Stoke Bruerne Visitor Moorings

[Tuscan]

I expect the survey of those that stopped ( as opposed to those who made a conscious decision not to) will be used as justification.

[jenlyn]

I was hoping to take the survey that dekazer is doing, but it's quite complex owing to the amount of folk that replied. It's taking her some time to complete it.

[alan_fincher]

I see this has been picked up by Steve Hayward in Decembers Canal & River Boat,

And for those of us who don't subscribe, what does he have to say about it, in précis?

[alan_fincher]

I expect the survey of those that stopped ( as opposed to those who made a conscious decision not to) will be used as justification.

 

This is part of a very belated reply I received from CRT Trustee John Dodwell on the topic of Stoke Bruerne VMs.....

 

It's interesting that you think the Trust has lost an awful lot of goodwill over the implementation. When Tony Hales was at the Village at War event last month, he found good support for the new arrangements.

 

 

I'm fairly confident is is the kind of line they will hold to when trying to claim is as a successful pilot for other sites.

 

One wonders who he talked to, but it was hardly a typical time to be asking anyway, because all normal mooring arrangements were suspended for Village at War anyway, and actually only boats booked in should have been in the top pound from the lock to the tunnel!

 

And, as Mark suggests, if you only talk to people actually visiting Stoke Bruerne, you will not get to talk to the ones who have decided to stop visiting Stoke Bruerne, so I would hardly call a straw poll of people at that event representative of anything!

[jenlyn]

This is part of a very belated reply I received from CRT Trustee John Dodwell on the topic of Stoke Bruerne VMs.....

 

 

 

I'm fairly confident is is the kind of line they will hold to when trying to claim is as a successful pilot for other sites.

 

One wonders who he talked to, but it was hardly a typical time to be asking anyway, because all normal mooring arrangements were suspended for Village at War anyway, and actually only boats booked in should have been in the top pound from the lock to the tunnel!

 

And, as Mark suggests, if you only talk to people actually visiting Stoke Bruerne, you will not get to talk to the ones who have decided to stop visiting Stoke Bruerne, so I would hardly call a straw poll of people at that event representative of anything!

I'm dissapointed that john dodwell gives such a weak reply. I'm astonished that the amounts of money being wasted on this is only supported by tony hales talking to a handfull of people.

The whole shambolic, incompetent handling of this does not bode well for the future of the canals, sorry, theme park.

[Tuscan]

And for those of us who don't subscribe, what does he have to say about it, in précis?

Bit of a long précis as it's a complete page

 

Headline "moorings - its a sledgehammer to crack a nut

 

Key points

 

Honeypot sites have always been busy , full of ordinary boaters not overstayers

 

If we don't oppose it the pleasures of go as you please cruising which is an attraction for most will be a thing of the past

 

Will be Forced to move from one controlled site to the next every couple of days under threat of heavy fines

 

5 boats between tunnel and bottom lock in October but blunt edge rules still apply

 

Provision for long stayers at SB on bend by road says a lot about CRTs priority older retired users as opposed to hire boats

 

Ugly unwelcoming signs

 

Consultation and trial just like the old BW days

 

Lawyers charter bound to end up in the courts, rights of appeal how to dispute

 

Regulations are unnecessary, I'll conceived and ultimately extremely damaging to the reputation of the trust

 

 

 

Hope this gives you a flavour apologies to Steve Haywood and Canal and River Boat for lifting selected words.

[jenlyn]

some will once again be herded into a little room for the consultation on SEVM. Once again given the opportunity to indulge in jeff whyatts "fanatical view" on where he sees the future of the canal system in the South East region.

A view that will see the bottom come even closer to the top with the help of the

"Jeff sausage"

 

 

With the complete failure to explain the need for SEVM, jeff forges ahead regardless, with now seemingly, Tony Hales canvassing boaters at the stoke bruerne at war event in an attempt to gain support.

This years monthly report's of lock, towpath failures and breaches seems to have no bearing on the fact that the system is in decline, and in need of a structured preventative maintenance schedule.

Money being carelessly thrown at a mooring strategy that cannot be justified, should surely be going some way towards "catching up" on the massive maintenance backlog?

With a business that runs a waterway built to enable boat passage, and in recent years to facilitate mooring for it's "paying" customer base, you would expect that business to invest in it's base needs. A constructive plan to build and invest by supplying not just more VM's, but also working towards making canals more accessible for the very reason they were built, boats.

 

The recent press release from the South East Waterways Partnership in my mind suggests it has lost it's way. Jeff Whyatts involvement in this particular partnership seems to be stearing it away from it's operational directive. For all the percieved faults of Robin Evans, I believe he was correct when he suggested to a parliamentary committee, that John Best did not seem to have a grasp on what the Waterways Partnerships were about. In my own opinion, he is still struggling. The South East Waterways Partnership is seemingly the lowest performing. Perhaps john best should let go of Jeff Whyatts hand, and perhaps seek guidance instead from his fellow members within the Partnership.

 

https://db.tt/shRzabCW

 

However, we now seemingly see a future where you will be herded to area's of "specific interest", given a timetable, given a green, amber or red letter each day, informing you of your current mooring status. You will then be offered the opportunity to stay on, at the princely sum of £25per day.

In reality, the future will see you needing a very fat wallet to engage in your hobby.

The future of the waterways in reality is in "our" hands. It's down to each boat owner and canal related business to stand up and be heard.

Please don't allow this diabolical destruction of a canal system.

Edited November 3, 2013 by jenlyn

[matty40s]

I think that the SE waterways partnership will have more of a boaters focus with its new member.

[Mike Tee]

I think that the SE waterways partnership will have more of a boaters focus with its new member.

I must have missed this (or forgotten) - who is this please?

[alan_fincher]

I must have missed this (or forgotten) - who is this please?

 

From the meeting notes on the SE Partnershop meeting of Thursday 17th October.

 

 

The Partnership welcomes two new members, Cath Fincher and Graham Warland (details to be on the website shortly)

 

 

In fact Graham Warland's details have yet to appear on the relevant web page, but I understand he is from Banbury Canoe Club, so to some extent addresses the difficulty that the Partnership has had in attracting members from the Oxford Canal, (it is acknowledged by them that they are very "GU-centric").

 

The private boater now added to the partnership is of course my OH, "Catrin" of this forum.

[Mike Tee]

Congratulations to Catrin.

I did try to find the meeting notes, but failed dismally.

Do I mean congratulations? Hope it isn't frying pan and fire - my wife is an ex deputy head and know the relief after she escaped the education system.

[alan_fincher]

 

I did try to find the meeting notes, but failed dismally.

 

Recent SEWP Meeting Notes should be here.

 

Recent SEWP Meeting Notes should be here.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

 

Cath has made a decision to retire a little bit early from a very good school where she was was Subject Leader for ICT, and my take is that this was driven by trying to balance the sides of the job still still found very rewarding with the ways that the education system is constantly being tinkered with by Gove and his predecessors. She was able to mould things so she handed over to the right person at the right time, and I back her 100% as having done the right thing, even if her pension is frighteningly small compared to her former salary!

[adam1uk]

I have emailed Jeff Whyatt on two points.

 

1) Mismatch on stay times in stretch to tunnel mouth between "totems" (showing 14 days) and map (showing 2 days).

2) Whether any casual mooring will be available below the bottom lock, or whether people approaching SB from the South will only be able to moor there by working up and down the flight.

If Jeff replies, and is agreeable, I will publish answers received.

I also asked about the moorings below the locks, and the answer was that if there's space, it's ok to stop there.

 

Apparently, no-one has yet booked a winter mooring there, so space shouldn't be an issue!

[sueb]

Congratulations Catrin. Retirement is lovely

[Catrin]

The meeting on SEVM initiative was well attended last night in MK. In addition to many boaters there were other interested parties (Dick Pilkington from SE Partnership, for example, as well as at least one trip boat business and one boat hire business). There were several forum members in attendance: alan_fincher; me (catrin); keeping up (briefly as he had another appointment); Leo No2; Tuscan; Steve Jay. There may have been others, forgive me if I have missed any names.

 

Some of us chatted beforehand, and thought about what we saw as the key issues for boaters, so that we could give a clear message to the Trust. We were joined by several other interested parties as more people arrived.

 

In the meeting room we were given name badges, and put onto one of four different tables, for the later discussion.

 

Matthew Symonds gave an introduction, and then Jeff Whyatt give an overview of how the SEVMs 'fit into the bigger picture'. He told us that he had very recently been told that the enforcement officers consider some locations as category 1 - where enforcement is actively required. I didn't note these down but it included: Batchworth, Berkhamsted, Braunston, Ansty, Oxford (Centre), All Oaks Wood, Cropredy - there were more, perhaps others who were there can recall them. This information will be on the slides that JW makes available.

 

Matthew then went through the results of the survey which has been e-mailed, or mailed, to all people spotted at one of the 'pilot' SEVMs between the end of August and the end of October. Obviously, this could not include hire boats. There was about 25% response to this, but as I don't have the figures (JW says that he will make them available), I can't be sure.

 

On our table there was a strong feeling that no serious decisions could be made based on the results of the survey. This was because too often it was nowhere near statistically significant, especially in light of the small response. My feeling was that many people on my table felt that the data needed to be more accurate, and more relevant - ie: July/August data, rather than September/October.

 

We then discussed 4 points on our respective tables - with C&RT employees assisting discussion. JW came to my table.

 

We were asked to discuss:

• Location characteristics - what makes a location require tighter management of moorings?
• What criteria should there be for setting stay times and return rules?
• What should determine the amount of compliance monitoring?
• What changes would be recommended for existing on site signage and communications?

My group got seriously bogged down in the first question, discussing the need for more VMs in certain locations, as a result of a 40% increase in boat numbers in the SE over what it was when the VMs were last assessed. We were asked to look at a number of potential sites - my group felt that they had never had problems mooring in any of those locations, but that we all occasionally had difficulties in Braunston, which was not on the list.

 

Finally, we all fed back on the four questions, while Matthew Symonds took notes.

 

Overall, my impression (and others who were there may well feel differently) was that the group felt that:

• more data was needed before any more VM initiatives were instituted
• improved enforcement generally may well have reduced any problems of overstaying in many areas
• more VMs are needed at some locations - it was suggested that at some of the most popular too much space is currently allocated to CRT long term moorings, making it impossible to completely meet the demands for visitor mooring space
• data needs to be gathered at Braunston next year
• signage needs to be simplified - which will reduce costs - VM leaflets may be abandoned

I got a strong feeling that the Trust was listening to what was being said, which was confirmed by several other attendees. All together a useful meeting, I await the Trust's response with interest.

 

New members of the SE partnership boating sub-group were announced (several of whom were present), who will be looking at these issues within the next few weeks.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Catrin

[alan_fincher]

The meeting on SEVM initiative was well attended last night in MK. In addition to many boaters there were other interested parties (Dick Pilkington from SE Partnership, for example, as well as at least one trip boat business and one boat hire business).

 

Also in attendance from the main South East Waterways Partnership were Andrew Taylor, Lynda Payton, and the Partnership chair John Best. Should have got Cath to add that whilst I was watching her type some of this up, but worth noting that this level of interest was shown, I think.

[Tuscan]

These are my notes from the meeting

 

Key points that came out from CRT were

- no invoices raised for £25 charges to date
- 4 boats overstayed at Thrupp but decision not to charge due to confusing signage
- enforcement had identified mainly different sites as current problems (Braunston, Banbury , Oxford, Croperdy, Berkhampsted examples) but no data as to how many boats, how big a problem etc
- survey only managed to capture approx 450 boats using the VM's (excluding hire boats) only about 140 responded divided over 3 sites.
- survey showed there was roughly 50:50 split between those that felt there had been any benefit of change and those who thought there wasn't or didn't care.
- 3 business had complained that new rules had reduced trade (Boat at Stoke Breune and bridge 61 and shop at Foxton) 3 businesses said business had increased) only 6 responded out of 29 which meant 23 could not be bothered to interact with CRT which they acknowledged was

disappointing
- they produced no data on usage or demand on the other 19 sites under discussion they had been gathering on 3 recently but did not share as it was felt incomplete

- lock usage measurement in SE showed that boat usage was in line with previous years but had tailed off significantly from mid/late August (IWA effect?)
- charge was acting as a deterrent they felt

Key points from floor

(I sat next to Jeff Wyatt)
- CRT were confusing overstaying issues with Visitor Mooring demand they were reacting to a perception that they had a problem rather than a reality which was they hadn't.

- No need for more regulations.
- no one had a problem with CRT enforcing current regulations quite the opposite - resources used in managing VM's or any new restrictions should be better spent on supporting enforcement.
- the restrictions on the 3 current sites were too broad and should be narrowly focussed just for peak periods - August?
- introduce short term shopping mooring at Berkhamsted.
- why was Braunston not on list , this was the ONLY mooring most had an problem with finding a mooring.
- no one had a problem with continuing enforcement action , but there was only limited overstaying on Visitor Moorings it was felt the vast majority of boaters self policed and any focus on overstaying/enforcement if needed was in areas generally not just on VM's.
- the survey was far to small to be meaningful and if you include the don't know with the no's did not show there was a significant improvement before/after at any of the 3 sites.
- if there was no great improvement on the 3 highest profile sites it was likely to be far less at the others so why bother.
- without data there was no way you could comment meaningfully or select other sites for review
- why not use boaters, boating organisations and hire trade to find out where people moored/want to moor
- confirmation from Jeff that since the 40% increase in boat licenses NO additional visitor moorings had been created.
- what was needed were more visitor moorings (sponsored by businesses/attractions) in existing and new sites.
- signage was not user friendly needed simplifying
- no need for daily boater leaflets expensive

 

I share others views that this was a departure from the first workshop where we were presented by a fait accompli, this was far more consultative and encouraging. time will tell of course but as one that is often critical especially about SEVM's I will also be the first to give them credit if they now pause and take stock and then if needed come back again once the need for any further change is established.

[Catrin]

I agree with everything you've said, Tuscan.

[Leo No2]

I would agree with all of you that it's a very fair summary of lat night's events.

[jenlyn]

Yesterday, a ranger walked from the museum to the tunnel informing boaters the stretch was 48 hr only. Some of the boaters pointed to the totem poles displaying the 14 day winter signs, this morning, all the signs stating 14 day between the disabled mooring and the tunnel, were removed.

[matty40s]

More wasted money....

[alan_fincher]

Yesterday, a ranger walked from the museum to the tunnel informing boaters the stretch was 48 hr only. Some of the boaters pointed to the totem poles displaying the 14 day winter signs, this morning, all the signs stating 14 day between the disabled mooring and the tunnel, were removed.

My understanding was that the only place any 14 day "winter" signs got erected on that stretch was at either end of the disabled moorings, (albeit without arrows initially to indicate they only referred to the disabled mooring).

 

So are you now saying their were poles further to the tunnel that did for a while say 14 days until today? Has anyone actually got photos of this apparently ever changing situation?

 

If all this is really happened, (did it?), there is clearly a cost assosciated with each team that gets sent out to remove or change something already erected in error.

[jenlyn]

My understanding was that the only place any 14 day "winter" signs got erected on that stretch was at either end of the disabled moorings, (albeit without arrows initially to indicate they only referred to the disabled mooring).

 

So are you now saying their were poles further to the tunnel that did for a while say 14 days until today? Has anyone actually got photos of this apparently ever changing situation?

If all this is really happened, (did it?), there is clearly a cost assosciated with each team that gets sent out to remove or change something already erected in error.

they were levered off this morning, they could not get the screws out. One of the boaters heard the cracks, went out to investigate and saw them levering the signs off. All of them were low on the poles, and the screws remain

[alan_fincher]

Removed:

 

Seems we have been misinformed, so comments not helpful.

Edited November 9, 2013 by alan_fincher

[jenlyn]

I'm just peed off that they have gone back on what was agreed, all VM's to be returned to previous state between november and march.

The one thing that strikes me now, is that I am starting to believe it is actually some of the villagers after all, that are making the whole thing an issue.

Edited November 9, 2013 by jenlyn