Off The Cut - CRT and evictions

[Jerra]

I believe there is a duty to offer space to traveller families

I think you are right but certainly round here (and the travellers I taught) they moved on quite rapidly. The problem appears to be that some boat travellers don't move.

 

If I compare the land travellers I have known to the canals what they needed/used is already provided on the canals in the form of VMs where they can stop for a while and then move on.

[wrigglefingers]

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...

That would be great, but no councillor in this area would survive the approbrium that would be heaped on their head if this was attempted. Many of the houses that bound the cut in this area are worth millions and the inhabitants well able to afford the solicitors and legal representation that stymies any manoeuvre that even suggests this. Bath's homeless problem is, in the main, carefully tidied away.

 

The best spot would be east towards Trowbridge, but this would require effort in both camps, investment and a working public transport system. I would also point out that it is possible to stay within the 15 - 20 miles per year by staying between Bath and BoA. However, that seems to be insufficient for CRT. Reports from a old friend in the Long Pound above Devizes suggest that they are being made to move onto to different waterway despite having cruised the entire length of the K & A each year. They have been told to leave the K&A for a year because their cruising pattern is not that of a progressive navigation, moorings are not easy in some parts of the K&A, and they have returned to some moorings within a year. When folk complain that the goalposts seem to keep changing, this is what they are talking about sometimes.

Edited April 18, 2016 by wrigglefingers

[RLWP]

is that because she's a mod?

 

Yes

 

Richard

[jenlyn]

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.

Excellent post.

[dogless]

Excellent post.

You are bang on !

Pity we can't give greenies really.

Rog

[matty40s]

However, that seems to be insufficient for CRT. Reports from a old friend in the Long Pound above Devizes suggest that they are being made to move onto to different waterway despite having cruised the entire length of the K & A each year. They have been told to leave the K&A for a year because their cruising pattern is not that of a progressive navigation, moorings are not easy in some parts of the K&A, and they have returned to some moorings within a year. When folk complain that the goalposts seem to keep changing, this is what they are talking about sometimes.

Indeed this is the case in the SE as well, Milton Keynes boaters are being forced further out , the Gayton/Whilton pound now has quite a few, and Norton junction as well. The Weedon pound long stayers are now having to move as far as Rugby or past Crick northwards.

It was bound to happen as technology and data loggers give enforcement officers stricter targets for their managers to judge them on.

some boaters cosy lives have to change.

[wrigglefingers]

Well, I'm not sure that cruising nearly 200 miles a year is exactly cosy, although it is very pleasant, and I take the point, Matty.

 

The irony is, that when they went up to the South Oxford Canal last year, they got told off for not being available to fulfil their volunteer roles of ....

 

 

..... logging boaters on the K&A .....

[b0atman]

All this publicity is coming to the attention of Councils and upright citizens who can tap into these Cmers for council tax as they are staying long term in their districts.This will be money for local services as CRT deal with all waste . As MTB says look ahead .

[KenK]

Reports from a old friend in the Long Pound above Devizes suggest that they are being made to move onto to different waterway despite having cruised the entire length of the K & A each year. They have been told to leave the K&A for a year because their cruising pattern is not that of a progressive navigation, moorings are not easy in some parts of the K&A, and they have returned to some moorings within a year. When folk complain that the goalposts seem to keep changing, this is what they are talking about sometimes.

The issue with the above claim is that under no circumstances does C&RT have the authority to force anyone to take either an EA license or to pay to enter Bristol Harbour and then travel on the Severn Estuary. One or the other would be required if, as suggested, a boater was told to move to another waterway controlled by C&RT.

I also happen to know a couple who CC on the K&A between Bath and Newbury, in fact I travelled up the Caen Hill last August with them. In conversation I asked if they had any problems with enforcement given the amount of attention paid to the K&A. She said they had never had a problem, they time their movements to fit in with her husbands job which takes him away from home for a week or so at a time. On one occasion his return was delayed and they would have exceeded the 14 days before he returned, she contacted C&RT because she has arthritis and can't manage the boat on her own. She was told "no problem" and thanks for letting us know, she saw the EO a couple of days later who was aware of the issue and also said it is never a problem if only boaters let us know in advance rather than waiting until we come knocking.

 

Ken

[David Mack]

The issue with the above claim is that under no circumstances does C&RT have the authority to force anyone to take either an EA license or to pay to enter Bristol Harbour and then travel on the Severn Estuary. One or the other would be required if, as suggested, a boater was told to move to another waterway controlled by C&RT.

 

I would suggest that is a complete red herring. It is a moot point whether navigating the whole of the CRT section of the K&A is (or ought to be) sufficient movement to satisfy the CC requirements, but it is entirely irrelevant that to go further by water would require another licence. Boaters also have the choice of paying for a mooring on the K&A or of having their boat craned out and transported to other CRT waters, notwithstanding that both of these options involve paying money also.

[spadefoot]

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.

That's fine. I don't mind my beliefs being incorrect. You explained it a whole lot better the second time.

Not sure I understand your problem with my using my own words in my post though.

And yes, excellent posts by Wrigglefingers.

[KenK]

I would suggest that is a complete red herring. It is a moot point whether navigating the whole of the CRT section of the K&A is (or ought to be) sufficient movement to satisfy the CC requirements, but it is entirely irrelevant that to go further by water would require another licence. Boaters also have the choice of paying for a mooring on the K&A or of having their boat craned out and transported to other CRT waters, notwithstanding that both of these options involve paying money also.

Not true, C&RT and BW before them issue licenses they do not have the power to decide who navigates which canal or river. Indeed their own guidelines clearly state that when CCing one should make a progressive journey not turning around unless one reaches the end of a waterway.

You can for example obtain a rivers only license for the Lee and Stort and CC on those waters with no way off and C&RT have accepted that that is OK.

Given that the K&A is about 90 miles long going both ways 180 is I would say well within the spirit of CCing.

 

Boaters could indeed choose either of the options you suggest but that would be their choice not C&RT's and if they choose to CC that is also their choice and as long as they do it within the guidelines good luck to them.

 

Ken

[magictime]

Not true, C&RT and BW before them issue licenses they do not have the power to decide who navigates which canal or river. Indeed their own guidelines clearly state that when CCing one should make a progressive journey not turning around unless one reaches the end of a waterway.

 

Their guidelines used to talk about a "progressive journey", but they don't any more (after a court ruling went against them, I believe?). And even when they insisted on a "progressive journey", they never insisted one couldn't turn round unless one reached the end of a waterway. Changing direction "in the course of a genuine cruise" has always been OK.

[Steilsteven]

 

 

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.

I think Mike is bang on with this and all the bleating from The Notional Barmy Travellers Approximation is starting to wear thin.

For years people have been telling their friends to buy a boat and get a c.c. licence and come to Bath, ''all you have to do is move now and then''. It's true that things were lax in the early days, e.g. the nineties, and e.o's would turn a blind eye, but everyone knew the score really and also knew that they were getting away with something.

All good things come to an end but no one can say they never saw it coming.

 

Keith

[Ray T]

Thinking further on us boaters have it good on the cut with regard to mooring related costs. With offshore, which a boat licence is also paid for the boat, mooring is very rarely free. Go into any marina or harbour wall you are looking at upwards of £60 per night. Mooring off Cowes or Yarmouth IOW on a buoy also attracts a fee. Then you either have to pay for a water taxi or get the inflatable out and row ashore. Not easy if there is any sort of wind or sea running, or you are "three sheets to the wind" on returning when it is dark.

 

You can anchor in an obscure bay for free, e.g. The Newton River but then you are far from any hostelry and again you have to get the "Avon" out.

 

The most I have paid to stay in an inland marina is £10 per night. This excludes where we keep the boat.

 

Also I am not talking about those who pay to moor on the bank.

 

As far as I can see, perhaps I am wrong, that all people have to do is follow the rules?

 

Like MTB says I am getting weary of the "I know my rights brigade". Perhaps they do "know their rights" but in the long term it is costing the rest of us money.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Ray T

[Alan de Enfield]

................ With offshore, which a boat licence is also paid for the boat, mooring is very rarely free. ...............................

 

I think maybe I am misunderstanding your statement but -

What licence is needed for an 'offshore boat' ?

[Ray T]

 

I think maybe I am misunderstanding your statement but -

What licence is needed for an 'offshore boat' ?

 

Sorry boat registration: http://www.britishyachtregistrations.co.uk/

 

Also if going abroad: http://www.boatability.co.uk/rya-leisure-courses/boat-licence/Sorry I was looking at from the aspect of a skipper.

 

Many charter firms will no longer charter to people with no demonstrable qualifications.

 

The ICC - International Certificate of Competence or your "boat license" is an important certificate to obtain before you go to European Mainland. As the skipper of a vessel, you must ensure that you are aware of any requirement for qualifications before venturing into another country's jurisdiction. In very general terms an ICC (International Certificate of Competence) is required for the inland waterways of Europe and for inland and coastal waters of Mediterranean countries. You will not be allowed to operate your vessel in other European countries without one.

Indeed without such a document you may find your boat impounded for many days before you can get a suitable qualified skipper (ICC qualified...! ) to remove your boat for you. That said the time stress and inconvenience is likely to be more than enough to spoil a nice cruise on the continent. If you want to find out more about getting your boating license then click the link to find out about getting your boat license here.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Ray T

[magictime]

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.

 

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.

 

Hang on a minute.

 

Here we've got two groups of boaters who are trying to "get away with" something: "non-compliant" boaters without home moorings, whose cruising habits go against CRT guidelines but might or might not be perfectly legal; and people living aboard boats on non-residential moorings, which is, as far as I know, unambiguously against the law. Boaters in both groups would no doubt argue, quite sincerely and quite plausibly, that they're simply trying to enjoy their lifestyle in a way that does does no-one any harm.

 

Why should the former group start "toeing the line" with regard to CRT's guidelines in order than the latter group can go on ignoring the law with regard to planning permission? I don't get it.

[b0atman]

because all this shouting has reached the ears of the councils and the local busybodies who are going to put in their two pennys worth

[Paul C]

 

 

Hang on a minute.

 

Here we've got two groups of boaters who are trying to "get away with" something: "non-compliant" boaters without home moorings, whose cruising habits go against CRT guidelines but might or might not be perfectly legal; and people living aboard boats on non-residential moorings, which is, as far as I know, unambiguously against the law. Boaters in both groups would no doubt argue, quite sincerely and quite plausibly, that they're simply trying to enjoy their lifestyle in a way that does does no-one any harm.

 

Why should the former group start "toeing the line" with regard to CRT's guidelines in order than the latter group can go on ignoring the law with regard to planning permission? I don't get it.

 

Its not as simple as that!

[GUMPY]

 

 

Hang on a minute.

 

Here we've got two groups of boaters who are trying to "get away with" something: "non-compliant" boaters without home moorings, whose cruising habits go against CRT guidelines but might or might not be perfectly legal; and people living aboard boats on non-residential moorings, which is, as far as I know, unambiguously against the law. Boaters in both groups would no doubt argue, quite sincerely and quite plausibly, that they're simply trying to enjoy their lifestyle in a way that does does no-one any harm.

 

Why should the former group start "toeing the line" with regard to CRT's guidelines in order than the latter group can go on ignoring the law with regard to planning permission? I don't get it.

No one living on a mooring without PP is breaking the law.

It is only an offence once enforcement action has started before that its perfectly legal.

[matty40s]

 

 

Hang on a minute.

 

Here we've got two groups of boaters who are trying to "get away with" something: "non-compliant" boaters without home moorings, whose cruising habits go against CRT guidelines but might or might not be perfectly legal; and people living aboard boats on non-residential moorings, which is, as far as I know, unambiguously against the law. Boaters in both groups would no doubt argue, quite sincerely and quite plausibly, that they're simply trying to enjoy their lifestyle in a way that does does no-one any harm.

 

Why should the former group start "toeing the line" with regard to CRT's guidelines in order than the latter group can go on ignoring the law with regard to planning permission? I don't get it.

 

The NBTA are a bunch of selfrighteous busybodies - instead of encouraging people to move a bit, they cite human rights and invent a new ethnic minority of "nonmovingboater".

Panda spouts so much monotone crap she runs out of examples, her Radio4 one this weekend was a classic, window cleaning a house compared with moving a narrowboat.

When the Lee and Stort Moorings proposals were launched by BW, London boaters sought evidence, NBTA and Nick Brown wanted human rights, Judicial reviews and other rubbish.

I like my lifestyle, enjoy moving around, love the canals, never leave more than a footprint when I move on and don't want it ruined by NBTA thankyou.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

The NBTA are a bunch of selfrighteous busybodies -..............

 

That's a little harsh - they provide much enjoyment to many youngsters.

 

[magictime]

 

Its not as simple as that!

 

No one living on a mooring without PP is breaking the law.

It is only an offence once enforcement action has started before that its perfectly legal.

 

I stand corrected. Still, it seems fair enough to say these boaters are trying to "get away with something" in hoping no enforcement action is taken that would stop them living in a way that, strictly speaking, breaks the rules.

 

ETA: Not that I'm rushing to condemn these people, just that I don't see why non-compliant CCers should "toe the line" in order to protect other people's right not to toe the line when both groups are basically just trying to live aboard in peace.

Edited April 18, 2016 by magictime

[dmr]

That would be great, but no councillor in this area would survive the approbrium that would be heaped on their head if this was attempted. Many of the houses that bound the cut in this area are worth millions and the inhabitants well able to afford the solicitors and legal representation that stymies any manoeuvre that even suggests this. Bath's homeless problem is, in the main, carefully tidied away.

 

The best spot would be east towards Trowbridge, but this would require effort in both camps, investment and a working public transport system. I would also point out that it is possible to stay within the 15 - 20 miles per year by staying between Bath and BoA. However, that seems to be insufficient for CRT. Reports from a old friend in the Long Pound above Devizes suggest that they are being made to move onto to different waterway despite having cruised the entire length of the K & A each year. They have been told to leave the K&A for a year because their cruising pattern is not that of a progressive navigation, moorings are not easy in some parts of the K&A, and they have returned to some moorings within a year. When folk complain that the goalposts seem to keep changing, this is what they are talking about sometimes.

 

I really don't believe people are been asked to cruise to a different waterway. There is a lot of hysteria and exaggerated claims going on, including ethnic cleansing. (can white middle class boaters be ethnically cleansed?). Maybe a boater asked how best to stay completely out of trouble and got the light hearted reply "cruise to a different waterway". I think Bath to Foxhangers might not safely satisfy the 15 to 20 mile recommendation and so a fair few "Western Enders" are now going up the flight and spending a bit of time on the long pound, sometimes going not much further than Devizes, and some "Long Pounders" are now going over the summit towards Bedwyn, I don't think anybody is going to other waterways, just moving a little further, except of course for a fair few boats who winter on the K&A and go off in the summer (us included).

 

.................Dave