petition against the south east mooring proposals

[churchward]

I have spent a long while talking to a committee member of my local IWA branch about the proposals and their outlook.

 

It would seem that various IWA branches were asked for feedback on VMs in their area in the CRT SE region. Northampton branch was one of them and they responded on the situation at Stoke Bruerne for example.

 

The view in general from the branch is that more VMs would be good and at the top of the SB flight between the lock and the tunnel it would be good to convert some/all of the 14 day to shorter stay VM moorings. There is some concern regarding overstaying at these locations but think that if the present rules are enforced better then this can be resolved without new rules, similarly in the Milton Keynes area (strictly speaking though this is outside their branch area)as CRT have done with licence evasion which appears very low now.

 

However, the branch is not that keen on the proposals sent out in the CRT consultancy document particularly the limited number of days per month for any one boat for the same reasons as discussed here. Although concede that 8 visits per month is probably OK for many boat owners.

Edited February 6, 2013 by churchward

[churchward]

See above for response from my inquiry to the IWA on the CRT proposals.

[alan_fincher]

I have spent a long while talking to a committee member of my local IWA branch about the proposals and their outlook.

 

It would seem that various IWA branches were asked for feedback on VMs in their area in the CRT SE region. Northampton branch was one of them and they responded on the situation at Stoke Bruerne for example.

 

The view in general from the branch is that more VMs would be good and at the top of the SB flight between the lock and the tunnel it would be good to convert some/all of the 14 day to shorter stay VM moorings. There is some concern regarding overstaying at these locations but think that if the present rules are enforced better then this can be resolved without new rules, similarly in the Milton Keynes area (strictly speaking though this is outside their branch area)as CRT have done with licence evasion which appears very low now.

 

However, the branch is not that keen on the proposals sent out in the CRT consultancy document particularly the limited number of days per month for any one boat for the same reasons as discussed here. Although concede that 8 visits per month is probably OK for many boat owners.

 

Either the IWA branch doesn't know the existing time limits between Stoke Bruerne to Lock and the Tunnel, or CRT doesn't, based on what is in their boater's guide.

 

Stoke Bruerne (tunnel to Lock 14):

Maximum 48 hr.

Overstaying at moorings in Stoke Bruerne is strictly policed

I believe that CRT are correct, as we have always shied away from leaving "Sickle" there for a week, because we don't want to get counted amongst the bad boys.

 

That said, I'm informed that there is probably no signage as you get near the tunnel, and if that is true, how anyone arriving from the North would necessarily know they have tied up on a 48 hour stretch, (if indeed it is!), I'm not actually sure.

 

Does anybody know for certain the existing limits right up to the tunnel, please?

[churchward]

Either the IWA branch doesn't know the existing time limits between Stoke Bruerne to Lock and the Tunnel, or CRT doesn't, based on what is in their boater's guide.

It may be me misunderstanding what was said. He may have meant at that point in the conversation moorings from the weir all the way up the flight to the tunnel.

 

I did think there were some longer term moorings towards the tunnel. I'll have a look if I am there in the next few days as I only live 20 mins away.

 

The VM mooings in recent times have been more strictly governed but it is not so long ago that the overstaying situation was obvious to any one like me who goes there regularly.

Edited February 6, 2013 by churchward

[alan_fincher]

The VM mooings in recent times have been more strictly governed but it is not so long ago that the overstaying situation was obvious to any one like me who goes there regularly.

And at risk of sounding like a stuck record, perhaps if CRT were to throw resources at time limits they already to struggle to enforce, and see how bad the perceived problems were once the current overstayers were dealt with, they just might find that much of what they are currently proposing would be total overkill.

 

I think there may be some ambiguity about current signage at SB as you move up towards the tunnel, but I'm struggling to remember exactly what it is.

 

We have always felt we needed to treat is as if it were less than 7 days, but perhaps we were wrong?

[churchward]

And at risk of sounding like a stuck record, perhaps if CRT were to throw resources at time limits they already to struggle to enforce, and see how bad the perceived problems were once the current overstayers were dealt with, they just might find that much of what they are currently proposing would be total overkill.

 

I think there may be some ambiguity about current signage at SB as you move up towards the tunnel, but I'm struggling to remember exactly what it is.

 

We have always felt we needed to treat is as if it were less than 7 days, but perhaps we were wrong?

I agree if they enforced the rules they have in place it would go a very long way to resolving any issues. It is be better to do that first and if there are any remaining issues in a given area then deal with them with the knowledge that managing these sites more closely would bring.

 

Actually that was a key point in my discussions with the IWA branch they thought that was the best approach to take in the vast majority of cases.

 

Next time I am at Stoke Bruerne I will take my camera and see if a few pics will illuminate what the mooring signage and conditions are.

[Wild Is The Wind]

439 signatures in 7 days isn't bad.