Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, Goliath said:

‘Cruiseway status’ is a new term to me.

Can you tell me what that’s all about then please?

 

Transport act 1968 section 104. 

[magnetman]

extract 

"

For the purposes of sections 105 to 111 of this Act the inland waterways comprised in the [F2undertakings] of the Waterways Board [F3and Canal & River Trust] shall be divided into—

(a)the waterways for the time being specified in Part I of Schedule 12 to this Act, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the commercial waterways”) to be principally available for the commercial carriage of freight;

(b)the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the cruising waterways”) to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes; and

(c)the remainder.

 

"

 

--------

 

(my bold) 

 

I think "Cruiseway is a shortened version of "cruising waterway". 

Edited March 29, 2023 by magnetman

[TheBiscuits]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

"Reasonable in the circumstances" is probably the phrase which torpedoed the ability of navigation authority to deal with things effectively. 

 

Of course the correct but rarely used rejoinder to that is "satisfy the Board"

If the Board (CRT now) are not satisfied they can revoke the licence and see if the boater in question is prepared to get a court ruling on whether their "reasonable" was or not.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by TheBiscuits
Stupid mobile phone

[magnetman]

13 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Of course the correct but rarely used rejoinder to that is "satisfy the Board"

If the Board (CRT now) are not satisfied they can revoke the licence and see if the boater in question is prepared to get a court ruling on whether their "reasonable" was or not.

 

 

With all these threads about it I sometimes think it is satisfying the bored which really matters. 

 

But yes, it will be interesting to see what comes to pass when the CRT start to play hardball and become less easy to satisfy. 

 

 

Plus of course the Board referred to BWB. Maybe this should have been changed to "the Trust" for clarity. Odd that it hasn't been updated. 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

41 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

If by "accepted practice" you mean "lots of people ignoring the rules" then I would dispute the word "accepted" -- by who? Certainly not by CART, big their problem is detecting and enforcing this not agreeing that it's OK to do it, the only people who think this are the rulebreakers (and the NBTA)... 😞

"Accepted practice" means what actually happens. Both us and CRT have to deal with the real world, not the one we'd like, where everyone follows the spirit of the law (whatever that was).

CRT cannot afford to detect and penalise everyone they consider (fairly often incorrectly) to be breaking the rules. Exactly the same as policing in the real world. Even tripling the fees wouldn't pay enough for that, and the only people who'd win would, as usual, be the lawyers. CRT wouldn't have enough left over to fix a lock.

On most of the system the deliberate rule breakers don't matter much, really. And the bulk of the ones who cause trouble often have mental or physical issues which neither CRT nor society want to bother with. The NBTA do have a point - the rules need to change, something needs to be done, but as it isn't going to be, we grumble but make the best if it.

The descriptions "continuous moorers" and "dumpers" were, I think, coined on here as shorthand terms to make discussion easier. You can't penalise them out of existence, a way has to be found to regularise them.

[Paul C]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

"Accepted practice" means what actually happens.

 

Is speeding accepted practice? Drink driving? Because it actually happens....it seems a poor way to define what is morally right, or what laws can/can't be ignored.

 

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The descriptions "continuous moorers" and "dumpers" were, I think, coined on here as shorthand terms to make discussion easier. You can't penalise them out of existence, a way has to be found to regularise them.

 

Actually, you could (penalise them out of existence). If they are found to be breaking the law, their licence can be revoked or not renewed then the boat S.8 (and/or S.13) and removed from CRT's waters, together with an injunction preventing that boater returning possibly with another boat. Then, whilst they still exist, they are no longer a boater on CRT waters. It doesn't fully solve "the problem", but it does reduce the number of CMers and dumpers by one, possibly more than one if it scares other boaters into compliance. The problem isn't that you can't do it, the problem is the enforcement costs exceed the value of the boat so its not financially viable to do it to everyone who is deemed to be breaking the law.

 

Hence why a de-facto situation develops, which I feel is a better term for it than accepted practice. Much like speeding.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

"Accepted practice" means what actually happens. Both us and CRT have to deal with the real world, not the one we'd like, where everyone follows the spirit of the law (whatever that was).

CRT cannot afford to detect and penalise everyone they consider (fairly often incorrectly) to be breaking the rules. Exactly the same as policing in the real world. Even tripling the fees wouldn't pay enough for that, and the only people who'd win would, as usual, be the lawyers. CRT wouldn't have enough left over to fix a lock.

On most of the system the deliberate rule breakers don't matter much, really. And the bulk of the ones who cause trouble often have mental or physical issues which neither CRT nor society want to bother with. The NBTA do have a point - the rules need to change, something needs to be done, but as it isn't going to be, we grumble but make the best if it.

The descriptions "continuous moorers" and "dumpers" were, I think, coined on here as shorthand terms to make discussion easier. You can't penalise them out of existence, a way has to be found to regularise them.

 

The problem for CART is that the entire licensing system isn't really working -- it isn't bringing in enough money for CART, the rules are often ignored, and aren't really fit for purpose. For people who want to moor out in the sticks where there's plenty of space, there no real reason they should need to move on every 14 days -- except that to stop the mooring jams extending with boats then leaving marinas and to get more money for CART, there needs to be a decent license fee supplement for doing this.

 

Which could be called a "CC supplement", but the way to make this work would probably be to make it a "home mooring discount" instead for boats which do have a paid-for mooring with facilities -- then it's up to the boater to prove they have a mooring, everyone else pays the higher license fee.

 

Then the problem is how to fairly share out moorings in honeypots where demand exceeds supply -- so maybe here the CC-type "move on" rules need to be kept? (but still with the "CC supplement"). The moving rules then only need enforcing in a few small areas not over the whole system, which means CART would actually have a chance of doing this.

 

Boaters then have three choices:

1. Find and pay for a home mooring, cost offset with a lower CART license fee (similar to today or a bit higher?)

2. Moor anywhere out in the sticks -- with or without out moving -- for as long as they want, and pay a higher license fee (double that for case 1?)

3. Moor in a honeypot area and pay the higher fee (same as case 2 or higher?), but have to move regularly under enforced CC rules so they can't hog popular spots

 

This seems better all round than the system as it stands; CART get more income from cases 2 and 3, the only thing that affects the license fee is whether you have a paid-for home mooring or not (easy to enforce), boaters who want to moor in the middle of nowhere are free to do so with no hassle or monitoring needed, and the honeypot areas are small enough to enforce CC rules and make boats move so they don't hog the popular spots.

[Arthur Marshall]

Where demand for moorings exceeds supply, the logical thing to do is increase the supply. CRT have monetised the towpath in plenty of places already. If housebuilders can get planning permission to put houses on flood plains and greenfield sites, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of CRT to get it for moorings.

[Mike Todd]

8 hours ago, dmr said:

I think "boats moves often and obeys the rules" does not make a good story so does not get reported in the press. Sadly this forum is not a good or reliable source of information where the K&A is concerned. The NBTA does routinely take the side of the rulebreakers which is sad as it does have the potential to be a good boating organisation.

I may also not be a 'reliable source of information' but I do spend quite a bit of time on the K&A towpath and talking with boaters and towpath users - it runs about 50m from here. FWIW, I too believe that what Magpie P says is a fair representation of what I encounter.

 

It is, of course, complicated to address the CC-compliance claim: the 'rule' enunciated by CaRT along the lines of 'anyone who does less than 20 miles a year is unlikely to convince the Board' is widely misquoted/misunderstood meaning that if you do 20 miles then you are compliant. However, I meet many CC'rs who proudly tell me that they comply with the rules.

 

Again, FWIW, this does at least tackle the largest problems from those who never/rarely move at all and ensures a regular turnover of honeypot VM's.  It has been quite remarkable over the past month, since the end of the winter moorings, just how quickly people moved around.

 

Those quick to criticise should also be aware that a significant proportion of those without a home mooring on the K&A do have 'reasonable adjustments' which allow them to keep as close to the expectations as is reasonable in the circumstances. (and are proud that they do) 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Mike Todd
something went wrong with interface

[Iain_S]

20 hours ago, magnetman said:

(snip)

Plus of course the Board referred to BWB. Maybe this should have been changed to "the Trust" for clarity. Odd that it hasn't been updated. 

 

No real need. Covered by the The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, Article 3(1)

Transfer of functions of harbour authority, navigation authority and statutory undertaker

3.—(1) Where immediately before the transfer date—

(a)the functions of the British Waterways Board include, by virtue of any enactment, any functions of a harbour authority, navigation authority or statutory undertaker, and

(b)those functions are not otherwise transferred by this Order,

those functions become functions of Canal & River Trust in relation to England and Wales on that date.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Iain_S

[MPR]

On 28/03/2023 at 12:43, magnetman said:

 

 

Is the Bridgwater and Taunton canal about to fall into disuse? 

Could this be a precedent for other remainder waterways. 

This morning CRT together with IWA volunteers cleared most of the silt behind the top gates of Firepool Lock to enable boats to lock up on to the River Tone.  Just need more boat movements to keep it that way.

[Tom and Bex]

On 01/04/2023 at 19:22, MPR said:

This morning CRT together with IWA volunteers cleared most of the silt behind the top gates of Firepool Lock to enable boats to lock up on to the River Tone.  Just need more boat movements to keep it that way.

There always used to be a BW tug moored just below firepool lock for this exact purpose. Can't remember ever seeing it actually used though, and probably not been there for years. 

[matty40s]

Only one boat lifted out in the end, onto the K&A at Devises. Not allowed back even when the docks are (if) completed.

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/victimised-canal-boat-owner-forced-8580033#amp-readmore-target

[magpie patrick]

On 29/03/2023 at 18:46, IanD said:

 

2. Moor anywhere out in the sticks -- with or without out moving -- for as long as they want,

No, no and thrice no... 

 

 

If the number of boats were not increasing this might be acceptable, but the number of locations I can think of where the occasional boat once moored and that are now permanently occupied by several boats means "out in the sticks" doesn't stay that way. As moorings get scarce people get more resourceful, leaving their car or van in a lay-by two or three fields away. 

 

I think it's fair to say that no-one saw coming the wall to wall mooring that now happens in London - when I first walked the Regents Canal I hardly saw a boat. If we don't want the rural canals to go the same way then we need control before it becomes a problem. 

[IanD]

5 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

No, no and thrice no... 

 

If the number of boats were not increasing this might be acceptable, but the number of locations I can think of where the occasional boat once moored and that are now permanently occupied by several boats means "out in the sticks" doesn't stay that way. As moorings get scarce people get more resourceful, leaving their car or van in a lay-by two or three fields away. 

 

I think it's fair to say that no-one saw coming the wall to wall mooring that now happens in London - when I first walked the Regents Canal I hardly saw a boat. If we don't want the rural canals to go the same way then we need control before it becomes a problem. 

 

The problem is there is no "perfect" solution to this problem with only advantages and no disadvantages -- but what's obvious is that the current system isn't working.

 

I was simply making a suggestion which might be better than what we have now -- if you have a better one (instead of just complaining about the existing one and mine...) I'm sure everyone would love to hear it... 😉

 

(note that a big increase in the license fee was what I suggested for "CMers", which would reduce the demand since it wouldn't be such a cheap way of living any more)

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD
note added

[ditchcrawler]

14 hours ago, matty40s said:

Only one boat lifted out in the end, onto the K&A at Devises. Not allowed back even when the docks are (if) completed.

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/victimised-canal-boat-owner-forced-8580033#amp-readmore-target

I think she did well that CRT moved her boat for her to another waterway FOC where she could CC if that is what she wants. She isnt band from going back, its just CRT wont pay to take her. She is lucky she wasn't sectioned 8 and lost her boat.

[magpie patrick]

43 minutes ago, IanD said:

I was simply making a suggestion which might be better than what we have now -- if you have a better one (instead of just complaining about the existing one and mine...) I'm sure everyone would love to hear it... 😉

 

I've pointed out the obvious flaw in your plan and your response is I shouldn't whinge about it I should come up with my own suggestion. Okay, here it is - in the short term the rules are enforced everywhere, even in the middle of nowhere - in the long term new legislation is needed. In the short term it only needs to be that you will move a kilometre every fourteen days, but it stops boats almost literally putting down roots. In the long term more off line moorings are needed - the number of boats on the canal system has increased over the last twenty years but the length of canal has not. Once there are more offline moorings then the excuses for abusing the system won't wash. I have noted (and often reported) that although many boaters say they don't want a permanent moorings the problems being discussed only arise when there are far more boats than moorings. 

 

That actually takes us back to our starting point - problems arose on the B&T because "proper moorings" were closed and the boaters thrown off onto a finite length of canal with nowhere else to moor. 

[IanD]

29 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

I've pointed out the obvious flaw in your plan and your response is I shouldn't whinge about it I should come up with my own suggestion. Okay, here it is - in the short term the rules are enforced everywhere, even in the middle of nowhere - in the long term new legislation is needed. In the short term it only needs to be that you will move a kilometre every fourteen days, but it stops boats almost literally putting down roots. In the long term more off line moorings are needed - the number of boats on the canal system has increased over the last twenty years but the length of canal has not. Once there are more offline moorings then the excuses for abusing the system won't wash. I have noted (and often reported) that although many boaters say they don't want a permanent moorings the problems being discussed only arise when there are far more boats than moorings. 

 

That actually takes us back to our starting point - problems arose on the B&T because "proper moorings" were closed and the boaters thrown off onto a finite length of canal with nowhere else to moor. 

So let me criticise your proposal in return... 😉

 

Enforcing the rules everywhere sounds great, except for the number of checkers that would be needed and the cost of enforcing sanctions on lots of infringers -- CART doesn't have enough people to do the first over >2000 miles of canals or enough money (and lawyers) to do the second.

 

More offline moorings sounds like a great idea, except for a couple of problems -- the first being that in the areas with the biggest demand there's little or no space to put new marinas because the cost of land is so high, this means high mooring fees (like in London marinas right now) which are simply out of reach of the majority of boaters financially.

 

When many boaters say they don't want a permanent mooring, what I suspect many or most of them mean is that they don't want to (or can't afford to) pay for one, especially where they want to be.

 

Note that I deliberately didn't use the word "whinge", because what you were doing was complaining -- and some of those complaints were valid, but like I said every scheme has its problems, including mine and yours... 😉

 

If the license fee for mooring "out in the sticks" was a lot higher than today -- say, double, as I suggested -- then I don't think allowing unlimited time mooring there would lead to the massive explosion in demand you're suggesting, because it's not the Regent's Canal, and it would cost considerably more than CMing/CCing does today. That's just supply and demand working, higher cost and non-honeypot areas will reduce demand. The biggest advantage would be that CART would not have to spend a lot of time and money enforcing moorings and tracking boats over most of the system, this resource and the checkers can then concentrate in the honeypot areas and do the job properly there.

 

Yes it means dividing the network into larger "free/cheap/uncontrolled parking" and smaller "enforced/expensive car park" areas, but that simply reflects the reality of the canal system today and how people want to use it. It works for car parking... 😉

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

34 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think she did well that CRT moved her boat for her to another waterway FOC where she could CC if that is what she wants. She isnt band from going back, its just CRT wont pay to take her. She is lucky she wasn't sectioned 8 and lost her boat.

 

I have to say I was astonished to read CRT paying for crane and transport to another waterway for her. And STILL she is playing the hard-done-by victim card! 

 

As any fule kno, living on a boat is a fundamentally insecure way of life.

 

[David Mack]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I have to say I was astonished to read CRT paying for crane and transport to another waterway for her. And STILL she is playing the hard-done-by victim card!

And since she was the only one not offered a mooring, a picked-on hard-done-by victim!

One can only speculate on why those with moorings available chose to offer them to others but not to her.

[magpie patrick]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And since she was the only one not offered a mooring, a picked-on hard-done-by victim!

One can only speculate on why those with moorings available chose to offer them to others but not to her.

 I think that boat was the only one with a CC licence and no home mooring before the docks closed

[David Mack]

5 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 I think that boat was the only one with a CC licence and no home mooring before the docks closed

CRT are saying the canal is too short to CC on. So how was it possible to CC when the canal was only slightly longer and included the docks?

[Hudds Lad]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Enforcing the rules everywhere sounds great, except for the number of checkers that would be needed and the cost of enforcing sanctions on lots of infringers -- CART doesn't have enough people to do the first over >2000 miles of canals or enough money (and lawyers) to do the second.

A simple way of sorting that is to subcontract the enforcement to someone like Kingdom Services Group like many LA's did for littering & illegal street trading etc. They will put many boots on the ground very quickly as it's in their interest to issue fines and get convictions.

I'm not in favour of this at all as they use sneaky and aggressive tactics and target easy marks. But you can see how it's an attractive proposal to an organisation.

[David Mack]

But lots of lengths of canal are relatively inaccessible compared to streets, so the cost of deploying enforcement staff will be higher regardless of who employs them.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But lots of lengths of canal are relatively inaccessible compared to streets, so the cost of deploying enforcement staff will be higher regardless of who employs them.

And you need a lot of them, who all need paying -- regardless of whether they're CART employees or subcontractors.

 

As I said it's like parking -- if they're moored in less popular areas with plenty of space and not causing any bother, why do you need any mooring enforcement? (except getting them to pay the bigger license fee).

 

If they want to moor in popular areas -- mostly accessible since they're in towns -- and the aim is to get them to move on so other people can get in -- preventing long-term "mooring squatting" -- then enforcement is needed, like should be done today but isn't. But this might actually be possible since this would only be needed on a small fraction of the network, maybe 5% (100 miles) or less.

 

Like parking, the canals become a two-tier system for mooring -- but like cars, that matches supply/payment and demand.

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD