Topic: BA plans for residential boats


Paladine    -- Oct-8-2017 @ 9:39 AM
 
At the next BA Planning Committee meeting (13 October), a report, entitled 'Norfolk Caravans and Houseboats Accommodation Needs Assessment including for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show people', will be presented. The majority of the report relates to gypsies, travellers and travelling show people, but sections 9 and 10 relate to the needs of people who live mainly and/or permanently on boats in the BA area.

It did make me wonder on which planet the BA planners live.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


daz3210    -- Oct-8-2017 @ 10:33 AM
  In what way did you think about the planet on which the planners live?

Surely if there are folks who insist on living aboard the BA needs to consider how to deal with this?????

Wocka Wocka Wocka


TerryTibbs    -- Oct-8-2017 @ 10:37 AM
  Having a quick glance through it I'm surprised that the B.A. Went to such lengths over  Jenners Basin, point 22,8 on page 30 which sets out criteria for passing an application for new residential moorings describes pretty much to a T Jenners, with a little work that site could easily have met all the criteria therein mentioned.

Dave Confused

Je suis Charlie

This message was edited by TerryTibbs on Oct-8-17 @ 11:38 AM


Paladine    -- Oct-8-2017 @ 10:47 AM
 
daz3210, I'll let others make up their own minds about the report and whether the BA is living in the same world as the rest of us. It sounds as if you have found nothing wrong with the report.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


daz3210    -- Oct-8-2017 @ 11:19 AM
  Regardless of the content of the report (and I aint got time to read 147 pages in great detail), surely if there is a situation (such as folks wanting to live aboard) the BA need to consider this, and act accordingly.

The situation at Jenners was mentioned above, and teh part highlighted in that regard does indeed seem to bear some resemblance with Jenners, the only problem being that there was a restrictive covenant and an uncooperative landowner involved.

Surely the BA are quite correct if they wish liveaboards to do so in the manner detailed in the report i.e. out of the way and without undue consequence to other local residents.


Wocka Wocka Wocka


Jean&Brian    -- Oct-8-2017 @ 2:23 PM
  Thanks for the link Paladine.

Daz there are 2 worlds the one where officialdom lives and the real one where the rest of us live

I am sure many will confirm that there are a number of residential boaters below the radar where because of planning issues neither they or the marina owners where they reside will admit to their existence, none the less they are in the whole decent people whos presence is appreciated by other berth holders, official figures rarely represent the true picture.

            Brian



Islander    -- Oct-8-2017 @ 3:47 PM
  Ditto. Thanks for the link Paladin. The report was produced for various councils and authority's not just the BA. I'm sure the BA will give very little time to discussing the content as most will be outside 'their' area. Unfortunately the estimate for residential moorings appears to be pure guess work and probably provided by the BA ( no mention of the residential boats with planning permission in Wroxham).  It will be interesting to hear their comments as to the provision of 60 plus residential moorings in the future. If your face fits I'm sure you will be able to ' legitimise' the moorings that most boatyards have which currently try to stay below the radar.
During the 2001 census we were asked not to mention we were resident as the the yard owner didn't have planning permission. This is why I see little value in the figures quoted in this report. Unfortunately those with the power will accept the report on face value as true and accurate( even the estimates).

I hope to attend the planning meeting if I can shake off this bl***y cough( no, I don't smoke ) and other engagements don't clash. I'm sure the words of Cally Smith and our CEO will be uplfting  Smile

Colin Cheers


GP1    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 12:15 PM
  Can anybody please explain to me what causes the prejudice against liveaboards living in their own home?

Living aboard has been going on since navigation began and is all over the country. I see this dislike of it everywhere I go. I just can't work out the cause of it.

Yes, there are some undesirables living aboard, as there are in many streets of houses. But why the general hatred? It's obviously there, there's no point in denial.

Are people aware of the physiological and emotional  harm caused by this? Unless I can come to understand the reasoning, I can only see it a jealousy or some other evil.

I look forward to a balanced and rational explanation, not based on the notion of "if he can do it, why can't I" or "it's costing me money", when it isn't.



This message was edited by GP1 on Dec-31-17 @ 12:16 PM


Paladine    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 2:33 PM
 
GP1, could you please give some examples of this ‘prejudice’ and ‘general hatred’?

As far as members of this forum are concerned, I have seen no sign of it. What I think most people have an aversion to is those boaters, whether continual cruisers, or with a home base, or hirers, who fail to comply with the rules, speed, cause a nuisance, don’t pay their tolls, and/or leave a mess behind them.

There are a number of people who live mainly on their boats in boatyards, as well as those who take advantage of the free BA moorings, who draw no attention to themselves whatsoever.



"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


Stick    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 2:47 PM
  "Surely if there are folks who insist on living aboard the BA needs to consider how to deal with this?????"

I don't insist on living on my boat, I simply can't afford to live anywhere else plus I don't feel emotionally trapped while being free to move about, living in a fixed abode gives me deppression and my PTSD gets worse! Ok I know that statement is not aimed at me personally but is a sweeping statement aimed at all persons who's main domicile is their boat! Every time I see a statement like that I get the feeling that it's aimed at myself and others who simply can not afford to rent/buy a house or flat. We are all being tarred with the same brush, again, Norfolk seems to be only place that there is an active resentment/ hatred off ALL persons who reside on their boats for what ever reasons they do it. Why should the Broads Authority "need" to deal with it? If you don't pay your toll or insure your boat or have a boat safety done or you " live" on a trespass mooring and dump rubbish on it then the Broads authority " need" to deal with that. They don't "need" to deal with persons who are using their boat as their home. It's not illegal to do that, so why is it such a problem to some? Why do the Broads Authority "need" to deal with the
" liveaboards"?

Let the world flood! I live on a boat!


Paladine    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 3:41 PM
 
Stick, in my opinion, the BA ‘needs to deal with it’ in terms of all the permanent residents in marinas. The BA knows they are there, we all know they are there, but it is illegal for them to be there. Those that I know about cause no problems, and have access to electricity, water and sanitation. It’s about time steps were taken to allow a proportion of residential moorings in marinas. It may be that the Waveney River Centre is being used as an experiment, which, if successful, will be used as a model.

As regards the ‘liveaboards’ who take the p*ss, the BA knows who they are as well, and deal with them in their own sweet time.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


GP1    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 4:06 PM
  Sticks response echoes my thoughts exactly:-

Why should the Broads Authority "need" to deal with it?

There is the perfect answer to the question.





This message was edited by GP1 on Dec-31-17 @ 4:33 PM


Stick    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 5:26 PM
  Who decided it is illegal to be residing in a boat in a marina? Surely if every marina didn't allow them to "live" there, then you will have the problem off even more boats travelling from 24hr mooring to 24 mooring? Why is it illegal to live in your boat at a marina? If the boat is paying for its mooring and is compliant with all the requirements to have a boat on the river in the first place, what is the problem? I have never seen it written down by the Broads Authority or any marina that it is illegal to live on your boat. Why would it be? If you come down to your boat at a weekend and sleep on her for two nights, technically you are living on her. If you stay on her for 6 months you may be an offshore worker and have six months off so you choose to have a 6 month holiday on your boat... Who decides what a live aboard is? Who decided it is illegal to do it? It's your boat. You pay the tolls and insure her and she is boat safety compliant.... That's all the Broads authority should worry about. If people are residing in their boats its up to the boat yard where they are to decide if they will allow that or not. I've spoken to a ranger on this, as far as the Broads Authority are concerned, if the vessel is compliant with their requirements they have no problem whether somone is on it for a week or a year. You people really need to think about what you are really complaining about..., are you annoyed that people can live on a boat and use her all year round or are you complaining about the people who don't pay their tolls or insure the boat or make sure it's safe and have a certificate to prove it? Which is the worst case scenario? Or are all persons who reside on their boats to be hated and driven off the rivers because it's not fair that they are allowed to live there? That's like saying that everyone that can afford to own their own house is fine but people who are renting theirs shouldn't be allowed to do that..... If you can afford a house AND a boat, we folk who can't afford a house should not be allowed to live in something we can afford? Next you'll be saying that little houses shouldn't be lived in because they don't pay as much insurance or council tax as people in big houses. You can not have a problem with someone who lives on his or her boat AND is compliant in all respects with what the Authority says you need to keep his or her vessel on the Broads or adjacent waterways. You can have a problem with vessels that are non compliant with any of the requirements of the Authority to keep their vessel on the waterways. Those people who are non compliant are a threat to all boats and all users of the waterways be they in a marina or out continuos cruising and if only because no one has any idea as to whether their gas systems are safe or if they are a fire or explosion hazard as they have no valid safety certification....



Let the world flood! I live on a boat!

This message was edited by Stick on Dec-31-17 @ 9:41 PM


bazzer    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 5:38 PM
  The problem is the marinas are licensed like caravan site.  Most marinas are subject to a condition that no one should stay continuously on their boat for more than a certain number of days.  Probably 60 or similar.  If you went to a travelodge every 60 days you would be legal


turnoar    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 5:43 PM
  Stickman continue to live the dream, weather adrift on the rhonds or tucked up in a brona fide marina as others have said live aboards have always been there and don’t fear any legislative drive to perhaps drag you out onto the slipway, there isn’t the room!

The water world scenario looks increasingly likely, fields flooded I’ve driven past today, not a ditch as far as the eye can sea, Sutton, catfield, potter.

And don’t worry about ASBOats, I think the authorities have bigger pike to fry.

May I be the first or one of to wish all broadsmen whether landlubbers or waterborne, grockles or locafolks, a joyous 2018!


Dilligaf    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 5:55 PM
  There is no need whatsoever to "deal" with anyone living on a boat, they need to "deal" with people not paying tolls, not having bss, hogging time limited public moorings, leaving piles of crud on the bank of public moorings, this is all covered already in the byelaws and completely irrelevant to wether the person is "living" on the boat or just temporarily residing on their boat for a holiday or whatever.
The council need to "deal" with anyone living in their area not paying the council tax for which they receive services, some of which may be covered by mooring fees (that is down to the landowner of the mooring).
I have no reason to discriminate against anyone because they live on a boat, if they dodge tolls/bss/insurance or take the p*ss out of public moorings I will discriminate at leisure.
I think the broads need more moorings licenced for liveaboards but I guess most of the liveaboards with proper moorings are not the problem.


Dave.
Formerly 'LeoMagill'


Paladine    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 6:04 PM
  Stick, this is simply a planning matter. If a vessel is moored in the same place for more than 28 days, planning approval is required. Until the WRC case, no marina has been given planning permission for residential moorings. This has got nothing whatsoever with your perceived prejudice against continuous cruisers.

As I said earlier, it is about time the BA revised its policy.

Having taken the time to read through your rant, I would make the following comments:

Why is it illegal to live in your boat at a marina?

Because planning consent is required, and, apart from WRC, has not been granted.

Who decides what a live aboard is? Who decided it is illegal to do it?

The Broads Authority.

You people really need to think about what you are really complaining about...,

Who are ‘You people’? No-one here is complaining.

In my experience, persons who live on their boats have very well maintained boats usually above and beyond the requirements of the BSS scheme because it's their home and should it sink or catch fire then they have lost everything. How can you have a problem with people like that?

No-one I know, nor any members here, have got a problem with boaters who comply with the law.

Wouldn't it be handy if you had actually made friends with that person who lives on their boat in your marina....

I am on very friendly terms with the people who live on the boats next to mine, thank you.

Why are you so adamant that boats that people live on are a problem…?

Where has anyone said anything remotely like that on here?

Obviously I get a little irate when people make sweeping statements that living on board their own boat, that is fully compliant with the requirements for keeping that vessel on the Broads, is illegal!

No-one has said that either. What I said was, apart from WRC, planning consent for residential use of marinas hasn’t been granted, so living on a boat in those other marinas IS illegal. The illegality is that of the marina owner allowing it, without the requisite planning permission.


"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


This message was edited by Paladine on Dec-31-17 @ 6:24 PM


Paladine    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 6:37 PM
 
Stick, you may be interested in this response from John Packman on the issue.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


Stick    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 8:02 PM
  I give up!

On a better note!

Happy new year shortly.

Let the world flood! I live on a boat!

This message was edited by Stick on Dec-31-17 @ 9:45 PM


Stick    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 8:43 PM
  Couple of things o master Paladine, I originally cut and pasted the comment about the BA "need" to do something about liveaboards that was a sweeping statement that I felt encompassed all live aboards! Thank you for completely dissecting my "rant" as you called it..great way to make somone feel small and taking somones post apart like that and putting it back up in small chunks makes it look completely wrong and can easily be taken out of context.... As I'm
Sure you will be doing the same to this "rant" I shall not go on, suffice to say.

.. Cheers mate I won't be posting on this site again.

Don't listen to me, I'm an idiot!


Paladine    -- Dec-31-2017 @ 10:54 PM
 
Stick, I was actually trying to be helpful. You appear think that the world is against you and all those who live on their boats. I was pointing out that the restriction on living on a boat in a marina is a legal one, and not due to any prejudice, real or imagined.

I also directed you to the CEO's statement and the BA's policy. It should be very clear to you by now that there are no restrictions on living on a boat on the navigation, other than the restrictions that apply to all who go boating.

I also answered some of the questions you posed, and used the word 'rant' because that is how you described your lengthy post (before you edited it some three hours after my response). If you edit a post hours after people have responded to it, is it any wonder that the context of those replies may have changed.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


GP1    -- Jan-1-2018 @ 12:39 AM
  Wha I say is:-
Happy new year to all. Let's all put any mistakes behind us, be tollerant of everybody as well as considerate to each others needs.

God bless you all and the whole year ahead



This message was edited by GP1 on Jan-1-18 @ 12:41 AM


batrabill    -- Jan-1-2018 @ 7:00 PM
  That escalated quickly

Bill


kfurbank    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 7:49 AM
  Quote "that escalated quickly"

And that's without input from Rickaaaay who thankfully the mods here had the common sense to ban, unlike the "good ole boys" Captain Morgans, Grinder, Chaplin and Partridge on the other side.  Smile

Just because The BA make a request, don't automatically assume they have the powers to make such requests!! Keeping a careful eye on an Authority which is making it's own rules.

This message was edited by kfurbank on Jan-2-18 @ 7:50 AM


TerryTibbs    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 11:01 AM
  Why do the Authority have to make plans for residential boaters? Because, I believe, they have a legal duty/obligation to do so, just as all local authorities have a legal duty to make plans to deal with all groups who live a Nomadic lifestyle.

Dave



Je suis Charlie


Paladine    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 11:42 AM
 
TT, isn’t the obligation that of the ‘proper’ local authorities? The BA only acts as a local authority for certain functions, as authorised by various bits of legislation. I don’t believe they were ever given any responsibility for housing.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


TerryTibbs    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 12:05 PM
  I stand corrected.

Dave

if it is to be it is up to me.


TerryTibbs    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 1:49 PM
  Wouldn't there commitment to the National planning policy of March 2012 which includes the following para
"This Framework should be read in conjunction with the Government’s
planning policy for traveller sites. Local planning authorities preparing plans
for and taking decisions on travellers sites should also have regard to the
policies in this Framework so far as relevant."

mean that they do have a duty?

dave

if it is to be it is up to me.


aboattime    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 1:52 PM
  PM sent

kindest regards

Kevin Cook


aboattime    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 1:59 PM
  Stick,PM sent

kindest regards

Kevin Cook


Stick    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 3:24 PM
  Of course I think the world is against me.... I'm one of the ones that get moved along and banned from certain broads.... I initially joined this web site to defend my self from the posts that were anti live aboard and anti me because no one knew my story. This web site appears very anti- live aboard and as one of those people who is one then any critisim aimed at the " live aboards" is there fore aimed at me. Judging by the amount of people questioning as to why quite a few people on this web site are ant liveaboard would kind of ( in my opinion) give weight to what I say! There are people on this web site who tar every live aboard with the same brush... They must do because on one hand they are complaining that there are live aboards in a marina and they shouldn't be allowed- but the only problems about them doing this is the people who are complaining about it... The boat yard doesn't have a problem with it nor does the BA. But should the boat yard put its foot down, due to the amount of complaints forcing the BA to do something about the liveaboards then those then displaced boats will have to become continuos cruisers which according to this site are also a problem. When I read the comments on this site, it appears to me, to be very anti liveaboard... So as one of those people/ families that are a permanent resident on their own boats it becomes an attack on me..... That's how I see it. I may be reading it wrong. However this is my final comment on the great "liveaboard" debate. I shall continue to post on technical questions if I feel I can assist but this topic I shall steer clear of.... I'm obviously a little too naive to be able to put an argument across in a manner that is understood by everyone. Any one who reads regularily on this site may or may not agree with me about the above comments....there are plenty of examples of the anti live aboard statements and other people have commented on them.... I'm not going to go through every post to cut and paste examples to back my self up.... They are there for all to see. But I will always remember that I joined this site because I, personally was mentioned in various posts under the title of " not right" so if this forum isn't anti live aboard why are there so many complaints/ posts about it's not right that people are living in boats in marinas or are continuos cruisers or just tied up on a Tresspass/ wild mooring? I can't see the problem, but then I am rather naive and can't understand what is wrong with living how I and many other people do. Happy new year!!!!!


Paladine    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 3:26 PM
 
The ‘get out’ is in the last four word “so far as relevant”. Another thought is that continuous cruisers aren’t regarded as ‘travellers’.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


Paladine    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 3:32 PM
 
Stick, I wonder why you choose to ignore the posts that are in support of liveaboards? My comments about those who live in marinas wasn’t to complain about them, it was to suggest it was about time that the BA regularised their situation and granted permission for more residential moorings.

But, as you prefer to think that everyone is against liveaboards in general, and you in particular, regardless of what people say to the contrary, I’ll let you get on with it.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


batrabill    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 3:57 PM
  I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks Stick has a point.
The worst problem with communities on forums is when “everyone” agrees.

Everyone agrees that Miles Weston is OK to take the p*** out of - so we all join in. Everyone agrees that Rickh is a bit aggressive..... oh OK I agree with that one.

I agree with him that the tone here is generally anti-liveaboard - so not surprising people take offence.

Bill


GP1    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 4:27 PM
  Here' another one on you side sick. I spent 20 yrs as a workong canal boatman. Most of my friends were liveaboards. I defended them then and I defend you and other livaboards now.

It's your home! Enjoy, be prod of it and try not to be hurt. I know how hard that is and easy to say. The naysayers don't understand any more than the homophobes and mioginists, those who despise the upper class or those who dislike the lower or middle classes. That is the nature of the predudiced. They lack understanding.

The odd thing is that I really think they truly believe they are right. Sorry to say.

Well done to those in support. Try seeing it from the other side (imagine youself in the shoes of others) to those who feel worry about liveaboards.

Lets all have a happy and tollerant new year.


garryn    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 5:04 PM
  It would be interesting to know how many liveaboards would want or be able to afford a residential mooring if they become more plentiful. The ones living in a marina now would likely have to pay a premium even if they keep the same mooring now it's been reclassed as residential. Then there is council tax which even at band A will add a big extra cost to the yearly outlay.





Garry


Stick    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 5:08 PM
  I'm thanking all, the people who have understood what I'm trying to get across however badly I'm phrasing it and I'm thanking you for the  support you are showing for other liveaboard persons. The annoying thing to me, is that I'm not trying to take this personally but I am thinking of the other liveaboards who may be evicted from their moorings in a marina because somone has brought their presence into the light of day. My problem is, from my point of view is that it " appears" from the posts on this web site that all live aboards shouldn't be allowed whether they are in a marina or not. That is how it appears to me and maybe to anyone else reading it. I have friends as far away as France who are reading it and they are all in agreement that there are certain individuals that are very anti liveaboard other wise why would they be rocking the boat by bringing to attention as often as possible that it is illegal to live in a boat in a marina that does not have permission for these " live aboard" people? It's only a problem if somone makes it a problem and as I've said before, why should the BA "need" to address this issue? No one is haveing a problem with these boats apart from a select few. I will say this again..... If the BA don't think it's a problem and the Marina in question don't think it's a problem then, what is the problem? The only problem they (and I ) see is the few undesirable boats that are out on the rivers in a dangerous condition that are un-tolled, insured or have a valid BSS..... Now surely they are the problem? Just my opinion. Right or wrong.... It's my opinion only... I'm not in a position to change views and I'm not forcing people to believe what I say. Despite my New Years resolution I seem to have been drawn to commenting on this great debate again! im going to post this.... The naive me that I am!



This message was edited by Stick on Jan-2-18 @ 6:17 PM


GP1    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 7:30 PM
  I have to admit that I am in favour of live and let live. I agree that if a person wants to live under the radar, there is no reason to object to that.

Just because I pay Council Tax, and as a result have voting rights, get mail etc., doesn't mean I would force that on any ody else. For me , it's about choice and the ability to pay. Not for me to judge.

Be happy and let each live their lives as they feel happy and cause no DIRECT harm to others. By that I don't mean imaginary harm, penalised JUST IN CASE someone feels agrieved on some kind of vague principle.



This message was edited by GP1 on Jan-2-18 @ 7:33 PM


Paladine    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 7:30 PM
 
Stick, you might like to read through  this document .

The Broads Authority is actively reviewing the need for residential moorings, within boatyards and marinas, but it appears that very few boatyard owners are interested.

The document also shows that the BA is well aware of those who are living in boatyards, and don’t need any information from me about them, so I am doing them no harm by mentioning them. This is clear from the comment on page 20 of the document:

”The Authority also suggested, in the same letter, that those marinas or boatyards that do have people living on boats within them may wish to formalise this through the planning system. The Authority received one query with regards to information on how to receive planning permission for residential moorings in a boatyard.“

Also, the Broads Authority’s Development Plan 25 (see page 47) refers to the policy regarding the provision of new residential moorings. At paragraph 5.49, it says ”For the purposes of this policy, a residential mooring is one where someone lives aboard a vessel (which is capable of navigation), that the vessel is used as the main residence and where that vessel is moored in one location for more than 28 days in a year. The vessel may occasionally/periodically go cruising and return to base.  

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


Stingers    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 7:51 PM
  Stick,
I'm not normally one to get involved in such a "lively" discussion but I totally agree with your statement:
"....boats that are out on the rivers in a dangerous condition that are un-tolled, insured or have a valid BSS..... Now surely they are the problem?"
However, please understand that livaboards moored illegally in marinas cannot be paying council tax and the marina is breaking the law by permitting the boat owner to do so as he does not have the appropiate planning permission (and cannot get it). This is the situation that the BA needs to sort out. We're not talking about evicting the boats and fining the boat owner and the marina, although that is quite possible, I believe.
We need the BA to licence more permanent moorings for livaboards to use. This will then permit the collection of Council Tax. As it stands, these boat owners are able to use council-funded facilities & services  without paying a penny towards them. Most boat owners have a permanent residence and therefore pay Council Tax (as do legally moored liveaboards), but livaboards illegally moored do not. So is it any wonder that livaboards on illegal moorings are seen as freeloaders by the majority of other boaters? Naturally, this leads to a degree of resentment from other boat users.

Andy


Islander    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 9:26 PM
  Hi stick, don't let the anti live aboard posters wind you up. There are more out there that only wish they could live on a boat too.
Stingers. Sorry I don't see the connection between planning and council tax. Broadland district council don't care if you have planning permission or not. If they decide you are resident they send a bill anyway. BDC and the BA are not on the best of terms anyway.
What do you charge a continuous cruisers and what would be a fair charge for a permanent mooring.

Colin Cheers


Stingers    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 10:45 PM
  Islander,
Once planning permission is granted for permanent residential moorings then the Council will start chasing for Council Tax - just as they do when planning permission is granted for a house (except much quicker). An illegal permanent mooring is under the radar of the Council and if they did know about it and start charging Council Tax it would signify an acceptance that the mooring was being used as a residence, something they would not wish to do.
"What do you charge a continuous cruisers and what would be a fair charge for a permanent mooring."
How would I know? Try asking WRC.

Andy


GP1    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 11:01 PM
  Let's give this a few minutes thought.

As a proportion of all the Council Tax charged, what is the benefit the the Council Tax Payer. I would propose it is tiny.

On the other hand, as a proportion of the boat-dweller's income, what is the real-terms cost? I would propose it may represent personal bankrupsey, unless they claim Council Tax Benefit, which, for which I propose most would propose most would qualify, quite genuinely.

What is the point of "not turning a blind eye"?

No wonder BA and Councils tend to ignore this group of loverly, hard working and self-sufficient people.



This message was edited by GP1 on Jan-2-18 @ 11:06 PM


TerryTibbs    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 11:09 PM
  GP1 but just let me say, there are many people in conventional housing who struggle to pay their council tax, should the Council turn a blind eye to them. Maybe the fact that SOME liveaboards try to find any way they can to avoid paying their dues is the reason that live aboards get a bad name. Maybe decent live aboards should take the few who ruin it for the many to task and not blame every one else for being anti live aboard.
Just a thought

Dave

if it is to be it is up to me.

This message was edited by TerryTibbs on Jan-2-18 @ 11:10 PM


GP1    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 11:10 PM
  Before challenging me on the hard-working bit, try carrying your own water, chuckit buckets, gas, rubish etc.

It' hard, heavy work, but it's self-supporting and honourable



This message was edited by GP1 on Jan-2-18 @ 11:13 PM


Islander    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 11:12 PM
  Stingers, what you say regarding the relationship is correct outside the BA exec area but you will most likely find the council and BA planning work quite independently. Without going into too much detail BDC issued bills for boats being used residentially in a boat yard that didn't have the relevant planning permission.
Please note, if you ask the BA how many moorings there are with pp for residential use their answer was a small yard in Hoveton and one other. Now we have WRC as well. Should you wish to know more then Nick South is the RBOA rep for the broads.
My question regarding mooring fees is, would you expect to pay the same as anybody else in the same yard.

Colin Cheers


GP1    -- Jan-2-2018 @ 11:25 PM
  Oh my goodness! I have seen this all so often, before. It's all just an excuse for hacking at a very few, self sufficient people who are wanting to live 'off the grid' for no other reasons than those which are personal and private.

They are a tiny minority and it would cost more to bring them into conformity than society would benefit and it would cost them more than they have as an income. THERE IS NO PROFIT from persuing the matter.

Only when tax-payers complain will authorities (even that is a controversial term for civil servants)  have to intervene. They know it is unprofitable and pointless.

Leave the poor buggers be, for the sake of decent morals! Try to undetstand the motives involved, PLEASE.

Just to alay suspicion, the edits are for spelling and grammer, mainly.





This message was edited by GP1 on Jan-2-18 @ 11:32 PM


Stingers    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 12:03 AM
  Islander,
Please understand that I was giving some possible explanation of why some boaters look down their noses at some livaboards. I am also aware that there are very few residential moorings available and stated that this is why the BA need to do something about the situation - I thought I made this quite clear in my first posting on this thread.
As for fees, I would expect to pay the same price per foot as anyone else. I suppose it could argued that it should be a bit more because the owner would have had to apply for the planning permission and I would probably make more use of the shore facilities and parking.

Andy (who is off to bed).


VetChugger    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 12:19 AM
  I have had moorings at places with and without liveaboards. At the moorings where there were no liveaboards my boat was broken into and items stolen plus my canopy damaged because they could not be bothered to use the zips more than once!
On the moorings where there were liveaboards, never any problems like this at all. I suspect some marina owners quite like have liveaboards there on the quiet just for this reason. Less likely to have episodes of criminal interference simply because there is always someone around.

Trevor


GP1    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 12:27 AM
  Please don't anybody think I am popping at anyone.

I am talking general princples only, as I have been for over 40 years on the same liberal (with a small l) principles

I have been on the broads for a number of yrars before speaking out. I saw this long before I joined the forum. Indeed I kept quite for years. I kust could not stay stumm any longer.

I have a mate, locally who was falsely accused to get him kicked off a marina. He was completely innocent.  i was livid. The problem was only that, with the knowlege of the owner, he lived on his own home. I have known the man for years. He is a hatd working man who volunteers for a national charity, and has been for years. He fell on hard times whilst heliping a friend, lost pay and ran out of funds. Still he worked for next to nothing. He owned his boat, so rather than try for Council accommodation, he lives aboard. Now, because of lies, he is without a mooring.

He has a new job now, is payong off his debts and struggling to catch up. Still he is being hounded because folk think he is trying to escape taxes. On the contrary, he is dping his best to claw back after having been financially abused by a friend he was trying to help.

All this recent stuff after decafes of witnessing so many liveaboards being haasled by BWB, whilst I was lucky to be a working boatman, and imune to it all, when there was precious little difference.


GP1    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 12:34 AM
  Well said Vetchugger

So true!

Why anybody would want to regularise such a valuable service escapes me. It's free to the community and the some people think tjey aught to pay Council tax??????

Hmmm! Methinks they have no idea of the value of these wonderful people!


Exile    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 2:06 AM
  " The naysayers don't understand any more than the homophobes and mioginists, those who despise the upper class or those who dislike the lower or middle classes. That is the nature of the predudiced. They lack understanding."

A totally false (and actually insulting) comparison.
Homophobes and misogynists (along with racists etc, etc) are ignorant and small minded bigots.
Being female, having coloured skin, being gay or from one particular class or another is perfectly normal, legal and simply how thing are. So those that criticise anyone for merely being in one of those groups are clearly bigoted and unpleasant individuals.

Trying to portray liveaboards as a put upon minority is ridiculous.
I do not know of anyone that has any issues with Liveaboards that obey the same rules as the rest of us and pay the same dues as the rest of us.
Equally trying to portray as bigots, those that complain that SOME liveaboards, overstay at moorings, put mess on the banks, pay less, ignore rules etc is also ridiculous.

As far as I am aware pretty much all "general" boaters support more provision being allowed for residential boating. I certainly do. The BA should both allow it, and promote it to local boatyards.
But what many of us fear is the shambolic mess and tat that has been allowed to happen on other waterways. No one can deny that has happened.









This message was edited by Exile on Jan-3-18 @ 11:44 AM


GP1    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 8:07 AM
  Insult? No! Drawn directly for the earliest of lectures provided for trainee Social Workers.

Thank you. That's an eye opening reply. The reason I say that is all about perception. The best of L.A.s will say that they FEEL as though they are being treated as one of those people-groups, without being recognised as such.

I will leave that there for now to sink in.





This message was edited by GP1 on Jan-3-18 @ 8:13 AM


Dzign    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 9:11 AM
  Good thought TT, and I have L/B friends I spend time with almost every time I visit.....

L


Karen&Mike    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 10:07 AM
  Quote..... "Insult No! Drawn directly for the earliest of lectures provided for trainee Social Workers"

And that makes it gospel does it!?

Harlequin/Exile ( welcome back exile by the way) makes very good points which I totally agree with.  It seems to me that these days the cry of discrimination is thrown up a regular basis in defence of certain peoples actions rather than addressing the points which other individuals make or challenges they raise.

I totally support everyone's right to make choices, in this case regarding their abode,  but I also support the rights of those who wish to challenge any aspects of this where they feel some are causing issues and avoiding paying dues etc.  We had a long running thread on this forum last year which  covered many aspects, raised concerns from various quarters and aired views from the different sides of the debate. Paladine for example has been a member very clear in his responses and the info he has repeated, yet still there are cries of discrimination, personal attacks etc.

Now, speaking as a mod, I do hope we can discuss this matter objectively and openly, to the benefit of all. No discrimation cards need to be played -we are a forum, for discussion of matters relating to the Broads, which we all have a connection to in one way or another.

Happy New Year all, Karen


"Wind up the elastic band Karen - we're setting off!!"


GP1    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 11:05 AM
  OK, if it's not reasonable to express my opinion that I am seeing discrimination, then clearly this is not the place to discuss my opinion.

I am well aware that the subject is contentious, but I had hoped it could be discussed. Clearly, the subject is too touchy for that.

I regret that my opinion has been read as accusatory. The thoughts and feelings behind it were certainly not intended as an attack on anybody.

There is something very curious about the words "so that makes it gospel does it?". Of course it doesn't, but it does offer credance to the suggestion. If it is the view of experts in the education of those working in the field, then I claim justification in sharing that opinion and not that I am alone, and therefore in a minority and probably wrong, that's all.

I am not looking for a row. All I am trying to do is to defend some lovely people who appear to me to ne struggling. I suppose having always lived on low income and not succeded in saving because however hard I have worked, there has never been anything to save, I have an unusual level of understanding of their position.

In this life there can sometimes be a presumption of 'won't pay', where the truth is that some people can't pay. Even in this day and age of minimum pay rates, there are millions in that position. I am sure that some L.A.s a are just doing their best not be a burdon and can find their motives mis-understood. When I say I am sure, I really am certain.

Sadly their attempts are often twarted at every turn by some (and I don't mean all) who don't get it. I was only trying to get some nice folk to try to think themselves into that position. I am very sad that all managed to do by explaing the truth as I see it, was to offend. That was the furthest from my intention.




martinward    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 11:28 AM
  There is never going to be total agreement on this topic. Many years ago I knew of a chap that lived on his boat at a boatyard in Brundall.
It suited his needs at the time and the boatyard was happy to have him there as it was a comfort to have somebody about to keep an eye open for anything untoward.
One can see both sides of the argument here but hopefully in the end common sense will prevail.

Matrtin W.


Exile    -- Jan-3-2018 @ 12:01 PM
  " OK, if it's not reasonable to express my opinion that I am seeing discrimination, "

It is perfectly reasonable for you to express that opinion.
It is also perfectly reasonable for others to give their opinion that you are wrong.
You see it as discrimination. Others see it as a group demanding special terms and conditions. T and Cs that the vast majority of us do not get.

I reiterate that I believe that the BA should make living aboard a whole deal easier. However IMO, they certainly should not allow the free for all that a some demand.  






This message was edited by Exile on Jan-3-18 @ 12:02 PM


The Norfolk Broads Forum : http://www.the-norfolk-broads.co.uk
Topic: http://www.the-norfolk-broads.co.uk/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=48&Topic=41229