Moorings Management Proposals

[romarni123]

Sven

The way I read it on the lee/stort is that they will have 61 days in each neighbour hood.Each neighbourhood will be 6.75 miles long do you really think that is a long way to travel in one go???.The problem there is that there are a lot of boats on cc licences that only go up and down the river which is only about 50/60 miles long.

[GUMPY]

Personally I think dividing the system into areas is a great idea and I along with others have already written to BW supporting the initiative.

If you think they are wrong put your money where your mouth is and challenge BW in court to prevent them doing this.

If you are not prepared to do that, stop being a barrack room lawyer and shut up.

 

I suppose the next thing is we will have people bleating about their human rights ..........

Edited February 22, 2011 by idleness

[mayalld]

 

Where I was moored on Saturday, I walked past a visitor mooring that I had cruised past a week previously and of the three boats still there 2 were unoccupied leisure boats. Not evidence (in anyone except Dave Mayall's eyes) but it bears out what i know empirically to be true.

 

How do you know that they are leisure boats?

 

Well then I suggest you ask BW yourself or gather your own evidence.

 

You already played that card. When I did exactly as you suggested, you suggested that people should tell the boaters that I was gathering the evidence of, so that they could have a word with me, and suggested that somebody should report me to the police for harassment.

 

Basically, you won't accept anything without evidence, but if anybody tries to gather evidence, you try to stop them.

 

What utter nonsense,

[mayalld]

Although I wont be one of those people mooring in one place for a long time, surely if 100 boats want to form a community in one area, it's better to just provide the extra elsan points etc they need, than forcing them to move up and down the same 1 mile stretch in varying configurations, which probably just erodes the banks, causes more maintenance on locks, slows down the flow of passer by boats etc anyway Since they aren't using an official marina, which has features like car park and added security, should BW just provide these folk with a small surcharge which goes into the rejuvination of their area...it's early in the morning for me...I'm sure I'm missing something Just seems to be a lot of bickering , caused by the lack of flexibility...if there were more water points....like a string of taps instead of only 1, then we wouldnt really care if one boat had hogged the spot for too long Just seems that there is a lot of energy spent by BW and boaters alike, to find these "naughty people" ..without actually offering them what they need...a place to live on their boat, long term, without the car park and security...it would be nice to be able to stop at any "local community" of boats, pay to belong to the group, and stay forever if you wanted to..or not. Not one big society..just lots of little ones

 

So, BW set out some rules, and a group of people decide that they don't want to play by those rules.

 

And the answer, by your reasoning, is that BW should say "oh, OK, if you don't want to play by the rules, don't bother"

 

BW aren't about making people move up and down a 1 mile stretch. They are about making people comply with the requirement to "satisfy the board" that they are "engaged in bona fide navigation throughout" if they want to be CCers.

 

There is an alternative for people who want to form a community and stay put in exactly the same spot. It is called a "permanent mooring". Loads of people have them, and pay a landowner for the priviledge. They can have a community, provided they pay what it costs to have a mooring.

[Sven...]

The way I read it on the lee/stort is that they will have 61 days in each neighbour hood.Each neighbourhood will be 6.75 miles long do you really think that is a long way to travel in one go???.

 

I believe the proposal says that you will only be able to stay 7 or 14 days within each neighbourhood at one time. The max-61-days-per-year rule is a separate restriction. Please read:

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Lee_Area_Proposed_Mooring_Plan.zip

 

The problem there is that there are a lot of boats on cc licences that only go up and down the river which is only about 50/60 miles long.

 

These proposals, while introducing many new problems, do not seem designed to change that situation.

[magpie patrick]

I'm more involved in this one than I'd like to admit, but I will emphasise I have had no part in the proposed solution. I have not recommended the zoning system, I have not approved it, I have not condoned it, I have simply been informed it was happening.

 

BW, in London, have had enough. They have tried persuasion, coercion, offering moorings at an alternative location, and they end up with the same response "we ain't movin". Unlike the K and A, BW have been monitoring this closely, they've known since 2005 that the Olympics were coming, and that certain problems, like the ranks of boats that never move above Old Ford Locks, had to be resolved. Perhaps they should have just let the Met police deal with that problem?

 

That isn't to say BW are blameless, A "formalisation" of most existing arrangements has been suggested, but get policy objections "we don't authorise moorings of more than ten boats", "It isn't our job to provide affordable moorings", The problem with this is there are boaters who will pay, but not the asking price, and perhaps BW should provide for them. The boater who wishes to stand on their rights and wouldn't even pay a fiver for a mooring (sorry, but they do exist) is being given a massive loophole by BW, because BW won't take £2,000 off someone who would pay that for the right to stay where they are.

 

It comes down to the same problem, a small number of people (in this case probably no more than 30 boats) play hardball to the extent that BW seek to change the system to the detriment of the many. They only need an act of parliament to do so, and with this government, I'm afraid they'd get it.

 

Rant over, ending with a red card for both sides

Edited February 23, 2011 by magpie patrick

[Sven...]

Personally I think dividing the system into areas is a great idea...

 

But there is no reason why these areas have to be big. Logically, the same effect can be achieved by way of the traditional neighbourhood size (village/parish). I believe the problem in the past has not been the size of the areas, but the lack of enforcement.

[romarni123]

I believe the proposal says that you will only be able to stay 7 or 14 days within each neighbourhood at one time. The max-61-days-per-year rule is a separate restriction. Please read:

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Lee_Area_Proposed_Mooring_Plan.zip

 

 

 

These proposals, while introducing many new problems, do not seem designed to change that situation.

I think you will find that as soon as it hits them in the wallet it will

[romarni123]

I think you will find that as soon as it hits them in the wallet it will. so what is wrong with only staying in each neighbourhood for 14 days if I have read it right you can go up and down the full lenght twice without incuring charges

[GUMPY]

But there is no reason why these areas have to be big. Logically, the same effect can be achieved by way of the traditional neighbourhood size (village/parish). I believe the problem in the past has not been the size of the areas, but the lack of enforcement.

Minimum of ten lock miles seems good to me.

The squatters, because that is what they are, are a pain. Today because of their cars parked blocking the lane here the council rubbish lorry couldn't get down the lane to empty the bins at the houses and farm.

[fender]

BW had enough???? I think many people have had ENOUGH of BW!

 

Some people wouldnt want to move at the behest of officious bods who preside in a gilted glass fronted building overlooking Shelton Square. After all, the boaters are paying for the splendid comforts of such unnecessary, high quality luxury offices! Its not far off from the trappings of dictatorship. These officious bods deem it their right to mess boaters about and impose their 14 day/7 day whatever rules.

 

Clearly its one rule for them and another for the boaters. If this was the Middle East, Romania, Albania, the October Revolution etc, they'd be well and truly crucified by now. There's one rule BW should start following - stop wasting boaters' money. BW should have sorted this situation long ago and ensured that at least the moorings situation was more manageable instead of enjoying the trappings of high society. BW(L), especially, would have been in a much better position and more approachable to the boating fraternity. Rant over.

[sebrof]

Unfortunately for your argument, that ISN'T what the 1995 Act says.

 

You ignored (as you always do, because it doesn't suit your argument) the important words "satisfies the board".

 

It isn't a matter of what YOU think is bona fide navigation, it isn't a matter of what the boater who bridge hops thinks. The Act empowers BW to decide, because it must "be satisfied".

 

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

 

Yes, a licence fee has been charged, but that doesn't mean that BW cannot levy additional charges for certain services.

 

What services are those, Mister Mayall? Pray tell.

[ymu]

I think you will find that as soon as it hits them in the wallet it will

Check the post he was replying to:

 

The problem there is that there are a lot of boats on cc licences that only go up and down the river which is only about 50/60 miles long.

 

This proposal has six zones and you can spend 61 days/year in each zone. 6x61 is the number of days in a leap year. Hence, not only will it not stop people just going up and down, it formalises their right to do exactly that.

 

It is a bit weird to force them to go up and down six times a year though. There are plenty of quite distinct 'places' within those 'neighbourhoods and no reason not to allow the whole navigation to be done once or twice a year instead. Making CCers play musical moorings is fine - if you don't pay a mooring fee you don't get the convenience of being able to stay in one spot. But, whether they move 2 miles or 12, it will be the same group of boats moving up and down all the time under these new rules. Making them travel extra miles just causes more congestion for holiday-makers without actually freeing up any more moorings. It seems a bit vindictive counter-productive.

 

They seem weirdly optimistic about covering the costs too. By their own reckoning, there's only 160 boats which aren't moving much in these areas. But how many of these would choose to incur such high charges? £20/day is £7300/year, and that's if you book in advance - it's £40/day (£14,600) if you overstay without warning. It's hard to see many of the boats they're targeting choosing to pay that very often, and therefore very hard to see how they can cover costs. It's also got all the problems of traffic wardens - if they do a good job, they take in less money. This isn't a problem if you want to tackle bad behaviour, but it is a problem if it's expected to be self-financing in the long-term.

[Ronni]

Of course the act can be applied.

 

The act doesn't need to define place. because it requires that the applicant "satisfy the board".

 

In other words, the question as to what a "place" is for the purpose of being satisfied is a matter, in the first instance, for the board.

 

Yes, if the board was manifestly unreasonable a court could deem it to be acting ultra vires, but it is clear that parliament did not intend that the 95 act would permit people to remain in one small area for a prolonged period, and that some degree of movement from one place to another was envisaged.

 

If those who repeatedly claim that minimal movement is enough, and hold out that it isn't up to BW to interpret the act (oddly, they seem to believe that it IS up to their pressure group) are so sure of their position, why don't they say "I intend to cruise up and down a short section of canal all year, and will not comply with your guidance". If BW refuse to issue a licence, they can have their day in court and prove BW wrong.

 

Of course they won't do this, because the intelligent ones amongst them KNOW that they would lose, and know that they are better off never letting a court decide.

 

Of course the act can be applied.

 

The act doesn't need to define place. because it requires that the applicant "satisfy the board".

 

In other words, the question as to what a "place" is for the purpose of being satisfied is a matter, in the first instance, for the board.

 

Yes, if the board was manifestly unreasonable a court could deem it to be acting ultra vires, but it is clear that parliament did not intend that the 95 act would permit people to remain in one small area for a prolonged period, and that some degree of movement from one place to another was envisaged.

 

If those who repeatedly claim that minimal movement is enough, and hold out that it isn't up to BW to interpret the act (oddly, they seem to believe that it IS up to their pressure group) are so sure of their position, why don't they say "I intend to cruise up and down a short section of canal all year, and will not comply with your guidance". If BW refuse to issue a licence, they can have their day in court and prove BW wrong.

 

Of course they won't do this, because the intelligent ones amongst them KNOW that they would lose, and know that they are better off never letting a court decide.

 

Could you explain that again for me please, I dont know or understand who the board are. Also, why does BW's interpratation of sec17 say : The boat travels widely around the waterway network without staying in any one place for more than fourteen days (or less where local BW signs indicate a shorter period). Please read our Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers (see below). You must be engaged in a genuine, progressive journey (cruise) around the network or a significant part of it. It is your responsibility to satisfy us that you meet this requirement. In submitting your licence application, you undertake to comply with this Guidance. This is designed to ensure that moorings along the line of the waterways do not become congested, and that temporary moorings are available for cruising boats.

When the actual Act says: (ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Where does 'genuine progressive journey around the network or a significant part of it' come from?

 

I am not trying to make a point, I just dont understand how BW can add stuff in, are they the board?

[carlt]

 

I am not trying to make a point, I just dont understand how BW can add stuff in, are they the board?

BW are the "board" and they have been trying to reinterpret s17 ever since 1995.

 

Their 'interpretations' go way beyond the letter, and the spirit, of the law.

 

It has been "change parishes", "move 10 miles", "make a continuous journey, throughout the system" and so on, and so on.

 

On 17th May 1993, when promoting the British Waterways Act, Mr. Robert B. Jones, MP (Hertfordshire, West) said:

 

I emphasise that nothing in the Bill alters the general rule that boats are free to moor against a towpath in any one place for up to 14 days except where that would cause a navigational hazard. Restrictions are necessary in the interests of securing safety and preventing congestion. They will apply only at permanent mooring sites, at water points and at certain popular sites which have special conditions, such as time limits to be fair to all users. Those will be clearly signposted.

 

It is quite clear that BW's "interpretations" and their actions, prompting this thread, are way off the original spirit of the law.

[jenlyn]

BW are the "board" and they have been trying to reinterpret s17 ever since 1995.

 

Their 'interpretations' go way beyond the letter, and the spirit, of the law.

 

It has been "change parishes", "move 10 miles", "make a continuous journey, throughout the system" and so on, and so on.

 

On 17th May 1993, when promoting the British Waterways Act, Mr. Robert B. Jones, MP (Hertfordshire, West) said:

 

 

 

It is quite clear that BW's "interpretations" and their actions, prompting this thread, are way off the original spirit of the law.

a bit like dropping a bomb on this thread really, we should all print it onto a4 and display it in our windows. It pretty much puts a nut in the piston pot for BW

[Ronni]

BW are the "board" and they have been trying to reinterpret s17 ever since 1995.

 

Their 'interpretations' go way beyond the letter, and the spirit, of the law.

 

It has been "change parishes", "move 10 miles", "make a continuous journey, throughout the system" and so on, and so on.

 

On 17th May 1993, when promoting the British Waterways Act, Mr. Robert B. Jones, MP (Hertfordshire, West) said:

 

 

 

It is quite clear that BW's "interpretations" and their actions, prompting this thread, are way off the original spirit of the law.

 

So they can basically word it how they like to suit themselves then? Do the board have to get authorisation from someone else to change the wording? I am still pretty confused, if they can't legally do what they are doing, ie now defining 'neigborhood' why are they blatently doing it? Would you explain what you mean by it goes way beyond the letter and spirit of the law? Also, in the quote from Robert Jones, what is the Bill he is referring to, is that what it is called before it became an act? Again, not making any point, or being picky, just trying to understand and appreciating the help

Edited February 23, 2011 by Ronni

[jenlyn]

So they can basically word it how they like to suit themselves then? Do the board have to get authorisation from someone else to change the wording? I am still pretty confused, if they can't legally do what they are doing, why are they blatently doing it? Would you explain what you mean by it goes way beyond the letter and spirit of the law? Again, not making any point ,, just trying to understand

i would just bring it up at the meeting your having with sally (get rid of boaters) ash, am sure it would make her stumble and throw one of her wobblys, or ask for the meeting to be adjourned until such time as they can find someone with more authority and knowledge on the subject can attend

Edited February 23, 2011 by jenlyn

[Ronni]

a bit like dropping a bomb on this thread really, we should all print it onto a4 and display it in our windows. It pretty much puts a nut in the piston pot for BW

Still confused, why is it like dropping a bomb? Perhaps I am just tired lol - perhaps I should go to bed lol

 

i would just bring it up at the meeting your having with sally (get rid of boaters) ash, am sure it would make her stumble and throw one of her wobblys

What the quote?

[jenlyn]

Still confused, why is it like dropping a bomb? Perhaps I am just tired lol - perhaps I should go to bed lol

 

 

What the quote?

looks to me like Mr Jones made clear what BW's rules and regs can be, and yet they constantly try to fit them to their own interpretation, which dont and cannot stand up

[Ronni]

i would just bring it up at the meeting your having with sally (get rid of boaters) ash, am sure it would make her stumble and throw one of her wobblys, or ask for the meeting to be adjourned until such time as they can find someone with more authority and knowledge on the subject can attend

That was the general consensus of opinion at a pre Public Meeting meeting we had tonight, there is so much confusion amongst boaters and they are all panicing that there isnt enough time for them to work out what they want and get it to BW, they think they have to tell BW everything on Monday some didnt even understand the proposals, I have to admit I didnt realise the 'progressive journey throughout the network' was law, or is it my head hurts!! I am still buzzing form the meeting lol

[carlt]

So they can basically word it how they like to suit themselves then? Do the board have to get authorisation from someone else to change the wording? I am still pretty confused, if they can't legally do what they are doing, ie now defining 'neigborhood' why are they blatently doing it? Would you explain what you mean by it goes way beyond the letter and spirit of the law? Also, in the quote from Robert Jones, what is the Bill he is referring to, is that what it is called before it became an act? Again, not making any point, or being picky, just trying to understand and appreciating the help

They can't word it how they like, they just want us to think they can.

 

It goes beyond the letter and spirit of the law because they are imposing restrictions and cruising expectations that the law does not require, nor give them power to do so.

 

Dave Mayall will argue that s43 of the Transport Act gives them power to impose any restrictions or charges that they wish (the 'Lime Green Boat' hypothesis) and says that merely having your boat on their water is providing the 'service' that they are charging for.

 

What he neglects to mention is that this 'service' is already paid for, by boat owners, when they pay their licence fee and the Act does not give BW the power to charge twice, for the same service (although Dave would claim it does).

 

Personally, if I was one of the boaters who objected to this unreasonable imposition, I would gather a group of like minded boaters and follow the new restrictions, to the letter, en masse.

[Ronni]

So what power does s43 of the Transport Act give them?

 

And what would you do in our position?

 

What happens if we tell them at the meeting, this is illegal, we are just going to ignoor your proposal and move as far as we like every 14 days. Put that in your pipe and smoke it lol Could they refuse us licences next year for unpaid fines and not following the neighborhood rules?

 

There are so many opinions about the legality of all this, head hurts.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Ronni

[jenlyn]

So what power does s43 of the Transport Act give them?

none. To be honest, i think you would be better off spending your time getting as many boaters as possible to the meeting, rather than stressing yourself out thinking about it. Enough voices would put sally ash where she belongs ( the K&A ) group did this and she stopped attending meetings with them. Many voices could possibly cause problems for BW over this matter

Edited February 23, 2011 by jenlyn

[Ronni]

none

So why does that other fella think it does?