BW advisory forum - blimey

[Malarky]

I would also add that a lot of the travellers I met, on the road, in my professional capacity, in the 90s have left site life and got boats, to avoid hassle from the authorities.

 

Keep legal and keep moving (or pay extra for the privilege of a home mooring) and BW are fine.

 

When on the canal, I am compliance. When on the road, I am authority. Wolvercote was a "site" scince the thirties,we just had moorings a yard and house as well.

 

Thanks Salty for your encouragement, I'll possibly be back again, fixing boats for a cup of tea, they'll just have to be near to where I can park, rather than comeing to me. But I'll have to £harge for diesel!!!!!!

[fender]

chris

I am with you on this one and would love to see the minutes from these meeting to see exactly who spoke up for the interests of the people effected by these changes.

As said on earlier post still don't understand why APCO in the form of James Griffin and Nigel Stevens have 2 people in the forum. Something about Turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind

 

And I dont understand why SPCC has two members on the BW forum.

 

Christ if we had two pro-CC'er representives on the forum things would be amazingly better!

[Richard Fairhurst]

I'm generally of the mindset that "if you want something doing round here, do it yourself", which would echo the comments about getting involved - or, even, starting your own organisation.

 

But BW needs to recognise that user groups are not, and should not be, the be-all and end-all of consultation. A lot of waterway people aren't "joiners", for one reason or another, and will simply not join an association. Yet they have the right to be heard and respected - just as workers shouldn't be treated like dogdirt simply because they're not part of a trade union.

 

And it's not actually that difficult to hear them. There's forums like this, there's WW's letters pages (and those in the other magazines), there's NBW - hell, if BW staff were as engaged in the waterways as they should be, there's actually going out there and talking to people on the lockside!

 

BWAF is a move in the wrong direction, because it reinforces this idea that consultation just means talking to user groups. In fact, it's not even that broad: it's a particular subset of national user groups. Why was (for example) Cotswold Canals Trust not invited to join BWAF to represent the restoration movement? CCT has, I believe, more members than any national user group except NABO.

[carlt]

When on the canal, I am compliance. When on the road, I am authority.

Oh....I wish you luck then. With that attitude you'll need it.

[Rick-n-Jo]

As British Waterways made a profit of getting on for £40m last financial year and increased its reserves to almost £500m it seems rather peculiar that they should want more money from boaters.

 

Do you have a reference for this figure?

 

An interesting analysis from Steve Davis here

I know, its NBW, but they're not all Meldrews on there.

[Dominic M]

When you go to an IWA meeting, with a view to getting involved, and you realise that your boats are on the agenda "High time we weeded out this type of boater and made the canals better for everyone." You realise that raising your head above the parapet would only start a firefight. Besides which, any organisation that on the one hand is supposed to lobby for the interests of waterways and their users and on the other is managing a waterway, with higher charges than any other, is a tad hypocritical.

 

RBOA is aimed at oap's spending their money before the kids get it.

 

NABO doesn't have a high enough profile because it isn't outspoken enough.

 

 

 

Mike Stevens was an outstanding individual p*ssing in the wind blown by a stagnant organisation created by one giant ego climbing over the backs of the true campaigning pioneers.

It is like political movements. they start off with a radical and vocal agenda, and either fall by the wayside or gradually move towards the centre ground. I don't think Keir Hardie would recognise the labour Party today, but then Keir Hardie never got into power. You can detect these shifts today in changes in, for example, the Green Party, Plaid Cymru and the SNP - all diluting their original militant starting points as they seek to attract a wider electorate.

 

NABO was formed by some boaters who felt the IWA had become stodgy and ineffectual when it came to protecting canal boat owners' interests. Then there were a number of internal disputes and they too ended up in the centre ground. Without wishing to offend NABO, what do they do that amounts to anything much?

 

As for the RBOA, I am a member. I think that at least it is important that there is a body representing residential boaters, and the sum can only be as good as its parts. They are currently involved in discussions with BW over the needs of residential boat owners, and I'm glad somebody is.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Dominic M

[carlt]

Why was (for example) Cotswold Canals Trust not invited to join BWAF to represent the restoration movement? CCT has, I believe, more members than any national user group except NABO.

I'm guessing that, considering recent events concerning the Cotswold Canals, that question is both rhetorical and tongue in cheek.

[saltysplash]

I'm generally of the mindset that "if you want something doing round here, do it yourself", which would echo the comments about getting involved - or, even, starting your own organisation.

 

But BW needs to recognise that user groups are not, and should not be, the be-all and end-all of consultation. A lot of waterway people aren't "joiners", for one reason or another, and will simply not join an association. Yet they have the right to be heard and respected - just as workers shouldn't be treated like dogdirt simply because they're not part of a trade union.

 

And it's not actually that difficult to hear them. There's forums like this, there's WW's letters pages (and those in the other magazines), there's NBW - hell, if BW staff were as engaged in the waterways as they should be, there's actually going out there and talking to people on the lockside!

 

BWAF is a move in the wrong direction, because it reinforces this idea that consultation just means talking to user groups. In fact, it's not even that broad: it's a particular subset of national user groups. Why was (for example) Cotswold Canals Trust not invited to join BWAF to represent the restoration movement? CCT has, I believe, more members than any national user group except NABO.

 

 

So we're all up for joining Fuzzies user group then?

 

which brings us back to last years shouts of " FUZSTER FOR PM"

[carlt]

I know, its NBW, but they're not all Meldrews on there.

I found myself agreeing with Victor's anti-BW rants, in his last post

[saltysplash]

I found myself agreeing with Victor's anti-BW rants, in his last post

 

 

 

Thats bad...........I had to high light it to read that post...no wonder you faded it

 

Go to the back of the class........and if your already at the back, go to the front and pretend your at the back

Edited September 11, 2008 by saltysplash

[Dominic M]

And it's not actually that difficult to hear them. There's forums like this, there's WW's letters pages (and those in the other magazines), there's NBW - hell, if BW staff were as engaged in the waterways as they should be, there's actually going out there and talking to people on the lockside!

Talking to people on the lockside? Firstly, they would need to carry out a risk assessment. Then they would need to seek expensive legal advice to ensure that they weren't putting themselves in a position where they might be accused of "stalking". As one BW employee has already injured themselves tripping over the new bollards that have been placed along narrow locks I imagine that BW will be minimising lock visits by their staff until a full H&S review of the situation is completed.

BWAF is a move in the wrong direction, because it reinforces this idea that consultation just means talking to user groups. In fact, it's not even that broad: it's a particular subset of national user groups. Why was (for example) Cotswold Canals Trust not invited to join BWAF to represent the restoration movement? CCT has, I believe, more members than any national user group except NABO.

Why indeed were the CCT not invited? It makes a nonsense of the BWAF. The most important restoration project on our waterways, IMHO, excluded from the consultation process. But you have to ask, where are the other waterways organisations protesting about this? If they are, then they are not succeeding in putting their views across very effectively.

[carlt]

Why indeed were the CCT not invited? It makes a nonsense of the BWAF.

 

I'm not sure they'd be singing from the same hymn sheet:

"Memorandum submitted by Stroud Town Council

 

1. The decision of British Waterways to withdraw from the Cotswolds Canal project has caused considerable consternation within the local community. Over the last few years the delivery of the project has raised expectations which it is difficult to see being delivered without the involvement of British Waterways.

 

2. Having submitted an FOI request to British Waterways it is abundantly clear that British Waterways have not been committed to the project for at least a year, as a result of its property development partner not wishing to pursue an interest in Brimscombe Port. A summary of board minutes and reports is set out in appendix 1. One of the Board reports in suggesting an exit strategy states that "much of the blame will be put down to the cut in grant" (BWB 3274 March 2007). This is a wholly unacceptable way for a public sector corporation to behave.

 

3. The real reasons for the failure of this project are the dependence of British Waterways to profit from land they have acquired alongside the Canal corridor. As the March report from the Chief Executive made clear "This very considerable variance from our previous costings is due almost entirely to the unravelling of the property transaction assumptions . . . . In essence we need to realise £1 million per acre for our developable land and this would only be achieved if we got planning permission for relatively dense housing . . . . The reality is that we will not be able to achieve the sort of value we had assumed in earlier appraisals.

 

4. From the board report in November 2006 it is clear that part of the "fit with Corporate Policy" notes that "ISIS has been involved in Brimscombe almost from the outset and is currently undertaking a capacity study on our existing holding and the adjacent Brimscombe Mills site (where there is also developer interest). Isis are expected to confirm their interest in November." Information on ISIS Waterside Regeneration can be found at http://www.isis.gb.com/index.html Presumably the property "unravelling" reported to the March 2007 board was as a direct result of the work undertaken by ISIS at Brimscombe Port.

 

5. The Board report for the January 2008 meeting makes clear that the final straw is the failure of Stroud District Council to indemnify British Waterways for the repayment of the Heritage Lottery Fund grant for the whole project (the whole £12 million) in the event that SDC did not complete Brimscombe Port. It is wholly appropriate for SDC or any other partner to be liable for the risk of the part of the project they are undertaking, however, it is completely unreasonable for either HLF or BW to expect a minor partner to take on the risk for the whole project.

 

6. One of the benefits of British Waterways being involved in this project is that they have a track record in maintaining the national canal network and have a track record in delivering major canal restoration projects. However, it is clear that British Waterways reliance on property speculation to fund both the restoration costs and part of the running costs of the canal has damaged the viability and credibility of the project. It remains to be seen whether it is possible for the project to recover from this considerable set back.

 

Cllr Chas Townley, Stroud Town Council"

Edited September 11, 2008 by carlt

[Chris Pink]

As for the RBOA, I am a member. I think that at least it is important that there is a body representing residential boaters, and the sum can only be as good as its parts. They are currently involved in discussions with BW over the needs of residential boat owners, and I'm glad somebody is.

 

As far as i can ascertain RBOA is simply a lobby group to gain support for 'official' residential moorings.

 

 

But BW needs to recognise that user groups are not, and should not be, the be-all and end-all of consultation. A lot of waterway people aren't "joiners", for one reason or another, and will simply not join an association. Yet they have the right to be heard and respected - just as workers shouldn't be treated like dogdirt simply because they're not part of a trade union.

 

precisely.

 

Any attempt to steamroller the proposed changes simply on the back of the consultation with what are narrow interest lobby groups with axes to grind should in my opinion be met with the strongest possible opposition.

 

At £618 for the cheapest licence for a 43' boat this is hardly making boating accessible.

 

 

and a little off-topic but am i alone in thinking that this, if true, is corruption in the starkest terms. Or perhaps we are so used to such things that it doesn't even raise a languid eyebrow.

 

Having submitted an FOI request to British Waterways it is abundantly clear that British Waterways have not been committed to the project for at least a year, as a result of its property development partner not wishing to pursue an interest in Brimscombe Port. A summary of board minutes and reports is set out in appendix 1. One of the Board reports in suggesting an exit strategy states that "much of the blame will be put down to the cut in grant" (BWB 3274 March 2007). This is a wholly unacceptable way for a public sector corporation to behave.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Chris Pink

[Richard Fairhurst]

I'm guessing that, considering recent events concerning the Cotswold Canals, that question is both rhetorical and tongue in cheek.

Oh, absolutely. But it's a serious point too.

 

BW has several times asked BWAF for serious input on "how should we treat restoration?" - see the minutes on BW's BWAF webpage (e.g. October 2005 meeting). Yet not one single restoration group is represented at the meetings. The only group there with a definite connection to restoration is the IWA - and even then, their representative is the chairman of its Navigation Committee (who I have a lot of time for), not of its Restoration Committee.

 

Is that really likely to produce a useful, balanced view?

 

But, hey, BWAF does appear to have a representative from the "International Mountain Bike Association (UK)". Give me strength.

[carlt]

It is far too often the lack of active members that restricts the work of voluntary waterways organisations.

Quote for licensing my boat, on the Chelmer & Blackwater canal, before IWA took over the management of it: £1538

 

Quote for licensing my boat on the same waterway, just after IWA took over: £2168.76

 

To oppose BW's less draconian increases would definitely smack of hypocrisy.

[magpie patrick]

Quote for licensing my boat, on the Chelmer & Blackwater canal, before IWA took over the management of it: £1538

 

Quote for licensing my boat on the same waterway, just after IWA took over: £2168.76

 

To oppose BW's less draconian increases would definitely smack of hypocrisy.

 

That is staggering and puts BW licences (and those who moan about them ,and others not paying their share) into perspective, over 2000 quid for a 13 mile long waterway? Anyone who now wants a reduction as they can only get at the broad waterways or because they can't use the short ones up north needs to do a reality check!

 

Freedom of 2000 plus miles for my 62 footer, a shade over 600 quid next year if I pay promptly.

 

Of course Carl (and you know I supported you on your plight) BW aren't always helpful if you've got an historic boat

[Dominic M]

I'm not sure they'd be singing from the same hymn sheet:

"Memorandum submitted by Stroud Town Council

 

1. The decision of British Waterways to withdraw from the Cotswolds Canal project has caused considerable consternation within the local community. Over the last few years the delivery of the project has raised expectations which it is difficult to see being delivered without the involvement of British Waterways.

 

2. Having submitted an FOI request to British Waterways it is abundantly clear that British Waterways have not been committed to the project for at least a year, as a result of its property development partner not wishing to pursue an interest in Brimscombe Port. A summary of board minutes and reports is set out in appendix 1. One of the Board reports in suggesting an exit strategy states that "much of the blame will be put down to the cut in grant" (BWB 3274 March 2007). This is a wholly unacceptable way for a public sector corporation to behave.

 

3. The real reasons for the failure of this project are the dependence of British Waterways to profit from land they have acquired alongside the Canal corridor. As the March report from the Chief Executive made clear "This very considerable variance from our previous costings is due almost entirely to the unravelling of the property transaction assumptions . . . . In essence we need to realise £1 million per acre for our developable land and this would only be achieved if we got planning permission for relatively dense housing . . . . The reality is that we will not be able to achieve the sort of value we had assumed in earlier appraisals.

 

4. From the board report in November 2006 it is clear that part of the "fit with Corporate Policy" notes that "ISIS has been involved in Brimscombe almost from the outset and is currently undertaking a capacity study on our existing holding and the adjacent Brimscombe Mills site (where there is also developer interest). Isis are expected to confirm their interest in November." Information on ISIS Waterside Regeneration can be found at http://www.isis.gb.com/index.html Presumably the property "unravelling" reported to the March 2007 board was as a direct result of the work undertaken by ISIS at Brimscombe Port.

 

5. The Board report for the January 2008 meeting makes clear that the final straw is the failure of Stroud District Council to indemnify British Waterways for the repayment of the Heritage Lottery Fund grant for the whole project (the whole £12 million) in the event that SDC did not complete Brimscombe Port. It is wholly appropriate for SDC or any other partner to be liable for the risk of the part of the project they are undertaking, however, it is completely unreasonable for either HLF or BW to expect a minor partner to take on the risk for the whole project.

 

6. One of the benefits of British Waterways being involved in this project is that they have a track record in maintaining the national canal network and have a track record in delivering major canal restoration projects. However, it is clear that British Waterways reliance on property speculation to fund both the restoration costs and part of the running costs of the canal has damaged the viability and credibility of the project. It remains to be seen whether it is possible for the project to recover from this considerable set back.

 

Cllr Chas Townley, Stroud Town Council"

No they wouldn't. There is a great deal of bitterness within the CCT over BW's withdrawal, and the way they went about it. Quite rightly so. As the FOI request revealed, the explanation given - because of loss of government subsidy - was a blatant lie. And it seems to reveal that far from promoting the waterways, BW's primary focus is to act as a property developer = with assets they do not own but merely have in their charge.

 

Nevertheless, not having such a group, or even inviting that group, on to the BWAF demonstrates that that body is a charade dressed up to look like genuine consultation.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Dominic M

[fender]

But, hey, BWAF does appear to have a representative from the "International Mountain Bike Association (UK)". Give me strength.

 

I'm defintely going to start a Towpath climber's group. We'll be doing the most challenging parts of the canal system in full mountain gear, using our trusty karabiners, quickdraws, bandoliers, pitons, ropes and pick axes. Move over you bloody bikers!

[carlt]

Of course Carl (and you know I supported you on your plight) BW aren't always helpful if you've got an historic boat

To be fair to BW, in my own case, once I'd spoken to enough people and found the sympathetic ear, BW have been very supportive and any action they may have intended to take is on hold.

 

I have been assured that nothing will happen to Usk, until after Lucy has been moved, then we will sit down and discuss a plan of action.

 

I think the uninformed destruction of historic narrow boats, like Thelma's end and so many others, will not happen again though, If anyone can tell me what happened to Lionheart (one of the few Ken Keay cruisers built) at Market Drayton, I'd be very interested.

 

 

 

 

 

That is staggering and puts BW licences (and those who moan about them ,and others not paying their share) into perspective, over 2000 quid for a 13 mile long waterway? Anyone who now wants a reduction as they can only get at the broad waterways or because they can't use the short ones up north needs to do a reality check!

The C&B licence does include a mooring, tbf, but the increase was ridiculous.

 

I was tempted because of the deep water mooring, at Heybridge Basin, but I'd have been unable to use any of the navigation, beyond the first bridge and I'd have had to licence my tender separately.

[Hairy-Neil]

I'm defintely going to start a Towpath climber's group. We'll be doing the most challenging parts of the canal system in full mountain gear, using our trusty karabiners, quickdraws, bandoliers, pitons, ropes and pick axes. Move over you bloody bikers!

 

Could we include a mountain rescue branch too for the Trans Pennine routes....

[fuzzyduck]

At my suggestion, against considerable vocal opposition, DCowners took out associate membership of NABO because I wanted to get DC owners a voice even if it took a gentle introduction. It was supposed to get them used to the idea of participating and I hoped to get the members to join NABO as individual members.

 

the plan lasted a year. There was nothing to carry it forward.

 

It is my strong belief that there is no longer a campaiging organisation that effectivly represents the spectrum of boaters. lets face it there's a thread here where people who represent NABO won't even state what NABOs position on this fiasco is, just a few bland "join us it will help" and even better a "join then we'll tell you what we stand for"

 

There are people here who are crying out for representation, and yet NABO can't even capitalise on that, what hope do they have?

 

Any suggestions on what my new activist boaters group could be called? And in these days of apathay, the ultimate tumbleweed inducing questions Any volunteers to help?

[carlt]

the ultimate tumbleweed inducing questions Any volunteers to help?

 

Oh go on then! Count me in.

[Dominic M]

DC owners

DC?

[carlt]

DC?

Shout it out loud! Fuzzy's plastic, and proud!

 

(Dawncraft)

[Tim Lewis]

Quote for licensing my boat, on the Chelmer & Blackwater canal, before IWA took over the management of it: £1538

 

Quote for licensing my boat on the same waterway, just after IWA took over: £2168.76

 

To oppose BW's less draconian increases would definitely smack of hypocrisy.

 

It is worth pointing out that before the IWA the management of the Chelmer & Blackwater Navigation its owners were in administration, the administrators were busy selling off all the assets to pay creditors and the navigation was in imminent threat of closure as no one else was interested in keeping it as a going concern.

 

Tim