Stoke Bruerne Visitor Moorings

[Tuscan]

At the workshop I attended there was no mention of any penalty incurred being added to your boat license account byregardless of whether you have paid or even volunteered to pay as you want to stay over so it's as if you have a CRT 'criminal' record. At the workshop I attended I was told that there was a real problem with mooring availability at all the pilot VMs from April to November this is not true. I was told in a written response to a query that they would be using CRT staff and not volunteers this is not true. I was told at the workshop that the restrictions would be lifted in the winter I believe they now "may" be lifted in the winter.

 

I agree with Leo we will probably stop in areas where there are no restrictions and start giving our cash to the shops and pubs in those areas.

[RLWP]

I did try to point out to Sally Ash at the Birmingham meeting the effect that rules and fines have on leisure boaters. It pisses me off greatly to be recorded, checked and possibly fined while on holiday and following the rules

 

Richard

[jenlyn]

I did try to point out to Sally Ash at the Birmingham meeting the effect that rules and fines have on leisure boaters. It pisses me off greatly to be recorded, checked and possibly fined while on holiday and following the rules

 

Richard

I remember your statement well, as if it was yesterday :-)

[alan_fincher]

Firstly let me make it clear I have always challenged the need for the majority of Jeff Whyatt's visitor moorings proposals at nearly all the, (from memory!), 22 sites proposed.

I do not believe that adequate work has gone into proving they are required, and I have grave doubts that what is proposed can ever actually work.

 

That said some of us spent many months trying to fight these proposals, attending many meetings with CRT staff and trustees long before the actual workshop sessions.

 

It quickly became apparent at the workshops that CRT had no intention of fully backing down, even though by their analysis 50% of respondents were opposed. (Independent analysis of the replies has since suggested that far more that 50% of replies opposed the proposals).

However what we did achieve was an understanding that initially only a small number of pilot sites would be complimented, (of which Stoke Bruerne was one), but also a considerable watering down of the proposals at most of the 8 sites that were discussed in detail.

 

As I'm boating I do not have access to all the previous materials, but I can't currently see that the actual map or time limits for Stoke Bruerne is radically different from that agreed at the workshops. I would therefore be most grateful if anybody believes it is, that they detail exactly what has changed.

There are a few areas they refused to come clean on, though, now fleshed out, including.....

 

1) Use of volunteers at SB, rather than paid staff.

2) Exemption on no return rules for hire boats

3) Special rules for trading boats.

I still think it is bonkers, (I always did), but I'm keen to learn what people believe they have changed, as we got a fairly strong promise that what was agreed at the worshops would not be tinkered with. If we can prove it has, I'm prepared to start making a mighty fuss, but at the moment I'm not seeing it.

Incidentally we arrived here quite late today, and there are plenty of spare overnight moorings in the "long pound". (Haven't walked the stretch to the tunnel, but was told there are spaces there too). Even in August, and in super weather, these changes are NOT required, in my view.

[Tuscan]

From memory Alan , CRT made it clear right from the start of the workshops and in mails before that the 8 pilot sites were the ones they were going to focus on, I don't believe this was as a result of anyone's influence not matter how well intentioned but pre determined by CRT.

 

IMO there were some significant changes in the Betko proposals agreed at the workshops but the final proposals for stoke B, Marsworth and Foxton are pretty similar and did have minor changes from what was agreed for example the 14 day space at Foxton disappeared.

 

At the workshop there was a promise that the restrictions "would" not "may" be lifted in winter. CRT wanted them in force year round and that "may" still be the case. With respect I don't think the consultation achieved very much from a boaters perspective as the key things they wanted imposed shorter stays, charges and the no return limit were imposed and I believe CRT were very happy with the outcome.

 

So yes no major changes from what was laid out at the workshops nor indeed as was laid out in the original consultation with a few exceptions like Berko and what has been highlighted in posts above.

 

However like you , what is sad is that i have moored with no difficulty recently in these hotspots even when arriving late so in my opinion it's a big sledgehammer to crack a nut that has largely been dealt with by words being had with a few overstaying boaters.

 

As my wife said as we struggled with the paddles from Kilby Bridge to Foxton today I wish the waterways manager was as keen to make the locks fit for purpose as he is to stop us staying on visitor moorings. One hire boat told us today that the paddle on two of the licks were jammed when in fact they just couldn't lift thm

[Leo No2]

Firstly let me make it clear I have always challenged the need for the majority of Jeff Whyatt's visitor moorings proposals at nearly all the, (from memory!), 22 sites proposed.

I do not believe that adequate work has gone into proving they are required, and I have grave doubts that what is proposed can ever actually work.

 

That said some of us spent many months trying to fight these proposals, attending many meetings with CRT staff and trustees long before the actual workshop sessions.

 

It quickly became apparent at the workshops that CRT had no intention of fully backing down, even though by their analysis 50% of respondents were opposed. (Independent analysis of the replies has since suggested that far more that 50% of replies opposed the proposals).

However what we did achieve was an understanding that initially only a small number of pilot sites would be complimented, (of which Stoke Bruerne was one), but also a considerable watering down of the proposals at most of the 8 sites that were discussed in detail.

 

As I'm boating I do not have access to all the previous materials, but I can't currently see that the actual map or time limits for Stoke Bruerne is radically different from that agreed at the workshops. I would therefore be most grateful if anybody believes it is, that they detail exactly what has changed.

There are a few areas they refused to come clean on, though, now fleshed out, including.....

 

1) Use of volunteers at SB, rather than paid staff.

2) Exemption on no return rules for hire boats

3) Special rules for trading boats.

I still think it is bonkers, (I always did), but I'm keen to learn what people believe they have changed, as we got a fairly strong promise that what was agreed at the worshops would not be tinkered with. If we can prove it has, I'm prepared to start making a mighty fuss, but at the moment I'm not seeing it.

Incidentally we arrived here quite late today, and there are plenty of spare overnight moorings in the "long pound". (Haven't walked the stretch to the tunnel, but was told there are spaces there too). Even in August, and in super weather, these changes are NOT required, in my view.

I have been living in Stoke Bruerne now for six or seven weeks and have walked up to the tunnel almost on a daily basis just to see what was going on and get a feel for the place. It's been busy on a number of occasions but to the best of my knowledge it's never been full - especially the little bit between the winding hole and the tunnel mouth. What I have noticed is the number of trading boats - on one day late last week I counted six with some having been there for quite some time. Some seem to return regularly.

 

What surprises me is that there are currently no posted mooring restrictions (so 14 days limit) which is suddenly going to the new limits.

 

Talking to some of the longer term residents last night I learnt that they find the trading boats staying a 'long' time difficult because of the added noise they bring especially those that seemingly need to run their engines for a protracted period of time.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Leo No2

[paddy r]

. What I have noticed is the number of trading boats - on one day late last week I counted six with some having been there for quite some time. Some seem to return regularly.

 

 

That could have something to do with the fact that Blisworth show is on the this week!

[alan_fincher]

What surprises me is that there are currently no posted mooring restrictions (so 14 days limit) which is suddenly going to the new limits.

 

It is already two days on the stretch to the tunnel, but used to be signed at the Southern end of it only.

 

I don't know if there was evera sign at the Northern end, but certainly there used to be one at the South.

 

Are you saying that has gone missing?

 

[paddy r]

It is already two days on the stretch to the tunnel, but used to be signed at the Southern end of it only.

 

I don't know if there was evera sign at the Northern end, but certainly there used to be one at the South.

 

Are you saying that has gone missing?

 

we was there last week and it had CRT begging posters on them! its not far past the disable mooring in the hedge.

[Leo No2]

It is already two days on the stretch to the tunnel, but used to be signed at the Southern end of it only.

I don't know if there was evera sign at the Northern end, but certainly there used to be one at the South.

 

Are you saying that has gone missing?

 

I can't see any restrictions in place - could be covered by something - I'll walk down and have a look again but I did keep an eye open for restrictions the other day and didn't see anything. I'll update this post in a few minutes with anything I see.

 

ETA: Yes you are right - there is a 48 hour notice which was, I am sure, buried in the hedge when I went looking (well that's the story I'll stick to!) - the hedge was cut back very recently! There's also a notice advising of the new restriction but not very comprehensive. Paddy R is right it was also covered in CRT posters then I am sure.

 

Further edit to add that I now see Thrupp (Oxford) is added. If I were going to do this I'd try one place, learn the lessons, and then put the modified process into the other places and 'retrofit' the test site, but this wholesale approach seems to me, to be fraught with issues.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Leo No2

[jenlyn]

reply from jeff whyatt to my email. He reads cwdf :-D

 

Steve – is this meant to endear me to you ?......

"Jeff whyatt shows fully how incompetent his research has been. What's even more ridiculous is the fact that overgrowth from both sides of the canal coming into stoke bruerne is disgusting. No provision for alternative 14 day mooring is being provided. As far as I am concerned, Jeff whyatt is unfit for purpose. This whole sevm has probably been one of his wet dreams since youth."

[Keeping Up]

Sorry Alan I don't have a good enough internet connection here on the remote parts of the Thames to access the documentation (I'm getting less than 1kb/s most of the time and it keeps dropping out) however I do remember that when I first saw it I immediately noticed how some of the essential features that had been agreed at the meeting, including that of accommodating a few longer-staying boats and also of allowing 48-hour mooring below the locks (between the "facilities" mooring and the culverts) had been quietly dropped or changed. The latter always annoys me; they always used to be moorings, then one helpful (and therefore short-lived) waterways manager put in a couple of extra taps to make life easier for those who were moored there, and then his successor decreed that you couldn't moor there because there were taps - and despite agreeing specifically at the meeting that mooring would be allowed again, all they have permitted there is (I believe) some stupid "day-boats only" idea.

 

There were agreements for a couple of longer-term moorings at the south end of the long pound. I can't remember if it was 7 or 14 days, what is it in the final results?

 

It was clearly stated that at the meeting that there is no need for 14-day VMs because all the rest of the canal is 14 days anyway; but accompanying that was a promise that the vegetation to the south of the area would be cleared so that people could easily stay there for 14 days. As Jenlyn has said, that would be completely impossible at the momenet.

 

No I don't feel surprised, just disappointed that nothing in BW/CRT's attitude has changed despite their assertions to the contrary.

[RLWP]

{snip}

 

It was clearly stated that at the meeting that there is no need for 14-day VMs because all the rest of the canal is 14 days anyway

 

Sally Ash was very clear about that in Birmingham

 

Richard

[jenlyn]

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/volunteering/opportunity/OPP0001175/volunteer-visitor-mooring-ranger-rickmansworth

 

Rickmansworth next!

[cotswoldsman]

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/volunteering/opportunity/OPP0001175/volunteer-visitor-mooring-ranger-rickmansworth

 

Rickmansworth next!

 

 

You will be using a smart phone and an easy-to-use app to record important information.

 

I was asked not long ago by CRT "how about if we make an app available to boaters so they can record boats on Visitor Moorings" I have to say I dismmissed the idea as a joke. I now have a funny feeling this might happen, real "twitchers" delight boaters spying on boaters!!!

[paddy r]

I do wish you had done your survey now John i may have put some rather differant answers down!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit cause i can't spell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited August 10, 2013 by paddy r

[cotswoldsman]

I do wish you had done your survey now John i may have put some rather differant answers down!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit cause i can't spell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny you should say that, I was discussing last night doing a Mooring based survey. I am happy to organise any survey that boaters want but am also weary of "survey overload"

I have all the results of my first attempt and am trying to work out how to post the results on here. That survey has been seen by the people at the very top of CRT and had some interesting results.

[Tuscan]

Funny you should say that, I was discussing last night doing a Mooring based survey. I am happy to organise any survey that boaters want but am also weary of "survey overload"

I have all the results of my first attempt and am trying to work out how to post the results on here. That survey has been seen by the people at the very top of CRT and had some interesting results.

Good idea perhaps we should ask boaters to record if they have had any difficulty in mooring at any of the 22 sites i(or maybe just the 8 hotspot) sites by month in say the last 6 months that would give high and low season. Seeing as CRT had no evidence perhaps we could provide it. Because you can be sure that having introduced the new penalties CRT will say that the new policy has been a success you can now moor at visitor moorings where before a friend of a friend at the IWA previously said it was impossible to moor at.

[Leo No2]

Funny you should say that, I was discussing last night doing a Mooring based survey. I am happy to organise any survey that boaters want but am also weary of "survey overload"

I have all the results of my first attempt and am trying to work out how to post the results on here. That survey has been seen by the people at the very top of CRT and had some interesting results.

How odd - I am just back from a 'self imposed' survey between the museum and the tunnel mouth. I thought about counting the boats but thought that may be a fairly useless measure so decided to get a gut feel for how many spaces there perhaps were so can advise as follows (no one has come down but boats may have moved northbound - that's a risk I need to take):

 

Disabled moorings are free and could take 2 x 60' boats

There's space between the old wharf and the winding hole for a 40' boat and a separate space for a 70' boat just a wee bit further on

None of the moorings above the winding hole (winding hole to tunnel mouth) are occupied

On the down side there's a hire boat moored in the winding hole

 

There are two 8" x 8" oak posts in position - one by the pathway that leads towards the top of the tunnel portal and one just on the south side of the winding hole but nothing yet by the museum green area as I would have perhaps expected.

 

Edited for typo - I hate predictive spelling!

Edited August 10, 2013 by Leo No2

[alan_fincher]

 

There are two 8" x 8" oak posts in position - one by the pathway that leads towards the top of the tunnel portal and one just on the south side of the winding hole but nothing yet by the museum green area as a would have perhaps expected.

 

I don't know if anything is yet in place at the start of the "Controlled Zone" from the North, but have you seen the absurd sign that has arrived at the South of the moorings below the bottom lock.

 

It is so "busy" with so many lines of small text trying to explain the scheme, that you have zero chance of reading very much of it at all before you are past it on a boat, even at a crawl.

 

Do they seriously imagine people pulling up below the lock are going to walk back up to read it all?

 

If there is any chance anyone is going to fully read such a complex sign, it would need to be on the lock landing, the first place most people will actually stop when approaching from the South.

 

If people putting this together actually boated, they might realise what a joke some of it may turn into!

[Tuscan]

I think you are ignoring the job satisfaction of the volunteers who will be adding to the boaters visting experience by recording "vital" information of boat details. Think of the joy of delivering a leaflet to a visting boater welcoming them to Stoke Breune and telling him when to move on. I can not see that picking up litter is part of their job description I think perhaps it should be.

[Leo No2]

I don't know if anything is yet in place at the start of the "Controlled Zone" from the North, but have you seen the absurd sign that has arrived at the South of the moorings below the bottom lock.

 

It is so "busy" with so many lines of small text trying to explain the scheme, that you have zero chance of reading very much of it at all before you are past it on a boat, even at a crawl.

 

Do they seriously imagine people pulling up below the lock are going to walk back up to read it all?

If there is any chance anyone is going to fully read such a complex sign, it would need to be on the lock landing, the first place most people will actually stop when approaching from the South.

If people putting this together actually boated, they might realise what a joke some of it may turn into!

Alan - communication is key to the success (or otherwise) of this whole process. To roll something out in two weeks time which clearly has some major implications is, in my view, a 'head in the sand' and a 'we know best' approach. It would have been far better, in my view (and with the benefit of hindsight having seen what CRT are doing) to send out an explanatory leaflet with each licence application/renewal and hold the imposition of the new regulations back for 12 months or so in order that every licence holder has the opportunity to read and digest the implications. I am still firmly of the view that only one site should have been selected in order that refining of the processes and restrictions can be undertaken in the light of experience and feedback from the boaters - this wholesale 'do them all at the same time' is not a very sensible way forward in my view. Edited August 10, 2013 by Leo No2

[jenlyn]

Herding cattle, every 48hrs.

No alternative 14 day mooring that is fit for purpose, therefore pushing us to visitor moorings.

The management of towpath growth on countryside 14 day moorings, will be a cut of 15% (cutting to the armco).

Herding cattle.

[RLWP]

I think you are ignoring the job satisfaction of the volunteers who will be adding to the boaters visting experience by recording "vital" information of boat details. Think of the joy of delivering a leaflet to a visting boater welcoming them to Stoke Breune and telling him when to move on.

 

This is precisely what I fear. My holiday breaks becoming overrun with rules, lists, fines, notices, snoopers

 

Why would I want to stop at Stoke Bruerne??

 

Richard

[Leo No2]

This morning's mini survey is as follows:

 

Room for 4 x 60', 2 x 70' and 1 x 40' between the Museum Green and the tunnel mouth.

 

There is a 65'/70' boat (Bargus) on the water point (naughty seeing there is free space) but judging by their antics coming through the top lock last evening I am not too surprised.

 

I notice another 8" x 8" oak post has gone in - that's three between the pathway to the top of the tunnel mouth and the blacksmith's. Whilst it is important to get the message across I think a few leaves out of the National Trust guidance may be useful which effectively is minimal signage as it is a 'heritage' site.

 

This should, I think, be a busy weekend - more than a week into most school holidays but yet there is plenty of room - figures of course may be distorted by the Blisworth Festival as there are, understandably, no trading boats this side of the tunnel.

 

Oh and a gentleman sitting in the sun on the back of a hire boat having a lager!

Edited August 11, 2013 by Leo No2