No more mooring at Berkhamstead park.

[Captain Zim]

The old signs disappeared around September I think. First they were there. Then they were on the ground, then...vanished.

 

They used to say no overnight mooring. Do the new ones simply say no mooring?

 

Either way, they've always been there and even then I don't think many people minded the odd over nighter. Maybe it just because it's winter and busy that things look worse?

Edited February 10, 2015 by Captain Zim

[Graham Davis]

It's got nothing to do with the fact that children may be watched with prying eyes by someone from the comfort of there own boat??

 

Darren

 

Correct, it has got NOTHING to do with this!

[Tuscan]

Have many happy memories mooring there in the 80's and early 90's with our children safetly playing in the park. Even back then it became popular with those seeking to stay longer. There has been no mooring on that side for quite a few years now I believe. I'm sure Alan's knowledge of the area is more up to date than mine.

[jenlyn]

Correct, it has got NOTHING to do with this!

It has actually.

There is a playground within one metre of the canal, with a 3ft fence. This is where the signs were prominent.

The parents were worried about boats mooring so close to that playground.

 

We moored just above the waterpoint this Christmas on the park side, well away from the playground.

Whilst there, an official visited, and stated they were going to stop mooring on that side, owing to some leaving boats unoccupied for extended lengths of time.

Some seemed to be displaying winter mooring permits.

The towpath side was full most of the time, and with several of those also having winter mooring permits.

There was little mooring left for anyone passing through.

 

I suspect the tap, and rubbish point will go next.

Edited February 10, 2015 by jenlyn

[tillergirl]

Friend of mine moored there two days ago for an overnight stay. She got up to an eviction notice (not a problem as she was moving anyway)..............when she enquired she was told No Mooring signs going up on Saturday as the council are regenerating the park and they do not want boats moored on that side any more.

[junior]

I'm sure the reason a lot of people moor on the park side of the canal is because the towpath side is a quagmire in winter or after the slightest bit of rain. It's very hard to get pins to stay in and water level is sometimes up over the bank (or it was when i was there).

 

How difficult would it be to install rings or piling on the towpath side? Perhaps a joint venture between CRT and the council with the result being that the council would not have so much hassle then enforcing the no mooring rules.

[jenlyn]

I'm sure the reason a lot of people moor on the park side of the canal is because the towpath side is a quagmire in winter or after the slightest bit of rain. It's very hard to get pins to stay in and water level is sometimes up over the bank (or it was when i was there).

How difficult would it be to install rings or piling on the towpath side? Perhaps a joint venture between CRT and the council with the result being that the council would not have so much hassle then enforcing the no mooring rules.

That pound will be 48hrs before the end of the year.

[alan_fincher]

Whilst there, an official visited, and stated they were going to stop mooring on that side, owing to some leaving boats unoccupied for extended lengths of time.

Some seemed to be displaying winter mooring permits.

The towpath side was full most of the time, and with several of those also having winter mooring permits.

There was little mooring left for anyone passing through.

 

I am aware that the issue of whether people with the general tow-path winter mooring permit should be moored in Berkhamsted has been raised with CRT. This seems to be because certain locals don't want so many residential boats around.

 

The interesting thing was that CRT didn't actually seem to be certain as to whether someone with one of those permits is currently infringing the conditions on which is is issued, because CRT do not seem to have a consistent view on whether those moorings in Berkhamsted are true designated "visitor moorings" or not. As you are aware there are remnants of signs showing these as 14 visitor day moorings, but these are in many cases illegible or missing.

 

A further future confusion that may need to be considered is that if CRT move to the suggestion that only moorings with stay times designated as less than 14 days will in future be classed as true "visitor moorings", then presumably whilst it can currently be suggested that people on winter mooring permits should not currently be on those 14 day moorings, the way they get classified if the new mooring framework is adopted might then make it OK, (unless of course they change the conditions attached to the winter permits!).

 

What is your take on whether those with general tow-path winter permits are allowed to be on the tow-path moorings there, please?

That pound will be 48hrs before the end of the year.

 

There are certainly some that would like that, and are trying to manipulate things to that effect.

 

I would dearly love to think you are wrong, though.

Edited February 10, 2015 by alan_fincher

[junior]

Out of interest, why does nobody moor in the pound below? I'm sure i saw actual signs down the showing that stretch as 14 days, yet I've never seen one boat there.

[jenlyn]

 

What is your take on whether those with general tow-path winter permits are allowed to be on the tow-path moorings there, please?

 

There are certainly some that would like that, and are trying to manipulate things to that effect.

 

I would dearly love to think you are wrong, though.

My view is Berkhampstead should only have at the very maximum, 50% winter mooring.

It's a hard slog getting there in winter from either direction, and is a popular stop for shops etc.

This winter saw it full to the extent that 8 or 9 boats were having to moor on the park side.

 

It will end up 48hr, as soon as Mathew Symmonds gets invited to a certain garden tea party.

Out of interest, why does nobody moor in the pound below? I'm sure i saw actual signs down the showing that stretch as 14 days, yet I've never seen one boat there.

Kids have caused problems there, and also it's a winding hole.

[alan_fincher]

Out of interest, why does nobody moor in the pound below? I'm sure i saw actual signs down the showing that stretch as 14 days, yet I've never seen one boat there.

 

Well clearly they do moor in "the next pound down", once in the stretch between Castle Street bridge and Ravens Lane lock, (So from the Totem Pole and Crystal Palace down to the Boat Pub ).

 

So I assume you mean before that, opposite the station, alongside "the Moor"?

 

People do moor there quite often, but much of it is quite shallow, and obviously it is the point where train and commuter noise is greatest. It would not be my first choice, (but neither is the "Waitrose" pound - if mooring in Berkhamsted, I would always go South of the Rising Sun, by personal preference - which is why I fought so hard to stop them making my favourite stretch "no mooring" for absolutely no valid reason they could come up with).

[alan_fincher]

This winter saw it full to the extent that 8 or 9 boats were having to moor on the park side.

 

It will end up 48hr, as soon as Mathew Symmonds gets invited to a certain garden tea party.

 

There is a problem here, which I guess you are aware of.

 

The data checkers have insisted they want to keep recording the situation to gather more data.

 

Because the winter moorers are causing it to look pretty full, I fear that the data can then be extrapolated to say "well if it is full in winter, there will obviously be a problem in summer".

 

Obviously that's not the case, because the winter moorers are slewing the statistic, but if someone wants to get this in at any cost, I can see it could happen.

 

Apart from how much maximum you think should be used by winter moorers, do you think those that are currently there are infringing the condition that they don't make long stays on VMs? As far as I can see, that is solely determined whether you consider these moorings currently are proper VMs, or whether you consider they are not? That is the only ambiguity, as far as I can see.

Edited February 10, 2015 by alan_fincher

[jenlyn]

There is a problem here, which I guess you are aware of.

 

The data checkers have insisted they want to keep recording the situation to gather more data.

 

Because the winter moorers are causing it to look pretty full, I fear that the data can then be extrapolated to say "well if it is full in winter, there will obviously be a problem in summer".

 

Obviously that's not the case, because the winter moorers are slewing the statistic, but if someone wants to get this in at any cost, I can see it could happen.

 

Apart from how much maximum you think should be used by winter moorers, do you think those that are currently there are infringing the condition that they don't make long stays on VMs? As far as I can see, that is solely determined whether you consider these moorings currently are proper VMs, or whether you consider they are not? That is the only ambiguity, as far as I can see.

I didn't realise there were any official vm's there, I've never seen signs stating as such.

Though you'll probably dig a picture out now that shows one.

[Higgs]

Are you sure about that. Must admit I thought that until CRT told me that was incorrect but then the person who told me at CRT could be wrong. Do you have anything that would confirm your statement being correct?

 

 

Not really sure how these things work, but CRT may have the right to a small strip of land on the offside, commonly known as a Ransom Strip.

[alan_fincher]

I didn't realise there were any official vm's there, I've never seen signs stating as such.

Though you'll probably dig a picture out now that shows one.

 

If you recall, back in the early days of SEVM, I actually walked the mile with Mike Annan, and put up a gallery of pictures. I think there were actually totems and signs that run into double figures, (yes, I was surprised!), although many were defaced or incomplete. There was even a length actually marked as "no mooring" opposite where Bridgewater Boats used to be, and where the post new houses and boat dock now are - not that anyone pays any attention to them.

 

Ah here we are - I hope this Facebook gallery is visible?

 

CRT seem to change their view on the current status of VM's in Berkhamsted on a regular basis - sometimes they say there are none, sometimes they recognise them as such. It doesn't make discussing anything to do with them any easier!

[jenlyn]

If you recall, back in the early days of SEVM, I actually walked the mile with Mike Annan, and put up a gallery of pictures. I think there were actually totems and signs that run into double figures, (yes, I was surprised!), although many were defaced or incomplete. There was even a length actually marked as "no mooring" opposite where Bridgewater Boats used to be, and where the post new houses and boat dock now are - not that anyone pays any attention to them.

 

Ah here we are - I hope this Facebook gallery is visible?

 

CRT seem to change their view on the current status of VM's in Berkhamsted on a regular basis - sometimes they say there are none, sometimes they recognise them as such. It doesn't make discussing anything to do with them any easier!

Well i didn't notice any when I came through this time, and Mr Parry says they have to be clear and visible, which of course they are not. So any of CRT's views are basically null and void until such clear signs are displayed. Along with a 3ftx3ft board with all the t&c's.

[bassplayer]

Well i didn't notice any when I came through this time, and Mr Parry says they have to be clear and visible, which of course they are not. So any of CRT's views are basically null and void until such clear signs are displayed. Along with a 3ftx3ft board with all the t&c's.

...aren't CRT's views being displayed by the penis map?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-28783990

[jenlyn]

As an aside, coming north from Marsworth to Slapton today, the locks were in a right state. No grease, and Slapton 33 was virtually rusted together. The coping stones on some were rocking about, and the balance beams were actually rotting.

I wander how much they spend on signage tiles?

[Higgs]

As an aside, coming north from Marsworth to Slapton today, the locks were in a right state. No grease, and Slapton 33 was virtually rusted together. The coping stones on some were rocking about, and the balance beams were actually rotting.

I wander how much they spend on signage tiles?

 

 

Maybe the cost of replacing wrecked signs adds up to no grease, and Slapton 33 rusting, plus some remedial work on the coping stones.

 

Agree or disagree with the VM's time signs, vandalism is no improvement.

[jenlyn]

Maybe the cost of replacing wrecked signs adds up to no grease, and Slapton 33 rusting, plus some remedial work on the coping stones.

 

Agree or disagree with the VM's time signs, vandalism is no improvement.

Assuming it ever was vandalism of course.

[Higgs]

Assuming it ever was vandalism of course.

 

 

I think I have read "defaced" somewhere. ??... a few posts ago.

[jenlyn]

I think I have read "defaced" somewhere. ??... a few posts ago.

Perhaps by CRT, trying to make up their minds what the signs should read.

[Higgs]

Perhaps by CRT, trying to make up their minds what the signs should read.

 

That would definitely not be classed as defacing. Defacing has quit a particular meaning.

[valrene9600]

I Assume a visitor mooring would be near something visitors to the area would like to access. If so can any one tell me why there are signed visitor moorings in Tring cutting near to nothing but fields. Berko on the other hand is not visitor moorings and is full of winter moorers and now we have the council stopping mooring againstthe park. Hard to understand CRT definition of a visitor mooring.

Personally have spent many a night in the lower pound. Plenty of room and as noish train wise as the park pound we are talking about.

[jenlyn]

That would definitely not be classed as defacing. Defacing has quit a particular meaning.

Well given that only two of the pictures Alan has put up are "defaced", whilst the majority are just old, bleached, and blank, I wouldn't say vandalism is a huge factor.

So not really relevant in the thread.