Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 13:31:30 GMT
Not yet I'm just making suggestions in case they read the thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 13:33:07 GMT
Local authority management of towpaths including towpath moorings.
If drastic action is taken then it going to have an awfully strange effect on the second hand boat market !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 13:33:50 GMT
I think it would be virtually impossible to "sort the problem" the only way it could be done is as Nigel hinted putting in very restrictive mooring time limits and on the cut that would need new legislation. Mind you if the person who started it all ends up being a young and virile (giggle) prime minister who knows what happens he might make it into a little personal agenda. Why legislate? The signs seem to act as a pretty good deterrent everywhere else in the country. So much so, that occasional boaters are getting fed up with threats of £25 fines etc. If you have a problem in your back yard, then by all means, try to sort it, but don’t drag the rest of us into it. You decided to live in London!
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 17, 2018 13:33:51 GMT
Not yet I'm just making suggestions in case they read the thread I thought so.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 17, 2018 13:34:16 GMT
From Wikipedia: "As of March 2016, the boat has been moored illegally alongside Hurst Park for at least nine months. The boat is moored at a free 24-hour mooring site, but stayed for longer than 24 hours - in early September 2015, the barge was given a "notice of trespass" by the Environment Agency, and given 14 days to leave. It did not do so, and a result, in November 2015 the Environment Agency (EA) announced it would be imposing fines for overstays in free 24-hour mooring sites. The EA also said that it would be beginning civil proceedings against the owner through the local County Court for trespass."
I cannot help thinking why the boat was moored illegally? Were there no legal spots at which to park and get on with the 'business'?
"neighbours in nearby Sadler's Ride referred to the boat as a "slumboat", and complained about a rise in human and canine excrement alongside the boat." - Is this true (latter part)? -And, yes, people don't want to see the value of their houses lowering when the area they reside in becomes to look untidy.
What is the answer in such a situation? Personally, I would accept this kind of thing, a mooring should be found where they can continue their (presumably legal and decent?) activities - but then, what about proliferating, when everybody and their cat wants to run such a 'scheme'? Slum boats everywhere and unscrupulous landlords raking it in and buggering off when the boat catches fire (and then a dozen illegal immigrants claiming they used to live on that boat and demanding compensation from the local borough?). I mean, what's good for one is good for others, right?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 17, 2018 13:35:03 GMT
Local authority management of towpaths including towpath moorings. If drastic action is taken then it going to have an awfully strange effect on the second hand boat market ! Exactly, so this will effect every boater directly or indirectly in the resale value of their boats.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 17, 2018 13:35:10 GMT
Residential moorings are subject to council tax. So, in some situations, are non-residential moorings (and even, as illustrated in a case some years ago, some cc'ing boats). There is a huge degree of flexibility in various Councils’ approach – even within the same Council. For all the time I was in the Ridgeways boatyard in Brentford, Hounslow refused applications to go on the register from boaters claiming to live there despite the council prohibition on that (no action was taken for change of use). Ditto with those alongside Waterman’s park, several of whom wanted desperately to go on the electoral roll and pay CT as a means of legitimising their position (a probable reason for the council refusal, given their aspirations for developing the site). On the other hand, boaters who successfully applied for benefits, saw the boat they were living on added to the roll and subjected to CT; the question of planning consent was disregarded. A few years ago, one of the nearby boats on the Marvin Architectural moorings successfully applied for retrospective planning consent for residential use based on many years of paying CT. Others on BW/CaRT non-residential moorings have also paid CT for many years. So far as I can see, if accepting CT added to the coffers in circumstances where that would not raise potential blocks to profitable re-development, the Council were happy to go that route.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 17, 2018 13:35:51 GMT
I think this defra group means the blind eye is about to see. Which is a bit 'rich' considering they are preventing those from inquiring from seeing what they're up to!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 17, 2018 13:38:43 GMT
I think it would be virtually impossible to "sort the problem" the only way it could be done is as Nigel hinted putting in very restrictive mooring time limits and on the cut that would need new legislation. Mind you if the person who started it all ends up being a young and virile (giggle) prime minister who knows what happens he might make it into a little personal agenda. If you have a problem in your back yard.... ...unbolt the sign and chuck it in a skip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 13:41:18 GMT
I think it would be virtually impossible to "sort the problem" the only way it could be done is as Nigel hinted putting in very restrictive mooring time limits and on the cut that would need new legislation. Mind you if the person who started it all ends up being a young and virile (giggle) prime minister who knows what happens he might make it into a little personal agenda. Why legislate? The signs seem to act as a pretty good deterrent everywhere else in the country. So much so, that occasional boaters are getting fed up with threats of £25 fines etc. If you have a problem in your back yard, then by all means, try to sort it, but don’t drag the rest of us into it. You decided to live in London! I don't have any problem with anything in fact I have saved quite a lot of mooring fees for my cc boat so I'd be happier if the status quo carried on. And I intend to live off grid on a boat in future so I do not wish to see changes. However I believe that the loud mouthed "we have rights" brigade are going to fuck it up. I've only got a residential mooring because I have small kids who need schooling. If that was not the case I would never pay for a mooring
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 13:42:41 GMT
Local authority management of towpaths including towpath moorings. If drastic action is taken then it going to have an awfully strange effect on the second hand boat market ! Just sounds like you’re stirring and gloating again. I’m alright Jack, I have money and can afford to moor my boats in London...lol The fact is that some boaters can’t afford to pay for a mooring. What do you suggest? Sell their boat for bugger all and do what exactly? Where are you going to put them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 13:44:47 GMT
Residential moorings are subject to council tax. So, in some situations, are non-residential moorings (and even, as illustrated in a case some years ago, some cc'ing boats). There is a huge degree of flexibility in various Councils’ approach – even within the same Council. For all the time I was in the Ridgeways boatyard in Brentford, Hounslow refused applications to go on the register from boaters claiming to live there despite the council prohibition on that (no action was taken for change of use). Ditto with those alongside Waterman’s park, several of whom wanted desperately to go on the electoral roll and pay CT as a means of legitimising their position (a probable reason for the council refusal, given their aspirations for developing the site). On the other hand, boaters who successfully applied for benefits, saw the boat they were living on added to the roll and subjected to CT; the question of planning consent was disregarded. A few years ago, one of the nearby boats on the Marvin Architectural moorings successfully applied for retrospective planning consent for residential use based on many years of paying CT. Others on BW/CaRT non-residential moorings have also paid CT for many years. So far as I can see, if accepting CT added to the coffers in circumstances where that would not raise potential blocks to profitable re-development, the Council were happy to go that route. My cousin lives on a barge on a leisure mooring on the southern GU. Towpath. She told me that CRT wanted to convert some of the moorings to residential with services. I lived there for a few years in the mid 00s and always said "why don't they make these residential with leccy and water?". Council says NO. But... the council pays Housing Benefit for someone to moor there which means he can push the price up on the auction because the local authority is paying. Stupid situation which is partly why I think local authorities should be in charge of towpath moorings. Who knows - they might even find the revenue from some more residential moorings and the lack of generator running could be a benefit to the local community.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 17, 2018 13:47:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 17, 2018 13:54:40 GMT
I'm sure that they are really upset at losing your support.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 17, 2018 13:54:49 GMT
Having seen lots and lots of new 'swish' 'apartments' (flats) being built beside canals, I think this is a sinister danger to boating as we know it. The folk who move who into these digs don't seem to like boats or boaters and there appear signs saying 'Do Not Moor Here'. Market Drayton on the Shropshire Union Canal provides an example of this. Flats with their own boats moored down below with a sign on the opposite bank asking you not to moor there as the boats can't get out otherwise - well, who gave you the right to construct new permanent jetties below your flats? Selfish arseholes!
|
|