IWA proposals

[jenlyn]

No , If you look I am saying this CAN lead to further discussions etc if you re read my post.

But you accused John of being negative. He has read the document and noted points. The fact that there has probably been very little consultation and that they are trying to steer CRT back to the charging idea again, in my mind is negative.

[Tuscan]

But you accused John of being negative. He has read the document and noted points. The fact that there has probably been very little consultation and that they are trying to steer CRT back to the charging idea again, in my mind is negative.

 

 

I thought his comment regarding the IWA was a tad negative, I'm not a member, I was just seeing a document around which people can hopefully build to some form of consensus as a positive development, just as I thought the recent meetings that you guys have initiated also as a positive development.

[Joshua]

I can't help noticing.

 

CaRT, in their Sept Briefing Paper say:

 

The Inland Waterways Association ……………. is increasingly vocal in defending the rights of leisure boaters to enjoy access to towpath moorings for short periods during a cruise. They have recently called on us for "action on continuous moorers".

 

The IWA say in this paper:

 

With the increasing concern of the Canal & River Trust (CRT) on the problem of boats overstaying on moorings across the canal network, as shown by a recent board paper by Sally Ash (Ref 1), The Inland Waterways Association ( IWA) feels it appropriate to set out its proposals …..

 

You do wonder.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Joshua

[novascotianboy]

It would be helpful to know exactly who authored this report and if they consulted anyone outside the IWA's membership in preparing it. I also find it interesting - ok, not interesting - hilarious - that the IWA's London includes Marsworth and Bishop's Stortford.

 

The idea that someone should need a permit to cruise "London" waters is also, I think, a non-starter.

 

...oh, and £25 overstaying charge is plenty.

 

I also find it interesting that these proposals are very - in fact, spookily, similar to CRT's proposals as regards "non compliant continuous cruisers". I would suggest that, if the validity of these proposals are to be considered by the Council, (particularly the specific places identified as community moorings, time frames around moorings, "no return within", etc, that those Council members with a conflict of interest (i.e. IWA Membership) would absent themselves from the discussion - but then I suppose we wouldn't have many Boater Council members at the table....

[jenlyn]

It would be helpful to know exactly who authored this report and if they consulted anyone outside the IWA's membership in preparing it. I also find it interesting - ok, not interesting - hilarious - that the IWA's London includes Marsworth and Bishop's Stortford.

 

The idea that someone should need a permit to cruise "London" waters is also, I think, a non-starter.

 

...oh, and £25 overstaying charge is plenty.

 

I also find it interesting that these proposals are very - in fact, spookily, similar to CRT's proposals as regards "non compliant continuous cruisers". I would suggest that, if the validity of these proposals are to be considered by the Council, (particularly the specific places identified as community moorings, time frames around moorings, "no return within", etc, that those Council members with a conflict of interest (i.e. IWA Membership) would absent themselves from the discussion - but then I suppose we wouldn't have many Boater Council members at the table....

Paul Strudwick.

[PiRSqwared]

Wow! what a way to throw the baby out with the bath water!

 

A more short sighted person might choose to refuge the sense behind that remark.

[novascotianboy]

I can't help noticing.

 

CaRT, in their Sept Briefing Paper say:

 

The Inland Waterways Association ……………. is increasingly vocal in defending the rights of leisure boaters to enjoy access to towpath moorings for short periods during a cruise. They have recently called on us for "action on continuous moorers".

 

The IWA say in this paper:

 

With the increasing concern of the Canal & River Trust (CRT) on the problem of boats overstaying on moorings across the canal network, as shown by a recent board paper by Sally Ash (Ref 1), The Inland Waterways Association ( IWA) feels it appropriate to set out its proposals …..

 

You do wonder.

 

It doesn't make me wonder - it makes me suspicious. When reading some of the suggestions, some of them do make sense - but the incredibly cosy relationship between the CRT and the IWA does sometimes leave a bad taste in my mouth - the IWA "Call for Action", the CRT respond with some proposals/ideas, the IWA notes the CRT's "concern" and produces proposals/ideas that pretty much mirror what the CRT has said.

 

Paul Strudwick.

 

The report says

"Produced by London Region of the IWA. Dec 2012.

 

Contact Paul Strudwick paul.strudwick@waterways.org.uk"

 

... I just presumed that Paul was the contact for people with questions about it/media, etc.

[jenlyn]

It doesn't make me wonder - it makes me suspicious. When reading some of the suggestions, some of them do make sense - but the incredibly cosy relationship between the CRT and the IWA does sometimes leave a bad taste in my mouth - the IWA "Call for Action", the CRT respond with some proposals/ideas, the IWA notes the CRT's "concern" and produces proposals/ideas that pretty much mirror what the CRT has said.

 

 

 

The report says

"Produced by London Region of the IWA. Dec 2012.

 

Contact Paul Strudwick paul.strudwick@waterways.org.uk"

 

... I just presumed that Paul was the contact for people with questions about it/media, etc.

He is the chair for IWA London region

[magpie patrick]

Wow! what a way to throw the baby out with the bath water!

 

 

It wasn't the same article, but it did irritate me slightly that "Twerton" kept getting spelt as "Tiverton"

[jenlyn]

It wasn't the same article, but it did irritate me slightly that "Twerton" kept getting spelt as "Tiverton"

imaps is still rubbish.

[PiRSqwared]

It would be helpful to know exactly who authored this report and if they consulted anyone outside the IWA's membership in preparing it. I also find it interesting - ok, not interesting - hilarious - that the IWA's London includes Marsworth and Bishop's Stortford.

 

The idea that someone should need a permit to cruise "London" waters is also, I think, a non-starter.

 

...oh, and £25 overstaying charge is plenty.

 

I also find it interesting that these proposals are very - in fact, spookily, similar to CRT's proposals as regards "non compliant continuous cruisers". I would suggest that, if the validity of these proposals are to be considered by the Council, (particularly the specific places identified as community moorings, time frames around moorings, "no return within", etc, that those Council members with a conflict of interest (i.e. IWA Membership) would absent themselves from the discussion - but then I suppose we wouldn't have many Boater Council members at the table....

 

To be fair I think they mean the right to use the community moorings and therefore able to stay within London (which now seems to stretch out to Marsworth!) for long periods of time without a declared home mooring would require a permit which needs to be "self financing". I think CaRT would rather "monetize" (eg make money from) current behaviour.

Edited December 13, 2012 by PiRSqwared

[pearley]

Can we take seriously a proposal from an organisation which doesn't even bother to proof read and corrct their own publication? Or perhaps the IWA does not know the difference between a 'creak' and a 'creek' and that Hartford is not a town on the Lea but is in Connecticut.

Much closer to home it is also a village on the River Great Ouse near Huntingdon and also happens to have a very large marina.

 

Regards

Pete

[Chris Pink]

... if they consulted anyone outside the IWA's membership in preparing it. .

 

 

or even inside it.

[GUMPY]

Much closer to home it is also a village on the River Great Ouse near Huntingdon and also happens to have a very large marina

Which has had huge problems with residential boaters and planning permission

[PiRSqwared]

He is the chair for IWA London region

 

 

Chair with can by articulator, on Flickr

[novascotianboy]

To be fair I think they mean the right to use the community moorings and therefore able to stay within London (which now seems to stretch out to Marsworth!) for long periods of time without a declared home mooring would require a permit which needs to be "self financing". I think CaRT would rather "monetize" (eg make money from) current behaviour.

 

Oh - I see. I read it differently but I can see how it can be read the way you suggest. The proposal says:

 

.."a self-financing permit scheme to identify those people who have permission to keep a boat without a home mooring in the London area , or those who need to spend considerable time moored in the area."

 

I suppose it depends on what is considered "considerable" time - particularly as the "area" - if it includes Marsworth and Bishop's Stortford - is quite large!

[Lady Muck]

I met Paul at the first Conflicted Communties consultation with CRT where we worked on exactly the issues he is raising here. This was a result of the Locality Listening sessions, a community organiser invited me. I'm a bit bewildered by his actions because we in London are already consulting on this - thats London Boaters, Locality, CRT, IWA, trading boats, theres about 30 of us from different groups. He and Roger Squires are already involved. Seems he was keen to get this out before the paper from our first meeting is issued (next week I think).

 

As Leonie says, this is something that LB are being asked to work with Locality and CRT - particularly identifying sites for communtiy moorings and better management of vm's - maybe IWA are puzzled that they're not directly involved? Perhaps Paul can explain the reasons for this paper?

 

As for the photo on the cover, its not a 'honey pot' visitor mooring, it's a spot in Hackney that until a couple of years ago, you wouldn't moor there for fear of getting lynched. It is now very busy, but it still has it's moments, last year a large gang of youths threatened boaters, but then again it's Hackney!

[jenlyn]

To be fair I think they mean the right to use the community moorings and therefore able to stay within London (which now seems to stretch out to Marsworth!) for long periods of time without a declared home mooring would require a permit which needs to be "self financing". I think CaRT would rather "monetize" (eg make money from) current behaviour.

As I've said from the start, all this is about revenue. Could we develop a problem to make some money from? IWA rolls over, gets its tummy tickled and offers help. Funny handshakes and all that :-O

[GoodGurl]

i don't moor in london but reading through that paper makes me wonder that the price of a permit is going to be near a marina mooring fee looking at the amount of work CART are going to do, someone's got to pay for it all. i fear this is going to be a test area for the rest of the country.

[PiRSqwared]

So when are CaRT going to start knoocking down all those new blocks of flats along the Regent's so they can dig out the marinas which IWA want...or perhaps they can use the basements? Don't reckon the fees will much more than £25/foot/month!!

[Tuscan]

As I've said from the start, all this is about revenue. Could we develop a problem to make some money from? IWA rolls over, gets its tummy tickled and offers help. Funny handshakes and all that :-O

 

 

It will need revenue , although the proposal for winter moorings increasing CC licenses by £100 or £150 for winter moorings etc also seems to be revenue driven and that's OK? So why not combine the two and use this money to create the moorings and signage required. However there would appear to be lots of other Lndon basd discussions all coming to fruition so it's a shame they couldn't have produced a joint document even if there were disagreements contained within it.

[Phoenix_V]

I met Paul at the first Conflicted Communties consultation with CRT where we worked on exactly the issues he is raising here. This was a result of the Locality Listening sessions, a community organiser invited me. I'm a bit bewildered by his actions because we in London are already consulting on this - thats London Boaters, Locality, CRT, IWA, trading boats, theres about 30 of us from different groups. He and Roger Squires are already involved. Seems he was keen to get this out before the paper from our first meeting is issued (next week I think).

 

As Leonie says, this is something that LB are being asked to work with Locality and CRT - particularly identifying sites for communtiy moorings and better management of vm's - maybe IWA are puzzled that they're not directly involved? Perhaps Paul can explain the reasons for this paper?

 

As for the photo on the cover, its not a 'honey pot' visitor mooring, it's a spot in Hackney that until a couple of years ago, you wouldn't moor there for fear of getting lynched. It is now very busy, but it still has it's moments, last year a large gang of youths threatened boaters, but then again it's Hackney!

 

There seems to be a lot of consulting with live a board boaters, rather less with leisure boaters, there are 8 cruising clubs on the Lea and Stort, London and lower GU - how many of them are in the loop?

[Wild Is The Wind]

Tuscan, on 13 December 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

This seems a fairly negative approach , hopefully rather than leading to point scoring this is a document that can lead to further discussions alongside the input from other boaters organisations and the forums.

 

--------

 

I think its scary how this document has suddenly appeared, just skim read but think it mentioned proposals being introduced quickly across a large poorly defined area (not just London) and what happens from this will obviously be used as a template for other areas. How will other boater organisations input their members views, if they are all even asking for them? Its quite complicated trying to get involved with some of these organisations (even London Boaters - not criticising them just saying its not easy to find stuff on their proposals). I am all for local consultation and involvement, its vital, but what about individual boaters views, ideas coming up from the forum, etc?

 

In some ways its a well thought out document if it is a starting point, but it doesn't come across that way.

[PiRSqwared]

There seems to be a lot of consulting with live a board boaters, rather less with leisure boaters, there are 8 cruising clubs on the Lea and Stort, London and lower GU - how many of them are in the loop?

 

Don't they already have moorings?

[Phoenix_V]

Don't they already have moorings?

 

So we are not interested in whats being done with the visitor moorings?