BW's approach to Continuous Cruising?

[Robin2]

so you think a blanket 3 day maximum for the entire kidlington to oxford section is Equal access to all?? I DON'T!! the real problem is LONG TERM moored boats a blanket 14 day stay would be fair, the situation as it was last time i was there isn't (although it may have changed again)

 

If you read my post carefully (it won't take you long) you will see that I said nothing about the desirability of 3day moorings over a long stretch of any canal and I don't like the way you have "jumped" on me.

 

And I don't actually understand your post. Are you saying that BW has applied a 3day limit all along the 5 miles from Kidlington to Oxford or are you saying that there are 14d and 3d moorings but all the 14d moorings are taken by CMers?

 

Many people cruising the canal only have the boat for a week or a fortnight and to accommodate them there must be short stay moorings.

 

If there is a 3d limit all along the stretch from Kidlington to Oxford perhaps that is justified by the volume of boats that wants to visit Oxford? Personally, if I got to Oxford (or any other substantial city) I would like to be able to stay for 5 to 7 days. I am only likely to want to do that once a year, or once every few years. And I do accept that, however the moorings are defined, I may not be able to moor if there are already a lot of visiting boats that got there before me. However it would be very unfair if scarce mooring space is occupied by "local" boats abusing their licence conditions and taking no account of the needs of visitors.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Robin2

[blodger]

I have not been down to Kidlington sice the changes but extensive redefining moorings to 3 days over miles of canal precludes continuous crusing by weekending the boat as you cannot leave it for five days.

[sebrof]

For me the answer is very simple. Long term moorings and marina berths are allocated on an economic basis. But moorings with time limits - be they 24h, 48h, 5d or the remainder of the towpath at 14d - are defined like that so that everybody has equal access to them regardless of means. And that's how it should stay.

 

 

The alternative is a move to a situation where you have to pay an overnight fee everywhere you stop. At the moment that "overnight payment" is subsumed in my annual licence fee and I want it to stay like that. While nobody likes price increases I would prefer a general price increase to a change to a system where I had to pay short term mooring fees in addition to my annual licence.

 

Thank you. Very eloquently expressed. It's rather like paying once to use the roads, and not having to pay tolls everywhere.

[sueb]

If you read my post carefully (it won't take you long) you will see that I said nothing about the desirability of 3day moorings over a long stretch of any canal and I don't like the way you have "jumped" on me.

 

And I don't actually understand your post. Are you saying that BW has applied a 3day limit all along the 5 miles from Kidlington to Oxford or are you saying that there are 14d and 3d moorings but all the 14d moorings are taken by CMers?

 

Many people cruising the canal only have the boat for a week or a fortnight and to accommodate them there must be short stay moorings.

 

If there is a 3d limit all along the stretch from Kidlington to Oxford perhaps that is justified by the volume of boats that wants to visit Oxford? Personally, if I got to Oxford (or any other substantial city) I would like to be able to stay for 5 to 7 days. I am only likely to want to do that once a year, or once every few years. And I do accept that, however the moorings are defined, I may not be able to moor if their are already a lot of visiting boats that got there before me. However it would be very unfair if scarce mooring space is occupied by "local" boats abusing their licence conditions and taking no account of the needs of visitors.

I think you have summed up the mooring problem on all the popular canals.

Sue

[the grinch]

sorry robin if i appear to have "jumped on you" it was not intentional, the whole 5 miles yes, was reduced to 3 day mooring by S. Ainley and his obnoxious little hitlers a totally unacceptable situation to visitors like myself who have to go to work during the week. the real problem was the long line of permanent moorers below the junction, yet BW persecuted the genuine cruisers whilst leaving the hippy commune complete with all its chattle strewn along the towpath unmolested!

even in london i could always get a 6 day mooring i would stop at little venice in one direction and camden on my return there was never a problem in the kidlington area prior to the restriction being introduced.

[sociable_hermit]

For me the answer is very simple. Long term moorings and marina berths are allocated on an economic basis. But moorings with time limits - be they 24h, 48h, 5d or the remainder of the towpath at 14d - are defined like that so that everybody has equal access to them regardless of means. And that's how it should stay.

 

 

The alternative is a move to a situation where you have to pay an overnight fee everywhere you stop. At the moment that "overnight payment" is subsumed in my annual licence fee and I want it to stay like that. While nobody likes price increases I would prefer a general price increase to a change to a system where I had to pay short term mooring fees in addition to my annual licence.

I think arranging 24 hour nationwide BW Warden patrols to take your short term mooring fees wherever and whenever you tie up might also prove to be a rather expensive waste of time.

[Robin2]

sorry robin if i appear to have "jumped on you" it was not intentional, the whole 5 miles yes, was reduced to 3 day mooring by S. Ainley and his obnoxious little hitlers a totally unacceptable situation to visitors like myself who have to go to work during the week. the real problem was the long line of permanent moorers below the junction, yet BW persecuted the genuine cruisers whilst leaving the hippy commune complete with all its chattle strewn along the towpath unmolested!

even in london i could always get a 6 day mooring i would stop at little venice in one direction and camden on my return there was never a problem in the kidlington area prior to the restriction being introduced.

 

Apology accepted. I'm still not clear from your posts whether the change to 3d moorings has solved the CMers problem on the stretch near Oxford. If it has, it seems to have been a useful device and maybe after a period of time BW could be asked to reinstate longer moorings on some parts. If it hasn't you have my sympathy, and maybe we should be making some alternative constructive suggestions to BW. Personally I favour diplomacy rather than name-calling.

 

 

I think arranging 24 hour nationwide BW Warden patrols to take your short term mooring fees wherever and whenever you tie up might also prove to be a rather expensive waste of time.

 

I agree, but I said in my post that I was not in favour of short term fees.

[Lady Muck]

NABO says that they represent all boaters yet for years it has always been unclear does that mean they represent the Paul Davieses of this world or the people who pay for a mooring. The problem with having some sort of permit to CM is then you need to charge an amount similar or more than the local moorings or people on the moorings will start CN-ing.

 

There are no unserviced towpath moorings on the Lee. All of the moorings are gated and offside and maybe about half of them have full services. So I don't think it would be fair to charge roving permit moorers the same. There was very little take - up of winter moorings opposite me. Probably because they costed about the same as my fully serviced secure mooring on the Lee, which isn't cheap. FWIW I wouldn't want to be a ccer in London. To me, it seems like a whole load of stress, which I wouldn't want. They pay for nothing and get a load of hassle (IME).

 

Also: I can't see Lee Valley Parks agreeing to it. They can overrule BW AFAIK. It would go against the LVP Act, which stipulates that the park is for leisure and not residential. Not only boats, but they've stopped people from living in vehicles and chalets in LVP. As most of the river runs through LVP (incl the most popular mooring spot for ccers - Walthamstow Marsh), then I can't see where they'd issue these permits.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Lady Muck

[Robin2]

They pay for nothing and get a load of hassle (IME).

 

 

I may have misunderstood the intention behind your post but it seems to me you are implying that the Continuous Cruisers around London get something free that other boaters have to pay for. What is that?

[Lady Muck]

I think you did misunderstand me. CCers in London get nothing. I wasn't impressed when I got a letter from BW suggesting it was unfair that they don't pay and get something for free.

 

The only thing they get for free is unwelcome attention from drunks, the local kids etc. I don't envy them and would rather pay my 3 grand a year and not be subjected to that.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Lady Muck

[cotswoldsman]

I think you did misunderstand me. CCers in London get nothing. I wasn't impressed when I got a letter from BW suggesting it was unfair that they don't pay and get something for free.

 

The only thing they get for free is unwelcome attention from drunks, the local kids etc. I don't envy them and would rather pay my 3 grand a year and not be subjected to that.

 

That is a great picture you paint of London, are you trying to keep boaters out. I have just spent 2 weeks in London had a fantastic time had no unwelcome attention from drunks and kids. No problem finding places to moor.

[Lady Muck]

are you trying to keep boaters out.

 

Not at all.

[cotswoldsman]

Not at all.

 

Must have read your post wrong!!

The only thing they get for free is unwelcome attention from drunks, the local kids etc.

[fender]

Even those who did get winter moorings complained of unfairness. Those at Kensal Green had no services whatsoever, whilst those at Little Venice and Paddington had virtually everything. The price differential was very small and many considered it a rip-off.

 

Considering the large increase in liveaboards in London, many new places where moorings are now commonplace do show that it is considerably safe to moor within the capital, there are many much safer than sites like those at Paddington!

Edited June 13, 2011 by fender

[matty40s]

I have just spent 2 weeks in London had a fantastic time had no unwelcome attention from drunks and kids. No problem finding places to moor.

 

I have just left the London region after 11 months of CC'ing down there. I enjoyed it immensely as an experience, it was great for my daughter to come down and see the sights, and I met some fantastic people.

There is a massive variety in the waterways, from the rural Stort and the upper reaches of the Lea, down to the double locked Lee navigations, the Olympic site growing up,limehouse, Regents (with all it's different communities), LV and Paddington(not sure there is any where on the system with 24 hr security patrols), out to Kensal and then to Cotwoldmans enjoyable Hayes. Northolt,Hanwell, Brentford, Cowley and the Slough Arm,and up to Uxbridge/Rickmansworth and Croxley.

The canals span a large area and give a massive choice of fairly safe moorings for Liveaboard CC'ers to moor. Far more, and better than other cities which have canals passing through.

It does seem from Damians latest blog that BW is warming to the fact that liveaboards may have a value to the canals previously not realised, or considered. However, this doesn't mean they have to let people break rules or regulations (or guidelines....)

[sheriff]

There are no unserviced towpath moorings on the Lee. All of the moorings are gated and offside and maybe about half of them have full services. So I don't think it would be fair to charge roving permit moorers the same. There was very little take - up of winter moorings opposite me. Probably because they costed about the same as my fully serviced secure mooring on the Lee, which isn't cheap. FWIW I wouldn't want to be a ccer in London. To me, it seems like a whole load of stress, which I wouldn't want. They pay for nothing and get a load of hassle (IME).

 

Also: I can't see Lee Valley Parks agreeing to it. They can overrule BW AFAIK. It would go against the LVP Act, which stipulates that the park is for leisure and not residential. Not only boats, but they've stopped people from living in vehicles and chalets in LVP. As most of the river runs through LVP (incl the most popular mooring spot for ccers - Walthamstow Marsh), then I can't see where they'd issue these permits.

Very well put Lady muck.I agree 100 percent

[Spacebar]

Can anyone inform me where I find the cost of a continous license as it seems the BW site don't list it?

I have a 29 foot boat.

[Robin2]

Can anyone inform me where I find the cost of a continous license as it seems the BW site don't list it?

I have a 29 foot boat.

 

Its the same price as a licence for a boat with a permanent mooring.

[Lady Muck]

Must have read your post wrong!!

 

What I mean is I wouldn't want to cc permanently in London, I like being out and about but I do eventually get a bit bored of being the local towpath spectacle (or the travelling freakshow) as my partner terms us. It's nice to get back to the mooring and plug the boat in.

 

Then the passers by have to gawp at us through the marina railings, rather than directly through our porthole.

[Spacebar]

Its the same price as a licence for a boat with a permanent mooring.

Ah right thanks for that.

So how do I declare CC status?

Sorry to hijack the thread.

[Lady Muck]

tick a box on the standard mooring form (AFAIK)

[Robin2]

Ah right thanks for that.

So how do I declare CC status?

Sorry to hijack the thread.

 

I started with a marina mooring (just the way things happened) and changed my status when I phoned up to pay my licence.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

BW have now responded to Dave's FoI request.

 

Figures here.

 

Enforcement action against continuous cruisers represents just 327 out of 4329 enforcement actions. That's 7.5%!

 

BTW, I agree with the OP's proposition -

 

BW's primary motivation in trying to introduce tighter regulation of continuous cruising is not about better management of the waterways for all, but about finding routes for generating additional income for BW from boaters.

 

Proposals for Roving Mooring Permits (or whatever name they are called by) support this: if you are prepared to pay a fee, BW will temporarily waive the rules.

 

If you pay any overstaying charges we set before you ren-ew you licence each year, we will continue to renew your licence for another year.

[cotswoldsman]

BW have now responded to Dave's FoI request.

 

Figures here.

 

Enforcement action against continuous cruisers represents just 327 out of 4329 enforcement actions. That's 7.5%!

 

BTW, I agree with the OP's proposition -

 

 

 

I am sure that proves something but I can not remember what!!!! Does that mean we have to start a thread saying "Why Do People With Moorings Hog All The Visitor Moorings" 2nd line "This Is Unfair On All Us CCers"

[deletedaccount]

Only 640 hire boats. They must all be on the K&A then.