South East Visitor Mooring Consultation

[alan_fincher]

(This is unashamedly the same text as already published in several "Boater" Facebook groups, and is just trying to get the same message to as many people as possible - Thank you!)

 

The second workshop took place today.

 

You will be aware from previous feedback that CRT claimed a broad split from the consultation results of 50% in favour and 50% opposed to the changes, (I don’t plan to argue about if that is right or wrong!). You will also likely be aware that despite this 50% they admit were not in favour, and both NABO and RBOA having responded that the changes should be put on hold at this stage, CRT have remained adamant that they plan to implement something at 8 of the 22 sites this year as a pilot scheme.

 

So we were presented with no option that at least some of this would not continue, and have had instead had to concentrate on trying to ensure as much compromise as we can achieve on what actually is put in place, and, particularly to get the most “over the top” elements modified or withdrawn.

 

This will no doubt disappoint many who hoped we could achieve a total halt on the project, but I hope they will gain some comfort from the fact that we did in the end gain a fair amount of concession, (assuming of course that CRT actually run with what we think has been agreed for each site).

 

I am expecting them to publish revised details, but to give an idea of what has, and has not been achieved, here is the situation for Berkhamsted.

 

The proposal intended to make the entire 0.8 miles from the bottom “Gas” lock right through to Raven’s Lane lock just 2 day moorings. It then actually intended to make the length South from the popular Rising Sun pub to the next footbridge actually NO mooring, with 7 day mooring South of that, (by then well on the outskirts of the town). It also intended to introduce these limits throughout the entire year, with no seasonal variation.

 

So what do we believe we have negotiated instead?

 

Well it is quite complex, but broadly instead of that 0.8 miles of the prime central area becoming 2 day, the vast majority of it will instead now be 7 day. There will be a length of 2 hour dedicated shopping moorings near Waitrose, (which to me seems entirely reasonable), and the only bit of 2 day now left in that part of the plan, (because they said there must be some!) is from Waitrose down to Broadwater lock. The vast majority will be 7 days, though.

 

We have overturned the decision to make the stretch South of the Rising Sun “No Mooring”, but conceded another stretch of 2 day moorings there. This does at least give a good chance of visiting boaters being able to visit either “the Riser” or the Boat!. South of that we have convinced them that the stretch beyond the footbridge can remain as 14 days, (there was no 14 days left in the original plan).

 

Crucially we have argued that these changes can only possibly be justified for the Summer months, and that, other than the short length of shopper moorings, all can revert to 14 day limit out of season.

 

So did we “win” on this location – well clearly not entirely. Did we actually broker a very much more sensible position than was being proposed? I would say yes, very definitely. We have stopped existing mooring space being lost for spurious reasons. We have also ensured that the vast majority of moorings in the town remain available for those who want to stay for up to a week at popular times, instead of them either having to move on after two days, or paying £25 a day for no good reason. Vitally we have got an acceptance that this would all be nonsense in the winter, and that restrictions beyond 14 days remain unnecessary.

 

I will not try and set out in detail what I think has been agreed for 7 other ‘pilot’ sites, beyond noting that I think for all it has been acknowledged that restrictions don’t need to apply out of season, (actually, I believe, a very significant concession, even had we got no other), and that in most cases the finally published plan will have had some of the planned restrictions made less severe, (to the extent that Stoke Bruerne should actually see the current 1 day limit for moorings in the “long pound” increased to 2 days, for example).

 

Talking to John Dodwell at the end he made the very valid point that if a number of us had not gone to a meeting at Milton Keynes back in November and challenged these changes, we would probably now be looking a them being implemented as they stood back then. John suggested that how the outcome is seen will depend on who is writing the headlines(!) It is possible on the one hand to write the article that says “CRT ignores the majority of boaters, a 750 signature petition, and two boating associations and presses ahead with changes”. On the other you can write the headline that says “CRT makes major changes to some of the previously proposed moorings proposals following input by concerned boaters”. You must make up your own minds how you see it!

 

I’d just like to say that those of us involved tried our very best to get a sensible result, and, (if we have secured what I believe we have), it is a massively more sensible outcome, at least for some of the locations, than the original proposal. However at the end of the day, you can make up your own minds if we could possibly have achieved more. If you think you could have done so, please be prepared to get involved in a future round of negotiations, as CRT have promised to do nothing in respect of the remaining 14 sites identified, until they have implemented the modified changes at these 8, and demonstrated that their strategy actually works. I’m sure those of us deeply involved so far will now be very happy to pass the challenge on to someone else for the next round, if it ever happens!

 

Finally thank you to the many of you who have constantly issued words of support to those of us deeply involved in it – it has been soul destroying at times, so any words of encouragement have been most welcome!

[jelunga]

(This is unashamedly the same text as already published in several "Boater" Facebook groups, and is just trying to get the same message to as many people as possible - Thank you!)

 

The second workshop took place today.

 

You will be aware from previous feedback that CRT claimed a broad split from the consultation results of 50% in favour and 50% opposed to the changes, (I don’t plan to argue about if that is right or wrong!). You will also likely be aware that despite this 50% they admit were not in favour, and both NABO and RBOA having responded that the changes should be put on hold at this stage, CRT have remained adamant that they plan to implement something at 8 of the 22 sites this year as a pilot scheme.

 

So we were presented with no option that at least some of this would not continue, and have had instead had to concentrate on trying to ensure as much compromise as we can achieve on what actually is put in place, and, particularly to get the most “over the top” elements modified or withdrawn.

 

This will no doubt disappoint many who hoped we could achieve a total halt on the project, but I hope they will gain some comfort from the fact that we did in the end gain a fair amount of concession, (assuming of course that CRT actually run with what we think has been agreed for each site).

 

I am expecting them to publish revised details, but to give an idea of what has, and has not been achieved, here is the situation for Berkhamsted.

 

The proposal intended to make the entire 0.8 miles from the bottom “Gas” lock right through to Raven’s Lane lock just 2 day moorings. It then actually intended to make the length South from the popular Rising Sun pub to the next footbridge actually NO mooring, with 7 day mooring South of that, (by then well on the outskirts of the town). It also intended to introduce these limits throughout the entire year, with no seasonal variation.

 

So what do we believe we have negotiated instead?

 

Well it is quite complex, but broadly instead of that 0.8 miles of the prime central area becoming 2 day, the vast majority of it will instead now be 7 day. There will be a length of 2 hour dedicated shopping moorings near Waitrose, (which to me seems entirely reasonable), and the only bit of 2 day now left in that part of the plan, (because they said there must be some!) is from Waitrose down to Broadwater lock. The vast majority will be 7 days, though.

 

We have overturned the decision to make the stretch South of the Rising Sun “No Mooring”, but conceded another stretch of 2 day moorings there. This does at least give a good chance of visiting boaters being able to visit either “the Riser” or the Boat!. South of that we have convinced them that the stretch beyond the footbridge can remain as 14 days, (there was no 14 days left in the original plan).

 

Crucially we have argued that these changes can only possibly be justified for the Summer months, and that, other than the short length of shopper moorings, all can revert to 14 day limit out of season.

 

So did we “win” on this location – well clearly not entirely. Did we actually broker a very much more sensible position than was being proposed? I would say yes, very definitely. We have stopped existing mooring space being lost for spurious reasons. We have also ensured that the vast majority of moorings in the town remain available for those who want to stay for up to a week at popular times, instead of them either having to move on after two days, or paying £25 a day for no good reason. Vitally we have got an acceptance that this would all be nonsense in the winter, and that restrictions beyond 14 days remain unnecessary.

 

I will not try and set out in detail what I think has been agreed for 7 other ‘pilot’ sites, beyond noting that I think for all it has been acknowledged that restrictions don’t need to apply out of season, (actually, I believe, a very significant concession, even had we got no other), and that in most cases the finally published plan will have had some of the planned restrictions made less severe, (to the extent that Stoke Bruerne should actually see the current 1 day limit for moorings in the “long pound” increased to 2 days, for example).

 

Talking to John Dodwell at the end he made the very valid point that if a number of us had not gone to a meeting at Milton Keynes back in November and challenged these changes, we would probably now be looking a them being implemented as they stood back then. John suggested that how the outcome is seen will depend on who is writing the headlines(!) It is possible on the one hand to write the article that says “CRT ignores the majority of boaters, a 750 signature petition, and two boating associations and presses ahead with changes”. On the other you can write the headline that says “CRT makes major changes to some of the previously proposed moorings proposals following input by concerned boaters”. You must make up your own minds how you see it!

 

I’d just like to say that those of us involved tried our very best to get a sensible result, and, (if we have secured what I believe we have), it is a massively more sensible outcome, at least for some of the locations, than the original proposal. However at the end of the day, you can make up your own minds if we could possibly have achieved more. If you think you could have done so, please be prepared to get involved in a future round of negotiations, as CRT have promised to do nothing in respect of the remaining 14 sites identified, until they have implemented the modified changes at these 8, and demonstrated that their strategy actually works. I’m sure those of us deeply involved so far will now be very happy to pass the challenge on to someone else for the next round, if it ever happens!

 

Finally thank you to the many of you who have constantly issued words of support to those of us deeply involved in it – it has been soul destroying at times, so any words of encouragement have been most welcome!

Well done Mr Fincher and comrades. I feel you have achieved a lot with all the CRT weasel words that have been spouted.

As a matter of record, I was at the East Midkands (south) User Group Meeting earlier in the week. The Waterways Manager there advised he had no plans to implement similar schemes in his area but if people wanted any changes email him and he would consider it. Fortunately no body did.

[Tuscan]

Initially I was very sceptical when the chair of the first workshop announced that he was not a boat owner and not aware of the moorings in question. Then it was immediately apparent that they only got to the 50% in favour by counting those that had gathered comments from several boaters and collated these as one response were counted as one response. There minds were made up that these changes were going to be introduced. However as the workshop wore on CRT seemed very flexible in the willingness to listen and make changes even in the group i was in overuling their own local manager. I had a subsequent email dialogue yesterday that appeared to reaffirm that they were listening would be taking on board our comments and accepted that in future consultations they needed to improve the presentation to ensure there was more evidence provided to support the proposals.

 

Hopefully we will be able to see the differences between the proposals and what was subsequentley agreed when they are published. My one main concern is that the sub plot to this the introduction of the principle of no return and more importantly the ability of CRT to make a service charge of £25 was not discussed in any detail. Was this the real elephant in the room that they wanted accepted in all the moorings???

[ValandPete]

Thanks for the feedback. And a big thank you to all who have given their time and made the effort to get involved. I think you have achieved a very reasonable outcome in the circumstances.

 

Val

[alan_fincher]

My one main concern is that the sub plot to this the introduction of the principle of no return and more importantly the ability of CRT to make a service charge of £25 was not discussed in any detail. Was this the real elephant in the room that they wanted accepted in all the moorings???

Yes,

 

The £25 remains an issue. I told them again straight today that better brains than mine think they may struggle to recover them if someone simply decides they will not pay and throws the ball back into CRT's court to make them take the next action. I guess until an example gets as far as going to court, and a judge make a decision, then we will not know. Although they try and maintain publicly that they are confident thy would win it, I'm sure that privately they have doubts, and really do not want to have to test it.

 

What I'm hoping is that by compromising at (say) 7 day permitted times where they wanted just 2 days, and by reverting to 14 days in winter, most visiting boaters will be able to stay at many of these sites as long as they want to, and wil move on long before the charging issue even arises. If anyone does test CRT to the point of it going to court, however, I'm sure we will all be awaiting the result with great interest!

 

I would suggest that if they lose, many will then start treating these all as 14 day moorings, whatever the sign erected there actually says, as they will then know the penalty for overstaying can not actually be enforced.

[casper ghost]

Did we actually broker a very much more sensible position than was being proposed? I would say yes, very definitely.

Agreed, well done.

Casp'

[Keeping Up]

I believe we should all be grateful for the amount of work you have put into this Alan.

 

I agree that I too was highly sceptical at the start of the workshops, particularly as it was immediately clear that C&RT would not tolerate anyone taking a stand against the entire principle.

 

In the circumstances with which we presented, I agree with you that a remarkably large number of significant improvements were made, resulting in new proposals which were not only very different from the original versions but also infinitely better - especially at Berkhamstead and Stoke Bruerne. I found it particularly heartening that C&RT seemed very willing to adopt the revised proposals, and hope that they will use this opportunity to learn some real lessons about their feasibility. Only time will reveal the answers.

[Tuscan]

I believe we should all be grateful for the amount of work you have put into this Alan.

 

I agree that I too was highly sceptical at the start of the workshops, particularly as it was immediately clear that C&RT would not tolerate anyone taking a stand against the entire principle.

 

In the circumstances with which we presented, I agree with you that a remarkably large number of significant improvements were made, resulting in new proposals which were not only very different from the original versions but also infinitely better - especially at Berkhamstead and Stoke Bruerne. I found it particularly heartening that C&RT seemed very willing to adopt the revised proposals, and hope that they will use this opportunity to learn some real lessons about their feasibility. Only time will reveal the answers.

 

 

I agree the outcome is hopefully very good and I think the flexibility took everyone by suprise

 

Yes,

 

The £25 remains an issue. I told them again straight today that better brains than mine think they may struggle to recover them if someone simply decides they will not pay and throws the ball back into CRT's court to make them take the next action. I guess until an example gets as far as going to court, and a judge make a decision, then we will not know. Although they try and maintain publicly that they are confident thy would win it, I'm sure that privately they have doubts, and really do not want to have to test it.

 

What I'm hoping is that by compromising at (say) 7 day permitted times where they wanted just 2 days, and by reverting to 14 days in winter, most visiting boaters will be able to stay at many of these sites as long as they want to, and wil move on long before the charging issue even arises. If anyone does test CRT to the point of it going to court, however, I'm sure we will all be awaiting the result with great interest!

 

I would suggest that if they lose, many will then start treating these all as 14 day moorings, whatever the sign erected there actually says, as they will then know the penalty for overstaying can not actually be enforced.

 

 

I am sure they will not want a test case on the £25 for that very reason , the next stage is to see if they do patrol these 8 daily and whether VM's are easier to find in the summer !!

[onionbargee]

[Grace and Favour]

Alan, - - - well done!

[freddy]

just like to thank you,and everybody involved for all the effort.john

[alan_fincher]

I believe we should all be grateful for the amount of work you have put into this Alan.

At least equal credit should go to "Jenlyn" of this forum, who has not just been working this particular VM issue but has been constantly chipping away at a whole host of related matters, and who I finally left at MK deep in conversation with John Dodwell and Sally Ash, whilst I decided I had had enough for today.

[LoneWolf]

Well done Alan & all the others involved that sounds like a good compromise

Thank you

[cotswoldsman]

Well done Alan and jenlyn. I also think that all boaters who opposed these changes should take some credit. As we know CRT do read this Forum and the various facebook pages. Also strong opposition was shown at the meetings in the Midlands and North right up to last Friday. I think this does show that boaters are able to voice their opinions to CRT

There is still a lot of work to do and I would encourage all those who can to get involved and not just rely on a few. Boaters need to stand together to ensure they are heard.

[Tuscan]

Well done Alan and jenlyn. I also think that all boaters who opposed these changes should take some credit. As we know CRT do read this Forum and the various facebook pages. Also strong opposition was shown at the meetings in the Midlands and North right up to last Friday. I think this does show that boaters are able to voice their opinions to CRT

There is still a lot of work to do and I would encourage all those who can to get involved and not just rely on a few. Boaters need to stand together to ensure they are heard.

 

 

Good point it was the groundswell of opposition from all quarters individuals, organisations , meetings and forums. For a workday afternoon the workshops were well attended by a range of individuals all of whom influenced these changes. Forum members like John, Alan and Jenlyn definitely made a difference in mobilising boaters actions.

[Arphamoe]

Congratulations to all involved who took the time and trouble to 'take up arms' to seek sensible resolutions. I think it is also appropriate to offer the same congratulations to the CRT members who saw the sense of most of the criticisms of their original proposals. We must trust them to keep their word on following the summary that Alan has provided and that they do understand the strength of reasoned opinion. Only time will tell but we can hope!

[c c]

Can you say which are the other 7 areas affected ?

[KevMc]

(This is unashamedly the same text as already published in several "Boater" Facebook groups, and is just trying to get the same message to as many people as possible - Thank you!)

 

...snip ...

Talking to John Dodwell at the end he made the very valid point that if a number of us had not gone to a meeting at Milton Keynes back in November and challenged these changes, we would probably now be looking a them being implemented as they stood back then. John suggested that how the outcome is seen will depend on who is writing the headlines(!) It is possible on the one hand to write the article that says “CRT ignores the majority of boaters, a 750 signature petition, and two boating associations and presses ahead with changes”. On the other you can write the headline that says “CRT makes major changes to some of the previously proposed moorings proposals following input by concerned boaters”. You must make up your own minds how you see it!

 

.... snip...

 

I thought I would pop over to the dark side for their take on the situation and you won't need to guesses to see which way they have spun the report

[Keeping Up]

Can you say which are the other 7 areas affected ?

 

The 8 were:

 

Berkhamstead

Stoke Bruerne

Batchworth

Marsworth

Oxford

Banbury

Thrupp

Foxton

[BruceinSanity]

Well done Alan and jenlyn. I also think that all boaters who opposed these changes should take some credit. As we know CRT do read this Forum and the various facebook pages. Also strong opposition was shown at the meetings in the Midlands and North right up to last Friday. I think this does show that boaters are able to voice their opinions to CRT

There is still a lot of work to do and I would encourage all those who can to get involved and not just rely on a few. Boaters need to stand together to ensure they are heard.

 

Hear hear to all of that and mega respect to Alan and Jenlyn for a lot of very hard work. Just shows it can be worth kicking against the pr!cks as opposed to just kicking the pr!cks!

[Ray]

Very many thanks to all involved, from whatever side of the mooring bollard and may this indicate a fresh approach by CRT and a chance for some of the CRT knockers to accept that they (CRT) sometimes deserve a break.

[onionbargee]

CRT are quickly loosing the goodwill they had when they started life, i don't see they have changed the old BW arrogant managment attitude at all.

[cotswoldsman]

CRT are quickly loosing the goodwill they had when they started life, i don't see they have changed the old BW arrogant managment attitude at all.

 

At times it might feel that way but I think they are listening but just need to learn how to react quicker and let boaters know what is happening. I am still in the school that says they are changing but it can be a slow process to change something the size of CRT

[Peter Thornton]

We stayed in Berkhamsted last night and it seemed pretty crowded to us. We came through heading North and couldn't work out whether or not we were allowed to moor below the Rising Sun, didn't see any signage there.

Found half a mooring just outside the Crystal Palace ( ie we were on the wharf but half the boat past the sign)

This morning we carried on North and found it still pretty full around the corner.

 

I think one of the biggest problems is that there seem to be no reliable maps of where moorings actually are. Nicholson's doesn't give any clues and the digital maps don't have them marked properly. I may have missed something but it seems to me that CART could well put maps online of these popular places and clearly mark visitor moorings.

[matty40s]

We stayed in Berkhamsted last night and it seemed pretty crowded to us. We came through heading North and couldn't work out whether or not we were allowed to moor below the Rising Sun, didn't see any signage there.

Found half a mooring just outside the Crystal Palace ( ie we were on the wharf but half the boat past the sign)

This morning we carried on North and found it still pretty full around the corner.

 

I think one of the biggest problems is that there seem to be no reliable maps of where moorings actually are. Nicholson's doesn't give any clues and the digital maps don't have them marked properly. I may have missed something but it seems to me that CART could well put maps online of these popular places and clearly mark visitor moorings.

 

well finding a mooring outside the Crystal Palace must be just cause for celebration of CaRT enforcement, as you would NEVER have found a mooring there a few years ago.

 

I am not sure why you need a sign to tell you whether you can moor anywhere.If you can knock pins in or piling hooks and it looks safe to moor, moor.

Edited March 22, 2013 by matty40s