Moorings Management Proposals

[romarni123]

I had to look up the word pedant, the definition being: 'One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules' or if you prefer 'a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning' I assume you are refering to me as I have been looking a lot of stuff up. All I am doing is trying to understand the proposals and make sure they are fair to everyone, you are correct when you say that 'ccers dont have a mooring they have a space to stay for 14 days then they should move on', I am trying to establish what is an acceptable distance to move on after the 14 days, ie what is the acceptable size of a 'place'. I definately agree that the 61 day limit is ridiculous, if they extended that then all would be well in the world for me :0) If they dont, I will have to pay and I will because I can but there are people in this world not as fortunate as me who have fell into the false sense of security that BW have created over the years who are beside themselves with worry over these proposals, and if I can help them in any way. I will.

No the pedant I was refering to was me ( the bit about the mooring and moving on) They will never be fair to everyone they may seem fair on the Lee/Stort but they are not fair on any other canal users on other waterways who dont have the small amount of waterway to travel up and down without getting notices from BW. Why do you think 61 days is ridiculous thats 2 months you can stay in the 6.75 mile neighbourhood that mooring time does not apply anywhere else.

[Ronni]

No the pedant I was refering to was me ( the bit about the mooring and moving on) They will never be fair to everyone they may seem fair on the Lee/Stort but they are not fair on any other canal users on other waterways who dont have the small amount of waterway to travel up and down without getting notices from BW. Why do you think 61 days is ridiculous thats 2 months you can stay in the 6.75 mile neighbourhood that mooring time does not apply anywhere else.

I dont like the 61 day thing because it will allow BW to dictate a limit you can stay in any one 'neighborhood' in a 12 month period. I would prefer them to define the size of place, so it was clear to continuous cruisers how far they had to travel every 2 weeks. Also I think they need to clear up 'continuous journey'. From home to sainsbury's is 1 continuous journey, as is from home to tenerife. If you continuosly cruise the whole of the waterways, lets face it, it isnt going to take you a lifetime, so you are bound to go over the same ground more than once.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ronni

[romarni123]

I dont like the 61 day thing because it will allow BW to dictate a limit you can stay in any one 'neighborhood' in a 12 month period. I would prefer them to define the size of place, so it was clear to continuous cruisers how far they had to travel every 2 weeks.

I would love the 61 day limit, as it is I have to move every 14 days where we are. You wont get BW to define place although i think they have loose definitions on their ccer licence pages.That will be the crux of these proposals.on the information pages they said there are 450 ccers on that River, that is a lot of boats in one small place and to try to fit them all in the spaces avaliiabe.You will all end up argueing with each other over who can and wants to moor in a place

Edited February 22, 2011 by romarni123

[Ronni]

 

The whole scheme should be thrown out. If it isn't, and BW then claims that boaters themselves accepted it because few objected, a very dangerous precedent would be set.

 

Tone

 

This is the reason I am doing as much as I can to get as many people to send their feedback in, and I also agree it would be a dangerous precedent, which is why I am going on about it so much. I have even sought legal advise regarding it. I am not against the defining of the word place, I think it would solve a lot of problems, as long as it is worked out in a fair and non biased way.

[romarni123]

I dont like the 61 day thing because it will allow BW to dictate a limit you can stay in any one 'neighborhood' in a 12 month period. I would prefer them to define the size of place, so it was clear to continuous cruisers how far they had to travel every 2 weeks. Also I think they need to clear up 'continuous journey'. From home to sainsbury's is 1 continuous journey, as is from home to tenerife. If you continuosly cruise the whole of the waterways, lets face it, it isnt going to take you a lifetime, so you are bound to go over the same ground more than once.

Yes but the journey on your part of the network means going back and forth over the same ground all the time and going nowhere else

[Ronni]

I would love the 61 day limit, as it is I have to move every 14 days where we are. You wont get BW to define place although i think they have loose definitions on their ccer licence pages.That will be the crux of these proposals.on the information pages they said there are 450 ccers on that River, that is a lot of boats in one small place and to try to fit them all in the spaces avaliiabe.You will all end up argueing with each other over who can and wants to moor in a place

Whats it like where you are then?

 

Yes but the journey on your part of the network means going back and forth over the same ground all the time and going nowhere else

That is true, I cant argue with that. We are planning to venture forth in the spring, we havnt been able to previously, but family circumstances have changed and we are free to roam where we want to now. So you never know, I might make it off the Lee this year anyway.

[romarni123]

This is the reason I am doing as much as I can to get as many people to send their feedback in, and I also agree it would be a dangerous precedent, which is why I am going on about it so much. I have even sought legal advise regarding it. I am not against the defining of the word place, I think it would solve a lot of problems, as long as it is worked out in a fair and non biased way.

Ronni it cant be non biased or fair as much as it would be better for everyone if there were set regs that everyone had to follow then there could be no opinions only facts and law.A lot of the people where you are will know that under the terms of their licence they should not be going up and down the same river and never going away from the river to the other BW waterways in a progresive journey around the system.I would be very careful taking up the cause with BW if you have to pay, as others have said if it could be done the president would have been set by now and boaters would have clear guidelines in law as to the rules and regs.But as BW also let you buy a licence to go up and down the river without going anywhere else then they should be held responsible for allowing the situation to become what it has

 

Whats it like where you are then?

Shite I am in a marina, I knew I could not cc this year and I was not prepared to have the hassle with BW (I have cc for 6 years).

That is true, I cant argue with that. We are planning to venture forth in the spring, we havnt been able to previously, but family circumstances have changed and we are free to roam where we want to now. So you never know, I might make it off the Lee this year anyway.

oops Edited February 22, 2011 by romarni123

[Ronni]

Ronni it cant be non biased or fair as much as it would be better for everyone if there were set regs that everyone had to follow then there could be no opinions only facts and law.A lot of the people where you are will know that under the terms of their licence they should not be going up and down the same river and never going away from the river to the other BW waterways in a progresive journey around the system.I would be very careful taking up the cause with BW if you have to pay, as others have said if it could be done the president would have been set by now and boaters would have clear guidelines in law as to the rules and regs.But as BW also let you buy a licence to go up and down the river without going anywhere else then they should be held responsible for allowing the situation to become what it has

You are right in what you say, and I take onboard your comments, and have learned so much in the last couple of days I think my head might explode in the night. I am getting tired and the brain is slowwing down, so I think I will sleep on it and re read it all tomorrow. Cheers for the chat though. :0)

[romarni123]

You are right in what you say, and I take onboard your comments, and have learned so much in the last couple of days I think my head might explode in the night. I am getting tired and the brain is slowwing down, so I think I will sleep on it and re read it all tomorrow. Cheers for the chat though. :0)

Thats ok I keep having blonde moments

keep well

[Ronni]

Thats ok I keep having blonde moments

keep well

I have to admit, I thought you were having a go at me at the start of our conversation, but I have to admit you are making a lot of sense and have highlighted things I hadnt thought of so thank you for that.

Night

xxx

[canaldrifter]

This is the reason I am doing as much as I can to get as many people to send their feedback in, and I also agree it would be a dangerous precedent, which is why I am going on about it so much. I have even sought legal advise regarding it. I am not against the defining of the word place, I think it would solve a lot of problems, as long as it is worked out in a fair and non biased way.

 

Good on ya Ronni! At least you're doing something, and not just sitting back and bleating like a few on 'ere!

 

Tone

[carlt]

Good on ya Ronni! At least you're doing something, and not just sitting back and bleating like a few on 'ere!

 

Sorry Tone, don't quite get that.

 

If people didn't actually discuss (bleat about??) stuff, what would be the point of having a discussion (bleating??) forum?

[Lesd]

Les,

 

It's possible I have not been entirely accurate, on reflection, as a lot of the sites where moorings are either not letting, or go at the 75% reserve may in fact not be actually in "Herts".

 

Certainly sites like Cowley and Springwell have failed to let at all, (although curiously a Springwell one then went well over the odds).

 

Sites that include Cowley, Springwell, Batchworth, Marsworth, Leighton Buzzard etc are often going unchallenged at their 75% reserve, so there is a very good chance that even if someone competes, they may well go at a lot less than the guide price. I have seen some go at literally a fiver over reserve, indicating that whilst some people are prepared to bid reserve, they are not prepared to pay even a few quid more.

 

It's a strange sport!

 

p.s.

 

As recently as 2 weeks ago a full 21 metre mooring at Cowley North which would allow a full width wide-beam failed to let at it's £1,460 reserve price. It may not be everybody's taste, but a full length mooring at under £1,500 in that area really is very cheap.

 

A full length at Marsworth (limited to 7 feet) recently only made its £1,685 reserve. Compare that to a year or two ago when people were prepared to pay twice that.

 

Hi Alan,

Thanks or clarifying that, I thought I'd missed something. I agee the prices seem to be falling back from the crazy days of a year or to ago. I'm pretty sue that if BW had left the old mooring scheme in place all of these moorings would probably be full now and they'd be collecting the revenue.

Im actually having an exchange with someone at BW about the width restriction at Marsworth as we may have bid of the mooring advertised, but they're still saying 6'10 (?) is the max despite much larger boats alreay being on that mooring and others close by. More wasted revenue.

 

Although we've traeled past that Cowely North site plenty of times we've never moored there so Im not sure what its like. I know its towpath side with no facilities.

Les

Edited February 22, 2011 by Lesd

[Jparry]

Hi Alan,

Thanks or clarifying that, I thought I'd missed something. I agee the prices seem to be falling back from the crazy days of a year or to ago. I'm pretty sue that if BW had left the old mooring scheme in place all of these moorings would probably be full now and they'd be collecting the revenue.

Im actually having an exchange with someone at BW about the width restriction at Marsworth as we may have bid of the mooring advertised, but they're still saying 6'10 (?) is the max despite much larger boats alreay being on that mooring and others close by. More wasted revenue.

 

Although we've traeled past that Cowely North site plenty of times we've never moored there so Im not sure what its like. I know its towpath side with no facilities.

Les

I went to look at that sight generally looked liked you would be moored between 2 rubbish tips so decided against it.Joe

[marmaduke]

Does anyone have experience of canals in other countries? What rules are enforced in France, for example?

[Jim Batty]

Dont quote me on this, but there are going to be 14 day moorings, its only the points on the map that are 7. I have asked for a more detailed map of the neighborhoods to be emailed to me before the meeting so If i do get it I will post it on here for all to see.

 

This is what I was wondering about. Is the idea to turn all 14-day official mooring sites in these areas to 7-day official mooring sites? I always find these annoying if I want to spend another week there. But it has been workable because there are usually a range of other places in between the official mooring sites where the 14-day rule holds.

 

Is this not the case with the Lee/Lea? Or do we suspect that what is trying to be introduced here is a blanket 7-day mooring restriction ANYWHERE on the Lee, Stort, etc?

[Neil TNC]

Does anyone have experience of canals in other countries? What rules are enforced in France, for example?

 

Waterways Ireland are getting slightly miffed about the liveaboards that have been in the same spot on the Grand Canal for the past decade....but that is far as they have gone, so far. We expect they are learning from the divide and conquer tactics of BW.

[Albion]

Does anyone have experience of canals in other countries? What rules are enforced in France, for example?

 

There isn't the same situation in France because there aren't so many boats with live-aboards (there aren't so many boats, full stop). Those that do live aboard tend to do so in ports, especially for winter, because they have access to electricity, water and nearby facilities..........but, you pay by the metre of length and for the electricity by the kWh (or a fixed, quite high, general charge). Some of the most picturesque canals shut down from early November to mid-March so you do have to be booked/established in a port by then to get the facilities.

During the season your movements are monitored by the lock keepers because they need to know, and do know, exactly where you are and if you're stopping so that they can alert the next locky down the line. That's not to say that you can't stop somewhere but they do like to know so that they can progress you along the system.

Roger

[Phoenix_V]

[do we suspect that what is trying to be introduced here is a blanket 7-day mooring restriction ANYWHERE on the Lee, Stort, etc?

 

Yes the consultation document is 7 daying the top end of the Lee miles around Waltham Abbey and All the Stort

[marmaduke]

There isn't the same situation in France because there aren't so many boats with live-aboards (there aren't so many boats, full stop). Those that do live aboard tend to do so in ports, especially for winter, because they have access to electricity, water and nearby facilities..........but, you pay by the metre of length and for the electricity by the kWh (or a fixed, quite high, general charge). Some of the most picturesque canals shut down from early November to mid-March so you do have to be booked/established in a port by then to get the facilities.

During the season your movements are monitored by the lock keepers because they need to know, and do know, exactly where you are and if you're stopping so that they can alert the next locky down the line. That's not to say that you can't stop somewhere but they do like to know so that they can progress you along the system.

Roger

 

 

Interesting. Thanks for that Roger. How about in Holland, surely there are a lot of boats there...if any of the widebeams over here are anything to go by.

 

Has anyone experience of the rules on the canals in Holland?

[Albion]

Interesting. Thanks for that Roger. How about in Holland, surely there are a lot of boats there...if any of the widebeams over here are anything to go by.

 

Has anyone experience of the rules on the canals in Holland?

 

Can't say about anywhere else as I have no experience. Wandering Snail will be able tell you what it's like in Belgium though.

Roger

[Neil TNC]

Can't say about anywhere else as I have no experience. Wandering Snail will be able tell you what it's like in Belgium though.

Roger

 

I can tell what it is like on the Sarthe/Mayenne...why do you think David Long has ended up there?

[Albion]

I can tell what it is like on the Sarthe/Mayenne...why do you think David Long has ended up there?

 

Ah yes, a little bird is going cheap, cheap, cheap in my ear.

Roger

[Sven...]

Hi all,

 

While totally understanding the need to ensure that boats move around, I feel the proposed new rules to be draconian and likely to cause all sorts of problems. Moreover, they are going to spread to the entire country if left unchallenged.

 

I am one of those continuous cruisers who tries my best to stay within the letter and spirit of the law. While I have not sailed on the Lea/Lee yet, I plan to go there in a few weeks.

 

The main problem I see is the size of the new “neighbourhoods” that CCers will be required to move between. Because...

 

This is what used to be BW's policy:

 

“...on a rural waterway a village or hamlet will be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city will be a neighbourhood... in densely populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually be a locality or 'place').”

 

That is perhaps not entirely clear but still makes sense. It makes for a pleasant life moving around the system at a leasurely pace with much choice.

 

But now BW are proposing a set of new “super-neighbourhoods” the size of a small county. If these are accepted, life on the cut will become much less flexible. There will be a constant pressure to follow a fairly fixed plan and move at least 6-7 miles at a time, or pay out the nose.

 

In the height of Summer, this is of course not an issue. Our boats are made for moving and nothing is better than spending all day sailing when conditions invite for it.

 

There are many days and weeks during a year, however, which do not invite for sailing long distances. I can think of times when an hour or so on the cut was quite enough. So the proposed new “super-neighbourhoods” would imply a significant extra burden when you least need it.

 

And please don't get me started about Winter moorings – if I really wanted to live for 5 months in the same spot, I would get one of those brick thingies..!

 

Here is the sad part: The extra hassle for boaters caused by this change of definition will not be balanced by any benefits whatsoever, for any other parties!

 

While more effective enforcement and steep fines will possibly have an effect - freeing up space and solving other problems – I believe introducing the new “super-neighbourhoods” as opposed to the old “village” neighbourhoods will bring nothing but hassle.

 

Making a boat move 7 miles will not free up any more space than making it move 1 mile!

 

The much increased traffic will only cause unnecessary problems - for all parties. The problems include

 

- more stress and less boating pleasure

- more erosion of banks

- more congestion at bottlenecks

- more disturbance for on-line moorers, anglers, etc

- boaters moving at higher speeds than they might otherwise prefer

- more pollution

- more waiting at locks

- much more water required

- much more wear and tear at locks

 

Small neighbourhoods in line with the old definition, coupled with some of the new ideas for effective enforcement would be sufficient to solve the problems in question. But the change to super-neighbourhoods would cause lots of new problems without adding ANY extra benefits!

 

Please note that this does not only concern the rivers Stort and Lee/Lea. BW say the Regent's canal will be next, and if unchallenged, no doubt this new idea will then be deployed nationwide.

 

Time is running out and now is the time for constructive action, not bickering amongst ourselves! Therefore I suggest...

 

We boaters should take BW's idea and tweak it with smaller neighbourhoods. We should draw up an alternative map of the rivers Lea and Stort – one with smaller neighbourhoods in line with the old definition.

 

For example, on the stretch from Limehouse to Edmonton I believe that at least 5 neighbourhoods can be marked out – maybe more.

 

NO! I am not intending to spend the whole year travelling from Limehouse to Hertford. But I'd love to be able to move fast some times and slow at other times. I am sure you all feel more or less the same.

 

This alternative map can be contributed to BW and presented at the upcoming meetings. It will be a constructive input which can solve the problems equally well as BW's map.

 

This alternative map can be crafted regardless of any discussion about the other aspects of the proposal – fee levels, 7-day zones, etc.

 

Unless this alternative map is presented, BW will get their way by default, and you will soon see these super-neighbourhoods all over the country.

 

Next Winter it might be you who experience much less flexibility in your boating life!

 

The map we draw here can in time become a template for the entire country. Who picks up the challenge?

 

Edited to add...

 

On a related note, I have been texted this:

 

Come to london boaters meeting on sat 26 feb 1pm st michael & all angels church hall, lavender grove E8 3LR and sign up to mailing list london@lilo.org.uk for more info.

 

Anyone knows more about that meeting? Maybe it makes sense that boaters get together and talk before meeting BW..!

 

Sven

Edited February 22, 2011 by Sven...

[Chris Pink]

There is a huge amount of common sense in your post and is effectively a description the state of affairs before Sally Eichmann decided to try and rid the canal of liveaboards.

 

However it makes one very dangerous assumption; that BW can ignore the law and impose rules such as these.

 

They can't.

 

They have to administer the canals within the various laws and the definition of 'place' is not within their power and if there was a legal definition then it would arise after the depositions of all parties and not just arbitrarily decided.

 

Further the imposition of 7 day mooring zones is not within their power. The concept of visitor mooring exists solely through consent, not through any legal power and their abuse of this concept devalues all visitor mooring restrictions, including the 24 hour and 48 hour restrictions that most boaters respect.

 

BW are not allowed to try and remove liveaboard boats by policy, neither are they allowed to bring in rules that make existing lifestyles untenable.