Fund Britain's Waterways

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Does anyone really know the solution to the problem? Who’s to blame? How do the canals get more investment? How does the failing inland waterways get fixed? Anyone have the quick solution that will benefit everyone?

The system was built for commercial use, not as a toy for wealthy holidaymakers.

So put it back to commercial use, line the banks, especially in towns, with cheap CRT owned residential  moorings and collect mooring charges and boat licences while removing unlicensed boats and those showing no name and number without bothering the courts. Let the councils sort out the council tax and planning issue - that's not a waterways problem. Scrap the EOG mooring permit and double the licence fee, that gets rid of all the dumpers fiddling the system . Instal a continuous cruiser licence at a lower rate contingent on the holder living permanently on the boat and genuinely moving regularly and police it heavily.

 

What will actually happen is there will be so many stoppages on the northern canals that the businesses dependent on them, yards, marinas and hire fleets, will fail, traffic numbers fall which will be the excuse to close them, meaning less revenue, meaning more failure further and further south, meaning more closures until we're back with a few hundred miles long holding tank for shopping trolleys and stolen bikes.

 

There again, I may just be a bit grumpy because I've done my back in again on a nice trip on the Llangollen and at 73 I can see the end of my 30 years boating  coming into sight, and I don't see why you lot should be able to carry on having fun when I can't...

Edited July 2, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[Paul C]

38 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

 line the banks, especially in towns, with cheap CRT owned residential  moorings and collect mooring charges a

PP

[TheBiscuits]

20 minutes ago, Paul C said:

PP

 

59 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Let the councils sort out the council tax and planning issue - that's not a waterways problem.

 

I'm with Arthur on this one

[Paul C]

The country isn't with you though. Planning permission is a very strong law in the UK, its one of the unique things about it that keeps its character. So its not going anywhere soon. So we won't be seeing loads of residential moorings popping up.

[Barneyp]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The system was built for commercial use, not as a toy for wealthy holidaymakers.

So put it back to commercial use, line the banks, especially in towns, with cheap CRT owned residential  moorings and collect mooring charges and boat licences while removing unlicensed boats and those showing no name and number without bothering the courts. Let the councils sort out the council tax and planning issue - that's not a waterways problem. Scrap the EOG mooring permit and double the licence fee, that gets rid of all the dumpers fiddling the system . Instal a continuous cruiser licence at a lower rate contingent on the holder living permanently on the boat and genuinely moving regularly and police it heavily.

 

What will actually happen is there will be so many stoppages on the northern canals that the businesses dependent on them, yards, marinas and hire fleets, will fail, traffic numbers fall which will be the excuse to close them, meaning less revenue, meaning more failure further and further south, meaning more closures until we're back with a few hundred miles long holding tank for shopping trolleys and stolen bikes.

 

There again, I may just be a bit grumpy because I've done my back in again on a nice trip on the Llangollen and at 73 I can see the end of my 30 years boating  coming into sight, and I don't see why you lot should be able to carry on having fun when I can't...

If CRT allow permanent mooring for liveaboards on a large scale and charge for it they will be held responsible for the mess dumped on the towpath and the lack of relevant planning permission will be their problem as they are the owners of the land and the "landlords".

 

I'm assuming (hoping?) that your last paragraph is in jest, unfortunately to many people on here and in the world in general seem to think like that.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Barneyp

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

If CRT allow permanent mooring for liveaboards on a large scale and charge for it they will be held responsible for the mess dumped on the towpath and the lack of relevant planning permission will be their problem as they are the owners of the land and the "landlords".

 

I'm assuming (hoping?) that your last paragraph is in jest, unfortunately to many people on here and in the world in general seem to think like that.

The last para was, the penultimate one not, really. Let's face it, anyone moored on the Peak Forest or the Macc has had a pretty torrid time of it the last couple of years with no let up in sight, the T&M was shut at peak season last year and probably will be this and next, the L&L seems to be a disaster area, and let's not mention the Huddersfield. At the same time boaters' costs are going through the roof. The majority of boaters get out on the water for a few weeks in a year. It's now cheaper to do that by hiring than owning.

 

CRT don't need to state moorings are residential. They are just long term moorings. If people choose to live on them, let the councils sort it out - it's in their interest to do so as they'll get the money, it makes no difference to CRT. Planning permission is a nonsense - developers get what they want and change the specs without penalty. And if the councils or Sustrans want to turn urban towpaths into cycle tracks, let them maintain them and keep them tidy. CRT can penalise offending boaters by cancelling their moorings, the council can sue them for flytipping. That's if anyone cares - they certainly don't seem to currently.

[Paul C]

I think people do care, its just that the way the law is set up, its very inefficient and difficult for CRT to police it and bring relevant prosecutions, and also there is a big financial cost to that with no prospect of eg fine revenue coming back to them, so there's no monetary incentive (or not enough budget to do it). A further step in that direction will be strongly opposed, so very unlikely to happen. 

[Arthur Marshall]

8 hours ago, Paul C said:

I think people do care, its just that the way the law is set up, its very inefficient and difficult for CRT to police it and bring relevant prosecutions, and also there is a big financial cost to that with no prospect of eg fine revenue coming back to them, so there's no monetary incentive (or not enough budget to do it). A further step in that direction will be strongly opposed, so very unlikely to happen. 

Prosecutions aren't legally required, they are a choice by CRT, for a combination of PR and charitable reasons. They are entitled to sell the boats they remove. They don't have to issue a licence if "unsatisfied". There are also byelaws which could be enforced.

My comment about caring really referred to junk on the towpath - no one cares about that very much, especially the dog walkers who are the most common offenders! 

[Paul C]

Thank you Arthur, in part I agree with your points, in that the S.8 process could be much more efficient/streamlined; and byelaw enforcement used effectively (I believe that would cover towpath litter/flytipping/junk). Dog poo is an interesting issue, it reminds me of a recent case (can't remember where), of course it would be easy to install bins but there was disagreement about who would empty them, so the outcome was....no bins. Not very joined up thinking between CRT and the relevant local authorities.

 

[Rob-M]

Just popped up on my Google newsfeed, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-66493317

[Tim Lewis]

A soggy days FBW cruise to Westminster yesterday 

 

[Stroudwater1]

On 15/11/2023 at 09:27, Tim Lewis said:

A soggy days FBW cruise to Westminster yesterday 

 

 

Looks to be a decent turnout, especially considering the season. Thanks to all involved for doing this. Sadly I believe Steve Barclay is the new minister responsible. History in the health service suggests someone rather unyielding. I see his wife is a senior figure in Anglian water, probably fleshed out in the political section. Suggests a notable COI there, though at least he may know a bit about water...  

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Suggests a notable COI there, though at least he may know a bit about sewage in water...  

 

Fixed that for you.

[Stroudwater1]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Fixed that for you.

 

I fear the correction is incorrect Alan, it ought to read Suggests a notable COI there, though at least he may know a huge amount about sewage in water...  

[TheBiscuits]

5 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

I fear the correction is incorrect Alan, it ought to read Suggests a notable COI there, though at least he may know a huge amount about sewage in water...  

 

He should be reasonably sympathetic to sewer tubes then! 🤣