|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 14, 2017 21:34:11 GMT
A "private winding hole" is a description which intrigues me. Is it an old wharf with a lay by and turning area? I've heard that there is an interesting legal situation regarding mooring rights on old wharves but I don't know the full details. Someone (nigelmoore?) will Would be good to find out then everyone can immediately rush to the nearest old wharf It's an old wharf, yes. All stone-edged, standard winding hole triangular shape, but allegedly private. There's no EOG element in my mooring charges, so I'm assuming I don't need a licence if I stay put when older and infirm. You do need a licence. The wharf may be private - and if you keep the boat on the wharf you won’t need a licence. But if you keep the boat adjacent to the wharf, in the water, then you do. You will just have to avoid becoming and old and infirm codger. ... Oh!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 14, 2017 21:46:29 GMT
The right to moor is an entirely separate matter from the right to 'use and keep' a vessel on a waterway. Any boat kept and/or used on an artificial, C&RT controlled waterway, ie. a canal, must be licensed. Mooring to any land, whether to elsewhere other than the towpath on a canal or to private land on a C&RT controlled river waterway is subject to the permission/consent of only the landowner. OK so are you saying that someone keeping a boat moored against private land on a natural waterway controlled by CRT (Lee navigation for example) would not need a "cruising license" or permission to moor from anyone other than the land owner? Of course this would mean that the boat would not need a bs certificate either. I guess the local authority would have some say if a residential settlement appeared. Yes, other than the fact that there's no such thing as a 'cruising licence', that's precisely what I'm saying. Whatever they choose to call them, C&RT can only issue either a Pleasure Boat Licence (PBL) for keeping and using a boat on canals (no public right of navigation since the PRN was extinguished under the 1968 Transport Act), or a Pleasure Boat Certificate (PBC) for keeping and using a boat within the main navigable channel (MNC) of any one of the PRN river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act, on which the PRN was unaffected under the 1968 Act.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 14, 2017 22:26:45 GMT
Tony’s comments are spot on. However, answering the immediately pertinent question as to whether a licence is required if moored on private water [which is what a lay-by or ‘winding hole’ has created], rather than mooring to a private wharf merely alongside the canal, then you would not need one – CaRT could not legally demand that, any more than they could deny a riparian owner the right to create such a facility on private land in the first place.
They would, of course, and I am in such a current disgust with the Courts at the moment, that I would expect them to support CaRT come what may – even if the judges DID recognise the legal realities.
Apropos, the judgment in BW v Yardley Gobion marina recognised the rights of riparian owners to create such private waterspace under the relevant Acts [it only denied that the right extended to constructing full-scale marinas]. Understandably, however, BW/CaRT refuse to disclose the judgment [they claim not to even know about it].
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 14, 2017 22:33:59 GMT
Tony’s comments are spot on. However, answering the immediately pertinent question as to whether a licence is required if moored on private water [which is what a lay-by or ‘winding hole’ has created], rather than mooring to a private wharf merely alongside the canal, then you would not need one – CaRT could not legally demand that, any more than they could deny a riparian owner the right to create such a facility on private land in the first place. They would, of course, and I am in such a current disgust with the Courts at the moment, that I would expect them to support CaRT come what may – even if the judges DID recognise the legal realities. Apropos, the judgment in BW v Yardley Gobion marina recognised the rights of riparian owners to create such private waterspace under the relevant Acts [it only denied that the right extended to constructing full-scale marinas]. Understandably, however, BW/CaRT refuse to disclose the judgment [they claim not to even know about it]. Just on a point of order, is there any such thing as a “riparian owner” on an entirely artificial waterway such as the Shroppie where the OP has his mooring?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 14, 2017 22:49:03 GMT
This 'end of garden' licence subject keeps going round and round, and it is about time someone wrote a sensible guide to it all. I get confused. I have read that 'end of garden' licences are a fanciful concoction by CRT to rip boaters off, yet I hear landowners asking "Have you got an end of garden licence, as required by CRT?". There are threads and threads about this subject - and of course, very few wish to challenge CRT even if they are technically wrong as they may end up in the Courts being pissed on by judges who know nothing of the subject, and getting a good kicking in the goolies by CRT's lawyers. I have posted enough on this subject in CWDF, and am not only going to refrain from entering into lengthy analysis again just now, I am going to take time off from dealing with anymore legal stuff for a month or so of beachcombing life in sunnier climes - but if a landowner requires you to have CaRT consent to moor to his land, then the legal position is that you must, because he can set whatever conditions he likes for you to moor to his land, regardless of any limitations placed on CaRT by the relevant legislation. Only if you are the riparian landowner, could you mount any challenge to demands for EoG fees. That little distinction escapes many people. Boaters moored to private bankside on the Brent have been enjoying boat licence-free moorings for some years now, but have recently got all silly displaying their ignorance in raising scornful objections to the landowner's proposals to set up new mooring terms and conditions, grandly informing the owner that no boat licence is required here, so that ought not to be made [as is proposed] a condition within the mooring agreement. The raw fact is, that once the landowner implements the new mooring agreements, all boats using them will have to obtain boat licences - even though that will be only by reason of the landowner's wishes, and even though CaRT could never demand or enforce that.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 14, 2017 22:58:53 GMT
This 'end of garden' licence subject keeps going round and round, and it is about time someone wrote a sensible guide to it all. I get confused. I have read that 'end of garden' licences are a fanciful concoction by CRT to rip boaters off, yet I hear landowners asking "Have you got an end of garden licence, as required by CRT?". There are threads and threads about this subject - and of course, very few wish to challenge CRT even if they are technically wrong as they may end up in the Courts being pissed on by judges who know nothing of the subject, and getting a good kicking in the goolies by CRT's lawyers. Here's a sensible guide to it all, Foxy, and it's very brief and simple because that's all it needs be. BW/C&RT justify the EoG charge by presenting it as a fee paid in return for the exclusive use of "waterspace" directly above the bed of the canal equal to the area of water occupied by the boat in question, . . . which is, of course, precisely the same charge that the boat owner has already paid as a licence fee. Unless the owner has a boat that is capable of being in two different locations at one and the same time, then they are being charged for the same thing twice.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 14, 2017 23:04:07 GMT
Just on a point of order, is there any such thing as a “riparian owner” on an entirely artificial waterway such as the Shroppie where the OP has his mooring? Of course there is. 'Riparian' simply refers to the bank, and virtually all artificial canals are fronted by private bankside land opposite the towpaths. There IS a distinction, though, between riparian owner rights on artificial canals as distinct from riparian owners on rivers; non-tidal riverine riparian owners are presumed to own to the centre of the river, and enjoy common law rights of use of the water flowing over their property. That does not apply to the canals, where the rights are granted by the terms of the statutes enabling the canal's construction, and where the canal company owned the bed. Such enabling Acts almost invariably conferred rights on riparian owners to create places for boats to lie [whether simple wharves, indented lay-byes or basins], and to turn around in [winding holes], etc, etc. Rights to use of the water within the canal [naturally including rights to moor boats] are not enjoyed as of right under common law, but under granted right. Originally, any right to keep or use boats on the main canal was included also, usually expressly so concerning riparian owners, but both private AND public rights of navigation were abolished in 1968, so the freedom to keep boats is now confined only to boats on private waters carved out from the owner's own property; as has been said earlier, if you moor on the canal alongside a private wharf on the banks of the canal, a PBL is now a requisite.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 14, 2017 23:12:39 GMT
BW/C&RT justify the EoG charge by presenting it as a fee paid in return for the exclusive use of "waterspace" directly above the bed of the canal equal to the area of water occupied by the boat in question, . . . which is, of course, precisely the same charge that the boat owner has already paid as a licence fee. Unless the owner has a boat that is capable of being in two different locations at one and the same time, then they are being charged for the same thing twice. Absolutely correct – but as CaRT would hasten to inform you, several County Court judgments have upheld their rights to demand EoG fees, albeit for varying, different reasons, and albeit based on false representation of the legal background [gosh, no new thing under the sun]. None of them binding judgments of course, so it remains challengeable as yet. Most riparian owners would not wish the hassle of course, so as I have said – if the owner is not you, you have no leg to stand on for disputing the charge, if the owner makes that part of his charges, or requires that you settle with CaRT over it.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 14, 2017 23:17:04 GMT
“Riparian” is defined as “relating to or situated on the banks of a river or stream”. At what point did it become applicable to an artificial non-flowing waterway?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 14, 2017 23:21:07 GMT
BW/C&RT justify the EoG charge by presenting it as a fee paid in return for the exclusive use of "waterspace" directly above the bed of the canal equal to the area of water occupied by the boat in question, . . . which is, of course, precisely the same charge that the boat owner has already paid as a licence fee. Unless the owner has a boat that is capable of being in two different locations at one and the same time, then they are being charged for the same thing twice. Most riparian owners would not wish the hassle of course, so as I have said – if the owner is not you, you have no leg to stand on for disputing the charge, if the owner makes that part of his charges, or requires that you settle with CaRT over it. True, but the more astute and less gullible ones would see excluding the EoG charge from their mooring fees as a useful means of either undercutting the competition without reducing their own take, or simply as hanging on to 100% of their takings rather than being conned out of a sizeable portion of it by a bunch of crooks masquerading as a navigation authority.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 14, 2017 23:22:56 GMT
“Riparian” is defined as “relating to or situated on the banks of a river or stream”. At what point did it become applicable to an artificial non-flowing waterway? Immediately after the navvies had finished digging it.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 14, 2017 23:37:59 GMT
Immediately after the navvies had finished digging it. I know I am an incurable pedant - but perhaps some time might have elapsed before they filled it with water - one would have hoped so, for the sake of the navvies; until then it was just a dry ditch, and the 'ripa' refers to land alongside water.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Nov 15, 2017 0:26:06 GMT
Immediately after the navvies had finished digging it. I know I am an incurable pedant - but perhaps some time might have elapsed before they filled it with water - one would have hoped so, for the sake of the navvies; until then it was just a dry ditch, and the 'ripa' refers to land alongside water. I just knew that somebody would point that out, Nigel, . . . . but of course, you are correct. Although the interval between lining the newly dug canal with puddle clay and letting the water in would be kept to the absolute minimum so as to avoid any chance of the puddle drying out, cracking and then leaking. I believe that after the clay had been placed in the new canal bed, it was normal procedure to repeatedly drive herds of cloven hoofed animals along it to further knead and waterproof the lining - the original EoG(roundworks) charge, perhaps ?
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Nov 15, 2017 20:53:46 GMT
It's an old wharf, yes. All stone-edged, standard winding hole triangular shape, but allegedly private. There's no EOG element in my mooring charges, so I'm assuming I don't need a licence if I stay put when older and infirm. You do need a licence. The wharf may be private - and if you keep the boat on the wharf you won’t need a licence. But if you keep the boat adjacent to the wharf, in the water, then you do. You will just have to avoid becoming and old and infirm codger. ... Oh! Yes, Nick, I'm already there with the old codger bit! BUT BUT - I understand that it is the LAND under the water that can be considered private too. In which case, since I don't have to pay EOG charges, I believe that I don't need a license if I don't stray out of the winding hole mooring. Any help? I have tried to look this up for myself, but can't find the answer. OK I lied. I was hoping you guys could answer the question without me looking it up. Love to all, that is all!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 15, 2017 21:09:46 GMT
Yes, Nick, I'm already there with the old codger bit! BUT BUT - I understand that it is the LAND under the water that can be considered private too. In which case, since I don't have to pay EOG charges, I believe that I don't need a license if I don't stray out of the winding hole mooring. Any help? I have tried to look this up for myself, but can't find the answer. OK I lied. I was hoping you guys could answer the question without me looking it up. Love to all, that is all! I DID answer your question, top of this page.
|
|