CRT - Press Release - Roving Mooring Permits

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Based on some of the comments that have been posted I feel some may have only read half the press release. I draw attention to the last paragraph which gives CaRT's reason for the U-turn.

 

​CANAL & RIVER TRUST UPDATE: ROVING MOORING PERMITS

The Canal & River Trust has reluctantly concluded that roving mooring permits, which it was proposing to introduce in two local areas from April 2014, cannot be used to deal with localised issues of mooring congestion on the waterways. This follows further consideration of legal issues which raised doubts about the practical implications of implementing the scheme.

We would like to thank everyone who has helped us to develop and explore these proposals; those involved in this process had been assured previously that the proposal was deliverable, and bear no responsibility for this late change.

We will continue to work with local boaters to improve understanding of the Trust's guidance for boaters without a home mooring and to develop ways to help people to comply.

---------------

The concept of roving mooring permits was developed in response to interest from boaters in specific local areas who had put down roots in the area but did not have a home mooring. Some had indicated they found it difficult to comply with the Trust’s mooring guidance, including the range of movement required.

The proposed roving mooring permit scheme was to designed to be limited to those who had taken up a ‘continuous cruiser’ licence and adopted the pattern of movement in the area concerned before 30 September 2012, when the Trust had first indicated that it would strengthen its approach. The aim of this principle was to discourage other boaters adopting the same movement patterns, in these areas.

The Trust developed the concept with a small group of boaters on the southern section of the Grand Union Canal around Uxbridge and Cowley. More recently a group on the Gloucester & Sharpness Canal were also involved. Subsequently, permit terms and conditions were prepared; part of these conditions was that the permits were limited to only those who met the criteria and were non-transferable. Hence, the number would fall steadily over time and issues of congestion would ease. The Trust had been planning to introduce the scheme from April 2014.

In preparing the final details of the proposed schemes we have had to consider whether the restriction of the availability of permits to a particular group, in a specific area, was legally sound. A significant risk was identified that we might then be obliged to offer them more widely across the system to all boaters. This was never our intention as we believe that the adoption of such a new national permit scheme is not desirable. We appreciate that the late realisation of this has been frustrating for all those involved.

 

[MtB]

Based on some of the comments that have been posted I feel some may have only read half the press release. I draw attention to the last paragraph which gives CaRT's reason for the U-turn.

 

 

The last para:

 

"In preparing the final details of the proposed schemes we have had to consider whether the restriction of the availability of permits to a particular group, in a specific area, was legally sound. A significant risk was identified that we might then be obliged to offer them more widely across the system to all boaters. This was never our intention as we believe that the adoption of such a new national permit scheme is not desirable. We appreciate that the late realisation of this has been frustrating for all those involved."

 

Sure it would have been better to establish for sure, rather than citing 'might'.

 

Or, if it turned out CRT was obliged to offer it to everyone after a few years of court wrangling, they could just withdraw the whole scheme by which time its job would mostly have been done.

 

MtB

[churchward]

As I have said, what has gone wrong with RMPs is not all CRTs fault - certain "boating", (or even "caravanning"!) interests have tried to scupper it throughout. But words like "bugger about with" are actually very fair to aim at CRT, and as it has got to the point where you sometimes have to say it to their face, I can't actually see the objection to sharing it with the wider world.

 

 

So, as per my question earlier in the thread what were the counter points offered by these "certain boating interests"?

 

The last para:

 

"In preparing the final details of the proposed schemes we have had to consider whether the restriction of the availability of permits to a particular group, in a specific area, was legally sound. A significant risk was identified that we might then be obliged to offer them more widely across the system to all boaters. This was never our intention as we believe that the adoption of such a new national permit scheme is not desirable. We appreciate that the late realisation of this has been frustrating for all those involved."

 

Sure it would have been better to establish for sure, rather than citing 'might'.

 

Or, if it turned out CRT was obliged to offer it to everyone after a few years of court wrangling, they could just withdraw the whole scheme by which time its job would mostly have been done.

 

MtB

I can see the point though it was a question I asked when RMP was raised was the danger of setting precedence but at the time reassurance were given that it would only apply specifically.

 

I doubt very much you could establish an outcome of implementing something like this for sure in legal terms and so if you implement and by the time you are sure you have created a worse problem then it will be too late to fix it probably. The problem with implementing something it can be much harder to withdraw it if it has seemed to become a "right" just as the issue of the folk in the SE it RMP would have effected have been allowed by lax policy to stay where they are when declared CCers similar on the K&A and other places.

 

It will be interesting (perhaps somewhat car-crash like) to see how they now deal with the situation that the RMP was supposed to solve.

Edited March 7, 2014 by churchward

[David Schweizer]

Hmmm, this from someone who whinged and moaned at CRT sending him emails. What a joke.

Don't let your spite blinker your view ;-)

 

 

Is that the best counter arguement you can marshall? It was hardly whinging and moaning, I was admittedly demonstating my irritation at still receiving emails despite being unsubscribed but I did not use any offensive of derogatory language to describe CaRT staff. I am, however, at a loss as where you get the notion of spite or blinkering, I would suggest you need to look a bit closer to home to find those particular characteristics.

 

At least Alan Fincher marshalled a sound and well argued counter challenge which contained explanatiory detail rather than an ill considered one liner, for which you have becom infamous.

Edited March 7, 2014 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

Is that the best counter arguement you can marshall? It was hardly whinging and moaning, I was admittedly demonstating my irritation at still receiving emails despite being unsubscribed but I did not use any offensive of derogatory language to describe CaRt staff. I am also at a loss as where you get the notion my spite or blinkering, I would suggest you need to look a bit closer to home to find those particular characteristics.

I note that each time you sign in, you view my profile. Looking for my posts most probably. I've not had reason to block anyone on here before, but I am of the view that it's in my best interest to give you that honour. :-)

[David Schweizer]

I note that each time you sign in, you view my profile. Looking for my posts most probably. I've not had reason to block anyone on here before, but I am of the view that it's in my best interest to give you that honour. :-)

 

You are developing paranoia now, Please bestow the honour, maybe that will lead to a dicontinuation of your personally offensive one liners, But of course you won't because you are too self obsessed to miss out on what anyone is saying about you.

 

David,

 

I suppose the alternate view is that if you are trying to deal with an organisation where you have bent over backwards to reach accommodation, and that organisation effectively says to you "it's in the bag, as agreed, all we need to now is work out the fine detail", it is pretty disappointing when you tell people what has been agreed, only to find that CRT go away and mess with it, and then tell you it was never the final version in the first place.

 

I have seen this happen repeatedly for the South East visitor mooring debate, and it seems that the same has happened with Roving Mooring Permits, (although my hands on involvement in that one is now far less).

 

Of course you may then say "don't tell anybody anything, until you get the fully signed off version from CRT, then you will not be promising anything that doesn't happen". But that of course then lays any of us getting actively involved to the regular criticisms that we are off doing clandestine negotiations with CRT, and are not keeping people informed of progress, and are hence "not representative" or "not accountable". So if you keep people informed you can't win, but neither can you if you do not.

 

In fact something like RMPs can only be done by keeping those who are affected in the loop, and regularly seeking their input. It would be pointless to forge a deal with CRT for RMPs at £50 per metre per year, for example, only to then find very few would be prepared to pay it, and hence you had not moved things on at all. Then of course if CRT end up demanding more...........

 

It is a sad fact that whilst some in CRT seem very keen to embrace new better co-operative ways of working, there is a residual mindset with some that seem to hamper progress on just about every front, and keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

As I have said, what has gone wrong with RMPs is not all CRTs fault - certain "boating", (or even "caravanning"!) interests have tried to scupper it throughout. But words like "bugger about with" are actually very fair to aim at CRT, and as it has got to the point where you sometimes have to say it to their face, I can't actually see the objection to sharing it with the wider world.

 

Perhaps if a few more people continue to tell Richard Parry to his face that things get needlessly killed off by "buggering about with" them he will be able to move more quickly in trying to engender in all his staff an understanding that it is not the way forward.

 

 

I accept everything that you are saying Alan. It was not the content that I was challenging, but the unesccessary use of derogatory language when talking about CaRT staff, You are more than suffiiciently articulate to be able to engage in constructive criticism wthout resorting to what some people might consider personal insult.

 

Of course i don't know any of the people to whom you refer, maybe thay use similarily robust language when negotiating (as John Sloan has suggested was his experience with his staff). If that is the case I understand that might create the genre of language used at private meetings, but we are not party to that knowledge, consequently it transmits itself as rude.

I can only speak for myself and I represent no one and this incompetence I spent many years negotiating with Trade Unions and found that if you told them how you felt and saw things they had no problems and I was always happy if a TU official told me exactly how they felt

 

 

My criticisms were not aimed at you John, In fact your observations have been devoid of any derogatory language to describe the characteristics of CaRT staff,

 

Wth regard to Trades Unions, I understand that you were in the Heavy Goods Transport Industry, and in that context I would expect a more robust style of exchange between Managers and workers, but when people are negotiating with professional staff as representatives of a broad spectrum of people, it is my view that the language used should be designed to try and generate respect rather than disregard.

Edited March 7, 2014 by David Schweizer

[Water Rat.]

Looks like it is a no then!

[junior]

Merge with the other thread? It would be a shame to have to keep checking two seperate threads when it all kicks off shortly.

Edited March 7, 2014 by junior

[cotswoldsman]

I hope the WMP is still deemed OK. The scheme seems better than the old fixed temporary winter moorings offering a bit of flexibility for people and I would expect rather more income than the RMPs would bring in for CRT.

 

In a way I think the loss of the WMP would be a greater shame than the RMP.

I guess we will find out in due course and I to hope that they continue It is the only example of where CRT have listened and acted quickly (for them it was quick about 5 months)

[Hastings]

I spent more than twenty years as Trades Union representative on various Consultative Committees, and one quicklly learns that you achieve far more by restraining hostile feelings and only going into attack when you have a cast iron case, and even then civil language won far more arguements than insult.

I'd agree. I was a National Officer for the employer's side in trade union negotiations in a large manufacturing industry, and my view is that sensible, well thought through proposals and discussion do work. I would simply ignore bad language, accusations, and phrases like "incompetence", "buggering around", " failure", "obstructive behaviour" etc. Well, I didn't ignore them, I regarded them as unhelpful, and the chances of getting an agreement were henceforth minimal.

 

My thoughts are therefore - never bash CRT if you want to achieve something, but put forward a proposal that they will find it hard to say no to.

[jenlyn]

I'd agree. I was a National Officer for the employer's side in trade union negotiations in a large manufacturing industry, and my view is that sensible, well thought through proposals and discussion do work. I would simply ignore bad language, accusations, and phrases like "incompetence", "buggering around", " failure", "obstructive behaviour" etc. Well, I didn't ignore them, I regarded them as unhelpful, and the chances of getting an agreement were henceforth minimal.

 

My thoughts are therefore - never bash CRT if you want to achieve something, but put forward a proposal that they will find it hard to say no to.

Where are the unions now? Even labour don't want them......

[Captain Zim]

For my money I think, shame that it is, it is as a previous poster has stated, good that CaRT chose to triple check the legality of a scheme before implementing it rather than doing something half arsed that would cause later issues. You can criticise all you like for the management of the whole thing, ie getting people's hopes up before having a definitive answer, but still, all in all, better this than a future balls up. I'd say this shows competence rather than incompetence.

[Hawkmoth]

I am in some ways quite pleased to see this. RMP should have at least regularised the impossible situation in some parts, and did have the promise that it was to be restricted to existing CMers with no transfers and no new ones, the intention being that RMP would "wash out" in due course. That would have been OK, but I and others are old enough to remember the moorings moratorium (better described as a no-moorings enforcement moratorium) introduced in the SE some years ago, which also had good intentions and was supposed to have prevented the current situation developing. Only BW thought it would work, though it was supported by those who were advantaged by it, as you would expect.

 

I know where the road that is paved with good intentions leads, I see that the current CART team is much the same as the BW team and I see that there are still many many people who hope the canal will provide them with cheap housing. I don't think CART would have been any better at enforcing the rules with RMP than without, but they might have had a fig-leaf to hide behind. At least someone has decided that another fudge is not what is needed, because sooner rather than later fudge is only going to lead to an irresolvable problem.

 

I feel sorry for those who were conned by BW and their non-enforcement staff, but that's life. Hopefully whatever comes next will alleviate their situation, but I'm still of the opinion that sooner or later there will have to be a proper definition and enforcement of the rules, and those who don't comply will have to fall back on the local authorities if they need housing in a particular town.

 

N

This sounds very much as I think.

Greeny sir

Bob

[Tuscan]

For my money I think, shame that it is, it is as a previous poster has stated, good that CaRT chose to triple check the legality of a scheme before implementing it rather than doing something half arsed that would cause later issues. You can criticise all you like for the management of the whole thing, ie getting people's hopes up before having a definitive answer, but still, all in all, better this than a future balls up. I'd say this shows competence rather than incompetence.

CRT were told several times that they may be in some legal difficulty here, even their own defence in the recent NIck Brown case effectively argued against the legality of RMPs and the winter towpath moorings. Part of the difficulty here I suspect is that CRT were also very keen on the idea to be adopted on the K&A which was rejected in the recent consultations.

 

As recently as a couple of weeks ago in the latest Towpath Mooring Project briefing there was the announcement that enforcement was to be stepped up in the RMP area the implied threat being buy or else I assume. I wonder what the attitude will be to enforcement in the area now.

 

Maybe the answer is to introduce the equivalent of the congestion charge for all boaters in a defined London area and give them all the same movement rights, providing a movement is made every 14 days.

[Rebotco]

CRT were told several times that they may be in some legal difficulty here, even their own defence in the recent NIck Brown case effectively argued against the legality of RMPs and the winter towpath moorings. Part of the difficulty here I suspect is that CRT were also very keen on the idea to be adopted on the K&A which was rejected in the recent consultations.

 

As recently as a couple of weeks ago in the latest Towpath Mooring Project briefing there was the announcement that enforcement was to be stepped up in the RMP area the implied threat being buy or else I assume. I wonder what the attitude will be to enforcement in the area now.

 

Maybe the answer is to introduce the equivalent of the congestion charge for all boaters in a defined London area and give them all the same movement rights, providing a movement is made every 14 days.

 

A strong laxative should sort them out, eh?

[steve_timebeck]

The tragedy of the whole RMP saga is that CRT, perhaps misled by certain groups and individuals, became fixated on the permit as the only way of solving the "problem".

 

Other ways of resolving the situation, such as dealing with individual cases as compassionate exceptions, were consequently discarded in favour of a one-size-fits all policy, which stood little chance of success.

 

The idea of making a special permit available to a small group of CRT defined rule breakers, was never going to win support within the wider boating community, and the legality of such a scheme was questioned right from the beginning.

 

It would be interesting to know how much CRT money and time was wasted on this aborted project.

 

There are no winners here.

[jenlyn]

Someone's opened some rotten cheese, the maggots have escaped.

[alan_fincher]

The idea of making a special permit available to a small group of CRT defined rule breakers, was never going to win support within the wider boating community, and the legality of such a scheme was questioned right from the beginning.

 

Actually not my experience Steve - I actually found that provided people took the trouble to actually try and understand what was being proposed, and exactly why, there was far more support than I would have anticipated, and often from precisely the kind of people I would have expected to be in strong opposition.

 

I'm not convinced you are in any better position to make an accurate assessment of what this "wider boating community" actually thinks than many of the rest of us, and I actually think if you really took the trouble to study views being expressed as a wider whole, rather than those from a small hardcore of those who tend to be more militant, you would be surprised what many people might have been prepared to have given a try.

 

By the way aren't the same people you are criticising for their involvement in RMPs often also exactly the same ones who are liaising with CRT to urge them to "deal with individual cases as compassionate exceptions"? How many people would you realistically expect to handle by exception - it would struggle to help everybody that this might have done, wouldn't it?

 

The problem, as I have said throughout all this, is that even if it wasn't perfect, I was not seeing anyone propose anything better. So far as I can see RMPs are killed off, and still nobody can propose anything better.

[Tuscan]

Someone's opened some rotten cheese, the maggots have escaped.

I am not taking the bait, I have malt whiskey, peanuts, fire lit and a comfy chair..........

[jenlyn]

I am not taking the bait, I have malt whiskey, peanuts, fire lit and a comfy chair..........

Lol, I've yet to smell cheese about you, and anyway, you have known my views on the whole issue for some time.

Edited March 7, 2014 by jenlyn

[alan_fincher]

What was the counter argument against the RMP proposal?

 

I thought though that these RMPs were only to a few specific people so assumed that the the income would not have been that much and wasn't the point. How many RMPs would have been issued?

 

 

So, as per my question earlier in the thread what were the counter points offered by these "certain boating interests"?

 

Sorry, Robin - I was not intending to ignore you, but have actually been having a life largely away from the Internet today.

 

Steve Timebeck has just appeared, and as he has been one of those vehemently against the idea, perhaps he can elucidate exactly why he believes it was such a bad one.

 

What would be better though, would to hear some constructive ideas about what can happen now if RMPs are a dead duck, because I hardly doubt that CRT will lose their new found enthusiasm for enforcement in the areas involved.

 

"Jenlyn" could probably give a much better idea on how many people might have had this offered to them, and taken it up if the T&Cs and prices had been in line with what we expected. I seem to recall we were talking at least 30-ish in the Cowley Uxbridge area, but I maybe way out on that.

[jenlyn]

 

"Jenlyn" could probably give a much better idea on how many people might have had this offered to them, and taken it up if the T&Cs and prices had been in line with what we expected. I seem to recall we were talking at least 30-ish in the Cowley Uxbridge area, but I maybe way out on that.

That number is correct, though as it gathered momentum, it got larger.

Bearing in mind that initially, Uxbridge was only the test bed. After various workshops in the south east, interest was noted right up to Milton Keynes.

It did become clear as early as last September, that the Winter mooring proposal would possibly eradicate the need for RMP to a certain extent. Both John and myself realised that.

[Starcoaster]

Steve Timebeck doesn't actually own a boat/hold a licence for CRT waters though, so I am not sure why his opinion on how CRT work with those that live aboard and deal with issues such as the RMP is relevant anyway? Surely it is an issue for boaters to see the pros or cons of, as they will potentailly be affected, whether local or not?

Confused.

[churchward]

 

 

 

Sorry, Robin - I was not intending to ignore you, but have actually been having a life largely away from the Internet today.

 

Steve Timebeck has just appeared, and as he has been one of those vehemently against the idea, perhaps he can elucidate exactly why he believes it was such a bad one.

 

What would be better though, would to hear some constructive ideas about what can happen now if RMPs are a dead duck, because I hardly doubt that CRT will lose their new found enthusiasm for enforcement in the areas involved.

 

"Jenlyn" could probably give a much better idea on how many people might have had this offered to them, and taken it up if the T&Cs and prices had been in line with what we expected. I seem to recall we were talking at least 30-ish in the Cowley Uxbridge area, but I maybe way out on that.

Oh to be out and about. I am going stir crazy here. We are in the middle of selling and buying a house and so stuck in mostly attached to the PC or reading and dealing with the correspondence the postman brings each day. Oh to be out on the boat! Still hopefully we will be done before Easter and we can get boating.

 

Back to the subject at hand. I can (by squinting a bit) understand CRTs position particularly if the recent court cases and abandoned judicial reviews have had an effect on the outcome.

 

As there were no other choices on the table (at least not known) it does rather leave a vacuum. I agree that CRT will likely continue to engage enforcement practices and as many have said all they need to do is use the powers they have to manage the situation. So we will see I guess if that is so.

 

I am still intrigued and none the wiser as to the opposing arguments and how that may have swayed CRT in any way on the decision.

[alan_fincher]

I am still intrigued and none the wiser as to the opposing arguments and how that may have swayed CRT in any way on the decision.

Well, in extremis, I think one opposing argument is that the RMP is not required, because you can go what it permitted just by virtue of having a licence, shuffling up and down 5 miles of canal anyway, and waiting to see if CRT take you to court. In short "they are already navigating".

 

What was evident (to me) is that there are lots of people who, for whatever reason, accept that they cannot easily adhere to a pattern of "navigation" that CRT requires from their ramped up enforcement processes, and were actually prepared to pay a considerable sum to CRT for a "roving mooring" that would allow them to be labelled "compliant", and take away the stress of enforcement and possible Section 8s. (It was estimated that such boaters would typically pay similar for an RMP as they currently do for a licence, so even 30 * "average licence fee" would have been useful income to CRT).

 

The opposing argument often seems to be to have a stand-off with CRT, and if necessary to get involved in a legal fight. Clearly CRT can throw as much money at solicitors as they like, whereas I understand it is now impossible for a boater on limited income to get legal aid for a court case, so it is hardly a level playing field if it does go to law. Some were prepared to make a significant financial contribution to take away the stress and worry, but it seems it is not to be.

 

But that's just my view - really it is up to those who oppose it to give their reasons - I supported it, so I'm not in the best place to argue the counter case.