petition against the south east mooring proposals

[Guest]

I've often noticed sections on the A&CN where the 'rail' to secure the Armco behind it has come off and it has occurred to me in the past that this was caused by a boat being moored to it and the sheer force of a passing commercial vessel has exerted such stresses that the fixings have given way.

 

It's not something I will be engaging in for as long as VM's exist anyway, if they go and we get 14 days anywhere and the VMs get clogged up of course I may have to re-consider.

 

But yes 14 days 'every where' is definitely not a one size fits all solution.

 

The lack of moorings with out rings and bollards does mean that it can be a problem finding somewhere 'remote' to moor on the A&CN but one spot that springs to mind which is nice is at the junction of the A&CN and New junction canal.

[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

 

Have I got it right or wrong?

[Mick and Maggie]

One spot that springs to mind which is nice is at the junction of the A&CN and New junction canal.

 

Martin, I was hoping to keep that spot a secret, we find it almost impossible not to stop.

 

I would like to see breasting up made compulsory rather than optional. That would increase the number of VM moorings in one go. I bet that would soon get the complaining shiny boat squadrons on the move!

[matty40s]

Martin, I was hoping to keep that spot a secret, we find it almost impossible not to stop.

 

I would like to see breasting up made compulsory rather than optional. That would increase the number of VM moorings in one go. I bet that would soon get the complaining shiny boat squadrons on the move!

I can imagine how that would go down. Windy day,come alongside shiny boat..."Oh, wait, let me get my fender array down, can you make sure you remove your boots before walking across, you havn't got dogs have you, we go to bed at 9pm can you make sure you are on your boat by then, please don't run your engine, your exhaust is on the same side as our boat...."etc etc etc

[Guest]

Martin, I was hoping to keep that spot a secret, we find it almost impossible not to stop.

 

A great spot for a BBQ...

[TNC]

Martin, I was hoping to keep that spot a secret, we find it almost impossible not to stop.

 

I would like to see breasting up made compulsory rather than optional. That would increase the number of VM moorings in one go. I bet that would soon get the complaining shiny boat squadrons on the move!

 

Before the Olymipics it was complusory at Little Venice (Dalamere Road) and Islington!....A good few times we just did it against a suitable length boat. Nobody mined, shiny or other wise, it is (was?) now the accepted thing to do.

[Grace and Favour]

A great spot for a BBQ...

 

Aye!

[Mick and Maggie]

I can imagine how that would go down. Windy day,come alongside shiny boat..."Oh, wait, let me get my fender array down, can you make sure you remove your boots before walking across, you havn't got dogs have you, we go to bed at 9pm can you make sure you are on your boat by then, please don't run your engine, your exhaust is on the same side as our boat...."etc etc etc

 

Oh hello, yes we have two dogs, hobnailed boots and we are both sleep walking accordion and fiddle players.

 

As I said, I bet that would soon get the complaining shiny boat squadrons on the move!

[Tuscan]

The smell of Brasso would get you in end.......

[LoneWolf]

 

 

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

 

.....

 

 

Have I got it right or wrong?

 

yes, that is what they are saying in the docs

[cotswoldsman]

Signed.

 

 

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

Yes it will be done by Thrupp Cruising Clib.

[churchward]

Have I got it right or wrong?

Yes correct. At other locations this is likely to be an issue but since the TCCC at the Oxford Thrup patrol that area and note all boats mooring each day it won't be much different to it is now.

[alan_fincher]

Yes correct. At other locations this is likely to be an issue but since the TCCC at the Oxford Thrup patrol that area and note all boats mooring each day it won't be much different to it is now.

Yes, Thrupp may be an "easy" pilot for them, but is hardly representative of the other 21 sites named in the consultation.

 

I continue to think this needs a very large and ongoing presence of checkers, and reliably so, every day, if it is another scheme that CRT are not quickly going to end up accused of implementing but not properly enforcing.

 

I also continue to think that expecting to raise such a large volunteer force is highly optimistic, and covering it any other way potentially pretty expensive.

 

CRT do not seem to think that knowing how it will be monitored is relevant to the feedback we give on the proposals, and will not currently disclose their plans in this area - and believe me I have tried to get them to. I disagree strongly that it is a detail that we should not be concerned about.

[Keeping Up]

Agreed. The worst thing they could possibly do, is to implement a rule that they are unable to monitor and control properly.

 

If they left they current rules unchanged but enforced them properly, they would soon get a huge amount of feedback as to whether or not they were fit for purpose.

[Tuscan]

Agreed. The worst thing they could possibly do, is to implement a rule that they are unable to monitor and control properly.

 

If they left they current rules unchanged but enforced them properly, they would soon get a huge amount of feedback as to whether or not they were fit for purpose.

 

 

Exactly hopefully this message is getting through, in my opinion what is needed is :

 

1. Evidence based observations whilst enforcing current regulations.

2. Proposals for change ,if needed, supported by observations gained.

3. Clear statement as to how any new rules will be enforced and by whom

4. Legal basis by which any excess charges are collectible.

[churchward]

Yes, Thrupp may be an "easy" pilot for them, but is hardly representative of the other 21 sites named in the consultation.

 

I continue to think this needs a very large and ongoing presence of checkers, and reliably so, every day, if it is another scheme that CRT are not quickly going to end up accused of implementing but not properly enforcing.

 

I also continue to think that expecting to raise such a large volunteer force is highly optimistic, and covering it any other way potentially pretty expensive.

 

CRT do not seem to think that knowing how it will be monitored is relevant to the feedback we give on the proposals, and will not currently disclose their plans in this area - and believe me I have tried to get them to. I disagree strongly that it is a detail that we should not be concerned about.

Which is why I said in the post you were replying to...

 

At other locations this is likely to be an issue

 

It is relatively easy at Thrup but not so elsewhere. Such problems could be eased by making the restrictions and checking more seasonal but it is still quite an undertaking.

[davey b]

Agreed. The worst thing they could possibly do, is to implement a rule that they are unable to monitor and control properly.

 

If they left they current rules unchanged but enforced them properly, they would soon get a huge amount of feedback as to whether or not they were fit for purpose.

 

This is a point I made in my reply to the survey and why I have signed the petition. However, this won't gather more money for CRT which is actually the point of these proposals (yes, I'm cynical, I admit it).

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Yes, Thrupp may be an "easy" pilot for them, but is hardly representative of the other 21 sites named in the consultation.

 

I continue to think this needs a very large and ongoing presence of checkers, and reliably so, every day, if it is another scheme that CRT are not quickly going to end up accused of implementing but not properly enforcing.

 

I also continue to think that expecting to raise such a large volunteer force is highly optimistic, and covering it any other way potentially pretty expensive.

 

CRT do not seem to think that knowing how it will be monitored is relevant to the feedback we give on the proposals, and will not currently disclose their plans in this area - and believe me I have tried to get them to. I disagree strongly that it is a detail that we should not be concerned about.

 

We need to step back a bit!

 

CaRT should already have monitored the 22 sites over a twelve month period to determine when arriving boaters are unable to moor.

 

How else can they justify the proposals made?

[alan_fincher]

We need to step back a bit!

 

CaRT should already have monitored the 22 sites over a twelve month period to determine when arriving boaters are unable to moor.

 

How else can they justify the proposals made?

I agree that if any actual data exists that supports these proposals, we don't seem to be getting any closer to seeing it.

 

It also appears now to me that both out attempts at FOI requests that attempt to gather data on complaints received are not likely to yield much, other than that maybe they are largely not reacting to individual complaints, but more to dialogues they say they have had with boating associations and hire companies.

 

There has been no suggestion I can see that any monitoring of the type you described has ever occurred, although, to be fair, I'm not sure how you would. Even the presence of someone patrolling each of the 22 sites full time wouldn't necessarily establish a statistic, unless every passing boat owner is asked "were you planning to stop here, but have now decided it is not possible?"! (Sorry, that sounds flippant, but I really don't see how you would record every time someone fails to find a mooring!).

 

So do you have any suggestions to make about how we can get from CRT the data on which they have based this?

 

We have already asked for complaints received? Do we now ask for all correspondence and meeting notes relating to discussions with boating groups and hire operators? And data from any monitoring exercises, if they ever happened?

 

Obviously there would be no requirement for CRT to respond to any further FOI requests before the closing date for consultation on 1st March, so it would be far better if CRT were prepared to provide the background to these measures in a timely manner, rather than by the use of FOI requests.

Edited February 4, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Chris Pink]

ask for redacted copies of all the complaints and yes, you should ask for meeting notes and correspondance.

 

as for "I'm not sure how you would.". This seems a bit looking-glass world. If they don't have data as to the problem (or otherwise) how can they propose a solution?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I agree that if any actual data exists that supports these proposals, we don't seem to be getting any closer to seeing it.

 

It also appears now to me that both out attempts at FOI requests that attempt to gather data on complaints received are not likely to yield much, other than that maybe they are largely not reacting to individual complaints, but more to dialogues they say they have had with boating associations and hire companies.

 

There has been no suggestion I can see that any monitoring of the type you described has ever occurred, although, to be fair, I'm not sure how you would. Even the presence of someone patrolling each of the 22 sites full time wouldn't necessarily establish a statistic, unless every passing boat owner is asked "were you planning to stop here, but have now decided it is not possible?"! (Sorry, that sounds flippant, but I really don't see how you would record every time someone fails to find a mooring!).

 

So do you have any suggestions to make about how we can get from CRT the data on which they have based this?

 

We have already asked for complaints received? Do we now ask for all correspondence and meeting notes relating to discussions with boating groups and hire operators? And data from any monitoring exercises, if they ever happened?

 

Obviously there would be no requirement for CRT to respond to any further FOI requests before the closing date for consultation on 1st March, so it would be far better if CRT were prepared to provide the background to these measures in a timely manner, rather than by the use of FOI requests.

 

Hi Alan

 

I will pm you about the FOIA requests.

 

On the issue of monitoring these 22 sites, what you say is quite correct.

 

I would tend to suggest something very simple which would be for each of the sites to have someone walk along at dusk and measure occupancy by some simple means (count of number of boats or estimated spare space). Do this for a year and it will give a rough indication of when boats are unable to tie up at each of the sites.

[alan_fincher]

I will pm you about the FOIA requests.

Ah!

 

My inbox seems to be suffering its usual overload.

 

Was full - have cleared a bit of space now.

 

If they don't have data as to the problem (or otherwise) how can they propose a solution?

I think many of us are fairly agreed on this - it cerainly seems a very solid argument to me!

 

CRT, of course say there is most definitely a problem, but I'm only making slow progress in trying to hear any of the evidence supporting this claim.

 

I think more and more people are become persuaded that nothing yet published makes a case for a scheme which could actually result in CRT having a serious ongoing spend to be able to enforce.

 

If anyone agrees with this viewpoint, please don't just say you do, but also make suggestions about how we can move forward.

 

To me it seems that the onus is on CRT to prove the need, and if they can't they should fully withdraw the proposal.

 

Of course, though, they are unlikely to want to see yet another proposal to make moorings changes quashed, are they?

[dmr]

A big change like the one proposed should be based on evidence and this will require proper monitoring.

Making a decision based upon complaints, and "conversations with boat hire companies" is misguided and dangerous.

Sadly it appears to be human nature (for many at least) to complain when unhappy and to say nothing when satisfied, and even worse, when complaining to pick an easy target rather than to identify the real problem. Its always easier to blame someone else than to look at how you yourself might be part of the problem.

 

I read somewhere that the need for a mooring strategy change on the K&A was due to the large number of complaints, but following a FoI request BW admitted that about 90% of those complaints came from just one person, and the other 10% came from his friend!

I have taken a little artistic licence with the above figures but the flavour is correct!

 

.........Dave

[Chris Pink]

That is true and it was due to one woman asking the right questions. Many know who that woman was but suffice it to say Alan himself fairly comprehensively dismissed her recently ;-).

[matty40s]

 

 

To me it seems that the onus is on CRT to prove the need, and if they can't they should fully withdraw the proposal.

 

Of course, though, they are unlikely to want to see yet another proposal to make moorings changes quashed, are they?

 

This shows the risks of having office based staff looking at concerted pressure from a minority via emails and deciding to have a think tank and develop new proposals on how to solve the issue.

At the same time that they are doing this, the enforcement officers on the ground have made great strides in resolving the "problems" by effective and ongoing dialogue with boaters.

Visitor moorings are currently almost empty everywhere I have been over trhe last two months, the long term CM'ers have moved quite large distances in some cases.

 

I would say the "on the ground teams " should be given a chance to carry on what they are doing throughout the Summer months(at NO extra expense) otherwise, what has the all effort been for.