Moorings at 3 locks

[alan_fincher]

The edit tells it all..

I thought the only edit I did was to correct some rather poor English, so unless you enlighten me, I have no idea what your comment is intended to imply, I'm afraid.

[bassplayer]

I thought the only edit I did was to correct some rather poor English, so unless you enlighten me, I have no idea what your comment is intended to imply, I'm afraid.

I refer the honourable gentleman back to my last edited post.....I'm sorry but my eyes must have deceived me for a second..

I thought the only edit I did was to correct some rather poor English, so unless you enlighten me, I have no idea what your comment is intended to imply, I'm afraid.

....so what do you think about my original response?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Well the signs are deceiving if they have no legal basis. If signs tell boaters they can't stay beyond 48 hours unless they spend money in a pub (without any legal basis), that's deception.

 

The £25 charge has been called a fine for years on the tiles on the K&A. I don't know of a single case where it was charged, and pursued.

As an aside, whenever I pass Bathampton these days, it seems deserted. It has a new 'maximum x days per month' restriction too.

 

I bet the locals are thrilled...

Just over a year ago, I asked CaRT to provide me with a copy of the original Bill that eventually be came the BW 1995 Act. Nigel Johnson, then CaRT's 'legal director' provided me with four documents none of which proved to be the one I requested.

 

A member of this forum managed to provide me with the Bill that BW had put before parliament.

 

In short Section 18 of the Bill said 'No person shall moor or leave a vessel in contravention of a notice prominently displayed by the board in or beside any inland waterway -'

 

This section went on to expand on mooring restrictions. A later section gave BW to power to fine for contravention of these mooring notices.

 

The point is that parliament were unconvinced and readers of the 1995 Act will find no reference to mooring restrictions (apart from the "14 days or longer' for those those without moorings).

 

...... and certainly not the power to fine for overstaying.

 

The current situation is that CaRT claims it has the power to erect notices restricting moorings and fines are now diguised as overstaying charges.

[alan_fincher]

So the volunteers can't monitor but we can still be treated as an overstayer by CRT enforcement? How does that work?

 

There will be no volunteer mooring wardens at Three Locks we are told, so that's why they can't monitor, (as they will not exist!).

 

CRT enforcement staff will still be out and about as usual, so can decide what actions they take about over-stayers, whether a mooring is defined as 2 days, or the default 14 days, just as they wood anywhere else.

 

The main ambiguity about Three Locks relates to the alleged role (or not!) of the pub landlord and/or manager. Someone at the pub has allegedly claimed to a CWDF forum member that they are monitoring on behalf of CRT, but CRT have denied that this is the case. However anybody (not just a pub landlord) can ring up the CRT enforcement team if they think a boat is overstaying, and that team can take action upon it if they choose to do so.................

 

I am, incidentally, not defending any of this, just trying to explain why not everybody has apparently given a consistent story. I have already indicated that Matthew Symonds, (CRT Boating Liaison Manager - South), has said he intends to produce a web page that explains the arrangements at Three Locks.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

There will be no volunteer mooring wardens at Three Locks we are told, so that's why they can't monitor, (as they will not exist!).

 

CRT enforcement staff will still be out and about as usual, so can decide what actions they take about over-stayers, whether a mooring is defined as 2 days, or the default 14 days, just as they wood anywhere else.

 

The main ambiguity about Three Locks relates to the alleged role (or not!) of the pub landlord and/or manager. Someone at the pub has allegedly claimed to a CWDF forum member that they are monitoring on behalf of CRT, but CRT have denied that this is the case. However anybody (not just a pub landlord) can ring up the CRT enforcement team if they think a boat is overstaying, and that team can take action upon it if they choose to do so.................

 

I am, incidentally, not defending any of this, just trying to explain why not everybody has apparently given a consistent story. I have already indicated that Matthew Symonds, (CRT Boating Liaison Manager - South), has said he intends to produce a web page that explains the arrangements at Three Locks.

Can I just say that pub landlords monitoring of visitor moorings is nothing new.

 

The 14 day visitor moorings at the Black Boy at Knowle on the GU have signs stating that moorers must 'sign in' at the pub.

[jenlyn]

The minutes of the south east sub boating group seem very elusive.

I find the whole set up slightly odd. Even the participants of the group have not been updated to show who has left.

 

I have to say, those remaining seem to be easily duped, given the recent revelations.

What else has been productive apart from helping sight some pontoons at Aylesbury?

[bassplayer]

 

The current situation is that CaRT claims it has the power to erect notices restricting moorings and fines are now diguised as overstaying charges.

So do CRT have that legal power to enforce the overstaying charges or not? Does anyone actually know?

[luctor et emergo]

This is why I'm curious about the legal basis, Maybe there is a legal basis but maybe the're too scared to enforce it because of any negative media spin...and the odd nutter retaliating...

There is no legal basis...

 

They can't charge you for over staying..

[Paul C]

So do CRT have that legal power to enforce the overstaying charges or not? Does anyone actually know?

 

AFAIK its never been tested in court, different people have different opinions based on their interpretation of the law. So until this happens, its unknown/unclear.

[jenlyn]

The minutes of the south east sub boating group seem very elusive.

I find the whole set up slightly odd. Even the participants of the group have not been updated to show who has left.

I have to say, those remaining seem to be easily duped, given the recent revelations.

What else has been productive apart from helping sight some pontoons at Aylesbury?

This is not aimed at any particular individual, I am referring to the group as a whole.

It's starting to smell worse than a cat litter.

AFAIK its never been tested in court, different people have different opinions based on their interpretation of the law. So until this happens, its unknown/unclear.

Totally wrong, with that statement, you need to link with the legislation that states clearly they can do this.

It's nothing to do with anyone interpreting anything, it's CRT attempting to set a precedent that would "eventually" and "possibly" help them with a court case.

 

Just as they have recently attempted to do with Tony dunkley.

Edited September 18, 2014 by jenlyn

[luctor et emergo]

As I pointed out earlier?

[bassplayer]

So someone says there is no legal basis...another says it needs to be tested in court...another smells a rat (sorry, cat litter)...I'm confused....

[Paul C]

Totally wrong, with that statement, you need to link with the legislation that states clearly they can do this.

It's nothing to do with anyone interpreting anything, it's CRT attempting to set a precedent that would "eventually" and "possibly" help them with a court case.

 

Just as they have recently attempted to do with Tony dunkley.

 

Its not me who is saying it is legal. The organisation (CRT) which believes it is legal HAVE cited the legislation they believe makes it so.

[jenlyn]

So someone says there is no legal basis...another says it needs to be tested in court...another smells a rat (sorry, cat litter)...I'm confused....

Do some of your own research then :-)

That way, you can form your own opinion.

[bassplayer]

Do some of your own research then :-)

That way, you can form your own opinion.

I am, but maybe this is the wrong place to do it...

[luctor et emergo]

Do some of your own research then :-)

That way, you can form your own opinion.

Unbelievable

[phill]

I am, but maybe this is the wrong place to do it...

It's quite unbelievable you would think it might be.

[bassplayer]

It's quite unbelievable you would think it might be.

I wouldn't go that far. Lots of serious questions get asked on here and there are some knowledgable people on here. Ultimately, you are right though. I'd need to pay a lawyer to look into it as I struggle to get my head around legal speak.

[alan_fincher]

The minutes of the south east sub boating group seem very elusive.

I find the whole set up slightly odd. Even the participants of the group have not been updated to show who has left.

 

I have to say, those remaining seem to be easily duped, given the recent revelations.

What else has been productive apart from helping sight some pontoons at Aylesbury?

Meeting notes are freely available for every meeting of the sub-group, {or were the last time I looked},so I'm not sure why you say elusive,

 

They were recently keen to point out that meetings of groups like these don't have "minutes", but "meeting notes", although the exact difference was not explained. I think they are trying to say they will record the agreed outcome of a discussion, but not the detail of all the contributions to it.

 

Personally I quite often don't think the meeting notes are detailed enough, and have asked that more be included in them.

 

The only problem I can see with membership of the group on the CRT web-page is that it still shows the SE Waterways manager as Jeff Whyatt, rather than the current acting manager Neil Owen. I will ask that this is updated. There have only been two resignations to date, (Louise Yeoman & Jim Cook) and neither of them still appear on the relevant page. They are still trying to actively recruit replacements, but I have heard no recent updates on this.

 

I'm not sure about "easily duped", as the issue that is causing consternation here is one where opinions differ widely, and I would say several of the group actively supported such an approach already, rather than having been tricked into supporting it now. I will agree that there were two in the group who I would have hoped night have supported me in opposing it, but, for whatever reason, they did not, when it mattered. I'm disappointed to be a lone voice on the topic, and not to have been able to win support to stop it.

 

As to the "what else has been productive" question, you know from your own experiences that trying to get sensible outcomes from CRT often requires you to jump through hoops for months, only to see them ultimately fiddle with something to the point it ends up getting canned. Or you think you have something sensible agreed, but they still go ahead and do something different.

 

If you look at the VM issue what you though you had agreed in your joint associations meeting with Parry didn't happen, and the march of further short stay moorings with no validation of the need has continued. That doesn't necessarily mean we should all give up and go home, or even point fingers at each other when something ends up not going as we were told it would. None of these routes of communication are ideal, and, indeed, none of us can even be clear we have an overall mandate from boaters as a whole that they want what we are fighting for. I still think each of us trying to get the message across by whatever route we have, {however imperfect) is better than not trying to do anything at all.

[matty40s]

I raised the prepay facility of £25 with Sally Ash 2 years ago at the Birmingham meeting. 2 years is ample time for something to be put into place.

I can pay my licence over the phone by card tomorrow, so the technology is there, maybe just not the will .

[Tuscan]

Alan can you confirm that £25 signs at Crick were not discussed or agreed with your group. As I understand that changes in signage at Banbury and Oxford were as well as Stoke Hammond but not Crick. Perhaps they are not new , but just new replacement signs but as Matty says he believes they are new to.

 

As Sally said once there is nothing to stop CRT just having this charge/penalty as the default position all over the waterway for anyone stopping over 14 days not just visitor moorings. Perhaps there would be less objection to this rather than just changing visitor moorings to short term when there is no justification.

[alan_fincher]

Alan can you confirm that £25 signs at Crick were not discussed or agreed with your group. As I understand that changes in signage at Banbury and Oxford were as well as Stoke Hammond but not Crick. Perhaps they are not new , but just new replacement signs but as Matty says he believes they are new to.

I have no memory of Crick ever having been discussed, either in connection with SEVM long before there was a South East Boating Sub-Group, or within that subgroup since.

 

Here, once again, is what was on the agenda for the last meeting, (which did not mention Three Locks, either)

 

 

6. Visitor Mooring

- Update on Foxton, Stoke Bruerne & Thrupp

- Report on boat sightings from Berkhamsted, Batchworth, Marsworth, Banbury and Oxford, discussion and recommendations on next steps

 

 

 

Here is the relevant part of the meeting notes, which despite me asking at least three times now, still do not correctly record the discussion about Three Locks, and hence give the wrong impression of what I objected to.

 

 

5. Visitor Mooring

MS introduced to the group an update for the South East Visitor Moorings. This included boat sighting data and ranked the top 35 sites, there was also additional sighting analysis for the following sites, Braunston, Banbury, Batchworth, Cosgrove & Old Wolverton, Oxford and Marsworth. MS has advised that he will gain confirmation as to how the average boats per day had been created.

MS confirmed that the Volunteer Rangers have given him feedback that boaters do generally like to have them around as a good source of local information and guidance for the new visitor mooring terms and conditions.

MS also confirmed that at Foxton, Thrupp and Stoke Bruerne that Volunteer Rangers are no longer delivering overstaying letters and that this is now being completed by Canal & River Trust staff. The group welcomed this decision.

MS advised that the Oxford visitor mooring area will be shortened and the Banbury visitor mooring area will be extended. Berkhamsted will stop being monitored. Batchworth, Marsworth, Cosgrove and Cowroast will continue to have visitor mooring monitoring.

SM questioned the need for monitoring at Banbury. AD suggested that the information collected could be used to better inform Cherwell DC about visitors and to work with them to improve the boat visitor experience.

There will be a short trial period of monitoring at the Three Locks

MSPub in Stoke Hammond, with the aid of the publican. AF advised that he did not feel that this is necessary, but MS confirmed that it was only for a short trial period.

The group would like to see additional data showing instead of sightings, but how the capacity of a location is affected and should therefore show how much space is still available at sites.

MS has confirmed that he will look at gathering the additional data and will supply this at the meeting in October.

LP would like to see the visitor mooring data for Stoke Bruerne & Thrupp, MS confirmed that he will provide this to LP.

LP confirmed that after visitor the Stoke Bruerne Visitor Mooring site that the new terms and conditions are working well with the bottom and long pound full of boats and that the top pound with the shorter stay time was half full and she has also seen an increase in the number of boats visiting the site.

Canal & River Trust have found that the Visitor Mooring project has been very well received by most boaters at the site it has been introduced and is being implemented selectively in other waterways.

 

The originals from which these are extracted are available here, and contain the names of participants if anybody wants to see who MS, AF, AW, SM, LP etc actually are.

 

EDIT:

 

No idea what is wrong, but despite several attempts, I can neither get the quoting to work properly here, nor trying to reformat the text to be reasable.

 

Please refer to original documents if you are uinclear about what I have tried to post!

Edited September 19, 2014 by alan_fincher

[bigcol]

Quote post 10

 

There will be a short trial period of monitoring at the Three Locks Pub in Stoke Hammond, with the aid of the publican. AF advised that he did not feel that this is necessary, but MS confirmed that it was only for a short trial period.

 

Another post quote

There will be a short trial period of monitoring at the Three Locks

 

 

Quote Post 304

 

There will be no volunteer mooring wardens at Three Locks we are told, so that's why they can't monitor, (as they will not exist!).

 

The main ambiguity about Three Locks relates to the alleged role (or not!) of the pub landlord and/or manager. Someone at the pub has allegedly claimed to a CWDF forum member that they are monitoring on behalf of CRT, but CRT have denied that this is the case.

 

 

the above post saying a forum member had a alleged conversation with the landlord

so where I had a conversation with Matt the landlord in the pub, Confirming that he and on behalf of CRT will be monitoring as they had a problem with overstayers, and wyvern boaters couldn't more up to use their facilities, but yes we can stay

 

May never have happened!

 

Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)

 

 

Col. Edited finding previous posts apologies

Edited September 19, 2014 by bigcol

[mark99]

No I think Mr F et all were communicating they were not actually present at the meeting so could not validate the exact content of the conversation - not that it did not happen nor that what was said was not right.

 

If ya get ma drift.

Edited September 19, 2014 by mark99

[BlueStringPudding]

Genuinely astounded that Old Wolverton has been singled out for "additional sighting analysis". It's practically empty most of the time. No-one hangs around the moorings near Tesco's for very long, because you're under the watchful eye for loads of apartment owners who don't want you running your engine - you stop there for a shopping trip or to use the train station, and get out pretty quick and there are loads of mooring there, never seen anyone have to push on through because they can't find a space. Mooring either side of those flats is Scrotesville Tennessee and you're likely to come away with graffiti on your boat, cider cans in the bow or have your ropes untied. And the end near the Galleon pub only ever had the same two scruffy boats shunting up and down between the pub and New Bradwell. I remember talking with a bloke in the pub who works there, and him telling me how he goes out to set boats adrift at night who moor pubside if he doesn't like the owner (this is paying customers he did that to!). Oh, and the end near the trunk aqueduct isn't dredged properly so you can't get right to the bank unless you are lucky - I have in the past been the virtual boarding plank for the coal boat overnighting there for that reason.

 

For a while the handful of displaced boats that all used to congregate together at Linford headed towards Old Wolverton, but that's not enough to warrant an "additional sighting analysis" because it's simply the same few people who all live as a community - rather than something symptomatic of major problems that will result in all other boaters being penalised and having their mooring options reduced in that area too. I can't imagine there's going to be terrible visitor mooring problems around there ever.

 

It's like saying there are four rats living in Fred's basement, they don't go anywhere else, they don't do any harm, they just live there. Fred doesn't like rats: Let's lay rat poison in Fred's basement, the whole street and the whole town and people who want to walk their dogs, let their cats out, allow their kids to play outside or see any wildlife still alive will just have to put up without those things from now on - but it's okay: because Fred's four rats have gone.

 

Are CRT actually spending their time - and therefore our money - as wisely as they could be re: visitor moorings? Or are they responding to a handful of people living in those areas, or boating in those areas, who are shouting loud enough to get their attention and ignoring the rest of us and common sense?

No I think Mr F et all were communicating they were not actually present at the meeting so could not validate the exact content of the conversation - not that it did not happen nor that what was said was not right.

 

If ya get ma drift.

 

Minutes get signed off as accurate at the next meeting. So when is/was the next meeting?

Edited September 19, 2014 by BlueStringPudding