Strange sight on the South Oxrord

[Emerald Fox]

Well, whatever the backstory, it looks like a very professional job done with care and skill. Although I can't see them, I'm sure there are some big advantages to keeping a boat in an area of water not much larger than itself. Perhaps he's being very considerate because other boats now don't need to slow down when they pass?

 

Are we sure that boat hasn't just crashed there from the sky, like a meteorite? The mess around it seems to indicate some kind of explosion.

[Burgiesburnin]

Why dig a hole to put it in? they could have just put it on the ground unless they did dig a trough to float it in on and then repair the bank behind them.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Burgiesburnin

[cuthound]

Why dig a hole to put it in? they could have just put it on the ground unless they did dig a trough to float it in on and then repair the bank behind them.

Exactly, if it was on the ground it would be easy to maintain.

 

I'll bet getting it out of its pond for blacking will be interesting.

[dunfixing]

I believe it would be subject to domestic planing and council tax if it was on the land.

it would be a fixed dwelling as it could not be moved on its own, but floating it is is not fixed.

I think this is what the owner is trying to prove.

Should be interesting if challenged by the local council etc.

[Paul C]

Why dig a hole to put it in? they could have just put it on the ground unless they did dig a trough to float it in on and then repair the bank behind them.

 

.....because he couldn't lift the boat out, but he had a JCB and could dig a big hole, break the bank then reinstate it?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Paul C

[Delta9]

I believe it would be subject to domestic planing and council tax if it was on the land.

it would be a fixed dwelling as it could not be moved on its own, but floating it is is not fixed.

 

It makes no difference whether it is floating or not.

 

 

 

.....because he couldn't lift the boat out, but he had a JCB and could dig a big hole, break the bank then reinstate it?

If he had a JCB he could drag it out

[kris88]

 

.....because he couldn't lift the boat out, but he had a JCB and could dig a big hole, break the bank then reinstate it?

You can prove that of course, or is it speculation?

 

Regards kris

[Paul C]

It makes no difference whether it is floating or not.

 

 

If he had a JCB he could drag it out

 

He chose not to though.....

You can prove that of course, or is it speculation?

 

Regards kris

 

I'm not seeking to prove it, I'm questioning whether he chose to break the bank and dig a hole because he perceived it as easier/possible with the resources he had. What do you think? If he had the resources to put it onto dry land, why didn't he?

[kris88]

I'm not making statements as if I know how it got there?

 

You can speculate and assume as much as you like. But did you see it happening, maybe you where involved in making it happen. I don't know I wasn't there.

Edited October 28, 2015 by kris88

[Guest]

 

.....because he couldn't lift the boat out, but he had a JCB and could dig a big hole, break the bank then reinstate it?

Exactly.

[Paul C]

I'm not making statements as if I know how it got there?

 

Neither am I!

[Peter X]

Exactly, if it was on the ground it would be easy to maintain.

 

I'll bet getting it out of its pond for blacking will be interesting.

The blacking should last longer than usual when there's no possibility of scraping it against anything. Speaking of which, those fenders in the picture seem rather redundant in the circumstances?

[NigelMoore]

I believe it would be subject to domestic planing and council tax if it was on the land.

it would be a fixed dwelling as it could not be moved on its own, but floating it is is not fixed.

I think this is what the owner is trying to prove.

Should be interesting if challenged by the local council etc.

 

That is good thinking, but it makes no difference – see Mews v Tristmire; the boat remains a moveable chattel even if fixed in position above the water.

 

If anything, the construction of the pond would be more likely to attract Council attention.

 

 

edit to add - I see Delta9 got in first!

Edited October 28, 2015 by NigelMoore

[Guest]

I assume the owner can claim 100% domestic fuel use?

[Paul C]

 

That is good thinking, but it makes no difference – see Mews v Tristmire; the boat remains a moveable chattel even if fixed in position above the water.

 

If anything, the construction of the pond would be more likely to attract Council attention.

 

 

edit to add - I see Delta9 got in first!

 

http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/t-ct-man-pn7-appd.html

 

The boat itself can be included in the valuation for CT assessment in certain situations. Example 1 in the link above illustrates this:

 

 

 

The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is occupied exclusively by one boat for a period of more than 12 months. The mooring is also domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) because it is occupied by a boat which is someone's sole or main residence. Although a chattel, the houseboat can be regarded as enjoyed with the land with such permanence as to enhance its value, and should be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

Not sure on PP implications but it doesn't look hopeful.

[NigelMoore]

 

The boat itself can be included in the valuation for CT assessment in certain situations. Example 1 in the link above illustrates this:

 

 

Not sure on PP implications but it doesn't look hopeful.

 

It is a messy situation with conflicting advice from the authorities. It relates, of course, only to situations where the boat is lived on.

 

Regardless of the Planning Permission aspect, the vessel remains a chattel outwith the protection of the relevant Housing law. Council Tax could still be insisted upon though.

[system 4-50]

Fantastic! I used to think my boat was limited to travelling only to places served by canals! Now all i have to do is dig a trench for 30ft in front of my boat, move the boat, and back fill. I can travel anywhere. It will be a bit slow but can I still claim to be CCing?

[NigelMoore]

Fantastic! I used to think my boat was limited to travelling only to places served by canals! Now all i have to do is dig a trench for 30ft in front of my boat, move the boat, and back fill. I can travel anywhere. It will be a bit slow but can I still claim to be CCing?

 

You could only do so on your own land [or with the landowner's permission], and only where the relevant enabling Act so provided [most of them, if not all].

 

Having done so, why would you need to CC? You would have a home mooring.

[David Mack]

Not sure on PP implications but it doesn't look hopeful.

 

I'm pretty sure the excavation itself constitutes engineering works, requiring planning permission, regardless of whether there is a boat in there.

[Sea Dog]

 

I'm pretty sure the excavation itself constitutes engineering works, requiring planning permission, regardless of whether there is a boat in there.

 

Whoa, hang on! The boat was in there already? If they dug it up, surely that's a different matter entirely!

[MtB]

 

Whoa, hang on! The boat was in there already? If they dug it up, surely that's a different matter entirely!

 

 

Its an Iron Age fossil boat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Emerald Fox]

I don't know I wasn't there.

 

So...er... perhaps you were there?!

[kris88]

 

So...er... perhaps you were there?!

Okay I give up, fair cop guv it was me.

[Peter X]

 

I'm pretty sure the excavation itself constitutes engineering works, requiring planning permission, regardless of whether there is a boat in there.

I've done a bit of ...er... digging, and it seems like you're right. But I wouldn't expect minor gardening works such as terracing a sloping garden or digging a normal goldfish pond to require planning permission, so I expect it's a question of scale; at what point does a pond become big enough to be "engineering works" I wonder?

[Higgs]

Some extracts from a booklet, supplied by the EA. - Living on the edge - The booklet runs into 40 pages.

 

[ If you own land or property next to a river, stream or ditch you are a ‘riparian landowner’ and this guide is for you. It has been updated with new information on who to contact for guidance on watercourses.
Your rights as a riparian landowner have been established in common law for many years, but they may be affected by other laws. You may need permission for some activities from a third party, such as your local authority (unitary, county or district council), Internal Drainage Board or the Environment Agency. These organisations are known as risk management authorities.

 

• If your land boundary is next to a watercourse it is assumed you own the land up to the centre of the watercourse, unless it is owned by someone else.
• If a watercourse runs alongside your garden wall or hedge you should check your property deeds to see if the wall or hedge marks your boundary. If the watercourse marks the boundary, it is assumed you own the land up to the centre of the watercourse. ]

 

 

Whatever the nature of the ownership, it seems for those by EA waters, they should consult before embarking on plans that may have effects on the watercourse and the integrity of the bank boundary.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Higgs