C & RT South East Region Visitor Moorings Review Consultation

[alan_fincher]

The information that was supplied to Alan Fincher was made on a voluntary basis and Jeff Wyatt did not say if meetings with the trade were documented.

Yes, quite correct or course.

 

I have asked Jeff Whyatt about what he was prepared to share about how the consultation had been run up to the point Sally ash got involved. Jeff has sent a collection of related documents some dating back 3 or 4 years, but these are what he has agreed to make available, and I don't think anybody is claiming them to be the whole story.

 

The whole process around trying to get information bewilders me, but to be fair to Jeff Whyatt he has provided far more than I have been able to get via Sally Ash.

 

Bizarrely (in my view, at least), CRT have provided Allan with the answer to an FOI request that indicates no formal complaint about failure to find VMs has been received for Hillmorton or Banbury,but they have not responded formally to my earlier FOI request about such complaints.

 

Yet Jeff Whyatt's answer to me appears to be that there have been no site specific complaints received for any of the 22 sites, other than one pub operator expressing an interest in operating the moorings at their pub. So Jeff seems to have actually provided an answer to the questions in my FOI request, (and also Allan's one relating to the other 20 sites), even though neither of us have received the formal answer, (today is the last day by which CRT should have responded to mine, so it is still possible, I suppose!).

[alan_fincher]

From what I have read all the proposed changes are driven by hire company W or was it H and these have just been taken and agreed with by CRT having done no investigation of their own supported it would seem by the IWA management /CRT trustees although the same IWA management seem to be backtracking a bit. This is a pretty poor way to run a substantial charitable business.

Unless I have misread the spreadsheet, even hire company W (or was it H!) have not included sites South of Cow Roast amongst the forty that they think CRT should introduce extensive one day VMs at.

 

I can see nothing in the papers that Jeff has sent that supports any claim that hire boat companies have deliberately influenced plans for (at least) Berkhamsted, Cassiobury and Batchworth, so Sally ash having backed off to them as her main reason is simply not correct for sites like those.

 

To me what is going on there still smacks firmly of a different agenda to the reason given, and, although I'm not expecting to make any new friends, I'm currently replying directly to Jeff Whyatt to let my feelings on that be known.

 

Unfortunately we are now on effectively the last day that someone can fill out a response form, and, despite the very best efforts of quite a few of us, I still do not feel we have had our concerns adequately addressed.

 

I now make no secret of the fact this proposal seems so highly flawed in so many ways that the the only reasonable thing for CRT to do would be to drop it completely in its current form.

[Tuscan]

Unless I have misread the spreadsheet, even hire company W (or was it H!) have not included sites South of Cow Roast amongst the forty that they think CRT should introduce extensive one day VMs at.

 

I can see nothing in the papers that Jeff has sent that supports any claim that hire boat companies have deliberately influenced plans for (at least) Berkhamsted, Cassiobury and Batchworth, so Sally ash having backed off to them as her main reason is simply not correct for sites like those.

 

To me what is going on there still smacks firmly of a different agenda to the reason given, and, although I'm not expecting to make any new friends, I'm currently replying directly to Jeff Whyatt to let my feelings on that be known.

 

Unfortunately we are now on effectively the last day that someone can fill out a response form, and, despite the very best efforts of quite a few of us, I still do not feel we have had our concerns adequately addressed.

 

I now make no secret of the fact this proposal seems so highly flawed in so many ways that the the only reasonable thing for CRT to do would be to drop it completely in its current form.

 

 

You are right of course , I was referring to the ones that had been identified by the hire company in question and how it would appear that these had just been accepted with no obvious input from CRT.

 

It is perfectly sensible and reasonable for CRT to propose changes to visitor mooring arrangements, and in some cases changes from say 14 days to 7 days , or 7 days to 48 hours may be justified in periods of high movements. What I find unacceptable is to produce a consultation document with no supporting facts and observations as to why changes at some moorings are needed to enable boaters to make some informed decisions,. On 5 of the sites listed they have not even bothered to say what changes they propose.

 

Further they have not explained who will carry out these daily inspections, how many extra staff ?, or how the penalty be applied sticker on the boat or letter received when you return from a cruise, license renewal as a last resort.

 

In my view this consultation should be postponed until evidence of need is obtained and published and the legality of the £25 fine/charge is tested. However my fear is the vast majority of boaters are probably either apathetic or because when they cruise in the summer they have arrived in late afternoon they have found the VM's full think these proposals may solve this problem and this could give CRT the opportunity they want to implement them. Unfortunately even if these proposals are implemented they would probably still not find a space yet there are no proposals for extra VM's indeed they are removing mooring opportunities in Berko.

 

The existing boats that do overstay on VM's currently will not be effected by this if they have not been effected by current attempts to move them, but licence holders of all types that cruise legitimately currently will be.

[bjornunda]

 

 

We have only (quote) "until 1st March" (Friday) to submit the consultation feedback forms - express your opinion! Whether or not they will make any difference is another question. Alan might just receive FOI replies by the 28th and (hopefully) post them so that we can use them in feedback before the cutoff date (is that 28th or 1st?)

 

(bounce) the consultation document asks for feedback before the 1st March

[churchward]

(bounce) the consultation document asks for feedback before the 1st March

I sent my completed feedback form into CRT this morning. I have waited until now to do it although I drafted a response a couple of weeks ago because it has been interesting to see the views of others on here and some of the info extracted from CRT. It hasn't altered the main thrust of my view but it has changed some of the details.

[alan_fincher]

(bounce) the consultation document asks for feedback before the 1st March

I have checked this, and responses sent tomorrow will be fine.......

 

From: Alan Fincher

Sent: 28 February 2013 14:17

To: Damian Kemp

Subject: Last date for submission of SEVM consultation responses.

Importance: High

 

Damian,

 

It has been pointed out to me that in some places it is indicated responses must be received by March 1st and other places it says before the 1st March.

 

Can you please confirm that answers received tomorrow, Friday 1st march will be accepted without question.

 

Whilst you may say we should have got there sooner, perhaps, I for one have an FOI request in that CRT should be answering by today. If that answer is forthcoming, I would like to know it before submitting. If the answer isn’t forthcoming, that might just get a mention too!

 

From: Damian Kemp [mailto:Damian.Kemp@canalrivertrust.org.uk]

Sent: 28 February 2013 14:20

To: Alan Fincher

Subject: RE: Last date for submission of SEVM consultation responses.

 

Hi Alan,

 

In reality, if I receive responses early next week then I’m not going to discount them for the sake of a few days. It’d be good if you could spread the word – I’ll put something on FB.

 

Best wishes,

Damian

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I have just received a response to my second FOIA request and can now confirm what Alan Fincher has already been told by Jeff Whyatt. BW/CaRT have had no complaints in 2011 or 2012 regarding difficulty in finding space to moor at the 22 sites in the consultation proposal.

 

It is little wonder that Alan was asked to withdraw his request for an analysis of the complaints by Sally Ash and John Dodwell as 'not helpful'

[alan_fincher]

I have just received a response to my second FOIA request and can now confirm what Alan Fincher has already been told by Jeff Whyatt. BW/CaRT have had no complaints in 2011 or 2012 regarding difficulty in finding space to moor at the 22 sites in the consultation proposal.

 

It is little wonder that Alan was asked to withdraw his request for an analysis of the complaints by Sally Ash and John Dodwell as 'not helpful'

So given that Sally Ash told us back in October that they do receive a high level of complaints, despite none being recorded in 2011 or 2012, one can only imagine what those who attended the workshops on the topic were told!

 

Almost unbelievable!

[Lady Muck]

Everytime an FOI request is responded to a little bit more trust in CRT dies off.

 

Shocking.

[Ray]

I have just received a response to my second FOIA request and can now confirm what Alan Fincher has already been told by Jeff Whyatt. BW/CaRT have had no complaints in 2011 or 2012 regarding difficulty in finding space to moor at the 22 sites in the consultation proposal.

 

All the complaints must have been received in 2013 then.

 

Coat, gloves & tin hat.

[alan_fincher]

All the complaints must have been received in 2013 then.

 

Coat, gloves & tin hat.

Not possible, given that we were told about them in October 2012, Ray!

Edited February 28, 2013 by alan_fincher

[bowten]

All the complaints must have been received in 2013 then.

 

Coat, gloves & tin hat.

Actually that's not as funny as you think,going off their past record.

[GUMPY]

All the complaints must have been received in 2013 then.

 

No they were all in 2010 or before and they have only just got round to dealing with it

[Tuscan]

So given that Sally Ash told us back in October that they do receive a high level of complaints, despite none being recorded in 2011 or 2012, one can only imagine what those who attended the workshops on the topic were told!

 

Almost unbelievable!

 

 

 

Terrible sets a really bad precedent for the future and goes a long way to pull the rug on the goodwill that was evident on the creation of the charity.

[ditchcrawler]

I have checked this, and responses sent tomorrow will be fine.......

They just posted this on Facebook

 

 

We're rapidly approaching the end of the written submission part of the South East Visitor Consultation (it ends tomorrow). If you want to reply you'd better hurry! Damian

PS If you're planning to do it at the weekend, then please do send it in and I'll still include (just don't tell anyone I said so ;-))

[matty40s]

It is little wonder that Alan was asked to withdraw his request for an analysis of the complaints by Sally Ash and John Dodwell as 'not helpful'

 

 

Well it can't be helpful expecting analysis of non-existent data...they have far more important things to do ......like design new moorings proposals in response to that non-existent data...

 

 

I may sound like an old record, but the L&S Moorings Proposals were based on similar "No research", the research that mattered was carried out free of charge by the London Boaters and UL&SBG and was given to BW - who promptly withdrew the proposals.

 

NOTHING HAS CHANGED BUT THE NAME.

Edited February 28, 2013 by matty40s

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Well it can't be helpful expecting analysis of non-existent data...they have far more important things to do ......like design new moorings proposals in response to that non-existent data...

 

 

I may sound like an old record, but the L&S Moorings Proposals were based on similar "No research", the research that mattered was carried out free of charge by the London Boaters and UL&SBG and was given to BW - who promptly withdrew the proposals.

 

NOTHING HAS CHANGED BUT THE NAME.

 

I have to agree. On the first of this month, I made a FOIA request -

 

I refer to the consultation document 'Refreshing signage and rules

for South East visitor moorings sites: boater consultation Jan-Feb

2013'.

 

The sole justification for the new rules at the 22 locations

mentioned in the consultation document is as follows - '......to

improve the chances of boaters finding space to tie up when they

arrive at designated visitor moorings".

 

Please provide via whatdotheyknow.com any report, study or paper

(relating to any, some or all of these locations) which documents

or measures the extent to which boaters have problems finding space

to tie up.

 

After 20 working days (the maximum time allowed), CaRT have just responded by producing some documents but unrelated to the request!

 

Quite simply, they have nothing in the way of data or complaints to support the proposal.

[CathyC]

You are right of course , I was referring to the ones that had been identified by the hire company in question and how it would appear that these had just been accepted with no obvious input from CRT.

 

It is perfectly sensible and reasonable for CRT to propose changes to visitor mooring arrangements, and in some cases changes from say 14 days to 7 days , or 7 days to 48 hours may be justified in periods of high movements. What I find unacceptable is to produce a consultation document with no supporting facts and observations as to why changes at some moorings are needed to enable boaters to make some informed decisions,. On 5 of the sites listed they have not even bothered to say what changes they propose.

 

Further they have not explained who will carry out these daily inspections, how many extra staff ?, or how the penalty be applied sticker on the boat or letter received when you return from a cruise, license renewal as a last resort.

 

In my view this consultation should be postponed until evidence of need is obtained and published and the legality of the £25 fine/charge is tested. However my fear is the vast majority of boaters are probably either apathetic or because when they cruise in the summer they have arrived in late afternoon they have found the VM's full think these proposals may solve this problem and this could give CRT the opportunity they want to implement them. Unfortunately even if these proposals are implemented they would probably still not find a space yet there are no proposals for extra VM's indeed they are removing mooring opportunities in Berko.

 

The existing boats that do overstay on VM's currently will not be effected by this if they have not been effected by current attempts to move them, but licence holders of all types that cruise legitimately currently will be.

Here here, Tuscan. I don't know much about where this Q & A line is leading, but as a compliant continuous cruiser whose circuit includes a number of these areas, I make a heartfelt plea to CaRT to think again.

This will make my life impossible. I do not stop anywhere for 2 or 3 days (except going into London), but even if I did in the central Ricky pound to pick up my mail, fill up with water, dump rubbish, visit Tesco etc, where am I supposed to go next? The adjacent pounds are full of rez moorings, and the few free spaces are already popular and will be more so once everyone's been displaced from Ricky. Two pounds north is full of silt but for 3 spaces, which will be full. Three pounds up is already popular. Four pounds up and you have another new VM area. And so it goes on, all the way to Marsworth and beyond.

CaRT is starting to clamp down on overstayers and send demands for £25 a day for more than 2 weeks in places like Little Venice, where I am now. Surely that's enough!

Whoever CaRT has spoken to before drawing up this, they sure haven't spoken to continuous cruisers. And nevermind rational justifications, I'd like Alan to ask CaRT how they think their plans can have any MORAL justification when CaRT has never bothered, until the last minute, to talk to those whose lives will be most affected by them.

[alan_fincher]

I have to agree. On the first of this month, I made a FOIA request -

 

After 20 working days (the maximum time allowed), CaRT have just responded by producing some documents but unrelated to the request!

 

Quite simply, they have nothing in the way of data or complaints to support the proposal.

I've not looked to see if they have delivered you the same files as they have me, Allan?

 

But amongst mine are minutes from South East Trade meetings up until the point such meetings changed to a national basis in 2009.

 

They certainly give a strong view of how "The Trade" sees things, and particularly those with no home mooring in the area.

 

I've extracted a certain amount of it into a separate thread here, as I suspect some will be interested in seeing a sample, without ploughing through every document.

 

Anyone who wants to see the full trade minutes, they are attached to my FOI request here

[onionbargee]

have they said just how they propose to enforce these nutty new rules ? If theres no enforcement then it's not worth panicing about.