Moorings Management Proposals

[sueb]

For info

 

An invitation to a public meeting:

 

Tuesday 1st March 6.30pm – 8.30pm

 

At Stanstead Abbott’s Village Hall

 

or

 

Wednesday 2nd March 6.30pm – 8.30pm

 

At Leaside Canoe Centre, Springfield

 

 

 

PROPOSALS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF MOORINGS ON THE

 

RIVERS LEE & STORT, HERTFORD UNION AND REGENT’S CANALS

 

 

 

British Waterways is currently contacting local people and representatives of relevant organisations in your area

 

to discuss our proposals for managing moorings.

 

 

 

We have developed our proposals, aiming to balance the interests of different interest groups including boaters,

 

walkers, rowers, canoeists, anglers, local residents, businesses and visitors to Lee Valley Park.

 

 

 

We want to hear your views which will help inform our final plans and how we put them into practice.

 

We enclose a document which sets out the proposals and we’d like to hear from you. Please:

 

 

 

* come along to one of the public meetings and have your say, and / or

* provide a written response (email or letter) – please read the attached form

 

For further information please contact

 

Damian Kemp, Project Officer, via email or on:

 

 

 

British Waterways

 

07887 855306

[Lady Muck]

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.

 

TBH I think most of us could see this coming a mile off, I'm planning to be up North with the boat when that all happens.

 

I lived in Greenwich during the millenium and we residents were treated like second class citizens while the party was on, it was a nightmare. So I'm getting the hell out.

[jenlyn]

its all tied in with the olympics, trouble is, they may make it work, and then continue to use it and branch out onto the whole system. Narrowboatworld will probably pick up on it at some point, rant and rave at BW, p*ss them all off in the office . . . I can see the end of the world just round the corner ooops, sorry, twas the worlds end pub

 

TBH I think most of us could see this coming a mile off, I'm planning to be up North with the boat when that all happens.

 

I lived in Greenwich during the millenium and we residents were treated like second class citizens while the party was on, it was a nightmare. So I'm getting the hell out.

 

oh good! we will get some updates to your blog then? Its neglected near grove hotel!

[Smelly]

If they'd said "the Olympics are coming we are going to have to get hard" before enforcing it would be on surer ground but simply imposing it with no rime or reason is likely in breach of public if not natural, law principles.

 

Foolish!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

BW's board were told in November -

 

'Following a comprehensive assessment of mooring demand we anticipate c. 1500 boats may visit London during the Games period. Whilst we believed that this may be a strong source of income (overnight mooring fees), the cost of managing the operation (boat journeys to the Games and mooring during the Games) will be significant and therefore unlikely to raise significant net income. It is recommended therefore that BW enters into an arrangement with the IWA to manage boats in transit and ‘temporary’ moorings during the Games. Bookings would be managed by BW through the Waterscape web site but the physical operation would be managed by the IWA. The objective is for income to cover costs however this will become clear once a full appraisal is undertaken by the IWA and BW. Mooring bookings for the Games will begin in the spring of 2011 following legal advice and agreement over temporary mooring zones'.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

BW's board were told in November -

 

'Following a comprehensive assessment of mooring demand we anticipate c. 1500 boats may visit London during the Games period. Whilst we believed that this may be a strong source of income (overnight mooring fees), the cost of managing the operation (boat journeys to the Games and mooring during the Games) will be significant and therefore unlikely to raise significant net income. It is recommended therefore that BW enters into an arrangement with the IWA to manage boats in transit and ‘temporary’ moorings during the Games. Bookings would be managed by BW through the Waterscape web site but the physical operation would be managed by the IWA. The objective is for income to cover costs however this will become clear once a full appraisal is undertaken by the IWA and BW. Mooring bookings for the Games will begin in the spring of 2011 following legal advice and agreement over temporary mooring zones'.

 

I guess that is the reason a local mooring strategy is not being developed, and BW has started implementing its policy of mooring charges before consultation. Its the time factor.

[Lady Muck]

its all tied in with the olympics, trouble is, they may make it work, and then continue to use it and branch out onto the whole system. Narrowboatworld will probably pick up on it at some point, rant and rave at BW, p*ss them all off in the office . . . I can see the end of the world just round the corner ooops, sorry, twas the worlds end pub

 

 

 

oh good! we will get some updates to your blog then? Its neglected near grove hotel!

 

Innit just? We met up with a boater we know who was going to the Lee and well and we proceeded to get absolutely hammered, for the last few days of the trip, couldn't face typing after that.

[RichardN]

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.

 

Nothing wrong with CC-ers. After all they move round the system all year, possibly in small hops but that is fine - canals should be used by moving boats and not serve as linear static caravan parks so CC-ers are a good thing. From what I have read in this thread nothing in this new policy will affect the genuine CC-er.

 

Whenever we have been down to the west end of the K&A we get the impression from the CM-ers there that they don't want to see boats moving. That is not good.

[alan_fincher]

Nothing wrong with CC-ers. After all they move round the system all year, possibly in small hops but that is fine - canals should be used by moving boats and not serve as linear static caravan parks so CC-ers are a good thing. From what I have read in this thread nothing in this new policy will affect the genuine CC-er.

But picking up my previous point.....

 

According to Lady Muck, BW have been happy to issue CCing licences to boaters on the Lee and Stort, but as a "Rivers Only" licence.

 

So, unless they go out onto the Thames, their "moving around the system" has to be confined to just the Lee and the Strt, which would appear to represent at least part of the problem, (if you see it as that!), which is being discussed here.

 

Playing devils advocate, by issuing a "Rivers Only" license to a CC-er on the Lee and Stort, BW are in a way accepting that they will take just the Lee and Stort as being big enough overall to satisfy their definition of continuous cruising. (If not, why issue a licence where the boat is not entitled to progress any further using BW waters).

 

So, just interested, in your view, is a boat that only CCs on the Lee and Stort, (moves regularly, but goes nowhere else) a genuine CC-er or not ?

 

My view is "probably yes", as it is surely enough to satisfy "bona fide navigation". If so, it would be unreasonable for BW to make life difficult for a boat when they have knowingly granted the licence they did.

[PiRSqwared]

From NBW:

 

'Sally Ash, British Waterways' Head of Boating Business, explains:

 

"Local boaters, walkers, cyclists, anglers and residents who use the waterways in the area have been telling us for some time that the number of boats moored in this area is a problem.'

 

I don't completely understand what the opinions of walkers, cyclists, and anglers have to do with the number of boats mooring along the canal.

You can walk long stretches of the Lee without seeing a boat at all. Most of the long term types seem to be in groups.

Edited February 19, 2011 by PiRSqwared

[Lady Muck]

From NBW:

 

'Sally Ash, British Waterways' Head of Boating Business, explains:

 

"Local boaters, walkers, cyclists, anglers and residents who use the waterways in the area have been telling us for some time that the number of boats moored in this area is a problem.'

 

I don't completely understand what the opinions of walkers, cyclists, and anglers have to do with the number of boats mooring along the canal.

You can walk long stretches of the Lee without seeing a boat at all. Most of the long term types seem to be in groups.

 

There are barely any anglers - below Tottenham lock it is too polluted. Above? well someones nicked all the big fish!

 

As for cyclists GYAC Sally, most of the cyclists are also the local boaters.

[Phoenix_V]

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.

 

 

I'm the secretary of a local boat club no ones told us anything

[Lady Muck]

I'm the secretary of a local boat club no ones told us anything

 

Why does this not surprise me? I've not had a letter, but I've not been to the boat for several weeks either, there could be a notice on the gates (but I very much doubt it).

 

Also Matty has had the letter, but no one on the L&S boaters group on Facebook have had one.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Lady Muck

[sueb]

You can't expect Sally to get everything right. She is a busy woman.

Sue

[Ronni]

But picking up my previous point.....

 

According to Lady Muck, BW have been happy to issue CCing licences to boaters on the Lee and Stort, but as a "Rivers Only" licence.

 

So, unless they go out onto the Thames, their "moving around the system" has to be confined to just the Lee and the Strt, which would appear to represent at least part of the problem, (if you see it as that!), which is being discussed here.

 

Playing devils advocate, by issuing a "Rivers Only" license to a CC-er on the Lee and Stort, BW are in a way accepting that they will take just the Lee and Stort as being big enough overall to satisfy their definition of continuous cruising. (If not, why issue a licence where the boat is not entitled to progress any further using BW waters).

 

So, just interested, in your view, is a boat that only CCs on the Lee and Stort, (moves regularly, but goes nowhere else) a genuine CC-er or not ?

 

My view is "probably yes", as it is surely enough to satisfy "bona fide navigation". If so, it would be unreasonable for BW to make life difficult for a boat when they have knowingly granted the licence they did.

 

That is a really good point :0)

 

Why does this not surprise me? I've not had a letter, but I've not been to the boat for several weeks either, there could be a notice on the gates (but I very much doubt it).

 

Also Matty has had the letter, but no one on the L&S boaters group on Facebook have had one.

 

I recieved my letter yesterday whilst on the phone to BW asking where it was. I got the distinct impression that at that time only the boats on the river, marinas and clubs would be getting the letter. I suggested that perhaps it may be prudent for him to email pdf copies to all licencholders which state their base as the river lee and stort as all users of the river would be effected. He agreed that would be a good idea. I also pointed out that by just leafleting the boats on the river at the moment which will be perdominantly liverboard CC's BW had actually, been a bad move for BW as they had basically picked on us in a discriminatory way, which I dont think he realised, not being a boater. My conversation was for over an hour with him and I found him to be very easy to talk to and open to suggestion. He did say that it is VERY VERY important we send him our feedback. And I agree totally. According to the paperwork, 'some 160 boaters reside on these waterways'. There are 71 members in the Lee and Stort boaters group on Facebook for which I am one of the Admimnistrators this equates to 45% of the 160, am not sure how many of your members reside on the Lee and Stort but as in 2005 it only needed 61% of the population to keep the government in I think if we organise ourselves and act in proper fashion, we will be able to come to an agreement with BW for a strategy that benefits both of us. So PLEASE take the time to send your feedback in, I honestly beleive we have the power to do good for everyone here.

Ok Rant over, going to make tea

Edited February 19, 2011 by Ronni

[canaldrifter]

 

 

 

 

I recieved my letter yesterday whilst on the phone to BW asking where it was.

 

Blimee. That was efficient!

 

tone

[Steilsteven]

What exactly is anyone objecting to here?

Boating is supposed to be about travelling the waterways, yes?

So why do so many people seem to want to stay in one place for days, weeks or even months on end?

Surely the idea is that you move your boat, stop for a day or two to visit somewhere interesting and then move onto somewhere else and so on.

I can't for the life of me see what is unreasonable about a seven day limit and then having to pay if you want to stay longer.

 

If, like me, you choose to live on your boat (and you have chosen,nobody has forced you) and you feel the need to stay in one place long term, then you have to take up a mooring and pay for it. It's no good bleating about needing to be close to work or schools and that you can't afford to pay the extra charges, nobody promissed that you would be able to live the life you've chosen hassle free.

 

If you think you're badly off, try the Thames where it's mostly 24hr max or a fee is payable and then you'll be asked/told to move on after a few days.

 

The fact is that we've all been spoilt by BW in the past, when we could leave our boat pretty much anywhere for weeks on end and then came the C.C. licence terms which, I'm sure, BW wish it had never introduced.

 

Keith

[Chris Pink]

BW did not 'introduce' the concept of not having a home mooring, it was made law by Parliament - heard of them? If the boaters on the Lee navigations choose to use the waterways within the law then that is their choice, as you say. BW does not make law it administers under them.

[Steilsteven]

BW did not 'introduce' the concept of not having a home mooring, it was made law by Parliament - heard of them? If the boaters on the Lee navigations choose to use the waterways within the law then that is their choice, as you say. BW does not make law it administers under them.

 

So why does it only apply to BW and no other navigation authority?

 

Keith.

[Lady Muck]

What exactly is anyone objecting to here?

Boating is supposed to be about travelling the waterways, yes?

So why do so many people seem to want to stay in one place for days, weeks or even months on end?

Surely the idea is that you move your boat, stop for a day or two to visit somewhere interesting and then move onto somewhere else and so on.

I can't for the life of me see what is unreasonable about a seven day limit and then having to pay if you want to stay longer.

 

If, like me, you choose to live on your boat (and you have chosen,nobody has forced you) and you feel the need to stay in one place long term, then you have to take up a mooring and pay for it. It's no good bleating about needing to be close to work or schools and that you can't afford to pay the extra charges, nobody promissed that you would be able to live the life you've chosen hassle free.

 

If you think you're badly off, try the Thames where it's mostly 24hr max or a fee is payable and then you'll be asked/told to move on after a few days.

 

The fact is that we've all been spoilt by BW in the past, when we could leave our boat pretty much anywhere for weeks on end and then came the C.C. licence terms which, I'm sure, BW wish it had never introduced.

 

Keith

 

Well I like travelling the system but I also like spending days and weeks on end in one place. I didn't go all the way up North on my boat to see mum and only spend a day there. I went to the Thames last summer and I disagree - we found quite a few places where we could moor and were free and 14 days. Ok we had to use a plank or the canoe quite often but I didn't mind that. I spent a fortnight around the Oxford area. If I like somewhere I like to really explore it and not bugger off after two days. I enjoy walking and that's one of the reasons I use the boat in this way, so I can pitch up somewhere for a bit and really explore it properly.

 

 

I really enjoy my annual one month-ish pootle around the Lee and Stort, it's a shame to me that was once free might now be charged for and that's why I'm objecting to it.

 

I'm also objecting to any divisive tactics that anyone uses to get me to side with BW rather than my fellow boaters. Not playing. They implement these changes and we all suffer.

 

To add: I don't like mooring on visitor moorings so this new plan really riles me - even if I moor in the sticks I'm only given 7 days.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Lady Muck

[canaldrifter]

So why does it only apply to BW and no other navigation authority?

 

Keith.

 

Because it's called the British Waterways Act 1995

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/1/enacted

 

 

Tone

[steelaway]

Why does this not surprise me? I've not had a letter, but I've not been to the boat for several weeks either, there could be a notice on the gates (but I very much doubt it).

 

Also Matty has had the letter, but no one on the L&S boaters group on Facebook have had one.

 

 

Hi

 

Why can't I finf the Lee and Stort boaters club on Facebook?

 

Alex

[Steilsteven]

Because it's called the British Waterways Act 1995

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/1/enacted

 

 

Tone

 

So,pedants aside, BW introduced it.

 

Keith

[canaldrifter]

What exactly is anyone objecting to here?

 

 

I'm objecting because this is yet another example of BW (through Sally Ash) piling more and more 'legislation' on to boaters when they have no legal power to do so.

 

With any scheme thought up by SA, the first question to ask is, is this yet another way of making money out of boaters? Because that seems to be at the top of her job priority list.

 

There is no provision in the 1995 Act for BW to declare 'neighbourhoods'. The act talks of 'places'. BW have no right to interpret what this means to suit themselves any more than boaters do. Nor do they have any right to impose overstaying charges, nor to add these to licence renewal fees.

 

We need to be very vigilant in case these complex local schemes are incorporated into new national legislation that might accompany trust status.

 

Tone

[Lady Muck]

Hi

 

Why can't I finf the Lee and Stort boaters club on Facebook?

 

Alex

 

probably because the name starts with 'The river'?

 

clicky