Loss of Visitor moorings

[Mrs Trackman]

I tried to start this thread earlier but can't find it. Hope it's not there twice!

I think mooring problems are not helped by the gradual loss of VMs. On the same day we heard that moorings are being lost at Upton, we were also told that visitor moorings on the Ashby, by a civil war battle site, had been closed.

In both cases it means boaters may decide to go elsewhere for fear of not finding suitable moorings. We haven't actually been to the Ashby since 2006, partly because I heard that 'No mooring' signs had appeared outside new housing at Hinckley. We found it quite difficult to find a mooring at Hinckley when we were there and so are reluctant to return.

I know this has been discussed before, but it does seem everytime a 'householder', who has bought a property by a canal discovers they like the canal but not boaters, makes a call to CART up go the signs and yet another mooring is lost to us.

[Ray T]

Battlefield mooring saga here:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=45358&st=0&p=839833&hl=+battlefield%20+moorings&fromsearch=1entry839833

 

When we went up there September last year the "No mooring" signs had been removed (by boaters?) and people were mooring on that site.

 

There is mooring available a little further up and on the designated towpath side, which was never used previously, so in reality no moorings have been lost here.

 

The "No mooring" outside the flats is on a bend before Trinity Marina and personally I would not want to moor there anyway, but it is giving in to the NIMBY's.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Ray T

[dmr]

There is a very simple and obvious solution to this problem but I bet CaRT are not brave enough:

 

Where a house owner wants to "own" a section of waterway outside their waterside home then they apply to CaRT and pay for a "non mooring" , just like we pay for a mooring!

As they desire to have exclusive use of this section of bank (to get a view of the water without a boat) I suggest they should pay about 90% of what CaRT assess to be the going rate for a mooring in that area.

There would be a clause stating that in no circumstances can they then moor a boat in that spot, not even if it belongs to one of their friends!!! A non mooring can NOT be converted to a private mooring.

CRT would need to assess the suitability of having a "non mooring" just like they assess the suitability of any "end of garden" type mooring and permission would be refused if a non-mooring was likely to be harmful to local businesses etc.

A long line of non-moorings would not be allowed!

 

............Dave

[Paul C]

There is a very simple and obvious solution to this problem but I bet CaRT are not brave enough:

 

Where a house owner wants to "own" a section of waterway outside their waterside home then they apply to CaRT and pay for a "non mooring" , just like we pay for a mooring!

As they desire to have exclusive use of this section of bank (to get a view of the water without a boat) I suggest they should pay about 90% of what CaRT assess to be the going rate for a mooring in that area.

There would be a clause stating that in no circumstances can they then moor a boat in that spot, not even if it belongs to one of their friends!!! A non mooring can NOT be converted to a private mooring.

CRT would need to assess the suitability of having a "non mooring" just like they assess the suitability of any "end of garden" type mooring and permission would be refused if a non-mooring was likely to be harmful to local businesses etc.

A long line of non-moorings would not be allowed!

 

............Dave

 

Brilliant idea!

 

(Let's hope its not too successful though.....it might end up being impossible to get a mooring etc)

[Ray]

Brilliant idea!

 

(Let's hope its not too successful though.....it might end up being impossible to get a mooring etc)

 

True, but the income from all the Non-moorings would mean that the canal would be in brilliant condition!

 

I'm waiting for someone who buys a lock keeper's cottage to complain about boats using the lock!

[DeanS]

I can beat that....

 

howabout the Manchester city council, go into partnership with a development company, to build a marina, and then build residential properties around the marina. They then fill the marina with boats.

They then fill the properties with humans.

Winter arrives and the boats stoke up their coal fires.

The humans complain about smoke.

The council pins up a notice for all boaters saying that they will have to send in smoke monitoring equipment if complaints continue.

 

Now you know why I've gone cruising.

[NigelMoore]

I'm waiting for someone who buys a lock keeper's cottage to complain about boats using the lock!

 

I remember 20 years ago, at the top end of the southern Oxford, coming to a lock and finding a large sign in front of it erected by inhabitants of the lock cottage.

 

It read something to the effect that people lived in the cottage, so all boaters were required to turn off their engines and work the boat through manually so as not to disturb them!

 

There was something about not using the lock between 10pm and 8am as well I think [but that may have been a BW request for the whole length in a time of water shortage.]

[cotswoldsman]

Ok maybe I should start another thread on this as No Mooring Signs outside houses does crop up fairly often. At the Continuous Cruisers meeting with CRT in April this problem was mentioned and there seemed to be some genuine surprise from both Vince Moran (Operations Director and current CEO) and Sally Ash. Moving forward they would ensure that any property sold would include in the Deeds that boats would continue to have a right to moor. They asked us to report any property that has a "NO Mooring" sign outside so could anyone who sees one please email sarina.young@canalrivertrust.org.uk

[Tuscan]

I remember years ago going to Hertford and arrivng in the Town outside a pretty row of canal side cottages to be met by a sign. With a photocopy of a letter from BW advising boaters not to moor there if alternative moorings were available, not to run engines or generators etc etc. I assume this was because the boats obscured the views of the back of the local Waitrose delivery bay and interfered with the residents pleasure of listening to the noise of the HGV delivery lorries moving around.

[Mrs Trackman]

Oh! That's a good one. In addition, householders who insist on a long length of bank need to pay for each boat length of no mooring they require. An example is the cottage at the far end of the VMs above Grindley Brook locks on the Llangollen which has a very long canal side garden and a number of 'No Mooring' signs.

Oh and of course, the householder must pay for the signs and the cost of putting them up.

Sorry, can't work out how to post under this quote.

There is a very simple and obvious solution to this problem but I bet CaRT are not brave enough:

 

Where a house owner wants to "own" a section of waterway outside their waterside home then they apply to CaRT and pay for a "non mooring" , just like we pay for a mooring!

As they desire to have exclusive use of this section of bank (to get a view of the water without a boat) I suggest they should pay about 90% of what CaRT assess to be the going rate for a mooring in that area.

There would be a clause stating that in no circumstances can they then moor a boat in that spot, not even if it belongs to one of their friends!!! A non mooring can NOT be converted to a private mooring.

CRT would need to assess the suitability of having a "non mooring" just like they assess the suitability of any "end of garden" type mooring and permission would be refused if a non-mooring was likely to be harmful to local businesses etc.

A long line of non-moorings would not be allowed!

 

............Dave

Edited May 25, 2013 by Mrs Trackman

[Mrs Trackman]

I can beat that....

 

howabout the Manchester city council, go into partnership with a development company, to build a marina, and then build residential properties around the marina. They then fill the marina with boats.

They then fill the properties with humans.

Winter arrives and the boats stoke up their coal fires.

The humans complain about smoke.

The council pins up a notice for all boaters saying that they will have to send in smoke monitoring equipment if complaints continue.

 

Now you know why I've gone cruising.

We had a similar experience, though in this case it was an old wharf that must have been there for over 200 years, Peels on the Coventry canal. The residents of the newish housing object to any engine running or smoke from chimneys. Not surprisingly the moorings are more or less impossible to let as a result, more loss of potential revenue.

[Timleech]

Why should people be criticised for complaining about smoke, if it is genuinely a problem?

 

Tim

[ditchcrawler]

I was moored overnight at St ives and the cruiser at the far end of the moorings ran his genny until about midnight, I could hear it in bed so I don't know about the houses beside the moorings. Some people just invite problems for the rest of us.

[furnessvale]

I was moored overnight at St ives and the cruiser at the far end of the moorings ran his genny until about midnight, I could hear it in bed so I don't know about the houses beside the moorings. Some people just invite problems for the rest of us.

In which case extra signs should be restricted to a reminder to boaters as to the normal requirements eg on CART waters no gennies 8pm to 8am. What is not acceptable is BW(CART) putting up signs at Macclesfield "advising" no engine running at all on VMs, and even a sign on the water point saying the same. All this to accommodate new build housing.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Peter Thornton]

I do think that householders have a point about the running of engines. We all accept that motorists can park on the street outside our houses but it would be different if they then ran their engines for half the night.

[furnessvale]

I do think that householders have a point about the running of engines. We all accept that motorists can park on the street outside our houses but it would be different if they then ran their engines for half the night.

Fine, just like avoiding motorway noise, don't buy a house next to the canal. Even better, don't build a brand new house next to visitor moorings and then complain. Like any house purchase, you must carefully weigh up the neighbourhood, and the neighbours, at all times of the day and night to see what illegal, or LEGAL, noise they make. Only the presence of a spineless BW has enabled them to put undue pressure and curtail LAWFUL boating activity.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Chris Pink]

I was moored overnight at St ives and the cruiser at the far end of the moorings ran his genny until about midnight, I could hear it in bed so I don't know about the houses beside the moorings. Some people just invite problems for the rest of us.

 

So why don't you ring the police?

 

They were always knocking on the door when our parties were too loud as youth.

[Timleech]

Fine, just like avoiding motorway noise, don't buy a house next to the canal. Even better, don't build a brand new house next to visitor moorings and then complain. Like any house purchase, you must carefully weigh up the neighbourhood, and the neighbours, at all times of the day and night to see what illegal, or LEGAL, noise they make. Only the presence of a spineless BW has enabled them to put undue pressure and curtail LAWFUL boating activity.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

 

That's all true, but there's no excuse for boaters not treating people who live in houses next to a canal as they would other neighbours - hopefully with proper neighbourly consideration, whatever the rules might stipulate.

 

Tim

[ditchcrawler]

In which case extra signs should be restricted to a reminder to boaters as to the normal requirements eg on CART waters no gennies 8pm to 8am. What is not acceptable is BW(CART) putting up signs at Macclesfield "advising" no engine running at all on VMs, and even a sign on the water point saying the same. All this to accommodate new build housing.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

The point I was making was not the signs, it was boaters like this who will have residents complaining to the town council who will one day do something about it long after the thoughtless boaters have departed.

[cotswoldsman]

The point I was making was not the signs, it was boaters like this who will have residents complaining to the town council who will one day do something about it long after the thoughtless boaters have departed.

As is happening in London as we speak!!!

[rgreg]

 

As is happening in London as we speak!!!

And which has recently happened in Lancaster resulting in the loss of several moorings in two basins there.

[Ian Mac]

I can beat that....

 

howabout the Manchester city council, go into partnership with a development company, to build a marina, and then build residential properties around the marina. They then fill the marina with boats.

They then fill the properties with humans.

Winter arrives and the boats stoke up their coal fires.

The humans complain about smoke.

The council pins up a notice for all boaters saying that they will have to send in smoke monitoring equipment if complaints continue.

 

Now you know why I've gone cruising.

We had the environmental health people out to us in Manchester, Dale St basin, when we moored up on the landing cage on the off side there, our smoke went straight in the air conditioning plant of the offices which have now been built there. The office security complained, we told them to get a life, and a decent architect, they sent a man from the council round, we asked him what the problem was. He said we were making smoke in a smokeless zone, we replied that we were indeed doing so and that we were a class 1 mobile furnace installed for heating and cooking and therefore exempt under the act, and what was the now going to do now, to which he answer, were were indeed exempt and that he was going back to the office and then going home for his tea, and that he would inform the company the following day, that they should install the correct filters as they were located in a place were such furnaces could well be used. This was two years ago, maybe they have a different Environmental health man now, but I do not believe that the clean air act has not been modified recently, and therefore all canal boats etc are still exempt, unless they have some other new string to their bow. Other exemptions are any properties which have been red ringed, when the act was enabled in a borough, these are normally properties which are not gas connected an unlikely to become so, and are situated in either greenbelt or countryside. The council have a list of such properties, which is part of the order made by the council and signed by the secertary of state, the council do occasionally modify the order which then requires suitable public notices and a further signing by the S.o.S. You are also allowed to make black smoke for up to 10 minutes per hour without any exemption, and also when ashing out. The interesting thing is that legally black smoke is not clearly defined, but the smoke from normal household coal, is not black but grey! Its all to do with the particle counts and sizes. Which is why the council probably said they would have to monitor the smoke being produced. So basically it was a bluff, to keep their constituents and rate payer happy, which of course the boat dwellers probably are not.

--

cheers Ian Mac