Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal

[magpie patrick]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

Except there might not be anywhere they can crane them out. I'm just wondering if the marina which has been closed is where the lifting in took place and that private individuals may not be allowed to arrange craneage there.

 

Could be a tricky situation.

 Only just spotted this one - you may have a point, the canal isn't exactly overloaded with good spots to get a lorry and crane alongside

[magnetman]

IF it turned out that the moorings never had planning permission for residential use then anyone mooring there would presumably not be paying council tax and thus would be taking quite a high level of risk regarding their ongoing right to remain. 

 

It might not be the case but one could theorise that these were cheap "under the radar" moorings with services connected. Very convenient if there is no CT. Extra beer money.

Then at some point they turned up on the radar and got torpedoed. 

 

Someone will know. 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 Only just spotted this one - you may have a point, the canal isn't exactly overloaded with good spots to get a lorry and crane alongside

 

And if there is nowhere to do the craning, the boaters are free to stick two fingers up at CRT I'd imagine. 

 

CRT are more likely I'd guess, to spend insane amounts of money constructing a crane pad to lift them out whatever the cost. Once lifted out and onto a lorry, a reasonable thing for CRT to do would be to take them to a waterway of the boater's choice for craning back in and re-licensing (and/or sale if the boater so wishes). 

 

This would however be another example of CRT being helpful and co-operative, and then getting blasted for it no doubt. 

[dmr]

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And if there is nowhere to do the craning, the boaters are free to stick two fingers up at CRT I'd imagine. 

 

CRT are more likely I'd guess, to spend insane amounts of money constructing a crane pad to lift them out whatever the cost. Once lifted out and onto a lorry, a reasonable thing for CRT to do would be to take them to a waterway of the boater's choice for craning back in and re-licensing (and/or sale if the boater so wishes). 

 

This would however be another example of CRT being helpful and co-operative, and then getting blasted for it no doubt. 

 

I have heard, again only second hand, that boats can be lifted out but only by a single approved CRT contractor at significant expense. It would be good to hear the CRT side of this story but that is unlikely to happen.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

I have heard, again only second hand, that boats can be lifted out but only by a single approved CRT contractor at significant expense. It would be good to hear the CRT side of this story but that is unlikely to happen.

 

I'm reasonably sure a narrowboat could be coaxed out and onto a remote farmer's field using a JCB at dawn, long before CRT staff are likely to wake up and notice it happening. A co-operative local farmer might do it for a few hundred quids thereby saving the boat(s) from the tender clutches of the CRT S8 contractor. 

[magnetman]

Several wide beans visible on streetview. 

 

Bridgwater, England
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zmEKPaTyv246B6A26

the lock is stanked off using the downstream groove irons so probably reversible but it is well overgrown so not going to be functioning any time soon 

 

Riverside
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1MFq2VHQV1b4WHaf9

 

 

 

 

It seems to me the time to leave would have been when notice was given that the lock was going to be closed off. They must surely have given advance notice that this was going to happen.

[magpie patrick]

25 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

It seems to me the time to leave would have been when notice was given that the lock was going to be closed off. They must surely have given advance notice that this was going to happen.

Nope - as soon as they realised saline intrusion was possible they closed it - not long after they'd reopened it.

[dmr]

38 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm reasonably sure a narrowboat could be coaxed out and onto a remote farmer's field using a JCB at dawn, long before CRT staff are likely to wake up and notice it happening. A co-operative local farmer might do it for a few hundred quids thereby saving the boat(s) from the tender clutches of the CRT S8 contractor. 

 

I suspect it happens all the time, but if one day a boat is in the canal and the next day its on the land at the side of the canal I reckon that even CRT could put 2 and 2 together and conclude that it had been lifted out without permission 😀.

 

The whole Bridgewater docks thing looks very bad for CRT and the nations ability to look after its waterways.

[magnetman]

Why would the CRT be interested in a waterway that only a few dozen (if that) of their 35,000 licence holders can even navigate on? 

 

Seems to me it would be better managed by a local council rather than a tiny part of my CRT PBL going towards it. I could never get there unless I had a trailer boat. 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Why would the CRT be interested in a waterway that only a few dozen (if that) of their 35,000 licence holders can even navigate on? 

 

Seems to me it would be better managed by a local council rather than a tiny part of my CRT PBL going towards it. I could never get there unless I had a trailer boat. 

 

 

It certainly looks like a good candidate for CRT to close to navigation and stop maintaining, claiming lack of funds. 

[matty40s]

Well it's not exactly a long distance, but I am sure a regime of moving more than the minimum 1km every 14 days should make this just as compliant as most of the 30 or so boats now permanent on the Weedon pound.

 

Firepool lock to Bridgewater basin

 

Total distance is 14 miles, 2½ furlongs and 6 locks . There are 5 moveable bridges.

This is made up of 14 miles, 2 furlongs of broad canals; ½ furlongs of small rivers; 6 broad locks.

This will take 6 hours and 38 minutes. For initial calculation purposes (before adjusting for such things as overnight stops) this is taken as 1 day of 6 hours and 38 minutes

[Tom and Bex]

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

Seems to me it would be better managed by a local council rather than a tiny part of my CRT PBL going towards it. I could never get there unless I had a trailer boat. 

My understanding is the ongoing maintenance was at least part funded by the councils as part of the restoration agreement. That agreement might now have ended though. I presume CRT also get income from the water transfer from Taunton to Bridgwater.

 

Having boated this canal many times, and seen it's improvement and restoration, I find this whole saga over Bridgwater docks very sad. There's not really any other use for it other than moorings, and as said, it's a bit of a dismal place anyway surrounded on all sides by residential flats. 

 

@magpie patrick is correct, there's no alternative mooring, and not really anywhere suitable to create any. Bathpool moorings is only suitable for short boats, and Maunsel has very limited online moorings, and always full.  Why should boaters who have made Bridgwater their home have to suffer because of a disagreement between CRT and the local councils? Bridgwater docks was a much nicer and safer feeling place with all the boat's there, than when it used to be empty with the access to the canal padlocked. 

 

As to crane out, I'm struggling to think of anywhere other than Bridgwater docks, where the boat's are presumably now banned from. Huntworth near the Boat and Anchor pub? Bathpool? Would be very tight down the lane there with a widebeam though!

[magnetman]

This must be a planning permission problem. In another thread about it on here a poster did mention that there are technically no residential moorings there. 

 

If this were true then there is a change in the makeup of the council the previously blind eye could become all seeing. 

 

Seems likely to me. 

 

Docks without any boats can be okay. Shadwell dock in east London is an interesting example. A bit odd but not that terrible and the water is aerated. 

[Paul C]

A good analogy might be, an artic HGV pulls into a narrow residential street with no turning space at the end. The road, isn't that well managed but it suffices for those who live on it. The HGV isn't well driven/managed either, and simply keeps going slowly down the lane, instead of realising there's going to be trouble turning around later. Or simply didn't choose to turn down that street in the first place.....

[Heartland]

What  reason is driving this eviction. As stated the docks have now residential property. Are the objections from the residents to the boats.

 

Bring back the rail connection , open the docks again and have 1338 shunt the traffic- well may be ?

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Heartland said:

What  reason is driving this eviction. As stated the docks have now residential property. Are the objections from the residents to the boats.

 

Bring back the rail connection , open the docks again and have 1338 shunt the traffic- well may be ?

 

 

AIUI the CRT's lease on the docks expired and has not been renewed by the council. So CRT were unable to renew the moorings agreements. 

 

Why the council would not renew the CRT's lease seems to remain a mystery. Maybe it was because of householder complaints, maybe the council noticed the boats were being used as residences without PP. Some at the council must know!

 

 

Curiously, looking at at the dock using Applemaps satellite view - a photo that is probably months or years old - there are no boats in the marina other than two or three small open topped day boats. 

[Lady M]

Perhaps the council were concerned about boaters polluting the water?  Washing up, showering, etc.

[magnetman]

Google sat view shows several canal boats including some wide beans.

 

I wonder if cleanliness of water came up as a topic. I doubt any boats are discharging black water overboard as that would be blatantly illegal unless there is some odd loophole but they will certainly be discharging grey water. 

 

 

 

Cross posted with Lady C. Great minds like a think. 

This is interesting 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/terms_of_lease_of_bridgwater_doc

 

CRT responsibilities under the lease (21 years) included a lot of maintenance.

 

"To keep the following in good repair and condition; pontoons,
ladders and lock gates, balance beams, sluice gearing, swing bridge at
Newton Lock, the lock gates at barge lock, the ship lock and the inner
lock, and the dam across the entrance to barge lock."

 

&c

------

 

Looking on streetview the whole place looks knackered so perhaps the CRT did not stick to the terms of the lease and thus it was terminated. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by magnetman

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Google sat view shows several canal boats including some wide beans.

 

 

Here is the AppleMaps view. 

 

Possibly those boats are wide beans, but no widebeams that I can see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

Google maps must be much more recent 

 

£71 per metre per year in 2012. 

 

Ah. OK! VERY cheap moorings ! 

 

That makes sense. Major bargain if they had electric and water. 

 

(pdf of BW mooring rates in 2011/ 2012)

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/84257/response/213313/attach/3/BW%20directly%20managed%20mooring%20prices%202011.12.pdf%3Fcookie_passthrough%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwiSk-Xz4fb9AhUbhlwKHUG2DSgQFnoECDMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1EQrtTlpk8YNZJwdENKmR3

Edited March 25, 2023 by magnetman

[MtB]

25 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Looking on streetview the whole place looks knackered so perhaps the CRT did not stick to the terms of the lease and thus it was terminated. 

 

 

Occam's Razor would suggest you are right and we have been making it too complicated. CRT have let the place go so the council were unhappy about this, so didn't renew the lease. 

 

And yes water quality could easily be a problem with liveaboards discharging grey water in there, given there appears to be no water flow through the dock. The place might stink which would not show up in photos! 

[dmr]

34 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

AIUI the CRT's lease on the docks expired and has not been renewed by the council. So CRT were unable to renew the moorings agreements. 

 

Why the council would not renew the CRT's lease seems to remain a mystery. Maybe it was because of householder complaints, maybe the council noticed the boats were being used as residences without PP. Some at the council must know!

 

 

Curiously, looking at at the dock using Applemaps satellite view - a photo that is probably months or years old - there are no boats in the marina other than two or three small open topped day boats. 

 

Not sure, but I think it was CRT chose not to renew the lease. There is a lot of expensive maintanance to do and as its not really a boating canal and money is getting very tight it was probably a good but sad decision.

[magnetman]

Just now, dmr said:

 

Not sure, but I think it was CRT chose not to renew the lease. There is a lot of expensive maintanance to do and as its not really a boating canal and money is getting very tight it was probably a good but sad decision.

Money is especially tight if people are only paying a couple of grand a year for a serviced and secure mooring. 

 

£1200 a year for a 57 footer in 2012 unlikely to have doubled since although possible I suppose. 

It was basically very cheap so money saved on moorings and council tax can be reserved and used for removing the boats now the good times have come to an end. 

 

Seems possible that the council want to refurbish, get planning permission and put some boats in there with people who want to pay normal rates to live somewhere. 

[Mike Todd]

13 hours ago, magnetman said:

Why would the CRT be interested in a waterway that only a few dozen (if that) of their 35,000 licence holders can even navigate on? 

 

Seems to me it would be better managed by a local council rather than a tiny part of my CRT PBL going towards it. I could never get there unless I had a trailer boat. 

It is exactly because it was owned by a local council that it has been managed as it has been. They have minimal interest in providing for the boaters (who perhaps are not voters anyway) and deciding in the interests of those who do elect them. That's how it goes these days (ethics not being part of the equation).

 

Not down to CaRT - don't blame them. It might even have been the case that the Council dumped the problem onto CaRT so that the aggro would be diverted away from the Councillors who took the decision to remove the moorings and not reinstate them.

 

The length of notice also indicates the extent to which CaRT have had a policy of bending over backwards to help boaters resolve often impossible situations, unlike landlords who evict with very little notice as soon as the going gets difficult. (Well described on the BBC earlier this morning)

 

 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Not down to CaRT - don't blame them. It might even have been the case that the Council dumped the problem onto CaRT so that the aggro would be diverted away from the Councillors who took the decision to remove the moorings and not reinstate them.

 

 

What problem though? We still don't seem to have established why the CRT lease on the site was not renewed.