SallyCRT

Gosh, where to start with all these comments! On boaters being marginalised, what I meant was that we don't have a 'marginalise the boaters' agenda, but if that's how lots of you feel, then obviously we've got to do something to change that feeling. Making changes to the existing user group format, including more voices, different agenda, more/different Trust representatives taking part and possibly changing the name would seem to us the logical and most efficient approach. It's not clear to me how introducing yet another separate suite of meetings would be better but if I've missed something, do tell me. What else should we be doing to make boaters happier and more trusting of us without prejudicing our other funding streams?. 'Where do we see boaters in the bigger scheme of things?' was another question someone asked. Answer is 'at the very heart of what we do'. Navigation and boaters after all constitute our 'usp'. The really sad thing about today's discussion is the apparent need to polarise - you're either the CRT voice of darkness, or the boaters' voice of the angels. Issues are never black or white and it feels to me as if people often jump to conclusions on the basis of about 5% of the relevant information. The plague of social networks I guess.

This thread has made me really sad – having been out of phone and email reception for 24 hours I log back on to read of a horribly precipitous end to what was proving to be a very constructive movement that Cotswoldman has been leading. I first met him and other boaters last November along with John Dodwell and other colleagues and since that time, we’ve started changing the way we do quite a few things. It takes time to make the effects of change apparent, and I know that there’s frustration at the time it takes for people to see a difference. But that’s life in the fairly complicated world that we’re in where a sizeable percentage of 35,000 boaters have the passion and time to help us with policy and decision making. We’re continuing to strive for better performance and with our new CEO’s fresh impetus, there’s never been brighter prospects for boater relationships with the Trust. Cotswoldman doesn’t like the user group format, but we’ve never said their format is cast in stone. If people have suggestions for reforming them to make them more inclusive and productive, please email them to me at sally.ash@canalrivertrust.org.uk . All that Vince was trying to do was to improve communications with and between boaters by extending the reach of the meeting arrangements that exist already. Perhaps a good start might be a re-naming to ‘boater meetings’ and a re-think of the invite list. How big should they be? How local? Who should lead them and set the agenda? Vince, Simon and senior managers who’ve had the opportunity to engage with Cotswoldman’s meetings definitely appreciate what he’s done. We’re just sad that he’s taking his bat and ball home because he sees only one way of skinning the cat. There’s a lot of nonsense too in the postings about boaters being marginalised etc. That is not our view and quotes have been taken out of context just because it appears to make exciting copy for a forum post. Sally Ash

Sorry that wasn't clear - will add link from the paper later today. Our interpretation of the legislation has not changed and is as set out in the mooring guidance referred to and linked from http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/mooring/mooring-rules

For those preferring a plain English version of this response … IWA periodically request meetings to discuss matters of common interest, as do RBOA and I am always happy to oblige. What I was able to do on this occasion was to outline proposals under development for inclusion in the policy paper which trustees requested for their September meeting (and which was also considered by the Council on 27th Sept). I had a similar conversation with RBOA reps. The paper along with minutes from the Trustees' meeting will be published in the normal way on our website. We now have a Navigation Advisory Forum which will be my main consultative route in future. This will supplement but not replace other informal contacts with boater representatives of course. We've got no problems with FOI requests, but often wonder why people use this as the first line of enquiry - as Laurence said, I and my colleauges happy to receive direct approaches which are quicker and cost us less to respond to (the volume of formal reqests means that we have to employ a full time administrator to process them all). You'll generally get a quicker response from the direct route where you know who it is who has the answer to your particular query.

Check out my Justgiving page - all donations gratefully received! This is why you won't hear from me again for a few days.

Hi All Good to see lively debate on this subject. I thought maybe people would find it helpful if I summarised the Trust's current thinking on Islington moorings. Sorry this is a bit long and I'll try not to make a habit of being so wordy in future! Please excuse me if I don't respond promptly to all messages - sadly just not enough hours in the day. • In London, demand for residential moorings hugely outstrips supply. It is true that we are seeking to increase the availability of residential moorings in suitable locations, which would enable more boaters currently dependent on towpath moorings to secure a long term mooring. • Noel Road is being considered as a candidate site in this context. The lie of the land within the tunnel’s cutting makes air and noise pollution a particular challenge. The sustainable solution would be to install electricity to individual berths to provide much cleaner energy for boaters. But we could only afford to do this if there was the prospect of a reliable income stream from long term permits. If the council set conditions as part of the planning process, the associated mooring agreements could specifically exclude engine running and chimney emissions. There would be an excellent prospect of good neighbourly relations between the long term moorers and Noel Road householders. • We appreciate that there is a strong desire amongst local residents to attract tourists to the Borough and that the case for visitor moorings must not be overlooked. It’s important however for people to understand the very real difficulties that this presents to the Trust. The designation of moorings for visitors from largely outside the capital was very much a special feature of the Olympic period. We do not believe that normal, year-round demand for pre-bookable permits would be sufficient to justify the investment costs for electricity instalation, and such an arrangement would also require constant administration and monitoring. It would also be unlikely to be popular with London-based boats without home moorings. Even if we adopted this approach, it is likely that there would always be some empty spaces which would attract boaters without prepaid permits. Would a full time volunteer warden be forthcoming for what would not always be an easy job? • Visitor moorings are used for (what should be) short periods by a large number of different boats. Monitoring sufficiently frequently to ensure that all comply with licensing and mooring rules and avoid causing disturbance to neighbours is prohibitively expensive and of doubtful value. Taking conclusive enforcement action is not a quick process – we issue warnings, and in most cases boats either (eventually) comply or move away, only to be replaced by another boat whose owner may behave similarly. And so the warning process must start over again. We cannot simply move boats on at short notice if they are accused of nuisance – it is only right that proper processes apply and this takes time. So, without wholehearted understanding and cooperation of all London based boaters, it is unlikely that we could ever meet the aspirations of local residents for clean air and tranquillity within the cutting. • We very much welcome public debate on this subject. We are open to new suggestions, providing these are practical and not overly costly to implement. We would for example be prepared to designate an alternative location for visitor moorings if there were a suitable length within the Borough which did not share the western tunnel cutting’s topography. We have been preparing to submit a planning application for residential moorings along the Noel Road stretch, but are happy to delay this to allow further debate to influence a final decision – which would ultimately in any case rest with local people through the formal planning process.