Moorings Management Proposals

[carlt]

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

It gives them power to make charges for services and impose restrictions on those services.

 

Personally I do not believe it gives them power to alter the restrictions laid down in BWA 1995.

 

Some would disagree with me.

 

So why does that other fella think it does?

I don't think it gives them any powers relevant to this thread.

[jenlyn]

So why does that other fella think it does?

never mind the other fella, he is only tiny and shouts about being bullied a lot, for some reason, i think he has a lime green boat

[Ronni]

It gives them power to make charges for services and impose restrictions on those services.

 

Personally I do not believe it gives them power to alter the restrictions laid down in BWA 1995.

 

Some would disagree with me.

 

 

I don't think it gives them any powers relevant to this thread.

Well thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions, I am sure others will have comments to add tomorrow and I look forward to seeing them.

 

never mind the other fella, he is only tiny and shouts about being bullied a lot, for some reason, i think he has a lime green boat

lol - my mates got a lime green boat!

[jenlyn]

Well thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions, I am sure others will have comments to add tomorrow and I look forward to seeing them.

 

 

lol - my mates got a lime green boat!

oh!!! is he called dave, or rodney?

[Ronni]

oh!!! is he called dave, or rodney?

LOL - no Gary!!!

That was a joke I didnt get, wasnt it :0(

I have to go, my battery is just about to die on me

xxx

Night

Edited February 23, 2011 by Ronni

[jenlyn]

LOL - no Gary!!!

That was a joke I didnt get, wasnt it :0(

oh ok, sfunny, cos every time i see (dave-rodneys) thing on telly, it looks yellow, and resembles a yoghurt top, only with 3 wheels. (now i am confused too)

[romarni123]

Ronni

I have a question are the boaters on the River lee worried about the new proposals because it means they will then have to move more than they do now and it will be a bit of a drag for them?? If they are still allowed to go up and down the same waterway without incurring any charges why are they worried they must have a personal reason. In the proposals you can do the journey twice without charge(wether BW will make spaces for you all to moor is another thing) they will still be on the same river.

 

CARL

Robert jones said boaters can moor in ONE place for 14 days what is one place?? if you move a hundred yards are you then in another place or do BW have a set of rules regs laws to cover this.I dont mean guidence but something set down in law.

[Lady Muck]

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

 

Sally isn't coming, she chickened out.

[Chris Pink]

Sally isn't coming, she chickened out.

 

You have got to feel sorry for Damian who strikes me as a nice bloke with a very large mortgage.

[jenlyn]

Sally isn't coming, she chickened out.

now she can add gutless to her cv then. I guess she reads this forum. Shame really, been heading in that direction all week so i could attend

[marmaduke]

Sven, I couldn't agree with you more. Please do come to the meeting on Saturday and let's plan out this map.

 

M

 

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

[Leonie]

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!

 

Sven,

 

The meeting is being set up by a loose collective of London Boaters. Anyone is welcome, including non-boating interesting parties and the media. We are hoping to pool ideas and hash out he legalities. Sane and sound ideas and opinions such as yours would be welcomed. Hope to see you there.

[jenlyn]

Sven,

 

The meeting is being set up by a loose collective of London Boaters. Anyone is welcome, including non-boating interesting parties and the media. We are hoping to pool ideas and hash out he legalities. Sane and sound ideas and opinions such as yours would be welcomed. Hope to see you there.

whats the nearest tube station? i cant walk distance due to DVT, but i would like to attend

Edited February 23, 2011 by jenlyn

[Lady Muck]

One of my major concerns is that now they have taken three sanitary stations away on the Lee in the last two years, what is one supposed to do about ones sh*t and rubbish when mooring in some of these neighbourhoods?

 

If you draw up smaller neighbourhoods, you do understand you would be committing yourself to mooring somewhere with no services?

 

You might end up with everyone crammed in the bits where there are services? Which is happening more and more as these places get closed.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Lady Muck

[Ronni]

Ronni

I have a question are the boaters on the River lee worried about the new proposals because it means they will then have to move more than they do now and it will be a bit of a drag for them?? If they are still allowed to go up and down the same waterway without incurring any charges why are they worried they must have a personal reason. In the proposals you can do the journey twice without charge(wether BW will make spaces for you all to moor is another thing) they will still be on the same river.

 

CARL

Robert jones said boaters can moor in ONE place for 14 days what is one place?? if you move a hundred yards are you then in another place or do BW have a set of rules regs laws to cover this.I dont mean guidence but something set down in law.

I completely agree with you, I think they are so used to being left alone they are in shock. Rightly or Wrongly, it would seem, following conversations that have occurred on here that our part of the river has been dealt with differently to the rest of the network, which is no fault of ours. The fact that BW have chosen to 'enforce' and I use that word very lightly the rules here differently has caused quite an extreme reaction now they all of a sudden have decided to do their job. I suppose the question that occurs to me from this is, can they all of a sudden decide to enforce a law that they have basically ignoored since 1995. That is if the 1995 Act is a law.

Also , in answer to your question to Carl, I was reading the 1995 act yesterday and it states:

 

(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.

 

BW current interpratation of that is:

 

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.

 

And I assume if the neighborhood thing goes through, they will change the word place to neighborhood.

[Leonie]

whats the nearest tube station? i cant walk distance due to DVT, but i would like to attend

 

The nearest station is London Fields which is Overland but it is quite close to the Victoria Park moorings so plenty of buses etc. You can plan a route using the Journey Planner on the TFL site. Just enter the post-code of the venue and your starting point.

 

Map

[Lady Muck]

I just got off the phone to a cc boater I know who bought a boat from another ccer. She's really not happy as she can't move the boat very far due to work commitments. She's really panicking infact. She's currently on winter moorings and is in a panic about what will happen when she has to move.

 

She isn't a liveaboard, has lived in a canalside house in Angel for over 20 years. As a noob she has absolutely no idea about the animosity that many boaters have towards 'bridge hoppers' and was really quite shocked when I told her. She did tell me that her neighbours where her house is are forever going around trying to get her to sign this petition and that petition to 'get rid of the liveaboards.' I'm guessing she overlooks Islington Visitor Moorings?

 

BW never properly enforced overstaying in certain places in the past. All the energies in London have been used up getting everyone to buy licenses.

 

New boaters don't read the small print. It's pretty vague what BW are asking you to do anyway. They buy a boat from someone who tells them they don't have to move that often and they won't be bothered by BW. We've all seen the ads on Apollo Duck for 'London Liveaboard', without a mooring, optimistically suggesting you can shuffle between Camden and Viccy park without stress. We London boaters know that's not true, but by then they've bought the boat.

 

Or boaters with moorings might say that you can get an affordable mooring if you cc and that it'll take two or three years for one to come up, (I might've been that person in the past) when we got our mooring, everyone here had been cc-ers and then they got places here. But you can't really say that, anymore, they're no longer that available or that affordable anymore.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Lady Muck

[Chris Pink]

I suppose the question that occurs to me from this is, can they all of a sudden decide to enforce a law that they have basically ignoored since 1995. That is if the 1995 Act is a law.

 

BW current interpratation of that is:

 

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).

 

1. The enforcement of the 1995 Act is a good thing from the itinerant boater's point of view, it puts their use of the waterways onto a proper legal footing and is, unlike the garbage spouted by BW actually 'real' law.

 

2. The document, Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers, states at the end that it does not have the force of law and is what it says; 'guidance'.

 

 

 

New boaters don't read the small print. It's pretty vague what BW are asking you to do anyway. They buy a boat from someone who tells them they don't have to move that often and they won't be bothered by BW. We've all seen the ads on Apollo Duck for 'London Liveaboard', without a mooring, optimistically suggesting you can shuffle between Camden and Viccy park without stress. We London boaters know that's not true, but by then they've bought the boat.

 

 

This is a real problem, caused in great part by the current debate. If BW stick to what they can categorically state then there would be no ambiguity and people would be much less likely to buy a boat without realising the realities.

 

I see mostly young) people buying boats (for more than they're worth) then trying to stay near to one spot for college or work. Whenthis becomes unsustainable then they take one of two courses of action; either they start moving around and take to the lifestyle, or they move off, this usually takes a winter or a year whichever is closest.

 

BW have to take a lot of the blame for this situation, if they did not try and impose mickey mouse rules on people who know that they can't (and are prepared to stat it pubically) the confusion would be much reduced.

[carlt]

That is if the 1995 Act is a law.

It is an Act of Parliament....therefore it is law.

 

BW current interpratation of that is:

 

This is their interpretation...if you read down to the bottom of the page you will see that they acknowledge that it is guidance only and has no force in law.

[Ronni]

One of my major concerns is that now they have taken three sanitary stations away on the Lee in the last two years, what is one supposed to do about ones sh*t and rubbish when mooring in some of these neighbourhoods?

 

If you draw up smaller neighbourhoods, you do understand you would be committing yourself to mooring somewhere with no services?

 

You might end up with everyone crammed in the bits where there are services? Which is happening more and more as these places get closed.

 

I agree, especially as their reason for closing them is aparently 'misuse'. I dont theink they realise that there just arnt enough elsons along the river, and they are being put under more and more pressure as more boaters are coming along. I have taken to emailing BW everytime I have to get upto my elbows to pull out dog walkers poo bags, or fishermans rubbish. Instead o9f calling them out, as if I were to report the problem, the same thing could occur at fields weir 'due to misuse'. I just wish boaters would lock the damn thing after using it. I even had to clean dog poo off of the lock!! Can you beleive it!!! There should be a clear sign above the elson - THIS IS NOT A BIN!!!

And speaking of bins - we have lots of lovely new black rubbish bins along the stort and lee with a friendly BW notice NOT FOR BOATERS USE. The rubbish point at fields weir has been closed, so that problem will also escalate all along the river if adiquate rubbish facilities are not provided. I have even taken to picking up litter whilst I walk my dog, as anything that is dropped outside my boat, or near to me is associated with boaters as we are always there (I hasten to add here that I have PAID for a winter mooring and am perfectly entitled to be here thank you). The men at the local dump, which technically I shouldnt use as I am not a resident think I am a mad woman!!!

Actually, they are probably right? lol

Edited February 23, 2011 by Ronni

[ymu]

...I suppose the question that occurs to me from this is, can they all of a sudden decide to enforce a law that they have basically ignoored since 1995....

 

...And I assume if the neighborhood thing goes through, they will change the word place to neighborhood.

IIRC the drink driving laws were on the statute books long before it occurred to anyone to enforce them. It came as quite a shock for our small, publess village at the time.

 

And the word 'place' is used in the 1995 Act. They can't change that - only what their guidance decides is a 'place'. The full transcript from Hansard would likely be useful for anyone wanting to persuade a court of law that BW had overstepped the mark when it came to interpreting the meaning.

[fender]

BW have to take a lot of the blame for this situation, if they did not try and impose mickey mouse rules on people who know that they can't (and are prepared to stat it pubically) the confusion would be much reduced.

 

Thats including sitting aloof in ivory Towers Sheldon square. You boaters forget very quick.

 

I see you boaters are taking a feather duster to BW!

 

She isn't a liveaboard, has lived in a canalside house in Angel for over 20 years. As a noob she has absolutely no idea about the animosity that many boaters have towards 'bridge hoppers' and was really quite shocked when I told her. She did tell me that her neighbours where her house is are forever going around trying to get her to sign this petition and that petition to 'get rid of the liveaboards.' I'm guessing she overlooks Islington Visitor Moorings?

 

Living so near the canal, I can tell you its not just that, I think people want to see NO boats at all moored up here. Camden has already achieved that in a small way.

 

whats the nearest tube station? i cant walk distance due to DVT, but i would like to attend

 

Nearest tube is Bethnal Green (Central) and any bus up north to Mare Street.

 

Alternatively Manor House (Picc) and 254 bus but its a much further ride.

 

Sven,

 

The meeting is being set up by a loose collective of London Boaters. Anyone is welcome, including non-boating interesting parties and the media. We are hoping to pool ideas and hash out he legalities. Sane and sound ideas and opinions such as yours would be welcomed. Hope to see you there.

 

Was told there is a facebook group, havent checked, dont use facebook anyway.

[Chris Pink]

The full transcript from Hansard would likely be useful for anyone wanting to persuade a court of law that BW had overstepped the mark when it came to interpreting the meaning.

 

 

The interesting comments on Section 43 of the 1962 Act dilute considerably some of them more outré claims made for that clause by some members of this forum.

 

 

Any more Hansard references to readings of the BIll gratefully received. (I have had a look but not found much else)

Edited February 23, 2011 by Chris Pink

[Lady Muck]

I see mostly young) people buying boats (for more than they're worth) then trying to stay near to one spot for college or work. Whenthis becomes unsustainable then they take one of two courses of action; either they start moving around and take to the lifestyle, or they move off, this usually takes a winter or a year whichever is closest.

 

BW have to take a lot of the blame for this situation, if they did not try and impose mickey mouse rules on people who know that they can't (and are prepared to stat it pubically) the confusion would be much reduced.

 

I agree - say you buy a second hand boat which is already licensed, you're not necessarily going to be reading and signing any declaration until you re-license it, like the boater I spoke to this morning, she didn't know about the cc guidelines.

 

Yes some boaters realise it's not as cushty as the vendor said it would be and they move back to the bankside, possibly selling the boat onto someone else who is also going to find out the hard way.

[ymu]

Any more Hansard references to readings of the BIll gratefully received. (I have had a look but not found much else)

They're not easy to find - I googled a phrase from Carl's post to find that link. I'll post up anything else I find.