Planning Permission

[carlt]

OK Carl. You are more knowledgeable than me regarding peeps 'rights' and probably you know a lot more than me about this European Court of Human Rights etc. That's no problem, fortunately, I will admit, I am not in a situation needing their assistance or information.

 

Sorry you have no sense of humour Did you not notice I attached a lol to my final comments. It was not sarcastic, I was being a little light hearted. I sincerely aplogise if you feel my comment threatens your security in the community.

 

I have more than double your boating experience - but what the heck as that got to do with it

 

However, next time before abusing someones posting; please, think again.

 

Please feel free to now have the last word. I have finished with this subject.

I'm not aware I was abusingyour posting, just disagreeing with you.

 

I certainly don't feel threatened, but apology accepted anyway.

 

You're right on one point, though, boating experience has nothing to do with this topic. Life experience does, though, and that can't be measured in time.

[Paul H]

It seems to me that BW have severely mishandled the matter of living on boats nationally but apparantly nowhere more so than in this particular instance.

 

It is not for BW to decide whether or not you can live on a boat at any particular location, it is the local authority. The LA's taking on of housing responsibilty is one aspect but the LA will also look at a number of factors such as parking, provision of mains services, access by emergency vehicles and with reference to their Local Plan, pressure on schools and doctors etc. In practice very few moorings would meet their criteria. The recent case reported in the waterways press found that moorings did not require planning permission - the use of those moorings residentally is quite a different matter.

 

If you really did make your intentions clear to BW then is it too much to hope that you put it in writing? BW may decide to turn a blind eye but the local authority - perhaps under pressure from local residents - will not. This will be particularly the case if you are not on the electoral roll.

 

As a general rule if you're not paying council tax - you ain't got a residential mooring. The average Band A tax payable by the tiniest one bed flat is over £800 - far in excess of a cruising licence, so please don't tell me "it is included."

 

The waterways are more interesting and safer places with unofficial liveaboards about but you need to keep your head down or hope for a sympathetic local authority. In Oxford, the Council after initial hostility was persuaded by media-savvy (and I have to ay elequent middle class) boatowners to support them and planning permission was granted and facilities installed. OK as a boatowner you might not want or need such mains facilities but the Council will not allow you to live in what they see as substandard accommodation.

 

Urban myth or not but I once bought a converted lifeboat on a residential mooring at Cowley which had been deliberately sunk so that the growing family could get a council house. I bought it for £150 for the brass portholes and vents expecting it to be rotten. It was fine and gave a couple of students a home for a good many years to come. This was 30 years ago, although uncommon, I cannot believe it is the only incidence. More recently I understand that a subscriber to this and other forums was given council accommodation on the grounds of his impaired mobility (disablement not stoppages.)

 

I don't think you can rely on the Human Rights Act - recent interpretations have been far less liberal. Nor do you have the "ethic" special-case protection of the travellers. However I would suggest with the right media support BW will be forced to treat you much more sensitively than they have up to now. They almost always seem to back down - at least slightly. Have you been in touch with the Residential Boat Owners Association? Have you set up a meeting with local councillors?

 

Paul

[carlt]

Urban myth or not but I once bought a converted lifeboat on a residential mooring at Cowley which had been deliberately sunk so that the growing family could get a council house. I bought it for £150 for the brass portholes and vents expecting it to be rotten. It was fine and gave a couple of students a home for a good many years to come. This was 30 years ago, although uncommon, I cannot believe it is the only incidence. More recently I understand that a subscriber to this and other forums was given council accommodation on the grounds of his impaired mobility (disablement not stoppages.)

The reason the family got council accommodation was because their home was sunk, not that their mooring had planning permission. I too know someone who got council housing because their boat sank. They were not on a mooring of any kind and, now their boat is fixed, they are back, living aboard and still ccing.

The average Band A tax payable by the tiniest one bed flat is over £800 - far in excess of a cruising licence, so please don't tell me "it is included."

How long is your boat then?

[Eugene Baston]

Hi

 

I suspect that by placing my head above the parapet on this thorny issue I will probably regret it, but I wanted to comment on one of the statements in the Poll (which I too think is a good idea to have).

 

"BW don't tell you unless you ask":

 

I don't have a copyto hand right now of the mooring terms and conditions that every BW moorer receives when entering into an agreement with the navigation authority, but from memory I believe either Clause7 or Clause 8 of these T&C's states something like "...you must comply with the conditions of any planning permission for the mooring site …”.

 

As I say, I don't have a copy to hand since I'm not in the office right now, but I bet someone will have? In law the written statement would over ride the need for the clause (and every other clause in a T&C document) to be given verbally each and every time someone entered into a contract for a long term mooring permit.

 

I'm trying to be helpful here, and I appreciate emotions are running high. Please don;t draw your guns on the messenger.

 

Eugene

[Neil.A]

Hi

 

I suspect that by placing my head above the parapet on this thorny issue I will probably regret it, but I wanted to comment on one of the statements in the Poll (which I too think is a good idea to have).

 

"BW don't tell you unless you ask":

 

I don't have a copyto hand right now of the mooring terms and conditions that every BW moorer receives when entering into an agreement with the navigation authority, but from memory I believe either Clause7 or Clause 8 of these T&C's states something like "...you must comply with the conditions of any planning permission for the mooring site …”.

 

As I say, I don't have a copy to hand since I'm not in the office right now, but I bet someone will have? In law the written statement would over ride the need for the clause (and every other clause in a T&C document) to be given verbally each and every time someone entered into a contract for a long term mooring permit.

 

I'm trying to be helpful here, and I appreciate emotions are running high. Please don;t draw your guns on the messenger.

 

Eugene

Eugene

Yes, it reads something like that; or to be precise:

 

You must comply with the conditions of any planning

permission for the Mooring Site and comply with relevant

laws, byelaws, Site Rules and special conditions, including any

concerning your private use of land at the Mooring Site.

 

However; I'm still none the wiser. As far as I can see, I am complying with everything in that document.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Neil.A

[Jason Wilson and Family]

You must comply with the conditions of any planning

permission for the Mooring Site and comply with relevant

laws, byelaws, Site Rules and special conditions, including any

concerning your private use of land at the Mooring Site.

 

What I get out of that is that, if there was NO planning permission, they shouldn't have been able to sell you a long term mooring on that bit of land. That seems to put BW at fault, not you.

 

Edit: Had the mooring type wrong, thanks Chris. Still sounds dodgy to me.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Jason Wilson and Family

[ChrisPy]

hang about, BW was selling a 'long term mooring'. I don't see anywhere where they said it was a residential mooring.

 

Sounds like wishful thinking may be taking over from rational thought.

[LisaG1]

true residential moorings need planning permission, you pay council tax, etc.

 

beats me why people even ask. just do it. SHHHHH !!!

 

who is checking if you are a resident or just a regular occupant?

I know of moorings that do have planning permission and don't pay council tax. They did at the start but the council came to visit and gave them their money back because they don't get the services you get when you're living in a house.

 

Lisa

[tomsk]

I know of moorings that do have planning permission and don't pay council tax. They did at the start but the council came to visit and gave them their money back because they don't get the services you get when you're living in a house.

 

Lisa

 

 

Or perhaps to recind the residential status of the mooring by subterfuge? (I am a cynical Womble)

[Neil.A]

hang about, BW was selling a 'long term mooring'. I don't see anywhere where they said it was a residential mooring.

 

Sounds like wishful thinking may be taking over from rational thought.

How do you mean Chris?

[tomsk]

Ok It looks like through my own ignorance I have fallen foul of this.

Before I purchased my narrowboat I rang BW. I told them that I had sold my house and was intending to buy a boat to live on, but only if I could get a mooring on the Beeston cut. If not I would buy a flat or small house outright or with a very small mortgage. I was told that I could have a mooring and as far as I was concerned that was that and here I am.

BW has now given me notice that my mooring is to close and I have no argument, as I should not be living on my boat, as there is no planning permission.

At the time of enquiry should BW have told me? I can find no reference in the "LONG TERM MOORINGS

TERMS AND CONDITIONS" nor in the "APPLICATION FOR A

LONG TERM MOORING PERMIT". In fact I'm buggered If I can find any reference in their literature anywhere.

Anyone...?

 

Pissed off, of Beeston.

 

Please see post #1

 

Helpfully,

 

Tomsk

[mayalld]

Eugene

Yes, it reads something like that; or to be precise:

 

You must comply with the conditions of any planning

permission for the Mooring Site and comply with relevant

laws, byelaws, Site Rules and special conditions, including any

concerning your private use of land at the Mooring Site.

 

However; I'm still none the wiser. As far as I can see, I am complying with everything in that document.

 

That document tells you, in black and white, that you must comply with planning permission.

 

Was that not sufficient to draw your attention to the fact that it is up to you to determine what planning permission exists, and to ensure that you comply with it?

 

As you didn't check on PP, why did you believe you were complying?

 

It is not somebody else's responsibility to hold your hand all the time.

[Neil.A]

That document tells you, in black and white, that you must comply with planning permission.

 

Was that not sufficient to draw your attention to the fact that it is up to you to determine what planning permission exists, and to ensure that you comply with it?

 

As you didn't check on PP, why did you believe you were complying?

 

It is not somebody else's responsibility to hold your hand all the time.

Now, my little font of all knowlege, I have already admitted to being a bit naive. However the point of this post was to see if anyone else has suffered the same fate.

It appears not. What it has brought to light, is there are a few people bright enough on here to cut me a bit of slack and give me some advice and good advice at that, on here and by PM.

You seem to be one of those people that write lots, yet actually say very little.

You really do seem a bit odd.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Neil.A

[Jason Wilson and Family]

Regardless of what anyone did and didn't read, how can BW lease someone a bit of land without the planning permission in place? I can't tell you I'm going to sell you a bit of a field for you to build your house on if I don't own or have permission to do so. What makes this different?

 

Basically, if there was no planning permission for someone to moor long-term at the site... why was BW allowed to sell long-term moorings on the site?

[mayalld]

Now, my little font of all knowlege, I have already admitted to being a bit naive. However the point of this post was to see if anyone else has suffered the same fate.

Ah, my mistake. There was me thinking that you were trying to suggest that BW were at fault in some way.It's probably because thats what you do most of the time.

It appears not. What it has brought to light, is there are a few people bright enough on here to cut me a bit of slack and give me some advice and good advice at that, on here and by PM.You seem to be one of those people that write lots, yet actually say very little. You really do seem a bit odd.

OK, I get it now.Everybody who agrees that BW are bad, and its all their fault is great.Anybody who suggests that you have no cause for complaint and ought to take responsibility yourself is "a bit odd"Yup, I'm a bit odd. If I screw up and end up in a predicament because I didn't take sufficient care, I take it on the chin, and accept that it was my fault, rather than looking for some part of the establishment to blame for not nursemaiding me. That is odd, and becoming odder as the nanny state takes over.

Regardless of what anyone did and didn't read, how can BW lease someone a bit of land without the planning permission in place? I can't tell you I'm going to sell you a bit of a field for you to build your house on if I don't own or have permission to do so. What makes this different?Basically, if there was no planning permission for someone to moor long-term at the site... why was BW allowed to sell long-term moorings on the site?

There was PP for long term mooring, but not for residential mooring.

Regardless of what anyone did and didn't read, how can BW lease someone a bit of land without the planning permission in place? I can't tell you I'm going to sell you a bit of a field for you to build your house on if I don't own or have permission to do so. What makes this different?Basically, if there was no planning permission for someone to moor long-term at the site... why was BW allowed to sell long-term moorings on the site?

There was PP for long term mooring, but not for residential mooring.

[Neil.A]

Ah, my mistake. There was me thinking that you were trying to suggest that BW were at fault in some way.It's probably because thats what you do most of the time.OK, I get it now.Everybody who agrees that BW are bad, and its all their fault is great.Anybody who suggests that you have no cause for complaint and ought to take responsibility yourself is "a bit odd"Yup, I'm a bit odd. If I screw up and end up in a predicament because I didn't take sufficient care, I take it on the chin, and accept that it was my fault, rather than looking for some part of the establishment to blame for not nursemaiding me. That is odd, and becoming odder as the nanny state takes over.There was PP for long term mooring, but not for residential mooring.There was PP for long term mooring, but not for residential mooring.

PMSL!!!

Ever heard of Martin Niemoller?

Edited August 1, 2007 by Neil.A

[saltysplash]

Regardless of what anyone did and didn't read, how can BW lease someone a bit of land without the planning permission in place? I can't tell you I'm going to sell you a bit of a field for you to build your house on if I don't own or have permission to do so. What makes this different?

 

Basically, if there was no planning permission for someone to moor long-term at the site... why was BW allowed to sell long-term moorings on the site?

 

I agree, if BW own the land then surely they are the ones who should apply for planning permission if that is whats required as the owners. Your a tennent even if there is no tennency agreement, so really it would come down to some bewigged people of the bar to argue over weather a mooring agreement is a tennancy agreement for the term stipulated or if it means bugger all. The test might be if it was signed as long term mooring or residential mooring. If rented as residential mooring then i struggle to see how you would be liable for not applying for planning permission as it is a natural assumption that the landlord (BW) has already done so and has had that permission agreed. County court judgements are based on what is reasonable and what is not. strongly suggest legal advice. Until there is stated case on the matter then this can go on for ever

[Gary Stacey]

It appears not. What it has brought to light, is there are a few people bright enough on here to cut me a bit of slack and give me some advice and good advice at that, on here and by PM.

You seem to be one of those people that write lots, yet actually say very little.

You really do seem a bit odd.

 

Couldnt agree more!

 

Brings to mind people who are new to canals and like what they see so buy a boat and then start compalining about lines of linearly moored boats?! Perhaps BW have in their 'wisdom' been listening to such people hence the attack on online moorings. Moorings that have been there for years unlike some of the newbie and status boaters.

[mayalld]

I agree, if BW own the land then surely they are the ones who should apply for planning permission if that is whats required as the owners. Your a tennent even if there is no tennency agreement, so really it would come down to some bewigged people of the bar to argue over weather a mooring agreement is a tennancy agreement for the term stipulated or if it means bugger all. The test might be if it was signed as long term mooring or residential mooring. If rented as residential mooring then i struggle to see how you would be liable for not applying for planning permission as it is a natural assumption that the landlord (BW) has already done so and has had that permission agreed. County court judgements are based on what is reasonable and what is not. strongly suggest legal advice. Until there is stated case on the matter then this can go on for ever

 

Nobody has suggested that Neil ought to have applied for PP. BW simply say that he must comply with the PP that is in place on the site.

 

The site has appropriate PP for long term mooring of boats. It does not have PP for residential mooring of boats.

 

I've seen nothing to suggest that Neil was told that the mooring was residential.

 

As far as I can see, Neil signed up for a long term mooring and lived there without ever checking whether that was allowed. He just assumed that it was. His complaint is that nobody went out of their way to point out that long term moorings are not residential.

 

I have to say again that it was up to Neil to check, not up to BW to offer legal advice.

[AlanH]

Nobody has suggested that Neil ought to have applied for PP. BW simply say that he must comply with the PP that is in place on the site.

 

The site has appropriate PP for long term mooring of boats. It does not have PP for residential mooring of boats.

 

I've seen nothing to suggest that Neil was told that the mooring was residential.

 

As far as I can see, Neil signed up for a long term mooring and lived there without ever checking whether that was allowed. He just assumed that it was. His complaint is that nobody went out of their way to point out that long term moorings are not residential.

 

I have to say again that it was up to Neil to check, not up to BW to offer legal advice.

 

I'm not used to agreeing with Dave on other forums but he is correct here. You do not need to be the owner of land in order to get PP. I experienced this when a neighbour objected to my keeping a caravan on land that I rented. I applied for PP and got it.

The BW agreement makes it clear that PP issues are the responsibility of the leasee.

 

I think that a lot of residential boat owners ignore PP because they fear that an application will draw attention to the fact that they are paying no council tax despite benefitting from council provided services.

[Alastair]

I have lived aboard for a few years now. My previous moorings had planning permission for boats to be moored there, but not residence. People kept quiet, no problems. One family paid council tax for their mooring.

 

Then a guy had a big structure built on the bank. Locals complained, he didn't have planning permission for it, council investigated, no planning permission for residence on the bank, major trouble for everyone.

 

I moved before it was sorted out. I understand that more than 50% of the liveaboards moved off their boats.

 

It is up to the boater to make sure that things are ok. BW often let people reside on their boats, on 'long term' moorings. It's not any of BW's business if they live aboard or not. They don't collect rates etc.

 

However, it is BW's right to withdraw the moorings from use. I don't think this is just, but it is BW's right.

[Neil.A]

I'm not used to agreeing with Dave on other forums but he is correct here. You do not need to be the owner of land in order to get PP. I experienced this when a neighbour objected to my keeping a caravan on land that I rented. I applied for PP and got it.The BW agreement makes it clear that PP issues are the responsibility of the leasee.I think that a lot of residential boat owners ignore PP because they fear that an application will draw attention to the fact that they are paying no council tax despite benefitting from council provided services.

None of us that are involved in these proposed evictions, have the slightest intention of avoiding any payment that is due to anyone, lets get that straight.

However, it is BW's right to withdraw the moorings from use. I don't think this is just, but it is BW's right.

They are not removing them from use. They want to change long term moorings to 14 day. The argument is that they want to reduce the on line linear moorings, which is a joke because there will always be boats moored on Beeston Roadside just different ones. So the obstruction (as BW would like us all to believe) will still be there.

[AlanH]

None of us that are involved in these proposed evictions, have the slightest intention of avoiding any payment that is due to anyone, lets get that straight.They are not removing them from use. They want to change long term moorings to 14 day. The argument is that they want to reduce the on line linear moorings, which is a joke because there will always be boats moored on Beeston Roadside just different ones. So the obstruction (as BW would like us all to believe) will still be there.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to avoid paying your share. I have every sympathy with your plight regarding the proposed eviction.

[Neil.A]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to avoid paying your share. I have every sympathy with your plight regarding the proposed eviction.

No offence taken, Cheers!

[Freetochat]

They want to change long term moorings to 14 day. The argument is that they want to reduce the on line linear moorings, which is a joke because there will always be boats moored on Beeston Roadside just different ones. So the obstruction (as BW would like us all to believe) will still be there.

 

This just fits in with the objective of BW, and that is to use the water network for leisure purposes and not for residential or work boats. Leisure and holiday boats are a greater source of income in return for little work. Perhaps when a change of boss at BW comes about, there will be a different vision or direction.