“Ian's boat has got an engine but they get a Discount on the BW Cruising License if they declare the boat as unpowered - that lot don't ever go anywhere anyway there must be at least a couple of hundred of them braking the rules just between Bath and Bradford - on - Avon alone. I therefore think it unfair that they choose to Pick on Poor Old Ian - They should Do the Ready Lot !, Igor”

“Ian is living in peace on the K&A and has broken no Law. The terms and conditions of his licence are ultra vires and a severe breach of his civil liberties. Furthermore, some of the postings on this site seem very ethnocentric. Shame on you.

The general public must remember the canal is a place where people live, and not simply a place to visit or pass through on a part-time basis.

Leave the baoties alone.

Sgt. M.S.”

“Ian Gill despite what he says is trying to use the charity of unsuspecting members of the public to stay illegally on the canal. The rules need no more than secondary education to understand. !5 yeas over staying is really extracting the urine.”

“Well said, Ben!”

“No Rob, Bath Marina is BW owned and operated, charging by the way, almost double my mooring rates. Not that it matters because both sites are full to overflowing with long waiting lists.

I once again emphasise, that unless the authorities get their heads around the residential use of our waterways, and refrain from considering their use under non applicable planning rules, you and I and others like us will always have the Mr Gills of this world.”

“It's always a shame when someone is not able to look after themselves. I'd much rather have him breaking these rules than others which might be deemed ant-social. I do believe the Mr. Gill really is worth the turning the blind eye to, but, there is always a but.

Rules are rules, and rules are the foundation of society, this is not really arguable, sorry. Whilst rules are amendable and should be changed for the better, there isn't any way of giving Mr Gill what he quite possibly deserves without inviting others to follow in his steps.

Those who wish to fight the system to their own advantage or ideals, are often the ones who put the very least in. In the modern world, this often really does mean at least to pay taxes.

I am sure that given his community spirit, the community which he helps could find a way to reimburse him somehow. If not, I would recommend finding ways to earn the required money necessary to organise some help with moving the boat in a non-polluting fashion. Where there is a will, there is a way they say, and if the good life on the boats is really a valid way of living, then I challenge Mr. Gill to prove it's efficiency without breaking the rules - for there is the real challenge in life.”

“Dave,
My ping - pong reference was not inferring a game but descriptive of a back and forth interchange largely between us rather a general exchange between a larger number. However, I had to come back with regard to the suspicion expressed in your last paragraph, which is completely incorrect.

I am not and never have been employed by BW. Nor am I related by family or friendship with anyone of that organisation. I am a local resident living not far from the canal and walk along the towpath. I do not have a boat but enjoy the sight of a variety of attractive moored and navigating boats. However, I dislike permanently parked disreputable boats that moor nose to tail along long stretches of the canal and completely shutting out genuine cruisers from these areas. Often they have their engines or portable generators running for hours to charge up batteries and in colder weather belch out acrid smoke from old or inappropriately fuelled stoves.

I have not visited your marina - presumably Bath Marina - but I cannot imagine that the boats to which I object are owned by people prepared to pay the sort of mooring fees you must have to charge.”

“Rob
With respect it is not a game of 'ping-pong' as you term it. It's a public debate about a very important subject.

As for the matter of the involvement of planners regarding the mooring of boats on the rivers and canals, I have no objection at all to their involvement. What I do object to is their inflexibility in maintaining that moorings should be considered as a housing estate. If you care to visit my fifty plus moorings, which you may already have done, you will see very tidy boats, all with current licenses, occupied by ordinary, decent law abiding citizens. Water and electricity services unobtrusively underground and steel pontoons all below ground level. The other glaring absence happens to be buildings.

Admittedly there happens to be a 'track', a large managed waste skip and a toilet emptying facility.

My objections happen to be directed at planners who do not nor will not get off their office chairs and enter the real world of alternative accommodation which really is affordable, and that happens to be the attitude of the planning regime of B&NES.

So if you are employed by BW, as I suspect, and you have a genuine interest in the boating fraternity, then join in the battle to wake up these bureaucratics and point them in the direction of the real water world.”

“Dave,
The level of complexity of mains supplies for electricity and water is unimportant for planners. The mains are underground and not visible. However, your electricity hook ups and water taps and pontoons are all above ground and visually obtrusive - significant for planners. Probably health and safety would be interested as well.

Also, very few marinas, if any, are devoid of one or more buildings to service their customers needs.

You will also need facilities to deal with rubbish and sewage disposal, as you say, and a road or track will be required for service vehicles. Also, many, if not most, live-aboard boaters have accompanying vehicles so will require parking facilities.

Finally, quite a number, but I accept not all, of the live-aboards are visually scruffy and a screened site should be provided if the site is not to become an eyesore to the passing public. Some may call characterful and interesting what I call scruffy and unpleasant, it is a matter of opinion. However, when considering a permanent site, the matter of visual acceptability of a site should be considered by planners as they do for housing etc.

Many people would like to be able to ignore the need for planning and I have wished at times planners would not block what I wish to have. However, I accept the need for them in the interests of the general public, whereas you simply do not - at least in this special interest matter.

I think we should now agree to disagree and not block the comment section with further ping-pong responses.”

“Rob, If BW and the local authority planners were to focus on providing adequate off stream moorings, as is so obviously needed, there would be very little need to get involved in legal processes. As for your acceptance that moorings should be subjected to the same planning criterion as residential caravan and housing sites. Nonsense! Boats do not require tarmac roads, comprehensive drainage systems, concrete foundations, brick walls and tiled roofs. Nor do they need a complicated network of water, electrical and gas services.

What they do need is an understanding that they are here and increasing, a water filled hole in the ground, a safe floating pontoon to tie to, an electric hook up, a fresh water tap, a sewage disposal point and a tidy rubbish collection point. Strange eh? Not a building in sight.

So get digging and stop prosecuting!”