For those of you who wish to read the "notes" from the meeting see below. Notice I deliberately did not call them "minutes" because they are not what any normal person would describe as minutes, and according to at least one boater who was there, do not fully reflect what happened in the meeting. They are, however, the only record of the meeting in circulation.
The meeting was by invitation only, and about 7 boaters were present. Somehow, these 7 boaters were "boater representatives", although they were picked by CaRT, and have no bona fide claim that I can see to represent anyone but themselves (this is not a criticism of them). None of the national boater groups was represented. Naturally the IWA (not a boaters' organisation) was present in the guise of the rather affable Paul Strudwick. It is worrying that CaRT seeks to legitimise this process by burdening these boaters with the role of "representative". Further meetings will, apparently, have more "representatives".
Central Regent’s Canal Action Plan
Notes of Stakeholder Meeting - 1 December 2014
Canal Museum, New Wharf Road, London N1
1. INTRODUCTION
Sorwar Ahmed, boater liaison manager at the Canal & River Trust, welcomed the meeting and introduced the external facilitator, Jonny Zander from Kaizen Partnership.
Sorwar explained that this stakeholder meeting aimed to engage local councils, boater representatives, residents and other stakeholders in initial discussions about developing an action plan for the central Regent’s Canal running through Islington and Hackney.
The meeting had emerged from a long history of discussions between the Trust, local residents and boaters about how to improve the way the Regent’s Canal is managed. The meeting was intended to be the first step in considering how to work together with the two local authorities, local partners, boaters, residents and stakeholders to make the Regent’s Canal a better place for everyone.
Richard Parry, the Trust’s chief executive, explained that the Trust looks after 2000 miles of canals and rivers and just doesn’t have the resources to do everything that is needed. There is pressure on the canals from their growing popularity, so mutual understanding is needed between all users. The canals have changed dramatically over the years, and this section of the Regent’s Canal will always be busy. The Trust will look and listen, but recognises that that there is a wide range of needs so we will need to find common ground.
These notes are based on the flipchart records and verbatim notes taken at the meeting.
2. INTRODUCTIONS & PERSPECTVES
Jonny Zander explained that the reason he was here as an independent facilitator was to ensure that this valuable time could be used most effectively, and so the community could share their views on an equal footing without the Trust being seen as leading the discussion. The community should include everyone who lives, works or visits the area.
He asked participants to explain who they were and their perspective at the meeting (e.g. boater, local authority, local resident, etc.). A full list of participants is attached at Appendix 1..
The group had some strong views, and residents expressed frustration at what they saw as a lack of action in dealing with some of the issues that were being experienced on and around the canal.
Jonny asked the group to share what they wanted from the meeting:
Change myths / judgements
Understand CRT’s position – roles and responsibilities, legal, charitable objectives, budget
Understand role and responsibility of each partner (grid for accountability) – where does the buck stop?
Certainty re: critical problems – noise, smoke & enforcement thereof
A second meeting (implying that some progress made) with actions and process
Responsive to needs and meetings
Distinguishing between myths and judgements – recognising difference between ‘boats are a problem’ and ‘certain boaters are problematic’
Using the term ‘boaters’ is not helpful, as many different types of boater
Not patronised
Awareness from CRT
Who is CRT responsible to?
Who is responsible / in charge of the canal? (accountability)
Islington and Hackney are here, where is Camden?
Clearer understanding from CRT of need to protect environment
Development beyond the canal should include green spaces for leisure
Action
Timely action
Enforce strategy
Certainty that problems will be fixed
Understand the scale of increase in boats – is there a deliberate policy to promote growth?
More targeted consultation with residents
What can we do practically?
Who is looking at the future? What is the vision? Whose space is it?
Jonny then outlined the intended aims for the meeting:
The workshop would be in two parts: the first addressing the issues, and the second dealing with concrete ideas.
3. ISSUES, FEARS & CONCERNS
Participants were asked to describe the issues they were concerned about, and the fears and concerns they had about them.
Growth of boats is a big change, leading to increased pollution
Concentration of boats leads to increased noise and smoke
Noise pollution
‘Noise’ could actually be boater conversation!
Smoke
How people use the canal has changed, e.g. cyclists, boaters – no control, sometimes lawless
Increased use of towpath due to development
Lack of order – drug dealing etc.
Lack of action
Graffiti
To have all stakeholders feel listened to
Appreciation of perspectives of other stakeholders
CRT to share ideas and explain constraints that impact on the situation
To start the process of constructive engagement in order to develop and action plan
Congestion
Towpath / mooring management
Lack of winter moorings
Triple mooring
Anti-social behaviour
Urine
Environment
Cyclists
Pedestrians
Lack of moorings / visitor moorings
Lack of appreciation from residents
Minority of residents who are anti-social
Minority of boaters
Facilities
Impact on Community Boats (clubs) of increased use of canal
Charitable objects include supporting Community Boats
More information about boating to non-boaters
4. VALUES THAT WILL HELP US FIND SHARED SOLUTIONS
Jonny then asked the group to consider the values that should be demonstrated throughout this process in order to help us find shared solutions:
Looking for consensus
Law
Leadership
Responsibility
Clear communication
Respect for perspectives of others
5. WHAT APPROACH IS NEEDED?
The group was asked to consider the approach needed to find a solution. There was some consensus around the following:
- More places to moor
- More facilities
- Control over ‘bridge-hopping’ (non-moving boaters who don’t care about others)
- Reduce the three lines of mooring
Other suggestions included introducing similar rules to those at the Islington Visitor Mooring, where wood burning is prohibited and only smokeless fuel is permitted.
Jonny summarised the group’s views on an approach as:
- Look at the existing rules
- How to police the people who don’t comply
- Clear leadership
- Identify responsibilities
- Landowners have a responsibility to work with agencies to resolve
- A missing representative is the Police
- Some people feel patronised
- Need better clearer communications from everybody
The following comments were made in the discussion:
We don’t want single line moorings
Should investigate the chance of penalty charges
Free access to the towpath is an issue – why can’t it be locked?
Single line mooring at Islington VM has made problems at Hoxton – there are also seasonal issues with canal winter works
Two lines of respectful boaters may be better than one line of inconsiderate boaters
Some would like to see a Quiet Zone in Kings Cross too
The success of the Islington VM plan reflects the efforts and goodwill of the volunteer Caretaker Boaters
There is a canyon effect in Kings Cross so the area needs to be a Quiet Zone
How can demand for boating be limited?
What action can be taken now?
The scale of growth means the regime must change
We need to develop a sense of a vision for London
We (LB Islington) are working with the Trust on a Draft Action Plan and are working on a set of actions – there is a commitment to this action plan, and to sharing the plan
An offer was made by boaters to meet with residents in the area
A question was raised as to whether the Boat Safety Scheme could cover pollution from engines? – it was clarified that this wasn’t within the scope of the Scheme.
Licence fees should be increased to dampen demand
The legislation should be changed as demand is going to increase
There was a suggestion that signage should be increased
Participants were keen to hear the Trust’s position. Richard Parry explained a number of issues:
- The Canal & River Trust is a navigation authority which is responsible for licencing boats
- The legislation does not allow us to restrict licences if people meet the criteria
- Changing the legislation is just not on the table, as there is very little prospect of primary legislation
- The definition of ‘continuous cruising’ is not defined in the legislation, so we have to interpret its meaning and enforce accordingly
- London is popular for many reasons, and boats are attracted to London as a result
- Enforcement is not an effective remedy for the issues of concerns here, as we cannot act swiftly when a few people are not respecting the rules
- We have to look to the more effective powers that local Councils have
- We acknowledge the success of the Islington Visitor Mooring plan and will investigate the lessons for other moorings to the west of the Islington Tunnel
- Visitor mooring rules have varied history and have evolved over time in different places
- We are looking at clear guidance nationally, but shortening the stay times in this area may compound the problem
6. ACTIONS / NEXT STEPS
The time to discuss concrete ideas was limited due to the level of debate. Jonny focussed the group on the next steps, and the following actions were agreed:
1. Richard Parry explained that the Trust has committed to developing an Action Plan, so we will work with partners to bring proposals back to the group.
2. It was agreed that there would be another meeting in January.
3. An update was requested for the January meeting on partnership funding. The Trust will compile some information on this.
APPENDIX 1: Attendance List
Name
Organisation / Interest
Roger Gajadhar Rutkowski
Canal Building
Sarah Sessions
Boater
Jim Bryden
Boater
John Raffles
Crystal Wharf
Eric Neumayer
Crystal Wharf
Mark Griffin
Head of Environmental Strategy, LB Hackney
Hilary Norris
Resident
Beverley Dean
Angel Association / Resident
Steve Bats
Resident
Sukky Choongh-Campbell
Air Quality Officer, LB Islington
Jan Hart
Director of Public Protection, LB Islington
Jennet Eyre
Angel Association/ Angel Narrowboat / resident
Jon Hood
Boater
Dohne Arnold
Noel Road resident
Phil Wain
Resident
Lisa Tang
Resident
Gordon McArthur
Arlington Association
Jill Clarke
Resident
J Faye
Resident
Eric Sorensen
Angel Association
Frances Williams
Treaty Street resident
J Checkley
Angel Community Canal Boat Trust
M Lopez
Boater
M Starczewski
Boater
C Oxley
Boater (residential)
Cllr Paul Convery
LB Islington
Lee Wilshire
Boater / London Waterways Projects
Anna Hayden
Resident – Canal Cottages
Greg Cowan
Battlebridge Moorings, Kings Cross
Cllr Martin Klute
LB Islington
Giles Eyre
Angel Community Canal Boat Trust
Gabriela Duglosz
LB Hackney – Community Safety Team
Andrew Phasey
St.Pancras Cruising Club
Paul Strudwick
Inland Waterways Association
Robyn Litchfield
Ian Shacklock
Friends of Regent’s Canal
Richard Parry
Chief Executive, Canal & River Trust
Jon Guest
London Waterway Manager, Canal & River Trust
Sorwar Ahmed
Boater Liaison Manager, Canal & River Trust
Mikaela Khan-Parrack
London Mooring Ranger, Canal & River Trust
Simon Cadek
London Enforcement Supervisor, Canal & River Trust
Tony Smith
Boater Liaison Manager, Canal & River Trust
Jonny Zander
Facilitator – Kaizen Partnership
Apologies:
Harsha Patel
Headteacher, Copenhagen School (due to staff sickness and having to cover two other meetings tonight)