South East Visitor Mooring Proposals

[Tuscan]

Early on we were told that consultation with the associations they had traditionally used to represent boater views had played a large part in draughting the proposals for the 22 sites.

 

Presumably one would have assumed those assosciations particularly included NABO and RBOA - "boater specific" organisations rather than covering all waterways interests.

 

It is of course interesting now that those two associations have both indicated that the proposals should not go ahead in their current form, that "support by the associations" is not one of the things mentioned in the latest document, (or indeed "lack of support by the associations!").

 

I assume this will get a mention!

 

My understanding is that meetings were held in 2010 at which a member of NABO attended when the pinch point at some of these moorings were identified and that CRT were going to look at a range of options including changing the length of stay. However specifics of any changes ,the £25 service charge or penalty or the no return policy were not discussed or proposed as I understand it.

[alan_fincher]

My understanding is that meetings were held in 2010 at which a member of NABO attended when the pinch point at some of these moorings were identified and that CRT were going to look at a range of options including changing the length of stay. However specifics of any changes ,the £25 service charge or penalty or the no return policy were not discussed or proposed as I understand it.

Yes, That's pretty well what I believe as well.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

One thing I would add that I do object to is that NABO I know canvassed a broad percentage of its members and did some research on the moorings andconsidered the consultation in detail and put in a considered reply on behalf of its members, I assume other organisations did the same. CRT need to understand that NABO for example speaks for some 3000 not just 1 response in the 357.

 

Both NABO and RBOA have placed their respective responses in the public domain. Broadly speaking both want the proposals deferred until such time as they can be justified. This is not too far away from the 700+ who have signed a petition saying they want them scraped because CaRT are unable to justify them!

 

.... and yet CaRT are saying that there are roughly the same number of responses for and against these proposals.

 

The reason that my FOIA request asks for more than just copies of all the responses is that CaRT have not taken into account the numbers supporting each response.

 

I suspect what 'volunteer markers' found with regard to the data is correct and CaRT have manipulated the figures in terms of the number of responses that support the proposals.

 

What they have certainly not done is given any extra weight to those who have responded collectively either via petition or organisation.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

My understanding is that meetings were held in 2010 at which a member of NABO attended when the pinch point at some of these moorings were identified and that CRT were going to look at a range of options including changing the length of stay. However specifics of any changes ,the £25 service charge or penalty or the no return policy were not discussed or proposed as I understand it.

 

The outcome was that a two phase proposal was presented to S.E. User Group for implementation starting in Summer 2011.

 

The proposal was presented via two spreadsheets with a request for email feedback/comment from the group.

 

I raised a FOIA request a couple of weeks back to obtain the responses to this previous proposal which can be found here.

 

Links can be found to the two spreadsheets within the request itself.

 

I can not say why this proposal was scrapped but other documents suggest that one reason might have been lack of volunteers willing to police it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Surely CaRT can't lose. If they did a U turn and enforced the hell out of the current restrictions/ rules, promoted easy ways to officially complain/report of overstayers and rule dodgers, gathered information of boats using visitor moorings...how long they stay, monitoring repeat visitors, then most of the problems would be solved. Solid information would be there to adjust VM restrictions and easily identify those who are camping there most of the year.....if at all if the enforcement works. A few people will probably still winge of snooping and stuff but tough, can't have it both ways.

[GUMPY]

Its real hard for CRT to enforce anything

There is a boat near here, a well known NCCC, that has been tied on the lock moorings for over a week.

It was been reported yesterday as causing an obstruction.

CRT dutifully placed a notice on it yesterday, the owner turned up today, tightened his centre rope (the only one connecting it to the bank) spent ten minutes on his back deck, removed the notice and left.

So in reality he is just sticking two fingers up at CRT.

Unfortunately there are many in this area like that.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Loddon

[Willber G]

Its real hard for CRT to enforce anything

There is a boat near here, a well known NCCC, that has been tied on the lock moorings for over a week.

It was been reported yesterday as causing an obstruction.

CRT dutifully placed a notice on it yesterday, the owner turned up today, tightened his centre rope (the only one connecting it to the bank) spent ten minutes on his back deck, removed the notice and left.

So in reality he is just sticking two fingers up at CRT.

Unfortunately there are many in this area like that.

I'd be tempted to tow it away and moor it a distance up the cut. It would give him a shock when he came back if nothing else.

[alan_fincher]

CRT dutifully placed a notice on it yesterday, the owner turned up today, tightened his centre rope (the only one connecting it to the bank) spent ten minutes on his back deck, removed the notice and left.

So in reality he is just sticking two fingers up at CRT.

He is probably "not getting steamed up about it"!

 

(Which will only mean something to those who know what the owner's name is.......)

[PiRSqwared]

He is probably "not getting steamed up about it"!

 

(Which will only mean something to those who know what the owner's name is.......)

You mean it was Ivor Kaplan? (norty giggle)

[jodansgang]

Done.

[ReggieRareBreed]

Signed...

Edited April 1, 2013 by ReggieRareBreed