Visitor moorings at Saltaire

[Timleech]

Best of luck with getting dredging done to allow boats to moor alongside the towpath. It's not a huge job, especially if it can be done from the towpath rather than by boat.

 

I find it very sad that boaters are ignoring official signs. Many of us try to be responsible boaters but a growing number choose to comply with only those rules that suit them. The best examples are the number of overstayers or moorings and continuous cruisers that don't comply with the rules.

 

The Canal & River Trust does consider residents and has the unenviable task of trying to achieve sensible compromises between residents and boaters, e.g. https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/new-plans-to-help-boaters-and-residents-get-along-in-islington

 

It might not be a simple matter of dredging, the profile of the canal bed might be a limiting factor. Pluto would perhaps be able to give chapter & verse on that? It's one reason why useful mooring spots are so limited on the Leeds & Liverpool, and why it's unfortunate that an expensively created mooring, in a place which boaters would like to visit, is not properly available.

 

Tim

[Guest]

The Canal & River Trust does consider residents and has the unenviable task of trying to achieve sensible compromises between residents and boaters, e.g. https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/new-plans-to-help-boaters-and-residents-get-along-in-islington

Noting none of which says 'erecting no overnight mooring signs' - so it rather begs the question why they have plumbed straight for that option at Saltaire when on the face of it seems to be based on the complaints of one person. Of course boaters (at least the sensible ones) will accept some compromise, what is being objected to here is a blanket overnight mooring ban, there is a similar issue at Greenberfield top lock too.

 

Imagine the furore in Islington if the Trust said 'OK then to solve this we will just ban all overnight mooring' The reason why some boaters ignore the 'official' sign is because it is punitive and as I keep saying of dubious legal basis (as somebody has yet to point out why it might actually be enforceable).

Edited August 23, 2014 by The Dog House

[mango]

 

It might not be a simple matter of dredging, the profile of the canal bed might be a limiting factor. Pluto would perhaps be able to give chapter & verse on that? It's one reason why useful mooring spots are so limited on the Leeds & Liverpool, and why it's unfortunate that an expensively created mooring, in a place which boaters would like to visit, is not properly available.

 

Tim

I agree that there could be practical problems and I was criticised for even mentioning that it would depend on whether there was room for boats to pass.

[mango]

Noting none of which says 'erecting no overnight mooring signs' - so it rather begs the question why they have plumbed straight for that option at Saltaire when on the face of it seems to be based on the complaints of one person. Of course boaters (at least the sensible ones) will accept some compromise, what is being objected to here is a blanket overnight mooring ban, there is a similar issue at Greenberfield top lock too.

 

Imagine the furore in Islington if the Trust said 'OK then to solve this we will just ban all overnight mooring' The reason why some boaters ignore the 'official' sign is because it is punitive and as I keep saying of dubious legal basis (as somebody has yet to point out why it might actually be enforceable).

By all means discuss this with the Trust but by ignoring their notices you are contributing to their problems and deserve to be treated with contempt. If boaters had been considerate in the first place, all these signs would be unnecessary.

[mango]

CRT is putting in effort to keep the peace between those using and living near canals. Pedestrians now take priority over cyclists on the towpath, so it's no longer a case of a cyclist giving two rings and expecting people to jump out of their path. CRT asks angling clubs to help discourage members from blocking the towpath with roach poles and fishing gear. Here is an example of where CRT has tackled a problem of noise in an area where there was a problem: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/first-canal-quiet-zone-in-wiltshire-hailed-a-success

[Guest]

By all means discuss this with the Trust but by ignoring their notices you are contributing to their problems and deserve to be treated with contempt. If boaters had been considerate in the first place, all these signs would be unnecessary.

I wasn't aware of the details of what led up to the notices, as you clearly seem to be would you care to enlighten the forum. (Or are you perhaps making assumptions)

By all means discuss this with the Trust but by ignoring their notices you are contributing to their problems and deserve to be treated with contempt. If boaters had been considerate in the first place, all these signs would be unnecessary.

I don't think I have actually said I have moored overnight, have I?

I agree that there could be practical problems and I was criticised for even mentioning that it would depend on whether there was room for boats to pass.

No you weren't 'criticised' - it was merely pointed out to you that the issue of width was probably as relevant or irrelevant there as any other section.

[mango]

I wasn't aware of the details of what led up to the notices, as you clearly seem to be would you care to enlighten the forum. (Or are you perhaps making assumptions)

 

I don't think I have actually said I have moored overnight, have I?

 

No you weren't 'criticised' - it was merely pointed out to you that the issue of width was probably as relevant or irrelevant there as any other section.

Apologies for using 'you' when I genuinely mean 'someone'. I don't know what led up to the posting of the notices but mentioned them as evidence that the Trust does take the views of residents into account.

 

As I have already pointed out, the width of the canal varies and that could affect the practicability of providing new moorings.

[Guest]

Apologies for using 'you' when I genuinely mean 'someone'. I don't know what led up to the posting of the notices but mentioned them as evidence that the Trust does take the views of residents into account.

 

As I have already pointed out, the width of the canal varies and that could affect the practicability of providing new moorings.

Yes I know they do take residents views into account - my concern is the weight that those views get in the Trust - it seems to me (but I cant evidence it either) that if somebody constantly complains when in fact the problem may be no where as great as they are claiming then the Trust erect such notices simply to get the complainant of their backs.

 

As I say a similar issue exists at Greenberfield Top lock a beautiful prime location where pretty draconian restrictions have been imposed seemingly on the basis of complaints by the resident of one nearby property. I am concerned about a lack of balance on the part of the Trust in considering views - in fact I wonder if any boaters were even consulted when the restrictions were imposed, I seriously doubt they were in fact. RichardH might be able to confirm either way but I wonder if they even had the foresight to consult with a local hire co. ref. the restrictions at Greenberfield.

 

As to the width issue - yes of course it can vary but I happen to know that at the spot in question there is ample surface width (But subject to Tim's earlier point about the shape of the canal bed.)

[mango]

Yes I know they do take residents views into account - my concern is the weight that those views get in the Trust - it seems to me (but I cant evidence it either) that if somebody constantly complains when in fact the problem may be no where as great as they are claiming then the Trust erect such notices simply to get the complainant of their backs.

 

As I say a similar issue exists at Greenberfield Top lock a beautiful prime location where pretty draconian restrictions have been imposed seemingly on the basis of complaints by the resident of one nearby property. I am concerned about a lack of balance on the part of the Trust in considering views - in fact I wonder if any boaters were even consulted when the restrictions were imposed, I seriously doubt they were in fact. RichardH might be able to confirm either way but I wonder if they even had the foresight to consult with a local hire co. ref. the restrictions at Greenberfield.

 

As to the width issue - yes of course it can vary but I happen to know that at the spot in question there is ample surface width (But subject to Tim's earlier point about the shape of the canal bed.)

I have no problem with trying to get rid of mooring restrictions but I do object to boaters deciding which rules to obey. That creates problems for CRT and gives ammunition to those who are not too keen on boaters. If there is a genuine problem with smoke or noise then a practical compromise might be to permit mooring but ban smoking chimneys and/or running engines at that site. It's unhelpful to suggest (as people often do) that someone should not buy a canalside property unless they are prepared to to put up with noise and smoke.

 

I had not realised that there was plenty of room at the alternative mooring site we have discussed. If there is, that's great.

 

People don't always know they are being a nuisance to others. When I lived in a flat I had to put up with loud music from the chap downstairs after he came back from the pub on a Saturday night. One day I met him going out and he mentioned the din I had been making doing the vacuuming. From then on he was careful about his music and I did the vacuuming when he was out. If we all put our minds to thinking about how we might be upsetting others we might be able to avoid more signs and having to plead to have them removed.

[Guest]

I have no problem with trying to get rid of mooring restrictions but I do object to boaters deciding which rules to obey. That creates problems for CRT and gives ammunition to those who are not too keen on boaters. If there is a genuine problem with smoke or noise then a practical compromise might be to permit mooring but ban smoking chimneys and/or running engines at that site. It's unhelpful to suggest (as people often do) that someone should not buy a canalside property unless they are prepared to to put up with noise and smoke.

 

I had not realised that there was plenty of room at the alternative mooring site we have discussed. If there is, that's great.

 

People don't always know they are being a nuisance to others. When I lived in a flat I had to put up with loud music from the chap downstairs after he came back from the pub on a Saturday night. One day I met him going out and he mentioned the din I had been making doing the vacuuming. From then on he was careful about his music and I did the vacuuming when he was out. If we all put our minds to thinking about how we might be upsetting others we might be able to avoid more signs and having to plead to have them removed.

Personally I still doubt it,s actually a 'rule' rather than something that is just made up on a whim of the trust. To be a rule it would need to be enforceable and this seems in doubt to me and obviously others too, especially those who have moored there. Just erecting signs that suggest there are legally enforceable penalties in place makes a mockery of the fact that there are rules that they can and do enforce in relation to other aspects of using the system.

 

This as much an issue of the credibility of the Trust as it is about mutual consideration between boaters and local residents.

[cotswoldsman]

The problem is that signage is not kept up to date. For example on the Weaver in Northwich there is reserved mooring for a trip boat that has not operated for at least 2 years dame on L&L

Edited to say not sure what relevance this has except when I was in Northwich a few weeks ago Mr Shouty know it all boater told me to move as I could not moor at said spot because it was reserved

Edited August 23, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[mango]

Personally I still doubt it,s actually a 'rule' rather than something that is just made up on a whim of the trust. To be a rule it would need to be enforceable and this seems in doubt to me and obviously others too, especially those who have moored there. Just erecting signs that suggest there are legally enforceable penalties in place makes a mockery of the fact that there are rules that they can and do enforce in relation to other aspects of using the system.

 

This as much an issue of the credibility of the Trust as it is about mutual consideration between boaters and local residents.

This may be the case but the Trust has been entrusted with running our waterways and it's up to boaters to comply with their official signs even if they request that they are removed or revised for whatever reason. Look at the hassle the Trust has with boaters who don't comply with rules on mooring.

[Guest]

The problem is that signage is not kept up to date. For example on the Weaver in Northwich there is reserved mooring for a trip boat that has not operated for at least 2 years dame on L&L

Edited to say not sure what relevance this has except when I was in Northwich a few weeks ago Mr Shouty know it all boater told me to move as I could not moor at said spot because it was reserved

There was one in Clarence Dock too long after the trip boat stopped running from there. When I emailed the local waterways manager about it the justification for it staying there was that there might be the potential for a trip boat to re start. Fair enough but why not just take it down until it does.?

This may be the case but the Trust has been entrusted with running our waterways and it's up to boaters to comply with their official signs even if they request that they are removed or revised for whatever reason. Look at the hassle the Trust has with boaters who don't comply with rules on mooring.

 

I disagree. Official or otherwise they need to be enforceable or they look a tad silly. Why say you are going to charge someone five pounds per hour when actually you cannot?

[mango]

There was one in Clarence Dock too long after the trip boat stopped running from there. When I emailed the local waterways manager about it the justification for it staying there was that there might be the potential for a trip boat to re start. Fair enough but why not just take it down until it does.?

 

I disagree. Official or otherwise they need to be enforceable or they look a tad silly. Why say you are going to charge someone five pounds per hour when actually you cannot?

I have already commented that this makes no sense, but if the sign says no overnight mooring then it might be a good idea to comply with it. Anyone who moors there overnight will look like an idiot to everyone who sees their boat, which may increase tension.

 

I'll leave you to it because I have work to do.

[Guest]

I have already commented that this makes no sense, but if the sign says no overnight mooring then it might be a good idea to comply with it. Anyone who moors there overnight will look like an idiot to everyone who sees their boat, which may increase tension.

 

I'll leave you to it because I have work to do.

Or rather they may just look like somebody who knows the signs are nothing more than a bluff to scare boaters into not mooring there, it depended on the perspective you judge them by.

 

I would wager the locals know CRT have just erected the signs as a sop and that any boaters mooring there are wise enough to know this too.

Edited August 23, 2014 by The Dog House

[RichardH]

As I say a similar issue exists at Greenberfield Top lock a beautiful prime location where pretty draconian restrictions have been imposed seemingly on the basis of complaints by the resident of one nearby property. I am concerned about a lack of balance on the part of the Trust in considering views - in fact I wonder if any boaters were even consulted when the restrictions were imposed, I seriously doubt they were in fact. RichardH might be able to confirm either way but I wonder if they even had the foresight to consult with a local hire co. ref. the restrictions at Greenberfield.

No consultation whatsoever. In fact, it was almost a 'keep the peace move' after several of the hire companies had their guests moaned at by the householder for daring to moor there and reported his behaviour to BW.

[Guest]

No consultation whatsoever. In fact, it was almost a 'keep the peace move' after several of the hire companies had their guests moaned at by the householder for daring to moor there and reported his behaviour to BW.

Much as I thought Richard, cheers.

 

A peculiar way to deal with the problem indeed.

[Pluto]

The L&LC Society also gets little in the way of consultation regarding the provision of moorings etc. I did write to Robin Evans in March 2006 about the sale of Greenberfield Lock Cottage suggesting future problems and lack of opportunity which the sale would create, all of which have happened. I received no acknowledgement that there were likely to be problems. Part of the the text of my letter was as follows:

 

 

A case can certainly be made for the sale of property, such as lock keepers cottages, as they are no longer necessary for operational purposes. The facilities now demanded by legislation for temporary weekend staff, etc, means that, on paper, lock keepers cottages are of minimal operational importance.

 

However, from a heritage point of view, the decision to sell is less clear. I am particularly concerned that such buildings are being sold prior to the change in listing procedure, where British Waterways will be seen as an important example as to how such new legislation will operate. Is it good policy to get rid of buildings which, under the new legislation, could be considered of historic importance and vital to the heritage of canals? Also, the control of alteration to buildings in private ownership is always more difficult than where they are in public ownership.

 

The long-term implications are also uncertain. As the use of canals changes, with greater emphasis on non-boating leisure and tourism, lock cottages could be extremely useful as sites for interpretation. Without an extensive property portfolio, BW will have problems in addressing future needs, especially where they have not yet been identified or even considered. Having sufficient property will ensure that future developments can be successfully addressed without the need for new build, particularly in places of environmental sensitivity.

 

There are other problems, such as access, which will significantly affect the canal environment, and could cause local upset.

[mango]

Much as I thought Richard, cheers.

 

A peculiar way to deal with the problem indeed.

It appears you are expecting a consultation if CRT makes a change affecting a VM. Do you expect a consultation if a council decides to put double yellow lines in a city, town or village? It seems to me that individual boaters are expecting a bit too much.

 

On the other hand, I would expect CRT to liaise with organisations such as the Leeds & Liverpool Canal Society over their general strategy such as provision of moorings and sale or retention of property. But ultimately it is CRT that is charged with the responsibility of running our waterway network as they see fit. Obviously if a decision affected someone's home mooring it would be reasonable to command individual attention.

[Guest]

It appears you are expecting a consultation if CRT makes a change affecting a VM. Do you expect a consultation if a council decides to put double yellow lines in a city, town or village? It seems to me that individual boaters are expecting a bit too much.

 

On the other hand, I would expect CRT to liaise with organisations such as the Leeds & Liverpool Canal Society over their general strategy such as provision of moorings and sale or retention of property. But ultimately it is CRT that is charged with the responsibility of running our waterway network as they see fit. Obviously if a decision affected someone's home mooring it would be reasonable to command individual attention.

How on earth is it unreasonable to expect consultation about such a change. Notification would be a minimum I would suggest, along with a contact where you can send comments to..... A bit like when yellow lines are about to spring up in your front road.

 

If it seems to you that individual boaters are expecting too much then I'm afraid that speaks volumes

[mango]

How on earth is it unreasonable to expect consultation about such a change. Notification would be a minimum I would suggest, along with a contact where you can send comments to..... A bit like when yellow lines are about to spring up in your front road.

 

If it seems to you that individual boaters are expecting too much then I'm afraid that speaks volumes

I had not realised that you are based in Saltaire, never mind on the L&L Canal. Or is the is bit of canal not your 'front road'?

 

I'm afraid that what you are expecting is totally impractical and your views are likely to be listened to via an established organisation or possibly at one of CRT's customer service meetings.

 

I acknowledge my views are probably not representative of many boaters on this forum but I think I'm the realist and not the one who is going to be disappointed.

Edited August 23, 2014 by mango

[Guest]

I had not realised that you are based in Saltaire, never mind on the L&L Canal. Or is the is bit of canal not your 'front road'?

 

I'm afraid that what you are expecting is totally impractical and your views are likely to be listened to via an established organisation or possibly at one of CRT's customer service meetings.

 

I acknowledge my views are probably not representative of many boaters on this forum but I think I'm the realist and not the one who is going to be disappointed.

Where did I say I was based in Saltaire? Surely given the topic it must be obvious myself or nobody can be?

 

The location in my profile is clear enough isn't it, and it isn't the L&L.

 

If you think notification and consultation with boaters using leaflets notices and nowadays 'social media' is impractical, yes you are not being representative.

[mango]

Where did I say I was based in Saltaire? Surely given the topic it must be obvious myself or nobody can be?

 

The location in my profile is clear enough isn't it, and it isn't the L&L.

 

If you think notification and consultation with boaters using leaflets notices and nowadays 'social media' is impractical, yes you are not being representative.

It was your analogy with yellow lines in your front road that was confusing.

 

I would hope that changes in mooring arrangements were notified, perhaps along with stoppages, etc.

[Guest]

It was your analogy with yellow lines in your front road that was confusing.

 

I would hope that changes in mooring arrangements were notified, perhaps along with stoppages, etc.

Not sure why, you were the first one to mention double yellow lines, my reference to them should have been clear.

[mango]

Not sure why, you were the first one to mention double yellow lines, my reference to them should have been clear.

I've explained why it was not clear.

 

Have you thought of becoming a member of one of the organisations that meets with CRT or works with them to obtain funding for projects? If you are supportive you might find them asking for your help and pestering you to do things. There is a lot that has to change within the Trust but it has some good people who need to be allowed to get on with doing their job.