Space to cruise in London?

[Alf Roberts]

NATIONAL BARGEE TRAVELLERS ASSOCIATION

PRESS RELEASE

2nd November 2014

 

SPACE TO CRUISE IN LONDON BUT

CRT DON'T WANT BOATERS WITHOUT

PERMANENT MOORINGS

 

On 24th October 2014 the BBC You and Yours programme ran an article about the number of boats on London's waterways. The BBC's Peter White said that there were 3000 boats cruising in London. This number obviously came from Canal & River Trust (CRT). The conclusion was that London was bursting at the seams and it was all the fault of the Continuous Cruisers.

 

The BBC interviewed a live-aboard boater of 2 weeks experience,who has a permanent mooring; a live-aboard Continuous Cruiser of 2 years' experience; Ian Shacklock of the Friends of the Regents Canal and Simon Salem, CRT's Marketing Director. Mr Salem stated that everyone had to share the space [in London]. Obviously he wants significantly fewer Continuous Cruisers.

 

In recent years CRT has concreted over large amounts of tow-path in London; this has made it impossible to moor on significant lengths of tow-path causing congestion in areas where boats can be tied up. CRT also has a policy of seeking to discourage would-be Continuous Cruisers from living on a boat in the London area.

 

In response the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) conducted a detailed snapshot survey of tow-path use. The NBTA confirmed that the population of live-aboard boats on the tow-path in London is approximately 880. London includes Uxbridge to Brentford, Bulls Bridge to Limehouse and Limehouse to Enfield. The total length of tow-path between these places is 50 miles. While some specific areas are obviously busy there is more than enough space in London as a whole for everyone.

 

Delving further into the numbers reveals some interesting information. 3000 boats is, Simon Salem later admitted (off air), the total population of boats including those that normally stay in marinas and rarely leave. He also confirmed that London includes Watford to Brentford and Limehouse to Bishops Stortford, in other words an area much bigger than the conurbation within the M25. What Simon Salem didn't say when interviewed was that the population of Continuous Cruisers within his vastly extended area was actually 1,100 or only one third of the total population. This correlates with the population of Continuous Cruisers within the proper London of 880.

 

So what is CRT up to? In 2007 CRT's predecessor British Waterways established an auction system for permanent moorings that has massively inflated mooring prices and thus added to the scarcity of permanent moorings. The auction system is still in force. We know that CRT wants Continuous Cruisers excluded from the capital and that it would prefer all boats to have permanent moorings.

 

Tow-path use by Continuous Cruisers, on the other hand, doesn't earn CRT as much revenue as boats with permanent moorings. However, all CRT boat licence holders are entitled by law to use their boats without a mooring, as long as they do not moor on the tow-path for longer than 14 days in any one place (such boats are colloquially called Continuous Cruisers). The law does not prevent a Continuous Cruiser from staying within the geographic area of London, and it does not specify any travel pattern apart from the 14-day limit in any one place.

 

Continuous Cruisers add to the vibrancy of the canals in London; they provide passive security for pedestrians on the towpath; out on the canal every day, they are the first to report equipment failures; they often tidy up litter, sometimes fix things that CRT hasn't fixed, and generally look out for everyone else. Priceless.

[J R ALSOP]

CRT have not in recent years concreted the towpath, below the towpath Old Ford to Acton is a many thousand oil/water cooled volt cable, the electric company in the 30's where protecting you and there assets, I know all this because I have worked on the repair of this.

[Alan de Enfield]

I thought a press release was used to announce something. Not sure what the pupose of this one is.

 

With regard to the Mooring Actuon System, I was under the impression that C&RT had a legal obligation to sell their moorings at market rates, and not to use their dominent position to undercut other commercial enterprises.

 

In my mind the easiest way to determine the market value is to use the auction system - the market value is what the 2nd highest bidder went to.

Just as house prices vary around the country so do mooring prices - whats the problem ?

 

If you cannot afford to buy a house in London, you pay a London Price for a mooring. or buy a house in an area where you can afford.

 

What is questionable is the reserve system - if a mooring doesn't get bids, time after time, then the reserve is set at an inappropriate level - but - the 'seller' can set the reserve at whatever they want. If I put something on ebay that I donr want to go for pennies' I am at liberty to put whatever reserve I wish - why shouldn't C&RT.

 

Do C&RT have a responsibility to provide 'social moorings', and if so what criteria could they apply to the selection process to avoid someone who could pay 'full price' getting the mooring ?

[mango]

I'm not sure that NBTA's press release is factually accurate. Listen to the programme and decide for yourself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04m3jcw

[Tonka]

i thought "cruise" meant moving.

[Alf Roberts]

I thought a press release was used to announce something. Not sure what the pupose of this one is.

 

?

It's an 'announcement' that NBTA have conducted their own count and arrived at a figure which contradicts Simon Salem's figure to the extent that it is worth examining the motive behind that figure.

[Jambo]

Just as house prices vary around the country so do mooring prices - whats the problem ?

 

If you cannot afford to buy a house in London, you pay a London Price for a mooring. or buy a house in an area where you can afford.

 

 

The problem is that accommodation costs (both for buyers and renters) have skyrocketed and pay has stayed flat. This means that low paid workers are forced out of London and have to spend more and more time away from family and spend more and more money just to travel to work.

 

Take Hackney - it used to be cheap to rent and now rents have gone crazy so people are forced out to Leyton or Walthamstow. Rents are now going up there so people are going to be forced further out again. Meanwhile a wealthy monoculture taking over. This is a massive social problem.

[MtB]

No need to keep posting it! This was also posted here yesterday.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=71116&page=3

 

Post 43.

 

 

MtB

[Wanted]

No need to keep posting it! This was also posted here yesterday.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=71116&page=3

 

Post 43.

 

 

MtB

Given that the op hasn't kept posting it your point dosent make sense.

 

I gave up on that thread ages ago so would have missed it.

 

Anyway - I see the issue being the devicive nature of groups and factions of boaters who are not supporting themselves.

The most worrying bit is that the IWA are held by the trust and the press as some sort of authority on boaters and yet they clearly have an anti live aboard / CC agenda.

 

Equally, the groups I have more affinity with seem to be numerous and focused on the small detail.

 

With the greatest respect to all of the groups who regardless of their agenda are so busy staring into the minutia of their opposition are all completely oblivious to the damage that is happening around them.

 

The answer is cohesion, a greater focus on the wider issues faced by boaters and a single voice to hold the trust to account.

 

I welcome the NBTA report as it goes someway to highlight my view, I would be happier if we had a larger voice in a more generic established group.

 

Is it time to lobby the IWA? What would happen if all of the groups joined and started to vote towards a more balanced agenda? Would the trust have to listen or would they find another group willing to doff their cap in return if a slice of cake?

 

I dunno, but I sure find all of these groups a distraction.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Wanted

[GUMPY]

 

The problem is that accommodation costs (both for buyers and renters) have skyrocketed and pay has stayed flat. This means that low paid workers are forced out of London and have to spend more and more time away from family and spend more and more money just to travel to work.

 

You say that like its something new, it isn't its been like that for over 40 years.

Back in the early 70's I couldn't afford to buy in Islington despite having been born there so had to move out of London to what became the edge of Milton Keynes as it was all I could afford, luckily my work was only 40% in London so commuting wasn't to bad.

[rasputin]

Couldn't the problem be resolved by removing the water points in London?

[adam1uk]

I thought a press release was used to announce something. Not sure what the pupose of this one is.

 

Press releases are issued to put forward a point of view. They should never be taken at face value.

 

If you read this one carefully, you'll see that the NTBA prefers its own definition of London, rather than the area actually covered by CRT's London region; and that they've done a 'detailed snapshot' (whatever that is), and concluded that their own guess on numbers was correct.

[cotswoldsman]

Given that the op hasn't kept posting it your point dosent make sense.

 

I gave up on that thread ages ago so would have missed it.

 

Anyway - I see the issue being the devicive nature of groups and factions of boaters who are not supporting themselves.

The most worrying bit is that the IWA are held by the trust and the press as some sort of authority on boaters and yet they clearly have an anti live aboard / CC agenda.

 

Equally, the groups I have more affinity with seem to be numerous and focused on the small detail.

 

With the greatest respect to all of the groups who regardless of their agenda are so busy staring into the minutia of their opposition are all completely oblivious to the damage that is happening around them.

 

The answer is cohesion, a greater focus on the wider issues faced by boaters and a single voice to hold the trust to account.

 

I welcome the NBTA report as it goes someway to highlight my view, I would be happier if we had a larger voice in a more generic established group.

 

Is it time to lobby the IWA? What would happen if all of the groups joined and started to vote towards a more balanced agenda? Would the trust have to listen or would they find another group willing to doff their cap in return if a slice of cake?

 

I dunno, but I sure find all of these groups a distraction.

a well thought out post thank you.

I was part of a meeting recently with CRT that was also attended by the hierarchy of IWA. I was rather shocked when one of them trotted out the old familiar "ccers don't contribute as much as the rest of us" as those that know me will realise I reacted to this quite vocaly only to be told by CRT I was "mischief making".

I welcome NBTA press release though of course it will be dismissed by the majority.

Edited November 3, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Wanderer Vagabond]

You say that like its something new, it isn't its been like that for over 40 years.

Back in the early 70's I couldn't afford to buy in Islington despite having been born there so had to move out of London to what became the edge of Milton Keynes as it was all I could afford, luckily my work was only 40% in London so commuting wasn't to bad.

The level of house prices in London now cannot be compared to those back in the 70's, I know because I was also living in London at that time. London has always been expensive compared to the rest of the country but the level it has now reached is ridiculous, and is fuelled principally by foreign money. When I lived in London lenders would generally lend three times your annual salary (plus half your partners salary) to buy a house although in London it crept up up towards five times your salary. Average house prices in London are now £514,000 so even for the five times salary you would still need to be earning £100,000 per year, how does that compare with the 70's??

[mango]

a well thought out post thank you.

I was part of a meeting recently with CRT that was also attended by the hierarchy of IWA. I was rather shocked when one of them trotted out the old familiar "ccers don't contribute as much as the rest of us" as those that know me will realise I reacted to this quite vocaly only to be told by CRT I was "mischief making".

I welcome NBTA press release though of course it will be dismissed by the majority.

The licence fee is the same for private boats, irrespective of whether or not they declare themselves to CCers. Those with moorings generally contribute to CRT's funds either directly or via a contribution from their marina, or as a result of having an EOGM. Individual cases differ but I think it is fair to say that CCers contribute less to CRT.

[cotswoldsman]

The licence fee is the same for private boats, irrespective of whether or not they declare themselves to CCers. Those with moorings generally contribute to CRT's funds either directly or via a contribution from their marina, or as a result of having an EOGM. Individual cases differ but I think it is fair to say that CCers contribute less to CRT.

Ah here we go again does that mean we become second class citizens but ccers that pay for winter moorings from CRT become first class citizens and those boaters that have a CRT LTM become nobles

I stand by to doff my cap as you pass

[mango]

Ah here we go again does that mean we become second class citizens but ccers that pay for winter moorings from CRT become first class citizens and those boaters that have a CRT LTM become nobles

I stand by to doff my cap as you pass

I'm not being judgemental, but I think it is fair to say that on average, those with home moorings do make a bigger contribution to CRT funds compared with CCers.

[cotswoldsman]

I'm not being judgemental, but I think it is fair to say that on average, those with home moorings do make a bigger contribution to CRT funds compared with CCers.

Why does it matter who contributes what? If you are going to sit at a meeting and make a point about who pays what then why not say 45 ft boats contribute less than 70 ft boats my point is the IWA decided to do the comparison for ccers

[mango]

Why does it matter who contributes what? If you are going to sit at a meeting and make a point about who pays what then why not say 45 ft boats contribute less than 70 ft boats my point is the IWA decided to do the comparison for ccers

That's a fair point, but I don't understand why you were 'vocal' when someone said something that was true. If someone is discussing an issue with dogs, it's not necessarily relevant to mention cats.

[cotswoldsman]

That's a fair point, but I don't understand why you were 'vocal' when someone said something that was true. If someone is discussing an issue with dogs, it's not necessarily relevant to mention cats.

Ok fine guess he was just pointing out that as ccer I need to be contributing more IMO that shows just part of the IWA anti ccer agenda but I don't think you are going to agree so will leave it at that

[Wanted]

I'm not being judgemental, but I think it is fair to say that on average, those with home moorings do make a bigger contribution to CRT funds compared with CCers.

And this is exactly the point I make. We have got three posts in before this non issue is now the focus.

 

We need maintenance, facilities and fair enforcement. This will never be achieved if we continue to argue with ourselves.

[mango]

And this is exactly the point I make. We have got three posts in before this non issue is now the focus.

 

We need maintenance, facilities and fair enforcement. This will never be achieved if we continue to argue with ourselves.

I cannot challenge that because it's factually correct. Love the video, which I've not seen before.

[GUMPY]

The level of house prices in London now cannot be compared to those back in the 70's, I know because I was also living in London at that time. London has always been expensive compared to the rest of the country but the level it has now reached is ridiculous, and is fuelled principally by foreign money. When I lived in London lenders would generally lend three times your annual salary (plus half your partners salary) to buy a house although in London it crept up up towards five times your salary. Average house prices in London are now £514,000 so even for the five times salary you would still need to be earning £100,000 per year, how does that compare with the 70's??

Well I was earning just over £4k a year at the time (1976) and you will appreciate I thought that was a good wage then. Houses at that time were about 20k IIRC so out of my reach by the same ammount. Ended up paying £6k, trippled in value in 5 years as did the next house so as said house price inflation is not new.

[mango]

I cannot challenge that because it's factually correct. Love the video, which I've not seen before.

Here is another video on the same theme.

I wish repetitive discussions and arguments were as amusing.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Well I was earning just over £4k a year at the time (1976) and you will appreciate I thought that was a good wage then. Houses at that time were about 20k IIRC so out of my reach by the same ammount. Ended up paying £6k, trippled in value in 5 years as did the next house so as said house price inflation is not new.

Your figures seem to be agreeing with what I said I think. If you were earning £4000 per year and houses were £20000, by my reckoning that is five time your salary isn't it? With current average London house prices being £514,000 and average London wages being about £36,500 by my reckoning the multiplier is about 14 times salary which is nothing like anything that existed when I lived there. This is why people are now trying to live on the canals.

 

As a bit of a radical idea for improving the services in the London area (water points,sewage, waste disposal, etc.etc), perhaps CRT should demand some funding from Camden, Paddington, Brentford and other London boroughs for assisting to solve the housing crisis that these councils created by complying with the disgraceful policy of Thatcher to dispose of social housing. They created the problem and CRT are somehow expected to create the 'solution' by allowing unlimited numbers of boats to move into London. Of course these council would then put forward the counter argument that if these people are resident then they should be paying Council Tax.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Wanderer Vagabond