Bru
Well-Known Member
best of luck then. seriously, no messing, if you have a genuine case I hope the court finds in your favour
if not, well as you say you've nobody else to blame
Liveaboards being evicted in UK
- Thread starter oldbilbo
- Start date
- Status
best of luck then. seriously, no messing, if you have a genuine case I hope the court finds in your favour
if not, well as you say you've nobody else to blame
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
dgadee
Well-Known Member
So holidaymakers should have priority over those with housing need? Aren't the canals heavily subsidised by the taxpayer? If so, I am paying for your holidays.
liamb
New Member
I suppose this depends on what the canels are for, if they are purely designated housing use then this rule is wrong and more facilitys are needed for housing use, however they are more mixed use and the rules around the licencing etc are to reflect that.
Personally I think this is a good thing otherwise it would turn into this is my section of the tow path and you shouldn't be able to transit it on your bike or by foot, there are some residential moorings which are again a good thing but I can understand why they are limited, Also I assume if you have a perminant mooring you have to pay council tax? and if a on a continuous crusier licence you dont? so limiting the short stay mooring and moving from area's is a way of policing this I think,
If they didn't make you move on and you could stay forever on a moorning then by right the council should be asking for council tax to be paid, and by moving between council area's it doesn't put the burden all on one set of tax payers for providing services (doctors, social care etc) and facilitys.
Personally I think this is a good thing otherwise it would turn into this is my section of the tow path and you shouldn't be able to transit it on your bike or by foot, there are some residential moorings which are again a good thing but I can understand why they are limited, Also I assume if you have a perminant mooring you have to pay council tax? and if a on a continuous crusier licence you dont? so limiting the short stay mooring and moving from area's is a way of policing this I think,
If they didn't make you move on and you could stay forever on a moorning then by right the council should be asking for council tax to be paid, and by moving between council area's it doesn't put the burden all on one set of tax payers for providing services (doctors, social care etc) and facilitys.
rotrax
Well-Known Member
If you pay for something,anything-at a significant cost- and by cheating someone else gets it much cheaper you would be unhappy.
When our Governments decide that the canal system is to be used for housing your post has merit.
They have not-and I am pretty sure will not.
As previously posted by several forum members with direct experience-and in some cases more than direct experience- it is possible to gently move around the inland waterways system outside the conditions without falling foul of enforcement action.
It appears that enforcement action is only used as a last resort and is NOT in the same league as eviction.
All who fall foul of the enforcement action have the option, untill they have made it clear they are not going to take it, of JUST MOVING THEIR BOAT.
Appears pretty simple to me-but then what do I know......................
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
On something maintained for recreational purposes, why not?
You're also paying for fishing spots, green corridors, cycle routes, footpaths and all the other benefits canals bring. And, of course, you are paying very heavily indeed to support people with housing needs. Housing benefit cost us £16.94bn last year while the Canals and Rivers Trust gets £39m per annum (about half of what British Waterways received).
If you're going to criticise the CRT for not providing enough housing you may as well criticise English Heritage for their abject failure to rent out rooms in Carisbrooke Castle.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Suggest you read https://canalrivertrust.org/media/library/4082.pdf which is the report on moorings in the area that started this thread. You may then get an idea of the complexity of this issue and the efforts being made to accommodate the needs of different users.
You might then also see why some of us take exception to comments like yours.
dgadee
Well-Known Member
You've all been saying how simple this is - and now you think it's complex!
How do I stop paying for your holidays? That's what I want to know.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
It is your dichotomy that is simplistic - not the issue under discussion. Suggest you also read the information on the CRT website to aid your understanding of what their role is.
Holidaymakers are only one user group of the waterways and they pay their licences and hire fees as appropriate.
dgadee
Well-Known Member
Holidaymakers on this forum seem to be saying that they don't want too many permanent moorings because it gets in the way of their cruising. Well, perhaps they should pay for that loss of income which would come from massively increasing the number of permanent berths. Simple, not complex.
The CRT have a clear policy of encouraging holidaymaker usage at the expense of permanent users/the housing crisis. Why would I need to accept that policy as the best fit for the country in its current situation?
The CRT have a clear policy of encouraging holidaymaker usage at the expense of permanent users/the housing crisis. Why would I need to accept that policy as the best fit for the country in its current situation?
Bru
Well-Known Member
You already have (if indeed you ever did)
British Waterways was a QUANGO* substantially and permanently funded by grant in aid from the treasury (via whichever department of government it came under this week - latterly DEFRA)
CART is a NGO* partially funded for a time limited period (15 years) by grant in aid (after which it is expected to be self-financing). It receives a core grant of £39m per annum
Further funding for both BW formerly and CART today comes from a £460m commercial property portfolio (it would have been substantially more had BW not been forced to sell off so much property by the treasury in the past) and from income directly from users (licences etc.). Licence and mooring receipts amount to around £36m per annum
Boating activities directly generate around a quarter to about a third (nearer the higher figure at present) of the Trusts income
Howver, it is often overlooked in discussions about waterways financing that removing leisure boats would make little by way of significant savings on the operating costs. Yes, you could cut back a bit on dredging (not that much dredging is done these days!), you could turn the locks into weirs and reduce the cost of maintaining the gates but that would be about it. You still have to maintain the channel in order to provide all the other resources (drainage, local amenity, etc.) or you have to take active steps to demolish the structures and fill in the "ditch"
Simply closing the canals is not a zero cost option
* QUANGO - Quasi Autonomous National Government Organisation, NGO - Non Government Organistion
dgadee
Well-Known Member
And it could be even higher if holidaymakers weren't so selfish in trying to keep permanent moorings off of their holiday routes.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You have obviously not read the report before you posted this twaddle. It is nothing to do with what "holidaymakers" are saying at all.
It is you that is trying to bring in the "housing crisis", which is not the issue. The waterways are not there for housing. The issue is about devising a set of rules that allows all users to benefit and applying them fairly.
If you think that the waterways should be turned into one long housing estate then lobby parliament to change the planning laws. Until that happens the CRT has to work within its terms of reference.
Bru
Well-Known Member
<Sigh>
In FACT, C&RT (and BW before them) would happily create more permanent residential moorings because resi moorings are a big earner. There is room for them in appropriate places however it is virtually impossible to get planning consent. In fact, personally I've long been in favour of a limited increase in residential moorings (for many years I wanted one myself, the only one I was offered was in a bloody awful location and would have cost getting on for double what I was paying for a mortgage at the time!)
What is not feasible is turning the canals into a linear boat park for residential boats.
You clearly have no idea whatsoever of the impact on boating of extened linear moorings. From the limited info on your profile and your past posts you appear to be a cruising yachtsman so it's difficult to create an analogy however imgine if you will that every time you go for a sail you can only hoist a triple reefed main and a storm jib and that every destination you might wish to sail to has not one single visitor mooring available
dgadee
Well-Known Member
You are all arguing from a position of self interest, and claiming to be detached. You are not. And Tranona is very judgmental in his language. I bet his wife and kids love being around him.
Bru
Well-Known Member
Actually I have no interest in the matter other than an academic one as I no longer spend any time on the Inland Waterways
The reality is that you are arguing a case on the basis of virtually no knowledge of the subject and clearly with little or no actual inland boating experience
Your nonsensical idea that the waterways should be used extensively for housing is about as valid as suggesting that Hyde Park should be built on for offices or the Isle of Wight used to create a new Hong Kong. Society has chose to keep some of the nice bits, well nice actually. Green belts, planning controls, protected areas of natural bueaty or scientific interest come at a cost which society chooses to pay
(I realise that there are some philistines who would build on anything, destroy anything, in the name of profit or freedom but thankfully we don't live in a world where that is acceptable to the majority)
dgadee
Well-Known Member
You're picking up Tranona's use of language, I note.
Bru
Well-Known Member
rotrax
Well-Known Member
It is quite clear that dgadee has little to bring to this debate.
He seems even more entrenched in his views than sixtimes.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
He seems even more entrenched in his views than sixtimes.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Very opposite. I don't use the waterways - no need as I can see Poole Harbour out of my bedroom window. When I do engage in an issue such as this, though, I try to understand a little bit about the subject so that I can hopefully make valid contributions.
Clearly not everybody does the same.
- Status