FEDUP.

[nicknorman]

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

 

I think that's unlikely. These people more likely were totally unable to get a foot on the housing market due to SE prices and bought a cheap boat as an affordable alternative, although of course every one of them is an individual with their own set of circumstances and issues.

Edited May 1, 2013 by nicknorman

[RLWP]

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.

 

 

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

 

I'm afraid I am going to make a massive cop-out

 

I'm not involved in this directly, I took the time to ask some questions of those who are and have developed an understanding that I have communicated

 

I don't have a response to the observations you are making and the questions that you ask beyond what I have found out for myself. This does not include details of the permit

 

My impression is that this is a pragmatic solution to a difficult situation. It won't satisfy everyone, particularly people not directly involved. Making pragmatic decisions to get things done is called good management, a rare commodity

 

Richard

Edited May 1, 2013 by RLWP

[mayalld]

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

Of course I can say that leaving CRT waters to remain legal is an option, particularly where CRT have negotiated an agreement that allows you to transit the non-CRT waters without any licence fee.

[cotswoldsman]

 

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.

The intention is to roll it out in othe areas where there is a problem.

 

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.

Yes what you say is right but it is hoped that maybe we can start some community moorings as a longer term solution.

[magnetman]

so how long do you have to have been in the uxbridge area to qualify? will everyone go there now to try to jump on the banned wagon?

 

or is it a club

[DeanS]

Some of you are missing my point...which is not that I am unhappy or trying to change any rules....all I'm saying is that...there are situations which do arise where people on the canals find themselves stuck between the 2 rules (a marina or a CC-er), due to no real cause of their own. These people shouldnt always be victimised, but a licence option should exist to include them. I have never been in that group of people, but, due to the fact I happen to actually be in a widebeam in Manchester, with a kid in college, should I actually hurt my back to the extent that I'm no longer able to pay a marina cost, and unable to cruise up and down the 50Rochdale locks, I should not automatically become "illegal" ...and then lose my family's home due to that.

 

does that not make sense to anyone

 

Again, I am not trying to bend rules, and am currently fully legal, but who knows what the future may hold, so what's going on in Uxbridge does have a lot of interest for many boaters across the country who would see "roving licences" as a 3rd way in the future. At the Skipton meeting, I do remember CRT mentioning different winter mooring "zones" ...which would also require a "temporary roving licence" for those months

[RichardN]

My impression is that this is a pragmatic solution to a difficult situation. It won't satisfy everyone, particularly people not directly involved. Making pragmatic decisions to get things done is called good management, a rare commodity

 

That is a good summary. I am really uneasy especially when the OP got hassle or I read stuff slagging off marina dwellers / shiney boaters / busy bodies / keep taking the tablets but the issue particularly in London is getting worse.

 

Last night I read Alan' summary, thank you Alan, glad someone had the sense to tell us more. I am not sure about your statement that BW used to tell people it was ok to bridge hop so tried to dig through old cwf and urw posts to find more - I thought Eugene Baston had said something almost definitive but could not find it but found posts from Alan suggesting otherwise. I have to say that the debates in 2003, 2005 & 2006 were not dissimilar to what is happening now but obviously there are a lot more boats now in London. I think a pragmatic decision is the way forward but I can't say I like it.

[jenlyn]

so how long do you have to have been in the uxbridge area to qualify? will everyone go there now to try to jump on the banned wagon?or is it a club

No

[cotswoldsman]

so how long do you have to have been in the uxbridge area to qualify? will everyone go there now to try to jump on the banned wagon?

 

or is it a club

You need to have been there quite a long time the final period is still being negotiated. The CRT data base will be used to identify qualifying boats. There is also a calculation that needs to be done on available space to ensure there are plenty of moorings available for boats passing through who do not wish to use VM's, so as hopefully you can see a lot of work is going into this to ensure it is done correctly.

[Berengaria]

so how long do you have to have been in the uxbridge area to qualify? will everyone go there now to try to jump on the banned wagon?

 

or is it a club

 

This was kind of the point I was making about other people seeing the scheme and wanting the same consideration.

 

All things considered I think the addition of a new licence that allowed people access to a smaller section of the network, so that people moored in a marina could go out for the odd weekend, and CC'ers who find it difficult to move 'bona fide' could feel secure that they are in fact permitted to move back and forth along say a 20 mile stretch of canal.

 

Off the top of my head I'd suggest that the cut be split into sections and priced according to traffic and availability of moorings. I'm on the Oxford, so if I could buy a licence that stretched from say Aynho to Fenny Compton, I'd pay for the use of visitor moorings between these sections.

 

Even if the sections were larger, say Oxford to Fenny Compton, I would assume that this would make CaRTs life easier....boats would either have a 'Go Anywhere You Like' license (expensive) or 'Restricted to travel between these bridges/zones' (cheaper). I dunno, seems like it would appeal to everyone though as they'd only be paying for access they required.

 

As I said, this is just a thought, although I'm sure 'someone' will come along and tell me to 'keep taking the pills' shortly.

[Jerra]

Yet again I can't get below the quote to post.

 

The problem I foresee Dean is that there appears to be no intention that these permits will be anything other than a measure used in this one area and aimed at having a definite end point.

 

I have thought all along that it will raise false hopes and expectations in others around the country.

 

what's going on in Uxbridge does have a lot of interest for many boaters across the country who would see "roving licences" as a 3rd way in the future.

[cotswoldsman]

The facts are you are never going to be able to please everyone and I accept that. The simple fact is there is a problem that needs to be sorted or at least a process needs to be started to sort it. We are talking here about actual people and in many cases children the simple fact is that the courts will not allow them to become homeless. What we have hopefully done is negotiated a part solution with CRT that allows these people and children to stay in an area at a cost and allow them to get on with there lives without the hassle of going to court to plead there Human Rights.

[cotswoldsman]

 

This was kind of the point I was making about other people seeing the scheme and wanting the same consideration.

 

All things considered I think the addition of a new licence that allowed people access to a smaller section of the network, so that people moored in a marina could go out for the odd weekend, and CC'ers who find it difficult to move 'bona fide' could feel secure that they are in fact permitted to move back and forth along say a 20 mile stretch of canal.

 

Off the top of my head I'd suggest that the cut be split into sections and priced according to traffic and availability of moorings. I'm on the Oxford, so if I could buy a licence that stretched from say Aynho to Fenny Compton, I'd pay for the use of visitor moorings between these sections.

 

Even if the sections were larger, say Oxford to Fenny Compton, I would assume that this would make CaRTs life easier....boats would either have a 'Go Anywhere You Like' license (expensive) or 'Restricted to travel between these bridges/zones' (cheaper). I dunno, seems like it would appeal to everyone though as they'd only be paying for access they required.

 

As I said, this is just a thought, although I'm sure 'someone' will come along and tell me to 'keep taking the pills' shortly.

I personally have no problem with other solutions and if you think that is the answer then fine. The next step should be arrange a meeting with CRT invite all the boaters that would be effected or support the idea and move forward. I personally would be happy to attend the meeting and give my views as someone that would like to be on the Oxford full time without a permanent mooring

[Jerra]

The facts are you are never going to be able to please everyone and I accept that. The simple fact is there is a problem that needs to be sorted or at least a process needs to be started to sort it. We are talking here about actual people and in many cases children the simple fact is that the courts will not allow them to become homeless. What we have hopefully done is negotiated a part solution with CRT that allows these people and children to stay in an area at a cost and allow them to get on with there lives without the hassle of going to court to plead there Human Rights.

I can see that it is a pragmatic approach to a problem and rightly so. However I feel there will be people in the same boat (pun intended) up and down the country who will expect/need/deserve (delete which ever does not apply) the same treatment and may not get it.

 

Wouldn't a countrywide moratorium of X years giving all people in this situation time to sort out their position not work and be fair to all whatever part of the country.

[cotswoldsman]

I can see that it is a pragmatic approach to a problem and rightly so. However I feel there will be people in the same boat (pun intended) up and down the country who will expect/need/deserve (delete which ever does not apply) the same treatment and may not get it.

 

Wouldn't a countrywide moratorium of X years giving all people in this situation time to sort out their position not work and be fair to all whatever part of the country.

It will be offered to other areas where there is a problem it is then up to those involved to to decided if they want it

Could you explain how a moratorium would work? If nothing else this thread now has people getting involved in trying to find a solution.

[Berengaria]

Wouldn't a countrywide moratorium of X years giving all people in this situation time to sort out their position not work and be fair to all whatever part of the country.

 

I certainly think that's the fairest way of doing it, and will instantly solve the problem of conflict and sour-grapes from people not eligable for the scheme.

 

 

Could you explain how a moratorium would work?

 

I would suggest that CaRT announce in no uncertain terms *their interpretation* of the requirements of the CC license, but also admit that in the past there has been 'fuzzy' interpretation of the guidelines which they have now clarified.

 

Explain that for the next 12 months, a certain amount of leniency will be shown to NCCCers (on a case by case basis) but come May 1st 2014 everyone will be required to comply by the 'new' rules or face punishment?

[cotswoldsman]

 

I certainly think that's the fairest way of doing it, and will instantly solve the problem of conflict and sour-grapes from people not eligable for the scheme.

Just so I understand are there two problems here

1. Boaters that need to stay in one area

2, Sour grapes

I think your other idea was good suits me fine i am heading towards the Oxford now Then there is the moratorium idea we just need to decide what idea we are going to go with and set up the meeting with CRT and see if they will go with it.

[alan_fincher]

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

 

so how long do you have to have been in the uxbridge area to qualify? will everyone go there now to try to jump on the banned wagon?

 

or is it a club

You really, REALLY, REALLY do need to back and read all the attempts to explain this further, before you keep commenting.

 

Either you have not really read it at all, or you have not understood it, so either way please try again to understand what this is about, and who is likely to be in scope.

 

Otherwise you and us are wasting our time debating it.

 

The bit about people who complain more than others getting more could hardly be further from the mark. It is exactly because people are not complaining, but actively trying to engage with CRT, that some progress may be getting made.

 

The whinging you can hear is almost certainly coming from people whose minds can';t adjust to actually trying to solve something, rather than just keep ranting about it.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

I would suggest that CaRT announce in no uncertain terms *their interpretation* of the requirements of the CC license, but also admit that in the past there has been 'fuzzy' interpretation of the guidelines which they have now clarified.

 

Explain that for the next 12 months, a certain amount of leniency will be shown to NCCCers (on a case by case basis) but come May 1st 2014 everyone will be required to comply by the 'new' rules or face punishment?

Problem solved!!

[luctor et emergo]

I doubt that there will be a solution to this problem, without some major change in the rules, or a severe tightning up of the existing rules. Because the 'no home mooring' (I.e. CC-ing) rules are so ambigues, you will always have people trying to find the limits. For instance, where does it say in the rules that I may not explore a certain canal, taking a year or more, before moving to a new canal? And what about moving around the Thames- Oxford- Grand Union ring?

What about those boats that travel from the K&A to the Midlands, and straight back? Is traveling between two canals sufficient? Can you possibly put a time or distance limit on CC-ing?

Whilst this is without a doubt a step forward, the underlying problem is not addressed. There will either have to be a permanent option for those who do not wish to reside in a marina or on a permanent mooring, but move within a smaller area, or the rules need to be tightened up, excluding those who do not wish to reside on a mooring, unless they can prove that they will travel large distances around the system

The first option will mean somesort of combined roving mooring/licence solution, increasing the price of such a licence. There will be a distinction between 'rovers' and 'CC-ers'.

This may be unpopular with some (many) who currently pay for expensive moorings,and wgo argue that the canal was not dug to be a housing estate, but the counter argument is that it wasn't a leisure facility in the first place. Times and circumstances change.

 

The second option means that the canal will become a leisure persuit or home for the well off. This option will also flood the market with boats for sale, which will decimate the value of the boats. Including Hudsons.. ;-)

[bowten]

The facts are you are never going to be able to please everyone and I accept that. The simple fact is there is a problem that needs to be sorted or at least a process needs to be started to sort it. We are talking here about actual people and in many cases children the simple fact is that the courts will not allow them to become homeless. What we have hopefully done is negotiated a part solution with CRT that allows these people and children to stay in an area at a cost and allow them to get on with there lives without the hassle of going to court to plead there Human Rights.

Is this not the solution I to put Sally Ash at the Boaters Meeting in Skipton?I am sure I did.Unfortunately too late for some as the harassment and threats made by CRT to the liveaboards in Skipton was too much and they have reluctantly left their boat.

[nicknorman]

This option will also flood the market with boats for sale, which will decimate the value of the boats. Including Hudsons.. ;-)

 

Not a problem - we have no intention of selling! After all, there is nothing to "move up" to.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Is this not the solution I to put Sally Ash at the Boaters Meeting in Skipton?I am sure I did.Unfortunately too late for some as the harassment and threats made by CRT to the liveaboards in Skipton was too much and they have reluctantly left their boat.

Yes it is and as you can see it appears not to be a solution to some so it seems.

[bowten]

Some of you are missing my point...which is not that I am unhappy or trying to change any rules....all I'm saying is that...there are situations which do arise where people on the canals find themselves stuck between the 2 rules (a marina or a CC-er), due to no real cause of their own. These people shouldnt always be victimised, but a licence option should exist to include them. I have never been in that group of people, but, due to the fact I happen to actually be in a widebeam in Manchester, with a kid in college, should I actually hurt my back to the extent that I'm no longer able to pay a marina cost, and unable to cruise up and down the 50Rochdale locks, I should not automatically become "illegal" ...and then lose my family's home due to that.

 

does that not make sense to anyone

 

Again, I am not trying to bend rules, and am currently fully legal, but who knows what the future may hold, so what's going on in Uxbridge does have a lot of interest for many boaters across the country who would see "roving licences" as a 3rd way in the future. At the Skipton meeting, I do remember CRT mentioning different winter mooring "zones" ...which would also require a "temporary roving licence" for those months

I mentioned having zoning and permits for liveaboards, in fact I spent a great deal of time and effort at that meeting in Skipton trying to get my ideas across.I have mentioned these ideas on this forum before the meeting and since to no great avail.

[cotswoldsman]

 

I mentioned having zoning and permits for liveaboards, in fact I spent a great deal of time and effort at that meeting in Skipton trying to get my ideas across.I have mentioned these ideas on this forum before the meeting and since to no great avail.

Ian it was not to no avail some of us were listening just sometimes it is not worth the debate on here. I have spoken to CRT about the Skipton area