CRT survey

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Midnight said:

Because they are likely to affect my ability to find a mooring in places like London and on the Kennet & Avon. I prefer the canals not to become linear housing estates.

 

Nick Brown is an NBTA bod isn't he?

Is his boat still moored on the public wharf at Devizes?

[Midnight]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Nick Brown is an NBTA bod isn't he?

Is his boat still moored on the public wharf at Devizes?

I have no idea I'd guess probably not. But he did fight hard for the right to stay there didn't he?

[Red Ruth]

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

I suspect even if there were enough residential moorings for all, many NBTA members would expect them to be free or would simply refuse to moor there.

After 14 long days travelling, I visited Oxford last year and found nearly a mile of near empty visitor moorings with just 2 days stay allowed. This I was told as a consequence of CaRT responding to continuous moorers on that stretch. Sooner or later CaRT will bring in more stringent anti-overstayer measures and then we all suffer through the actions of those who wish to bend the rules to their own end.

So do you agree that no matter what side you bat for the NBTA is a threat to enforcement (given CaRT have weak powers) and leisure boaters (including bona fide continuous cruisers)? 

The only way to find out would be to provide enough residential moorings - not sure why you think NBTA members would expect them to be for free? 

The mile long stretch of empty visitor moorings is a choice that CRT have made- not boaters. If the problem was 'overstaying' they would be full of boats - not empty. If CRT choose to bring in more stringent anti-overstayer measures (which, again, is different from 'compliance with the 14 day rule enforcement) then that's up to them - I'd be against it and it sounds like you would too, but tit would be CRT's responsibility - nobody else's. 

Like Goliath - I don't 'bat' for anyone - but I do support the NBTA. If their challenges to the enforcement process are succeeding then it'll be because the enforcement process doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 

CRT are supposed to be looking after the 'heritage' of the waterways for future generations to enjoy - a massive part of that is family boats. I think they could do a better job of it all if they just accepted that as a fact instead of trying to pretend they're an illegitimate nuisance. 

[Red Ruth]

1 hour ago, Sea Dog said:

The canals are part of a network of navigable inland waterways, not a solution to the housing crisis.

seems to me that they are both - and always have been. 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Red Ruth said:

If there are no residential moorings and no housing, I don't know what you think people should do? 

There are moorings where people can live on, even if they aren't technically residential, just the same as there are plenty of empty and fairly cheap houses. Unfortunately, often they aren't exactly where people want to be, but that really isn't the locality's fault.  The thing about boats is that they move, same as people do (or can) if they want to.  The lack of "affordable" housing for rent is a deliberate political policy and the only way to change that is via politics and if people consistently vote for a political party with that policy then that's just democracy for you.

Mooring space is a scarce commodity and the abuse of the rules (or guidelines, or whatever they actually are) by a few has an effect considerably greater than their numbers would suggest.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

20 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I shouldn't really need to answer that. You should really have worked it out by now, but assuming you're not just baiting a trap.

Because they are likely to affect my ability to find a mooring in places like London and on the Kennet & Avon. I prefer the canals not to become linear housing estates.

If I was living on a boat and working in London I would become a member. 

I’m not baiting a trap. 

The NBTA are not against the 14 day rule. 

If you were on a boat, working in London, being supporter of the NBTA won’t make you exempt of the rules. 

30 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Nick Brown is an NBTA bod isn't he?

Is his boat still moored on the public wharf at Devizes?

Perhaps it is, so what? Go ask him. 

[Red Ruth]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

There are moorings where people can live on, even if they aren't technically residential, just the same as there are plenty of empty and fairly cheap houses. Unfortunately, often they aren't exactly where people want to be, but that really isn't the locality's fault. 

That's true - but having to live 'under the radar' can be extremely uncomfortable and difficult - I don't see why people should have to break the law to live on their boats when they can do so legitimately. People need to live where they have work/ social lives/ etc.. there are loads of empty houses in industrial towns where there's no work (take Sheffield for example). The reason the houses there are empty is that there's no way of living from them. 

 

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The lack of "affordable" housing for rent is a deliberate political policy and the only way to change that is via politics and if people consistently vote for a political party with that policy then that's just democracy for you.

Agree again - but I voted labour last time and still no affordable housing. People don't need to change the politics, they need to get and keep a roof over their heads - waiting for a change of government and the housebuilding to catch up with demand really isn't an option. 

I understand that people are upset about not being able to find their ideal mooring spots, but that's ALL boaters - not just leisure boaters. I see that a lot of people think that residential cc's in particular are making everything worse for everyone else, but until CRT sets policy with residential use specifically in mind (as they should, as the very first of their charitable objects) I really don't see this going away.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Crt receive money because they have a charity staus. The public can donate and give to Crt. 

It don’t  mean Crt have to ‘give’ back. 

[WotEver]

16 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

People need to live where they have work/ social lives/ etc

Yes, I agree. What I don’t see is why they then think that CaRT should have to provide those facilities for them. They made a decision to live on a boat rather than an over-priced tiny flat without firstly considering whether the rules and regulations required of them actually suited their chosen lifestyle. When they find it doesn’t suit they then claim that the rules should be altered to suit their needs. They should have rented a bedsit. Because they really don’t want to go boating. 

Edited March 15, 2018 by WotEver

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

but until CRT sets policy with residential use specifically in mind (as they should, as the very first of their charitable objects) I really don't see this going away.

What do your perceive that C&RTs 'charitable objectives' actually are, as opposed to what you would like them to be.

[Quaysider]

I've had it - and just finished filling it in. I was honest in my scepticism in regards their agenda but did conclude that all MY dealings with them have been "fair enough". Their customer service (in my experience) is fine... in my closing statement, I expressed my "hopes"" they will put boaters first and mentioned conspiracy theories about them trying to run down the system etc.   I did use the opportunity to moan about cyclists and anglers on lock landings....oh and folk who abuse "visitor moorings" - specifying "here" where 3 boats have been on the 48 hour moorings for 3 weeks now... it's a pain when I want to chug down to the bin store/pub!

It took a bloody long time to fill in though and as Delta over on the other side has already pointed out the "other" - please specify (re internet forums) - DIDN'T give a box in which to specify.

Hey ho.

In other news, I've been Fer tanning and re-blacking the rubbing strips today in preparation of our "maiden voyage" in just 18 days!!!

 

[Red Ruth]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

What do your perceive that C&RTs 'charitable objectives' actually are, as opposed to what you would like them to be.

the first one is to manage the waterways for navigation by boats - including boats used for human habitation - for the public benefit. That's 2.1 - the first objective - not what I'd like it to be but what it is.  I think doing that properly would require them to consider residential use when carrying out their management activities.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

7 minutes ago, Quaysider said:

I've had it - and just finished filling it in. I was honest in my scepticism in regards their agenda but did conclude that all MY dealings with them have been "fair enough". Their customer service (in my experience) is fine... in my closing statement, I expressed my "hopes"" they will put boaters first and mentioned conspiracy theories about them trying to run down the system etc.   I did use the opportunity to moan about cyclists and anglers on lock landings....oh and folk who abuse "visitor moorings" - specifying "here" where 3 boats have been on the 48 hour moorings for 3 weeks now... it's a pain when I want to chug down to the bin store/pub!

It took a bloody long time to fill in though and as Delta over on the other side has already pointed out the "other" - please specify (re internet forums) - DIDN'T give a box in which to specify.

Hey ho.

In other news, I've been Fer tanning and re-blacking the rubbing strips today in preparation of our "maiden voyage" in just 18 days!!!

 

Don’t forget most visitor moorings are still 14 days til the end of march. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Red Ruth said:

the first one is to manage the waterways for navigation by boats - including boats used for human habitation - for the public benefit. That's 2.1 - the first objective - not what I'd like it to be but what it is.  I think doing that properly would require them to consider residential use when carrying out their management activities.

I think you are putting a bit of 'spin' onto the objectives to suit your agenda, as far as I can see there is absolutely no mention of 'including boats for human habitation' - may be you are looking at a different version of the Articles of Association to those lodged at Companies House.

'That copy' states :

2. Objects
The Trust’s objects are:

2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:
2.1.1 for navigation;
2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and
2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;

[Red Ruth]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think you are putting a bit of 'spin' onto the objectives to suit your agenda, as far as I can see there is absolutely no mention of 'including boats for human habitation' - may be you are looking at a different version of the Articles of Association to those lodged at Companies House.

I'm looking at these ones - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1338.pdf

In 'defined terms' on page 39 - '1.17 “navigation” includes navigation by any ship or boat used for the carriage of freight and by any ship or boat used also for human habitation;'

Do you know of a different set of Articles that I should look at instead?

[Jerra]

23 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

the first one is to manage the waterways for navigation by boats - including boats used for human habitation 

Which part of this says habitation or am I missing something.

2.1 TO PRESERVE, PROTECT, OPERATE AND MANAGE INLAND WATERWAYS FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT: 2.1.1 FOR NAVIGATION; AND 2.1.2 FOR WALKING ON TOWPATHS; AND 2.1.2 FOR RECREATION OR OTHER LEISURE-TIME PURSUITS OF THE PUBLIC IN THE INTEREST OF THEIR HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE

I have also searched the whole of the objectives and can't find habitation or for that matter anything to do with residence so where is it sated please?

[Red Ruth]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

am I missing something.

you are yes - see above - defined terms p39 'navigation'

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

I'm looking at these ones - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1338.pdf

In 'defined terms' on page 39 - '1.17 “navigation” includes navigation by any ship or boat used for the carriage of freight and by any ship or boat used also for human habitation;'

Do you know of a different set of Articles that I should look at instead?

You should be looking at the articles of association that describe 'what C&RT are' and what they have to do, and cannot do.

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Red Ruth]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You should be looking at the articles of association that describe 'what C&RT are' and what they have to do, and cannot do.

The Companies Act 2006
Company Limited by Guarantee and not having a Share Capital
Articles of Association of Canal & River Trust

those are the ones - see p39 as I said. It's there in black and white.

[Jerra]

10 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

those are the ones - see p39 as I said. It's there in black and white.

Those are the Articles of Association not the objectives of the Trust.   The objectives i.e. what they aim to do does not include any reference to habitation.  I would suggest it may be a case of they are allowed to but have chosen not to with regard to habitation.

You also seem to be changing your stance you specifically mentioned 2.1 of the objectives not the articles.

[b0atman]

4 hours ago, Red Ruth said:

Pretty hard to hold down a job travelling all round the system though! What should people do if they can't afford housing (there isn't any) and they need to keep a job? It seems like by this analysis only retired people should be able to live on boats. 

move to a cheaper part of the country the boat is a mobile home .

[Mike Todd]

54 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

I'm looking at these ones - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1338.pdf

In 'defined terms' on page 39 - '1.17 “navigation” includes navigation by any ship or boat used for the carriage of freight and by any ship or boat used also for human habitation;'

Do you know of a different set of Articles that I should look at instead?

Yes but it still dies not define navigation. Most common definitions would probably include fairly regular movement.

[Red Ruth]

55 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Those are the Articles of Association not the objectives of the Trust.   The objectives i.e. what they aim to do does not include any reference to habitation.  I would suggest it may be a case of they are allowed to but have chosen not to with regard to habitation.

You also seem to be changing your stance you specifically mentioned 2.1 of the objectives not the articles.

Sorry - I could have been clearer. Follow the link i left above - the Charitable Objects are contained within the Articles of Association. Also in there are the Powers CRT has, and the rules for how governance by trustees work. I'm not changing my stance - the Objects are at the beginning, and the 'defined terms' are at the end, but the latter does relate to the former. 

 

37 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Yes but it still dies not define navigation. Most common definitions would probably include fairly regular movement.

Regardless, the object is to manage the waterways for navigation by any boat also used for human habitation - if CRT want boats to move further, they might want to consider what incentives or facilities they can provide under their powers to achieve that - rather than what sanctions they can apply under law. They are empowered to provide education, for example. Mooring rings, dredging, bins, facilities etc.. 

[Alan de Enfield]

Getting back to the subject of the thread :

Q4

We run this survey to help us find out what you, as a boater, think about both the Canal & River Trust and the waterways.
We first want to give you a chance to tell us what you're thinking so this question is fairly open.
Please can you tell us in your own words how you feel about the Canal & River Trust at the moment and what makes you feel this way?

Answer

Very disappointed with the levels of maintenance (leaky or broken locks and paddles, crumbling locks, lack of dredging etc etc) but funds can be found for ridiculous 'duck-lanes', art and dredging of non-navigable waterways to encourage plant growth, & so on - totally unrelated to canal navigation.

The lack of action on speeding cyclists - in fact, the seeming encouragement by tarmacking of the tow-path.

Lack of knowledge, &/or incorrect data when posting stoppage information (wrong lock numbers, incorrect information re winding holes etc.)

[Sapphal]

I passed my 11+, but found these questions different!  Went about 5 for most. Why not ask the right questions to get the right answers?