Moorings at 3 locks

[jenlyn]

As for the sub-group itself, I understand it to be a talking shop to enable the views of people from various user sectors to be aired and discussed. The group is not a decision maker as such but does give the opportunity for a wide variety of views to be aired. Certainly, that is the reason that I attend and I am grateful to have been given the chance to do so. [unquote]

 

This is the point where I believe it all goes wrong.

I would suggest that the group is merely used as a "clearance house". Thus giving some sort of credibility to what the trust wishes to push through.

Given the information that has now been outed, it seems to me that Mathew Symmonds (south east boating liason officer), has been a little sparse with the truth (just my opinion). I believe far too much trust has been given to an individual who has very little knowledge of a canal system.

I think this needs to be addressed.

[colmac]

Gosh, jolly glad ~I just go out and potter about on our boat, relaxing and enjoying life in retirement. All this angst, does you no good you know.

[jenlyn]

Gosh, jolly glad ~I just go out and potter about on our boat, relaxing and enjoying life in retirement. All this angst, does you no good you know.

Well hopefully, all this "angst" will allow you to ultimately keep "pottering".....

[MtB]

Well hopefully, all this "angst" will allow you to ultimately keep "pottering".....

 

Quite.

 

I'm sure CRT look at the Basingstoke canal and marvel at how easy it is to manage without any of those pesky boaters 'pottering' about and demanding moorings, services, locks that work, water levels maintained, dredging, obstructions removed etc.

 

MtB

[bassplayer]

Well hopefully, all this "angst" will allow you to ultimately keep "pottering".....

Well said Steve...I for one don't like the way things are going. I'm seriously thinking of selling my live aboard and going down the camper route.

 

Unfortunately that lifestyle is also being attacked by councils putting up illegal parking notices and individuals trying to line their own pockets. As the divide between the rich and poor gets wider, combined with the abuse of power that goes with it, the situation will only get worse.

[Barry]

Yes but if the people responsible are over-riding what has been agreed in committees and making 'private' deals etc, it just becomes hot air. The only way to deal with these people is to expose them publically and hope their consciences kick into to line. If anything looks illegal (e.g pecuniary gain), take them to court.

 

From What AW says what people are not understanding is that the system is not a decision making machine but a consultative one. So there are no decisions taken at these meetings - just advice given. Whether CRT act on that advice is up to them.

 

However if, at these meetings CRT commit to stuff then, if they want to be seen as people and an organisation with integrity, they need to do what they say they are going to do.

 

As I see it, it may be that the info and opinions are taken back to the decision makers at CRT. Those decision makers choose to act on or dismiss the advice given - or choose between differing opinions. That's their job.

 

But kicking and screaming, accusing people of all sorts of stuff in an antagonistic, aggressive, combative way is never going to achieve anything other than resentment and a digging in of heels on the part of the people who are being accused.

 

Far better to work quietly, politely, assertively within the system. That approach is going to change people's minds more effectively than any other way. It encourages the decision makers in CRT to think positively about the consultation process rather than ignoring them because they see them as just an irrelevent pain in the arse.

 

Negativity breeds negativity and achieves nothing

[bassplayer]

From What AW says what people are not understanding is that the system is not a decision making machine but a consultative one. So there are no decisions taken at these meetings - just advice given. Whether CRT act on that advice is up to them.

 

However if, at these meetings CRT commit to stuff then, if they want to be seen as people and an organisation with integrity, they need to do what they say they are going to do.

 

As I see it, it may be that the info and opinions are taken back to the decision makers at CRT. Those decision makers choose to act on or dismiss the advice given - or choose between differing opinions. That's their job.

 

But kicking and screaming, accusing people of all sorts of stuff in an antagonistic, aggressive, combative way is never going to achieve anything other than resentment and a digging in of heels on the part of the people who are being accused.

 

Far better to work quietly, politely, assertively within the system. That approach is going to change people's minds more effectively than any other way. It encourages the decision makers in CRT to think positively about the consultation process rather than ignoring them because they see them as just an irrelevent pain in the arse.

 

Negativity breeds negativity and achieves nothing

There's a big difference between negativity and being assertive. Enjoy the waterways while you still can...

[jenlyn]

From What AW says what people are not understanding is that the system is not a decision making machine but a consultative one. So there are no decisions taken at these meetings - just advice given. Whether CRT act on that advice is up to them.

 

However if, at these meetings CRT commit to stuff then, if they want to be seen as people and an organisation with integrity, they need to do what they say they are going to do.

 

As I see it, it may be that the info and opinions are taken back to the decision makers at CRT. Those decision makers choose to act on or dismiss the advice given - or choose between differing opinions. That's their job.

 

But kicking and screaming, accusing people of all sorts of stuff in an antagonistic, aggressive, combative way is never going to achieve anything other than resentment and a digging in of heels on the part of the people who are being accused.

 

Far better to work quietly, politely, assertively within the system. That approach is going to change people's minds more effectively than any other way. It encourages the decision makers in CRT to think positively about the consultation process rather than ignoring them because they see them as just an irrelevent pain in the arse.

 

Negativity breeds negativity and achieves nothing

I can tell by this post that you have no idea. Don't take that as me insulting you.

[Barry]

Its possible I don't have any idea so I don't take it as an insult.

 

I've lived long enough to know some stuff though

[alan_fincher]

Gosh, jolly glad ~I just go out and potter about on our boat, relaxing and enjoying life in retirement. All this angst, does you no good you know.

And many will feel as you do, and that is of course both your prerogative, and theirs.

 

If you are happy with a situation where lengths of moorings suddenly get restricted stay times placed on them by CRT with no evidence to support the need, and if you don't think you will ever in your "pottering retirement" ever want to stay stop at one of these places for more than 2 days, you probably can say "tough luck on those that do", and carry on relaxing as you do now.

 

As I have already said, I can't currently concieve a situation where I personally would wish to stop more than 2 days at Three Locks, but I don't see why that right should be taken from those that previously had it, or why it is reasonable to assume a landlord of a local business can fairly and impartially monitor such an arrangement.

 

Sometimes people get involved in things because they believe it is the right and proper thing to do, not because they will make any personal gain from their involvement, or they are likely to lose out if they don't.

[cotswoldsman]

Gosh, jolly glad ~I just go out and potter about on our boat, relaxing and enjoying life in retirement. All this angst, does you no good you know.

I like a good potter myself but also feel CRT need to be held to account for their actions

[Tuscan]

Below is an extract from a CRT response today to the Visitor Moorings just created on the Chesterfield.

 

"Whilst distinctly changing this area of the site, the visitor moorings have now been moved onto the towpath outside of the marina. Previous this to this, the towpath had been unsigned and so defaulted to 14 days. In moving the visitor moorings from the marina, we increased the stay time to 48 hours (with no return in 7 days) but the there is still a significant length unsigned and so they remain at 14 days. As we have not removed the ability to stay for 14 days, we did not consult on this particular point.

The concept of a 48 hour stay has been discussed at our local waterway forums as the standard we are hoping to achieve for the whole of the chesterfield, whereas previously it had been quite random. However, we have since received comments telling us that the 'no return in 7 days' is not so practical in this location and so we have undertaken to revisit this decision."

 

So not sure how this fits into the national policy currently being developed - "No return within 7 days" is a new one how is this to be policed and enforced for non compliance? . There should be I believe by default of a mix of stay times when visitor moorings are created unless there is evidence that a shorter stay is required. To be clear these replace the previous 24 hour visitor moorings that were within the marina that have now been fenced off.

[bigcol]

From another post started yesterday

Parliamentary Report into Canal & River Trust Published

 

I have only scanned through it but also this struck me

 

Richard Parry said that they are also now developing local mooring policies in conjunction with volunteers such as local business owners.

So looks like it's official, local business and volunteers controlling moorings as in canal side pubs etc

 

Col

[Mrs Trackman]

A disturbing thread, though I admit I haven't read it at one sitting.

At the national User's meeting on Wednesday visitor moorings came up very briefly.

Dean Davies has been in post since July as Customer Service head and direct report to Richard Parry. He seems to be covering a lot including enforcement and visitor moorings. Many on here praised Dean for his speed at getting emergency stoppages, (Minworth?), sorted and keeping everyone informed.

On Wednesday, Dean mentioned that he didn't want to be micro managing VMs but that they would be sorted locally. I questioned this in the meeting, (wish I'd realised quite how locally they meant, hadn't realised it was up to pub landlords now). Richard Parry said that CRT would still be providing the overall strategy on moorings.

I questioned Dean further about this over lunch. Dean insisted that no change was to be made without evidence of use which would be monitored carefully in each locality. I was annoyed with myself for failing to ask specifically whether there was to be monitoring of the widely brought in new 48 hour moorings but it was certainly implied that they would.

So, that is what was said on Wednesday but reading this thread I can't help but feel it's not what is actually happening.

[jenlyn]

What they say, and what they do leaves much to the imagination.

I suspect many more such moorings will pop up.

 

I have to admit that a certain amount of trust and respect has gone out of the window. After so much was put into building a relationship between boat owners and CRT, it just beggars belief to find it has stepped back in time yet again.

 

I believe the only change has been CRT's PR. It's definitely worthy of a CaRP medal.

[alan_fincher]

I can only agree with Mrs Trackman, I'm afraid.

 

There's a big difference between claiming there will be an overall strategy, (we still don't have that agreed!) with local input to tailor it to an area, and going out and striking one off "deals" and then pushing them through as "only a trial".

 

By biggest concern is that, with no valid "before" data, how can anybody take any meaningful measure of the success or failure of the so called "trial". Who decides ? The publican? The local hire boat operator?

 

I'm still deeply unhappy about what has happened, and still trying to fight it, but unfortunately the signs are already in, and it will be a lot harder to persuade them to remove them, than to have stopped them going up in the first place.

 

Having just been at Stoke Bruerne, I can see that they are still "tinkering" there. The additional signs that allowed longer stays in the "tunnel" pound from November to March have now been removed from the totems, it seems. I have no idea why, but will raise this again with Matthew Symmonds, who I am hoping to speak to over the next few days.

[cotswoldsman]

You might be better off having a pint with Parry and Griffin than talking to Symmonds

[alan_fincher]

You might be better off having a pint with Parry and Griffin than talking to Symmonds

You may well be right.

 

I have had some responses from Matthew Symmonds and asked his permission to make them public, but he has indicated he wants to talk to me, so that is the next step, (but I would rather deal with it from home than trying to hear him on a dodgy phone signal over a Lister HA3 - so not today).

 

I'm hoping that what this has stirred up may already have convinced Richard Parry that things were not exactly done in a reasonable way, but yet to have a direct conversation with him about it. Did anybody try to raise this directly with him at the National User Group, rather than in the meeting itself - I would be interested if they did.

[jenlyn]

You might be better off having a pint with Parry and Griffin than talking to Symmonds

oooops, someone saw that, debifiggey has been despatched......

You may well be right.

 

I have had some responses from Matthew Symmonds and asked his permission to make them public, but he has indicated he wants to talk to me, so that is the next step, (but I would rather deal with it from home than trying to hear him on a dodgy phone signal over a Lister HA3 - so not today).

 

I'm hoping that what this has stirred up may already have convinced Richard Parry that things were not exactly done in a reasonable way, but yet to have a direct conversation with him about it. Did anybody try to raise this directly with him at the National User Group, rather than in the meeting itself - I would be interested if they did.

Given the fact your a member of NABO, I hope your keeping them informed of the ongoing discussion you are directing.

This of course is an issue relevant to all boaters.

[Tonka]

Why nabo if it is all boaters

[cotswoldsman]

Why nabo if it is all boaters

Because the Associations have a meeting with Parry and CRT next Monday and Alan I think is a member of NABO so they would then have the latest for the meeting

[alan_fincher]

Given the fact your a member of NABO, I hope your keeping them informed of the ongoing discussion you are directing.

This of course is an issue relevant to all boaters.

I'd prefer not to be involved in anything that can't be in the fully public domain.

 

That's why I want Matthew Symmonds to let me publish some responses, but I would obviously rather he had agreed to that first.

 

I doubt I know anything currently that Mark Tizzard doesn't though, so I don't think you need worry about what NABO knows.

 

Edited to add:

 

Alan Wildman is on the SE Boating Subgroup, so provided he attends your meeting, should be fully in the loop on anything that has happened in connection with that group, of course.

Edited September 15, 2014 by alan_fincher

[bassplayer]

You might be better off having a pint with Parry and Griffin than talking to Symmonds

...pint or next lodge meeting maybe...

[BlueStringPudding]

I hope the pub survives as over the years there have been many attempts to make a pub here pay over the years. Guess I will have to give it a miss as I assume the moorings will be full of local hire boats year round .

Course it won't. Hire boats don't stay all week at the pub. There's one day of their holiday (at a push two) when they'll stop at a pub. And not at all most of the autumn and winter. That means that most of the year, plus in the summer the other five or six days of the week that hire boaters aren't there, the pub will be losing custom as normal boaters will be less likely to plan a stay there. It won't be long before even more canal side pubs close down because of the short-sightedness of one hire firm owner and CaRT who should understand cruising patterns better than they clearly do.

[colmac]

Ah, the opposite of "hire boaters" is :normal boaters" ( quote from above post ) Often wondered.