Getting a residential mooring on our land?

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well stop doing it then, now you are aware of the problem!

I'm addicted to it

[WotEver]

5 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I'm addicted to it

That’s outrageous!

[MtB]

I'm outraged!

[NigelMoore]

7 hours ago, Tasemu said:

Hrm... I wonder why. They just say no huh.

That’s about the sum of it. Somebody once said (and if they didn’t they should have) that no rights exist unless you can enforce them; you have to fight for them. That holds true regardless of any Parliamentary statute declaring and granting such rights.

 

Riparian owners along the K&A were granted the right under the enabling Act (as all such Acts invariably did) to construct places for boats to lie alongside their offside banks, and that extended to widening the canal for laybys and however far into their own property they wished.

 

It was the prospect of such riparian owners creating marinas from which BW could gain no financial advantage that led BW, in 1990, to attempt persuading Parliament to extinguish all such rights – specifically citing the K&A as an example of a length of waterway wherein owners could provide large marinas under the strict terms of the Act, which BW would be incapable of extorting profits from or exerting control over.

 

They failed at this attempt when the Bill came before the Commons Select Committee in 1993; the by then notorious Clause 27 was sulkily abandoned with mutterings of problems arising in the future because of this. They soon enough learnt that the 'problems' were illusory, because they could always claim the right to demand consent and cow the majority into acceptance.

 

It was in the course of subsequent proceedings, however, taken against a Grand Union Canal marina (the Act for which contained the same riparian provisions) that BW successfully argued that this right extended to the creation of laybys, but that it would be unwarranted extrapolation to so construe the terms as extending to marinas. Ridiculous, but establishing the right - on BW’s argument - for mooring to one’s own bank, and for that to include a right to dig out into one’s own land in order to accommodate more boats or to remove the boat from intrusion into the navigable channel.

 

As to the right under those terms to simply moor alongside the bank, again BW successfully argued – this time specifically relating to the K&A – in a planning appeal, that all boats not engaged in travelling whether for pleasure or profit, must necessarily have had to moor to the offside banks. “In truth”, said Nigel Johnson (BW’s Legal Director) in giving evidence, “there was nowhere else they could do so”.

 

It has to be remembered that the ruling that moorings for leisure boats was integral to historic use of the canal and involved no change of use, did not apply to the separate question of whether a moored boat could be used residentially – that would constitute a change of use requiring planning consent.

 

As usual, however, BW (and now CaRT) take their own and self-contradictory stance when dealing with their customers. Once again on the K&A, some owners of riparian cottages and banks have faced s.8 Notices and boat seizures for mooring to their own banks, allied with refusal of the unlawfully asserted requirement for their consent.

 

So ask away for the right to pay them for permission to exercise that which Parliament gave freely, but as others have said: you will probably fail to get such consent, and if you attempted to assert your statutory rights, you would face seizure of your boat. Unless you were prepared to fight CaRT in court at the highest levels, you have effectively and pragmatically lost the rights you were granted.

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Well stop doing it then, now you are aware of the problem!

Pot, Kettle!

 

I'm outraged

[MtB]

Just now, TheBiscuits said:

Pot, Kettle!

 

I'm outraged

 

Outraged? About wot??

 

 

(Oh... your pots and kettles)

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Outraged? About wot??

 

 

Somebody said something about something and then you said something.  How very dare you!

 

Outrageous!  (or something  )

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Somebody said something about something and then you said something.  How very dare you!

 

Outrageous!  (or something  )

 

It wasn't me... I never say ANYFINK

[cuthound]

19 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

From the document, point 2 on page 1:

 

"All new end of garden moorings must, as a general rule, not be in close proximity to any canal structure, including locks and bridges."

 

 

So even on that parameter they won't grant it. 

 

EoG stands for "End Of Garden". To live on it requires planning permission for it to be a dwelling. The two are entirely unconnected other than the mooring has to exist in the first place to apply for PP.

 

You could however I suggest, 'live' in your dad's cottage but 'spend a lot of time' on your boat. Wink wink.

 

I queried the CRT policy regarding proximity to bridges, before I purchased my canalside house, because I didn't want to buy it and then find it couldn't develop an EoG mooring. Turned out they don't have a rigid policy and decide locally on a case specific basis. Locally we have two EoG moorings where the boat almost touches the bridge. 

 

However my EoG terms and conditions specifically exclude using the mooring for residential use, so your final suggestion could work as long as you don't draw attention to yourself, for example by burning wet wood in the stove (electric heating is cheap if you are connected to a shore line.

[cuthound]

19 hours ago, howardang said:

Do you not think that the best way to get the correct information, and also maybe some helpful advice, might  be to actually discuss the matter with CRT? I would explain all the details of what you would like to do - especially pointing out the relatively unusual point that your father owns Cobblers Lock cottage.  Even if they say it not possible to set up a residential or an EOG mooring in thast location,  they may be able to point you towards a solution to your specific requirements. so you can commute into Bristol each day.  There have been a number of very interesting and informative responses so far on this thread, but only CRT will be able to  give you the definitive answer. Unfortunately, you have chosen a particularly awkward waterway in the K&A because there are already many people already on the canal, trying to achieve what you would like to do - some more successfully than others, including some that have had a great deal of hassle.  The one thing, however, that CRT won't be able to help you with other than with very generalised advice, is anything to do with raising finance for a suitable boat.

 

Good luck with your quest.

 

Howard

 

 

When I was trying to buy my house, initially CRT stated they would only liase with the landowner. However when I pointed out this was impractical, they agreed to liaise directly with me once the then owner of the house wrote them a letter explaining that he wasn't interested in developing a mooring but wanted me to see if CRT would give permission to me for a mooring so that he could sell his property!

Edited August 2, 2018 by cuthound
To remove a spurious letter

[NigelMoore]

It might be instructive to read through the FoI requests of a Mr David Hawkins who also owned a lock cottage on the K&A, and wanted to moor a boat there.

 

One example -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_on_crt_legal_team_bl#outgoing-259906

 

It was unfortunate that he was not always properly understanding of the relevant law, and sought application of irrelevant sections. He hoped to use the arbitration clauses in s.21 of the 1995 Act, and when informed that this section had never been utilised, he expressed himself [accurately] as confused - given which, he felt he had a valid complaint under trading standards.

 

It was interesting that he claimed Robin Evans, the Ombudsman and a BW senior manager had all agreed that s.21 HAD been activated, and it is a pity that he never did provide the evidence for that, as reqeusted by CaRT. The information provided via whatdotheyknow was correct; it is just a pity that Mr Harkins failed to see the true import of that.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/127260/response/340578/attach/html/3/2375 001.pdf.pdf.html

[thebfg]

21 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I heard from another boater this cottage has the problem of being 'landlocked' with access only from the towpath over the lock. The surrounding landowners are refusing to allow passage over their land. Probably with the aim of pressuring the current owner into selling selling cheap to them, then arranging vehicle access to make a nice fat profit. 

 

Any truth in this? 

don't know ask tasemo.

 

it does appear to have no access.

 

would probaly be in the deeds if access is across someone's land.

 

[MtB]

5 hours ago, thebfg said:

don't know ask tasemo.

 

it does appear to have no access.

 

would probaly be in the deeds if access is across someone's land.

 

 

I WAS asking Tasemo, and he answered. Did you miss it?

[thebfg]

20 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I WAS asking Tasemo, and he answered. Did you miss it?

no dident read the rest of the thread.?

 

however you quoted me and I thought it was strange to be asking me. 

 

I must of misread why you quoted me.