Waterways Act 1995 « Kennet and Avon Boating Community Website

Posts Tagged ‘Waterways Act 1995’

BANES Council to employ boat checker

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

From correspondence below, obtained via Freedom of Information from Bath and NE Somerset Council, it looks like BW and BANES are paying jointly for an extra boat checker. This appears to be instigated partly by Councillor Ian Dewey of Bathampton, who has been a key mover in efforts to move liveaboard boaters off the canal.

The “concerns” expressed take no account of the fact that the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers is not a legal requirement and clearly states that it does not have the force of law. Unlike the 14-day rule in Section 17 of the British Waterways Act, BW does not have the legal power to enforce it. In one of the emails, David Lawrence, BANES Deputy Director for Heritage Services, says he does not think there is a problem. It is not clear whether this extra staff appointment is going ahead permanently, as the original contract seems to have been for this summer. However, we do wonder whether this is a good use of a cash-strapped Local Authority’s money, as responsibility for enforcement on the canal lies with BW.

The information in these emails seems to imply that BW is bypassing whatever the local mooring strategy would decide – this has gone ahead before the local mooring strategy inquiry panel has even started meeting.

The emails are here. Banes enforcement 1 Banes enforcement 2 Banes enforcement 3 Banes enforcement 4 Banes enforcement 5 Banes enforcement 6 Banes enforcement 7 Banes enforcement 8

Tags: BANES Council, continuous cruiser, Damian Kemp, enforcement team, FOI request, Section 17, Waterways Act 1995
Posted in BW Policy News and FOI Act Requests, Continuous Cruisers, News | No Comments »

“I Never Give In To Bullies” – A Letter To BW

Sunday, June 6th, 2010

Two years ago, BW proposed in a previous consultation to increase the licence fee for boats without a home mooring by £150. This plan provoked enormous opposition from boaters. One of the responses to that 2008 consultation summed up how many of us feel. We decided it was time to share this inspiring and angry letter with other boaters. Here is an edited version.

18/10/2008

Dear Mr Salem

I have read British Waterways’ response to the BWAF report on boat licence fees and this is my response to that. I live on a boat and have done so for 18 years, I am an individual and speak for myself and do not subvert that right to user groups, whoever they might be.

The points I take exception to, which I believe are the main purpose of the exercise, are those relating to the so-called ‘continuous cruiser’ which is the absurd name and concept applied to people who live on boats who neither need nor want a permanent mooring.

The “Continuous Cruising Procedure” and CC3 letters

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

A boater recently made a Freedom of Information request about the number of boats BW had either taken to court or removed following a CC3 letter. The CC3 is the letter which terminates the boat licence in what BW like to call the “Continuous cruising procedure”. The boater asked the following questions

Consultation stitch-up part 2

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

Some boaters have now looked at all the responses to the consultation on Moorings Policy for England and Wales (the national consultation). The responses to this bigger consultation also show a majority opposed to local mooring strategies. Of 161 responses, 88 were against local mooring strategies, 48 in favour, and 25 either did not answer the question or were neither in favour nor against. We are still seeking answers from BW

Whelk Stall anyone?

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

I recently made a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of the Kennet and Avon Canal Users’ Forum for 2000, 2001, 2002 and minutes for 2003 excluding November and December. This is the reply I received:

CC Warrior

Friday, January 29th, 2010

One person’s resistance to British Waterway’s campaign against boaters on the Kennet and Avon

These letters tell the story of one boater’s resistance to BW’s unlawful attempt to enforce the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers as if it is the law.

A tale of two councils

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

One one hand we have B&NES, an authority whose domain the canal runs through from Hanham up to the exact middle of Dundas aqueduct.

On the other the successful meeting with representatives of Wiltshire County Council in Holt last week.

Consultation response

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

In my initial response to the moorings consultation I have decided to take it at face value. At some future point I will examine the proposals in their social context.

Starting from this statement;

British Waterways claim there is a problem that requires solution.

NABO’s complaint to British Waterways

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

The National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) have given us permission to publish the following extracts, first from the Chairman’s editorial in the latest edition of NABO news, secondly their complaint to British Waterways about their continual ‘interpretations’ of the various laws.

British Waterways Act 1995 Section 17 (3)

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

A simple piece of law that has caused endless discussion both before and after its inception.

Section 17 (3) is almost the only piece of legislation that is relevent to most discussion about liveaboards and overstaying and the much abused term ‘continuous cruiser’.

The 1995 Act was first introduced in 1989 when British Waterways proposed that all boats should have a mooring before they were granted a licence. Opposition to this was so vehement by both bodies such as the IWA and NABO as well as dedicated individuals that the legislation was in Parliament for 6 years before being passed in it present form.

Hence, it is said, Section 17 (3) is a compromise and as such open to the various interpretations that have lead to such works of fiction as the ‘mooring guidance for continuous cruisers’ and the term ‘continuous cruiser’ itself as British Waterways have made successive attempts to dilute and subvert the application of this law. A law that allows most liveaboards to live the way they choose to.

So here it is;

(3) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse
a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—
(a) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the
standards applicable to that vessel;
(b) an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence
that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and
(c) either—
(i) the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably
be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland
waterway or elsewhere; or
(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the
application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for
which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more
than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

Tags: bona fide navigation, continuous cruiser, Section 17, Waterways Act 1995
Posted in The Law | 2 Comments »

Kennet and Avon Boating Community Website