CANAL & RIVER TRUST OUTLINES POLICY FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I agree it would be interesting to know.

I have some figures but they are from 2012.

 

RBOA estimated that some 15,000 in the UK lived on a boat (this is for all navigation authorities).

 

BW estimated that about 6,500 boats on its waters were used as homes in 2012.

 

[bassplayer]

A very very small percentage are liveaboard. A lot of the boats being taken from the water by CRT are non liveaboard.

In my travels over the 3 winters on the GU, there do seem to be quite a lot of boats moored up on the tow path side with no smoke ever coming out of the chimneys! (I know, not very scientific!)

[Willber G]

BW estimated that about 6,500 boats on its waters were used as homes in 2012.

Thanks, so that's about 20% based on the overall figures for CRT (BW) waters.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Willber G

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Thanks, so that's about 20% based on the overall figures for CRT (BW) waters.

Yes. However we have to bear in mind that the number of boats without a home mooring has gone up from 4,400 to 5,400 over the last 2-3 years.

 

Based on that I would suggest 7,000 out of 32,000 boats for 2015.

 

 

[Hawthorn]

 

That's the thing though, just because a boat doesn't have a home mooring doesn't mean it's a live aboard. I knew someone who went around the system at weekends and on holidays. Covered the entire system in a couple of years boating on a 25ft cruiser. Complied perfectly with the rules and had a great time doing it.

That's the thing though, just because a boat doesn't have a home mooring doesn't mean it's a live aboard. I knew someone who went around the system at weekends and on holidays. Covered the entire system in a couple of years boating on a 25ft cruiser. Complied perfectly with the rules and had a great time doing it.

Exactly right. Thing is the real problems are where there are mile upon mile of boats, without the appropriate permissions tied up two or three deep along the towpath, as they are in a parts of London. To put it another way, if there are 1500 or so boats that are 'residences', it may be a small percentage of the whole, but it's a couple every mile ( assuming no one actually moors in the lock apart from when they are taking on water, as you have to in one London Lock.)

Just read the figures given previously and if reliable would be up to 5/ 6 boats every mile or so. Then again you have to remove the tunnel lengths and the miles of legitimate linear moorings etc etc. and all of a sudden the whole system appears quite congested.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Hawthorn

[Jerra]

People who live on boats are always going to be a minority, which is why it seems strange that CRT are putting so much effort into enforcement.

Jenlyn suggests above that some local authorities are getting peed off at CRT could it be that local authorities in general are strting to put pressure on CRT about what they see as static boats.

[Alan de Enfield]

Yes. However we have to bear in mind that the number of boats without a home mooring has gone up from 4,400 to 5,400 over the last 2-3 years.

 

Based on that I would suggest 7,000 out of 32,000 boats for 2015.

 

 

 

The 2008 boaters’ survey conducted by British Waterways included the question “Is your boat your main residence?” 18% answered yes as main or Monday-Friday residence, and extrapolating this to the (approximately) 30,000 privately licensed boats, British Waterways estimates that approximately 5,400 boats on its waterways are used for residential purposes.

 

The increase of CCers the last few years will (probably) add virtually 1 for 1 to that number so 6400/7,000 is possibly not far out

[mango]

For the benefit of those who avoid narrowboatworld, here is a sensible article:

 

Do as the licence says

monday, 23 february 2015 13:03

I HAVEN'T written for a while, but felt I must regarding the petition about Eviction of boat dwellers. I fear we are going back to the 'continuous moorers' debate here, writes Peter Foster.

A continuous cruiser with no home mooring should not complain when they are required to do what their licence says—cruise. The petition includes the words 'Many boat dwellers work locally and some are key workers. Many require access to local services such as health care and schools and will be put to extreme difficulty if forced to move unreasonable distances'.

Cannot be continuous cruisers

Surely if they work locally or require schools they cannot be classed a continuous cruisers, since they want to stay in one place to take advantage of these local services.

The two are not compatible. If you want access to local services, take a home mooring. If you want a continuous cruiser licence, stick to the terms of that licence.

Copied from http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/7771-do-as-the-licence-says

Edited to restore formatting.

Edited February 25, 2015 by mango

[hargreaves07]

Agree with the sentiments of Mango.

 

In Narrowboat World there is an obsession at trying to get CRT to say how many miles constitutes continuous cruising.

Why would anyone who is a CC want to know how far he has to go before he has complied? He is contuously cruisng and the last thing he/she is

worried about is how far he has gone. The only people who want to know how far to go are the ones who want to turn back as soon as they have gone the

distance ie get back to base.

 

CRT should not try to specify a mileage for compliance.(How can you anyway - locks/low water/stoppages/bad weather all impact on the journey).

You can just imagine the arguements between compliance officers and prospective Continuous Cruisers over where they have travelled to. Forget it.

 

Just go back to when the term Continuous Cruisers came into being in the first place. Everyone had to have a mooring and a section of boaters who were always on the move said that isnt fair

and everyone agreed - we all knew it was a good point and it was enshrined into the 'laws'.There was no need to explain what continuous cruising was it was obvious.

 

As my mate Andy says you are either Contuously Cruising or you are not. Simples.

[madcat]

I could ask for Andy,s definition of how far one should move but I don't think I will bother . The last thing I think about while lurking on my home mooring is how far anybody else moves.

[cotswoldsman]

Agree with the sentiments of Mango.

 

In Narrowboat World there is an obsession at trying to get CRT to say how many miles constitutes continuous cruising.

Why would anyone who is a CC want to know how far he has to go before he has complied? He is contuously cruisng and the last thing he/she is

worried about is how far he has gone. The only people who want to know how far to go are the ones who want to turn back as soon as they have gone the

distance ie get back to base.

 

CRT should not try to specify a mileage for compliance.(How can you anyway - locks/low water/stoppages/bad weather all impact on the journey).

You can just imagine the arguements between compliance officers and prospective Continuous Cruisers over where they have travelled to. Forget it.

 

Just go back to when the term Continuous Cruisers came into being in the first place. Everyone had to have a mooring and a section of boaters who were always on the move said that isnt fair

and everyone agreed - we all knew it was a good point and it was enshrined into the 'laws'.There was no need to explain what continuous cruising was it was obvious.

 

As my mate Andy says you are either Contuously Cruising or you are not. Simples.

Just to put the record straight in 1995 Parliament passed an Act the outlined the requirements for people without a home mooring.

Sometime after that BW bought in their own interpretation of the 1995 Act implying that those without a home mooring should continously cruise and from that came the commonly used description of a boater without a home mooring being "Continuous Cruiser" The Act mentions nothing about continuously cruising.

[mango]

Just to put the record straight in 1995 Parliament passed an Act the outlined the requirements for people without a home mooring.

Sometime after that BW bought in their own interpretation of the 1995 Act implying that those without a home mooring should continously cruise and from that came the commonly used description of a boater without a home mooring being "Continuous Cruiser" The Act mentions nothing about continuously cruising.

A lot has changed since 1995 and we don't yet have legislation to cope with current use of our waterways. Therefore it makes sense for the organisation that is charged with the responsibility of running our waterways to do so effectively, for example by issuing terms and conditions to its licence holders.

[cotswoldsman]

A lot has changed since 1995 and we don't yet have legislation to cope with current use of our waterways. Therefore it makes sense for the organisation that is charged with the responsibility of running our waterways to do so effectively, for example by issuing terms and conditions to its licence holders.

So T&C over rules legislation? Also please read the first sentence of my post

[mango]

So T&C over rules legislation? Also please read the first sentence of my post

Just try cooperating with CRT for goodness sake. You are not making the rules.

[John Williamson 1955]

So T&C over rules legislation? Also please read the first sentence of my post

My understanding of the law is that the terms and conditions of a contract are binding on both parties, subject to some restrictions regarding unfair terms. When you buy a licence for a boat from CRT, you enter into a contract with them, so you are bound by the terms of that contract just as they are.

 

They can't override legislation, but the argument of many on this and other forums is about whose interpretation of the law is correct, CRT's or the boaters'. See you in court....

[cotswoldsman]

My understanding of the law is that the terms and conditions of a contract are binding on both parties, subject to some restrictions regarding unfair terms. When you buy a licence for a boat from CRT, you enter into a contract with them, so you are bound by the terms of that contract just as they are.

 

They can't override legislation, but the argument of many on this and other forums is about whose interpretation of the law is correct, CRT's or the boaters'. See you in court....

You won't see me in court.

[jenlyn]

Just try cooperating with CRT for goodness sake. You are not making the rules.

Trouble is, every time I comply with the rules, CRT change them. Am struggling to keep up with them.

[cotswoldsman]

Just try cooperating with CRT for goodness sake. You are not making the rules.

As far as I am aware I do cooperate with CRT

[bassplayer]

Trouble is, every time I comply with the rules, CRT change them. Am struggling to keep up with them.

...and you've got more chance of hitting the goal posts. When are you going to get that narrow boat then?

[jenlyn]

...and you've got more chance of hitting the goal posts. When are you going to get that narrow boat then?

Trouble is, the goal posts keep playing midfield, you know, neither here nor there.

Mind you, will be at Three Locks by the weekend, so maybe pop into the pub and get better information.

[bassplayer]

Trouble is, the goal posts keep playing midfield, you know, neither here nor there.

Mind you, will be at Three Locks by the weekend, so maybe pop into the pub and get better information.

You know where I am! Gigging Sat night though...

[muddywaters]

Sounds reasonable to me as a CC.

Having said that I hopefully will have a home mooring by Easter