Jump to content

DEFRA Working Party into Boats Used As Accommodation.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

It is now 12 months since this Working party was set up - no outcomes yet reported.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/10/boaters-battling-influence-government-review-ease-congestion/

 

I know many have a deep loathing of "The Floater" but it does give some useful information :

 

PLEASE SHARE WITH BOATERS AND GROUPS

 
It seems the government is very determined to keep under wraps exactly what the new working party set up by Defra minister Dr Thérèse Coffey to look at 'boats used as accommodation' is designed to achieve – leading to experienced observers to become even more convinced that changes to the 1995 British Waterways Act - particularly the 14-day rule and the section allowing boats to be licensed with no home mooring - was on the agenda for discussion and in the briefing, as Peter Underwood reports.


Now government is refusing to tell anyone what is going on with a Freedom of Information request refused and Defra still rejecting an attempt by an experienced boater to appeal that refusal – claiming civil servants and navigation authorities need to be able to discuss the issues “preserve a safe space free from external interference and distraction


Their persistent secrecy on matters that Defra admits have significant public interest is about to be challenged again with an appeal to the Information Commissioners Office. However, Defra, Canal & River Trust and the Environment Agency will have gained nearly a year of freedom to talk about the future of the waterways in secret before that appeal is decided.


Back in May, The Floater reported that a leaked letter from a junior Tory minister with responsibility for waterways at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, showed that she has set up a group ear;lier in the year to, 'find appropriate solutions that balance the needs of waterway users against those who chose to live on our inland waterways'


The letter from Thérèse Coffey to an East London MP demonstrated that Defra had set up a 'group' that includes local councils, the Environment Agency and Canal & River Trust – but excluded all boating organisations.


It's aims seemed to be fairly clear – Defra seems to see people living on their boats as a problem and wants to find 'solutions' and that led London boaters, in particular, to believe the key part of the 1995 Act may be up for amendment or abandonment.
 
 
defra-1_orig.jpg
The letter rejecting Mike's appeal
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coffey’s letter said: “The responsibility for individual waterways sits with the respective navigation authority. I am aware, however, that the rise in the numbers of houseboats is an issue for all navigation authorities as more people chose to make houseboats along our waterways their homes.


The group's remit is to serve as a platform for discussions to take place on a number of issues around moored houseboats. Although these discussions are in an early stage, I can reassure your constituent that there is a clear wish amongst the members of the group to find appropriate solutions that balance the needs of waterway users against those who chose to live on our inland waterways”


The Floater asked Defra what was going on, to be told: The working group was set up in response to concerns raised by several MPs and waterway users around a number of boats being used as rented accommodation on the River Thames - moored to publicly accessible land without the landowner’s permission.

These concerns, alongside an increased use of waterways for residential purposes, led to a commitment to form a group consisting initially of the main navigation authorities and other groups such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The purpose of this group is to provide a platform to discuss experiences and differing perspectives of the issues.

At the initial meeting held in December 2017, it was agreed that user groups could be invited to help with the group’s work and the terms of reference for the group are now being determined.”



At the same time Mike Doherty of London Boaters put in a Freedom of Information request to Defra asking for the name or working title of this “group comprising of representatives ...” and its remit and terms of reference as well as any briefings produced for or by the group.


He also wanted to know what organisations, individuals and groups attended the meetings, where and when meetings and any agendas produced for the meetings.


Defra said it didn’t have a name for the group and that it was withholding information about the briefing under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA, which relates to the formulation of Government policy.


Significantly it even withheld the agenda – under the same get out clause – something that leads observers to conclude that the 1995 Act was almost certainly on that agenda.


Mike challenged the decision, requesting an internal review and that has resulted in Defra digging it’s heels in and keeping all details secret from boaters and even official boating groups, none of whom, were invited to the Defra talks.


Defra said: “Defra recognise that there is a public interest in disclosure of information concerning the issues around moored houseboats without a license to land.


We understand navigation authorities and local councils do not have sufficient regulatory powers to ensure that the needs of all users on our waterways are equally met. Information regarding this would further public understanding of the issue, give the opportunity for debate, and facilitate accountability and transparency.


The agenda and briefing give an overview of the issues that were discussed within this
meeting, with a view to identifying where new Government policy will be required.


Disclosure could prejudice the outcome of discussions, which are still ongoing, and it is vital that we preserve a safe space free from external interference and distraction, where officials can
freely discuss the issues at hand.


This is paramount to achieving a balanced and objective view so that Government policy can be formulated effectively. Disclosure of this information would inhibit free and frank discussions in the future. The ability to exchange views with a level of frankness and candour would damage the quality of advice and lead to poorer decision making which in turn would directly prejudice policy outcomes.


Defra have confirmed stakeholders will be given the chance to put their views across during this process of policy making to ensure that there is a balanced and equitable discussion of the issues.


We have therefore concluded that the response provided to you on 19 July 2018 is correct.”


Slamming the door in the face of all boaters has not gone down well. As one boater pointed out: “Defra acknowledges that there will be a need to seek opinions of other stakeholders outside of the 'group' but only once the 'group' has basically decided on a course of action(s)..so how exactly do they intend to garner a balanced understanding of the issues at hand if there is no representative boating body included in the pre-public 'group' discussions?


Also the line 'Free from external interference and distraction...paramount to achieving..an objective view' is particularly worrying as:


a) this isn't a court case, it's a review, and


b) there is nothing objective if most/all of the involved 'group' parties view boaters as a nuisance/problem.


To then go on to state that frankness and candour are not wanted due to 'prejudicing' policy outcomes...beggars belief”


Given this level of secrecy it has hardly surprising that many boaters suspect Defra civil servants, along with those from the Environment Agency and the directors and trustees of Canal & River Trust are planning some nasty surprises for them behind closed doors.
Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

( The K and A ) boat park being the other exception.

 

I dunno about the western end but here in the middle bit, CMing has been thoroughly and effectively stamped out. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Like with all things the present situation cannot be sustained as too many pee takers are just buying boats and sticking them in one place, and we all know where that place is.

 

I don't know where it is. Please enlighten me. And explain how, as a CCer, you could possibly know. Thanks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I have no idea of who or what " the floater " is? never seen or read anything about it. Just looking at a bit of the publication in the link it appears moving 300 miles in total a year is being thought about and as a ccer that is very fair. 20 miles is a joke. 300 miles is less than six miles a week so two hours a week movement. Otherwise a mooring quite rightly needs using. 

Couldn't agree more and well put just so long as the 300 miles is a journey and not Watford to Ricky and back and so on...………

 

Isnt a floater someone who wants access to schools and GP's without having to move any more than 20 mins every other Friday night to dump rubbish and fill up with water?

 

 

Edited by Halsey
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I have no idea of who or what " the floater " is? never seen or read anything about it. Just looking at a bit of the publication in the link it appears moving 300 miles in total a year is being thought about and as a ccer that is very fair. 20 miles is a joke. 300 miles is less than six miles a week so two hours a week movement. Otherwise a mooring quite rightly needs using. Like with all things the present situation cannot be sustained as too many pee takers are just buying boats and sticking them in one place, and we all know where that place is. It will eventualy ruin it for the rest of the boaters in the country who comply to a greater extent ( The K and A ) boat park being the other exception. Eventualy ccing could be outlawed due to selfish people. There are costs involved with my lifestyle. A major cost is either a mooring or ccing and diesel and wear on the engine.

Awaits incoming.

I agree, and would add that the pee-taking problem is not exclusive to the areas you imply; although it is probably more noticeable in certain places it is a growing issue in others.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Eventualy ccing could be outlawed due to selfish people.

Nah, this is going to end in full Band A Council Tax payments for liveaboard boats.

 

The local councils don't care about moored boats affecting other boaters, they just want their ££££ and less grief from riparian rights owners who presumably do pay Council Tax and/or business rates.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I have no idea of who or what " the floater " is?

You obviously don't eat a lot of All-Bran then.#

 

It is an 'Anti-Cart' website / newspaper that looks at and 'rips apart' C&RTs claims and figures and does it quite effectively. They are very sensationalist tho.

 

The owner is now 'closing down' as he says :

"The information / figures / failures  are the same every month, its just the names that change".

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You obviously don't eat a lot of All-Bran then.#

 

It is an 'Anti-Cart' website / newspaper that looks at and 'rips apart' C&RTs claims and figures and does it quite effectively. They are very sensationalist tho.

 

The owner is now 'closing down' as he says :

"The information / figures / failures  are the same every month, its just the names that change".

Yes Ive just googled it and found it on line. It does appear to be a CART bashing site much the same as the BW bashing that went  before it. The NBTA ( National boats always tied up association ) is another one.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Yes Ive just googled it and found it on line. It does appear to be a CART bashing site much the same as the BW bashing that went  before it. The NBTA ( National boats always tied up association ) is another one.

Once upon a long time ago, the IWA were a BW-bashing organisation, who literally at times, stood in face to face confrontations with BW officials who sought to prevent volunteers' reinstatement of derelict canals.

 

That was the time when – in both ground-level efforts and Parliamentary petitioning, they were a force for good, to whom we owe a huge debt. That was at a time when BW were institutionally committed to closing down navigations to reduce their liabilities.

 

Since then, they have become effectively part of the very establishment they initially opposed, and act as secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Group on waterways, at a time when those are being run down for the same pecuniary reasons, albeit from a different angle.

 

We will always need organisations who are prepared to challenge those in authority, however much we might decry some of their positions; without them, we are reliant on the good will of bureaucrats – not an historically sustainable illusion.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Once upon a long time ago, the IWA were a BW-bashing organisation, who literally at times, stood in face to face confrontations with BW officials who sought to prevent volunteers' reinstatement of derelict canals.

 

That was the time when – in both ground-level efforts and Parliamentary petitioning, they were a force for good, to whom we owe a huge debt. That was at a time when BW were institutionally committed to closing down navigations to reduce their liabilities.

 

Since then, they have become effectively part of the very establishment they initially opposed, and act as secretariat to the All Party Parliamentary Group on waterways, at a time when those are being run down for the same pecuniary reasons, albeit from a different angle.

 

We will always need organisations who are prepared to challenge those in authority, however much we might decry some of their positions; without them, we are reliant on the good will of bureaucrats – not an historically sustainable illusion.

I think what you are trying to say is the IWA are now a complete and utter waste of space as far as fighting for boaters rights and keeping the inland waterways navigable and available are concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

The local councils don't care about moored boats affecting other boaters, they just want their ££££ and less grief from riparian rights owners who presumably do pay Council Tax and/or business rates.

 

26 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

But they do care. The proximate cause initiating the action was the situation at Hurst Park on the Thames, where houseboats deemed unsightly in the view of nearby residents were camped for protracted periods of time. That led to the residents complaining to their MP, who wrote to DEFRA.

 

I think were are on the same track here.  It is the complaints from the residents the councils care about, not the effects on other boaters.

 

I still think the local authorities are seeking to get their pound of flesh though - which is going to affect all liveaboard boaters (CC'ers or not) who are not currently paying Council Tax.

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

moving 300 miles in total a year is being thought about and as a ccer that is very fair.

That's the official IWA position at the moment.  

 

Back in 2003, British Waterways tried to introduce the Draft Moorings Code or Lock Miles Rules, which would have required continuous cruisers to travel at least 120 different lock-miles every three months without using the same stretch twice.

 

It was shouted down by threat of legal action at the time, but I don't think it's an unreasonable definition - it makes more sense than an arbitrary 300 mile journey.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pete.i said:

I think what you are trying to say is the IWA are now a complete and utter waste of space as far as fighting for boaters rights and keeping the inland waterways navigable and available are concerned.

They tend to be in favour of the "right" sort of boater playing on "their" system.  It's poor people they don't want to allow on the network - scruffy boats sharing the water with them seem to offend their sensibilities.

 

I find this staggeringly hypocritical, as many of them still talk about the fun they had cruising a knackered old lifeboat with a tarpaulin on top along difficult to navigate canals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

They tend to be in favour of the "right" sort of boater playing on "their" system.  It's poor people they don't want to allow on the network - scruffy boats sharing the water with them seem to offend their sensibilities.

 

I find this staggeringly hypocritical, as many of them still talk about the fun they had cruising a knackered old lifeboat with a tarpaulin on top along difficult to navigate canals.

Why are these two linked?  It is perfectly possible to be poor and have an old boat without its roof looking like the rough end of the local council tip.

 

George

Edited by furnessvale
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Point of fact - neither "The Floater" nor NBTA could be properly considered organisations. They are simply labels attached to one or a handful of individuals who are anti-CRT. I know that NBTA are sometimes perceived as a boating organisation alongside RBOA, NABO, IWA etc but they don't have a proper mechanism for elections or appointment of representatives so they don't have a mandate. Thus they should be treated, and given the same weight, as individuals.

That comment des not detract from my point. I could of course have added “and individuals”, but the principle remains anyway.

 

As to the 'status' of the NBTA as a representative organisation, this was comprehensively challenged by the QC for the MLC when seeking to bar them as petitioners over the MLC's Bill in the House of Lords. On receiving the demanded relevant information as to their structure and operation, the QC accepted their validity and status, and withdrew the objection.

 

Anybody is, of course, free to form a contrary opinion to those who had a strong vested interest in establishing the same point you make. Then too, whatever anybody else may think of them, no other organisation nor individual attracted as much MP interest in their representations over the BW/CaRT transfer. They were given considerable attribution during the Lords' debates, and significant assurances were placed on record concerning certain concerns.

 

Whether 'organisation' or not, they have been accorded considerable recognition in Parliament, which is what matters. If any others were as active with their own membership's concerns, we could be in a far better place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, furnessvale said:

Why are these two linked?  It is perfectly possible to be poor and have an old boat without its roof looking like the rough end of the local council tip.

 

I fully agree.  I'm not sure why they link the two, but that is exactly what I hear during conversations with random boaters.

 

Of course the link is not accurate -  I have a scruffy boat with junk on the roof but I think you get called "eccentric" if you have money ...

 

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.