Compulsory residential moorings !!

[Yorkshire Lad]

Being relatively new comers to the system, (approx 4 years), I find it

unbelievable in this day and age with housing shortages etc plus canal

network being clogged by some boat owners (residential??) who are just

trying to find a mooring to call home. i have a suggestion to all

those in authority including local authorities to come down off their

high horse and assist those boaters who are looking for permanent

residential moorings i.e. when marinas renew their licence to trade

as marinas, may I suggest before licence is granted that 10% of all

berths be allocated for residential. This, I feel, would reduce some

congestion on the canal system and fill some of these empty berths in

these marinas with an acceptable fee. This to include all new marinas

being built.

 

I can hear the cries now from local authorities, its green belt etc

etc and you can't have residential moorings. My reply to this is, the

marinas are already there, it's not 'rocket science' so help the boat

owners and the marina owners to get on with their lives. Win win

situation.

 

Would also suggest that these residential moorings be priced at a reasonable affordable rate.

[BargeeSpud]

Stonkingly good idea & that's why it'll never happen. Have a greenie.

 

If the idea ever got off the ground, you'd have to find a way to impose it retrospectively for any significant impact to be made. It can't only apply to new marinas.

 

Yes, I know the OP refers to licence renewals, but you know how the minds of the powers-that-be work.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Spuds

[bottle]

. when marinas renew their licence to trade as marinas, may I suggest before licence is granted that 10% of all berths be allocated for residential.

 

I hope, you do not mean that.

 

Why should marinas be made to have residential mooring?

[keble]

I suspect local residents (of houses) don't like residential boats. When Saul Marina was built 5 years ago the builders, Land & Water, went out of their way to stress that it was NOT residential.

If a marina IS residential I wonder if they have to fulfill a whole series of legal requirements?

 

Here in the Cotswolds there are a lot of "holiday homes" around the lakes formed from old gravel pits. The powers that be have been quite tough about people who stay longer than they should. Well, one or two publicized cases; I suspect there are many who get away with it.

[sueb]

Have you been in touch with the Residential boat owners ass? They could tell you why it isn't happening

[BEngo]

<Snip> when marinas renew their licence to trade

as marinas, may I suggest before licence is granted that 10% of all

berths be allocated for residential. This, I feel, would reduce some

congestion on the canal system and fill some of these empty berths in

these marinas with an acceptable fee. This to include all new marinas

being built.

 

<snip>

 

Marinas don't have to have a licence to trade AFAIK- Once planning permission has been granted by the local authority CART will impose a connection fee of 9% of the mooring fees the marina would charge if it were full. It's the applicant and the planning authority that set the maximum number of residential moorings and the operator that sets the number rented out.

 

Some local authorities accept residents, others don't. The local authority permitted residential moorings in the new basin for ACS but Dacorum, up the road is reputed to not like marinas at all, and residential moorings even less.

 

Many marina owners feel a judicious sprinkler of resi moorings improve security, but they cost extra to provide aand too many can become a potential PITA. Whilst residents currently have no security, that is not necessarily always going to be the case and developers may look over their shoulders to what has happened in caravan parks. The reputation of the small minority of residents who have been an actual PITA also precedes them and unfortunately taints the view of the rest.

 

OTOH Grant Shapps (I think) did encourage local authorities to address the housing shortage through provision of residential moorings, though he's gone strangely quiet on the subject since he said that- I wonder who got to him?

 

N

[Rich]

A while ago Mr. Grant Shapps MP made comments about this very subject. Nothing seems to have happened and so I emailed my MP to ask a similar question. Why not do the same?

 

In the majority of cases it would make no difference at all to anyone, other than the prejudiced, if more marinas were given PP for some berths. The marina owners might well like it, more money, and the council would get more council tax.

 

I think the problem lies with attitude. Remember the marina proposed on the Staffs and Worcs. I think it was 2000 cars descending on the village each weekend and a pall of diesel fumes hanging over the village, and this was without resi berths.

[David Mack]

Some local authorities accept residents, others don't. The local authority permitted residential moorings in the new basin for ACS but Dacorum, up the road is reputed to not like marinas at all, and residential moorings even less.

 

Possibly because the new basin is being built (and largely paid for) by the council to accommodate boats displaced by their redevelopment of the existing basin, which has housed residential boats for about 40 years.

 

And also, the basin lies in an area designated for new housing, so it doesn't raise the issues of green belt which apply to many other marinas.

[KevMc]

Some local authorities accept residents, others don't. The local authority permitted residential moorings in the new basin for ACS but Dacorum, up the road is reputed to not like marinas at all, and residential moorings even less.

 

I feel I should know where you mean by ACS but I'm somewhat flummoxed

[churchward]

I hope, you do not mean that.

 

Why should marinas be made to have residential mooring?

I am not a fan of making blanket compulsory legislation for such things. However at one of the Marinas we have moored in they did have a percentage of residential moorings. It seemed to me to be a good idea to have them. The people who were residents moored there liked it and I also think the leisure boat owners benefited too. Having more pairs of eyes dotted about the marina keeping neighborly look out added to the security.

[shugie]

I think marina operators should look very carefully at the mobile home and caravan legislation before contemplating residential moorings. Once there are a significant number of official residential moorers, there will no doubt follow a campaign by some of them to have the same rights as mobile home owners do. Which include very controlled rents, extensive, nigh on permanent, tenancy rights and plenty of obligations on landlords.

 

If I were a marina operator, I'd be thinking along the lines of £n thousand pounds per annum for someone whose mooring fees I can increase as I want, kick off at the end of the agreement, and have no obligations to beyond that in the contract compared with perhaps twice that for all the constraints that come with residential moorings. Only the desperate amongst marina operators are going to want to go down that route.

 

With mobile homes and caravans, the landowners get profit from sales, with boats they can't.

 

Never mind what the councils think of it, I reckon the marina operators won't be interested.

[David Schweizer]

From my understanding of Planning Regulation, there is no provision which can place additional conditions on Planning Consent once it has been granted, therefore the OP's suggestion could only be applied to new development.

 

Similarily a Planning Authority cannot grant consent for residential purposes if the propsed site is within a protected area, of which Green Belt is only one. Even if they were sypathetic with the concept and sought to grant consent, they would almost certainly loose if opponents took the decision to appeal.

 

Planning regulation in England (it varies in other parts of the UK) is based upon the simple premise that you can build whatever you like, wherever you like, unless thare is a regulation, or legisltion to prevent it. There is a long list of reasons for prevention, and as Parish Clerk, I had to be aware of all of them. There is one field in the Parish which has five different planning protections on it.

 

Of course anyone can apply for Planning Consent for anything on anyone's land, so consent could be sught for marinas to have residential planniong consent by anyone, but even if granted, the marina owner would be under no obligation to fulfil the Planning Consent.

Edited February 7, 2013 by David Schweizer

[nb Innisfree]

Just make it legal to live on your boat all year round, that's is what is happening anyway so just legalise it, no change other than that i.e. no extra services so therefore no council tax. Up to boaters to carve out their own little niche as they do now. Keep any legislation exclusive to boats.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if more small 'marinas' were pernitted instead of the large ones we have, I'm sure some folk would be happy to scrape a modest income out of, say, a ten berth marina, maybe retired folk who want their pensions augmented. Imagine lots of cosy little moorings out in the sticks dug out of canalside land.

 

Dream on, can't see it happening as it would require a good dose of practical attitude.

[David Schweizer]

Just make it legal to live on your boat all year round, that's is what is happening anyway so just legalise it, no change other than that i.e. no extra services so therefore no council tax. Up to boaters to carve out their own little niche as they do now. Keep any legislation exclusive to boats.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if more small 'marinas' were pernitted instead of the large ones we have, I'm sure some folk would be happy to scrape a modest income out of, say, a ten berth marina, maybe retired folk who want their pensions augmented. Imagine lots of cosy little moorings out in the sticks dug out of canalside land.

 

Dream on, can't see it happening as it would require a good dose of practical attitude.

It is already legal to live on your boat all year, so no further legislation is needed, many Continuous Crusers have done so for years. What is illegal is to live on your boat moored in one place without Planning Consent to do so.

Edited February 7, 2013 by David Schweizer

[CV32]

 

OTOH Grant Shapps (I think) did encourage local authorities to address the housing shortage through provision of residential moorings, though he's gone strangely quiet on the subject since he said that- I wonder who got to him?

 

N

 

I suspect Mr Shapps just saw the canals as a linear car park for boat accomodation / a way of reducing the housing waiting list.

[nb Innisfree]

It is already legal to live on your boat all year, so no further legislation is needed, many Continuous Crusers have done so for years. What is illegal is to live on your boat moored in one place without Planning Consent to do so.

 

I meant offline mooring as in marinas, knock the planning bit on the head to allow cmers to get on with their lives.

[David Mack]

I feel I should know where you mean by ACS but I'm somewhat flummoxed

 

Aylesbury Canal Society

[Phil Ambrose]

A very good friend of mine has been battling the Broads Authority for the last 3 years over a very similar problem on the Broads. His argument is "What is the difference between a boat occupied by one person for 52 weeks of the year against a boat occupied by 52 people for a week each for 52 weeks of the year. The boat still occupies the same amount of space.

 

Phil

[churchward]

A very good friend of mine has been battling the Broads Authority for the last 3 years over a very similar problem on the Broads. His argument is "What is the difference between a boat occupied by one person for 52 weeks of the year against a boat occupied by 52 people for a week each for 52 weeks of the year. The boat still occupies the same amount of space.

 

Phil

The difference I think is that the 52 people for a week each are visitors and not likely to consume much in the way of other services. The 1 person in residence for all 52 weeks will. The argument is a bit thin I would use a different strategy.

[trackman]

One issue motivating LAs I believe, is the potential liability to rehouse. They are liable to rehouse any resident of their area who becomes homeless, I understand. So if someone gets a tatty old boat & moves onto a residential mooring, when they let it sink the LA becomes lumbered with finding them a new home.

[David Schweizer]

One issue motivating LAs I believe, is the potential liability to rehouse. They are liable to rehouse any resident of their area who becomes homeless, I understand. So if someone gets a tatty old boat & moves onto a residential mooring, when they let it sink the LA becomes lumbered with finding them a new home.

I doubt very much whether that issue even enters the mind of Planniong Officers when making recommendations to Committee. If it was put forward as an objection, or the Elected Members gave that as one of their reasons for refusal, the applicant would have good grounds for an appeal, which they would probably win, as it is not a planning consideration

 

It would appear that many of those people either raising argument in favour of planning relaxation, or suggesting reasons why Local Councils might refuse Consent should, if they wish to pursue argument in favour of more residential mooring being made available, make themselves more aware of Planning Regulations, as there appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding as to what the Planning Authority can, and cannot do.

 

Opinion is fine, ideas are even better, but all Planning Consent must be granted within a framework of existing legislation and regulations. It is not in the Planning Authority's interest to refuse consent where there could be doubt, as the Planning Authority has top meet all the legal costs if the appeal succeeds, and their own costs even if the appeal fails, so it is a costly business for Local Councils.

 

During my period as both a Local Councillor, and later Parish Clerk, I must have witnessed at least a dozen appeals against Planning decisions, and in each case the applicant lost their appeal, which suggests that (at least one) Planning Authority got it right.

[Doorman]

 

If I were a marina operator, I'd be thinking along the lines of £n thousand pounds per annum for someone whose mooring fees I can increase as I want, kick off at the end of the agreement, and have no obligations to beyond that in the contract compared with perhaps twice that for all the constraints that come with residential moorings.

 

Only the desperate amongst marina operators are going to want to go down that route.

 

Your name isn't Peter Rackman by any chance is it?

 

Apparently, according to some, there are quite a few marina operators who are desperate enough to do just that.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Doorman

[Dave_P]

One issue motivating LAs I believe, is the potential liability to rehouse. They are liable to rehouse any resident of their area who becomes homeless, I understand. So if someone gets a tatty old boat & moves onto a residential mooring, when they let it sink the LA becomes lumbered with finding them a new home.

 

In practise this would be a very minor issue. Very few boaters would intentionally let their boat sink in order to receive the sort of emergency housing they would be offered. If you want to be housed by a local authority, there's far easier ways to go about it.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Dave_P

[lydfordcastle]

One issue motivating LAs I believe, is the potential liability to rehouse. They are liable to rehouse any resident of their area who becomes homeless, I understand. So if someone gets a tatty old boat & moves onto a residential mooring, when they let it sink the LA becomes lumbered with finding them a new home.

I don't understand why there is any more potential liablity to rehouse boaters than others. Surely local authorities have a responsibility to house anyone becoming homeless in their area, regardless of whether or not they were previously a resident? A refugee arriving at Heathrow and claiming political asylum can expect to be housed but, as far as I am aware, that hasn't resulted in the West London Boroughs banning flights from Iraq and Afghanistan (for example). If they could be shown to have deliberately sunk their boat, then that may well be a different matter as they could be deemed to have intentionally made themslves homeless.

[Doorman]

If you want to be housed by a local authority, there's far easier ways to go about it.

 

Please publish these 'ways' on here.

 

There are some right Rodney's who pass our way on a regular basis. I'll drop them a line with the details next time they turn up ( for months at a time).