Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 10:07:19 GMT
it really is quite complex. For example if the usual technique of financial penalty is used as a control mechanism it would have to be regional because for example living on a boat on towpath in London saves at least ten grand a year compared with renting a flat. Very odd situation I can't see what can be done realistically to put a lid on it. I suppose 24 or 48hr everywhere might discourage people and still allow the real ones to do the cc thing. But then that would need an awful lot of policing !! Everywhere? It’s fundamentally a local issue because cities have thier own unique supply and demand issues. Why should the same solutions and protests be applied to areas where there isn’t a problem?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 10:09:12 GMT
I agree it should be regional I meant everywhere as in not just selected sites. The whole towpath in areas identified to be excessively popular.
It probably would have to be national though or it would simply cause displacement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 10:45:50 GMT
I agree it should be regional I meant everywhere as in not just selected sites. The whole towpath in areas identified to be excessively popular. It probably would have to be national though or it would simply cause displacement. Displacement isn’t a massive issue as those who need to live in and around London won’t be prepared to live too far away from their commitments and social life. If they are pushed out, most will probably sell up to another wishful thinker. I’ve always counted on the fact that very few people actually want to live on a boat, so I doubt the ‘linear housing estate’ argument works over the whole country. If people are worried about overcrowding on honeypot sites, then I think you’ll find most of the boats in the peak seasons are leisure boaters having a holiday. Most liveaboards I know tend to to moor out of their way when they can. What is for sure, more and more marinas are opening up. Maybe the solution would be to turn some ‘slum’ land into affordable marinas for liveaboard boaters who aren’t interested in exploring the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 11:01:00 GMT
Agreed but kris seems to think it would have to be national. Anyway 48 hours is fine for someone exploring the system I did so in the late 90s and early 00s and was moving most days as the idea was to be boating not stopping and moving on the 13th day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 11:18:42 GMT
Agreed but kris seems to think it would have to be national. Anyway 48 hours is fine for someone exploring the system I did so in the late 90s and early 00s and was moving most days as the idea was to be boating not stopping and moving on the 13th day. The problem is that some people won’t be able to afford to put their boat into a marina when they need to be away from the boat for longer periods. What are they going to do? They probably bought the boat in the belief the goal posts wouldn’t get changed. Others, who can afford it, would probably pay to put their boat into a local marina for the period (as we have done). Others would probably sell up (as I might do). All this perhaps because a few boaters took the piss and some critics over reacted and formed an action group? Or because there is a conspiracy against all boaters without a home mooring? I really don’t know the answer
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 11:25:44 GMT
It's all a bit like foxys photo comp. Too many draconian rules for the sake of them, spoils the fun for everybody. One things is for sure, all of these managers from the different organisations are going to have to come up with something to justify their salaries.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 11:29:29 GMT
Agreed but kris seems to think it would have to be national. Anyway 48 hours is fine for someone exploring the system The last sentence makes it obvious you are working for the enemy. As for any "solution" being national im going from experience. The way cart backed down about K&A special liscences they where on about at one stage. They backed away when a legal challenge was mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 20, 2018 12:12:11 GMT
If you are concerned as you claim why not contact your mp as an individual? What reply did u get from your mp, kris?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 12:13:38 GMT
If you are concerned as you claim why not contact your mp as an individual? What reply did u get from your mp, kris? That's confidential foxy
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 20, 2018 12:16:57 GMT
I agree it should be regional I meant everywhere as in not just selected sites. The whole towpath in areas identified to be excessively popular. It probably would have to be national though or it would simply cause displacement. What is for sure, more and more marinas are opening up. Maybe the solution would be to turn some ‘slum’ land into affordable marinas for liveaboard boaters who aren’t interested in exploring the system. Yes. Away you go, then! Pots of money to be made from a captive audience. Nantwich Marina charges £90/week for a 40-footer. Can't lose!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 20, 2018 12:17:36 GMT
What reply did u get from your mp, kris? That's confidential foxy So it wasn't supportive then!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 12:19:16 GMT
So it wasn't supportive then! No he especially told me not to tell foxy anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 20, 2018 12:55:47 GMT
So it wasn't supportive then! No he especially told me not to tell foxy anything about it. That's ok then, just tell the rest of us. We'll keep it secret from the Fox.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 12:58:00 GMT
No he especially told me not to tell foxy anything about it. That's ok then, just tell the rest of us. We'll keep it secret from the Fox. to be honest most MP's have got no idea about the issues until you bring it to their attention.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 20, 2018 13:03:19 GMT
Anyway 48 hours is fine for someone exploring the system That assumes, of course, that 48 hour periods would be envisaged. The approach will necessarily be two-fold: legislation for navigation authorities, and legislation for riparian authorities. These need to be addressed in concert, otherwise legislative conflict would arise. This was illustrated by the situation in Cambridge, where the local District Council wanted byelaws to control moorings along their owned riverbank, which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said would be ultra vires considering that the Conservators of the River Cam authority had the relevant byelaw-making powers – you cannot have 2 authorities exercising the same power over the same issue. Specifically, the ODPM observed that “ section 235(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 states that byelaws cannot be made under that provision if powers to make in that area are granted by any other enactment. Consequently, the existence of byelaw making powers for the Conservators under section 25 of the River Cam Conservancy Act 1922 (even [if] it is unused) prevents the City Council from making byelaws under section 235 of the 1972 Act in respect of mooring on the River Cam.” A classic example is Ipswich Borough Council v Moore & Onor, CA, 2001. There, the Council claimed the right to charge for mooring licences for boats attached to their land, whereas the boaters had mooring licences granted by the Ipswich Port Authority. In that case, the conferred statutory power granted to the Port Authority was sufficient in itself, this over-riding any prior power of the statutory land owner to also charge for a licence. I believe it would be different where the land owner was a natural person – an example possibly being the Dart Harbour Authority powers, which mandate the authority’s consent to lay moorings even on private property, yet I doubt that this could be implemented against the wishes of the private owner (who would nonetheless require the Authority’s consent to lay moorings for himself – quite outrageous, but that is the law). Another side to the problem is the reaction of boroughs hamstrung by this prohibition, whereby they cobble together so-called “contractual” restrictions and charges (as is happening even where obtaining relevant byelaws is open to them). Quite how that could over-ride an exclusive statutory right vesting in another authority is beyond me (even setting aside the dubious legality of the move in the first place). If they are prohibited from gaining Secretary of State approved powers to control and charge for their moorings, how could unilateral civil finaglings operate to do so? However most navigation authorities do not have such powers, so the way is open for most riparian boroughs to get appropriate byelaw powers for themselves. The main potential problem for boaters there, would lie with such boroughs getting byelaws similar to Richmond’s, where the time limit is only an hour, rather than the 48 hours you suggest. A larger problem would arise in cases where they chose NOT to pursue the byelaw route - which is at least open to public consultation - and followed instead, the questionable civil contract route, where conditions are unilaterally imposed. Edit to add: The EA apparently have powers for byelaws to control moorings, but whether that applies to private rights (natural or corporate) I have not checked. Certainly the BW legislation, while it grant powers under certain circumstances to control the installation of mooring apparatus against private land, specifically prohibits them from using that power to prevent the mooring of any vessel which could be legally moored pursuant to private rights (and established mooring practices). So the greatest challenge will not be to boats on CaRT waterways (should they break the habit of a lifetime and decide to act lawfully), but to waterways such as the Thames.
|
|