Objections to visitor moorings

[dor]

A few years ago, a useful stretch of visitor moorings on Nantwich Embankment were lost due to a new nearby resident objecting to the proximity of the boats. I couldn't understand why BW gave in so easily, after all the canal had been there a couple of hundred years before the houses were built, so it was hardly going to be a surprise to find boats on the canal.

 

So I am very disapoointed to read on Narrowboatworld that BW has done it again and removed a large section of popular visitor moorings on the Macclesfield canal because of a single resident's objections.

 

The site gives the relevant BW address and I urge anyone and everyone to let their feelings be known. Whilst it was an ombudsman that made the decision, one really has to wonder how well BW mustered their forces to defend the use of the mooring for boaters.

[carlt]

If you remove a 48 hour visitor mooring, does it not just become another bit of towpath where you can stay for 14 days?

If BW are sticking up 'no mooring' signs for no apparent reason, then doesn't that just make one less pin to hammer in, when mooring up?

[StephenA]

It does seem to be the rule now that anyone who has a house that vaguely overlooks, or is over looked by, the canal can get moorings suspended, despite the fact that the person moved into the house with the canal there.

 

The Nantwich issue has come up in uk.rec.waterways several times and on June 7th 2004 Eugene wrote:

 

On the matter of the provision of moorings at this location, BW has

not and does not intend to reduce the number of visitor moorings

available. Some antagonism from a small number of residents to the

presence of boats moored on the embankment has been noted; as a result

we have been working with the local and parish councils to extend

understanding of the needs of each party to respect each other's

activities.

 

I am aware that some signs have recently been removed from the totem

poles installed to delineate various mooring sections. While these

have been replaced each time when they have been removed, I hope that

you will appreciate that persistent replacement of these signs

represents expenditure that BW must consider can be invested more

beneficially elsewhere should the problem continue. I have attached

an image showing one of the poles with a sign missing.

 

I would urge you to write to Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council to

register your alarm at the way the canal environment is being treated

in this particular location."

 

I dont think it was ever fully resolved

 

As to the Macc - you are right BW obviously never made any proper stand and frankly the fence looks really ugly. I wonder if you could just tie up to it as the signs would seem to be on the towpath side. Also as BW are strapped for cash why is it such a posh fence - surely is should be the really nasty wire and wood picket stuff?

Edited August 20, 2007 by StephenA

[Djuwenda]

If you remove a 48 hour visitor mooring, does it not just become another bit of towpath where you can stay for 14 days?

If BW are sticking up 'no mooring' signs for no apparent reason, then doesn't that just make one less pin to hammer in, when mooring up?

 

Plus one, unless I understand the reason why a no mooring sign is in place, then I cant read it

[John Orentas]

Not an unusual occurrence, I remember a similar situation near Acton Bridge on the Trent and Mersey not far from the Black Prince base. The residents of a few new posh houses demanded that boats must not be allowed to moor close to their houses, there were even mooring rings in place which were as old as the canal itself. BW duly obeyed, dug them up and erected No Mooring signs.

 

Makes you wonder what on earth is going on at times.

[chris w]

Your working class inferiority complex is rearing its head again I think. Why do you say "new posh houses" rather than just "new houses"?

 

The type of house is irrelevant; the justification, or otherwise, of the residents' complaint is the only valid point surely.

 

Chris

[tony collins]

Look like they've erected a fence along the edge now. - That's nice, now we have something to secure to. The objection in this case was that the bank should revert to reed bed, although I don't quite know why, surely that counts as poor maintenance of the moorings....? The new houses/old canal thing happened at Ansty on the North Oxford some years ago. we never got a satisfactory explanation then either. lets all shout, "Eugene.......!!"Tony

Your working class inferiority complex is rearing its head again I think. Why do you say "new posh houses" rather than just "new houses"? The type of house is irrelevant; the justification, or otherwise, of the residents' complaint is the only valid point surely.Chris

That may be true but....In Grange Road, Ansty there are perhaps 60-70 houses, (see my earlier post) There are four "executive homes" Guess which ones the "No Mooring" signs have appeared outside. Tony. Edited August 21, 2007 by tony collins

[chris w]

In Grange Road, Ansty there are perhaps 60-70 houses, (see my earlier post) There are four "executive homes" Guess which ones the "No Mooring" signs have appeared outside. Tony.

 

The ones outside of which the people have the b*lls and the knowledge (rightly or wrongly) to take BW to task I guess.

 

Chris

[tony collins]

The ones outside of which the people have the b*lls and the knowledge (rightly or wrongly) to take BW to task I guess.

 

Chris

 

Actually I think it was the developer

[StoneHenge]

I can't stand developers full stop. I can understand why those who own houses like a canal view, but for heaven's sake did no-one tell them that canals usually have boats on them, and they will be used. Most visitors I know who use visitor moorings are nice considerate people who would cause these householders no harm at all.

 

What sort of snobbery is it (or plain stupidity) that means they have to stamp up and down like a child haveing a tantrum saying 'I don't like the nasty boats mooring where I can see them'.

 

Do they think perhaps that we are all thieves and will be in their back garden at any givne moment, or that our boats are ugly, or the people in them are ugly. I'd like to know what these objections are properly because I've never known anything so ridiculous in all my life. Sorry mate, you may have been here 200 years, and you may have had your boat on these waterways for 20 years (or however long), but my house is here now, so bog off.

 

I just hate the 'I'm better than you' attitude simply because they own a plot of land (or the bank does anyway), and some poorly put together bricks and plaster board and that makes them better.

 

Sorry, I had a rant there, but I love these waterways and seeing some toffee nose developers come along who play golf with the head of the planning commitee stinks, as money talks and boy do the little people suffer for it.

[DHutch]

Its crasy isnt it.

- They have the same problem at worsley.

- The land around is being developed up, people move in to a canalside/dockside house, then moan about "dirty narrowboats" and the occational noise from the drydock.

 

You get same with railways, only last week i watched a program about a woman who had moved into a end terrace which back onto the railway and was cheep becuase of that. Two years down the line shes sueing the railways for causing mental damages (stress, etc) or somthing. And really stupid thing is, apprently she might win. Bloody stupid!!

 

Its like me buying a cheap highmillage secondhand car, then sueing pugeuot for damages if/when breaks down.

 

 

 

Daniel

[Chertsey]

Shifting the topic oh-so-very slightly, I recall there was some controversy when visitor moorings at Cambridge were converted by the City Council to residential, and I've heard other visiting boaters complaining about the 'rubbish' people who live there and the state of the boats etc. All I can say is that as we came by, fully planning just to wind and leave, one of the residents came up the path to see us, and invited us to tie up to his boat. He said most of the residents there would do likewise. Then he took us on a tour of Cambridge pubs where we met more of the residential moorers and they were all lovely. And all four pubs were excellent too.

 

But the business with BW that started the thread is indeed disgraceful. I recall that there was a legal judgement last year that said that developers and local authority planning depts had no jurisdiction over what happened on the canal, so they seem to be trying to get round it by putting pressure on BW instead. But why are they caving in? Is it possible that they (BW) sold the developers the land in the first place and this was a condition they accepted in order to get a certain price, or something?

[magpie patrick]

Highly unlikely that BW owned the land and unless the boats are causing a statutory nuisance BW don't have to do anything. The appearance of the boat would not normally constitute a statutory nuisance, but noise and smell might. You'd have to be overdoing it a bit though, and on a regular basis. One problem with SN is that there is no legal concept of "I was here first", a statutory nuisnace notice was served on a wharf on Thames as a result of complaints by residents of new apartments on the other side of the river, and I beleve that BW have had one served on them for the noise of water cascading over lock gates in Scotland!

 

On the plus side, after we'd come through standedge tunnel at Easter, we moored near Marsden top lock to await descemt the next day, and the lady of the house came out and greeted us enthusiastically: she'd bought the house hoping the boats would moor outside, as she loved to see them (and before the cynics start, no she didn't break in and raid the silver while we were in the pub!)

[adam1uk]

But the business with BW that started the thread is indeed disgraceful. I recall that there was a legal judgement last year that said that developers and local authority planning depts had no jurisdiction over what happened on the canal, so they seem to be trying to get round it by putting pressure on BW instead. But why are they caving in? Is it possible that they (BW) sold the developers the land in the first place and this was a condition they accepted in order to get a certain price, or something?

 

As I understand it, BW have been told to do this by the Ombudsman. It seems the argument went that reed beds had been taken out to provide moorings, and the Ombudsman decided the reed beds should be reinstated.

 

Why the Ombudsman went back only that far in time I don't know. Surely the reeds wouldn't have been there without the canal, and the canal wouldn't have been there without boats. Canals were build for boats, after all.

[tony collins]

As I understand it, BW have been told to do this by the Ombudsman. It seems the argument went that reed beds had been taken out to provide moorings, and the Ombudsman decided the reed beds should be reinstated.

 

Why the Ombudsman went back only that far in time I don't know. Surely the reeds wouldn't have been there without the canal, and the canal wouldn't have been there without boats. Canals were build for boats, after all.

 

Having just read the ombudsman's report, that does not seem to be the case. Edited extract from the report:

 

... "Other than objections of those living opposite, I was not awar of any reason why BW would wish to prevent mooring at that point. If the moorers behaved badly (as had been reported by Mr D) that was essentially the responsibility of the moorers, not BW, so long as they(BW) were making reasonable efforts to deal with any breaches of bye-laws or antisocial behaviour.... They had already offered to take action in response to Mr D's concerns, in order to deter boaters from mooring immediately opposite his home: by planting reeds there and placing mooting rings further along the canal. However Mr D feared that the mooring rings would be counter productive and rejected the plan" (My italics)

 

As I read that as it seems it was BW's idea to plant reeds , not at the behest of the Ombudsman. It seems that BW brought all this down on themselves.

 

In addition to having to pay Mr D £1000 for ".....the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in identifying and resolving the issues and tha further £250 towards the cost of bringing the complaint".

 

So the moral of the story seems to be if you buy a house by a canal, you can expect to be able to pressure BW into banning mooring near your house and if you don't get instant action claim compensation for the distress.

 

A friend of mine who does live by the canal was once asked to terminate her conversation with a neighbour, because a boater, moored by her back gate complained that she couldn't concentrate on the book she was reading.

 

It a mad mad world we live in.

 

Tony

Edited August 22, 2007 by tony collins

[adam1uk]

Looks as though you're right. I was going on the quote from a nearby liveaboard, published on narrowboatworld. It's clearly been a long running battle.

[fender]

This has also happened at camden. The east end of Camden Visitor Moorings were taken out of use in March, due to complaints from a dweller who didnt want views of canal boats from their window (but ironically they seem to tolerate the views of a sunken rowing boat, a kid's tree house, bbq's, a pub next door and a restaurant just past that)

 

A number of boaters thought it sucked, and everyone agreed that no one should have to kow tow to this kind of thing. If people buy property by the canal they must of course expect boats. BW gave way to pressure and took away the mooring bollards.

[tomsk]

I can't stand developers full stop. I can understand why those who own houses like a canal view, but for heaven's sake did no-one tell them that canals usually have boats on them, and they will be used. Most visitors I know who use visitor moorings are nice considerate people who would cause these householders no harm at all.

 

What sort of snobbery is it (or plain stupidity) that means they have to stamp up and down like a child haveing a tantrum saying 'I don't like the nasty boats mooring where I can see them'.

 

Do they think perhaps that we are all thieves and will be in their back garden at any givne moment, or that our boats are ugly, or the people in them are ugly. I'd like to know what these objections are properly because I've never known anything so ridiculous in all my life. Sorry mate, you may have been here 200 years, and you may have had your boat on these waterways for 20 years (or however long), but my house is here now, so bog off.

 

I just hate the 'I'm better than you' attitude simply because they own a plot of land (or the bank does anyway), and some poorly put together bricks and plaster board and that makes them better.

 

Sorry, I had a rant there, but I love these waterways and seeing some toffee nose developers come along who play golf with the head of the planning commitee stinks, as money talks and boy do the little people suffer for it.

 

This post is plain wrong in soooo many ways

 

But as a rant it's funny

Edited August 22, 2007 by tomsk

[gralyn]

I have passed this "Popular mooring spot" four times this year and it seems to be popular with the continuous Moorer of the battleship grey variety with the occational hire boat (If it can find room) on its last night out before being returned to the almost adjacent Heritage hire base. Not that I condone the fencing, there could have been easier ways by making it 24 hr mooring rather than the unsigned 14 day mooring it was before being returned to a reed bed . As for reed beds this section of the Macc has always has large floating reed beds that move up and down this section depending on the wind direction. The building opposite was untill recently a factory or offices can't see why they are getting hot under the collar about Boats unless they are fed up of engines being run at unsocialable hours.

[carlt]

I have passed this "Popular mooring spot" four times this year and it seems to be popular with the continuous Moorer of the battleship grey variety with the occational hire boat (If it can find room) on its last night out before being returned to the almost adjacent Heritage hire base. Not that I condone the fencing, there could have been easier ways by making it 24 hr mooring rather than the unsigned 14 day mooring it was before being returned to a reed bed . As for reed beds this section of the Macc has always has large floating reed beds that move up and down this section depending on the wind direction. The building opposite was untill recently a factory or offices can't see why they are getting hot under the collar about Boats unless they are fed up of engines being run at unsocialable hours.

Presumably, if visitors now have to hammer pins in to moor up, it won't be long before 'mr D' is asking for rings to be put back?

[Liam]

We'd planned to moor up at the Broken Cross pub for the evening a week or so ago when we were out cruising. I'd previously decided to try and keep away from the pub and the main road so as to ensure a decent nights sleep. There are houses on both sides of the canal here, with the back gardens facing the cut.

 

I was amused that just on the edge of the coping, directly infront of one of the many doors you see as a shortcut onto the towpath was some text which had been sprayed onto the concrete... it said "Keep Clear - No Mooring".

 

I straight away knew why they'd done this... and my theory was proved when, shortly after, a couple came from their back garden and plonked themselves on this spot, which had a mooring ring directly on it by the way, for their evening of fishing. As I was mooring up I felt like pulling the boat back slightly to be akward as people who know me know I can be like that sometimes, but I didn't bother starting something which didn't need to be started, and as it was I had a quick chat with the couple who seemed reasonable enough, however their "graffiti" wasn't mentioned by either of us.

[Pie Eater]

Liam

 

I went past this spot 2 weeks ago, I think at least one of the house owners has a boat and has BW permission to moor outside his property on the towpath side.

 

We usually have a short stop here to use the shop at the petrol station on the main road.

 

Steve

[Liam]

Steve,

 

Yep that's right. There used to be a sign in the bushes there informing people that it was a private mooring but the sign seems to have dissapeared. The spot was just the other side of where the people fishing were I think, but the grass looked well kept and there was a pretty warn path here, obviously where the boat is kept so we kept out of the way. There was probably little chance of them coming back but if it were me coming back I wouldn't be pleased.

[MartinC]

Having just read the ombudsman's report, that does not seem to be the case. Edited extract from the report:

 

 

Tony

 

Glad to see that Tony has got hold of the report. I tried the Ombudsman. She

said "I am afraid I do not index complaints by canal so I am not sure which complaint you are referring to. Full adjudications are not publicly available."

 

I would like to see a copy of the report to see how it fits in with her Terms

of Reference. I was about to use the Freedom of Information Act but if

Tony can direct me to another source it would be very helpful.

 

As others have said this is getting epidemic and it is time that licence payers

took a stand. I would be interested to know if anyone knows if the IWA

have shown any concern

[tony collins]

Glad to see that Tony has got hold of the report. I tried the Ombudsman. She

said "I am afraid I do not index complaints by canal so I am not sure which complaint you are referring to. Full adjudications are not publicly available."

 

I would like to see a copy of the report to see how it fits in with her Terms

of Reference. I was about to use the Freedom of Information Act but if

Tony can direct me to another source it would be very helpful.

 

Tell her it is case No 25 and you can add a subsequent case No 91 in the same location.

 

According to her letter the summary should be on the website

www.waterways-ombudsman.org. Althouh I admit I haven't checked.

 

Tony

 

 

Edit, I have just checked and tried a search with case No. and title phrase and- Nothing! If any of you whizz kids out there can battle through it, the heading is : "Case No 25 - mooring, following piling works, opposite the complainants home and complaint handling." If necessary I will try to scan it and put it up as a Jpeg..

Tony

Edited August 24, 2007 by tony collins