Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

 

"The only secure income the CRT have is the boaters and a declining income from the government, keep putting the price up, lose business so put the price up, classic spiral of decline."

K

 

Or a classic way of shifting an amenity owned by us all into the hands of an elite few!

Is this the right time to propose mooring fees should be based on ability to pay not the size of the space you take up ?

 

Could we also apply this to motor cars, please, my grocery bill, and, most importantly, my beer too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting lost! Isn't the NAA a fee which gives the right for boats to leave a marina on to a canal? If so does it matter who owns the land the opening is on? Surely they need CRT permission which could incur a fee. If you own land beside your neighbour you can take down the fence but that doesn't give you the right to allow friends and neighbours to use it as a short cut.

Permission for a boat to enter CaRT controlled waters IS usually necessary, and takes the form of the Pleasure Boat Certificate/License [that's the neighbour's grant of a right to allow your friends etc to use his land]. That is distinct from permission to physically connect a waterway, which is the usual means by which a non-trailerable licensed boat will legitimately access the CaRT controlled water. The NAA refers to the physical connection [removing the fence, which could of course be on his land if you pulled down yours].

 

If the channel connecting private water to CaRT water cuts through CaRT land, you will need their permission to do so; if the private land already abuts CaRT water, then extending the waterspace into your own land does not usually require their consent. That is why it matters who owns the bank through which access is made.

 

As I have said above, the only usual constraints legitimately exercisable by CaRT will be via drainage/pollution statutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so if NAA is lost then CaRT will reinstate all previously removed online moorings and probably develop even more to the detriment of marinas. Is there a Marina Owners association if so what are there feelings ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so if NAA is lost then CaRT will reinstate all previously removed online moorings and probably develop even more to the detriment of marinas. Is there a Marina Owners association if so what are there feelings ?

I can't see how they could lose the NAA's already signed up? Whether necessary at all in the first place or not, they have been agreed to, presumably by way of signed contract.

 

It's why I felt cancelling the Pillings contract was inadvisedly precipitate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how they could lose the NAA's already signed up? Whether necessary at all in the first place or not, they have been agreed to, presumably by way of signed contract.

 

It's why I felt cancelling the Pillings contract was inadvisedly precipitate.

 

Yes this puzzles me too. Given the contract gives them the right to terminate access following late or non payment anyway, I wonder why they didn't just do it.

 

I think it's that old 'when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail' principle. If you tell the legal dept about an unpaid debt, they'll go to law with it. It's what lawyers do!

 

They should have instead called in the piling contractors in this case but lawyers do not generally think this way - strategically about the interests of the business as a whole.

 

 

MtB

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got out my crystal ball to try to predict the consequences which would follow if Pillings Lock could use a new northern entrance across their piece of bank they own to avoid paying for a NAA. To summarise, I think NigelMoore and I are sort of agreed that they might be able to do this subject to various legal ifs and buts and the cost of the legal battle and ground works, and that if it came to pass it would pave the way for some other current or future marinas who own offside bank land to do the same, leading to a gradual decline in CRT's income from NAA fees. NigelMoore makes the point that marinas currently bound by a NAA would find it hard to escape the contract, but a planned insolvency and phoenix company might enable them to do it.

 

Going beyond that and somewhat off topic I don't think I explained very clearly what I meant when I speculated how CRT might react to make up the shortfall. Whatever their choice, they would be wise to do it without creating any dramatic and sudden change, so as to give boaters and marinas time to adjust to any new regime of fees. Faced with a world in which the number of marinas paying NAA fees was slowly falling, I felt they might decide to reduce the fees to zero over say ten years, and to replace the former income by increasing licence fees for all boats kept in marinas over the same period, the hope being that average mooring fees charged by marinas would fall a bit in real terms to balance this out, so that the total cost of keeping a boat in a marina would only increase each year at the same rate it would usually. It's a messy subject complicated by inflation.

 

Of course it would be only a hope; each marina owner would set their own fees, and existing marinas finding their NAA fees going down each year could either choose to pass all that saving on to boaters to try to improve occupancy, or pocket it and risk driving people away. In practice I think they'd follow a middle path, perhaps freezing mooring prices for a while. Marinas currently not paying the NAA, in particular most of BWML, would find their finances slowly squeezed by this fair competition, but would have a long time in which to find ways of coping with it.

 

In all the above, I wouldn't expect any big shift in the balance between marinas and other moorings, or in CRT's total income derived from marinas and their occupants. If the economy improves and/or CRT are successful in promoting boating in general, CRT's income from boat licences would increase, but Richard Parry has been quoted as saying he doesn't envisage increasing the proportion of CRT funding coming from licence fees, or words to that effect. Maybe he knows something we don't about the long term prospects for donations or government funding, but that's even further off topic and belongs in another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creating a difference in boat license fees between boats kept in marinas and boats using on-line moorings and CCer's would be a whole new can of worms.

 

Indeed it would. We'd get people fraudulently claiming to be CCers whilst keeping their boats in marinas.

 

Then in addition to the ludicrous situation we have now of CRT telling certain boaters they don't use their home mooring enough, we'd also have them demanding sightings of suspected marina dwellers regularly out on the cut!

 

 

MtB

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably right, if CRT do find their income from NAA fees in decline due to the aforementioned legal problems, then any subsequent adjustments to licence fees have got to be practical and enforceable. Ultimately I think they have to strike a fair balance between marina dwellers and others, use enforcement (of existing rules?) to stop the hotspots (London, Bath, Braunston etc.) being overwhelmed, and try to protect their income by encouraging more people into boating, especially in all the under-used parts of the system. If you look at that speeded-up video someone took doing the BCN Challenge it didn't seem to have a lot of boats in it! This sort of policy won't be a panacea for the CRT's finances, but at least it should stop matters getting worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably right, if CRT do find their income from NAA fees in decline due to the aforementioned legal problems, then any subsequent adjustments to licence fees have got to be practical and enforceable. Ultimately I think they have to strike a fair balance between marina dwellers and others, use enforcement (of existing rules?) to stop the hotspots (London, Bath, Braunston etc.) being overwhelmed, and try to protect their income by encouraging more people into boating, especially in all the under-used parts of the system. If you look at that speeded-up video someone took doing the BCN Challenge it didn't seem to have a lot of boats in it! This sort of policy won't be a panacea for the CRT's finances, but at least it should stop matters getting worse.

 

 

This seems a good way forward. Universal enforcement is clearly never going to happen as it requires so much manpower.

 

But firm local enforcement of hotspots is far easier. It already happens at Thrupp where the local club warden bikes the towpath every day recording boats moored. This keeps the visitor spaces free and doesn't cost CRT a penny as it is done by volunteers wanting to look after the hotspot.

 

Same could happen (if it doesn't already) at the other honeypot sites. But this is off topic. This thread is for the PLM debacle.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"The only secure income the CRT have is the boaters and a declining income from the government, keep putting the price up, lose business so put the price up, classic spiral of decline."

K

 

Or a classic way of shifting an amenity owned by us all into the hands of an elite few!

Is this the right time to propose mooring fees should be based on ability to pay not the size of the space you take up ?

I'm skint. Can I have my mooring free please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting lost! Isn't the NAA a fee which gives the right for boats to leave a marina on to a canal? If so does it matter who owns the land the opening is on? Surely they need CRT permission which could incur a fee. If you own land beside your neighbour you can take down the fence but that doesn't give you the right to allow friends and neighbours to use it as a short cut.

 

There are laws commonly referred to as "Riparian Rights" that make your analogy invalid. In essence, a property that abuts a body of water generally has access rights to that water. Google "Riparian Rights and you'll get a much better idea of the situation - and this conversation will make a lot more sense too.

 

cheers.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are laws commonly referred to as "Riparian Rights" that make your analogy invalid. In essence, a property that abuts a body of water generally has access rights to that water. Google "Riparian Rights and you'll get a much better idea of the situation - and this conversation will make a lot more sense too.

 

cheers.gif

 

Could canal water be said to flow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bankside properties on canals most certainly DO NOT have riparian rights. That rule only applies to natural rivers etc, not man made canals. However you wish to debate it on this forum, rest assured there is no way PLM or any other marina on a canal can avoid the NAA, or whatever system may supersede it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are laws commonly referred to as "Riparian Rights" that make your analogy invalid. In essence, a property that abuts a body of water generally has access rights to that water. Google "Riparian Rights and you'll get a much better idea of the situation - and this conversation will make a lot more sense too.

 

cheers.gif

I thought riparian rights didn't apply to canals?

 

Back on topic.

Has there been an exodus today?

Or are the residents still following the "advice" of PL and ignoring the threat by CaRT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the recession still on? My wife applied for a job with Aldi. 9 people were accepted. She is the only 1 still working. The other 8 gave up their jobs for varying reasons. Surely during a recession, people try keep working if they have a job.

 

there's a recession on,

Edited by DeanS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bankside properties on canals most certainly DO NOT have riparian rights. That rule only applies to natural rivers etc, not man made canals. However you wish to debate it on this forum, rest assured there is no way PLM or any other marina on a canal can avoid the NAA, or whatever system may supersede it.

 

The poster I replied to wasn't understanding the conversation about access. I thought referencing them to "riparian rights" would make things a little clearer in their mind.

 

This quote from NigelMoore:

 

Whether any interested parties have researched the relevant enabling Acts is yet to be seen - but if they have, and if the standard riparian clauses are included, it just could be that the marina has plans to allow blockage of the entry through CaRT land, knowing that they have arguable rights to access through their own.

 

 

among a few others, make it pretty clear that any riparian rights on canals would be authorized by some kind of enabling act.

 

I'm just following this debate, not getting involved in it. I thought that one poster needed a little help to follow the conversation and that knowing what riparian rights are would put things in perspective for him/her.

I thought riparian rights didn't apply to canals?

 

Back on topic.

Has there been an exodus today?

Or are the residents still following the "advice" of PL and ignoring the threat by CaRT?

 

Please see my reply to John Lillie above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the recession still on? My wife applied for a job with Aldi. 9 people were accepted. She is the only 1 still working. The other 8 gave up their jobs for varying reasons. Surely during a recession, people try keep working if they have a job.

 

Full marks to your young lady for continuing her employment.

 

I understand that Aldi are a reasonable company to work for, although I recognise that they expect their staff to work every minute that they're in-store - and maybe those that have resigned didn't like the pace of work, or what is expected of them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When C&RT put stop planks in at junction lock a few weeks ago I wonder if this was a practise run for PLM (PLT) on 14 April

 

As someone pointed out a little earlier, CRT has said they will let boats leave well past 14 April, so whatever barricade they put up will have to be movable in the early stages of the closure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As someone pointed out a little earlier, CRT has said they will let boats leave well past 14 April, so whatever barricade they put up will have to be movable in the early stages of the closure.

 

Given CRT also wrote to the moorers there inviting them to surrender their licenses for a refund, it should be quite easy to see who plans of staying and who plans to leave.

 

If I was planning to stay put in the marina after it is sealed off I'd surrender my licence. If I planned to leave or wanted to keep my options open I'd keep my licence. so just seeing how many boats still display a licence should show up the intentions of the moorers there.

 

 

MtB

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.