Winter moorings update

[alan_fincher]

My understanding is it was not up for discussion at association meeting but was discussed at one of those NABO 121 meetings with Ian Rogers

 

Well I would need my other computer that I doin't currently have access to to check, but it is my understanding this was jointly discussed at the last of the joint associations meeting before Richard Parry decided not to continue them. I think I have a date when that meeting took place, that I'll add to this thread later. Even if there were no discussion of WMPs at that last meeting, I would still be interested in seeing some published meeting notes to see what else was being discussed!

[cotswoldsman]

 

Well I would need my other computer that I doin't currently have access to to check, but it is my understanding this was jointly discussed at the last of the joint associations meeting before Richard Parry decided not to continue them. I think I have a date when that meeting took place, that I'll add to this thread later. Even if there were no discussion of WMPs at that last meeting, I would still be interested in seeing some published meeting notes to see what else was being discussed!

I think the confusion here is that they were not discussed in a consultation format simply a statement that the General Towpath Winter Mooring would no longer be offered

The statement from CRT

 

QUOTE

 

Following an internal consultation weve decided to focus on offering a wide choice of dedicated winter moorings across the country instead. Boaters who want more flexibility will be able to book a different site each month. We didnt consult with boaters because were offering the most we practically can we have asked for boater input into the sites weve got on offer and weve made a couple of additions based on the feedback.

 

UNQUOTE

[jenlyn]

 

Well I would need my other computer that I doin't currently have access to to check, but it is my understanding this was jointly discussed at the last of the joint associations meeting before Richard Parry decided not to continue them. I think I have a date when that meeting took place, that I'll add to this thread later. Even if there were no discussion of WMPs at that last meeting, I would still be interested in seeing some published meeting notes to see what else was being discussed!

The only discussion regarding winter moorings at the last association-CRT meeting, was parry and Rodgers making a statement on them, and myself then asking questions regarding the issue. NABO said nothing in that meeting itself.

(much the same as most of the other meetings).

[alan_fincher]

I seem to have missed anyone claiming they were discussed in a meeting in the form of a consultation. When did that happen?

 

I think I carefully avoided use of the "consultation" word, didn't I?

 

It seemed for a while that CRT were happy to have joint meetings with some or all of IWA, RBOA, NABO, ACC & AWCC, and to treat the discussions as being representative of boaters views overall. I guess they might consider that "consultation" even though I don't think I've used that term.......

 

Early on Steve was claiming to have got most to be at least in part singing from the same song sheet, and hence that the associations could go to CRT with a fair degree of consensus. Clearly that consensus if it ever truly existed broke down over time, and the fact that some are blaming others for where we now are could obviously be a reason why Parry saw these joint associations meetings as progressively less useful.

 

It has often been quite difficult to find a record of these meetings, CRT not having published them themselves, sometimes, yet they potentially influenced decisions affecting us all, whether association members or not. You have been repeatedly critical of various other meetings being "secretive", even though meeting notes (albeit often too scant) are published.

 

So can anybody please provide a direct link to meeting notes for the "association" meetings? I';m particularly interested in the last one jeld before they were suspended.

[Alan de Enfield]

I posted some time ago about the necessity of residential planning permission for a liveaboard mooring of more than 28 days duration - it was widely dismissed by a number of people because :-

 

a) It was allegedly not a legal requirement

b ) Who would collect the money

c) By the time they got around to collecting the money you'd be long gone,

 

Here is an extract from AINA :-

 

3.1.2 The need for planning permission for moorings used by vessels or floating structures in residential use

As discussed earlier, various different types of vessels or floating structures may be in residential use; that is, in use as a person’s sole or main residence.
The question that arises is whether the mooring of such a vessel requires planning permission as a material change in the use of land. The point at which the mooring of a residential boat on a waterway departs from an ancillary use of the waterway (which usually would not need planning permission) and moves to a material change to residential use (which usually would need planning permission) needs to be decided on the basis of fact and degree as well as the particular circumstances of a case. The use of the mooring for this purpose is not included in any of the classes prescribed in the Use Classes Order. It is therefore sui generis (not C3 Dwellinghouses).
In this context it is also worth noting that planning permission is usually not required where the residential use of a mooring is for no more than 28 days in any calendar year, since such temporary use is permitted development under Part 4 of the GPDO13.

 

It should be noted that Planning Permission is NOT for the boat but for the Land to which the boat is moored, hence C&RT would be subject to any PP enforcement, or, would be responsible for applying for PP.

[cotswoldsman]

 

I think I carefully avoided use of the "consultation" word, didn't I?

 

It seemed for a while that CRT were happy to have joint meetings with some or all of IWA, RBOA, NABO, ACC & AWCC, and to treat the discussions as being representative of boaters views overall. I guess they might consider that "consultation" even though I don't think I've used that term.......

 

Early on Steve was claiming to have got most to be at least in part singing from the same song sheet, and hence that the associations could go to CRT with a fair degree of consensus. Clearly that consensus if it ever truly existed broke down over time, and the fact that some are blaming others for where we now are could obviously be a reason why Parry saw these joint associations meetings as progressively less useful.

 

It has often been quite difficult to find a record of these meetings, CRT not having published them themselves, sometimes, yet they potentially influenced decisions affecting us all, whether association members or not. You have been repeatedly critical of various other meetings being "secretive", even though meeting notes (albeit often too scant) are published.

 

So can anybody please provide a direct link to meeting notes for the "association" meetings? I';m particularly interested in the last one jeld before they were suspended.

Surely you need to ask NABO for a copy. From memory they were certainly put on the cc Facebook page

[Nightwatch]

Richard Parry and Mathew symmonds have both stated that they were getting communication from council planners. These communications indicated that CRT did not have the relevant permission needed, allowing boats with liveaboards to stay in a place for more than 28 days.

This was more to do with London borough's, and a couple of council's outside of London.

From what I understand, the planners association got hold of it, and laid the law down to CRT.

I don't think the marinas federation has had much to say on winter moorings at all.

Having had some dealings with the federation a while back, I was actually quite surprised at how many inland marinas are not members.

Then why can't CRT come clean and openly say why they are doing this. That way we would understand a little more.

 

Instead, it seems, CRT would prefer to be the bad guys and go about this underhand.

[jenlyn]

Then why can't CRT come clean and openly say why they are doing this. That way we would understand a little more.

 

Instead, it seems, CRT would prefer to be the bad guys and go about this underhand.

I've lost count of how many times it's been suggested to CRT that honesty and openness is the best policy.

I have no idea why they choose to be the way they are.

[jenlyn]

 

 

 

Early on Steve was claiming to have got most to be at least in part singing from the same song sheet, and hence that the associations could go to CRT with a fair degree of consensus. Clearly that consensus if it ever truly existed broke down over time,

Being somewhat piggy in the middle was quite a job. With RBOA moaning about NABO, and NABO moaning about everyone else, along with inflated ego's, it was difficult keeping it all together. Ever the optimist, I tried, but more often than not, what NABO said to your face, and what they really thought, were two entirely different things.

Quite simply, and in my own opinion, Mark Tizard, Mike Rodd and Alan Wildman were more interested in their status than any issues suffered by boat owners.

 

The term once stated to me was, your attempting to herd cats, and I wish I had taken heed of that.

[Tuscan]

 

 

Being somewhat piggy in the middle was quite a job. With RBOA moaning about NABO, and NABO moaning about everyone else, along with inflated ego's, it was difficult keeping it all together. Ever the optimist, I tried, but more often than not, what NABO said to your face, and what they really thought, were two entirely different things.

Quite simply, and in my own opinion, Mark Tizard, Mike Rodd and Alan Wildman were more interested in their status than any issues suffered by boat owners.

 

The term once stated to me was, your attempting to herd cats, and I wish I had taken heed of that.

Think perhaps the above says more about you and your own approach and self importance.

[jenlyn]

Think perhaps the above says more about you and your own approach and self importance.

I am merely stating facts. People can choose to believe or not, I am perfectly happy with what I have written.

[alan_fincher]

Surely you need to ask NABO for a copy. From memory they were certainly put on the cc Facebook page

 

NABO have published their own notes, but I have not seen any official agreed meeting notes issued by anybody. As NABO is being criticised for either its actions or lack of actions, it would be interesting to see some official notes for the meeting. Unless someone can produce them, I'm starting to think that even if they have ever existed they are not in the public domain.

 

In view of the name ping-pong of blame now being handed about, and responses from people that contradict each other, I am finding it very hard to know what to believe! I doubt I'm alone on that matter.

[cotswoldsman]

 

NABO have published their own notes, but I have not seen any official agreed meeting notes issued by anybody. As NABO is being criticised for either its actions or lack of actions, it would be interesting to see some official notes for the meeting. Unless someone can produce them, I'm starting to think that even if they have ever existed they are not in the public domain.

 

In view of the name ping-pong of blame now being handed about, and responses from people that contradict each other, I am finding it very hard to know what to believe! I doubt I'm alone on that matter.

I don't think anyone takes official notes. Who do you suggest should take the official notes?

[alan_fincher]

I don't think anyone takes official notes. Who do you suggest should take the official notes?

 

Well there have been published meeting notes for previous associations meetings, and it was implied to me that there were some in draft for this last meeting, available on the CRT extranet to attendees. It seems that on this occasion, for whatever reason, they have not been made public, (or at least not yet).

 

Are you happy to have meetings taking place between CRT and associations that represent different groups of boaters, where those groups hope to influence CRT policy or actions, but where what was discussed at those meetings is not made available to boaters generally, even in a summary form? That seems to me to be more or less what you have complained about in respect of other meetings involving CRT staff and non CRT staff?

[cotswoldsman]

 

Well there have been published meeting notes for previous associations meetings, and it was implied to me that there were some in draft for this last meeting, available on the CRT extranet to attendees. It seems that on this occasion, for whatever reason, they have not been made public, (or at least not yet).

 

Are you happy to have meetings taking place between CRT and associations that represent different groups of boaters, where those groups hope to influence CRT policy or actions, but where what was discussed at those meetings is not made available to boaters generally, even in a summary form? That seems to me to be more or less what you have complained about in respect of other meetings involving CRT staff and non CRT staff?

I am happy for the associations to inform their members who they represent.

Concerning the other meetings you refer to I assume you mean the group you are a member of the South East Partnership Boaters Group. No I would not be happy if notes from those meetings were not made public. Those meetings are to discuss boating matters by people appointed by CRT who can claim expenses from CRT partly funded by money I pay to CRT

Edited August 16, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[alan_fincher]

I am happy for the associations to inform their members who they represent.

Concerning the other meetings you refer to I assume you mean the group you are a member of the South East Partnership Boaters Group. No I would not be happy if notes from those meetings were not made public. Those meetings are to discuss boating matters by people appointed by CRT who can claim expenses from CRT partly funded by money I pay to CRT

I actually meant meetings involving any of what you have previously called "quangos" - that would include things like NAG, as well as any partnership based groups. I actually feel that a typical meeting note from any of these is seldom a sufficient record of the meeting, (although after several requests I do think those for the group I'm involved in have got somewhat better).

 

I think we will have to differ on whether it is OK for CRT not to publish meeting notes from the associations meetings, then. However my take on it is that if CRT sit down with a number of "association" reps and then consider them as representing the views of boaters more widely, then notes for those meetings should be available to us all.

 

We have all previously criticised BW/CRT quietly agreeing things in their "club" with the IWA, for example, and I can't see the big difference here, other than the "club" involved here is somewhat larger, but probably still not covering the majority of boat owners.

 

One of the problems now seems to be that each some association representatives are each telling a different story about who said what, so it is impossible to be clear what actually was said in the meetings that may (or indeed may not!) have affected any outcome on winter moorings for 2015/2016.

[cotswoldsman]

I actually meant meetings involving any of what you have previously called "quangos" - that would include things like NAG, as well as any partnership based groups. I actually feel that a typical meeting note from any of these is seldom a sufficient record of the meeting, (although after several requests I do think those for the group I'm involved in have got somewhat better).

 

I think we will have to differ on whether it is OK for CRT not to publish meeting notes from the associations meetings, then. However my take on it is that if CRT sit down with a number of "association" reps and then consider them as representing the views of boaters more widely, then notes for those meetings should be available to us all.

 

We have all previously criticised BW/CRT quietly agreeing things in their "club" with the IWA, for example, and I can't see the big difference here, other than the "club" involved here is somewhat larger, but probably still not covering the majority of boat owners.

 

One of the problems now seems to be that each some association representatives are each telling a different story about who said what, so it is impossible to be clear what actually was said in the meetings that may (or indeed may not!) have affected any outcome on winter moorings for 2015/2016.

Alan then ask CRT to publish the notes don't expect the associations to do it. I have allready put on here the quote from CRT where they say they consulted no boaters on winter moorings though Tuscan did post this on behalf of NABO

 

QUOTE

 

If I recall correctly NABO submitted its suggestions on winter moorings which are not too far from what CRT has now announced (apart from the London exclusion) around the time they were announced in 2014 so I doubt this has been the main influence on the latest decision.

 

UNQUOTE

 

There was also a 121 meeting between NABO and Ian Rogers before the associationeeting where winter moorings were discussed

[jenlyn]

I actually meant meetings involving any of what you have previously called "quangos" - that would include things like NAG, as well as any partnership based groups. I actually feel that a typical meeting note from any of these is seldom a sufficient record of the meeting, (although after several requests I do think those for the group I'm involved in have got somewhat better).

 

I think we will have to differ on whether it is OK for CRT not to publish meeting notes from the associations meetings, then. However my take on it is that if CRT sit down with a number of "association" reps and then consider them as representing the views of boaters more widely, then notes for those meetings should be available to us all.

 

We have all previously criticised BW/CRT quietly agreeing things in their "club" with the IWA, for example, and I can't see the big difference here, other than the "club" involved here is somewhat larger, but probably still not covering the majority of boat owners.

 

One of the problems now seems to be that each some association representatives are each telling a different story about who said what, so it is impossible to be clear what actually was said in the meetings that may (or indeed may not!) have affected any outcome on winter moorings for 2015/2016.

I think you like Crt, don't get the idea of what association meetings were "supposed" to be about. I always believed that associations represented those that had taken the interest and trouble to join, then present CRT with the issues concerning the membership.

This never happens of course, because CRT don't get the fact that the agenda should be set by the associations for such meetings.

CRT seem to believe the "PowerPoint presentation" is what a meeting is about, and then asking for views. (ignoring those views anyway, because the decision was made several weeks ago during an internal PowerPoint presentation).

[Nige123]

Why is it that here in the UK we just can't get it together to sort out the smallest of problems?

 

This winter what do I do as a live aboard (not using CC'er as that tag is a con to make it sound like we should "keep moving sunshine")?

When the river goes into flood I now have to move on day 14 & if my boats sinks & I die so what? it's the rules that have to be uphold right.....

 

& I am paying the massive wage bill of CRT staff that want to get rid of me from the water ways not make it better for me to be safe......

 

I'm not one of the dirty old boat dwellers that spreads junk all over the bank in fact I often pick up others rubbish from the bank & water (most of it from dog walkers & bike riders)

 

The new rules on winter moorings is a joke like the K&A near reading has 50mtrs of winter mooring in the middle of nothing with no water point, dustbins, pump-out, car parking & it's gona cost me almost £120 for that pleasure.......

 

This solves nothing & when the very few remote sites are full what happens? more conflict.........

 

A wood post with a small sign that says "NO Winter Mooring Between Posts" would do would it not & we would then know some old git complains if he see's people living on boats here.......

 

If someone has time why not start the boaters union (Google Union it was a good thing that got killed off by Ms Thatcher an horrible man) & we could all protest by chaining the locks shut or burning our bra's

[magnetman]

Editd

Edited September 1, 2015 by magnetman

[bramley]

Being local to it, I cant work out why Cosgrove is £13.50 the same as central london?

[Cloudinspector]

edit

Edited September 1, 2015 by Cloudinspector

[magnetman]

Being local to it, I cant work out why Cosgrove is £13.50 the same as central london?

Winter moorings are no longer being offered in central London according to the crtmoorings webshite

Is that because too many boats were turning up once they heard you could pay protection money not to be hassled all winter to keep moving

Do winter moorings a bit further out and see what happens. If people don't change behaviour then sort out clobbering them properly for moorings or build more serviced residentials and see what happens.

[alan_fincher]

Being local to it, I cant work out why Cosgrove is £13.50 the same as central london?

 

Are any listed in central London then?

 

I thought they explicitly said they had withdrawn any option of winter moorings being offered in central London?

[cotswoldsman]

Winter moorings are no longer being offered in central London according to the crtmoorings webshite

Is that because too many boats were turning up once they heard you could pay protection money not to be hassled all winter to keep moving

Just out of interest is Paddington counted as central London or is that no suburbs?