National User Forum Feb 2014 - Short term mooring provision

[RLWP]

There were two sessions during the User Forum in February where the group were asked to contribute ideas, which we did. I thought it would be interesting to open these out to a wider group, i.e. you lot

 

This was one of the sessions in which CRT were looking for thoughts and ideas around the provision of short term moorings. So, here we go:

 

There are two questions because we were split into two sets of groups.

 

 

HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHERE CHANGE IN SHORT TERM MOORING PROVISION IS NEEDED?

 

1. What you would consider to be ‘proof’ that short term mooring provision in a particular area needs to be improved?

2. Can you suggest any simple criteria for indicating whether a location needs (say)

 more short term mooring space,

 shorter maximum stay times or more frequent monitoring?

Please concentrate on the ‘HOW’ (not the ‘what’ – that’s a separate issue. )

Note: our enforcement team is resourced to concentrate on licence evasion and obvious disregard of rules relating to continuous cruisers. The sightings data can only reveal serial overstayers, not information like when or how frequently the site is full. So we need other clear indicators which would be feasible to collect consistently.

 

and

 

 

WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY OF ORGANISING BOATER INVOLVEMENT IN LOCAL REVIEWS

 

1. What suggestions can you offer for engaging boaters in planning better local provision and management of casual and visitor moorings?

2. How local is ‘local’? How large an area is it reasonable to expect a group of boaters to advise on?

3. What role (or roles) is it reasonable to ask boater volunteers to take on to guide local mooring arrangements? Examples below but please suggest any others .

 Reviewing and correcting the Trust’s records of site locations and signage to accurately reflect the status quo

 Canvassing views of a good cross section of local boat users about improvements needed

 Promoting involvement of local councils(parish/ town)

 

So, anyone got anything to contribute to these please?

 

Richard

Edited March 4, 2014 by RLWP

[jenlyn]

Provide the ability for boats to moor on 14 day moorings, then look at fiddling with other mooring issues once data has been collected that suggests the need for such changes.

[Alan de Enfield]

"......our enforcement team is resourced to concentrate on licence evasion and obvious disregard of rules relating to continuous cruisers"

 

Would the cynical amongst us, then assume that CRT is looking for suggestions that boaters take the responsibility of noting and reporting overstayers ?

[RLWP]

Provide the ability for boats to moor on 14 day moorings, then look at fiddling with other mooring issues once data has been collected that suggests the need for such changes.

 

You had your go at answering this at the NUF, can we leave it open for a while please?

 

Richard

Edited March 4, 2014 by RLWP

[jenlyn]

You had your go at answering this at the NUF, can we leave it open for a while please?

 

Richard

It's an open forum Richard, where all are are entitled to voice an opinion? You asked, I replied with my view.

[RLWP]

It's an open forum Richard, where all are are entitled to voice an opinion? You asked, I replied with my view.

 

Fair enough. I found the session at the NUF pretty pointless because it was sprung on us so there was no time to think about it, and nearly everyone at the table had either an agenda from the groups they represented, or a closed mind on the subject

 

I know what the ACC view is (I think), thanks for restating it

 

I'm interested to see what a wider group can bring to this, especially if they have some time to reflect on it

 

Richard

[b0atman]

I raised this point with CaRT a while ago the lengthsmen for each area would know their visitor requirements .

Need to know is how long one needs to moor to visit local areas of interest and how popular this mooring is .

example a popular village with one pub and no public transport and few visitors then maybe 3 short term moorings.

example Hawkesbury Junction then need ? x 24 hour moorings ? x 48 hour moorings then 14 day moorings in each direction from junction

[churchward]

The detail needs some thought but I see these questions as a good thing.

 

CRT seem to be asking how do they get information on where changes are needed and by the same process where it is not needed to visitor moorings. Then how to get local boaters involved in the process.

 

Given that many of the detractors of the visitor mooring rule changes at selected sights complained that this was based on little evidence it would seem contrary to complain about an attempt by CRT to get better information and involve boaters in the process.

[RLWP]

I raised this point with CaRT a while ago the lengthsmen for each area would know their visitor requirements .

Need to know is how long one needs to moor to visit local areas of interest and how popular this mooring is .

example a popular village with one pub and no public transport and few visitors then maybe 3 short term moorings.

example Hawkesbury Junction then need ? x 24 hour moorings ? x 48 hour moorings then 14 day moorings in each direction from junction

 

The role of lengthsman has changed quite a lot because of the economic challenges the BW and CRT face. They now cover much larger areas. Perhaps the enforcement officer is the appropriate person?

The detail needs some thought but I see these questions as a good thing.

 

CRT seem to be asking how do they get information on where changes are needed and by the same process where it is not needed to visitor moorings. Then how to get local boaters involved in the process.

 

Given that many of the detractors of the visitor mooring rule changes at selected sights complained that this was based on little evidence it would seem contrary to complain about an attempt by CRT to get better information and involve boaters in the process.

 

This was presented as 'we don't seem to be getting this right, so we are open to ideas', so your reading of it is correct

 

Richard

[nicknorman]

Surely before contemplating changing the rules at a site, or adding provision, it is first necessary to determine whether the current rules are being complied with? And if not, surely the first step is to ensure that the rules are complied with. Anecdotally they are not fully, with perhaps more of a problem in some areas due to "local custom and practice" than others. For example the mention on another thread of most of the VMs in Paddington being taken up by boats resident since before Christmas.

 

But as an itinerant user, it's hard to know whether an inability to find space at a VM is the result of a lack if provision for moorings for "compliant boaters" or whether it's due to an abuse of the extant rules. There would be no point in adding further VM provision for it just to be taken up with non-compliant semi-permanent residents.

[Tuscan]

I think there are several questions here that are interlinked.

 

1. Do we need moor dredged areas with level towpaths where boats can moor? Do we call these visitor moorings?

2. Due to their location is there a need for some visitor moorings to be renamed short stay moorings and what should the mix between 48hr and 7 day limits be?

3. Do we need restrictions like penalty charges and no return rules and can they be legally enforced

4. Do we believe most boaters are trustworthy enough to self police and just rely on CRT to concentrate on serial overstayers

5. Is it reasonable in peak periods to expect any boater (including hire) to be able to moor at a short stay mooring at say 6pm

 

With regard to initial identification why don't we task CRT to set up an email link and then ask forum members, trade and boating associations to get their members to identify new locations and areas where they have had difficulty in mooring. CRT can then review the information at the end of the peak season and have time to implement any changes next year. In the meantime perhaps it might be a good idea to set up a Navigational Advisory Group (NAG) subgroup under each waterway manager who can review

[Wanted]

I am struggling to be objective to the actual question because I honestly think that had we had proper enforcement of the exsisting rules then we wouldn't need to be consulting on these changes. The length of stay is fairly immaterial if there is no consistant enforcement (both positive and negative)

Just to add a thanks to Richard for attending and feeding back

[jenlyn]

In the meantime perhaps it might be a good idea to set up a Navigational Advisory Group (NAG) subgroup under each waterway manager who can review

That's what I was putting forward on my table at the meeting.

 

The problem though, is getting the Trust to listen and respect the views of that group, something they continuously struggle with.

The fact is, we get these mooring strategies on a yearly basis now, with the same outcome each time, "oh, we didn't go about this correctly". Meaning of course that they did not get the preferred result.

They never will, because they do not have the ability to take on board views that are not parallel to theirs.

[Tony Brooks]

I would add to Tuscan's list

 

6 Where a canal joins a river navigation (Be it CaRT, EA or other authority administered) what provision is made for "longer than normal" mooring whilst boaters await the river to become navigable. It is my view that special PUBLISHED dispensations and extra moorings, in the existing facilities are not adequate) should be provided in this case.

 

I say this having experienced being stuck in Oxford waiting for the Thames to go off red boards twice in the summer of 2012.

 

From what I have seen over the last few years most boaters tend to stick with the rules, but those that do not means that enforcement is the key.

 

I also think that the use of visitor moorings as winter moorings needs looking at to ensure the fewer boats navigation in the winter can still moor continently close to facilities. I have Yelvertoft in mind as an example but I have not been there in the winter for some years.

[churchward]

They never will, because they do not have the ability to take on board views that are not parallel to theirs.

Perhaps you should just pack up, go home now then if it is all so futile.

Edited March 4, 2014 by churchward

[magnetman]

Like the Jews and the Arabs oh dear we are heading for war...

[jenlyn]

Perhaps you should just pack up, go home now then if it is all so futile.

It does at times feel futile. With CRT believing quite wrongly in my opinion, that this forum and the IWA speak for the majority of boat owners.

 

I think once they have been convinced that this is not the case, steps forward will become much simpler.

[BEngo]

To answer the original question:

 

The First Step in mooring provision has to be to establish what the real demand is- not what CRT would like it to be nor, except in a few places like Dudley, how much room there is. That means counting boats and comparing numbers/length with the current provision

 

Counting (without identifying) the number of boats once a day in the early evening at a visitor mooring is an ideal job for a volunteer. When the count shows that the site regularly exceeds say 80% occupancy more moorings are needed. if it's regularly less than say 10% less moorings are needed. A good example was the work done to produce stats at Stoke Bruerne moorings by IIRC Leo No2. The numbers could be segregated into 24 hour/48 hour/7day/14 day moorings if there appears to be a partial problem.

 

Involvement of boaters- Talk to and listen to (the hard part for CRT) the user groups. I know they won't all have the same view, but nor will any ad-hoc grouping of boaters formed for any purpose. At least with user groups there will be a consistent answer nationally and they do try to find out what their members think.

 

N

[carlt]

It does at times feel futile. With CRT believing quite wrongly in my opinion, that this forum and the IWA speak for the majority of boat owners.

 

I think once they have been convinced that this is not the case, steps forward will become much simpler.

Perhaps CRT are aware that every boater has the opportunity to voice their opinion on forums such as this, even if they choose not to.

 

The advantage of forums such as this is that they are a broad church, open to all and for free unlike special interest clubs.

 

The IWA is an anachronism that appears to have "grandad rights" on respect, however unearned, but at least it is open to all.

[RLWP]

Surely before contemplating changing the rules at a site, or adding provision, it is first necessary to determine whether the current rules are being complied with?

 

So, you would like to see some data gathered first before making a decision

I think there are several questions here that are interlinked.

 

1. Do we need moor dredged areas with level towpaths where boats can moor? Do we call these visitor moorings?

2. Due to their location is there a need for some visitor moorings to be renamed short stay moorings and what should the mix between 48hr and 7 day limits be?

3. Do we need restrictions like penalty charges and no return rules and can they be legally enforced

4. Do we believe most boaters are trustworthy enough to self police and just rely on CRT to concentrate on serial overstayers

5. Is it reasonable in peak periods to expect any boater (including hire) to be able to moor at a short stay mooring at say 6pm

 

With regard to initial identification why don't we task CRT to set up an email link and then ask forum members, trade and boating associations to get their members to identify new locations and areas where they have had difficulty in mooring. CRT can then review the information at the end of the peak season and have time to implement any changes next year. In the meantime perhaps it might be a good idea to set up a Navigational Advisory Group (NAG) subgroup under each waterway manager who can review

 

Some interesting ideas there

I am struggling to be objective to the actual question because I honestly think that had we had proper enforcement of the exsisting rules then we wouldn't need to be consulting on these changes. The length of stay is fairly immaterial if there is no consistant enforcement (both positive and negative)

 

OK that's pretty clear - make what we have work first before changing things

I would add to Tuscan's list

 

6 Where a canal joins a river navigation (Be it CaRT, EA or other authority administered) what provision is made for "longer than normal" mooring whilst boaters await the river to become navigable. It is my view that special PUBLISHED dispensations and extra moorings, in the existing facilities are not adequate) should be provided in this case.

 

I say this having experienced being stuck in Oxford waiting for the Thames to go off red boards twice in the summer of 2012.

 

From what I have seen over the last few years most boaters tend to stick with the rules, but those that do not means that enforcement is the key.

 

I also think that the use of visitor moorings as winter moorings needs looking at to ensure the fewer boats navigation in the winter can still moor continently close to facilities. I have Yelvertoft in mind as an example but I have not been there in the winter for some years.

 

Thanks Tony, that's pretty clear.

To answer the original question:

 

The First Step in mooring provision has to be to establish what the real demand is- not what CRT would like it to be nor, except in a few places like Dudley, how much room there is. That means counting boats and comparing numbers/length with the current provision

 

Counting (without identifying) the number of boats once a day in the early evening at a visitor mooring is an ideal job for a volunteer. When the count shows that the site regularly exceeds say 80% occupancy more moorings are needed. if it's regularly less than say 10% less moorings are needed. A good example was the work done to produce stats at Stoke Bruerne moorings by IIRC Leo No2. The numbers could be segregated into 24 hour/48 hour/7day/14 day moorings if there appears to be a partial problem.

 

Involvement of boaters- Talk to and listen to (the hard part for CRT) the user groups. I know they won't all have the same view, but nor will any ad-hoc grouping of boaters formed for any purpose. At least with user groups there will be a consistent answer nationally and they do try to find out what their members think.

 

N

 

 

 

I'm reminded of the work Kathryn did at Stoke Bruerne on gathering data last year. That looked pretty useful to me, I'm not the best judge

Perhaps CRT are aware that every boater has the opportunity to voice their opinion on forums such as this, even if they choose not to.

 

The advantage of forums such as this is that they are a broad church, open to all and for free unlike special interest clubs.

 

I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean, just in case..

 

It is my idea to put these questions up on this forum, I haven't been asked or tasked by anyone within CRT to do this. I'm interested to see what responses there are because, as Carl says, this forum is a very broad church.

 

Richard

[Ronniesonic]

I still do not get what the problem is here.

 

Get the enforcement right first under the existing 'times', because unless you do this you could change every single mooring's 'time' but fundamental issue remains; A minority of peetakers take the pee! Whether they be a bridge hopping CC'er or a weekend posho in their 'shiney's' or whoever.

 

Ultimately though, the popular areas will always be oversubscribed on a sunny summer's day, with only a limited number of berths. You cannot change this.

 

Using Brauntson as an example. I can always get a spot at Braunston. However, I moor 1/2 - 1 mile away. Not everyone can moor outside the 'pub' on a Bank Holiday when it's 30 degrees.

[churchward]

I think the local boating groups idea is a good one to discuss and contribute to what happens to mooring provision in the local area.

 

The question of what constitutes local is an interesting one. It could be confined to the canals within a few days cruise of a central spot or go broader and base it on more regional basis.

 

On the whole I think to go too small will be difficult to manage for CRT or anyone else and given that many boaters will know a wide area be they CCer, liveaboard or leisure boater. So, I think a wider regional style group would be better. There may be a halfway house that can involve other boaters in a smaller area when a specific VM has been identified as a potential issue or proposed expansion etc.

 

Any group should be representative of all boaters in the area so a good mix of leisure, live aboard (both online/marina moorers) and CCers is likely to be required to get a broad spectrum of viewpoints and opinions.

[carlt]

 

 

I'm pretty sure this isn't what you mean, just in case..

 

 

Which bit did you think I didn't mean?

 

I don't know if Jenlyn is correct when he claims that CRT believe that CWDF and IWA represent the majority of boaters but I believe that CWDF is a free and unbiased mouthpiece that any boater can use, if they choose to, hence the usefulness of canvassing opinion here.

 

The only boaters who do not air their opinion here are those who choose not to.

[jenlyn]

Perhaps CRT are aware that every boater has the opportunity to voice their opinion on forums such as this, even if they choose not to.

 

The advantage of forums such as this is that they are a broad church, open to all and for free unlike special interest clubs.

 

The IWA is an anachronism that appears to have "grandad rights" on respect, however unearned, but at least it is open to all.

Yes, but this forum is not broad, it's views are formulated through a very small minority of probably 20-30 posters.

This of course does not make those views irrelevant, but neither does it make them representative of the broader community.

[churchward]

I still do not get what the problem is here.

 

Get the enforcement right first under the existing 'times', because unless you do this you could change every single mooring's 'time' but fundamental issue remains; A minority of peetakers take the pee! Whether they be a bridge hopping CC'er or a weekend posho in their 'shiney's' or whoever.

 

Ultimately though, the popular areas will always be oversubscribed on a sunny summer's day, with only a limited number of berths. You cannot change this.

 

Using Brauntson as an example. I can always get a spot at Braunston. However, I moor 1/2 - 1 mile away. Not everyone can moor outside the 'pub' on a Bank Holiday when it's 30 degrees.

I agree that popular places will always be crowded at busy times and enforcement to reduce the issue of people who ignore mooring restrictions would be good.

 

However, I do not think it is necessarily true that the status quo is always going to be the optimum answer. So even the most congested site might be made better by some adjustments of moorings or even possibly making more available. Here local boating groups could help a lot in suggesting what works or collecting data to make informed decisions.