petition against the south east mooring proposals

[Allan(nb Albert)]

No, and I wouldn't expect them to name individual complainants.

 

But it is surely acceptable to say (for example) we have had 12 complaints relating to Visitor Moorings at Stoke Bruerne in the last year, 5 were from private baoters, 4 from hire companies, 2 from local residents and 1 from an angler.

 

Urged on by Chris, and noting that if they actually adhered to a 20 day response time, I should have an answer before the consultation closes on 1st March, I have now raised an FOI request.

 

Whatdotheyknow.com FOI Request Link

 

The Act itself determines what information an authority is obliged to supply.

 

My concern, looking at Alans request, is that he may be asking for information that does not currently exist. If so CaRT is not obliged to create it to satisfy the request under FOIA.

[Chris Pink]

...but the absence in itself would be a telling thing.

 

And they must have the information about complaints. Even if not collated. It's up to CRT whether they supply the summary data or the redacted complaints themselves.

[alan_fincher]

The Act itself determines what information an authority is obliged to supply.

 

My concern, looking at Alans request, is that he may be asking for information that does not currently exist. If so CaRT is not obliged to create it to satisfy the request under FOIA.

Sally Ash told us at the Milton Keynes meeting that they do get a surprisingly large number of complaints, but wouldn't be drawn further at the time.

 

If therefore I get a response that says "sorry we don't hold that information", it would be "dissapointing", to say the least.

 

It would to me imply they are proposing this raft of changes based on a "general feeling" that they get enough complaints to justify them, but haven't actually thought it important enough to make any formal log of those complaints to use when planning the changes.

 

We shall see, won't we?

[Guest]

I would be very surprised if a former public body like BW would not have been required to keep a formal tally of complaints broken down into categories.

 

Going back to my NHS days when I worked as a complaints manager it was something we were intensely scrutinised on and had to report to our board and to the DOH. It was similar in the local authority too.

 

Not sure what would apply now given their different status though.

[matty40s]

When BW put it's Mooring Proposals for the Lee and Stort on/under the table, it cited major congestion problems and research carried out.

When pressed for this information, it was admitted that NO research had been carried out, but the problems WERE there, because we just know!!

 

They had NOT consulted with Anglers, Cruising Clubs,Long term moorers, canoe clubs, rowing clubs, towpath walkers, cyclists, enviromentalists.........they just KNEW.

When the boaters groups researched all the above groups, they were against the proposals for one reason or another.

[Chris Pink]

You would have thought at the third attempt CRT even if not Ms Ash would have learnt a thing or two.

 

Why do her bosses continue to allow her to fly these kites?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

...but the absence in itself would be a telling thing.

 

And they must have the information about complaints. Even if not collated. It's up to CRT whether they supply the summary data or the redacted complaints themselves.

 

Yes it would be telling.

 

However, as Alan's FOIA request stands CaRT are not obliged to provide copies of the complaints themselves as he has not asked for them and not obliged to provide what he has actually asked asked for if the information does not already exist.

 

**** Edited to add

 

I have now raised two FOIA requests which I believe will give greater certainty of providing the information requested by Alan (although someone will have to do some analysis!).

 

I have also requested some other information which I think should have been made available in the consultation document.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Canalwatcher]

Signed.

 

I have also submitted, using their response document, my comments to CRT; (that they should not be reducing the existing mooring time limits but instead concentrate on enforcing the existing ones more rigorously).

 

Have I got this right? - Looking at the "Thrupp example letters" in the consultation document, are they really saying that each new moorer at a designated time limited mooring will get a "green" explanatory letter on Day 1, an amber one just before times up, followed by a red one on day one of an overstay? That would need a lot of staff/volunteers.

Mick

 

Mick

Edited February 3, 2013 by zodiak

[CathyC]

As a continuous cruiser between central London and deepest Herts, I'd like to thank everybody who's signed this petition. And Steve for setting it up. I haven't managed to open it on my phone, but will be doing so at the library. Speaking of which, it might be helpful to start some kind of initiative to help people without computer skills to fill in CaRT's form and 'sign' the petition. I know of one or two elderly people who'll be feeling a bit left out by now. Also, a lot of boaters I've been talking to still know nothing of the plans, so some awareness-raising is needed. Additionally, one guy I spoke to today said he'd been trying to join CWF for months but had had no joy because it was closed to new members, on the basis that it now had too many members. How can this be with a web-based forum? And, with the greatest period of upheaval in recent canal history upon us, isn't it a rather misguided step for CWF to take? Apologies if it's all rubbish and he's been pressing the wrong buttons. Finally, for anyone who believes that CaRT's clampdown on non-compliant CCs has reached saturation, and that the VM plans are necessary, there are still plenty of overstayers who haven't had so much as a patrol notice yet. The latest I've heard about is a guy who was in the same spot for 11 months before getting a letter. And in which quiet corner of the canal was he able to get away with such a sojourn? Why, Little Venice.

[alan_fincher]

Additionally, one guy I spoke to today said he'd been trying to join CWF for months but had had no joy because it was closed to new members, on the basis that it now had too many members. How can this be with a web-based forum? And, with the greatest period of upheaval in recent canal history upon us, isn't it a rather misguided step for CWF to take? Apologies if it's all rubbish and he's been pressing the wrong buttons. F

No, there is no such policy Cathy.

 

New members join at a fair old rate, (usually quite a few a day, I would say), the latest little over an hour ago.

 

Your person either has their forums mixed up, or have a bad explanation of whatever issue they have.

 

That said, I'm not sure how it gets resolved, because if they believe they can't join, they can't ask for help!

 

Perhaps if you were to message the moderators with the user name they tried to register with, someone can take a look.

 

If stuck how to do this, you can "report" your own posts, and the mods should pick upon that quickly.

[Wild Is The Wind]

At first I was really pleased to see CRT making more of an effort to consult boaters.

 

But given the short timescale between releasing the 'consultation' and the planned implementation it does look like its a foregone conclusion that it will go ahead. It will take a lot of time to prepare, commission and install signage (which will be quite extensive) - let alone recruiting the number of people required to enforce all of this properly, which they must do or it will not work. So they must be pretty well prepared in advance for roll out.

 

These are big changes that will affect all licence payers eventually if they go ahead, and we deserve to know the reasoning behind these plans - so in my view just responding to the consultation alone is not enough.

 

Thank you for the petition and the FOIs.

 

Not all of us have the time needed to find out all the facts and challenge when needed and I'm very grateful to everybody working on this.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

At first I was really pleased to see CRT making more of an effort to consult boaters.

 

But given the short timescale between releasing the 'consultation' and the planned implementation it does look like its a foregone conclusion that it will go ahead. It will take a lot of time to prepare, commission and install signage (which will be quite extensive) - let alone recruiting the number of people required to enforce all of this properly, which they must do or it will not work. So they must be pretty well prepared in advance for roll out.

 

These are big changes that will affect all licence payers eventually if they go ahead, and we deserve to know the reasoning behind these plans - so in my view just responding to the consultation alone is not enough.

 

Thank you for the petition and the FOIs.

 

Not all of us have the time needed to find out all the facts and challenge when needed and I'm very grateful to everybody working on this.

 

Unfortunately, CaRT is not following governments code of practice (the seven criteria) regarding this consultation despite a commitment to do so for consultations of national importance.

 

Criterion When to consult

Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to inuence

the policy outcome.

Criterion Duration of consultation exercises

Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given

to longer timescales where feasible and sensible.

Criterion Clarity of scope and impact

Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is

being proposed, the scope to inuence and the expected costs and benets of

the proposals.

Criterion Accessibility of consultation exercises

Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted

at, those people the exercise is intended to reach.

Criterion The burden of consultation

Keeping the burden of consultation to a minimum is essential if consultations are

to be effective and if consultees’ buy-in to the process is to be obtained.

Criterion Responsiveness of consultation exercises

Consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should

be provided to participants following the consultation.

Criterion Capacity to consult

Ofcials running consultations should seek guidance in how to run an effective

consultation exercise and share what they have learned from the experience.

 

Whilst CaRT may argue that this is local consultation (and thus not subject to the code)this is not the case. All boaters wishing to visit S.E. region are effected. Furthermore, the outcome of this consultation is of national importance as it will be 'rolled out' to other regions.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Paul C]

Unfortunately, CaRT is not following governments code of practice (the seven criteria) regarding this consultation despite a commitment to do so for consultations of national importance.

 

 

 

Whilst CaRT may argue that this is local consultation (and thus not subject to the code)this is not the case. All boaters wishing to visit S.E. region are effected. Furthermore, the outcome of this consultation is of national importance as it will be 'rolled out' to other regions.

 

That may be a blessing in disguise though.....with only a month of consultation for this, it may well be still possible to implement it in SE, but if they tried to spread it into other regions then at that point it clearly becomes 'national' and it could be stopped from occurring (in other areas....not SE).

 

I imagine the SE is a 'trial' of sorts, and they'll modify subsequent regional implementations a bit.

[jenlyn]

That may be a blessing in disguise though.....with only a month of consultation for this, it may well be still possible to implement it in SE, but if they tried to spread it into other regions then at that point it clearly becomes 'national' and it could be stopped from occurring (in other areas....not SE).

 

I imagine the SE is a 'trial' of sorts, and they'll modify subsequent regional implementations a bit.

Ok, so it's fine for the south east to have it, but you will do nothing until it gets to your area. Great.

[Paul C]

I'll be using the feedback form with my own feedback, after due consideration of the issues, in addition to following developments on here. What more do you want me to do?

[Wild Is The Wind]

But its a big trial - how will CRT monitor and review such a trial if there is no evidence to show it was really needed in the first place?

 

And so many boaters are being left out - they don't know its happening and will not even get a chance to have a say.

 

I say this consultation should be stopped to allow proper research to be done and clear communications with boaters put in place first.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

That may be a blessing in disguise though.....with only a month of consultation for this, it may well be still possible to implement it in SE, but if they tried to spread it into other regions then at that point it clearly becomes 'national' and it could be stopped from occurring (in other areas....not SE).

 

I imagine the SE is a 'trial' of sorts, and they'll modify subsequent regional implementations a bit.

 

Let us be clear about this Paul.

 

To date, CaRT have produced absolutely no evidence as to why a 'trial' or a local initiative should take place to determine to what extent, if any, boaters are having difficulty in finding a place to moor at 22 sites.

 

The reason why Alan and myself have made FOAI requests is to give them the opportunity to do so under public scrutiny.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Paul C]

Yes but the rules you posted above, are for consultations of national importance. Its arguable whether this one is national or regional. Stopping this one based on there being no evidence why its needed, may not work (because there isn't a requirement to do this, unlike the bits you quoted which is a government code of practice). It would have been good to....its something they should have done....its something they might do yet.....it would be nice if they did....etc; but whether its enough to stop this proposal in its tracks....not necessarily. The only thing which could stop it is an overwhelming quantity of feedback giving a consistent message that its flawed/unworkable/etc

 

In any case, I believe its fundamentally flawed in that there appears to be no legal mechanism to collect 'fines'/penalties/charges etc. There's been other threads on similar topics which show a legal precedent that a licence can't be withheld for debts on other areas; and a lack of legal backing to impose fines and collect the money.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

In any case, I believe its fundamentally flawed in that there appears to be no legal mechanism to collect 'fines'/penalties/charges etc. There's been other threads on similar topics which show a legal precedent that a licence can't be withheld for debts on other areas; and a lack of legal backing to impose fines and collect the money.

 

That is one of the reasons why this consultation is of national importance rather than a local matter.

[alan_fincher]

I am still in an email dialogue with Sally Ash.

 

I need to ponder quite a bit further the latest answers received from Sally, but basically (my paraphrase) their justification for these changes are that the problems came high up people's agenda in the last boaters survey, and also from the discussions that BW/CRT had already had with boater groups and hire companies that led to the drawing up of the 22 sites. Which boater groups is not specified, but given the IWA's high profile on mooring issues in the South East, one assumes they must have been a major player.

 

I recall that the boater survey referred to was rejected by many people at the time, because there was a feeling that it identified them, and the information being gathered could be misused. The response rate seems to have been about 11%, so when (for example) they actually say 50% of boaters are represented by an association, what they have actually done is extrapolated from quite a small sample, and assumed that non respondents fit the same pattern as those who did respond. I think it could be argued that averaged out those who might complete a survey may not represent the views of those who did not. Arguably those who join associations are more likely to complete surveys than those who do not.

 

If these are the major routes used to draw up the proposals, I think it is a shame that information has not been included in the discussion document. Perhaps sometimes those working on such projects are too close to the subject, and make assumptions that people already know more of the background than I believe is likely to be the case if a notification of a consultation just arrives in their inbox.

 

I'm not yet convinced that individual boater complaint about specific locations has actually played much part in drawing up this proposal.

 

The dialogue continues!

[Tuscan]

11% sounds about right about right look at how many voted at recent council elections or on the recent vote on proportional representation. Most opinion poll samples feature less so in that respect they are entitled to draw conclusions from past questionnaires and also from this consultation feedback. However I do not understand why they did not make clearer the premis on which the consultation was launched.

 

With the various FoI's and individual discussions going on with CRT it's a shame as in most tenders that they don't distribute a consultation update featuring the questions and answers that have been submitted as that would inform all rather than the few interested forum members. I guess that's what they were hoping the feedback form was for but as has been shown there are several areas that people wanted clarity of.

 

From a personal point of view it mattered less to me as to the why the change as there is , i believe, pressure on VM's in peak periods but why police all year for a 2 month problem and how would it be enforced. I have not seen any satisfactory answer from my own enquiries or via the forum as to how the penalties will be levied, by whom, and how they would be collected.

 

Thus I remain of the opinion that there is perhaps a need for some change in July and August but this could be addressed by the existing patrol team enforcing the rules. You don't need a sledgehammer and hire boats need to be included, any penalties can easily be added to their licences too!!

 

Interesting last weekend the VM's close to me we're patrolled and boats did move. Came back to the boat today and noticed the boat moored next to the winding hold since Christmas is still there not on a visitor mooring, not bridge hopping and also in isolation, with his car next to the bridge. I stress not doing anybody any harm or causing an obstruction but I guess the CRT guy could not be bothered to walk the mile up the path. It's this inconsistency that could get worse if there is volunteer checkers able to instigate fines.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Tuscan

[Wild Is The Wind]

I am still in an email dialogue with Sally Ash.

 

I need to ponder quite a bit further the latest answers received from Sally, but basically (my paraphrase) their justification for these changes are that the problems came high up people's agenda in the last boaters survey, and also from the discussions that BW/CRT had already had with boater groups and hire companies that led to the drawing up of the 22 sites. Which boater groups is not specified, but given the IWA's high profile on mooring issues in the South East, one assumes they must have been a major player.

 

I recall that the boater survey referred to was rejected by many people at the time, because there was a feeling that it identified them, and the information being gathered could be misused. The response rate seems to have been about 11%, so when (for example) they actually say 50% of boaters are represented by an association, what they have actually done is extrapolated from quite a small sample, and assumed that non respondents fit the same pattern as those who did respond. I think it could be argued that averaged out those who might complete a survey may not represent the views of those who did not. Arguably those who join associations are more likely to complete surveys than those who do not.

 

If these are the major routes used to draw up the proposals, I think it is a shame that information has not been included in the discussion document. Perhaps sometimes those working on such projects are too close to the subject, and make assumptions that people already know more of the background than I believe is likely to be the case if a notification of a consultation just arrives in their inbox.

 

I'm not yet convinced that individual boater complaint about specific locations has actually played much part in drawing up this proposal.

 

The dialogue continues!

 

 

 

Forgive my ignorance on this, but can you tell me when the last boater's survey was conducted, how it is sent out and to how many licence payers (does it go to all)?

[jenlyn]

Forgive my ignorance on this, but can you tell me when the last boater's survey was conducted, how it is sent out and to how many licence payers (does it go to all)?

It supposedly went out to 5000 boat license holders, last year. I was a recipient. I did not fill it in as I found it far to intrusive. I am pretty sure they had a response on it of about 3500, not really a good basis to make assumptions from.

Referring to notes I made at the MK meeting with CRT on the 28th November, I notice the survey was brought up by Sally Ash. After short discussion, it was agreed the survey did not reach enough people to substantiate any changes. It did not cover a broad enough spectrum of boat owners.

Edited February 2, 2013 by jenlyn

[stickleback]

 

From a personal point of view it mattered less to me as to the why the change as there is , i believe, pressure on VM's in peak periods but why police all year for a 2 month problem and how would it be enforced. I have not seen any satisfactory answer from my own enquiries or via the forum as to how the penalties will be levied, by whom, and how they would be collected.

 

Thus I remain of the opinion that there is perhaps a need for some change in July and August but this could be addressed by the existing patrol team enforcing the rules. You don't need a sledgehammer and hire boats need to be included, any penalties can easily be added to their licences too!!

 

I don't agree that the problem is only July and August. Any time that people are out cruising, they will want / need to moor up - and so often it just isn't possible. Due in part to some people ignoring the guidelines.

[CathyC]

No, there is no such policy Cathy.

 

New members join at a fair old rate, (usually quite a few a day, I would say), the latest little over an hour ago.

 

Your person either has their forums mixed up, or have a bad explanation of whatever issue they have.

 

That said, I'm not sure how it gets resolved, because if they believe they can't join, they can't ask for help!

 

Perhaps if you were to message the moderators with the user name they tried to register with, someone can take a look.

 

If stuck how to do this, you can "report" your own posts, and the mods should pick upon that quickly.

Thanks Alan. The only moderator I know of is Lady Muck, but I'll try her. I'll see what exactly is happening when the chap tries to register. Sorry for the belated reply.