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

[jenlyn]

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.

Noooooo. Don't become a liveaboard. Think of the walk needed to get your daily latte and sub.

Edited February 3, 2016 by jenlyn

[smileypete]

How about you get a longer term permit if you agree in writing to display the permit and NOT burn smoky fuel or run a noisy genny?

[Batavia]

Having lived, and kept boats, in Berkhamsted for 35 years, I would like to make a few observations.

 

Since CaRT has started to be more authoritarian in the enforcement of 14 day moorings, there do not seem to be many problems with a lack of moorings in the town. The only change that I think could be useful would be to have shopping moorings by Waitrose, similar to those in Leighton Buzzard. In fact CaRT installed rings there a while ago, but nothing else happened.

 

The section of canal that has the greatest potential to generate complaints from residents is between Castle Street and Ravens Lane, where houses and flats back on to, and face, the canal. There is no doubt that a minority of boaters do cause a nuisance, from running loud engines (just because the rules don’t say you can’t do something, it doesn’t mean that it is a sociable or considerate thing to do) and producing foul-smelling smoke.

 

In case anyone points out “if you don’t like boats on canals then don’t buy a house near one”, it is worth noting than many of the residents have lived there before engine running became a "nuisance" to nearby residents.

 

More generally, many of the non-boating people I know in Berkhamsted have a much less favourable view of boats and boaters than was the case perhaps 20+ years ago, when the nature of the boats in the town was significantly different to today. Again, it is a minority of boaters who have caused this change of attitude – but everyone gets affected by the consequences of the hardening of attitudes against boaters. These views are presumably expressed to the council and to CARP.

 

Chris G

 

Noooooo. Don't become a liveaboard. Think of the walk needed to get your daily latte and sub.

If he moored in the centre of Berkhamsted, he wouldn't have very far to walk!

 

Chris G

Edited February 3, 2016 by Batavia

[Machpoint005]

Did nobody else pick up the reference (admittedly on a local newspaper web site!) that the town council wanted more turnover on the moorings so that town centre businesses might get more trade?

 

I can't say whether their motivation is valid, but that seemed to be what they were getting at.

[Batavia]

Did nobody else pick up the reference (admittedly on a local newspaper web site!) that the town council wanted more turnover on the moorings so that town centre businesses might get more trade?

 

I can't say whether their motivation is valid, but that seemed to be what they were getting at.

I suspect that this is probably a fig leaf, designed to obscure the real reasons - which probably have a lot in common with the "Keep Lidl Out of Berkhamsted" campaign.

 

Chris G

[Machpoint005]

True. They'd be far better off with an Aldi.

[alan_fincher]

Did nobody else pick up the reference (admittedly on a local newspaper web site!) that the town council wanted more turnover on the moorings so that town centre businesses might get more trade?

 

I can't say whether their motivation is valid, but that seemed to be what they were getting at.

 

And if they do put in strictly policed 2 day moorings, with no relaxation of that stay time throughout Winter, where do they imagine enough boats are going to turn up from to make the moorings anything more than only very lightly occupied? It will inevitably be largely unoccupied, unless CRT are not serios about enforcing that 2 days in Winter, even if that's what's on the signs.

 

If you talk to some town traders, such as canal-side publicans, they will tell you that far more of their trade is from live-aboard boaters than from those only passing through. They say Waitrose or Tesco may get trade, because people buy stuff for barbecues on the towpath, accompanied by cheap tinned beer at supermarket prices, but very little trade ends up with them.

 

If a live aboard boater is currently in the town for up to 14 days, probably with no more transport than a push-bike, where do we imagine they are giving local trade to when buying provisions - I would suggest this is still mostly to local shops.

I suspect that this is probably a fig leaf, designed to obscure the real reasons - which probably have a lot in common with the "Keep Lidl Out of Berkhamsted" campaign.

 

Chris G

 

See above!

Edited February 3, 2016 by alan_fincher

[Machpoint005]

So the premise was not valid, as I suspected. People are completely at liberty to hold any number of stupid ideas though!

[Batavia]

 

If you talk to some town traders, such as canal-side publicans, t

You obviously haven't been talking to Estate Agents, Bridal Shops, Nail Bars, Funeral Directors, etc., whose trade would obviously be greatly increased if only passing boaters could moor in the town!

 

Chris G

[KevMc]

Some of my family have lived around the Hemel / Berko / Bovingdon area for 20 odd years .. they will all tell you that some people from Berko consider themselves special ..... everyone else just thinks they are stuck up their own fundaments

[alan_fincher]

So the premise was not valid, as I suspected. People are completely at liberty to hold any number of stupid ideas though!

 

The Councils actions and public statements still attempt the thin veneer that this move will somehow benefit trade in the town, but as their latest utterings still say they want 2 day limits throughout the entirety of what is nearly a mile of moorings, (and even that the Town does not have suitable facilities for live-aboard boats), I don't think their actual agenda is at all well disguised! If they really got there way, and CRT enforce, it would mean far, far less visting boats overall - simple logic, i think, puts that beyond resaonable dispute.

 

I know Chris G lives far closer to the canal than I do, (and even has permanent moorings there), but whilst his post is very balanced, when he states:

 

many of the non-boating people I know in Berkhamsted have a much less favourable view of boats and boaters than was the case perhaps 20+ years ago,

 

I am not convinced that this is true of many residents of the town in general. It may well be true though in the part where Chris now lives, (and it is clearly very true of some near the part where Chris now lives, which may well be part of the problem!)

[jenlyn]

 

The Councils actions and public statements still attempt the thin veneer that this move will somehow benefit trade in the town, but as their latest utterings still say they want 2 day limits throughout the entirety of what is nearly a mile of moorings, (and even that the Town does not have suitable facilities for live-aboard boats), I don't think their actual agenda is at all well disguised! If they really got there way, and CRT enforce, it would mean far, far less visting boats overall - simple logic, i think, puts that beyond resaonable dispute.

 

I know Chris G lives far closer to the canal than I do, (and even has permanent moorings there), but whilst his post is very balanced, when he states:

 

 

I am not convinced that this is true of many residents of the town in general. It may well be true though in the part where Chris now lives, (and it is clearly very true of some near the part where Chris now lives, which may well be part of the problem!)

With regard the comments by Chris on local support for boat owners, I am finding the opposite. A lot of locals have come forward, voiced their concerns, and have fully thrown their weight behind boat owners in condemning and ridiculing the plans. This is evident on local media sites, and has seen one council member take a lot of flak.

It's also come to light that the IWA have yet again been flexing their political side, in convincing C&RP of the need for these stay time changes.

Nine Bob note, and bent is in my view an apt description for the whole shenanigans.

Edited February 3, 2016 by jenlyn

[Guest]

Noooooo. Don't become a liveaboard. Think of the walk needed to get your daily latte and sub.

 

For someone who regularly ridicules others for not making a constructive contribution to a discussion and has

 

'Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance'

 

in their signature I think you need to up your game a bit.

[jenlyn]

 

For someone who regularly ridicules others for not making a constructive contribution to a discussion and has

 

'Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance'

 

in their signature I think you need to up your game a bit.

[GUMPY]

I suspect that this is probably a fig leaf, designed to obscure the real reasons - which probably have a lot in common with the "Keep Lidl Out of Berkhamsted" campaign.

 

Some residents of Berko welcome Lidl, after all its not in the centre of town its almost in Northchurch and it will keep the rifraf out of Waitrose

[alan_fincher]

Some residents of Berko welcome Lidl, after all its not in the centre of town its almost in Northchurch and it will keep the rifraf out of Waitrose

 

Things have never been the same since "proper" "My Waitrose" customers cottoned on to the fact those they thought should only have a Tesco Clubcard were signing up for "My Waitrose", and coming in to claim their free coffees. "Berkhamsted Woman" was certainly unhappy with the lowered tone of the joint!

[BWM]

At the very least, two days is not long enough to enjoy all that berko and marsworth have to offer. It seems bizarre to jump so radically from one extreme to the other.

[alan_fincher]

At the very least, two days is not long enough to enjoy all that berko and marsworth have to offer. It seems bizarre to jump so radically from one extreme to the other.

 

Although I'm not supporting any of this without available evidence that it is necessary, based on supply of moorings versus demand, for balance I think I should point out that if it were to go ahead as proposed, both these places would then have a mix of 2, 7 and 14 day moorings.

 

However it seems Berkhamsted Town Council is still pressing the idea that town being made 2 day througoht, (not what CRT is proposing), which I think sets out their agenda pretty clearly.

 

When the original Jeff Whyatt SEVM proposals had the whole of Berkhamsted at 2 days, (for which no reasonable case can be possibly made just based on supply and demand of moorings), the suspicion was that local residents and/ or the council were driving it, but it was hard to establish that. Now at least that is in the open, because the Town Council are openly stating it on web-sites and other communications.

 

Although I'm not supporting any of this without available evidence that it is necessary, based on supply of moorings versus demand, for balance I think I should point out that if it were to go ahead as proposed, both these places would then have a mix of 2, 7 and 14 day moorings.

 

However it seems Berkhamsted Town Council is still pressing the idea that town being made 2 day throughout, (not what CRT is now proposing), which I think sets out their agenda pretty clearly.

 

When the original Jeff Whyatt SEVM proposals had the whole of Berkhamsted at 2 days, (for which no reasonable case can be possibly made just based on supply and demand of moorings), the suspicion was that local residents and/ or the council were driving it, but it was hard to establish that. Now at least that is in the open, because the Town Council are openly stating it on web-sites and other communications.

[GreenDuck]

As a new liveaboard out on the canal I have an innocent question to ask.

What would happen if a boater very rightly said NO.

What legal action can be taken against them?

If CRT are going to continue to treat people like this I think their names and addresses should be public information so their homes and lives can be put under the same scrutiny they seem to think it's acceptable to put mine under ffs!

It's pathetic they have been paid their money so leave us alone!

Edited February 3, 2016 by GreenDuck

[kris88]

As a new liveaboard out on the canal I have an innocent question to ask.

What would happen if a boater very rightly said NO.

What legal action can be taken against them?

If CRT are going to continue to treat people like this I think their names and addresses should be public information so their homes and lives can be put under the same scrutiny they seem to think it's acceptable to put mine under ffs!

It's pathetic they have been paid their money so leave us alone!

I hope your flame proof, expect incoming flak. We'll at least getting accused of being "Chris pink"or a troll. Which is pretty much the same thing on this forum.

If you seriously want an answer read any of the threads about section8's

 

Regards kris

[GreenDuck]

I hope your flame proof, expect incoming flak. We'll at least getting accused of being "Chris pink"or a troll. Which is pretty much the same thing on this forum.

If you seriously want an answer read any of the threads about section8's

 

Regards kris

that answers my question perfectly thank you!

So if I say no to staying 2 days but stay 2 weeks I get served a section 8 ?

Edited February 3, 2016 by GreenDuck

[Guest]

that answers my question perfectly thank you!

So if I say no to staying 2 days but stay 2 weeks I get served a section 8 ?

I don't think they work quite that quickly...

[kris88]

that answers my question perfectly thank you!

So if I say no to staying 2 days but stay 2 weeks I get served a section 8 ?

The search function is your friend

 

Regards kris

 

Maybe search for"enforcement process"

Edited February 3, 2016 by kris88

[GreenDuck]

The search function is your friend

 

Regards kris

 

Maybe search for"enforcement process"

Thanks Kris

[nicknorman]

As a new liveaboard out on the canal I have an innocent question to ask.

What would happen if a boater very rightly said NO.

What legal action can be taken against them?

If CRT are going to continue to treat people like this I think their names and addresses should be public information so their homes and lives can be put under the same scrutiny they seem to think it's acceptable to put mine under ffs!

It's pathetic they have been paid their money so leave us alone!

So do I take it that you are against any sort of control over moorings at all?

 

If so, I should point out that if it was as you perhaps wish and you being a new boater, you would have found no-where to moor in the locations you wanted because someone else would have got there first and have claimed that chunk of towpath for themselves in perpetuity. Or perhaps you just want rules that allow you to do what you like whilst keeping everyone else under control?

 

Anyway to be honest, regardless of what you want, the majority do want mooring controls so that everyone can have a fair crack of the whip. It's called "sharing nicely"! If sharing nicely doesn't suit you, perhaps you should find a new way of life?