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

[waterworks]

No doubt waterworks will be emailing them as well.

You are free to email CaRT and let them know they can do anything they want, and you will never challenge it.

 

( until it affects you of course )

[alan_fincher]

I have emailed Steven Holder at the trusts legal dept to explain what they think these charges are lawful.

 

And I am sending a FOI to find out how many £25 charges have been invoiced and paid.

 

Have you actually don this?

 

Unless there is some delay before other people get to see it, I'm not seeing any FOIA requests about this.

Edited February 16, 2016 by alan_fincher

[waterworks]

 

Have you actually don this?

 

Unless there is some delay before other people get to see it, I'm not seeing any FOIA requests about this.

I emailed the CRT information office yesterday.

 

Is there a procedure for FOI I have missed ?

[Alan de Enfield]

I emailed the CRT information office yesterday.

 

Is there a procedure for FOI I have missed ?

 

You can contact the 'information office' at whichever organisation and no one will see your enquiry or the resulting answer - however, many people want to make public their requests and the answers so they use an internet system called "what do they know" where everyone can see what has been asked for, how long it takes the organisation to reply, and then view their replies.

 

For the books I am writing I have found that when you ask 'privately' you get a far better response (at least from the Military and Police forces) and you can actually phone them and discuss things with them - such as why Police Force "A" says that the information is not covered under the FOI whilst Force "B" gives you chapter and verse.

Of course - you do not always get an honest / correct answer - even from the Police, and having received their written answers to my questions I have then given them evidence that their answers are (shall we say) not totally accurate.

 

I really do feel (like a lot of things in life) its how you approach the situation.

For example : Going in with a "Explain to me why you think what you are doing is legal" question is unlikely to get a good response

[bassplayer]

 

You can contact the 'information office' at whichever organisation and no one will see your enquiry or the resulting answer - however, many people want to make public their requests and the answers so they use an internet system called "what do they know" where everyone can see what has been asked for, how long it takes the organisation to reply, and then view their replies.

 

For the books I am writing I have found that when you ask 'privately' you get a far better response (at least from the Military and Police forces) and you can actually phone them and discuss things with them - such as why Police Force "A" says that the information is not covered under the FOI whilst Force "B" gives you chapter and verse.

Of course - you do not always get an honest / correct answer - even from the Police, and having received their written answers to my questions I have then given them evidence that their answers are (shall we say) not totally accurate.

 

I really do feel (like a lot of things in life) its how you approach the situation.

For example : Going in with a "Explain to me why you think what you are doing is legal" question is unlikely to get a good response

The fact that some won't respond publically tells a story. The truth is best after all! Isn't it?

 

Although the mass media (lnternet) has a lot to answer for, it has started to bring

us all closer to the truth. Lets face it, it's brought a lot of victims together to expose some very nasty characters.

[GreenDuck]

 

Actually you appear to be someone who only wants rules to apply that suit you, and sod everyone else.

Nonsense I simply don't need the rules you obey that allow you along with other members on this forum get shafted by CRT!

Those who know me out on the canal know exactly how helpful and unselfish I am thank you very much.

Edited February 26, 2016 by GreenDuck

[valrene9600]

Nonsense I simply don't need the rules you obey that allow you along with other members on this forum get shafted by CRT!

Those who know me out on the canal know exactly how helpful and unselfish I am thank you very much.

I bet you are a nice fella but it's not any use when dealing with crt if you want to avoid the shall we say rules.

[Graham Davis]

Nonsense I simply don't need the rules you obey that allow you along with other members on this forum get shafted by CRT!

Those who know me out on the canal know exactly how helpful and unselfish I am thank you very much.

 

So I'm right then!

You are someone who only wants rules to apply that suit you, and sod everyone else!

Helpfulness has nothing to do with it.

[GreenDuck]

I bet you are a nice fella but it's not any use when dealing with crt if you want to avoid the shall we say rules.

avoiding rules and challenging misrepresenting implementation of rules are lifetimes apart in the nicest possible way.

[onionbargee]

I wouldn't have a problem if moorings near houses were banned from burning house coal, or running open frame generators, or messing up the towpath. People with no consideration for others have to be controlled by rules unfortunately.

[alan_fincher]

The visitor moorings proposal for Berkhamsted and Marsworth on the Grand Union was discussed at the South East Waterways Partnership Boater's Subgroup this evening.

 

In line with CRTs's approved framework for short term visitor mooring changes, the final decision on what is done following the consultation rests with the local Waterways manager Vicky Martin.

 

She is hopeful that decision will be taken by the end of March.

 

Watch this space.

[Bod]

Just to clarify further: S.43(3) of the 1962 Act is “subject to” the previous sub-section (2), such that no new ability to charge is conferred; it relates to charges only that BW could already legally levy.

 

Specific to the topic, it could never have even been contemplated by the original canal companies that obstruction of the towpath could be allowed, let alone charged for. Emphasis is given to this by the record of the GJCC applying to Parliament [in 1801] to ban pleasure boats from even using the towpath for bow-hauling – the surge in pleasure boat usage having [even in the few short years from opening of the canal] grown to be an impediment to commercial boats being towed.

 

S.43(8) Does that mean, having paid a licence to use the waterway, that C&RT are trying to charge twice for the same facility?

 

Bod

[Arthur Marshall]

S.43(8) Does that mean, having paid a licence to use the waterway, that C&RT are trying to charge twice for the same facility?

 

Bod

 

Your licence allows you to navigate in the wet bit. Various chunks of the towpath are designated as long term moorings which BW/CRT have charged for for years (presumably by the year) without, as far as I know, anyone accusing them of illegality. All they are doing if they charge for short term moorings is the same thing but for a shorter period of time. Logically, I can't see how you can accept one and not the other. You are, of course, free to accept neither and take them to court...

PS usual disclaimer, before anyone accuses me of being a toady, lickspittle, CRT apologist or anything else, I aint.

The fact that some won't respond publically tells a story. The truth is best after all! Isn't it?

 

Although the mass media (lnternet) has a lot to answer for, it has started to bring

us all closer to the truth. Lets face it, it's brought a lot of victims together to expose some very nasty characters.

Trouble is, if you respond publicly, bits of your reply mysteriously disappear and the rest gets quoted out of context to your disadvantage, and you have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to keep the record straight. And if you really, really think mass/social media really brings anyone, ever, closer to whatever truth is, I suspect you've given up the bass and started playing drums!

[bassplayer]

Trouble is, if you respond publicly, bits of your reply mysteriously disappear and the rest gets quoted out of context to your disadvantage, and you have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to keep the record straight. And if you really, really think mass/social media really brings anyone, ever, closer to whatever truth is, I suspect you've given up the bass and started playing drums!

What I'm getting at is that so many people seem afraid to say what they think these days. I'd rather hear what someone has on their mind whether I agree or disagree with it.

 

I believe the social media is one of the few places left where free speech still thrives. Pubs and other social gatherings are better still as body language is a big part of seeing the truth. The point is, there is free interaction. The crap we hear and read from the traditional media is mainly one way brainwashing.

 

If you know anything about bass and drums, you'd know how much communication goes on in making a good rhythm section. It's all better than sitting on your own in an armchair pondering ones navel.

 

It's just a pity that there are those who want to put a negative spin on everything and shut everyone up.

[Arthur Marshall]

What I'm getting at is that so many people seem afraid to say what they think these days. I'd rather hear what someone has on their mind whether I agree or disagree with it.

 

I believe the social media is one of the few places left where free speech still thrives. Pubs and other social gatherings are better still as body language is a big part of seeing the truth. The point is, there is free interaction. The crap we hear and read from the traditional media is mainly one way brainwashing.

 

If you know anything about bass and drums, you'd know how much communication goes on in making a good rhythm section. It's all better than sitting on your own in an armchair pondering ones navel.

 

It's just a pity that there are those who want to put a negative spin on everything and shut everyone up.

I mostly agree. Free speech is not appreciated by the powers that be. I don't trust much social media as its really just another tool for the advertising businesses. I tend to regard anything put on as a bit of a hostage to fortune - I got in enough trouble when in employment with apparently inappropriate jokes (such as my violin case bearing a large label saying "the tax fiddle") without giving them free ammunition.

[Mike Todd]

The visitor moorings proposal for Berkhamsted and Marsworth on the Grand Union was discussed at the South East Waterways Partnership Boater's Subgroup this evening.

 

In line with CRTs's approved framework for short term visitor mooring changes, the final decision on what is done following the consultation rests with the local Waterways manager Vicky Martin.

 

She is hopeful that decision will be taken by the end of March.

 

Watch this space.

I should perhaps have put my post about our most recent experience on the southern Grand Union on this thread rather than the one about the meeting and the agenda but I wanted to post before the meeting.. It is clear that not all forum members can read what I actually said!

 

Firstly I reported as factually as possible what we experienced, both the full and the empty places. I think, if read correctly, it will be seen that I most definitely did not say that all moorers were overstayers - although the experience might have led someone to draw that conclusion. But one does talk and one does observe situations on more than one occasion - but I could never claim to know anyone's individual status as I do not visit sufficiently frequently to assert. Again, I did nit make that statement.

 

Secondly, what I was trying to do was to point out that the occupancy levels may well vary considerably over different seasons. Most if the debate here has assumed that the focus of attention is mid-summer. On the one hand, it may be that data obtained in one part of the year is being used to support an action at other times of the year. On the other hand, everyone needs to be clear whether the case for restrictions, about which I am ambivalent, is just for a couple of months July and August or for a longer period. Excess of demand over supply can be a problem at other times as well.

 

You may well see from our experience at Apsley that we were quite grateful for the tiny provision of 24 hour moorings but I am doubtful if this on its own builds a case for widespread marking of such sites. However, my personal preference would be for rather more 24 hour restrictions than 3 - 7 day ones, but any area will have a mixture of need.

 

It should also be clear from my postings over time that I am very supportive of Alan F's efforts to represent a range of needs in rational debate and for his attempts to ensure that any changes in the 'rules' are based on a clear methodology that all can challenge - whatever their point of view - rather than rely on supposition.

 

However, it does seem to be clear that demand management is an important matter and should be treated properly. (The only alternative is anarchy) Not only is it not a reason to 'bash' continuous cruisers (which I would never condone, I know enough not to) but nor is it a basis for assuming that any attempt to reach evidence-based compromises is a conspiracy.

 

For the sake of completeness, I should add that when we came through Marsworth last night there was plenty of room and relatively few boats moored. Perhaps what this says to me is that the underlying factors of an excess of demand over supply may be different in different places and any attempt to use one set of criteria across all of them will not necessary be the best way forward.

[Tuscan]

Without going into specifics I am aware that the Waterways Manager, Vicky Martin, together with the south east boating group were made aware of the boaters views given in the recent consultation together with a detailed review of the boat data plotted against the available mooring space carried and the views of the NAG group. Hopefully this will inform her decision.

[Tuscan]

The full conclusions to the recent consultation should be on CRTs website Tuesday 5th. There will be a short stay shopping halt in Berkhamsted but that apart the current 14 day moorings will remain. No changes to the 14 day moorings in Marsworth will be made. This is in line with the substantial majority (75%+) of responses to the recent consultation and the vast majority of members of the Navigstion Advisory Group (NAG).

 

This is in also line with CRTs own data gathering that showed there was consistently mooring space available at the time the data was gathered. Vicky Martin the SE Waterways Manager is to be congratulated for listening to the views of boaters and understanding the evidence produced.

[alan_fincher]

Full report here

 

In my view absolutely the correct decision by South East Waterways Manager Vicky Martin.

 

I think particular credit should also go to Tim Parker of the Navigation Advisory Group, (NAG).

Tim managed to get CRT to provide the data that should have been considered properly before the original consultation was launched, and then did a very thorough job in actually analysing it to see if the tests for introducing new short stay moorings as laid down in CRT's recently developed Short Stay Moorings Framework For Change document had been met.

Credit should also go to the large number of people who completed the consultation survey, despite its fairly obvious shortcomings. Clearly this also helped influence the final decision.

[junior]

I filled in the survey online and I must admit that whilst doing so I was thinking "what is the point?"

So it's nice to think that my answers to it may have had a tiny say towards this result.

 

It is also very encouraging for any future consultations as I (like many I suspect) have always assumed that a CRT consultation is just a box ticking excercise before they go ahead and do whatever they want anyway.

[NilesMI]

I think particular credit should also go to Tim Parker of the Navigation Advisory Group, (NAG).

 

Tim managed to get CRT to provide the data that should have been considered properly before the original consultation was launched, and then did a very thorough job in actually analysing it

 

Agreed.

 

Though it does prompt the question of why CRT, having gone to the trouble of collecting survey data, didn't look at it properly (at all ??) themselves before proposing the changes.

[Tuscan]

Agreed.

 

Though it does prompt the question of why CRT, having gone to the trouble of collecting survey data, didn't look at it properly (at all ??) themselves before proposing the changes.

This is exactly the crux of the matter. I asked for the evidence that had been presented to the SE Boating group , and then asked specifically whether at the time of the data gathering whether it had been noted whether there was any available mooring space or not. I was told on several emails that they did not have a way of recording this and initially that it was not necessary to prove the case for change.

 

I then circulated these responses around NAG and the chair subsequently asked that it be put on the agenda of the forthcoming meeting as it called into question the framework agreement that NAG had been instrumental in creating. At this meeting (hopefully the minutes are now on CRTs web site). The majority view was that the framework had not been followed and Mike Grimes agreed to oversee a review of the data with Matthew Symmonds and Tim Parker with the specific objective of identifying whether the moorings were full when the data was gathered or not. Tim put a lot of work into this and built a detailed spreadsheet (allowing for gaps between moored boats) which showed space was available at Berkhamstead and the case for Marsworth was unclear. NAG members were invited to give their views which together with the spreadsheet was given to Vicky Martin SE Waterways Manager.

 

Many boaters publicised the consultation (good work by Alan on here) resulting in a much higher response than CRT were anticipating the comments received were overwhelmingly against the changes.

 

The positive from this is I believe is that the head of boating and the SE Waterways Manager have listened to boaters and it is clear now what the evidence for change needs to show before moving to consultation in any future proposals.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Tuscan

[junior]

What was the reason for wanting to change it all in the first place?

 

Was it from complaints from residents? Complaints from boaters? Or just CRT wanting to change something just for the fun of it?

[bassplayer]

What was the reason for wanting to change it all in the first place?

 

Was it from complaints from residents? Complaints from boaters? Or just CRT wanting to change something just for the fun of it?

Are you suggesting that any tinkering is going on?

[alan_fincher]

 

Agreed.

 

Though it does prompt the question of why CRT, having gone to the trouble of collecting survey data, didn't look at it properly (at all ??) themselves before proposing the changes.

 

Yes, exactly this.

 

Had the data been properly analysed by CRT before they brought it to table for discussion, the whole effort and no doubt substantial costs associated with a public consultation could and should have been avoided in my view.

 

There is a clear agreed Framework under which they should have operated, signed off by Richard Parry as a CRT "approved process", and probably the most important part of it was not initially adhered to.

 

This point has certainly not been missed by several senior staff in CRT, including the person responsible for the final decision in this case, so I am hopeful than rather than us having to fight proposals that are not backed up by facts, (and in this case it is the second time for these locations in just a couple of years), that the lesson has now been learnt, and that the money saved in future can be put to better use, like actually improving moorings, or increasing provision.