National User Forum Feb 2014 - Short term mooring provision

[alan_fincher]

I have to agree with this statement.

The sub group was set up by John Best and Jeff Wyatt to try and deflect from a very active campaign highlighting the lack of boaters on The South East Waterways Partnership, At the time TSEWP was taking a very active role in matters concerning VM's What we have now is a sort of duplicate of NAG Chaired by a senior member of the hire boat trade. As a lot of us are still a bit unclear what Waterways Partnerships bring to the party I feel that a sub group looking at changes to mooring policies is just another quasi that is not required. At present CRT have over 25 quasi's it does make me wonder sometimes who does run our waterways.

Well firstly, unless one takes the view that all the Partnerships should simply be terminated, you should be pleased that we now have another very active boater serving on the main South East one, so it is harder for ideas that don't consider boating issues adequately there to slip through with no challenge.

As far as the sub group goes, I have agreed there continues to be some ambiguity about role, but I am happy to use any route that is available to get boater's voices heard. You can argue about who's input may be achieving something, but the reality is that at the moment, the combined input from several groups has stalled any further rolloit of SEVM on the threatened timescale, something presumably you, I, ACC, NABO & NAG all think is "a good thing".

You also seem to think SEVM is the only focus, although I have given two examples of other ways members of the sub group are being used as boating advisors.

Who better to ensure that expensive new pontoons in Aylesbury, or new winding hole, and possibly moveable bridge on Oxford are fit for purpose than to ask active boaters local to the areas? I bet there would (quite rightly!) have been a cascade of criticism had they implimented something bad, or possibly even largely unusable

[john6767]

i think it is more about where CRT will be spending money going forward. I have not been part of these meetings but from what I have heard from those attending towpath maintenance etc will be reduced greatly. Last year I did see a lot of evidence of this with overgrown towpaths. i think the idea is that CRT will rely more on boaters keeping the towpath clear.

So do you think that these numbers are what CRT's objective is to create, not what exists today?

[Phoenix_V]

Who better to ensure that expensive new pontoons in Aylesbury, or new winding hole, and possibly moveable bridge on Oxford are fit for purpose than to ask active boaters local to the areas? I bet there would (quite rightly!) have been a cascade of criticism had they implimented something bad, or possibly even largely unusable

shame crt people dont use boats anymore

[alan_fincher]

shame crt people dont use boats anymore

Well some do, of course, including the new CEO, and I think as more than just a publicity exercise.

 

That said plans for pontoons, winding holes, lift bridges, etc where expensive redevelopments are going on originate from the developers, not CRT, and it is their complete lack of canal knowledge that presents the main risk of daft things happening.

[cotswoldsman]

So do you think that these numbers are what CRT's objective is to create, not what exists today?

yes but just based on what i am hearing and that might be incorrect

[Tuscan]

I think local boaters attached to NAG linked to the local waterways managers would be a good thing. i am not sure that local boaters from the southern grand union should influence things in Jerico Oxford this would be better done by local boaters in the Oxford area isn't that the point.

 

However if the argument is now that the Partnerships instead of focussing on bringing local community engagement and fund raising should focus on advising CRT on operational and canal management issues then there is a strong case that instead of boating subgroups they should all have a majority of boat owners on their main committees.

[john6767]

yes but just based on what i am hearing and that might be incorrect

That certainly seems to be a retrograde step. One of the great things about canals is that ability to stop "anywhere", loose that you you loose some of the appeal.

[cotswoldsman]

I think local boaters attached to NAG linked to the local waterways managers would be a good thing. i am not sure that local boaters from the southern grand union should influence things in Jerico Oxford this would be better done by local boaters in the Oxford area isn't that the point.

 

However if the argument is now that the Partnerships instead of focussing on bringing local community engagement and fund raising should focus on advising CRT on operational and canal management issues then there is a strong case that instead of boating subgroups they should all have a majority of boat owners on their main committees.

I think the problem with SEWP is that they are trying to be involved in everything. Just looked at the minutes of SEWP meeting on 29 Jan and it is just the same stuff over and over again and not even sure if there were any boaters at that meeting

That certainly seems to be a retrograde step. One of the great things about canals is that ability to stop "anywhere", loose that you you loose some of the appeal.

yes that is why a number of boaters are very concerned about all these different quasi's and every time you ask CRT the question direct "what is happening?" the answer is we are consulting in the mean time I read this sort of stuff from the SEWP

 

 

Fountains – 11 grass cuts in 2013 is being reduced to 9 grass cuts

this coming year. New contractual prices effective Nov 13 are

driving this.

[alan_fincher]

So do you think that these numbers are what CRT's objective is to create, not what exists today?

I'll try and post something about numbers later when not on a phone, and I can refer to the whole thread and other related documents far more easily.

 

Either different people in CRT are handing out very different numbers, or those repeating them are managing to misunderstand, I think, and I do not recognise some of what is being said as even close to what I have heard when sat in meetings.

 

I can say, categorically for the South East that a statement was made by the SE manager that if the NAG recommendations of having a smaller number of less used moorings, (because many are 14 day anyway), were to be adopted, it would mean no change on mowing regimes or bank maintenance.

 

However I note NABO are now promoting the idea that CRT intend to do less cutting and maintenance as a result of NAG suggestions. Certainly I personally have heard nothing to substantiate that claim, but obviously I have largely been in different meetings or conversations from the ones Mark, ("Tuscan") has.

 

If anyone can give an exact quote, with the full text unparaphrased, where CRT have indicated they internd to abandon maintenance of currently available mooring space then I would, of course, like to see it.

[cotswoldsman]

 

I can say, categorically for the South East that a statement was made by the SE manager that if the NAG recommendations of having a smaller number of less used moorings, (because many are 14 day anyway), were to be adopted, it would mean no change on mowing regimes or bank maintenance.

 

 

 

So this bit from SEWP minutes is not true then

 

 

Fountains – 11 grass cuts in 2013 is being reduced to 9 grass cuts

this coming year. New contractual prices effective Nov 13 are

driving this.

[alan_fincher]

I think the problem with SEWP is that they are trying to be involved in everything. Just looked at the minutes of SEWP meeting on 29 Jan and it is just the same stuff over and over again and not even sure if there were any boaters at that meeting.

 

I haven't got minutes to hand, but "my" boater was ill, so forced for the first time to send apolgies. Linda Payton is a boat owner, but don't know if she attended.

 

Cath did however spend a very long time instead sending them a lot of written input for the meeting. I agree fully that published meeting notes from all such groups ate not sufficiently detailed. I think there should be a more complete record, and specifically where views have been diverse minutes should acknowledge that. This seems to be a problem with CRT meeting notes generally, and certainly not just those that pertain to the Partnerships, O think.

[cotswoldsman]

I haven't got minutes to hand, but "my" boater was ill, so forced for the first time to send apolgies. Linda Payton is a boat owner, but don't know if she attended.

 

Cath did however spend a very long time instead sending them a lot of written input for the meeting. I agree fully that published meeting notes from all such groups ate not sufficiently detailed. I think there should be a more complete record, and specifically where views have been diverse minutes should acknowledge that. This seems to be a problem with CRT meeting notes generally, and certainly not just those that pertain to the Partnerships, O think.

Sorry Alan are you saying your statement about no reduction in mowing is correct or the one from SEWP is correct or that it is all down to incorrect minutes. This for me just highlights the mixed meaasges from different groups

[alan_fincher]

So this bit from SEWP minutes is not true then

 

The two are not the same are they?

 

They are saying less cuts at those places that are currently cut for purely budgetry reasons.

 

What you have quoted says nothing about ceasing to cut places they currently do, which is the claim now being made, some linking that to NAG discussions.

 

Any statement you can find about ceasing to cut where they currently do?

Edited March 5, 2014 by alan_fincher

[cotswoldsman]

Linda Payton is a boat owner, but don't know if she attended.

 

 

She did not attend but was on Skype

[alan_fincher]

She did not attend but was on Skype

Yes, she has often used Skype acording to previous minutes.

 

She is a boater and boat owner.

Sorry Alan are you saying your statement about no reduction in mowing is correct or the one from SEWP is correct or that it is all down to incorrect minutes. This for me just highlights the mixed meaasges from different groups

I can't see a conflict in the statements.

 

They intend to cut those places they do rather less often, for budgetry reasons

 

They don't, (or at least have told me as a direct response), that they do not intend to remove existing moorable bank from that regime.

 

I can see no implied contradiction.

 

Edit. Too many bloody mistakes posting from phone - I think I need to stop until I can use something better!

Edited March 5, 2014 by alan_fincher

[cotswoldsman]

Yes, she has often used Skype acording to previous minutes.

 

She is a boater and boat owner.

I can't see a conflict in the statements.

 

They intend to cut those places they do rather less often, for budgetry reasons

 

They don't, (or at least have told me as a direct response), that they do not intend to remove existing moorable bank from that regime.

 

I can see no implied contradiction.

 

Edit. Too many bloody mistakes posting from phone - I think I need to stop until I can use something better!

Your saying no change to mowing regimes and the SEWP is saying that they will be reduced that is where I am getting confused as someone looking from the outside

[Tuscan]

Standards

NAG was keen to endorse the established default principle that all towpaths are available for short term mooring apart from stretches signed otherwise (or not moorable for depth or other obvious reason). Hence a suggestion that the meaning of visitor mooring be clarified to avoid the assumption by new boaters that short term mooring was only encouraged at designated VMs. Currently, operational significance is attached to the VM designation as they attract higher standards for the bank and for maintenance such as grass cutting. If we want to extend the moorability of longer stretches of non VM designated towpath, and, as we consider how to treat the currently misleadingly designated 14 day visitor moorings, consideration of this issue will be important and it might be helpful to define a separate category of short stay mooring such as casual towpath mooring.

 

 

Our current mowing guidelines provide for more frequent close cutting of 100m stretches of bank up to the waters edge every so often out in the countryside as an invitation to moor. New guidance could be added to confirm what many waterway managers currently do, which is to apply this practice to significant stretches either side of a designated visitor mooring. Choice of which sections to close-cut does not involve formal or systematic checking of depth to ensure moorability, but boater feedback generally serves to ensure that they are not illogically sited.

 

 

 

Suggested standards for short stay moorings Visitor moorings

Casual towpath mooring

Well maintained level bank, easy to moor, particularly for people with disabilities

ü

Not guaranteed

Mooring rings (recessed)/spacing distance (no further than 5m apart)

ü

Not guaranteed

Sufficient water depth

ü

Aim for, but cant currently guarantee

Clear towpath signage

ü

No but marked on maps?

Other signage indicating local facilities/attractions (wherever possible this should be done in partnership with parish councils)

ü

No

I'll try and post something about numbers later when not on a phone, and I can refer to the whole thread and other related documents far more easily.

 

Either different people in CRT are handing out very different numbers, or those repeating them are managing to misunderstand, I think, and I do not recognise some of what is being said as even close to what I have heard when sat in meetings.

 

I can say, categorically for the South East that a statement was made by the SE manager that if the NAG recommendations of having a smaller number of less used moorings, (because many are 14 day anyway), were to be adopted, it would mean no change on mowing regimes or bank maintenance.

 

However I note NABO are now promoting the idea that CRT intend to do less cutting and maintenance as a result of NAG suggestions. Certainly I personally have heard nothing to substantiate that claim, but obviously I have largely been in different meetings or conversations from the ones Mark, ("Tuscan") has.

 

If anyone can give an exact quote, with the full text unparaphrased, where CRT have indicated they internd to abandon maintenance of currently available mooring space then I would, of course, like to see it.

 

Hi Alan

 

This is from a briefing paper from Sally to your group

 

The unintended (from what NAG has tells me) consequence of the new short term moorings from a grass cutting perspective is as follws :

 

Sorry this didn't cut and paste , basically if the NAG proposal for a much smaller number of redefined short stay moorings is adopted then the other current visitor moorings will revert to normal 14 day towpath moorings and subject to normal towpath routine of cutting dredging rather than the improved regime that is currently in force across all towpath moorings.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Tuscan

[alan_fincher]

Your saying no change to mowing regimes and the SEWP is saying that they will be reduced that is where I am getting confused as someone looking from the outside

OK

I really should give up until I can do proper quoting and highlighting, but looking at what I tried to say, I can see the possible ambiguity tou are continuing to focus on

 

I was only trying to say, (badly it seems!), that I was assured there were no plans to take existing moorable locations out of those currently getting a regular full cut.

 

That's a different decision to one that reduced the number of cuts per year at al sites, (even the "premium" 2 day ones with £25 ovrtstay charges will get cit less, presumably?).

 

I apolgise, I was never intending to claim more than I have now tried to say again here, and can see I could have avoided posible misinterpretation of my intended message with more careful wording.

Edited March 5, 2014 by alan_fincher

[Alan de Enfield]

OK

I really should give up until I can do proper quoting and highlighting, but looking at what I tried to say, I can see the possible ambiguity tou are continuing to focus on

 

I was only trying to say, (badly it seems!), that I was assured there were no plans to take existing moorable locations out of those currently getting a regular full cut.

 

That's a different decision to one that reduced the number of cuts per year at al sites, (even the "premium" 2 day ones with £25 ovrtstay charges will get cit less, presumably?).

 

I apolgise, I was never intending to claim more than I have now tried to say again here, and can see I could have avoided posible misinterpretation of my intended message with more careful wording.

To paraphrase then :

 

All areas that have been cut in the past will still be cut - but less frequently

[alan_fincher]

To paraphrase then :

 

All areas that have been cut in the past will still be cut - but less frequently

Yes, correct, my understanding.

 

But the "less frequently" part is driven by increasing contract costs, versus available budget, and it is certainly not a planned outcome that bank where you could previosly tie up becomes unusable.

[Tuscan]

But according to Sally's note the proposal is that only the newly defined short stay moorings ie moorings where there are just 48 hr or 7 day limits will be cut by this new less frequent regime. The remaining visitor moorings will revert to towpath therefore not cut or dredged etc as per the current visitor mooring regime.

 

The original SE Consultation envisaged many more visitor moorings with time restrictions , charges and no return rules and this was resisted by many , however the SEBG is now actively looking to identify additional short term mooring sites as per the the original consultation that CRT acknowledged was flawed. In the meantime CRT is looking to talk to wide groups of boaters like the better relationships group, or the NUF meeting as if this is a new discussion.

 

I am sure everyone has good intentions but it's a bit of a mess . In my view Someone needs to take a deep breath agree strategically nationally what a policy for both short stay and towpath moorings might look like at board level to include everything from definition, appropriate stay times, enforcement etc etc. Then at a local level CRT should appoint boater groups reporting to the waterway manager to look at whether there are enough visitor moorings in the right place in the context of the budget that exists in that area. Meanwhile the partnership can try and engage with businesses who might benefit with visitor moorings to perhaps fund rings, signage etc.

 

The problem comes where you have a long stretch of towpath by the Plough at Simpson or say the Globe at Leighton Buzzard if you can more close to it already what justification should be used to turn it into a restricted mooring area. If I ran a hire boat business or moored in a local marina and went there every weekend is that justification enough?

[jenlyn]

This link for Nag paper

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/puovmnfssuz2jaq/Visitor%20moorings%20-%20vision%20and%20strategy%20discussion%20paper-2.pdf

[RLWP]

In my view Someone needs to take a deep breath agree strategically nationally what a policy for both short stay and towpath moorings might look like at board level to include everything from definition, appropriate stay times, enforcement etc etc.

 

That's where this exercise has come from

 

Richard

[jenlyn]

(Quote)The original SE Consultation envisaged many more visitor moorings with time restrictions , charges and no return rules and this was resisted by many , however the SEBG is now actively looking to identify additional short term mooring sites as per the the original consultation that CRT acknowledged was flawed. In the meantime CRT is looking to talk to wide groups of boaters like the better relationships group, or the NUF meeting as if this is a new discussion. (unquote)

 

Exactly, another waste of funding that would be better spent by Vince Moran who is scrabbling around to find money for maintenance.

[RLWP]

I'd like to step in again, and suggest that we spin off another thread about the various groups who have influence in this, e.g. Partnerships, SEBG, NUF, waterways managers, enforcement officers and so on. My head reels with the acronyms, I don't know who reports to, influences or guides who. I would find it useful to understand who the groups and managers are (by role, not name)

 

Richard