NBTA protest

[Arthur Marshall]

I think CRT are missing out here if people won't move because school, job etc why not create a long term mooring in that area putting up a sign and a couple of arrows isn't hard then those boaters can pay to moor near the school job without the stress of moving 20 miles... Simples

And every marina within range will scream about unfair competition - CRT are committed to getting rid of cheaper towpath moorings, not expanding them. Trouble is, as always, living space is a finite resource and there never will be enough.

[Athy]

It's not bullying, it may not be nice, but it's just the way the world works.

But should it be the way in which a charity works?

[dmr]

It's such a simple and obvious solution that there has to be a catch - which may, I suspect, be that many liveaboards are not in the upper income bracket, so paying say £1,000 per year for a permanent mooring could be difficult for them.

 

Its really not that simple.

Many boaters could afford a mooring, their argument is why should they pay for something that they believe they can have for free, and indeed have had for free for many years. Also I suspect many do like to move but only over a limited range.

CaRT can not easily create residential moorings, its needs planning permission. If CaRT create leisure mooring and try to force boaters on to them then there is a strong possibility of the NBTA pointing out that living on leisure moorings is illegal and wrecking that lifestyle for many boaters all over the country.

 

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

and I forgot to say, I am pretty sure that there are several vacant leisure moorings available in that area.

 

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

[MtB]

 

The argument about what the wording of the Act actually means will go on for ever (as we know). If changing that is sledgehammer/nut territory, perhaps a NBTA rewrite of the terms and conditions that would satisfy them would be interesting. They have to put up some kind of legal solution - perhaps those on here with an interest could suggest something?

 

 

This seems to be about the only constructive suggestion so far in the whole thread.

 

I note Arthur has now made it twice. I'll add my voice to the request. What would NBTA like the CRT interpretation of the law to be?

 

A detailed written alternative to CRT's version of how to apply the vaguely written law would carry a lot of weight.

[treddieafloat]

Interesting point Dave what is the situation on living on a leisure mooring? People obviously do in certain places do CRT turn a blind eye or is there a loop hole?

[magictime]

The argument about what the wording of the Act actually means will go on for ever (as we know). If changing that is sledgehammer/nut territory, perhaps a NBTA rewrite of the terms and conditions that would satisfy them would be interesting. They have to put up some kind of legal solution - perhaps those on here with an interest could suggest something?

 

Challenge accepted!

 

GUIDANCE FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

 

The law states that applicants for a Licence are not required to have a Home Mooring provided that "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances." This Guidance seeks to explain in day-to-day terms how we interpret this legal requirement.

 

'Bona fide' is Latin for "with good faith" and is used by lawyers to mean 'sincerely' or 'genuinely'.

 

'Navigation' in this context simply means travelling by water. As a car is used to 'drive' from A to B, and a plane to 'fly' from A to B, so a boat is used to 'navigate' from A to B.

 

So, a boat is used "bona fide for navigation" whenever it is used genuinely to travel by water from one place to another. "Place" in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position.

 

A boat is used "bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid" if during the licence period, no significant amount of time elapses during which the boat is not used bona fide for navigation. This "significant amount of time" is specified in the legislation as being 14 days.

 

In everyday terms, then, we will issue a licence for a boat without a Home Mooring if we are satisfied that it will genuinely be used to travel by water from one neighbourhood or locality to another at least once every 14 days throughout the licence period.

[Athy]

Interesting point Dave what is the situation on living on a leisure mooring? People obviously do in certain places do CRT turn a blind eye or is there a loop hole?

Yes, several on our stretch of LT moorings which are in theory (I think) leisure moorings. Blind eye I think - though it may be (as per the rule which obtains in some marinas) that the boaters are supposed to spend so many weeks per year away from their boats.

[churchward]

 

Challenge accepted!

 

GUIDANCE FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

 

The law states that applicants for a Licence are not required to have a Home Mooring provided that "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances." This Guidance seeks to explain in day-to-day terms how we interpret this legal requirement.

 

'Bona fide' is Latin for "with good faith" and is used by lawyers to mean 'sincerely' or 'genuinely'.

 

'Navigation' in this context simply means travelling by water. As a car is used to 'drive' from A to B, and a plane to 'fly' from A to B, so a boat is used to 'navigate' from A to B.

 

So, a boat is used "bona fide for navigation" whenever it is used genuinely to travel by water from one place to another. "Place" in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position.

 

A boat is used "bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid" if during the licence period, no significant amount of time elapses during which the boat is not used bona fide for navigation. This "significant amount of time" is specified in the legislation as being 14 days.

 

In everyday terms, then, we will issue a licence for a boat without a Home Mooring if we are satisfied that it will genuinely be used to travel by water from one neighbourhood or locality to another at least once every 14 days throughout the licence period.

... That's when the fight started!

 

I agree it all sounds sensible and in fact most people seem to have no issue doing just that. But as they say the devil is in the detail. for instance If I travel to another "place" ie A to B if after 14 days I travel by water again from B to A is that OK? (rhetorical question no need to answer)

 

It seems to me no matter how much it is tied down and defined there will always be some people dissatisfied and wish to challenge those definitions to suit their own purpose.

[MtB]

 

Challenge accepted!

 

GUIDANCE FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

 

The law states that applicants for a Licence are not required to have a Home Mooring provided that "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances." This Guidance seeks to explain in day-to-day terms how we interpret this legal requirement.

 

'Bona fide' is Latin for "with good faith" and is used by lawyers to mean 'sincerely' or 'genuinely'.

 

'Navigation' in this context simply means travelling by water. As a car is used to 'drive' from A to B, and a plane to 'fly' from A to B, so a boat is used to 'navigate' from A to B.

 

So, a boat is used "bona fide for navigation" whenever it is used genuinely to travel by water from one place to another. "Place" in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position.

 

A boat is used "bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid" if during the licence period, no significant amount of time elapses during which the boat is not used bona fide for navigation. This "significant amount of time" is specified in the legislation as being 14 days.

 

In everyday terms, then, we will issue a licence for a boat without a Home Mooring if we are satisfied that it will genuinely be used to travel by water from one neighbourhood or locality to another at least once every 14 days throughout the licence period.

 

 

The problem here is firstly you are NOT the NBTA, and secondly you'll need to define "neighbourhood".

 

Had the NBTA just posted proposing this, then all the arguments against CRT's interpretation of the law which they trot out could then be turned against them.

 

Consequently NBTA will never post their own proposals, but repeatedly asking for their alternative proposals will seem imminently reasonable, and their failure to produce any will make them appear increasingly unreasonable.

[bassplayer]

The problem here is firstly you are NOT the NBTA, and secondly you'll need to define "neighbourhood".

 

Had the NBTA just posted proposing this, then all the arguments against CRT's interpretation of the law which they trot out could then be turned against them.

 

Consequently NBTA will never post their own proposals, but repeatedly asking for their alternative proposals will seem imminently reasonable, and their failure to produce any will make them appear increasingly unreasonable.

I suspect those in the NBTA don't feel a need to define an interpretation. It's up to CRT to prove that it is illegal for them to stay in a locality so they can bring up a family and go to work. So far as I can see, the only thing they have on them is the 14 maximum mooring stay law and possibly obstruction where appropriate.

[dmr]

Interesting point Dave what is the situation on living on a leisure mooring? People obviously do in certain places do CRT turn a blind eye or is there a loop hole?

 

CaRT do turn a blind eye, but I think that they have stated its not their problem, it would be up to a local authority to prove that a mooring was been used as a residence without planning permission. As long as everybody is discrete its fine, that is why I am concerned that the protesters are drawing attention to the shortage of residential moorings and so if pushed may well draw attention to the leisure mooring vulnerability.

Its a lot like caravan parks though, as long as you don't use it as a postal address and spend at least a few of nights away each year its hard for a council to prove its residential.

 

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

[MtB]

I suspect those in the NBTA don't feel a need to define an interpretation. It's up to CRT to prove that it is illegal for them to stay in a locality so they can bring up a family and go to work. So far as I can see, the only thing they have on them is the 14 maximum mooring stay law and possibly obstruction where appropriate.

 

 

You are right of course but you miss the point. Asking NBTA to outline their own proposals when they say CRT's are wrong, sounds a wonderfully sensible and reasonable thing to ask.

 

Any CRT representative being interviewed in the media should be making this request repeatedly and pointing out NBTA's refusal to respond.

 

This would allow CRT to recover some of the moral high ground they have allowed NBTA to snatch in media encounters recently.

[NigelMoore]

 

Asking NBTA to outline their own proposals when they say CRT's are wrong, sounds a wonderfully sensible and reasonable thing to ask.

 

The NBTA have in fact been attempting constructive consultation for a long time, and have set out specific suggestions regarding the provision of more, and more widely scattered, mooring facilities and services such as water points etc. Some of the local London CaRT staff have been amenable to the suggestions, but it takes approval from on high to implement these.

[MtB]

But Nige, how does asking CRT to provide more, and more widely scattered, mooring facilities and services such as water points etc give CRT an explanation of how the NBTA think the law should be practically interpreted?

[NigelMoore]

But Nige, how does asking CRT to provide more, and more widely scattered, mooring facilities and services such as water points etc give CRT an explanation of how the NBTA think the law should be practically interpreted?

 

It doesn’t. It just suggests one way to encourage and facilitate wider movement patterns by spreading essential ‘destinations’ further afield.

 

The suggestions address practical solutions to the perceived problems rather than ‘legal’ ones. If affected boaters have more such places for filling up tanks and disposing of the necessary, then the movement patterns can be extended to include those.

 

[magictime]

The problem here is firstly you are NOT the NBTA

 

True enough

 

and secondly you'll need to define "neighbourhood"

 

It's left undefined in the present guidance, presumably because CRT don't feel there's any solid legal basis to pin it down further. I'm trying not to read things into the legislation that aren't there.

 

Had the NBTA just posted proposing this, then all the arguments against CRT's interpretation of the law which they trot out could then be turned against them.

 

Huh? Those arguments are usually about why CRT shouldn't interpret the law as requiring progressive journeys, 15-20 miles cruising ranges, etc. Obviously they can't be turned against an interpretation of the law as not requiring such things.

 

Consequently NBTA will never post their own proposals, but repeatedly asking for their alternative proposals will seem imminently reasonable

 

What, as if it's just about to become reasonable?

[Jerra]

I am at a loss as to why there is such a problem with the concept of place/neighbourhood.

 

If you drive into a village and stop and ask a local the name of the next place they will name the hamlet/village/town/city which is the next collection of houses down the road. If in a city or larger town you ask about neighbourhoods they will give to a quick easy answer.

 

OK there might be a slight problem as to where the place begins and ends but for ease in a canal situation it could be half way between the two.

 

I realise this idea will be too simplistic for some and too complicated for other.

[Nightwatch]

We had thought about living aboard for years. We were prevented from doing so because we either had children growing up and needing stability in schooling, or until recently both had full time employment.

The fact that there wasn't suitable canals near where we choose to live, had there been we may have moved onboard but felt and believed a permanant residential mooring was more appropriate and was in the guidelines as we would not have been able to Continuously Cruise around the network.

 

My feelings on all this are clear. If you can't move freely because of schooling or employment, is living on a boat without occupying an approved residential mooring acceptable? I think not. I could say more,but fear I'll incriminate myself.

 

Martyn

I am at a loss as to why there is such a problem with the concept of place/neighbourhood.

 

If you drive into a village and stop and ask a local the name of the next place they will name the hamlet/village/town/city which is the next collection of houses down the road. If in a city or larger town you ask about neighbourhoods they will give to a quick easy answer.

 

OK there might be a slight problem as to where the place begins and ends but for ease in a canal situation it could be half way between the two.

 

I realise this idea will be too simplistic for some and too complicated for other.

About twelve years ago, it was thought by some that every two weeks you were to travel, I think, ten lock miles. That is to say, five locks and five miles or, three locks and seven miles. It was definitely explained to me that way. The distance I can't remember.

[costalot]

 

The NBTA have in fact been attempting constructive consultation for a long time, and have set out specific suggestions regarding the provision of more, and more widely scattered, mooring facilities and services such as water points etc. Some of the local London CaRT staff have been amenable to the suggestions, but it takes approval from on high to implement these.

I wonder if CRT has considered the opposite. Eg, remove all visiting boater water points between Bulls Bridge Junction and Stonebridge Locks on the Lee. Erect signage at both locations to advise boats visiting the London area to fill up before proceeding through London. Boaters with an official mooring inside that area be given a separate key for moorers locked water points.

[The Lockie]

Ok so CRT cannot stipulate that which they have no powers over,namely the cruising range. Their only legal powers under the act is that boats must move every 14 days.

 

How about making a 20mile CONTINUOUS stretch of towpath say in Bath or Berko or wherever a 14 day no return within 28 day mooring?

 

Surely they have the legal right to do so...just an out of the box ramble on my behalf...discuss good people

Edited May 11, 2016 by The Lockie

[Machpoint005]

The problem is only CRT's in a minor way - the real problem is London itself (and maybe a couple of other high cost cities) and the fact that it needs a lot of low paid labour to keep it going but refuses both to pay them enough or to house them. There's a huge conflict which can only be solved by politics, and it won't be by anything like the politicians we have now.

People have to live somewhere, or sleep under bridges. But it really doesn't take that much to comply with CRT's latest guidelines.

As far as the scruffy bearded person focussed on by the TV, they're going to go for the obvious "interesting" person. Been a while since the news on any channel was really bothered about facts or serious consideration of them.

 

That, Sir, is very well put indeed.

[Graham Davis]

But should it be the way in which a charity works?

 

I think you are using an incorrect idea of what a charity is.

[Athy]

 

I think you are using an incorrect idea of what a charity is.

I don't. But do enlighten me, Graham.

[RLWP]

I don't. But do enlighten me, Graham.

 

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_trust

 

 

 

To be a valid charitable trust, the organisation must demonstrate both a charitable purpose and a public benefit.^[6] Applicable charitable purposes are normally divided into four categories; trusts for the relief of poverty, trusts for the promotion of education, trusts for the promotion of religion and all other types of trust recognised by the law, which includes trusts for the benefit of animals and trusts for the benefit of a locality. There is also a requirement that the trust's purposes benefit the public (or some section of the public), and not simply a group of private individuals.

 

C&RT will be in the fourth category

 

I think you'll find the charitable objects for C&RT earlier in this thread

 

Richard

Edited May 11, 2016 by RLWP

[MtB]

I don't. But do enlighten me, Graham.

 

 

There are clearly two types of charity at least. Those who are there to directly help out people in trouble e.g. Shelter or Crisis, and those who are there to do something else worthy, e.g Eton College.

 

I'd imagine the private schools you've taught at had charitable status just as CRT has, but I doubt either consider it their role to assist homeless people knocking on the door as Shelter and Crisis aim to.

 

I'm not sure what the difference is, but there certainly seems to be one I'm sure you'll agree.