Off The Cut - CRT and evictions

[smileypete]

I don't know. Maybe they just like that area and want to be there, where they are, and no PMs are available there? I mean, as a pp said above, it's a nice area to live in with decent schools, and IMO it's entirely possible that someone facing this situation might well snap up the opportunity if it were offered. I certainly would.

 

I quite like the idea of affordable/accessible medium term moorings for boating families.

 

But it needs to be managed properly, otherwise it could just be a one off windfall for the lucky ones that get them first, like the Agenda 21 moorings seem to be.

Edited April 17, 2016 by smileypete

[ditchcrawler]

I don't know. Maybe they just like that area and want to be there, where they are, and no PMs are available there? I mean, as a pp said above, it's a nice area to live in with decent schools, and IMO it's entirely possible that someone facing this situation might well snap up the opportunity if it were offered. I certainly would.

I think most boaters could find a mooring in 10 years if they wanted one regardless of how short supply they are.

[Witchword]

 

I quite like the idea of affordable/accessible medium term moorings for boating families.

 

But it needs to be managed properly, otherwise it could just be a one off windfall for the lucky ones that get them first, like the Agenda 21 moorings seem to be.

But people move on, don't they, and move off the canals. Why couldn't the mooring then be let out to people in order on a waiting list if there is a queue?

 

I think most boaters could find a mooring in 10 years if they wanted one regardless of how short supply they are.

Yes, but not necessarily where they want to be, which was my point really. If this part of the canal is so popular, why not create long-term mooring spaces and get some money from its popularity? Genuine question. The people are living there already, but not paying- a mooring would still likely be cheaper than a house or flat to rent so if it were that or lose your licence or your boat, wouldn't they take it if it were offered? Also, it creates a sort of compromise- those who really genuinely like cruising can cruise on, while those who want to be close to that area could take the legitimate mooring, unpleasantness avoided.

[RLWP]

Yes, but not necessarily where they want to be, which was my point really. If this part of the canal is so popular, why not create long-term mooring spaces

 

Who are you envisioning making these moorings?

 

CRT could possibly make online moorings, and they would get criticised for doing so

 

Private operators could open marinas if they could find the land and get planning permission

 

Either may well face planning issues, including permission to make 'residential' moorings which have a whole host of complications around housing and council tax

 

Richard

[Witchword]

 

Who are you envisioning making these moorings?

 

CRT could possibly make online moorings, and they would get criticised for doing so

 

Private operators could open marinas if they could find the land and get planning permission

 

Either may well face planning issues, including permission to make 'residential' moorings which have a whole host of complications around housing and council tax

 

Richard

I don't know, I was asking genuinely why this wasn't being mooted as a solution to what seems to be a horribly emotive and intransigent problem. As the boats are there at the moment and historically de facto anyway, would planning permission be granted more easily? If it were done, C&RT and the local council would all get more income, even if limited, for quite limited services- wouldn't they?

[RLWP]

I don't know, I was asking genuinely why this wasn't being mooted as a solution to what seems to be a horribly emotive and intransigent problem. As the boats are there at the moment and historically de facto anyway, would planning permission be granted more easily? If it were done, C&RT and the local council would all get more income, even if limited, for quite limited services- wouldn't they?

 

'Dear Parish Council. I would like to make some permanent moorings for itinerant travellers on your local canal'

 

I take it you are not aware of the mass of objections even non residential marinas get

 

Richard

[ditchcrawler]

But people move on, don't they, and move off the canals. Why couldn't the mooring then be let out to people in order on a waiting list if there is a queue?

 

Yes, but not necessarily where they want to be, which was my point really. If this part of the canal is so popular, why not create long-term mooring spaces and get some money from its popularity? Genuine question. The people are living there already, but not paying- a mooring would still likely be cheaper than a house or flat to rent so if it were that or lose your licence or your boat, wouldn't they take it if it were offered? Also, it creates a sort of compromise- those who really genuinely like cruising can cruise on, while those who want to be close to that area could take the legitimate mooring, unpleasantness avoided.

There is one boater on that pound on the K&A who admitted going through a lock for the first time after being there for 8 years. If CRT provided a mooring for every boat there today how many do you think would be there tomorrow.

[Ray T]

I don't know, I was asking genuinely why this wasn't being mooted as a solution to what seems to be a horribly emotive and intransigent problem. As the boats are there at the moment and historically de facto anyway, would planning permission be granted more easily? If it were done, C&RT and the local council would all get more income, even if limited, for quite limited services- wouldn't they?

 

Possibly more income but unfortunately a minority of boaters make the towpath a mess:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=83609

 

I couldn't find an appropriate picture but some use the towpath as a garden shed, storage area and are none to tidy about it, you get the gist anyway.

As ever a few spoil it for the many.

 

Also if there a residential boats in or near housing the complaints start:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=53725

Edited April 17, 2016 by Ray T

[Wanderer Vagabond]

But people move on, don't they, and move off the canals. Why couldn't the mooring then be let out to people in order on a waiting list if there is a queue?

 

Yes, but not necessarily where they want to be, which was my point really. If this part of the canal is so popular, why not create long-term mooring spaces and get some money from its popularity? Genuine question. The people are living there already, but not paying- a mooring would still likely be cheaper than a house or flat to rent so if it were that or lose your licence or your boat, wouldn't they take it if it were offered? Also, it creates a sort of compromise- those who really genuinely like cruising can cruise on, while those who want to be close to that area could take the legitimate mooring, unpleasantness avoided.

I think that the major flaw in your suggestion is that what may be proposed for one area, in the interests of fairness, would need to be offered to everyone else on the system. So if CRT were to create paid for moorings on the K & A in the area you suggest, they would immediately be hit with a demand that those in London are entitled to the same.

 

The other problem is that these are prime sites (either London or Bath) so who decides what a reasonable charge for the mooring is? If it left to the market all these people would be priced out anyway so no real advantage to them. If it was on the basis of an 'affordable rent' then Marina owners would (quite reasonably) be up in arms that the navigation authority (since that is what CRT are supposed to be) is undercutting them on prices so they would either refuse to pay the Network Access Agreement (since they would effectively be paying a contribution to their competitors) or get out of the business altogether.

 

Finally, if they were creating residential moorings, I would imagine that this would be subject to planning law and you may find that a lot of local residents would put in objections. I don't fully understand why people buy themselves a canal side property if having boats moored nearby irritate them, but it is sometimes the case.

 

If CRT were ever to open this particular can of worms, they'd never get the little b*ggers back in the tin

[spadefoot]

There is one boater on that pound on the K&A who admitted going through a lock for the first time after being there for 8 years. If CRT provided a mooring for every boat there today how many do you think would be there tomorrow.

How many windlass-less boats do you suppose are on the Long Pound? How many moorings do you think CRT would need to provide? Where do you think these 'other' boats would come from?

[spadefoot]

 

Possibly more income but unfortunately a minority of boaters make the towpath a mess:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=83609

 

I couldn't find an appropriate picture but some use the towpath as a garden shed, storage area and are none to tidy about it, you get the gist anyway.

As ever a few spoil it for the many.

 

Also if there a residential boats in or near housing the complaints start:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=53725

I believe you may be demonising, What is the actual connection between the topics you highlighted & these people on western K&A wanting a mooring?

[Jerra]

I believe you may be demonising, What is the actual connection between the topics you highlighted & these people on western K&A wanting a mooring?

Not demonising merely pointing out that some CCers make a mess and local residents start complaining at the possibility of a set off residential moorings near them.

 

The tenuous connection if you must look for a connection is it is likely to happen anywhere that a CCing community becomes permanent residential moorings.

[spadefoot]

 

 

The tenuous connection if you must look for a connection is it is likely to happen anywhere that a CCing community becomes permanent residential moorings.

Ooops. Rather given the game away there haven't you. I suggest that the connection is in your mind.

[Jerra]

Ooops. Rather given the game away there haven't you. I suggest that the connection is in your mind.

No screw up the connection if you must have one is two fold:

 

What has happened all over in the past both with some CCers and planning applications have you any evidence to suggest that this area would be different?

[spadefoot]

No screw up the connection if you must have one is two fold:

 

What has happened all over in the past both with some CCers and planning applications have you any evidence to suggest that this area would be different?

Sorry, I was asking for evidence that it would be the same. Just because some boaters in some places make a mess, and some residents in some overcrowded noisy polluted cities, complain about some boaters being noisy & polluting, what is the actual connection with the topic?

[StarUKKiwi]

Because if said boaters were willing to pay for PMs (even in a marina) they would already be doing so? I'm not saying that more PMs (to make more money for CRT) wouldn't be a good idea given the demand, but people who've been "CCing" for 10 years in the same location probably aren't interested...

I don't know. Maybe they just like that area and want to be there, where they are, and no PMs are available there? I mean, as a pp said above, it's a nice area to live in with decent schools, and IMO it's entirely possible that someone facing this situation might well snap up the opportunity if it were offered. I certainly would.

That would be a solution except that CRT do not offer proper residential mooring because that (as someone else mentioned) opens a can of worms - you need to have planning permission, offer services - water, electricity, address etc. In truth, CRT work on a loophole with permanent moorings because they are non residential

[MtB]

 

That would be a solution except that CRT do not offer proper residential mooring because that (as someone else mentioned) opens a can of worms - you need to have planning permission, offer services - water, electricity, address etc. In truth, CRT work on a loophole with permanent moorings because they are non residential

 

 

Yes and unfortunately, as the clamour to increase the 'public awareness' of the canals grows, so local authorities will come under pressure to cease turning a blind eye and put a stop to boaters living on their boats informally on leisure moorings.

 

This will come to pass in the next decade I reckon, an unintended by-product of all the publicity about canal boat living we keep seeing on the telly.

[Ray T]

Spadefoot, your belief is incorrect, I wasn't attempting to "demonise" anyone - your words, again something which happens a lot on the forum, people reading what is not there. I always try to choose my words carefully when I write on here.

 

Local Authorities do talk to each other and if one LA has had "problems" with a minority of boaters this may have a knock on effect on other LA's with regard to planning allowing communities to set up. With all boaters being "tarred with the same brush."

 

I would imagine few "land lubbers" understand the boating lifestyle and that the majority of boaters live to a high standard. In some quarters I have heard of boaters still referred to as "water gypsies", with all the erroneous "pictures" that conjours up. This was particularly so in the days of the working boats. Most working boaters were immensely proud of their boats and kept them spotless. A few didn't so they all were lumped into the same category by those on the bank. The legacy lives on.

 

As a side to show lack of understanding I used to sail extensively offshore and in port, often folks would look at us lounging in the cockpit knocking back the beer and wine. On many occasions we would hear "that's the life, I wish I could live like that". Through lack of knowledge there was no appreciation that we may have had the misery of battling a force 6, hissing it down with rain, to get where we were.

 

I was attempting to demonstrate to Witchword why there might be objections to static boating communities on the towpath as opposed to marina's.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Ray T

[peterboat]

Yes and unfortunately, as the clamour to increase the 'public awareness' of the canals grows, so local authorities will come under pressure to cease turning a blind eye and put a stop to boaters living on their boats informally on leisure moorings.

 

This will come to pass in the next decade I reckon, an unintended by-product of all the publicity about canal boat living we keep seeing on the telly.

Virtual greenie Mike plus the NBTA meetings wont help much either I do worry about adverse publicity forcing unintended change on out lives

[MtB]

Virtual greenie Mike plus the NBTA meetings wont help much either I do worry about adverse publicity forcing unintended change on out lives

 

 

Thank you. I certainly wish the NBTA would STFU and all the CMers would toe the line and move around acceptably. That way, people will be able to continue living on boats under the radar virtually indefinitely.

 

But sadly the "I know my rights" brigade in that film are going the feck it up for everyone, I fear.

[jenlyn]

Yes and unfortunately, as the clamour to increase the 'public awareness' of the canals grows, so local authorities will come under pressure to cease turning a blind eye and put a stop to boaters living on their boats informally on leisure moorings.

 

This will come to pass in the next decade I reckon, an unintended by-product of all the publicity about canal boat living we keep seeing on the telly.

Not quite true. (a bit of scaremongering on your part I think).

The council's have been aware of, and looking into the liveaboard leisure moorings since 2011. That's when I first came across the issue.

Some council's have looked a little harder than others of course, but the general opinion is the cost structure would far outweigh the amount collected

Most of the council's I have spoken to, are only interested if the boat owner "hands it to them on a plate", offers up. For instance, through a benefit claim etc.

They don't seem overly keen to get too entrenched with the mechanics of it all.

[kris88]

"Mike the Boilerman" said "That way, people will be able to continue living on boats under the radar virtually indefinitely."

 

 

Ah yes the good old days. How so many people on here long for them. How nice and easy it is when you have a target to blame for the changes that you don't like. Much easier than doing some actual thinking about the issues.

 

Regards kris

Edited April 18, 2016 by kris88

[Mike Todd]

Sorry, I was asking for evidence that it would be the same. Just because some boaters in some places make a mess, and some residents in some overcrowded noisy polluted cities, complain about some boaters being noisy & polluting, what is the actual connection with the topic?

Newton's First Law?

 

 

Thank you. I certainly wish the NBTA would STFU and all the CMers would toe the line and move around acceptably. That way, people will be able to continue living on boats under the radar virtually indefinitely.

 

But sadly the "I know my rights" brigade in that film are going the feck it up for everyone, I fear.

In your usual forthright way you have crystallised the debate - pushing for greater clarity in 'the rules' will almost inevitably lead to better 'radar' with the consequence that much that was tolerated as part of normal good neighbourliness will no longer be possible. Hence why for me the current ambiguity over what constitutes CCing is probably the better option not only for those who permanently CC but also others of us who do so intermittently.

Not quite true. (a bit of scaremongering on your part I think).

The council's have been aware of, and looking into the liveaboard leisure moorings since 2011. That's when I first came across the issue.

Some council's have looked a little harder than others of course, but the general opinion is the cost structure would far outweigh the amount collected

Most of the council's I have spoken to, are only interested if the boat owner "hands it to them on a plate", offers up. For instance, through a benefit claim etc.

They don't seem overly keen to get too entrenched with the mechanics of it all.

I am not sure of the current status, but at one time there were rules about the minimum standard for housing that a local authority provided (size, basic services, insulation etc etc). Regardless of what most people here might think, I suspect that narrowboats come nowhere near meeting such standards, largely because the standards were written with bricks and mortar (and tacky estates) in mind. Hence LAs may not be able to provide them.

[wrigglefingers]

The problem with the idea of setting up semi-permanent moorings is that it's been tried before with a length of cut near the curve by The George at Bathampton. They were designated as permitted mornings for 'problem' cruisers. That didn't make past Bathampton Parish Council.

 

Years of entrenched arguments have ensured that the Western end has become a rallying point for so many campaigners on both sides, when in truth, the situation is no better in other places. Houses along this stretch of water cost a lot and everyone guards their small amount of land as though it were territory threatened by the unwashed hordes, meanwhile a group of people who are either by choice or through necessity live on boats in the area, regard the others as the enemy incarnate.

 

Inbetween the two, BW/CRT stagger from good idea to bad idea entirely stymied by practically total intransigence on all sides. Funny thing is, a lot of the boaters used to go onto the Avon and down to Bristol and back which would entirely satisfy the CRT requirement for distance as transport back to Bath is good and cheap; transport from east of BoA, being entirely non-existent, or prohibitively expensive. (To get Ellen to her school in Bath from BoA Marina took a bus and a train at a cost of £6.90 a day on two child season tickets.) Unfortunately, moving down and back to Bristol didn't count on BW reckoning for cruising beyond Bath, because it's off the cut an d on the river and moorings aren't easy in any case. It's clear that things haven't improved since then. Moreover, the boater who claimed he'd never done a lock is exaggerating, I've seen him on the cut above Bradford Town Lock quite a few times; he might not have a windlass, but he's certainly had someone open a paddle for him.

 

CRT are entirely within the law to insist that that boat comply but that's never been consistently applied, and folks have become used to living in the cracks. Incidentally, a few of the boaters there pre-exist the reopening of the K & A, because some areas were in water and boats had been there for a long time. Jock's wooden boat had been in one place so long, the tree that he had in bucket had broken free and rooted itself in the boat itself. No-one was overly bothered, living in the way you chose was less of an issue and very few people even thought about it.

 

The problem became more pressing when the cut was opened and especially hire boat companies wanted to promote the area. This occurred hand in hand as a phenomenal rise in house prices in Bath as Bath was promoted as a heritage city complete with Roman remains, Georgian Terraces, working canal, delightful river, gracious living and all within a survivable train journey to London, which incidentally overlooked a very shabby-looking boating community on the way.

 

It's been forgotten in the mêleé of shouting, that has gone on about the K&A over the last 15 years, that lot of the original community worked very hard to keep the cut open when BW simply didn't want to know. The composition of this 'community' has changed; it's in the nature of such a group to change, people move in, people move out. The area has changed and BW has become CRT. Like everything else, more is demanded of folks, there's less room to live in the cracks, but somewhere in there are people who have needs and aspirations. Perhaps not the same as yours and mine, but no less valuable. This post is an attempt to explain the historical background that informs some of the imperative that fuels the particular issues at the western end.

Edited April 18, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[Witchword]

 

I am not sure of the current status, but at one time there were rules about the minimum standard for housing that a local authority provided (size, basic services, insulation etc etc). Regardless of what most people here might think, I suspect that narrowboats come nowhere near meeting such standards, largely because the standards were written with bricks and mortar (and tacky estates) in mind. Hence LAs may not be able to provide them.

But the council wouldn't provide the boat, just the mooring. I believe there is a duty to offer space to traveller families (we have several at my school) but that just needs waste disposal points, as far as I know- I'm happy to be corrected, though. Anyway, these families will become families "in need" if they're evicted from their boats so it would save money to pre-empt that in a way acceptable to all...

 

X-posted with wrigglefingers, whose post I'd 'like' but can't- is that because she's a mod?

Edited April 18, 2016 by Witchword