Is it me, or are 48 visitor moorings popping up at c'mer spots....

[David Schweizer]

 

Yes, I'm frustrated that for some reason Richard doesn't seem able to achieve a moratorium. One wonders what he believe himself, because daft he most certainly isn't!

 

I think part of the problem is some staff who's existence to some extent depends on convincing us this kind of stuff is necessary, so even with Sally Ash anfdJeff Whyatt gone, we are still struggling to bring them to reason.

 

I'm also uncomfortable that there seems to be a growing acceptance that some of this stuff sits somewhere between NAG and local partnerships, but that terms of reference for both are ill defined, making it very hard to challenge where such decisions should b made, (or even who should be advising, even if they don't have the final call).

 

Either way, if they continue to give either NAG and/or the partnerships some (or all) responsibility, then the agreement the associations thought they had with Richard looks in some doubt anyway, (to me at least).

 

It's a mess, not helped by the fact that some of the association people are trying to persuade CRT to not let unelected groups have any influence, but not actually succeeding (yet!) in getting such unelected groups killed off.

 

I think ultimately by getting us all infighting, they will probably just go ahead and do what they want to anyway, even though if in my view, the end results are bad news. It will be a bad outcome, but sometimes it seems boaters are their own worst enemies.

 

To be honest Alan, if the diversity of views expressed by those people who spoke at the Devizes meeting is anything to go by, I would think that caRT are going to have a very hard job sorting out those with sensible ideas from the lunatics.

[alan_fincher]

 

To be honest Alan, if the diversity of views expressed by those people who spoke at the Devizes meeting is anything to go by, I would think that caRT are going to have a very hard job sorting out those with sensible ideas from the lunatics.

So at least do it "evidence based", if you must do it at all.

 

If you can't produce data that proves that there is a problem in finding a space at a particular mooring, then don't reduce the stay times.

 

You can collect and present the data before people's diverse views even start to come into play.

 

I'm not opposed to changing stay times if a sensible case can be presented for doing so. I do oppose CRT's "department of tinkering" doing it just to justify their own existence..

[bigcol]

I've got a idea!!

 

Forget the licence fee, and the BSS, treat us all the same as boats on the coast, and charge per night, at popular sites.

Throughout the system.

 

If your out and about from your marina, and wish to stay out along the cut, pay for it nightly weekly, monthly

 

Lol. Col

[magnetman]

They'll get there eventually

[MtB]

 

Mark (or ACC people) - to what extent have the associations actually challenged Richard that what he has agreed to is not actually happening, please? If you have, what was the response?

 

I have to ask the question again... Are these meetings minuted?

 

If they are, the minutes give solid ammunition with which to challenge Richard on issues like this

 

If not, the meetings are worthless placebos to placate to boaters.

 

 

MtgB

[dor]

 

For some years now the Shroppie Canal Society have been putting in mooring rings along the Shroppie and the Llangollen, seemingly almost anywhere you can get a boat in, always limited to 48 hours. The Llangollen has got to such a state that it is very difficult above Ellesmere to be able to moor up anywhere but 48 hour moorings, unless you are shallow draught.

Ridiculous nonsense!

 

The visitor moorings put in by SUCS represent a tiny fraction of the available mooring space. Deep draughted or not. Even above Ellesmere. Please stop trying to make a problem out of nothing.

[b0atman]

24 48 72 96 hours etc. all should be relevant to local needs and pressure of visitors needs.

The old linesmen knew their area and would have sorted it.

[Tuscan]

Yes, I'm frustrated that for some reason Richard doesn't seem able to achieve a moratorium. One wonders what he believe himself, because daft he most certainly isn't!

 

I think part of the problem is some staff who's existence to some extent depends on convincing us this kind of stuff is necessary, so even with Sally Ash anfdJeff Whyatt gone, we are still struggling to bring them to reason.

 

I'm also uncomfortable that there seems to be a growing acceptance that some of this stuff sits somewhere between NAG and local partnerships, but that terms of reference for both are ill defined, making it very hard to challenge where such decisions should b made, (or even who should be advising, even if they don't have the final call).

 

Either way, if they continue to give either NAG and/or the partnerships some (or all) responsibility, then the agreement the associations thought they had with Richard looks in some doubt anyway, (to me at least).

 

 

 

 

Yes I would agree that governance and the role of the partnerships needs examining and perhaps redefining as the original role including the key one of introducing new sources of revenue to CRT through commerce or local communities now seems to have changed to softer semi operational involvement. Maybe this is a good thing and recognises the reality. I know NABO has raised this in its evidence to the all party parliamentary working group.

[alan_fincher]

 

I have to ask the question again... Are these meetings minuted?

 

If they are, the minutes give solid ammunition with which to challenge Richard on issues like this

 

If not, the meetings are worthless placebos to placate to boaters.

 

 

MtgB

 

Linky.

 

(I think this is the meeting being referred to, but you would need to confirm with "Tuscan" or "Jenlyn" what, if anything, happened subsequently, as I didn't notice anything beyond this meeting note.)

 

EDIT:

 

Correction - this was the pre-meeting of the assosciations, not the actual meeting with CRT.

 

The latter was published, so I'll see if I can find it. i knows it was on the original ACC site, but much ACC related stuff seems not to have carried over to their new site,

 

FURTHER EDIT:

 

Best I can do ..... RBOA Linky (bottom of page)

 

Clearly the minutes of the actual meeting with CRT should be on CRT's as well as NABO's and ACC's web-site, but struggling to find it on any of those.

 

What I have posted from RBOA site says it is "draft notes" so may not be the final version, I guess.

 

Mark ("Tuscan"), could the final version be placed on NABO website please. (Or please provide a link if it is there, and I have failed to find it).,

Edited July 22, 2014 by alan_fincher

[bargemast]

I am very worried will these mooring restrictions have passed on to France because that is where I want to be with my boat in 3 years time all joking aside up here we do have a lot of places to moor so maybe we are spoiled. Most of the honey spots are covered by 48 hr restrictions so nothing has changed at the moment but I am sure it will happen

 

Peter

 

For the time being this sort of restrictions doesn't exist in France, but that doesn't mean that it will be still the same in 3 years from now.

 

Peter.

[bigcol]

Isn't the French canals state owned and run?

[Naughty Cal]

have a greenie.

If it aint broke; don't fix it.

It would seem that in certain areas it is broke though!

[bassplayer]

It would seem that in certain areas it is broke though!

Only because some keep moaning as previously mentioned. Of course there are those who like to stir things up for no reason too...

[Tuscan]

Linky.

 

(I think this is the meeting being referred to, but you would need to confirm with "Tuscan" or "Jenlyn" what, if anything, happened subsequently, as I didn't notice anything beyond this meeting note.)

 

EDIT:

 

Correction - this was the pre-meeting of the assosciations, not the actual meeting with CRT.

 

The latter was published, so I'll see if I can find it. i knows it was on the original ACC site, but much ACC related stuff seems not to have carried over to their new site,

 

FURTHER EDIT:

 

Best I can do ..... RBOA Linky (bottom of page)

 

Clearly the minutes of the actual meeting with CRT should be on CRT's as well as NABO's and ACC's web-site, but struggling to find it on any of those.

 

What I have posted from RBOA site says it is "draft notes" so may not be the final version, I guess.

 

Mark ("Tuscan"), could the final version be placed on NABO website please. (Or please provide a link if it is there, and I have failed to find it).,

 

No formal minutes are taken at these meetings. NABO's notes of meeting (sent to Richard Parry) were published on website on 4 April search under Canal & River Trust and also published in NABO News if I recall.. These notes were agreed with RBOA and ACC for accuracy. The pre meeting notes you also refer to were agreed by all non CRT attendees.

[jenlyn]

This is taken from the minutes of 31st March meeting with Parry and the associations

 

Summary of agreed actions: 

 

No further changes to VM (days of stay, no return rules or over stay charges) to be made until a data gathering exercise launched to be co-ordinated by CRT but promoted by all associations.

[Sir Nibble]

The cynic in me sees that this would be a wonderful way to make the life of the local liveaboard shuttlers more difficult. A bit like concrete blocks at parks to keep travellers off. This may tend to ghettoise (sic) selected areas that remain 14 day. Hope I'm being overly cynical.

[jenlyn]

The cynic in me sees that this would be a wonderful way to make the life of the local liveaboard shuttlers more difficult. A bit like concrete blocks at parks to keep travellers off. This may tend to ghettoise (sic) selected areas that remain 14 day. Hope I'm being overly cynical.

I think your spot on.

 

I believe that is happening now in a few albeit small areas of the south east. I see it growing though, and I suspect some on here will start moaning about it in 12 months time.

[BruceinSanity]

Agreed.

 

CRT are currently changing the mooring arrangements between locks 5 and 6 at Atherstone.

 

AIUI 48 hrs will be replacing 14 days. It is a spot I often use for a few days when moving Badger north or south.

 

I have never had a problem finding a mooring there at any time and I am 71ft long. Even after I have moored there has always been space for others so what is the "problem" that needs to be sorted?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Central Shires has form for doing just this. A couple of years ago they changed the 14 day moorings in Alrewas to 48 hour without consultation and on the basis of one local resident's complaints. There was a stink, partly because Will Chapman (remember SOW?) was on the Parish Council. The signs were withdrawn, a consultation held and the present mixture of restrictions agreed.

 

Getting the local traders on side is key to objections. It's not as if Atherstone is short of visitor mooring, after all.

[Rich]

Ridiculous nonsense!

 

The visitor moorings put in by SUCS represent a tiny fraction of the available mooring space. Deep draughted or not. Even above Ellesmere. Please stop trying to make a problem out of nothing.

 

Ridiculous nonsense?

 

You are obviously writing from experience. Unfortunately so am I, and my experience is that more and more towpath has mooring rings and a little notice put up bearing the information that it is the work of SUCS. There wasn't the need for the damn rings in the first place and there certainly isn't a need for a restricted 48 hour mooring in the middle of nowhere in particular.

 

With the 48 hour moorings and the rampant vegetation growth places to moor up and relax for a few days are becoming rare.

[Tuscan]

To be fair to SUCS it was CRT that wanted all their moorings to be 48 hrs not SUCS I believe

[Rich]

To be fair to SUCS it was CRT that wanted all their moorings to be 48 hrs not SUCS I believe

 

This may well be the case but I cannot see why they are necessary or why it was necessary for SUCS to do any work there at all. Why did BW/Canal and River Trust want 48 hour moorings. It is a popular canal but there were a number of places where it was possible to get into without undue restriction but now they are 48 hour and quiet moorings are becoming rare.

[dor]

 

This may well be the case but I cannot see why they are necessary or why it was necessary for SUCS to do any work there at all. Why did BW/Canal and River Trust want 48 hour moorings. It is a popular canal but there were a number of places where it was possible to get into without undue restriction but now they are 48 hour and quiet moorings are becoming rare.

Only one new country mooring put in by SUCS on the Llangollen in the last year or two. The one that hs recently been completed also has picnic tables etc and is apparently much appreciated. As Mrs dor has just redone the country moorings listing for SUCS, we do know what the amendments are.

[Paul C]

I also know the area . Dor is right; and Rich is exaggerating/sensationalising. Yes there's a proper debate to be had on the issues, but lets bring facts to the argument, not misinformation.

[jelunga]

I have a mooring. Occasionally I want go for a long cruise. For most of this time I can use the short VMs. But, not being a liveaboard, I sometimes need to leave the boat for a while. It is quite hard to find 14 day moorings for this that don't involve pins and long walks, and anyway, 14 days is sometimes not long enough. I need proper 14 day moorings ie not pins to be available and the ability to stay somewhat longer several times per year.

Marinas offer this service

[John V]

My only experience was pre CaRT . I was at Rugely on the L&L when my crew/SWMBO was t.aken ill, contacting BW I was told "sure no problem "

my cruiser was left on the visitors moorings for best part of a month until I was able to arrange replacement crew and care for SWMBO.

Like most things I suppose it is who you talk to and also how you talk to them