South East Visitor Moorings Consultation - Batchworth, Berkhamsted, Marsworth & Braunston

[alan_fincher]

CRT are proposing to introduce new Visitor moorings restrictions at three sites on the Grand Union, namely Batchworth, Berkhamsted & Marsworth.

 

Additionally, whilst not planning to change the existing time limits at Braunston, they are proposing introducing the £25 per day overstay charge already detailed at some of the other most popular sites in the South East.

The details, including stay times and maps can be found here.

The initial proposal was presented to the Boating Sub-Group of the South East Waterways Partnership, and were in some cases more restrictive than what is now presented on the above web-pages, but after discussion were cut back to what is now shown.

 

If this subject is of interest to you, either because you support further restrictions, or because you oppose them, the vital thing to note is that CRT are now running a mini-consultation throughout January and February, so you have until February 29th to make your views known.

 

A similar, but smaller exercise in connection with VMs at "Three Locks" produced very few replies, and not unsurprisingly CRT took that as meaning that the trial that had occurred there should now become permanent. It seems reasonable to assume that if there is not a reasonable level of response to the proposals at these 4 locations, CRT are likely to implement in more or less the form now proposed.

[matty40s]

Do we have to visit the local hostelries for a beer to influence the outcome, or do we have to do it online on an official basis.?

[jenlyn]

Same old cr@p coming out again then. Mathew Symmonds needing to justify the need for his employment?

Am surprised the CEO did not visit the local pubs to organise the changes.

I thought these things could be bought for the price of a meal and a pint.

[Martin Megson]

They seem quite sensible time limits.

[mark99]

Batchworth is the one I know well.

 

Not sure there is any need to alter it in first place.

 

I don't remember not being able to get moored in somewhere and I don't really see any issues to cure. Perhaps I don't pay enough attention.

[jenlyn]

They seem quite sensible time limits.

Just out of interest, when did you last visit any of the proposed sites, and what problems did you see?

[mark99]

I'm wondering whether it's the text in red (max stay in area) is the driver rather than duration tinkering. Presumably to disrupt anyone who shuffles up and down the same length all the time. As said I don't see any obvious issues with that at BWth.

[Victor Vectis]

We haven't been to either of the three sites (yet!) so I'm not really in a position to comment.

 

We have visited shiney boat central opps, sorry, Braunston once or twice though.

 

But what I really object to is the use of volunteers as 'mooring rangers'. What sort of a jobsworth wants to do this sort of thing in their spare time? A retired traffic warden or one who lept from the womb wearing a flat hat perhaps?

 

Surely volunteers efforts would be better used picking litter, assisting at locks etc etc.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Victor Vectis

[jenlyn]

I'm wondering whether it's the text in red (max stay in area) is the driver rather than duration tinkering. Presumably to disrupt anyone who shuffles up and down the same length all the time. As said I don't see any obvious issues with that at BWth.

I put the need down to one person needing to justify his position. Without visitor mooring sites being developed, he has no job.

[Alan de Enfield]

I must be misunderstanding this as is looks to me as if the times are being increased.

 

 

Current Moorings

Between Lock 82 (Stockers Lock) and Bridge 173 there are approximately 500 meters of 3 day mooring.

Between bridge 174 and the permit holder moorings next to bridge 173 there are approximately 300 meters of 2 day mooring

 

Proposed Changes
Between Lock 82 (Stockers Lock) and Bridge 173 the 3 day mooring stay time will be extended to 7 day (all year).

Between bridge 174 and the permit holder moorings next to bridge 173 the mooring stay time will be retained at 2 day (all year)

 

Am I being daft ?

 

Currently between Lock 82 and bridge 173 it is 3-day moorings, the proposal is that between lock 82 and bridge 173 the timing will be increased to 7 day.

Currently between bridge 174 and the moorings next to bridge 173 are 300 metres is 2 days, the proposal is to retain these as 2 day moorings.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[mark99]

I must be misunderstanding this as is looks to me as if the times are being increased.

 

 

Current Moorings

Between Lock 82 (Stockers Lock) and Bridge 173 there are approximately 500 meters of 3 day mooring.

Between bridge 174 and the permit holder moorings next to bridge 173 there are approximately 300 meters of 2 day mooring

 

Proposed Changes

Between Lock 82 (Stockers Lock) and Bridge 173 the 3 day mooring stay time will be extended to 7 day (all year).

Between bridge 174 and the permit holder moorings next to bridge 173 the mooring stay time will be retained at 2 day (all year)

 

Am I being daft ?

 

Currently between Lock 82 and bridge 173 it is 3-day moorings, the proposal is that between lock 82 and bridge 173 the timing will be increased to 7 day.

Currently between bridge 174 and the moorings next to bridge 173 are 300 metres is 2 days, the proposal is to retain these as 2 day moorings.

 

Note the red text though........

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Note the red text though........

 

Well I must be daft or reading something different. I clicked on the link, then I also opened the 'map' (pdf) but I can find no 'red-text' or anything about max stay in the area.

 

Never mind.

[mark99]

It's on the map key.

[Graham.m]

I object to the fines for overstaying at Braunston or anywhere else

 

There is no where on the consultation for Braunston so I added it with the other comments

[Martin Megson]

Just out of interest, when did you last visit any of the proposed sites, and what problems did you see?

 

Spent 10 days at Braunston in December. Surprised how busy it was for December but there was a planned stoppage at Buckby flight so maybe a few were waiting for that to open. I last visited the others in spring 2014 when I travelled the length of the GU to London. Fairly busy at Berkhamsted with only a couple of spaces available. There were some boats moored on the park on the off side but it was unclear if this was actually an official mooring. But I didn't have any difficulty finding a mooring on most of the canal.

[Alan de Enfield]

It's on the map key.

 

I'm not getting anything like that - maybe My download is an old version (who knows)

My 'key' only has

 

Green dots = 2 day mooring

Pink dots = 7 day mooring

Red dots = long term moorings

Dark grey = No Mooring

Light Grey = Zone changes

 

There is no text at all.

 

Bottom RH side of the page is this :

 

* Recorded stay time: is measured by the number of daily sightings between the first and latest sighting. A boat recorded on two consecutive days will be treated as having stayed for 24 hours. A boat recorded on three consecutive days will be treated as having stayed for 2 days.

 

Thanks for trying tho'.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[junior]

Is it broke? If not...

[bottle]

I object to the fines for overstaying at Braunston or anywhere else

 

There is no where on the consultation for Braunston so I added it with the other comments

 

It is not a fine, it is an extra charge that you can pay if you so wish to stay longer than the permitted periods.

 

A bit like some supermarket car parks, First two hours free, if you want to stay longer you can but must pay.

 

Seems fair enough to me.

[jenlyn]

 

It is not a fine, it is an extra charge that you can pay if you so wish to stay longer than the permitted periods.

 

A bit like some supermarket car parks, First two hours free, if you want to stay longer you can but must pay.

 

Seems fair enough to me.

Still no way of pre booking. So its a fine for overstaying.

[Graham.m]

 

It is not a fine, it is an extra charge that you can pay if you so wish to stay longer than the permitted periods.

 

A bit like some supermarket car parks, First two hours free, if you want to stay longer you can but must pay.

 

Seems fair enough to me.

 

Sorry mooring is free, thus any charge for overstaying is a fine. I cannot find any statue authority by which CRT can levy a fine

[Loafer]

I don't think it's a fine. I think of it as an offer to overstay. At £xx per day. (25, was it?)

[bottle]

It is not a fine it is charge that is advertised on a notice.

 

Just as per my example of a supermarket car park.

[jenlyn]

It is not a fine it is charge that is advertised on a notice.

 

Just as per my example of a supermarket car park.

The canal is not a supermarket car park, surely you have noticed this. Its a fine for overstaying, as you cannot prebook

[john6767]

Looking at the Braunston map, the 48hr moorings near the marina are shown as all year, I thought that the default was now that all reverted to 14 in winter and I assumed that was the reason that the last two times we have been to Braunston there was no space there at all, when there almost always has been space by the marina. The area opposite the boat house has always been signed as 14 days in winter, 48hr in the summer.

 

So if this is no change to present, that suggests that by the marina is 48hr all year now, so how do you know that and when 48hr moorings do revert to 14 day in winter or not.

[Graham.m]

It is not a fine it is charge that is advertised on a notice.

 

Just as per my example of a supermarket car park.

 

To my understanding it is a charge being levied for doing something that they do not want done. Thus it is a threat, do this and it will cost you money. Now to me that is a fine for being naughty.

 

As I posted earlier I cannot find anything in statue that permits or gives CRT authority to fine for misconduct. If I understand correctly they could bring over stayers before the Magistrates court where they can be fined on summary conviction.