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.
DEFRA Consultation: “A New Era for the Waterways”
The following is the RBOA's Corporate response submitted by RBOA Chairman Rex Walden to the Defra Consultation on the future of our waterways, which closed on 30th June:
The Residential Boat Owners’ Association (RBOA) was founded in 1963, celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2013. The RBOA exists to represent the interests of all those who live afloat or aspire to do so. For many years we have been regularly consulted by Government Departments, and Navigation Authorities, including the Environment Agency (EA)and British Waterways (BW). The RBOA instigated the research which developed into the recently published Association of Inland Navigation Authorities (AINA) report on Residential Moorings.
It is often said that living on boats on the inland waterways is a new phenomenon, with the suggestion that this is a use for which the waterways are not suited and for which they were never intended. This is, of course, incorrect. Historically boatmen and their families lived on their boats, in many cases spending their entire lives afloat. Whilst the reasons for people living afloat are now much more varied, the validity of this life style is no less legitimate.
Residential boating has become much more popular in recent years and anecdote indicates that up to 90% of the new boats sold in the last 12 months are destined to be used as homes. The RBOA presents a seminar, entitled “So you want to live on a boat?” at the two major annual inland waterways' events. At the 6 talks in 2010 and the 3 so far in 2011 there has been standing room only, with an average audience of over a 100. That audience has been getting noticeably younger.
People choose to live afloat for a wide variety of reasons, but most will claim that in part it is a life style they are choosing because it is low impact and sustainable, plus the desire to live in harmony with the natural environment. It is undeniable that living afloat is low impact and sustainable. Residential boaters are acutely aware of the resources they use, water, electricity and fuel, of whatever form. Why? Because we have to collect and store it and monitor its use or generate it and store it and monitor its use. Also, boaters are generally supportive of an environmentally friendly lifestyle, including the products they use in their floating homes.
A recent survey on the towpath on the rivers Lee and Stort found that users, principally walkers, people exercising dogs and cyclists liked to see residential boats and boaters because they add interest and colour, but crucially they give a feeling of security and confidence to the casual visitors.
It is widely recognised by navigation authorities that residential boaters are valuable as unpaid observers, reporting on a wide range of issues, such as abnormally high and low water levels, pollution incidents, and injured or sick wild life. They also provide security wherever they are moored. It is noticeable that most visitors and holiday boaters choose to moor overnight close to or within sight of occupied moored boats.
The NWC is being challenged to find new sources of income. Provision of residential moorings would be relatively low cost in investment with a completely predictable very long term income stream in return. There is a significant demand for these. BW have consistently argued that it is not their job to be a housing association and we have never asked that they should be; what we asked for, and what BW has still to deliver, is an adequate supply of residential moorings.
The RBOA is ready and able to support the NWC and help locate suitable sites and assist in negotiations with local planning authorities to seek the requisite approvals. The Consultation document talks a great deal about inclusion and cohesion within communities. Few communities are as broadly based in terms of socio-economic background as groups of moorers whether in basins, marinas, boayards. or online moorings. Such boaters live in genuinely cohesive communities in a way that does not happen in traditional housing.
We believe unreservedly that the NWC is the correct model for the future of the Waterways, our only caveat being adequate funding being available, (See our response to Q27). We expect to play our full part in the development of the New Waterways Charity; all we ask is the opportunity to do so.
Q1:- Do you agree that over time, the charity should work towards including other navigations, including the EA Navigations in the next Spending Review.
The RBOA continues to believe that it would have been better for the EA Navigations and BW to be merged at the inception of the New Waterways Charity (NWC) providing, of course, there was adequate funding. We believe it essential that NWC be established on the basis that EA Navigations will be merged in the near future and provision made for the integration of other navigations in the future. Particular note should be taken of the very successful and profitable Essex Waterways run primarily by volunteers with unpaid Executive Directors
Q2:- Do you think that the proposed requirements of the Trust Declaration are the right ones? Are they sufficient/are there others which should be considered?
We agree in so far as the Trust Declaration goes but are incredulous that it is silent on the issue of Navigation. We understand that the NWC will be a statutory undertaking and that its primary focus will be navigation. This must be stated clearly and unequivocally. There needs to be a clear commitment to provide for the maintenance of navigation and preserve the navigable connectivity of the waterways network. The Trust Declaration should make specific reference to the maintenance / preservation of Heritage Buildings and other Structures. Whilst we agree the NWC should not be prevented from “continuing to make reasonable charges” a very effective form of social exclusion is by charging beyond the means of the average citizen. There should, therefore, be a requirement to ensure charges are never set so high as to exclude the average family.
Q3:- Do you agree that the suggested charitable purposes for the NWC are broadly the right ones? Can you think of other necessary requirements?
The RBOA believes the charitable purposes should be extended to explicitly include:
RBOA accepts that the NWC will not include housing people as one of its charitable objectives. However we expected some recognition of the significance of residential boating in the consultation document and seek reassurance that the move to chartiable status will not put residential boaters' homes in jeopardy. BW estimates over 3000 registered vessels on its waters are the occupier's primary residence, although BW do not specifically capture this data. The RBOA believes the figure to be significantly higher and we know interest in, and demand for, living afloat is higher than at anytime in our near 50 year history. A significant proportion of the 3000 vessels BW recognises as being peoples homes are on BW moorings; BW are therefore in effect a landlord in that they are collecting “rent” in the form of a mooring fee, albeit the vast majority of the “tenants” own their own vessel (home). NWC has to find new revenue streams; residential moorings are an obvious one. There is a proven need and market. There are well established and proven benefits of having residential boats around the inland waterways and the RBOA seeks recognition of this by the NWC.
Social Inclusion/cohesion is referred to at various points through the document. It is odd that it is not mentioned as a specific charitable purpose. In this context it should be noted that residential boaters are from a very wide range of social and economic backgrounds but typically live together in genuine socially inclusive communities in a way which does not generally happen in traditional housing.
Maintaining the existing waterways' network for navigation and facilitating the continued restoration of currently unused navigations.
Encourage the traditional waterways crafts e.g. Fender making , boat building and boat decoration and the continued use and restoration of historic craft as working vessels.
Encourage sustainable use and investment in waterways by industry and commerce.
Encourage and facilitate the use of waterways for the carriage of freight and a specific requirement to preserve wharves so that they are available for future commercial carrying purposes.
Q4:- Do you agree with the proposed “mission statement”? How could it be improved?
We suggest the mission statement should read:-
“The NWC exists to protect and promote our inland waterways network, for navigation, for leisure, residential, commercial and freight use, and to preserve the waterway heritage so it will always be a valued part of local communities and landscapes.”
Q5:- Do you agree with the proposed “belief” statement.
We see no need for both a mission and a belief statement.
Q6:- Do you agree with the proposed “vision” statement.
The RBOA believe it should read:- “We want canals and rivers to be available for navigation and enjoyed, valued and cared for by everyone.”
Q7:- Do you agree that the NWC should enjoy the same powers and be subject to similar legal duties to maintain the waterways as British Waterways currently is?
Yes. We further believe that the Minister should retain the power to determine any variation of waterway classification. Remainder waterways need specific attention to ensure air draught is protected when any new bridges are proposed, failure to protect remainder waterways could result in there potential to provide regeneration opportunities for rundown communities will be lost for ever. We also believe particular care needs to be taken with regard to dredging standards, whilst the profile set in 1967/8 might not be appropriate everywhere it would be short-sighted if future commercial flows were prevented because of a short term expedient.
Q8:- Do you agree with the proposed governance model for the new charity?
The RBOA has serious reservations. The creation of the NWC has been seen by the existing users as an opportunity to have a real influence on the way that the waterways are managed and the priorities that the executive set for their operational staff. The plan as presented at present seems to have user engagement on the periphery rather than at the heart of the organisation. An example is the Local Partnerships. These are based on the BW operational areas which have been developed to ensure, as far as is possible, that water resources for one operational unit are controlled by that same unit. They are not “Local” in character but actually regional. The RBOA believe that a much more effective way of enthusing and engaging with existing and more importantly, potential enthusiasts, would be by the creation of Local Community Partnerships(LCP). These would have the benefit of being able to match the boundaries of existing administrative areas based on parishes and districts. We know that people identify themselves with their immediate community which in reality rarely extends beyond a few miles from their home. It also makes it easier for local councils to identify themselves with “their” waterway. Clearly the LCP’s will need a mechanism to report to/liaise with the “Local Partnerships” which we believe should be re designated Regional Partnerships. Whilst we understand that the “Management” are paid to manage the culture must change to the extent that they not only listen but seriously consider what is said. Box 3B does not show input from LP’s to Waterways Management Units or National Management - RBOA believes it should. We also feel that Stakeholder Groups should include Boating Organisations.
Q9:- Should funds raised locally by the Local Partnerships be spent on local priorities? Why?
Broadly we believe local money should stay local, primarily because experience shows people identify with local projects and are therefore more supportive of campaigns that will have a local impact. We have some reservations however. As long as the funds raised only need to be used for enhancements “gilding the lily” we are relatively relaxed, but if the funds generated locally are actually vital to keeping the network operational we have real concerns. There is little point in area “B” being pristine if areas “A & C” are derelict and impassable. The RBOA believe there should be an arrangement whereby a percentage of the funds collected locally are remitted to a central fund to use for “balancing”. There should also be a restriction to prevent LP’s collecting funds and holding them for some future undefined use, perhaps a requirement that funds collected must be used within a specific time frame.
Q10:- Who do you think should be encouraged to sit on the Local Partnerships? How should the nominations panel be constituted; who are essential parties?
The reality is that members will be self selecting. In our experience the coerced quickly loose interest and drop by the wayside. Clearly it is in the interest of the LP to have members who are well connected in the local community as they are likely to have influence and be well placed with contacts in the local business community and the local administration at parish, district or county level. It is essential to have people who know the local waterway very well. One would expect representatives of local waterways businesses, local NWC management, parish/district councillors and members of established user groups. Typically the users will be boaters as they are very committed, not least because they have a considerable investment in the waterway in terms of their vessel and the fees they pay to the navigation authority. It is vital that residential boaters in any region are represented as they have vastly more at stake than any other group, with the exception of those whose businesses are wholly dependent on the waterway. But more important, residential boaters are very often the link or conduit, between the waterway and the local community being an intergral part of both.
Q11:-Is between 8 and 12 the right size for a Local Partnership
We see no need to be prescriptive. Some will need/want more than others. Quality and breadth of experience is most important, coupled with energy, commitment and available time.
Q12:- Which are the particular subjects or activities you think may require the attention of a specific sub-committee of a local partnership.
Finance/fund raising, Navigation, Ecology, Heritage, Marketing
Q13:- How best can the New Waterways Charity strike the right balance between local needs and the needs of the waterways network as a whole?
By involving/engaging with the LCP and the LP. If the NWC is going to be effective in engaging with and enthusing local communities it must listen, be seen to be listening and then react appropriately to prove it heard! There will need to be a mechanism whereby the Chairs of the LCP meet the LP and the Regional Business Unit Managers. If there is a proper dialogue which means the people at the grass roots understand the national priorities and those national priorities are set based ,in part at least, on the feedback from the LP’s and LCP’s there is likely to be consensus. Clearly major infrastructure work albeit it is “local” to one group will be understood to be a national issue. Whereas control of invasive plants, for example, whilst crucially important will inevitable always be seen as a local issue.
Q14:-How could the charity encourage effective working between different communities and partnerships who share the same waterway.
This ultimately will be the responsibility of the Chairs of the LCP’s and LP’s. If the concept of the Local Community Partnership the LCP is accepted this will be less of a problem as the Community will know its own boundaries be it the parish or district. There will be liaison between adjoining groups on the same waterway at regional business unit meetings.
Q15:- In what ways could people be helped to become more involved and take more responsibility for their local waterways? What might the barriers be, and how could they be overcome?
Links need to be established with existing local groups Scouts/Guides, heritage groups, ramblers, as well as the existing waterways groups. Those unfamiliar with the waterway need to be mentored by those who know it well to de-mystify it and make it familiar. The process is liaise, advise, recruit, educate and then set to work. Barriers are: unnecessary red tape, over prescriptive rules (too much “you can’t”, not enough “you can”). For some lack of money for suitable clothing, work boots for example, travel costs could be an issue, but if the LCP model is adopted it is unlikely to be one. The biggest barrier is available time. Encouraging active participation as an alternative way to keep fit; it would be cheaper than gym membership.
Q16:- In what ways could more people be encouraged to volunteer for the waterways? What might the barriers be, and how could they be overcome?
The Waterways Recovery Group has been very successful over many years in encouraging hundreds of people, every year, to get involved in significant projects, building, locks, culverts etc. Part of their success is that WRG are offering the opportunity to do “real” jobs on “real" projects. Too often the BW approach has been to focus on picking litter, and if real talent was identified, they might be allowed to cut the grass. Otherwise the answer is much as in Q15. Schemes which give people the opportunity to gain genuine experience and a qualification that would be a transferable skill to a permanent job (not necessarily on the waterways) would be a significant incentive. Incentives like reduced mooring fees, reduced rentals for boat or angling clubs where individuals or groups make a significant ongoing commitment to specific tasks. Recognition that volunteers can be as valid and useful in the Boardroom as well as on the bankside would be an excellent first step.
Q17:- What would a successful volunteer programme look like? What would it achieve?
A successful volunteering programme would achieve whatever it set out to accomplish. It would be managed by a volunteer, the training would be delivered by a volunteer and the volunteers would stay to tackle the next task. As indicated above volunteering has many forms. Vast amounts of volunteer time has been devoted by the Officers and Committee members of User Groups. The process leading to this consultation which has taken over three years has involved the RBOA Officers alone in literally thousands of volunteer man hours, often not recognised by those who have sought the input.
Q18:- Do you agree that the NWC should initially focus on securing fair representation, and move towards an element of direct membership over time?
The RBOA does not have a definitive position on this issue. Clearly to be credible the Membership needs to be measured in tens of thousands, which will take a considerable time to achieve. We recognise the benefits of the NWC being a membership organisation. We don’t feel, however that reference to the National Trust has been, or is, helpful, not least because it is very difficult to draw comparisons between the obvious benefits of belonging to the National Trust, free car parking, entrance to houses etc and what NWC can offer. On balance we think if NWC is to be a membership organisation fees should be low cost to encourage as wide and diverse a membership as possible. A strategy could be to offer the members of all the relevant user groups, Anglers, Boating organisations, Canoe Union, free membership of the NWC for a year as part of belonging to their organisation. This would produce a membership of tens of thousands and would enable NWC to capture data for direct contact for future renewals, volunteer programmes etc. It may be that a “Friends of the Waterways” organisation be set up rather than have members in a constitutional sense.
Whatever decision is taken it should be clear an unequivocal at the vesting of the charity with a set time line.
Q19:- Do you agree with the proposed make-up of the Council? Which interests should be represented?
Residential boating should have a distinct place in addition to other boating interests. In any hierarchy of need or interest residential boaters have the most at stake, with the exception of those who have a business which is wholly dependent on the waterways. Many residential boaters are on low fixed incomes and have no choice, other than social housing, but remain on the waterways and they are there because it is a life style they cherish. In any other arena of public policy where there are proposals being discussed which could fundamentally effect peoples homes. They are involved and consulted as a distinct group. This consultation and the NWC in the future is no different; residential boating should be recognised with a distinct place on the council. Beyond that Horse Riding is forbidden on most towpaths, so it is debatable whether it merits a seat. Freight and Trading Boats should be recognised with a distinct place.
Q20:- Should a proportion of the Council be directly elected? If so who should be entitled to vote?
We do not see how Council Members can be elected unless there is a membership to vote. Irrespective of this, the fact that boaters represent the biggest single source of income, after GIA, and our investment when you consider the value of our boats is hugely more significant than any other stakeholders (outside of government) requires we are properly represented.
Q21:- Should the independent chair of the Appointments Committee be chosen by Committee members or the Council? What skills will they need?
The Chair of The Appointments Committee should be elected by Council and the skills required, those of impartiality, empathy and the ability to reconcile conflicting views, and a firm grasp of the skills needed to fulfil the appointees roles.
Q22:- Are there any other topics that you consider would benefit from Council scrutiny committees?
There must be a Navigation Committee. Navigation is fundamental to the waterways it is the most important single function of the Executive is to ensure navigation is maintained, without navigation the waterways will atrophy and die.
Q23:- Are there any other activities of BW that would be best placed in the CIC?
Not having a list of all of BW’s commercial activities this is difficult to answer. We assume exploiting BW’s corridors for pipes, fibre optic cables etc would be included, as would Hydro Power and other “green “ generation opportunities. Residential moorings for boats as well as floating houses and “can float” houses should be a specific activity. The Boat Safety Scheme, and Craft Licensing which could be sold as a service to other navigations.
We make a further point however. You mention “to obtain the right expertise it is possible that directors of the CIC may be remunerated” We remind you our earlier contention that volunteers are as relevant and valuable in the Boardroom as on a broom.
Q24:- Government policy is to support the movement of freight on inland waterways, where it is economically sustainable. Do you agree that the status quo is no longer an option? Which of the 5 options do you prefer. What other options would we consider?
The NWC should be required to prioritise the carrying of freight on waterways. That total tonnage on Britain’s Inland Waterways has increased is despite BW’s lack of focus and effort, the closure of their dedicated freight sales team is sufficient evidence. There is a widespread interest from hard headed commercial concerns , who have no romantic attachment to the waterways, who would like the option to use them for freight, 19 with access to the River Trent alone. The problem has been who should pay for the changes to the track, the extra dredging? It is a tremendous irony that BW has to pay to maintain road bridges over its waterways that have no value or benefit to BW or its direct customers but the Department for Transport will make no contribution to the extra cost of dredging for the benefit of transport. The loss of wharves is, of course another issue. The RBOA believes the NWC should be required to liaise with the Commercial Boat Operators Association and develop with them a strategy to provide a sensible regime which will allow for the growth in the number of freight flows on inland waterways.
Q25:- What measures of the effectiveness of NWC’s use of public funds (through the Government Funding Contract) would be appropriate?
We recently became aware of the stewardship scores (Box 4H) which are a useful tool and should continue with an annual update. The Scrutiny Committees should be required to report in a similar fashion on their area of expertise. But the most telling would be a thorough survey of customers experience and perception.
Q 26:- Are there other areas where you think NWC could increase:
Its commercial income
Provision of residential moorings
Re-introduce carrying
User group services – boatyard services, consumables supplies (gas, coal, fuels, etc.)
Boat & boater insurance schemes
Boaters cash lottery
Provision of heavy engineering services to industry
Events, shows & Galas
Guest speaker services (history & heritage)
Set up and sell various vocational/training courses for commercial, industrial & private customers.
Voluntary income
Unclear if this means voluntary giving or costs offset by volunteer workers. If the latter we do not believe there are many tasks or responsibilities that can not be performed to an extent by volunteers on both an ad hoc and on going basis. But, it is vital that these skills and services freely given are first respected and second are used to enhance those skills and services supplied by employed staff, not to replace them.
Third Party Income
Partnering schemes with industry, commerce and local government. For example sharing resources, using local authority equipment and staff for vegetation control on the towpath through their area,. Encouraging companies to adopt a stretch of canal or a flight of locks, much as many roundabouts are sponsored.
Q27:-Are there other areas where you thin NWC could save more money/make greater efficiencies
Control personnel costs; recruit commitment driven management and staff rather than career/money driven personnel – working for NWC should be promoted as a privilege. If a job can be done by a volunteer workforce, then let it be done. Only implement works that meet a genuine, recognised need, no more schemes like the over-provision of bollards on narrow locks which was universally derided and was a waste of funds. Re negotiate with the EA over the imposition of landfill taxes on dredged spoil.
Q28:- We would welcome any views you have on the analysis in the Impact Assessment and relevant evidence we could draw on in finalising the assessment.
We do not feel the Impact Assessment displays sufficient candour with regard to the issue of funding in the first few years of the NWC. Arguably, for the NWC to survive, if it is ever to get beyond this consultation, the funding that has been promised by HMG to date has to be reviewed. It is our view that a relatively modest and certainly politically acceptable revision will have a dramatic impact on the finances of the NWC and a disproportionate boost to the attitude of users whose goodwill, especially in the early years of the NWC will be crucial.
The revision we suggest is the minimum that will see the NWC through its first few years
1. The promised “Flat Cash” grant index linked
2. The shortfall in the BW pension scheme to be meet in full by the Treasury (or the scheme kept within the Civil Service)
3. The suggested contract between the government and the NWC extended by a further 5 years
Q29:- The NWC is just the working title for the new charity. Which of the following suggestions for the name of the charity do you prefer and why?
a) National Waterways Trust
b) Waterways Trust for England and Wales
c) Waterways Trust
d) National Canals and Riverst Trust
e) Canals and Rivers Trust
f) National Waterways Charity
g)
The RBOA note that BW are very pleased and proud that Pentagram will produce a new identity for them on a pro bono basis. We believe the new era of cost management and sound decisions should start here. The cost of the new identity is a fraction of the cost of changing existing branding and signage. We suggest that the public face of the new organisation is known as British Waterways and its legal name becomes British Waterways Trust.
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.