|
Post by erivers on Nov 20, 2018 14:18:54 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. The byelaw making power conflict was demonstrated most recently at Ely on the EA's Anglian waterways. The local council sought to make new and fairly Draconian byelaws restricting mooring to 24-hours on land owned by them. Their right to do so was challenged as the EA already had byelaw making powers to control mooring on ALL of the river under the Anglian Water Authority Act 1977. The EA had the power to make such byelaws even though they had elected (and continue to elect) to make them only in respect of moorings owned and provided by them. DEFRA not only refused to approve the new proposed council byelaws but made them rescind the existing mooring byelaws on the basis that these had been created unlawfully. The council eventually devised a civil contract 48-hour mooring scheme which, to be fair, appears to be working quite well and acceptable to most boaters. Whilst it is correct that the EA has moorings byelaws on Anglian waterways I don't think there are currently similar moorings byelaws on the Thames and other waterways under their care. On the Thames there is a right under the primary legislation to moor at sites belonging to the EA "at night or for a reasonable time" FREE OF CHARGE unless the traffic of the Thames is thereby impeded (which to my mind renders unlawful some of the current demands being made of Thames boaters, but that's another story).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 14:20:40 GMT
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! Why are you obsessed with making money out of it Foxy. Nothing stopping you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 14:22:44 GMT
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. The byelaw making power conflict was demonstrated most recently at Ely on the EA's Anglian waterways. The local council sought to make new and fairly Draconian byelaws restricting mooring to 24-hours on land owned by them. Their right to do so was challenged as the EA already had byelaw making powers to control mooring on ALL of the river under the Anglian Water Authority Act 1977. The EA had the power to make such byelaws even though they had elected (and continue to elect) to make them only in respect of moorings owned and provided by them. DEFRA not only refused to approve the new proposed council byelaws but made them rescind the existing mooring byelaws on the basis that these had been created unlawfully. The council eventually devised a civil contract 48-hour mooring scheme which, to be fair, appears to be working quite well and acceptable to most boaters. Whilst it is correct that the EA has moorings byelaws on Anglian waterways I don't think there are currently similar moorings byelaws on the Thames and other waterways under their care. On the Thames there is a right under the primary legislation to moor at sites belonging to the EA "at night or for a reasonable time" FREE OF CHARGE unless the traffic of the Thames is thereby impeded (which to my mind renders unlawful some of the current demands being made of Thames boaters, but that's another story). Like Kris says, too many people trying to make up rules.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 20, 2018 14:45:46 GMT
So it wasn't supportive then! I was thinking - there does not seem to be anyone from the National Bargees & Travellers Association on here (Thunderboat). Is Kris a member? Why is there no-one from there on here?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 20, 2018 14:49:55 GMT
Agreed but kris seems to think it would have to be national. Anyway 48 hours is fine for someone exploring the system I disagree. I think one week would be a good minimum. That gives boaters the chance to have a rest, explore the local town/village/shops/tourist attractions/whatever, and also to have a look at the wider area, eg. by catching buses or trains around, or even renting a car locally.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 20, 2018 14:54:23 GMT
It's all a bit like foxys photo comp. Too many draconian rules for the sake of them, spoils the fun for everybody. Without some rules, all Hell breaks out, as we see in London - less Police / Police not allowed to 'Stop & Search' = stabbings all over the shop. Without rules, the photo competition makes little sense, as we see with Jenlyn's version - people posting any old shit. Without rules, piss takers flourish - and the people who have to pay get annoyed at these parasites of Society.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 20, 2018 14:55:48 GMT
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. And even less when you don't!!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 20, 2018 14:57:35 GMT
So it wasn't supportive then! I was thinking - there does not seem to be anyone from the National Bargees & Travellers Association on here (Thunderboat). Is Kris a member? Why is there no-one from there on here? Perhaps because they would be taken to task for being a bunch of travellers who don't want to travel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 15:00:25 GMT
Yes kris I am working for the enemy. How about "No mooring anywhere on the towpath between 9am-4pm" That would partially alleviate the "slow down" brigade and ensure that nobody would be running power generation equipment in the evening. If you need to go to work then you must be earning money so rent a flat or get a mooring ! I'm sure a lot more moorings would turn up if this happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 15:01:52 GMT
So it wasn't supportive then! I was thinking - there does not seem to be anyone from the National Bargees & Travellers Association on here (Thunderboat). Is Kris a member? Why is there no-one from there on here? Because they are probably not daft enough to do dirty washing on here. I’ve been to a demonstration with them, and attended a CRT meeting with their presence, they seem a nice bunch. You have to remember very few people read our crap. even less (about 5% of those who read I reckon) of those actually contribute. This is just a sounding platform which makes us feel important and show off our skills in English. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 15:02:19 GMT
I was thinking - there does not seem to be anyone from the National Bargees & Travellers Association on here (Thunderboat). Is Kris a member? Why is there no-one from there on here? Perhaps because they would be taken to task for being a bunch of travellers who don't want to travel? probably because this is a very niche waterways forum, with what 20 regular contributing members out of how many boat liscences 36-37 thousand. What is your problem with NBTA by the way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 15:04:06 GMT
This is just a sounding platform for bigoted old sweary chip shouldered weirdos. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 20, 2018 15:07:05 GMT
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! Why are you obsessed with making money out of it Foxy. Nothing stopping you. It was you going on about needing more moorings. We're not stopping you! In fact, I have suggested a few times that I wonder why some rich person doesn't have the brains to make a 'super marina / super boat servicing station' where prices are very reasonable because everyone wants to avail themselves of their tidy marina, and services which get done right away, unlike most boatyards where you have to book months in advance. Blacking? Yes, just turn up and there'll be a dry dock available! Welding? Yes, we have a professional (and good!) welder! Electrical problems? Yes, we have a chap who knows it all! A service station where it's "Drive In needing attention, Drive Out all fixed". I'm not interested in slaving away to make a go of something like that, just so some slimey creep like Sadiq Khan can send his bullyboys (the Metropolitan Police) to grab it off me once it's up & running and making a profit. But some Russian oligarch might like the idea of setting up a decent boatyard/service station for boaters - you need a tough manager-owner to keep the competition vultures at bay. Britain is somewhat 'broken' and disfunctional, but I suppose that gives the country some kind of quaint charm. "Mustn't grumble" - lots of mumblings but little action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 15:12:21 GMT
This is just a sounding platform for bigoted old sweary chip shouldered weirdos. ;-) Oi..don’t misquote me...even when it is true...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 15:14:33 GMT
Why are you obsessed with making money out of it Foxy. Nothing stopping you. It was you going on about needing more moorings. We're not stopping you! In fact, I have suggested a few times that I wonder why some rich person doesn't have the brains to make a 'super marina / super boat servicing station' where prices are very reasonable because everyone wants to avail themselves of their tidy marina, and services which get done right away, unlike most boatyards where you have to book months in advance. Blacking? Yes, just turn up and there'll be a dry dock available! Welding? Yes, we have a professional (and good!) welder! Electrical problems? Yes, we have a chap who knows it all! A service station where it's "Drive In needing attention, Drive Out all fixed". I'm not interested in slaving away to make a go of something like that, just so some slimey creep like Sadiq Khan can send his bullyboys (the Metropolitan Police) to grab it off me once it's up & running and making a profit. But some Russian oligarch might like the idea of setting up a decent boatyard/service station for boaters - you need a tough manager-owner to keep the competition vultures at bay. Britain is somewhat 'broken' and disfunctional, but I suppose that gives the country some kind of quaint charm. "Mustn't grumble" - lots of mumblings but little action. I’ve got no money to invest but I’d be very happy to offer up my time. Dodgy back though, so I’m no good with a shovel...
|
|