|
Post by kris on Nov 18, 2018 11:13:39 GMT
Well what are you on about? Because from here it just looks like your defaming an organisation that has been very effective in holding the navigation authority open to question. Has represented it's members concerns and interests to the relevant authorities. So what is it your on about? Because it just seems your smug because you don't think the actions of this group will effect you because of your interpretation of the legislation. Or maybe it's because you feel superior because you don't have a scruffy boat? It really isn't that clear what your saying other than its not my fault, it's everyone else? You are way off he mark Kris and your accusations aren’t helping. If you read my posts properly it’s clear what I’m getting at. Maybe my reply to Patty above may clarify my concerns better. they are not accusations they are questions? To be honest after all the rubbish you spouted about the legislation as if it was gospel I don't really want to read your continuing defamation of a very effective organisation thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 11:27:04 GMT
You are way off he mark Kris and your accusations aren’t helping. If you read my posts properly it’s clear what I’m getting at. Maybe my reply to Patty above may clarify my concerns better. they are not accusations they are questions? To be honest after all the rubbish you spouted about the legislation as if it was gospel I don't really want to read your continuing defamation of a very effective organisation thanks. I’m just trying to get to the bottom of the truth behind this new threat mentioned in your OP Kris. As everyone keeps saying it’s a discussion forum, if you start a thread up then you need to be prepared for a discussion and read the replies properly. Maybe Nigel will come back to me at some point but for now I’ll shut up. :-)
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 18, 2018 14:23:26 GMT
Maybe they'll take the easy route and just extract all the water from canals and build cycleways and housing on the land. And make up a little narrow canal 9ft wide. that should help reduce on line mooring issues. What you are - doubtless inadvertently – doing with such throw-away hyperbole, is encouraging those who have not properly read the initial posts and previous comments, to believe that the first target is CaRT-centric, particularly concerning ‘honeypot sites’. The primary, initial source of concern for the group is dealing with the current perceived problems on the upper, non-tidal Thames; nothing to do with the canals, let alone with London. While that is the primary motivator of course, as also noted previously the group is to address the same type of problem nationwide, notably including even the Broads. It is not online mooring issues per se that is the problem as identified by the group, it is the issue of controlling use of private and municipal owned riparian property, so that visitor moorings are always available, to the benefit of many, rather than be taken over as (in the words of the BRN) “an extension of developable land ” (Policy 7.27) for the benefit of a few.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 18, 2018 15:18:55 GMT
I believe that the important thing to stress in asking for transparency and oversight of this group, is that controlling mooring sites owned by authorities must first of all be accomplished through legitimate, legal methods, and secondly that in exercising existing (and/or in acquiring new) powers of control, the importance of providing for various types of mooring - both temporary for visitors and quasi-permanent for some live-aboards - should seen as the legitimate and primary aim, rather than the primary aim being draconian control for its own sake, and for pecuniary and punitive purposes.
A stop needs to be put to the ‘contractual law’ and ‘trespass under common law’ nonsense, and to the dubious reliance on the Localism Act 2011 (an insidious and tortured conferring of power on local authorities to act as private persons may). All of such processes have been employed by councils and the EA in dealing with Alistair (and not forgetting similar actions by the MLC, Cambridge Council, & CaRT, et al.)
As to the legitimate method of obtaining appropriate byelaws, adequate highlighting of the drastic shortcomings of the reactionary Richmond example must be prepared, because that demonstrates how they can act even against their own, and their public’s, interests.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 18, 2018 20:50:36 GMT
To clarify exactly the genesis of the group, it is only necessary to read the documents linked to in the opening post by Kris.
The invitation from DEFRA to the various authorities already mentioned, was given the subject: “Multi-Agency meeting on residential houseboats” and was couched in these terms :-
“This meeting has been instigated by a letter sent by our Secretary of State, Michael Gove, in response to letters from MPs raising concerns around illegally moored houseboats.”
The instigating letter from Mr Gove to Dominic Raab MP had said :-
“Thank you for your letter of 22 August on behalf of your constituent [redacted] and the Friends of Hurst Park about the situation of ‘slum boats’ and sunken craft on our waterways . . . I understand from the EA that this particular matter with slum boats is on the increase as people move to live on the waterways as a cheaper alternative to housing. The government is supportive of local level discussions to take place between the key parties affected to work together and find an appropriate solution. My officials will liaise directly with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the EA to find the appropriate contacts for these discussions to begin.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 20:59:28 GMT
Maybe the solution being sought is a solution to the problem of increasing numbers rather than the existing boats. I suppose some people might think that bearing in mind the increasing problem of slum boats - and the situation has indeed changed considerably over the last 20 years - a solution needs to be found as soon as possible to avoid the predictable "snowball effect".
I often think that a lot of policies are based on trying to alter future behaviour rather than specifically dealing with the current situation. If you could do something to stop the number of slum boats doubling in the next ten years that might be worthwhile as natural wasteage will probably take care of the others over time anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 21:14:31 GMT
Maybe the solution being sought is a solution to the problem of increasing numbers rather than the existing boats. I suppose some people might think that bearing in mind the increasing problem of slum boats - and the situation has indeed changed considerably over the last 20 years - a solution needs to be found as soon as possible to avoid the predictable "snowball effect". I often think that a lot of policies are based on trying to alter future behaviour rather than specifically dealing with the current situation. If you could do something to stop the number of slum boats doubling in the next ten years that might be worthwhile as natural wasteage will probably take care of the others over time anyway.
Link doesn't seem to work so a couple of photos;
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 21:36:14 GMT
Oh. Cowley.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 21:58:52 GMT
To clarify exactly the genesis of the group, it is only necessary to read the documents linked to in the opening post by Kris. The invitation from DEFRA to the various authorities already mentioned, was given the subject: “ Multi-Agency meeting on residential houseboats” and was couched in these terms :- “ This meeting has been instigated by a letter sent by our Secretary of State, Michael Gove, in response to letters from MPs raising concerns around illegally moored houseboats.” The instigating letter from Mr Gove to Dominic Raab MP had said :- “ Thank you for your letter of 22 August on behalf of your constituent [redacted] and the Friends of Hurst Park about the situation of ‘slum boats’ and sunken craft on our waterways . . . I understand from the EA that this particular matter with slum boats is on the increase as people move to live on the waterways as a cheaper alternative to housing. The government is supportive of local level discussions to take place between the key parties affected to work together and find an appropriate solution. My officials will liaise directly with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the EA to find the appropriate contacts for these discussions to begin.” Can you confirm whether these houseboats are actually moored illegally?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 22:10:46 GMT
Benbow moorings to be precise, named after the Benbow family who used to run Rabb's mill on the Frays (unless I'm mistaken) - escorted a descendant of theirs home after he fell into the canal during his 18th birthday party if I remember correctly...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2018 6:20:10 GMT
Why call them slum boats? Have you seen the boats being referred to? I'm a fan of houseboats and would be happy to see more of them. Why don't you like them? These are not houseboats they are slum boats as I said earlier if the boats were relatively "together" and did not resemble a shanty town I think it would be a different story. You really do have to see the barges in person to understand the topic. Maybe when you get down south have a little cruise up the thames and you will begin to understand why people call them slum barges. . (Image lifted from local paper "get Surrey". There are 4 of these things in various different locations. Yes they have license and bss but as we know bs stands for bullshit its easy to get a dodgy bs because the bs examination scheme is not verified. People have always had houseboats on the Thames. Its not something which causes large numbers of locals to moan to their MPs about. This is another story entirely and has caused people to moan to their MP and this has prompted something which could be very bad for anyone interested in living on boats. It was bound to happen. It just takes one or two pushing it to screw it for everyone else. Obviously there will be a degree of envy about the fabulous amounts of cash involved over the years as well. And the fact the vessels will eventually be abandoned and the EA will have to dispose of it all with a zero probability of being able to bill the owner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2018 6:44:48 GMT
The term "slum boats" can also be used to describe the situation which developed near Molesey over the last ten years in which there was a reach of the river with about ten sunken vessels and a dozen non sunk but partly abandoned vessels and several vessels being lived on. All under some willows not on a moorable or safe riverbank. Mentioned on this .gov web page www.gov.uk/government/news/environment-agency-to-remove-wrecks-from-river-thames-at-west-moleseyEta and the EA harbourmaster announcement after the event --- From EA Harbourmaster Facebook Page: Our officers returned to Cherry Orchard Gardens in #westmolesey last week, following up on the notices we served the previous week, ordering owners of wrecks and boats moored to our land without our consent to remove them. We destroyed and removed 8 wrecks and will now look to recover the cost of carrying out this operation from the boat owners, thereby protecting the income we receive from boats registration charges and government for other aspects of the navigation service we provide. We also towed away a further 12 boats. These are being held by us at a secure location for collection by their owners, but we will not release them unless the boats are properly registered with us (which requires them to have passed a Boat Safety Scheme examination and be insured) and have a bona fide mooring to go to, or are taken out of the river. We will also be invoicing the owners for our cost of the removal operation. In addition, we checked a further 75 boats in the Molesey to Sunbury area. Of these, 16 were not registered and are now subject to enforcement action which could result in prosecution; 16 more were issued with 'Directions to Move' notices as they are moored to our land without our consent. This makes it a legal requirement for them to remove their boat or face further enforcement action. We also served 'wreck' notices on 2 more sunken boats, giving the owners notice that if they do not remove them within a reasonable period of time, we will do so ourselves and recover our costs from them. The 75 boat registration checks carried out brings the total carried out across the river since the start of October to 1088, of which 111 have resulted in enforcement notices being served. This is in addition to the checks carried out as part of routine patrols and specific operations since the early part of the year and equates to a further £55,000 of boat registration income which will now be collected and reinvested in theriver. Last week's operation was carried out with the support of Surrey Police and Elmbridge Borough Council, for which we are grateful." --- The ea did go in and had a clear out. This included removing floating vessels whose owners had not responded to removal notices. I know someone who's boat (a fairly valuable 70x9ft widebeam) was towed away but he had dumped it and was not visiting regularly so did not see the notice. He has been taking the piss in that general area for ages so had it coming really. What is interesting here is that the EA will not release the boats until they have BS and license AND, INTERESTINGLY, a verified mooring. Alternatively they must be removed from EA water. It might not be in the CRT license that you need a mooring but it is in the Thames license conditions as I understand it ( NigelMoore could probably tell me I'm wrong ) So its quite interesting. Things are happening.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 19, 2018 8:46:22 GMT
I'd just like to add at this point. That a high percentage of the worlds population live in what could be termed sluns.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 19, 2018 8:46:32 GMT
What is interesting here is that the EA will not release the boats until they have BS and license AND, INTERESTINGLY, a verified mooring. Alternatively they must be removed from EA water. It might not be in the CRT license that you need a mooring but it is in the Thames license conditions as I understand it ( NigelMoore could probably tell me I'm wrong ) I probably could. So could the EA themselves were they to be frank over the issue, but as with other authorities they tend to overstate the boundaries of their legitimate powers when faced with what they see as desperate situations. In short there simply is no requirement for registration of any boat under the Thames scheme for it to have a mooring. The closest the relevant legislation comes to that is a requirement for presentation to the Agency of “ such additional information as the Agency may require respecting the characteristic and location of the vessel”.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2018 8:51:33 GMT
The term "slum boats" can also be used to describe the situation which developed near Molesey over the last ten years in which there was a reach of the river with about ten sunken vessels and a dozen non sunk but partly abandoned vessels and several vessels being lived on. All under some willows not on a moorable or safe riverbank. Mentioned on this .gov web page www.gov.uk/government/news/environment-agency-to-remove-wrecks-from-river-thames-at-west-moleseyEta and the EA harbourmaster announcement after the event --- From EA Harbourmaster Facebook Page: Our officers returned to Cherry Orchard Gardens in #westmolesey last week, following up on the notices we served the previous week, ordering owners of wrecks and boats moored to our land without our consent to remove them. We destroyed and removed 8 wrecks and will now look to recover the cost of carrying out this operation from the boat owners, thereby protecting the income we receive from boats registration charges and government for other aspects of the navigation service we provide. We also towed away a further 12 boats. These are being held by us at a secure location for collection by their owners, but we will not release them unless the boats are properly registered with us (which requires them to have passed a Boat Safety Scheme examination and be insured) and have a bona fide mooring to go to, or are taken out of the river. We will also be invoicing the owners for our cost of the removal operation. In addition, we checked a further 75 boats in the Molesey to Sunbury area. Of these, 16 were not registered and are now subject to enforcement action which could result in prosecution; 16 more were issued with 'Directions to Move' notices as they are moored to our land without our consent. This makes it a legal requirement for them to remove their boat or face further enforcement action. We also served 'wreck' notices on 2 more sunken boats, giving the owners notice that if they do not remove them within a reasonable period of time, we will do so ourselves and recover our costs from them. The 75 boat registration checks carried out brings the total carried out across the river since the start of October to 1088, of which 111 have resulted in enforcement notices being served. This is in addition to the checks carried out as part of routine patrols and specific operations since the early part of the year and equates to a further £55,000 of boat registration income which will now be collected and reinvested in theriver. Last week's operation was carried out with the support of Surrey Police and Elmbridge Borough Council, for which we are grateful." --- The ea did go in and had a clear out. This included removing floating vessels whose owners had not responded to removal notices. I know someone who's boat (a fairly valuable 70x9ft widebeam) was towed away but he had dumped it and was not visiting regularly so did not see the notice. He has been taking the piss in that general area for ages so had it coming really. What is interesting here is that the EA will not release the boats until they have BS and license AND, INTERESTINGLY, a verified mooring. Alternatively they must be removed from EA water. It might not be in the CRT license that you need a mooring but it is in the Thames license conditions as I understand it ( NigelMoore could probably tell me I'm wrong ) So its quite interesting. Things are happening. On one hand it’s wrong for people to lose their home this way, especially if they haven’t been given time to deal with the situation legally. On the other hand, if they knew they were moored illegally then surely they knew the risk they were taking. The thing is we are talking about people we know nothing about. We don’t know their motives or whether they were their sole residence. What worries me is that when boaters do take the risk of acting illegally or deliberately sail very close to the wind, they need to understand that it has a detrimental effect on all boaters That logic goes for any situation, not just for boaters Things aren’t helped when the authorities are influenced by ‘other powers’ like in the case of the OP situation. However if , and I say IF again, boaters take the piss, it gives them the excuse.
|
|