FEDUP.

[Tuscan]

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

As I said its tongue in cheek but given that once the principle is established and therefore being inclusive any boater or group of boaters could apply for a roving permit which would allow him to stay in the same area albeit with limited movement why not do away with this concept of the permit, charge more money for the basic license if this is about raising cash in return for the ability to moor in the same area should you choose to do so and just change the terms of every bodies license to allow for this. CC'ers no different than any other boater could stay in one area or not as they chose. VM's would be enforced as now so presumably everybody is happy.

 

It's. Too early and my brain hurts beautiful morning out with the dogs.

[cotswoldsman]

Ok think I understand what you are saying. I still think you are confusing what is basically a mooring permit with a cruising permit. Don't forget that boaters with these permits will not be able to use VM's overnight. The idea of these permits is to try and sort out the problem of boaters that have commitments in a specific area if they decide to move out of that area they lose there permitt for ever. Also these permits are issued to the person not the boat. Once the permits are issued in a specific area that will be it no further permits will be issued so over time the number of people with the permits will reduce as people either leave the waterways or get moorings.

[Old Son]

So genuine CCers would pay more to allow others to moor in one area? Hardly fair is it?

 

I think the Roving Permits are a great idea PROVIDING CaRT rigorously enforce mooring conditions to show that illegal mooring will not be tolerated. Maybe they need to provide a date, say 6 months time when the illegal mooring crackdown starts. This will give everybody enough time to make alternative arrangements The only reason we don't all break the law is the fear of getting caught and the punishment received. Over time the number of Roving Permits will reduce and we will all be on the same game plan.

 

It is very difficult for some to afford the costs for home moorings. I think it should be part of Planning Permission that new marinas must include for a % of low cost moorings, similar to S106 on new housing developments. Boat Owners would need to meet specific rules to enable them to apply for one of these moorings. As a minimum it would help ease the mooring issues although it wont help those that want to be in a specific area where there is no marina. Could the same be done with linear moorings?

[Tuscan]

Ok think I understand what you are saying. I still think you are confusing what is basically a mooring permit with a cruising permit. Don't forget that boaters with these permits will not be able to use VM's overnight. The idea of these permits is to try and sort out the problem of boaters that have commitments in a specific area if they decide to move out of that area they lose there permitt for ever. Also these permits are issued to the person not the boat. Once the permits are issued in a specific area that will be it no further permits will be issued so over time the number of people with the permits will reduce as people either leave the waterways or get moorings.

 

Totally get that. I'm not confusing anything just being more radical as I personally don't believe these permits will solve the problem or prevent other boaters congregating in the same areas for the same reasons in the future. Assuming that's the case then they will just have a very limited short term effect in say Uxbridge but not Milton Keynes or Bath or any other area where a boater is currently looking to set up home. So in fact you will just need one license as now , those that do not have a home mooring pay more and for this they can stay in one designated area if they choose for agreed periods as per the proposals, no need to pay for winter moorings. Extra money raised can go into additional moorings and facilities VM or LT. Just a thought for debate not a serious thought through proposal.

[mayalld]

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.

 

There is nothing that prohibits you leaving CRT waters.

 

You can spend up to 7 days on non-CRT water beyond lock 92.

[DeanS]

There is nothing that prohibits you leaving CRT waters.

 

You can spend up to 7 days on non-CRT water beyond lock 92.

Yes I know that...but I'm talking about CRT waters only .simply to make the point that remaining within the CRT "rules" is not sometimes exactly possible. You cant say that for me to remain legal with CRT, I must leave CRT waters for a while So, since my kid is at college in Manchester, if I wanted to stay on CRT waters without a marina mooring, I would have no choice but to cruise down to lock 92...and then stay there, as I wouldnt be able to turn the boat around...and surely you wouldnt expect me to reverse up the Rochdale 9?

[Timleech]

Yes I know that...but I'm talking about CRT waters only .simply to make the point that remaining within the CRT "rules" is not sometimes exactly possible. You cant say that for me to remain legal with CRT, I must leave CRT waters for a while So, since my kid is at college in Manchester, if I wanted to stay on CRT waters without a marina mooring, I would have no choice but to cruise down to lock 92...and then stay there, as I wouldnt be able to turn the boat around...and surely you wouldnt expect me to reverse up the Rochdale 9?

 

But you decided to go for a wide boat, knowing the rules (presumably) after already living on a boat for some time in the same area and so you would have realised the limitations?

 

Tim

[cotswoldsman]

 

Totally get that. I'm not confusing anything just being more radical as I personally don't believe these permits will solve the problem or prevent other boaters congregating in the same areas for the same reasons in the future. Assuming that's the case then they will just have a very limited short term effect in say Uxbridge but not Milton Keynes or Bath or any other area where a boater is currently looking to set up home. So in fact you will just need one license as now , those that do not have a home mooring pay more and for this they can stay in one designated area if they choose for agreed periods as per the proposals, no need to pay for winter moorings. Extra money raised can go into additional moorings and facilities VM or LT. Just a thought for debate not a serious thought through proposal.

The idea behind the permit is that those that want to stay in one area will pay for the privilege to do so. With your idea people that want to cruise will be paying for something they do not want and need. Now I personally do not have a problem with paying more but non of this has anything to with what io want or can afford. What you are saying for example is the guy I cruise with who lives on a state pension should get off his boat because no way could he afford the extra. I think what you are saying is CCers should pay more for their licence and I think that for the many low ince CCers would be very unfair.

[DeanS]

But you decided to go for a wide boat, knowing the rules (presumably) after already living on a boat for some time in the same area and so you would have realised the limitations?

 

Tim

 

Yes of course...but what if life sent me a curveball and I had to give up my marina mooring. Now that my kid is at college in Manchester, how would I remain legal in CRTs eyes. Would I have to cruise up and down the Rochdale till I died from lock exhaustion?

 

 

ETA..Im actually asking a very serious point, to which I dont think there is an answer (Uxbridge may be the beginning). It does clearly identify the need for an additional licence (which makes a boater legal), whereby someone doesnt have to CC (be on a journey) if they are not in a marina. I didnt buy a boat to stay in a marina. I'm investing in solar so I dont need a shoreline connection. I'm forced to pay for a marina mooring simply to "stay legal"...not because I actually use the marina (except possibly in winter....and that's debatable)

 

Surely it would be financially better for CRT, if instead of paying my marina berth fee, I didnt, and gave CRT some extra funds in the form of an additional "roaming" licence. Of course the fear is that marina boats all go for the new licence...which is why in Uxbridge, CRT is claiming it's only for "historically recorded boats" . As marina costs go up in years to come, this pimple will turn into a boil and pop. CRT wont be able to chase every boat thats given up a marina mooring...so this new "licence" will be the new option...which in my eyes, it should already be...countrywide.

Edited May 1, 2013 by DeanS

[Tuscan]

The idea behind the permit is that those that want to stay in one area will pay for the privilege to do so. With your idea people that want to cruise will be paying for something they do not want and need. Now I personally do not have a problem with paying more but non of this has anything to with what io want or can afford. What you are saying for example is the guy I cruise with who lives on a state pension should get off his boat because no way could he afford the extra. I think what you are saying is CCers should pay more for their licence and I think that for the many low ince CCers would be very unfair.

No those that can afford to pay for a subsidised permit will do so unfair to those that can't, auction system is unfair, paying excessive fees in marina due to shortage of LTM's is unfair, staying in one place is unfair, being able to afford a winter mooring when others can't is unfair. I trod unction of no return rules is unfair. Spreading an increase over all those who do not have a designated mooring is perhaps the cheapest way of ensuring all that CC can cruise in any way they like from continuous to hardly at all. It's not going to happen but at least it's inclusive.

 

No those that can afford to pay for a subsidised permit will do so unfair to those that can't, auction system is unfair, paying excessive fees in marina due to shortage of LTM's is unfair, staying in one place is unfair, being able to afford a winter mooring when others can't is unfair. I trod unction of no return rules is unfair. Spreading an increase over all those who do not have a designated mooring is perhaps the cheapest way of ensuring all that CC can cruise in any way they like from continuous to hardly at all. It's not going to happen but at least it's inclusive.

Edited to say I wish iPad had smileys.

[magnetman]

. I trod unction of no return rules is unfair.

 

Edited to say I wish iPad had smileys.

and a decent keyboard.

[cotswoldsman]

No those that can afford to pay for a subsidised permit will do so unfair to those that can't, auction system is unfair, paying excessive fees in marina due to shortage of LTM's is unfair, staying in one place is unfair, being able to afford a winter mooring when others can't is unfair. I trod unction of no return rules is unfair. Spreading an increase over all those who do not have a designated mooring is perhaps the cheapest way of ensuring all that CC can cruise in any way they like from continuous to hardly at all. It's not going to happen but at least it's inclusive.

 

 

Edited to say I wish iPad had smileys.

Ok fine best you arrange a meeting with CRT and start the process you put up a good case.

[luctor et emergo]

Right, let's recap this for a moment.

 

The Uxbridge area is getting a special 'roving mooring' licence, to address the problem of boaters on a 'CC' declaration, who don't move (far) enough to 'qualify' as 'CC-er'. Right?

This is not available to new applicants.

I presume that the current 'no home mooring' declaration will still be available as an option though? In which case there is no reason why somebody could not declare 'no home mooring', and decide to spend extended times (note, not permanent, but extended)in the Uxbridge area. That means that it does not solve the underlying problem, of boaters declaring 'no home mooring' but there still not being a clear guideline to what constitutes 'CC-ing'.

Are there any thoughts/plans as to how these rules are checked/enforced? What time must a VM be vacated? How long can you moor on a VM?

 

I'm not knocking these plans for the sake of knocking them, but unless there is a wholesale change of the cruising/mooring guidelines/licences this is a hasty stopgap, which will not work in the long term.

[Timleech]

Yes of course...but what if life sent me a curveball and I had to give up my marina mooring. Now that my kid is at college in Manchester, how would I remain legal in CRTs eyes. Would I have to cruise up and down the Rochdale till I died from lock exhaustion?

 

If you think that scenario is possible, then that's a question you should perhaps have asked before you made the decision to go for a wide boat in Manchester.

 

Tim

[magnetman]

enforcement is the key. without that being arranged properly with skilled (and paid !) officers nothing will ever happen

[Allan(nb Albert)]

enforcement is the key. without that being arranged properly with skilled (and paid !) officers nothing will ever happen

CaRT have 50 staff involved with enforcement costing £2.2m a year. They say they intend to spend another £500,000.

 

12 months ago licence evasion was 3.4%. Now it is 3.9%.

[Mike Tee]

CaRT have 50 staff involved with enforcement costing £2.2m a year. They say they intend to spend another £500,000.

 

12 months ago licence evasion was 3.4%. Now it is 3.9%.

Is that increase down to boats that used to have a license now refusing to obtain one, or is it due to the efficiency of CRT finding boats unlicensed that they previously knew nothing about?

[DeanS]

If you think that scenario is possible, then that's a question you should perhaps have asked before you made the decision to go for a wide boat in Manchester.

 

Tim

 

That's not a logical response. You cant have 2 licences, when it is clear that some people may need a "middle ground" licence. CRT have obviously recognised this, and started the process , in Uxbridge. Hopefully they'll roll it out to Manchester soon before I get to old to do the Rochdale locks.

[Timleech]

If it's not a logical response, then I have misunderstood the question.

You made a decision, to live on a wide boat in Manchester, in (I would hope) full knowledge that it would have limitations. Now you seem to think that CRT should alter its rules to make your life easier?

I'm not clear what it is you're actually hoping for?

 

Tim

[RLWP]

That's not a logical response. You cant have 2 licences, when it is clear that some people may need a "middle ground" licence. CRT have obviously recognised this, and started the process , in Uxbridge. Hopefully they'll roll it out to Manchester soon before I get to old to do the Rochdale locks.

 

Don't hold your breath Dean. Can you show which BW officer advised you that your cruising pattern complies with your license conditions?

 

The solution in Uxbridge is highly specific and applies to a well defined group of people with an historic issue. New arrivals don't fit the group, nor do other areas

 

Richard

[Jerra]

Don't hold your breath Dean. Can you show which BW officer advised you that your cruising pattern complies with your license conditions?

 

The solution in Uxbridge is highly specific and applies to a well defined group of people with an historic issue. New arrivals don't fit the group, nor do other areas

 

Richard

Dean's post makes the point which has concerned me. While I can see it is a sensible and probably acceptable answer to a local problem, others in other areas will expect the same treatment, and in fairness should probably get it.

[RLWP]

Dean's post makes the point which has concerned me. While I can see it is a sensible and probably acceptable answer to a local problem, others in other areas will expect the same treatment, and in fairness should probably get it.

 

My understanding is that this isn't a long term permanent solution, it's the first step in a process that ends up with the boat owners involved complying with the same 'rules' as everyone else.

 

So, if the same conditions can be demonstrated to exist, and the process works, then why not use it in other places

 

Richard

 

Dean doesn't begin to match the conditions of the identified group

Edited May 1, 2013 by RLWP

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Is that increase down to boats that used to have a license now refusing to obtain one, or is it due to the efficiency of CRT finding boats unlicensed that they previously knew nothing about?

It is due to boats that had licences a year ago no longer having them. The figures are taken from CaRT's annual boat checks which have always been carried out in the same manner.

 

 

 

[Jerra]

My understanding is that this isn't a long term permanent solution,

If I understand the suggestion correctly it could be very long term!

 

Please tell me which parts of this I have got wrong.

 

1. The permit will be available to people who have been "under the radar" for a number of years due particularly to BW staff telling them it was OK.

2. The permit will last as long as that individual chooses to keep that life style in that area.

 

So suppose we have a 40 year old who has been there for 10 years. He gets his permit and stays living that life style until he is too old for the life or shuffles off this mortal coil. If they stay on the cut until 70 and perhaps beyond that is at least 30 years perhaps longer. Not really what I would call short term.

[magnetman]

 

 

 

The solution in Uxbridge is highly specific and applies to a well defined group of people

 

Richard

lol so not just boaters then?

 

can you expand on why these people are so important?

 

its not highly specific its just some people winge louder than others when they find living on a boat does not meet their expectations.

 

i just hope nobody has sold their house to live on the cut and got into a tricky situation - that is not a sensible thing to do at all