capnsensible
Well-known member
No you haven't. You've made yourself look silly.There - fixed that for you............................
PYH KICKING OUT 50% OF THEIR LIVABOARDS
- Thread starter Leisure 27
- Start date
ryanroberts
Well-known member
Ah, that makes sense that they will have tightened up the rules as there's no disguising the fact a little engineless pod is housing from the council.
rotrax
Well-known member
No you haven't. You've made yourself look silly.
Really?
You stated - and I quote :-
"Wonder why such problems dont exist elsewhere."
I pointed out that other countries have EXACTLY the same problems.
It is not unique to the UK.
Which was what you clearly infered
25931
Well-known member
Have you considered Portugal ? There are quite a few liveaboards on here who will be happy to help. If you take "residencia" you can stay as long as you like.
st599
Well-known member
The other thread on Portugese visas said that marina berths were no longer good enough to get a residency permit.
25931
Well-known member
There are alternatives.
sailaboutvic
Well-known member
Yea I own a ransacked building in Portugal three walls and a part of a roof , I guess for a price it could be used as an address .
Beneteau381
Well-known member
Portugal, we have temp residency papers, free health care if we wish.
25931
Well-known member
As long as you have webbed feet.
Last edited:
25931
Well-known member
The registered owner of a habitation has an address.
sailaboutvic
Well-known member
Open to offers ?
nortada
Well-known member
Curious why this thread is running in Scuttlebutt rather than Liveaboard Link?
What is a Liveaboard?
One definition I have seen is somebody who spends more than 50% of their time on board in a single location.
What is a Liveaboard?
One definition I have seen is somebody who spends more than 50% of their time on board in a single location.
nortada
Well-known member
Before 31 Dec 2020 getting temporary residency in Portugal was relatively easy but not sure it is now so easy.
I would be very interested to hear from a British Liveaboard who is attempting to get residency after the above date.
Tomahawk
Well-known member
As per Bru #40
The real problem is a planning system that by empirical measurement does the opposite of what it says on the tin. The system is predicated on a basic resistance to development of any sort. (the whys and wherefores is a political debate which is not relevant here). A first effect is a housing shortage which pushes up housing costs. A secondary effect is to not plan to deliver holiday and leisure provision. There are almost no "holiday" developments in the UK on the same scale as ski and beach resorts. (eg, the ski resort of Tignes is based on an acient mountain village. It has a small village school and a very small resident population. Yet there are over 30,000 beds in huge numbers of seasonally used visitor apartments). One predictable result is converting holiday accommodation into housing estates. The Chalet Park in Heybridge Essex was turned into a housing estate back about 2007. Again adding to pressure on remainig leisure facilities which come under increased scrutiny by planning process to prevent them being used as under the radar housing.
There is also a huge resistance to allowing any new boating facilities spearheaded by the conservation and ecology lobby. When was the last brand new marina developed in the UK? Almost all the recent ones have been dock conversions or expansions of ones developed way back last century.
All in all it is a muggers buddle but any discussion about changing the system falls foul of entreneched resistance as was recently demonstrated when the govenment rescinded proposals to introduce reforms, (again merely an observation on events). As boat owners we are caught in the mess.
The real problem is a planning system that by empirical measurement does the opposite of what it says on the tin. The system is predicated on a basic resistance to development of any sort. (the whys and wherefores is a political debate which is not relevant here). A first effect is a housing shortage which pushes up housing costs. A secondary effect is to not plan to deliver holiday and leisure provision. There are almost no "holiday" developments in the UK on the same scale as ski and beach resorts. (eg, the ski resort of Tignes is based on an acient mountain village. It has a small village school and a very small resident population. Yet there are over 30,000 beds in huge numbers of seasonally used visitor apartments). One predictable result is converting holiday accommodation into housing estates. The Chalet Park in Heybridge Essex was turned into a housing estate back about 2007. Again adding to pressure on remainig leisure facilities which come under increased scrutiny by planning process to prevent them being used as under the radar housing.
There is also a huge resistance to allowing any new boating facilities spearheaded by the conservation and ecology lobby. When was the last brand new marina developed in the UK? Almost all the recent ones have been dock conversions or expansions of ones developed way back last century.
All in all it is a muggers buddle but any discussion about changing the system falls foul of entreneched resistance as was recently demonstrated when the govenment rescinded proposals to introduce reforms, (again merely an observation on events). As boat owners we are caught in the mess.
Bru
Well-known member
I'm curious why a thread about liveaboards being kicked out of a UK marina has been hijacked by a completely unrelated discussion about living in Europe. But that's interweb forums for you!
As for defining "liveaboard" it's a man on the Clapham omnibus question really.*
And the term "liveaboard" isn't actually all that helpful either. What the authorities are looking at is whether a vessel is somebody's residence and we should probably be asking the question 'is this boat a residence" rather than "do these folks live on board". The difference is subtle but significant
The criteria that *seem* to generally be applied by officialdom when determining whether a vessel is residential or not are ...
1. Are the occupants of the boat on the electoral roll at a genuine UK residential address elsewhere?
2. Is the vessel capable of moving under its own power?
3. Does the vessel spend an appreciable period of time away from its mooring over the course of the average year?
4. Do the occupants of the vessel spend an appreciable amount of time elsewhere (on board or otherwise)
("appreciable amount of time" is a subjective judgement)
The more yesses above, the less residential it looks
However ...
Is the vessel permanently attached to shore services? (Particularly mains water, less so mains power as it has been established in case law that non-residential vessels are often "plugged in" to maintain on board equipment whilst unoccupied)
Do the occupants routinely receive official mail (bank, benefits, medical etc) at the mooring? (Periodic redirects notwithstanding)
Are the occupants using the environs around the mooring as a curtilage? (In other words, have they got personal / domestic crap on the bank / pontoon, are they cultivating a garden adjacent to the mooring etc)
Does the occupant work from or travel to and from work from the mooring?
Yesses to these question lean towards the vessel being a residence
All of the above and more have been advanced as arguments for and against a vessel being a residence in cases related to inland waterways Section 8 removal notices and it is those cases which have established the case law in this area. That case law is referred to in planning enforcement situations as being the defining case law for whether a vessel is a residence or not. As is almost always the way with case law, there is no simplistic black and white definition, it's full of nuances and subtleties
* "The man on the Clapham omnibus", for those not in the know, is a legal phrase for "what an ordinary average person would think"
Last edited:
capnsensible
Well-known member
It's not a problem for the man on a Barcelona tram......
capnsensible
Well-known member
Or a Panama City bus.
capnsensible
Well-known member
Or a Tahiti taxi.
Bru
Well-known member
Per Tomahawk's #76, for once we broadly agree on a planning related matter
Indeed, nearly three decades ago, British Waterways as then was recognised that there was a demand for, indeed a need for, a significant increase in the minuscule number of residential moorings available on the canals. They were able to obtain planning permission for a handful of new moorings here and there but it was a drop in the ocean. Significantly, the vast majority of existing users and customers were opposed to an increase in residential moorings (which was a bit of a burger as far as we were concerned because we wanted one!)
There is a need for planning control, we really wouldn't like the results of unrestricted development, but it has to be balanced and here Toma and I usually differ because in my experience it usually is. Planning applications that are turned down outright are almost invariably inappropriate as far as most people without a vested interest are concerned
Indeed, nearly three decades ago, British Waterways as then was recognised that there was a demand for, indeed a need for, a significant increase in the minuscule number of residential moorings available on the canals. They were able to obtain planning permission for a handful of new moorings here and there but it was a drop in the ocean. Significantly, the vast majority of existing users and customers were opposed to an increase in residential moorings (which was a bit of a burger as far as we were concerned because we wanted one!)
There is a need for planning control, we really wouldn't like the results of unrestricted development, but it has to be balanced and here Toma and I usually differ because in my experience it usually is. Planning applications that are turned down outright are almost invariably inappropriate as far as most people without a vested interest are concerned
Poignard
Well-known member
You'll be blaming Greta Thunberg next!
Seriously though, far from being organised by any lobby, isn't this just another example of nimbeyism?
People don't want to spend their weekends listening to the sound of angle-grinders or having their lungs destroyed by anti-fouling dust
