Jump to content

Moorings Management Proposals


matty40s

Featured Posts

because for a long time (15-25 years) BW has not only, not enforced anything, but positively encouraged boaters to live within a loose set of guidelines such as move two locks, go up the stort for a while, etc. This has allowed communities to develop, people to develop lifestyles that fit the BW regime of non-management(admitted by S.Ash) and general relaxed atmosphere.

 

BW at last have a new Patrol team, however, seem to think that instead of clamping down and getting people to stick to the rules.....

 

LETS CREATE A NEW SET....

 

I think Sally was draughted in tonight as BW realised that there was a slightly bigger reaction to their sneaked in "proposals" than they thought there would be. Damian didn't make tea, however, was an adequate note taker.

 

Sally has obviously been reading this thread and Dave's parking analogies, and was very good at quoting examples, however, it all fell down when she stated that after vacating a 14 day mooring, we should not be allowed to return for 30 minutes, like her local car park states. :cheers: This was agreed to unanimously by all boaters present.

 

It was obvious from some of the answers BWSally came out with, that the lack of facilities in some of the neighborhoods, the severe overcrowding that would occur in some of the neighborhoods, and the lack of water to cruise once all the boats start the merry go round just hasn't been even considered by BW in these proposals. How you can have 2 Elsan disposal points in 7 neighborhoods defies logic, never mind the face mask.

 

Andy ,from the Northern L&S boaters group made a very clear statement of rejection of the proposals, however, included a promise of report and recommendations for BW to consider.

The Southern section(which were quite well represented as well tonight, will no doubt do similar tommorow.

 

 

BW did make it clear that the proposals for the size and number of neighborhoods was up for discussion, along with the mooring fees/overstay charges, and the size of the 7 day zones, or indeed the necessity for a 7 day zone.

 

This will run and run...........

 

The Adnams in the Red lion was spot on

 

oh, last bit I missed.

 

Apparently, although a new Act of Parliament is passed, unless a previous Act is repealed, it still stands.........so.....

 

The legal authority to charge for moorings ...........(even though the Parliamentary committee which passed the 1995 Act didn't allow it) comes from the 1962 Act......allowing for a "charge for moorings with facilities". Sally stated that facilities were the fact that you had a towpath to stick your pins in.

 

I would love to see that one go to court.

:P

 

Thanks for the reports from tonights meetings....

If anyone would like a lift to Springfield, I am leaving Hackney Wick around 5.30...07722454777....Arun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was obvious from some of the answers BWSally came out with, that the lack of facilities in some of the neighborhoods, the severe overcrowding that would occur in some of the neighborhoods, and the lack of water to cruise once all the boats start the merry go round just hasn't been even considered by BW in these proposals. How you can have 2 Elsan disposal points in 7 neighborhoods defies logic, never mind the face mask.

 

They are really going to have to sort this one out, there is a very peed off marina owner posting on one of the Yahoo groups at the moment, he's really not happy at the extra money he is having to pay to have rubbish disposed/toilets cleaned because of the increased use, due to BW services being taken out of action. It's costing him 2-3 times as much.

 

As for the water, the Lee and Stort is as quiet as they come, there isn't much boat movement at all, you're lucky if you see one on the move a day, this time of year.

 

I moor in a really long pound, which happens to have the only free services for a few miles. It takes very little 'up through the lock and back again' for the pound to dewater enough for my boat to run hard aground. As the pound is longer than the next two or three, it means Bw workers going up and letting water down through maybe three sets of gates? A lot of messing about, anyway.

Edited by Lady Muck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow what a meeting that was in Stanstead Abbots between BW and boaters..!

 

Here are just a few observations from the first consultation meeting, for the benefit of those who were not there:

 

The village hall was filled to the brim and consisted almost entirely of boaters. There was a show of hands indicating that about half were continuous cruisers, and the other half were other boaters. Only a couple of anglers and others had found the way.

 

BW started by trying to summarize the background for the proposals, and their content. Sally Ash was there, doing most of the talking, and she went on to comment on a few of the well-known objections to the proposals.

 

The declaration from the Lea and Stort Boaters' group was then presented. Essentially this was a complete rejection of the proposals but also an invitation to sit down and work out the best way forward.

 

There was some debate about the consultation process itself, and Sally Ash soon agreed that the period will have to be extended.

 

She also said that while certain details are up for discussion (e.g. the number and size of neighbourhoods), other parts of the proposals are not – namely, some of the principles at the heart of it.

 

There was not so much focus on the actual contents of the proposals, although some arguments arose and I believe most of the boaters' arguments were raised at one time or other.

 

Generally the meeting was rather rowdy, and there was clear hostility from the room towards the BW panel from the start.

 

There seemed to be not much difference in view between continuous cruisers and other boaters present.

 

Towards the end, the meeting was calmer and both sides seemed to warm to the idea of sitting down together and working something out. The BW panel insisted that they need to work with organised bodies, not individuals.

 

Personally I noticed some rather surprising comments from Sally Ash which might suggest that the continuous cruising lifestyle is not entirely understood or embraced. Maybe these were just Freudian slips, but I noticed her saying that “we cannot have more and more continuous cruisers coming” and in another context “Ideally we would like to give you all permanent moorings”.

 

No doubt others will add more detail, these were just some bits that I picked up.

 

I suppose the meeting on Wednesday will have a similar format, in other words, there will be plenty of time to talk.

 

Sven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:smiley_offtopic: but I will answer your question.

 

I think that an organisation that claims 'National' status should be more than just a club, representing a minority of boaters.

 

I believe it is wrongly claiming to represent all boaters and that its name is inappropriate, considering the tiny proportion of boat owners who are even aware of what it does (especially as, when one asks what it does you are told you have to join, to find out).

 

I mean it no harm but I reserve the right to criticise it, whenever I like.

 

If an organisation actually comes along that does represent the interests of all boaters, at a national level, they will find the correct name already taken, by a small club.

 

Thank you. I now know where you are coming from. I don't agree with you.

 

Tone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Meeting was poorly run by a Madge Bailey (a BW "consultant") some got to ask 3 or 4 questions/speeches others none.

 

 

Madge Bailey is from Madge Bailey Associates. She is ex BW and now has her own business.

 

It is MBA who have been advising BW on its Olympics mooring strategy.

 

How is it that BW, who can't find enough money to maintain the waterways (about £50m underspend this year)can find the money to pay ex staff to provide a consultancy service for them.

 

And how is it that BW who are making 60 office staff and up to 100 bankside staff redundant are employing ex-staff.

 

Madge Baily Associates Website

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madge Bailey is from Madge Bailey Associates. She is ex BW and now has her own business.

 

It is MBA who have been advising BW on its Olympics mooring strategy.

 

How is it that BW, who can't find enough money to maintain the waterways (about £50m underspend this year)can find the money to pay ex staff to provide a consultancy service for them.

 

And how is it that BW who are making 60 office staff and up to 100 bankside staff redundant are employing ex-staff.

 

Madge Baily Associates Website

Thanks for that

It was a rowdy meeting though it calmed down later, I dont think Sally Ash was up for chairing it and really she shouldnt be expected to being one of the protagonists, it should have been someone independent though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where on earth did the Upper Lea and Stort Boaters Assoc. come from? I know quite a few liveaboard boaters on the upper Lea and none of them have heard of it or been informed of its existance. How did they come into existence and when, and how did they go about notifying people that they were recruiting members? Are livaboards with permanent moorings able to join or is it just towpath dwellers?

 

BTW I thought Madge Bailey did a good job under very difficult and hostile conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madge Bailey is from Madge Bailey Associates. She is ex BW and now has her own business.

 

It is MBA who have been advising BW on its Olympics mooring strategy.

 

How is it that BW, who can't find enough money to maintain the waterways (about £50m underspend this year)can find the money to pay ex staff to provide a consultancy service for them.

 

And how is it that BW who are making 60 office staff and up to 100 bankside staff redundant are employing ex-staff.

 

Madge Baily Associates Website

 

 

This thought did occur to me too last night. I wonder how much Madge charged BW for 3 hours of "chairing" a meeting...probably a daily rate of a couple of hundred pounds, no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an interesting meeting last night, I must say.

 

Firstly, the whole room, continuous cruisers and moorers agreed that the 14 day rule should be enforced, effectiveness of it measured, before any new strategies were proposed and implemented.

 

After this though, what came out of the meeting was the assumption, that the rivers and canals are becoming too congested, and a "signal to the market" (Sally Ash) must be given in order to stop more people moving onto the waterways as continuous cruisers.

 

BW want to make conditions so harsh and hostile on the rivers and canals that it becomes unattractive to people thinking about buying boats to live on.

 

We asked them in reply to this, why not refuse to license new boats? They admitted they cannot refuse to license a boat if all safety and insurance conditions are satisfied. So they have ruled out any chance of change in legislative powers. It was suggested that perhaps they go back to their bosses (DEFRA) and ask for more powers in order to do their job. Apparently this is highly unlikely, and that these new proposals are what their legal advice had told them to start doing.

 

I would first question this idea of congestion. I'm currently on the lower Lea, south of Springfield, near to where tonight's meeting will be held. There are just 4 boats here...

 

On Sunday, usually a time when boats move around, I made a mental note of how many went up and down that day. Just 5 boats went past, 2 of which were from boating groups.

 

I'm not saying there isn't congestion, but clearly there is scope for more boats to exist. If a few more taps could be positioned (how much does it cost to put a tap in?), that would go some way to tempting people out of certain "congested" areas.

 

If the issue of congestion is real however, all parties need to have a long hard think and come up with some idea, policy, on how to limit more boats coming onto the canals and rivers...or perhaps more accurately into certain areas (licenses for certain areas? briefly suggested last night). Otherwise, it will be BW's idea that will win: make the canals and rivers a hostile place, so that no one will want/be able to live on them.

 

So, does anyone have any good ideas on how this limitation of new boats could be done?

 

And possibly, any realistic transitional steps to this?

 

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thought did occur to me too last night. I wonder how much Madge charged BW for 3 hours of "chairing" a meeting...probably a daily rate of a couple of hundred pounds, no doubt.

 

I wasn't there, but the role of a chairperson is to make sure that all sides of a debate get a fair hearing. From the above reports that doesn't seem to have happened.

 

Tone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BW want to make conditions so harsh and hostile on the rivers and canals that it becomes unattractive to people thinking about buying boats to live on.

BW don't want anymore liveaboards without moorings on the Lee. They've said this in several meetings.

 

We asked them in reply to this, why not refuse to license new boats? They admitted they cannot refuse to license

This is true, to change this, they'd need a new act of parliament, because it is written in law.

 

I'm not saying there isn't congestion, but clearly there is scope for more boats to exist. If a few more taps could be positioned (how much does it cost to put a tap in?), that would go some way to tempting people out of certain "congested" areas.

 

I really don't think we have a cats chance in hell of convincing BW of the scope for more boats to exist. Why? there are too many other user groups on the River Lee that complain to BW.

 

And BW have gone as far as admitting that this is why they have closed some services, to move certain mooring squats on. So, the exact opposite to what you are suggesting they do. They don't want to do any 'tempting', they want to put people off becoming liveaboards.

 

Make the canals and rivers a hostile place, so that no one will want/be able to live on them

 

Well yes this is what they want to do. The thing is, BW never wanted to be a provider of homes. But that's what has happened, by accident and not design. I think it's better that you concentrate on the rights of the existing boaters here and of course BW does have a responsibility towards these boaters, whatever they might think in private.

 

Just My POV.....

Edited by Lady Muck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the User group meetings, 2008 in Cheshunt,

 

Robin Evans said, ''We don’t want the waterways clogged up people requiring cheap accommodation and

therefore don’t want to encourage a ‘cheap’ form of boating.''

 

Source link Clicky

 

This is what you have to work with......

 

Funnily enough, they stopped publishing the meeting minutes online about a year ago, I wonder why?

Edited by Lady Muck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't there, but the role of a chairperson is to make sure that all sides of a debate get a fair hearing. From the above reports that doesn't seem to have happened.

 

Tone

 

I thought that she tried hard to ensure that all sides got a fair hearing. Unfortunatly, most of the time she was up against a shouting competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that she tried hard to ensure that all sides got a fair hearing. Unfortunatly, most of the time she was up against a shouting competition.

 

 

i think that MOST of the time, people managed to put their points across quite eloquently and passionately, only occasionally did the shouting take over. BW's investment in it's microphone system is on a similar level to it's facilities provision.

It was almost laughable when Sally had to ask Madge how many Admin staff worked behind the scenes at BW and they spent two minutes reeling off various manager level people together.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going to the meeting tonight, Matty?

 

Unfortunately not m'Lady, I will not get back until late and back in early tommorow. if I see the white flag flying over Rallentando tonight, I will know it didn't go too well. I will be catching up tommorow afternoon, and hopefully seeing a bit of daylight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thought did occur to me too last night. I wonder how much Madge charged BW for 3 hours of "chairing" a meeting...probably a daily rate of a couple of hundred pounds, no doubt.

 

Well you could ask under the FoI act about for all amounts paid to Madge Baily Associates since January 2010 together with a copy of any reports produced by them and correspondence with BW.

 

If you do this use whatdotheyknow.com to make the request and ask BW to reply via whatdotheyknow.com.

 

Here is the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sally has obviously been reading this thread and Dave's parking analogies, and was very good at quoting examples, however, it all fell down when she stated that after vacating a 14 day mooring, we should not be allowed to return for 30 minutes, like her local car park states. :cheers: This was agreed to unanimously by all boaters present.

 

oh, last bit I missed.

 

Apparently, although a new Act of Parliament is passed, unless a previous Act is repealed, it still stands.........so.....

 

The legal authority to charge for moorings ...........(even though the Parliamentary committee which passed the 1995 Act didn't allow it) comes from the 1962 Act......allowing for a "charge for moorings with facilities". Sally stated that facilities were the fact that you had a towpath to stick your pins in.

 

I would love to see that one go to court.

:P

 

Where it would be found to be true.

 

The 1962 Act uses the word "service", but it goes on to define "service" to give it a very broad meaning.

 

Whilst a court can interpret an Act where it needs to, it cannot interpret something in a manner that runs contrary to what the Act says, and as such, allowing a boater to moor to a bank IS a service.

 

Oh, and if Sally Ash needs any assistance, I'm available for the right money.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whilst a court can interpret an Act where it needs to, it cannot interpret something in a manner that runs contrary to what the Act says, and as such, allowing a boater to moor to a bank IS a service.

 

In your opinion...but, as it is also your opinion that the licence gives neither the right to move, or stay still, I think there is a serious flaw in your reasoning.

 

If a mooring ring, or bollard, is present then the Board can be seen to have provided a service. If no mooring facilities are offered, whatsoever, requiring a boater to use his own stakes, to stay still, then that 'service' is surely included in the 'right to exist on the water' charge, ie., the licence.

 

To charge twice, for the boater to use his own equipment, to stay in one place, is surely unreasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your opinion...but, as it is also your opinion that the licence gives neither the right to move, or stay still, I think there is a serious flaw in your reasoning.

 

If a mooring ring, or bollard, is present then the Board can be seen to have provided a service. If no mooring facilities are offered, whatsoever, requiring a boater to use his own stakes, to stay still, then that 'service' is surely included in the 'right to exist on the water' charge, ie., the licence.

 

To charge twice, for the boater to use his own equipment, to stay in one place, is surely unreasonable.

 

Your argument supposes that the licence fee includes payment for mooring, and that any additional charge would be "paying twice for the same thing".

 

I contend that the licence is just that; a licence fee, which does not include any payment for services.

 

As such, BW are free to charge for any "USE" of the system at their discretion (or to choose not to charge).

 

It is worth noting that whilst mooring charges and restrictions rely upon s43 TA 1962, Licence Fees are levied under other legislative provisions, so a licence fee cannot be a charge under s43.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument supposes that the licence fee includes payment for mooring, and that any additional charge would be "paying twice for the same thing".

 

I contend that the licence is just that; a licence fee, which does not include any payment for services.

 

That would do away with Licence T&Cs, Guidelines and anything else describing how you can use your boat, once you have a licence.

 

You seem to use 'mooring' as some device that is provided, by the board. It is not, it is merely a means to anchor your boat in one place and, if that anchorage uses no facilities, provided by BW, then it is not an additional service, beyond your boat existing in the water, covered by the licence fee.

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.