Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't think in reality the CRT have any duty regarding housing and I believe, although would welcome clarification, that they opt IN to the Equality Act rather than being bound by it.

 

Its interesting that when some CCers (who didn't move enough to 'satisfy the board') had their licence refused and only allowed them a 6 month licence the boaters appealed to the waterways ombudsman claiming that C&RT were being 'ageist' becasue they were of an age where they had to work, and anyway, being a widebeam meant they couldn't find a suitable mooring. They lost the appeal.

 

 

The Waterways Ombudsmans' decision :

 

 

On the issue of whether the Trust had discriminated against the complainants because of their age, and the fact that they work, I did not conclude that it had. Under the Equality Act 2010 age is a protected characteristic. However, I could not see that the Trust could be regarded as having discriminated against the complainants on the basis of their age. The complainants said that the discrimination was based on the fact that they still worked, but being employed is not a protected characteristic. I said that given that the Equality Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of age (apart from any exceptions which must be justified) there could be no link between age and being employed, adding that a person above the state pension age, for example, but still in employment, could equally make the same argument.

Having considered all aspects of the complaint, I did not uphold it. The complainants said that they had a widebeam boat and that it was difficult to find permanent moorings, but I could not regard that as a reason for the Trust to disapply its continuous cruising guidance.

[Paul C]

20 minutes ago, Goliath said:

sounds like CRT have ballsed something up somewhere

 

In what way?

[magnetman]

The news article in the OP is not all that clear as it says this

 

"The boats are set to be moved to Bridgwater Marina. The action comes after the boaters received notices from the Canal and River Trust.  "

 

I think what they meant was removed from not moved to but I am not sure.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Read up a bit on it and it seems the basin is getting a “£5 million  face lift”. 
Work to be completed in early 2025

So couldn’t CRT just leave the boaters to float about until they can return to the basin?

 

 

 

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

Read up a bit on it and it seems the basin is getting a “£5 million  face lift”. 
Work to be completed in early 2025

So couldn’t CRT just leave the boaters to float about until they can return to the basin?

 

 

 

Maybe it is a housing project and the developer has decided, rightly or wrongly, that residential boats don't fit the scene.

 

Does seem odd but of course everyone knows living on a boat is an insecure lifestyle. This especially applies to somewhere you can't get away from, unless you own it.

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

40 minutes ago, Paul C said:

2 years does seem needlessly long.

 

 

Unless it was something to do with CRT thinking they were gonna get there lease back 🤷‍♀️

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

Read up a bit on it and it seems the basin is getting a “£5 million  face lift”. 
Work to be completed in early 2025

So couldn’t CRT just leave the boaters to float about until they can return to the basin?

 

 

 

Aaah, you think 2 years grace on not having a mooring and not CCing is too short a time period. Understood.

 

I thought it was that you thought 2 years was too long, because it becomes de-facto established, then the requirement to actually do something about it is a surprise.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Maybe it is a housing project and the developer has decided, rightly or wrongly, that residential boats don't fit the scene.

 

Does seem odd but of course everyone knows living on a boat is an insecure lifestyle. This especially applies to somewhere you can't get away from, unless you own it.

 

 

No it’s not I’ll put a link on.

They want residential and leisure boats.

They want to make the basin a central attraction for the town

https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/23166059.historic-bridgwater-docks-given-new-5m-lease-life/

 

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Goliath
Link added

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

In what way?

 

CRT have ballsed-up by being too helpful and lenient and helpful, obviously.

 

CRT trained the boaters to expect free moorings for months on end by giving them free moorings for months on end.

 

Then when the boaters did feck-all to find new moorings or remove their boats from the canal, CRT announced they would be removing the boats themselves. The bar stewards. Monstrous behaviour by CRT. All their own fault. They do this sort of thing again and again. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

It startles me how strongly opinionated people are about something they know dick all about other than a headline in a local paper.

 

 

[magnetman]

It is assumption and all that jazz.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Aaah, you think 2 years grace on not having a mooring and not CCing is too short a time period. Understood.

 

I thought it was that you thought 2 years was too long, because it becomes de-facto established, then the requirement to actually do something about it is a surprise.

I don’t know

Just trying to understand what’s going on.

 

I don’t see why giving  a few boaters a few years grace should have to become ‘de-fact established”.

[magnetman]

Perhaps it could form a precendent in a future legal case.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

It is assumption and all that jazz.

I know 🙂 

I know...

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Perhaps it could form a precendent in a future legal case.

Maybe.

 

 

Im gonna start a post about an oil leak

might be less divisive 😃

[Momac]

Apparently the pontoons are to be replaced as part of a scheme to improve the area.. Not sure why the boats cannot remain .

https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/23166059.historic-bridgwater-docks-given-new-5m-lease-life/

 

[magnetman]

is it because the moorings are no longer leased to the CRT so anyone on a CRT mooring licence would have to vacate. 

 

Presumably as it is now Somerset council owned and someone is spending a lot of money they may take the view that the moorings were too cheap. 

 

As it will take time to rebuild the moorings and a boat on the B&T canal can not legally fulfil the requirements to continuously cruise they have to move away. 

 

When the moorings are rebuilt it seems likely they would be allowed to return but as the moorings will presumably be more expensive it probably won't be economically viable. 

 

Outcome is probably new moorings with very few boats. 

 

I suppose as per the other thread one approach would be to be abusive to the CRT then they might take several years to S8/13 the boat and take it away by which time new moorings will be available. 

 

 

[nebulae]

My understanding is that CART do not own Bridgewater Dock. They have a lease from the local authority? The canal is a fresh water supply to the town. Every bike that has been thrown in can be clearly seen. The ship lock has been filled in with a concrete barrier. Last time I was there,the barge lock was still there,but had been filled in with rubbish. The vehicle bridge over the dock appears to be out of use. The reason the barge lock is out of use is because it allowed salt water to contaminate the town water supply. The dock has always silted badly,which is why there are sluices into the river.The dredger which stired the silt so it could be run out of the sluices was at Gloucester museum last tine I looked. The pontoon moorings must prevent dredging I would have thought. I stand to be corrected,as I have not visited for a while.

[magnetman]

From this it looks like the CRT may have been turning a blind eye to failure to adhere to movement requirements. 

 

If there actually are no boats there then presumably they are on the towpath. 

 

Also it seems that very soon the technical ownership of the docks changes. 

 

https://waterways.org.uk/waterways/using-the-waterways/activities/bridgwater-dock

 

"Bridgwater Docks are owned by Sedgemoor District Council (due to be incorporated into Somerset Council from April 2023) and the docks were leased to Canal & River Trust.  That lease terminated in June 2021 and the docks have been closed, and empty of boats, since then and likely to stay that way, possibly into 2024 or longer. 

From this it looks like the CRT may have been turning a blind eye to failure to adhere to movement requirements. "

 

edit for double post

Edited March 24, 2023 by magnetman

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

I don’t know

Just trying to understand what’s going on.

 

I don’t see why giving  a few boaters a few years grace should have to become ‘de-fact established”.

The facts themselves, determine if something is “de-facto”, the clue being in the name of the term. It doesn’t mean anything except it’s what it is.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

The facts themselves, determine if something is “de-facto”, the clue being in the name of the term. It doesn’t mean anything except it’s what it is.

Ok, thought you were saying it’d become a permanent thing because of that.

 

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

When the moorings are rebuilt it seems likely they would be allowed to return but as the moorings will presumably be more expensive it probably won't be economically viable. 

 

Outcome is probably new moorings with very few boats. 

I expect they might stick prices up.

But they ain’t got to recoup the cost because they’ve received funds for the face lift

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Also it seems that very soon the technical ownership of the docks changes. 
 

“Once the work on the docks has been completed, the site will be transferred to Bridgwater Town Council as part of the wider reorganisation of local government in Somerset.” says the newspaper 

 

 

But why did CRT not get to renew their lease?

Did they think they would?

[magnetman]

Maybe "Bridgwater Docks are owned by Sedgemoor District Council (due to be incorporated into Somerset Council from April 2023)"

 

Is a clue. Sounds like different management so presumably different priorities. 

 

Decanting residents is quite common during redevelopment but one wonders if these were in fact residential moorings with correct planning permission in the first place. 

 

 

 

It is common for people to live on moorings without pp so not implausible that this happened and it cropped up in a meeting. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by magnetman

[Bee]

Not much sympathy on here for fellow boaters in a spot of bother. I don't have local knowledge of that bit of canal so I suppose they could all have dreadlocks, lurchers and untidy boats so they deserve everything they get but on the other hand if they are socially acceptable middle class boaters it sounds as though the canal is not a place that is fit for boats anyway. Perhaps it should be reserved for anglers, cyclists and canoes and troublesome big boats cleared off.

[magpie patrick]

I'm more familiar than many with this because it's "on my patch", I have known the B&T since pre-restoration and explored extensively, including recently canoeing into the docks from a few miles up the canal.  Bridgwater Docks have got a somewhat sorry history post-restoration of the canal. For some reason they ended up with British Rail when the rest of the canal ended up with British Waterways. Going further back they were (and still are) under a separate harbour authority to the port of Bridgwater. 

 

When the docks were restored in the mid-eighties the barge lock into the Parrett was restored as well, that's why there are rotting gates with hydraulic paddle gear on them. This lasted about six weeks. The gates were supposed to be sealed against tides higher than the dock, but they obviously weren't as saline intrusion occurred and got into the town drinking water supply. Boats had passed through the lock, and the closure left some very cheesed off boat owners who had taken a mooring here specifically to go out into the river, one or two had even arrived that way and now found themselves stuck. 

 

However, the moorings attracted quite a few boats that were suited to the canal, and some even ventured out along it. There was a feeling though that the boats were regarding somewhere between a revenue stream and a bit of a nuisance. The dock regeneration wasn't  exactly dynamic - it's all residential, a bit windswept and a bit "out of sight" feel to it - security issues and anti-social behaviour meant the moorings weren't as attractive as they might be, and the canal silted up meaning that only the determined headed off down it. BUT the only other moorings on the B&T are a couple of groups of linear moorings at Maunsel and Creech - Bridgwater Docks probably had more than half the available moorings on the whole canal. 

 

So basically the canal was restored, the docks regenerated, both amidst a fanfare, and then they were ignored.... 

 

Then a couple of years ago the lease to CRT (originally to BW) was up and it wasn't renewed - there was certainly an option to renew it which is probably why CRT gave a concession to allow boats to moor on the canal, but nevertheless the canal lost more than half it's moorings and those on the closed moorings were not offered an alternative because there wasn't one. The only real alternative is to move your boat to another waterway, and you'll need a truck to do it - this isn't a "choice", as a boat owner who has complied with every regulation going you are now being told to pay a couple of grand and take your boat somewhere else "or else". 

 

Whether that is reasonable is not for me to say, but it smacks of bad management that just didn't think it through, not least from the PR point of view, it will be a lot more difficult to sell the next lot of moorings with this fiasco fresh in the mind. 

 

The basic problem is the number of agencies looking at this with envious eyes on Paddington Basin, or Bristol Floating Harbour, who see only the magic numbers and not the context. Unless they learn, they'll repeat the mistakes. 

 

 

[cuthound]

One would have thought that paying for the boats to be cranes out and moved to other waterways could have been included in the cost of the dock refurbishment works.it wouldn't have added much to the cost.

[BWM]

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

One would have thought that paying for the boats to be cranes out and moved to other waterways could have been included in the cost of the dock refurbishment works.it wouldn't have added much to the cost.

You've nailed it, given the situation there and most folks suffering financial strain it is the only fair and effective solution.