Why the Roving Permit

[cotswoldsman]

Nigel I will only comment on the land issue and yes we are looking at what is available from all sources we also have to be realistic about getting planning consent. So as I said before this is a long term project with many hurdles!!

Edited May 21, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[NigelMoore]

That’s excellent Cotswoldsman, and I wish you well with it. It might be helpful to realise [if you don’t already] that no planning consent is needed for ‘leisure’ moorings, so those at least could be provided at a basic level under “Permitted Development” powers.

 

It’s only residential use that will need going through the planning hoops. At least mooring infrastructure could be emplaced, and negotiations over any 'change of use' left until later if that was considered necessary &/or desirable.

 

[cotswoldsman]

Thats excellent Cotswoldsman, and I wish you well with it. It might be helpful to realise [if you dont already] that no planning consent is needed for leisure moorings, so those at least could be provided at a basic level under Permitted Development powers.

 

Its only residential use that will need going through the planning hoops. At least mooring infrastructure could be emplaced, and negotiations over any 'change of use' left until later if that was considered necessary &/or desirable.

 

You make a good point but people like myself would find it difficult to invest in a project like this unless we get it right. As I said earlier the money has to come from people and organisations that are happy to invest and this includes Counciles and that would mean having residential planning.

 

I should add when I say investment from Councils this is in the form of land on long term lease.

[mayalld]

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 here the klaxon sounds, and the argument falls over and adopts the characteristics of the Norwegian Blue!

 

Whilst it is fair to say that mooring permits are required at ALL CRT managed on-line sites (which means the vast majority of towpath side moorings), and at all single boat EOG moorings, it would be entirely incorrect to assume that all off-side online moorings require a permit.

 

Many farmers field moorings are covered by a mooring agreement, where the farmer pays CRT the mooring permit fee (at a discounted rate), and he collects it as part of his rent from the moorers.

[cotswoldsman]

 

And here the klaxon sounds, and the argument falls over and adopts the characteristics of the Norwegian Blue!

 

Whilst it is fair to say that mooring permits are required at ALL CRT managed on-line sites (which means the vast majority of towpath side moorings), and at all single boat EOG moorings, it would be entirely incorrect to assume that all off-side online moorings require a permit.

 

Many farmers field moorings are covered by a mooring agreement, where the farmer pays CRT the mooring permit fee (at a discounted rate), and he collects it as part of his rent from the moorers.

I thought that was the case but waited for someone that knew for sure. Nice to know that another group of boaters are now safe from people just making the wrong assumptions.

[mayalld]

I thought that was the case but waited for someone that knew for sure. Nice to know that another group of boaters are now safe from people just making the wrong assumptions.

 

We have owned a boat for around 12 years now, and whilst we have just moved into an offline marina, the first 9 years were online, and the next 3 were herringbone layby.

 

During those 12 years, we only had a mooring permit for 6 months. At no point were we evading any payment due to BW. We simply didn't need a mooring permit.

[carlt]

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

Indeed.

 

Also people should slow down, tolerate being on a CANAL with Moored Boats then there wouldn't be this silly impasse.

 

I moor up my boat properly and don't get upset at boats passing within the speed limit.

 

I also recognise that not everybody knows how to moor up correctly (or a speeding boat may have loosened their mooring stakes) and slow down accordingly, when passing moored boats.

 

It aint that hard.

[DeanS]

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

 

No, but apparently CRT are going to limit the number of marina boats,because they are all cruising out of the marina on the same weekends and clogging up all the moorings in one area, whereas CC-ers move around the system and dont impact on one area for longer than a few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;-)

[Tuscan]

 

No, but apparently CRT are going to limit the number of marina boats,because they are all cruising out of the marina on the same weekends and clogging up all the moorings in one area, whereas CC-ers move around the system and dont impact on one area for longer than a few days.

 

 

 

Guess that's because they have Roving Marina Permits !!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;-)

[BlueStringPudding]

Indeed.

 

Also people should slow down, tolerate being on a CANAL with Moored Boats then there wouldn't be this silly impasse.

 

I moor up my boat properly and don't get upset at boats passing within the speed limit.

 

I also recognise that not everybody knows how to moor up correctly (or a speeding boat may have loosened their mooring stakes) and slow down accordingly, when passing moored boats.

 

It aint that hard.

I find it's dependent on location and weather. For example very wet summer a couple of years ago meant that even crossed

pins and springs, slipped through the quagmire in some places, when boats sped past. Most of the time it's fine. People need to be considerate when passing moored boats - especially those who don't regularly have to moor on pins because they think all boats are as secure as they are in their nice marinas

[NigelMoore]

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!

 

One might argue that the canals are already overcrowded based on comparative numbers alone, seeing that the numbers now exceed those when the original commercial operations were at their maximum. But practically, as with all desirable locations, most of the population focuses on only a few centres of interest. I suspect that with the vast offline parks now filling up, there are in fact fewer boats online than a decade ago.

 

Then too, it depends on the season; I’ve travelled from south to north on the system in November/December and met up with a bare handful of other boaters on the move. If you were boating for the sake of meeting up and chatting with others, it would be a bad time of year for it! Come to that, I’ve been up and down the southern end of the Grand Union and along the Paddington Arm all times of the year and had the canal mostly to myself [in terms of moving boats, rather than moored].

 

Even if you believed that there was a practical case for limiting the issue of any new licences, there is absolutely no legal case. CART cannot limit the issue of new licences even if they wanted to.

 

It is only the physical limitation on current numbers of available home moorings that can effectively limit the requests for new licences from those who do not wish to be continuously cruising.

 

 

No, but apparently CRT are going to limit the number of marina boats,because they are all cruising out of the marina on the same weekends and clogging up all the moorings in one area, whereas CC-ers move around the system and dont impact on one area for longer than a few days.

 

I’m bemused at how there could be any enforced limiting of the numbers in private marinas, although I see the rationale – any hint as to how this objective was to be achieved? I certainly can’t see BWML voluntarily restricting the numbers of their clientele, no matter what benefit might be seen in relieving visitor mooring pressure.

 

Perhaps they could issue some sort of selective rolling curfew instead, and boats would need to wait their turn before being allowed out on outside adventures!

[magnetman]

edited because quote didn't work properly

 

wouldn't this be discriminating against shiny boats

 

when I was in paris a while back they had a really cool bridge which was a pontoon with an outboard motor strapped on the side. when you want to go through they motor out the way.

 

you could have these with a big sign saying 'Toll bridge' and a couple of burly chaps to collect the dues and run the outboard motor

Edited May 21, 2013 by magnetman

[NigelMoore]

During those 12 years, we only had a mooring permit for 6 months. At no point were we evading any payment due to BW. We simply didn't need a mooring permit.

 

I understood your position to be that people who didn’t pay, even when they didn’t need to, were freeloaders?

 

Indeed, it went further than that; you claimed that even people who paid voluntarily despite not being required to, were freeloaders if they asserted anything like this present post of yours.

 

A courageous confession under the circumstances.

[blodger]

I understood your position to be that people who didn’t pay, even when they didn’t need to, were freeloaders?

 

Indeed, it went further than that; you claimed that even people who paid voluntarily despite not being required to, were freeloaders if they asserted anything like this present post of yours.

 

A courageous confession under the circumstances.

 

I thought he was saying that though he paid for his moorings there was no permit attached which he could stick in a porthole; You only get a piece of paper when the mooring is diraectly with CaRT/BW?

[NigelMoore]

I thought he was saying that though he paid for his moorings there was no permit attached which he could stick in a porthole; You only get a piece of paper when the mooring is diraectly with CaRT/BW?

 

Yes, that is my presumption as well. The jibe still applies, but I don’t wish to hijack this thread with explanations why, and shouldn’t have succumbed to the temptation to make an off-topic point.

[magnetman]

do you have an encylopaedic knowledge of peoples' previous post history on the forum?

 

[NigelMoore]

Would one need to have in this instance?

 

- plus that smiley thing.

[DeanS]

I’m bemused at how there could be any enforced limiting of the numbers in private marinas,

 

MY COMMENT WAS PURPOSEFULLY TONGUE IN CHEEK

Edited May 21, 2013 by DeanS

[NigelMoore]

MY COMMENT WAS PURPOSEFULLY TONGUE IN CHEEK

 

So I realised very belatedly. You hid that wink way too far down the post!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I thought he was saying that though he paid for his moorings there was no permit attached which he could stick in a porthole; You only get a piece of paper when the mooring is diraectly with CaRT/BW?

The BW/CaRT term is 'directly managed mooring'. However it is incorrect to say that you only get a piece of paper if you are on such a mooring.

 

Over the last eight years, I have moored on both towpath and offside on moorings managed by a third party and have always had a permit which must be displayed on both sides of the boat as a condition of mooring.

[bowten]

I’ve been doing some sums [not a favourite occupation]. Presumably the enforcement budget covers the salaries of the legal team, enforcement team and on-the-ground Patrol Officers as well as the outside solicitors and barristers.

 

But taking the figure of 2.2 million for 2012 and applying it as an average spend on each case brought in that year –

 

13 cases = £169,230 each

 

Costs summarily assessed in their favour, total: £9,477

 

Costs to be assessed awarded against them, maximum: £65,000

 

I really don’t quite know what to make of these figures. The average cost of the County Court proceedings was £950 – not a vast sum, but the overall cost of the enforcement infrastructure [whether any boats are pursued to court or not] is extraordinary.

 

Aggregating the last 4 years, there is a spend of nearly £9 million on a couple of dozen cases – which if all were won would add up to awarded costs of about £24,000 in total. Each removed boat then, costs around £375,000?

 

But from the figures Allan and CART are providing, if every single boater does the right thing and no action need be taken against any of us, it will STILL be costing £2&1/2 million this coming year to ‘ensure’ that state. If they are spending all that money anyway, it hardly seems that the prospect of dragging a few boaters into court would make any significant dent in the budget at all, at roughly a grand a pop.

 

Rather takes the force out of the suggestion that they haven’t pursued the Uxbridge lot on grounds of cost.

 

 

edited to amend costs against [forgot one calculation step]

This as been written so even I can understand it,unfortunately it looks like CRT can't add up.

[bowten]

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

I think it is being led by a few Hire Boat companies,Marina owners,boat club Commodores and owners of nice homes next to the canal.These people don't want their fantasies and idealised view of the Cut being destroyed by tramp boats lined up in their domain.Most regular boaters don't give a damn,I know I didn't.I have been actively and noisily putting my views about roving permits and zoning to CRT for some time now,I posted on this forum last year on this idea and it was shunned by most.

[blodger]

I think it is being led by a few Hire Boat companies,Marina owners,boat club Commodores and owners of nice homes next to the canal.These people don't want their fantasies and idealised view of the Cut being destroyed by tramp boats lined up in their domain.Most regular boaters don't give a damn,I know I didn't.I have been actively and noisily putting my views about roving permits and zoning to CRT for some time now,I posted on this forum last year on this idea and it was shunned by most.

 

Go on then, air your views on this Roving Permit pilot then. I have changed my mind umpteen times on whether I am for or against it mainly in trying to figure the likely outcome and affect on those not originally to be affected, etc

[MtB]

It’s only residential use that will need going through the planning hoops. At least mooring infrastructure could be emplaced, and negotiations over any 'change of use' left until later if that was considered necessary &/or desirable.

 

As I understand it, PP is only required for a residential mooring in a precisely defined position. A Roving Mooring Permit valid for even a tightly defined fww hundred metres or so negates the need for PP, and removes liability for CT. I cite the Cambridge city centre residential moorings site as the precident, discussed in the thread about a month ago.

 

MtB

[BruceinSanity]

Go on then, air your views on this Roving Permit pilot then. I have changed my mind umpteen times on whether I am for or against it mainly in trying to figure the likely outcome and affect on those not originally to be affected, etc

I'm glad I'm not the only one!