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

[Tuscan]

I personally am very upset about this, I live near here and spend loads of time on this particular stretch of the Canal and the boats make the place.

However it seems by the comments in the Berkhamstead FB Group that no one knows why officials are making boats an issue and who could of complained saying they are a "nuisance" Hopefully the consultation will not receive support to stop boats mooring up for more than 2 days.

 

http://www.berkhamstedcitizens.org.uk/latest-news/

I hope people go on line and make their views known. This seems less about the needs of boaters (as there has been no evidence produced showing non availability of mooring) but more a rejection by the town of boaters. Perhaps a hang over from last winter where boaters had long term winter permits but those in the town thought they were just overstaying.

[Martin Megson]

The following topic has some discussion on this:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=81712

 

Edited to add link to CRT site with survey so let your views be known

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/mooring-your-boat/south-east-visitor-moorings/south-east-visitor-mooring-consultation-january/february-2016

Edited February 2, 2016 by Martin Megson

[alan_fincher]

Generator noise and diesel fumes so probably a minority have spoilt it yet again. Interesting no mention of smoke from the fires.

 

How familiar are you with the location?

 

The most popular length, where the all year around 2 day limit is proposed, is not near enough to any housing for generator noise to be disturbing residents actually in their homes.

 

On one side of the canal is Waitrose, acres of car parks, and the former watercress beds, but no actual housing close by. On the other side parkland with some further parking, but no nearby housing.

 

The parts where there are any significant housing are proposed to limit to 7 days, and in summer months only - 14 day mooring would still be allowed in Winter outside any housing, under these proposals.

 

Presumably why the Town Council who were previously gloating that CRT had agreed to al their wishes, are now saying they will not be happy unless the 2 day all year restriction gets applied to the whole town throughout the entire year.

 

Of course the councils claims that more boats would moor up and visit the town if an all year 2 day restriction occurred is a nonsense, If CRT actively restrict winter mooring to 2 days, and then rigorously move people on, then how many boats would actually be tied up in the town, throughout the less popular months for cruising? Almost none, of course, it would be largely empty - hardly something that brings trade to Berkhamsted.

 

The original stated aim of Jeff Whyatt's SEVM proposals was that it was solely to increase the likelihood of boats being able to find moorings at popular locations. A local council encouraging residents to complete this survey, is not doing it for those reasons - it wishes to gain approval from discouraging live-aboard boats from the area. That is not my contentious opinion - that is what the council are publicly saying, isn't it?

Edited February 2, 2016 by alan_fincher

[nicknorman]

How familiar are you with the location?

 

The most popular length, where the all year around 2 day limit is proposed, is not near enough to any housing for generator noise to be disturbing residents actually in their homes.

 

On one side of the canal is Waitrose, acres of car parks, and the former watercress beds, but no actual housing close by. On the other side parkland with some further parking, but no nearby housing.

 

The parts where there are any significant housing are proposed to limit to 7 days, and in summer months only - 14 day mooring would still be allowed in Winter outside any housing, under these proposals.

 

Presumably why the Town Council who were previously gloating that CRT had agreed to al their wishes, are now saying they will not be happy unless the 2 day all year restriction gets applied to the whole town throughout the entire year.

 

Of course the councils claims that more boats would moor up and visit the town if an all year 2 day restriction occurred is a nonsense, If CRT actively restrict winter mooring to 2 days, and then rigorously move people on, then how many boats would actually be tied up in the town, throughout the less popular months for cruising? Almost none, of course, it would be largely empty - hardly something that brings trade to Berkhamsted.

 

The original stated aim of Jeff Whyatt's SEVM proposals was that it was solely to increase the likelihood of boats being able to find moorings at popular locations. A local council encouraging residents to complete this survey, is not doing it for those reasons - it wishes to gain approval from discouraging live-aboard boats from the area. That is not my contentious opinion - that is what the council are publicly saying, isn't it?

While i am generally on your side on this one Alan, I think it is a mistake to gloss over the other side of the argument. It seems unlikely that the TC is making a fuss just for the sake of it and thus the presence of the boats must be causing someone some grief.

 

Visually perhaps? But then I know a number of liveaboard who don't have junk piled all over their boat and the towpath so it is not a prerequisite of living aboard to accumulate a lot of visible junk. But nevertheless there are some pretty unsightly liveaboard boats. No-one wants this near their house any more than a house next door with junk piled in the front garden.

 

Acoustically perhaps? Some boats have ridiculously loud engines and generators. It is not necessary, engines and generators can be quiet and so there is no excuse. Those wanting barely silenced vintage engines should not run them noisily and stationary for hours to generate power. Get a quiet generator!

 

Smokily? If you burn smokeless coal there is minimal smoke other than shortly after a refuel. If you burn wet wood recently cut down or fished out of the canal, or house coal, you can fill the whole area with acrid smoke on a calm winter's day. There is no need for it.

 

So in summary, whilst none of us want to see restrictions on mooring due to residents' complaints, it works both ways. Better to remove the unnecessary reasons for the complaints than try to argue against reasonable complaints and deny the residents a reasonable quality of life. If for no other reason than ultimately that battle is likely to be lost.

 

Perhaps efforts would be better spent discouraging the cause of the problems rather than shouting down the complainers?

[jenlyn]

Generator noise and diesel fumes so probably a minority have spoilt it yet again. Interesting no mention of smoke from the fires.

When did you last visit the area?

[Tuscan]

CRTs consultation and proposal I understood hinges solely I thought on the fact that there is such pressure on moorings that 2 days restrictions are required to manage demand. The rest is just a diversion. However I can see no evidence (and CRT have confirmed they didn't log this information) that any sightings demonstrate that there was constant lack of mooring availability throughout the 18 months of volunteer sightings. ( I must re read the report).

 

it looks to me that CRT have used some statistics (contained within the visitor mooring framework) to support the local council and SE Partnership's desire to reduce the number of boaters staying other than for a brief shopping stop.

 

Unfortunately I expect this trend to continue in other locations.

[jenlyn]

I call it social cleansing. (No matter how CRT attempt to disguise it).

[Martin Megson]

When did you last visit the area?

 

 

May I ask when you last visited ?

[nicknorman]

I call it social cleansing. (No matter how CRT attempt to disguise it).

It depends on what you mean by social cleansing. Social cleansing (a bit like ethnic cleansing) whereby the aim is to eliminate people who fail to reach a certain standard, either by killing them or having them move away from "my back yard" is clearly wrong. However if social cleansing involves trying to get people to want to live to higher standards of cleanliness (visible and actual) in more pleasant surroundings without impinging on their neighbours then perhaps it is a good idea. A bit like sartorial cleansing (aka washing your clothes). Apparently that is a good idea too, although I have yet to try it.

[alan_fincher]

 

it looks to me that CRT have used some statistics (contained within the visitor mooring framework) to support the local council and SE Partnership's desire to reduce the number of boaters staying other than for a brief shopping stop.

 

From my current understanding, although I can't prove it, on this occasion, CRT have actively approached the Council to gain support for what they are proposing, rather than the other way about.

 

In a way, however, it is hard to object to that, because if you look at the Visitor Mooring Framework, it does actively encourage them to do so. If they had not talked to the council, some people would be shouting saying "the Framework requires them to talk to the Council!", I feel sure!

 

Of course, though, at the point you suggest this as part of the process, is becomes about more than just the original stated aim of visitor moorings availabillty versus demand. Maybe when NAG and others agreed that these other considerations were allowed into the Framework, they did not see the possible conflict between two very different sets of objectives? I think many of us hoped the Framwork meant a more accountable way of operating, but rereading it since I think it is a double edged sword.

 

Whilst I understand the point you are trying to make about the SE Partnership, I doubt these matters have either been raised by the main Partnership, nor even discussed at it. It is correct, of course that the proposals were presented to the Boating Sub-Group of that Partnership, but to say that they have actually come about from their desires is clearly not correct. The agenda is CRT's, and whatever their reasons for doing so, it is not actually originally driven by such a group.

[jenlyn]

 

 

May I ask when you last visited ?

Am just below Berko at the minute, and was there a few weeks back, (just before Xmas)

[jenlyn]

It depends on what you mean by social cleansing. Social cleansing (a bit like ethnic cleansing) whereby the aim is to eliminate people who fail to reach a certain standard, either by killing them or having them move away from "my back yard" is clearly wrong. However if social cleansing involves trying to get people to want to live to higher standards of cleanliness (visible and actual) in more pleasant surroundings without impinging on their neighbours then perhaps it is a good idea. A bit like sartorial cleansing (aka washing your clothes). Apparently that is a good idea too, although I have yet to try it.

Social cleansing in any guise is disgraceful. The comments being made by one individual from Berkhampstead, across the internet is aimed at boat owners in general. So I am afraid he wants rid of you to Nick.

[nicknorman]

Social cleansing in any guise is disgraceful.

So would you consider demolishing damp back to back congested slums with outside toilets, no bathrooms or central heating, and moving the folk to modern housing with green space etc (maybe not 1960s tower blocks!) to be social cleansing and thereby disgraceful? With your approach, it is hard to see how society can progress and if it had been enacted we would still be living in mud huts with an open fire in the middle of the room and a hole in the roof to let the smoke out, and pissing and crapping into our drinking water.

[alan_fincher]

I would politely suggest that Nick has very little idea what the average live-aboard boat visiting Berkhamsted actually looks like, how scruffy a typical one may be, (or may not be), or to what extent the owners exhibit behaviours that may be considered "anti-social", either slightly or in some extreme.

 

It is dead easy to jump to conclusions about much of this, but without knowledge of the situation on the ground, very easy to put across some potentially emotive post that has very little to do with the actual reality.

[Tuscan]

 

Whilst I understand the point you are trying to make about the SE Partnership, I doubt these matters have either been raised by the main Partnership, nor even discussed at it. It is correct, of course that the proposals were presented to the Boating Sub-Group of that Partnership, .

 

What is the purpose of the SE partnership I thought it was meant to be the link between the community and the canal running through it . Yet it would appear that from what you are saying these proposals do not even feature on their agenda or have even been discussed. Presumeably the local council has not raised it with them, does not the boating subgroup report to the main partnership body has the partnership committee ever reviewed or discussed any of the sub groups recommendations as in this case ?

 

I am aware you are a lone voice on the boating sub group against these proposals.

[jenlyn]

So would you consider demolishing damp back to back congested slums with outside toilets, no bathrooms or central heating, and moving the folk to modern housing with green space etc (maybe not 1960s tower blocks!) to be social cleansing and thereby disgraceful? With your approach, it is hard to see how society can progress and if it had been enacted we would still be living in mud huts with an open fire in the middle of the room and a hole in the roof to let the smoke out, and pissing and crapping into our drinking water.

Nothing relevant to this topic (yawns).

[nicknorman]

I would politely suggest that Nick has very little idea what the average live-aboard boat visiting Berkhamsted actually looks like, how scruffy a typical one may be, (or may not be), or to what extent the owners exhibit behaviours that may be considered "anti-social", either slightly or in some extreme.

 

It is dead easy to jump to conclusions about much of this, but without knowledge of the situation on the ground, very easy to put across some potentially emotive post that has very little to do with the actual reality.

I imagine it will be much the same as live aboards anywhere else in the system. Unless there is a reason why Berko is a special case? Most will not attract attention. A few will, and of course it is always the few that are remembered, the rest are effectively invisible.

[sallyb]

The problems being put forward (long running generators, diesel fumes etc) do not exist and as has already been said, the proposed stretch of the canal that is subject to 2 days maximum are not near any housing at all! Further to this, whilst there are occasional boats moored up for two weeks along this stretch that you do wander how they are still floating such is the state of them, they are few and far between. I have never seen the tow path be abused by boaters regardless of the state of their boat either. The majority of boats look great and add character to the canal. The Berko community facebook group is puzzled by this action. I hope that the political bigwigs of the council and also the trust do not succeed (if this is their intention no matter what) to change the rules as they will kill off what is a lovely part of the canal system.

Edited February 2, 2016 by sallyb

[jenlyn]

After chasing this all day, and getting info etc, it seems that Mathew Symonds has been attending Berkhampstead's council led "canal and riverside partnership" meetings. No big deal, except for the little matter of him convincing the group of the need for a change of mooring times within the town.

It seems volunteers from this group were invited to monitor boats in the area through 2015.

So it seems this is in fact CRT looking to drive forward and implement New mooring times and rules.

[kris88]

While i am generally on your side on this one Alan, I think it is a mistake to gloss over the other side of the argument. It seems unlikely that the TC is making a fuss just for the sake of it and thus the presence of the boats must be causing someone some grief.

 

Visually perhaps? But then I know a number of liveaboard who don't have junk piled all over their boat and the towpath so it is not a prerequisite of living aboard to accumulate a lot of visible junk. But nevertheless there are some pretty unsightly liveaboard boats. No-one wants this near their house any more than a house next door with junk piled in the front garden.

 

Acoustically perhaps? Some boats have ridiculously loud engines and generators. It is not necessary, engines and generators can be quiet and so there is no excuse. Those wanting barely silenced vintage engines should not run them noisily and stationary for hours to generate power. Get a quiet generator!

 

Smokily? If you burn smokeless coal there is minimal smoke other than shortly after a refuel. If you burn wet wood recently cut down or fished out of the canal, or house coal, you can fill the whole area with acrid smoke on a calm winter's day. There is no need for it.

 

So in summary, whilst none of us want to see restrictions on mooring due to residents' complaints, it works both ways. Better to remove the unnecessary reasons for the complaints than try to argue against reasonable complaints and deny the residents a reasonable quality of life. If for no other reason than ultimately that battle is likely to be lost.

 

Perhaps efforts would be better spent discouraging the cause of the problems rather than shouting down the complainers?

It would seem you and CRT suffer from the same preducices.

 

Regards kris

[nicknorman]

It would seem you and CRT suffer from the same preducices.

 

Regards kris

That's a great tip thanks - if you don't have a valid point to make, just resort to personal insult. Works every time!

[jenlyn]

That's a great tip thanks - if you don't have a valid point to make, just resort to personal insult. Works every time!

What's good for the goose, can be good for the gander (and all that lol).

[nicknorman]

 

I have to say that this thread just goes to demonstrate the problem. Anyone suggesting there might be a teensy bit of fault on the other side is ridiculed and shouted down by those who refuse to admit that all boaters are nothing less than saints, and are not prepared to discuss it rationally.

 

I suppose these people probably feel they have good intentions but the reality is that their irrational fanaticism weakens the case for all boaters, which is a shame.

[kris88]

That's a great tip thanks - if you don't have a valid point to make, just resort to personal insult. Works every time!

I'm very sorry it wasn't meant as a personal insult, just an observation. I've heard you wheel out the same old anti livaboard rhetoric countless times.

Always without any supporting evidence, so in my mind it falls into the category of preducices. Unless of course you have some evidence for your claims of noisy, scruffy livaboard boaters being a menace at the location in question.

 

Regards kris

[nicknorman]

I'm very sorry it wasn't meant as a personal insult, just an observation. I've heard you wheel out the same old anti livaboard rhetoric countless times.

Always without any supporting evidence, so in my mind it falls into the category of preducices. Unless of course you have some evidence for your claims of noisy, scruffy livaboard boaters being a menace at the location in question.

 

Regards kris

You are right I don't have any evidence at the location in question. However I do have plenty of personal evidence that there is a small minority of boaters who are messy and noisy to the detriment of everyone else. I suppose it is possible that these people avoid the area in question despite being occasionally found almost anywhere else. However there seems no logic to justify such an assumption. Therefore what you seem to be calling prejudice, I would call reasonable expectation.

 

Prejudice means pre-judging without looking at each case on its merits or otherwise. It would be prejudice to say that all liveaboard boaters messy and noisy (and clearly incorrect). It is not prejudice to see a messy boat and say "that boat is messy" or hear a noisy one and say "that boat is noisy". It is not prejudice, knowing that there are messy and/or noisy boats around, to expect that from time to time one will pitch up at the location in question, it is merely reasoned logic.

 

So let me ask you, do you claim that there are no people on the canal that make a mess of their boat and/or the towpath. Do you claim that there are no people on the canal that make a noise nuisance? I can't help thinking that you don't actually think that unless you are deaf and blind, which presumably you are not.

 

No-where have I made any suggestion that I am somehow anti-liveaboard, whilst if you trawl through my 10,000+ posts you will see that I have sometimes expressed envy at the lifestyle and a desire to join it one day.

I am not anti-liveaboard. I am anti selfish people who bring the majority into disrepute by being unduly messy and noisy, which boils down to lacking consideration for others. I don't give a flying whatsit whether they are liveaboard or not.

 

If you react against every minor criticism of a minority of selfish people as somehow being an attack on all liveaboard boaters, you just come across as being irrational and with a large chip. It does your case no good.