Jump to content

‘Unlocking’ the challenge of London’s congested waterways


Ray T

Featured Posts

12 minutes ago, DaveP said:

Limehouse Marina facilities were open to all.  Then BWML was sold off.  There was no announcement, just a refusal to service.  COVID given as an excuse.

Limehouse was owned (ultimately) by C&RT, once it was sold off to a management / Bank consortium it is quite understandable - and, I'd suggest that Covid is a reasonable justification.

Why should they 'give notice' ? The facilities are theirs to do with as they please, I refer you back to :

 

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Would you be happy if a bus-tour stopped outside your door and said we've come to use your toilet ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a London mooring strategy meetings and consultation that went on for years and only finished I think in 2018. Many of the agreed outcomes that included new facilities and moorings have not been implemented due to financial constraints.
 

Based on this lack of commitment/money this is obviously not where they are going and I can only assume it’s about congestion charging or similar to force people out. Will it solve the problem of just shift it further out?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Limehouse was owned (ultimately) by C&RT, once it was sold off to a management / Bank consortium it is quite understandable - and, I'd suggest that Covid is a reasonable justification.

Why should they 'give notice' ? The facilities are theirs to do with as they please, I refer you back to :

 

 

Within their rights to withdraw the service - I agree, but to do so without notice or publicity is a bit off.  They didn't even bother telling CRT - who would have been able to let boaters in the area know, rather than make a wasted journey to the pontoon and back....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

If the ghost percentage is really that high, I struggle to understand why people do this, rather than selling the boat.  There are many nicer places in the country to keep a boat if you just want the odd day trip. Maybe they have gone to live with someone on the bank and are keeping the boat as insurance policy in case of relationship breakdown. But 75% of them??  Are there any facts on this issue, I wonder.

In London, people such as Doctors, Transport Managers and others who work long shifts quite often nowadays live out in the sticks, and have bought boats for between shift stays. Boat licence, £1k...or season ticket for rail £6k along with a daily commute. No brainer really. Some even pay people to move the boat every 2 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, matty40s said:

In London, people such as Doctors, Transport Managers and others who work long shifts quite often nowadays live out in the sticks, and have bought boats for between shift stays. Boat licence, £1k...or season ticket for rail £6k along with a daily commute. No brainer really. Some even pay people to move the boat every 2 weeks.

 

I can believe this. A couple of years ago I weekended Belfast around the London area and the Lee and Stort, leaving the boat on the towpath for up to a couple of weeks at a time. Although I am based in Yorkshire I was attending quite a lot of meetings in London at the time, and it was jolly useful to have somewhere to sleep the night before an early meeting, or to join up a work meeting with a bit of boat moving (so the firm paid for my travel from the North). And given the public transport network it wasn't hard to get to the office from most mooring spots (although the late night walk from Hertford Station to Hertford East to get to a River Lee mooring wasn't so convenient).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
10 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Predictable amount of anti-london tosh on here from people who haven't been there in years perpetuating the usual scare stories and rumours. Firstly boat numbers have stopped increasing for the last few years. If CRT had implemented their London mooring strategy it would have improved facilities. Perhaps a few more bookable moorings would help visitor boaters. Brentford really needs short stay visitor moorings for boats waiting for the tide. But why is a busy waterways attracting the very demographic CRT are keen to attract everywhere else (younger/more female/ethnically diverse) have to be a bad thing? Why do other boaters/people on here seem to want to actually empty London of boats??! I would not be happy mooring in most places in London (especially outside zone 1) if there weren't already lots of other boats as it would feel unsafe! I doubt other visitor boats would either!? Yes make some improvements for visitors but it is just daft to suggest things like removing moorings and facilities. A lot of London boats   Every time I read these kind of posts I can't help feel they are rooted in an anti london/anti younger generation sentiment rather than the reality of boating in london or a genuine attempt to solve any of the problems that do exist. So what if people initially buy a boat as cheap housing? Provided they follow the rules (and yes better enforcement is called for) what is the problem? Is being a canal/historic boat enthusiast the only valid route to boat ownership? The future of the waterways depends on as wide a participation from as much of society for as many reasons as possible.

Well said. I remember my first trip on the Regents in 1983, you really didn't want to stop anywhere between Camden Lock and Limehouse (apart from the nice bit just east of Islington tunnel). The present situation is a big improvement for all the reasons noted. Yes there  are some actions needed to improve facilities and to deal with compliance - particularly boats that are overstaying and don't have anyone on board.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Firstly boat numbers have stopped increasing for the last few years.

Do you have any evidece of this as it flies in the face of C&RTs published data which is the reason for the 'consultation'.

 

If you try an promugate that sort of story you are unlikely to see any improvement in the situation and / or facilities.

 

Over the past decade the Trust has seen the number of boats using the London waterways more than double to a record high and this trend is continuing.

 

C&RT';s published figures :

 

National boat count in London all boats

2010: 2101

2019: 4274;

boats without a permanent mooring

2010: 413

2019: 2208

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Do you have any evidece of this as it flies in the face of C&RTs published data which is the reason for the 'consultation'.

 

If you try an promugate that sort of story you are unlikely to see any improvement in the situation and / or facilities.

 

Over the past decade the Trust has seen the number of boats using the London waterways more than double to a record high and this trend is continuing.

 

C&RT';s published figures :

 

National boat count in London all boats

2010: 2101

2019: 4274;

boats without a permanent mooring

2010: 413

2019: 2208

CRTs figures above are for the whole 10 year period, not broken down year by year. Also they now count boats in the whole London and south east area together, this includes the Oxford and G.U. canals.

However one of the boating council reps did put up CRTs own figures for London (which still don't show boats that have left london) and the last few years the numbers have plateaued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

CRTs figures above are for the whole 10 year period, not broken down year by year. Also they now count boats in the whole London and south east area together, this includes the Oxford and G.U. canals.

However one of the boating council reps did put up CRTs own figures for London (which still don't show boats that have left london) and the last few years the numbers have plateaued.

But C&RT figures are broken down by year, looking at the last few years :

 

Boats in London. (Not inc the SE)

 

2016 = 3662

2017 = 4002

2019 = 4274

 

It may not be the '10%' sort of figures of previous years but the are still climbing, they do not yet appear to have plateaued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not indicative of a problem really. London contains a lot of canal. And it shows the trend for large year on year increases has stopped/slowed. Covid19 may well have a further big impact on this.

 

But this is slightly irrelevant... 

I think they have already decided on trying some sort of zoning to price out poorer boaters from central to make the central parts look nicer. Will only shift the problems. More facilities and better enforcement are the only solutions. Or possibly this is just some PR exercie to appease residents of houses in central and nothing will be done? I've no idea how the legalities and enforcing of any sort of zone could work? If they cant enforce the current rules...

Edited by Dave123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boaters are not the problem.The total lack of affordable housing is the problem...The waterways will continue to fill up,as it is currently the only way many people can afford to have their own "home".

Just another "corporate consultation" that will waste public money and solve nothing.

Deal with the cause,not the effect!.

 

Edited by Leggers do it lying down
misspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/10/2020 at 18:12, DaveP said:

Limehouse Marina facilities were open to all.  Then BWML was sold off.  There was no announcement, just a refusal to service.  COVID given as an excuse.....

The marina, along with many others, was set up with BW, money loaned to BWML, if they were called that back then.

 

In the case of Kings, Newark, the Elsan by the lock was closed as all boaters could use the marina one.

 

CRT could easily have inserted a condition in the sale to Aqua Vista that facilitates remained available for all boaters in perpetuity. But then they have a long history of selling properties adjacent  to water taps and elsans and then closing those facilities. Besides Limehouse and Kings, there is Cowley and Galgate where facilities have always been available to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/10/2020 at 16:44, Mike Tee said:

If the 1995 Act will not allow a solution then its time for a 2020 Act that will. There is Always a solution if the will is there to find it.

Apparently they cant do any more Acts as CRT arnt a government organisation read it somewhere on here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

<evil grin>How about taking a leaf out of the London road network book? A congestion charging zone and a ban on older diesel engines?</evil grin>

As much as that would help reduce the problem, C&RT do not have the ability to be able to do that

 

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; 

This was cited with approval by the same House in the 1991 judgment in McCarthy & Stone v Richmond LBC, with all 5 Law Lords in unanimous agreement on the point.

 

When created, C&RT were not given the powers to differentiate licence fees or 'taxes' based on geographical areas (they can only differentiate on fees for Rivers and canals, - Rivers being 60% of the canal licence fee) so they prohibited from doing so.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Apparently they cant do any more Acts as CRT arnt a government organisation read it somewhere on here

That's not correct.  There are lots of organisations that sponsor legislation,  eg Middle Level Commissioners a couple of years ago. CRT may well have been told that govt would not support a bill, or provide govt time to get it through Parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

<evil grin>How about taking a leaf out of the London road network book? A congestion charging zone and a ban on older diesel engines?</evil grin>

 

You might be being a bit Jen-in-cheek, but TfL are currently reviewing and extending the congestion charge and low emission zones...

 

All they actually need to do if they perceive too many boats in prime locations as a problem is choose a new definition of "place" for areas in London, perhaps 10 miles long, and enforce it.

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

You might be being a bit Jen-in-cheek, but TfL are currently reviewing and extending the congestion charge and low emission zones...

 

All they actually need to do if they perceive too many boats in prime locations as a problem is choose a new definition of "place" for areas in London, perhaps 10 miles long, and enforce it.

 

 

 

 

 

Again in C&RTs defence, they do not have the powers to define 'place', which is part of the problem with CCers and minimum travel distances.

 

A Judge did say that it is not ideal that place has two meanings in the 1995 Act :

1) A boat sized / shaped piece of space where a boat may be kept (could be someones driveway etc)

2) A Parish, Country or ??????? for CCers

 

Mr Justice Lewis did observe that the word “place” was used both in section 17(3)(c)(i) in the context of a home mooring or other “place” where a boat may be kept, and in section 17(3)(c)(ii) in the context of a boater without a home mooring not remaining in any one “place” for more than 14 days. The Judge commented that usually it was desirable to interpret a word in the same way where it appeared in the same legislation, however, he came to no conclusion about whether the word “place” could be interpreted in the same way here (and indeed spent some time reflecting on the quite different meaning implied).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pearley said:

The marina, along with many others, was set up with BW, money loaned to BWML, if they were called that back then.

 

In the case of Kings, Newark, the Elsan by the lock was closed as all boaters could use the marina one.

 

CRT could easily have inserted a condition in the sale to Aqua Vista that facilitates remained available for all boaters in perpetuity. But then they have a long history of selling properties adjacent  to water taps and elsans and then closing those facilities. Besides Limehouse and Kings, there is Cowley and Galgate where facilities have always been available to all.

It used to be automatic that when they gave permission for a boatyard/marina it was a condition that sai boatyard provided elsan and water facilities for passing boaters, they remember nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/10/2020 at 13:29, Scholar Gypsy said:

Well said. I remember my first trip on the Regents in 1983, you really didn't want to stop anywhere between Camden Lock and Limehouse (apart from the nice bit just east of Islington tunnel). The present situation is a big improvement for all the reasons noted. Yes there  are some actions needed to improve facilities and to deal with compliance - particularly boats that are overstaying and don't have anyone on board.

We have been boating through London for forty years, gave up in 2013. There was always somewhere to stop and we never had any problems. The Narrowboat, Victoria Park, Camden Lock, The Constitution, none are possible now. I understand why people want to live on boats but there needs to be some facilities for genuine visitors to be able to moor. They used to have no return within so many week rules but seemingly these are now ilegal, though I do not understand why these were dropped in Paddington Basin which is privately owned? I don't think there is any law against them charging and perhaps this is what they should do perhaps first two weeks in London free then £50/week gradually escalating to £200 or so to match the marina prices. I know it is the thin end of the wedge but what else. The extra money raised could be invested in new moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

It used to be automatic that when they gave permission for a boatyard/marina it was a condition that sai boatyard provided elsan and water facilities for passing boaters, they remember nothing.

 

Maybe so, but it didn't used to be the case that they'd take 9% of maximum possible mooring fees.  I'm sure plenty of marinas would much rather just provide elsan and water!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

I don't think there is any law against them charging

There is in fact a law tht specifically allows them to charge for 'services' or 'improvements'.

So if bollards, cleats, armco, toilets, elsans, and water are provided C&RT (as successor to "The British Waterways Board") can apply a charge for use of those facilities.

 

It always surprises me that they don't ( a bit like enforcing the bye laws - CBA'd)

 

Section 43(3) of the Transport Act 1962 ("the 1962 Act") provides "... the [British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority] shall have power to demand, take and recover [or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit."

 

Section 43(8) of the 1962 Act provides "The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section included, in the case of British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pearley said:

Besides Limehouse and Kings, there is Cowley and Galgate where facilities have always been available to all.

 

Galgate has a sign on the elsan point saying "Private facility for Aquavista customers" but no lock on the door ...

 

There is a code lock on the toilet/shower though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.