|
Post by Jim on Nov 20, 2018 15:27:08 GMT
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? That they are a bunch of travellers who don't want to travel, resulting in "terms and conditions" and monitoring of our movements. I recently had a "get a move on" nagmail from cart, although I moved my boat the day after I got back from holiday in Spain I had "overstayed" by 2 days. I received the nagmail a week after that. They sent a link reminding me of the terms and conditions, I replied saying I do stick to the movement rules for boats with a home mooring as laid out in Statute. I also pointed out that I had moved from one general area to another general area, being as imprecise as they were.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 15:41:08 GMT
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? That they are a bunch of travellers who don't want to travel, resulting in "terms and conditions" and monitoring of our movements. I recently had a "get a move on" nagmail from cart, although I moved my boat the day after I got back from holiday in Spain I had "overstayed" by 2 days. I received the nagmail a week after that. They sent a link reminding me of the terms and conditions, I replied saying I do stick to the movement rules for boats with a home mooring as laid out in Statute. I also pointed out that I had moved from one general area to another general area, being as imprecise as they were. so you blame NBTA for the actions of all the piss takers? Plus the draconian illegal actions of the navigation authority? Wow that's alot to lay at the door of one small organisation. I'd like to point out the the illegal use of section 8's started before NBTA was formed. In fact it was formed as a reaction to the illegal actions of the navigation authority. Or maybe it's just the word travelers that your reacting to? As for your nagmail as you call it. Yes carts logging and enforcment system is shit because it isn't accurate enough. But people lose their homes on the basis of the bullshit they come out with. Well that and some dubious legal practices. Anyway what are you doing overstaying? Doesn't that make you one of the piss takers you keep moaning about?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 20, 2018 16:23:10 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. 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. There is a certain vagueness in the Anglian Water Authority Act 1977 regarding byelaws for control of moorings. It may be that the EA are properly circumspect over using that to control private moorings, and that that explains the situation you describe - that they only apply restrictions to land they own. Section 18(1)(g) would allow byelaws “ to regulate the placing, maintenance and use of moorings in a recreational waterway”, which is similar to s.21 of BW’s 1995 Act. Also similar to s.20 of the BW Act is s.18(4) which provides that “ No byelaw made under this section shall render unlawful the doing on private land outside a recreational waterway of any act by, or with the lawful authority of, the owner or occupier which does not injure or endanger any person lawfully using a recreational waterway or enjoying the amenities thereof.” Private meaning any land to which the public have no access. Add to that the combination of s.12(3)(a) whereby “ the Authority may – (a) “place, lay down, maintain and use moorings in the recreational waterways or on the banks thereof on land owned by or leased to the Authority or in which they have a sufficient interest and on any other land with the consent of the owner or lessee of such land;” with s.13 which extended compulsory purchase powers to “enable the Authority to acquire such land only as they may require for placing and laying down moorings on any bank of a recreational waterway . . .” and a picture emerges wherein moorings control is properly understood to apply only to land in which they have an appropriate interest. Just preliminary musings . . . the Act could still be construed so as to put a block on other statutory land owners such as boroughs coming up with parallel byelaws, because their land would necessarily NOT be private, but for public access.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 20, 2018 16:47:39 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. I don't think there are currently similar moorings byelaws on the Thames and other waterways under their care. The TC Act 1932 very specifically ensures that their powers to create regulations and byelaws restricting mooring rights and for “ the prevention of annoyance to any occupier of a riparian residence by reason of the loitering or delay of any houseboat or launch . . ." is subject to the provision " that nothing in this section or in any byelaw made thereunder shall be construed to deprive any riparian owner of any legal rights in the soil or bed of the Thames which he may now possess or of any legal remedies which he may now possess for the prevention of anchoring mooring loitering or delay of any vessel . . .”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 16:56:32 GMT
There used to be a sign behind St Mary's island on the Thames near Reading which said "no loitering". It was an old TC sign where the lettering was made of wood (carved or maybe machined individual letters) and pinned onto the wooden board backing. all mounted on a wooden pile. I don't know if its still there as have not checked but I guess it was from the days when a gent would take his lady out in the punt and find a quiet spot for a glass of wine and a spot of necking.
I wonder if a TC bigwig lived near there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 16:58:27 GMT
NigelMoore I'm getting nervous now you are using the word "act" more often. Do you think this DEFRA group is going to result in a new act of parliament?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 20, 2018 17:01:28 GMT
Alistair runs a very flexible business model that allows the impecunious a chance to earn their own board and pocket money, by way of acting as managers/maintenance staff for his accommodation barges, wherein rooms are rented to those who would rather just pay the (relatively) low rents for minimalist accommodation. The experience is also touted as a learning one, in alternative lifestyles; in some respects it is similar to the old moshavim and kibbutzim models. I still think its interesting that nobody has copied his obviously successful business model. It’s a colourful but parlous and stressful enterprise; it is not so surprising that others have not taken up the same business model. This was an article published some 4 years ago, which presents one inhabitant’s views of his own shortish experience as a tenant – www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/london-houseboat-slum-rents-barge A lot of improvement has been made since then, but I have to say that if I had been presented with such a choice in similar circumstances, I would not have been so scathing. When I once worked in central London as a low-paid industrial temp wanting to save money for overseas travel, I slept under the streets nearby the agency, and though it was the severest London winter I have experienced, was perfectly happy doing so. These barges would have an unaffordable luxury for me. Currently though, the owner is facing pending criminal action for mooring in lock cuts and allegedly not obeying Harbour Master directions to move. He attended a PACE meeting with the EA the other day, during which the EA served notices on his barges, knowing he would not be there, so that on his return that evening he was assaulted by a tenant raging at being classed a criminal (by association I presume). Not everybody’s cup of tea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 17:06:19 GMT
Nor mine. I guess a few people will be having a sip of champagne once word gets out that Alistair has left on the Eurostar. Maybe this will be the last winter. I just wondering if he has managed to transfer ownership of the boats to some of the volunteers yet I can see it. Relaxing over a beer "look fella, I need to go and look after my mother in joburg she's got cancer - do you want to have the boats?" "Oh yes please thanks old chap". Paperwork transfer then bye bye.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 17:12:54 GMT
Nor mine. I guess a few people will be having a sip of champagne once word gets out that Alistair has left on the Eurostar. Maybe this will be the last winter. I just wondering if he has managed to transfer ownership of the boats to some of the volunteers yet I can see it. Relaxing over a beer "look fella, I need to go and look after my mother in joburg she's got cancer - do you want to have the boats?" "Oh yes please thanks old chap". Paperwork transfer then bye bye. you've got a devious mind. Maybe you should offer to "buy"them.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 17:13:51 GMT
I still think its interesting that nobody has copied his obviously successful business model. It’s a colourful but parlous and stressful enterprise; it is not so surprising that others have not taken up the same business model. This was an article published some 4 years ago, which presents one inhabitant’s views of his own shortish experience as a tenant – www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/london-houseboat-slum-rents-barge A lot of improvement has been made since then, but I have to say that if I had been presented with such a choice in similar circumstances, I would not have been so scathing. When I once worked in central London as a low-paid industrial temp wanting to save money for overseas travel, I slept under the streets nearby the agency, and though it was the severest London winter I have experienced, was perfectly happy doing so. These barges would have an unaffordable luxury for me. Currently though, the owner is facing pending criminal action for mooring in lock cuts and allegedly not obeying Harbour Master directions to move. He attended a PACE meeting with the EA the other day, during which the EA served notices on his barges, knowing he would not be there, so that on his return that evening he was assaulted by a tenant raging at being classed a criminal (by association I presume). Not everybody’s cup of tea. it does sound like he's made some descisions that have caused stress in his life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 17:17:53 GMT
The only outcome for the boats is going to be disposal and expensive it will be.
From what I can work out by looking there is a Thames lighter, a regents canal barge , a dutch ex commercial (not a "dutch barge" in the normal sense) and not sure what the 4th one is.
All of them shanty boats. Nobody will buy them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 17:19:50 GMT
it does sound like he's made some descisions that have caused lots of cash to fall in his hands.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 20, 2018 17:21:43 GMT
I'm not sure do you think he has made lots of money? If he has he had better of hid it well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 17:26:36 GMT
There has definitely been a lot of money. 10 years. 3 or 4 boats say 5 cabins £200 a month. That is enormously cheap so could be more. Yes there is demand. So £30k+ a year probably rather more. I'd put a conservative estimate of half a million GBP profit. Obviously that's not amazing but a lot of people go to work for less than £30k a year.
And all cash.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 20, 2018 17:30:20 GMT
NigelMoore I'm getting nervous now you are using the word "act" more often. Do you think this DEFRA group is going to result in a new act of parliament? Realistically, no. I suspect that if the group DID do anything but enjoy social get-togethers, it would make recommendations either for byelaw provisions where possible, or for 'civil contracts'. There is - currently at least - too much government concern over housing and rights of the indigent for them to approve by Parliamentary dictat the expulsion of those perceived (by a small sector) to be social undesirables in untidy habitations. Then too, any Act unifying the disparate navigation authorities would be too major a task.
|
|