So What To Do Now?

[bassplayer]

The main problem is Planning Law. Not even a national organisation as large as CRT can simply ignore planning law, everyone has to abide by it.

Laws can be changed though as they were in 1995, I agree it would require a heck of a lot of backing.

[Paul C]

Laws can be changed though as they were in 1995, I agree it would require a heck of a lot of backing.

 

There's more chance of them altering the 1995 Act to totally eliminate CCing, than changing planning law. But I think realistically the chance of both occurring is 0%.

[bassplayer]

Its not really about marinas losing business. Things can & do happen (changes in legislation, decisions by OFT, ombudsmen, etc) where businesses, or a large sector of a business type, overnight becomes unprofitable (or profitable). Yes if your idea actually occurred it would be a monumental step change in the provision of moorings, but this isn't a reason in itself to not do it - CRT don't "owe" marinas anything in that respect.

 

There's also the implication that because CRT indirectly receives quite a significant sum of money from boaters via moorings (EOG moorings, its own marinas and online moorings, and the NAA agreement), there would be a cost-neutral adjustment to some other income stream directly/indirectly from boaters. For example if they lost substantial income, a substantial increase in the licence fee would not be out of the question. You can imagine, genuine CCers who stay in one place far less than 14 days in spring/summer/autumn time, would be adversely affected by this, along with all other boaters. Another knock on effect would be that previously sustainable marina businesses would probably become unsustainable. Yes, a few marinas would still remain, but certainly not all, or not even most. This would leave those who still wanted a marina with less choice too - they'd have to choose a (probably further) marina, or the towpath. And I imagine the effect on online mooring providers, especially at the lower end, would be even greater.

It's a valid argument that marinas AND CRT might lose some revenue. I don't believe it would be much for the reasons I explained. For the same reasons I don't believe many will shut down. I'm not totally adverse to an increase in the licence fee to cover CRT's losses either BTW.

 

Why would CC'ers and other boaters be adversely affected? It would free up more VM's than the current situation. Don't forget many CM'ers moor outside official 14 day moorings. They are now being forced out and using official VM's.

There's more chance of them altering the 1995 Act to totally eliminate CCing,

TBH Paul, I'm worried that is exactly what will happen. I think this enforcement spree is just part of the plan to get the justification from the government.

[Paul C]

What is the price elasticity of demand, of moorings?

[mark99]

Laws can be changed though as they were in 1995, I agree it would require a heck of a lot of backing.

What were canals dug for? Moving/transit or mooring/cheap living?

[bassplayer]

What is the price elasticity of demand, of moorings?

To use an analogy, how many more people would rummage bins if more bins were provided. Before anyone gives me a hard time, I know it's a terrible analogy but it makes my point. It does hinge on the question, how many people would really give up the security, utilities etc of a paid mooring? You think it would be enough to wipe out most marinas, I don't.

 

To flip it back the other way, why didn't winter tow path moorings take off?

[gazza]

Really?!!

 

Bassplayer,

 

Do you not get bored of banging the same drum?!

[Murflynn]

...... and, disregarding planning law, if peeps were allowed to plonk themselves in some out of the way location long term, how long would it be before many these locations become not much more than squatters' camps (Oxford already has this problem, plus a few other locations I could mention). Is that something that CRT should accommodate and that thousands of canal users should tolerate?

[John V]

I am far from an expert in this and I'm sure someone will be along in a moment to confirm this. However.........my understanding is, that the requirement of all pleasure boats to have a home mooring, was relaxed due to the argument that, this was unfair, to those boaters who traveled so extensively as to make a home mooring meaningless. If this is correct then the intention was not to allow the patterns of movement that we see from those called CMers but that that we see from CCers who cruise extensively. I can't believe that it was ever any ones intention to allow canals to become a section of the housing market.

[bassplayer]

What were canals dug for? Moving/transit or mooring/cheap living?

Originally moving commercial goods. Now mainly leisure and some living. Things change but there is still room for all so long as there is water!

Really?!!

Bassplayer,

Do you not get bored of banging the same drum?!

Thanks for your helpful counter argument...

I am far from an expert in this and I'm sure someone will be along in a moment to confirm this. However.........my understanding is, that the requirement of all pleasure boats to have a home mooring, was relaxed due to the argument that, this was unfair, to those boaters who traveled so extensively as to make a home mooring meaningless. If this is correct then the intention was not to allow the patterns of movement that we see from those called CMers but that that we see from CCers who cruise extensively. I can't believe that it was ever any ones intention to allow canals to become a section of the housing market.

 

What's the original intention got to do with it?

...... and, disregarding planning law, if peeps were allowed to plonk themselves in some out of the way location long term, how long would it be before many these locations become not much more than squatters' camps (Oxford already has this problem, plus a few other locations I could mention). Is that something that CRT should accommodate and that thousands of canal users should tolerate?

I give up!

[dccruiser]

I am far from an expert in this and I'm sure someone will be along in a moment to confirm this. However.........my understanding is, that the requirement of all pleasure boats to have a home mooring, was relaxed due to the argument that, this was unfair, to those boaters who traveled so extensively as to make a home mooring meaningless. If this is correct then the intention was not to allow the patterns of movement that we see from those called CMers but that that we see from CCers who cruise extensively. I can't believe that it was ever any ones intention to allow canals to become a section of the housing market.

Couldnt agree more, have a greenie

 

Rick

[mark99]

Bassplayer I would presume, would be happy passing for miles past his creation of CM'ers where every 10th one rants about slowing down.

Edited June 23, 2015 by mark99

[Southern Star]

Personally, I think CRT pitch it about right. The canal network should be for narrowboaters to use and cruise, and not just a way of providing the last resort in affordable accommodation for people who have no interest in boats or canals. However, for so long as successive governments are determined to ram the country full of people who are, in their desperation, slated to drive wages down and accommodation costs up for the sole benefit of the Capitalist class, then this situation will continue to worsen, and we should all be grateful to CRT for saying "canals are for boaters".

[gazza]

Bassplayer,

 

The point is its every thread!

 

For a brief moment there was a glimmer of interesting developments when Kris posted his pics, sadly its been lost in the white noise.

 

I can't believe I'm going to type this.... BUT....

 

Oh how I miss the old whining about gennys running after 8pm, gas v electric fridges, pump out versus cassette, superior steel boat owners v GRP yogurt pots (that one always got on my wick) shinny boats v scruffy boats, the worth of fake rivets and so on.

 

Please can we have the old forum back

[Jim Riley]

.... Or get back OT..... Breed geese.

[gazza]

 

Where is Sueb? She wouldn't have had any truck with this

Edited June 23, 2015 by gazza

[John V]

Bassplayer,

 

The point is its every thread!

 

For a brief moment there was a glimmer of interesting developments when Kris posted his pics, sadly its been lost in the white noise.

 

I can't believe I'm going to type this.... BUT....

 

Oh how I miss the old whining about gennys running after 8pm, gas v electric fridges, pump out versus cassette, superior steel boat owners v GRP yogurt pots (that one always got on my wick) shinny boats v scruffy boats, the worth of fake rivets and so on.

 

Please can we have the old forum back

 

[bassplayer]

Bassplayer,

The point is its every thread!

For a brief moment there was a glimmer of interesting developments when Kris posted his pics, sadly its been lost in the white noise.

I can't believe I'm going to type this.... BUT....

Oh how I miss the old whining about gennys running after 8pm, gas v electric fridges, pump out versus cassette, superior steel boat owners v GRP yogurt pots (that one always got on my wick) shinny boats v scruffy boats, the worth of fake rivets and so on.

Please can we have the old forum back

Actually, if you could be bothered to read the thread you'd see this was started by others who responded to my advice to Kris. I think the pictures have been copied several times now, perhaps you didn't notice

[gazza]

 

 

I wonder if another sub forum for folks to discuss the axes they wish to grind with C&RT would be beneficial?

Actually, if you could be bothered to read the thread you'd see this was started by others who responded to my advice to Kris. I think the pictures have been copied several times now, perhaps you didn't notice

Try again, I've read the whole thread. I also commented on the stern gear set up.

 

Its been hijacked by this round the house guff. And as far as I can see, you have taken your usual line.

[Delta9]

Personally, I think CRT pitch it about right. The canal network should be for narrowboaters to use and cruise, and not just a way of providing the last resort in affordable accommodation for people who have no interest in boats or canals. However, for so long as successive governments are determined to ram the country full of people who are, in their desperation, slated to drive wages down and accommodation costs up for the sole benefit of the Capitalist class, then this situation will continue to worsen, and we should all be grateful to CRT for saying "canals are for boaters".

Do you have to sneak a comment about immigration into every thread?

[sueb]

Where is Sueb? She wouldn't have had any truck with this

 

I'm here. What am I supposed to do about it? I've retired

 

[gazza]

 

I'm here. What am I supposed to do about it? I've retired

 

Ah, I had noticed you don't post so much/at all these days.

 

Thought you had given up on the forum, that's all.

Nice to see you are still about.

[b0atman]

Do you have to sneak a comment about immigration into every thread?

That is not really the way I see the comment I think that the lack of affordable housing is what will put more pressure on alternative life styles flooding the country with low paid whilst there is no where for them to go is irresponsible government read the post what is happening in Calais for a better picture .

How long before gangmasters buy ex holiday boats that can sleep lots and put people in them at exhorbitant rents

[bassplayer]

Try again, I've read the whole thread. I also commented on the stern gear set up.

Its been hijacked by this round the house guff. And as far as I can see, you have taken your usual line.

I think your posts show otherwise and if anyone has hijacked this thread (whatever that means) it you...

[Guest]

.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Guest