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

[Horace42]

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.

It is a perfectly valid question to ask CRT if there are mooring restrictions applicable to this stretch of the canal and in particular to my site.. And I think it perfectly reasonable to expect them to know the answer. And to tell me. And to put it in writing.

 

And as for £50k extra, where did that come from? Are you an estate agent that knows about these thing? It that is an actual fact, then it's added a new dimension to the equation and makes it all the more important to thrash the matter out now.

 

No boat owner is going to pay that sort of extra money for a house with an EOG unless guarantees exist. In fact I doubt very much that they would even pay the basic price. I certainly wouldn't.

[Horace42]

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.

You are (both) quite close to the nub of the matter. I raised the mooring policy issue on here on Canalworld hoping to get some ideas how to proceed with CRT aimed at achieving a desirable development plan for the site.

Separate from the mooring issue is the alternative conflicting use of the site where commercial gain suggests ignoring the canal completely and packing as many houses on it as possible.

That's my problem, the canal and boating facility is a valuable rural amenity, and having given us years of pleasure, is something I would like to preserve, in fact in my opinion, it should be exploited. That is, by arranging for a smaller discrete development with moorings.

The increase in the house prices due to mooring rights (I hope Arthur is right at £50k- (and each??)) has to off-set the 'loss' of extra houses. It is by no means a certainty that mooring rights will increase the overall value for me. In fact at the moment with CRT not answering my questions - it looks as though I might have picked the worst of both worlds.

[Paul C]

If the gardens have 30ft bankside, I'd say the added value of an EOG mooring in place is somewhat limited. Once you start getting above 50ft or so, it becomes an asset of sorts - but I'd say not massively so, I'd just focus on maximising the profitability from the best way to split the plots, then worry about what you're left with bankside later. Think of the EOG mooring possibility as a bonus, rather than a given.

[Horace42]

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.

You will see from my other replies that there is an alternative commercial element. But only 3 of the houses are likely to be suitable for moorings. The other 4 canalside houses will be normal

Yes, and why not sell up and go. That was the original plan. Unfortunately the detail has to be solved in order to make a profit, and that means getting planning permission.

And again yes! the builders are likely to have plans of their own for what is best for the site. But that is up to them. At least I will have done my bit to maximise my income from the sale.

And in case anyone is thinking I will make a fortune. Wrong! The local authority have devised a land-grab tax regime that is calculated to cream off the extra value created by planning permission. Such is life.

[Horace42]

If the gardens have 30ft bankside, I'd say the added value of an EOG mooring in place is somewhat limited. Once you start getting above 50ft or so, it becomes an asset of sorts - but I'd say not massively so, I'd just focus on maximising the profitability from the best way to split the plots, then worry about what you're left with bankside later. Think of the EOG mooring possibility as a bonus, rather than a given.

I am slowly coming around to the fact that I might have to accept your way of thinking. Although to be honest, that was the basic principle underlying my actual planning application. The canal is a geographical fact and nothing more.

It is only my desire to make use of the leisure aspect of the canal that drives me on. And it is damned annoying that a simple question about mooring rights is so difficult to get answered.

I will keep on chasing CRT until I get somewhere.

As a PS I actually have an old BW letter telling me that moorings wll be allowed for 3 boats. It is CRT now of course.

[cuthound]

When we were looking for a canalside house, several agents said being next to water added 25% to the value.

 

Having a mooring facility already there is a personal thing, some will love it, others will be looking for a specific length whilst some will hate it because you cannot have such a private garden.

 

The house we bought is adjacent to a bridge, and as previously stated, didn't have a mooring.

 

I asked CRT for clarification regarding their EoG mooring policy stating that permission is generally given, unless close to a lock or bridge. I wanted to know how close the structure had to be before permission was refused. They wouldn't say so in the end the only way I could find out was to apply at a cost of £90. Luckily for me they allowed it. Indeed another mooring on the same road as ours has the boat virtually touching the bridge, so they don't always stick to their policy.

[churchward]

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?

Time and Motions?

[Horace42]

When we were looking for a canalside house, several agents said being next to water added 25% to the value.

 

Having a mooring facility already there is a personal thing, some will love it, others will be looking for a specific length whilst some will hate it because you cannot have such a private garden.

 

The house we bought is adjacent to a bridge, and as previously stated, didn't have a mooring.

 

I asked CRT for clarification regarding their EoG mooring policy stating that permission is generally given, unless close to a lock or bridge. I wanted to know how close the structure had to be before permission was refused. They wouldn't say so in the end the only way I could find out was to apply at a cost of £90. Luckily for me they allowed it. Indeed another mooring on the same road as ours has the boat virtually touching the bridge, so they don't always stick to their policy.

That's very interesting. I do not wish to pry into your personal affairs, but I am curious about the timing and logic of your purchase.

Was mooring an essential requirement?

Did you get mooring permission before you bought the house?

If permission had been refused - would you have still bought the house.

And with permission granted did the price go up?

And would you have paid 25% extra.

 

We would not have bought our house without mooring rights - that's for sure! However we were assured that mooring would be allowed, so we bought it. We could not apply for a mooring permit as such because we did not have a boat at the the time. That was to come.

But on reflection the circumstance of boat moorings was a bit lax in those days. As long as you had a cruising license (and subject to common sense, good manners and safety) you could moor anywhere (and that applies today within reason). In reality I could have just moored my boat here without a permit.

The fact that the land adjoining my garden was owned by BWB (remember them?) was fairly irrelevant. But for me, as mooring was an essential part of the purchase, I applied for a license when I bought my boat. I didn't have to. I could have moored here for years for free. The chap next door had a boat (almost touching the bridge) moored for free. In fact for a long time he did not have a cruising license because he became disabled and could not use his boat. He sold the boat when BWB caught up with him.

The situation has changed, as we all know, because you can't get a cruising license without a home base, for which you need a permit (CC's excepted),

Have you notice that law abiding citizens who try to do things by the 'book' are the ones put to most inconvenience and cost.

The rogue boaters are one step ahead of CRT, and judging by the lax way my mooring enquiries are being dealt with, it is not surprising.

[Mike Todd]

You are (both) quite close to the nub of the matter. I raised the mooring policy issue on here on Canalworld hoping to get some ideas how to proceed with CRT aimed at achieving a desirable development plan for the site.

Separate from the mooring issue is the alternative conflicting use of the site where commercial gain suggests ignoring the canal completely and packing as many houses on it as possible.

That's my problem, the canal and boating facility is a valuable rural amenity, and having given us years of pleasure, is something I would like to preserve, in fact in my opinion, it should be exploited. That is, by arranging for a smaller discrete development with moorings.

The increase in the house prices due to mooring rights (I hope Arthur is right at £50k- (and each??)) has to off-set the 'loss' of extra houses. It is by no means a certainty that mooring rights will increase the overall value for me. In fact at the moment with CRT not answering my questions - it looks as though I might have picked the worst of both worlds.

There is, of course, no obligation on CaRT to respond at all, let along enter into a negotiation, especially one that looks as if it will create precedent in a matter where they would rather not have one. AFAIK, there is no public service obligation to create in-line moorings, or to permit them. If you are getting nowhere, then that might be taken as an answer of sorts!

[Mike Todd]

You will see from my other replies that there is an alternative commercial element. But only 3 of the houses are likely to be suitable for moorings. The other 4 canalside houses will be normal

Yes, and why not sell up and go. That was the original plan. Unfortunately the detail has to be solved in order to make a profit, and that means getting planning permission.

And again yes! the builders are likely to have plans of their own for what is best for the site. But that is up to them. At least I will have done my bit to maximise my income from the sale.

And in case anyone is thinking I will make a fortune. Wrong! The local authority have devised a land-grab tax regime that is calculated to cream off the extra value created by planning permission. Such is life.

Land grab tax? Do you mean the payment to release you from the affordable housing requirement? My only gripe such payments is that they are allowed at all - would be much better all round, on social grounds, if limits were placed on the excessively priced housing developments that are pushing housing out of the range of the vast majority of young(er) people.

[Sir Nibble]

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?

Maybe they make shit clocks?

[Arthur Marshall]

Maybe they make shit clocks?

Every time the big hand reaches number two...

[john6767]

I assume to OP in taking about land in Tamworth here. I would like a house with a mooring but there is nothing at all offside near were we live. Last year there was a house for sale in Tamworth, just before you come out of the built up area by the golf course, which initially seemed interesting and was cheap, so I am not so sure there is much added to the value of the house, perhaps 10% but I doubt more in that example. Whilst the are a number of the houses on that stretch with mooring, many don't even though they could, so again that says the premium on the property value is not there or else more people woul have cashed in on it.

[cuthound]

That's very interesting. I do not wish to pry into your personal affairs, but I am curious about the timing and logic of your purchase.

Was mooring an essential requirement?

Did you get mooring permission before you bought the house?

If permission had been refused - would you have still bought the house.

And with permission granted did the price go up?

And would you have paid 25% extra.

 

We would not have bought our house without mooring rights - that's for sure! However we were assured that mooring would be allowed, so we bought it. We could not apply for a mooring permit as such because we did not have a boat at the the time. That was to come.

But on reflection the circumstance of boat moorings was a bit lax in those days. As long as you had a cruising license (and subject to common sense, good manners and safety) you could moor anywhere (and that applies today within reason). In reality I could have just moored my boat here without a permit.

The fact that the land adjoining my garden was owned by BWB (remember them?) was fairly irrelevant. But for me, as mooring was an essential part of the purchase, I applied for a license when I bought my boat. I didn't have to. I could have moored here for years for free. The chap next door had a boat (almost touching the bridge) moored for free. In fact for a long time he did not have a cruising license because he became disabled and could not use his boat. He sold the boat when BWB caught up with him.

The situation has changed, as we all know, because you can't get a cruising license without a home base, for which you need a permit (CC's excepted),

Have you notice that law abiding citizens who try to do things by the 'book' are the ones put to most inconvenience and cost.

The rogue boaters are one step ahead of CRT, and judging by the lax way my mooring enquiries are being dealt with, it is not surprising.

My earlier post #13 explained how I had to get the previous owner of my house to write a letter to CRT to accompany my application for a mooring, as the house was worthless to me without one.

 

Once I had CRT's permission to make a mooring I put in an offer for the house about 10% less than the original asking price, which was accepted, so in that sense I paid less than the 25% premium.

 

I was advised by several estate agents that houses located next to water attracted a 25% premium over an identical house in a landlocked situation, whether it had a mooring or not.

[Keeping Up]

Maybe they make shit clocks?

Are pump-out clocks better or worse than cassette clocks?

[Horace42]

I assume to OP in taking about land in Tamworth here. I would like a house with a mooring but there is nothing at all offside near were we live. Last year there was a house for sale in Tamworth, just before you come out of the built up area by the golf course, which initially seemed interesting and was cheap, so I am not so sure there is much added to the value of the house, perhaps 10% but I doubt more in that example. Whilst the are a number of the houses on that stretch with mooring, many don't even though they could, so again that says the premium on the property value is not there or else more people woul have cashed in on it.

I suppose it depends on the driving force behind the desire to own a boat - and how essential a mooring is. Not forgetting the rural setting and position on the canal network.

I couldn't afford both at the same time, so I reckoned to cut my costs by buying a 'banger' and doing it up. For that I needed an EOG so that I could work on the boat whenever the chance arose.

The idea of loading a car with tools etc, and commuting to a marina everyday for an hour or so was a logistics nightmare - hence an EOG was essential. I bought the house first, then a boat a year later. It wasn't a banger by the way, but an ex-hire boat. It was a bit shabby and dated but fully functional. Then I slowly modernised it.

I mention all this because if someone like me is out there looking for a house with an essential mooring then the least I can do is remove the guesswork over mooring issues. Although it will be the builder doing the selling. The price is up to them.

[Horace42]

Land grab tax? Do you mean the payment to release you from the affordable housing requirement? My only gripe such payments is that they are allowed at all - would be much better all round, on social grounds, if limits were placed on the excessively priced housing developments that are pushing housing out of the range of the vast majority of young(er) people.

Bang on! In both your replies. You seem to be aware of what is going on!. It's the system we are stuck with. The tax will (in theory) create two affordable homes. The same amount of money given to my grandchildren would pay the deposits of 4 homes. There's justice and equity for you.

But back to CRT. I will keep on at them. Thanks for helping.