Continuous Cruising Maps

[Naughty Cal]

They would have to take 7,000 boaters to court most probably 8,000 bu the end of next year

Why the increase of 1000?

 

They could just refuse to issue any cc licences to new customers. Those with existing cc licences keep the right to have them provided they stick to the guidelines and all new licence applications must have a home mooring.

[blodger]

Why the increase of 1000?

 

They could just refuse to issue any cc licences to new customers. Those with existing cc licences keep the right to have them provided they stick to the guidelines and all new licence applications must have a home mooring.

 

You mean just ignore the provisions of the 1995 act

[cotswoldsman]

Why the increase of 1000?

 

They could just refuse to issue any cc licences to new customers. Those with existing cc licences keep the right to have them provided they stick to the guidelines and all new licence applications must have a home mooring.

1,000 is a conservative estimate boats are moving out of marinas and off LTM's at the rate of about 50 - 75 per month

[NigelMoore]

 

There are current guidelines. For all their faults, they have been subject to a judicial review which found them to be okay (however this is being challenged). They define bona fide navigation as going from place to place - assuming that people would know what a place is. It appears they don't, hence the need to define 'place'.

 

Just for clarity: the guidelines have NOT “been subject to a judicial review which found them to be okay”. Permission for a Judicial Review was twice turned down by High Court judges on the basis that in their opinion there were no arguable grounds for challenge. At a higher level, an Appeal Court judge has disagreed with them and said that there are grounds for challenge that would be a public benefit to explore – and a Judicial Review on whether the guidance reflects the law will now take place at the court’s convenience.

 

Having conducted that review, a judge will then pronounce a decision which will entail either dismissal of the challenge or an order to “return to the drawing board”. Alternatively, it would be open to the judge to give an opinion on whether guidance was appropriate at all, given the wording of the statute.

 

A purist could say of whatever outcome, that neither of the conflicting parties was necessarily “wrong” to begin with, but that “judge-made law” has been determined, and so from that point on, that is how the law will then stand - where it hadn’t, before that judgment.

What would happen if CRT decided that CCing was too much hassle to regulate and insisted all boaters had a home mooring?

 

If they decided that s.17(3)( c )(ii) was all too much hassle then they would need to return to Parliament with a new Bill requesting that the relevant law be overturned. They would then face the necessity to reprise the 5 years of Parliamentary debate that gave rise to the law they didn’t want in the first place. Vitally, they would need to address the primary concern of the Select Committee at the time – that granting wide powers to a reputable body might be non problematic, but that Parliament had concerns about the type of executive who might later take control.

 

Has the current team in charge [substantially unchanged for the last decade] proven that draconian powers are to be entrusted to them with confidence? It would be the first question asked by a responsible government.

[cotswoldsman]

 

You mean just ignore the provisions of the 1995 act

Exactly.

[Tuscan]

That's strange our marina is nearly full, 4 empty out of 200 at average midland marina prices.

[Bod]

Food for thought.

"Place"= 1 page of Nicholson.

No return to that page for xxx days.

 

I believe all their maps are the same scale, and are universally accepted on the canals for accuracy.

 

Bod

[Naughty Cal]

That's strange our marina is nearly full, 4 empty out of 200 at average midland marina prices.

Funnily enough ours is pretty full as well and is operating a waiting list for larger berths with a handful of smaller boat berths (up to 30ft) left. Again 250+ berth marina.

 

You mean just ignore the provisions of the 1995 act

These acts can be revised.

[cotswoldsman]

That's strange our marina is nearly full, 4 empty out of 200 at average midland marina prices.

Good to see one marina is bucking the trend. One LTM near where I am had 23 boats 2 years ago and has 7 now.

[RLWP]

One LTM near where I am had 23 boats 2 years ago and has 7 now.

 

That may be down to the allocation of long term moorings through an uncertain process, like an auction

 

Richard

[bottle]

We have noticed, on our travels. that more and more LTM's are completely empty and those that have boats on them still have plenty of spaces.

 

It is possible that all the moorers have decided to go on their holidays and cruise at the same time but surely the law of averages says no.

[BruceinSanity]

We have noticed, on our travels. that more and more LTM's are completely empty and those that have boats on them still have plenty of spaces.

 

It is possible that all the moorers have decided to go on their holidays and cruise at the same time but surely the law of averages says no.

I reckon that's down to the delays in reallocation caused by the auction system as much as lack of interest. The increasing gaps on LTMs have only been since the auctions started.

 

I know that's not proof, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and all that, but it's still a striking coincidence.

[blodger]

I reckon that's down to the delays in reallocation caused by the auction system as much as lack of interest. The increasing gaps on LTMs have only been since the auctions started.

 

I know that's not proof, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and all that, but it's still a striking coincidence.

 

Perhaps that needs adding to the agenda of these ad hoc local boater meetings if auctioning moorings and, presumably more expensive ones, as a CaRT policy/procedeure is leading to diminished use and adding to congestion elsewhere. CaRT can change such policy without recourse to revising the 1995 Act?

Edited August 8, 2013 by blodger

[BruceinSanity]

Certainly can; for their own moorings, it's entirely up to them how they allocate them. The levels of vacancies are such that it must eat into what additional money they get by auctioning rather than setting a fixed price.

 

Has anyone seen any figures for income from LTMs before and after the auctions system was brought in?

[matty40s]

I can assure you that the Ltms on the t&m, shroppie,coventry and north oxford had plenty of the same spaces through the whole winter period.

CRT are only selling them one at once, and if a single bid appears, there is usually a bidding war.

2 reasons, one is to reduce online Ltm, the other is to artificially raise the price by limiting availability.

 

I obviously wouldnt suggest that CRT are always the 2nd bidder.....

[andy3196]

Just wondering how many of these LTM are actually vacant, and how many are in fact no longer LTM as a result of new marina openings. The list of closed LTM is downloadable at http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/new-marinas-unit/links-downloads-and-glossary

 

One LTM that I used to pass often is Ansty on the North Oxford, which looks to have lost 5 places, but as far as I can recall the posts marking the limits of the LTM haven't been moved. So although it looks as if there are lots of vacancies, that isn't really the case.

[PhilR]

 

You've heard the expression 'drinking in the Last Chance Saloon'? CRT are kicking NCCC boaters in through the door and pointing forcibly at the sign of the bar.

 

These actions give people who may comply a chance to do so, and those that don't one less excuse if they end up in court

 

Richard

 

I presume you aren't suggesting that North Cheshire Cruising Club members should be worried about their gin & tonics and pints of real ale?

[AndrewIC]

I'm sure they will be pretty and possibly thorough, but will these maps have any more legal force than anyone else's opinion of what constitutes a "place" under the Act?

 

I'd be more concerned about the increasing number of emails from CART announcing mooring restrictions and "extended stay charges" - two in the last day.

[Paul C]

I'm sure they will be pretty and possibly thorough, but will these maps have any more legal force than anyone else's opinion of what constitutes a "place" under the Act?

 

I'd be more concerned about the increasing number of emails from CART announcing mooring restrictions and "extended stay charges" - two in the last day.

 

The wording of the law says "the board is satisfied........" so if CRT publish the maps, they'd presumably be happy with the definitions and accompanying interpretation/guidance of them.

[Richard10002]

What margins? There is NO current guidance. Boaters have to GUESS for themselves. Why the heck should I (if I was a CC-er), have to constantly worry that if I (for example), travel from Doncaster to Sheffield....turn around....back to Doncaster....then think...oh heck...I'm not allowed to go back to Sheffield now...because someone will think I'm bridge hopping...so I guess I'll have to spend 7hrs going up the Navigation...and head for Castleford. I dont really want to go to Castleford....I prefer Sheffield...but heck...I have no idea if ....I decide to revisit Sheffield, ....someone is going to come and issue me with an enforcement ticket.

 

get it?

Equally, you could say, "I don't like anywhere other than Sheffield, so that's where I'm going to stay, 24/7" but that definitely would not be a CC.

 

So.... Just because it doesn't suit you, or you don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong, or not fair.

 

I could suggest that, if you went Doncaster, Sheffield, Doncaster, Sheffield, and kept doing that, you are not on a CC. However, if, after the second Shefield, you headed off to Newark, or Todmorden, etc., you almost certainly are on a CC. so, like the guidance says, it's not definable, and it depends.

 

At some point, a reasonable person, (the passenger on the Clapham Omnibus), would think to themselves, "this isn't really a continuous cruise", or "this is truly a continuous cruise". If it got to Court, that is what a judge would be considering.

 

I also think that a CC'er could not hold down a job in a fixed location, or kids at a particular school, so one, or both, of these might be a sign of someone not on a CC.

 

Common sense, and perhaps going a little over the top, would keep reasonable boaters out of the clutches of the CC police and, if truly a CC'er, this would not pose a problem.

 

Do CRT issue enforcement notices as soon as they think you are not on a CC, or do they issue a warning, and give you a chance to rectify things? In fact, isn't an enforcement notice merely a warning, by another name - so not such a big deal. I don't think they would be craning you out and cancelling your licence in the first instant..... Would they?

[NoFixedAbode]

Is there anywhere yet that I can view one of these maps ?

[Jerra]

It would seem logical that the maps be based on parish and/or administrative boundaries. Easier to compile that way.

 

Edit: to add some spaces between words.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Jerra

[jenlyn]

It would seem logical that the maps be based on parish and/or administrative boundaries. Easier to compile that way.

 

Edit: to add some spaces between words.

We specified that the maps be based on canal place names, for instance, rickmansworth, springwell, coy carp, black jacks, harefield horse and barge etc etc.

[Jerra]

We specified that the maps be based on canal place names, for instance, rickmansworth, springwell, coy carp, black jacks, harefield horse and barge etc etc.

Surely they are in parishes?

[jenlyn]

Surely they are in parishes?

I did not even think of parishes. Canal place names in my mind were an obvious option. Some parishes can be huge, yet have plenty of mooring. Why waste a stretch of say 10 miles by only allowing one 14 day stop? A 10 mile stretch to me might take 4- 14 day stops. I am after all continually moving forward.

Edited August 8, 2013 by jenlyn