Carthorse logic

[Chris Pink]

There is, in the pound to the east of Bath, around a mile or so of moorings that have been 2/3rds empty for the last year. I was speaking to a boater today who wants to remain in this area for work and social reasons. He rang up the moorings officer and was told that these moorings were not being auctioned when empty because "there were 45 new moorings at foxhangers and they are only allowed a fixed number of moorings on the Kennet and Avon.

 

Now, a number of points occur to me.

 

CRT/IWA identify this area as having a serious problem with so-called continuous moorers.

 

It has long been obvious that more mooring is needed on the Kennet and Avon.

 

CRT are struggling for funding.

 

A boater identified as a member of a 'problem group' wants a mooring.

 

There appears to be a secret limit on the number of moorings on the Kennet and Avon, a canal where people have trouble finding moorings.

 

And last but by no means least;

 

This stretch of mooring has been empty for a year now and yet there are still signs up saying 'permit holders only' and threatening 'penalty fees' (not my wording, it's on the signs) of £50 per day.

 

Yet CRT/IWA think there is problem with holiday boaters finding space to moor and that liveaboard boAts are causing this problem.

 

There is another stretch of online moorings that are being allowed to stand empty, at bathampton, but no signage has been removed there either. This is in on of the few sections of this canal where visitor mooring demand really does outstrip supply.

 

 

 

..

Edited November 6, 2012 by Chris Pink

[Guest]

Sadly just another example of CRT's shambolic LTM policy.

 

It's something they really need to get a hold of.

[alan_fincher]

I thought the official stance was that for each new ten offline moorings created, BW/CRT were committed to losing just one online one ?

 

(For avoidance of doubt, I'm not endorsing that as a "good idea", but I thought it was the usual line).

 

On that basis 45 new moorings in a marina should only result in the loss of 4 or 5 existing online ones.

 

It sounds though that you are saying that the person was told they don't want any increase in permanent mooring numbers on that stretch, (or even anywhere on that canal ??).

 

In which case I would say they should not have permitted the expansion of the offline facilities, and would have been better off keeping their own online ones, which presumably would bring them in at least as much revenue as they'll get via Foxhangers, and which might also have been more affordable.

 

Something to raise through the local user group meetings, if you have such things ?

[Chris Pink]

I'm not sure where 45 comes from (it being at least 3rd hand) as foxhangers has over 200 berths. There has been some take up by local liveaboards but as it's at the eastern edge of that hinterland moorings nearer Bath are still very short. To give some perspective this is around 80% of permit holders moorings between Bath and Bradford. There are not many others east until Devizes.

 

The Kennet and Avon historically has few online moorings.

[GSer]

Is there anything on the old bw mooring contracts that might prevent cart from reclasifying areas of the moorings whilst the remaining contracts are still active? I was once told the contact i had for kintbury moorings only gave me the right to moor between point a and point b?

[Chris Pink]

That would, theoretically, give the last tenant exclusive rights to a mile of moorings so no, I don't see that as an explanation.

 

I understand the terms are the other way round, a boat doesn't (in theory) have exclusive use of any one point in the moorings. In theory because no-one takes any notice of that.

[matty40s]

The moorings below Atherstone seem to be clearing out for various reasons, not popular, not being advertised when vacant etc.

There are now the first section which have been there for years, a couple of others dotted along, and then one who has moved to the furthest (and sunniest) spot down the moorings.

It is nearest the locksand must be 150 yards away from the next boat.Furthest to walk possibly, but best spot.

[George94]

Does the fact that the K&A near Bath is actually a canalised river have a bearing on all this?

[magpie patrick]

Does the fact that the K&A near Bath is actually a canalised river have a bearing on all this?

[Chris Pink]

Does the fact that the K&A near Bath is actually a canalised river have a bearing on all this?

 

This is the canal proper I'm talking about, east of Bath.

 

On the river CRT have no say in riparian mooring rights.

 

Which does raise an interesting side issue.

 

I have had conversations with boaters who have tried to live on the river to get out of the way of CRT/IWA flack but are finding it, especially with the amount of rain in the last three years, too difficult to manage as the Bristol Avon is no pussy cat.

[GSer]

This is the canal proper I'm talking about, east of Bath.

 

On the river CRT have no say in riparian mooring rights.

 

Which does raise an interesting side issue.

 

I have had conversations with boaters who have tried to live on the river to get out of the way of CRT/IWA flack but are finding it, especially with the amount of rain in the last three years, too difficult to manage as the Bristol Avon is no pussy cat.

 

 

In that situation, as radical as it might seem, perhaps they should stay safe and avoid the flack by adhering to the rules of their license agreement and keep moving about on the canal.

[luctor et emergo]

I found something out last night, in Hanham. A tidal section of the river, such as above Hanham, has no riparian rights for the land owners. Instead, the land under water, belongs to the crown. The water in this stretch, does however belong to CRT, because the section from Hanham to Bath was officially included as being under the jurisdiction of the K&A canal, all those years ago.

 

The river has dropped a good six and a bit foot since breaching the bank on Monday morning... it is only a foot or four above normal level now hopefully, I can get back to Bath tomorrow...

[Chris Pink]

In that situation, as radical as it might seem, perhaps they should stay safe and avoid the flack by adhering to the rules of their license agreement and keep moving about on the canal.

 

i started this thread in response to a conversation with a boater who doesn't want to keep moving about and wants to rent (for around £2,000) one of the vacant moorings he can see

 

- and as i pointed out, no-one is allowed to moor on, according to CRT.

 

Why try and turn into another CC debate?

 

A tidal section of the river, such as above Hanham, has no riparian rights for the land owners. Instead, the land under water, belongs to the crown. The water in this stretch, does however belong to CRT, because the section from Hanham to Bath was officially included as being under the jurisdiction of the K&A canal, all those years ago.

 

 

riparian rights over the river bed? or mooring rights on the bank?

[luctor et emergo]

 

 

 

 

riparian rights over the river bed? or mooring rights on the bank?

 

 

The land owner has no riparian rights over the river bed. He has rights to moor to the bank ( subject to various planning regs).

 

So you could moor on anchor, and the land owner can not say anything about that. But you can't tie a mooring line to his land.

 

Hmm, I can see a surge in anchor sales in the future?

[Mike Todd]

I have understood for some time that when the K&A was restored there were requirements (not sure from whom) to restrict the number of boats based on the canal in order to keep within the demand that it could sustain.

 

In principle that seems sensible as it is in no-one's interests to reduce the canal to a poijnt at which it again becomes unusable.

[Chris Pink]

it's the "not sure from whom" bit that's a bit disturbing. If there is a need or a requirement to ration use of a public resource then don't you feel that should be thoroughly out in the open?

[alan_fincher]

it's the "not sure from whom" bit that's a bit disturbing. If there is a need or a requirement to ration use of a public resource then don't you feel that should be thoroughly out in the open?

I think if I were the CRT customer involved, I would be pushing CRT management locally to clarify that the line apparently already spun by the moorings officer is the official CRT policy in that area, and the rationale behind not being prepared to let these moorings.

 

There is, in the pound to the east of Bath, around a mile or so of moorings that have been 2/3rds empty for the last year. I was speaking to a boater today who wants to remain in this area for work and social reasons. He rang up the moorings officer and was told that these moorings were not being auctioned when empty because "there were 45 new moorings at foxhangers and they are only allowed a fixed number of moorings on the Kennet and Avon.

 

Ask local management directly what they actually want someone to do if they are prepared to pay a sensible rate for an online mooring, but do not want to be herded into a marina.

 

As you say the person involved appears to actually want to do "the right thing", but CRT don't seem to have any enthusiasm for helping them....

 

Isn't this something your local boaters' group(s?) could try and progress on their behalf ?

Edited November 7, 2012 by alan_fincher

[GSer]

i started this thread in response to a conversation with a boater who doesn't want to keep moving about and wants to rent (for around £2,000) one of the vacant moorings he can see

 

- and as i pointed out, no-one is allowed to moor on, according to CRT.

 

Why try and turn into another CC debate?

 

 

Sorry, You bought up the 'interesting side issue' I just answered how I felt about that issue. Sorry if it's not the answer you were looking for?

 

 

 

As for anchoring up on the Avon perhaps there is a time limit, as there is on the River Thames, of 24 hrs at anchor.

[Chris Pink]

You misunderstand. I am talking about people who have (paid) moorings on the river. They don't wish to cruise.

 

I am sorry if that doesn't fit the stereotype you are looking for.

[GSer]

You misunderstand. I am talking about people who have (paid) moorings on the river. They don't wish to cruise.

 

I am sorry if that doesn't fit the stereotype you are looking for.

 

I understand OK

 

Blimey it was you that mentioned they were on the river trying to avoid flack from the CaRT etc?? You don't get flack if you have a mooring or move about as per the rules, no stereotypes wanted or needed here.

 

I am genuinely interested in CaRT's official attitude to online moorings on the K&A, but i'll keep quiet from now on as you obviously have some kind of bee in yer bonnet about the river subject (a subject that you started talking about in first place )

 

Paul

Edited November 7, 2012 by GSer

[KenK]

it's the "not sure from whom" bit that's a bit disturbing. If there is a need or a requirement to ration use of a public resource then don't you feel that should be thoroughly out in the open?

 

Even in 1990 when the K&A was offically reopened it was not really fully navigable, I suspect that BW would have had that in mind if indeed such a provision was in place. The lottery grant eventually resolved the navigation issues in the late 90's. There are still some restrictions above Devizes apparently because of turbidity issues which effect the Kennet chalk stream which is an SSSI.

 

By the way I do like NCCC as oposed to CMer so much more upmarket.

 

 

Ken

[Steilsteven]

Even in 1990 when the K&A was offically reopened it was not really fully navigable, I suspect that BW would have had that in mind if indeed such a provision was in place. The lottery grant eventually resolved the navigation issues in the late 90's. There are still some restrictions above Devizes apparently because of turbidity issues which effect the Kennet chalk stream which is an SSSI.

 

By the way I do like NCCC as oposed to CMer so much more upmarket.

 

 

Ken

 

I don't remember much if any lottery money being spent on navigation issues, I do remember it being spent on car parks and wheel chair access.

 

The only restrictions that I'm aware of, on the Kennet, were when BW told hire boat operators that they would be restricted by the number of craft they could add to their fleets. The nonsense in this is that it didn't apply to operators on the rest of the K&A.

 

Keith

[magpie patrick]

I don't remember much if any lottery money being spent on navigation issues, I do remember it being spent on car parks and wheel chair access.

 

The only restrictions that I'm aware of, on the Kennet, were when BW told hire boat operators that they would be restricted by the number of craft they could add to their fleets. The nonsense in this is that it didn't apply to operators on the rest of the K&A.

 

Keith

 

 

HLF, £25 million to bring navigation up to standard including back pumping IIRC