Hackney CMers want to have a "CC Licence" and to remain in one place.

[Noah T]

In my opinion it would be poor management for a council to charge less to a non profit making organisation. In this day and age of financial cuts surely it is their responsibility to maximise income from any assets.

 

Would you really apply that principle to all situations? So, for example, you would insist that the council should rent a meeting space to, eg, a neighborhood watch group or for a carers' support group, for exactly the same amount that they would charge Apple or Barclays Bank?

 

Or are you selectively proposing it against community moorings?

[Jerra]

 

Would you really apply that principle to all situations? So, for example, you would insist that the council should rent a meeting space to, eg, a neighborhood watch group or for a carers' support group, for exactly the same amount that they would charge Apple or Barclays Bank?

 

Or are you selectively proposing it against community moorings?

I can't quite imagine when or why Apple or Barclay's would need or want to use a space as down market as a council space but yes I would expect they had published to tariff for the rooms and stuck to it. That is after all general practice I think.

[Lady Muck]

There would be no discount, any cost saving comes from managing it yourselves.

[Noah T]

I can't quite imagine when or why Apple or Barclay's would need or want to use a space as down market as a council space but yes I would expect they had published to tariff for the rooms and stuck to it. That is after all general practice I think.

 

 

Oh really, is that so. Just as well that my local council seems to be unaware of this "general practice":

 

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/community_and_leisure/libraries/libraryservices/librariesroomhire.htm

 

As you can see, the rooms are priced at a very serious discount for community groups as compared with the commercial rate.

 

 

NB- despite the cuts etc, quite a few local authorities own some very nice buildings and other spaces.

[Alf Roberts]

Sorry if we've all been getting wrong end of stick about the cc thing. Bee in my bonnet on that subject i'm afraid

not just you.... at least you're honest enough to admit it.

 

Perhaps a time for a little reflection before wading in against something we know little about personally, eh?

[mayalld]

 

 

Oh really, is that so. Just as well that my local council seems to be unaware of this "general practice":

 

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/community_and_leisure/libraries/libraryservices/librariesroomhire.htm

 

As you can see, the rooms are priced at a very serious discount for community groups as compared with the commercial rate.

 

 

NB- despite the cuts etc, quite a few local authorities own some very nice buildings and other spaces.

 

There is a difference between a community group and a group that, for all its community or charitable basis, is actually seeking to compete with commercial enterprises.

 

There has been some discussion of this in relation to Charity Shops that are increasingly not merely selling donated items, but are selling new goods through shops that they rent at discounted rates, to the detriment of commercial enterprises

[Neil Smith]

The way I see it, and this is just an example not actual amounts but say the council rented the land to a marina for £7000 per year and the marina put in water, toilets, elsan points,

electric etc all at their expense, they would then charge the boaters say £3000 per year with a profit of £14000 for the 7 boats.

Now if the same 7 boats rented for £7000 that's only £1000 each but they would have to put all the above services in themselves at their expense and maintain it.

That way the council would still get the same and the boaters save £2000 less the running costs, So all happy.

 

Neil

[mayalld]

The way I see it, and this is just an example not actual amounts but say the council rented the land to a marina for £7000 per year and the marina put in water, toilets, elsan points,

electric etc all at their expense, they would then charge the boaters say £3000 per year with a profit of £14000 for the 7 boats.

Now if the same 7 boats rented for £7000 that's only £1000 each but they would have to put all the above services in themselves at their expense and maintain it.

That way the council would still get the same and the boaters save £2000 less the running costs, So all happy.

 

Neil

 

You missed out the EOG fee to CRT

[Alf Roberts]

as it's a fixed amount in both cases it doesn't affect his argument.

 

...which is in the real world, none of this 'they're getting something for nothing'. you would think all the SFN brigade would applaud the buy cheap, sell high ethos but no, there's 'scruffy' liveaboards involved so attract a de facto negative view point.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[Tony Dunkley]

 

You missed out the EOG fee to CRT

C&RT's 'end of garden' mooring charge is not lawful, and they have no right to demand payment for a boat moored to land they don't own, so it certainly should be left out . . . . by everyone not moored against or to C&RT owned land.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Tony Dunkley

[Lady Muck]

as it's a fixed amount in both cases it doesn't affect his argument.

 

...which is in the real world, none of this 'they're getting something for nothing'. you would think all the SFN brigade would applaud the buy cheap, sell high ethos but no, there's 'scruffy' liveaboards involved so attract a de facto negative view point.

Well I like to admire the Leeds and Liverpool short boat. There aren't many in London and June is the nicest looking one.

[Paul C]

C&RT's 'end of garden' mooring charge is not lawful, and they have no right to demand payment for a boat moored to land they don't own, so it certainly should be left out . . . . by everyone not moored against or to C&RT owned land.

 

How come so many people pay it then?

[KenK]

 

How come so many people pay it then?

You ask C&RT for an EOG mooring, they say certainly that will be £XXX a year, you say I'm not paying that, they say in that case we will not grant an EOG mooring. That's why people pay it, it may not be legal, although that has, as far as I am aware, never been tested in court, but an EOG is a normally cheaper than a marina mooring.

 

Ken

[Alan de Enfield]

You ask C&RT for an EOG mooring, they say certainly that will be £XXX a year, you say I'm not paying that, they say in that case we will not grant an EOG mooring. That's why people pay it, it may not be legal, although that has, as far as I am aware, never been tested in court, but an EOG is a normally cheaper than a marina mooring.

 

Ken

 

I understand that EOG moorings are charged at 50% of a similar mooring in the same locality, with the same (or lack of) services and for the same sized boat

[jenlyn]

You ask C&RT for an EOG mooring, they say certainly that will be £XXX a year, you say I'm not paying that, they say in that case we will not grant an EOG mooring. That's why people pay it, it may not be legal, although that has, as far as I am aware, never been tested in court, but an EOG is a normally cheaper than a marina mooring.

 

Ken

There is a court case on this, though I can't link to it as I'm on the phone at min. If anyone wants to Google it, I'm sure that's where I came across it.

[mayalld]

C&RT's 'end of garden' mooring charge is not lawful, and they have no right to demand payment for a boat moored to land they don't own, so it certainly should be left out . . . . by everyone not moored against or to C&RT owned land.

 

So you keep saying.

 

However, charge it they do, and they have a court judgement that says it is legal.

 

If people wanting to establish community moorings choose not to enter into a mooring agreement with CRT, I would imagine that CRT would be unlikely to allow the mooring to be established.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

How come so many people pay it then?

They may well assume that just because BW/C&RT demand the payment that they are entitled to do so.

[Alan de Enfield]

Was it anything to do with this :

 

1992 - IWA had supported a group of boaters in a test case to establish if British Waterways had the power to charge for end of garden moorings. In July a judge at Birmingham County Court found in BW's favour.

 

or this one :

 

Commentary on the judgment in Moore v. British Waterways

 The outcome of this appeal by Mr Moore turned on “special facts”

and has no implications for the generality of the waterway network of Canal & River Trust.

 The Court of Appeal confirmed that no right to moor permanently arises simply from ownership of land adjoining a waterway

(e.g. ‘end of garden’ moorings).

 Mooring permanently over the bed of a waterway owned by another without

consent would be unlawful (as a trespass)

Edited December 17, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Tony Dunkley]

 

So you keep saying.

 

However, charge it they do, and they have a court judgement that says it is legal.

 

If people wanting to establish community moorings choose not to enter into a mooring agreement with CRT, I would imagine that CRT would be unlikely to allow the mooring to be established.

Leaving out the arguments about the EOG charges on a canal, in this instance it's on a river and the owner of the land will also own the riverbed to the centre of the river, so it's in no doubt that C&RT don't have a say in it at all.

[Delta9]

. you would think all the SFN brigade would applaud the buy cheap, sell high ethos but no, there's 'scruffy' liveaboards involved so attract a de facto negative view point.

I suspect the clickait headline and describing these people as CMers has influenced peoples reaction to this story.

[Tim Lewis]

There is a court case on this, though I can't link to it as I'm on the phone at min. If anyone wants to Google it, I'm sure that's where I came across it.

 

Old thread about end of garden moorings:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9027

 

Tim

[jenlyn]

Old thread about end of garden moorings:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9027

 

Tim

That's it.

[Lady Muck]

Leaving out the arguments about the EOG charges on a canal, in this instance it's on a river and the owner of the land will also own the riverbed to the centre of the river, so it's in no doubt that C&RT don't have a say in it at all.

There are squatted moorings on the offside, further up from there, that have been there at least 15 years (with the same boats there), perhaps longer.The land owner is not interested, every year we hear rumblings from CRT that the boaters will be moved but it hasn't happened.

[Tony Dunkley]

There are squatted moorings on the offside, further up from there, that have been there at least 15 years (with the same boats there), perhaps longer.The land owner is not interested, every year we hear rumblings from CRT that the boaters will be moved but it hasn't happened.

Rumbling is really just about all that C&RT, and BWB before them, can do about it. If the boats in question are outside of the 'main navigable channel' and never move either then they don't even need licensing, or registering to use the correct terminology applicable to any vessel restricted to using rivers only.

[mayalld]

OK, I have now read the article (the real one, not the one from the dark side), and the penny drops!

 

The rather confusing "we want a community mooring, but we want to carry on being CCers" bit.

 

They want to rent the land, but they don't want it to be counted as their home mooring, becasue they don't want to pay CRT for a mooring there.

 

They are trying to game the system by registering as CCers to avoid any mooring fee but creating a place where they can stay longer than 14 days (but which isn't a home mooring)