception, however understandable. Speaking for the Grand Junction Canal [now the Grand Union since the 1920’s], the promoters of the canal always understood the potential attraction for use of pleasure boating. I am sure that most canal companies, after the first flush of canal building, did realise this.

 

Probably the majority of the 500 odd Enabling Acts contained provisions for private riparian owners to construct facilities for mooring boats to their land, and they were entitled to the free use of their private pleasure boats [so long as they did not use up water going through locks].

 

On the Grand Junction Canal, even before construction had reached from Brentford to Braunston, the use of it for pleasure boating had become so great that the promoters had to go back to Parliament [in 1801] to seek some restraint on the mode of use by pleasure boats – all in the interests of commercial traffic.

 

It appears that the population and use of pleasure boats by that early time, had become such a nuisance to commercial traffic that the GJCC needed to get Parliamentary powers to restrict the mode of pleasure boating so as to ban sailing, and use of the towpath. Anyone who has gone cruising in a narrowboat down the Thames in the middle of a sailing dinghy club outing will be able to conjure up a picture of what had been happening!

 

Despite those restrictions, by the following year “aquatic excursions” including trips to Uxbridge upon the Grand Junction Canal had become amongst the foremost internationally renowned “diversions” of London’s “vulgar” population. By 1802 over a thousand families had their own pleasure boats for their own use for “jaunts” on both Thames and Canal.

 

Over a thousand private pleasure boats needed over a thousand pleasure boat moorings along the canal in London. The GJCC Act of 1793 [in common with most of the 500 plus other enabling Acts] granted to privahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphincter_ani_externus_musclete riparian owners the right to create such moorings on their own land, the right of charging for which vested in them and not the company.

 

A bit over a thousand private pleasure boat ‘home’ moorings in London alone may not sound much in today’s terms, but remember, that was a couple of years before the canal had even been completed to Braunston!

 

I just thought people might be interested in the historical reality of pleasure boating on the canals, from the very first days, which may be contrary to the usual understanding as evidenced by MtB's comment [and shared by myself before finding out a bit more of the real history recently].

Interesting history lesson. Never knew of that.

I take it your still alive owing to the fact you have posted here ;-) I know you can't post about your case on here, but I would like to say that you have done me no favours by going before the courts with your chosen argument. I consider CRT have now won what could only be described as a hollow victory, to be honest, you have in my opinion handed us over on a plate. I am grateful you had the bxlls to do it, but annoyed at how you did it. I rather thought you might have got some grief from here, owing to the views posted by some, though I noticed they have all sloped off and shied away from debating with you.

Anyway, all the best for the future :-) will watch for you in the sunset lol

[Phoenix_V]

Whilst I agree that money needs to be spent on maintenance surely it is time to try and sort the system out for the future, otherwise things will get worse not better. Not sure of the legal basis on the new limited company of the requirement of a consultation. Also people I know on the canals have no memory of a consultation so was it only with the few organised groups and badly publicised.

The consultation was very well publicized it was debated on here for weeks.

Eventually all the boating organizations came out against it and it was dropped.

Part of the reason for that was that BW chose to lump in increased charges for CCers with increased charges for River only licenses and increased charges for widebeam boats. Pity the poor owner of a small but widebeam cruiser on a river used for continuous cruising!

If they have another go they will doubtless pick on just one of these groups at a time, it's called divide and rule, (someone did a very nice poem on the subject I recall along the lines of "first they came for the ccer, then for the widebeam etc etc then for you"))but those of us who have been on the canals for a while will remember and it will go the way of the first proposal!

Anyway, I dont think they will go that way, it would be bizarre to keep raising the subject in the hope we will all get bored and it would go through on the nod. There is no reason genuine CCers need a mooring or should pay in lieu of and there are proposals for roving mooring fees and other schemes for those who cant get or dont want a mooring but need to stay in one area.

[Mrs Trackman]

This is a misconception, however understandable. Speaking for the Grand Junction Canal [now the Grand Union since the 1920’s], the promoters of the canal always understood the potential attraction for use of pleasure boating. I am sure that most canal companies, after the first flush of canal building, did realise this.

 

Probably the majority of the 500 odd Enabling Acts contained provisions for private riparian owners to construct facilities for mooring boats to their land, and they were entitled to the free use of their private pleasure boats [so long as they did not use up water going through locks].

 

On the Grand Junction Canal, even before construction had reached from Brentford to Braunston, the use of it for pleasure boating had become so great that the promoters had to go back to Parliament [in 1801] to seek some restraint on the mode of use by pleasure boats – all in the interests of commercial traffic.

 

It appears that the population and use of pleasure boats by that early time, had become such a nuisance to commercial traffic that the GJCC needed to get Parliamentary powers to restrict the mode of pleasure boating so as to ban sailing, and use of the towpath. Anyone who has gone cruising in a narrowboat down the Thames in the middle of a sailing dinghy club outing will be able to conjure up a picture of what had been happening!

 

Despite those restrictions, by the following year “aquatic excursions” including trips to Uxbridge upon the Grand Junction Canal had become amongst the foremost internationally renowned “diversions” of London’s “vulgar” population. By 1802 over a thousand families had their own pleasure boats for their own use for “jaunts” on both Thames and Canal.

 

Over a thousand private pleasure boats needed over a thousand pleasure boat moorings along the canal in London. The GJCC Act of 1793 [in common with most of the 500 plus other enabling Acts] granted to private riparian owners the right to create such moorings on their own land, the right of charging for which vested in them and not the company.

 

A bit over a thousand private pleasure boat ‘home’ moorings in London alone may not sound much in today’s terms, but remember, that was a couple of years before the canal had even been completed to Braunston!

 

I just thought people might be interested in the historical reality of pleasure boating on the canals, from the very first days, which may be contrary to the usual understanding as evidenced by MtB's comment [and shared by myself before finding out a bit more of the real history recently].

That is so interesting Nigel, I had no idea the canals were used for leisure, to that extent, so long ago.

[Tuscan]

These days there has to be an expensive consultation to change things. BW had one and failed to get the concensus it needed to change things. I would sooner the money for another consultation was spent on something useful instead like dredging.

 

 

 

 

Every new MD of a company, leader of a party or manager of a football club etc goes for change as they feel they need to make a name for themselves why would the leaders of CRT with new freedoms be any different. Be careful what you wish for................

[blodger]

Every new MD of a company, leader of a party or manager of a football club etc goes for change as they feel they need to make a name for themselves why would the leaders of CRT with new freedoms be any different. Be careful what you wish for................

I understood the power had been transfered to the same old

[jenlyn]

I understood the power had been transfered to the same old

It has, but the same old feel they have a new power, which in some aspects, they do

[Tuscan]

It has, but the same old feel they have a new power, which in some aspects, they do

 

 

 

 

Thats my point , new structure and constitution so egos's will force change of some discription I am sure.

[Higgs]

Surely the major argument appears to be about people who overstay on moorings because they have jobs etc in that area. Would it not be better for everyone concerned if they to a Trust long-term mooring.

 

 

There's no need to impose an extra cost on CC boaters. Out cruising, a boat needs to moor up, any boat. An even playing field.

 

Those with a home mooring, out of choice, will usually end up at their' home mooring - online or off. CC'er have no mooring base and choose not to have one. There doesn't appear to be a no-home-mooring class of licence. You state CC.

 

Look down many streets these days where streets have been built in a period of few cars. It is hoped that you don't meet a car coming in the opposite direction. Cars parked half on the pavement on either side and room enough for one car to pass down the middle. And streets where only the residents have permits.

 

Passing traffic should continue to pass (CC). Without an abundance of mooring, it is no good encouraging CC boats to adopt non official home mooring grounds.

 

To add a cost to the CC licence for mooring would only be seen as a licence not to move on, because of a notional idea that they are paying extra for mooring rights.

 

The whole point of CC is not having a permanent mooring, not a brief place to moor up on a journey, as we all can do.

[magnetman]

The whole point of having a boat and declaring CC for a lot of people is that it is CHEAP accomodation

 

anyone who hasn't noticed this needs to wake up.

are canals fore cheap housing or are they for boating?

 

I've been on the cut for 18 years now and it has become clear that it is turning into a housing estate specially in higher rent areas. Some boaters don't like this. this is understandable.

[Graham.m]

 

Look down many streets these days where streets have been built in a period of few cars. It is hoped that you don't meet a car coming in the opposite direction. Cars parked half on the pavement on either side and room enough for one car to pass down the middle. And streets where only the residents have permits.

 

 

Which is why Councils in some areas have brought in residential parking permits and charge residence for parking outside their houses

[Higgs]

Which is why Councils in some areas have brought in residential parking permits and charge residence for parking outside their houses

 

A lot of official non-solutions end up with the least imaginative and fall back on the punitive. Tax, which they then waste elsewhere.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Higgs

[cotswoldsman]

The whole point of having a boat and declaring CC for a lot of people is that it is CHEAP accomodation

 

anyone who hasn't noticed this needs to wake up.

are canals fore cheap housing or are they for boating?

 

I've been on the cut for 18 years now and it has become clear that it is turning into a housing estate specially in higher rent areas. Some boaters don't like this. this is understandable.

 

And your evidence for this is?

 

Canals are for people to enjoy however they see fit. This has to be one of the most arrogant posts I have seen for a long time. Would soon recognise you on the canals with your shinny boat and arrogant "I am better than everyone else" attitude.

[Thorfast]

And your evidence for this is?

 

Canals are for people to enjoy however they see fit. This has to be one of the most arrogant posts I have seen for a long time. Would soon recognise you on the canals with your shinny boat and arrogant "I am better than everyone else" attitude.

 

I can see the point he is making.........and my boat is not shinny and I don't have an arrogant "I am better than everyone else" attitude.

[blodger]

I can see the point he is making.........and my boat is not shinny and I don't have an arrogant "I am better than everyone else" attitude.

There is no cheap boating but there is a lot of envy and politicking around those who live on boats or for one reason or another do not want to park their boat in the same place all the time and hence do not have or pay for a home mooring; A choice made when purchasing a licence to do so.

[cotswoldsman]

I can see the point he is making.........and my boat is not shinny and I don't have an arrogant "I am better than everyone else" attitude.

 

I will ask you then your evidence for this? I would like to see some figures on how living on a boat is cheap. My experience after 6 years is that it is no cheaper than living in a house/flat

[carlt]

The whole point of having a boat and declaring CC for a lot of people is that it is CHEAP accomodation

 

anyone who hasn't noticed this needs to wake up.

are canals fore cheap housing or are they for boating?

Who has the right to dictate how someone chooses to use their boat, within the law?

 

also who has the ability to read someone else's mind and reach such a judgement?

 

Given some of the boats you've owned could the same, completely wrong, assumptions have been made about your boating motives?

[magnetman]

I'm sure they could but I have saved LOADS of money by living on my 'shiny' boats over the years.

 

if you are looking for me in a shiny boat you will looking forever cotswoldman

 

Please don't make assumption you could not be further from the truth.

 

It IS cheaper to live in London on a cc boat than on land which is partly why I do it did you know that rents are in the order of £250 a week or more

 

I did make reference to 'high rent areas' btw

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Please don't make assumption you could not be further from the truth.

 

 

 

I guess a bit like the assumption that people move onto boats because it is cheaper.