Thoroughly Depressing Open Meeting

[b0atman]

vote liberal democrats who are wobbling on a fence at the edge of a chasm

[Sir Nibble]

Have to add this to get back on topic. Time and again we hear protests about an anti CC agenda or CC bashers and time and again the protester is challenged to provide even a single example and no one has managed it yet. It is without doubt true that a mooring holder tending to cruise within a restricted area does not fully appreciate the unique problems of the CCer. This is a good reason to applaud CWM and his work to get the ACC off the ground. By the same token it is also true that the CCer will never have an appreciation of local problems because they don't have a "local". Only those who spend a lot of time cruising a restricted area can really know that area, where they can expect tight swing bridges or dodgy paddles or towpath communities. Because the true CCer can by definition never be in a position to appreciate the scale of the issue it is unfair to presume that those who object are driven by some kind of underlying malice (though some possibly are).

Up there ^ I said "a mooring holder tending to cruise within a restricted area". Now what is the difference between that and a CMer? The difference is that one moves their boat around for a week or so then tucks it away on it's mooring, the other moors for a week or so then moves a short distance and moors again for a week or so. That and the price of the mooring. I have said this before and I'll say it again. On the western K&A some visitor moorings had become residential, anywhere with piling or concrete wharf was also residential, sometimes even marked with boat names and of course "You can't stop there, this is so and so's spot and they've just gone for water". It was next to impossible to moor near a bridge and many boats never ever moved apart from to take on services (some not even that using a tender and containers!) One boat occupied one bridgehole for four years to my knowledge. It simply became an untenable situation. For a few years now the spotlight has been on and the situation has improved vastly, to the point now where nearly the whole of the liveaboard population appear to be behaving in a far more considerate and less proprietorial manner much as they claim they always did (yea, right). perhaps we are at a crossroads and the question has been asked whether the waterways should be for cruising or housing, I think that the answer, or compromise, must be reached through reasoned consideration by all stake holders and not just one self interested group barging in and making their preferred option a de facto reality. That goes for both extremes of the debate, the western K&A in my opinion demonstrates both that an unrestrained free for all results in a selfish land grab(sic) and that sustainable residential use is achievable.

[alan_fincher]

I think Sir Nibble and I are often a long way apart on these matters, so I started reading his reply with some reservations. In the end though I can't find much to disagree with there.

 

I think anybody who pretends there are no problems is being as unrealistic as those who try and claim the entire route from Northamptonshire to London is already a linear housing park.

 

What I am convinced is that we will only get anywhere by trying to build some kind of consensus about what is tenable, then trying to persuade people to operate within that. If CRT's own numbers that nearly half of those registered without a home mooring struggle to move 10 kilometers in most of a year are correct, there is no way CRT will ever have the resources to take 2000 plus boaters to court for non compliance.

 

Therefore the vast majority of those perceived as a problem are not suddenly about to be removed from the cut, (however much many of those on their hobby horses last night might like this to be the case!), so the need is to try and see how the situation can best be managed.

Clearly there has to be compromise from both extremes of the debate - how can it possibly be otherwise. That's why I feel the kind of outpourings made last night actually get us nowhere.

[Sir Nibble]

I think Sir Nibble and I are often a long way apart on these matters, so I started reading his reply with some reservations. In the end though I can't find much to disagree with there.

 

I think anybody who pretends there are no problems is being as unrealistic as those who try and claim the entire route from Northamptonshire to London is already a linear housing park.

 

What I am convinced is that we will only get anywhere by trying to build some kind of consensus about what is tenable, then trying to persuade people to operate within that. If CRT's own numbers that nearly half of those registered without a home mooring struggle to move 10 kilometers in most of a year are correct, there is no way CRT will ever have the resources to take 2000 plus boaters to court for non compliance.

 

Therefore the vast majority of those perceived as a problem are not suddenly about to be removed from the cut, (however much many of those on their hobby horses last night might like this to be the case!), so the need is to try and see how the situation can best be managed.

 

Clearly there has to be compromise from both extremes of the debate - how can it possibly be otherwise. That's why I feel the kind of outpourings made last night actually get us nowhere.

But is there not a risk that the 2000 will simply say "we win then" and the entire basis or CaRT's right to manage the waterways is challenged. Why should they be interested in compromise if as you suggest their very numbers make them unassailable?

[Timleech]

But is there not a risk that the 2000 will simply say "we win then" and the entire basis or CaRT's right to manage the waterways is challenged. Why should they be interested in compromise if as you suggest their very numbers make them unassailable?

 

I try not to get involved with these debates, but I do think they will never be resolved for London and other hot spots until there is properly thought out new legislation, and the longer that issue is ducked the harder it will be to achieve because of the growing weight of numbers in those areas and the increasing pressure they can apply.

Those who claim to know say that legislation won't happen, but things will just get worse if it doesn't. The present mess was badly written in the first place and those who drew it up did not envisage it being used as it is today.

I fear that the gubbinsment won't be keen to tackle it anyway, because it probably suits them to have somewhere for cheap dwellings, they can delay tackling the root problem a bit longer.

 

Tim

[cotswoldsman]

But is there not a risk that the 2000 will simply say "we win then" and the entire basis or CaRT's right to manage the waterways is challenged. Why should they be interested in compromise if as you suggest their very numbers make them unassailable?

I would park the 2,000 as being a figure that is not backed up with any data. I hope I have never lived in denial but I have always come from the angle that things are prone to exaggeration yes there are blatant examples of boats that just do not move and I find it very frustrating that CRT do not get to grips with those. It would certainly make my job of trying to promote ccers as a benefit to the system easier.

[Sir Nibble]

I think CaRt are between a rock and a hard place with this and I suspect they will aim at low hanging fruit and a few high profile cases and gradually ratchet the bar higher until they get where they want to be. As stakeholders I think we should be watching the point at where the bar comes to rest and possibly calling "stop!". Certainly the bar needs to be higher than it currently is or serious consideration given to abandoning some waterways for purely residential use, (concrete over).

I would park the 2,000 as being a figure that is not backed up with any data. I hope I have never lived in denial but I have always come from the angle that things are prone to exaggeration yes there are blatant examples of boats that just do not move and I find it very frustrating that CRT do not get to grips with those. It would certainly make my job of trying to promote ccers as a benefit to the system easier.

I just pulled the 2000 from Alan's post. I've seen the figure but it's provenance is doubtful.

I think that there are two distinct groups of people using the waterways for two different purposes and I think you and I belong to the same group!

[cotswoldsman]

 

I try not to get involved with these debates, but I do think they will never be resolved for London and other hot spots until there is properly thought out new legislation, and the longer that issue is ducked the harder it will be to achieve because of the growing weight of numbers in those areas and the increasing pressure they can apply.

Those who claim to know say that legislation won't happen, but things will just get worse if it doesn't. The present mess was badly written in the first place and those who drew it up did not envisage it being used as it is today.

I fear that the gubbinsment won't be keen to tackle it anyway, because it probably suits them to have somewhere for cheap dwellings, they can delay tackling the root problem a bit longer.

 

Tim

I don't think it will happen have not heard it mentioned at any of the political conferences still it won't be long till we see the manifestos but if I was a betting man I don't think it will be in any of them

[peterboat]

Have to add this to get back on topic. Time and again we hear protests about an anti CC agenda or CC bashers and time and again the protester is challenged to provide even a single example and no one has managed it yet. It is without doubt true that a mooring holder tending to cruise within a restricted area does not fully appreciate the unique problems of the CCer. This is a good reason to applaud CWM and his work to get the ACC off the ground. By the same token it is also true that the CCer will never have an appreciation of local problems because they don't have a "local". Only those who spend a lot of time cruising a restricted area can really know that area, where they can expect tight swing bridges or dodgy paddles or towpath communities. Because the true CCer can by definition never be in a position to appreciate the scale of the issue it is unfair to presume that those who object are driven by some kind of underlying malice (though some possibly are).

Up there ^ I said "a mooring holder tending to cruise within a restricted area". Now what is the difference between that and a CMer? The difference is that one moves their boat around for a week or so then tucks it away on it's mooring, the other moors for a week or so then moves a short distance and moors again for a week or so. That and the price of the mooring. I have said this before and I'll say it again. On the western K&A some visitor moorings had become residential, anywhere with piling or concrete wharf was also residential, sometimes even marked with boat names and of course "You can't stop there, this is so and so's spot and they've just gone for water". It was next to impossible to moor near a bridge and many boats never ever moved apart from to take on services (some not even that using a tender and containers!) One boat occupied one bridgehole for four years to my knowledge. It simply became an untenable situation. For a few years now the spotlight has been on and the situation has improved vastly, to the point now where nearly the whole of the liveaboard population appear to be behaving in a far more considerate and less proprietorial manner much as they claim they always did (yea, right). perhaps we are at a crossroads and the question has been asked whether the waterways should be for cruising or housing, I think that the answer, or compromise, must be reached through reasoned consideration by all stake holders and not just one self interested group barging in and making their preferred option a de facto reality. That goes for both extremes of the debate, the western K&A in my opinion demonstrates both that an unrestrained free for all results in a selfish land grab(sic) and that sustainable residential use is achievable.

plus one

[alan_fincher]

But is there not a risk that the 2000 will simply say "we win then" and the entire basis or CaRT's right to manage the waterways is challenged. Why should they be interested in compromise if as you suggest their very numbers make them unassailable?

 

Because, as you have suggested in the K&A context, many are probably far more prepared to "be reasonable" than many of those railing against them are prepared to believe.

 

Not all of course, but many have got to where they are by being ill "advised" in the past. Such "research" as they did said that provided they shuffled between a few places they would be fine - and if they were actually getting this from a BW enforcement person, why wouldn't they believe it.

 

Of course not all are now in a situation where they can radically improve their pattern of movement, but I see evidence that quite a lot are trying to, or that those who can not have actually found themselves a home mooring.

 

I don't think it is "beyond fixing" yet, although the continuous migration of more and more boats into the capital itself might make that one a very substantial challenge now.

 

However, I'll openly declare that circumstances have unusually meant we have not boated into London in the last two or three years, so I'm not in a position to judge just how quickly that problem is escalating.

[Tuscan]

The problem with many meetings is that if you stage manage them from a presentational viewpoint without the attendees being aware of the agenda you can get some outspoken questions which can make any genuine attempt for dialogue and information exchange difficult leaving attendees frustrated and CRT or whoever able to tick a box regarding "open" meeting held.

 

All organisations have a strategy or a view that they want to get accross and will keep going until they feel that they have a mandate and I'm sure this is the same with CRT whether open meetings, individual or joint meeting with the associations. From a NABO viewpoint we are aware of this and are responding to CRTs request and trying to work with CRT and provide input to a developing policy on CC'rs as I am sure others probably are.

 

Part of the challenge in my opinion is that i feel everything is entwined , movement, distance, congestion, enforcement, visitor moorings and that CRT are seemingly trying to separate some of these resulting in tinkering around the edges rather than starting back at the basics in understanding what enforcement powers they have and how and when they should be used. Start with boats that either don't move or don't move every 14 days and work out from there.

[Sir Nibble]

 

Because, as you have suggested in the K&A context, many are probably far more prepared to "be reasonable" than many of those railing against them are prepared to believe.

 

Not all of course, but many have got to where they are by being ill "advised" in the past. Such "research" as they did said that provided they shuffled between a few places they would be fine - and if they were actually getting this from a BW enforcement person, why wouldn't they believe it.

 

 

My observations Alan, suggest that the "Ill Advice" was quite correct until enforcement was stepped up, and would become true again if it were stepped down again. The current improvement has been brought about by enlightened self interest under pressure, not a sudden realisation that it' a better way to behave.

[cotswoldsman]

My observations Alan, suggest that the "Ill Advice" was quite correct until enforcement was stepped up, and would become true again if it were stepped down again. The current improvement has been brought about by enlightened self interest under pressure, not a sudden realisation that it' a better way to behave.

It needs to be stepped up more. CRT have all the powers required with the present laws to solve the majority of the problems

[Tuscan]

Because, as you have suggested in the K&A context, many are probably far more prepared to "be reasonable" than many of those railing against them are prepared to believe.

 

Not all of course, but many have got to where they are by being ill "advised" in the past. Such "research" as they did said that provided they shuffled between a few places they would be fine - and if they were actually getting this from a BW enforcement person, why wouldn't they believe it.

Of course not all are now in a situation where they can radically improve their pattern of movement, but I see evidence that quite a lot are trying to, or that those who can not have actually found themselves a home mooring.

 

I don't think it is "beyond fixing" yet, although the continuous migration of more and more boats into the capital itself might make that one a very substantial challenge now.

 

However, I'll openly declare that circumstances have unusually meant we have not boated into London in the last two or three years, so I'm not in a position to judge just how quickly that problem is escalating.

The K&A pilot has failed to date in that boaters are not moving the required distance within the required timeframe. Some boaters have moved further but there are reports that they.have either now grouped without moving at Hungerford or on the Avon, and CRT had no strategy to move them on further. Meanwhile those that always moved every 2 weeks (as many do in London) continue to do so albeit within a relatively short range. There has to be some form of consensus in the end I suspect.

 

To say they were badly advised in the past may have been true in the past but this is definately not the case for quite a few years now and I find it difficult to believe that boaters are still unaware. In London my fear is that the pressure on facilities will create an Envirinmental disaster if numbers continue to grow.

[Sir Nibble]

The K&A pilot has failed to date in that boaters are not moving the required distance within the required timeframe. Some boaters have moved further but there are reports that they.have either now grouped without moving at Hungerford or on the Avon, and CRT had no strategy to move them on further. Meanwhile those that always moved every 2 weeks (as many do in London) continue to do so albeit within a relatively short range. There has to be some form of consensus in the end I suspect.

 

To say they were badly advised in the past may have been true in the past but this is definately not the case for quite a few years now and I find it difficult to believe that boaters are still unaware. In London my fear is that the pressure on facilities will create an Envirinmental disaster if numbers continue to grow.

They seem to continue to believe they are right and everyone else is unlawful and ultra vires and other norty things. They might be right but then it's only for a judge to say and Davies must have given a clue.

 

Edited to correct misspelling of "Norty"

Edited October 7, 2014 by Sir Nibble

[DHutch]

Edmondson must be turning in his grave.

The long-distance bus service from Peterborough to Lowestoft, the X1, now has new buses which advertise that they are equipped with Wi-Fi. I'm not sure if those are Arriva or First buses.

On the topic of e-ticks for trains; I think its great, as always (?) and for no obvious reason (?) , it seems not all tickets are available as e-tickets but given I already normally buy and collect tickets as using my phone, as well as using it for train times, I see not reason for then having to print out a physical ticket.

 

On the topic WiFi on buses; its also the case on the Rossendale-Manchester buses, and I presume many others around the system. Given the area has mixed mobile reception, and the many of the bus users will be younger generations, I think its a great, as well as an incentive and enabler for business persons to also use the buses.

 

 

Daniel

[DHutch]

...to get back on topic...

 

In case anyone else has just spent a while trying to find it, details of forth coming meetings can be seen on the below link.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings/

 

 

Daniel

[alan_fincher]

To say they were badly advised in the past may have been true in the past but this is definately not the case for quite a few years now and I find it difficult to believe that boaters are still unaware. In London my fear is that the pressure on facilities will create an Envirinmental disaster if numbers continue to grow.

 

Have you actually read many of the huge numbers of "I'm thinking of buying a boat and living in London" posts that turn up on (in particular) Facebook.

 

The naivety (whether genuine or maybe slightly faked!) of those starting such threads is staggering. Fortunately there are usually at least some who respond with the harsh realities, but in some threads I have seen there are nearly as many "go for it, I've been doing it for years, and not had a problem" posts.

 

 

[matty40s]

 

Have you actually read many of the huge numbers of "I'm thinking of buying a boat and living in London" posts that turn up on (in particular) Facebook.

 

The naivety (whether genuine or maybe slightly faked!) of those starting such threads is staggering. Fortunately there are usually at least some who respond with the harsh realities, but in some threads I have seen there are nearly as many "go for it, I've been doing it for years, and not had a problem" posts.

 

 

I was fairly gobsmacked this year when delivering boats down to and through London how large the boating population has become. Areas which until two or three years ago would not have been considered for safe mooring are now end to end boats. Kensal Green was probably 10-12 boats maximum when I was CCing the London loop 3 years ago, it now has boats stretching for a mile either side. Even West Drayton had a few boats moored.

Moving boats, I rarely moor up until late evening, and both deliveries did not fail to find a good mooring near shops/facilities, sometimes the most obvious moorings are the ones to head for as everyone thinks they will be full.

London as it stands, is not going to stop expanding as a housing solution, Whilton buying sinkers , blacking them and selling them, for £15k with a map of the route to London free, is not helping. There is much free cruising to be had in London, there are still long stretches unoccupied.

 

All that needs to happen is that a certain number of Visitor Moorings need to be bookable in advance.....Say 5 at Little Venice, 5 in Paddington Basin, 3 at Camden, a few at other choice sites.

If there is a reservation fee or a booking charge (how about £25), then so be it, it is our countries capital city and everything else commands a premium cost down there.

I did suggest this several years ago to BW Head of Boating, but their financial system does not allow anything other than Fines to be levied. and that is how they continue to leave it.

[NigelMoore]

I did suggest this several years ago to BW Head of Boating, but their financial system does not allow anything other than Fines to be levied. and that is how they continue to leave it.

 

Of course the only fines that can be levied are those imposed by courts for breach of the appropriate byelaws. How often [if ever] have those been applied for? I honestly do not know. That information has simply not been disclosed heretofore, so far as I am aware.

[Ange]

 

Speaking of Gayton I was amused when I asked a moorer with a pile of wood and various personal items on the towpath adjacent to his boat (i.e. made his home fairly permanent) the status of his mooring, since it was clearly between the 48 hour visitor mooring signs. Oh its 48 hours only he cheerfully said

Ah be careful of snap judgements! It's not unknown for us to make ourselves at home in a spot we're only staying at for a couple of days while we take the opportunity to get the work bench out, dry some washing and maybe clear the roof for a much needed clean (always making sure we leave a clear route for towpath walkers of course )

[Tuscan]

CRT have to issue a license to a boater heading to London if he meets the criteria, and they are given plenty of written advice by CRT when they obtain it. So there is no excuse for not knowing but if you know someone already in London who says its great who are you going to believe.

 

At a recent meeting with CRT one of the recommendations was that they become more proactive in the social and print media about life in London and some of the difficulties. They need to get the message across earlier but if a boater wants to CC in the London area should we be stopping him?

[Lady Muck]

I do think that's beginning to happen on Facebook. But sometimes people don't want to listen, they just go and try to do it anyway and then you get problems.

It's not the overcrowding that worries me as much as safety issues. We had that gas explosion at LV last year - how do we keep people safe?

[alan_fincher]

Well, we all know that the only area where CRT licences are remorselessly on the increase is for those with "no home mooring". All else is currently static or declining.

 

As I see it, the biggest problem CRT have is that if someone asks for such a licence, they are more or less compelled to grant it, (and then if it works out that way, only fire-fight the fact they don't consider that person is "bona fide navigating" retrospectively).

 

I'd like to say I have an answer, but I don't think any of us actually really have. Yes you can try to "educate", but if people don't want to hear it, CRT can't usually refuse to issue that licence.

 

I don't think there is a prayer of any legislation going through that change the powers that CRT have, and hence what they can, or can not, insist upon. Parry certainly seemed to think getting the required Parliamentary time would be a non starter, and I can only agree with that.

So we have what we have, whether people think the current legislation is wonderful, or whether they think it is the biggest thing working towards the future sustainability of the waterways for actually boating on.

I don't envy CRT their task, but share the view expressed by many of you that they seem more intent on tinkering than actually seeing how much they can sort out just by better enforcement of the powers that most of us, (but never all of us!) can agree they already seem to have.

[Guest User]

 

.... London as it stands, is not going to stop expanding as a housing solution, Whilton buying sinkers , blacking them and selling them, for £15k with a map of the route to London free, is not helping. There is much free cruising to be had in London, there are still long stretches unoccupied. ....

 

The draw of London reaches even further afield than Whilton. On Saturday, coming up Marsworth in convoy (having been delayed by a lack of water in the pound above the bottom lock), I chatted to the chap of the boat I was sharing the lock with - he'd bought his boat in Liverpool and had spent the previous month along with his two friends heading towards London. He had no plans for a mooring but was going to live somewhere between Uxbridge and Paddington. I was a little lost for words when in response to me mentioning that a couple of CRT staff had just arrived to help sort the water level on the flight he replied, "CRT-who?". In all seriousness he had never heard of CRT. I explained, but he just sort of shrugged in a way that conveyed that he didn't see how they were relevant to him. I must admit that I was impressed that he'd managed to buy a boat and navigate it for a month in a London direction but not gleaned any awareness of CRT, I left them as they moored up in good spirits despite the rain by the Grand Junction Arms.