Moorings Management Proposals

[Lady Muck]

Thats because many people, including me, and organisations lobbied like hell to get the clause taken out.

 

Hindsight however.....

 

I don't think anyone could predict how expensive housing was going to get or how popular living aboard was going to get.

[GUMPY]

a) it was a small number of people

There was a cronic shortage of moorings at that time.

Sue

I remember the shortage of moorings all to well, spent 6 months moored offside outside the Albion (with land lady's permission) got this mooring in 94.

[Chris Pink]

I am certain that the ones who support this scheme are those who it won't apply to. They may live to regret it if it is included in future legislation that affects the entire system (or what's left of it).

 

Thus far Aunt Sally is doing a great job of divide and rule.

 

Tone

 

That is a point that has occurred to me many times in these interminable debates that the supporters of these measures are never the ones affected by them, although there are many, Lady Muck, myself, Carlt who are not affected personally but still deplore these machinations.

 

It is also true that the objectors to such proposals also want BW to do what they signally fail to do, or show any appetite for, which is enforce the laws they do have.

 

I suppose there are a few, a very few that think that the laws are wrong (I know one such), but they are absent in any of these discussions.

 

Just as some of us now regret supporting removing the requirement to have a home mooring bit in the 95 act

That was a bad move getting the home mooring bit taken out of the act for what was then a relatively small number of people.

 

It still is a relatively small number of people.

 

As to your particular bugbears, I am not sure what you think will be gained by extra laws when they don't obey the ones that exist already .

 

Do you get some sort of cheap thrill out of being incredibly pompous?

 

yes, he does.

[Sir Nibble]

Thus far Aunt Sally is doing a great job of divide and rule.

 

Tone

Devide and rule? If you think deviding boaters who want to do the absolute bare minimum boating and the absolute maximum of mooring without paying for a mooring from the rest who would happily support their right to do so then you are mistaken.

People have their own opinions and do not have to wait for Sally Ash or anyone else to hand them out. The difference between those who boat as much as possible and those who boat as little as possible is boating. There are far more boaters out there who positively support BW's efforts to enforce their guidelines than you would like to admit and the only opposition seems to come from childish comparisons between BW and nazis, lost cause I'd say. These new conditions seem to oblige a movement rate of about one mile in 10 days and frankly I think anyone who considers that too much should be in a static caravan park.

[carlt]

the only opposition seems to come from childish comparisons between BW and nazis, lost cause I'd say.

Could you point me towards any post, I have made , comparing BW to nazis?

 

If you can't then I assume you'll accept that the gross exaggeration is on your part, not those who have a different viewpoint to you.

[ymu]

But that's my point. They were pointing out that there is a positive right to stay put for 14 days (or more), not a requirement to move a specified distance. That means there's no need to define a place, and no minimum distance to move at the end of the 14 days, and no restriction on returning to the original location.

14 days (or less)

 

Other than that, I'm not following you. That passage is a quote from the government sponsor of the bill, made during the first reading of the bill, before the act passed into law. The bill they passed into law does mention place, specifically in the context of staying for no more than 14 days in any one place.

[romarni123]

It seems to me that the situation on the Lee has many differant problems

 

A- boaters who never move because they like staying in one place so have found a piece of bankside and are staying put

 

B-boaters who want a mooring but there are none that are affordable

 

C-boaters who move the full lenght of the River so sticking to the guidelines

 

D-boaters who find it a pain in the arse to move because of work/ school so dont bother

 

E- boaters who know they are taking the mick so are looking for a loophole to justify why they dont move

 

F- boaters who have brought a boat and then found out there are rules and regs and its not a free ride

[Cosmic]

The point I'm making is that when he says "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", it is clear that this was the rule before the act came into force and that there was no intention to change it. He is not referring to the definition of a "place", but the right to remain stationary. That doesn't require a definition of the word "place" (even though it does occur in the act), and it doesn't specify anything about how far a boat has to move or how soon it can return. (I don't know whether the final wording of the act makes things materially different - I'm simply suggesting that it doesn't.)

 

I know there's nothing stopping a boat from moving after less than 14 days, but the condition is

...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.

so there is a right to stay for more than 14 days if there's a good reason (although that's a minor point).

 

I think we all know the wording of this bit is very fuzzy and imprecise. I'm starting to think that the phrase "bona fide for navigation" is more important than what it means to stay in one place - but I'm far from sure (and I'm hardly an expert...)

[canaldrifter]

Do you get some sort of cheap thrill out of being incredibly pompous?

 

Eh?

 

Tone

 

Could you point me towards any post, I have made , comparing BW to nazis?

 

 

Or mine?

 

Tone

[ymu]

Yes, that was the rule before the Act and he was reassuring parliament that the Bill was not intended to change that. The Act introduces a requirement for boats to have a home mooring unless they are CCing. The 'place' bit comes into the definition of CCing because CCers have to move onto a new 'place'.

[canaldrifter]

Look folks.

 

This is all to do with the forthcoming Olympics. Making lucrative moorings available to BW. That is Sally Ash's brief, to make more money out of boaters for BW. I am convinced. Have been for years.

 

Why else would this campaign have started on the L&S, instead of the L&L or W&B?

 

I look forward to BW's next offer of temporary moorings close to the Olympic site on the L&S for auction-able rates.

 

Tone

[ymu]

They've been entirely open about it being due to the Olympics and plans to make pre-bookable moorings available. It's in the consultation documents posted earlier.

[Tim Lewis]

They've been entirely open about it being due to the Olympics and plans to make pre-bookable moorings available. It's in the consultation documents posted earlier.

 

Olympic mooring bookings open on 11th April on a first come first serve basis:

 

http://www.waterscape.com/features-and-articles/news/2989/boating-in-london-during-the-olympic-games

 

Tim

[canaldrifter]

They've been entirely open about it being due to the Olympics and plans to make pre-bookable moorings available. It's in the consultation documents posted earlier.

 

Thank you for (rather obviously) confirming my point.

 

Tone

[Chris Pink]

Olympic mooring bookings open on 11th April on a first come first serve basis:

 

http://www.waterscape.com/features-and-articles/news/2989/boating-in-london-during-the-olympic-games

 

Tim

 

Pink sucks his teeth, then observes; there's no prices.

 

Any guesses?

 

Will the best mooring be £2012?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

They've been entirely open about it being due to the Olympics and plans to make pre-bookable moorings available. It's in the consultation documents posted earlier.

 

I am not sure they were very open with LRVP -

Sally Ash discussion document

 

There is a vague reference to improving the situation by 2012 but no actual mention of the games.

 

I would say again that BW wants to provide and charge for 1500 moorings for the Olympics. They want IWA to handle the logistics, presumably because IWA has much more experience than BW of this sort of operation and the cost is less than BW doing it themselves.

 

That, I would suggest is the only reason for BW's proposals. They will not set up a local mooring strategy like on the K&A for fear of losing control of the outcome.

[canaldrifter]

I am not sure they were very open with LRVP -

Sally Ash discussion document

 

 

 

That is most interesting! I have been searching for ages to find some written reference that allows CCers to return to the same mooring 'place' for another 14 days if they reach a 'dead end' and turn around. It was most illusive. Then there it is in Sally Ash's own fair typeface:

 

When a boater buys their licence and declares themselves a continuous cruiser they commit to making a progressive journey around the network or a significant part of it. This progressive journey is defined by moving from one neighbourhood to another and not immediately returning to the neighbourhood they have just left (i.e. not going from A to B to A – the only time this is permitted is when they reach a dead end or when they are changing the direction of their travel

 

But then she adds 'or when they are changing the direction of their travel' and makes it all nice and vague again. How many times can a CCer change their direction of travel to suit themselves, and over what distance?

 

I have just sent out for a pizza....

 

Tone

[ymu]

That is most interesting! I have been searching for ages to find some written reference that allows CCers to return to the same mooring 'place' for another 14 days if they reach a 'dead end' and turn around. It was most illusive. Then there it is in Sally Ash's own fair typeface:

 

When a boater buys their licence and declares themselves a continuous cruiser they commit to making a progressive journey around the network or a significant part of it. This progressive journey is defined by moving from one neighbourhood to another and not immediately returning to the neighbourhood they have just left (i.e. not going from A to B to A – the only time this is permitted is when they reach a dead end or when they are changing the direction of their travel

 

But then she adds 'or when they are changing the direction of their travel' and makes it all nice and vague again. How many times can a CCer change their direction of travel to suit themselves, and over what distance?

 

I have just sent out for a pizza....

 

Tone

That's been in the CC guidance since April 2004.

 

What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood X, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood Y. Thereafter, the next movement must normally be to neighbourhood Z, and not back to neighbourhood X (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine progressive journey).

 

[canaldrifter]

That's been in the CC guidance since April 2004.

 

So it has.... in brackets.

 

Pity the jobsworth who ticketted me at Lower Heyford, claiming that I'd been there for over a month hadn't read it! I'd been to Oxford and back.

 

However I did get a written apology with an added note that perhaps I should have informed BW of my intentions. Bl@@dy cheek!

 

Tone

[ymu]

Some boaters have been moored in particular locations for a number of years and regardless of the arguments why they should not be permitted, the Courts may not allow us in all cases to simply evict people from the mooring. This challenging matter needs understanding and close cooperation from riparian local authorities.

This could be handy for any boaters who have been there long enough. Might well apply to the offside community on private land without permission, if they've been there long enough. They should certainly get onto it - there are quite a few precedents so probably a lot of boaters out there who could advise based on their own experience.

[ymu]

They seem to be acknowledging that their own definition of 'place' in the guidance is currently unenforceable:

 

Ordinarily it is up to enforcement teams around the country to move boats on but boaters will not be told how far they have to move in order to reach the next neighbourhood – this is all down to legal complexities. The only time we can define what actually constitutes a neighbourhood is in the context of a local mooring strategy such as we are doing with the Lee.

 

However, their guidance gives a very clear definition of what constitutes a 'place', and uses the term 'neighbourhood' interchangeably. I think it would be pretty bloody difficult for them to impose a different definition on the Lee than they use everywhere else, quite regardless of whether that definition is legally enforceable or not.

 

Here's what their guidance says currently:

 

“Place”

 

The law requires that stops during such a journey should not be “in any one place for more than 14 days”. “Place” in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position5

.

...

 

 

What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area – on a rural waterway a village hamlet will be a neighbourhood and on a urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city will be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made.

 

It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled, since 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’). Exact precision is not required or expected – what is required is that the boat is used for a genuine progressive journey (i.e. a cruise).

[romarni123]

Does anyone think BW have scored a home goal by letting the boaters have Rivers only Licences on the Lee knowing they are ccers and knowing they will only be on that river and that they wont be goin g on the canals as they dont have a licence for it.

[Tim Lewis]

I am not sure they were very open with LRVP -

Sally Ash discussion document

 

There is a vague reference to improving the situation by 2012 but no actual mention of the games.

 

I would say again that BW wants to provide and charge for 1500 moorings for the Olympics. They want IWA to handle the logistics, presumably because IWA has much more experience than BW of this sort of operation and the cost is less than BW doing it themselves.

 

That, I would suggest is the only reason for BW's proposals. They will not set up a local mooring strategy like on the K&A for fear of losing control of the outcome.

 

Where did you get the info about IWA handling the logistics because that is news to the London Region IWA.

 

Tim

[GUMPY]

Does anyone think BW have scored a home goal by letting the boaters have Rivers only Licences on the Lee knowing they are ccers and knowing they will only be on that river and that they wont be going on the canals as they dont have a licence for it.

Yes

dont know why they ever did it

[Lady Muck]

Yep. Like alot of things they do. It's all so contradictory.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Lady Muck