South East Visitor Mooring Proposals

[cotswoldsman]

I agree about getting 700 to support a petition in support, if you see what I mean, only because those in support will not be affected by the proposals so just wont bother to vote.

Its always the "antis" that shout the loudest.

 

By "anti" I presume you mean the people that can see that these proposals are flawed. Why if you are going to change VM's are not all VM's in the SE included.

 

According to government guidelines on consultation, feedback should be considered from all sources. However, I would agree that CaRT will attempt to dismiss the petition if they think that they can get away with it.

 

They should not be allowed to do so.

 

So is it a local consultation or a national consultation?

[jenlyn]

According to government guidelines on consultation, feedback should be considered from all sources. However, I would agree that CaRT will attempt to dismiss the petition if they think that they can get away with it.

 

They should not be allowed to do so.

I've printed it on rice paper with food colouring as ink, so it's edible ;-)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

So is it a local consultation or a national consultation?

 

From CaRT's website.

 

Whenever we do publish formal national consultations we will always try to follow the Government’s Code of Practice. However, sometimes we want your feedback on a more local and informal level. You can check if there are any consultations happening in your area by visiting your local Waterway Partnership website.

 

On the basis that it is not on the S. E. Waterways Partnership website (actually part of the main site), it is a national consultation.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[cotswoldsman]

From CaRT's website.

 

 

 

On the basis that it is not on the S. E. Waterways Partnership website (actually part of the main site), it is a national consultation.

 

That is what I thought, then surely it should be 3 month consultation?

[matty40s]

That is what I thought, then surely it should be 3 month consultation?

They tried to do this with the L&S consultation and were forced to extend it to the proper time limit after much pressure. BW then added another month as they wanted to attract a "better response balance" than the initial 12 weeks seemed to be giving them and targetted Cruising clubs with a highly manipulated questionnaire.

 

As the London Boaters were already communicating the issues and problems with the cruising clubs, this was picked up and BW received quite curt letter responses from the cruising clubs.

[alan_fincher]

Also their criteria for selecting boaters to email the consultation to was based on any they have detected as having been in the area over a period of time, not just those naturally "resident" boaters. By that rule it has been sent to lots of people who do not have a home mooring in the area being consulted about.

 

Had they done similar consultation covering (say) the Manchester area, and used the same approach, I would probably have received it, by virtue of having boated through there last year, even though I keep both my boats in the South East.

 

As they unashamedly say that if they get this proposal for short stay VMs with very large overstay charges in in the South East, then it is likely to be adopted elsewhere, then I can't see how you can possibly argue that this isn't "national" despite an claimed focus on just 22 sites initially.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the topic of haste.

 

In my weekend phone conversation with John Dodwell, I was told that Jeff Whyatt still very much hopes to have this in place at at least Thrupp, (the Oxford Canal one), Stoke Bruerne and Foxton by (I think) the start of May, although they accept this may slip.

 

They certainly don't sound about to shelve it - quite the reverse, unless this week's workshops manage to change their minds.

Edited March 18, 2013 by alan_fincher

[KevMc]

signed :-)

[cotswoldsman]

Also their criteria for selecting boaters to email the consultation to was based on any they have detected as having been in the area over a period of time, not just those naturally "resident" boaters. By that rule it has been sent to lots of people who do not have a home mooring in the area being consulted about.

 

Had they done similar consultation covering (say) the Manchester area, and used the same approach, I would probably have received it, by virtue of having boated through there last year, even though I keep both my boats in the South East.

 

As they unashamedly say that if they get this proposal for short stay VMs with very large overstay charges in in the South East, then it is likely to be adopted elsewhere, then I can't see how you can possibly argue that this isn't "national" despite an claimed focus on just 22 sites initially.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the topic of haste.

 

In my weekend phone conversation with John Dodwell, I was told that Jeff Whyatt still very much hopes to have this in place at at least Thrupp, (the Oxford Canal one), Stoke Bruerne and Foxton by (I think) the start of May, although they accept this may slip.

 

They certainly don't sound about to shelve it - quite the reverse, unless this week's workshops manage to change their minds.

 

 

From the guidelines on consultations

Sufficient information should be made available to stakeholders to enable them to make

informed comments. Relevant documentation should normally be posted online to enhance

accessibility and opportunities for reuse.

 

Must have missed that information

 

 

 

[jenlyn]

From the guidelines on consultations

 

 

Must have missed that information

You've had "grumbles" and "murmurings", what more do you want?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Due to the number of people asking to attend the feedback meeting there are now 2 meetings being held this week in Milton Keynes on 19 th and 22nd both of which are fully subscribed I believe. I would be astonished if CRT will have had time to fully consider all the feedback received (hopefully those that signed the petition also completed the feedback form) but we shall see.

 

I do not think it is the case that those that signed the petition also completed a feedback form. I was told a couple of days before the end of the consultation period that CaRT had about 300 responses.

[jenlyn]

I do not think it is the case that those that signed the petition also completed a feedback form. I was told a couple of days before the end of the consultation period that CaRT had about 300 responses.

300? Damian said he had that in mid February, on the boaters page. That's a bit miserable. Even if they are all in favour.

[alan_fincher]

Due to the number of people asking to attend the feedback meeting there are now 2 meetings being held this week in Milton Keynes on 19 th and 22nd both of which are fully subscribed I believe.

 

Mark,

 

That does not agree with the dates I have, which are the 19th and the 21st, (i.e Tuesday and Thursday).

 

Have you made a typo, or are CRT giving different people different sates to try and keep us apart?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

On the topic of haste.

 

In my weekend phone conversation with John Dodwell, I was told that Jeff Whyatt still very much hopes to have this in place at at least Thrupp, (the Oxford Canal one), Stoke Bruerne and Foxton by (I think) the start of May, although they accept this may slip.

 

They certainly don't sound about to shelve it - quite the reverse, unless this week's workshops manage to change their minds.

 

Sally Ash wrote that consultation/proposal not Jeff Whyatt. It now appears to me the John Dodwell is trying to deflect criticism by saying that somebody else wants to implement it regardless of it being fatally flawed.

[alan_fincher]

300? Damian said he had that in mid February, on the boaters page. That's a bit miserable. Even if they are all in favour.

About 350 was the number I was told by Damian Kemp on 5th March, so well after it closed and they should not have been expecting any more.

 

However the numbers I have seen bandied about do vary a bit.

 

Assuming they were serially numbered, I have seen response numbers as high as 270, so I think there are definitely at least that many.

 

I was also told "about twice what we expected".

[RickH]

As I understand it this is about enforcing fines on boaters that overstay on VM's ? Or is it more complicated than this ? I'm being lazy and not spending time online to find out as I've got to run out now , but a concise explanation would be appreciated .

[Guest]

As I understand it this is about enforcing fines on boaters that overstay on VM's ? Or is it more complicated than this ? I'm being lazy and not spending time online to find out as I've got to run out now , but a concise explanation would be appreciated .

 

Yes.... and it has been much discussed in previous threads.

 

A quick search should bring up the info. you need.

[Peter Thornton]

Don't know about the intricacies of this but something does need to be done. We've just been down the Grand Union and along the Regents Canal to Camden and back. Very congested around the Little Venice/Paddington area, badly signed and bearing in mind that this is one of the premier destinations it's really not well organised enough.

As someone who is at the other end of the consultation "industry" just organising a petition against it will not really cut much ice, far better to have responded to the consultation. In another sphere (the provision of housing on dry land) I'm very used to hearing that:

1. We don't have the facts

2. We don't listen

3. There's no problem and nothing needs to be done

 

To give this context, I'm a share boat owner having progressed from hiring and possibly looking to become a CC for a few years on retirement

Edited March 18, 2013 by Peter Thornton

[jenlyn]

Sally Ash wrote that consultation/proposal not Jeff Whyatt. It now appears to me the John Dodwell is trying to deflect criticism by saying that somebody else wants to implement it regardless of it being fatally flawed.

Noooo, jeff drew it up Allan. Sally just copied and pasted it. She said as much in Birmingham.

 

Don't know about the intricacies of this but something does need to be done. We've just been down the Grand Union and along the Regents Canal to Camden and back. Very congested around the Little Venice/Paddington area, badly signed and bearing in mind that this is one of the premier destinations it's really not well organised enough.

As someone who is at the other end of the consultation "industry" just organising a petition against it will not really cut much ice, far better to have responded to the consultation. In another sphere (the provision of housing on dry land) I'm very used to hearing that:

1. We don't have the facts

2. We don't listen

3. There's no problem and nothing needs to be done

 

To give this context, I'm a share boat owner having progressed from hiring and possibly looking to become a CC for a few years on retirement

These particular proposals have no relevance to the London area.

[alan_fincher]

Sally Ash wrote that consultation/proposal not Jeff Whyatt. It now appears to me the John Dodwell is trying to deflect criticism by saying that somebody else wants to implement it regardless of it being fatally flawed.

You are putting words in my mouth Allan, and indeed into John Dodwell's. I don't agree with your position on this.

 

The actual proposals are from Jeff Whyatt's team, as far as I can see unaltered from at long ago as at least October, (other than the two or three small corrections introduced after publication - not an issue to me, other than they should have explained they were correcting errors that had crept in).

 

The wording wrapped around it to make the consultation document is probably all, or nearly all Sally, but by her own admission she had not studied the detail of what she was actually adding her several pages to the front of, (which I think exactly demonstrates why we have such a problem about how they apparently approach things).

 

Where he has kept any involvement Jeff Whyatt seems to have made no secret of the fact this is a personal goal he set himself for the South East, which he still thinks is a good idea and necessary, and I'm sure he still wants to see something in place for the summer.

 

I don't think that John Dodwell is attempting to deflect anything in one direction or another, in fact he is just "telling it like it is", a concept you should be familiar with.

 

I'm slightly frustrated that my words get re-used, out of context, to support a position I do not feel to be a true representation of the facts, and particularly so when this is done on other sites where I have zero right of reply.

 

You have been very supportive over much of this, and we are most grateful, but where I have a one to one conversation with a trustee, I think you have to have some faith that I can see if an attempt is being made to deliberately mislead. I don't think it is - I think both Sally Ash and Jeff Whyatt still think this needs to go ahead, for reasons I can only guess at, because they have never told us reasons that can stand up against any reasonable scrutiny.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

300? Damian said he had that in mid February, on the boaters page. That's a bit miserable. Even if they are all in favour.

 

Perhaps Alan Fincher will make a FOI request for an analysis of the responses and I will make one for copies of the responses themselves.

 

Alan will be asked to withdraw his request as 'not helpful' and mine will be refused because CaRT intend to publish at a later date.

 

I get the feeling that boaters are being given the 'bums rush' in that they are being invited to workshops without being able to see the results of CaRT's analysis of responses and being able to check them against the responses themselves.

 

I recall, in the case of the L&S consultation, BW were accused of manipulating public perception of the responses by ensuring that those for the proposal were more lightly to be read than those without.

 

This time, it looks like we don't get to see anything until it is too late.

[alan_fincher]

As I understand it this is about enforcing fines on boaters that overstay on VM's ? Or is it more complicated than this ? I'm being lazy and not spending time online to find out as I've got to run out now , but a concise explanation would be appreciated .

No, you need to take the trouble to read it up, if you are genuinely interested.

 

A very strong argument from a very large number of those of us against the proposals is that CRT already have clear legal powers to deal with people who overstay, but for some reason, (at least to those who can't see what goes on behind the scenes), seem to apply them is completely inconsistent ways.

 

In particular in areas where much enforcement does occur, they appear to leave alone some serial overstayers on popular moorings in towns, (and we are talking many years in the worst cases).

 

Because they have never enforced properly, (which they admit), they cannot possibly have data on what the situation would be at these 22 sites if they thoroughly enforced existing rules, before introducing fairly extreme measures that are likely to have genuine impacts on those who (say) genuinely wish to stay more than 2 days at somewhere where 14 is currently permitted.

 

If you make no other argument at all, then "go and enforce what you currently have, and see if you still think you have a problem" seems to me to be an entirely reasonable one, particularly as it is likely to cost far less on an ongoing basis than the heavy policing that would be necessary all year around for the new proposals.

 

CRT could then put the half a million quid we are told is already earmarked for this and similar proposals to good use like repairing leaking locks, infilling holes where people fracture ankles, or dealing with mud-bath VMs where tying up is often not a pleasure anyway.

 

Not the full answer, but do you get the drift? This has the possibly for CRT to squander large amounts of the cash it never has enough of, when the actual need in many cases seems deeply suspect.

[Tuscan]

Mark,

 

That does not agree with the dates I have, which are the 19th and the 21st, (i.e Tuesday and Thursday).

 

Have you made a typo, or are CRT giving different people different sates to try and keep us apart?

 

 

Alan

 

Apologies it's a typo on my part the meetings are 19th and 21st ,I'm going to the 19th.

 

Mark

[alan_fincher]

Don't know about the intricacies of this but something does need to be done. We've just been down the Grand Union and along the Regents Canal to Camden and back. Very congested around the Little Venice/Paddington area, badly signed and bearing in mind that this is one of the premier destinations it's really not well organised enough.

Of course Paddington / Little Venice is not part of South East Waterways, so as a site is out of scope of these proposals.

 

I think only the most hardened of the London boaters tries to pretend that finding good moorings in central London is never a problem, but the vast majority of the site listed in this consultation acnnot possibly be claimed to fall into the same balanace of "supply versus demand" as exists at places in Central London, can it?

 

Did you have difficulty tying up in Berkhamsted, if you chose to? Honestly? Genuine difficulty?, (other than the mud!....)

 

Perhaps Alan Fincher will make a FOI request for an analysis of the responses and I will make one for copies of the responses themselves.

I did suggest that perhaps we should be safeguarding ourselves by raising an FOI request asking for all responses, even though we would have been highly unlikely to see that request satisfied before the workshops actually ran. (I'm assuming we couldn't have raised that before the close date, or they could have said we were asking for data they didn't hold at the time the request was raised! )

 

It may still be a good idea, if we think there is any danger that we feel Damian Kemp will not honour the commitment he has made to eventually publish all responses in a redacted form.

 

At least theoretically an FOI request might have forced this by a definite date, or at least should have done.

 

As you know (tongue very firmly in cheek!0, we are told we are more likely to be given what we are after if we ask for it "informally".

 

I know what 50 of the claimed 350 responses say, because I was a volunteer collating them, so about 1/7th probably, and I know other forum members have also collated a similar number, (unless we have all been given the same 50!).

[Peter Thornton]

Of course Paddington / Little Venice is not part of South East Waterways, so as a site is out of scope of these proposals.

 

I think only the most hardened of the London boaters tries to pretend that finding good moorings in central London is never a problem, but the vast majority of the site listed in this consultation acnnot possibly be claimed to fall into the same balanace of "supply versus demand" as exists at places in Central London, can it?

 

Did you have difficulty tying up in Berkhamsted, if you chose to? Honestly? Genuine difficulty?, (other than the mud!....)

 

Good point!

No difficulties on the way from Braunston to London, but I wouldn't expect too much of a problem in March. Yes, having had a quick read of the document I can see that it's not dealing with central London as yet but it's clear that these same principles will be applied elsewhere if they work in the South East.

 

I wouldn't want to put ideas into anyone's head but there is a technical solution to enforcement which would be very cost effective and easy to implement, however it would not really be in line with the ethos of the Inland Waterways. Lets just say that any of my friends can find out exactly where I am at any time.

[Guest]

I wouldn't want to put ideas into anyone's head but there is a technical solution to enforcement which would be very cost effective and easy to implement, however it would not really be in line with the ethos of the Inland Waterways. Lets just say that any of my friends can find out exactly where I am at any time.

 

Location plotting and monitoring by the use of GPS has been suggested before on here....