House boat residents win High Court case against licence.

Alpha22

Alpha22

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 Sep 2003
Messages
1,413
Location
Cambridgeshire
Visit site
{url]http://www.eawa.co.uk/Environment_Agency_v_Gibbs_and_Parker_judgment_15_April_2016.pdf[/url]

The EA (Anglian) have failed to get a ruling overturned in the High Court.

The 'house boat' residents at Hartford marina (Cambs) have won a ruling that they do not need to be licenced as houseboats as they are not vessels.

The judgement makes interesting reading...... and may have an interesting knock on effect on the Thames and Broads......
 
Fundamentally because they are not vessels - they are floating homes which are permanently plumbed into the utilities, don't move, and could not be moved without very considerable effort. They are not vessels and cannot be navigated.

On the other hand, because they are not boats but are homes they are subject to Council Tax which the occupiers have always paid.

Hands up those who want to pay Council Tax on their boats...... thought not.
 
On that particular site, planning permission was a HUGE battle....... but that is long over now....!!!!

It appears that the loophole they have found is in the EA legislation and houseboats on the Broads will not be able to use the same argument as the BA licence legislation is much tighter...

As for Thames houseboats..... who knows. It is possible the EA(Thames) legislation and bylaws are different to the EA(Anglian).
 
Alpha22 said:
On that particular site, planning permission was a HUGE battle....... but that is long over now....!!!!

It appears that the loophole they have found is in the EA legislation and houseboats on the Broads will not be able to use the same argument as the BA licence legislation is much tighter...

As for Thames houseboats..... who knows. It is possible the EA(Thames) legislation and bylaws are different to the EA(Anglian).
Click to expand...

Rather discourteous to refer to the unanimous ruling of three senior High Court judges on the meaning of 'vessel' in this context as a 'loophole'.

There is in fact no difference in the relevant Thames legislation in respect of registration of vessels. The legislation defining the vessels to be registered is the same for all EA waterways - The Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010. It is not some ancient and inappropriate legislation which the EA has been saddled with; it is recent legislation entirely of their own creation. It is the same legislation which took them 6-years to obtain at enormous cost to the public purse. The EA has no one else to blame for missing the opportunity, if it wished to attempt to do so, to create a description of 'vessel' within the 2010 Order to extend the common language definition of the term and the meaning already tested, clarified and confirmed in the authorities quoted in the High Court judgment .

As for the Broads, the Broads Authority Act definition of a 'vessel' to be registered already seems entirely consistent with the judges' ruling in this case. The Broads Authority Act 2009 specifically excludes a raft, pontoon or other structure which is permanently fixed from the requirements of registration.
 
Last edited:
But the BA Act does specifically include...

any raft, pontoon or similar floating or submersible structure capable
of being moved under its own power or under tow as requiring a licence.

So.... when is a raft/pontoon "permanently fixed" ????

Are nuts and bolts permanent, what about a pin secured with a split pin??? How about a hinge???? I suspect most or all houseboats are secured by some detachable means and this legislation relates to mooring pontoons and jetties...... Though I could be wrong.... I'm no legal eagle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top