Jump to content

On-line mooring consultation


Tanglewood

Featured Posts

51 minutes ago, Jim Batty said:

Hi Mike

Boaters who live or spend a lot of time on boats don't squander resources, like water, fuel, electricity because they're a pain in the butt to replenish. We (and many others) sometimes forgo a full-blown shower if we're tied up in a really nice place, simply so that we can put off a journey to a water point and stay there longer. So use less water. Turn the tap off between tooth brushings. So use less water. Our cabins are usually much smaller than even a small flat, so use less heat/fuel. We're not extravagant consumerists ... because there's precious little space to store stuff. Many of us use solar panels (far more than the house holders) and store that energy for use. We replace all our halogen bulbs with LEDs and save a bit more. Because we often linger in the countryside, we come to know it more intimately and 'look after it'. Sort of become greener than if we are disconnected from nature at the heart of a city. And so on ...

I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't know Mike! :) OK, not all boaters are heroic angels, but over the long haul, I believe the impact of boaters (on boats) on our environment is reasonably 'low impact'.

Hi Jerra

By 'subsidise' I mean contribute -- to pay part of the cost -- in the building and servicing of first-rate live aboard moorings (as described above). So that we get something of benefit for a wide range of people, including: the local council (who get to home people at a reasonable rate -- and BTW not just anybody, but those who already show an interest in these type of moorings, for example by already owning a boat); CRT (development and servicing savings, that can be poured back into dredging, etc., etc., ...), boaters (liveaboards who can stay in one place for a reasonable 'rent'; cruisers who can now pass said moorings at 3.5 mph because they've been built properly using modern techniques and materials). 

Hi Horace

Unfortunately, given past examples and such, it is too easy for many of us to conflate 'live aboard moorings' with 'gypsy encampments'. 

The moorings I described above are technically advanced (but not rocket science!), low-impact, good looking, sparsely scattered live aboard moorings. And they are NOT free! 

Whilst I haven't nailed down every detail of habitation at these moorings (that would be for CRT to establish, country-wide, in consultation with councils and other possible partners), I would imagine that part of residing at such moorings would entail looking after them, not building 8'x8' structures or piling junk on the tow path, not sub-letting them, and a host of other stuff in a basic contract. Sort of like renting a flat. 

I think most of us know of people, even communities of people, living on online CRT leisure moorings. And a lot of these moorings are sort of rubbish, with caving in banks, undredged, with non-existant or very distant water points. Despite this, most of them look good. Their inhabitants take pride in keeping them that way in as simple a fashion as possible. 

 

I suspect you are confusing efficiency with consumption. You can be efficient of inefficient whatever level of consumption you use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I suspect you are confusing efficiency with consumption. You can be efficient of inefficient whatever level of consumption you use.

OK, nice distinction.

I think those of us who live or spend a lot of time aboard are driven to be efficient with our resources -- we don't waste them -- mostly because they're a pain to replace. This makes us think about the value of those resources ... and after a while of being in that efficiency and value headspace, we occasionally think about other resources and how we might be more efficient with them. I don't know, instead of throwing away my old watering can, I recycle it by asking along the cut if anyone can use it and give it to them. (Sad but true, I would never have done this when I lived in a flat in suburban London.) I take this to have less environmental impact.

My point about limited consumption was that we simply don't buy as much stuff because we are restricted by space to put it. (We consider buying things more carefully because we know we'll have to get rid of something of equal size to fit it in.) Because of this attitude that we have developed by living on a boat, and not buying much stuff, we, for example, contribute less plastic/electronics/packaging to local landfill sites.  I also take this to have less environmental impact.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2017 at 21:10, Jim Batty said:

Is the following controversial?

Personally I think there should be more small collections of on-line live aboard moorings loosely scattered about the system, supplied by CRT for a reasonable fee. There is clearly a massive demand for them in some areas, for a variety of reasons, and many boaters engaged in 'bridge hopping' would be happy to settle on and pay for one of these. Happier boaters, less congestion in popular places (?), greater income for CRT to spend on canal upkeep. 

How could these marvellous moorings be funded? CRT should be encouraging local and regional councils and governments to become active partners in developing these online moorings -- indeed subsidise them; even run electricity and water to them.

For a wide variety of reasons Britain is massively short of housing, and many local councils are desperate to develop more local housing ... because they are legally responsible to do it. You'd think they would welcome CRT's offer of partnership with open arms. Surely the development in a community of, say, a dozen such moorings to house a dozen local families, would be much, much, much less expensive than the usual alternatives of securing planning permission and local support to build the infrastructure (sewers, water, electricity, roads, ...) for 12 homes on a brownfield or agricultural plot at the edge of town or village. 

What about having to slow down when cruising past these wonderful new live aboard online moorings? Given that they would be newly built and locally subsidised, why not build them properly? Such as with: 1) good depth (>4-foot?); 2) indented slightly into the towpath where possible; 3) proper rings or bollards; 4) decent fendering.

By 'decent fendering' I mean the installation of a type of strip fendering similar to that seen in coastal moorings -- made of shock absorbing composite materials in 'B' or 'D' or 'M' sections that protect boats and cushion movement. This isn't rocket science -- more 'rubber science'! With online moorings constructed like this, there would be no need to pass boats at tick over -- they could probably be passed at about 3mph without undue rocking, bobbing, shuffling back and forth. 

What's not to like?

 

If canals were being built now, as a leisure facility, and not a transport highway whose primary purpose was to move goods around, then maybe this would already have happened.  However as that primary purpose no longer exists, then the infrastructure needs to be developed   to fit the modern need, which is to serve what was an ancillary use, but is now the primary use, i.e leisure.  The issue of whether Canals should be further developed to serve another purpose, namely as a housing resource is one that Local Councils should try to engage  with.  Unless there is a serious debate, then there will be a situation which will have to be 'regularised' on a large scale.  As I understand it the term 'regularise' means to develop regulations and apply them retrospectively to allow hitherto unregulated practices to be regulated.  However, the provision of such moorings would not be a cheaper option than providing a few affordable homes in an already planned housing estate - but I am not sure that that negates the rest of the argument.  A few boats on a stretch of wider or widened canal really add more to the landscape than they detract.  There are enough huge marinas for those who wish to store their boats, in between uses and many of them are eyesores, rows and rows of rectilinear, hard, shiny surfaces, resembling a Park and Ride.  These have no place in a rural landscape, whereas a few boats, pencil-shaped to harmonise with the cut add character and colour.  I believe that the proposal to drop the Policy that requires CRT to remove one on-line mooring every time 10 off-line moorings have been constructed  shows that CRT has at last stopped chasing its tail and has reflected on what really adds value to the waterways, and that is boats. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tanglewood said:

If canals were being built now, as a leisure facility, 

If canals were being built now as a leisure facility I suspect there would be no on line long term moorings just marinas.   This would leave the vast majority of the canal (other than VMs) empty to be used for the purpose they were being built i.e. leisure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loose time line:

First great Canal Era of Trans-shipment, peaking with Canal Mania in 1790s

Decline: By 1825 a quarter of the canal system had been sold off to railway companies.

Near death: By mid-1950s the commercial trans-shipment era drew to a conclusion with the near-dereliction of the waterways.

Second great Canal Era of Leisure Boating and recreation emerged in later 1950s (thanks to Rolt, Aichman thousands of volunteers, ...)

Era of leisure boating peaks in 2008

Third great Mixed Use Canal Era -- leisure, live aboard, healthy living -- begins in mid 2010s 

 

On this view, if canals were being built today, they'd probably incorporate a wide range of live aboard moorings and facilities -- online and offline -- along with a variety of other features such as dedicated cycle lanes and public exercise equipment. :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask how many marinas would want the tatty boats ? CRT need to re-assess the online moorings and where possible put them offside near to, or with facilities .The online mooring is a good source of income for CRT .Limit number of moorings to a sensible number with a good length before next moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, b0atman said:

Ask how many marinas would want the tatty boats ? CRT need to re-assess the online moorings and where possible put them offside near to, or with facilities .The online mooring is a good source of income for CRT .Limit number of moorings to a sensible number with a good length before next moorings.

As far as I can see, wandering around the system, there are - as with any market - different levels of facility for different customers. There are the destination marinas (like Mercia) which, as with gastro pubs, have found a market well beyond just offering a safe haven for boats. Others, such as where we are at the moment at Droitwich, provide just what boaters need - above all a friendly location with water, elsan and rubbish disposal and good laundry facilities. For some the option of a 'proper' shower is also welcome. Others, sometimes just otherwise disused side arms or backwaters, appear to be the home to boats that are mostly liveaboard and perhaps fall into the category that b0atman suggests would be unwelcome elsewhere.

The more modern marinas are often the more expensive as they have to carry the cost of the NAA whilst older established ones do not although I suspect that this is only marginal. More likely the variation depends on the capital cost of the facilities offered.

I for one would not want our canal network to be an imitation of the plastic, g&t boat palace places that extend along many coastlines. Whilst I have no wish to be in a state that imperils my welcome in a marina, I am more than happy for the canals to be proper reflection of life across all of society. Yes, some boats cost well into the six figure sum (at least when new) whilst others next to nothing (there is one lying in Diglis basin that we saw an advert on the facility block door with the strapline Boat for Free although the details were honest about its current state and the work needed!)

That said, my prejudices do lie in the direction of wanting to limit the number of boats moored on-line at any one location, just for variety whilst cruising.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought CRT was created primarily a transport authority, like the highways authority, it's remit is to maintain navigation and control pollution whilst supporting public access to the network. I don't believe that providing housing and 'facilities' is part of it's required duties, those facilities it does provide are to assist in the 'navigation and pollution bit'.  I suspect that part of the current consultations (license, mooring, congestion) is to find facts that are likely to result in a new act of parliament, which will be required for CRT to take on E.A. navigation responsibilities as this government would like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No reason why it shouldn't provide facilities for the equivalent of housing though. While not it's prime purpose, housing in this country is a total disaster area and maybe it's time to look at it again.  The canals were set up for a commercial purpose - this could be another one.  Just because we like it being virtually solely a leisure facility dosn't mean it has to stay that way.  And people have to live somewhere and the government obviously has no intention of providing houses for those on low incomes  (while ensuring there are more and more of them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Detling said:

I thought CRT was created primarily a transport authority, like the highways authority, it's remit is to maintain navigation and control pollution whilst supporting public access to the network. I don't believe that providing housing and 'facilities' is part of it's required duties, those facilities it does provide are to assist in the 'navigation and pollution bit'.  I suspect that part of the current consultations (license, mooring, congestion) is to find facts that are likely to result in a new act of parliament, which will be required for CRT to take on E.A. navigation responsibilities as this government would like. 

If one was to be 'charitable' it could be argued that becoming a 'housing authority' could be covered under section 2.6

The Trust’s objects are:
2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:
2.1.1 for navigation;
2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and
2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;


2.2 to protect and conserve for public benefit sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;


2.3 to further for the public benefit the conservation protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;


2.4 to promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways;

2.5 to promote and facilitate for public benefit awareness, learning and education about Inland Waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;


2.6 to promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any Inland Waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by:
2.6.1 the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and
2.6.2 the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources; and


2.7 to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with Inland Waterways;
provided that in each case where the Trust undertakes work in relation to property which it does not own or hold in trust, any private benefit to the owner of the property is merely incidental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the C&RT yield to the demands of some on here and become a 'housing authority', how many extra homes does the team think the canal system could support, whilst at the same time maintaining it as a leisure facility?

And how should this additional role be funded? An increase in the licence fee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 the government obviously has no intention of providing houses for those on low incomes  (while ensuring there are more and more of them).

I agree the government doesn't seem to be able to get a grip on housing, however I don't see that as a reason why CRT (basically a navigation authority) should take it on.

Its to me (and this isn't intended as an analogy) as daft as the county council developing caravan parks in lay-byes because the government isn't tackling homelessness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

No reason why it shouldn't provide facilities for the equivalent of housing though. While not it's prime purpose, housing in this country is a total disaster area and maybe it's time to look at it again.  The canals were set up for a commercial purpose - this could be another one.  Just because we like it being virtually solely a leisure facility dosn't mean it has to stay that way.  And people have to live somewhere and the government obviously has no intention of providing houses for those on low incomes  (while ensuring there are more and more of them).

 

8 hours ago, Jerra said:

Its to me (and this isn't intended as an analogy) as daft as the county council developing caravan parks in lay-byes because the government isn't tackling homelessness.

Although this thread started because I wanted to draw attention to CRT proposals to drop the policy of removing on-line moorings whenever a  new marina opened within a 30 mile radius, it has become much more interesting. Its hard to tell if members have their tongues firmly in their cheeks  when posting, haven't local councils allowed whole communities to live in Lay-bys, rather than allocating sites, as they are required to do, for Gypsies and Travelling Show-people?

It is a matter of fact that Waterways are used as a location for 'housing' , there are a lot of liner and off-line residential mooring sites.  And a good proportion of CCers are live-aboard.  It wouldn't actually make any difference to navigation if all the CCers were given the opportunity  of a permanent mooring on-line, they are on the system anyway.  The only question is whether CRT are prepared to develop such sites - from the, admittedly few, comments on here, it is more about how many boats should be allowed to congregate on any one length that is the concern.  It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the licensing consultation is - if that results in removing the financial attraction of CCing, then removing the  policy of reducing on-line moorings actually allows DRT to increase them, and BTW Jenny Whitehall and her team are no longer working to make themselves redundant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

 

Although this thread started because I wanted to draw attention to CRT proposals to drop the policy of removing on-line moorings whenever a  new marina opened within a 30 mile radius, it has become much more interesting. Its hard to tell if members have their tongues firmly in their cheeks  when posting, haven't local councils allowed whole communities to live in Lay-bys, rather than allocating sites, as they are required to do, for Gypsies and Travelling Show-people?

It is a matter of fact that Waterways are used as a location for 'housing' , there are a lot of liner and off-line residential mooring sites.  And a good proportion of CCers are live-aboard.  It wouldn't actually make any difference to navigation if all the CCers were given the opportunity  of a permanent mooring on-line, they are on the system anyway.  The only question is whether CRT are prepared to develop such sites - from the, admittedly few, comments on here, it is more about how many boats should be allowed to congregate on any one length that is the concern.  It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the licensing consultation is - if that results in removing the financial attraction of CCing, then removing the  policy of reducing on-line moorings actually allows DRT to increase them, and BTW Jenny Whitehall and her team are no longer working to make themselves redundant.

 

A couple of points.  Firstly noway would Travellers/gypsies be allowed to set up permanent roadside communities up here.   Many roadside areas have been made deliberately inaccessible.  Particularly aimed at moving those coming for the Appleby Fair into the areas they require them to be in.

The whole point of a CC licence as I understand it was because people who travelled a large part of the system didn't want the expense of a home mooring they would never use.   If we work logically back from that two things emerge firstly true CCers don't want/need a permanent mooring.  If somebody is living on a boat I personally am not convinced there aren't enough moorings it is just that some want to live on the canal and not pay for a mooring and so try to "pretend" to CC.

If I come back to the Gypsies I can't see a mile or so of their caravans parked by the roadside making everybody pass at 10mph which is the road equivalent (to me) to on line moorings.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the sense of keeping established on line moorings after a marina has opened  . But creating what would be a  linear park of houseboat may create more problems . Who would live there ? would it be right to other crt moorers in the area to charge a reduced rent ? .I can't see many 'bridge hoppers ' taking up a mooring , when they are quite happy 'hopping' . CC wont need one , as we are always moving. Residential land based families may be willing to take one up , but only if there is water and electricity at each boat , properly maintained towpaths , landing stages , lighting ( health and safety) car parking  .  Whilst as ' boaters ' we generally accept lack of facilities, rough towpaths ect as part of life , land based families would not, as they would be living on a  boat through necessity, not perhaps choice. Whilst writing this my mind is drawn to the moorings on the Oxford  canal . The rubbish on the towpath , the general air of decay of boats  , mile after mile . Is that what we are we are talking about . No I dont know the answer , but maybe have a consultation with marinas to see if they are willing to have 10% of their berths given over to livaboards, with councils approval.   Housing benefit can then be applied for to assist with mooring fees . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe CRT could work with local councils to establish the numbers of 'households' in each area who have a need for affordable and serviced mooring sites. s124 of the Housing and PLanning Act 2016 says the councils have to do this - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/22/section/124/enacted

I see no reason why councils or other affordable housing providers shouldn't provide mooring sites where there is a need for them - they could be paid for int he same way social housing is - largely through housing benefit. We'd have to not have the right to buy though. 

Some people need to stay still some times and travel other times - this could be accommodated with transient mooring sites. 

There have always been people living on the canals, since they were built. When it was a transport system for goods, there were various efforts by charities and others to meet the needs of the residential populations. That's part of the heritage - I don/'t see why the shift from transport to leisure should eradicate this really - there are and always have been people living ont he waterways - CRT can meet their own objectives even whilst providing facilities for residential boaters. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be politically unacceptable for local councils to support/fund/promote/whatever liveaboard moorings. Boats do not and cannot meet the standards for what is considered acceptable accommodation as Bunny points out. 

When we were evicted from our moorings back in around 1980, the tack taken by the local councillors at the time was that we poor people should not be forced to live in sub-standard accommodation on boats, we should be saved from our squalor by evicting us from our Thames mooring in a posh Berkshire village. 

Even more ludicrously it was suggested we each buy one of the flats planned for the site. This tale illustrates the way local politicians think though. The opposition would politically crucify any administration actively promoting boats as an acceptable alternative to a house or flat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It would be politically unacceptable for local councils to support/fund/promote/whatever liveaboard moorings. Boats do not and cannot meet the standards for what is considered acceptable accommodation as Bunny points out. 

When we were evicted from our moorings back in around 1980, the tack taken by the local councillors at the time was that we poor people should not be forced to live in sub-standard accommodation on boats, we should be saved from our squalor by evicting us from our Thames mooring in a posh Berkshire village. 

Even more ludicrously it was suggested we each buy one of the flats planned for the site. This tale illustrates the way local politicians think though. The opposition would politically crucify any administration actively promoting boats as an acceptable alternative to a house or flat. 

Those Flats were not Cheap a Third Floor 2 Bedroom one (with River View) would sell for £ 65 k ,Expensive when compared to a 3 Bedroomed house in Windsor costing 24 k in 1980!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jerra said:

it is just that some want to live on the canal and not pay for a mooring and so try to "pretend" to CC.

^^^This^^^

It doesn't matter HOW "affordable" these proposed new residential mooring might be, they will never be as affordable as pretend CCing. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

It doesn't matter HOW "affordable" these proposed new residential mooring might be, they will never be as affordable as pretend CCing. 

But if they give people access to jobs, schools and housing benefit, they could work well for some people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

^^^This^^^

It doesn't matter HOW "affordable" these proposed new residential mooring might be, they will never be as affordable as pretend CCing. 

 

And of course, much as with rented property, they won't stay affordable for long because they'll get picked up cheap and then relet at a higher rate, exactly as council houses did. But the fact still remains that people have to live somewhere, and it has to be somewhere they can afford, and a boat without many facilities may well be enough for a fair few who would rather that than sleep under a hedge.

Certainly when I moved onto my boat, there were at least another half dozen living on the farm mooring simply because it was a cheap option, usually marriage breakdown or job loss. Can't say I heard anyone complain we didn't have online power, we were just pleased to have a roof over our heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Certainly when I moved onto my boat, there were at least another half dozen living on the farm mooring simply because it was a cheap option, usually marriage breakdown or job loss. Can't say I heard anyone complain we didn't have online power, we were just pleased to have a roof over our heads.

 

Quite.

But can you imagine the storm of protest in the media and on programmes like Question Time if local councils up and down the land teamed up with CRT and started offering homeless people the chance to rent a cheap mooring with no electricity and they still have to buy their own boat which might not have double glazing, hot and cold running water and flushing toilet?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jerra said:

The whole point of a CC licence as I understand it was because people who travelled a large part of the system didn't want the expense of a home mooring they would never use.   If we work logically back from that two things emerge firstly true CCers don't want/need a permanent mooring.  If somebody is living on a boat I personally am not convinced there aren't enough moorings it is just that some want to live on the canal and not pay for a mooring and so try to "pretend" to CC.

 

When the CC licence option was made available, I believe there were about 10,000 boats and only a few hundred livaboards who wished to CC, now we have over 30,000 boats and over 4000 CC boats many of which are  livaboards. If all these CC boats all moored in continuous  60 foot slots they would cover over 45 miles, try passing that at tickover or even at any speed in one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Matt&Jo said:

Thing is i expect over 2000 of these boats are CCing around the london area......

 

Another factor is the way the price of a basic CRT on line mooring has ballooned. Unless my memory fails me one could rent a 70ft mooring for less tha a grand a year, fifteen years ago, so the decision to pretend CC was not that financially advantageous. Nowadays pretty much anything 70ft costs £3k a year or a good deal more, so the decision to pretend CC becomes a no-brainer if money is tight.

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.