Press release from CRT - Canal charity planning action plan for Regent's Canal

[PiRSqwared]

For those of you who wish to read the "notes" from the meeting see below. Notice I deliberately did not call them "minutes" because they are not what any normal person would describe as minutes, and according to at least one boater who was there, do not fully reflect what happened in the meeting. They are, however, the only record of the meeting in circulation.

The meeting was by invitation only, and about 7 boaters were present. Somehow, these 7 boaters were "boater representatives", although they were picked by CaRT, and have no bona fide claim that I can see to represent anyone but themselves (this is not a criticism of them). None of the national boater groups was represented. Naturally the IWA (not a boaters' organisation) was present in the guise of the rather affable Paul Strudwick. It is worrying that CaRT seeks to legitimise this process by burdening these boaters with the role of "representative". Further meetings will, apparently, have more "representatives".

 

Central Regent’s Canal Action Plan

Notes of Stakeholder Meeting - 1 December 2014

Canal Museum, New Wharf Road, London N1

1. INTRODUCTION

Sorwar Ahmed, boater liaison manager at the Canal & River Trust, welcomed the meeting and introduced the external facilitator, Jonny Zander from Kaizen Partnership.

Sorwar explained that this stakeholder meeting aimed to engage local councils, boater representatives, residents and other stakeholders in initial discussions about developing an action plan for the central Regent’s Canal running through Islington and Hackney.

The meeting had emerged from a long history of discussions between the Trust, local residents and boaters about how to improve the way the Regent’s Canal is managed. The meeting was intended to be the first step in considering how to work together with the two local authorities, local partners, boaters, residents and stakeholders to make the Regent’s Canal a better place for everyone.

Richard Parry, the Trust’s chief executive, explained that the Trust looks after 2000 miles of canals and rivers and just doesn’t have the resources to do everything that is needed. There is pressure on the canals from their growing popularity, so mutual understanding is needed between all users. The canals have changed dramatically over the years, and this section of the Regent’s Canal will always be busy. The Trust will look and listen, but recognises that that there is a wide range of needs so we will need to find common ground.

These notes are based on the flipchart records and verbatim notes taken at the meeting.

2. INTRODUCTIONS & PERSPECTVES

Jonny Zander explained that the reason he was here as an independent facilitator was to ensure that this valuable time could be used most effectively, and so the community could share their views on an equal footing without the Trust being seen as leading the discussion. The community should include everyone who lives, works or visits the area.

He asked participants to explain who they were and their perspective at the meeting (e.g. boater, local authority, local resident, etc.). A full list of participants is attached at Appendix 1..

The group had some strong views, and residents expressed frustration at what they saw as a lack of action in dealing with some of the issues that were being experienced on and around the canal.

Jonny asked the group to share what they wanted from the meeting:

 Change myths / judgements

 Understand CRT’s position – roles and responsibilities, legal, charitable objectives, budget

 Understand role and responsibility of each partner (grid for accountability) – where does the buck stop?

 Certainty re: critical problems – noise, smoke & enforcement thereof

 A second meeting (implying that some progress made) with actions and process

 Responsive to needs and meetings

 Distinguishing between myths and judgements – recognising difference between ‘boats are a problem’ and ‘certain boaters are problematic’

 Using the term ‘boaters’ is not helpful, as many different types of boater

 Not patronised

 Awareness from CRT

 Who is CRT responsible to?

 Who is responsible / in charge of the canal? (accountability)

 Islington and Hackney are here, where is Camden?

 Clearer understanding from CRT of need to protect environment

 Development beyond the canal should include green spaces for leisure

 Action

 Timely action

 Enforce strategy

 Certainty that problems will be fixed

 Understand the scale of increase in boats – is there a deliberate policy to promote growth?

 More targeted consultation with residents

 What can we do practically?

 Who is looking at the future? What is the vision? Whose space is it?

Jonny then outlined the intended aims for the meeting:

The workshop would be in two parts: the first addressing the issues, and the second dealing with concrete ideas.

3. ISSUES, FEARS & CONCERNS

Participants were asked to describe the issues they were concerned about, and the fears and concerns they had about them.

 Growth of boats is a big change, leading to increased pollution

 Concentration of boats leads to increased noise and smoke

 Noise pollution

 ‘Noise’ could actually be boater conversation!

 Smoke

 How people use the canal has changed, e.g. cyclists, boaters – no control, sometimes lawless

 Increased use of towpath due to development

 Lack of order – drug dealing etc.

 Lack of action

 Graffiti

 To have all stakeholders feel listened to

 Appreciation of perspectives of other stakeholders

 CRT to share ideas and explain constraints that impact on the situation

 To start the process of constructive engagement in order to develop and action plan

 Congestion

 Towpath / mooring management

 Lack of winter moorings

 Triple mooring

 Anti-social behaviour

 Urine

 Environment

 Cyclists

 Pedestrians

 Lack of moorings / visitor moorings

 Lack of appreciation from residents

 Minority of residents who are anti-social

 Minority of boaters

 Facilities

 Impact on Community Boats (clubs) of increased use of canal

 Charitable objects include supporting Community Boats

 More information about boating to non-boaters

4. VALUES THAT WILL HELP US FIND SHARED SOLUTIONS

Jonny then asked the group to consider the values that should be demonstrated throughout this process in order to help us find shared solutions:

 Looking for consensus

 Law

 Leadership

 Responsibility

 Clear communication

 Respect for perspectives of others

5. WHAT APPROACH IS NEEDED?

The group was asked to consider the approach needed to find a solution. There was some consensus around the following:

- More places to moor

- More facilities

- Control over ‘bridge-hopping’ (non-moving boaters who don’t care about others)

- Reduce the three lines of mooring

Other suggestions included introducing similar rules to those at the Islington Visitor Mooring, where wood burning is prohibited and only smokeless fuel is permitted.

Jonny summarised the group’s views on an approach as:

- Look at the existing rules

- How to police the people who don’t comply

- Clear leadership

- Identify responsibilities

- Landowners have a responsibility to work with agencies to resolve

- A missing representative is the Police

- Some people feel patronised

- Need better clearer communications from everybody

The following comments were made in the discussion:

 We don’t want single line moorings

 Should investigate the chance of penalty charges

 Free access to the towpath is an issue – why can’t it be locked?

 Single line mooring at Islington VM has made problems at Hoxton – there are also seasonal issues with canal winter works

 Two lines of respectful boaters may be better than one line of inconsiderate boaters

 Some would like to see a Quiet Zone in Kings Cross too

 The success of the Islington VM plan reflects the efforts and goodwill of the volunteer Caretaker Boaters

 There is a canyon effect in Kings Cross so the area needs to be a Quiet Zone

 How can demand for boating be limited?

 What action can be taken now?

 The scale of growth means the regime must change

 We need to develop a sense of a vision for London

 We (LB Islington) are working with the Trust on a Draft Action Plan and are working on a set of actions – there is a commitment to this action plan, and to sharing the plan

 An offer was made by boaters to meet with residents in the area

 A question was raised as to whether the Boat Safety Scheme could cover pollution from engines? – it was clarified that this wasn’t within the scope of the Scheme.

 Licence fees should be increased to dampen demand

 The legislation should be changed as demand is going to increase

 There was a suggestion that signage should be increased

Participants were keen to hear the Trust’s position. Richard Parry explained a number of issues:

- The Canal & River Trust is a navigation authority which is responsible for licencing boats

- The legislation does not allow us to restrict licences if people meet the criteria

- Changing the legislation is just not on the table, as there is very little prospect of primary legislation

- The definition of ‘continuous cruising’ is not defined in the legislation, so we have to interpret its meaning and enforce accordingly

- London is popular for many reasons, and boats are attracted to London as a result

- Enforcement is not an effective remedy for the issues of concerns here, as we cannot act swiftly when a few people are not respecting the rules

- We have to look to the more effective powers that local Councils have

- We acknowledge the success of the Islington Visitor Mooring plan and will investigate the lessons for other moorings to the west of the Islington Tunnel

- Visitor mooring rules have varied history and have evolved over time in different places

- We are looking at clear guidance nationally, but shortening the stay times in this area may compound the problem

6. ACTIONS / NEXT STEPS

The time to discuss concrete ideas was limited due to the level of debate. Jonny focussed the group on the next steps, and the following actions were agreed:

1. Richard Parry explained that the Trust has committed to developing an Action Plan, so we will work with partners to bring proposals back to the group.

2. It was agreed that there would be another meeting in January.

3. An update was requested for the January meeting on partnership funding. The Trust will compile some information on this.

APPENDIX 1: Attendance List

Name

Organisation / Interest

Roger Gajadhar Rutkowski

Canal Building

Sarah Sessions

Boater

Jim Bryden

Boater

John Raffles

Crystal Wharf

Eric Neumayer

Crystal Wharf

Mark Griffin

Head of Environmental Strategy, LB Hackney

Hilary Norris

Resident

Beverley Dean

Angel Association / Resident

Steve Bats

Resident

Sukky Choongh-Campbell

Air Quality Officer, LB Islington

Jan Hart

Director of Public Protection, LB Islington

Jennet Eyre

Angel Association/ Angel Narrowboat / resident

Jon Hood

Boater

Dohne Arnold

Noel Road resident

Phil Wain

Resident

Lisa Tang

Resident

Gordon McArthur

Arlington Association

Jill Clarke

Resident

J Faye

Resident

Eric Sorensen

Angel Association

Frances Williams

Treaty Street resident

J Checkley

Angel Community Canal Boat Trust

M Lopez

Boater

M Starczewski

Boater

C Oxley

Boater (residential)

Cllr Paul Convery

LB Islington

Lee Wilshire

Boater / London Waterways Projects

Anna Hayden

Resident – Canal Cottages

Greg Cowan

Battlebridge Moorings, Kings Cross

Cllr Martin Klute

LB Islington

Giles Eyre

Angel Community Canal Boat Trust

Gabriela Duglosz

LB Hackney – Community Safety Team

Andrew Phasey

St.Pancras Cruising Club

Paul Strudwick

Inland Waterways Association

Robyn Litchfield

Ian Shacklock

Friends of Regent’s Canal

Richard Parry

Chief Executive, Canal & River Trust

Jon Guest

London Waterway Manager, Canal & River Trust

Sorwar Ahmed

Boater Liaison Manager, Canal & River Trust

Mikaela Khan-Parrack

London Mooring Ranger, Canal & River Trust

Simon Cadek

London Enforcement Supervisor, Canal & River Trust

Tony Smith

Boater Liaison Manager, Canal & River Trust

Jonny Zander

Facilitator – Kaizen Partnership

Apologies:

Harsha Patel

Headteacher, Copenhagen School (due to staff sickness and having to cover two other meetings tonight)

[Dave_P]

Sounds pretty desperate, hysterical and unfocused. Was this just a way of letting angry residents let off steam?

[Arthur Marshall]

This looks like a list of stuff the "facilitator" wrote on the flip charts, and is therefore fairly meaningless. Any meeting like this should have a secretary designated and proper minutes taken - flip chart scribble is usually useless as the bloke (it's usually a bloke) just writes down every suggestion anyone makes as a point for discussion, which there then isn't time for. I've at through loads of these and have never found anything useful to come out of them, ever, or in fact met any management figure who took any notice of what anyone said.

 

As someone's said already, it's just a way of letting people blow off steam. The action plan's probably already been written - consultation, especially by a "facilitator", is almost always a fraud.

[madcat]

Time for every single London CC boater to join the IWA and work to change that organisation into a something fit for the realities of 21st century boating.

 

I'm most unhappy with rich people using their spending power to oppress the less well off. We need to learn to share better

 

Edit to add.

One of my friends took an extended holiday into London and had a great time , he is back now but had no problems and thoroughly enjoyed the visit.

Edited December 25, 2014 by madcat

[jenlyn]

Time for every single London CC boater to join the IWA and work to change that organisation into a something fit for the realities of 21st century boating.

 

The way the IWA is structured makes it difficult to get any change. You would need new members in every branch to push through any change.

It does look as though CRT have an infestation. Every committee, council, group and subgroup seems to be represented.

[kris88]

The way the IWA is structured makes it difficult to get any change. You would need new members in every branch to push through any change.

It does look as though CRT have an infestation. Every committee, council, group and subgroup seems to be represented.

Almost like the Iwa are taking over CRT

 

Regards kris

[jenlyn]

Almost like the Iwa are taking over CRT

Regards kris

They have in reality. Whenever you see Richard Parry out and about, he has an IWA shadow. Clive Henderson, Vaughan welch or ivor caplan are always lurking. Edited December 25, 2014 by jenlyn

[Traveller]

"I'm most unhappy with rich people using their spending power to oppress the less well off. We need to learn to share better"

 

I am equally as unhappy with the less well off imposing themselves on others. There has to be a manageable balance that serves the interests of both sides of the argument.

[kris88]

I know what you mean, but I have met Richard parry without the Iwa being present though. I'd be interested in how many members they have, as they definitely seem to have disproportionate influence on policy of CRT.

 

Regards kris

Ps I've had a look but can't find any figures for membership just that they made £390,000 from membership subs in 2013

Edited December 25, 2014 by kris88

[alan_fincher]

Not that long back we were being told of meetings between joint associations & CRT where a high degree of progress was being made, because the associations were able to hammer out a fair amount on which they could agree, before sitting in front of CRT.

 

Sometimes you had to chase around a bit to find meeting notes, at least in their final draft, (they were often not on CRT's site in an obvious place), but they generally reported that on the matters being discussed, IWA, NABO, RBOA, AWCC and ACC had found much common ground.

 

However I note that more recently there seems to have been far less concensus.

 

For example NABO's take on the meeting that the associations had with CRT on 3rd November states.....

 

It has taken a month to get these minutes out because there are some fundamental differences between the views of some of the associations. NABO agreed that these should be published on the proviso that we should each also be free to publish our views to accompany them.

 

 

The full detail is here.

 

This twist, where there appears to be less common ground again now, than was originally suggested, is disappointing, but if I'm honest, hardly surprising. I have certainly myself witnessed cases where some of the less tolerant, less inclusive people within the IWA, either at national or branch level, have very much sought to dominate things with their view of the world, and have shown very little inclination to listen to, or consider the views of others.

I therefore actually agree that I think it would be very hard for an influx of new members, (or indeed existing members who may have become disillusioned), to bring about major reforms within the IWA. I think there is still a layer of deeply dug in people at the top, with enough control and influence, that dislodging them, and changing the ethos of the IWA would be very hard. Unfortunately these are often the very people also highly represented in various CRT advisory groups, committees & patnerships, so they get their voice listened to much more than most of us, and CRT may fall into the trap that the size of their organisation makes that voice "representative".

 

That may all sound like intensive IWA bashing, which is certainly not my intention. The IWA clearly has masses of far more enlightened members, and, at the level of at least some of its branches, still achieves many good and useful things. But I do feel those at the top have on the whole lost the plot, (if they ever knew it!), and seeing their performance, and listening to their utterances in meetings I have been at certainly does nothing to change that opinion.

[alan_fincher]

I know what you mean, but I have met Richard parry without the Iwa being present though. I'd be interested in how many members they have, as they definitely seem to have disproportionate influence on policy of CRT.

 

 

I have met Richard Parry many times now at canal related events all over the country. He regularly attends festivals and historic boat events. On each of those occasions I have never experienced him with the IWA in tow, and always found him willing to talk to me as an individual, even on the occasions I have given him a heavy ear bending about something CRT have recently done, that I feel was a mistake.

 

However, I would agree that at CRT organised meetings, particularly if you are encouraged to stay behind, and talk to CRT management on a one to one basis, then there is often the tendency for a senior IWA person to be stood alongside, interjecting into the conversation. On the last couple of occasions I saw this happen, the interjections were completely "content free" and unhelpful, and were devaluing the conversations people were trying to have, (all "in my view" of course, others may disagree!).

[jenlyn]

I know what you mean, but I have met Richard parry without the Iwa being present though. I'd be interested in how many members they have, as they definitely seem to have disproportionate influence on policy of CRT.

Regards kris

Ps I've had a look but can't find any figures for membership just that they made £390,000 from membership subs in 2013

I understand their membership totals 15000, of which less than a third are boat owners. That was from a pretty reliable source.

Talking to one of their vice chairs earlier this year, they had concerns over the income and outgoing. The overheads are quite high it seems. Their accounts are published, so easy to see what finances they have.

[Athy]

I am worried by the idea of letting a facilitator named Zander anywhere near canal wildlife.

[kris88]

I understand their membership totals 15000, of which less than a third are boat owners. That was from a pretty reliable source.

Talking to one of their vice chairs earlier this year, they had concerns over the income and outgoing. The overheads are quite high it seems. Their accounts are published, so easy to see what finances they have.

Thanks for that, I looked at there accounts that's where I got £390,000 figure from,but couldn't find any membership numbers.

One thing I will say for the Iwa in my opion there on line presence is presented well,very clear and easy to read,maybe there are things Crt can learn from them.

Regards kris

[jenlyn]

Thanks for that, I looked at there accounts that's where I got £390,000 figure from,but couldn't find any membership numbers.

One thing I will say for the Iwa in my opion there on line presence is presented well,very clear and easy to read,maybe there are things Crt can learn from them.

Regards kris

They have been going long enough to get organised, and i agree with you regards the online presence. Talking to some of their branch members convinces me that on the whole, it's a pretty good organisation. It's only when you get near the top that it starts to become silly, pompous and ego dominated.

[kris88]

I'd agree I've met a lot of Iwa members who are passionate and care for the waterways, it's there policies on continuous cruising and on line moorings I'd question. Well that and the rantings of some of there officials. I suppose Crt management are so enamoured with them, because they have been set up and running for a long time. There setup is basically the way crt are now having to work, a mixture of charitable status and business interests. So the Iwa would be ahead of crt on that front.

Regards kris

[Alan de Enfield]

And - don't forget that since 2005 the IWA are actually a Navigation Authority and have much experience they can pass onto their 'big sister'