C & RT South East Region Visitor Moorings Review Consultation

[bassplayer]

The roving permits are obviously acceptable to some boaters, because there is a shortage of long term moorings in some area's. However, CRT and the IWA are wholeheartedly trying to sell everyone the idea that there is a mass overcrowding problem in some area's. I and many others fail to see how selling people, roving permits, will clear the mass overcrowding. It will just be CRT making more revenue from their perceived problem.

I am not buying into what's going on at the moment. There are many who feel the same way.

Ultimately, the way CRT are heading with this, I see mooring fees increasing substantially. Yet again, boat owners paying for everyone to use the canals.

 

I agree and I don't see much overcrowding except in the peak season when the occasional boaters take their boats out of private marinas onto the system. Maybe the answer is to stop allowing any more marina's to be built. Of course that would restrict potential CRT revenue which seems to be the main priority. In my opinion it is the people who use the canals all year round who tend to put the most effort in, Ok maybe not in a financial or bureaucratic way, but in most other areas (helping other boaters, clearing crap out of locks, reporting problems, volunteering etc). The canal system has managed to cater for all types of boater in the past, I really don't see a problem for most of us. I'm sure this is just down do a few people who think they own the canals for the few weeks they cruise (and probably would if it was for sale!).

[DeanS]

Ian! I'm going to the meeting! Are you going? I think you're a key voice up north, and your roving permit ideas need to be heard?

[cotswoldsman]

The roving permits are obviously acceptable to some boaters, because there is a shortage of long term moorings in some area's. However, CRT and the IWA are wholeheartedly trying to sell everyone the idea that there is a mass overcrowding problem in some area's. I and many others fail to see how selling people, roving permits, will clear the mass overcrowding. It will just be CRT making more revenue from their perceived problem.

I am not buying into what's going on at the moment. There are many who feel the same way.

Ultimately, the way CRT are heading with this, I see mooring fees increasing substantially. Yet again, boat owners paying for everyone to use the canals.

 

I accept what you are saying but in the case of what was discussed at our Skipton Meeting it has nothing to do with overcrowding it was about people already on a mooring who would prefer the freedom to stay in the area and move without being hounded.

I notice you single out CRT and IWA and yes they are part of the problem of the perceived problem but it is not exclusive to them( just read this forum when CCing is discussed) It might well also be to stop the "I am paying for a mooring so everyone should be" brigade. I will wait and see what is proposed before I comment to much. I understand they are tweaking the the one that was originally proposed on The K&A

[alan_fincher]

We digress slightly but......

 

The detail of where roving permits got discussed for the K&A said, IIRC.....

 

1) You would still have to move every 28 days between allowed "roving permit" locations

2) There would be no guarantee that you would find a place if you turned up at one

3) They roving permit would be charged at 80% of the list price of towpath moorings.

4) They would be restricted only to those already living on boats in the area, not allowed to newcomers.

 

(Please correct me if any of that I remember wrongly - I've not gone back to re-read it).

 

Now, if you extend that to the Southern reaches of the GU, without modifying the proposal, I know, because it has just been discussed, the cheapest BW moorings for a full length boat (basic muddy tow-path at Uxbridge) list at about £2000 per annum. 80% of that would be £1,600 per annum, and I really can't see many paying that for really little more than they are already entitled to.

 

When I pushed Sally Ash on the topic, she said in London they might set the rate more like the "end of garden" rate, which would be 50%, not 80%, acknowledging that London moorings cost more, but that would still mean about £1,000 pa for a full length boat, and still with a requirement to shuffle between sites, only just less often.

 

I am with "Jenlyn" though - I can't really see what this achieves, other than legitimising these people. If the major complaint, as the IWA, and apparently some others claim, is just too many scruffy linearly tied up boats, what difference does it make if they are moved on every 14 days, every 28 days, or not at all? There will still be exactly the same number, and I can't suddenly see the complainers now saying "oh look, I'm happy with that one, because it is paying for a roving permit".

 

That said, some at the Cowley Uxbridge meetings still expressed some interest in such a scheme, so I suppose it should not be dismissed out of hand.

[jenlyn]

I accept what you are saying but in the case of what was discussed at our Skipton Meeting it has nothing to do with overcrowding it was about people already on a mooring who would prefer the freedom to stay in the area and move without being hounded.

I notice you single out CRT and IWA and yes they are part of the problem of the perceived problem but it is not exclusive to them( just read this forum when CCing is discussed) It might well also be to stop the "I am paying for a mooring so everyone should be" brigade. I will wait and see what is proposed before I comment to much. I understand they are tweaking the the one that was originally proposed on The K&A

The few on here that shout are a very very small minority in the bigger picture John, you know that as well as I. To say that a further charge through roving permits will silence the brigade is not a good argument. You feel people have to pay extra to silence others from moaning?

[cotswoldsman]

We digress slightly but......

 

The detail of where roving permits got discussed for the K&A said, IIRC.....

 

1) You would still have to move every 28 days between allowed "roving permit" locations

2) There would be no guarantee that you would find a place if you turned up at one

3) They roving permit would be charged at 80% of the list price of towpath moorings.

4) They would be restricted only to those already living on boats in the area, not allowed to newcomers.

 

(Please correct me if any of that I remember wrongly - I've not gone back to re-read it).

 

Now, if you extend that to the Southern reaches of the GU, without modifying the proposal, I know, because it has just been discussed, the cheapest BW moorings for a full length boat (basic muddy tow-path at Uxbridge) list at about £2000 per annum. 80% of that would be £1,600 per annum, and I really can't see many paying that for really little more than they are already entitled to.

 

When I pushed Sally Ash on the topic, she said in London they might set the rate more like the "end of garden" rate, which would be 50%, not 80%, acknowledging that London moorings cost more, but that would still mean about £1,000 pa for a full length boat, and still with a requirement to shuffle between sites, only just less often.

 

I am with "Jenlyn" though - I can't really see what this achieves, other than legitimising these people. If the major complaint, as the IWA, and apparently some others claim, is just too many scruffy linearly tied up boats, what difference does it make if they are moved on every 14 days, every 28 days, or not at all? There will still be exactly the same number, and I can't suddenly see the complainers now saying "oh look, I'm happy with that one, because it is paying for a roving permit".

 

That said, some at the Cowley Uxbridge meetings still expressed some interest in such a scheme, so I suppose it should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

Alan what you say is correct but maybe we should wait and see the proposal. Maybe it might just be the same old stuff. It is one solution that will maybe make it easier for some Continuous Cruisers that want or need to stay in the same area to become legitimate I am told by Jenny Dibsdall that this along with Licence, BSC and 3rd Party Insurance can all be claimed on Housing Benefit for those that qualify. Of course those that do not want a Roving Permit just carry on as they do now.(I as you know do not really have aproblem with that)

 

The few on here that shout are a very very small minority in the bigger picture John, you know that as well as I. To say that a further charge through roving permits will silence the brigade is not a good argument. You feel people have to pay extra to silence others from moaning?

 

No I don't as you know I have no problem with the way things are at present, but some might well want these Roving Permits those that don't just carry on. I guess it is just another form of CCing licence at the end of the day. At the end of the day the push should be for Cheaper Long Time Moorings and both should be introduced at the same time to give people a choice. I would say No Roving Permits without Cheaper Moorings. (NRPWCM Campaign)

[jenlyn]

Alan what you say is correct but maybe we should wait and see the proposal. Maybe it might just be the same old stuff. It is one solution that will maybe make it easier for some Continuous Cruisers that want or need to stay in the same area to become legitimate I am told by Jenny Dibsdall that this along with Licence, BSC and 3rd Party Insurance can all be claimed on Housing Benefit for those that qualify. Of course those that do not want a Roving Permit just carry on as they do now.(I as you know do not really have aproblem with that)

 

 

 

No I don't as you know I have no problem with the way things are at present, but some might well want these Roving Permits those that don't just carry on. I guess it is just another form of CCing licence at the end of the day. At the end of the day the push should be for Cheaper Long Time Moorings and both should be introduced at the same time to give people a choice. I would say No Roving Permits without Cheaper Moorings. (NRPWCM Campaign)

Roving permits will drive up prices of long term moorings, people in a said area paying for a roving permit, will constantly be bidding on long term moorings, that's a fact that I have got from talking to those that are looking at roving permits. In the last month, I have seen an increase in the price of long term moorings in and around Uxbridge.

I am open minded about roving permits but, they are not in my opinion solving the problem CRT say we have.

[matty40s]

Roving permits will drive up prices of long term moorings, people in a said area paying for a roving permit, will constantly be bidding on long term moorings, that's a fact that I have got from talking to those that are looking at roving permits. In the last month, I have seen an increase in the price of long term moorings in and around Uxbridge.

I am open minded about roving permits but, they are not in my opinion solving the problem CRT say we have.

I note the reserve price at Engineers Wharf has now gone well over £5k.......

[jenlyn]

I note the reserve price at Engineers Wharf has now gone well over £5k.......

It's becoming absolutely ridiculous Matty, it's evidently clear where this is all leading.

[Tuscan]

We digress slightly but......

 

The detail of where roving permits got discussed for the K&A said, IIRC.....

 

1) You would still have to move every 28 days between allowed "roving permit" locations

2) There would be no guarantee that you would find a place if you turned up at one

3) They roving permit would be charged at 80% of the list price of towpath moorings.

4) They would be restricted only to those already living on boats in the area, not allowed to newcomers.

 

(Please correct me if any of that I remember wrongly - I've not gone back to re-read it).

 

Now, if you extend that to the Southern reaches of the GU, without modifying the proposal, I know, because it has just been discussed, the cheapest BW moorings for a full length boat (basic muddy tow-path at Uxbridge) list at about £2000 per annum. 80% of that would be £1,600 per annum, and I really can't see many paying that for really little more than they are already entitled to.

 

When I pushed Sally Ash on the topic, she said in London they might set the rate more like the "end of garden" rate, which would be 50%, not 80%, acknowledging that London moorings cost more, but that would still mean about £1,000 pa for a full length boat, and still with a requirement to shuffle between sites, only just less often.

 

I am with "Jenlyn" though - I can't really see what this achieves, other than legitimising these people. If the major complaint, as the IWA, and apparently some others claim, is just too many scruffy linearly tied up boats, what difference does it make if they are moved on every 14 days, every 28 days, or not at all? There will still be exactly the same number, and I can't suddenly see the complainers now saying "oh look, I'm happy with that one, because it is paying for a roving permit".

 

That said, some at the Cowley Uxbridge meetings still expressed some interest in such a scheme, so I suppose it should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

As you say this is digressing away from the issue of visitor moorings but maybe not as much as we think , non the less it would be good to explore the issues.

 

My understanding outside of a couple of concentrations London/K&A principally there is not a huge problem with boaters not complying with the terms of the CC license that could not be solved with a bit more focus from the patrol officers giving boaters a nod that now is the time to move on.

 

Do CRT now accept that due to previous inaction on BW's part they are now powerless to enforce the conditions of the CC license insome areas of London and lower reaches of the K&A ? If the whole of these areas were made into long term moorings would this solve the problem? , existing boaters could be given a 25 or 50% discount for the first few years , would not those that could not afford ibe helped to claim housing benefit or similar and some who will refuse to pay should I'm afraid be asked to leave and comply with the license terms. The income that CRT receives should fund a higher concentration of patrol offers to ensure that new boaters do not expand the moorings further. CRT could also create additional short term VM's for those wishing to pass through which would need to be patrolled this would address the other complainers. Sorry if this is too much of a simplistic view, but the roving permit seems more of a face saving exercise that achieves little.

 

 

The other view would be to get rid of the CC license completly and charge everybody for a single licence at a premium of 25 % on the current price . A discount of 25% would be given if you can demonstrate a mooring contract is in place or that you have travelled 500km between 2 points in a 12m period recorded by CRT or photographic evidence. For this extra 25% you can stay 28 days in one spot before moving a minimum of 1 km.

 

Two ideas to get Mr Welch spluttering in his coffee. Just advancing ideas lets get some more in the pot.

[bowten]

Ian! I'm going to the meeting! Are you going? I think you're a key voice up north, and your roving permit ideas need to be heard?

I will be going Dean and yes my ideas on roving or zoning permits are somewhat different to those proposed up to now.

[bassplayer]

Am I missing a trick here? Can someone please explain why things can't be left how they have been for many years? From what I can see this is only a seasonal problem. If CRT want to convert some 14 day moorings to 2 day during the peak season then fine, but how about converting 1or2 day moorings to 14 day moorings in the winter to give us continuous cruisers more options (they are nearly all empty that time of year!). It's no different to how many seaside resorts deal with seasonal car parking.

 

The problem has only come about because more private marinas have been built, thereby causing more boats to come onto the system at peak times (there are very few marinas that allow live aboards). I really do see these 'proposals' as another step in making boating an elite hobby, if that happens it will be a real shame (and I'll probably have to give my boat up as I won't be able to afford to keep up)!

 

By the way I did get a human acknowledgment from CRT for sending my feedback form in, so maybe there is hope.

[pearley]

That's very true. I did notice when we were on the Llangollen last year that a lot of "out of the way" spots are signed 48 hours only - even though they were nowhere near a pub or shops!

That's generous.

 

On the Northern BCN a lot of them are 24 hour.

 

Regards

Pete

[alan_fincher]

Am I missing a trick here? Can someone please explain why things can't be left how they have been for many years?

No you are not missing a trick, at all.

 

When some of us attended the boaters meeting in Milton Keynes a few months back, the opening position from CRT about these proposals is that they have to do something because of the amount of pressure being put on them to do so.

 

However when this was challenged, and we asked how many complaints CRT receives, or what type of people were making a case for tougher VM mooring restrictions, they could not really quote any numbers that supported their case.

 

I had hoped when they accepted it would go out for a wider consultation that they would not only say what changes they proposed, but also why, and give some information to support their case for making them.

 

In my view the consultation document says almost nothing about the "why is this required" question, as all it says is......

 

Over the past two years the South East (SE) waterway team has been consulting via its local user group meetings on proposals for refining time limits and improving facilities at its most popular visitor mooring sites. A priority list of 22 locations was developed and widely circulated. More recently, we have a new policy commitment from the Trust’s new governance bodies on reducing overstaying on visitor moorings and improving compliance with rules for boats without a home mooring.

 

It is a priority for us to improve the chances of boaters finding space to tie up when they arrive at designated visitor moorings.

 

These are not trivial schemes, if they have any intention of actually enforcing the new limits they want to set, and of actually collecting the £25 overstay charges for those who chose to exceed the limits. Without teams checking each of these 22 locations every single day, it can not work in my view, because otherwise we just face the same old situation of people saying "they have rules, but they don't enforce them", and it will quickly fall into disrepute. If the checkers are paid staff, that a means considerable extra costs to CRT, in my view - if they are volunteers, it will need a large volunteer pool, and, unlike the voluntary lock keepers who covered some days, but not others, for this to work, every day would need to be covered.

 

Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree that unless there is very strong justification for these changes, no information about which has yet been presented to us at all, then it seems right to question whether they are necessary at all.

[DeanS]

No you are not missing a trick, at all.

 

When some of us attended the boaters meeting in Milton Keynes a few months back, the opening position from CRT about these proposals is that they have to do something because of the amount of pressure being put on them to do so.

 

However when this was challenged, and we asked how many complaints CRT receives, or what type of people were making a case for tougher VM mooring restrictions, they could not really quote any numbers that supported their case.

 

I had hoped when they accepted it would go out for a wider consultation that they would not only say what changes they proposed, but also why, and give some information to support their case for making them.

 

In my view the consultation document says almost nothing about the "why is this required" question, as all it says is......

 

 

 

These are not trivial schemes, if they have any intention of actually enforcing the new limits they want to set, and of actually collecting the £25 overstay charges for those who chose to exceed the limits. Without teams checking each of these 22 locations every single day, it can not work in my view, because otherwise we just face the same old situation of people saying "they have rules, but they don't enforce them", and it will quickly fall into disrepute. If the checkers are paid staff, that a means considerable extra costs to CRT, in my view - if they are volunteers, it will need a large volunteer pool, and, unlike the voluntary lock keepers who covered some days, but not others, for this to work, every day would need to be covered.

 

Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree that unless there is very strong justification for these changes, no information about which has yet been presented to us at all, then it seems right to question whether they are necessary at all.

 

I agree 100%

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I agree 100%

So do I.

 

Quite simply, CaRT appears to be unable to justify its consultation proposal.

 

Taken from the consultation document, its sole justification is

 

It is a priority for us to improve the chances of boaters finding space to tie up when they arrive at designated visitor moorings.

 

However, it fails to produce any evidence whatsoever to confirm that this 'problem' exists and its extent.

 

It also fails to show why this 'problem' can not be addressed by other means - for example providing more visitor moorings.

 

At face value, it would appear that CaRT is simply inventing or exaggerating a 'problem' in order to introduce the concept of charging for visitor moorings.

[matty40s]

I refer the honorable gents and ladies again to the L&S Moorings Proposals Consultations in 2010.

 

Not only was the consultation period too short and carried out when many canal users were not around, there was no research done to back up the claims.

This was eventually admitted by Sally Ash at one of the subsequent public meetings, which is why the Londonboaters and North L&S Boaters groups carried out their own research with ALL the waterways users.......the results highlighted a whole different set of issues and problems that would be caused by implementing the proposals.

 

The more I look at this, the more I see exactly what happened 2 years ago happening again now.

 

Time to step up the actions folks and make yourselves heard.

[Dovetail]

In time they may let slip the real reason for the changes and I think we all know what it is but hope its not the case and hold onto a glimmer of hope that we can alter what is coming our way.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I refer the honorable gents and ladies again to the L&S Moorings Proposals Consultations in 2010.

 

Not only was the consultation period too short and carried out when many canal users were not around, there was no research done to back up the claims.

This was eventually admitted by Sally Ash at one of the subsequent public meetings, which is why the Londonboaters and North L&S Boaters groups carried out their own research with ALL the waterways users.......the results highlighted a whole different set of issues and problems that would be caused by implementing the proposals.

 

The more I look at this, the more I see exactly what happened 2 years ago happening again now.

 

Time to step up the actions folks and make yourselves heard.

 

Deja vu!

 

Sally Ash has left a trail of destruction behind her on both L&S and K&A.

 

I am wondering if in a couple of years she will move on to Vaughan Welsh's plot - the West Midlands - and somebody will remind us of the 'South East cock up'

[Lady Muck]

Roving permits will drive up prices of long term moorings, people in a said area paying for a roving permit, will constantly be bidding on long term moorings, that's a fact that I have got from talking to those that are looking at roving permits. In the last month, I have seen an increase in the price of long term moorings in and around Uxbridge.

I am open minded about roving permits but, they are not in my opinion solving the problem CRT say we have.

 

I think the idea behind the roving permits is that there will be one issue of them and one only. They will not be transferable. The idea is that natural wastage (people moving off the canal, getting moorings etc), will mean there are less boaters holding them. Any new boater will be hassled to move much further distances than those with the roving permits, they won't be able to stay in a small geographic area like someone with a roving permit. (Although I'm not sure how they are going to manage this if the time on the VMs gets cut as much as CRT would like).

 

You just know what will happen, though, if people want to move off the cut, they'll rent their boat out - boats with permits will become really desirable. So yes I agree, I don't think it will 'solve' a 'problem.'

 

I can't believe they're putting the price of the LTM's up, though. That's rotten.

[jenlyn]

Is that submarine narrowboat thing still for sale? Buy a couple of tridents for it and head up to MK. Pop, pop, bobs your uncle. :-)

 

I think the idea behind the roving permits is that there will be one issue of them and one only. They will not be transferable. The idea is that natural wastage (people moving off the canal, getting moorings etc), will mean there are less boaters holding them. Any new boater will be hassled to move much further distances than those with the roving permits, they won't be able to stay in a small geographic area like someone with a roving permit. (Although I'm not sure how they are going to manage this if the time on the VMs gets cut as much as CRT would like).

 

You just know what will happen, though, if people want to move off the cut, they'll rent their boat out - boats with permits will become really desirable. So yes I agree, I don't think it will 'solve' a 'problem.'

 

I can't believe they're putting the price of the LTM's up, though. That's rotten.

CRT are not raising the prices of LTM's, they are going up through so many bidding on them.

[alan_fincher]

CRT are not raising the prices of LTM's, they are going up through so many bidding on them.

Actually, for completeness of course, there are two things to consider with CRT LTM mooring pricings....

 

1) The price they go for at auction. Depends on demand of course, buut the minimum "reserve" price is still based on a published "list" price, so if CRT put that up, it raises the minimum you can get a mooring for at that site.

 

2) The published list price. This is not only the price paid by anyone who's agreement pre-dates tenders and auctions, but also the price you will be offered renewal at, once your 3 years for a "bid on" contract completes.

 

Unusually in 2012 BW did a repricing exercise that didn't just hike all list prices by the same percentage, but applied variable increases, depending on their thoughts on "desirability" of a site and demand for it.

 

Those thoughts were published, though I don't think much was made to publicise them.

 

Here is the one relating to London, and the area around it.....

 

PDF Linky.

 

With a bit of effort, they can be found for any area in the country.

 

EDIT:

 

The one I've posted includes Cowley / Uxbridge BTW.

 

Also corrects a previous statement - the list price at Engineer's Wharf actually got reduced a bit, rather than increased.....

 

Residential marina. Despite a consistent high volume of queries, allocation of berths by auction has been erratic (data suggests seasonal interest) and largely for less than guide. Price reduced to stimulate interest.

Edited January 30, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Chris Pink]

 

However, it fails to produce any evidence whatsoever to confirm that this 'problem' exists and its extent.

 

Perhaps a FOI request?

[bassplayer]

No you are not missing a trick, at all.

 

When some of us attended the boaters meeting in Milton Keynes a few months back, the opening position from CRT about these proposals is that they have to do something because of the amount of pressure being put on them to do so.

 

However when this was challenged, and we asked how many complaints CRT receives, or what type of people were making a case for tougher VM mooring restrictions, they could not really quote any numbers that supported their case.

 

I had hoped when they accepted it would go out for a wider consultation that they would not only say what changes they proposed, but also why, and give some information to support their case for making them.

 

In my view the consultation document says almost nothing about the "why is this required" question, as all it says is......

 

 

 

These are not trivial schemes, if they have any intention of actually enforcing the new limits they want to set, and of actually collecting the £25 overstay charges for those who chose to exceed the limits. Without teams checking each of these 22 locations every single day, it can not work in my view, because otherwise we just face the same old situation of people saying "they have rules, but they don't enforce them", and it will quickly fall into disrepute. If the checkers are paid staff, that a means considerable extra costs to CRT, in my view - if they are volunteers, it will need a large volunteer pool, and, unlike the voluntary lock keepers who covered some days, but not others, for this to work, every day would need to be covered.

 

Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree that unless there is very strong justification for these changes, no information about which has yet been presented to us at all, then it seems right to question whether they are necessary at all.

 

Well count me in if there are any more local meetings. My bruv used to be very active with NABO for many years, so I do have a heads up on what's going on. Unfortunately he has had to give up the ghost due to heath reasons.

[alan_fincher]

I'm disappointed to see on Facebook that CRT employees have apparently been out removing signs that local boat owners have been putting up attempting to draw the South East Visitor Mooring Consultation to the attention of those not on the internet, and may currently be unaware.

 

I'm afraid it hardly points to a desire to "want to consult" does it?

 

Now of course, before anyone says it, I admit I don't know whether those removing the signs have done so because they were specifically instructed o, or, whether as a matter of course, they would remove any unauthorised notice, whatever it was about.