South East Mooring Proposals - As Discussed At The Midlands Meeting

[alan_fincher]

Not an exageritation ask MBC when he got his boat 1993 if memory serves and until recently he has been there all the time apart from a few weeks here and there ususlly then he is down here.

I havent named his boat as I woul get castigated for that but if you dont know who I mean pm me and Ill tell you.

Remember I have been aroind here for a long time

Of course I know the boat to which you refer.

 

I have conceded there are probably 5 to 10 persistent over-stayers in and around the Berko area.

 

Why do you think if they are not deterred by a 14 day rule they'll suddenly all comply with a 2 day one? They'll not pay the £25, and CRT can only try going after those by normal debt collection methods - they have no powers to withhold a licence for none payment of a "service charge".

 

It seems very perverted logic to bar the entire centre of a town to anybody for more than a 2 day stay, because you have failed to take action against a relatively small number of persistent over-stayers.

 

I don't know when you last moored in the pound from Gas Top to Bushes, but, as Lesd says most of it is very shallow, and because it often drops in a short period by 6 to 9 inches or more, if you did tie up using a plank, you have a serious likelihood of being seriously tilted to one side at some point during your stay. Why should legitimate boaters who want to stay more than 2 days have to moor in the most inconvenient and unsuitable stretch, simply because CRT wish to discourage a number of over-stayers from the far more suitable locations nearer to the centre of the town?

Edited February 16, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Tuscan]

Of course I know the boat to which you refer.

 

I have conceded there are probably 5 to 10 persistent over-stayers in and around the Berko area.

 

Why do you think if they are not deterred by a 14 day rule they'll suddenly all comply with a 2 day one? They'll not pay the £25, and CRT can only try going after those by normal debt collection methods - they have no powers to withhold a licence for none payment of a "service charge".

 

It seems very perverted logic to bar the entire centre of a town to anybody for more than a 2 day stay, because you have failed to take action against a relatively small number of persistent over-stayers.

 

I don't know when you last moored in the pound from Gas Top to Bushes, but, as Lesd says most of it is very shallow, and because it often drops in a short period by 6 to 9 inches or more, if you did tie up using a plank, you have a serious likelihood of being seriously tilted to one side at some point during your stay. Why should legitimate boaters who want to stay more than 2 days have to moor in the most inconvenient and unsuitable stretch, simply because CRT wish to discourage a number of over-stayers from the far more suitable locations nearer to the centre of the town?

 

Exactly the point , why should law abiding boaters be inconvenienced for overstayers or the hire boat business the real question is why hasn't CRT used their existing powers to move the boat on? The threat of a fine which will not be paid isn't going to work.

 

This not may not be a popular suggestion but perhaps CRT need to look at their powers under the original BW act and see if they can simplify and enforce their powers of redress against persistent offenders specific to visitor as opposed to general towpath moorings I refuse to believe its such a high number that are resident on visitor moorings. Many areas would also benefit from the existing visitor moorings being extended. Years ago we used to moor on the playing fields at Berko a great place to stop, bring these back into operation, I have to admit I haven't been south of Cowroast for quite a few years now.

[Lesd]

Years ago we used to moor on the playing fields at Berko a great place to stop, bring these back into operation, I have to admit I haven't been south of Cowroast for quite a few years now.

 

I assume you mean on the off side opposite Waitrose where the water point is ? Its a very good idea, there is probably 200m of off side bank that would make lovely moorings, not sure if it would even need dredging ?

 

Les

[Tuscan]

I assume you mean on the off side opposite Waitrose where the water point is ? Its a very good idea, there is probably 200m of off side bank that would make lovely moorings, not sure if it would even need dredging ?

 

Les

 

Yes we used to go there every summer when the kids were younger, great they could play safely but you were just over the bridge from the shops.

[GUMPY]

Of course I know the boat to which you refer.

 

I have conceded there are probably 5 to 10 persistent over-stayers in and around the Berko area.

 

Why do you think if they are not deterred by a 14 day rule they'll suddenly all comply with a 2 day one? They'll not pay the £25, and CRT can only try going after those by normal debt collection methods - they have no powers to withhold a licence for none payment of a "service charge".

 

It seems very perverted logic to bar the entire centre of a town to anybody for more than a 2 day stay, because you have failed to take action against a relatively small number of persistent over-stayers.

 

I don't know when you last moored in the pound from Gas Top to Bushes, but, as Lesd says most of it is very shallow, and because it often drops in a short period by 6 to 9 inches or more, if you did tie up using a plank, you have a serious likelihood of being seriously tilted to one side at some point during your stay. Why should legitimate boaters who want to stay more than 2 days have to moor in the most inconvenient and unsuitable stretch, simply because CRT wish to discourage a number of over-stayers from the far more suitable locations nearer to the centre of the town?

 

OK 2 days is far easier and cheaper to enforce than 14 days.

As for it being shallow, sounds like dredging might be in order if CRT can remember what that is. It would seem a prime opportunity if these rules come in to push to get other parts dredged so they can be used.

 

As for using the "park" moorings you know that there is no chance of that, a certain well known Berko person would stir all sorts of trouble. Which is ironic as if memory serves when they first arrived they used to live on the towpath.......

 

Oh and when I do stop in Berko it was always opposite the station as that was the only place empty and wide enough to get the barge in.

Edited February 17, 2013 by idleness

[TNC]

Meanwhile, boaters who follow the rules will have their boat entered into a database by on-site appointed recorders. I strongly object to having my leisure activity watched and recorded in this way.

 

It's like Ceausescu's Romania!

 

Richard

 

Back in ISTR 2002 BW wanted usage statistics and invited boaters to do a yearly diary / log / spend, the participants were entered into a draw for a yearly licence. We did this at the height of TNC activity for a laff and were probably responsible for some very distorted data!

[Tuscan]

OK 2 days is far easier and cheaper to enforce than 14 days.

 

 

As for it being shallow, sounds like dredging might be in order if CRT can remember what that is. It would seem a prime opportunity if these rules come in to push to get other parts dredged so they can be used.

 

 

 

Why is 2 days easier and cheaper to enforce than 14 days?

 

I do agree that part of the solution is definitely more visitor moorings but unfortunately I don't think this is part of the proposals.

[jenlyn]

I still find it strange that CRT do not gather statistics before changing the status of a mooring. I was totally flummoxed by their employee at the midlands meeting stating "the user groups tell us there is a problem, so we change that mooring site". It will be interesting to see what we get from the FOI requests after that statement.

[cotswoldsman]

I still find it strange that CRT do not gather statistics before changing the status of a mooring. I was totally flummoxed by their employee at the midlands meeting stating "the user groups tell us there is a problem, so we change that mooring site". It will be interesting to see what we get from the FOI requests after that statement.

 

This has been going happening on The Shropshire Union Canal for years Norbury being just one example of where 7 and 14 day moorings were changed to 48 hour moorings

[jenlyn]

This has been going happening on The Shropshire Union Canal for years Norbury being just one example of where 7 and 14 day moorings were changed to 48 hour moorings

I can see the 14 day moorings becoming extinct at this rate. I think we are on a slippery slope.

I am worried that CRT are trying to rename these VM's zones. How big will a zone be? Will this define place? No return times on these zone's that have yet to be given distances. You don't need to be paranoid to see where these proposals are heading.

Edited February 18, 2013 by jenlyn

[alan_fincher]

I do agree that part of the solution is definitely more visitor moorings but unfortunately I don't think this is part of the proposals.

If you define a "visitor mooring" as a length of towpath specifically marked out as such, (and increasingly with short stay times), then "more visitor moorings" is part of of the current proposal at some of the 22 sites, including places like the Globe Inn at Linslade, where lengths of currently unmarked but fully "moorable" bank will get changed to time restricted VMs.

 

But I concede that is not what is being talked about here, where you actually mean making more bank at a location properly "moorable".

 

So we do need to be a bit careful about terms like "more visitor moorings" because it is very open to misinterpretation.

 

Another thing I have not seen CRT be clear on about terminology is what they now actually mean themselves when they say "Visitor Mooring".

 

On the one hand Sally Ash has said that it is wrong to mark anything as 14 day moorings, because that is the default, and only places where stay times are less should have signage. She advocates removal of signs where stay times are 14 days.

 

But, on the other, they have also said that a Visitor Mooring should be an identifiable place suitable for tying up, ideally improved with things like mooring rings and a decent towpath surface, and clearly marked as such.

 

So is a length that has rings, but where 14 days is currently allowed going to be classed as a "visitor mooring" by CRT in future, (currently it would probably appear in the downloadable boater's guides), or, by implication, are they planning to reduce every such current VM to a stay time of less than 7 days, at some future date.

 

Far from clarifying, they are in danger of further confusing, if we are not careful.

[cotswoldsman]

Alan you raise a very good point. It was discussed at our Skipton meeting that to put official moorings in places such as Burnley, Blackburn etc might encourage boaters to stop and feel more secure. It is a fact that boaters feel that provided there are a few mooring rings etc an insecure place suddenly becomes secure mooring.

[David Schweizer]

With regard to Alan's suggestion that it might be appropriate to retain 14day mooring signage at places where features like rings etc are provided, I would hope that if this course of action is to be adopted, CRT start to realise that not all boats are 72ft long, and seek to place rings at distances of less than 18ft apart, which is totally useless for almost all recreational boats.

 

We have often pulled into such Visitor moorings, only to realise that we can only use the rings on long swinging lines or on inward lines which rub against the cabin sides, and that beacuse there is a concrete edge and hardcore and gravel towpath, it is inmpossible to get any pins in.

 

I have seen some recently installed mooring rings which are placed more conveniently, but have rarely been able to use them because they were already full of long term moorers visitors.

[Ray]

The more that I think about it the more I'm concerned by these proposals.

 

Inevitably the rangers/wardens will differ from day to day and their visit times vary.

 

I can arrive at a mooring around midday (or even later) on day 1. there's time left to do some fairly local sightseeing. I stay overnight and spend the whole day roaming further afield. I stay overnight again, pop to the shops or local market for some fresh produce and cast off by, say, 11am on day 3. I have complied with the 48 hour condition but the ranger came at 4pm on day 1, 1pm on day 2 and 10am on day 3. Unknowlingly I am guilty of overstaying. Had the ranger's visits been at 10am, 1pm and 4pm I may not have been there even one night in their eyes!

 

Fiction, no, I did exactly that in Leicester last year on the existing 48 hour mooring - the only recommended stop in the city centre. What about the other boats that were there? One arrived just before us and was weekending their boat so disappeared home on the train shortly after we arrived with the intention of returning the following weekend. Another was there when we arrived and still there when we left but I think were planning to move. The third looked as though it hadn't seen a person on it for a long while and the forth seemed to have set up home there.

 

A couple of other boats passed whilst we were there seemingly intent on stopping but there was no space to do so. Had the existing limitations been enforced the situation would probably have been different for them. I do sometimes wonder how much credance some towns and cities give the canal for delivering business to their area.

[jenlyn]

The more that I think about it the more I'm concerned by these proposals.

 

Inevitably the rangers/wardens will differ from day to day and their visit times vary.

 

I can arrive at a mooring around midday (or even later) on day 1. there's time left to do some fairly local sightseeing. I stay overnight and spend the whole day roaming further afield. I stay overnight again, pop to the shops or local market for some fresh produce and cast off by, say, 11am on day 3. I have complied with the 48 hour condition but the ranger came at 4pm on day 1, 1pm on day 2 and 10am on day 3. Unknowlingly I am guilty of overstaying. Had the ranger's visits been at 10am, 1pm and 4pm I may not have been there even one night in their eyes!

 

Fiction, no, I did exactly that in Leicester last year on the existing 48 hour mooring - the only recommended stop in the city centre. What about the other boats that were there? One arrived just before us and was weekending their boat so disappeared home on the train shortly after we arrived with the intention of returning the following weekend. Another was there when we arrived and still there when we left but I think were planning to move. The third looked as though it hadn't seen a person on it for a long while and the forth seemed to have set up home there.

 

A couple of other boats passed whilst we were there seemingly intent on stopping but there was no space to do so. Had the existing limitations been enforced the situation would probably have been different for them. I do sometimes wonder how much credance some towns and cities give the canal for delivering business to their area.

Once your noted, you will be sited as at 5pm on the first day of your visit.

[RLWP]

I still find it strange that CRT do not gather statistics before changing the status of a mooring. I was totally flummoxed by their employee at the midlands meeting stating "the user groups tell us there is a problem, so we change that mooring site".

 

Indeed. Making changes based on poor evidence is a great way of getting things wrong

 

I can see the 14 day moorings becoming extinct at this rate.{snip}

 

As things are now, they are gone. Sally Ash said that 14 day VMs were clearly 'wrong'

 

Richard

[DeanS]

Somethings not right here.

Surely it would be easier for them to change things at 1 location, monitor it, report back on success/failure, and then discuss whether to roll it out to the next.

It seems to me the ONLY reason they wouldnt do it that way is if they are getting MAJOR LOUD VOICES from some boating groups (hire companies) to make huge changes BEFORE THE NEXT CRUISING SEASON.

 

It's not right I tell you. It's also very clear that Sally didnt highlight these proposals at our Skipton meeting, although they were obviously already rubber stamped for implementation. I ask myself why? They would have made great meeting material. My theory is that was intentional......CRT didnt want anyone objecting in advance. Apparently these "consultations" aren't meant to be discussed beforehand......well...not with NON HIRE COMPANIES anyway?

 

Indeed. Making changes based on poor evidence is a great way of getting things wrong

As things are now, they are gone. Sally Ash said that 14 day VMs were clearly 'wrong'

 

Richard

 

 

This is my whole point. If I want to go and visit Wales in my boat...it would take me a lot of planning..money...time.....and to get there and then face a 2day limit on mooring, is a GREAT WAY TO STIFLE CANAL BUSINESSES WHO DEPEND ON SOME BOATS MOVING ALONG IN OFF PEAK PERIODS.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

 

This is my whole point. If I want to go and visit Wales in my boat...it would take me a lot of planning..money...time.....

 

The first one being having to split your fat boat into two narrow boats!!!

[Chris Pink]

The more that I think about it the more I'm concerned by these proposals.

 

Inevitably the rangers/wardens will differ from day to day and their visit times vary.

 

I can arrive at a mooring around midday (or even later) on day 1. there's time left to do some fairly local sightseeing. I stay overnight and spend the whole day roaming further afield. I stay overnight again, pop to the shops or local market for some fresh produce and cast off by, say, 11am on day 3. I have complied with the 48 hour condition but the ranger came at 4pm on day 1, 1pm on day 2 and 10am on day 3. Unknowlingly I am guilty of overstaying. Had the ranger's visits been at 10am, 1pm and 4pm I may not have been there even one night in their eyes!

 

Fiction, no, I did exactly that in Leicester last year on the existing 48 hour mooring - the only recommended stop in the city centre. What about the other boats that were there? One arrived just before us and was weekending their boat so disappeared home on the train shortly after we arrived with the intention of returning the following weekend. Another was there when we arrived and still there when we left but I think were planning to move. The third looked as though it hadn't seen a person on it for a long while and the forth seemed to have set up home there.

 

A couple of other boats passed whilst we were there seemingly intent on stopping but there was no space to do so. Had the existing limitations been enforced the situation would probably have been different for them. I do sometimes wonder how much credance some towns and cities give the canal for delivering business to their area.

 

Taking your post at face value surely the problem is not one of overstaying but that a major town like Leicester only has room for four visiting boats.

 

Coupled with the absurd middle class reluctance to breast up.

[jenlyn]

Somethings not right here.

Surely it would be easier for them to change things at 1 location, monitor it, report back on success/failure, and then discuss whether to roll it out to the next.

It seems to me the ONLY reason they wouldnt do it that way is if they are getting MAJOR LOUD VOICES from some boating groups (hire companies) to make huge changes BEFORE THE NEXT CRUISING SEASON.

 

It's not right I tell you. It's also very clear that Sally didnt highlight these proposals at our Skipton meeting, although they were obviously already rubber stamped for implementation. I ask myself why? They would have made great meeting material. My theory is that was intentional......CRT didnt want anyone objecting in advance. Apparently these "consultations" aren't meant to be discussed beforehand......well...not with NON HIRE COMPANIES anyway?

 

 

 

 

This is my whole point. If I want to go and visit Wales in my boat...it would take me a lot of planning..money...time.....and to get there and then face a 2day limit on mooring, is a GREAT WAY TO STIFLE CANAL BUSINESSES WHO DEPEND ON SOME BOATS MOVING ALONG IN OFF PEAK PERIODS.

As it rolls on to its possible foregone conclusion, the smell from the whole "consultation" starts to stink far worse than a durian fruit. Any belief of openness and honesty have blown out of the window. There are newspaper articles expected in local papers from the south east over the next week (I have had two phone calls requesting quotes for them). The pressure looks set to increase.

[Tuscan]

If you define a "visitor mooring" as a length of towpath specifically marked out as such, (and increasingly with short stay times), then "more visitor moorings" is part of of the current proposal at some of the 22 sites, including places like the Globe Inn at Linslade, where lengths of currently unmarked but fully "moorable" bank will get changed to time restricted VMs.

 

But I concede that is not what is being talked about here, where you actually mean making more bank at a location properly "moorable".

 

So we do need to be a bit careful about terms like "more visitor moorings" because it is very open to misinterpretation.

 

Another thing I have not seen CRT be clear on about terminology is what they now actually mean themselves when they say "Visitor Mooring".

 

On the one hand Sally Ash has said that it is wrong to mark anything as 14 day moorings, because that is the default, and only places where stay times are less should have signage. She advocates removal of signs where stay times are 14 days.

 

But, on the other, they have also said that a Visitor Mooring should be an identifiable place suitable for tying up, ideally improved with things like mooring rings and a decent towpath surface, and clearly marked as such.

 

So is a length that has rings, but where 14 days is currently allowed going to be classed as a "visitor mooring" by CRT in future, (currently it would probably appear in the downloadable boater's guides), or, by implication, are they planning to reduce every such current VM to a stay time of less than 7 days, at some future date.

 

Far from clarifying, they are in danger of further confusing, if we are not careful.

 

 

I was using the definition given by CRT in the introduction in the consultation document , I readily concede this is probably just one of many, but it talks about a firmer edge with rings or some form of facilities. I can see no commitment to create additional visitor moorings with a firmer edge with rings at the Globe for example in this document, it just defines the Visitor Mooring area as "to be confirmed" whatever that means. I assume the local hire boat company hasn't confirmed how much space they need yet !!

[Chris Pink]

The solution is blindingly obvious. I am not at all surprised it's not vocalised on a public forum but it happens now and will increase if CRT attempt this abuse of their powers.

[matty40s]

The solution is blindingly obvious. I am not at all surprised it's not vocalised on a public forum but it happens now and will increase if CRT attempt this abuse of their powers.

 

looting and pillaging the offices, Bloodshed at BW becomes Carnage at CaRT.

 

There was no answer as to why they are removing perfectly good moorings completely in lower Berkhamsted.

 

There was also this direct quote , "We would not be chasing £25 penalty charges"- swiftly followed by - not penalty but mooring service charge.

So this then gives you 72 hours, as they will not chase £25, why not 96 hours, surely they won't chase £50. in fact, 240 hours.......

oh!!

[Tuscan]

looting and pillaging the offices, Bloodshed at BW becomes Carnage at CaRT.

 

There was no answer as to why they are removing perfectly good moorings completely in lower Berkhamsted.

 

There was also this direct quote , "We would not be chasing £25 penalty charges"- swiftly followed by - not penalty but mooring service charge.

So this then gives you 72 hours, as they will not chase £25, why not 96 hours, surely they won't chase £50. in fact, 240 hours.......

oh!!

 

 

I suspect however they will send a penalty charge to those moorers with a registered address who will probably pay it not realising that CRT would not pursue so many will pay so this will start yet another lot of them and us type discussions

[alan_fincher]

This latest statement (below) from the IWA is hardly an unconditional endorsement of the South East Visitor Mooring proposals in their current form, is it? Despite the fact that we we have been told they had a major input to the original South East consultation, which has resulted in proposals for 22 sites, this statement doesn't seem to say to me that they are even now agreeing that these are the highest priority sites in the SE region!

 

And yet I heard Sally Ash say at a meeting where she gave an impromptu briefing to journalists for the waterways press that "the IWA is pressuring CRT to be seen to have something in place at some of these sites for the start of the Summer season".

 

I'm finding it harder and harder to find any facts at all about what "data" has been used to formulated the detailed proposals in the consultation document.

 

IWA News Linky