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

[Delta9]

Or Chris Pink.

Chris is usually very reasonable.

[MtB]

Or Chris Pink.

 

Chris is always back. You just need to suss his latest doppel

[Loafer]

They then shuffeled down to Brewood or did they shuffell up to Wheaton Aston. Looked a hard lot anyway.

 

I think they were headed toward Brewood. Old history now though, I think CRT got 'em.

[metanoia]

It's almost like having Naughty Cal back.

Certainly not my quote but I KNOW how to spell

 

you can all shuffle off

Edited February 9, 2016 by metanoia

[Guest]

Certainly not my quote but I KNOW how to spell

 

you can all shuffle off

Yes so you seem to keep coming back to say....

[Loafer]

So it's not just ME then?

[Leisure boater]

Certainly not my quote but I KNOW how to spell

 

you can all shuffle off

Thanks for pointing out the errrors of my spelling, it used to be better but......not even easy to string a few sentences together these days.

[metanoia]

Yes so you seem to keep coming back to say....

We out there on the water boaters are not worthy - you let us know that ages ago but - STALKED AND CAUGHT - AFTER 10 DAYS AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - thought I was worrying about nothing but know why I don't "do" t'interweb et al ....

 

In my naivety and internet innocence I am genuinely SHOCKED.

 

That's not how my life afloat has been for the last decade - we'd do a favour rather than do you down - I'd be friends with Loafer if I met him at a lock (pushing it for NickNo after what he said but I WOULD still raise a paddle - not saying which end!!!)

 

Edited to remove rudeness to caravans and correct maths

Edited February 10, 2016 by metanoia

[Delta9]

I'll have a pint of whatever she's been on

[Loafer]

To quote you in that very strange under the radar message:

 

PLS grow up

 

but I now REALLY DO realise after my umpteenth warning from you and the rest of the "top posers":

 

I am not welcome.

 

We (proper, out there on the water boaters (without a caravan) are not worthy - you let us know that ages ago but ) - STALKED AND CAUGHT - AFTER 12 DAYS AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - thought I was worrying about nothing but glad I don't "do" t'inteweb" et al - because I have now had it confirmed "it isn't true - we REALLY do know where you are....."

 

In my naivety and internet innocence I am genuinely SHOCKED.

 

That's not how my life afloat has been for the last decade - we'd do a favour rather than do you down - I'd be friends with Loafer if I met him at a lock (pushing it for NickNo after what he sad but I WOULD still raise a paddle - not saying which end!!!)

 

I could possibly be friends with you too, metanoia, but you'd have to explain what you have against me, first.

 

I don't really understand the rest of your post!

[metanoia]

 

I could possibly be friends with you too, metanoia, but you'd have to explain what you have against me, first.

 

I don't really understand the rest of your post!

Nothing at all ...

 

Bet I've already met you.

 

Wish I'd never joined this forum thing - too much point scoring.....

 

Out there it's real boaters getting on with it - can I take your rope, close a gate for you, fetch you a paper........

 

ETA: the majority of the message was in reference to another member who has been sending VERY strange PMs!

 

AND my dog asks : do they still have glass ashtrays in the garden at the Anchor as that is the only repository he can consider for his 6X (or better still Owd Roger - well overpriced, but worth it).

Edited February 9, 2016 by metanoia

[Loafer]

Nothing

 

Bet I've already met you out there

 

Was I moored outside the Anchor?

Edited February 9, 2016 by Loafer

[Guest]

To quote you in that very strange under the radar message:

 

PLS grow up

 

but I now REALLY DO realise after my umpteenth warning from you and the rest of the "top posers":

 

I am not welcome.

 

We (proper, out there on the water boaters (without a caravan) are not worthy - you let us know that ages ago but ) - STALKED AND CAUGHT - AFTER 12 DAYS AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - thought I was worrying about nothing but glad I don't "do" t'inteweb" et al - because I have now had it confirmed "it isn't true - we REALLY do know where you are....."

 

In my naivety and internet innocence I am genuinely SHOCKED.

 

That's not how my life afloat has been for the last decade - we'd do a favour rather than do you down - I'd be friends with Loafer if I met him at a lock (pushing it for NickNo after what he sad but I WOULD still raise a paddle - not saying which end!!!)

You seem strangely and rather worryingly fixated with something.

 

You sent me a PM accusing me of something I didn't do, copying another member in who presumably mislead you.

 

Good Girl joined the PM, I guess because you didn't like my response and reported it. No further action was taken by any of the moderators.

 

End of.

[metanoia]

 

Was I moored outside the Anchor?

Probably!

I would have said definitely - but my dog would have had something to say to your dog and we all would have remembered - specially after nothing more than 6X. Owd Roger (bottled) and pork scratchings................

 

How's he doing by the way - hope he got over that nasty attack?

Edited February 9, 2016 by metanoia

[Loafer]

Probably!

I would have said definitely - but my dog would have had something to say to your dog and we all would have remembered - specially after nothing more than 6X. Owd Roger (bottled) and pork scratchings................

 

How's he doing by the way - hope he got over that nasty attack?

 

Yes, thank you, he completely recovered quite a while ago - and Petplan paid up, fortunately.

 

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

Does this mean we're friends now?

[alan_fincher]

I will not comment on why, after three weeks, this report was made available via a FOIA request rather than being published at the request of a member of the Waterways Partnership boating sub-group.

 

Well for clarity the explanation for that has finally emerged.

 

It has now been proven that the email requesting release of this information contained a URL that caused it to get filtered out of incoming mail because of certain words embedded in that URL, and hence none of the intended CRT recipients ever saw it. (It was seen fine by non CRT recipients, who. like me, assumed CRT staff were seeing it).

 

Unfortunately each attempt that I made to escalate it over the next 5 weeks or so (about 5 times in total) always had the original mail attached to it, so the same thing happened, and nobody in CRT saw it, even when I tried to escalate it to director level.

 

I did independently email a senior manager at one stage asking for a phone conversation to discuss why I had had no response, and that was the one case where I did not re-quote the offending URL. That mail was delivered, but unfortunately to someone who had just commenced a period of leave of over a fortnight, (the only case where I got any message back).

 

As I had not one single failure message or "out of office" delivered back to me for any of the other emails, I wrongly assumed that for whatever reason CRT were choosing not to answer at that stage.

 

With hindsight it is obvious I should long before have resorted to phone contact instead, but I genuinely had no reason to believe my mails were not being received. I now know they operate a very crude filtering of incoming mail, so would never wait as long again!

 

CRT have now told me that had they seen my request, they would willingly have released to materials presented to the SE Boaters Sub Group before this was done later under an FOIA request, and I now have no reason to doubt they would have done.

[waterworks]

If I was CaRT I would see it in my interests to have as little mooring restrictions as possible, thereby giving my self an easy life, not wasting funds and man hours chasing up ever more complicated restrictions, especially as I have no real presence on the ground and just operate on a skeleton staff level. Make everything 14 days and leave boaters to sort it out. Keep it simple is always a good plan.

Edited February 13, 2016 by waterworks

[alan_fincher]

It is probably worth adding something about the current state of this consultation on this thread, as a fair amount has been discussed elsewhere, but not necessarily on the forum.

Some of it may be repetition here, but as it has become muddled is, I think, worth recapping.

Following what has gone on in the past when BW/CRT have proposed, (or in some cases simply introduced), short stay "visitor" moorings across the country, CRT agreed that they needed to operate against a national standard or "framework" to ensure consistency in future. This was drafted in consultation with CRT's Navigation Advisory Group, ("NAG"), and published as a signed off about a year ago by Richard Parry as a CRT "Approved process", so it is fairly clear that this latest South East consultation should be operating within this Framework.

Confusingly it is possible to find multiple copies of the document that are subtly different, but the one linked to from the relevant page is published here, so presumably the live version.

A major intent of the framework is that if mooring restrictions are proposed CRT are able to demonstrate that they have recorded visiting boats over a period of time, but also that that data is then used to compare to the actual available mooring space at the location in question. This section refers:

By identifying individual craft you can convert this information in to total utilisation of the mooring based upon the length of the craft sighted v the total length of mooring available.

 

The sites now proposed at Batchworth (now removed from the consultation currently open), Berkhamsted and Marsworth have all met the requirement of monitoring over a period of time, but so far the step referred to above does not seem to have occurred. The data that was made available to the South East Boaters subgroup, and which CRT have now made publicly available, was presented solely in terms of average numbers, broken down various ways, but did not show peak numbers, or give any idea about dates and frequencies where overall occupancy might have been high.

This, as some will have already seen, has caused many people to question the degree to which CRT have followed their own Framework. I think this has been discussed in another thread on here, rather than this one, maybe, but has probably received more debate elsewhere.

It has been reported that NAG raised this issue at its recent meeting, and, as a result CRT, including Head of Boating, Mike Grimes, will be meeting with a member of NAG shortly, (next week, I think), to review how this has been handled. It's perhaps old news now then, but now I that have resolved the issue that CRT were not seeing my emails, I have had a conversation with them which also confirms the same. Amongst other things CRT are now looking to see if they can provide the data that the Framework demands, namely an estimate of actual peak occupancies versus available space, (and by implication how much free space would have likely been available on the busiest days).

I have pointed out to CRT that we are getting close to the published end date for the consultation, (end of February), and hopefully we will get some news on the outcome of this meeting long before then.

 

I have also pointed out again to CRT how unsatisfactory it is when a local council is first publishing details of what they claim to be a done deal with CRT before the consultation even starts, and is then making further public statements when it is running that they want a whole town with a mile of mooring space turned in to 2 day maximum, with no apparent need to consider supply versus demand.

I would urge anybody who has not completed the CRT consultation survey to do so, although you may now wish to wait closer to the end date to see what evidence CRT are able to supply about supply versus demand at the sites involved.

[Tuscan]

. Amongst other things CRT are now looking to see if they can provide the data that the Framework demands, namely an estimate of actual peak occupancies versus available space, (and by implication how much free space would have likely been available on the busiest days).

 

 

I asked that question and was told that the above was not and has not been done , yet the consultation has gone ahead in my opinion falsely giving boaters the impression that the conclusion reached by CRT must have been considerable non availability of mooring space on a regular basis.

 

In fact in one of my email exchanges I was told "whether there is or is not space to moor is of course one important factor, but there are other considerations such as ensuring fair sharing of space at popular locations at busier times of the year, how moorings can meet the needs of different boaters......"

[bigcol]

What's the email address for getting back to CRT on whether we are in favour or against.

They must have a separate email address, as remember their always saying

They have made approaches to the canal public, and this is what the people want.

 

What's the email address where you lodge a vote

 

Col

Edited February 13, 2016 by bigcol

[bigcol]

Where is this form, petition

Don't we have the ability to bo a petition, does and against

Enough signatures and hand it in to CRT

[alan_fincher]

Where is this form, petition

Don't we have the ability to bo a petition, does and against

Enough signatures and hand it in to CRT

 

There is already a petition started by Marcus Trower

 

here

 

However, I'm afraid not enough care has been taken when it was drafted, and it gets a number of things wrong, including:

 

1) There is nothing in the proposals for any site that reduces mooring times to as little as 24 hous.

2) No existing mooring times at Braunston are changing - the proposed change is the introduction of the £25 overstay charge.

3) The petition is inconsistent about which sites it is talking about - the list at the end substitutes Batchwoth for Berkhamsted.

 

These are unfortunate mistakes in something that was clearly well intentioned, but I think makes it easier for CRT to ignore, if what you are signing is itself not fully accurate.

 

CRT did not give much consideration to such a petition in a previous consultation, arguing it was quality of feedback they would pay attention to, not just numbers on a petition.

[Tuscan]

What's the email address for getting back to CRT on whether we are in favour or against.

They must have a separate email address, as remember their always saying

They have made approaches to the canal public, and this is what the people want.

What's the email address where you lodge a vote

Col

Here you go. The consultation survey link is below the info about the proposals

 

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

 

This from an earlier email exchange "Unfortunately we don’t have the ability to record the availability of mooring space, but rather the number of boats moored and the length of stay." if this is the case what was the point of compiling all these sightings ?!

[bigcol]

Signed both,

Thankyou for the links

[matty40s]

I wanted to see for myself what the situation in the area was before commenting. Have looked at both areas twice in the last three weeks.

Marsworth is almost empty (top and bottom), Berkhampstead has lots of space, the Waitress pound has quite a few boats , less on the second visit, further down there is lots of space, even in the Crystal Palace stretch. There does seem to be a couple of boats above the Gas Locks which never used to happen.

Considering all the London boats have supposedly been moved out, there are actually not any more boats in Berko than there was when I wintered down that way in 2009/10,moving between Cheddington and Hemel.