Jump to content

More residential moorings


Smelly

  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. can we?

    • yes
      31
    • no
      12


Featured Posts

Fair play...

 

I see a worrying correlation between the 15000 residential boats reported by RBOA in their paper on "security of tenure for residential boats" to John Prescott when he was DPM; and the 15000 residential boaters that are reported.

 

If the RBOA "guestimate" was anywhere near close in the mid nineties it will be a lot more than that now. The RBOA report included lumpy water; I doubt the Schnapps comment included sea going boats (although I wouldn't dismiss it).

 

Hi Smelly

 

So far, Shapps has not mentioned sea-going boats or the ones moored in Harbours rather than on the inland waterways. (However, like you I suspect that that may only be a matter of time.)

 

For the minute, Shapps is saying that the majority of the population live within 5 miles of an inland waterway, hence he seems to want to start with the inland waterways.

 

Apart from his patter about where people live at the moment, I think it is easier for a land-lubber like Shapps to 'see' the Inland Waterways as being a more manageable way to achieve whatever he is really trying to achieve. Every Harbour is controlled by its own Harbour Authority whereas the majority of the Inland Waterways are controlled by BW.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but with offers of residential status, you may soon have 1,000's of boats which will affect us all regardless of whether you're a CC, happy hiker on the towpath,or private moorer.

You need some forward thinking. The government and BW need money. Both are businesses trying to stay afloat (excuse the pun). The easiest way to bring in the income is to free up more residential moorings at which point the local authority (aka planning) also gain because they will charge you council tax. BW, the government and local authority all gain.

 

 

Hi Nina C

 

I agree with you. Like you, I also suspect that there is a Financial Model in here somewhere.

 

I also think that your current amenities (as a boat-owner) or mine (as a "happy hiker" along towpaths) are not seen as being terribly important. What do you and I want instead? The proliferation of Urban Sprawl round our cities and towns?

 

Personally, I'm disappointed by the idea of further development of the canals. First, successive Governments left the canals to become derelict. Then a mainly volunteer workforce dragged them back from the brink. Now they look lovely and they also look very peaceful - unless that Osborne & Little wallpaper bloke gets his thieving hooks into the till with the canals. I'm disappointed - but he is not likely to listen to either of us!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Edited by Gollywobbler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nina C

 

I agree with you. Like you, I also suspect that there is a Financial Model in here somewhere.

 

I also think that your current amenities (as a boat-owner) or mine (as a "happy hiker" along towpaths) are not seen as being terribly important. What do you and I want instead? The proliferation of Urban Sprawl round our cities and towns?

 

Personally, I'm disappointed by the idea of further development of the canals. First, successive Governments left the canals to become derelict. Then a mainly volunteer workforce dragged them back from the brink. Now they look lovely and they also look very peaceful - unless that Osborne & Little wallpaper bloke gets his thieving hooks into the till with the canals. I'm disappointed - but he is not likely to listen to either of us!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

 

Hi Gill

 

Yes totally agree. They're after the bigger fish. If you follow the business thinking, there's an untapped gold seam just waiting to be exploited. Charities are run like businesses with business brains at the top. It's not hard to see the money trail here.

 

That gite in France is looking good :-)

 

I am retired and I live on a boat, would love to find out how I can get benefits?

 

Don't you receive a state pension? I believe this counts as a benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that using empty building first is the way forwards, shapps dosent agree: http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/legal-ruling-could-double-squatting-says-minister/6517640.article

 

Hi Wanted

 

I'm not surprised that Shapps is whingeing. Why on earth should the "Squatters Advisory Service" need to know the addresses of the empty properties? Isn't it enough if the Council simply say how many homes are empty and how long each one has been empty for? I'm sure they have the information to say that much without any hassle.

 

I think that Henderson J's ruling is perverse. Would she demand that BW must also give the Squatters Advisory Service the names and locations of the boats that BW know/believe are not permanently occupied? (Let's just hope and pray that these Squatters Advisory Service people don't think of the possibility, methinks.)

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Wanted

 

I'm not surprised that Shapps is whingeing. Why on earth should the "Squatters Advisory Service" need to know the addresses of the empty properties? Isn't it enough if the Council simply say how many homes are empty and how long each one has been empty for? I'm sure they have the information to say that much without any hassle.

 

I think that Henderson J's ruling is perverse. Would she demand that BW must also give the Squatters Advisory Service the names and locations of the boats that BW know/believe are not permanently occupied? (Let's just hope and pray that these Squatters Advisory Service people don't think of the possibility, methinks.)

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Fair shout, but If Shapps et al are really concerned that the empty properties are not squatted then why don't they allow them to be used as legitimate housing?

 

There is a difference between Empty and not permanently occupied and whilst I agree that a few high profile cases on the news of late haven’t done squatters any favours, the vast majority of squats are not in a Mayfair city house but are in properly empty buildings that are usually left in better states than when found.

 

I think that Shapps and crew should be tougher on landlords that have left buildings empty and also look at what empty buldings the state owns, maybe some sort of commandeering strategy? That way crazy schemes like this boat idea can be left on the shelf.

 

(* Please note, I discount the use of empty buildings as crack dens as a separate issue)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If councils and government departments have no money, the much cheaper option is to give people the option (and responsibility) of home ownership. You can see why Schapps is looking at the option to offer residential status to boats. The current available, empty properties on the councils list maybe earmarked for tenants who do not need housing and all the other benefits. It's all about saving money.

 

A person or family, on a low income, can probably still get a loan to buy a boat for around 20,000. Whilst they may still get housing benefit, it's going to be a much cheaper outlay to help them live on a boat than it is for the government and councils to spend on a bricks and mortar home especially when you consider council tax, rent to private landlords, financial assistance with furnishings, etc, etc. A boat is usually already furnished and bills are not as high.

 

Say the fees to live on a boat are 4,000 a year. That's very small compared to benefits the government are handing out now. After all, isn't that why some people are already living on boats? Because it's cheaper?

 

They are obviously looking at ways to house people as cheaply and as independently as possible to bring down spending without having to outlay themselves.

 

You just have to do the sums to see the logic of Schapps. Unfortunately, the worrying aspect is how it impacts on the rest of us not to mention the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Shapps and crew should be tougher on landlords that have left buildings empty and also look at what empty buldings the state owns, maybe some sort of commandeering strategy? That way crazy schemes like this boat idea can be left on the shelf.

 

(* Please note, I discount the use of empty buildings as crack dens as a separate issue)

 

Hi Wanted

 

Apparently your wish is about to be granted according to Inside Housing today!

 

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/ministers-to-set-out-empty-homes-plans/6517648.article

 

Personally, I'll believe it when I see some evidence of it actually happening.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in favour of more residential moorings. However, not on the cut; not that anyone has suggested this might happen, but I'm a cynic when it comes to expecting sensible decisions from Whitehall.

 

Nobody responding to this thread seems to have a clear idea of how these residential plans will work, me also. The safe bet might be that it has nothing to do with people. Economics rule.

 

Living on the canal is an alternative lifestyle for some and/or a leisure pursuit. Occasionally, people move onto the canal because of housing difficulties. I can only assume that, for those that are considering living on the canal, the availibility of residential moorings would help sway someone's decision to move onto the canal.

 

Policy makers have the greatest difficuly in just spitting it out; semantics veil intentions. They talk 'people', but act 'economics and self interest'; mostly, bad economics. At least bankers behave and talk like the souless gits they are.

 

My policy is: don't listen to anything the politicians say, or read anything the politician write, or read any papers. They've had enough time, in my book. There are other ways to determine what's working. It isn't watching politicians posturing for their next position. Cream and s**t float to the top. There's never any cream on the milk these days. Where's it gone. I used to like that bit. Processed out, I think.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Wanted

 

Apparently your wish is about to be granted according to Inside Housing today!

 

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/ministers-to-set-out-empty-homes-plans/6517648.article

 

Personally, I'll believe it when I see some evidence of it actually happening.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Indeed, I have heard this talked about for years! :banghead:

 

On a basic level I can hardly blame people with out a home moving into an empty building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why you quoted me, you're post has no relevance to it. Some boaters do not want residential moorings, in fact, staying in one place is what we don't do.

 

 

I am not sure either! :unsure:

 

Apologies for dragging your good name into my post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in favour of more residential moorings. However, not on the cut; not that anyone has suggested this might happen, but I'm a cynic when it comes to expecting sensible decisions from Whitehall.

 

Nobody responding to this thread seems to have a clear idea of how these residential plans will work, me also. The safe bet might be that it has nothing to do with people. Economics rule.

 

Living on the canal is an alternative lifestyle for some and/or a leisure pursuit. Occasionally, people move onto the canal because of housing difficulties. I can only assume that, for those that are considering living on the canal, the availibility of residential moorings would help sway someone's decision to move onto the canal.

 

Policy makers have the greatest difficuly in just spitting it out; semantics veil intentions. They talk 'people', but act 'economics and self interest'; mostly, bad economics. At least bankers behave and talk like the souless gits they are.

 

My policy is: don't listen to anything the politicians say, or read anything the politician write, or read any papers. They've had enough time, in my book. There are other ways to determine what's working. It isn't watching politicians posturing for their next position. Cream and s**t float to the top. There's never any cream on the milk these days. Where's it gone. I used to like that bit. Processed out, I think.

 

 

Hello Higgs

 

I'm a newbie to this forum and I'm a "lumpy water boater" so I don't know anything about the canals and inland waterways myself - apart from the fact that I love the sight of the canals whenever I get the chance to stroll along a towpath beside one. It is something I would love to have a go at doing but I don't live near any navigable inland waterways, unfortunately.

 

I joined this forum partly because I am interested in learning about the inland waterways generally and partly because I am concerned about the recent Government proposals to encourage more people to live on boats. The Govt have only mentioned the inland waterways in connection with this idea so far but if the idea works with those then there is no reason why coastal Harbours shouldn't be targeted next.

 

So please forgive my ignorance but what is "the cut?" You've said that you don't object to more residential moorings but you don't want to see them on "the cut." Is a "cut" a narrow part of a canal where I would see boats moored alongside next to the towpath?

Nobody responding to this thread seems to have a clear idea of how these residential plans will work, me also.

The Govt have not been clear about their proposals, which is why everyone else is puzzled. As far as I can gather, the plan is that new marinas should be built on the inland waterways and that some/most/all of the berths in them should be devoted to providing more residential moorings.

 

Apparently the Govt's proposed new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will sweep aside all the Planning objections to the above and the Govt is willing to offer Local Authorities a New Homes Bonus for every new residential mooring that they permit. The Govt also claim that their new Localism Bill will make it much harder for people to object to any proposals to build new marinas. This seems to be the basic idea.

The safe bet might be that it has nothing to do with people. Economics rule.

There is a growing suspicion that you're right. The National Trust seem to be leading the charge against the NPPF. They said yesterday that they will not support the Govt's present proposals because the National Trust reckon that the Govt's motives are purely economic and they argue that the Govt have a positive duty to consider aesthetic, environmental and essentially quality-of-life principles as well.

Living on the canal is an alternative lifestyle for some and/or a leisure pursuit. Occasionally, people move onto the canal because of housing difficulties. I can only assume that, for those that are considering living on the canal, the availibility of residential moorings would help sway someone's decision to move onto the canal.

One of the Govt's main considerations at the moment seems to be that the canals could help to alleviate the problems that Local Authorities currently face in finding and providing Social Housing for people in need of it. The immediate Social Housing priority is to provide adequate housing for homeless people. At the moment Local Authorities are prohibited from trying to suggest that boats or caravans might provide adequate housing for homeless people but the Govt intend to remove this prohibition apparently. Suggesting that a homeless person can be housed adequately on a boat is a non-starter unless there is a permanent residential mooring on which the boat can be berthed, though, so this notion wouldn't work unless more residential moorings are developed.

 

I agree with the cynicism and suspicion you have expressed in your final paragraph!

 

Going back to my own question, what is "the cut," please?

 

Thanks

 

Gill

Edited by Gollywobbler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Higgs

 

I'm a newbie to this forum and I'm a "lumpy water boater" so I don't know anything about the canals and inland waterways myself - apart from the fact that I love the sight of the canals whenever I get the chance to stroll along a towpath beside one. It is something I would love to have a go at doing but I don't live near any navigable inland waterways, unfortunately.

 

I joined this forum partly because I am interested in learning about the inland waterways generally and partly because I am concerned about the recent Government proposals to encourage more people to live on boats. The Govt have only mentioned the inland waterways in connection with this idea so far but if the idea works with those then there is no reason why coastal Harbours shouldn't be targeted next.

 

So please forgive my ignorance but what is "the cut?" You've said that you don't object to more residential moorings but you don't want to see them on "the cut." Is a "cut" a narrow part of a canal where I would see boats moored alongside next to the towpath?

 

The Govt have not been clear about their proposals, which is why everyone else is puzzled. As far as I can gather, the plan is that new marinas should be built on the inland waterways and that some/most/all of the berths in them should be devoted to providing more residential moorings.

 

Apparently the Govt's proposed new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will sweep aside all the Planning objections to the above and the Govt is willing to offer Local Authorities a New Homes Bonus for every new residential mooring that they permit. The Govt also claim that their new Localism Bill will make it much harder for people to object to any proposals to build new marinas. This seems to be the basic idea.

 

There is a growing suspicion that you're right. The National Trust seem to be leading the charge against the NPPF. They said yesterday that they will not support the Govt's present proposals because the National Trust reckon that the Govt's motives are purely economic and they argue that the Govt have a positive duty to consider aesthetic, environmental and essentially quality-of-life principles as well.

 

One of the Govt's main considerations at the moment seems to be that the canals could help to alleviate the problems that Local Authorities currently face in finding and providing Social Housing for people in need of it. The immediate Social Housing priority is to provide adequate housing for homeless people. At the moment Local Authorities are prohibited from trying to suggest that boats or caravans might provide adequate housing for homeless people but the Govt intend to remove this prohibition apparently. Suggesting that a homeless person can be housed adequately on a boat is a non-starter unless there is a permanent residential mooring on which the boat can be berthed, though, so this notion wouldn't work unless more residential moorings are developed.

 

I agree with the cynicism and suspicion you have expressed in your final paragraph!

 

Going back to my own question, what is "the cut," please?

 

Thanks

 

Gill

Hi Gill, the cut is just another name for the canal. The objection being that if more online moorings (not marinas) were granted res status then there would be less usable visiting space.

 

As an aside, I must say that I am enjoying your posts, very well written. Thank you.

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Higgs

 

Going back to my own question, what is "the cut," please?

 

Thanks

 

Gill

 

The Cut,a reference to the canal itself. It may just be a term noting the canals physicality in the land it runs through. Others will know better than myself, I'm sure.

 

It would not be a good thing to have lots of linear residential moorings on the canal itself, and it is highly unlikely to happen. The canal's primary use is as a water route and not as a parking space. It would also be uncomfortable for boaters and residents. A cruising boat slows down when passing a moored boat. It wouldn't be acceptable to expect boaters to slow cruise for extended periods; it is not too contentious at the moment, but it would be.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in favour of more residential moorings. However, not on the cut; not that anyone has suggested this might happen, but I'm a cynic when it comes to expecting sensible decisions from Whitehall.

 

Nobody responding to this thread seems to have a clear idea of how these residential plans will work, me also. The safe bet might be that it has nothing to do with people. Economics rule.

 

Living on the canal is an alternative lifestyle for some and/or a leisure pursuit. Occasionally, people move onto the canal because of housing difficulties. I can only assume that, for those that are considering living on the canal, the availibility of residential moorings would help sway someone's decision to move onto the canal.

 

Policy makers have the greatest difficuly in just spitting it out; semantics veil intentions. They talk 'people', but act 'economics and self interest'; mostly, bad economics. At least bankers behave and talk like the souless gits they are.

 

My policy is: don't listen to anything the politicians say, or read anything the politician write, or read any papers. They've had enough time, in my book. There are other ways to determine what's working. It isn't watching politicians posturing for their next position. Cream and s**t float to the top. There's never any cream on the milk these days. Where's it gone. I used to like that bit. Processed out, I think.

 

 

I agree with you totally. It's always about the money. It sounds nice when it's presented as being all for the common good and in theory, you can see how the government may be persuaded into thinking that potentially it could alleviate the problems for first time buyers in terms of them finding a home, plus a few people on benefits who may be assisted onto the water.

In reality though, who's going to pay for their boat maintainance?? Blacking every 2 years, winterising the boat, etc.

 

Politicians aren't generally fiscal experts otherwise we wouldn't be in the current tight economy. But a business brain at the top of BW would need to be very fiscally oriented. How else are they going to get their funds?

 

The new BW charity is a business. It has to be self funding so it has to manage and run the waterways as a business. Residential villages, waterworld Butlins, you name it, once they get the planning, it's going to be very different to how it is now because there will be nothing to stop it. Especially if they're using the emotive guise of helping the homeless. :-)

I don't believe the canals have the same kind of protection as National Trust areas do so once they go down the path of turning it into a money spinner, it could be developed into many things.

 

Hope it's a balanced, executive decision whatever they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you totally. It's always about the money. It sounds nice when it's presented as being all for the common good and in theory, you can see how the government may be persuaded into thinking that potentially it could alleviate the problems for first time buyers in terms of them finding a home, plus a few people on benefits who may be assisted onto the water.

In reality though, who's going to pay for their boat maintainance?? Blacking every 2 years, winterising the boat, etc.

 

Politicians aren't generally fiscal experts otherwise we wouldn't be in the current tight economy. But a business brain at the top of BW would need to be very fiscally oriented. How else are they going to get their funds?

 

The new BW charity is a business. It has to be self funding so it has to manage and run the waterways as a business. Residential villages, waterworld Butlins, you name it, once they get the planning, it's going to be very different to how it is now because there will be nothing to stop it. Especially if they're using the emotive guise of helping the homeless. :-)

I don't believe the canals have the same kind of protection as National Trust areas do so once they go down the path of turning it into a money spinner, it could be developed into many things.

 

Hope it's a balanced, executive decision whatever they do.

 

 

Hi Nina C

 

I'm suspicious of this new idea of turning businesses into charities. The tax-treatment of charities - and the people who invest in them (i mean 'donate money' to them) is very favourable. When we have a Chancellor whose own capital (from the Osborne & Little Wallpaper empire) is safely stashed in the Cayman Islands, what else is that little weasel up to at the behest of his wealthier cronies?

 

I expect you heard about the row last year when GOD told the Treasury to produce a Plan B for the economy in case the Government's Plan A doesn't work. (GOD is Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary and the overall boss of the Civil Service.) Cameron & Osborne were both livid because somebody leaked GOD's instruction to the Press.

 

The latest rumour that I've heard is that Plan B consists of kick-starting the economy by kick-starting the construction industry, which is in the doldrums right now, as you know. The would-be developers are complaining that the purchase price of development land is too high and the Planning regime is too restrictive etc.

 

There is not much point in building new office-space right now. Round Southampton, a huge amount of good-quality office space is empty because the erstwhile tenants have gone bust. People like Barratts are reluctant to build new housing estates because there is no guarantee that the Banks will provide enough mortgages for first time buyers and without them, the domestic property market is hamstrung. The Communities Select Committee have just announced a Public Inquiry into the Government's plans for "affordable rents" in the Social Housing sector because they are doubtful about whether these "affordable rents" will really be sustainable.

 

So - the Government's response is to free up LOADS of new land and to kill off all the present restrictions in the Planning regime. That ought to drive land-prices down sharply.

 

Right. What can be built on this newly-available land? If the land is near a canal, new marinas are possible. Tradies probably don't care about what sort of development they are constructing. Also, historically it was necessary for the canals to be navigable but that need not necessarily remain the case everywhere in the future. Wet land is fine as long as whatever goes on the wet land has a waterproof membrane on the outside.

 

Somebody on this thread remarked the other day that Mrs Thatcher's decision to do away with the Parker Morris building standards in 1980 has led to to the development of shoe boxes instead of homes of a sensible size. The shoe-boxes can be further reduced in size if one does without loose, movable furniture inside them. Boats and caravans are perfect for this and they do not necessarily have to be dirigible as well. Also, it might be cheaper to build something with a waterproof exterior than to try to anchor the thing to the ground via foundations? According to the RBOA, boats provide an extremely "green" type of accommodation, which - if the RBOA are correct - would help us to meet Herr Huhne's ridiculously high targets with his "green agenda."

 

The results may well look hideous but the present Government does not seem to be worried about that (hence the fight-back from the National Trust.) The Govt's only concern seems to be to try to kick-start the economy and I think their basic ideas about how to do that might well do the trick.

 

Whatever is going on, there are going to be some hefty profits in it for someone, I strongly suspect.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Edited by Gollywobbler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nina C

 

I'm suspicious of this new idea of turning businesses into charities. The tax-treatment of charities - and the people who invest in them (i mean 'donate money' to them) is very favourable. When we have a Chancellor whose own capital (from the Osborne & Little Wallpaper empire) is safely stashed in the Cayman Islands, what else is that little weasel up to at the behest of his wealthier cronies?

 

I expect you heard about the row last year when GOD told the Treasury to produce a Plan B for the economy in case the Government's Plan A doesn't work. (GOD is Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary and the overall boss of the Civil Service.) Cameron & Osborne were both livid because somebody leaked GOD's instruction to the Press.

 

The latest rumour that I've heard is that Plan B consists of kick-starting the economy by kick-starting the construction industry, which is in the doldrums right now, as you know. The would-be developers are complaining that the purchase price of development land is too high and the Planning regime is too restrictive etc.

 

There is not much point in building new office-space right now. Round Southampton, a huge amount of good-quality office space is empty because the erstwhile tenants have gone bust. People like Barratts are reluctant to build new housing estates because there is no guarantee that the Banks will provide enough mortgages for first time buyers and without them, the domestic property market is hamstrung. The Communities Select Committee have just announced a Public Inquiry into the Government's plans for "affordable rents" in the Social Housing sector because they are doubtful about whether these "affordable rents" will really be sustainable.

 

So - the Government's response is to free up LOADS of new land and to kill off all the present restrictions in the Planning regime. That ought to drive land-prices down sharply.

 

Right. What can be built on this newly-available land? If the land is near a canal, new marinas are possible. Tradies probably don't care about what sort of development they are constructing. Also, historically it was necessary for the canals to remain navigable but that need not necessarily remain the case in the future. Wet land is fine as long as whatever goes on the wet land has a waterproof membrane on the outside.

 

Somebody on this thread remarked the other day that Mrs Thatcher's decision to do away with the Parker Morris building standards in 1980 has led to to the development of shoe boxes instead of homes of a sensible size. The shoe-boxes can be further reduced in size if one does without loose, movable furniture inside them. Boats and caravans are perfect for this and they do not necessarily have to be dirigible as well. Also, it might be cheaper to build something with a waterproof exterior than to try to anchor the thing to the ground via foundations? According to the RBOA, boats provide an extremely "green" type of accommodation, which - if the RBOA are correct - would help us to meet Herr Huhne's ridiculously high targets with his "green agenda."

 

The results may well look hideous but the present Government does not seem to be worried about that (hence the fight-back from the National Trust.) The Govt's only concern seems to be to try to kick-start the economy and I think their basic ideas about how to do that might well do the trick.

 

Whatever is going on, there are going to be some hefty profits in it for someone, I strongly suspect.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Hi Gill

 

I was a property renovator and interior designer for 25 years so I remember the Osborne empire:-) Still am a property renovator but I have another line of business now also.

 

The government has no money to build houses and construction is at a standstill as you say. Basic costs for the actual build of a basic house is around 70-120.000 pounds plus the land value. The sail away boats cost around 30,000.

I can see a nice little earner for marina operators to buy in shedloads of cheap boats, cheaply fit them out, rent them at a subsidised rent and as far as housing benefit payments go, I can see how this will ease the social housing crisis and bring down the welfare budget because housing benefit on a boat will be much less than on a house.

 

I can see their vision all to clear unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you break down the benefit system into categories,

 

1. Retired ......would they want to live on a boat?

 

2. Disabled.......probably not practical.

 

3. Single parents with numerous children....... unlikely to be easy or convenient.

 

4. Long term sick leave .........not sure.

 

5. Unemployed.........maybe.

 

6. Students......not enough night life.

 

7. Low income families......again, probably not practical.

 

 

The thing is, when I took this mooring, no one here fell into any of these categories. But thanks to the recent recession, a third of our neighbours have found themselves unemployed and a proportion of the rest suddenly fall into these categories. I reckon this is one of the reasons we are seeing so many empty marinas. I've seen many people have to sell their boats and move in with their parents, or have to go cc, because they can't afford the mooring.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no one is suggesting anyone builds boats for people especially, it's just that those of us that are already on the water might find ourselves in a vulnerable position - if the government doesn't recognise the situation some of us suddenly find ourselves in, then they're going to have many more rough sleepers on their hands.

 

We already have a bad situation with the homeless here in Tottenham - many unemployed eu immigrants, they came over for building work that has now dried up, they don't qualify for any benefits (you can ignore what the papers say, you can't just move to the UK and claim benefits), they have no money for a flight back home and are squatting in dangerous places, maybe as many as 40 men at a time, not nice houses, but in awful conditions with no sanitation (again you can ignore what the papers say on this), camping on the marsh, living in makeshift tree houses (!) hell I've even seen some men construct a two story shack out of pallets under the North Circular flyover. If boaters can't afford their boats and the council can't house them, then this problem will just be added to.

 

Link for info

 

Another link for info

 

ETA many of us in Tottenham are worried about what the housing benefits reforms will do. We have (AFAIK) 70,000 Haredi jews living here - most have very large families and are suddenly going to find their housing benefits cut - they won't be able to afford their accommodation.

Edited by Lady Muck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, when I took this mooring, no one here fell into any of these categories. But thanks to the recent recession, a third of our neighbours have found themselves unemployed and a proportion of the rest suddenly fall into these categories. I reckon this is one of the reasons we are seeing so many empty marinas. I've seen many people have to sell their boats and move in with their parents, or have to go cc, because they can't afford the mooring.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no one is suggesting anyone builds boats for people especially, it's just that those of us that are already on the water might find ourselves in a vulnerable position - if the government doesn't recognise the situation some of us suddenly find ourselves in, then they're going to have many more rough sleepers on their hands.

 

We already have a bad situation with the homeless here in Tottenham - many unemployed eu immigrants, they came over for building work that has now dried up, they don't qualify for any benefits (you can ignore what the papers say, you can't just move to the UK and claim benefits), they have no money for a flight back home and are squatting in dangerous places, maybe as many as 40 men at a time, not nice houses, but in awful conditions with no sanitation (again you can ignore what the papers say on this), camping on the marsh, living in makeshift tree houses (!) hell I've even seen some men construct a two story shack out of pallets under the North Circular flyover. If boaters can't afford their boats and the council can't house them, then this problem will just be added to.

 

Link for info

 

Another link for info

 

 

Obviously people need somewhere to live which has to be a priority because it's a humanitarian cause so yes, I would agree, for those living on boats currently and feeling vulnerable, it makes sense to give them peace of mind with residential status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the government are sh*tting themselves. They have a big problem on their hands. There is no council housing to speak of and a shortage of affordable private lets.

 

MP's have been lobbied alot by liveaboards recently, it has made them aware of a 'problem' that they didn't even know about. If BW start booting liveaboards off their boats for whatever reason the problem gets worse.

 

Clicky

 

ETA here's another 'cheerful' article. Clicky

Edited by Lady Muck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the government are sh*tting themselves. They have a big problem on their hands. There is no council housing to speak of and a shortage of affordable private lets.

 

MP's have been lobbied alot by liveaboards recently, it has made them aware of a 'problem' that they didn't even know about. If BW start booting liveaboards off their boats for whatever reason the problem gets worse.

 

Clicky

 

ETA here's another 'cheerful' article. Clicky

 

It's clearly a problem not least because the number of people leaving the UK has dropped. The low pound makes it expensive to live in France or Spain and Australia is now one of the most expensive places in the world to live. It wasn't, when I moved there 12 years ago, it was very cheap but now it's gone the other way. My food bill in England is a third of what it cost in Australia. So are my other bills so it's not necessarily expensive to live here, it's just that there are too many people in the country.

 

I think the housing crisis is a problem and the government are taking drastic steps to deal with it. The way in which they do this won't please everybody, I don't want to see the rural life of the canals ruined, I think residential status should only be given to those who genuinely love the boating and canal life, not as a cheap way to live.

But there are also such a lot of buildings on land that could be renovated into affordable housing for many. That would also kickstart the construction industry. The government could also look at offering a reduced rate mortgage repayment system that wasn't based on share prices instead of leaving people's homes and their affordability solely at the mercy of the banks and global stock markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Lady Muck

 

I'm shocked by both of your posts today. I had no idea that things have become so bad in parts of London. Also, if things are that bad in London they are probably just as bad in some of the other densely populated large cities as well.

 

Also, I didn't know that some of the marinas are emptying out - on some of the canals, at least. Round Southampton, the marinas all still seem to be full though I must admit I haven't looked closely. I've just had a vague impression from glancing around. The Southampton area may not be typical, anyway, because a lot of London money still drives down the M3 every weekend.

 

Do many MPs have boats on the canals, do you know? I'm just wondering who planted thoughts about boats in Grant Shapps' head?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

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.