FEDUP.

[Jerra]

True of course, but I'm assuming (perhaps mistakenly, if not then I'm sure I'll be made aware of it) that if said people *had* abided by the guidelines, there'd be no need for a roaming license in the first place

I was wondering about that when I read Cotswoldman imply they weren't NCCC. If they aren't NCCC why is there a need for new form of license/permit?

[larkshall]

Anyone care to explain WTF this is about?

 

Richard

Quite, I'm as mystified as you

[Paul C]

Does anyone have a good link, to a reputable source, for information on the roving mooring permit scheme?

 

It does appear that the information on the scheme, in particular the details, are known by some but not others and is being held somewhat closely to their chests.

 

Fair enough if its all still being formulated, an indication of when the details are finalised and a place where they'd be publicised would be nice to have though.

[alan_fincher]

I don't think there is any secrecy, but it is a proposal that is being worked all the time, and is quite fluid I think.

 

What I believe I have heard, is, (but I am not one of those most actively working with CRT on this)...............

 

1) A determination by CRT to do far more enforcement of those making a "no home mooring" declaration that BW historically ever did, means that some people who (with the previous knowledge of enforcement teams) have managed to stay out of trouble, now find themselves "on the radar".

2) CRT now require more than moving every 14 days between three closely spaced places, something they have indicated was not a problem in the past, but now say is "not enough". (In that area of outer London, the "places" are not far separated, so moving between several does not involve many miles of canal).

 

3) For payment of a fee, a permit holder will be allowed to "roam" over a specifically designated area, which looks like it will be about 5 miles for the Cowley Uxbridge area.

4) They will no longer be a CC-er, and no longer required to declare that they have no home mooring, and are "bona fide navigating", and will be treated as having a (special kind of) home mooring on that patch.

5) The permit will have strict terms and conditions associated with it, is specific to a person, and can't be assigned to anyone else if a boat is sold. If they choose to leave the area and move to another area where roving permits have also been introduced, they would not be eligible to get one in the new area, and must find a mooring, or abide by CC rules.

6) The permit will not absolve them from continuing to have to move, but lifts the restiction about it having to be over larger distances, and not returning to places they have recently been.

7) It is not clear yet whether they will have to move at least every 14 days, or whether that might be increased. (It has been pointed out that allowances would need to be made in the winter months when the same people might have taken a paid for winter mooring for the period - clearly people should not be forced to move if they do not feel safe to do so because of adverse weather conditions.)

 

8) It is likely the permit will specify they cannot use designated visitor moorings, (or at the very least that they may only use them for shopping stops, and can not be on them overnight).

 

9) The likely cost of a permit has also yet to be decided, but it sounds pretty unlikely that CRT will set it at levels cheaper than half the "book" price for existing basic long-term towpath moorings in the area. That means the cost of a roving permit is unlikely to be less than someone pays for their licence, so say they pay an £800 annual licence, they are probably going to have to pay at least that again for the permit, thereby probably roughly doubling what they pay CRT overall.

This is all written in good faith, but even if I have captured it fairly spot on for a moment in time, may have moved on since, and some of the above may now be subject to change.

Whilst some may think it odd that it is being talked about before being pinned down more firmly, it isn't really. Firstly it is a big change of mindset within CRT, and I'm sure those in CRT broadly supporting it will be having conversations with others in their organisation yet to be persuaded (!). But more particularly, from my perception, CRT have needed to start having dialogues with the kind of people it is targeted at. It is no good having such a proposal on the table if it is not accepted and taken up, and there is clearly a fine balance between trying to set a price that is fair without upsetting the people who think that too much is being offered for too little.

My own view is that if you try and get people to pay anything much over double (overall) what they currently pay for their licence, when all it entitles them to is what BW have been considering an acceptable situation in the past, that the scheme can't fly. But that is just a very personal view. Some might be prepared to pay a lot for such a permit, but others simply don't have the means to find that much extra money.

FINAL HEALTH WARNING: All strictly "in my view". I'm not actively helping CRT put this proposal together, but am observing. If any of those who know more spot I have anything wrong, I'm sure they will tell us.

 

[nicknorman]

It does appear that the information on the scheme, in particular the details, are known by some but not others and is being held somewhat closely to their chests.

 

If you are in the frame for a permit, you probably already know about it. If not, you don't need to know about it but will do once its finalised. Its difficult to publish hard facts when the concept is still under negotiation!

[Jerra]

Thank you for that Alan I understand the situation much more clearly now.

 

One observation which I would make is CRT is not BW and just because BW accepted something it is unreasonable IMO for people to expect a new organisation to accept the same (or for that matter interpret things the same).

[Paul C]

Many thanks Alan, it confirms what I thought I knew about it but didn't want to simply guess/assume the info. The only thing which differed was point 9, the costs. I accept that its still under negotiation/discussion but half a regular mooring fee seems quite high. I remember costs more in the region of a "token" gesture of payment but much more affordable - eg £200.

 

This leads me to wonder what happens to those who have historically tried to CC but are for various reasons are unable to fully comply; require to be in a specific area (eg work (possibly low income but still work), kids' education, etc etc); but still unable to afford half a normal mooring, which in that area (and according to this thread) may be as high as £2000-3000 (not sure). I guess housing benefit (or universal credit?) in theory covers that shortfall, in practice....time will tell I guess.

[DeanS]

As you know, I have a marina mooring.

However, I am not in the marina for 8months of the year. (because I have a boat which seems to float around when you untie the rope).

 

Should I be forced to pay for 8 months of marina, that I actually dont want to use?

No, you'll say..because you are CC-ing. Unfortunately I am not CC-ing.....because my kid is at college locally.

ok then...go back to the marina you'll say.

 

Cant I rather just cruise up and down past the entrance to the marina..like I am now....but just give up the marina payments (because Im not using it).

No you'll say.

Why I'll ask.?

Because you cant just cruise up and down in front of your marina unless you have a mooring.

But thats stupid I'll say...because I dont need the mooring...because I'm cruising up and down in front of the marina...not going INTO the marina.

You cant have it both ways, you'll say.

I dont want it both ways..I just want to cruise up and down in front of the marina...but I dont want to use the marina.

You need a CC licence then, you'll say.

ok, but then can I cruise up and down in front of the marina like I am doing now.?

No you'll say...you need to cruise to the next town.

Why, I'll ask.?

Because you arent prepared to go in your marina..it's your PUNISHMENT for cruising instead of tying your boat up.

 

 

????????????????????????????????????

[nicknorman]

As you know, I have a marina mooring.

However, I am not in the marina for 8months of the year. (because I have a boat which seems to float around when you untie the rope).

 

Should I be forced to pay for 8 months of marina, that I actually dont want to use?

No, you'll say..because you are CC-ing. Unfortunately I am not CC-ing.....because my kid is at college locally.

ok then...go back to the marina you'll say.

 

Cant I rather just cruise up and down past the entrance to the marina..like I am now....but just give up the marina payments (because Im not using it).

No you'll say.

Why I'll ask.?

Because you cant just cruise up and down in front of your marina unless you have a mooring.

But thats stupid I'll say...because I dont need the mooring...because I'm cruising up and down in front of the marina...not going INTO the marina.

You cant have it both ways, you'll say.

I dont want it both ways..I just want to cruise up and down in front of the marina...but I dont want to use the marina.

You need a CC licence then, you'll say.

ok, but then can I cruise up and down in front of the marina like I am doing now.?

No you'll say...you need to cruise to the next town.

Why, I'll ask.?

Because you arent prepared to go in your marina..it's your PUNISHMENT for cruising instead of tying your boat up.

 

 

????????????????????????????????????

No, its your punishment for treating that little bit of waterway as your personal marina.

Edited April 30, 2013 by nicknorman

[Paul C]

As you know, I have a marina mooring.

However, I am not in the marina for 8months of the year. (because I have a boat which seems to float around when you untie the rope).

 

Should I be forced to pay for 8 months of marina, that I actually dont want to use?

No, you'll say..because you are CC-ing. Unfortunately I am not CC-ing.....because my kid is at college locally.

ok then...go back to the marina you'll say.

 

Cant I rather just cruise up and down past the entrance to the marina..like I am now....but just give up the marina payments (because Im not using it).

No you'll say.

Why I'll ask.?

Because you cant just cruise up and down in front of your marina unless you have a mooring.

But thats stupid I'll say...because I dont need the mooring...because I'm cruising up and down in front of the marina...not going INTO the marina.

You cant have it both ways, you'll say.

I dont want it both ways..I just want to cruise up and down in front of the marina...but I dont want to use the marina.

You need a CC licence then, you'll say.

ok, but then can I cruise up and down in front of the marina like I am doing now.?

No you'll say...you need to cruise to the next town.

Why, I'll ask.?

Because you arent prepared to go in your marina..it's your PUNISHMENT for cruising instead of tying your boat up.

 

 

????????????????????????????????????

 

 

Dean, have a look at this thread:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=55009&hl=ralph

 

If you can get an arrangement with your marina in a similar way to Ralph did, you could do what you're post suggests you want to - cruise in a small area most of the year, and have a marina berth for some of the year.

[Jerra]

Sorry for top posting but for some reason I can't click below the quote.

 

I wonder how viable marinas would be (financially) if a large proportion of the moorings were only let for 4 months of the year.

Should I be forced to pay for 8 months of marina, that I actually dont want to use?

[DeanS]

 

No, its your punishment for treating that little bit of waterway as your personal marina.

 

oh but it is. It is 9 locks down to the end of CRT waters. (lock 92).

It is 50locks up to the summit of the Rochdale.

Widebeams cant go on the Ashton.

I am physically limited to going up and down in front of the marina if I pay a CRT licence.

 

 

 

ETA...I'm just giving an example of how EASY it is for people who try to adhere to the rules, can find themselves in a pickle. I have a marina mooring, so I'm completely legal....but to be legal I have to fork out over £1000 a year for something I dont use.....that empty piece of wood called a pontoon)

Edited April 30, 2013 by DeanS

[nicknorman]

oh but it is. It is 9 locks down to the end of CRT waters. (lock 92).

It is 50locks up to the summit of the Rochdale.

Widebeams cant go on the Ashton.

I am physically limited to going up and down in front of the marina if I pay a CRT licence.

In that case its your punishment for having a fat boat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can probably tell, I am just taking the piss....

[DeanS]

In that case its your punishment for having a fat boat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can probably tell, I am just taking the piss....

 

yezzzzzz

[Tuscan]

What is perhaps interesting is that the group tasked by CRT to review local mooring strategy on the Kenneth & Avon who submitted their findings to CRT on 24 April came out specifically against community mooring permits despite I understand some pressure from CRT. The details are on the K&A community web site. So we potentially have two contrary approaches on what is meant to be one canal system.

[cotswoldsman]

Many thanks Alan, it confirms what I thought I knew about it but didn't want to simply guess/assume the info. The only thing which differed was point 9, the costs. I accept that its still under negotiation/discussion but half a regular mooring fee seems quite high. I remember costs more in the region of a "token" gesture of payment but much more affordable - eg £200.

 

This leads me to wonder what happens to those who have historically tried to CC but are for various reasons are unable to fully comply; require to be in a specific area (eg work (possibly low income but still work), kids' education, etc etc); but still unable to afford half a normal mooring, which in that area (and according to this thread) may be as high as £2000-3000 (not sure). I guess housing benefit (or universal credit?) in theory covers that shortfall, in practice....time will tell I guess.

Paul one of the options is half the book value not the auction value the other option could be something based on EOG Moorings.

 

 

From Starcoasters post on page 1

 

"CRT, in consultation with CUB (Cowley and Uxbridge Boaters group), have agreed in principle the outline of a scheme to issue roving mooring permits within the area, to boaters without a home mooring who have been logged in the area for x amount of time within x amount of distance."

 

That sounds like NCCC to me?

Every boat on the system is loged in theory every 21 days this does not make every boat non compliant. In the case of Uxbridge area the boats loged has nothing to do with compliance but ensures that those applying are local boaters who have been regularly spotttted in the area. This means people from say Milton Keynes area can not apply for a permit for Uxbridge area.

 

 

What is perhaps interesting is that the group tasked by CRT to review local mooring strategy on the Kenneth & Avon who submitted their findings to CRT on 24 April came out specifically against community mooring permits despite I understand some pressure from CRT. The details are on the K&A community web site. So we potentially have two contrary approaches on what is meant to be one canal system.

I can not see why that might be a problem as permits are once off and specific to an area.

[Paul C]

What is perhaps interesting is that the group tasked by CRT to review local mooring strategy on the Kenneth & Avon who submitted their findings to CRT on 24 April came out specifically against community mooring permits despite I understand some pressure from CRT. The details are on the K&A community web site. So we potentially have two contrary approaches on what is meant to be one canal system.

 

From http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/local-mooring-strategy-finalised/ :

 

Accommodating boaters’ existing lifestyles:

*boaters’ chosen lifestyles will be best preserved and protected through the clarification and consistent implementation of local guidance.

*the proposed Community Moorings were not supported (footnote 7). Consultation revealed widespread antagonism to the creation of yet another category of boater and suggested that doing so would generate considerable bad feeling towards, and ‘ghetto-isation’ of, the very group it was intended to support.

*Community Mooringss may be seen as primarily a revenue generator. The actual cost of this would be an overwhelmingly negative social impact, and would result in the wrong message being conveyed when we are trying to establish a new era and ethos of voluntary compliance.

*it is proposed that CRT continue to assess the merits of exceptional situations of need, on a case by case basis.

 

7. The proposed Community Moorings were not supported, except by some local householders. We strongly believe that the Community Moorings would over-complicate what is a simple solution in this Mooring Plan and are contrary to CRT Policy on the prioritisation in the development of off-line moorings over on-line moorings. These Community Mooring permits are seen as regressive and divisive and would deny access to all boaters, and anglers, to large tracts of the towpath and create sections of canal where there were permanent lines of boats moored. We believe these permits would increase congestion on the waterway and may be a source of conflict across the boating community. Given the lack of local support for the proposal, and that the inherent restrictions and complexity, and presumably cost of implementation, would far outweigh any proposed benefits. We do not support this initiative. We do acknowledge that the projected income from this form of licence will not be realised but we were uncomfortable with the proposal that a specific group of boaters were being asked to finance the overall cost of enforcement through these restrictive licences. We do however anticipate that adoption of the proposals elsewhere in this document will reduce that pressure.

 

 

 

 

Interestingly, one of their points is that a wide consultation should take place, something I touched upon back on post #48:

 

14. It is widely accepted that if a properly conducted consultation is undertaken it is far more likely that the end product will be accepted and thus succeed.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Paul C

[Tuscan]

Paul one of the options is half the book value not the auction value the other option could be something based on EOG Moorings.

Every boat on the system is loged in theory every 21 days this does not make every boat non compliant. In the case of Uxbridge area the boats loged has nothing to do with compliance but ensures that those applying are local boaters who have been regularly spotttted in the area. This means people from say Milton Keynes area can not apply for a permit for Uxbridge area.

I can not see why that might be a problem as permits are once off and specific to an area.

I am playing devils advocate here but if Boaters in Milton Keynes can get together and do the same, as could boaters in many other areas wouldn't it be simpler just to substantially increase the basic license fee for boats without a home mooring and then you can moor where you like. Excepting that VM's would have stay limits.

 

I am not sure that it is necessarily a good idea to have seperate mooring or one off agreements on seperate canals, or section of the same canal. If the principle and price is established why shouldnt we create a new category of license and anyone can apply to suit their local circumstances.

[Timleech]

oh but it is. It is 9 locks down to the end of CRT waters. (lock 92).

It is 50locks up to the summit of the Rochdale.

Widebeams cant go on the Ashton.

I am physically limited to going up and down in front of the marina if I pay a CRT licence.

 

 

 

ETA...I'm just giving an example of how EASY it is for people who try to adhere to the rules, can find themselves in a pickle. I have a marina mooring, so I'm completely legal....but to be legal I have to fork out over £1000 a year for something I dont use.....that empty piece of wood called a pontoon)

 

I don't want to get involved in the arguments, but I think you knew the limitations when you decided to get a wide boat, and anyway what's the problem with a few locks? They don't constitute an obstruction.

 

Tim

[Paul C]

I don't want to get involved in the arguments, but I think you knew the limitations when you decided to get a wide boat, and anyway what's the problem with a few locks? They don't constitute an obstruction.

 

Tim

 

And in any case, the same arguments would apply to any marina on a canal which isn't near a junction. You'd have the choice of 2 routes.

[magnetman]

I am playing devils advocate here but if Boaters in Milton Keynes can get together and do the same, as could boaters in many other areas wouldn't it be simpler just to substantially increase the basic license fee for boats without a home mooring and then you can moor where you like. Excepting that VM's would have stay limits.

 

I am not sure that it is necessarily a good idea to have seperate mooring or one off agreements on seperate canals, or section of the same canal. If the principle and price is established why shouldnt we create a new category of license and anyone can apply to suit their local circumstances.

there is certainly an argument for regional licensing perhaps scaled with local rents so that living on a boat was not seen as a 'cheap' option

 

this could be applied to all new license applications to help reduce the anticipated mass influx of vessels whose primary/only use is as a dwelling.

 

crt have been looking in their crystal ball and see running battles on the towpath and 'canals of blood' with leisure boaters striking liveaboarders with their polished windlasses and liveaboarders fighting back with their ash buckets filled with red hot cinders

[nicknorman]

...running battles on the towpath and 'canals of blood' with leisure boaters striking liveaboarders with their polished windlasses and liveaboarders fighting back with their ash buckets filled with red hot cinders

Well its true that our leisure-boater windlasses are polished - by being rubbed by hands actually working locks as opposed to sitting rusting in a locker! However we do also have an ash bucket filled with red hot cinders. So there I'm afraid your allegory fails! Edited April 30, 2013 by nicknorman

[DeanS]

I don't want to get involved in the arguments, but I think you knew the limitations when you decided to get a wide boat, and anyway what's the problem with a few locks? They don't constitute an obstruction.

 

Tim

 

yep.

and if I developed a bad back, and couldnt work as hard, and then couldnt afford the marina...I would try and keep to the rules....by floating around in Picadilly Village...

[madcat]

Attempts to enter into constructive dialogue with CaRT are to be encouraged . I have no desire to see people being made homeless. This country has a housing crisis at the affordable end of the market and it is every bodies problem even if they don,t realise or don,t care. The rising costs of everything are making it harder and harder for low income persons to get by

Count your blessings and have a care for others. Living on a boat is not an easy option and can be hard work, I consider that most liveaboards have a commitment to their way of life and are living on boats because they want to.

[cotswoldsman]

I am playing devils advocate here but if Boaters in Milton Keynes can get together and do the same, as could boaters in many other areas wouldn't it be simpler just to substantially increase the basic license fee for boats without a home mooring and then you can moor where you like. Excepting that VM's would have stay limits.

 

I am not sure that it is necessarily a good idea to have seperate mooring or one off agreements on seperate canals, or section of the same canal. If the principle and price is established why shouldnt we create a new category of license and anyone can apply to suit their local circumstances.

Not quite sure I understand. Are you confusing a Roving Permit that is basically a Mooring Permit with a cruising licence. What sort of licence would you issue to those CCers that do not wish to stay in one area? Or are you just trying to stop all CCers from using VM's? Sorry if I have miss understood but it is early in the morning and I had a very long day yesterday