The Vine Prog Today, Friday

[Athy]

Greeno for DT.

Are there really no residential moorings available in the area? The boater claimed that moorings owners (marinas, I suppose) would not accept boaters who had children; is that true?

[KenK]

Finally got round to listening to this on iplayer. I really do feel for the boater with kids in school in B-o-A. She's set up a lifestyle which was 'unlawful' under the 1995 act but was previously tolerated. It's now no longer tolerated and she's stuck. She either jeopardizes her childrens' education or she gives up her home. It's not a choice I'd like to face. No wonder she's unhappy. I was annoyed by her repeatedly pointing her finger at the new 'new guidlines'. What new guidelines are these? Perhaps the ones we have which are softer than the old ones in that they no longer require covering a significant part of the network.

 

On the other hand, Mr Symmonds is just trying to apply the rules fairly. I imagine what he'd like to say is that if you're moving in a pattern in order to get your kids to school, then by definition, you're not bona fide navigating. Asking how far is enough is irrelevant.

 

As I said on another thread, communities of families with kids on boat who are cc'ing are a real rarity around the country. The K&A is an exception but is being treated as typical.

In 2014 -2015 the Western end between Foxhangers and Bath was treated as an exception. Fourteen zones were defined covering roughly a 20 kilometre distance, boaters were required to move between the fourteen zones over the course of a year. Standard time rules applied 14 day stay or less if they were on a Visitor mooring. Movement had to be more than just go from Foxhangers to Bath and return and then sit still for the rest of the year but everything that the lady on the programme requested was defined. The areas were monitored and a report generated every three months, any boat not deemed to be complying was sent a warning communication.

 

Now you would think that it would be easy to comply with such relatively small movement but alas around 200 boats found themselves in various stages of enforcement because they would not or claimed they could not comply, this despite C&RT allowing all requests for extended stays.

 

If anyone is interested the full info is on C&RT's website under consultations. As a friend of mine who has a boat down there said it doesn't matter what C&RT try some boats never move.

 

Ken

[Athy]

Good information, Ken, Thanks.

[RLWP]

I thought Jeremy failed at educating the audience

 

Well, there's a thing

 

Richard

[Dave_P]

Oh, come off it!

Moving to another area and changing your children's school happens frequently to families for all sorts of reasons.

If this was the only competent school in the country I'm sure it would have made headlines by now!

Many people who work in Bath cannot afford to live there but Bath is a stone's throw from Bristol where accommodation to suit all levels of income is available.

If living on a boat is not compatible with family needs then, unfortunately that has to be faced by the family.

It is a fact of life that we can't all have what we want, we have to make choices, society does not and should not be made to fit in with every individuals whims and fancies.

 

edited to make sense!

I agree with all of this. I was meaning 'home' in it's widest sense. Maybe I should have used a different word? Not four walls and a roof, her home is where she lives, her community, her place, where she feels at home. I'm not defending her position but I imagine that she's got a very strong pull to stay close to B-o-A and would find it hard to move on.

[Athy]

I imagine that she's got a very strong pull to stay close to B-o-A .

A sort of B-o-A constrictor, you mean?

[Dyertribe]

I agree with all of this. I was meaning 'home' in it's widest sense. Maybe I should have used a different word? Not four walls and a roof, her home is where she lives, her community, her place, where she feels at home. I'm not defending her position but I imagine that she's got a very strong pull to stay close to B-o-A and would find it hard to move on.

... and I sympathise, but we all have to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Her decision to have two children put her lifestyle in jeopardy I'm afraid. I wonder if she weighed up the pros and cons at that stage?

 

I have always wanted to live in Bath but I have had to weigh it all up: elderly parents in Swansea (sadly not an issue anymore), house prices vs where I live now, owning an established business here..... I could go on. This means that I will never live in Bath, I'll just visit and imagine but I don't expect vendors to drop the house price and I don't expect clients to travel to me just so I can have my dream.

A sort of B-o-A constrictor, you mean?

Nice one!

[Athy]

Cutting one's coat according to one's cloth is indeed sometimes necessary. I felt a strong pull towards the very pleasant village of Bletchingley, Surrey, where I taught in a prep school. But after I got married and the new Mrs. Athy informed me that I wanted to buy my own house instead of living in a school lodge, I realised that it would take several years of saving up before we could afford even a modest terraced house in the area. So I searched for a new job and we moved to Sussex for cheaper housing. It was a wrench at first, leaving familiar scenery and friends behind, but I was still teaching in the Sussex school 16 years later, so I guess we adapted pretty well.

[Alan de Enfield]

Here is the report for the end of the 1st year of the new enforcement regime (not the K&A one, but, the whole system)

 

Boaters without a home mooring Monitoring review – March 2016

Headlines: 

 

During the first year just over 5600 licences for boats without a declared home mooring became due for renewal, so in line with the new process their movement patterns were reviewed 

Just under 40% were subject to a more detailed review for a variety of reasons, of which 1130 were offered a restricted licence. 

652 boats have so far taken out a restricted licences as a result of this process 

220 are still within that restricted licence period 

432 have reached the end of their restricted licence - 268 showed improvement and allowed further licence - 96 sold boat or obtained home mooring or moved away from our waters - 68 were refused a further CC licence, of which 45 remain in the enforcement process

The Process

The process has been slightly amended for boats renewing licences from May 2016 and the updated process can be found on our website. The change removes the option of a three month restricted licence for those boats who have hardly moved.

 

Outcome of the restricted renewal offer.

Of the 1130 restricted licences offered, 1049 should already have been taken up this offer as the licences were due to start on or before 1 March 2016. This is the outcome of those renewal offers.

Outcome of restricted renewal offer :

Total Restriction removed (offered 12 months) 25

Restricted licence purchased 652

Home mooring declaration made 131

Boat has changed ownership 98

Subject to ongoing enforcement action 56

Boat removed from network by owner 40

Still unlicensed 47

 

Grand Total 1049
0

 

[Alan de Enfield]

The 12 month K&A plan concluded at the end of April 2015 with the following results :

 

Between 1 May 2014 and 30 April 2015 262 boats have attracted the attention of enforcement staff for not complying with the Kennett & Avon Local Plan. Below is a summary of these boats.
Action Number of boats

 

Boats which have received pre-enforcement warning letter (pre CC1) 262

Boats which have received first enforcement letter (CC1) 99

Boats which have received second enforcement letter (CC2) 44

Boats which received a pre CC1 letter but have now secured a home mooring 33

Boats which received a pre CC1 letter but have then taken a winter mooring 28

Boats which received a pre CC1 letter but have since been sighted outside of the Local Plan area 65

Boats which received a pre CC1 but have not had further enforcement action. 163

Boats which received a third enforcement letter (CC3) 22

 

(In the last quarter) Between February and April, (2015) of the 279 boats only sighted in the Local Plan area, 231 did not attract any enforcement action.

A further 60 boaters had taken up winter moorings.
33 additional boats had been sighted both within and outside of the plan area. Of these, none had received pre enforcement letters and none are now in the enforcement process.
14 boaters have received pre enforcement letters (pre CC1) 

10 have received first enforcement letters (CC1) 

13 received second stage enforcement letters (CC2) 

16 received third stage enforcement letters (CC3)

At the end of April (2015) 33 boats were still in the CC enforcement process. However, many cases were closed in readiness for the new CC process. All boats that had only received a pre CC1 by the end of February had their enforcement cases closed.

 

It reads as if the K&A is a breeding ground for CMers.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

It reads as if the K&A is a breeding ground for CMers.

 

 

Does it?

 

I cruise the eastern end so west may be different, but at this end I have to disagree. There are a few overstayers here and there but the vast majority of CCers appear to move around compliantly. Even the overstayers seem to move once in a while too. I can't think of any hardcore cases here who never appear to move.

 

The southern Oxford seems to have a bigger problem with long term overstayers than here.

This could be wrong, but I suspect CRT tend to leave alone boaters who move a decent distance every three to six weeks, and boaters are discovering this.

[RufusR]

 

 

 

The hardcore 'non-moving liveaboards' probably number in the 'low hundreds', and of those some / many complain that they either cannot afford a mooring, or that they do not wish to live in a 'council estate'.

 

I

 

question , how would these people rent a house or a flat then ? private sector rents , indeed most rents from any sector are more than most mooring fees surely ?

[BMC problems]

The 12 month K&A plan concluded at the end of April 2015 with the following results :

 

Between 1 May 2014 and 30 April 2015 262 boats have attracted the attention of enforcement staff for not complying with the Kennett & Avon Local Plan. Below is a summary of these boats.

Action Number of boats

 

Boats which have received pre-enforcement warning letter (pre CC1) 262

Boats which have received first enforcement letter (CC1) 99

Boats which have received second enforcement letter (CC2) 44

Boats which received a pre CC1 letter but have now secured a home mooring 33

Boats which received a pre CC1 letter but have then taken a winter mooring 28

Boats which received a pre CC1 letter but have since been sighted outside of the Local Plan area 65

Boats which received a pre CC1 but have not had further enforcement action. 163

Boats which received a third enforcement letter (CC3) 22

 

(In the last quarter) Between February and April, (2015) of the 279 boats only sighted in the Local Plan area, 231 did not attract any enforcement action.

A further 60 boaters had taken up winter moorings.

33 additional boats had been sighted both within and outside of the plan area. Of these, none had received pre enforcement letters and none are now in the enforcement process.

14 boaters have received pre enforcement letters (pre CC1) 

10 have received first enforcement letters (CC1) 

13 received second stage enforcement letters (CC2) 

16 received third stage enforcement letters (CC3)

At the end of April (2015) 33 boats were still in the CC enforcement process. However, many cases were closed in readiness for the new CC process. All boats that had only received a pre CC1 by the end of February had their enforcement cases closed.

 

It reads as if the K&A is a breeding ground for CMers.

Thank you Alan, so KenK's assertion is pure hyperbole. Surprising that.

At the end of April (2015) 33 boats were still in the CC enforcement process. However, many cases were closed in readiness for the new CC process. All boats that had only received a pre CC1 by the end of February had their enforcement cases closed.

 

It reads as if the K&A is a breeding ground for CMers.

Really? Can I have some of what you're drinking?

 

33 boats in enforcement (bit different from 200 KenK) and that from 291 - although CRT's figures don't add up.

 

10%, if it's a "breeding ground", it's not doing very well

[Alan de Enfield]

 

question , how would these people rent a house or a flat then ? private sector rents , indeed most rents from any sector are more than most mooring fees surely ?

 

That leads to a number of possibilities - a couple of which are :

 

1) If you cannot afford to live where you want to live, you have to live where you can afford. The 'world' does not owe anyone a living (house /flat or mooring) just because they 'want to live there'.

 

2) If 'you' have such a low income / savings then 'benefits' will pay for your mooring fee, boat licence, BSSC and Insurance, just the same as they would pay for 'bricks & mortar' accommodation.

[Alan de Enfield]

Thank you Alan, so KenK's assertion is pure hyperbole. Surprising that.

 

Really? Can I have some of what you're drinking?

 

33 boats in enforcement (bit different from 200 KenK) and that from 291 - although CRT's figures don't add up.

 

10%, if it's a "breeding ground", it's not doing very well

 

You did notice that in fact there had been 262 boats that had had the 'you are not moving enough' letter, and that the 33 that entered enforcement were just in the 3 months.

 

There were 1157 boats sighted in the 'K&A Plan' area (this includes, not only CC boats, but local boats with a home mooring and visiting boats from other areas - ie a total of 1157 boats used the 'area' during the 12 month period).

 

Of these 1157, 262 which were registered as 'boats without a home mooring' were considered to be not complying with the requirements - we do not know what percentage these 262 are as we do not know how many 'boats without a home mooring' were included in the 1157 reported.

 

If we want to make guesstimates - then if we take the fact that approximately 19% of licenced boats are 'boats without a home mooring' then 19% of 1157 is 220 boats.

 

This would imply that more than 100% of CCers within the plan area failed to adhere to what they had signed up to do,

 

I think C&RT are doing a pretty poor job of running the canals and will criticise them at every opportunity - when it is justified, however, they are on a hiding to nothing when a certain group of boaters cry 'human rights', 'freedom to do what we want' etc etc.

I have little sympathy for these CMers - they have 'brought in on themselves' by their thoughtless 'me, me, me' actions.

[Plonk]

Last time we cruised down to BoA from Devizes there were a LOT of moored boats, I haven't got the foggiest idea how often they move. A lot of the way is tickover only. So far we have never had a problem mooring in that direction. If visiting and stuck for a mooring, I would like to think that those who don't move very much would welcome breasting up.

[RufusR]

 

That leads to a number of possibilities - a couple of which are :

 

1) If you cannot afford to live where you want to live, you have to live where you can afford. The 'world' does not owe anyone a living (house /flat or mooring) just because they 'want to live there'.

 

2) If 'you' have such a low income / savings then 'benefits' will pay for your mooring fee, boat licence, BSSC and Insurance, just the same as they would pay for 'bricks & mortar' accommodation.

 

My thoughts exactly so cant afford is no excuse for not taking a mooring then is it ?, cant afford translates to cant be arsed or dont want to ... neither IMO are valid excuses as to why you cant put your kids through school or keep a job down , We had a very nice family on our mooring who loved their boat and living aboard , they had a mooring so they could work and kid could be schooled then they found they couldnt get into the right school next due to not having an address in the catchment area so they had to abandon the life and move into a house to do the best for their child .. no moaning they just did it ... maybe these people should to face up to the fact they chose to have a family so they need to bite bullet and do whats necessary until such time they have freedom to return to the live they want

 

. " Life's a shit sandwich come take a bite " as my old boss used to constantly tell me

[KenK]

Thank you Alan, so KenK's assertion is pure hyperbole. Surprising that.

 

Really? Can I have some of what you're drinking?

 

33 boats in enforcement (bit different from 200 KenK) and that from 291 - although CRT's figures don't add up.

 

10%, if it's a "breeding ground", it's not doing very well

If you actually read what I said rather than making up your own version.

I said "around 200 boats in various stages of enforcement" and if you actually look at the figures you will see that is an under estimate. Obviously some of them had enough sense to increase their movement when they received the first communication but a significant proportion did not. Do not forget this trial was over a year and it provided those boaters who always claim, they do not understand what they need to do to comply, chapter and verse as to exactly what C&RT would accept. Despite that a number refused to comply. This kind of selfishness actually effects boaters who do their best to comply whilst CCing the most, if the trial had succeeded it might have been rolled out over the whole system. As in C&RT's eyes it failed it is back to square 1.

 

Ken

[Athy]

 

One of those CC1 and CC2 letters (Note: two letters one boat) went to the coal boat because he was spotted too often at the wharf.

 

 

You raise an interesting point. Do coal boats and other commercial craft, which unlike CCers I believe DO have a different licence, have to abide by the "14 day, then on your way" rule?

[Athy]

 

 

 

The straight answer is there isn't a different license, it's the same one.

Ah, thank you. I thought that there were separate, more expensive, commercial licences, obviously I was mistaken.

[Midnight]

Makes me wonder what, apart from every live aboard losing their boat, you would consider success.

 

 

I think nobody wants to see anybody lose their boat. Those people on the CRT radar have choices it's that simple.

[Graham Davis]

Yes, it's an utterly ludicrous situation.

 

CART bloke: "We require all CCers to move an acceptable distance".

Boater: "O.K., and what is that distance?"

CART bloke: "Oh ho ho ho, we can't tell you that because we don't know. But we'll let you know what isn't, later".

 

 

Imagine if it had been, for example, a government spokesman on Kylevine's programme, and he was being asked about unemployment.

Gov. Bod: "We have too many unemployed people in Britain".

KV: "Oh yes? How many are there?"

Gov. Bod: "Dunno. Even if I did know, I wouldn't tell you".

 

This would not be likely to win the respect of listeners or to show the spokesman in a good light. Rather, it would suggest that he hadn't a clue.

 

What a fatuous comparison!

 

Oh, come off it!

Moving to another area and changing your children's school happens frequently to families for all sorts of reasons.

If this was the only competent school in the country I'm sure it would have made headlines by now!

Many people who work in Bath cannot afford to live there but Bath is a stone's throw from Bristol where accommodation to suit all levels of income is available.

If living on a boat is not compatible with family needs then, unfortunately that has to be faced by the family.

It is a fact of life that we can't all have what we want, we have to make choices, society does not and should not be made to fit in with every individuals whims and fancies.

 

edited to make sense!

 

Quite. My son works as a care worker in Bath and there is no way he could afford the rents or to buy something there, so lives in Frome and commutes. He also says the quality of life is much better doing it that way.

[Athy]

 

 

What a fatuous comparison!

 

 

 

 

What a fatuous criticism! It is, on the contrary, an entirely apt comparison.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Athy

[Murflynn]

What a fatuous criticism! It is, on the contrary, an entirely apt comparison.

nonsense.

[TheBiscuits]

You raise an interesting point. Do coal boats and other commercial craft, which unlike CCers I believe DO have a different licence, have to abide by the "14 day, then on your way" rule?

Depends on the specific licence, but only the roving trader one allows you to NOT have a home mooring.

 

Part of the application process actually requires you to sign a declaration that you have read and understood the BwaHM guidance (the CCers guidance) and currently new traders are being asked to provide an expected itinerary for the next 12 months, "just so we can tell people who ring up where they can find a trading boat".

 

Source: our just accepted operating proposal via CRT business boating.

 

Edit: the actual quote from CRT is:

 

Please also include a copy of your boat safety certificate, your commercial insurance (min £2m public liability) as well as a more detailed itinerary for your trading route in the coming season. This will help us to deal with any enquiries regarding the availability of roving traders in a particular area.

 

But the gist was as I remembered it.

Edited May 3, 2016 by TheBiscuits