CRT proposing to change Islington Visitor Moorings to residential moorings

[Morat]

But if it happens in a place like Islington, then that's down to a failure of CaRT to enforce it's own rules.

 

No, the fault lies with the offenders not the enforcers.

[Leonie]

Now there has been independent mooring 'wardens' for the Olympic moorings there is more first hand evidence of overstaying. It is infuriating that wrong doing is rewarded instead of the rules being enforced.

 

*head desk*

 

The 14 day rule has been waived for boats who registered with Cart prior to the Olympic mooring restrictions so this is legitimised overstaying you are referring to. The independent mooring 'wardens', you are referring to are the IWA volunteers I assume? Their job isn't any such thing like 'warden'.

 

If it is proof you want that this actually happens, take a walk from Little Venice to Sainsburys. The Warden put notices on boats a month ago yet some of them are still there, with the notices still displayed, and very few of the boats have left. I cycle this route twice daily and it is always the same boats moored up. It would not surprise me to find that most visitor moorings down this way are the same. This is not just the case due to the Olympics but a year round occurence.

 

There is one boat ticketed at Little Venice and no others between there and Ladbroke Grove. The boat was ticketed prior to the Olympic exclusion zone being enforced and it remains there now. I'm sure that once Cart have the Olympic moorings off their plate, they will be back to enforcing with whatever limited resources they have.

[WJM]

Think about it - there are twenty miles of canal running across north London. When eight miles are closed off for the Olympics you get a massive pile-up of boats so big that it requires a relaxation of the fourteen day rule. Surely this is near proof that there is a massive boating community that oscillates back and forth over the twenty miles. Oscillating back and forth over a twenty mile stretch is not Continuous Cruising, surely it is the very definition of Continuous Mooring!

Edited August 22, 2012 by WJM

[Leonie]

Think about it - there are twenty miles of canal running across north London. When eight miles are closed off for the Olympics you get a massive pile-up of boats so big that it requires a relaxation of the fourteen day rule. Surely this is near proof that there is a massive boating community that oscillates back and forth over the twenty miles. Oscillating back and forth over a twenty mile stretch is not Continuous Cruising, surely it is the very definition of Continuous Mooring!

 

That's not the way I'm viewing it. The relaxtion of the rules was to sweeten the deal for some boats to suspend their normal cruising pattern and avoid the East End. Of course both sides of the debate will skew any situation to *prove* their own theory.

 

I chose to register and stay put closer to central London rather than head out to Berkhamsted as I'd normally do during the summer as I wasn't prepared to face possible Olympic travel disruptions on top of a very long commute. Other's have made choices for other reasons.

 

As a very occasional visitor to the SE/London I am amazed at the canal-unfriendliness in terms of visitor moorings, facilities etc compared to say Birmingham. London really turns its back on the canals which is a pity. Maybe we should all write to Boris?

 

Boris just happens to be one of the Noel Road residents in question, so yes, please do write to him. Can you ask him why they removed the lockable gates at the same time?

[Paul C]

Think about it - there are twenty miles of canal running across north London. When eight miles are closed off for the Olympics you get a massive pile-up of boats so big that it requires a relaxation of the fourteen day rule. Surely this is near proof that there is a massive boating community that oscillates back and forth over the twenty miles. Oscillating back and forth over a twenty mile stretch is not Continuous Cruising, surely it is the very definition of Continuous Mooring!

 

Is it though? I thought it needed to be more extensive, but the only word used to define it in law is "boda fide navigation". There's already been a ruling that 10 miles isn't enough....is 20 miles?

[Lady Muck]

It would be nice if this topic stayed on the removal of a visitor moorings rather than another cc/cm debate. We've done this one a billion times (or at least it seems like it!)

[Cosmic]

OK - scratch that

Edited August 22, 2012 by Cosmic

[jenlyn]

Is it though? I thought it needed to be more extensive, but the only word used to define it in law is "boda fide navigation". There's already been a ruling that 10 miles isn't enough....is 20 miles?

I was shown a letter recently, that had been posted to a boater after several patrol notices had been issued. The letter from CRT stated that a continual movement in your license contractual year would include at least 30 kilometres.

[Leonie]

 

What do we think?

 

 

I think this will be a great revenue raiser for C&RT and I think the Noel Road residents will wet themelves with delight as the only people who will be able to afford those moorings will be the kind of people who don't want to futz around with coal or the running of engines. I will actively protest the change of status to these moorings. I think they will be a great loss to London.

 

I have never failed to get a mooring in Islington although it has meant I've had to breast up alongside some of the colourful characters that make up the vibrant London waterways and/or creatively moor at the end of the line using not much more than a rope and a prayer that I stayed put.

 

I was shown a letter recently, that had been posted to a boater after several patrol notices had been issued. The letter from CRT stated that a continual movement in your license contractual year would include at least 30 kilometres.

 

Interesting. I wonder where they've plucked that figure from?

[jenlyn]

It would be nice if this topic stayed on the removal of a visitor moorings rather than another cc/cm debate. We've done this one a billion times (or at least it seems like it!)

It could be that CRT already have preliminary plans for residential mooring there. Possibly from 2004 when Islington was promoting and initiating its" master plan "for that area. I don't know if it all came to fruition, but I do know some of it was implemented.

[Lady Muck]

How much do we reckon they will be? I reckon about £10k p.a.

[Leonie]

How much do we reckon they will be? I reckon about £10k p.a.

 

Easily, if not more than that. The moorings around Canary Wharf are already that high. For the cache of Islington expect a larger premium.

[Higgs]

How much do we reckon they will be? I reckon about £10k p.a.

 

How many moorings would it provide? ish

[Leonie]

How many moorings would it provide? ish

 

Somewhere in the realm of five - seven 50ish foot Narrowboats.

[Higgs]

Somewhere in the realm of five - seven 50ish foot Narrowboats.

 

 

Thanks - just curious.

[ditchcrawler]

The problem is that you claim that people use terms like CMer to refer to you.

 

Let me be VERY clear on this point;

 

I do not EVER use the term CMer to refer to CCers in general.

 

I refer to people who licence their boats as CCers and engage in bona fide navigation as "CCers".

 

I refer to people who licence their boats as CCers and do not engage in bona fide navigation as "CMers"

 

If it is your belief that when I talk about CMers, I am talking about you then either you haven't understood my meaning or you aren't engaged in bona fide navigation and the label fits.

Spot on

 

It would be nice if this topic stayed on the removal of a visitor moorings rather than another cc/cm debate. We've done this one a billion times (or at least it seems like it!)

I promis not to post again, sorry. I shall now go and stand in the corner ( if you believe that you will believe anything)

Edited August 22, 2012 by ditchcrawler

[mayalld]

It would be nice if this topic stayed on the removal of a visitor moorings rather than another cc/cm debate. We've done this one a billion times (or at least it seems like it!)

 

Doesn't that then make it the elephant in the room.

 

Whilst it might be nice to NOT talk about CMers, it is quite clear to me that this is actually central to what is happening here.

 

Pressure has apparently been brought to remove the visitor moorings, one presumes that this has come from local residents. This is not something new, and we have many posts about locals wanting rid of VMs. The only new angle is that the proposal is to replace the VM with a LTM, rather than to ban mooring.

 

The question that has to be asked is "why would a LTM be more acceptable to the residents than the VM", and the answer to that question is clearly going to be about a perception from the residents that LT Moorers paying a fair wedge of cash to moor there are likely to have "nice" boats and aren't going to create a little shanty town there.

 

Now, that attitude could be condemned as elitist or nimbyist, and LB can complain that even scruffy boats have a right to be there (and indeed they do).

 

However, the issue here would seem to be that due to the practice of only the mates of people already moored there getting in on the moorings, and probably some overstaying, the proportion of scruffy boats there is probably very high.

 

Those who would overstay, because they choose not to move until they are moved, and who choose to create mooring ghettoes that outsiders can't get onto, may think that they are looking after their own interests, but ultimately it will backfire on them.

[Higgs]

it will backfire on them........

 

......and all.

[Lady Muck]

Doesn't that then make it the elephant in the room.

Whilst it might be nice to NOT talk about CMers,

It would be nice to not moan on and on and go over the same old ground and say the same old tired things. It's not getting us anywhere. Some of us boater representatives (myself included as a rep for Tottenham boaters) have been asked to sit down and have a meeting with CRT and other user groups next month, we all know we've got big issues in the capital - biggest city in the country, we're not daft there are not enough and very short designated visitor moorings, lots of liveaboards etc etc etc. we've been asked to sit down, debate, and try to come up with some kind of a solution to better share scarce space.

 

Personally I think it was bonkers to sack off all the moorings wardens in town and stop locking the gates. As some of you know, we had a relative living opposite Camden visitor moorings, it was a family home since the 60's, my partners mother spent her teenage years there and when her stepmother who was living there passed away, we lived there ourselves for a while as did my partners brother. This was back when there was a mooring warden a couple of years ago, i can say hand on heart there was no overstaying back then. There was no animosity from residents of that street to the boaters. I borrowed a rowboat from Pirates and the next day there was a knock on the door from a boatchecker wanting to know where my license for it was. I think things might have degenerated since then.

 

I am just wondering if BW deleberately run everything down and now they are a charity, they are asking user groups to review the situation and come up with solutions themselves.

 

So this thread was an attempt by me to see what our opinions were before these meetings.

 

What I dont want to see is extra charges for a stay. It has been mooted to us by CRT regarding Stonebridge on the Lee. I may have mentioned that a consortium of local community groups, ccers and local moored boaters included, have now taken over the boaters services from CRT in Tottenham and we are running them ourselves. We have said no to charging for visitor moorings, preferring to raise funds on other ways.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Lady Muck

[mayalld]

It is however unfair to blame the situation entirely on the removal of the wardens. All that was needed was for the boaters to behave properly even without someone telling them to.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Lady Muck
oops sorry!

[sueb]

Constructive post. Thank you Lady M. The insurmountable problem is stopping people with boats mooring on the popular stretches for long periods of time. Is it getting time to put barriers across the canals to give boats a timed period if they haven't got moorings in that area. A manned lock would do the job.

[Lady Muck]

Sorry, Dave I accidentally edited your post. I am going quite bonkers. Clearly.

 

I meant to add: I think in this day and age, it's too much to expect for everyone to behave sensibly on their own. Unfortunately you've got to police it. We got about 400 cruisers in London, even if only 5% of boaters don't care about moving on, that adds up to way more than the capacity of the visitor moorings in town.

 

Also, another observation, I think Islington is 7 days but Camden is 7 days and no return within 12 months, Paddington is 7 days and no return within 3 months.

 

If you try to break the rules in Paddington, you'll be in trouble, your boat (and you driving it) is photographed by a security guard as you enter the basin, but as for everywhere else, now the wardens are gone, I dunno.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Lady Muck

[carlt]

Is it getting time to put barriers across the canals...

Yeah! That'll stop them pesky overstayers from moving!

 

 

Oh!...Hang on...

[Higgs]

Yeah! That'll stop them pesky overstayers from moving!

 

 

Oh!...Hang on...

 

But, they will be specially developed barriers. They open and close on the way in and, open and close on the way out.

[jenlyn]

It is however unfair to blame the situation entirely on the removal of the wardens. All that was needed was for the boaters to behave properly even without someone telling them to.

As in all other walks of life, there are people who don't tow the line, hence a police force. CRT are supposed to enforce the rules for those that decide not to adhere to them. Under their own admission, they have not done the enforcement. To then do away with mooring wardens (their eyes and ears), seems a bit stupid. The perfect world does not exist Dave, no matter how much you wish it did. The longer you go round in circles with the same argument, the less chance of anyone finding a realistic solution.