Don't want to get a licence? Here's a solution.

[W+T]

To late I reckon

Regards kris

 

Yep i knew that when i typed it, shame there are so many curtain twitchers about to spoil things for some folk in the way things are hard enough nowadays.

[Timleech]

How ever he has done it, its cool, not caused any harm to any one, aslong as he did it properly and backfilled properly.

 

Lets not all get `curtain twitchin` now and bring this person trouble..

 

There's the rub, it's not just a simple question of filling the hole in the bank, there's the possibility of creating a major problem for the future.

 

I seriously hope that CRT are aware.

 

Tim

[kris88]

Yes disturbing the clay bed of the canal can have serious repercussions. He would have been better creating a slip and using the tracked digger to pull the boat up out of the water IMO.

Regards kris

[W+T]

would the person of had to dig down so far to disturb so much, i mean could he of dug maybe a a few feet down below the water surface, just enough to float the bloat in?

 

would that still cause a lot of damage?

 

I dont like it when folk speculate, but at times i guess it should be done.

[Graham Davis]

I don't think the clay puddle layer is just on the bottom of the canal, but also goes part way up the banks, so digging a hole perhaps 3' deep could quite easily have damaged it. I am also sure that before anything is done to the banks CaRT are required to have notification.

We also need to know whether the land he has dug out belongs to the boat owner or if he has permission of the land owner and has applied for Planning Permission for it.

[Timleech]

I don't think the clay puddle layer is just on the bottom of the canal, but also goes part way up the banks, so digging a hole perhaps 3' deep could quite easily have damaged it. I am also sure that before anything is done to the banks CaRT are required to have notification.

We also need to know whether the land he has dug out belongs to the boat owner or if he has permission of the land owner and has applied for Planning Permission for it.

 

I believe It generally comes up at the sides to above the normal water level, and it would certainly be logical for it to do so.

 

Tim

[W+T]

I don't think the clay puddle layer is just on the bottom of the canal, but also goes part way up the banks, so digging a hole perhaps 3' deep could quite easily have damaged it. I am also sure that before anything is done to the banks CaRT are required to have notification.

We also need to know whether the land he has dug out belongs to the boat owner or if he has permission of the land owner and has applied for Planning Permission for it.

 

 

Ah now i see the concern for the water way, amount of water i dont but the bank yes, I knew they were clay bottom but not all over, well dont know why as it is the water retainer isnt it. blonde moment i think by me.

 

i dont see a problem with PP if needed, he could put hay bails all around it for 4 years lol, and if the land owner if not owned by the DIYer, then i would think by then the CRT etc would be informed and then he would need to remove it in other ways.

 

I believe It generally comes up at the sides to above the normal water level, and it would certainly be logical for it to do so.

 

Tim

 

 

So they are dug, clay lined then bricked over, i say this as side are brick....sorry no, block built on the sides.

[northerntrades]

 

I guess to avoid any mooring, Licence costs and use the boat as a home rented or otherwise.

 

A boat can be like a prepackaged modular home.

 

 

It has no doubt been discussed before but it makes me wonder where it will all end - ie. The trend toward using the waterways as liquid 'streets'. Is it a moral issue? Or just a case of priorities? Why have a boat - for the love of boating and the wild or as a solution to the high cost of housing?

[W+T]

 

 

It has no doubt been discussed before but it makes me wonder where it will all end - ie. The trend toward using the waterways as liquid 'streets'. Is it a moral issue? Or just a case of priorities? Why have a boat - for the love of boating and the wild or as a solution to the high cost of housing?

 

 

but from what i hear its no cheaper to live on a boat...legit, than live in a house. if it catch`s on then it will morso be as expensive if not more to live on a boat.

 

Would be a shame as it would be like a water world of piki dole dossers if not.

[northerntrades]

 

 

It has no doubt been discussed before but it makes me wonder where it will all end - ie. The trend toward using the waterways as liquid 'streets'. Is it a moral issue? Or just a case of priorities? Why have a boat - for the love of boating and the wild or as a solution to the high cost of housing? If it's for both reasons then who could object? I have friends who live aboard and who cruise regularly but their boats are boats rather than 'houseboats'.

[northerntrades]

 

 

but from what i hear its no cheaper to live on a boat...legit, than live in a house. if it catch`s on then it will morso be as expensive if not more to live on a boat.

 

Would be a shame as it would be like a water world of piki dole dossers if not.

 

Don't know how I managed to cock up the quote??

 

Yes it must be at least as expensive in terms of berth fees license etc - though the purchase of a boat (£10,000 to £50,000 would get you started) would be within the range of many people..

 

And It might be preferable to living on some skanky estate for many. I mean if nothing else the views have got to be better!

 

I foresee the two canal progs on terrestrial tv adding a few thousand more boats to the waterways in the near future as they only show the best aspects of boating.

 

And if they're learning from Westy and the way he slams that boat around woe betide us - new boaters will think nothing of bouncing down the sides of a few moored boats while screaming orders at over-worked lock keepers!!

[cherswud]

I reckon both the Victoria Quays hotel boats and the Blagdon Water boats are great ideas.

 

Not very happy about the digging up the sides of the canal for the boat in field though - damage to the canal bank could be significant and cost lots to get repaired. Personal freedom to live life the way you want is one thing, doing it in a way that damages other people's way of life or environment is selfish.

 

I'll be interested to see the outcome of this move to squishy standing - maybe the advent of the mosquitoes (are they present in the UK?), midges, horseflies etc with stagnant water will be a mind changer.

[pquinn]

If everybody were to decide to dig a big hole in the canal bank for their own needs when they felt like it,to save a few quid,where will we all be?

more fun when he decides to take it out for blacking.

 

Where i come from he would be called a ''chancer'' and a cute hoor.

[Peter X]

From the photo it looks as if the boat is in an offside field, and is therefore very unlikely to be on CRT owned land. I'd assume the boat owner is either the owner or tenant of the land or has an arrangement with the owner, because otherwise he's in a very weak bargaining position! But as has been said CRT probably would and should take a dim view of anyone digging even such a temporary and re-filled hole in their canal bank, because it has to be done right so as not to leak water. Where there's a natural bank like that I'd expect the mud surface has to be done properly up to the waterline. I don't know exactly what that means technically but I suppose it's a matter of applying and compacting some mud all the way up so water won't leak through it.

 

Is it the case perhaps that the risk of creating a leak depends a lot on the local subsoil? I think it would be much more likely on a sandy/permeable soil than on a clay/impermeable soil.

 

As to the economics of it, if the owner can get away it without any problems from CRT about the unauthorised (we assume!) works to their bank, from the landowner over rent, or from the local council over council tax and planning permission, then he/she has got some cheap accommodation. No licence fee, no need to maintain the engine (or even have one!), no need for the hull to be waterproof if the ground outside it is not wet. They could just dig a soakaway hole alongside, fill in to ground level with sand or gravel, and thereby avoid any problems of insects breeding in stagnant water. (NB: we do have mosquitos in the UK, they bite and it hurts, but they don't carry malaria here because our summers aren't long enough for the parasite that carries it to thrive I think)

[mark99]

Even a handy drain to sling yer crap into when no-ones looking.

[FadeToScarlet]

I know of a large luxemotor Dutch barge that apparently had the same thing done to it on the river here.... Then the owner pumped out the water and blacked it, and then removed the temporary dam and floated it out again! The EA were not amused....

[bastion]

Surely the EA will have to be involved as well as their permission is needed to create a pond or lake.

[FadeToScarlet]

but from what i hear its no cheaper to live on a boat...legit, than live in a house. if it catch`s on then it will morso be as expensive if not more to live on a boat.

 

Would be a shame as it would be like a water world of piki dole dossers if not.

This is one of those topics that go around and around, but the long and short of it is, it CAN be cheaper to live on a boat, fully legitimately, than in a house.

 

I know, because I'm doing it! Full residential mooring, river licence, and the costs of the maintenance and mortgage are less per month than the cost of renting here in Cambridge and the surroundings, even renting a small flat with less space than the boat. Any thing I rented couldn't be in the centre of town where I moor, so I'd have to drive everywhere, too. I'm going to be mortgage free next February at the age of 28, at which point it becomes even cheaper!

 

In places where housing is driven by high demand and in short supply (Cambridge has pretty much London prices) it can work out cheaper to live on a boat. That's not the main reason why I do it, but it certainly is very nice.

 

Conversely, in other places where housing isn't extortionate, boating can be on a par or more expensive.

 

It's impossible to generalise about everywhere, and give a blanket statement that is true everywhere, because it isn't.

[W+T]

This is one of those topics that go around and around, but the long and short of it is, it CAN be cheaper to live on a boat, fully legitimately, than in a house.

 

I know, because I'm doing it! Full residential mooring, river licence, and the costs of the maintenance and mortgage are less per month than the cost of renting here in Cambridge and the surroundings, even renting a small flat with less space than the boat. Any thing I rented couldn't be in the centre of town where I moor, so I'd have to drive everywhere, too. I'm going to be mortgage free next February at the age of 28, at which point it becomes even cheaper!

 

In places where housing is driven by high demand and in short supply (Cambridge has pretty much London prices) it can work out cheaper to live on a boat. That's not the main reason why I do it, but it certainly is very nice.

 

Conversely, in other places where housing isn't extortionate, boating can be on a par or more expensive.

 

It's impossible to generalise about everywhere, and give a blanket statement that is true everywhere, because it isn't.

 

That is understandable, up here on the outskirts of Manchester property is a whole lot cheaper than down your end, so to live on a boat up here can be at times more expensive to live on a boat legit. still if i could afford aboat to live on i would do so, get away from it all .....one day maybe, just need to find a field by the canal we like :)))) and get my mate with his digger.

[Roadsteam]

Which pound is this anyway?

 

If it suffers low water we will know why.

Its the summit pound not far from Marston Doles and its on the uphill side of the cut. In fact its the same farmer who has several times blocked the canal due to a dispute with BW/CRT over a leak he claims is flooding his field, but has never been seen leaking as i was told by somebody very in the know. The pictures dont show it but the nikospan soft bank protection has been torn out and not replaced.

[David Mack]

Its the summit pound not far from Marston Doles and its on the uphill side of the cut. In fact its the same farmer who has several times blocked the canal due to a dispute with BW/CRT over a leak he claims is flooding his field, but has never been seen leaking as i was told by somebody very in the know. The pictures dont show it but the nikospan soft bank protection has been torn out and not replaced.

 

Criminal Damage then as well!

[northerntrades]

 

That is understandable, up here on the outskirts of Manchester property is a whole lot cheaper than down your end, so to live on a boat up here can be at times more expensive to live on a boat legit. still if i could afford aboat to live on i would do so, get away from it all .....one day maybe, just need to find a field by the canal we like :)))) and get my mate with his digger.

 

 

As I said though - the realities of living on water are not shown on these TV progs - people only see the best bits - generally fair weather - sitting above deck in the sunshine with a nice bottle of red waiting for the drumsticks on the barby and waving to the good natured passers by whilst being lulled by the gentle lapping of shimmering water and hypnotic birdsong!

 

They don't show mid-winter freeze ups when the planking and walkways are death traps and the heating's about to die of exhaustion. They don't show the thieving scum making off with your valuables while you're out at the shops or the interminable battle to single hand through a flight of locks while being grinned at by day-trippers hoping and praying that you drown in a flurry of foaming water - they don't show the break-downs the toilet leaks or the mosquito's - in fact they don't show much that might contradict their stress-free image of waterworld. After all their shows are well sponsored and actually amount to little more than advertisements.

 

If living aboard becomes a free for all where the waterways are cannibalised for personal gain God help us all.

[dor]

>> snip <<

 

As to the economics of it, if the owner can get away it without any problems from CRT about the unauthorised (we assume!) works to their bank, from the landowner over rent, or from the local council over council tax and planning permission, then he/she has got some cheap accommodation. No licence fee, no need to maintain the engine (or even have one!), no need for the hull to be waterproof if the ground outside it is not wet. They could just dig a soakaway hole alongside, fill in to ground level with sand or gravel, and thereby avoid any problems of insects breeding in stagnant water. (NB: we do have mosquitos in the UK, they bite and it hurts, but they don't carry malaria here because our summers aren't long enough for the parasite that carries it to thrive I think)

 

Sort of a bit like a caravan then?

 

And wouldn't a second hand static be cheaper than a boat to buy?

[tim noakes]

I have no patience or sympathy for this arrogant idiot, and hope C+RT find a way to throw the book at him. Having read the thread, here are a few points:

1. If the canal is in 'leaky' ground it will be clay lined up to around 6" above water level, both sides. On the towpath side the towpath is part of the clay lining, on the offside it usually extends at least 1 metre from the water into the field.

2. Chances are this is 'leaky' as it is on a summit level, and there has been (a possibly dubious) argument over the canal leaking onto the same property.

3. This is the OXFORD, which is not over-endowed with spare water on its summit level.

4. That 'plug' he has put back (soil, matting and clay just randomly stuffed in the hole and tamped down) will leak in a matter of weeks or months - in fact it may be leaking already, which is why his arm still has water in it. It's purely cosmetic as far as water loss is concerned.

5. C+RT usually own the offside bank for at least 6' back from the canal for obvious (maintenance) reasons.

 

I'm sure C+RT will be aware - they actually don't miss much, and I hope they take good firm action. I'd levy a hefty fine, ban him from the waterways and pile a few hundred foot of the offside bank along there - with his boat still the other side of it - for good measure.

Edited April 7, 2015 by tim noakes

[b0atman]

Surely he will be sat in a lagoon of all his waste water which will stagnate and become a health hazard.

If he decides to pipe his waste into the canal then he will get a big bill for discharge each year.

I notice he still has sign up for moorings.