Moorings Management Proposals

[Sven...]

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

 

The way I understand the proposal, continuous cruisers will need to satisfy both of these requirements:

 

- Every 14 days the boater must be in a different neighbourhood

- During a 12 month period, the boater may not spend more than a total of 61 days in any one neighbourhood

 

Link to BW’s mooring proposals:

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/listening-to-you/consultations-and-reviews/current-consultations

[Lady Muck]

you can stay in a 'neighbourhood' for fourteen consecutive days, however your total days limit for mooring in that neighbourhood is 61 days over the term of your annual license.

 

I wouldn't want to be the one enforcing this, it's too complicated. The current enforcement is all over the place, how will they manage this one?

Edited February 24, 2011 by Lady Muck

[ymu]

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

 

You could try reading what he wrote, or if that's too tricky for you, he also posted the relevant extract from the proposals.

 

You cannot be in a neighbourhood for more than 14 days in a row.

 

You cannot be in a neighbourhood for more than 61 days over the course of a year.

 

6 neighbourhoods x 61 days is enough to cover a year's CCing (but will, in practice, prevent people from taking the full 14 days in each neighbourhood every time it is visited because 61/14 does not come out as a nice even number of weeks).

 

Sorry - missed the last page before I posted. Apologies for repetition.

 

LM - they're proposing to have patrols recording the boats they see and then, presumably, the computer will work it out. To make that work, they will need to patrol the entire length every day, which would be impossibly expensive in terms of manpower, so they won't be able to enforce it entirely accurately. But if they patrol the entire length often enough, they will have some evidence to work with. Whether it would stand up in court is another matter.

[fender]

I don't think we'll be seeing any new marinas or moorings on the Lee, infact less for a bit as Haselmere is closing soon for redevelopment.

 

Haselmere??? Thats a long way off the waterways system. You mean Hazelmere?

[Lady Muck]

Haselmere??? Thats a long way off the waterways system. You mean Hazelmere?

 

Spelling doh!

[fender]

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.

 

Freedom, what freedom? is this a free country? Your way of saying it is like saying we live in a democracy, but there is no democracy, only a predisposition towards a democracy, but not a democracy, and at the same time there is a predisposition towards freedom, but there isnt freedom. Freedom is an illusion. Struggle must be maintained at all times to ensure that at least humans have dignified space and dignified movement and are not trampled upon by the state, its proponents, and its discontents (such as you or BW.)

[mayalld]

Freedom, what freedom? is this a free country? Your way of saying it is like saying we live in a democracy, but there is no democracy, only a predisposition towards a democracy, but not a democracy, and at the same time there is a predisposition towards freedom, but there isnt freedom. Freedom is an illusion. Struggle must be maintained at all times to ensure that at least humans have dignified space and dignified movement and are not trampled upon by the state, its proponents, and its discontents (such as you or BW.)

 

Well, that's a nice bit of empty waffle!

 

The proposition that was put forward is that if ever more people want to move to a particular place, they should be free to do so.

 

The simple fact is that if we give somebody complete freedom to do whatever they wish to do, and they exercise that freedom unfettered, they will inevitably trample upon somebody elses freedoms.

[Chris Pink]

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"

 

 

 

 

 

Dangerous ground. Are saying that the waterways should be priced so high as to remove the extra boats and traffic by pricing?

 

And what exactly are you proposing for Bath - that is becomes a ghetto exclusively occupied by the rich? And if that is the reality then it is acceptable?

 

Then we will never reach agreement.

 

If there are no houses for the people who wish to live in Bath then they will live on the streets. Do you think yourself above Madrid, to choose one instance?

 

The waterways belong to all boaters, and all the people who choose to use, it is to BW to facilitate that not to bend law to suit who they think should be able to.

 

It is interesting that every single one of the protagonists for the proposals are all a. unaffected by them and b. well off.

 

I think you talk a lot of sense but I have nothing but contempt for the casual arrogance of this post. "Well I can afford it, stuff the ones that can't".

 

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.

 

 

"misuse of terms" - such a pompous little statement, I shall use the term for whatever I wish, you understood what I meant and it suits you much better than the people you wish to insult with it. I am glad that you continuously moor and waffle far more that you use the canals, it keeps your unpleasant attitudes well away from those who enjoy them.

 

The use of a waterway is a service paid for by a licence fee, which includes the right to moor on it according to the law. It cannot be charged for twice. End of.

 

And if Section 43 gave powers to restrict mooring to 14 days, then what did Parliament go to all that trouble to make a law about it?

[magpie patrick]

Dangerous ground. Are saying that the waterways should be priced so high as to remove the extra boats and traffic by pricing?

 

And what exactly are you proposing for Bath - that is becomes a ghetto exclusively occupied by the rich? And if that is the reality then it is acceptable?

 

 

 

I am having to leave Bath because I can't afford to live here anymore

 

Frome welcomes us with open arms, or at least affordable housing, and not in the town planners meaning (I'm a town planner by the way)

 

No choice, leave Bath or face ruin. Don't like it, but can't argue unless I want to sacrifice my family on the alter of ideology...

[mayalld]

Dangerous ground. Are saying that the waterways should be priced so high as to remove the extra boats and traffic by pricing?

 

And what exactly are you proposing for Bath - that is becomes a ghetto exclusively occupied by the rich? And if that is the reality then it is acceptable?

 

Then we will never reach agreement.

 

If there are no houses for the people who wish to live in Bath then they will live on the streets. Do you think yourself above Madrid, to choose one instance?

 

The waterways belong to all boaters, and all the people who choose to use, it is to BW to facilitate that not to bend law to suit who they think should be able to.

 

It is interesting that every single one of the protagonists for the proposals are all a. unaffected by them and b. well off.

 

I think you talk a lot of sense but I have nothing but contempt for the casual arrogance of this post. "Well I can afford it, stuff the ones that can't".

Oooh, huge amounts of rhetoric and envy about anybody who is well off, along with some gross assumptions that simply aren't true.

"misuse of terms" - such a pompous little statement, I shall use the term for whatever I wish, you understood what I meant and it suits you much better than the people you wish to insult with it. I am glad that you continuously moor and waffle far more that you use the canals, it keeps your unpleasant attitudes well away from those who enjoy them.

 

The use of a waterway is a service paid for by a licence fee, which includes the right to moor on it according to the law. It cannot be charged for twice. End of.

 

And if Section 43 gave powers to restrict mooring to 14 days, then what did Parliament go to all that trouble to make a law about it?

 

"If" there is no "If" about it.

 

The quote that you and your cronies so regularly trot out from the debate on the 1995 act shows beyond doubt that a 14 day limit existed BEFORE the 1995 Act, proving that some power predating the act enabled that limit.

 

The use of a waterway for cruising is ONE service.

Permitting casual mooring against the towpath is a separate service, which can be charged for each time it occurs. It can also (s43 again) be provided FOC for licenced boats.

 

The fact that BW do not make charges for all casual mooring doesn't preclude them from charging for some.

 

And I am perfectly capable of understanding what you are saying (something that is an irritation to you, because it means I can debunk the crap you spout), but the tactic works well enough, because it ensures that anybody who is at the periphery of the debate can't keep up.

[GUMPY]

.

Edited February 25, 2011 by idleness

[DeanS]

I havent been following all 21 pages of this very energetic debate/thread, but I would like to offer a little something, so here it is.

 

If I was driving to visit the wonderful city of bath, it would take me a short time to get there, and I could get a room at a hotel, park in their premises, and visit the city for 3 weeks if I wanted to, and had the cash. I dont have the cash, so I'm going to be making my way there, probably taking 6mths to arrive (Im in the North East at the moment). Having endured hundreds of locks, millions of miles of all sorts of challenges along the way, I hope to eventually arrive, and wish to then visit the city and all it has to offer. I dont have to pay to use the road(canal) to get to Bath, as thats included in my annual fee. When I get there I'll want to find a nice towpath mooring.

 

Is that when I get told...it might have taken you 6 mths to get here, but you better be gone in 14days? Even worse, I expect it will say 24hrs or something if I moor anywhere near the city centre. I have this dread that any time I get somewhere, someones going to be urging me to go away as soon as possible

[romarni123]

The way I understand the proposal, continuous cruisers will need to satisfy both of these requirements:

 

- Every 14 days the boater must be in a different neighbourhood

- During a 12 month period, the boater may not spend more than a total of 61 days in any one neighbourhood

 

Link to BW’s mooring proposals:

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/listening-to-you/consultations-and-reviews/current-consultations

Ok I have re read them again

If you move the whole length one way and spend 14 days in each neighbourhood and there are six of them thats 14 x6=84 you turn round because of a terminus and do the reverse journey 14x6=84 total 168 days you are then at the other end of the river and if it has no terminus you cannot then go back into the neighbour hood because you have just come from there or you will incur charges is that right.So on a trip there and back you in effect stay in each neighbourhood 28 days.Sorry to be a bit thick but I am sure the penny will drop eventually. If you have to be in a differant neighbourhood every 14 days how can you spend not more than 61 days in each neighbourhood.

[romarni123]

I havent been following all 21 pages of this very energetic debate/thread, but I would like to offer a little something, so here it is.

 

If I was driving to visit the wonderful city of bath, it would take me a short time to get there, and I could get a room at a hotel, park in their premises, and visit the city for 3 weeks if I wanted to, and had the cash. I dont have the cash, so I'm going to be making my way there, probably taking 6mths to arrive (Im in the North East at the moment). Having endured hundreds of locks, millions of miles of all sorts of challenges along the way, I hope to eventually arrive, and wish to then visit the city and all it has to offer. I dont have to pay to use the road(canal) to get to Bath, as thats included in my annual fee. When I get there I'll want to find a nice towpath mooring.

 

Is that when I get told...it might have taken you 6 mths to get here, but you better be gone in 14days? Even worse, I expect it will say 24hrs or something if I moor anywhere near the city centre. I have this dread that any time I get somewhere, someones going to be urging me to go away as soon as possible

I think so, Its the same up the LLan you go all the way up there to the basin and can only stay 48 hours and you have to pay.

[fender]

Well, that's a nice bit of empty waffle!

 

The proposition that was put forward is that if ever more people want to move to a particular place, they should be free to do so.

 

The simple fact is that if we give somebody complete freedom to do whatever they wish to do, and they exercise that freedom unfettered, they will inevitably trample upon somebody elses freedoms.

 

Well it seems to me that you are saying that those who decide to exercise their freedom to live in London on a boat deserve to be trampled upon by BW. In the end its all about money, people trying to live on a budget in a very expensive place, and BW trying to enforce rules that are pretty stupid. Lets face it, BW could have gone quite a bit of distance to sort this in the past, not just in London, but everywhere. I remember in the late 1970's BWB getting tough with liveaboards at Christleton near Chester, and in the early 1980's BWB getting tough with boaters at Islington, these were shockwaves throughout the boating community, events that happened long before many of you even began canals, and long before any of you began using CWF.

 

I do not for once deem that people can moor up anywhere for unlimited periods because it of course takes space from those who might like to moor there for a day or two on what should be an enjoyable and unfettered holiday - and it can cause major problems in terms of people wishing to share useful space. But again I do not like the idea that boaters should be trampled upon just because there is a nimby ideology amongst Islington's residents or grumblings from the rich shiney boat crowd.

 

It seems to me that some of you seem to be saying BW has a right to do this and a right to do that, but you have to remember that BW has practically ruined the waterways in many aspects and that they should ride roughshod over the cc'ers is somewhat not acceptable. The fact that we have the grossly over rated 2012 events shows that BW has dollar signs rolling before its eyes, is again some incontrovertable extension of its failed business barges ideal, waterside pubs, marinas, even its portfolio of mass destruction of waterside proerties for replacement by massively unsensitive and un-traditional developments.

 

BW is trying to push onto the IWA its administration responsibilities in the claim that it (BW)cannot adminster the expected influx of boats coming into London. Of course it can, it just needs to sit down and think differently instead of acting belligerently and making all kinds of threats and acting like, well may I say, some sort of Libyan despot facing their last days in power.

[ymu]

Ok I have re read them again

If you move the whole length one way and spend 14 days in each neighbourhood and there are six of them thats 14 x6=84 you turn round because of a terminus and do the reverse journey 14x6=84 total 168 days you are then at the other end of the river and if it has no terminus you cannot then go back into the neighbour hood because you have just come from there or you will incur charges is that right.So on a trip there and back you in effect stay in each neighbourhood 28 days.Sorry to be a bit thick but I am sure the penny will drop eventually. If you have to be in a differant neighbourhood every 14 days how can you spend not more than 61 days in each neighbourhood.

You really need to actually read the documents you're commenting on. The terminus issue is covered, and it's handled in exactly the same way as the standard CCing guidelines handle it. It is a bit silly when you have so many terminuses in only 6 neighbourhoods though - there's three neighbourhoods which are terminuses, so the other three will have be used twice in six weeks anyway.

 

The bit of your post I've bolded is where it becomes obvious that BW really hasn't thought it through. The maximum annual limit for each zone should be an even multiple of 7, or they are actually forcing people to move on in less than 14 days at least once in five of the zones in order to keep their annual totals clean for every neighbourhood. It would work fine if they made it 70 days though. Maximum of 10 weeks per year in each neighbourhood.

 

I still don't see the point of having 6 zones when there are at least 30 according to the current CC guidelines. Looks like pure vindictiveness to make people move the whole length every 2-3 months - especially when this can only make things more congested for visitors. It makes travel costs for the liveaboards very expensive when even quarterly season tickets are useless.

Edited February 24, 2011 by ymu

[ymu]

Well it seems to me that you are saying that those who decide to exercise their freedom to live in London on a boat deserve to be trampled upon by BW. In the end its all about money, people trying to live on a budget in a very expensive place, and BW trying to enforce rules that are pretty stupid. Lets face it, BW could have gone quite a bit of distance to sort this in the past, not just in London, but everywhere. I remember in the late 1970's BWB getting tough with liveaboards at Christleton near Chester, and in the early 1980's BWB getting tough with boaters at Islington, these were shockwaves throughout the boating community, events that happened long before many of you even began canals, and long before any of you began using CWF.

 

I do not for once deem that people can moor up anywhere for unlimited periods because it of course takes space from those who might like to moor there for a day or two on what should be an enjoyable and unfettered holiday - and it can cause major problems in terms of people wishing to share useful space. But again I do not like the idea that boaters should be trampled upon just because there is a nimby ideology amongst Islington's residents or grumblings from the rich shiney boat crowd.

 

It seems to me that some of you seem to be saying BW has a right to do this and a right to do that, but you have to remember that BW has practically ruined the waterways in many aspects and that they should ride roughshod over the cc'ers is somewhat not acceptable. The fact that we have the grossly over rated 2012 events shows that BW has dollar signs rolling before its eyes, is again some incontrovertable extension of its failed business barges ideal, waterside pubs, marinas, even its portfolio of mass destruction of waterside proerties for replacement by massively unsensitive and un-traditional developments.

 

BW is trying to push onto the IWA its administration responsibilities in the claim that it (BW)cannot adminster the expected influx of boats coming into London. Of course it can, it just needs to sit down and think differently instead of acting belligerently and making all kinds of threats and acting like, well may I say, some sort of Libyan despot facing their last days in power.

IIRC from the parliamentary debate on the 1995 Act, they had to make provision for existing liveaboards for whom no mooring was available. It's not at all clear that they can just make people homeless by changing the rules to make their existing way of life impossible.

[romarni123]

You really need to actually read the documents you're commenting on. The terminus issue is covered, and it's handled in exactly the same way as the standard CCing guidelines handle it. It is a bit silly when you have so many terminuses in only 6 neighbourhoods though - there's three neighbourhoods which are terminuses, so the other three will have be used twice in six weeks anyway.

 

The bit of your post I've bolded is where it becomes obvious that BW really hasn't thought it through. The maximum annual limit for each zone should be an even multiple of 7, or they are actually forcing people to move on in less than 14 days at least once in five of the zones in order to keep their annual totals clean for every neighbourhood. It would work fine if they made it 70 days though. Maximum of 10 weeks per year in each neighbourhood.

 

I still don't see the point of having 6 zones when there are at least 30 according to the current CC guidelines. Looks like pure vindictiveness to make people move the whole length every 2-3 months - especially when this can only make things more congested for visitors. It makes travel costs for the liveaboards very expensive when even quarterly season tickets are useless.

I found the map so it now is a lot clearer The River is only about 40 odd miles long so to do that in three months one way is not in my mind too much of a problem even to do it both ways covering about 80 miles I have to say I dont have a problem with.

[Lady Muck]

My main problem with it is how BW will manage it without cocking it up - they're already pretty accurate at recording boats but the ticketing and enforcement tends to be random at best.

[romarni123]

My main problem with it is how BW will manage it without cocking it up - they're already pretty accurate at recording boats but the ticketing and enforcement tends to be random at best.

Thats not just a problem where you are. In Tamworth there are boats that have been outside the BW office at Fazely some for three years on the visitor moorings The one guy tried to tell me he was residential lol BW does nothing about them yet others are ticketed if they stay over by one day.

[Jim Batty]

 

By the Summer BW will create 6 new "Neighborhoods" in the region covering the above waterways. Large chunks will be 7 day moorings and overstays will have Mooring Charges payable - £20 in advance, or £40 if invoiced afterwards. The entire stretch from the Limehouse/Ducketts to A406 North Circular is one neighborhood. ... Discuss ...

 

Thought I'd go back to the OP. I'm reacting to something I don't think has been brought up yet: £20 in advance, or £40 if invoiced afterwards.

 

We've paid a few times to moor in various places - usually for a night or two. Sometimes you pay a private land owner who comes round, sometimes a local council warden (Windsor, Wallingford), sometimes via a 'parking ticket' machine (Henley), sometimes a marina operator (Newbury, Denham), sometimes a lockkeeper (misc. Thames locks). The price for a night's mooring in ALL of these places has ranged from £4 - £10 per night. The places that cost a tenner have been marinas and included electric and water. Henley cost £9/night, but if you buy a weekly ticket there is a substantial savings. Windsor wins the value-for-money award with £4/night.

 

So, when I hear BW wanting to charge £20/night (let alone £40/night via invoice) this just seems completely out of line with standard locally established mooring fees - at least across a substantial swathe of the SE waterways. It feels like gouging. (It feels like a fine, despite what has been outlined in the proposal).

 

You know, I'd be quite happy to pay, say, £5/night to stay a few extra days over the 14-day limit if I thought it would be a nice experience, or there was something special I wanted to do at the site, or even if I needed the extra time to get the engine tuned or wait for a fridge to be delivered, or whatever.

 

And if BW was playing fair, I'd be happy to have these extra £5 nights payment tallied and invoiced on an annual basis (separate from the licence fee). I'd guess there are others out there who would feel the same. (Covers head to ward off incoming schrapnel).

 

I think the key thing here is fairness - fair prices for fair services and reasonably looked after moorings. Like all the other places one can pay to moor.

 

In the proposal it is claimed that the £20/£40 nightly fee is what is required to recoup expenses. But as all other mooring providers offer similar and superior moorings for at least half this fee, and often for a quarter of this fee, surely there is a certain amount of mismanagement taking place - or mis-focusing of resources. I suspect, but cannot be certain, that much of this mis-focus is on 'policing' an overly complex system. And because it is an over-priced system (and suddenly imposed), it also becomes an antagonistic system - which self-perpetuates the requirement for expensive 'policing' and overly expensive nightly moorings.

 

I suggest that if BW gave up this idea of super-neighbourhoods (ridiculous in a city that is internationally distinguished from other cities in being essentially a collection of 'villages' and localities), treated boaters as adults (including those 'bending' the rules), and charged a fair fee for stays over 14 days, they might actually collect a greater income and retain the sympathy of a greater majority of boaters.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Jim Batty

[DeanS]

Is it true that they plan to use the vehicle licence plate system, for the canals, by tagging each boat's licence, and having detection units on bridges? Apparently it will automatically bill any user who hasnt moved far enough.

 

 

 

ok. Im just joking.

[ymu]

I found the map so it now is a lot clearer The River is only about 40 odd miles long so to do that in three months one way is not in my mind too much of a problem even to do it both ways covering about 80 miles I have to say I dont have a problem with.

It's not about whether it's asking too much - it's about whether it's necessary or reasonable to enforce this.

 

It's not necessary because it makes no difference to BW how fast the boats move along the rivers, as long as they do move an appropriate distance every two weeks. The CC guidelines define a 'place' in an urban area as a district of the town. In London, you're in a new district every mile or two. They could easily define 30 odd 'places' along that route simply by naming them.

 

It's not reasonable because it will make life harder for boaters who commute to work. It puts them out of range of season tickets, which adds enormously to transport costs in an area where transport is already expensive.

 

It's also actively counter-productive. Boaters will be covering the length of the river 4-5 times a year instead of just once, making it more congested for visiting traffic but not freeing up any extra mooring spaces for them.

 

I do think there's a problem they need to tackle. I think they're going about it in an unnecessarily vindictive way, which may cause them serious trouble should this go to court.

[romarni123]

Is it true that they plan to use the vehicle licence plate system, for the canals, by tagging each boat's licence, and having detection units on bridges? Apparently it will automatically bill any user who hasnt moved far enough.

 

 

 

ok. Im just joking.

Oh no you might have given them another idea now

[Lady Muck]

I suggest that if BW gave up this idea of super-neighbourhoods (ridiculous in a city that is internationally distinguished from other cities in being essentially a collection of 'villages' and localities), treated boaters as adults (including those 'bending' the rules), and charged a fair fee for stays over 14 days, they might actually collect a greater income and retain the sympathy of a greater majority of boaters.

 

Yes. Giving us somewhere to empty the loo would be nice, at the moment there is a Stortage!

 

I note that elsewhere on t'internet a marina owner (or manager, he wasn't specific) is complaining how it is costing him 2-3 times more in cleaning and refuse collecting fees since BW closed the sanitary stations/rubbish emptying points. This is effectively pitching boatyards and cc boaters against each other. It's unfair on both parties. If you ring BW and ask where you can take your refuse they will tell you to go to the boatyard. Truth be known you may or may not be welcome there and I can't say I'm surprised. Should the boatyards have to pay for BW cuts in this way? I don't think so.