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

[matty40s]

Until next time of course Alan.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Until next time of course Alan.

That is, of course, the problem.

 

The 'evidence based' framework was put in place to prevent a 'next time' - it failed to do so.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[alan_fincher]

The 'evidence based' framework was put in place to prevent to prevent a 'next time' - it failed to do so.

On the other hand it still led to the correct result, and I hope lessons are now learned.

 

Without the Framework, I'm sure these restrictions would now be going ahead, so it represents real progress.

[junior]

So I wonder how much it cost to end up changing practically nothing?

 

Who is that guy from NBW that does non-stop FOI's? Maybe he'll end up doing one and finding out.

[bassplayer]

On the other hand it still led to the correct result, and I hope lessons are now learned.

 

Without the Framework, I'm sure these restrictions would now be going ahead, so it represents real progress.

You'll be telling us they are considering boater's feelings now...

[matty40s]

On the other hand it still led to the correct result, and I hope lessons are now learned.

 

Without the Framework, I'm sure these restrictions would now be going ahead, so it represents real progress.

Without the hard work of a diligent boater who showed the framework was not being followed....

Rather than your depiction of the frameworks effectiveness.

 

Exactly the same happened in 2011 with the Lee and Stort proposals. It was only the hard work of London Boaters showing that there was nil evidence and it would not work for a variety of reasons that stopped that farce going ahead.

[alan_fincher]

Without the hard work of a diligent boater who showed the framework was not being followed....

Rather than your depiction of the frameworks effectiveness.

 

To my mind you have rather missed the point.

 

I am not defending the fact that initially they failed to follow the Framework, (although unless you were directly involved you may not be aware just how many people were pressing that point home through every avenue available to them).

 

What I am saying is that had the Framework not existed, it could not have been invoked to bring reality to this latest proposal, and I believe common sense alone would not on this occasion have won the day without it.

 

If you are prepared to accept that fact, then credit should also go to the many of us who fought for some considerable time in the recent past that such decisions should not be a local matter, but that there should be a national Framework that attempted to ensure consistent approaches were followed country wide.

[matty40s]

To my mind you have rather missed the point.

I am not defending the fact that initially they failed to follow the Framework, (although unless you were directly involved you may not be aware just how many people were pressing that point home through every avenue available to them).

 

What I am saying is that had the Framework not existed, it could not have been invoked to bring reality to this latest proposal, and I believe common sense alone would not on this occasion have won the day without it.

If you are prepared to accept that fact, then credit should also go to the many of us who fought for some considerable time in the recent past that such decisions should not be a local matter, but that there should be a national Framework that attempted to ensure consistent approaches were followed country wide.

I was very involved in the L&S Proposals and am glad many others like your good self continue to push for change and improvement.

The point I am making is that an official framework should be followed by CRT not invoked by interested and diligent others.

[alan_fincher]

The point I am making is that an official framework should be followed by CRT not invoked by interested and diligent others.

 

Then we are in total agreement, I think!

[Mike Todd]

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?

But we should not lose sight of the fact that in the full report the general opposition to the proposals did include some quite in compatible reasons - opposition often does produce some odd bedfellows! However, this does not mean that a similar proportion will be satisfied by the almost no-change decision since there will be significant numbers who wanted change but that they sort of balanced out in opposite directions!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On the other hand it still led to the correct result, and I hope lessons are now learned.

 

Without the Framework, I'm sure these restrictions would now be going ahead, so it represents real progress.

Real progress was CaRT putting the Framework into place after the first SEVM shambles.

 

I don't really consider it progress for NAG (and, in particular, Mark (Tuscan)) to have to have to embarrass CaRT by pointing out that, contrary to the Framework, there was absolutely no evidence presented for change.

 

That aside, the outcome is certainly a better result than round one of SEVM.

[alan_fincher]

Real progress was CaRT putting the Framework into place after the first SEVM shambles.

 

The Framework of course came about not just because of SEVM "round 1", but also because of other schemes elsewhere where no attempt was made at consultation at all, and changes were just enacted. Atherstone would be a prime example of that.

[matty40s]

Real progress was CaRT putting the Framework into place after the first SEVM shambles.

 

 

There is no progress unless they actually stand by it and let their management meetings (we have to solve something in this think tank/bluesky session)know that there is nothing to discuss except a few articulate IWA aimed busybodys wanting a 5pm mooring somewhere.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

The Framework of course came about not just because of SEVM "round 1", but also because of other schemes elsewhere where no attempt was made at consultation at all, and changes were just enacted. Atherstone would be a prime example of that.

Atherstone is something of a 'special case'. The Central Shires Waterways Partnership successfully negotiated with Warwickshire County Council to provide £25,000 to finance the provision of moorings to encourage boaters to stop and shop at Atherstone. After four years, it is the only CaRT quoted example of a WP actually bringing money into our waterways!

 

That CaRT did not consult is true. However, it is a case of new visitor moorings being provided rather than alteration of stay times at existing moorings.

 

***** Edited to add - Does CaRT consult when it gets money from SUSTRANS to turn tow-paths into cycle-tracks?

Edited April 6, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

There is no progress unless they actually stand by it and let their management meetings (we have to solve something in this think tank/bluesky session)know that there is nothing to discuss except a few articulate IWA aimed busybodys wanting a 5pm mooring somewhere.

I will have a pint of what you have been drinking.

 

Regarding IWA, I quite like the way that the 'unnamed person' in CaRT's response quotes them -

 

Inland Waterway Association (IWA) – In favour of the proposals. '[The proposals are] very necessary to promote cruising use by visitors’

 

Does anyone understand what that means?

[Tuscan]

Atherstone is something of a 'special case'. The Central Shires Waterways Partnership successfully negotiated with Warwickshire County Council to provide £25,000 to finance the provision of moorings to encourage boaters to stop and shop at Atherstone. After four years, it is the only CaRT quoted example of a WP actually bringing money into our waterways!

 

That CaRT did not consult is true. However, it is a case of new visitor moorings being provided rather than alteration of stay times at existing moorings.

 

***** Edited to add - Does CaRT consult when it gets money from SUSTRANS to turn tow-paths into cycle-tracks?

Not quite , it was not a requirement of the work that the area below the locks became 48 hours this was CRTs idea., the plan was to make the whole stretch down to the next lock 48hrs. This was stopped when some of us complained to Richard Parry and dean Davis that there was no evidence of need and this would prevent boats who wished to stay longer from visiting the town. This happened during the moratorium when no further changes were supposed to happen. But this was a pet project a bit like the 3 locks pub mooring. Rightly or wrongly at least with the framework hopefully we can at least have a chance of contributing to the debate for or against any proposed changes as Matty says until the next time .....

[matty40s]

 

Does anyone understand what that means?

It means what I said, certain members of the higher IWA bods feel that they should be able to moor on their favourite mooring on rings at 5pm in midsummer. - anybody in the way is a constant moorer or target for complaint.

One senior IWA boater doesn't even cruise with pins as he feels a mooring with rings are a right of licence payment.

[alan_fincher]

Atherstone is something of a 'special case'. The Central Shires Waterways Partnership successfully negotiated with Warwickshire County Council to provide £25,000 to finance the provision of moorings to encourage boaters to stop and shop at Atherstone. After four years, it is the only CaRT quoted example of a WP actually bringing money into our waterways!

 

That CaRT did not consult is true. However, it is a case of new visitor moorings being provided rather than alteration of stay times at existing moorings.

 

Not completely correct, from my own observation.

 

Some existing moorings got changed from 14 days to 48 hours, with no obvious improvements other than the signs going up.

But this was a pet project a bit like the 3 locks pub mooring.

 

The Three Locks thing was unfortunate. However it went in as a trial, with a statement it would be reviewed after a year, whereas AFAIK the Atherstone thing just happened, and there was no statement made that it was a trial, or subject to a review.

 

Almost nobody provided any feedback on the the Three Locks experiment though, which, (I suppose not entirely unreasonably), CRT therefore took as a message that it was OK to make it permanent.

Edited April 6, 2016 by alan_fincher

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Not quite , it was not a requirement of the work that the area below the locks became 48 hours this was CRTs idea., the plan was to make the whole stretch down to the next lock 48hrs. This was stopped when some of us complained to Richard Parry and dean Davis that there was no evidence of need and this would prevent boats who wished to stay longer from visiting the town. This happened during the moratorium when no further changes were supposed to happen. But this was a pet project a bit like the 3 locks pub mooring. Rightly or wrongly at least with the framework hopefully we can at least have a chance of contributing to the debate for or against any proposed changes as Matty says until the next time .....

I stand corrected - until next time ...

[Tuscan]

Not completely correct, from my own observation.

 

Some existing moorings got changed from 14 days to 48 hours, with no obvious improvements other than the signs going up.

 

 

The Three Locks thing was unfortunate. However it went in as a trial, with a statement it would be reviewed after a year, whereas AFAIK the Atherstone thing just happened, and there was no statement made that it was a trial, or subject to a review.

 

Almost nobody provided any feedback on the the Three Locks experiment though, which, (I suppose not entirely unreasonably), CRT therefore took as a message that it was OK to make it permanent.

Three Locks

If I recall there was one in favour and one against and with that ringing endorsement it was made permanent. How were boaters asked for there views ?

[bassplayer]

It means what I said, certain members of the higher IWA bods feel that they should be able to moor on their favourite mooring on rings at 5pm in midsummer. - anybody in the way is a constant moorer or target for complaint.

One senior IWA boater doesn't even cruise with pins as he feels a mooring with rings are a right of licence payment.

Just to add to Matty's point, which I suspect is 100% correct (but can't show you the evidence at present due to an outage caused by boredom)...

 

There is a generation who feel severely P'd off by the old gits network who have let them down. I mean how would you feel if you could't afford to live in a flat in Luton and everyone is trying to make it hard work to live in a smaller box?

 

Who's going to change your bag?

Edited April 6, 2016 by bassplayer

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It means what I said, certain members of the higher IWA bods feel that they should be able to moor on their favourite mooring on rings at 5pm in midsummer. - anybody in the way is a constant moorer or target for complaint.

One senior IWA boater doesn't even cruise with pins as he feels a mooring with rings are a right of licence payment.

Are you prepared to out him?

 

 

[bassplayer]

Are you prepared to out him?

 

 

As I say, it will all 'pan' out one way or another.

[alan_fincher]

Three Locks

If I recall there was one in favour and one against and with that ringing endorsement it was made permanent. How were boaters asked for there views ?

 

Slightly more responses than that, I thought, from memory, but I don't have easy access to any notes on the topic.

 

People were certainly asked to feedback throughout the trial period using the Visitor Moorings Survey form,

 

I certainly recall encouraging people to do so.

 

I assume you could still use this form to feed back thoughts about these or other short stay moorings.

 

Apparently the 2 day mooring signs above the locks have still "gone missing", althouhj I'm unconvinced they were ever reinstated after the last time they went missing. Matthew Symonds has advised they are due to be reinstated.

[sallyb]

Good Outcome

 

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