Moorings Management Proposals

[Steilsteven]

No one has any better ideas, its all just crap pass the buck, BW trying to blame cc'ers for overstaying and others claiming cc'ers are on the fiddle, well if its a crap system dont expect much good from it because its dog eat dog and everyone's trying their best to survive on this planet and if the politics forces people to live in boats on unauthorised moorings, just dont try blaming cc'ers for all the ills on the waterways ok?

 

And there was I thinking that this boating lark was such fun

 

Keith

[Ronni]

 

It's this bit that I'm struggling with because it's not true. On the face of it, you can stay for as long as you like but you will have to pay for the privilege after a set number of days.Well, I'm sorry but I can't see anything wrong with that part except the £20 per day fee being extortionate. It doesn't force anyone to take up a mooring and it doesn't force anyone to pay because you have the option to move on.

 

I'm not a C.C. basher, I've C.Ced myself and might want to again yet (and I'd probably be labelled by some as a bridge hopper because my cruising range is restricted by Petra's size)and the only part of this proposal that would affect me would be the part about maximum days in a year that you're allowed to be in that area.That must be an infringement of human rights.

 

 

Keith

 

Both of the above points I agree with and will be making the points in my feedback form, I beleive the £20 per day cost is worked out by the cost of having people on the ground to impiement the rules and if I can think of a cheaper way of doing it i will be suggesting that too.

 

I also have a size issue with my boat, and will be asking about the possibility of only having to cruise 4 or 5 of the neigborhoods instead of the total 6.

 

xx

Ronni

[Ronni]

 

Enforce BWA 1995 as it reads, not as BW would like it to read, and use s43 only to further restrict mooring sites that are associated with services, such as lock landings, water points, shopping stops, elsan, etc.

 

There is no reason why there should be any restrictions on visitor moorings when 100 yards further on, there is a perfectly good tow path, to knock your pins in.

 

Oh and then enforce it!

 

 

Why not restrict visitor moorings as well, if you are a CC on the river you are not a visitor, you live there. That would leave moorings free for holiday boaters and people who have moorings who want to holiday in the area?

 

Impliment the 14 day rule on the rest of the river within each 'neighborhood', with say 90 days max in each 'neighborhood' thus making sure you travel at least 2/3 of the waterway in a year. Impliment far harsher charges for overstaying in either the 14 day 'place' or 90 day 'neighborhood'. Say £50 per day per place or £500 per neighborhood.

The harsher the charges, the more likely ppl are to move/ stick to the rules. The better the rules the easier it is to stick to them.

 

Please dont kill me, its just an idea :0)

 

I don't dissagree with what you say but, and I'm only asking because I'm interested and not to get anyone's back up, aren't they entitled as land owners to make a charge for moorings against any of their land?

 

Keith

 

 

Am not sure, but I think BW are entitled to charge the land owner for allowing a boat to moor on their land.

[steelaway]

Have BW realised that imposing these new rules and because of the lack of mooring on the Lee and Stort, they will be making many of these boaters homeless.

Will BW be passing on he responsibility for re-homeing these boaters onto the local councils?

Isn't there a law about making people homeless?

I am sure there are many live aboard boaters in this area who would happily pay for linear mooring if BW made them available.

 

Alex

 

 

 

[carlt]

Why not restrict visitor moorings as well, if you are a CC on the river you are not a visitor, you live there.

 

That's like saying I should be restricted to where in the town I live in, because I live there.

 

There is no such thing, in law, as 'visitor moorings', just a 14 day limit, for boaters with no home mooring or place to leave their boat.

 

Designated visitor moorings merely add to congestion because many boaters don't actually realise that they can moor, pretty much, anywhere they like, on a canal tow path.

[sueb]

Have BW realised that imposing these new rules and because of the lack of mooring on the Lee and Stort, they will be making many of these boaters homeless.

Will BW be passing on he responsibility for re-homeing these boaters onto the local councils?

Isn't there a law about making people homeless?

I am sure there are many live aboard boaters in this area who would happily pay for linear mooring if BW made them available.

 

Alex

No BW aren't making people homeless. The boaters are making themselves homeless if they can't/won't live within the rules.

Sue

[steelaway]

No BW aren't making people homeless. The boaters are making themselves homeless if they can't/won't live within the rules.

Sue

 

 

Hi Sue

 

What I'm really saying is. -

 

Why is BW not providing any moorings for all these boaters, surely that would bring much more revenue than trying to find and fine them all.

There is mass's of room for linear moorings - proven by the number of bridge hopper's that they are trying to be rid of.

Why haven't they explored this alternative, its seems, to me, to be far simpler than all this neighbourhood's nonsense.

 

 

Alex

[Lady Muck]

Hi Sue

 

What I'm really saying is. -

 

Why is BW not providing any moorings for all these boaters, surely that would bring much more revenue than trying to find and fine them all.

There is mass's of room for linear moorings - proven by the number of bridge hopper's that they are trying to be rid of.

Why haven't they explored this alternative, its seems, to me, to be far simpler than all this neighbourhood's nonsense.

 

 

Alex

 

There are no linear towpath moorings on the L&S. But most of the Lee runs through the Lee Valley Park. It's an SSSI. I'd imagine because of this moorings are strictly limited, I can totally understand that they don't want large amounts of moorings in their park, well not more than they have already (My mooring is in Lee Valley Park) . They (Lee Valley Park) already run two big marinas.

 

ETA I've downloaded the 1966 Lee Valley Parks act from their website, it's a 72 page document, I note that 'houseboat' and 'vessel used bona fide for navigation' are both in there, I'm reading it now, lets see what they say.

 

The link is here My link

 

Read page 28, BW have an interest in the land but Lee Valley Park have the right to 'regulate the use for navigational purposes any waterway in the park' (including moorings etc)

Edited February 20, 2011 by Lady Muck

[carlt]

The boaters are making themselves homeless if they can't/won't live within the rules.

Even if BW are changing the rules, with no legal right to do so?

 

I wonder who represents those boaters you've just alienated?

 

Divide and rule!

[mayalld]

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.

 

 

The problem I have is that on the sections of canal that I see most regularly, there is ample supply of available LTM.

 

In such a scenario, the CMer cannot claim that he would take a mooring if it was available. Around here, the hardcore of CMers who are claiming to continuously cruise, but never actually get past Marple are doing so on purely financial grounds.

 

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?

 

How many places were available at your marina for winter moorings?

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes, even Dave agrees with that.

 

Isn't that what is important.

 

There are many things that would be a great idea, if only they were legal.

 

BW doesn't take any notice of this and implements charges and restrictions that go way beyond their legal remit.

 

To impose a 7 day limit, even in isolated country stretches that offer no services makes a mockery of both the spirit, and the letter, of BWA 1995 and way oversteps the boundaries of s43 of the Transport Act.

 

The 1995 Act is UTTERLY SILENT on the subject of mooring time limits, other than for Continuous Cruisers, and s43 is explicit the "use of the waterway" is a service for the purposes of that section.

[carlt]

s43 is explicit the "use of the waterway" is a service....

....for which a charge has already been made.

 

I like to call it 'the licence fee'.

[mayalld]

An interesting rewrite of the 1995 Waterways Act

 

 

 

 

 

Shall we say ;

 

 

"To qualify for a boat licence as laid out in the 1995 British Waterways Act which requires a boat to genuinely move on the waterway network without mooring in any one place for more than 14 days. An exception is made for boats which have a 'home mooring' - somewhere where it may lawfully be kept when not being used for cruising Some boats on our canals and rivers, and in this particular area, hold a continuous cruiser licence but are moving only limited distances and mooring in just a few locations, fully legally under the Act"

 

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".

 

....for which a charge has already been made.

 

I like to call it 'the licence fee'.

 

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

[Lady Muck]

How many places were available at your marina for winter moorings?

 

None. It is full.

[carlt]

The Act empowers BW to decide, because it must "be satisfied".

This does, of course, have to be reasonable, which is what BW have always wrestled with.

 

Satisfying the seething, vociferous minority, furious at the thought of someone getting something for nothing, whilst also being seen to be acting reasonably.

 

This is why their 'interpretation' of this section has had more rewrites than a bad soap storyline.

 

If BW actually enforced the letter of the law, rather than botch another reinterpretation together, they might actually see far less overstayers.

 

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

In your opinion.

 

In many other peoples' opinion it is totally unreasonable, to charge for the same service twice.

[alan_fincher]

The problem I have is that on the sections of canal that I see most regularly, there is ample supply of available LTM.

Dave,

 

I have met Lady muck on several occasions, and find her a very credible witness.

 

If she says, as she has done repeatedly, that there is a drastically short supply of permanent moorings in that area, then I fully believe her. (She has one, so has no need to play any CCer card....).

 

It does, I'll admit, beg the question whether it is right for more and more people to acquire boats that they expect to put on that stretch of water, knowing that few permanent mooring vacancies come up. That however is not the same thing as saying there are moorings that people could take up - I believe there are probably very few indeed.

 

Also the same argument might not apply that far away, also, I'll admit. A number of BW Hertfordshire tow-path moorings on the GU have recently failed to let, even at reserve. I would suggest that some of the Lee boaters could seek these, but most seem to be restricted to 7 foot beam, and an increasing number of the boats taking up residence in London or on the Lee seem to be wide-beams, (or so it seems as an admittedly only occasional visitor).

[Lady Muck]

The thing is, as long as you get a license for your boat, you have a right to navigate. It's a really, really popular place to live on a boat up here, yet we can't stretch the canal and make room for all the newbies that are arriving (I'm told it was two a week at one point).

 

I don't think it occurs to people (when they buy a boat), that this is a problem.

 

I can't see that many more moorings being created, because too much of both rivers is protected/nature reserves or unsuitable as in too shallow (see my post on Lee Valley Parks). So much as I see BW taking their usual sledgehammer approach I can understand the frustrations as the River gets busier.

 

Perhaps more boaters will move to Roydon Marina, I don't know.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Lady Muck

[mayalld]

None. It is full.

 

In which case, the relative pricing of a marina berth and a winter mooring is meaningless, because one of those numbers is entirely notional, due to there being zero supply.

 

In any case "fairness" depends on what you are buying. I can see no reason to expect that buying a short term mooring during a part of the year when moorings are in shorter supply shouldn't attract a premium over buying a mooring for the whole year.

[Chris Pink]

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".

 

And you are too wrapped up in your own little world of dogma to understand the point I was making so fall back on your parroting of irrelevant detail.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Chris Pink

[Ronni]

That's like saying I should be restricted to where in the town I live in, because I live there.

 

There is no such thing, in law, as 'visitor moorings', just a 14 day limit, for boaters with no home mooring or place to leave their boat.

 

Designated visitor moorings merely add to congestion because many boaters don't actually realise that they can moor, pretty much, anywhere they like, on a canal tow path.

 

No, what I mean is, if CC's dont use the designated visitor moorings for their 14 day stays, it keeps them clear for the boaters who use the waterways for their holidays. Visiting boaters wouldnt know they can moor anywhere, and by keeping those areas clear for them it stops many complains of 'we cant moor because CC's are always there'.

 

Is just an Idea

[Lesd]

Also the same argument might not apply that far away, also, I'll admit. A number of BW Hertfordshire tow-path moorings on the GU have recently failed to let, even at reserve.

 

Where were these please Alan ?

Les

[carlt]

No, what I mean is, if CC's dont use the designated visitor moorings for their 14 day stays, it keeps them clear for the boaters who use the waterways for their holidays.

Why should ccers not have the same rights as holiday makers?

 

Most marina moored boaters rarely venture far from their home mooring so, presumably, they too are using the same moorings, repeatedly.

 

To suggest that ccers have less right to use the facilities that they pay just as much for, as boaters with a permanent mooring, is to dismiss them as second class citizens.

[Chris Pink]

No, what I mean is, if CC's dont use the designated visitor moorings for their 14 day stays, it keeps them clear for the boaters who use the waterways for their holidays. Visiting boaters wouldnt know they can moor anywhere, and by keeping those areas clear for them it stops many complains of 'we cant moor because CC's are always there'.

 

Is just an Idea

 

This is, in general, what happens anyway, the needs of liveaboards are different to visitors to a town except when they are the same boat, liveaboards don't tend to use town centre moorings for 14 day stops and visitors don't, in general, seem to moor in out of the way places.

 

I don't think any further formalisation of this is necessary.

[Lady Muck]

In which case, the relative pricing of a marina berth and a winter mooring is meaningless, because one of those numbers is entirely notional, due to there being zero supply.

 

In any case "fairness" depends on what you are buying. I can see no reason to expect that buying a short term mooring during a part of the year when moorings are in shorter supply shouldn't attract a premium over buying a mooring for the whole year.

 

What BW (and you) think and what local boaters think = two very different opinions. I think £1.5k for four months of towpath mooring (in Tottenham of all places) is a rip off.

[Chris Pink]

..

Edited February 20, 2011 by Chris Pink

[mayalld]

What BW (and you) think and what local boaters think = two very different opinions. I think £1.5k for four months of towpath mooring (in Tottenham of all places) is a rip off.

 

I too would think it a rip-off, and would take my business elsewhere.