Visitor moorings at Saltaire

[Midnight]

Sorry I don't buy into SaltsLads's reasoning. It often is a wind tunnel so can't see smoke being anymore of a problem than anywhere else and running engines and loud music after hours is generally a no no for the vast majority of boaters too.

 

Although I have in the past moored there, I now much prefer to be further along towards the station. It's quite pleasant under the trees and handy for access to the village.. There's lots of room, although you have to pick your spot as it's quite shallow in places. I imagine it may be harder for deep drafted boats.

[nbfiresprite]

I know the area quite well as my Grandmother lives just over river. Walking to and from the station I pass this converted mill. The one thing you do see or rather hear in warm weather is the loud noises coming from the open windows of the flats. Plus the traffic on Victoria road crossing the bridge yet another source of noise and fumes, would salts lad like the road closed to all traffic? Plus the railway as well dispate the fact that it is a major railfeight route to and from Scotland.

[SaltsLad]

I know the area quite well as my Grandmother lives just over river. Walking to and from the station I pass this converted mill. The one thing you do see or rather hear in warm weather is the loud noises coming from the open windows of the flats. Plus the traffic on Victoria road crossing the bridge yet another source of noise and fumes, would salts lad like the road closed to all traffic? Plus the railway as well dispate the fact that it is a major railfeight route to and from Scotland.

This has totally missed the point (as have some other contributors).

The "canyon effect" amplifies the noise - scientific explanation here http://nymag.com/nymetro/urban/features/noise/9461/. I can't hear traffic from Victoria Road or the bridge, and fumes from vehicles are nowhere near windows. Anyone walking over the bridge to the station is passing close by to the NHS part of the mill,not the residential part.

I agree that the signs are misleading and contradictory, and the managing company of the apartments have in the past offered to pay for a new, clearer one.

It looks like more mooring (with overnight mooring allowed) are to be built to the east, just past the building, which is absolutely fine, and I'm pleased there will be more. For those who argue "the canal was here first", yes it was, but the moorings were built 12 years after the apartments, and there are still many of the original owners here.

It is a small minority that spoil things for others - like reckless cyclists and football hooligans. They don't know the meaning of respect for others.

[Guest]

This has totally missed the point (as have some other contributors).

The "canyon effect" amplifies the noise - scientific explanation here http://nymag.com/nymetro/urban/features/noise/9461/. I can't hear traffic from Victoria Road or the bridge, and fumes from vehicles are nowhere near windows. Anyone walking over the bridge to the station is passing close by to the NHS part of the mill,not the residential part.

I agree that the signs are misleading and contradictory, and the managing company of the apartments have in the past offered to pay for a new, clearer one.

It looks like more mooring (with overnight mooring allowed) are to be built to the east, just past the building, which is absolutely fine, and I'm pleased there will be more. For those who argue "the canal was here first", yes it was, but the moorings were built 12 years after the apartments, and there are still many of the original owners here.

It is a small minority that spoil things for others - like reckless cyclists and football hooligans. They don't know the meaning of respect for others.

Of course it's the minority that spoil it but that is hardly fair on the rest.

 

As for the moorings not being there until after people moved in, Are you saying boats couldn't moor up there previously? Normally boats can moor for up to 14 days just about anywhere they like unless a shorter limit applies. If people buy a property close to a canal they should be aware of this, if they are not they haven't done sufficient research prior to purchase.

Edited July 27, 2016 by MJG

[Mike Todd]

That would set a horrible precedent!

Not clear what you mean.

[Victor Vectis]

It is a small minority that spoil things for others - like reckless cyclists and football hooligans. They don't know the meaning of respect for others.

 

And those who buy somewhere to live next to a canal and then try to annex the adjacent towpath.

[Robbo]

It is a small minority that spoil things for others - like reckless cyclists and football hooligans. They don't know the meaning of respect for others.

 

Unfortunately in this case it's the residential committee of your flats that has spoilt it.

[David Mack]

However, I would have more sympathy if the residents offered to meet the costs - the moorings were not outwith any rules or regulations and so if they want them shifted they should pay for it.

 

 

That would set a horrible precedent!

 

 

Not clear what you mean.

 

I mean the idea that moorings can be moved if residents pay for it. That would be the thin end of a very long wedge, which would see mooring banned in all sorts of places just because residents don't like the idea of boats stopping outside their property.

[SaltsLad]

Of course it's the minority that spoil it but that is hardly fair on the rest.

 

As for the moorings not being there until after people moved in, Are you saying boats couldn't moor up there previously? Normally boats can moor for up to 14 days just about anywhere they like unless a shorter limit applies. If people buy a property close to a canal they should be aware of this, if they are not they haven't done sufficient research prior to purchase.

That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. The apartments were built in 1994 - the towpath was widened in 2005, and the moorings were built into this. Prior to 2005 there were NO moorings outside the buildings. Some people seem unable to grasp this point.

[Guest]

That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. The apartments were built in 1994 - the towpath was widened in 2005, and the moorings were built into this. Prior to 2005 there were NO moorings outside the buildings. Some people seem unable to grasp this point.

 

What exactly prohibited the boats from mooring there prior to the creation of the moorings please.

 

Unless there was no specific restriction put in place boats could have just moored there for 14 days. Canal boats don't have to moor on moorings they can moor just about anywhere subject of course to being able to tie the boat to something.

 

'Moorings' are simply places in popular areas designated where there will normally be a limit often anything from 24 hours to 7 days. You can moor directly next to a designated 'mooring' for as long as you like (for up to 14 days).

 

If such a section has been converted into moorings it just means boats will be more restricted as to how long they can stop, not that they cannot have been able stop there at all.

Edited July 27, 2016 by MJG

[Tony Brooks]

That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. The apartments were built in 1994 - the towpath was widened in 2005, and the moorings were built into this. Prior to 2005 there were NO moorings outside the buildings. Some people seem unable to grasp this point.

 

No, its you that do not grasp the point. Up until 2005 anyone could moor there if they wished for up to 14 days, smoky stove, noisy diesel and whatever. It is perfectly allowable to moor to any tow path unless there is a CaRt notice to the contrary. The fact that perhaps no one did is not the issue, the ability to moor there, perhaps using a plank was always there.

 

In 2005 the "tow path" was improved and provision made to make mooring easier was installed. So far nothing has changed until the residents decided they did not want boats moored there an BW just gave in to them. The upshot is that the traders are loosing custom for the benefit of a few residents - that is a few compared with the whole of Saltair

[Mike Todd]

 

 

 

 

 

I mean the idea that moorings can be moved if residents pay for it. That would be the thin end of a very long wedge, which would see mooring banned in all sorts of places just because residents don't like the idea of boats stopping outside their property.

I'm not so sure.

 

Firstly, assume that CaRT charge 'properly' for the work, including dredging if needed, a disruption factor and a refusal to erect no mooring signs until the work is complete. I suspect that the cost would put many people off. Who paid for the new water point in Macc?

 

Secondly, I would assume that such a scheme would only be offered if the new moorings could be close by.

 

Thirdly, I would hope that even if the mooring points are moved, then a No Mooring would not automatically appear.

 

I would have thought that a scheme that reduces aggro (a benefit to boaters) at no cost to the boaters was generally a positive, especially if it became the norm for complainants rather than simply a ban on mooring at otherwise suitable spots.

[fanshaft]

Whilst I don't agree with salts lad entirely I do respect him for coming on and putting his side and think some responses are harsh.

 

I'm one of the people who have ignored the previous nonsensical signs at this spot and probably will do if necessary in the future...

 

To be honest mooring in a wind tunnel between two former mill buildings overlooked by flats wouldn't be my choice but the lack of reasonable alternatives in the immediate area means you don't really have much option. All it would take is a bit of dredging so you can get in to the side either side of this spot and problem solved imho....

My reply has disappeared so rather than do it again on my phone I will try again from a proper computer!

Regards David L

Edited July 27, 2016 by fanshaft

[SaltsLad]

With

 

 

No, its you that do not grasp the point. Up until 2005 anyone could moor there if they wished for up to 14 days, smoky stove, noisy diesel and whatever. It is perfectly allowable to moor to any tow path unless there is a CaRt notice to the contrary. The fact that perhaps no one did is not the issue, the ability to moor there, perhaps using a plank was always there.

 

In 2005 the "tow path" was improved and provision made to make mooring easier was installed. So far nothing has changed until the residents decided they did not want boats moored there an BW just gave in to them. The upshot is that the traders are loosing custom for the benefit of a few residents - that is a few compared with the whole of Saltair

By "moorings" I mean the big metal moorings built into the towpath for tying boats to - apologies if that wasn't clear. I thought anyone who's been here would realise what I meant. They were installed in 2005 when the towpath was widened. Prior to that there was nothing to tie a boat to and people didn't moor there.

 

What exactly prohibited the boats from mooring there prior to the creation of the moorings please.

 

Unless there was no specific restriction put in place boats could have just moored there for 14 days. Canal boats don't have to moor on moorings they can moor just about anywhere subject of course to being able to tie the boat to something.

 

There wasn't anything to tie them to until 2005, when the big metal moorings were built into the widened towpath.

[Nightwatch]

With

 

 

By "moorings" I mean the big metal moorings built into the towpath for tying boats to - apologies if that wasn't clear. I thought anyone who's been here would realise what I meant. They were installed in 2005 when the towpath was widened. Prior to that there was nothing to tie a boat to and people didn't moor there.

 

id wager they did. We have special implements called moorings pins. You knock em into the ground and tie our boats to them.

[SaltsLad]

id wager they did. We have special implements called moorings pins. You knock em into the ground and tie our boats to them.

If they did, they did when I was on holiday!

[Tony Brooks]

If they did, they did when I was on holiday!

Well you were not about for the best part of 200 years up to 2005, were you. Just because you did not see anyone moor up it does not mean boaters did not have a right to moor there and bet coal boats and such like did just that when delivering to the mill complex. basically you are trying to justify the removal of certain rights boaters have enjoyed for well over 100 years for your own ends.

[Derek Porteous]

As the OP, I am watching this resurrection of the thread with interest. I am not sure what prompted Saltslad to bump this topic again after a significant dormant period, but his contribution is welcome.

I thought the mooring situation was a bit odd. I now assume that overnight mooring was initially allowed, but after complaints from local residents it was then restricted. This did not take into account there were no nearby alternatives apart from the moorings for three boats about a third of a mile eastwards.

It was this "caving in" from BW/CRT which was at fault. Now anti-social behaviour is unacceptable. I would have thought that appropriate warning notices about running engines/generators and perhaps about chimney smoke would have sufficed.

[SaltsLad]

As the OP, I am watching this resurrection of the thread with interest. I am not sure what prompted Saltslad to bump this topic again after a significant dormant period, but his contribution is welcome.

I thought the mooring situation was a bit odd. I now assume that overnight mooring was initially allowed, but after complaints from local residents it was then restricted. This did not take into account there were no nearby alternatives apart from the moorings for three boats about a third of a mile eastwards.

It was this "caving in" from BW/CRT which was at fault. Now anti-social behaviour is unacceptable. I would have thought that appropriate warning notices about running engines/generators and perhaps about chimney smoke would have sufficed.

I bumped it as I found it again after hearing about the proposals to increase the number of moorings (WHICH I WELCOME) just to the east of the building. The only complaints, have as you say, been about anti-social behaviour. It is a pity some people think that is acceptable and that mooring a few yards away would be such an inconvenience to them. I have stressed it is a minority. The canal is for ALL - boaters, walkers, cyclists and residents.

[Nightwatch]

But not for boaters in Saltaire at present.

[Guest]

With

By "moorings" I mean the big metal moorings built into the towpath for tying boats to - apologies if that wasn't clear. I thought anyone who's been here would realise what I meant. They were installed in 2005 when the towpath was widened. Prior to that there was nothing to tie a boat to and people didn't moor there.

 

I fully understood what you meant hence my response.

 

However the fact remains that whether you particularly welcome it or not boaters would have had the right to moor there, as I said for up to 14 days.

 

When I referred to 'something to tie the boat to' this doesn't have to be installed bollards or rings, they normally carry the means to tie their boat to the Armco if there is some in place or pins driven into the ground.

[matty40s]

So how would you view me mooring there, I don't run my engine as my solar panels provide all power needed.

What possible disruption could I cause, ?

[Nightwatch]

You're on a narrowboat?

[Guest]

So how would you view me mooring there, I don't run my engine as my solar panels provide all power needed.

What possible disruption could I cause, ?

Reflective glare from those pesky panels...

[SaltsLad]

But not for boaters in Saltaire at present.

I ask, with the greatest respect, do you understand these sentences? "....proposals to increase the number of moorings (WHICH I WELCOME)" and "The canal is for ALL - boaters, walkers, cyclists and residents."