Jump to content

Boaters group recognised by CRT


b0atman

Featured Posts

NABO is still alive working away largely behind the scenes  and reporting back to its members via a monthly email circular and Nabo news magazine. Engaging with CRT has been difficult recently given the number of managers on notice of redundancy due to the recent strategic changes. But there was a meeting with Jon Horsfall yesterday in Leeds agenda items included : CRT reorganisation outcomes, Boater contact points, Disenfranchisement of boaters, Forums (based on model set up by Nick Worthington), Mooring auctions and pricing, Ongoing engagement

 

Its a fair question given the instant access to social media  to challenge the need of boating associations and their relevance. It takes time, effort and expense to attend the various forums and NAG, BSS committees etc  especially as in NABO’s case those that attend are all volunteers . As someone who has attended some of these meetings I have also questioned their relevance. 

 

With the recent rebranding and the focus of CRT PR directed at attracting new visitors/users there perhaps is a greater need for associations or other social groups like CWDF keeping boaters interests to the fore. As CRT is now totally reliant on Government renewing its grant (which it was probably not expecting to have to do) we need  CRT to succeed and to take boaters with them.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tuscan said:

NABO is still alive working away largely behind the scenes  and reporting back to its members via a monthly email circular and Nabo news magazine. Engaging with CRT has been difficult recently given the number of managers on notice of redundancy due to the recent strategic changes. But there was a meeting with Jon Horsfall yesterday in Leeds agenda items included : CRT reorganisation outcomes, Boater contact points, Disenfranchisement of boaters, Forums (based on model set up by Nick Worthington), Mooring auctions and pricing, Ongoing engagement

 

Its a fair question given the instant access to social media  to challenge the need of boating associations and their relevance. It takes time, effort and expense to attend the various forums and NAG, BSS committees etc  especially as in NABO’s case those that attend are all volunteers . As someone who has attended some of these meetings I have also questioned their relevance. 

 

With the recent rebranding and the focus of CRT PR directed at attracting new visitors/users there perhaps is a greater need for associations or other social groups like CWDF keeping boaters interests to the fore. As CRT is now totally reliant on Government renewing its grant (which it was probably not expecting to have to do) we need  CRT to succeed and to take boaters with them.

Mark. Regarding your last paragraph. Are you saying that -

C&RT was not expecting to be totally reliant on Government renewing its grant.
 or 
Government was not expecting C&RT to be totally reliant on grant being renewed.

My understanding is that C&RT signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Defra where funding objectives were made clear -
 

Quote

 

1. To reduce dependence on Government Grant and to foster increasing selfsufficiency, by providing access to new charitable income streams and stimulating new efficiencies. Over time, to increase overall funding available for the waterways. A prerequisite for this is to support the viability of CRT – especially in its early days - and so minimise the risk that Government has to intervene to take responsibility for the waterways from CRT.

 

2. To move the long term cost of maintaining the inland waterways and the associated heritage infrastructure (estimated at around £4 billion in nominal net present value terms) from the public sector to civil society.

 

Did C&RT give any indication at the meeting as to what has gone wrong fainancially?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RAP said:

Thanks, but is this 1out of 4?

Andy is also a member of this forum but hardly needs to duplicate the excellent posts by Kiwi, who not only includes details from his notes, but has updated us since election to the post.

I suggest if you want to know what the other 2 are doing, you may need to search elsewhere, maybe the roving traders association. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RAP said:

I expect you’ve realised that I am being provocative, but my point is we shouldn’t have to search this out. Their work should be made freely available, they are our elected reps. 

Not provocative at all, just frustrated by the sound of it.

Here's a plan for you, set up a website to publicise the boaters reps, contact them all and publish their supplied information on CRT meetings and what they are allowed to do as reps.

This will allow you to move from Really Awkward Person to Reasoned Advocate Person and make you feel better and the Boaters Reps feel like they are being listened to.......by you and Boaters....not CRT that would be silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Mark. Regarding your last paragraph. Are you saying that -

C&RT was not expecting to be totally reliant on Government renewing its grant.
 or 
Government was not expecting C&RT to be totally reliant on grant being renewed.
  
My understanding is that C&RT signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Defra where funding objectives were made clear -
 

Did C&RT give any indication at the meeting as to what has gone wrong fainancially?
 

I tried to edit but was too late , I meant that 
Government was not expecting C&RT to be totally reliant on grant being renewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think from the outset it was understood that CRT should sort the job out so that they where not reliant on Government handouts.

So to increase the income

They employed Chuggers = failed

They got rid of skilled conscientous staff and employed contract firms (strangely these firms make big profits)

They have channeled their energy into none profit making initiatives like Sustrans 

The fishing is a income stream that could be tapped more apparently £4 million worth of stock in canals yet where are the increase of fishing clubs leasing stretches ?

The canoeing is being encouraged but no policing of licencing or mention of money from Canoe association

Nature seems to be a big concern yet gives no income and is really responsibility of other bodies .

They are happy that 3% of boats are not licenced yet they employ Enforcement officers whilst more boats show no name or number.

There is big demand for long term moorings with or near facilities yet they are mostly empty and they keep removing them when a new marina comes along yet the new marina would probably not be willing to allow in lots of these boats for various reasons .

They seem to be selling off income stream assets for short term gain .

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, b0atman said:

Nature seems to be a big concern yet gives no income and is really responsibility of other bodies .

Whilst I pretty much agree entirely with your post, there are 7 condition which much be monitored and reported back to the Government in order to retain the grant. Failure to achieve these improvements is classed as a 'serious breach, 2 'serious breaches' and the grant is revoked.

 

Example : It is for this reason that we see the ridiculous number of 460,0000,000 visits to the canals - every year the number must be higher than the previous year.

 

One of the conditions of the Grant is the development of further wildlife schemes and improvements in care and maintenance of SSIs.

Number 8 is (shall we say) INTERESTING !!!

 

Whilst there is a target for safety of "customers affected by infrastructure failures", there is no such targets for reporting on infrastructure failures affecting the use of the canals (ie Navigation)

 

You can easily do further research yourself and see the 'starting points', target improvements levels and actual improvement levels should you so wish.

 

The Key measurables are :


2. Data relating to safety:
2.1 the number of reported incidents involving customers relating to infrastructure failure;
2.2 the number of reported incidents involving employees ; and
2.3 the actual outcome (expressed as a headline percentage figure) of the applicable measurement for the Safe Waterways Relevant Standard.


3. Data relating to towpaths:
3.1 the number of towpath visitors (based on annual survey data);
3.2 the number and duration of unplanned closures; and
3.3 the actual outcome (expressed as a headline percentage figure) of the applicable measurement for the Towpath Condition Relevant Standard.


4. Data relating to flood management:
4.1 the actual outcome (expressed as a headline percentage figure) of the applicable measurement for the Flood Management Relevant Standard.


5. Data on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSIs”):
5.1 based on published data, the percentage area of SSSIs under CRT management in good or recovering condition.


6. Data on heritage:
6.1 a percentage of heritage assets assessed on completion of work as good or adequate, with double weighting given to good assessments.


7. Data on volunteer participation:
7.1 the number of volunteer days contributed to CRT.


8. Data on housing forecast figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Whilst I pretty much agree entirely with your post, there are 7 condition which much be monitored and reported back to the Government in order to retain the grant. Failure to achieve these improvements is classed as a 'serious breach, 2 'serious breaches' and the grant is revoked.

 

Example : It is for this reason that we see the ridiculous number of 460,0000,000 visits to the canals - every year the number must be higher than the previous year.

 

One of the conditions of the Grant is the development of further wildlife schemes and improvements in care and maintenance of SSIs.

Number 8 is (shall we say) INTERESTING !!!

 

Whilst there is a target for safety of "customers affected by infrastructure failures", there is no such targets for reporting on infrastructure failures affecting the use of the canals (ie Navigation)

 

You can easily do further research yourself and see the 'starting points', target improvements levels and actual improvement levels should you so wish.

 

The Key measurables are :


2. Data relating to safety:
2.1 the number of reported incidents involving customers relating to infrastructure failure;
2.2 the number of reported incidents involving employees ; and
2.3 the actual outcome (expressed as a headline percentage figure) of the applicable measurement for the Safe Waterways Relevant Standard.


3. Data relating to towpaths:
3.1 the number of towpath visitors (based on annual survey data);
3.2 the number and duration of unplanned closures; and
3.3 the actual outcome (expressed as a headline percentage figure) of the applicable measurement for the Towpath Condition Relevant Standard.


4. Data relating to flood management:
4.1 the actual outcome (expressed as a headline percentage figure) of the applicable measurement for the Flood Management Relevant Standard.


5. Data on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSIs”):
5.1 based on published data, the percentage area of SSSIs under CRT management in good or recovering condition.


6. Data on heritage:
6.1 a percentage of heritage assets assessed on completion of work as good or adequate, with double weighting given to good assessments.


7. Data on volunteer participation:
7.1 the number of volunteer days contributed to CRT.


8. Data on housing forecast figures.

I think you are confusing 'publication data' with 'relevant standards'.

'Publication data' is the information that C&RT must publish annually (i.e. make it available to the public). It can be found in annual reports.

'Relevant standards' (safe waterways, towpath condition and flood management) are the standards that C&RT must reach to retain the conditional part of its grant.

 

There is, of course, some overlap between what C&RT must publish and what the must achieve to retain grant ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think you are confusing 'publication data' with 'relevant standards'.

'Publication data' is the information that C&RT must publish annually (i.e. make it available to the public). It can be found in annual reports.

'Relevant standards' (safe waterways, towpath condition and flood management) are the standards that C&RT must reach to retain the conditional part of its grant.

 

There is, of course, some overlap between what C&RT must publish and what the must achieve to retain grant ...

 

 

And what is your understanding of :

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

8. Data on housing forecast figures.

 

Liveaboards ?

"Moorers" in London ?

Houses built alongside the canals ?

 

Did someone 6 years ago foresee the present Government enquiry into boats and their use in London ?

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And what is your understanding of :

 

 

Liveaboards ?

"Moorers" in London ?

Houses built alongside the canals ?

 

Did someone 6 years ago foresee the present Government enquiry into boats and their use in London ?

It's your third suggestion. The transition trustees undertook, via the grant agreement, to give figures for new housing brought onto the market via joint ventures. If you read the publication data in annual reports, you will find that the figures published include housing where C&RT has sold a JV interest prior to housing stock being released to market.

 

Absolutely nothing to do with mooring in London or liveaboards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/06/2018 at 14:21, b0atman said:

A live aboard is not necessarily a CCer yet they do not push to enlighten marinas or councils that there exists a legal right to be a long term moorer without requiring planning permission.

Really? I’d like to know more about this, got a link? 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BD3Bill said:

Really? I’d like to know more about this, got a link? 

Thanks.

Check out mercia Marinas system the have residential (right to the mooring can occupy all year) Liveaboards away from marina for set time (should be 2 months) and swap jetties i believe each year .This falls under the Rating valuation officer rules .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, b0atman said:

Check out mercia Marinas system the have residential (right to the mooring can occupy all year) Liveaboards away from marina for set time (should be 2 months) and swap jetties i believe each year .This falls under the Rating valuation officer rules .

Nice info, many thanks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, b0atman said:

Check out mercia Marinas system the have residential (right to the mooring can occupy all year) Liveaboards away from marina for set time (should be 2 months) and swap jetties i believe each year .This falls under the Rating valuation officer rules .

Not quite right. Yes, there are a large number of residential moorings in Mercia, but you can stay on your boat in the marina all year if you wish. You must change pontoon every six months, not returning to your previous pontoon until you've used another one, so A>B>C>A, not A>B>A (does this sound familiar?) The rules are set by the Valuation Office.

 

You have full residential status, so electoral roll, register with GP, get bus pass if old enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, b0atman said:

Check out mercia Marinas system the have residential (right to the mooring can occupy all year) Liveaboards away from marina for set time (should be 2 months) and swap jetties i believe each year .This falls under the Rating valuation officer rules .

You are getting a little confused - there is a big difference between the requirement to pay Council Tax and the requirement for planning permission

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are getting a little confused - there is a big difference between the requirement to pay Council Tax and the requirement for planning permission

 

 

i think you are confused i have not mentioned council tax or planning in my statement .However the Residential should have Planning permission for the jetty and occupier can be liable to Council tax The live aboard jetty is a different matter as the boater has no rights to it and is time limited for occupying it as an occupant boaterwise not boat.

 

Edited by b0atman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, b0atman said:

i think you are confused i have not mentioned council tax or planning...………..

 

On the 17th you said :

 

A live aboard is not necessarily a CCer yet they do not push to enlighten marinas or councils that there exists a legal right to be a long term moorer without requiring planning permission.  

 

You then said :

On ‎24‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 08:59, b0atman said:

This falls under the Rating valuation officer rules …………...

With the rating valuation officer determining the council tax payments required, either as a composite hereditament, a stand alone hereditament or even as a dwelling.

 

VOA Examples of boats requirement to pay council tax

 

Example 2

A family lives on a barge and pay rent to the riparian (‘of river bank’) owner for a mooring on the river bank. Water is supplied to the river bank. At times during the year, the barge goes cruising leaving the mooring vacant until its return. The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is used exclusively by one boat during the year. When the barge is present, the mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) because it is occupied by a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence. When the barge is absent, the mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(5) because it appears that when next in use the mooring will be domestic. However, the barge is insufficiently annexed to the land to be regarded as part of the hereditament, and the mooring only should be valued to determine the appropriate band.

 

Example 3

Where a marina with berths contains both moored pleasure boats and boats whose occupants use them as sole or main residences the outcome may on the facts be either a composite hereditament, a combination of composite hereditament and separate domestic hereditaments or indeed separate domestic hereditaments leading to separate bands .

The presence of a composite hereditament may be indicated by identifying the following features;

Where boats that are occupied as an individuals sole or main residence do not have a permanent right to any specific mooring

Evidence that boats which are an individuals sole or main residence are actually physically moved on at least two occasions a year.

The boat that is an individuals sole or main residence must be moved to a different berth not merely out and shortly afterwards returning to the same berth.

The presence of separate domestic dwellings within the boundary of the marina but not included in the composite hereditament would be indicated by ;

A boat that is the sole or main residence of an individual remaining on the same mooring for more than 12 months. If in that time it left for a few days , then it returned to the same mooring the few days away would be considered de minimus and by virtue of sec 66 (5) it would be domestic.

If while the boat is away the marina operator temporarily puts another boat on the mooring; but the berth holder always returns to his original berth, this would indicate a separate hereditament by virtue of the boat owners ability to exclude others and hence rateable occupation.

Where a marina operator reserves the right to move boats to different moorings but actually does not exercise the right.

It is possible on the facts to find both a composite hereditament and one or more separate domestic hereditaments in the same marina. The final decision to find a composite or not must rest with the specific facts of each case.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.