New Long Term Moorings

[mayalld]

Now, as some may have gathered, Buggy is one of our favourite days out (and why not, it is surely one of the jewels in the crown of the waterways).

 

There has always been a strict 48 hour mooring limit in the basins, and given how full they were over Easter, such a limit seems justified if everybody is to have the chance to enjoy the site.

 

Whilst the basins were being restored, the whole site was leased to IWPS, and they controlled it. The terms of the lease prohibited commercial exploitation, and specifically prevented IWPS from renting out long term moorings within the site.

 

At around the time of the second re-opening, IWPS surrendered the lease to BW, who now control the site.

 

Over the weekend, whilst walking the dogs, I saw something that alarmed me. Or rather, I saw something that alarmed me, which when added to something I saw a couple of weeks ago, and which seemed innocuous at the time, paints a very worrying picture.

 

What I saw a couple of weeks ago was a sign on the island between the Lower Basin and the (currently dewatwered) Lower Basin Arm pointing to the right saying "Moorings, Middle and Upper Basins".

 

At the time, I took it to be a helpful sign indicating that there were more moorings round the corner. Over this weekend, I noticed a sign on the wall of the Lower Basin, saying "Welcome to Bugsworth Basin Long Term Moorings". All the boats in the Lower Basin this weekend were visiting boats, but there appears to be strong evidence that BW are intending in the near future that the Lower Basin will become Long Term Moorings, a move which will, at a stroke halve the capacity of the Basins to accomodate visiting boaters.

 

Anybody heard anything official about this?

[magpie patrick]

I haven't heard anything but BW need to be careful. Bugsworth is a scheduled ancient monument and thus has far greater protection in law than any normal canal site. It is likely that even the change from short term to long term moorings requires SAM (Scheduled Ancient Monument) consent, and it is certain that any minor change such as moored boater putting something on the bank next to their boat, such as a workbench or tub of flowers, will contravene the SAM order. An unofficial liveaboard would also attract far, far more attention there as well, and it wouldn't just be the boater, but BW, as guardians of the SAM, that would be in trouble.

[gralyn]

I thought that there were already two or three boats with moorings in the lower basin. One at least was reported to be living aboard his boat and IWPS were happy with the situation as it appeared in their eyes to increase the suecrity on the sight and got them one more member.

I may be wrong but............

[mayalld]

I thought that there were already two or three boats with moorings in the lower basin. One at least was reported to be living aboard his boat and IWPS were happy with the situation as it appeared in their eyes to increase the suecrity on the sight and got them one more member.

I may be wrong but............

 

I am entirely happy is BW wish to grant some limited extensions and exemptions to those connected with IWPS who work on the site, or who patroll the moorings on behalf of BW, but to extend that to allowing permanent moorings there is out of order, and BW should be prepared for a fuss to be made.

[gralyn]

I am entirely happy is BW wish to grant some limited extensions and exemptions to those connected with IWPS who work on the site, or who patroll the moorings on behalf of BW, but to extend that to allowing permanent moorings there is out of order, and BW should be prepared for a fuss to be made.

I completely agree.

[mayalld]

I completely agree.

 

e-mail to BW sent!

 

And bounced.

 

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

 

enquiries.hq

The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly.

Edited April 6, 2010 by mayalld

[Chris Pink]

patroll the moorings on behalf of BW, but to extend that to allowing permanent moorings there is out of order, and BW should be prepared for a fuss to be made.

 

You are probably aware that British Waterways have a statutory duty to consult before changing any mooring use.

 

For them to change the moorings without is unlawful.

 

But given your past statements on the subject, I don't suppose that's much use to you...

[mayalld]

You are probably aware that British Waterways have a statutory duty to consult before changing any mooring use.

 

For them to change the moorings without is unlawful.

 

But given your past statements on the subject, I don't suppose that's much use to you...

 

It is actually, because I wasn't aware of that statutory duty, thanks.

 

Whilst you and I may cross swords far too often, I would still like you to think that should you venture this far north, there would be room for you to moor at Buggy.

[AlanH]

At the time, I took it to be a helpful sign indicating that there were more moorings round the corner. Over this weekend, I noticed a sign on the wall of the Lower Basin, saying "Welcome to Bugsworth Basin Long Term Moorings". All the boats in the Lower Basin this weekend were visiting boats, but there appears to be strong evidence that BW are intending in the near future that the Lower Basin will become Long Term Moorings, a move which will, at a stroke halve the capacity of the Basins to accomodate visiting boaters.

 

Anybody heard anything official about this?

Most of the boats at the weekend were visiting but there are four boats near the end which have been there for months. They are not liveaboards and I have been told that they have permission to moor there and have held that permission foer some time.

[mayalld]

Most of the boats at the weekend were visiting but there are four boats near the end which have been there for months. They are not liveaboards and I have been told that they have permission to moor there and have held that permission foer some time.

 

That pretty well corresponds to the location of the new notice, and is a very worrying thin end of an extremely worrying wedge.

 

The old position of "No permanent moorings at Bugsworth" was clear and unambiguous. "Just four moorings on the top left of the lower basin" is not, as if that is allowed to pass without objection, then the precedent has been set, and next year, the stretch will be extended, until the whole of the roadside section is long term, and then the other side of the lower basin.

 

Within 2-3 years, there probably won't be room for your pleasant NCCC party at all. Could you ask the committee of NCCC whether they were consulted about this change of use?

 

BTW, I did wander down to say hello, but there didn't look to be anybody around on the boat. If you saw a fat bloke, with a beagle, a cairn terrier and a small child issuing directions, that was me!

[kiki]

That pretty well corresponds to the location of the new notice, and is a very worrying thin end of an extremely worrying wedge.

 

The old position of "No permanent moorings at Bugsworth" was clear and unambiguous. "Just four moorings on the top left of the lower basin" is not, as if that is allowed to pass without objection, then the precedent has been set, and next year, the stretch will be extended, until the whole of the roadside section is long term, and then the other side of the lower basin.

 

Within 2-3 years, there probably won't be room for your pleasant NCCC party at all. Could you ask the committee of NCCC whether they were consulted about this change of use?

 

BTW, I did wander down to say hello, but there didn't look to be anybody around on the boat. If you saw a fat bloke, with a beagle, a cairn terrier and a small child issuing directions, that was me!

 

You are not a small child

[romarni123]

I haven't heard anything but BW need to be careful. Bugsworth is a scheduled ancient monument and thus has far greater protection in law than any normal canal site. It is likely that even the change from short term to long term moorings requires SAM (Scheduled Ancient Monument) consent, and it is certain that any minor change such as moored boater putting something on the bank next to their boat, such as a workbench or tub of flowers, will contravene the SAM order. An unofficial liveaboard would also attract far, far more attention there as well, and it wouldn't just be the boater, but BW, as guardians of the SAM, that would be in trouble.

Out of curiosity is foxton incline plane an ancient monument , as they built moorings at the bottem of that

[mayalld]

You are not a small child

 

Thank you, oh wise one.

 

However, if I'm out with Nick and the dogs, who do you imagine is issuing the instuctions?

 

"No grandad, not that way, through big tunnel"

 

He is Stewie Griffin incarnate!

[AlanH]

BTW, I did wander down to say hello, but there didn't look to be anybody around on the boat. If you saw a fat bloke, with a beagle, a cairn terrier and a small child issuing directions, that was me!

We were around most of the time but we went to Buxton on the train on Sat. I hope our entertainment didn't disturb you too much.

[mayalld]

OK, I have a reply from BW;

 

====

Dear Mr Mayall

 

 

 

Thank you for your email.

 

 

 

The long term moorings have been in place at Bugsworth Basin since June 2008, their inclusion, siting and management being fully agreed with and supported by IWPS. The four moorings were offered out through the online tender process, and are subject to specific site rules in addition to the standard mooring terms and conditions to protect the uniqueness of the Bugsworth location.

 

 

 

An ‘A’ board has been placed by the IWPS between Bridges 58 & 59 stating that moorings are available in the Middle and Upper Basin, as many new-comers to the Upper Peak Forest Canal were not aware that there were other parts to Bugsworth Basin apart from the Lower Basin Arm and this was creating congestion. There are no plans to create any further long term moorings at this location.

 

 

 

The creation of the moorings and the installation of the signage was agreed with our Environmental and Heritage Team, who confirmed that no Scheduled Ancient Monument consent was required as there is no physical changes to the site bar the small sign adjacent to the moorings, the siting and design of which was agreed with English Heritage.

 

 

 

I hope this addresses the queries that you have raised. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

 

 

Kind Regards

 

 

 

 

 

Leanne Pendlebury

 

Moorings Manager

 

British Waterways, Waterside House,

 

Waterside Drive, Wigan, WN3 5AZ

====

 

It strikes me that BW really ought to have consulted more widely than just IWPS, and that BW have failed to follow their own processes here.

 

As such, in opposition to the thin end of the wedge, I have made a formal complaint about the establishment of these moorings

[sueb]

OK, I have a reply from BW;

 

====

Dear Mr Mayall

 

 

 

Thank you for your email.

 

 

 

The long term moorings have been in place at Bugsworth Basin since June 2008, their inclusion, siting and management being fully agreed with and supported by IWPS. The four moorings were offered out through the online tender process, and are subject to specific site rules in addition to the standard mooring terms and conditions to protect the uniqueness of the Bugsworth location.

 

 

 

An ‘A’ board has been placed by the IWPS between Bridges 58 & 59 stating that moorings are available in the Middle and Upper Basin, as many new-comers to the Upper Peak Forest Canal were not aware that there were other parts to Bugsworth Basin apart from the Lower Basin Arm and this was creating congestion. There are no plans to create any further long term moorings at this location.

 

 

 

The creation of the moorings and the installation of the signage was agreed with our Environmental and Heritage Team, who confirmed that no Scheduled Ancient Monument consent was required as there is no physical changes to the site bar the small sign adjacent to the moorings, the siting and design of which was agreed with English Heritage.

 

 

 

I hope this addresses the queries that you have raised. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

 

 

Kind Regards

 

 

 

 

 

Leanne Pendlebury

 

Moorings Manager

 

British Waterways, Waterside House,

 

Waterside Drive, Wigan, WN3 5AZ

====

 

It strikes me that BW really ought to have consulted more widely than just IWPS, and that BW have failed to follow their own processes here.

 

As such, in opposition to the thin end of the wedge, I have made a formal complaint about the establishment of these moorings

Try checking with the Scheduled ancient monument people as well. BW have been known to make mistakes.

Sue

[magpie patrick]

Try checking with the Scheduled ancient monument people as well. BW have been known to make mistakes.

Sue

 

yes they have, more than once. Also, if those moorers do what many do, like putting up picnic tables etc then they will be in breach of the SAM status and BW as landlords will be responsible

 

re: Foxton, (for whoever asked) the moorings predate the scheduling.