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

[dor]

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.

 

From how I read your description, it would seem that the piece of land has nothing to do with the houses and is similar to my mooring. My mooring is on a strip of C&RT land and it is on the offside. There is no access to this strip of C&RT land without either crossing the adjacent land (equivalent to your piece of land) or from the canal. We access our mooring by crossing the canal in a dinghy from the towpath side, where C&RT have a small compound where we can park a car and keep a dinghy.

 

If C&RT own a piece of land between your land and the canal, and you have no way of reaching the canal without crossing C&RT's land, I can't see it easy for you to claim a right to an EOG mooring if the piece of land is more than a notional yard or so wide.

[magictime]

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.

 

...although just about any GRP cruiser, and a minority of narrowboats, would fit nicely. So it's not as if a 30ft mooring is of no value to anyone.

 

Indeed, it seems pretty plausible to me that the value of 7 houses each with a 30-foot EOG mooring might exceed the value of, say, 3 houses with 60-foot EOG moorings and one with a 30-foot mooring. Especially when you consider the awkwardness of an arrangement where mooring lengths and garden widths don't match up. I mean, would the people with moorings only have access to half their boat when moored? Or would they have use of a strip of land at the bottom of their neighbour's garden? If the latter, what does that do to the value of the neighbour's house, which no longer has a garden extending to the water's edge?

[Keeping Up]

Are you sure about that?

 

Absolutely sure, on the vast majority of canals rather than rivers.

 

I am fortunate in having negotiated with BW when I purchased the land with my mooring, that they did not require a ransom strip; my neighbour did not make such an agreement and is now paying heavily for the privilege of passing their mooring ropes across a 6" wide strip of CRT land

[Paul C]

I wonder if its worth creating one of the gardens to extend to 60ft canalside, with another that gets no canalside? As can be seen from CRT's policies, they won't allow a boat to be moored at an end of garden, if its longer than the bankside there. In theory neighbours could cooperate but in practice.....you can't be guaranteed of this. Having said all that, I imagine being canalside is a feature in itself, worth far more than the differential in price for 60ft of bank vs 30ft. Plenty of people have a canalside home, enjoy the garden because of it, and don't have a boat moored there.

[David Mack]

Fat finger edit.

Edited March 24, 2016 by David Mack

[ditchcrawler]

I can't quite see how this will work as the people buying the properties wont own the bank and you dont own it to include in the sale

[Giant]

You may want to check very carefully where the ransom strip is. Although it may have ended a yard from the edge of the canal when the canal was built, that yard could now be underwater if the bank has eroded, in which case you would have direct access to the canal from your own land. There have certainly been cases where this was found to be the case.

[Horace42]

 

From how I read your description, it would seem that the piece of land has nothing to do with the houses and is similar to my mooring. My mooring is on a strip of C&RT land and it is on the offside. There is no access to this strip of C&RT land without either crossing the adjacent land (equivalent to your piece of land) or from the canal. We access our mooring by crossing the canal in a dinghy from the towpath side, where C&RT have a small compound where we can park a car and keep a dinghy.

 

If C&RT own a piece of land between your land and the canal, and you have no way of reaching the canal without crossing C&RT's land, I can't see it easy for you to claim a right to an EOG mooring if the piece of land is more than a notional yard or so wide.

Yes. You touch on complications that are foreseable with a little thought - albeit that a great deal of thought has gone into it judging by the quality of replies here. Thanks to everybody.

But what you say is a good example of the possibilities open to CRT to exploit the situation and underpins my approach to CRT for an answer. But there is no need for CRT to do anything other than tell me moorings will be permitted. Then everything falls in place.

Why make life difficult for everybody by not coming back with a helpful answer that will work here.

If the geography of the land and ownership issues deny the definition of EOG - that's fine. Let them say so.

If EOG on-line moorings are to be reduced in this area (as per K&A) let them say so. They have to tell me.

The basic logic is easy. I ensure my plan includes a fence to separate my land from CRT land. CRT then split their land into 3 plots and then allocate the plots to whichever house owner wants to moor a boat. The house owner then removes their fence to extend their garden to the canal. Simples.

[Paul C]

There's definitely a policy against CRT creating any more online moorings. That's basically why there's no clarity on the issue.

 

If its a genuine end-of-garden mooring, from an applicant that owns the land and the boat (ie its for their private use) then they'll still accept it but that's it - and its 1 boat/mooring they'll allow. If its a larger length of bank, for 2 boats, then its no longer a simple case (I mean, who owns 2 boats????? (I know some do..)) and they deem it a small commercial mooring/marina of some kind. I think this even applies if you "let out" the 1 boat mooring. And they don't want any more of them. Obviously if its their land and the idea of fencing it off then splitting 6 gardens into 3 moorings is given, they'll decline based on their "no more online moorings" policy.

 

Bonkers...but they made the policy because they want boats moored off the canal, because a proportion of boaters complained it slows them down when passing, and also because for every new marina built, they automatically get some money via the NAA.

[Horace42]

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.

Yes, you have to submit a planning application to get a formal binding answer, But you can find out most of what you need to know beforehand. The planning officers are obliged to answer your questions. Even to the extent of a discrete pre-planning enquiry - a sort of informal planning application without going public.

You will learn all the conditions necessary for compliance, and if you meet these conditions, you will get planning permission. It worked two ways. Planning officers are not empowered to give permission any more than refusing it - but they have a jolly good idea of what it will be - and I have found they are quite happy to express a non-comittal opinion.

 

Not perfect but it removes quite a lot of expensive guesswork. Usually, it is likely that you will not meet all the prescribed requirements in precise detail, in which case it has to go to committee.

In my case with CRT, they are not giving me the information i need to fill in the forms.

[Keeping Up]

I find that there are many advantages to having my 80ft offside mooring classified as a small marina. For example I can sub-let if I wish, or let it out when I'm away; but most importantly it means I deal with a different part of CRT who are much more capable of conducting sensible negotiations.

[Horace42]

There's definitely a policy against CRT creating any more online moorings. That's basically why there's no clarity on the issue.

 

If its a genuine end-of-garden mooring, from an applicant that owns the land and the boat (ie its for their private use) then they'll still accept it but that's it - and its 1 boat/mooring they'll allow. If its a larger length of bank, for 2 boats, then its no longer a simple case (I mean, who owns 2 boats????? (I know some do..)) and they deem it a small commercial mooring/marina of some kind. I think this even applies if you "let out" the 1 boat mooring. And they don't want any more of them. Obviously if its their land and the idea of fencing it off then splitting 6 gardens into 3 moorings is given, they'll decline based on their "no more online moorings" policy.

 

Bonkers...but they made the policy because they want boats moored off the canal, because a proportion of boaters complained it slows them down when passing, and also because for every new marina built, they automatically get some money via the NAA.

I think you have summed it up quite well. And if you are right, and that could be decision, then I ask CRT to tell me so. They must know perfectly well what the policy is.

Or (switching to cynical mode) is it a CRT ploy to get as many £90 applications as possible, knowing they will be turned down.

[Horace42]

I wonder if its worth creating one of the gardens to extend to 60ft canalside, with another that gets no canalside? As can be seen from CRT's policies, they won't allow a boat to be moored at an end of garden, if its longer than the bankside there. In theory neighbours could cooperate but in practice.....you can't be guaranteed of this. Having said all that, I imagine being canalside is a feature in itself, worth far more than the differential in price for 60ft of bank vs 30ft. Plenty of people have a canalside home, enjoy the garden because of it, and don't have a boat moored there.

I think you are right. But there are so many combinations of options, most of which require a definite view from CRT in order to make plans. That is why I am chasing them.

[Horace42]

I find that there are many advantages to having my 80ft offside mooring classified as a small marina. For example I can sub-let if I wish, or let it out when I'm away; but most importantly it means I deal with a different part of CRT who are much more capable of conducting sensible negotiations.

How do you get it classified as a small marina. It sounds like a 'business' - which in my case has been ruled out by the 'business' team. That much they have told me.

 

I can't quite see how this will work as the people buying the properties wont own the bank and you dont own it to include in the sale

The house owners could get a license to lease a chunk of CRT land from their garden to the canal edge regardless of having a boat.

In fact, quite honestly, there is no need for a license. House owners can just extend their garden without a license.

There is not much CRT can do about unless they resort to fences maintained at their own expense - or expensive court cases.

Why bother when they can rent it out to a couple of boaters who pay for EOG mooring and maintain the land for CRT.

A little bit of pro-active cooperation from CRT would work wonders.

[Keeping Up]

How do you get it classified as a small marina. It sounds like a 'business' - which in my case has been ruled out by the 'business' team. That much they have told me.

I remember that the central point of my argument was that there were 4 of us in the same position and that it would make sense for each of us to have identical contracts with BW, which we would happily negotiate as one together with the business team - thus saving them money compared with negotiating 4 separate customer contracts.

 

Our agreement was highly satisfactory to both sides, and still is. One of the most charming conditions, inherited from history, is that if a boat full of sewage owned by the Bentima clock company needs to moor to our bank in order to gain access to the Stoke Hammond sewage works, we are obliged to allow them to do so. Why would a clock company have a boat full of sewage?

[Horace42]

One of the most charming conditions, inherited from history, is that if a boat full of sewage owned by the Bentima clock company needs to moor to our bank in order to gain access to the Stoke Hammond sewage works, we are obliged to allow them to do so.

 

Why would a clock company have a boat full of sewage?

Thanks for your help. but I can't answer the last bit. I don't know. Perhaps they were passing time by going through the motions.....!

[Mike Todd]

There's definitely a policy against CRT creating any more online moorings. That's basically why there's no clarity on the issue.

 

If its a genuine end-of-garden mooring, from an applicant that owns the land and the boat (ie its for their private use) then they'll still accept it but that's it - and its 1 boat/mooring they'll allow. If its a larger length of bank, for 2 boats, then its no longer a simple case (I mean, who owns 2 boats????? (I know some do..)) and they deem it a small commercial mooring/marina of some kind. I think this even applies if you "let out" the 1 boat mooring. And they don't want any more of them. Obviously if its their land and the idea of fencing it off then splitting 6 gardens into 3 moorings is given, they'll decline based on their "no more online moorings" policy.

 

Bonkers...but they made the policy because they want boats moored off the canal, because a proportion of boaters complained it slows them down when passing, and also because for every new marina built, they automatically get some money via the NAA.

In general the claim is that the decision to enter into an NAA agreement with a marina is financially neutral where the policy is to remove a number of in-line moorings on a balancing basis. This clearly helps the marina by increasing their market size. In-line moorings usually expect that passing boats slow down - or at least those with large signs demanding such! - and CaRT are seeking to balance competing demands. EOG moorings are no different from others in this respect.

 

There seems to be more evidence that CaRT's stance on EOG is more to do with the management of canals for all users than for specific financial gain (which in the end also helps users as it increases the pot for maintenance and improvement)

 

Whilst one can sympathise with individual owners of property adjacent to a canal, especially if they can see a commercial opportunity for themselves, it also seems appropriate to understand CaRT's current reluctance to collude with any creeping extension to endless lines of moored boats which do generate adverse comments. Especially when the mooring owners think that it is appropriate to build dodgy structures out into the navigable channel.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Mike Todd

[Horace42]

In general the claim is that the decision to enter into an NAA agreement with a marina is financially neutral where the policy is to remove a number of in-line moorings on a balancing basis. This clearly helps the marina by increasing their market size. In-line moorings usually expect that passing boats slow down - or at least those with large signs demanding such! - and CaRT are seeking to balance competing demands. EOG moorings are no different from others in this respect.

 

There seems to be more evidence that CaRT's stance on EOG is more to do with the management of canals for all users than for specific financial gain (which in the end also helps users as it increases the pot for maintenance and improvement)

 

Whilst one can sympathise with individual owners of property adjacent to a canal, especially if they can see a commercial opportunity for themselves, it also seems appropriate to understand CaRT's current reluctance to collude with any creeping extension to endless lines of moored boats which do generate adverse comments. Especially when the mooring owners think that it is appropriate to build dodgy structures out into the navigable channel.

Thanks Mike Todd for taking the trouble to put the pro's and con's of the in-line mooring issue. I have no argument at all.

 

I can see both points of view having hired boats for 13 years before buying my own boat, mooring here since 30 years ago. Regretfully having to accept the fact that creeping old age has introduced physical limitations that forces us to recognise the risk we are exposed to when trying to handle a 15 ton boat, heavy lock gates and bridges - made worse by bad weather - and where the days of jumping locks have long gone.

 

The timing is coupled with the need to consider sheltered accommodation that means selling up and moving. It just happens that my canal-side home has a large garden that can be developed for additional housing, and I am investigating the potential for additional mooring. Notwithstanding there are serious structural issues of steps and landing stages to deal with before it will be safe to moor a boat - but that is a condition that can be dealt with when a lease is issued.

 

I have no strong views, one way or the other, other than to oppose miles of in-line moorings - logistically for access and convenience it seems 50;50 whether you moor at an on-line canal bank or at a marina. You have much the same hassle of traveling and parking. On the other hand I tend to support limited EOG moorings because they are an intrinsic feature of the waterways environment - and they should be allowed here unless there is some compelling other reason to reject them.

All I need is an answer from CRT. They're the one's coming up with all these clever policies and rules, and it is not my fault that they don't know how to apply them. All I know for certain is that an application form has to be filled in, and a decision will be made on merit.

 

But as I have said earlier, I can't complete the form because I don't know the boat details. And since I must produce written permission from the owner of the land (ie, CRT) against which the boat is moored, I need a lease from CRT.

But I have not got one. it is not me who will be entering into any contract. I will not be here.

Quite frankly, it's a mess caused by CRT not getting their act together.

 

But not dealing with my request for information is not acceptable. So I keep chasing them! - it's over a year now since I posed the first question.

[Paul C]

I think the policy is fairly clear. They'll allow an EOG mooring for 1 boat, so long as the landowner and boat owner are the same person. This is subject to it being in a normal stretch of the canal eg not near a bridge, lock, winding hole, etc.

[Horace42]

I think the policy is fairly clear. They'll allow an EOG mooring for 1 boat, so long as the landowner and boat owner are the same person. This is subject to it being in a normal stretch of the canal eg not near a bridge, lock, winding hole, etc.

That is the problem. But there could be 7 gardens on my land, but only room for 3 boats on CRT land. My fences and gardens can be arranged to suit boat lengths if necessary. But as the gardens do not extend to the canal it could be said they are not EOG moorings. And there is a bridge nearby. No problem for 30 years.

There are enough 'fudge' issues here, one way or the other, for CRT to latch on to. I just want CRT to tell me.

[BruceinSanity]

That is the problem. But there could be 7 gardens on my land, but only room for 3 boats on CRT land. My fences and gardens can be arranged to suit boat lengths if necessary. But as the gardens do not extend to the canal it could be said they are not EOG moorings. And there is a bridge nearby. No problem for 30 years.

There are enough 'fudge' issues here, one way or the other, for CRT to latch on to. I just want CRT to tell me.

I suspect it's just too difficult for them to make a call on it. Have you tried asking for a meeting with the local manager?

 

OT: have just realised that it's you and your boat name that are responsible for giving me a Gary Puckett ear worm every time I boat through Amington!

[Horace42]

I suspect it's just too difficult for them to make a call on it. Have you tried asking for a meeting with the local manager?

 

OT: have just realised that it's you and your boat name that are responsible for giving me a Gary Puckett ear worm every time I boat through Amington!

Glad to hear were are remembered! and Oh yes! All relevant CRT people have been contacted. That's the problem, if they don't come up with an answer, who do I turn to? And what is difficult about it. If I was in the job it is something I would sort out pronto.

[Arthur Marshall]

That is the problem. But there could be 7 gardens on my land, but only room for 3 boats on CRT land. My fences and gardens can be arranged to suit boat lengths if necessary. But as the gardens do not extend to the canal it could be said they are not EOG moorings. And there is a bridge nearby. No problem for 30 years.

 

There are enough 'fudge' issues here, one way or the other, for CRT to latch on to. I just want CRT to tell me.

But theres actually room for more boats than that, as cruisers can be quite small. I can't see how you can expect CRT to give you a definitive ruling just because you want to add fifty grand to the prices of your houses! You'll have to compromise and say EOG moorings may be available per agreement with CRT, and set your prices accordingly.

[dor]

I think you need to look at Arthur's point above, which is pretty much what I would say. Why not just mark out three of the plots with 60ft or so of canalside. You can then sell those plots based on "with mooring, subject to C&RT's approval" and give them a price premium as appropriate.

 

Whether you would get a premium is another matter; plenty of people have land adjacent to a canal which they have no wish to use as a mooring. Indeed, many seem to want to hide the canal and turn their backs on it.

[valrene9600]

If your selling up and your land is worth a lot with planning for 7 houses why not take the money and move on. Why have the hassle of getting permission for EOG moorings. Will the buyers own a boat for sure. Will the property be saleable for an excessive extra amount. If yes then the market will be limited to boat owners.

If your not doing the building why not let the developer work out his best site layout while you enjoy your profits in shelteted accomafation.

Of course if you haven't got planning permission then the EOG is surely irrelavent.