Leisure Moorings allow 1 week stay a year!?

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Interesting length mentioned in the headline. "Up to 62 foot 12 inches".

Probably just being helpful as the next price break/increase comes in at 63 feet.

Or, may be not ...............

[Bee]

So you fork out tens of thousands for your boat and then some prat tells you when you can or can't use it. B******* to that.

[b0atman]

is this a April 1st scam letter ?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Does it not seem more than a little 'odd' that the leisure moorings subject to this weird condition are those next to the water point, elsan and bins, whilst the ones not subject to it (semi-residential ?) are further down the moorings

[Bee]

9 minutes ago, b0atman said:

is this a April 1st scam letter ?

 

Could be, but its too close to some of the dafter things that you hear from time to time so who knows? The interesting thing about stuff like this is when people defend this sort of nonsense, 'It's the rules' or 'its the law' or 'if you don't break the law / go over 30mph you'll be fine' or all the other roll over and accept it Quisling stuff. There is never a point at which those who make rules ever say 'That's enough', they will always be looking at more ways to stop you doing things. Grrrrr, Phew, I feel better now.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Bee
Can't spell!

[Tanglewood]

4 hours ago, Bee said:

go over 30mph

I was with you until this point. Speed limits are for a reason, and that reason is to protect life.  Today roads are designed to be reasonably safe at certain speeds - exceed those limits and RTAs will result in more significant injury or death.  This is quite different from imposing arbitrary rules about how leisure moorings may be used.  The example given is especially weird because you can live in your boat for two weeks on the tow-path, but not, it appears on this mooring.  

 

[Tanglewood]

16 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Really?
They seem to do lots of times about caravan sites, or over agricultural worker housing.

No these are not really preventative measures, they are the reverse, they are specifically to allow development where it would not otherwise be allowed, so you can gain pp for a holiday caravan site where you would not be allowed to build a housing estate, you can get permission for a rural workers dwelling where you would not be allowed to build otherwise, specifically to enable the rural economy to flourish. But these are then conditional to ensure that urban sprawl does not over-run the countryside. 

But LPAs must make decisions according to their agreed local plans, which have been subject to consultation, so arbitrary rules such as those described at the top of the thread, just could not be imposed by an LPA.  (Unless it's their own land, then like any land-owner the license they give for its use is largely up to them.)

[Horace42]

On 4/6/2018 at 00:31, Mike the Boilerman said:

Who is the Moorings Manager for the site? 

It is Sandie Dunstan
07747 897784 or 0303 040 40 40
sandie.dunstan@canalrivertrust.org.uk

My own EOG mooring is a mile or so just along the canal, and I discussed transfer of mooring rights (for the purpose of selling my house) -- this with her a couple of years ago.

She was very helpful in an unhelpful way.

-------------------------------------------

Re my previous post.   Reading again. I've Just realised there are two prices because the auction is for two moorings.

Although they seem to be 'permanent' moorings for 3 years - with a 1 week continuous residence limit?

Does this mean 1 week per annum ?, or can you come back for any number of complete weeks throughout the year (but not consecutive).

In which case bid for both sites and alternate living between two boats.

Alternatively, for two or more CC's who want a home base, that with careful timing and route planning can share sites - there is the benefit of a winding hole nearby to give the option of a cruise in either direction.

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Horace42 said:

Although they seem to be 'permanent' moorings for 3 years - with a 1 week continuous residence limit?

 

No. Two moorings, but one mooring has this one week residence limit, and the other doesn't. That is the oddest thing.

[Paul C]

Probably a rule imposed only on these moorings due to previous moorers taking the piss.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Probably a rule imposed only on these moorings due to previous moorers taking the piss.

 

But its not on 'these moorings'. It is only on one of the two.

[BlueStringPudding]

On 06/04/2018 at 09:15, Alan de Enfield said:

Does it not seem more than a little 'odd' that the leisure moorings subject to this weird condition are those next to the water point, elsan and bins, whilst the ones not subject to it (semi-residential ?) are further down the moorings

That's not correct. There are two residential moorings at the site. One next to the facilities block and one at the opposite end, 15 or so boats away from the block. All the rest are standard leisure moorings like CRT has all over the country. 

[cheshire~rose]

A very long time ago (and so it may not any longer be relevant) I was under the impression that the residential mooring closest to the services was associated with some sort of caretakers post involving keeping the facilities cleaned and reporting any breakdown problems.

But I only ever heard that as word of mouth so I may be mistaken

[Naughty Cal]

Slightly off topic, but there used to be a mooring basin just up from Goole, Rawcliffe I believe where no over night mooring was allowed at all. Not seen any moorings advertised there for a long while so assume they are either no longer there or no longer used.

The reasoning given was the chemical works on the opposite bank of the navigation.

ETA: Just had a look on Google earth and it does appear that there are boats in the basin. Perhaps CRT don't run it anymore!

Edited April 10, 2018 by Naughty Cal

[BlueStringPudding]

On 07/04/2018 at 12:01, Horace42 said:

 

Although they seem to be 'permanent' moorings for 3 years - with a 1 week continuous residence limit?

Does this mean 1 week per annum ?, or can you come back for any number of complete weeks throughout the year (but not consecutive).

 

The mooring auction listing specifically says 1 week per year  So someone at CRT made a decision about that wording even though they didn't when they advised the other space at the moorings. I think it's inconsistency rather than making them intentionally different. 

I would still like to know where 1 week a year came from - it ought to have been decided after consultation with customers so as to prevent making the "product" obsolete by not meeting customer's needs and therefore being not fit for purpose. And the decision to publish those words ought to have been made by committee at CRT and not arbitrarily.  As someone said above, it's thin edge of the wedge stuff, like the £25 over staying fines at Stoke Bruerne, or the £150 mooring fine rule which is also in place at Grendon

7 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

A very long time ago (and so it may not any longer be relevant) I was under the impression that the residential mooring closest to the services was associated with some sort of caretakers post involving keeping the facilities cleaned and reporting any breakdown problems.

But I only ever heard that as word of mouth so I may be mistaken

I *think* he used to work for CRT a long time ago but hasn't done in years

[alan_fincher]

On 4/5/2018 at 22:05, matty40s said:

One should delete ones thread and stay under the radar like other sensibull foulkes.

scary names like poll tax, the witches tythes and Parrys pecuniary thintank taxes come to mind.

if someone new comes to any moorings within a 100 miles of your moorings, pretend you only visit once a milenium.

cough.

hope this helps.

Yes,

Whilst it is interesting to know why they have done this, (particularly if it only applies to one vacancy out of the two?), I think raising it as an issue could potentially be unhelpful to those already moored there on a leisure mooring, and who expect to be on board more than the limits stated here.

With my experiences of CRT, starting to pick at this kind of thing can sometimes result in less than ideal consequences.

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Yes,

Whilst it is interesting to know why they have done this, (particularly if it only applies to one vacancy out of the two?), I think raising it as an issue could potentially be unhelpful to those already moored there on a leisure mooring, and who expect to be on board more than the limits stated here.

With my experiences of CRT, starting to pick at this kind of thing can sometimes result in less than ideal consequences.

So it is better to leave the 'thin end of the wedge' until it becomes the 'thick end'.

First they came for the wide-beams and I did not speak out— Because I was not a wide-beam owner.

Then they came for the continuous cruisers and I did not speak out— Because I was not a continuous cruiser.

Then they came for the permanent moorers, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a permanent moorer.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

(Reference Martin Niemoller "Boats on the Canals")

[rusty69]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

First they came for the wide-beams and I did not speak out— Because I was not a wide-beam owner <snip>.....

Wot time are they comin for the Eeeeeejuts? I'll set my watch!

[Dave_P]

On 05/04/2018 at 20:38, Tanglewood said:

This is unlikely.  The boat does not enter into it.  It is the piece of land that can be granted planning permission.  The Local Planning Authority cannot impose preventative sanctions.

 

Speaking as a Local Authority Planner, this is incorrect.  Planning conditions can be applied to any planning permission as long as it meets the '6 tests' 

See here:  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-of-planning-conditions#Application-of-the-six-tests

In this case, a possible condition may fall foul of test 4:  Enforcable, Test 5:  Precise, and Test 6:  Reasonable.  Any of these, however, could be argued either way, to some extent.  In practice, what often happens is that a Planning Officer is compelled (by a Councillor, by a public petition etc.) to impose a condition which he/she knows is on shaky ground.  It is then up to the applicant to appeal the condition to the Planning Inspectorate who will make a decision on the validity of the condition.

Having said all that, I would be surprised if any of this way relevant to Grendon Wharf.  These are not new moorings and it's unlikely that a recent planning application specific to the moorings, has been submitted.  Much more likely is that one or more moorers has raised the ire of one or more locals who have complained to CRT.  CRT being the generally feckless and easily manipulated organisation that many of us know them to be, have capitulated to the moaners and are seeking to remove the problem by cracking down on said moorer's residential use.

I may be wrong though.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Wot time are they comin for the Eeeeeejuts? I'll set my watch!

That's the last line :

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[alan_fincher]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So it is better to leave the 'thin end of the wedge' until it becomes the 'thick end'.

Not normally, but in this particular case there are reasons why making it high profile could backfire, I think.

[Dave_P]

On 07/04/2018 at 12:01, Horace42 said:

It is Sandie Dunstan
07747 897784 or 0303 040 40 40
sandie.dunstan@canalrivertrust.org.uk

My own EOG mooring is a mile or so just along the canal, and I discussed transfer of mooring rights (for the purpose of selling my house) -- this with her a couple of years ago.

She was very helpful in an unhelpful way.

 

 

I'd describe her as useless, but it would be an insult to useless people.

[Wiltshire Moonraker]

3 hours ago, Dave_P said:

Having said all that, I would be surprised if any of this way relevant to Grendon Wharf.  These are not new moorings and it's unlikely that a recent planning application specific to the moorings, has been submitted. 

A planning application was submitted and then withdrawn on North Warwickshire Planning website <Planning Application Search> 

PAP/2017/0349 on http://planning.northwarks.gov.uk/portal/ might prove educational.

[Jess--]

26 minutes ago, Wiltshire Moonraker said:

A planning application was submitted and then withdrawn on North Warwickshire Planning website <Planning Application Search> 

PAP/2017/0349 on http://planning.northwarks.gov.uk/portal/ might prove educational.

I note that on the application they ticked the box to say that the site proposed is NOT within 20 metres of a watercourse

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jess--

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

I note that on the application they ticked the box to say that the site proposed is NOT within 20 metres of a watercourse

C&RT probably don't realise that it is.