Virtual Moorings

[system 4-50]

There are places where it would be convenient to moor by the towpath but it is prohibited because the non-boating locals would prefer that you didn't. Sometimes this appears to be a CRT prohibition and sometimes it seems to be done with counterfeit CRT signs.

It seems reasonable to me that the locals should be able to have boaters restricted, but it seems only reasonable that they should pay for this. There should be an annual "resident's license" payable by the metre that any local (within 50 yards say) can pay to have boats prohibited from a designated stretch. Possibly with a one-time signage charge. Each stretch should be in 10M lengths and be contiguous where appropriate. It should be subject to a CRT reasonableness check.

 

Why should they get it for free?

[Starcoaster]

It seems reasonable to me that the locals should be able to have boaters restricted

 

 

Really, why? It seems much more reasonable to me that if you buy or rent a house next to an existing navigable waterway, you put your big kid pants on and accept that boaters will use it.

[Hawkmoth]

There are places where it would be convenient to moor by the towpath but it is prohibited because the non-boating locals would prefer that you didn't. Sometimes this appears to be a CRT prohibition and sometimes it seems to be done with counterfeit CRT signs.

It seems reasonable to me that the locals should be able to have boaters restricted, but it seems only reasonable that they should pay for this. There should be an annual "resident's license" payable by the metre that any local (within 50 yards say) can pay to have boats prohibited from a designated stretch. Possibly with a one-time signage charge. Each stretch should be in 10M lengths and be contiguous where appropriate. It should be subject to a CRT reasonableness check.

 

Why should they get it for free?

You buy a house next to a canal and then complain when boats arrive? This just sounds as silly as buying a house in a village with a church and then compalining about the bells!

There are people who try this, and they should be told in no uncertain terms to go and try procreating with themselves!

Bob

[Guest]

There are places where it would be convenient to moor by the towpath but it is prohibited because the non-boating locals would prefer that you didn't. Sometimes this appears to be a CRT prohibition and sometimes it seems to be done with counterfeit CRT signs.

It seems reasonable to me that the locals should be able to have boaters restricted, but it seems only reasonable that they should pay for this. There should be an annual "resident's license" payable by the metre that any local (within 50 yards say) can pay to have boats prohibited from a designated stretch. Possibly with a one-time signage charge. Each stretch should be in 10M lengths and be contiguous where appropriate. It should be subject to a CRT reasonableness check.

 

Why should they get it for free?

Why should they get it at all??

 

Accepting that boaters need to be responsible neighbours surely if you buy a home near a canal you should expect there to be boats moored on it.

Edited January 26, 2014 by The Dog House

[magnetman]

Was it not a joke

[steven wilkinson]

there was a thread somewhere complaining bitterly that CRT just crumbled and put up 'no mooring' signs when people complained! I don't think many on here will agree with these sorts of reasons for mooring restrictions!

[LoneWolf]

There are places where it would be convenient to moor by the towpath but it is prohibited because the non-boating locals would prefer that you didn't. Sometimes this appears to be a CRT prohibition and sometimes it seems to be done with counterfeit CRT signs.

It seems reasonable to me that the locals should be able to have boaters restricted, but it seems only reasonable that they should pay for this. There should be an annual "resident's license" payable by the metre that any local (within 50 yards say) can pay to have boats prohibited from a designated stretch. Possibly with a one-time signage charge. Each stretch should be in 10M lengths and be contiguous where appropriate. It should be subject to a CRT reasonableness check.

 

Why should they get it for free?

 

cracking idea!

 

I'm a grumpy git that lives by the canal and everyone annoys me.

 

now where's my chequebook ...

[system 4-50]

I'm not suggesting that landowners get to block large sections of canal, just that if they currently get to block bits then they should pay handsomely for the privilege?

[LoneWolf]

I'm not suggesting that landowners get to block large sections of canal, just that if they currently get to block bits then they should pay handsomely for the privilege?

 

I did hear a rumour that this was one thing the ACC were discussing with CaRT so maybe you'll find their response to canalside grumpy gits different in future

[Timleech]

You buy a house next to a canal and then complain when boats arrive? This just sounds as silly as buying a house in a village with a church and then compalining about the bells!

There are people who try this, and they should be told in no uncertain terms to go and try procreating with themselves!

Bob

 

The problems arise because not all boaters act as responsible neighbours.

 

Tim

[Janet S]

There's a wonderful former lock cottage near to me where the new owners installed "No Mooring" signs right next to the water point. It's right next to a flight of three of the most scenic locks on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal and they have since planted Leylandii behind the lovely stone wall which I presume is intended to ultimately block their view of the canal and the boats...we did at one time consider holding a CWDF banter there, just to annoy him!

 

...it beggars belief that someone would pay a premium price for a property like this and then try to block off the very thing that made it so expensive!

 

...after all, if you buy a former lock cottage at one of the prettiest locations, complete with a nice little cafe for visitors....you would expect to get people and boats, wouldn't you?

 

Janet

[saxplayer]

Whilst I seethe at any body who tries to put restrictions on my favourite pass time, seeing some of the crap afloat on the canal i cant blame them.

shaun

[Hawkmoth]

 

The problems arise because not all boaters act as responsible neighbours.

 

Tim

Yeah, I do get that point, but still there is a degree of nimbyism there I reckon.

I'm definately of the anti NCCC brigade, but I wonder about the folk who buy alongside a canal and complain.

Bob

[dor]

there was a thread somewhere complaining bitterly that CRT just crumbled and put up 'no mooring' signs when people complained! I don't think many on here will agree with these sorts of reasons for mooring restrictions!

 

This is what happened on a stretch of former visitor moorings at Nantwich south of the Aqueduct. I and several others remember the signs going up and I took it up with the local BW man at the time but never got a serious answer.

 

I've raised it with C&RT last year, but because none of the old staff seem to be around the view is "that is was always like that" whereas it happened just after some new expensive houses were built at the bottom of the embankment. Apparently because it was done about 10 or 12 years ago , nobody can find any records.

[furnessvale]

 

This is what happened on a stretch of former visitor moorings at Nantwich south of the Aqueduct. I and several others remember the signs going up and I took it up with the local BW man at the time but never got a serious answer.

 

I've raised it with C&RT last year, but because none of the old staff seem to be around the view is "that is was always like that" whereas it happened just after some new expensive houses were built at the bottom of the embankment. Apparently because it was done about 10 or 12 years ago , nobody can find any records.

As I have pointed out before, this has happened at several locations, including Hinkley and Macclesfield. In each case, new build dwelling owners have objected to the presence of boats and BW have buckled.

 

In the case of Macclesfield, BW spent thousands of pounds of OUR licence money relocating the water point to suit ONE very abusive and ignorant householder. The new water point is now not available for use by boaters if BW have their own boats using that particular wharf.

 

I live in hope that CRT will show more backbone but, given that the same management is in place, I am not holding my breath.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Mike Todd]

As I have pointed out before, this has happened at several locations, including Hinkley and Macclesfield. In each case, new build dwelling owners have objected to the presence of boats and BW have buckled.

 

In the case of Macclesfield, BW spent thousands of pounds of OUR licence money relocating the water point to suit ONE very abusive and ignorant householder. The new water point is now not available for use by boaters if BW have their own boats using that particular wharf.

 

I live in hope that CRT will show more backbone but, given that the same management is in place, I am not holding my breath.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Of course I share the basic view that the canal is ours and tough on those newbies who want something pretty to look at but not to upset them. Just like I take the view that resident-only parking is not really on - they don't own the highway.

 

However:

 

given that the problem exists and that CaRT need to raise revenue, then it seems to me that here is the germ of a good idea. It is one way of balancing the varying interests

 

but:

 

it does need (a) a hefty charge attached with an annual fee as well as a one-off ( a clearly manageable 'reasononableness' test to avoid obsessive applications.

 

It would also enable the restrictions to go away when the awkward neighbour moves on and the successor does not fancy picking up the tab.

 

Let's hope someone at CaRT is listemning and at the very least indicate why they could not consider it.

[furnessvale]

Of course I share the basic view that the canal is ours and tough on those newbies who want something pretty to look at but not to upset them. Just like I take the view that resident-only parking is not really on - they don't own the highway.

 

However:

 

given that the problem exists and that CaRT need to raise revenue, then it seems to me that here is the germ of a good idea. It is one way of balancing the varying interests

 

but:

 

it does need (a) a hefty charge attached with an annual fee as well as a one-off ( a clearly manageable 'reasononableness' test to avoid obsessive applications.

 

It would also enable the restrictions to go away when the awkward neighbour moves on and the successor does not fancy picking up the tab.

 

Let's hope someone at CaRT is listemning and at the very least indicate why they could not consider it.

I am sorry but anyone who thinks that householders will pay a "hefty charge" plus annual fees, to have what they consider to be a nuisance removed, is dreaming.

 

I am sure that any attempt by CRT to go down that road would be used by complainants as evidence of unreasonableness in complaints to LAs.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[WJM]

I bought a riverside house once. The previous owner had paid for the mooring adjacent for years despite not having a boat. He didn't want a boat obstructing his view of the river. Fair play, that is what he wanted and he was prepared to pay for it. I put a boat on it!

[simon&jan]

You buy a house next to a canal and then complain when boats arrive? This just sounds as silly as buying a house in a village with a church and then compalining about the bells!

There are people who try this, and they should be told in no uncertain terms to go and try procreating with themselves!

Bob

Come to Chalfont St Giles ,a lovelly little village nestled in the Chilterns , my dad lives there and rings bells in the church for the last 50yrs ,some one moved in near the church and complained about the bells , so they have baffled the sound so you can hardly hear them now !!!!!

[ditchcrawler]

 

This is what happened on a stretch of former visitor moorings at Nantwich south of the Aqueduct. I and several others remember the signs going up and I took it up with the local BW man at the time but never got a serious answer.

 

I've raised it with C&RT last year, but because none of the old staff seem to be around the view is "that is was always like that" whereas it happened just after some new expensive houses were built at the bottom of the embankment. Apparently because it was done about 10 or 12 years ago , nobody can find any records.

And Ansty

[Guest]

I bought a riverside house once. The previous owner had paid for the mooring adjacent for years despite not having a boat. He didn't want a boat obstructing his view of the river. Fair play, that is what he wanted and he was prepared to pay for it. I put a boat on it!

 

Presumably that was a private EOG mooring?? if so yes fairy nuff.

 

That is somewhat different to paying to prevent people mooring on sections that are currently public towpath moorings.

[Morat]

Fake signs should be removed immediately, and you don't need to be CART to do it - you're just removing litter. I'd probably check with CART to make sure they _are_ fake first, just to be safe

[Hawkmoth]

Come to Chalfont St Giles ,a lovelly little village nestled in the Chilterns , my dad lives there and rings bells in the church for the last 50yrs ,some one moved in near the church and complained about the bells , so they have baffled the sound so you can hardly hear them now !!!!!

What twallock made that decision?

I hope that aren't accepted by the community at large.

Bob

[Phil Ambrose]

What twallock made that decision?

I hope that aren't accepted by the community at large.

Bob

I was on my local council when I last lived ashore, nice little Lincolnshire village and we frequently got approached by various new (incomer) residents asking us to ban this and that ie complain about the noise from the village hall where they moved in next door. They got short shrift. We were made of sterner stuff.

Phil

[Alan Saunders]

As a city boy, born and bred, who moved to a country cottage I cannot understand the attitude of incomers who object to all aspects of village or country life. Bells are not rung at unsociable hours, hopefully, boat engines and generators neither. When cattle or sheep are moved on the road I go out of my way to help the farmer. The cattle do leave their ordure on the tarmac but that is no inconvenience. These incomers in their 4x4s refuse to drive through a puddle and expect me to drive up the bank, through deep mud or reverse my modest hatchback for hundreds of yards when they have failed to slow/stop at a convenient passing-place.

 

Unfortunately, a village, country or waterside property comes with a considerable premium. These nasty neighbours have traded in their over-priced city property for a bigger house in the country etc. without regard for the existing occupant's lifestyle; they want to enforce their city life-style on their village - not just on boaters.

 

Most inhabitants of a villages are tolerant of all; poor or rich, even itinerants and boaters and especially campanologists and anyone else who supports maintenance of the parish church. When my car is embedded in a snow-drift the local farmers will rescue me; if I find their cattle straying I secure them in their field - unless it is the bull!

 

If a villager or a consortium buy the moorings I only have a moral objection. There is one village that I visit annually where it is said that a local resident (possibly a parish councellor) has appointed himself as a BW (CRT) warden. It is also said that If you park your car in the lane adjacent to the canal he urinates on the door-handle. That's village life, even the village idiot/pervert is tolerated.

 

Alan