CRT proposing to change Islington Visitor Moorings to residential moorings

[PiRSqwared]

Looking on the bright side, at least we might get some much needed facilities in London. Presumably the non engine running, non stove using boaters paying ,what 10k+ per year to moor there?, will still be allowed to go to the toilet, use water and dispose of rubbish. Or will the nimby stuck ups of Noel Road object to that too?

[RLWP]

This very much looks to me as though CRT has effectively washed its hands of trying to accommodate bona fide visitors to the capital.

 

<snip>

 

Yes, I get that impression too. I have been put off visiting London because of uncertainty of getting a mooring, looks like CaRT are ensuring I won't go

 

Richard

[chas cass]

what is a " London based boat without a home mooring" ??

[Higgs]

what is a " London based boat without a home mooring" ??

 

A visitor, ideally. Not in practice.

[system 4-50]

I am sure it is a silly question but here goes:

"Why can't the london docks be made wall to wall residential moorings?" They mostly seem to contain not a lot?

The one next to London airport seems pretty good. It doesn't have the normal requirement of a railway line and a sewage farm but it does have an underground line and an airport?

[ditchcrawler]

Looking on the bright side, at least we might get some much needed facilities in London. Presumably the non engine running, non stove using boaters paying ,what 10k+ per year to moor there?, will still be allowed to go to the toilet, use water and dispose of rubbish. Or will the nimby stuck ups of Noel Road object to that too?

Chap on Narrowboatworld quotes 17K

[chas cass]

A visitor, ideally. Not in practice.

i thought a visitor would not be "london based"

[Jim Batty]

 

... or there are miles of towpath where you can't knock in a pin.

 

 

is there some reason that London couldn't be opened up a bit to more visitors by 'planting' rings in the miles of concrete towpath? Say enough for five boats to moor up together here and there -- create safety-in-numbers visiting sites?

[Cosmic]

This is something that was raised at the meeting in January to discuss Olympic moorings. Apparently it costs between £100 and £300 per ring, depending on the construction method, so it would appear to be a pretty cheap option.

[ditchcrawler]

This is something that was raised at the meeting in January to discuss Olympic moorings. Apparently it costs between £100 and £300 per ring, depending on the construction method, so it would appear to be a pretty cheap option.

And then next year they could rent them out at 17k per year as well

[Jim Batty]

 

... You may not like it, but the canal network is not a linear park for leisure boaters (as much as yourself and Robin Evans would like it to be). ...

 

Further to the 'CM' debate, I just received my IWA newsletter with this as the top story:

 

"With the successful launch of Canal & River Trust, IWA has been reviewing its campaigning priorities. Whilst inclusion of the Environment Agency's navigations within CRT remains the top priority the issue of so called 'continuous moorers' is fast climbing IWA's priority action list. ..." Story link

[PiRSqwared]

And then next year they could rent them out at 17k per year as well

Oh! I'll have 2 in that case!

[Maffi]

is there some reason that London couldn't be opened up a bit to more visitors by 'planting' rings in the miles of concrete towpath? Say enough for five boats to moor up together here and there -- create safety-in-numbers visiting sites?

 

 

There are already visitor moorings unfortunately the 'other' people seem to keep them full.

[Higgs]

i thought a visitor would not be "london based"

 

That's the joke.

[Higgs]

is there some reason that London couldn't be opened up a bit to more visitors by 'planting' rings in the miles of concrete towpath? Say enough for five boats to moor up together here and there -- create safety-in-numbers visiting sites?

 

 

A few problems. Shuffling permanent visitors. Not enough ground staff to keep things moving. And from what other people say - shortage of facilities.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Higgs

[chas cass]

That's the joke.

agreed !

[Maffi]

That's the joke.

 

 

Give that man a coconut.

[PaulD]

• Visitor moorings are used for (what should be) short periods by a large number of different boats. Monitoring sufficiently frequently to ensure that all comply with licensing and mooring rules and avoid causing disturbance to neighbours is prohibitively expensive and of doubtful value.

 

It's not of doubtful value to all the licence paying, law abiding boaters who want to use visitor moorings. Towpaths are overgrown and good moorings seem to be full of continuous moorers and unlicensed boats throughout the system.

 

Maybe the rules need to be changed so that overstayers risk getting a fine like you get if you leave your car 10 minutes over the permitted parking time.

 

Paul

[matty40s]

I once had a stop and a lovely lunch with great views of £?0m properties either side. A couple of weights on the towpath to tie the ropes to and we stayed for a couple of hours.

Boaters may not run their engines at Islington, but they will have stoves going from Oct-March(in a normal year) so a smoke free Noel street isn't going to happen. I was reported repeatedly to BW at LV for smoke pollution, and it took a BW Enforcement Officer stood next to my boat and photo's to stop the complaints (ie, there was no cause for complaint).

[Looby Loo]

Putting aside for the moment the issue of whether or not it is right to turn visitor moorings into residential (it's probably a "fait accompli" anyway and "consultation" is merely window dressing) I would like to point out that I wouldn't want a residential mooring where you couldn't use a stove, even if it were free! Good luck with letting those, especially at London prices! For goodness sake please, please consult and ask liveaboards what their main source of heating is before you make an expensive mistake! I think very few will rely mainly on central heating or indeed want to do so, even if their boats already have both fitted - and lots don't. Liveaboard fitouts are a bit different to those of hire boats and for very good reasons! Another Engineer's Wharf in the making I feel... or is that the idea?

[PiRSqwared]

No solid fuel heating? I wonder if tje residents of Noel Rd have heard the sound of six eberspachers firing up.

[Phoenix_V]

Hi All

Good to see lively debate on this subject. I thought maybe people would find it helpful if I summarised the Trust's current thinking on Islington moorings. Sorry this is a bit long and I'll try not to make a habit of being so wordy in future! Please excuse me if I don't respond promptly to all messages - sadly just not enough hours in the day.

 

• In London, demand for residential moorings hugely outstrips supply. It is true that we are seeking to increase the availability of residential moorings in suitable locations, which would enable more boaters currently dependent on towpath moorings to secure a long term mooring.

 

• Noel Road is being considered as a candidate site in this context. The lie of the land within the tunnel’s cutting makes air and noise pollution a particular challenge. The sustainable solution would be to install electricity to individual berths to provide much cleaner energy for boaters. But we could only afford to do this if there was the prospect of a reliable income stream from long term permits. If the council set conditions as part of the planning process, the associated mooring agreements could specifically exclude engine running and chimney emissions. There would be an excellent prospect of good neighbourly relations between the long term moorers and Noel Road householders.

 

• We appreciate that there is a strong desire amongst local residents to attract tourists to the Borough and that the case for visitor moorings must not be overlooked. It’s important however for people to understand the very real difficulties that this presents to the Trust. The designation of moorings for visitors from largely outside the capital was very much a special feature of the Olympic period. We do not believe that normal, year-round demand for pre-bookable permits would be sufficient to justify the investment costs for electricity instalation, and such an arrangement would also require constant administration and monitoring. It would also be unlikely to be popular with London-based boats without home moorings. Even if we adopted this approach, it is likely that there would always be some empty spaces which would attract boaters without prepaid permits. Would a full time volunteer warden be forthcoming for what would not always be an easy job?

 

• Visitor moorings are used for (what should be) short periods by a large number of different boats. Monitoring sufficiently frequently to ensure that all comply with licensing and mooring rules and avoid causing disturbance to neighbours is prohibitively expensive and of doubtful value. Taking conclusive enforcement action is not a quick process – we issue warnings, and in most cases boats either (eventually) comply or move away, only to be replaced by another boat whose owner may behave similarly. And so the warning process must start over again. We cannot simply move boats on at short notice if they are accused of nuisance – it is only right that proper processes apply and this takes time. So, without wholehearted understanding and cooperation of all London based boaters, it is unlikely that we could ever meet the aspirations of local residents for clean air and tranquillity within the cutting.

 

• We very much welcome public debate on this subject. We are open to new suggestions, providing these are practical and not overly costly to implement. We would for example be prepared to designate an alternative location for visitor moorings if there were a suitable length within the Borough which did not share the western tunnel cutting’s topography. We have been preparing to submit a planning application for residential moorings along the Noel Road stretch, but are happy to delay this to allow further debate to influence a final decision – which would ultimately in any case rest with local people through the formal planning process.

 

So you are happy to create more long term residential moorings and placate local residents but there are no plans to increase the availability of visitor moorings for genuine visitors ?

 

I would have thought that should have had at least equal priority, both in terms of providing the moorings and effective and enforced lengh of stay rules.

[PiRSqwared]

So you are happy to create more long term residential moorings and placate local residents but there are no plans to increase the availability of visitor moorings for genuine visitors ?

 

I would have thought that should have had at least equal priority, both in terms of providing the moorings and effective and enforced lengh of stay rules.

 

I think the implication is that VMs in London would tend to involve some kind of expense. This would divert expenditure from keeping people history and nature connected, whatever that means!

[Ange]

This very much looks to me as though CRT has effectively washed its hands of trying to accommodate bona fide visitors to the capital.

 

I know that if I want to come to London and spend a few days there I'm either going to have to moor before Little Venice or, if Paddington is full, press right through to Vicky park or Limehouse. The centre is practically a no go area for visitors. Either there are permanent moorers – legitimately or otherwise – hogging the only available moorings or there are miles of towpath where you can't knock in a pin.

 

What a difference when you go to Birmingham. I may have been lucky but I've never had difficulty finding somewhere to moor within easy reach of the centre. It is an excellent example of a boater-friendly city.

 

The natural centre for visiting boaters ought to be Browning's Pool. I'd be quite happy to pay for a temporary pre-bookable secure mooring on a pontoon there. I suspect there would be considerable opposition from nearby residents but I would be happy not to run my engine or have a smoky chimney. I would have thought that such a scheme would have made a bob or two for CRTand kept visitors like myself happy.

 

London is a special case and I would hope that CRT would come up with some innovative solutions to ensure that passing boaters can enjoy the experience rather than being made to feel like interlopers.

 

Absolutely agree - we recently had a great couple of weeks in Birmingham on a 14 day mooring within walking distance of the City centre. The local residents didn't have any problems with those boats that needed to run their engines, boats on the canal are an accepted part of the landscape.

 

Why such a difference in attitude?

 

Edited for better grammar

Edited August 30, 2012 by Ange

[PiRSqwared]

Absolutely agree - we recently had a great couple of weeks in Birmingham on a 14 day mooring within walking distance of the City centre. The local residents didn't have any problems with those boats that needed to run their engines, boats on the canal are an accepted part of the landscape.

 

Why such a difference in attitude?

 

Edited for better grammar

 

Mortgage the size of Greek national debt + empty soulless existence = need to f*@k people over.