Another article about living on the canal in London

[dor]

Sorry if this has already been posted - I couldn't see it anywhere.

 

From the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/11/canal-boat-affordable-city-centre-living

 

[Wanted]

Just read this. I suggest CRT pay for a national advertorial to set some realities..

[b0atman]

Until the government realises that they need to stop looking at London as the centre of their universe.

They must encourage government departments and businesses to relocate to other cities or the problem will continue to grow.

The canal will soon be full then campsites will be set up on the green areas.

[Alan de Enfield]

“If they were to build a new village of 1,000-plus homes, they’d have to follow very strict guidelines concerning the environment. Allowing this number of boats to moor along here is the equivalent, but we have no planning, no infrastructure, and the impact is huge.”

 

Fair point - let C&RT apply for planning permission for 1000 residential mooring places and when refused thay can say "we tried"

[ditchcrawler]

 

Fair point - let C&RT apply for planning permission for 1000 residential mooring places and when refused thay can say "we tried"

I wonder what that would cost

[NigelMoore]

I have what I believe to be legitimate contempt for some of Parry’s attitudes, but I found his quoted remarks in that article to be praiseworthy.

[davey b]

I thought the article quite balanced (especially for The Guardian); the points raised are the usual ones and both/all sides have fair set of arguments for and against their position. CRT came out of it more positively than the councillor, that is certain.

 

I don't have any answers but (despite my usual anti-bin digging scrounger types attitude) I actually believe there are some problems that need solving to which the canals provide some answers whilst respecting (some) of the local views. But there are issues where no-one is making any friends which will only result in restrictions for all - which is the worst option possible (collective punishment by the officer classes has always been a favourite of mine!).

 

A campaign of awareness by CRT may be of use but some will see it as a waste of resources that could be spent on maintenance, etc, but it's a balance of needing spent money to avert a future spend that is forced upon them against spending already programmed.

 

As I said, I have few answers...

[DHutch]

I think it's an alright article, better than a lot on the topic.

 

Daniel

[FadeToScarlet]

I think it's an alright article, better than a lot on the topic.

Daniel

Yes, i suppose it might be connected to the previous inaccurate article/column about buying a boat to put on AirBnB.

[kris88]

That's not a bad article, quite balenced really.

Regards kris

[Gordias]

I have what I believe to be legitimate contempt for some of Parry’s attitudes, but I found his quoted remarks in that article to be praiseworthy.

 

He's a "talking head", so he must have a few versions of that memorized

 

I also think it makes good sense for him. CaRT's only problem with London "musical mooring" CCers is that that they haven't found a way to get them to pay the market price for their moorings. They're potential customers though, so he has every reason to be nice to them.

 

As long as it doesn't cost anything anyway:

“We are not going to become a welfare charity, an organisation that has the capacity or ability to care for people in that way. We cannot solve the country’s housing problem either.” Instead, the CRT is strengthening relationships with other parties more expert in the field.

 

They need to make sure all the social issues are "somebody else's problem".

 

BTW does anyone know how much per year those boaters would be paying in council tax if the councils could sort out their billing problem?

Edited November 12, 2014 by Gordias

[WJM]

".

 

BTW does anyone know how much per year those boaters would be paying in council tax if the councils could sort out their billing problem?

Depends on the Borough and the 'value' of the dwelling - no simple answer but you could generalise by saying 'around £100 per month'

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

BTW does anyone know how much per year those boaters would be paying in council tax if the councils could sort out their billing problem?

Probably about £100 per boat.

 

Its a very complex area, suggest (if you really want to know) you read up on the VOA website and search 'marinas'

 

Very very briefly, the boat is not subject to Council Tax, the land IS, if it is used 365 days per year by the same boat, if the boat can move off and the land used by another boat then it becomes complicated in that the Marina becomes subject to CT (example £12,000 per annum) then divided by the number of residential berths (say 50)

 

CT £12000

50 berths

Each 'berth' charged £240 per annum - approx £20 / month

[Alan de Enfield]

Depends on the Borough and the 'value' of the dwelling - no simple answer but you could generalise by saying 'around £100 per month'

 

It is unlikely to depend on the 'value' of the boat as the Marina is the 'permanent occupier' of the moorings - See the VOA website.

 

Multiple Moorings Regulations. The marina operator will be in permanent occupation.

[DHutch]

 

BTW does anyone know how much per year those boaters would be paying in council tax if the councils could sort out their billing problem?

But if there not based in one place (?) and presumably using BW/CRT rufuse collection and the like. Why would they be subject to said tax?

 

 

Daniel

[Gordias]

But if there not based in one place (?) and presumably using BW/CRT rufuse collection and the like. Why would they be subject to said tax?

 

Daniel

 

The article quoted a council representative who mentioned boaters sending their children to school, registering to vote, etc:

 

Local councillor Paul Convery accuses boaters apparently wanting “a zone-one location to live, work and play” of opting to live on boats instead of finding housing in lower-cost locations. “Boaters use public services provided by councils but do not pay [council] taxes towards those services. A few send their kids to Islington schools claiming they live in the borough and a few dozen have even registered to vote,” he said.

Some insisting on an alternative lifestyle disregard basic rules over mooring, smoke and pollution, says Convery, and the CRT is failing to control them.

 

A useful link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

 

As domonstrated by the newspaper article, people who are imposing on others tend to deny (or carefully discussing) the existence of "externalities" .... at least until they are affected by a negative externality themselves

Edited November 12, 2014 by Gordias

[cotswoldsman]

 

The article quoted a council representative who mentioned boaters sending their children to school,

A rather stupid statement to make as schools are funded by central government and only approx 25% of council income comes from council tax the majority of their funding comes again from central government

[Gordias]

A rather stupid statement to make as schools are funded by central government and only approx 25% of council income comes from council tax the majority of their funding comes again from central government

 

I wondered about that. I only quoted the article because it has a manipulative structure (emotion/data/emotion). I've seen council tax mentioned in other posts though - wasn't one of the reasons for defining CC as a category of canal user?

 

More interesting from my perspective is the "Health and Safety" theme from the council and some locals (carefully selected to attract sympathy /lol - the newspaper is playing both sides and the middle). I can't imagine a local council caring much about boaters (most of whom neither pay nor vote), and health and safety is one of the obvious "nukes" available to make life inconvenient for canal users. E.g. they could start with rules against unattended operation of diesel engines, no stationary use of boat engines between 6pm and 7am, etc.

[Guest]

E.g. they could start with rules against unattended operation of diesel engines, no stationary use of boat engines between 6pm and 7am, etc.

I'm not sure what you are meaning by that as there is already a 'rule' about that, except it's a 12 hour restriction between 8 and 8, not a 13 hour one as you mention.

 

..

Edited November 12, 2014 by The Dog House

[NilesMI]

It

 

A rather stupid statement to make as schools are funded by central government and only approx 25% of council income comes from council tax the majority of their funding comes again from central government

 

I didn't read the comment as being necessarily about funding, rather that it was about having the ability to to send kids to a particular school by claiming to live in the catchment area.

[Thorfast]

The problem with Council Tax is that it is 'property' ie bricks, mortar and acreage based......so does not apply to boats and boaters who move.

 

The long debunked Pole Tax would have been more appropriate.....that taxes people not property.....and it is people who use local services, not property.

[Alan de Enfield]

Thorfast, on 12 Nov 2014 - 3:58 PM, said:Thorfast, on 12 Nov 2014 - 3:58 PM, said:Thorfast, on 12 Nov 2014 - 3:58 PM, said:

The problem with Council Tax is that it is 'property' ie bricks, mortar and acreage based......so does not apply to boats and boaters who move.

 

 

It is not the boat that is subject to Council Tax, it is the mooring that it is tied up against that is subject to Counci tax, if the boat moves away the mooring is still subject to payment (by the mooring owner) of council tax.

 

 

Thorfast, on 12 Nov 2014 - 3:58 PM, said:Thorfast, on 12 Nov 2014 - 3:58 PM, said:Thorfast, on 12 Nov 2014 - 3:58 PM, said:

The long debunked Pole Tax would have been more appropriate.....

 

Maybe it should be reintroduced - there are a lot of them in Lincolnshire, councils' could make a fortune

 

Now - Poll Tax is a completely different subject.

 

 

Edit to Add - example from the VOA

 

A boat is a Chattel, a mooring is an Hereditment

A chattel is not subject to Council Tax

 

A man lives on a motor cruiser with living accommodation on board. He rents a berth in a marina comprising a finger pontoon at right angles to the bank with water supply and sewage pump-out. The marina operator controls access to the site and reserves a continual right to move the boat from its mooring. When the boat is absent, as it frequently is for weekends and holidays, and even though the boat owner pays rent continuously in order to reserve a berth at the site, the marina operator allows other boats to use the mooring.

Although the mooring is virtually in permanent use and affords self-containment to any boat with living accommodation, the cruiser owner's occupation of the mooring is non-exclusive and insufficiently permanent for him to be liable for Council Tax. The marina operator is in paramount occupation of the mooring for the purposes of his business of running a marina. If the other boats which use the mooring are also someone's sole or main residence, only the mooring would be domestic property and subject to banding. The boat itself would not be included in the valuation.

 

If the other boats which use the mooring are not someone's sole or main residence or there is no way of knowing what their use would be, the mooring will be non-domestic

 

If there are two or more such moorings in the marina, all the moorings and land under the control of the marina operator should be treated as one hereditament by virtue of the Multiple Moorings Regulations. The marina operator will be in permanent occupation

Edited November 12, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Guest]

NilesMI, on 12 Nov 2014 - 3:57 PM, said:NilesMI, on 12 Nov 2014 - 3:57 PM, said:

It

 

 

I didn't read the comment as being necessarily about funding, rather that it was about having the ability to to send kids to a particular school by claiming to live in the catchment area.

Which of course they cannot legitimately claim in the main if they are genuinely complying with the requirements of their licence, which goes to prove some are either blissfully unaware of what is required of them or are blatantly ignoring it.

 

I don't think school catchment areas in a densely populated place like London are that big are they?

Edited November 12, 2014 by The Dog House

[Gordias]

I'm not sure what you are meaning by that as there is already a 'rule' about that, except it's a 12 hour restriction between 8 and 8, not a 13 hour one as you mention.

 

..

 

Just an example. If the current rules, "appropriately" enforced, allowed the council to make life difficult for boaters they'd be satisfied with the outcome.

 

The point isn't the specifics, but that London authorities (not necessarily the council) can probably put together a set of health and safety rules that would significantly thin out boaters. I'm not actually advocating this BTW - it more like a prediction. I think it would be the likeliest result of significant tension between locals and boaters, and that article isn't the only evidence I've seen that there's a fair bit of tension already.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Gordias

[Guest]

Just an example. If the current rules, "appropriately" enforced, allowed the council to make life difficult for boaters they'd be satisfied with the outcome.

 

The point isn't the specifics, but that London authorities (not necessarily the council) can probably put together a set of health and safety rules that would significantly thin out boaters. I'm not actually advocating this BTW - it more like a prediction. I think it would be the likeliest result of significant tension between locals and boaters, and that article isn't the only evidence I've seen that there's a fair bit of tension already.

But what juristriction do the Local Authority have over CRT waterways and boats upon them?, that's a genuine question BTW.

 

I would think It would for CRT to make and apply any restrictive rules and they seem to be struggling enforcing the rules they already have.