Jump to content

Moorings Management Proposals


matty40s

Featured Posts

But the Board has to act reasonably, Mister Mayall. If a judicial review were instituted, the Board would have to justify its actions.

 

 

So, take them to court. Prove them wrong, and force them to stop imposing the rules.

 

Of course you won't. You know they would win.

 

What services are those, Mister Mayall? Pray tell.

 

Use of the waterway [s43(8) Transport Act 1962]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, take them to court. Prove them wrong, and force them to stop imposing the rules.

 

Of course you won't. You know they would win.

 

 

 

Use of the waterway [s43(8) Transport Act 1962]

Anyone know the result of the K&A court case yet? :D

Edited by idleness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

from that link interesting. It seems to state clearly that there is a general right to moor for 14 days without moving. That means there is no need for a definition of "place", as BW repeatedly insist that there is, because the assumption is that it is fine to spend two weeks "in any one place" - i.e. without moving at all - except at certain popular sites where it clearly signposted that this is not allowed.

 

Or have I missed something here? :unsure:

 

Yes.

 

You have missed the fact that some people seem to have the opinion that BW has no legal powers to impose and sign more restrictive moorings at popular spots.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think BW have scored a home goal by letting the boaters have Rivers only Licences on the Lee knowing they are ccers and knowing they will only be on that river and that they wont be goin g on the canals as they dont have a licence for it.

No. There's absolutely nothing in the 1995 Act or BW guidance for CCers that prohibits CCers from moving between a restricted set of moorings, as long as they're not shuttling between moorings a very short distance apart. Dozens of miles of urban river gives plenty of scope for CCing legally. It's only a few try-hards who insist that 'significant' means 'most of'. It does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Use of the waterway [s43(8) Transport Act 1962]

 

...as covered by the licence fee

 

 

Lazy, Dave, lazy.

 

Does anyone think BW have scored a home goal by letting the boaters have Rivers only Licences on the Lee knowing they are ccers and knowing they will only be on that river and that they wont be goin g on the canals as they dont have a licence for it.

 

They have no choice. It is the public's canal, BW administer it, if someone says my boat needs a licence and they satisfy the conditions they have to give them one.

 

They have certain powers for removing that licence if they go through procedures stated in Section 17 (4) of the 1995 Act but nothing that allows them to refuse a new application.

 

Anyone know the result of the K&A court case yet? :D

 

yup.

 

 

You have missed the fact that some people seem to have the opinion that BW has no legal powers to impose and sign more restrictive moorings at popular spots.

 

And those powers are stated where, Dave? or is this another straw for the poor camel that is Section 43?

Edited by Chris Pink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So come on then CP what was the result of the whole thing do tell I am intrigued.

After all it will pretty much decide whether you or DM is right wont it?

I think it probably will and I think if my position on a long and loud debate had been vindicated by a judge I would shout it from the rooftops. You have to admire some peoples humility don't you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So come on then CP If you know tell us as we really don't know.

 

If it's the one I'm thinking of, it isn't particularly helpful. BW say you need a mooring or you must CC, the judge has said that the onus is on BW to assist in finding a "suitable mooring" and left it at that. That's as far as the legal bit goes. It hasn't been clarified for example, whether a mooring at Lower Foxhangers is a "reasonable" mooring for someone "not cruising" at Limpley Stoke. It also wasn't in a court that sets a precedent. The net result would appear to be that you do need a mooring or you must comply with CC rules, but if you can't find a mooring there's a grey area which the beak didn't really clarify and anyway it hasn't set a precedent.

 

I may, however, have the wrong case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure they were very open with LRVP -

Sally Ash discussion document

 

There is a vague reference to improving the situation by 2012 but no actual mention of the games.

 

I would say again that BW wants to provide and charge for 1500 moorings for the Olympics. They want IWA to handle the logistics, presumably because IWA has much more experience than BW of this sort of operation and the cost is less than BW doing it themselves.

 

That, I would suggest is the only reason for BW's proposals. They will not set up a local mooring strategy like on the K&A for fear of losing control of the outcome.

So is IWA involved? I do hope not or else I will have to threaten to resign, which will be difficult.

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...as covered by the licence fee

 

 

Lazy, Dave, lazy.

 

 

 

They have no choice. It is the public's canal, BW administer it, if someone says my boat needs a licence and they satisfy the conditions they have to give them one.

 

They have certain powers for removing that licence if they go through procedures stated in Section 17 (4) of the 1995 Act but nothing that allows them to refuse a new application.

 

 

 

yup.

 

 

 

And those powers are stated where, Dave? or is this another straw for the poor camel that is Section 43?

 

Yes, s43 is the relevant section, and you KNOW that this is what gives them those powers.

 

So, lazy lazy lazy, you simply try to rubbish that section so as to imply that any powers under it are non-existent.

 

If s43 powers don't exist, then I can pay for a mooring somewhere and moor ANYWHERE on the system permanently, because there are simply no powers other than s43 which would allow BW to create ANY limits on mooring that would apply to a boat with a home mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is IWA involved? I do hope not or else I will have to threaten to resign, which will be difficult.

Sue

 

I have been aware of these proposals but not involved in them, In fact, I think I mentioned them to you when we met in November. At no point have I heard or read any reference to IWA involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If s43 powers don't exist, then I can pay for a mooring somewhere and moor ANYWHERE on the system permanently, because there are simply no powers other than s43 which would allow BW to create ANY limits on mooring that would apply to a boat with a home mooring.

 

Lucky you.

 

We have had this discussion before, as you well know, when you agree there is no limit on mooring times for continuous moorers such as yourself.

 

A "no mooring" sign is not a service or facility

Edited by Chris Pink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is IWA involved? I do hope not or else I will have to threaten to resign, which will be difficult.

Sue

 

Hi Sue

 

The following is an extract from the Olympics report (BWB 3412E) to the board dated November 10th 2010 (and marked confidential in big red letters -

 

Following a comprehensive assessment of mooring demand we anticipate c. 1500

boats may visit London during the Games period. Whilst we believed that this may be a

strong source of income (overnight mooring fees), the cost of managing the operation

(boat journeys to the Games and mooring during the Games) will be significant and

therefore unlikely to raise significant net income. It is recommended therefore that BW

enters into an arrangement with the IWA to manage boats in transit and ‘temporary’

moorings during the Games. Bookings would be managed by BW through the

Waterscape web site but the physical operation would be managed by the IWA. The

objective is for income to cover costs however this will become clear once a full

appraisal is undertaken by the IWA and BW. Mooring bookings for the Games will

begin in the spring of 2011 following legal advice and agreement over temporary

mooring zones.

 

I can not say, at the moment, if such an arrangement has been entered into or even if the subject has been broached with IWA. I would however suggest that it would be the height of folly for IWA to make such a commitment when that are having to use the FoI act to try and get a handle on BW's financial crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that most parties are overlooking the elephant in the room here...

 

Continuous moorers aside, a core problem according to BW is:

 

“The number of boats on the River Lee has grown significantly”

 

They go on to describe all the problems caused by the near 40% increase, or a count of 200 more boats.

 

And they suggest a number of ways these boaters can be pushed, taxed, urged, etc.

 

But hang on a minute! Is it not the purpose of any part of government to serve the people? And in a free country, is it not the case that people can move where they like?

 

If there are 200 more boats on the Lee, there must be 200 fewer boats elsewhere - except for the boats that are newbuilds.

 

To the degree that the extra boats are new, they are taking out shiny new licences with BW. Licence evasion is not seen to be a problem, so BW have fresh money to go with any new boats.

 

And if the boats come from other parts of the country, whatever extra needs now exist on the Lee are mirrored by reduced needs elsewhere.

 

The solution is obvious: BW must re-allocate their resources according to where the boats are! They must (all other things being equal) urgently add somehing like 40% more funds to the upkeep of the Lee navigation, and reduce budgets elsewhere correspondingly (probably evenly across the country). That means new waterpoints and toilets, more online moorings, new marina developments, extra lock keepers, maybe even more enforcement officers, on the Lee. And correspondingly less elsewhere.

 

Things will then be back in balance!

 

The problem is NOT that “The number of boats on the River Lee has grown significantly”.

The problem is that “BW has not managed the shift in boat traffic properly”!

 

To make a comparison, just imagine what would happen if more people started moving to a particular part of the country - adding pressure to the schools, hospitals, road system, and so on. Say, 40% more people in one town. What should the government do? Start harassing them? Or shift budgets?

 

Sven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky you.

 

We have had this discussion before, as you well know, when you agree there is no limit on mooring times for continuous moorers such as yourself.

 

A "no mooring" sign is not a service or facility

 

As usual, you deliberately twist what I say.

 

The problem is that whilst it might win you a few shouts of appreciation from your mates in a debating society, it holds no water.

 

Just as your deliberate misuse of terms like "continuous moorer" to muddy the water does nothing but make it difficult to discuss things (which is of course what you want. The last thing you want is for anybody to actually understand the arguments, because they might realise you're talking crap)

 

I agree that the 1995 Act imposes no limits on people with permanent moorings. I do NOT agree that there is no limit at all. I am satisfied that there is a limit of 14 days and that the limit uses s43 powers.

 

As to whether a "no mooring " sign is a service or facility, that simply isn't relevant, beause the 1962 Act explicitly defines what certain terms mean, to the extent that your usual linguistic knot-tying over what words mean is pointless, because the Act is clear that mere "use" of a waterway is a service, notwithstanding any arguments about whether it would be a service is s43(8) wasn't there.

 

It seems to me that most parties are overlooking the elephant in the room here...

 

Continuous moorers aside, a core problem according to BW is:

 

"The number of boats on the River Lee has grown significantly"

 

They go on to describe all the problems caused by the near 40% increase, or a count of 200 more boats.

 

And they suggest a number of ways these boaters can be pushed, taxed, urged, etc.

 

But hang on a minute! Is it not the purpose of any part of government to serve the people? And in a free country, is it not the case that people can move where they like?

 

 

No.

 

In a free country we can only move where we have rights to move.

 

I cannot come and park a caravan on your drive and live there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These new conditions seem to oblige a movement rate of about one mile in 10 days and frankly I think anyone who considers that too much should be in a static caravan park.

 

No, that is terribly wrong. The proposed conditions for the Lea involve something like 10 to 15 lock-miles to be travelled every 14 days, as a minimum. And even more on the Stort.

 

Edited - Just to clarify what the proposal says..:

 

1) Every 14 days the boater must be in a different neighbourhood.

2) If the boater overstays in a neighbourhood beyond the 14 days they will incur a charge for each additional day they remain

3) Boaters will not be able to return to a neighbourhood they have just come from unless they have reached a terminus.

4) Between the start and end dates of the boat‟s 12 month licence, the boater may not spend more than a total of 61 days in any one neighbourhood.

Edited by Sven...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But hang on a minute! Is it not the purpose of any part of government to serve the people? And in a free country, is it not the case that people can move where they like?

 

 

Are we talking principle or pragmatism, let's extend your argument

 

"I want to live in Bath, oh look I can't afford the house prices, I'll camp on the road then"

 

 

If there are 200 more boats on the Lee, there must be 200 fewer boats elsewhere - except for the boats that are newbuilds.

 

 

Two points, the number of boats on the canal system managed by BW has risen from 24,000 to 35,000 in around 15 years, more than 200 a year, so no, there are't 200 fewer boats elsewhere

 

and how the heck does it help BW manage the situation if ther are spaces in a marina in Cheshire but a surplus of boats in London?

 

To the degree that the extra boats are new, they are taking out shiny new licences with BW. Licence evasion is not seen to be a problem, so BW have fresh money to go with any new boats.

 

agree, and a point i frequently make

 

And if the boats come from other parts of the country, whatever extra needs now exist on the Lee are mirrored by reduced needs elsewhere.

 

See above, and BW may not have been the provider of a service elsewhere, and it's a heck of a lot more difficult to build marinas in East London than in the rural shires.

 

 

The solution is obvious: BW must re-allocate their resources according to where the boats are! They must (all other things being equal) urgently add somehing like 40% more funds to the upkeep of the Lee navigation, and reduce budgets elsewhere correspondingly (probably evenly across the country). That means new waterpoints and toilets, more online moorings, new marina developments, extra lock keepers, maybe even more enforcement officers, on the Lee. And correspondingly less elsewhere.

 

Things will then be back in balance!

 

 

 

The problem is NOT that “The number of boats on the River Lee has grown significantly”.

The problem is that “BW has not managed the shift in boat traffic properly”!

 

 

Well, unless you are going to suggest that BW should ban boats moving into areas where boats can't be provided for (we could call this, the "totalitarian" option), I would suggest the problem is people who pitch up with a boat, decide "this bit of towpath is for me" and stay there. BW is a navigation authority. Replace the word "navigation" with "highway" and ask yourself whether the local council is obliged to give you somewhere to park your car.

 

To make a comparison, just imagine what would happen if more people started moving to a particular part of the country - adding pressure to the schools, hospitals, road system, and so on. Say, 40% more people in one town. What should the government do? Start harassing them? Or shift budgets?

 

Sven

 

Well, unless they are moving there on boats or caravans there wouldn't be anywhere for them to stay. Do you think I'll allow you to camp in the back garden, as you need to live where I live? The council won't be that impressed if you camp in the park up the road either.

 

Sven, you've made some good posts, but this one suggests you are living in a computer game that simulates real life, rather than real life itself

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is terribly wrong. The proposed conditions for the Lea involve something like 10 to 15 lock-miles to be travelled every 14 days, as a minimum. And even more on the Stort.

 

Edited - Just to clarify what the proposal says..:

 

1) Every 14 days the boater must be in a different neighbourhood.

2) If the boater overstays in a neighbourhood beyond the 14 days they will incur a charge for each additional day they remain

3) Boaters will not be able to return to a neighbourhood they have just come from unless they have reached a terminus.

4) Between the start and end dates of the boat‟s 12 month licence, the boater may not spend more than a total of 61 days in any one neighbourhood.

Sven the neighbourhoods are 6.75 miles each (ronni tells me)hardly a long trek

What is a lock mile??? err you can spend 61 days in each neighbourhood. point 4

Edited by romarni123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sven the neighbourhoods are 6.75 miles each (ronni tells me)hardly a long trek

What is a lock mile???

 

It's a way of estimating your journey time. Four miles per hour, or four locks per hour. So you travel at about four lock miles per hour.

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that most parties are overlooking the elephant in the room here...<snip>

Just to add to Patrick's response, you're ignoring the fact that boaters are not the only users of the waterways. Too many boats congregating in too small an area affects how others can use the space and, as noted in the consultation documents, there are concerns about those who have set up home in the middle of a public park. Those are legitimate concerns.

 

I think BW's approach is madness, mind. There's a housing crisis on land and they're in the middle of a financial crisis ... The last thing any of us needs is for them to drive people off the(ir) waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain svens post to me

he says you cant stay in any one neighbourhood more than 14 days

he says you can only stay in anyone one neighbourhood for 61 days :blink:

 

It's a way of estimating your journey time. Four miles per hour, or four locks per hour. So you travel at about four lock miles per hour.

 

Richard

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.