Jump to content

Caravan parks first...marinas next??


frangar

Featured Posts

It looks to me as if CRT are going to change CC basis to residential - after all, it doesn't matter much whether you're in a marina, on a CRT mooring or CCing, your boat is your residence.There will be a leisure users licence for those of us paying mooring charges, and a residential licence for everyone else.  CRT will argue that it is impossible to CC legitimately without living on, state that that means you are using more of their resources, almost certainly win in the courts, and suddenly get a lot more money from CCers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cheshire cat said:

I vaguely recall something similar for Kings Bromley Marina. Something along the lines of if you spent more than 21 nights on board in any one year there would be a surcharge. Not sure if this ever got implemented and whether it was policy of the current owners but I think it was discussed on here at the time.

21 nights a year is less than 2 nights a month. Ridiculously restrictive! If you live any distance from your boat, it’s hardly worth having.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

CRT will argue that it is impossible to CC legitimately without living on,

Have you been taking drugs?

 

Quote

17 (3) (c) (ii) 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.

That is the legal definition of what we lazily call Continously Cruising. 

 

I do not understand why you think you had to live on a boat to comply with the law, as it only involves moving the boat every other weekend in the extreme. 

 

We know many people who weekend boats around the system, preferring to spend their mooring fees on diesel and train tickets instead.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

21 nights a year is less than 2 nights a month. Ridiculously restrictive! If you live any distance from your boat, it’s hardly worth having.

I see the 28 nights has  shrunk to 21 !

I don't think anyone keeps tally and in any case the 28 nights is at each location where you might moor the boat.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I see the 28 nights has  shrunk to 21 !

I don't think anyone keeps tally and in any case the 28 nights is at each location where you might moor the boat.

 

 

Just commenting on what Cheshire Cat said. If it’s different, pray tell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote it because it stuck in my mind. I can't find it using the search facility on the forum but it may be from conversation with someone who once moored there. Their terms and conditionsjust vaguely talk about transferring your mooring contract to a different grade if they think you are anything other than a leisure boater. The fact they say this includes transferring you to a resedential rate implies there are other rates they might impose.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Have you been taking drugs?

 

That is the legal definition of what we lazily call Continously Cruising. 

 

I do not understand why you think you had to live on a boat to comply with the law, as it only involves moving the boat every other weekend in the extreme. 

 

We know many people who weekend boats around the system, preferring to spend their mooring fees on diesel and train tickets instead.

 

I don't think I said anywhere that to comply with the letter of the law you had to live on your boat.

My point is that CRT need to raise some money.  I can see them arguing that weekending is not continuous cruising, which is supposed to be continuous, not in short jerky movements.  Someone who weekends their boat probably does less actual boating in a year than most leisure boaters (who stump up a load of dosh in mooring fees), and someone in CRT is going to notice this sooner or later.  They will then point out that a weekender's boat is probably actually moored up for longer than mine is (for example), and wonder why they get more money from me but not from the guy who leaves his boat moored for most of the year, just clogs up the towpath in different places.

As they still, sort of, come under the legal definition of continuous cruising, CRT will need a way to raise their licence fees.  They will do this by pointing out that if someone is actually going to be a continuous cruiser, they should also be continuously on their boat because otherwise they can't continuously cruise and therefore must be resident, and therefore will pay a residential licence.  Whether they can then wave a council tax bill around will be irrelevant.  Two level of licence, leisure (for people with moorings) and residential (for those living on, continuous cruisers and the short jerky movers).  And more money for CRT.

Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant, as, probably, are the finer legal aspects. It's all about money.

And don't start going on that as a leisure boater I must hate CCers, which is usually the next step when someone points anything out which affects them.  A fair few of us have been both, and are quite well aware that without the real CCers the system would have degraded a lot faster and a lot earlier that it has. And personally, I don't have a problem with dumped boats, or people living where they technically shouldn't, nor, in fact, with unlicenced boats. Everybody needs a roof. I repeat, it's all about money, and sometimes it's best to think about it and be prepared rather than just be astonished when it happens. Like we all were when mooring fees suddenly happened to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

I wrote it because it stuck in my mind. I can't find it using the search facility on the forum but it may be from conversation with someone who once moored there. Their terms and conditionsjust vaguely talk about transferring your mooring contract to a different grade if they think you are anything other than a leisure boater. The fact they say this includes transferring you to a resedential rate implies there are other rates they might impose.

 

 

There are, also different rates for pumpout and bucket and chuck it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't think I said anywhere that to comply with the letter of the law you had to live on your boat.

My point is that CRT need to raise some money.  I can see them arguing that weekending is not continuous cruising, which is supposed to be continuous, not in short jerky movements.  Someone who weekends their boat probably does less actual boating in a year than most leisure boaters (who stump up a load of dosh in mooring fees), and someone in CRT is going to notice this sooner or later.  They will then point out that a weekender's boat is probably actually moored up for longer than mine is (for example), and wonder why they get more money from me but not from the guy who leaves his boat moored for most of the year, just clogs up the towpath in different places.

As they still, sort of, come under the legal definition of continuous cruising, CRT will need a way to raise their licence fees.  They will do this by pointing out that if someone is actually going to be a continuous cruiser, they should also be continuously on their boat because otherwise they can't continuously cruise and therefore must be resident, and therefore will pay a residential licence.  Whether they can then wave a council tax bill around will be irrelevant.  Two level of licence, leisure (for people with moorings) and residential (for those living on, continuous cruisers and the short jerky movers).  And more money for CRT.

Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant, as, probably, are the finer legal aspects. It's all about money.

And don't start going on that as a leisure boater I must hate CCers, which is usually the next step when someone points anything out which affects them.  A fair few of us have been both, and are quite well aware that without the real CCers the system would have degraded a lot faster and a lot earlier that it has. And personally, I don't have a problem with dumped boats, or people living where they technically shouldn't, nor, in fact, with unlicenced boats. Everybody needs a roof. I repeat, it's all about money, and sometimes it's best to think about it and be prepared rather than just be astonished when it happens. Like we all were when mooring fees suddenly happened to us.

I think some take the the word ‘continuously’ too literally. In fact the law only uses that word to state that you must not remain in the same place ‘continuously’. for more than 14 days  i.e it’s Ok to be a ‘continuous’ moorer for up to 14 days. ?

 

I don’t know who came up with the CC’er definition (C&RT?) but it’s a silly definition  as clearly nobody can actually cruise continuously, and why should they?

 

The spirit of the law is to let people enjoy exploring the system  without having to pay for a permanent mooring they wouldn’t use. Maybe they should call it a ‘roaming licence’? 

 

It sounds like a permanent mooring suits your situation. What I don’t understand is why some people still try to stir up trouble when they also have a choice? 

 

if you are really concerned about C&RT funding then why not write to them and complain about the money they have been wasting instead of using silly arguments against those who are just trying to enjoy exploring? 

 

By the way, I don’t think you hate ‘CC’ers’ but do I detect maybe you think we are all free loaders? 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MartynG said:

In which case it would not be difficult for the boat owner to obtain a copy of the council tax bill from the owner of the house . Th boat owner and house owner will know each other very well  and in most cases will presumably be related even if not by marriage.  An explanation why the name on the council tax bill is not the boat owners name may honestly be given . If the boat owner genuinely lives at that address then all is well and everyone is happy.

 

If there is a suspected deception then the matter might be investigated .Personally  I would not take that risk.

 

What risk?

 

If the person is legally entitled to be living at that address then there is no risk at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MartynG said:

I see the 28 nights has  shrunk to 21 !

I don't think anyone keeps tally and in any case the 28 nights is at each location where you might moor the boat.

 

 

Each marina has their own set of terms and conditions. If this particular marina chooses to set the limit at 21 days onboard then that is up to them.

 

Ours choose to set the limit at 335, or more to the point 11 months out of 12. That is their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

21 nights a year is less than 2 nights a month. Ridiculously restrictive! If you live any distance from your boat, it’s hardly worth having.

Nothing to do with CC - private marinas can set whatever restrictions they choose - could even be zero nights. Matter for their business plan and their interpretation of planning permissions. Our boat is currently in a marina that has options for 'heavy usage' but they are quite vigilant about not being sole residence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

I wasn;t really talking about people in your situation.

I understand, but I was using myself as an example of somebody in a situation where I wasn't on the council tax bill where I was living (nor was I related to those who were) - it doesn't make any difference how I now use the mooring, if I'd been living there longer and didn't have a council tax bill from my previous address I wouldn't have been able to get a leisure mooring (not at all easily - I didn't really have any proof that I was living there).

 

16 hours ago, Tanglewood said:

 Those who do not contribute are benefit cheats. 

 

Ah, so I was a benefit cheat when living at my previous address and legitimately making no difference to the council tax bill? Council tax being levied on properties not on people (ISTR they tried doing it the other way and it didn't turn out well...)

 

I guess CCers are also benefit cheats?

 

I'm quite happy to pay my way and have done for many, many years - I'd happily have a residential mooring and pay council tax (though I note that AFAIK residential moorings at most marinas pay composite council tax, with the marina as a whole being assessed for council tax and each berth holder paying their share - in the same way as a HMO). Of course if you're paying for a leisure mooring you're also contributing indirectly through the business rates. If you're paying income tax etc. you're also contributing (mental health services for example are funded through the NHS which is centrally funded, almost half of all school pupils attend centrally funded academies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rowland al said:

I think some take the the word ‘continuously’ too literally. In fact the law only uses that word to state that you must not remain in the same place ‘continuously’. for more than 14 days  i.e it’s Ok to be a ‘continuous’ moorer for up to 14 days. ?

 

I don’t know who came up with the CC’er definition (C&RT?) but it’s a silly definition  as clearly nobody can actually cruise continuously, and why should they?

 

The spirit of the law is to let people enjoy exploring the system  without having to pay for a permanent mooring they wouldn’t use. Maybe they should call it a ‘roaming licence

The official designation is "boat without a home mooring", which is fairly self explanatory. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

The official designation is "boat without a home mooring", which is fairly self explanatory. 

 

But being logical, what has ‘continuous cruising’ got to do with not having a home mooring? You can have a home mooring and still ‘continuously cruise’ the system.

 

It’s the designation, or use of the CC term which seems to get some knickers in a twist causing people to argue about how far and how long a ‘CC’er’ should travel.There is no such definition in law, it’s something made up by C&RT/BWB. 

 

The term ‘navigate’ is used in the act, which could equate to ‘cruise’, but where did the ‘continuous’ bit come from? 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paul C said:

I don't get it? You say these are the T&Cs for those moored at Nottingham Castle Marina??

No. The terms and conditions quoted are those of the Castle Marinas group. This group includes Nottingham Castle Marina but also includes King's Bromley, Ventnor Farm and one or two others. The section I copied and pasted doesn't apply at Nottingham but is applicable in their other marinas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rowland al said:

The term ‘navigate’ is used in the act, which could equate to ‘cruise’, but where did the ‘continuous’ bit come from? 

 

I am probably wrong but I was under the impression that it was sort of historic.  In that at one time everyone had to have a mooring and at the same time there were people making a continuous journey round the system and so lobbying took place for the current arrangements.  All very simple and sensible.

 

Since the introduction of the "declaration of no home mooring" people have jumped on the band wagon trying to stay near work/schools etc.

 

At least that is how I have always understood things to have developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Each marina has their own set of terms and conditions. If this particular marina chooses to set the limit at 21 days onboard then that is up to them.

 

Ours choose to set the limit at 335, or more to the point 11 months out of 12. That is their choice.

See post Nr 26 giving the legal reference  to  28 days .

If BW are operating outside of their planning permission they are not necessarily committing an offence. But if they should be served with an enforcement notice and they ignore that notice an offence would be committed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, rowland al said:

But being logical, what has ‘continuous cruising’ got to do with not having a home mooring? You can have a home mooring and still ‘continuously cruise’ the system.

 

It’s the designation, or use of the CC term which seems to get some knickers in a twist causing people to argue about how far and how long a ‘CC’er’ should travel.There is no such definition in law, it’s something made up by C&RT/BWB. 

 

The term ‘navigate’ is used in the act, which could equate to ‘cruise’, but where did the ‘continuous’ bit come from? 

 

Not exactly 'made up': The law specifies that The Board have to be satisfied that the pattern of cruising constitutes bona fide navigation and what it has done is indicate what conditions would make it difficult for a boater to persuade The Board. AFAIK, they have very carefully avoided any statement that says what you must do for the reasons stated. That, however, does not mean that they have 'made up' the conditions as they are entitled to impose conditions subject only to the possibility of a judicial review that says that they have done so unreasonably. (Assuming that 'made up ' is intended to imply that they are acting outside the law)

 

The term Continuous Cruiser is, I believe, just common parlance in the same way that Continuous Moorer is. In some context both are derogatory terms!

 

The proper term 'boats without a home mooring' is factually determinable, save for the issue of so-called ghost moorings, in a way that Continuous Cruising is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

See post Nr 26 giving the legal reference  to  28 days .

If BW are operating outside of their planning permission they are not necessarily committing an offence. But if they should be served with an enforcement notice and they ignore that notice an offence would be committed. 

 

Burton Waters has been operating under the same terms and conditions for the last 20 odd years which are in line with the planning permission granted on the site. If they believed that they were in breach of any enforcement or planning permissions then the terms and conditions would have been changed to take this into account.

 

As it is they are not and have not been served with any enforcement notices and as such no offences have been committed.

 

You might not personally agree with the terms and conditions but that does not make them an offence.

 

What do your own terms and conditions at Farndon state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MartynG said:

See post Nr 26 giving the legal reference  to  28 days .

C&RT (BW) are classed as a 'Statutory Undertakers' and are allowed to do some things that other people / land owners / companies are not allowed to do - in effect they can give themselves permission to do certain things.

 

In addition to the above, navigation authorities and others are, where appropriate, able to benefit from general permitted development rights such as those in Part 2 (Minor Operations), Part 3 (Changes of Use) and Part 4 (Temporary Buildings and Uses). Part 4 includes the ‘28 day rule’ under which land may be used for any purpose for not more than 28 days in any calendar year, subject to certain limitations.

 

So they can authorise themselves to allow 28 day moorings - anything above that needs planning permission.

 

https://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/SI-2015-No.-596-The-Town-and-Country-Planning-General-Permitted-Development-England-Order-2015.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a marina mooring for which I pay an annual fee. I pay council tax for the house which is my principal residence.

 

This year is not typical (for various reasons) but I have just checked my log.

 

Of the 365 days available, the boat has been in the marina for 42. I have been on the boat for 16 of those days. The boat has not been moored anywhere on the system for more than 3 days during the 323 days out of the marina.

 

While, of course, I want the "system"  (the canal and society generally) to work and to be properly funded, I cannot get fussed about what individuals pay or do not pay or in which circumstances they pay (or do not pay) it.

 

Course that begs the question - what am I doing in this thread?

 

 

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.