Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal

[enigmatic]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

They haven't - only in your mind

Umm.... we're discussing a hypothetical where the Board has agreed to charge them!

And I would think receiving mooring-level income for letting some people the CRT's own actions had inconvenienced cruise on a shorter than average range and would be extremely satisfying to the board. And if not to the board, I imagine it would at least be more satisfying to most stakeholders whose interests the board is supposed to consider for the CRT to keep its revenues up and accommodate its boaters instead of spending money on legal action and cranes, probably to end up with most of them on the western K&A instead.

 

 

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

Doesn't sound very smart to me. It squeaks of "precedent" which could/would be leveraged by piss-takers.

As opposed to the precedent of doing bugger all for two years? There are loads of precedents of tolerating shorter cruising ranges more relevant to piss takers than former moorers on an isolated canal which temporarily lost most of its moorings paying extra for a specific licence to CC or have some other flexible non-permanent mooring arrangement specific to that navigation requiring a specific licence. The CRT is quite happy selling stuff like winter moorings elsewhere, of course.

 

Selling annual moorings, leisure or otherwise, would be better for the CRT and boaters alike, but appreciate that the planning effort to establish permanent moorings might not be worth it for ones intended to disappear when the marina berths reopen

 

39 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

It's a 'Remainder Waterway' so CRT don't and never have had a duty to maintain it for navigation whether there are boats on it or not.

An good point. afaik the CRT hasn't abandoned any Remainder Waterways yet despite the lack of statutory obligation to because they do have licence holders to consider, but not extending the marina lease and spending money evicting half the boats based on it in preference to raising money from providing an alternative solution to keep them there there do look like steps towards making a case for abandonment...

 

 

35 minutes ago, dmr said:

There are a few boats proper CC'ing that are not residential, but I suspect we could count them on one hand, or maybe a couple of hands and a foot.

Might be more than average down there, because they're only claiming to be CCing because they lost moorings and there aren't any others, especially if they were on what were nominally leisure moorings beforehand...

Edited March 25, 2023 by enigmatic

[Alan de Enfield]

31 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

..............but not extending the marina lease and spending money evicting half the boats based on it in

 

Is that what actually happened, or did C&RT not get offered the opportunity to renew the lease ?

Was it C&RT or the Local Council who evicted the boaters ?

[Graham Davis]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Is that what actually happened, or did C&RT not get offered the opportunity to renew the lease ?

Was it C&RT or the Local Council who evicted the boaters ?

It does like a few people have assumed that CaRT haven't renewed but without knowing the facts it is impossible to answer, and I suspect that a FoI request to either party would be declined. Personally I suspect the Council haven't offered the renewal to them.

[dmr]

13 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

It does like a few people have assumed that CaRT haven't renewed but without knowing the facts it is impossible to answer, and I suspect that a FoI request to either party would be declined. Personally I suspect the Council haven't offered the renewal to them.

 

A bit of Googling will find a couple of articles saying "CRT did not wish to renew the lease". They are links to local Newspaper articles so may or may not be accurate.

The council appears keen to regenerate the docks but they do want a business case for this......and there are not many waterways projects that make a profit.

 

I noted one remark suggesting getting the lock working so that seagoing boats can visit as seagoing boats pay higher mooring fees. I reckon this could be an aspiration rather than reality. 😀

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, dmr said:

There are a few boats proper CC'ing that are not residential, but I suspect we could count them on one hand, or maybe a couple of hands and a foot.

More than you think

[dmr]

9 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

More than you think

It would be an interesting figure to know, but thats probably impossible. I do not include "dumpers" in this.

[enigmatic]

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Is that what actually happened, or did C&RT not get offered the opportunity to renew the lease ?

Was it C&RT or the Local Council who evicted the boaters ?

Good question. It's also possible the CRT declined to renew the lease because the renewal terms offered were unreasonable.

 

But it's the CRT proposing to spend money evicting the boaters based on the canal now, according to the article, despite it being unlikely to be amongst the most congested or subject to antisocial behaviour parts of their network. Although the article is based on quotes from members of the public and bafflingly suggesting they're being moved to a marina already on the canal, so that may not be gospel truth either.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Good question. It's also possible the CRT declined to renew the lease because the renewal terms offered were unreasonable.

 

But it's the CRT proposing to spend money evicting the boaters based on the canal now, according to the article, despite it being unlikely to be amongst the most congested or subject to antisocial behaviour parts of their network. Although the article is based on quotes from members of the public and bafflingly suggesting they're being moved to a marina already on the canal, so that may not be gospel truth either.

 

Speculation is not productive, but what we do know is that IF C&RT are taking the eviction route as they have publicy said times without number, it is because not to do so is not within their remit, and, will open the flood gates for 'me too' claimants.

[magnetman]

How the internet changed the world. 

 

Yars ago one would never have known about the shenanigans of a back of beyond irrelevant ditch with old disconnected dockyards. 

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

How the internet changed the world. 

 

Yars ago one would never have known about the shenanigans of a back of beyond irrelevant ditch with old disconnected dockyards. 

 

 

Ah but there might be others you are still unaware of...

 

 

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

Good question. It's also possible the CRT declined to renew the lease because the renewal terms offered were unreasonable.

 

But it's the CRT proposing to spend money evicting the boaters based on the canal now, according to the article, despite it being unlikely to be amongst the most congested or subject to antisocial behaviour parts of their network. Although the article is based on quotes from members of the public and bafflingly suggesting they're being moved to a marina already on the canal, so that may not be gospel truth either.

 

Are you suggesting CRT save money by never applying the law that they are obligated to, what with being the "navigation authority"?

 

(I know they "hardly ever" do it now, but you never know if/when they might, so it keeps the piss-takers in suspense and makes them keep looking over their shoulder etc. I am talking about a shift from "hardly ever" to "never" as a decisive cost-saving policy change).

Edited March 25, 2023 by Paul C

[Graham Davis]

54 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Ah but there might be others you are still unaware of...

 

 

 

We've certainly had questions in the past from people asking whether they can cruise down to there from the main system.
(and other disconnected canals)

[enigmatic]

38 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Are you suggesting CRT save money by never applying the law that they are obligated to, what with being the "navigation authority"?

 

(I know they "hardly ever" do it now, but you never know if/when they might, so it keeps the piss-takers in suspense and makes them keep looking over their shoulder etc. I am talking about a shift from "hardly ever" to "never" as a decisive cost-saving policy change).

No, I'm suggesting that people that used to pay them for moorings until the moorings were closed represent an opportunity to make money from rather than people that should be top of the list to be punished at great expense for an inability to find any sort of available mooring on their navigation (or even within an hour's drive of their original mooring, bearing in mind the only other nearby navigation is the western K&A) whilst waiting for their original moorings to be reopened.

 

There isn't actually a statutory obligation on CRT to evict people from the Bridgwater and Taunton for being unable to cruise more than 14 miles.

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

There isn't actually a statutory obligation on CRT to evict people from the Bridgwater and Taunton for being unable to cruise more than 14 miles.

 

But there is a statutory requirement to 'satisfy the board', and if 16 miles on a canal is insufficient than 14 miles certainly is.

[magnetman]

Also it is possible the CRT have now decided to play hardball.

Some would say it is about time for things to change otherwise its all going to go to shit. 

The basic fact here is that people took their boats to the area because there were very cheap moorings available probably with services connected. It isn't about local people and their local canal its just about opportunists taking advantage. 

 

Nothing new here. 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by magnetman

[enigmatic]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But there is a statutory requirement to 'satisfy the board', and if 16 miles on a canal is insufficient than 14 miles certainly is.

Feels like we're going round in circles here.

The board can be satisfied by whatever cruising pattern they like, which can, if they choose to be satisfied by it, be the entire length of an isolated navigation  that's really not one of the most congested parts of the network or in danger of becoming a mecca for people looking for low cost housing, but a much longer length on the main network or especially around Bristol and London.

They can, as I've already suggested, charge specific fee for people to use this navigation without a mooring, and possibly even only permit people who used to pay them for moorings before they were closed to take it up. They do, after all, satisfy themselves that CCers paying them for winter moorings are complying with cruising guidelines by paying them a fee to not cruise (and satisfy planners their winter mooring sites aren't permanent)

 

Or indeed they can do what they appear to have done here if the article and contributions from other posters are to be believed, which is to offer a two year "grace period" for people not to have moorings whilst half the moorings on the canal are temporarily closed, and then start spending money on evictions from this little-used isolated canal as soon as the period ends but before the moorings are reinstated, with the likely result the boats end up on the nearest connected network, which happens to be the western K&A where they're a lot more inconvenient to regular boaters....

 

Focusing legal actions on an isolated waterway where the problem is of CRT's own making might still make financial sense if the CRT intends to make cost savings in the long run by abandoning that navigation because there's no pesky boaters on it to complain any more, but from the point of view of tackling areas which are congested because of piss takers it's got to be near the bottom of their list of priorities

[magnetman]

It could be an experiment to show that as the CRT is not a public body they are not bound by the duty to be reasonable. 

 

A test bed perhaps and a model for future activities on other waterways. 

 

When it comes down to it if the Board decide they are more tricky to satisfy than previously things could change in a very big way. 

 

I think the Board do have more powers than most people imagine and they might at some stage look to use those powers. 

 

 

[Paul C]

26 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

The board can be satisfied by whatever cruising pattern they like, which can, if they choose to be satisfied by it, be the entire length of an isolated navigation 

 

They could, but I think they've thought about it and decided not to introduce any regional variation in the "what satisfies them" criteria, at least in the requirements of range. They may apply discretion in whether to apply the rules at all, or turn a blind eye, as they have done for 2 years and counting here.

 

26 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

They do, after all, satisfy themselves that CCers paying them for winter moorings are complying with cruising guidelines by paying them a fee to not cruise (and satisfy planners their winter mooring sites aren't permanent)

 

 

When a CCer has a winter mooring, they are no longer a CCer, they have a mooring (which satisfies the requirement for the home mooring variation). The payment is for the mooring, not some kind of hush money for guaranteeing the rules are ignored etc.

[enigmatic]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

They could, but I think they've thought about it and decided not to introduce any regional variation in the "what satisfies them" criteria, at least in the requirements of range. They may apply discretion in whether to apply the rules at all, or turn a blind eye, as they have done for 2 years and counting here.

Sure, but the question isn't what have they done, but would it have been better to do things differently. CRT's decision making in general has not been impeccable.

It's difficult to see how focusing their enforcement action on people who've [temporarily] lost the only available moorings on their navigation through CRT's own actions and who don't affect the wider network at all is a particularly beneficial use of CRT's resources, particularly if alternatives involved making money out of them instead

 

 

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

When a CCer has a winter mooring, they are no longer a CCer, they have a mooring (which satisfies the requirement for the home mooring variation). The payment is for the mooring, not some kind of hush money for guaranteeing the rules are ignored etc.

Point being that they are quite happy to make available temporary moorings on towpaths (afaik without LA planning permission) for the benefit of people who don't have permanent ones on other occasions. "Navigation has half as many moorings as it had until recently and will have in future" seems like a good candidate for bringing in similar arrangements 

 

 

[MtB]

Given the circumstances, 'The Board' jolly well ought to make themselves satisfied with CCing over the 14 mile length of the canal. 

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

 

It's difficult to see how focusing their enforcement action on people who've [temporarily] lost the only available moorings on their navigation ....

In what way is it "their navigation"? 

 

It looks to me like people went there because there were cheap moorings and never use the canal at all. 

 

The apple maps satellite view provided by MtB showed no boats big enough to live on. The google map sat view shows boats big enough to live on very comfortably indeed. 

 

Why do you think it is "their navigation"?

These boats have been brought there to take advantage of cheap pontoon moorings. It isn't rocket science. 

 

The CRT may be getting intolerant of this sort of behaviour. 

 

I don't see why the moorings were so cheap and not sure how they were allocated. Presumably if they were CRT moorings they must have turned up on the auction websites crtmoorings.com or watersidemoorings.com

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

It's difficult to see how focusing their enforcement action on people who've [temporarily] lost the only available moorings on their navigation through CRT's own actions

 

I will repeat an earlier question : do you know that it was C&RTs decision not to renew the lease ?

Edited March 25, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't see why the moorings were so cheap

 

Might have been cheap because of the difficulty of getting  boat there, and becuase there is only 14 miles of connected canal to cruise on!

 

But effectively, CRT are banning boats from the canal (other than trailer launched) because it seems there are no permanent moorings, and its too short to CC.

[magnetman]

Once the boat was in place it could have been very good value as a place to live if you needed to be in the area..

 

My sister was locked up in a picu in Taunton a few yars ago and I visited. Not my sort of place at all but one can live almost anywhere if it is on a boat. 

 

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Might have been cheap because of the difficulty of getting  boat there, and becuase there is only 14 miles of connected canal to cruise on!

 

But effectively, CRT are banning boats from the canal (other than trailer launched) because it seems there are no permanent moorings, and its too short to CC.

I sometimes wonder if the CRT are concerned about a massive influx of wide beans onto all of their canals. 

 

Obviously there has already been a massive influx of wide beans including in completely inappropriate places but there could be an even more massive influx coming up if nothing is done about it. 

 

Momentum is an impressive thing. 

[enigmatic]

52 minutes ago, magnetman said:

In what way is it "their navigation"? 

 

It looks to me like people went there because there were cheap moorings and never use the canal at all. 

 

The apple maps satellite view provided by MtB showed no boats big enough to live on. The google map sat view shows boats big enough to live on very comfortably indeed. 

 

Why do you think it is "their navigation"?

These boats have been brought there to take advantage of cheap pontoon moorings. It isn't rocket science. 

 

The CRT may be getting intolerant of this sort of behaviour. 

 

I don't see why the moorings were so cheap and not sure how they were allocated. Presumably if they were CRT moorings they must have turned up on the auction websites crtmoorings.com or watersidemoorings.com

It was their navigation in the sense it was the navigation their boat was based on and they had (and paid for) home moorings on when they existed. Moorings 200 miles away on an unconnected navigations may exist as do miles of waterway with no mooring fees, but perhaps aren't that useful to people that want their boat to be based near Taunton!

 

I'm not sure what basis you've concluded that they had recently moved there and didn't pick it for the same reasons anyone else picks moorings (near their home, or if it is their home near their workplace/family/favourite canal stretch). For people solely interested in the cheapest possible solution, they could get to other cheap moorings without paying for crane transport. And I'm not sure why paying the price the CRT set for its moorings is the sort of behaviour the CRT should punish by making life as difficult as possible for boaters in the event the council decides to evict everybody to spend four years putting new pontoons in.

 

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I will repeat an earlier question : do you know that it was C&RTs decision not to renew the lease ?

Others have suggested it was. It's a moot point anyway: the boaters were inconvenience by the sudden disappearance of most of the moorings on the canal, not by some decision of their own to take the piss by refusing to look for a mooring or navigate. It was also CRT's decision to apply a "grace period" that ended before the marina reopened, the CRT's decision to (apparently) start evicting as soon as the grace period ended. And the CRT's decision not to provide (and make money out of) some alternative temporary mooring arrangement.

Edited March 25, 2023 by enigmatic