Continual cruising

[Bettie Boo]

 

Clearly that was opposed by those who travel the canals, and for whom having a home mooring was a nonsense. They were travelling and couldn't actually make use of a home mooring.

 

Thus the concept of the CCer was born. A CCer was a boater who needs no home mooring, because he is moving on.

 

 

In arguing for an exemption for those who had no use for a home mooring because they were travelling, did those who did so represent that some of those travellers were actually moving over a distance that they could easily travel in a couple of days by canal?

 

My view is that they didn't.

 

The CCing element of the 1995 Act is there for the benefit of those who couldn't use a home mooring if the obtained one, not those whose use of the canals in a very limited range would be accommodated just as well on a home mooring.

Didn't copy the entire post (to save space), I believe the above captures the true essence of the meaning of a license with no home mooring. This is what we try to live by.

 

Although since July 20th up to sometime in November we will have traveled over 600 miles, we will be only covering approx. 30 from end of Nov till the winter stoppages are finished sometime in March, but those 30 miles will be in one direction (unless we need to turn for facilities) and we will be stopping for 10 - 14 days regularly (weather permitting), on average 7+ miles a month for those 4 months. As soon as the stoppages are finished and the weather allows we will again set off on a 8 month continuous cruise, where we will normally only stop for 2 or 3 days at places that interest us.

 

I appreciate, there is no mention of miles covered in the guidelines, but I do believe the above cruising regime displays a true reflection of the essence which the license with no home mooring is all about.

 

Well that's my take on it anyway.

[Alf Roberts]

On a par perhaps with stars of soap operas?

Better to be a soap star than a bad pun.

[cotswoldsman]

 

A good suggestion might be to grant the CC licence in their first year but also provide extra information on what's required (ie what will satisfy CRT as bona fide navigation etc...) then issue follow-up letters in a couple of months if sightings reveal that they're not really cruising in accordance with the rules. Personally for me this is okay, because I don't necessarily agree that CRT should withhold a licence from a new applicant. HOWEVER they should use their powers a little more to withhold subsequent licences if they are not satisfied with a previous period's cruising style.

 

 

Ah ok FYI this is now being done started about 1 year ago so coming to its first anniversary and from memory Denise Yelland recons about 30% of renewals will be told they have to get a home mooring before the licence will be renewed. That 30% is from memory and at this stage does not represent many boats as it is so new Edited October 3, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[John V]

Again we can go round in circles firstly CRT do not have the power to do this secondly sounds like a ghost mooring as the mooring will not be used and thirdly you are suggesting that a guy who will be living on a pension should spend £2000 for something he does not need just to become a CCer

 

As far as I can see they do have the power......satisfy the board that the vessel...... and as I understand it not having a home mooring is a concession not a right

 

 

A good suggestion might be to grant the CC licence in their first year but also provide extra information on what's required (ie what will satisfy CRT as bona fide navigation etc...) then issue follow-up letters in a couple of months if sightings reveal that they're not really cruising in accordance with the rules. Personally for me this is okay, because I don't necessarily agree that CRT should withhold a licence from a new applicant. HOWEVER they should use their powers a little more to withhold subsequent licences if they are not satisfied with a previous period's cruising style.

 

Answering the question directly, you could make a corrolary with planning permission. If a farm wants to build a slurry lagoon close to a resedential area, it would be unfair to deny them it; and it would also not be right to simply say "yes, go ahead". A proposal which acknowledged the issues at hand and techniques/working practices to deal with or minimise those concerns would be required and can be assessed.

 

Of course for our CC licence application example, a much less onerous requirement could be made.

 

I thought about putting it that way round when I posted but the problem is with "piss takers" as I can see the same boat being a new application every year.

By making it the other way round with the requirement to prove a pattern of movement after a year it stops that

[cotswoldsman]

 

As far as I can see they do have the power......satisfy the board that the vessel...... and as I understand it not having a home mooring is a concession not a right

 

 

 

It is a right granted in the 1995 Act before that you did have to have a home mooring

you can only satisfy the board once you have the licence the important part you left out I think is the bit that say's over the period of your licence

Edited October 3, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Naughty Cal]

Ah ok FYI this is now being done started about 1 year ago so coming to its first anniversary and from memory Denise Yelland recons about 30% of renewals will be told they have to get a home mooring before the licence will be renewed. That 30% is from memory and at this stage does not represent many boats as it is so new

Perhaps it should be rolled out to all those licensed without a home mooring.

[cotswoldsman]

Perhaps it should be rolled out to all those licensed without a home mooring.

No can't be done I understand this can be done because with new licences they get a letter saying that they will be monitored over the first year and if CRT are not satisfied they will not renew the licence. I am not even sure if that would stand up in court but doubt anyone would test it.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

As far as I can see they do have the power......satisfy the board that the vessel...... and as I understand it not having a home mooring is a concession not a right

 

 

I thought about putting it that way round when I posted but the problem is with "piss takers" as I can see the same boat being a new application every year.

By making it the other way round with the requirement to prove a pattern of movement after a year it stops that

 

When applying for a firearms certificate for the first time it is very rare that you will be granted permission to have a 'full-bore' rifle - the normal way is that you are given permission to own a .22rf rifle and can only shoot at shooting clubs, or over land that has been certified as OK by the Police.

 

After about 4 or 5 years, (if you have been 'a good boy') when you renew your licence you may be given permission to have a 'full-bore' rifle, and you may even be given permission to shoot over any land that YOU decide is safe to shoot over (with the land owners permission) - bearing in mind that a 'stray' shot could kill at 5 miles away.

 

Whilst I realise that a firearm is potentially a little more dangerous than a narrowboat, the concept is comparable - prove to us that you can be trusted for a year, and then you get your 'open' CCer licence

[cotswoldsman]

Is that a new type of licence "open ccer licence"?

[Alan de Enfield]

Is that a new type of licence "open ccer licence"?

 

If you want it to be - it can be !!!

 

As opposed to a 1 year "provisional" CCer licence.

[Paul C]

No can't be done I understand this can be done because with new licences they get a letter saying that they will be monitored over the first year and if CRT are not satisfied they will not renew the licence. I am not even sure if that would stand up in court but doubt anyone would test it.

 

Can't see why not, given that the law is pretty much exactly that.

[mayalld]

And nothing but obviously mooring in a marina is safer than leaving your boat on the towpath all the time. So worth paying for .

Regards kris

 

Again, you ignore the fact that not all moorings are in marinas.

 

A paid for mooring can include (or not include) many elements that go to make up the monetary value of that mooring to the end user.

 

However, the ONLY element that is present in every case is that it is a place that you can tie up for as long as you wish.

 

To give some examples;

 

https://www.crtmoorings.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=3437 (£1,632pa)

https://www.crtmoorings.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=5061 (£1,180pa)

 

Both towpath moorings, no security, no facilities

 

So, there is a value to the element that says "you don't have to move on", and there is additional value for security, a nice view, a water point, electric hook-up etc.

[kris88]

 

Again, you ignore the fact that not all moorings are in marinas.

 

A paid for mooring can include (or not include) many elements that go to make up the monetary value of that mooring to the end user.

 

However, the ONLY element that is present in every case is that it is a place that you can tie up for as long as you wish.

 

To give some examples;

 

https://www.crtmoorings.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=3437 (£1,632pa)

https://www.crtmoorings.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=5061 (£1,180pa)

 

Both towpath moorings, no security, no facilities

 

So, there is a value to the element that says "you don't have to move on", and there is additional value for security, a nice view, a water point, electric hook-up etc.

I don't ignore the fact that online moorings often don't have security, I'm very aware of the fact. I think you keep ignoring the fact that in the first instance I was replying to naughty cals post about giving up her marina mooring,to become a continuos cruiser.i think anybody who has a towpath mooring with or without security is lucky as they are getting rarer.

Regards kris

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Actually, it isn't.

 

The 1995 Act is clear that the Boater must Satisfy the Board, so there we have it in black and white, it ISN'T Parry's job.

I wasn't referring to the 1995 BW Act . . . . still not mastered this reading thing have you.

[Naughty Cal]

No can't be done I understand this can be done because with new licences they get a letter saying that they will be monitored over the first year and if CRT are not satisfied they will not renew the licence. I am not even sure if that would stand up in court but doubt anyone would test it.

So send out a letter with each CC licence renewal as well.

[alan_fincher]

i think anybody who has a towpath mooring with or without security is lucky as they are getting rarer.

Regards kris

No real luck involved - probably about only half the towpath moorings that CRT put up for auctions accept any bids, so there is a whole swathe of available tow-path moorings that nobody is apparently prepared to pay the "reserve" price for.

 

They may not be at locations people want, or for the right length boat, or at a price people are happy to pay, but overall there are constantly far more available than people want to bid on.

 

The problem with most is that they literally only do meet the "somewhere the boat can be moored part", but actually offer bugger all in terms of any facility or security. Most auctioned near where I live have nowhere you can park a car, for instance, and many are at remote locations where there is mainly nobody about, and hence the boats are easy targets.

[Naughty Cal]

I wasn't referring to the 1995 BW Act . . . . still not mastered this reading thing have you.

So what were you refering too?

 

The Tony Dunkley Act 2014 perhaps?

[mayalld]

I wasn't referring to the 1995 BW Act . . . . still not mastered this reading thing have you.

 

The OP has been asked to provide evidence of their cruising pattern. They have been asked to show that they are complying with the 1995 Act.

 

You suggested that this was Parry's job. The Act says otherwise.

 

Now, you may imagine that you aren't talking about the 1995 Act, but the post that you were replying to when you said that it was Parry's job was very clearly talking about that Act.

 

Randomly talking about things that other people aren't talking about doesn't mean that they have a reading comprehension problem.

[ditchcrawler]

I do like the idea of taking photos of my boat next to nondescript hedging at each stop, maybe I could claim I moved as far as Scotland

I actually had a phone call from Lisa Jarvis who stated I had to move a distance of 18 miles, this is what I am doing. If they insist on this requirement for CC then why have they not got a system in place to make sure we are monitored, putting patrol notices on boats and expecting boaters to submit prove the notices are innapropriate is just harassement

This question is not really aimed at the OP but I wonder what others think.

 

Could CaRT's problem be that you are travelling about 4 miles and them stopping for 14 days before doing another 4 and stopping for a further 4 days before reaching Aynho before returning following the same pattern?

 

If your boat was spotted for 14 days in central Oxford (I am not sure where there are 14 day moorings in Oxford) and then seen again by CaRT 3 months later, again in central Oxford for 14 days, assuming it was on a 14 day mooring, would they have cause to complain if they didn't spot it anywhere for the other three and a half months?

 

Just move the location slightly, you moor for 14 days at Blisworth and then head back to the Nene for three and a half months, you then go back to Blisworth for 14 days, would CaRT be right in ticketing you for not moving enough?

[Tony Dunkley]

 

The OP has been asked to provide evidence of their cruising pattern. They have been asked to show that they are complying with the 1995 Act.

 

You suggested that this was Parry's job. The Act says otherwise.

 

Now, you may imagine that you aren't talking about the 1995 Act, but the post that you were replying to when you said that it was Parry's job was very clearly talking about that Act.

 

Randomly talking about things that other people aren't talking about doesn't mean that they have a reading comprehension problem.

 

It was a reply (in my Post 160) to the sentence in Post 158 that I highlighted in red, which referred specifically to diverting funds, and therefore has no relevance to the provisions of the 1995 BW Act. I'm sorry if that's still too complicated for you and Nutty Cal to understand, but I don't think it can be simplified any more than that.

Edited October 3, 2014 by tony dunkley

[kevinl]

we will be only covering approx. 30 from end of Nov till the winter stoppages are finished sometime in March, but those 30 miles will be in one direction (unless we need to turn for facilities) and we will be stopping for 10 - 14 days regularly (weather permitting), on average 7+ miles a month for those 4 months.

On the basis of what the OP has been experiencing I'd expect you may get stickered too, if you're only going to move about 3.5 miles every 2 weeks you'd be pretty much doing what she's doing and apparently that's wrong according to CRT. I guess the only going one way and not yo-yoing might make it OK.

K

[Naughty Cal]

 

It was a reply (in my Post 160) to the sentence in Post 158 that I highlighted in red, which referred specifically to diverting funds. I'm sorry if that's still too complicated for you and Nutty Cal to understand, but I don't think it can be simplified any more than that.

I believe it is you that is having the problem understanding things Tony.

[peterboat]

Didn't copy the entire post (to save space), I believe the above captures the true essence of the meaning of a license with no home mooring. This is what we try to live by.

 

Although since July 20th up to sometime in November we will have traveled over 600 miles, we will be only covering approx. 30 from end of Nov till the winter stoppages are finished sometime in March, but those 30 miles will be in one direction (unless we need to turn for facilities) and we will be stopping for 10 - 14 days regularly (weather permitting), on average 7+ miles a month for those 4 months. As soon as the stoppages are finished and the weather allows we will again set off on a 8 month continuous cruise, where we will normally only stop for 2 or 3 days at places that interest us.

 

I appreciate, there is no mention of miles covered in the guidelines, but I do believe the above cruising regime displays a true reflection of the essence which the license with no home mooring is all about.

 

Well that's my take on it anyway.

And mine

 

Peter

[bargemast]

Exactly. I agree with Naighty Cal, why should she pay for her marina mooring when she can just leave her boat by the towpath for free.

 

I look forward to hearing her experiences.

No-one has mentioned the corollary to this buffoonery- that the enforcement appears to be entirely random and no boater is going to have respect for a system that arbitrarily picks on one boater whilst leaving some obvious non-compliant boats alone. The waterways can only be policed by consent and respect based on perceived fairness is essential to this.

 

She was as free as anyone else, I don't think that anyone forced her to take her marina mooring, and that she took it was her free choice with all the comforts that she was writing about recently like watertaps for every boat, and of course there's the shore power and more security for her pride and joy, and I suppose that she can afford it as she's only has the boat as a sort of toy, just something extra to play with as she doesn't live on board and still has a house to go back to (for the time being).

 

Peter.

 

 

[mayalld]

 

It was a reply (in my Post 160) to the sentence in Post 158 that I highlighted in red, which referred specifically to diverting funds, and therefore has no relevance to the provisions of the 1995 BW Act. I'm sorry if that's still too complicated for you and Nutty Cal to understand, but I don't think it can be simplified any more than that.

 

The suggestion was made that if boaters would record their movements (which is a reasonable enough thing to ask, given that it is for the boater to satisfy the board, so it IS their job), instead of stamping their feet and demanding that CRT do it for them, then CRT would be able to divert funds that they were spending on such activities into more useful things.

 

It is Parry's job to maximise the funds available to spend on the waterways.

 

Clearly there will be those of limited intelect who might suggest that the answer is to simply spend all the enforcement money on waterway maintenance. I had, perhaps unwisely, assumed that you had enough common sense to realise that if you don't spend any money on enforcement, compliance and income reduce year on year.

 

So, Parry is doing his job by spending money on enforcement, which maintains income. If boaters would act in such a way as to render in unnecessary to spend as much on enforcement, then money could be diverted.

 

 

I suppose that she can afford it as she's only has the boat as a sort of toy, just something extra to play with as she doesn't live on board and still has a house to go back to.

 

 

 

Do you have difficulty getting the chip on your shoulder through a narrow lock?