Consultations

The RBOA has over the years responded to many consultations in order to improve the lives of those who live on the waterways.  Below is a few of the consultation responses we have submitted including the most recent.

All Party Parliamentary Group Coastal and Marine Inquiry into deprivation and disadvantage in coastal rural areas.

This submission was made for and on behalf of the RBOA. It was drawn up by Rex Walden, RBOA Chairman, working with John Ross, RBOA Coastal Representative on the South Coast.

The RBOA was established in 1963 to represent the interests of all those living on boats in the British Isles – whether that boat is static or moves, or is based inland or on the coast. We are represented at the Parliamentary Waterways Group meetings and are consulted by British Waterways (BW), the Environment Agency  (EA) and other navigation authorities with regard to issues involving or affecting residential boaters.

The stated purpose of this APPG initiative is “To establish the factual basis regarding whether the coastal rural areas differ from inland rural areas, or from the general situation in the UK, with regard to a range of measures of deprivation and disadvantage”  With regard to residential boating, across the whole of the UK, the primary issue is lack of “legal” residential moorings. The situation in coastal areas is significantly worse than is the case inland.

There are no official statistics but it is generally accepted that in the UK there are up to 25,000 vessels being used for residential purposes. Of these about 10% are on “legal” residential moorings. Legal in this context means a mooring that has planning consent to be used by a vessel for residential purposes. The vast majority of the balance of 90% is using leisure moorings. A survey commissioned and carried out jointly by BW and RBOA shows average occupancy of vessels used residentially is 1.8 persons per vessel. Of the 10% of moorings that are legal residential moorings the vast majority are on inland waterways. Very few are in estuaries or in coastal harbours or marinas.

However, a considerable percentage of vessels used as homes are situated in coastal harbours and estuaries. The primary problem is that anyone living on a boat on a leisure mooring is necessarily in breach of the terms of his or her mooring contract. Typically the moorings operator, or their agent, will be aware that the mooring is being used residentially but will tell the owner or occupier “to keep your head down”. This situation has the inevitable consequence that in the event of any kind of dispute, for example a large increase in mooring fees, the moorer is in no position to argue.

There is, of course, no protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act, no rent review and no rent tribunal.

If the vessel is “dumb” (i.e. it has no built in means of propulsion) the situation is even worse; for some it is almost impossible for them to move any distance and, if it is possible it is prohibitively expensive.

Residential moorings are not mentioned in planning guidance from Central Government having been omitted from PPG3. Additionally, few Regional or Local Authorities give any consideration to residential moorings in any of their development plans. When marina operators apply for planning consent for residential moorings they are more often than not, refused.

Living afloat is, for many, a life style choice. Many, not all, want to be in relatively remote locations; the vast majority want to be on the water close to nature and the natural environment. BW have long accepted that residential boaters provide a very useful degree of knowledge, experience and a degree of security typically being the first to notice and report pollution, injured or sick wildfowl or people in distress or difficulty in or on the waterways.

This is equally true in coastal settings but there is virtually no provision made for or consideration given to the needs of those living on boats.

There is huge potential for local authorities around the coast of the UK, if they would only embrace the opportunities that the provision of well planned residential moorings provide. On the continent, particularly in the Netherlands and Denmark, there are whole communities living in combinations of static floating homes and traditional boats used residentially. Uniquely protected from the vagaries of rising water levels some of these communities have existed since the early 1900’s and continue to be developed now.

Press Release Issued by the Residential Boat Owners’ Association
26th November 2008

RBOA  ACKNOWLEDGES BW BOAT LICENCE FEE INCREASES

British Waterways (BW) has announced the boat licence fee increases from April 2009.
The Residential Boat Owners’ Association (RBOA) is pleased to note that BW has accepted its view that further distortions of the licensing framework will make a discredited system worse and the fee increase will be virtually the same for all private boaters at 8.2% for a Gold Licence and 8.5% for all other private licences.
We note, however, the disingenuous comment that responses were primarily from national boating organisations – disingenuous because BW actively discouraged individual responses. We are also alarmed that BW is still considering a “Roving Mooring Permit” which we believe will effectively legitimise “continuous mooring” and make the existing problem worse.
The RBOA continues to urge BW to enforce the existing bye laws which are perfectly adequate to enable them to control those boaters who flout the mooring rules. This effort would make a Roving Mooring Permit unnecessary.
The RBOA understands the necessity of BW increasing its revenue from mooring licences. However, it is concerned that an increase of this magnitude in the current financial climate, will add to the pressures that are driving boaters away from the waterways. This could be counterproductive to increasing income and could reduce BW’s long term customer base.

 

Response to BW Licence Proposals.

5th November, 2008

This response is for and on behalf of the Residential Boat Owners’ Association (RBOA).

The RBOA reluctantly accept BW have made a commitment to DEFRA to increase the income from boaters and there is, therefore, no alternative to an increase in the licence fees.  However, we are concerned that an increase of the magnitude envisaged will add to the pressures that are forcing boaters off the waterways. This could be counterproductive and result in a reduction of the income BW receives from licences by reducing the customer base, which will take many years to rebuild even when the economy of the country improves.

We are also very disappointed that the BWAF discussion process has been used as a surrogate for consultation and users have been dissuaded from commenting individually on the proposals such action is likely to alienate boaters at a time when BW surely needs a positive relationship with its customers.

The basis of the present licence system is flawed. Charging by length has no rational basis and is merely a proxy for assumed ability to pay. It would be perfectly reasonable as an alternative, but equally flawed, argument to suggest that as discounts are given to boats on “disconnected waterways” and rivers, then a similar regime should be applied to boats longer than 58’, depending on the percentage of the network they can access.

If length is not the correct determinate,  nor then is width and the RBOA rejects the proposal that an additional levy should be charged according to the width of the vessel. Both length and width are relevant for levying mooring charges; they should have no place in determining licence fees.

The RBOA does not accept there is any justification for an additional levy or surcharge on Continuous Cruisers.(CCs). The legitimate CC is using the waterways properly and spreading their usage throughout the year. Indeed, if BW were to adopt a similar charging model to that commonly used for transport suppliers, the CC would be paying a lower fee as the majority of their usage is “off peak”. Furthermore, the passage of the CC in off peak periods, and very often on the less frequented reaches of the system, is benefiting BW by the very act of navigating. With structures, such as locks, left idle for long periods the mechanism tends to seize up  and silting could become an issue. Their occasional use “out of season” helps to keep them in working condition, thus reducing BW call-out costs.

It is the view of the RBOA that the introduction of the Roving Mooring Permit (RMP) would merely serve to legitimise the Continuous Moorer who is the real target and catalyst for the pressure to introduce a levy on the CC. For an RMP to be effective it would need to be vigorously enforced.  It is our view that rather than introduce a new permit and set of rules, BW should enforce their existing suite of regulations in a vigorous, co-ordinated and sustained way. Historically most enforcement activity has been piecemeal and half-hearted. We acknowledge and applaud recent positive initiatives in parts of some business units’ areas of responsibility. This needs to be universal, sustained and permanent.

Although not specific to the focus of this consultation, all user groups and BW acknowledge that the lack of “legal” residential moorings is the root of the CM problem. Unless and until there are sufficient moorings of this type, it will remain difficult for BW management and staff to implement the rules vigorously, as this under-provision provides cover or semi- legitimacy in defence of the CM “offender”. RBOA acknowledges that BW are beginning to address the issue of residential moorings but are frustrated by the very slow progress and lack of innovative thinking toward finding workable solutions in an acceptable time frame
 
For the avoidance of doubt the RBOA re-states its position: we believe the present system of licensing is illogical and flawed and all the changes proposed make a bad system worse.  Fundamental change will take years to design, agree and implement. Therefore the RBOA reluctantly support only Option One – No Change and accept that the increase in costs will be borne equally by all private boaters.

Press Release Issued by The Residential Boat Owners’ Association

24th October 2008

RBOA Maintains its View against the BW Proposals for the Auction of Residential Moorings

The Residential Boat Owners’ Association (RBOA) has consistently voiced a strong case against the auctioning or tendering of moorings since these  were first proposed by British Waterways. The RBOA is disappointed with the recent announcement that BW not only intends to continue with the scheme, despite strong opposition, but intends to change from a tender to an auction process. The RBOA believes that this will not be acceptable to many of its customers who do not purchase other goods or services by this means. Throughout the consultation, the case has been made to BW that this would exclude many who do not have regular email access and it is unclear how an accessible or fair auction of moorings can be conducted, whilst still allowing for postal bids.

At a time when BW is struggling for funding, many users have noted the fact that moorings which have been put on tender have remained empty – and therefore not bringing in any revenue – both leading up to and during the tender process.  The same criticism will doubtless be made of any auction.

RBOA does not accept the view put forward by BW that the tender trial has been a success to date. In many cases, very few tenders have been received, indicating the reluctance of customers to take part. The wide discrepancy in tenders received related to guide prices has not enabled BW to obtain information on market prices, one of the main objectives of the exercise.  Boaters will believe that the reason for continuing with the scheme is to artificially inflate the cost of moorings in the long term.

The RBOA is particularly worried about the effect that the auction will have on residential moorings as those included in the tender have been let for well above the guide price. This is proof that BW’s own residential mooring customers, who enter the auction, will be overcharged, based on the evidence of the trial to date.
There is a huge shortage of residential moorings with the planning approval that gives their occupants some security. Following extensive campaigning by RBOA, it was understood that BW had recognised this deficiency and was working closely with RBOA to find solutions to the planning issue and to increase the supply of moorings. The announcement that residential moorings will continue to be let by auction will be detrimental to this action and will not give residential boaters any confidence that BW understands their dire situation.

Rex Walden, Chairman of the RBOA says  “ This announcement will be a severe blow to residential boaters who seek to pay a fair price for a legitimate residential mooring.  BW are asking for co-operation from residential moorers who are using leisure moorings ‘illegally’. This is exactly the way to ensure that no such cooperation will be forthcoming.”
 

Kennet & Avon Lock Manning Consultation
British Waterways Revised Plan

Our response was one of three made by organisations, and of 155 made in total. Many of our points had obviously been echoed by many other respondents, and I personally think BW's resulting plan is sensible and fair. In brief:

- Hanham and County Locks will not be manned or have opening/closing hours.
- BW will use their best efforts to reach agreement to work in partnership with Bristol Harbour Authority and the Environment Agency to operate a shared service from Netham Lock and Blake's Lock with effect from Easter 2009. Short and long term BW licences will be available from these locks. Payment options at these locks will have to be decided in conjunction with the partner Authorities.
- Random licence checks will be carried out at Hanham and County Locks on craft entering the K&A. When these checks are being undertaken, a policy of ëno licence, no passageí will be in place.
- Caen Hill and other key sites providing suitable locations will be used for random licence checks. Owners of unlicenced boats would need to provide their Boat Safety Certificate and Insurance details, and buy a 6 or 12 month licence using a debit or credit card on the spot, else receive an Enforcement Notice.

Ellen Dexter



Development Control Policies in the Broads

This response was submitted after a consultation by the Broads Authority to allow interested parties to have a say in the development of its local policies.

Response –Development Control Policies DPD – draft policy on residential moorings.

This submission is for and on behalf of the Residential Boat Owners’ Association (RBOA) and has been drafted by the current chairman Rex Walden. Chairman@rboa.org.uk

The Broads Authority are to be congratulated for firstly; having the courage and humility to tacitly accept that the original policy was unreasonable, unfair and unwise and secondly; to remedy that by developing a positive residential boating and mooring policy.

It is sad, therefore, that the policy proposed is presented in terms that imply to any reasonable residential boater that whilst the Authorities stated policy is positive as far as residential boating is concerned the desired outcome is, negative to this same group.

Our comments are set out below against the relevant paragraph  reference number.

4.3

Point a. Why “must the location be within a settlement consistent with the policies of the adjoining local planning authority for new residential development”? Boats are not bricks and mortar, the essential requirements of/for a residential mooring are completely different and less intrusive. Apart from any other consideration this condition will preclude residential moorings from being established where traditional building would be wholly unacceptable but where a mooring or moorings might be ideal.

Point b. To only allow moorings to be established in a mooring basin arbitrarily denies any consideration of any other location without further discussion or study of the specifics of any alternatives.

Point d.  This needs careful review. British Waterways research in support of the development of marinas has shown very much lower ratios of car use per residential mooring than the established norm for traditional housing.

Point e. The policy states that mooring will only be allowed in a basin so bank erosion is irrelevant, however where is the evidence to support the contention? Moored boats only cause erosion if the engine is run whilst in gear. Most boaters no longer do this (it is BW policy to proscribe the practise) and it is a simple matter to make this a condition of a BA mooring policy, for all vessels, not just those being used residentially.

Point f i. Very few residential boats anywhere in the world have such permanent connections, unless of course they are legally a “houseboat” A houseboat is defined in law as a “vessel which has no means of propulsion and which is not capable of having such means fitted”. Yet in f ii you say the vessel must “be capable of moving under its own power and not static” To provide a permanent sewage connection to a vessel is very expensive and intrusive. It is also unnecessary; the boater will either use cassettes to dispose of soil or have soil tanks that will be pumped out as required. Virtually all-residential boaters fill there on board water tanks as necessary from a tap, via a hose. Electrical connections are via a “C form” waterproof plug and socket. What does “have waste disposal mean”? Does this mean a waste disposal unit in the galley (kitchen) sink? Unlikely.

Point fiii. The superstructure should be in sympathy with the vessel. To be “in sympathy with the “locality” is lifted from a development control document for buildings – this policy is about boats.. If this clause is designed to prevent, for example, a caravan being placed on a dumb barge make that clear explicitly, not in a phrase so open to interpretation as to potentially exclude any vessel from any location subject to the aesthetic judgement of a planning officer.

5 Justification

5.1 Repeats the assertion that all residential mooring or change from any other type of mooring requires planning permission. As the RBOA showed in our previous submission this is not established in law. Planning inspectors have found in favour of residential moorers against local planning authorities asserting no change of use, or planning consent is required. No mention is made in this document of the protection offered to residential moorers of a “Certificate of lawful use” where moorings have been used residentially for ten or more years.
 Whilst we agree that moorings should  “contribute to the management of a safe and attractive waterway” we do not agree they should all be in settlements where services and facilities are available. The authority has stated they want all vessels to be capable of moving under their own power; therefore they can cruise to wherever the services required are situated.

5.2 The relatively low numbers of residential moorings are unlikely to have the impact described, particularly given the reduction in the size of the hire fleets in recent years. Furthermore allowing moorings to be used residentially will provide a commercial lifeline to many boatyards who have seen their business from hire fleets diminish.

5.3 Conflates two arguments. Houseboats, as has been already discussed are static. They can of course look like an ordinary house that floats and as such could, indeed look out of place in much of the Broads. Vessels that meet the authorities own requirements to be able to move and are therefore “vessels” we contend can and should be allowed in certain sites. A blanket ban is unhelpful and an unnecessary restriction. We do not suggest that mooring everywhere, or anywhere, is either desirable or sensible. We do contend that this is a management and subsequent enforcement issue.

5.4 Again ordinary planning terms are being used. This is not a discussion about “dwellings”. The moorings themselves can be very low impact and very unobtrusive, indeed, virtually invisible, when the vessel is not on it’s mooring. The requirement to connect to mains services to “prevent diffuse pollution” is misguided for two reasons. First it is the very provision of these services which creates most disruption and contributes to the visual impact. Second, the vessels, as already described, will have holding tanks for soil or “black water”.. Middlesex University carried out detailed research in 2002 “Impact of Grey water Discharge from canal boats at Grand Union Canal, London” and concluded the discharge from sinks, showers and basins does not cause any damage or harm. Furthermore all the visiting vessels and those used non residentially for holidays and weekends are discharging far greater volumes than the comparatively low number of residential vessels.

5.5 Relying on the policy of LPA’s is disingenuous. The authorities officials will know (or should know) that all mention of residential boating, which used to be in planning guidance was “lost” from PPG3. Therefore there is no guidance re residential boating for development control officers and no requirement for them to consider the interest or needs of this community. As previously stated following the  LPA’s planning constraints which, by definition, relate solely to the development of traditional buildings is a nonsense. The difference in the effect of moorings, and the vessels occupying them against any form of traditional development is very significant, by every measure the moorings will have a much lower impact.

5.6. The RBOA urge restraint and hope that the Authority will advise the moorer that protection may be available to them through a Certificate of Lawful Use, providing the mooring (not the vessel) has been used for 10 or more years.

5.7 The RBOA welcome this softer, more pragmatic, approach by the Authority. We support the ambition to establish enforceable criteria and restrictions and would welcome the opportunity to engage with officials and members to help establish sensible guidelines, policies and sanctions.

5.8 It is perfectly possible to have a less restrictive policy whilst maintaining good quality moorings. The use of basins for residential moorings as opposed to visitor moorings need have no visual impact at all. It is a fact that most people would not, cannot, identify a residential vessel or mooring as opposed to similar vessels and moorings used for non-residential purposes. The number of moorings appropriate to any single location would not be high enough to have a measurable impact on any of the services detailed or on air pollution.

5.9. A comment about “cheap housing” was attributed to the RBOA  in the report on the previous consultation process, we made no such assertion. The running and maintenance costs square metre for square metre of a boat are higher than for the equivalent space in traditional housing. The initial purchase price, on the same basis may be lower, dependent on location and condition, because, of course, unlike a traditional dwelling there is no associated cost of land. It is the view of the RBOA however that the Authority should investigate the development of floating and can float housing, which may well be suitable for affordable as well as premium housing.

5.10 This is too narrow a view. It is perfectly feasible and, arguably, desirable to introduce a system of licensing of residential vessels. This could include the introduction of the Boat Safety Scheme. The RBOA would, again, be happy to work with the Authority to develop sensible, fair, criteria and costing basis for a licensing regime.

Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment

6.1

SA1. The biggest impact of environmental change is rising sea levels and in the Broads the danger of inundation. Homes that float can very easily be moored in such a way as to guarantee their safety and integrity and that of their occupants in any likely flood conditions.

SA2. Residential boaters use significantly lower energy resources and water than other householders. They use virtually no land.

SA4. As previously mentioned research shows boaters use of private vehicles is significantly lower than traditional households as  stated in SA1 flooding is not a danger for a floating home and it’s occupants.

SA5. We do not believe that legitimising the use of moorings for residential purposes will have the effect of  restricting in any measurable way the facility for visiting vessels.

SA6. The objectives could be met, in part, by floating and can float houses (true, legal houseboats)

SA9. Allowing residential mooring could provide a new income stream to some businesses. Allowing the development of vessels as floating offices could provide work opportunities close to existing centre of population providing income in the rural economy and reducing travel to work.

SA11  Residential boaters use less vehicles than the same number traditional householders, they are also proportionally more likely to own and use a cycle.

RKW 11/9/2008

BW Consultation on Moorings Policies

British Waterways have completed a formal public consultation on moorings policies.

HMRC Derogation of Red Diesel

The Residential Boat Owners’ Association (RBOA) and  DBA-The Barge Association are delighted to be able to confirm to residential boaters that their right to use red diesel for domestic purposes net of duty has been protected. Read the full Press Release

 
British Waterways License Fee Consultation

This consultation was a response to British waterways proposals for increases in License fees for various types of craft.

British Waterways Review

This response was submitted after an invitation by British Waterways to comment on its performance.