New bollard at Dundas K&A

[Chris Pink]

"During the winter months earlier this year it became apparent that vehicles had been driving over the aqueduct unauthorised. "

 

FOI request. I personally think this is garbled bullshit. It doesn't go anywhere except to the cottage.

 

So they installed it to stop people driving over the aqueduct. Weird. I don't think I've ever seen anyone drive over the aqueduct.

 

There's a guy who regularly drives over with firewood to the cottage but as she will have a key it makes no difference to him. As I say there is no need to drive over there if you need to unload or load a vehicle the wharf is where everyone does it.

[deletedaccount]

That was what I was thinking.

[luctor et emergo]

[Tim Doran]

I have contacted sustrans and am awaiting a reply from their local chap.

If he agrees with bw then I shall have to let it be.

 

I will do an foi to see eat the complaints have been.

[magpie patrick]

I'd have preferred a chicane gate, as near to the lift bridge as still allowed it to be operated.

 

Why? I am not anti-cycling on towpaths, indeed I do it myself, but whilst hovering waiting for Val to get the lift bridge up I have witnessed groups of up to 6 lyrca-clad terror-riders peddle as fast as they can to beat her to the bridge, she's even had the padlock off and been about to lift and they take off from 20 yards away. If it were me, I'd lift the bridge anyway, but Val won't.

 

Tim, if you could advise me of your contact, I will make that point.

 

edited for a spelling mistake that wasn't

Edited September 6, 2011 by magpie patrick

[gaggle]

Maybe because everyone with an opinion (except you) has personal knowledge of this spot.

 

What difference does having knowledge of the spot make to calling for vandalism of installations , i will read my posts again and check if i gave an opinion on the bollard or the reaction new bollards seem to bring out of some people.

One poster says a lock flight could do with some work while giving the impression that money spent on the bollard could be put to better use , another has bw office staff tied up answering his questions , given the chance to discuss with bw his complaint he asks others to give him some points as to what he should say , foi requests more office staff tied up , i am just asking what is going on with some people thats all.

[FrigateCaptain]

I for one am looking forward to cracking my gonads on it when off shooting in the early hours.

 

What's going on with people?

 

We're defending our right to drive up the towpath and dangerously close to the water. I have a right to take my car when I steal the wood from that cottage

[David Schweizer]

Extract from BW letter "· During the winter months earlier this year it became apparent that vehicles had been driving over the aqueduct unauthorised. We were concerned for the safety of the people doing this, and the potential conflict between the normal users of the towpath (pedestrians and cyclists). To reduce the risks we decided to install a lockable bollard to enable British Waterways are able to control who has access. This is now limited to British Waterways and the adjacent land owners."

Or the owner of the house at the Wharf end of this stretch has reported it as such to BW, and forced their hand. (Chris will know who I am talking about). I, and almost everyone else who has sought to (legally) access Dundas Wharf with a vehicle have had to cross that character at some time.

 

For Gaggle's information:- I have lived within a mile of Dundas for more than 30 years. (before there was any water in it!)

Edited September 7, 2011 by David Schweizer

[Tim Doran]

What difference does having knowledge of the spot make to calling for vandalism of installations , i will read my posts again and check if i gave an opinion on the bollard or the reaction new bollards seem to bring out of some people.

One poster says a lock flight could do with some work while giving the impression that money spent on the bollard could be put to better use , another has bw office staff tied up answering his questions , given the chance to discuss with bw his complaint he asks others to give him some points as to what he should say , foi requests more office staff tied up , i am just asking what is going on with some people thats all.

 

I believe you have misunderstood some joking around.

 

As to me discussing the situation on a public forum, I think that is a sensible idea. You do not live on or near the K&A so you do not understand that there is a good and diverse community from across society, I am collecting a range of views about the situation to ensure that as a community we are satisfied.

 

With regards to FOI, it is my right to have access to the information that a public body holds.

 

To be blunt, please mind your own

 

I for one am looking forward to cracking my gonads on it when off shooting in the early hours.

 

What's going on with people?

 

We're defending our right to drive up the towpath and dangerously close to the water. I have a right to take my car when I steal the wood from that cottage

 

Now I know that you are joking but maybe Gaggle thinks you are serious.

 

Or the owner of the house at the Wharf end of this stretch has reported it as such to BW, and forced their hand. (Chris will know who I am talking about). I, and almost everyone else who has sought to (legally) access Dundas Wharf with a vehicle have had to cross that character at some time.

 

For Gaggle's information:- I have lived within a mile of Dundas for more than 30 years. (before there was any water in it!)

 

It is a shame that I share a first name with the same chap. I too have had polite conversations with him.

[FrigateCaptain]

I to have had good conversion with him, he let's me shoot his land. Apart from vehicles aloud down there I've never seen a boater car down there. It's all a bit odd

[David Schweizer]

I to have had good conversion with him, he let's me shoot his land. Apart from vehicles aloud down there I've never seen a boater car down there. It's all a bit odd

 

I am not sure what you mean by letting you "shoot his land", but if you are referring to the access road, the land immediately behind his house is a Public Right of Way. A good many years ago he came to an agreement with BW to re route the access road, in order to deter people from driving vehicles immediately next to his house back wall. Unfortunately this seems to have given him the idea that he can control who uses it, which is unfounded.

 

Some years ago I wanted to load some furniture etc onto our boat, so I phoned BW to ask if Dundas was still a public wharf, to which they replied "Yes" confirming that it was perfectly in order for me to load or unload a boat at the wharf without paying a fee, and that we could use one of the unoccupied parking lots whilst waiting for the boat to arrive.

 

Acting on their advice, I arranged for my wife to drive our Estate car to the Wharf whilst I took the boat there. Whilst waiting for me to arrive, the said person, who seems to think the Wharf is his personal property, came out of his house and accosted my wife, being both rude and offensive, and refusing to listen to her explanation. When he saw our boat approaching the wharf he disapeared very quickly, but then he has a reputation of being a coward, as well as a bully.

Edited September 7, 2011 by David Schweizer

[Tim Doran]

Some years ago I wanted to load some furniture etc onto our boat, so I phoned BW to ask if Dundas was still a public wharf, to which they replied "Yes" confirming that it was perfectly in order for me to load or unload a boat at the wharf without paying a fee, and that we could use one of the unoccupied parking lots whilst waiting for the boat to arrive.

 

Acting on their advice, I arranged for my wife to drive our Estate car to the Wharf whilst I took the boat there. Whilst waiting for me to arrive, the said person, who seems to think the Wharf is his personal property, came out of his house and accosted my wife, being both rude and offensive, and refusing to listen to her explanation. When he saw our boat approaching the wharf he disapeared very quickly, but then he has a reputation of being a coward, as well as a bully.

 

You would think the he would get bored of doing that. He does help organise a nice carol service though

[Laurie Booth]

You would think the he would get bored of doing that. He does help organise a nice carol service though

Very good service, best ever.

[Chris Pink]

I am not sure what you mean by letting you "shoot his land", but if you are referring to the access road, the land immediately behind his house is a Public Right of Way. A good many years ago he came to an agreement with BW to re route the access road, in order to deter people from driving vehicles immediately next to his house back wall. Unfortunately this seems to have given him the idea that he can control who uses it, which is unfounded.

 

Acting on their advice, I arranged for my wife to drive our Estate car to the Wharf whilst I took the boat there. Whilst waiting for me to arrive, the said person, who seems to think the Wharf is his personal property, came out of his house and accosted my wife, being both rude and offensive, and refusing to listen to her explanation. When he saw our boat approaching the wharf he disapeared very quickly, but then he has a reputation of being a coward, as well as a bully.

 

Yes, I didn't know he owned any land apart from the drive which presumably, less than 50 metres from the A36 can't be shot over. I suppose there's the Titchfield Thunderbolt stretch.

 

I use the wharf for wharfage regularly and I had the same issue with him over the drive which, due to my charm and persistence ended up as "I'd just like you to ask me when you're using the drive", so now, if he's about I say "Tim, I'm bringing a van down, OK?"

 

I've always more or less got on with him, by ignoring the gossip really and just treating him as if he liked me (maybe he does, who knows?). But his recent leaked emails as IWA representative on the Mooring Strategy Committee have put him beyond the pale as far as I am concerned.

 

But until we get the results of Tim Doran's FOI request this is speculation because, unless he's had a falling out with both his neighbours, I can't imagine it was him who complained as he knows full well what the traffic is for and as I say it won't make any difference to that.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Chris Pink

[FrigateCaptain]

I shoot his garden and the path and scc moorings. I know he can be a pain though..... Lol

[Tim Doran]

I have further information back from BW, and it seems that a mistake on their part has been made.

 

Here is the email I have recieved from BW

 

Dear Tim

 

 

 

In response to your primary concern:

 

 

 

You have raised some very valid points in relation to the location of the bollard. Indeed, your description did not match where I agreed it should be installed at a site meeting I held on the 16th June 2011. I specified that the bollard should be placed 1m in advance of the lift bridge on the car park side of the bridge.

 

 

 

I have asked our Waterway Supervisor to investigate and he has established that our workforce installed the bollard in its current location incorrectly. They did so with the best of intentions as the local property owners thought that it would be a better position, obviously without fully considering the implications.

 

 

 

Obviously, I am very disappointed with this, and I can only apologise as I feel that I have misinformed you in my original email.

 

 

 

In the first instance I will arrange for the bollard to be moved to its intended location and additional high visibility (reflectivity) to be added.

 

 

 

With regard to the size, this is the largest drop down bollard that we could find (http://www.shelterstore.co.uk/product/361.aspx), if Sustrans are able to advise on a more suitable bollard I’d happily consider installing it.

 

 

 

With regard to signage I’m assuming that you would expect to see ‘Bollard Ahead’ signs in advance of the bollard, my experience with signage is that it tends to be ignored and we may be better concentrating our efforts in making the bollard more visible.

 

 

 

In response to your secondary concern:

 

 

 

I think what you are asking for is BW to provide justification for the installation of the bollard. I have summarised the supporting information below and attached documentation where appropriate:

 

 

 

· BW uses a computer system called SAP to record all defects on the waterway network. On 20/09/08 defect notification 10617405 was raised recording the issue of vehicles crossing the aqueduct. I have attached a screenshot of the notification and a copy of the attached text. BW uses the notification to record the decision making process and is consequently a risk assessment for the works.

 

· BW has an Approved Standard AS-OPS-67: Vehicle access over BW land. This sets outs BW position regarding how access should be controlled. This includes a risk assessment for controlling unauthorised access.

 

· A near miss has been recorded on Notification 10649296, dated 26/11/08,regarding the issue of vehicles crossing the aqueduct, copy attached.

 

· I visited the site on 01/12/2010 to investigate another issue. There was snow on the ground and it could be seen that vehicles were crossing the aqueduct. This raised the priority of carrying out works in this location.

 

 

 

In summary:

 

 

 

BW believe that the installation of a bollard is necessary to prevent unrestricted access over the aqueduct. This work is required to comply with our internal policy and procedures and will help improve the safety at this busy location.

 

 

 

The location and visibility of the bollard will be amended on site to help improve the safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

 

 

Once again, thank you for your comments / concerns, we take any issues regarding safety seriously and where possible we take action to improve the network for all our users.

 

 

 

I hope that I have provided you with the information you require, but please feel free to contact me if you need any further details.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

Richard Leigh

 

Principal Waterway Engineer

 

I think that if this is on the correct side of the bridge and they put some high visibility tape on it then a compromise will have been reached.

 

What do you think?

 

Tim

[FrigateCaptain]

Good work!

[Chris Pink]

I have further information back from BW, and it seems that a mistake on their part has been made.

 

Here is the email I have recieved from BW

 

 

 

I think that if this is on the correct side of the bridge and they put some high visibility tape on it then a compromise will have been reached.

 

What do you think?

 

Tim

 

Well as long as no one hits it I guess it can be lived with. How long before the waterways vans that turn by backing toward the bridge (or any other van) reverses into it?

 

As for the tyre tracks in the snow, this was most definitely the charmingly-named one from the top of the track so all this money has been spent on a chimera.

 

I would like to know how much money (including meetings, admin, risk-assessments and the contractor's (!!!!!) invoice) this folly has cost.

 

it is incompetent bureaucracy at it's best. And there is Lime Green Dave on another thread, pompously sprouting about the cost of maintaining the waterways.

[mayalld]

Well as long as no one hits it I guess it can be lived with. How long before the waterways vans that turn by backing toward the bridge (or any other van) reverses into it?

 

As for the tyre tracks in the snow, this was most definitely the charmingly-named one from the top of the track so all this money has been spent on a chimera.

 

I would like to know how much money (including meetings, admin, risk-assessments and the contractor's (!!!!!) invoice) this folly has cost.

 

it is incompetent bureaucracy at it's best. And there is Lime Green Dave on another thread, pompously sprouting about the cost of maintaining the waterways.

 

Simply stating the facts.

 

Yes stuff like this may not be the best use of limited funds, but they don't actually make a huge difference to the bottom line.

[Chris Pink]

 

 

Yes stuff like this may not be the best use of limited funds, but they don't actually make a huge difference to the bottom line.

 

No? How can it not? The bottom line is, surely, made up of instances like this.

 

In this thread there is a problem with one of the Bath locks. It probably would cost less (because of the admin charges) to fix that that to do this which helps nobody.

[mayalld]

No? How can it not? The bottom line is, surely, made up of instances like this.

 

In terms of the overall budget, it is a drop in the ocean.

 

Even taking all works initiated to keep whingers quiet into account, it barely registers on the scale of things.

 

You also have to take into account that if you have a moaner, dealing with their moans costs BW staff time, and staff time has a cost. There comes a point when it is cheaper to spend a bit of money to cauterise the steady outflow of expenditure on not dealing with the issue.

 

Finally, it appears that the moaner threw the H&S spanner in the works. Once it is raised as a H&S issue, BW have a problem in that if they dismiss it and something bad happens, the moaner will jump up and down and tell all and sundry that they warned BW, and it is likely that BW would incur significant costs as a result.

 

On a simple basis of a known cost to fix the problem against a likely range of cost to NOT fix the problem, it probably comes down on the side of install the bloody bollard.

[Sir Nibble]

I foresee fun and games when they come to move the bollard.

[David Schweizer]

You have raised some very valid points in relation to the location of the bollard. Indeed, your description did not match where I agreed it should be installed at a site meeting I held on the 16th June 2011. I specified that the bollard should be placed 1m in advance of the lift bridge on the car park side of the bridge.

 

 

 

I have asked our Waterway Supervisor to investigate and he has established that our workforce installed the bollard in its current location incorrectly. They did so with the best of intentions as the local property owners thought that it would be a better position, obviously without fully considering the implications.

Well we know who that was, don't we. Interfering again.

[Tim Doran]

Well we know who that was, don't we. Interfering again.

 

I can hardly imagine!

 

It would seem from his email that BW are unhappy about the cottage people driving across to access their property. Apart from the width, the aquaduct must be strong enough. It has all that heavy water and boats going across it.

 

Is there anything better than a bollard?

 

Tim

[David Schweizer]

I can hardly imagine!

 

It would seem from his email that BW are unhappy about the cottage people driving across to access their property. Apart from the width, the aquaduct must be strong enough. It has all that heavy water and boats going across it.

 

Is there anything better than a bollard?

 

Tim

BW may be ubhappy, but there is nothing thy can do about it. Unless the house has changed hands very recently, the residents of Aqueduct Cottage (I do know their name but will not divulge) have enjoyed unrestricted vehicle access to their property for more than 17 years so by law BW cannot now try and prevent that access.