Moorings Management Proposals

[Lady Muck]

30 miles is huge??

 

When I was a highways engineer I walked 10 miles a day and drove 2000 miles a month, managing an enforcement role as well as maintenance inspections.

 

I could have covered a 30 mile patch twice a week.

 

Ok, it's huge to me.

[Neil TNC]

What a shame our representative organisations don't command the same respect that those speaking up for trees do.

 

and there lies the problem...boaters do not all sing from the same hymn sheet. BW delight in divide and conquer tactics. Isn’t it nice when a plan comes together (to quote the original NOT The Narrow Boat News.)

[marmaduke]

There was one particular bit which sounded quite Orwellian:

 

"BW has introduced new systems for monitoring and recording where boats are moored, including automated logging of all sightings on BW's computer network."

 

Automated logging? Are they to install CCTV covering the entire towpath, scanning the scene for numbers which might represent boat IDs...

 

Regardless, it looks to me that this whole plan is designed to pay for itself. Many people are likely to be fined (let's not mince words BW) for overstaying regardless of their intentions, good or otherwise, bringing in a substantial revenue, enough to employ a number of officers to do this on a daily basis...including weekends one would have to presume?

 

To flesh this out though: to log the movements of over 700 boats on this 30 mile stretch...how many officers would they need to do this every day? Including weekends. And let's say each officer was on £20k pa, how many fines would they be expecting to take to pay these officers? Any guesses at this?

[marmaduke]

I've scanned the document in and you can download and view it from here:

http://www.marmadukedando.com/bw-mooring-plans.PDF

[carlt]

and there lies the problem...boaters do not all sing from the same hymn sheet. BW delight in divide and conquer tactics.

When you look at the diverse organisations that united to oppose the forestry sell off you'd have thought at least one of the "national" waterways organisations could actually stand up and shout, instead of muttering into their half of mild.

 

 

To flesh this out though: to log the movements of over 700 boats on this 30 mile stretch...how many officers would they need to do this every day? Including weekends. And let's say each officer was on £20k pa, how many fines would they be expecting to take to pay these officers? Any guesses at this?

It depends if the officers are prepared to walk the towpaths or just sit in their Discoverys, seeing what they can spot from the top of a hump back bridge.

 

Read my earlier post to see how other enforcing organisations manage.

[Albion]

30 miles is huge??

 

When I was a highways engineer I walked 10 miles a day and drove 2000 miles a month, managing an enforcement role as well as maintenance inspections.

 

I could have covered a 30 mile patch twice a week.

 

I think you're quite right Carl. I think you have to WANT to enforce but if you're looking for an easy life then a glance from the nearest bridge is all that is required to convince your boss that your doing your job. I doubt there is even a glance from the nearest bridge here. One (of two boats) that have sat just along from the centre for well over a year recently wrote a letter to the local paper giving his address as 'Leeds and Liverpool Canal, Skipton' (no boat name or anything).

Roger

[Lady Muck]

Read my earlier post to see how other enforcing organisations manage.

 

They already know where everyone is, the boat checkers are up here every week.

[carlt]

They already know where everyone is, the boat checkers are up here every week.

The next requirement is having a piece of legislation that they can actually use, to exercise reasonable enforcement action, instead of making it up, on the hoof, leaving people with ridiculous fines that are both unfair and, in all likelihood, unenforcible.

[Lady Muck]

I find the wording in the pdf really divisive. Divide and conquer isn't it? I hate it when it gets pointed out to me that boaters are 'getting away with not paying,' They're not paying for a mooring and therefore they're not getting a mooring. I'm paying for a mooring and I have one. Seems fair enough to me.

[canaldrifter]

What a shame our representative organisations don't command the same respect that those speaking up for trees do.

 

If they were better supported by boaters, they might do. It's a catch 22 situation.

 

Tone

[canaldrifter]

I find the wording in the pdf really divisive. Divide and conquer isn't it? I hate it when it gets pointed out to me that boaters are 'getting away with not paying,' They're not paying for a mooring and therefore they're not getting a mooring. I'm paying for a mooring and I have one. Seems fair enough to me.

 

Damian Kemp is Sally Ash's sidekick. Now why doesn't that surprise me?

 

This tactic seems to be derived from the following meeting:

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Notes-from-national-user-group-meeting-discussin-consultation-results.pdf

 

Tone

[carlt]

If they were better supported by boaters, they might do. It's a catch 22 situation.

 

Tone

No it's not.

 

If they actually stood up and said "This is what we will do" then they would get support.

 

If you're not selling anything you can be sure nobody will buy it.

[Lady Muck]

Well he'd better bring his tin hat along to the meeting!

 

And another thing - this talk about fairness in the pdf - the winter towpath moorings up near me (no services, no security, no nothing), were exactly the same price as my marina (big garden, secure parking, mains elec and water to every berth. That's not fair is it?

Edited February 18, 2011 by Lady Muck

[alan_fincher]

Of the many bridge hoppers I have known, pretty much all of them have now taken up LTMs, as soon as they came up, not because they were forced to but because they were forced to bridge hop, due to lack of availability of moorings.

 

The rest don't want a mooring but only 2 have ever told me they wouldn't want to pay, to become legal.

 

Perhaps if you actually talked to these people, instead of pre-judging them, you may find that they dislike their legally dubious status as much as you do.

Carl,

 

This isn't meant to be divisive - just fact.

 

I DO talk to quite a few of these people, on a quite regular basis.

 

There are now a growing number in our locality who have given up permanent berths to join the local "continuous cruiser" set.

 

They certainly have not done it because they want to be out on the tow-path, and say they would much prefer to be in the serviced moorings they have left, particularly because of electricity and parking.

 

They have done what they have done simply because in some cases up to £400 a month is now threatened, and they see others not having to pay this, with almost no challenge.

 

The chap I was talking to yesterday gave up a marina berth almost exactly a year ago. He says he is very rarely troubled, but did recently get moved on from somewhere after 10 weeks. He believes however this was because someone reported him because they thought he was partially blocking a winding hole, and that he would have remained unchallenged otherwise.

 

He likes where he is now, as it is closer to his work than the berth he gave up, and car parking is easy.

 

I'm not suggesting that this applies to all local bridge hoppers, but the current take up of both vacant marina berths, and BW auctioned tow-path moorings is very low, so I suggest there are very few prepared to start paying for a permanent mooring until someone takes more steps to force them to. (And why would anybody, to be honest ?)

 

The bit I really don't understand is that when dog walking on the tow-path, I regularly see BW men out with their little hand held terminals, (and yes, they are walking lengths, not just observing from bridges). What the point of the exercise is, when boats stay in the same place for many months, and patrol notices are ever in evidence, I simply can't tell you. Unlike the moorers, many of whom seem very happy to chat, the BW men are perhaps unsurprisingly much less communicative.

[canaldrifter]

No it's not.

 

If they actually stood up and said "This is what we will do" then they would get support.

 

If you're not selling anything you can be sure nobody will buy it.

 

Sigh.....

 

Tone

 

For an insight into the working methods of Sally Ash, the opening paras of this are interesting:

 

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/?p=1266#more-1266

 

Tone

[carlt]

Sigh.....

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Carl,

 

This isn't meant to be divisive - just fact.

 

I DO talk to quite a few of these people, on a quite regular basis.

 

There are now a growing number in our locality who have given up permanent berths to join the local "continuous cruiser" set.

 

They certainly have not done it because they want to be out on the tow-path, and say they would much prefer to be in the serviced moorings they have left, particularly because of electricity and parking.....

 

 

Then things have changed, in the 4 years since I left the cut, when moorings were in short supply (but reasonably priced, when you did finally get one).

 

The new situation seems to confirm the lack of meaningful, and clear, legislation and the unreasonable mooring price hikes.

Edited February 18, 2011 by carlt

[canaldrifter]

What bothers me most is the paragraph at the foot of page 6 (and 7) of the pdf. The wording implies that whatever the objections from those 'consulted', BW will go ahead and implement the scheme.

 

Tone

[matty40s]

What bothers me most is the paragraph at the foot of page 6 (and 7) of the pdf. The wording implies that whatever the objections from those 'consulted', BW will go ahead and implement the scheme.

Tone

 

Tone

you don't think that after all the time they spent putting this together they would consider changing it do you...???

There are some interesting thoughts around other options on this thread, and I note there have been BW bods reading it. I think i am going to attend the Tuesday meeting.

[canaldrifter]

My thoughts exactly.

 

 

Touche...

Tone

 

"However, Damian Kemp informed us that BW is not proposing to impose overstaying charges on 14-day moorings,"

 

Oops.

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Notes-from-national-user-group-meeting-discussin-consultation-results.pdf

 

Tone

[marmaduke]

I think something that could be easily done and for very little money, would be to designate 2-4 births nearest to the services (tap, elsan, toilets) which are strictly for 48 hours only. Anything around that is fair game for 14 days.

 

This would mean that boaters coming in to London or any other "densely" moored areas, will still be able to moor in prime spots. I think if this was intimated with signage at these births, most boaters would respect it, as it's a very reasonable request.

 

This measure would also mean that BW wouldn't have to admit to the existence of bridge hoppers.

 

On a separate note, I must say, the type of people you meet who are CC-ing are generally very reasonable, polite and thoughtful, who would help each other out, even if they'd just met them, lend people things, and generally get along. This type of spirit should not be crushed with draconian rules, but instead, encouraged for the benefit of the community.

 

There is a strong sense of Us and Them, which I don't believe is necessary...we're all part of the canal system, we should be working together for its upkeep and our well being. There are plenty of good things boaters could be doing around the network as they go to help save BW money and staff, and keeping things in good order. I don't mean dobbing people if they've overstayed their welcome, I mean clearing the cut of rubbish, keeping the towpath clean, disposing of waste properly. It doesn't have to be this black and white.

[canaldrifter]

 

 

On a separate note, I must say, the type of people you meet who are CC-ing are generally very reasonable, polite and thoughtful, who would help each other out, even if they'd just met them, lend people things, and generally get along. This type of spirit should not be crushed with draconian rules, but instead, encouraged for the benefit of the community.

 

 

 

Possibly cos this is our way of life, not just a leisure past-time?

 

Tone

[sueb]

Another mess from BW?

 

 

 

It's exactly the same mentality that means not one laundry room, electricity bollard or pump out machine anywhere on the system uses the same card or costs the same! I.e. a right pain!

As you can't buy the cards easily when travelling they aren't much use anyway

Sue

[Smelly]

The consultation *cough* is in March. I'm also going to the user group meeting in March. Lets see what they say.

 

So they've implemented before the consultation and are thus open to challenge as the BERR consultation guidelines are binding unless reasons are stated ina dvance of any action being taken.

 

The wording implies that whatever the objections from those 'consulted', BW will go ahead and implement the scheme.

 

Tone

 

From LM's "licence £400 more than he expected" comment they've already gone ahead.

 

If it were me with that bill I would offer them the licence fee, then if they refuse invite them to take S8 proceedings while complaining to the Ombudsman.

 

For anyone who gives a toss the Ombudsman's procedure is free, go up the BW complaint procedure and when it's exhausted write to the Ombudsman's office. I'm sure even Dave will agree that S43 charges are made under different provisions than the licence fees and do not have specified enforcement procedures; they just give rise to a civil liability.

[matty40s]

The Consultation is in February/March 2010 !!!!!!!!!!!according to the document I have in front of me.

 

We aim to consult with the groups below....invite people to public meetings....and then approach local authorities for further discussion once we have heard peoples views.

1 waterways users -local boat clubs,mooring operators,tourism,anglers,rowers,LTmoorers.

2boaters in tge plan area without a LTM

3 Local council and authorities, who couldn't give a monkeys.

 

So.... 2 meetings and that's yer lot.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Part of the reason that boaters are being given the 'bums rush' rather than set up a moorings strategy group is the requirement to clear out the lower Lee and Regents and Hertford Union canals in preparation for 1500 temporary moorings for the Olympics.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)