Jump to content

More residential moorings


Smelly

  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. can we?

    • yes
      31
    • no
      12


Featured Posts

So, this residential mooring issue viz a viz Mr Shapps announcement merits discussion.

 

I have already said (to borrow Lady Muck's analogy) that I resent people crowding my train set however I appreciate that it might be the only way I can afford to keep it.

 

Views would be appreciated; at least sensible ones...

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

I am pleased to see that the other thread about this topic has now been locked. With this new thread, please can we try to stick to the point? Thanks.

 

It seems that the present Government is keen to encourage more people to consider living on boats, both on the inland waterways and in coastal harbours. ("More" - more than the number of people who do so at present, which the RBOA reckon is about 25,000 people at present if one counts all of the harbours and inland waterways.)

 

To this end, the Government intends to relax all the existing regulations that tend to discourage the idea that people should live afloat permanently.

 

How feasible is this idea, do we think, please?

 

I've got a lot of comments to make as far living aboard boats in coastal harbours is concerned because I used to do that myself and so I know a fair amount about it from that point of view.

 

However I don't know anything about the inland waterways apart from the fact that I've walked along a few towpaths, which is why I want to know what the members of this forum think about this idea, please.

 

Please can we AVOID getting bogged down in bickering about which people might form this enlarged population of liveaboards. Let's try to stick with the principle only - the idea itself - in this thread, please.

 

QUESTION: If you live on a boat on an inland waterway and you have a "residential mooring licence" to do so, what sort of protection does that afford to the licencee? Does it include some sort of security of tenure, for instance, or is it simply a temporary right in return for temporary fee, please?

 

Thanks

 

Gill

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More moorings for people who want to and or are interested in boats yes. as a solution to the housing crisis, no.

 

I would like to see more money invested into the causes of homelessness. I would also like to see investment in the existing empty buildings that seem to be everywhere. If I had the choice I would also put pressure on the 2nd home owners who visit their country homes for 3 months of the year.

 

I just don't see that boats are a viable solution due to the cost or upkeep and the rapid deterioration.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

I am pleased to see that the other thread about this topic has now been locked. With this new thread, please can we try to stick to the point? Thanks.

 

It seems that the present Government is keen to encourage more people to consider living on boats, both on the inland waterways and in coastal harbours. ("More" - more than the number of people who do so at present, which the RBOA reckon is about 25,000 people at present if one counts all of the harbours and inland waterways.)

 

To this end, the Government intends to relax all the existing regulations that tend to discourage the idea that people should live afloat permanently.

 

How feasible is this idea, do we think, please?

 

I've got a lot of comments to make as far living aboard boats in coastal harbours is concerned because I used to do that myself and so I know a fair amount about it from that point of view.

 

However I don't know anything about the inland waterways apart from the fact that I've walked along a few towpaths, which is why I want to know what the members of this forum think about this idea, please.

 

Please can we AVOID getting bogged down in bickering about which people might form this enlarged population of liveaboards. Let's try to stick with the principle only - the idea itself - in this thread, please.

 

QUESTION: If you live on a boat on an inland waterway and you have a "residential mooring licence" to do so, what sort of protection does that afford to the licencee? Does it include some sort of security of tenure, for instance, or is it simply a temporary right in return for temporary fee, please?

 

Thanks

 

Gill

 

Hi Gill.

 

Call me an old sceptic BUT!

 

I for one doubt any gov that suddenly shows an interest in any area that could possibly show a further tax revenue. I don not believe they have any minority group at heart and they do not wish to support a group which has existed for longer than I know. This is just my view, the spot light being turned onto the waterway network as a possible area for social housing development. This has nothing at all to do with people currently living there. Some liveaboards choose to have a marina or managed mooring, and i believe (but i am not sure) they pay pole / Council tax for this priveledge.

 

Now there seems to be a sub group that wishes to have the security of a permanent mooring but are unable to find one. And then the further sub group that claims to require the permanent mooring but is unwilling to pay for one.

 

One might say if the Gov was to legalise / sanction waterway living, then they could recoup a fortune in housing benefit(HB), also the annexed gov agencies that would deal with waste and water will be able to pour monies back into central gov.

 

I do hope i am wrong in my assumption but i feel the gov is only trying to line it's own pockets.

 

I was a Landlord and my tenants were in receipt of HB. the monies i collected paid for up keep of the property and a bit towards the mortgage. If the gov which owns the waterways also pays HB to the landlord (which ever form it takes, charity or company) then they are really paying themselves.

 

Now if this is too cynical and maybe the gov wishes to plant the seed into "wealthy boat owners" :rolleyes: that they would be better served living the water life.

 

All i can think of is the gov pushing people to buy diesel fuel cars, (at the time it was a lot cheaper than petrol) now it must be a 50/50 split if not more in favour of diesel. Oh shock watch the price go through the roof.

 

sorry it took so long to get here. But yes i believe the gov would love boat owners to move onto the water full time, nothing to do with housing just so they can screw them in 10 years time for more water tax or priv tax whatever name they give it.

 

we all know that settled people would not really choose the canal life, (either pumpout of cassette :closedeyes: ) there is an element of our society that is happy living of the state, in solid bricks and mortar building. there is now way we could make them work for their house by carrying their own waste. and having too turn a tap to fill up a water tank.

 

cheers

 

Smudge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A relatively unsustained hull will survive for a good while if you don;t take it anywhere.

 

My main, objective, concern is where will they go? I know on the BCN they surveyed all the old industrial wharves for poss residential use ut they're all a long way from water, never mind bogs of one sort or another.

 

As my thinking develops it's not so much maintenance of craft as maintenance of a habitable dwelling that's the issue. I've had images of far countries with water borne dwellers but I am damn sure they've got, ahem, sea toilets...

 

Although I am sworn to stop falling in I can't guarantee I won't, again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This proposal will inevitably push some people onto the water, who have no desire to be there, and who won't care about it's upkeep, or state it's in. They WILL ruin their neighbourhood/ stretch of canal, for everybody else, just as they do so now, in land based areas.

 

More moorings, or a different local mooring approach, for people who choose to live on water, yes.

A solution to 'housing shortage', no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very norty for pinching this but interesting points have been raised...

 

Hi All

 

I am pleased to see that the other thread about this topic has now been locked. With this new thread, please can we try to stick to the point? Thanks.

 

It seems that the present Government is keen to encourage more people to consider living on boats, both on the inland waterways and in coastal harbours. ("More" - more than the number of people who do so at present, which the RBOA reckon is about 25,000 people at present if one counts all of the harbours and inland waterways.)

 

To this end, the Government intends to relax all the existing regulations that tend to discourage the idea that people should live afloat permanently.

 

How feasible is this idea, do we think, please?

 

I've got a lot of comments to make as far living aboard boats in coastal harbours is concerned because I used to do that myself and so I know a fair amount about it from that point of view.

 

However I don't know anything about the inland waterways apart from the fact that I've walked along a few towpaths, which is why I want to know what the members of this forum think about this idea, please.

 

Please can we AVOID getting bogged down in bickering about which people might form this enlarged population of liveaboards. Let's try to stick with the principle only - the idea itself - in this thread, please.

 

QUESTION: If you live on a boat on an inland waterway and you have a "residential mooring licence" to do so, what sort of protection does that afford to the licencee? Does it include some sort of security of tenure, for instance, or is it simply a temporary right in return for temporary fee, please?

 

Thanks

 

Gill

 

 

One might say if the Gov was to legalise / sanction waterway living, then they could recoup a fortune in housing benefit(HB), also the annexed gov agencies that would deal with waste and water will be able to pour monies back into central gov.

 

 

As HB is paid as a susidy from DWP to the Local Authorities this isn't an issue; it's just Gov't recycling money.

 

 

I do hope i am wrong in my assumption but i feel the gov is only trying to line it's own pockets.

 

 

If that served as a susidy to drag money out of non or even partial HB claimants (HB doesn't necessarily pay ALL the rent) then that money will go to licences and mooring fees hence susidise the canals.

 

 

 

Now if this is too cynical and maybe the gov wishes to plant the seed into "wealthy boat owners" :rolleyes: that they would be better served living the water life.

 

 

Why would wealthy, or even middle income households such as ourselves fall into a trap of living afloat when they can afford not to if they choose not to? Buying a house would've been a much better option, financially for us than a oat, however I'm not a bread head and plan no progeny so inheritance isn't an issue... Some people don't think like that and for the depreciation in oat ownership at least as a sole dwelling (and as time goes on those folk who can afford both will, I suspect diminish) it's a disincentive.

 

either pumpout of cassette :closedeyes:

or sea toilet...

 

 

 

 

cheers

 

Smudge

 

Sorry

 

Dan

 

I'm off to play with my train set tomorrow so tellings off may fall on deaf ears until, probably Thursday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently living outside the country I am very confussed as to what this is all about and how it will work.

My main confusions are.............

 

1] Is this the same as a housing subsidy except that it pays for your residential mooring?

 

2] If you own a boat with liveaboard facilities is this not the same as owning a house?

 

3] If you don't own a house is the government going to obtain a boat for you?

 

4] Is it the intention that the boat would be static and unable to motivate itself?

 

5] Is the canal just replacing "dry land" as a place to put a facility in which people can live?

 

6] If you rented a boat to live on will a housing benefit now be available?

 

Any assistance in putting me in the picture would be appreciated.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or its it to "fully legalise" all the current liveaboards?

So you don't have the hassle of having to find a new doctor every month, can use your boat/mooring as a real address for the like of car insurance

 

Obviously the robbing wotzitz will use it as excuse to increase the effective tax on boaters....

 

 

I know which one of my two options I want, and which one would happen in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if this did come together, which I very much doubt, I woldnt have much faith in the joint administration of the LA and BW. I can't see the return warrenting the investment.

 

Maybe Gill and Smelly would agree to merging these two threads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's rubbish. Look who do they think is going to be housed this way? Has it occurred that just because we like boats doesn't mean everyone does. Anyone who wants to live on a boat and can afford it does so, anyone who can't afford it, well what is the suggestion? the taxpayer buying people boats? Anyone who doesn't want to live on a boat will go crazy if forced to do so and I doubt very much it would satisfy the requirements of the housing act.

It's a non starter, a brain fart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

I am pleased to see that the other thread about this topic has now been locked. With this new thread, please can we try to stick to the point? Thanks.

 

It seems that the present Government is keen to encourage more people to consider living on boats, both on the inland waterways and in coastal harbours. ("More" - more than the number of people who do so at present, which the RBOA reckon is about 25,000 people at present if one counts all of the harbours and inland waterways.)

 

To this end, the Government intends to relax all the existing regulations that tend to discourage the idea that people should live afloat permanently.

 

How feasible is this idea, do we think, please?

 

I've got a lot of comments to make as far living aboard boats in coastal harbours is concerned because I used to do that myself and so I know a fair amount about it from that point of view.

 

However I don't know anything about the inland waterways apart from the fact that I've walked along a few towpaths, which is why I want to know what the members of this forum think about this idea, please.

 

Please can we AVOID getting bogged down in bickering about which people might form this enlarged population of liveaboards. Let's try to stick with the principle only - the idea itself - in this thread, please.

 

QUESTION: If you live on a boat on an inland waterway and you have a "residential mooring licence" to do so, what sort of protection does that afford to the licencee? Does it include some sort of security of tenure, for instance, or is it simply a temporary right in return for temporary fee, please?

 

Thanks

 

Gill

 

 

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a meeting at Cropredy last night to discuss proposals for two marinas. The subject of residential moorings was raised several times and, after quoting from a recent telling graph article, it was suggested that despite assurance that these marinas would be non-residential, given recent 'human rights' decisions in the courts etc., the likelihood of the marinas developing over time into villages of residential 'boat-people'* could not be ruled out.

 

* I have substituted this phrase in the hope that it may not be regarded as racist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not against the idea or provision of more residential moorings. Living on a boat is like living in nomads land, that's ok, and moving around is part of the appeal. Now and again, it would good to know that the option to settle for a while is there and made a little easier.

 

To be honest, I haven't read any full reports on the proposal.

 

For those that have considered life on the canal, but are put off by the lack of options, then more residential moorings may be an attraction.

 

If it is residential moorings to help smooth the mistakes that have been made, in the past, for the provision of social housing, then I think the motives are suspect. And you can't force people to live on water.

 

If it is done at all, it needs to be considered for it's impact on what exists. It cannot, I think, be done without regard.

 

The waterways need money and it may provide support.

 

 

ps, my home town used to be quite characterful. Town planners there have created a wonderful dog's dinner. Would like to avoid that happening.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what was being suggested was more to make it easier than it currently is for those who might like to live on a boat. People who look into the possibility at the moment will see that there are very few residential moorings, so they don't pursue it much further. If planning permission for more residential marinas is eased then this will allow those people who are interested in a liveaboard lifestyle to proceed.

I think if given the choice of a new housing estate on my doorstep or a marina, I know what I'd prefer! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at the same meeting I heard an interesting definition or comparison of the terms 'Resident' and 'Liveaboard' - clearly the perceived opinion is that residential boaters are living on their boats with full planning permission, as their official postal address and their main residence, all legal and above board - the rest of us who live aboard from choice but are either continuous cruisers or using our on-line moorings are regarded as having 'got round' the law - we are the 'Illegals' . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently living outside the country I am very confussed as to what this is all about and how it will work.

My main confusions are.............

 

1] Is this the same as a housing subsidy except that it pays for your residential mooring?

 

2] If you own a boat with liveaboard facilities is this not the same as owning a house?

 

3] If you don't own a house is the government going to obtain a boat for you?

 

4] Is it the intention that the boat would be static and unable to motivate itself?

 

5] Is the canal just replacing "dry land" as a place to put a facility in which people can live?

 

6] If you rented a boat to live on will a housing benefit now be available?

 

Any assistance in putting me in the picture would be appreciated.

 

Jim

 

 

Hi Jim

 

At the moment the suggestions from the Govt are extremely vague. They are making a jumble of different suggestions, I reckon. At the moment the inland waterways seem to be the main target but if the ideas work with those then they ought to work with Harbours as well, I suspect.

 

I can help with some of your questions but not all of them. I think the answers are:

1] Is this the same as a housing subsidy except that it pays for your residential mooring?

I think there is an element of "housing subsidy" in that the Govt say they are willing to pay Local Authorities a New Homes Bonus every time the Local Authority grants planning permission for a new residential mooring. Apparently the New Homes Bonus is a cash bung from central govt. Central govt will pay the Local Authority the equivalent of 6 years' worth of council tax for each new residential mooring that the LA facilitate. This will just be a cash carrot to the Local Authorities, in effect.

 

The Government will only pay the residential mooring fees if the occupant of the boat is on a low income with low savings and who therefore qualifies for Housing Benefit.

 

The Government have added a couple of corollaries to this but I'm not sure whether the corollaries are really only red herrings. At the moment, the group at the top of the list for Social Housing are those who count as being "homeless." At the moment, a Local Authority cannot satisfy its statutory duty to house the homeless unless the LA provides suitable, *permanent* bricks & mortar accommodation ashore with mains water, mains electricity and mains drainage - without all 3, the proposed accommodation is not deemed to be "suitable" and the present legislation insists that nothing except bricks & mortar is even potentially "suitable" because no other type of accommodation is also *permanent.*

 

The Govt say that they intend to relax the statutory provisions so that boats or caravans can, in some cases, be deemed to be "suitable accommodation" and presumably they intend to brush aside questions of *permanent* accommodation. Even Council Houses are not going to provide *permanent* accommodation for new tenants, after all.

 

2] If you own a boat with liveaboard facilities is this not the same as owning a house?

Central Govt want to say that it is. The Local Government Association seem to want to say that it isn't.

 

3] If you don't own a house is the government going to obtain a boat for you?

No. The Govt has no intention of buying boats itself and it has no intention that Local Authorities should do so either. The idea is that if Smith can't afford to buy a boat of Smith's own but Bloggs (a private landlord) owns a boat that would provide "suitable" accommodation and he offers to rent the boat to Smith then Smith might be able to obtain Housing Benefit in order to help pay the mooring fees for the boat. Also, if Smith is homeless and the boat provides "suitable accommodation" then the Local Authority will have discharged its own duty of care to Smith if it recommends that he should live on the said boat, which Bloggs (the owner) has told the Local Authority about.

 

4] Is it the intention that the boat would be static and unable to motivate itself?

My impression is that the Govt is only concerned with whether or not the boat would provide "suitable accommodation." If the boat can also move around under its own power, I suspect that this feature would be seen an irrelevant optional extra.

 

5] Is the canal just replacing "dry land" as a place to put a facility in which people can live?

I think this depends who you believe! Personally, I believe that the answer is "yes." However the Government aren't likely to talk their own idea down. The Housing Minister has never lived on a boat. I have. He claims that doing so can be an enriching, rewarding lifestyle. I think it can be - for some people but for someone who doesn't want to do it then the lifestyle would probably be a foretaste of hell.

 

6] If you rented a boat to live on will a housing benefit now be available?

The Housing Minister says "Yes." British Waterways say, "Good." The Local Government Association are less sanguine because they don't think that the Local Authorities will necessarily grant Planning Permission for the extra residential moorings that would be needed in order to make any part of the idea work.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if this did come together, which I very much doubt, I woldnt have much faith in the joint administration of the LA and BW. I can't see the return warrenting the investment.

 

Maybe Gill and Smelly would agree to merging these two threads?

 

Hi Wanted

 

I can't control what the Moderators do but I hope to goodness that they will not merge the two threads. The other one got bogged down with bickering about issues that really had nothing to do with what was actually being proposed, I felt.

 

I hope that this new thread will stick to the point. I think that the other thread would be very difficult for people to follow because so much of it is not relevant to the proposals, really.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's rubbish. Look who do they think is going to be housed this way? Has it occurred that just because we like boats doesn't mean everyone does. Anyone who wants to live on a boat and can afford it does so, anyone who can't afford it, well what is the suggestion? the taxpayer buying people boats? Anyone who doesn't want to live on a boat will go crazy if forced to do so and I doubt very much it would satisfy the requirements of the housing act.

It's a non starter, a brain fart.

 

 

Hi Sir Nibble

 

At the moment, the Housing Acts do cause a problem, I agree. However the Government say that their new legislative proposals (the Localism Bill and the National Planning Policy Framework) will together override any "objections" found in existing Planning legislation and the Housing Acts.

 

I quite agree with you that trying to push groups of people (eg homeless persons) into living afloat is an idea that stands no chance of succeeding unless it is what the homeless person actually wants to do. It would also help if the homeless person has some experience of doing it, in my view. How many land-lubbers really understand that bottled gas on a boat is not the same thing as mains gas in a house, for example?

 

Also, would a homeless person need some sort of Certificate of [personal] Competence if s/he were going to live on a boat on an inland waterway? This idea is not necessary in coastal Harbours but I think it might be on the inland waterways though I don't know for sure?

 

Thanks

 

Gill

Edited by Gollywobbler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this plan results in councils being forced to approve more residential moorings, then I am all for it.

 

If it results in more people using the waterways, which will mean more income for BW and for businesses that serve the waterways, then I am all for it.

 

If it results in councils buying cheap houseboats, and filling them with people on benefits, then I am not. Because that will result in little benefit to the waterways, and might result in crime. Poverty and joblessness (the latter equates to too little money, and too much spare time) are major causes of crime.

 

I suspect that there are quite a few people who would like to live on their boats, if only there were somewhere that they could keep a residential boat legally.

 

At the end of the day, it's not going to make much of a dent in the overall housing problem, but every little helps.

 

I do agree with Mr Mayall's point that we don't want more linear moorings, except perhaps in wide rivers. However, in London's former docks there are vast acres of water which are totally unused. And London is where the housing problem is most acute.

 

So, I am in favour, in principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a meeting at Cropredy last night to discuss proposals for two marinas. The subject of residential moorings was raised several times and, after quoting from a recent telling graph article, it was suggested that despite assurance that these marinas would be non-residential, given recent 'human rights' decisions in the courts etc., the likelihood of the marinas developing over time into villages of residential 'boat-people'* could not be ruled out.

 

* I have substituted this phrase in the hope that it may not be regarded as racist!

 

I think you might find with the new planning laws being proposed the building of Marinas with residential will become a lot easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at the same meeting I heard an interesting definition or comparison of the terms 'Resident' and 'Liveaboard' - clearly the perceived opinion is that residential boaters are living on their boats with full planning permission, as their official postal address and their main residence, all legal and above board - the rest of us who live aboard from choice but are either continuous cruisers or using our on-line moorings are regarded as having 'got round' the law - we are the 'Illegals' . . .

 

Hello NB Alnwick

 

Thanks very much for your welcome message the other day.

 

I believe that on the inland waterways, not enough of the moorings are deemed to be "residential moorings" for everybody who currently lives on a boat to be able to find a residential mooring?

 

If anything, I think this problem is even worse in the coastal Harbours but this forum is not the place to discuss those.

 

Surely there is a need to "regularise" the legal positions with regard to moorings for the people who already live afloat permanently before worrying about trying to encourage even more people to do it? (Personally, I don't believe in the obsession with trying to control everybody by "regularising" everything but I've yet to meet a Government Official who does not believe in the idea for everyone except the Banks!)

 

By the way, Political Correctness makes it almost impossible to avoid accusations of racism or some other type of discrimination. I think you have done remarkably well to avoid all the PC brickbats that I hope will be avoided by all other contributors to this thread as well, so thanks for setting an example.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Wanted

 

I can't control what the Moderators do but I hope to goodness that they will not merge the two threads. The other one got bogged down with bickering about issues that really had nothing to do with what was actually being proposed, I felt.

 

I hope that this new thread will stick to the point. I think that the other thread would be very difficult for people to follow because so much of it is not relevant to the proposals, really.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Sorry Gill, I meant the thread that smelly (dan) had started after the 1st one was ended. No biggy. Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.