Why the Roving Permit

[MtB]

The long term solution is to find affordable moorings

 

So the plan is, the Roving Mooring Permits will be issued until the affordable moorings are negotiated, then stop?

 

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

I think the point is it isn't permanent as year by year some will move out of the area to new jobs, become too old for boats and move on land or die.

 

No new permits will be be issued so eventually there will be no RPs in the area.

That is also part of the solution. I think it is time to move on try and sort the problem the best way possible otherwise we will all be having the same discussions in 10 years time

[MtB]

I think the point is it isn't permanent as year by year some will move out of the area to new jobs, become too old for boats and move on land or die.

 

No new permits will be be issued so eventually there will be no RPs in the area.

 

I understand that thanks, which is why I phrased my question "the Roving Mooring Permit would be a permanent solution for those qualifying for the 'grandfather rights'."

 

But Cotswoldman seems to be saying even for those with the grandfather rights (and some could be quite young still), the Roving Mooring Permit is only a stopgap solution while for the 'affordable moorings' are created.

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

 

So the plan is, the Roving Mooring Permits will be issued until the affordable moorings are negotiated, then stop?

 

 

MtB

The idea is to issue the RP and try and work towards affordable moorings as has been said before the RP is a one off people can not come and be issued with one at a later date. Also they are not something that can be reissued if someone drops out they are out forever. Affordable moorings is a long term game and will not happen overnight. I also think it is worth pointing out that we are not talking vast numbers here, don't ask me for a number yet because we are still going through the process.

 

 

I understand that thanks, which is why I phrased my question "the Roving Mooring Permit would be a permanent solution for those qualifying for the 'grandfather rights'."

 

But Cotswoldman seems to be saying even for those with the grandfather rights (and some could be quite young still), the Roving Mooring Permit is only a stopgap solution while for the 'affordable moorings' are created.

 

MtB

What I was trying to say is all these things are part of trying to find a solution. Affordable moorings are very difficult in the South due to many factors price of land being one. Also what is affordable to one person might be pie in the sky to another. There is not a one hat fits all solution.

[MtB]

I'm intrigued by this concept of affordable moorings. Surely all that has to happen is for CRT to rent some of the vacant spaces at a suitably low price to this (not vast) group of local CCers.

 

MtB

[Leni]

But Cotswoldman seems to be saying even for those with the grandfather rights (and some could be quite young still), the Roving Mooring Permit is only a stopgap solution while for the 'affordable moorings' are created.

 

MtB

 

I'm afraid I think the 'affordable moorings' are a bit of a pipe-dream, at least in the area where the Roving Permits are needed.

 

I was recently involved in a 'bidding war' for a few moorings which came up in the area. I know some of the people we were bidding against, and that they were (are!) as desperate to get a mooring as we were. However, those moorings were by no means "affordable", except by the very fortunate, and there were approximately four times as many people bidding for each of them as there were moorings available. If we hadn't been amongst the fortunate few, we would probably be looking into the possibility of getting a Roving Permit!

[Thorfast]

How do you define 'affordable moorings'?

And who decides who qualifies for them?

Do we begin to means-test boaters?

 

There are lots of things I'd like....cheaper rent, a porche!, but I know I can't have them so I adjust my lifestyle accordingly.

[MtB]

How do you define 'affordable moorings'?

And who decides who qualifies for them?

Do we begin to means-test boaters?

 

There are lots of things I'd like....cheaper rent, a porche!, but I know I can't have them so I adjust my lifestyle accordingly.

 

Exactly. We have the same debates about houses. House prices are by definition 'affordable' just like the moorings being auctioned. Someone can afford them or they would not sell.

 

The term is wrong. Subsidised might be better.

 

MtB

[Thorfast]

And if we begin to look at 'subsidised' moorings....is it right that my (or anyone else's) licence fee is used to support for somebody else's mooring?

 

Can of Worms?

[cotswoldsman]

I did try and stress that affordable moorings were a long term ambition and yes it will not be easy. So can I suggest that we do not complicate things now by going off on affordable moorings. We are looking at the Cruising Club model but are in the very early stages.

 

And if we begin to look at 'subsidised' moorings....is it right that my (or anyone else's) licence fee is used to support for somebody else's mooring?

 

Can of Worms?

CRT will not be using any money on this we are presently talking to councils about brownfield land on off side of canals Please please this is long term stuff and really not even worth discussing at present.

[Sir Nibble]

I think it behoves us all to offer a big round of applause to those boaters engaged in this and even to CaRT for behavng like humans instead of clinging to an illusion over reality.

[Berengaria]

I did try and stress that affordable moorings were a long term ambition and yes it will not be easy. So can I suggest that we do not complicate things now by going off on affordable moorings. We are looking at the Cruising Club model but are in the very early stages.

 

CRT will not be using any money on this we are presently talking to councils about brownfield land on off side of canals Please please this is long term stuff and really not even worth discussing at present.

 

Agreed Cotswoldsman, just don't tell my missus if someone gets some cheap offside land with enough room for chickens and a bee hive, she'll hit the roof

[mayalld]

I'm intrigued by this concept of affordable moorings. Surely all that has to happen is for CRT to rent some of the vacant spaces at a suitably low price to this (not vast) group of local CCers.

 

MtB

 

This then opens a can of worms.

 

If you create affordable moorings, who is allowed to have one?

What about the fact that you are suddenly undercutting the providers of other moorings.

[Thorfast]

Sorry Cotswoldsman I fail to see why social housing is something that concerns the canal system.

 

I can support the idea of the Roving Mooring Permit as a means of getting CART out of the hole they have inherited, but only if it is used with proper canal regulation enforcement and so gradually (over perhaps a longish time) reduces the current problem.

[cotswoldsman]

 

This then opens a can of worms.

 

If you create affordable moorings, who is allowed to have one?

What about the fact that you are suddenly undercutting the providers of other moorings.

No one said it would be easy that is why I stress long term and not even worth debating

 

Sorry Cotswoldsman I fail to see why social housing is something that concerns the canal system.

 

I can support the idea of the Roving Mooring Permit as a means of getting CART out of the hole they have inherited, but only if it is used with proper canal regulation enforcement and so gradually (over perhaps a longish time) reduces the current problem.

Fine so we agree

 

No one is talking about social housing Cruising Clubs have been about for years.

Edited May 21, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[magnetman]

This then opens a can of worms.

 

If you create affordable moorings, who is allowed to have one?

What about the fact that you are suddenly undercutting the providers of other moorings.

I don't think this is even legal. I overheard a bloke in a charity shop in Margate the other day bemoaning the high rent which is forcing them to close down. The landlord is the council. Margate high street is desolate with a very high proportion of empty shops. The bloke he was moaning to was from another town and had a similar problem. He said it was illegal for the council to lower their rent because it would be anti competitive as they own so much property.

 

What NEEDS to happen is more offside moorings but they must be let at MARKET VALUE to anyone who wants one maybe on a waiting list system and IF people need to have some sort of subsidy then they claim housing benefit IF they are entitled to it.

 

I don't know the ins and outs but I suspect the majority of people in this CLUB outfit are using the boat as a primary dwelling.

 

If this is wrong then I would welcome correction.

[Tuscan]

My understanding initially was this was a 12 month pilot scheme are we now saying these will be valid for life as long as you have been in the area 6 months to qualify. There will be little or no additional subsidised brownfield moorings created in 12 months I suspect ( as John says this is an admirable long term aim )and if they are is it fair that they go to those with RMP's as opposed to the most deserving who might be different. I suspect CRT will also be advertising for a housing officer soon funded from this extra income.

 

I am sure boats will continue to head to London as they are now for all the same reasons waiting for the next amnesty and next set of RMP's to be offered. To say this is a one off is misleading as I am sure CRT will seek to replicate this both in London and elsewhere as the numbers of live aboads continue to grow as its a nice little earner and money seems to be their new driving force.

 

It is a pragmatic solution to CRT's new definition of navigation and the hassle that might derive from that, until hopefully there is a revised transport Act that clarifies the rules or a legal challenge.

[Thorfast]

What NEEDS to happen is more offside moorings

 

NO......In far too many places there are far to many online moorings........here we go again with this arguement !!

[MtB]

I think a permanent Roving Mooring Permit has substantial merit. Free for those with grandfather rights, similar price to a CRT online mooring for everyone else.

 

The advantage is that for liveaboards, this anticipates and gets around the next problem just looming on the horizon. Planning permission. Anyone living on their boat on a leisure mooring is breaking the law and I can imagine this being enforced sooner or later. Anyone acquiring PP then becomes liable for Council tax too, so boats cease to be 'affordable' anyway.

 

A Roving Mooring permit neatly sidesteps both issues, and allows the 'CMers' to continue with their current lifestyle permanently.

 

MtB

[magnetman]

why not just substantially increase the license fee and include the ability to stay 14 days in one place then move

[cotswoldsman]

My understanding initially was this was a 12 month pilot scheme are we now saying these will be valid for life as long as you have been in the area 6 months to qualify. There will be little or no additional subsidised brownfield moorings created in 12 months I suspect ( as John says this is an admirable long term aim )and if they are is it fair that they go to those with RMP's as opposed to the most deserving who might be different. I suspect CRT will also be advertising for a housing officer soon funded from this extra income.

 

I am sure boats will continue to head to London as they are now for all the same reasons waiting for the next amnesty and next set of RMP's to be offered. To say this is a one off is misleading as I am sure CRT will seek to replicate this both in London and elsewhere as the numbers of live aboads continue to grow as its a nice little earner and money seems to be their new driving force.

 

It is a pragmatic solution to CRT's new definition of navigation and the hassle that might derive from that, until hopefully there is a revised transport Act that clarifies the rules or a legal challenge.

It is a pilot scheme in the sense that if it does not work and boaters do not obey the rules CRT can cancel the scheme and those applying know this is part of the terms. Not sure where you get the 6 months from?

[Thorfast]

When do the canals become overcrowded?

Is there a case for limiting the issue of new CC licences?

Is there a case for limiting the issue of any new licences?

 

I realise that this should really be a new thread....and am just posing the thoughts.

Obviously if CART is new revenue driven they will not even consider these questions!

[Berengaria]

The thing is, I see TONS of liveaboards on the offside on my travels, as I'm sure you guys do too. The majority of these are on farmland (you know, tiny fenced off areas at the ends of fields) and many don't display mooring permits at all - if these are indeed illegal and CRT chooses to enforce their laws, a few people potentially being made homeless in the SE will be just the tip of the iceberg surely.

[magnetman]

This thing about people not liking moored boats is it just because of slowing down and the journey being more boring and slower?

 

This really shouldn't be a barrier. People should tie up properly, tolerate being on a CANAL with Moving Boats then there wouldn't be this silly impasse.

 

surely

[NigelMoore]

Just a few thoughts surrounding the recent issues raised in this topic -

 

If it’s agreed to budget £2.7 million on enforcement for the coming year, there must be a definite plan for how and on whom that is spent?

 

Respecting availability of visitor moorings, I’m wondering how far that would go towards buying, for each of maybe half a dozen ‘hotspots’, a decent Patrol Boat and couple of staff to man them. They could keep a log on boats arriving and leaving, and once full, suggest the first arrival leaves to accommodate the latest; only if it insisted on staying, or no-one was ‘home’, would the staff then simply move it back of the queue - being [as in the ‘Roadhouse’ admonition] at all times polite about it.

 

Would that not guarantee everyone a place at even the busiest visitor moorings? The time of stay would be dictated by the demand, instead of an arbitrary fixed period. The ‘offence’ of obstruction would in such circumstances be crystal clear, making moving under s.8(5) without notice a remedy instantly available without delays and without expenditure on dubious legal firms. No real hassle for boaters affected either.

 

They only need one legal officer at head office, because they always employ outside firms of solicitors anyway, and with Johnson gone and not replaced [nobody needs anyone of his calibre, as was suggested by the relevant press release] they will be saving a good chunk of that budget.

 

Reminds me – I deeply regretted their decision during the first of their various proceedings against me, to transfer their business away from the firm of Wright Hassall; the name itself was so exquisitely apposite.

 

Would that leave a few pence over to buy up whatever offside land was available, not already pinched, for providing more moorings in lay-by’s? Then again, they might not even need to. I have not investigated how much offside land they have successfully grabbed all over the system over the past few years, but it has to be considerable going by London alone [of course, some of that has been reclaimed after a struggle by the rightful owners, but most will have resigned to the ‘alleged’ land fraud from the usual pecuniary pragmatism].

 

Leaving aside the legitimacy of the land-grab operation, there can be no good reason why much of that land should not be made available for moorings at a level that need not reflect the so-called ‘market demand’. It’s all very well spouting the requirement to act commercially, but if providing economic moorings – on land they paid nothing for - saved a decent portion of the projected £2.7 million, it could be looked at as a roundabout way of saving far more money than ‘lost’ through not charging high mooring rates.

 

If the RMP is truly being looked on as an interim solution pending provision of more local moorings whether affordable or not, then I do not see how it can be considered not worth even talking about at this stage – it becomes an integral part of the overall ‘strategy’.

 

Has anyone thought to request mapped details of all land registered to CART for say, five miles above and below Uxbridge? That would provide hard and fast data for people to work with respecting the desired future provision of economical moorings. It might even be something that could help acceptance of the RMP concept perhaps.

 

There might even be enough in the enforcement pot for a re-write of advice to boaters on how to moor properly, so that no-one need breach the relevant byelaw 28 through ignorance. That would help reduce the understandable irritation of those who object to having their navigation impeded by apoplectic moorers lining the banks for long stretches, which seems to be the greatest [and legitimate] reason for complaint against online moorings.