Manchester house boat row.

[rgreg]

The Council state that, whilst agreement in principal to a new boat was verbally given, detailed plans needed to be submitted by April. They say that he went ahead with the project after this date without submitting any plans so, if this is correct and he is forced to remove it, he only has himself to blame.

[WotEver]

2 hours ago, dmr said:

In the photos it looks to have quite a bit of steel framing inside...

It’s ally framing. Lots of houses have interior walls constructed of this stuff these days as it’s much quicker to erect than timber studding, doesn’t warp, is far lighter to handle, and is cheaper. Once the plasterboard is screwed to it it’s pretty solid. 

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by WotEver
Added a pretty important ‘interior’

[dmr]

58 minutes ago, WotEver said:

It’s ally framing. Lots of houses have interior walls constructed of this stuff these days as it’s much quicker to erect than timber studding, doesn’t warp, is far lighter to handle, and is cheaper. Once the plasterboard is screwed to it it’s pretty solid. 

 

Yes, and fire proof too. My son sometimes does some building site work so keeps me updated with modern and new fangled ways to build crap houses. I think its usually galvanised steel rather than aluminium. I used to live in various Victorian brick houses and seeing how modern houses are built I'm just glad I now live in a boat. My son likes some modern things but this is a step too far and he now lives in a solid brick and stone house.

 

..........Dave

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, dmr said:

Yes, and fire proof too. My son sometimes does some building site work so keeps me updated with modern and new fangled ways to build crap houses. I think its usually galvanised steel rather than aluminium. I used to live in various Victorian brick houses and seeing how modern houses are built I'm just glad I now live in a boat. My son likes some modern things but this is a step too far and he now lives in a solid brick and stone house.

 

..........Dave

Wood is good !!

 

When we had our house built the 30 foot x 30 foot lounge needed some 'beams' to support the floor above. The builder used steel beams (RSJ's) and then coated them in fire resistant plasterboard - I asked "why".

 

In the event of a fire, wooden beams will 'char' on the surface which protects the wood beneath, and, will actually support the upper floor for 'hours' before giving way.

Steel beams quickly get hot, soften, expand and start to sag allowing the upper story to collapse very quickly, potentially trapping people in the rubble before they can get out.

Fireproof Plaster board protects the Steel RSJ and gives the occupants sufficient time to get out.

 

I found that very interesting.

[WotEver]

36 minutes ago, dmr said:

I think its usually galvanised steel rather than aluminium.

Ahh okay, thanks. I didn’t know that. I’ve handled it and carried it and all I knew was that it was light. 

[dmr]

2 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Ahh okay, thanks. I didn’t know that. I’ve handled it and carried it and all I knew was that it was light. 

Its light because its thin and nasty. I think its only possible advantage over wood is that by including flexibility in the right places it just might be possible to improve sound insulation.

 

..............Dave

[Mike Todd]

20 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The owner is Manchester City Council and the Marina Operator is BWML, as renting a mooring is a 'commercial contract' they can impose pretty much whatever conditions they like. They are probably applying the old BW (and adopted by C&RT) conditions listed under the C&RT Moorings policy :

 

Precis of the relevant section :

 

………..boats at residential moorings shall possess the recognisable attributes of a boat typical to the Trust's networks and capable of navigation …………….."

 

It pretty much fails all of the tests :

 

1) It is not a recognisable boat typical to the canals

2) It has no engine so it unable to navigate

3) It is dimensionally unable to navigate the local waterways.

 

Does that mean that unpowered butties are also excluded? Should CaRT require such conditions of marinas? In which case, should they be allowed to accommodate wideeams on a narrow canal?

 

The rows of houseboats on various waterways, especially around London, no more look like a boat that this example.

[Robbo]

8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Does that mean that unpowered butties are also excluded?

Don't they have to be licenced with another craft and kept together?

Edited November 21, 2018 by Robbo

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Does that mean that unpowered butties are also excluded? Should CaRT require such conditions of marinas? In which case, should they be allowed to accommodate wideeams on a narrow canal?

My thoughts (although maybe you should ask C&RT for their opinion) are that C&RT can only impose those restrictions on ;

1) Waters they control

2) Their own moorings

3) Moorings under their (BWML) management.

 

Other offline mooring providers are surely at liberty to allow whatever they want, subject to PP etc.

 

However - some will (I'm sure) point out that if the 'boat' has a BSS, Insurance and made the relevant declaration a licence cannot be refused.

 

The subject of 'fatties' on narrowcanals was discussed recently and the feelings were that the Bye-Laws already gave C&RT the powers to restrict fatties on narrow canals :

 

As to Vessels to be used on Canals
Fitness of Vessels
3. No person shall bring use or leave in any canal any vessel which
is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part
thereof where it is intended to be used.

 

With regard to "London Sheds", within the Moorings Policy Documents is the sentence :

 

"Exceptionally we may approve suitable static floating structures in large scale, urban, modern, Offline settings, where approved we will require a salvage bond ……………….".

Edited November 21, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[billh]

7 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Don't they have to be licenced with another craft and kept together?

No.

Says I as a long term guardian of a "historic" horseboat. There are many examples of engineless boats  and boats with non-functional engines , licensed on C&RTs waters. Having an engine(that runs)  has never  been a requirement. There is a recently introduced discount for unpowered butties that  must always work with a  licensed motor to qualify.

[Mike Todd]

6 minutes ago, billh said:

No.

Says I as a long term guardian of a "historic" horseboat. There are many examples of engineless boats  and boats with non-functional engines , licensed on C&RTs waters. Having an engine(that runs)  has never  been a requirement. There is a recently introduced discount for unpowered butties that  must always work with a  licensed motor to qualify.

Just watched David John's latest vlog (https://cruisingthecut.co.uk/2018/11/20/152-senyek-notlim/) and noticed just below Soulbury a boat that had a similar large superstructure - perhaps (although it did not look too easy) in could be dismantled for cruising.

[Robbo]

3 minutes ago, billh said:

No.

Says I as a long term guardian of a "historic" horseboat. There are many examples of engineless boats  and boats with non-functional engines , licensed on C&RTs waters. Having an engine(that runs)  has never  been a requirement. There is a recently introduced discount for unpowered butties that  must always work with a  licensed motor to qualify.

Yes but a horseboat can navigate due to having a engine (horse)        The "discount for unpowered butties" has been there for a while I believe.     I know CRT allow unpowered craft as that other shed guy piano raft is unpowered and I believe the engine he uses is himself.

[alan_fincher]

3 minutes ago, billh said:

 There is a recently introduced discount for unpowered butties that  must always work with a  licensed motor to qualify.

Not very recent, surely?

[Paul C]

44 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Does that mean that unpowered butties are also excluded? Should CaRT require such conditions of marinas? In which case, should they be allowed to accommodate wideeams on a narrow canal?

 

The rows of houseboats on various waterways, especially around London, no more look like a boat that this example.

With the usual caution that its an unsourced quote from Alan de E of what he thinks are the applicable terms.......

 

Yes

Its nothing to do with CRT - its the marina's T&Cs here - but I guess you're asking in a more general sense.

Again, its a different issue.

 

As is usual, anyone actually with a butty or unpowered boat, is free to directly approach the marina operator and negotiate their own T&Cs. I've done it - I looked at a fairly standard set of T&Cs, one which included "you're not allowed to do maintenance on your boat" - crossed that bit out, signed it, then the marina manager signed it and put it in the file. I believe this was pretty much the basis the moorer in this case had - even with those T&Cs as above in place, he had directly liased with the managers to gain an exception, however he'd not done this bit right. And the rest is history. 

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, Paul C said:

With the usual caution that its an unsourced quote from Alan de E of what he thinks are the applicable terms.......

I mentioned earlier :

 

C&RTs Mooring Policy Document as found on their web site.

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I mentioned earlier :

 

C&RTs Mooring Policy Document as found on their web site.

Which, you earlier said, "They are probably applying". We don't know the details of what was agreed directly between the mooring operator and the moorer here, I don't think those standard T&Cs have a section on where if you're bringing a new, unusual design boat in, they have written into the contract that they get to oversee the design drawings. But it seems like some kind of one-off agreement or arrangement were in place here, and that is being cited as not-complied-with as a reason to not renew the mooring, not the standard terms.

 

At the end of the day, yes its as simple as "there isn't security of tenure" (the contract probably has a catch-all in it somewhere, which is legit) but the contract needs to be reasonable to be enforceable, and we'd actually need the proper details to properly decide here. Until then, its a good story and good talking point.

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

"Exceptionally we may approve suitable static floating structures in large scale, urban, modern, Offline settings, where approved we will require a salvage bond ……………….".

 

I should think the salvage bond is essential, given that many of these craft are too big to get to a drydock or craning our site for hull maintenance.

[furnessvale]

3 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

Not very recent, surely?

Given the age of Maria, I think the discount is "recent". ☺️

 

George

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Given the age of Maria, I think the discount is "recent". ☺️

 

George

What is recent ?

 

This from the October 2008 T&Cs

Unpowered Butty 50% discount for a butty boat more than 50ft long that never travels separately from its motor boat. The motor boat must be licensed and licences for motor and butty must be concurrent with the same start and end date. To claim this discount, you must declare the name and index number of the motor boat.

 

Source : attached for those doubters.

Boat Licence T&Cs Issue May 2008.pdf

Edited November 21, 2018 by Alan de Enfield