End of Garden mooring permits - is there a CRT policy?

[Horace42]

I am trying to find out in advance from CRT if End-of-Garden (EOG) mooring permits can be granted for a piece of off-side land I own so that I can sell some plots for house building with EOG mooring rights.

I have been told by CRT that EOG mooring permits can only be considered in response to application forms where decisions will be made on the merits of each case.

 

The only thing I have been told in advance is that permits will not be granted if boats extends beyond the boundaries of each property, That's OK within reason because I can adjust boundaries to suit if necessary.

 

But it might not be necessary because there is a strip of canal-side land owned by CRT between my land and the canal - (available subject to a license for access) with room for 3 full length narrowboats. There is a potential of 7 house plots, so first come first served if more than 3 want moorings.

Other than boundary issues, I can't proceed because I can't fill the forms in because I don't know details of the prospective buyers or their boats.

 

And boat owners won't buy if mooring are likely to be refused.

I am having trouble getting a useful answer from CRT that I can pass to prospective buyers.

What are the 'merits' of granting or denying a mooring permit - is there a CRT policy where we can judge for ourselves - or even challenge a refusal? - does anyone know - because if CRT know they are not telling me!

[Athy]

I'm not a professional, but I do suspect that ransom strip = grief.

[BruceinSanity]

I'm not a professional, but I do suspect that ransom strip = grief.

That would be my thought. Unless in a length such as Amington that already has quite a few of them, CRT are going to be reluctant to grant any EOG permits, I'd have thought. They are supposed to be reducing them, though the CRT approach to these things, whilst slowly improving, does still remind me of Groucho Marx: “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well I have others.”

[Keeping Up]

The ransom strip is by far the most common arrangement and will not affect the "boundary" restrictions.

[dor]

As I understand it, EOG moorings are granted to the owner of the house which is next to the canal for their own boat. If genuine EOG moorings then they are not neccessarily transferable to a new owner of the property; the new owner would have to make their own application (which is generally not refused if the site has prewviously been an EOG). Houses for sale with an EOG mooring usually say something along the lines of "mooring available subject to C&RT approval".

 

What the OP appears to be trying to do is to set up an offside mooring site which is going to be difficult to succeed as clearly C&RT own the land. C&RT could if they wanted set up their own offside mooring site, though this is very unlikely (but it does occur).

[Pete & Helen]

I'm sure I read that if you are selling a house that has an EOG mooring that you can not guarantee CRT will let the new owner have one as well. I'm no expert so dont slate me if I have it wrong.

 

ETA DOR beat me to it

Edited March 24, 2016 by Pete & Helen

[Horace42]

Interesting you should say that.

It is a ransom strip in a sense that CRT can charge extra for a license for access to a mooring - if they grant a mooring permit in the first place.

I have leased this piece of land charge myself for 30 years for my own narrowboat at a nominal rent and I pay 50% of the local mooring rate for an EOG mooring.

 

The 'ransom' works both ways. The strip owned by CRT is only accessible across my land or from the canal.

It is of no use to CRT except for use by adjacent houses for access to a boat (or as an extension to a garden).

 

My basic problem is CRT are non-committal. An answer to the effect that mooring permits can be issued (for how many boats) and there is a charge (how much) for mooring and access, would be fine.....but nothing!

[Paul C]

Having re-read the OP, I'm not sure talk of ransom strip is relevant - the OP states that the site developer owns the offside bank.

[Athy]

Having re-read the OP, I'm not sure talk of ransom strip is relevant - the OP states that the site developer owns the offside bank.

...and also that CART owns a strip between his land and the water, so yes, it is indeed relevant.

[NigelMoore]

I do suspect that ransom strip = grief.

 

This is correct; you cannot rely on riparian rights whether conferred under enabling Acts or not, so lose all argumentative leverage.

 

However this being accepted, there are a number of web pages CaRT publish on the subject. The oldest extant is their General Information Sheet:

 

http://www.cutweb.org.uk/bw/eogmooring.pdf

 

The application form and general info is given here:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/631.pdf

 

General policies on online moorings is here:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf

 

Assessment criteria are detailed here:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/boating-business/proposals-requiring-physical-works/physical-works-how-we-assess-your-proposal

 

More particular requirements are illustrated here:

 

https://www/pdffiller.com/en/project/33001785.htm?form_id=38690326

 

Unfortunately the link no longer works, and googling the title brings up yet another unreachable/unreadable document – but I have a copy of a part of it. It is a pity, because this gave good illustrations respecting the building of structures vis-a-vis the ‘main operational channel’.

 

Some extra information is given in the WhatDoTheyKnow website:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/policy_and_legislation_relating

 

There is a partially dishonest appraisal of the effect of Moore v BWB on the subject here:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/3774.pdf

 

It is untrue that any determination was made respecting the issue of trespass over another’s riverbed where attachment was to the riverbank [although the obiter dicta suggested it would be – which I refute].

 

Enough to be getting on with?

 

[Paul C]

...and also that CART owns a strip between his land and the water, so yes, it is indeed relevant.

 

I'm sure now!!! I re-read it, and missed that bit first & second time.

[Delta9]

The ransom strip is by far the most common arrangement

Are you sure about that?

[cuthound]

When we bought our canalside house in 2014, it did not have a mooring, and I wasn't interested in buying it unless I could develop one.

 

I approached CRT, who said that the house owner had to apply. I explained my position, and they agreed that I could apply for permission to develop a mooring, providing that I obtained a letter from the house owner, giving his permission to apply.

 

I applied for permission to develop the mooring (£75 + VAT), which was subsequently granted. Only then did I make an offer to buy the house.

 

I suggest you contact your local CRT moorings manager to discuss your proposals. It worked for me.

 

I also asked my solicitor to specifically establish ownership of the edge of the land. The solicitor confirmed that the first metre of my garden belongs to CRT, which is in my opinion a good thing, because failure of the bank, with subsequent flooding of neighbouring properties could be a significant liability if it was my responsibility to maintain it.

 

Edited to add the last paragraph.

Edited March 24, 2016 by cuthound

[David Mack]

Interesting you should say that.

It is a ransom strip in a sense that CRT can charge extra for a license for access to a mooring - if they grant a mooring permit in the first place.

I have leased this piece of land charge myself for 30 years for my own narrowboat at a nominal rent and I pay 50% of the local mooring rate for an EOG mooring.

 

The 'ransom' works both ways. The strip owned by CRT is only accessible across my land or from the canal.

It is of no use to CRT except for use by adjacent houses for access to a boat (or as an extension to a garden).

 

My basic problem is CRT are non-committal. An answer to the effect that mooring permits can be issued (for how many boats) and there is a charge (how much) for mooring and access, would be fine.....but nothing!

 

The current position from CRT's website:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf says

 

"Permission will normally be granted for just one boat to be moored adjacent to the garden of a

private residential property on the offside of the canal providing that there are no operational or

environmental constraints as per para. 1(d). This does not apply on the Kennet & Avon Canal which

is subject to the provisions of its conservation plan."

 

and https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/mooring-your-boat/mooring-faqs says

 

"How much will I pay per year for an end of garden mooring?

The price payable for the permit is set by reference to the mooring fees for simple on-line moorings in the area supplied by us. A benchmark site is identified and a price discount applied to account for the fact that we provide the water space but not the land access to it or any facilities at the site. The discount is normally of the order of 50%."

 

Beyond those two statements, I doubt you will get much more commitment from CRT at this stage. My guess is also that there is no guarantee that these positions will not change, so the policy which applies when a future house-owner wants a mooring may not necessarily be the same.

 

You will have to decide how to lay out your plots to get say 3 plots with 70 ft moorings or 4 with 50 ft moorings or whatever, and then it is up to the eventual buyers to apply for a mooring.

[Horace42]

I'm sure I read that if you are selling a house that has an EOG mooring that you can not guarantee CRT will let the new owner have one as well. I'm no expert so dont slate me if I have it wrong.

 

ETA DOR beat me to it

Yes, you and Dor are probably right. Hence my question to CRT about policy because whoever makes a decision at CRT will need to have guidance on this. And open to challenge if they say no - providing there is a policy to start with of course.

 

There has to be one in principle Either something as basic as 'word-of-mouth' ..."up to the local manager" or in detail and printed as a directive, in which case it would be available on request, I suppose.

 

I am chasing CRT on this. In the meantime I am doing some homework on it.

Thanks for your help.

[Horace42]

Having re-read the OP, I'm not sure talk of ransom strip is relevant - the OP states that the site developer owns the offside bank.

Sorry if my description was not clear. The land I own runs alongside the canal and stops at the top edge of the a steep bank. The steep 'bank' down the water's edge is the bit owned by CRT.

It is analogous to gardens that stop at the edge of the towpath. CRT own the towpath. Except in my case CRT can't get to their land without crossing mine other than by water.

[cuthound]

Sorry if my description was not clear. The land I own runs alongside the canal and stops at the top edge of the a steep bank. The steep 'bank' down the water's edge is the bit owned by CRT.

It is analogous to gardens that stop at the edge of the towpath. CRT own the towpath. Except in my case CRT can't get to their land without crossing mine other than by water.

That's exactly how mine is, one side is bordered by the canal and the other two sides are bordered by a bridge and a fence, so the only access is by canal or through my garden.

[Ian Mac]

You need to understand the original Act of parliament for the particular canal. This will state where on the offside the canal finishes and what rights of access they have and the landowner have. It also says what rights the owner of the offside bank has, and whether these are transferable. It is a full on nightmare, and can have large legal bills, when a right is pursued. Some canals give the landowner the rights to moor for loading and specify the number and type of boat. On certain canals only named individuals got the rights to moor boats on the offside, at certain places. On some canals the number of boats each landowner can have on his length is given, this is normally not dividable if you sell the land and split it, post the act, so you will discover some people own 2/3s of a boat length of mooring. As a boat length is defined in the act this can then equate to a length of allowed boat which is free of mooring rights. I have heard of BW auguring that a long boat does not qualify and it has to be the given length or shorter. Some landowners have the right to operate a number of boats for free (without toll) on the canal. This only applies to that canal as defined in the act, not all C&RT waters. Sometimes it is only pleasure boats sometimes this is defined as a rowing boat or skiff. As I said a legal nightmare, made worse because sometime C&RT have lost their records of who has what rights so start off saying you must have none, till proved otherwise.

--

All the best Ian Mac

PS it also says who is responsible for the maintenance of the canal bank and where to, but only in some acts.

[Horace42]

 

The current position from CRT's website:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf says

 

"Permission will normally be granted for just one boat to be moored adjacent to the garden of a

private residential property on the offside of the canal providing that there are no operational or

environmental constraints as per para. 1(d). This does not apply on the Kennet & Avon Canal which

is subject to the provisions of its conservation plan."

 

and https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/mooring-your-boat/mooring-faqs says

 

"How much will I pay per year for an end of garden mooring?

The price payable for the permit is set by reference to the mooring fees for simple on-line moorings in the area supplied by us. A benchmark site is identified and a price discount applied to account for the fact that we provide the water space but not the land access to it or any facilities at the site. The discount is normally of the order of 50%."

 

Beyond those two statements, I doubt you will get much more commitment from CRT at this stage. My guess is also that there is no guarantee that these positions will not change, so the policy which applies when a future house-owner wants a mooring may not necessarily be the same.

 

You will have to decide how to lay out your plots to get say 3 plots with 70 ft moorings or 4 with 50 ft moorings or whatever, and then it is up to the eventual buyers to apply for a mooring.

Thanks for the links. Very helpful. You have summarised the situation the same way I understand it.

 

I assume someone at CRT would say whatever decision is applicable in my case in response to my questions.

Other than "fill in a form and we will see".

 

That might be convenient for the person tasked with responding because they don't know the answer, but not a lot of good for running CRT who need to exploit opportunities to maximise income from assets.

 

I can quote here from a recent internal CRT document: Somewhere in which is am implicit requirement to come up with plans to meet their objectives.

 

The Trust has a range of charitable objects including:

 

• To hold in trust or own and to operate and manage inland waterways for public benefit, use and enjoyment;

• To protect and conserve objects and buildings of heritage interest;

• To further the conservation, protection and improvement of the natural environment of inland waterways; and

• To promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any inland waterways for the benefit of the public.

 

For my part, in absence of a definitive reply from CRT, I have totally discounted any involvement of the canal amenity in my development plans at this stage. It is far too complicated.

 

As you say, it is up to the potential owner to apply. But it is within my remit to parcel the land in such a way that stops CRT from getting any commercial benefit from it at a later date. Which I will do if they are unable to cooperate now.

 

Which is a pity. Everyone loses.

[Horace42]

You need to understand the original Act of parliament for the particular canal. This will state where on the offside the canal finishes and what rights of access they have and the landowner have. It also says what rights the owner of the offside bank has, and whether these are transferable. It is a full on nightmare, and can have large legal bills, when a right is pursued. Some canals give the landowner the rights to moor for loading and specify the number and type of boat. On certain canals only named individuals got the rights to moor boats on the offside, at certain places. On some canals the number of boats each landowner can have on his length is given, this is normally not dividable if you sell the land and split it, post the act, so you will discover some people own 2/3s of a boat length of mooring. As a boat length is defined in the act this can then equate to a length of allowed boat which is free of mooring rights. I have heard of BW auguring that a long boat does not qualify and it has to be the given length or shorter. Some landowners have the right to operate a number of boats for free (without toll) on the canal. This only applies to that canal as defined in the act, not all C&RT waters. Sometimes it is only pleasure boats sometimes this is defined as a rowing boat or skiff. As I said a legal nightmare, made worse because sometime C&RT have lost their records of who has what rights so start off saying you must have none, till proved otherwise.

--

All the best Ian Mac

PS it also says who is responsible for the maintenance of the canal bank and where to, but only in some acts.

Thanks. If all these complications are lurking in the back-ground I would have thought that is something the 'experts' at CRT would know about and will be dealing with on a daily basis - and say so.

[Paul C]

But its the same as planning permission. If you buy some land without planning permission for housing, you're effectively gambling on the "hope value" that it will succeed once planning is submitted. You can't ask the local council to predict their decision until they have all the evidence in front of them - which is a planning application. And of course, that developer can sell on that land with PP, at a much higher price.

[David Mack]

Thanks. If all these complications are lurking in the back-ground I would have thought that is something the 'experts' at CRT would know about and will be dealing with on a daily basis - and say so.

No the complete opposite. CRT have a complete dogs breakfast of provisions going back to the enabling Acts, and nobody really knows what is what. It would be a lot of work to research the exact position at any one location, and anyway, CRT will argue that a standard national approach is fairer than a lot of historical variation.

[David Mack]

but not a lot of good for running CRT who need to exploit opportunities to maximise income from assets.

 

But end of garden moorings are not much of an asset to be maximised. Their policies already reflect the need to balance the mooring aspirations of canalside landowners with the interests of the wider boating community and others. Which is why they restrict you to one boat per house and don't generally permit subletting.

Edited March 24, 2016 by David Mack

[Horace42]

 

The current position from CRT's website:

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf says

 

"Permission will normally be granted for just one boat to be moored adjacent to the garden of a

private residential property on the offside of the canal providing that there are no operational or

environmental constraints as per para. 1(d). This does not apply on the Kennet & Avon Canal which

is subject to the provisions of its conservation plan."

 

PS: to my previous reply. Underscored in the above text, it is because of these operational or environmental constraints that I have gone to CRT seeking an answer. But it is something in writing that I am asking for as well. I need it for quoting and direct reference and traceable to an authorised source.

 

Also there could be more than one boat because there could be 7 houses with narrow gardens - which on average being about 30ft wide means just about any narrowboat would extend beyond the garden of the house owner.

 

This is accepted as a reason for rejection - but strictly speaking the gardens do not reach the waters edge. They stops at the CRT strip. The strip itself is enough for 3 or 4 boats. It becomes a question of how CRT would allocate their land to each house.

 

Hence my question to CRT, and here, because CRT are a bit backward coming forward.

[Horace42]

But end of garden moorings are not much of an asset to be maximised. Their policies already reflect the need to balance the mooring aspirations of canalside landowners with the interests of the wider boating community and others. Which is why they restrict you to one boat per house and don't generally permit subletting.

Yes. Good point. But EOG moorings are an asset in the sense that they generate maximum income for zero outlay. And if they have policies already in place for this sort of issue it would be easy enough to tell me.

And here it would be 7 houses with no hope of moorings of 1 boat each.