Moorings at 3 locks

[Mike Tee]

On 19 May this proposal was mentioned in an email I received from Richard Parry that it had been requested by the Landlord

 

Etc

 

Excellent post, and three significant questions that I doubt will ever be answered by Richard Parry.

I thought this bloke was going to be a breath of fresh air - this episode is making me think again.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Theo
To close the quote

[matty40s]

At the first of Richard Parry's boater meetings held in birmingham, I was handed a leaflet with a heading "don't trust the trust". I laughed at it then. Wish I hadn't.

 

That was from Nick Browns group, what does he know.....

[Tonka]

No I do not believe reducing the time limit to 2 days will stop the linger longers, enforcement does and this case is being done by landlord. With regard to Cotswaldman Can I borrow your rose tinted glasses. You are now against CRT but praised them that they are employing a Welfare officer.

[bigcol]

Could it be a boat hire company boss, and local landlord have succeeded to sort it all out themselves? Or am I wrong

 

 

Quote Alan Fincher

 

A question though, already asked by others: If you genuinely believe that people are still moored in the same places after 2 years, when the rule is 14 days, why do you believe just changing 14 days to 2 days will change their behaviours?

 

Because now 2 of those days are now free, and if you want to stay the whole 14 days as normal, you pay the £25 per day

 

Or you could always eat at the pub, and maybe get on with the manager,

 

Maybe I'm wrong and apologies if I am

 

Col

Edited September 6, 2014 by bigcol

[cotswoldsman]

No I do not believe reducing the time limit to 2 days will stop the linger longers, enforcement does and this case is being done by landlord. With regard to Cotswaldman Can I borrow your rose tinted glasses. You are now against CRT but praised them that they are employing a Welfare officer.

I am consistent with CRT as hopefully I am on here I give praise where it is due such as welfare officer and criticise where I think that is due. As someone who was involved in lobbying for a welfare officer I am hardly going to say it is a bad idea.

[alan_fincher]

Because now 2 of those days are now free, and if you want to stay the whole 14 days as normal, you pay the £25 per day

I don't believe the signs that have gone up make any reference to either a £25 per day charge for overstaying, or even anything about "no return within x days" or "maximum y days in a month".

 

So I think you are wrong.

 

I think the 2 days is probably unenforcible, and certainly can't see how a pub landlord can enforce it at his discretion on behalf of CRT.

 

The best the pub. landlord can do is keep CRT appraised of when he believes any boat has overstayed more that 2 days, but I'm not sure CRT can do much then anyway.

 

But the fact it is probably unenforcible doesn't make it right - I still firmly believe these signs should not have gone up.

[jenlyn]

I don't believe the signs that have gone up make any reference to either a £25 per day charge for overstaying, or even anything about "no return within x days" or "maximum y days in a month".

 

So I think you are wrong.

 

I think the 2 days is probably unenforcible, and certainly can't see how a pub landlord can enforce it at his discretion on behalf of CRT.

 

The best the pub. landlord can do is keep CRT appraised of when he believes any boat has overstayed more that 2 days, but I'm not sure CRT can do much then anyway.

 

But the fact it is probably unenforcible doesn't make it right - I still firmly believe these signs should not have gone up.

Although this letter below relates to the K&A, I can see it becoming more widespread

 

 

“Visitor Mooring – extended stay charge

 

From 1st May 2014, as part of the interim 12 month local plan, visitor moorings on the Kennet & Avon Canal between Bath and Foxhangers have been designated as 48 hours free mooring. Boats that stay longer than this will be subject to a daily £25 extended stay charge.

 

You may use a particular visitor mooring for a maximum of 7 days in a calendar month. Exceeding this will also incur a daily £25 extended stay charge.

 

Our sightings indicate that you have been moored for longer than the free period at the visitor moorings at ____________________. For each additional day that your boat is moored you are now be subject to the daily £25 extended stay charge. We will send you an invoice for the total amount at the end of the month, and payment is due within 28 days.

 

We appreciate that the local plan has only been in place for short time and you may not have familiarised yourself with the new arrangement, so on this occasion only, we will waive the charges accrued so far providing you move your boat away from the visitor mooring site right away.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Debbi Figueiredo

 

Boating Co-ordinator”

[unquote]

[alan_fincher]

The facts given were that 256 boats were spotted at Stoke Hammond between April - Oct 2013 and only 3 were reported as overstaying and there was not a significant problem but "anecdotally" the landlord said boaters were finding difficult to stop for a quick drink. "The South East Boaters group gave general support to the proposal" "We do not propose to monitor these arrangements with volunteer mooring rangers" but the Landlord has volunteered to monitor and contact the trust if necessary so that the trust can contact the boaters.

 

I can't see how you can claim "general support", when a member of the sub-group has asked for their formal objection to the proposal to be minuted.

 

If another member of the group had stuck to the agreement that the associations believed they had with Richard Parry, there ought to have been a second objection. You would need to ask him why he chose not to object, but it makes the "joint associations" approach look pretty flaky, doesn't it?

 

Also if ACC had submitted a replacement member for the sub-group when their previous one resigned, rather than withdrawing any support for the sub-group, we might just have recorded three objections, and the "rubber stamping" might have been quite a bit harder to achieve.

 

If I were to stand down from the sub-group, then for future decisions of this type there would probably be zero objections, rather than one - I really can't see how that would be a good idea, (although maybe they are wishing that I would!)

 

If people wish to suggest the group has no validity, then of course they can, and maybe they have a point, but whilst it is the way CRT choose to (apparently) rubber stamp such decisions, I would hate to see it filled entirely by people not willing to challenge decisions that have no data to support them.

[matty40s]

No I do not believe reducing the time limit to 2 days will stop the linger longers, enforcement does and this case is being done by landlord. With regard to Cotswaldman Can I borrow your rose tinted glasses. You are now against CRT but praised them that they are employing a Welfare officer.

Enforcement DOESNT stop the linger longers Tonka.

I am currently moored near a 48 hour mooring spot, and have passed through/moored at this place many times on many different boats in the last 2 years.

There is mooring for probably 5 x 70 foot boats at the 48 hour mooring site.

For the last 2 months, there has been a 70 foot boat moored (for the last two years actually), a 45 foot boat (probably for 6 months out of the last two years), and a CRT 60 ft widebeam facility pontoon - moored even though there were free moorings on the CRT boat moorings areas.

 

The 70ft boat actually has a long term mooring opposite to the 48hr moorings, but due to health reasons, moors on the towpath side - even though the LTM side has excellent towpath and access.

The other boat(Pilipala), is not lived on at present, however, has a local connection to one of the houses at the lock, and someone in the family has passed away(last winter).

 

No action is taken by enforcement to move the CRT boat, or Pilipale to less invasive moorings.

Perhaps local hire companies should involve themselves....or maybe local enforcement be more proactive in shifting the boats to less awkward moorings.

 

This is just an example of a 48 hour mooring. Not a gripe, doesn't bother me, I prefer mooring round the corner, but is just the same as anywhere else.

[jenlyn]

 

I can't see how you can claim "general support", when a member of the sub-group has asked for their formal objection to the proposal to be minuted.

 

If another member of the group had stuck to the agreement that the associations believed they had with Richard Parry, there ought to have been a second objection. You would need to ask him why he chose not to object, but it makes the "joint associations" approach look pretty flaky, doesn't it?

 

Also if ACC had submitted a replacement member for the sub-group when their previous one resigned, rather than withdrawing any support for the sub-group, we might just have recorded three objections, and the "rubber stamping" might have been quite a bit harder to achieve.

 

If I were to stand down from the sub-group, then for future decisions of this type there would probably be zero objections, rather than one - I really can't see how that would be a good idea, (although maybe they are wishing that I would!)

 

If people wish to suggest the group has no validity, then of course they can, and maybe they have a point, but whilst it is the way CRT choose to (apparently) rubber stamp such decisions, I would hate to see it filled entirely by people not willing to challenge decisions that have no data to support them.

The ACC were refused the chance to put another candidate forward. At the time, I was told the sub group would more than likely be phased out.

[alan_fincher]

Although this letter below relates to the K&A, I can see it becoming more widespread

 

And on current evidence, I can't disagree at all.

 

Problem is, that, despite all our best efforts, and huge time consumed by all of us, whatever approach we take, (association, CRT group, individual), doesn't actually seem to stop it. (Although I am hoping we have finally staved of unnecessary action at Berkhamsted, so maybe sometimes we win a bit?)

 

Maybe instead of all pointing at each other and saying it isn't working, we need to see if there is anything we have not yet tried that convinces them.

 

If they tell me at our next meeting that Three Locks has been a resounding success, and now they intend to do the same at (say) the Globe, I on my own am not likely to be able to stop them.

 

I have, incidentally, little idea why I am so passionate about this - the likelihood that I would ever wish to stay at the Three Locks or the Globe for more than a single night is virtually zero. In fact it could benefit me if any or all of these sites were made 2 day, (or even one day). It still feels like the thin end of a wedge though, as you suggest, and even if you now don't seem to like how I am tackling my opposition, I think we probably both still agree it should be opposed.

[alan_fincher]

The ACC were refused the chance to put another candidate forward. At the time, I was told the sub group would more than likely be phased out.

OK that is not my memory of how you explained it to me, but accepted, if that is what you are saying now.

 

I had hoped that even the current group might yield at least one or two that supported me, but nobody did on this particular issue, as I have explained.

 

I probably feel as let down by this as you do.

[jenlyn]

[matty40s]

 

ooooh, you cow....

[alan_fincher]

ooooh, you cow....

As long as you moove after 2 days.....

[Tuscan]

I can't see how you can claim "general support", when a member of the sub-group has asked for their formal objection to the proposal to be minuted.

 

If another member of the group had stuck to the agreement that the associations believed they had with Richard Parry, there ought to have been a second objection. You would need to ask him why he chose not to object, but it makes the "joint associations" approach look pretty flaky, doesn't it?

 

Also if ACC had submitted a replacement member for the sub-group when their previous one resigned, rather than withdrawing any support for the sub-group, we might just have recorded three objections, and the "rubber stamping" might have been quite a bit harder to achieve.

 

If I were to stand down from the sub-group, then for future decisions of this type there would probably be zero objections, rather than one - I really can't see how that would be a good idea, (although maybe they are wishing that I would!)

 

If people wish to suggest the group has no validity, then of course they can, and maybe they have a point, but whilst it is the way CRT choose to (apparently) rubber stamp such decisions, I would hate to see it filled entirely by people not willing to challenge decisions that have no data to support them.

Alan

 

"the South East Boaters Group gave general support for the proposal" is a direct quote from the CRT briefing document I have discussing the changes to Stoke Hammond and in the SE generally that was prepared and given to me last month.

 

It's a fudge the data on all the other moorings you were discussing which resulted in little changes in the SE was this years. No data was given this year to support the changes to Stoke Hammond yet this was pushed through with the claim by CRT this was justified as it had the general support of your group.

 

I am not doubting your integrity just pointing out that this is not a good way to govern our waterways when decisions that effect all boaters are made by small interest groups some of whom have clear vested interests.

[tillergirl]

Stupid question, if I carry further south, is there stipulation of 2 days at the THE GLOBE

 

Thanks in advance

 

Col

No signs at all here so I guess its 14 days

[Bod]

Alan, for what its worth, you have my support, in objecting to decisions made without referral to actual need, for the benefit of private businesses.

 

Bod

[Wanted]

Regardless of the back handed deals going on, I will stand by the integrity of Alan, if anything, he's a victim of this as well.

[tree monkey]

BSP here posting using Monkey's account: Can I make a suggestion? If pub landlords are canoodling with hire boat companies and negatively impacting on boat owners in the assumption their business will improve courtesy of hirers; why don't all us boaters boycott the one or two pubs in question? That way they will feel the true financial consequences of their under handedness and CRT will realise they've actually damaged trade.

 

Now would be a good time to do it because any skewing of income from the summer rush of hirers won't be there as the weather deteriorates for autumn and winter.

 

I'd be more than happy to do that and then write to the landlords to let them know! Let them do their books next year and see if it's really paid off for them. And when it doesn't they can suck up to CRT again and ask them to change it all back.

 

Incidentally, every Thursday and Sunday night there are 3-5 Wyvern hire boats moored outside the Globe. And I've seen many a boat owner decide to take his boat through to town instead. That boater may have used the pub for many days of his stay. Hirer's certainly don't. In fact Wyvern boats almost never stop there on their first day as it's so close to the boatyard. Meaning the most the pub will get out of them is one day per week for a holiday maker and only if they intended to go there at all. The other six days of the week the pub needs boat owners and walkers. In fact I see the hire boaters eating on their hire boat outside the pub and not actually in the pub itself. So I'd argue that the pub at Three Locks is unlikely to gain more business from the change in mooring regulations.

 

Vote with your wallet, I say.

Edited September 7, 2014 by tree monkey

[Ange]

No I do not believe reducing the time limit to 2 days will stop the linger longers, enforcement does and this case is being done by landlord.

and the landlord is happy for them to linger longer as long as they sup his ale.

 

Is he paying towards the upkeep of the mooring? It appears he's onto a very good deal here - report the boaters that "linger longer" than they should unless they sup in his pub every night, in which case he'll tip them a wink and keep quiet.

 

I find this very disturbing.

 

ETA posted this before I read to the end of the thread - excellent suggestion BSP though please don't use Tree Monkey's account at this time of the morning - I thought the world had turned on it's head when it appeared he was still up

Edited September 7, 2014 by Ange

[Ange]

Regardless of the back handed deals going on, I will stand by the integrity of Alan, if anything, he's a victim of this as well.

This I totally agree with.

 

It's a tangled web, and I know from the conversations I've had with Alan his frustration at trying to weave his way through it and do the best for the boating community, a quest which has taken a huge amount of his time and energy - not because of any ego trip but because he has a genuine love of boating along with a good understanding of the conflicting interests that have beset the canal network and a desire for fairness. I backed him in the farcical "boating representative" ballot and I'd do so again without a second thought if he sees fit to put himself up again.

 

We really do need to stop infighting and start pulling together if we're to stand a chance.

 

Yep - maybe I'm naive but I live in hope.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Ange

[cotswoldsman]

Not sure where to start now!! Maybe best place would be at the beginning. Back in 2012 a number of us voiced grave concerns about the power being given to the Waterways Partnerships unfortunately as it was the early days of the WP this fell mainly on deaf ears. In 2013 it became apparent that the South East Waterways Partnership was not fit for purpose it was a Partnership that was spending to much time looking at boating issues that were not in the original remit of the Partnerships. This became very clear during and after the SE Visitor Mooring Consultation the Partnership lacked boaters input. We then campaigned to get more boaters on the Partnership as it became apparent that it was dominated by 2 people John Best and Jeff Whyatt I personally (as did others) exchanged many heated emails with Best and Whyatt. Their solution was to set up a boaters sub group by doing this they missed completly the main points . First one being the Partnership needed more boaters and the second being it was not in their remit to be so active in boating issues, but by having a boaters sub group it actually increased their power to get involved in boating issues. I and others warned at the time that the sub group would be used as a rubber stamping group, I am tempted to say "I told you so" and I just have!!

So having now read what has happened on the thread since I went to bed it would appear that another system to change Visitor Moorings has been introduced. Take the CEO out on a Hire Boat stop for a pint at the pub and between the 3 of you agree to change the moorings to 48 hours, to give it some credibility take it to the Boaters Sub Group knowing

that maybe there will only be 1 or 2 decenting voices but with a few hire boat owners and others appointed by CRT it will go through.

I go back to the question I have been asking for a long time "who runs our canals and for who's benefit?"

[Tuscan]

It's surely not about the integrity or otherwise of any individual it's about governance and the process by which decisions are made that effect all boaters. So that decisions on moorings on say the Lancaster or Coventry canal follow the same process that are made on.the Grand Union. For this there is a need for a common purpose , strategy and framework. Not individual partnerships making there separate decisions that have happened recently .

 

Start with enforcement and then worry about moorings.

[cotswoldsman]

It's surely not about the integrity or otherwise of any individual it's about governance and the process by which decisions are made that effect all boaters. So that decisions on moorings on say the Lancaster or Coventry canal follow the same process that are made on.the Grand Union. For this there is a need for a common purpose , strategy and framework. Not individual partnerships making there separate decisions that have happened recently .

Start with enforcement and then worry about moorings.

If that is in reply to my post I am not doubting anyone's integrity but the fact that these decisions are made behind closed doors or it now appears in pubs and boaters are excluded from being part of the process Edited September 7, 2014 by cotswoldsman