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

[Graham.m]

I entirely accept what you say and as I said don't dispute the entitlement nor that for some it is entirely appropriate, although I would rather spend the time at the helm personally. How many of Oxford's 14 day moorings are occupied by visitors to the city off each morning to explore I wonder.

 

With regard to 14 day over stays I believe you will find that there is provision in the statue/bye laws for them to be taken to a magistrates' court and if found guilty fined and given a criminal record. Which for some reason CRT do not want to use, I think I know why but it is up to each of us to make their own mind up.

[alan_fincher]

Of course this is much less of an issue in winter and that's why I think CRT have got it right by relaxing many of the restrictions over the winter.

 

Some of these latest proposals introduce 2 day moorings that it is not proposed are relaxed over winter. There appears to be little evidence that supports this based on actual boat numbers, and it seems to be driven at least to some extent by a local council based group campaigning that no boat should stay longer than a couple of days. If part of the basis for that campaign is, as it appears to be, claimed anti-social behaviour, then that anti-social behaviour should be addressed by the correct means. I do not believe the correct means are to artificially introduce otherwise unnecessary restrictions that affect the vast majority that cause no problems, just to address a tiny minority who may have done.

[jenlyn]

For Batchworth there is a relaxation by the inclusion of 7 day moorings, compared to 3 day at the moment (or should that be 2 day?). For Berko and Marsworth there are significant sections that are not "all year round". Perhaps you should re-read the text?

I have to accept that you, like CRT are not familiar with the area's. With for instance the fact that the seven day area in Ricky is collapsing into the canal through lack of maintenance, and that Berkhampstead is notorious for lack of depth to moor, again from lack of maintenance. So not quite as simple as Nick Norman sees it.

 

Mr Parry has been in his job for three years, I'm wandering when he is going to stop campaigning, and get on with some maintaining.

[nicknorman]

I have to accept that you, like CRT are not familiar with the area's. With for instance the fact that the seven day area in Ricky is collapsing into the canal through lack of maintenance, and that Berkhampstead is notorious for lack of depth to moor, again from lack of maintenance. So not quite as simple as Nick Norman sees it.

 

Mr Parry has been in his job for three years, I'm wandering when he is going to stop campaigning, and get on with some maintaining.

However these are completely different points. Yes if an alleged CRT visitor mooring facility is not fit for purpose, CRT should fix it or cease considering it to be VM.

[Fat Boat]

I really dont see the need for this in Marsworth, it has been very quiet all last year with plenty of mooring space available

[X Alan W]

 

.

 

But what I really object to is the use of volunteers as 'mooring rangers'. What sort of a jobsworth wants to do this sort of thing in their spare time? A retired traffic warden or one who lept from the womb wearing a flat hat perhaps?

 

Surely volunteers efforts would be better used picking litter, assisting at locks etc etc.

Suit the "I want to be in charge" mentality person down to the ground, have never been/will never be an anybody "BUT LOOK AT ME NOW "

[NigelMoore]

At County Court level, much of the debate over this has long since been tried and tested. I think people interested should read the relevant judgment to clarify things in their own minds.

One aspect that was not challenged was the legality of fining for ‘overstaying’ – but the judicial comment was pertinent, that the boater concerned DID regard the fine as an overstaying charge entitling him to stay longer than the 48 hours. As BW insisted that paying the £25 gave no entitlement to stay [meaning that their enforcement action was justified], then the payment was necessarily a fine rather than a charge for services.

What has become very clear to CaRT in recent years, however, is that too many people were becoming aware of the ultra vires nature of these ‘fines’, which is why they now insist on calling them charges. The crucial difference, as was highlighted in the judgment, is that a charge grants entitlement, whereas a fine is punishment for an offence.

As to ‘overstaying’ itself – at the risk of my own tedium, I will repeat what I have said before, so that the position can been seen with greater clarity.

It is necessary to distinguish between Trust owned onside and offside when considering this topic. For legislative purposes, these can be classified as [respectively] public land subject to obligations to preserve public use, and private land subject only to the commercial interests.

I digress mildly at this point to note that rights to control of the private offside use differ from those pertaining to private persons only in that availability to all comers must be maintained [private riparian owners can pick and choose their customers].

It follows that CaRT may make whatever charges and conditions [such as time limits] they please for offside services, whereas the towpath is an area which they are obliged to keep open for all to use as part and parcel of any right to navigate [whether under PRN or Licence] at all times.

Ergo, CaRT have no entitlement to permit anyone from staying longer on the towpath than is required for ‘bona fide navigation’ – defined in the relevant statute for the purposes of BW/CaRT legislation as no more than 14 days in any one place or longer only as is reasonable under the circumstances.

My personal opinion [not set in stone] is that in the interests of fair public availability of the towpath and public services alongside them, they ARE entitled to set lower limits [as opposed to longer limits] at appropriate places [while recognising that they were denied the right to have that embodied in the 1995 Statute]. In view of the legally parlous positioning parenthesised, I believe that consultation designed to reach a consensus is the appropriate path for CaRT to take, as in this instance.

To hark back to the relevant judgment, this established a persuasive argument that staying longer than the permitted times constitutes ‘obstruction’.

The corollary to that, is that any such boat overstaying the permitted time limit causes an obstruction under s.18 of the 1995 Act which makes it a criminal [not civil] offence, subject to the set penalties therein. No byelaw applies.

Essentially, this entitles CaRT to simply move the boat away from the time-limited place under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act, without notice, at their own expense. Should the obstruction create any danger to persons or property thereby, it will be punishable on summary conviction in a Magistrates Court to a £1,000 fine.

The relevant judgment is Taylor v BWB –

https://www.scribd.com/doc/294725758/Taylor-v-BW-Obstruction

 

[Tuscan]

CRT have confirmed that whilst they logged the number of boats at these moorings they have no record of the amount of available mooring space that remained unused at the time the boats were logged. It seems to me strange that you would want to reduce the stay times for a period of 6 months to maximise the availability of moorings to passing boaters without first providing evidence of need.

[bassplayer]

At County Court level, much of the debate over this has long since been tried and tested. I think people interested should read the relevant judgment to clarify things in their own minds.

 

One aspect that was not challenged was the legality of fining for overstaying but the judicial comment was pertinent, that the boater concerned DID regard the fine as an overstaying charge entitling him to stay longer than the 48 hours. As BW insisted that paying the £25 gave no entitlement to stay [meaning that their enforcement action was justified], then the payment was necessarily a fine rather than a charge for services.

 

What has become very clear to CaRT in recent years, however, is that too many people were becoming aware of the ultra vires nature of these fines, which is why they now insist on calling them charges. The crucial difference, as was highlighted in the judgment, is that a charge grants entitlement, whereas a fine is punishment for an offence.

 

As to overstaying itself at the risk of my own tedium, I will repeat what I have said before, so that the position can been seen with greater clarity.

 

It is necessary to distinguish between Trust owned onside and offside when considering this topic. For legislative purposes, these can be classified as [respectively] public land subject to obligations to preserve public use, and private land subject only to the commercial interests.

 

I digress mildly at this point to note that rights to control of the private offside use differ from those pertaining to private persons only in that availability to all comers must be maintained [private riparian owners can pick and choose their customers].

 

It follows that CaRT may make whatever charges and conditions [such as time limits] they please for offside services, whereas the towpath is an area which they are obliged to keep open for all to use as part and parcel of any right to navigate [whether under PRN or Licence] at all times.

 

Ergo, CaRT have no entitlement to permit anyone from staying longer on the towpath than is required for bona fide navigation defined in the relevant statute for the purposes of BW/CaRT legislation as no more than 14 days in any one place or longer only as is reasonable under the circumstances.

 

My personal opinion [not set in stone] is that in the interests of fair public availability of the towpath and public services alongside them, they ARE entitled to set lower limits [as opposed to longer limits] at appropriate places [while recognising that they were denied the right to have that embodied in the 1995 Statute]. In view of the legally parlous positioning parenthesised, I believe that consultation designed to reach a consensus is the appropriate path for CaRT to take, as in this instance.

 

To hark back to the relevant judgment, this established a persuasive argument that staying longer than the permitted times constitutes obstruction.

 

The corollary to that, is that any such boat overstaying the permitted time limit causes an obstruction under s.18 of the 1995 Act which makes it a criminal [not civil] offence, subject to the set penalties therein. No byelaw applies.

 

Essentially, this entitles CaRT to simply move the boat away from the time-limited place under s.8(5) of the 1983 Act, without notice, at their own expense. Should the obstruction create any danger to persons or property thereby, it will be punishable on summary conviction in a Magistrates Court to a £1,000 fine.

 

The relevant judgment is Taylor v BWB

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/294725758/Taylor-v-BW-Obstruction

 

So CRT are using the 'obstruction' clause to justify their own imposed time limits?

[NigelMoore]

So CRT are using the 'obstruction' clause to justify their own imposed time limits?

 

No. The ‘obstruction’ only kicks in if the boat stays beyond a legal time limit; the overstay only arises, in other words, AFTER the imposition of a time limit, it does not create or justify that limit.

 

There can be no argument over the 14 days, the debatable part comes when shorter stays are imposed. The County Court judgment I have cited sets no precedent on the score of the legality of the shorter stay along the towpath.

 

As I have said, the legal position over shorter limits is somewhat tenuous. If CaRT were only to loosen up on their adamant opposition to the use of Parliamentary material, they would have an opportunity to refer to those as indicative of the need to shorten stays at water points and popular visitor moorings etc, but that would open the door to the acceptability of other patterns of use that they wish kept shut.

 

It seems reasonable to me that, to take an extreme example, staying at a water point longer than is needed to fill up your tank is unarguably an obstruction of the use of that water point by others, so that it would inevitably fall under s.18. Visitor moorings are less obvious breaches of the Statute, although sensible restrictions seem fair enough in the interests of everyone.

 

What those fair restrictions might be in any one location, are matters that all concerned should put to CaRT within the context of the consultation exercise. It is one of those areas where reliance on the strict legalities is inappropriate for either side. The value of the existing legislation is that although financial penalties might be found to be inapplicable in certain instances, there could be little or no comeback for CaRT if they simply moved a boat off visitor moorings to allow newcomers a chance at them.

 

The current enforcement budget seem more than adequate to provide the means of doing this at the selected 'honey-pot' sites. Way more appropriate than keeping law firms in luxurious employment.

 

[jenlyn]

CRT have confirmed that whilst they logged the number of boats at these moorings they have no record of the amount of available mooring space that remained unused at the time the boats were logged. It seems to me strange that you would want to reduce the stay times for a period of 6 months to maximise the availability of moorings to passing boaters without first providing evidence of need.

Fincher has repeatedly pointed this fact out. The trust attempt to sway their sightings by not stating how many empty mooring spaces there are. Its just another scam that fits for purpose.

[NigelMoore]

CRT have confirmed that whilst they logged the number of boats at these moorings they have no record of the amount of available mooring space that remained unused at the time the boats were logged. It seems to me strange that you would want to reduce the stay times for a period of 6 months to maximise the availability of moorings to passing boaters without first providing evidence of need.

 

That is a relevant point to the 'obstruction' issue. If, in the context of visitor moorings, there are spaces available at any one time, there can be no argument for obstruction. It will only arise in situations where all spaces are being taken up.

[NilesMI]

CRT have confirmed that whilst they logged the number of boats at these moorings they have no record of the amount of available mooring space that remained unused at the time the boats were logged. It seems to me strange that you would want to reduce the stay times for a period of 6 months to maximise the availability of moorings to passing boaters without first providing evidence of need.

 

I agree entirely. In CRT's proposal for changes, there is simply a general statement that these locations are some of the busiest and most popular and that they have been monitored over the past 18 months. What the proposal fails to mentions is what that monitoring revealed and consequently why there is a need to change the mooring arrangements. Without understanding what the supposed problem is, or indeed if ther is a problem at all, how can anyone possibly comment as to whether the proposed changes meet the supposed need?

 

CRT's stated aim is to enable as many boaters as possible to visit these places. But until CRT share any evidence they have, that the current arrangements fail to do that, I cannot see the need for change.

 

As for this "consultation", the survey is a joke, really. It's just a simple set of tick-boxes, which only allows you to indicate whether you support, oppose or are indiffeent to the proposed changes. A proper consultation would invite opinions and suggestions for modifying the proposals.

 

My general view of mooring restrictions is that within a particular area, they should be based on providing the right mix of mooring locations for stays of up to 14 days. The proposed changes at Marsworth retain some 14 day VMs. Those at Berkhamsted would provide no 14 day VMs at all. As CRT have not said why no stays of over 7 days can be accommodated anywhere within the Berkhamsted area, their proposals aren't ones that I can support.

 

In fact, because they have failed to provide any explanation - at all - as to why the current arrangements aren't working, I will be responding to the survey by opposing their proposed changes at all three locations.

 

I will be answering the supplementary question; "Do you have any other comments about the proposed changes?" in the affirmative. But, as no space has been provided in the on-line survey, and no reply address to the consultaion has been given, I will have to leave CRT wondering as to what those comments are.

[nicknorman]

As for the rest of your post, the restrictions at stoke bruerne, foxton and thrupp just stopped people from visiting full stop...

Oh and just to mention that we went down to Oxford in 2015. We did manage to stop at Thrupp but only right at the very north end, beyond Thrupp wide (Jeff went running ahead to check for spaces, there weren't any) which was too far away for his elderly mum to walk up to have a look at the pretty houses or visit the pub. On the way back we did get a space to stop for lunch near the pub (middle of the day) but even then there were only a few spaces. So to say that these rules have "stopped people from visiting full stop." is clearly untrue, unless you mean that it has stopped one or two grumpies who are happy to cut off their nose to spite their face just to make a point.

[matty40s]

Wrong thrupp ??

[NigelMoore]

 

as no space has been provided in the on-line survey, and no reply address to the consultaion has been given, I will have to leave CRT wondering as to what those comments are.

 

Is there no provision for mailing in more elaborate responses? I would think that you could do so regardles and note that it will be made public that you have done so. Otherwise you would be right to count the exercise as a joke.

[bassplayer]

 

No. The obstruction only kicks in if the boat stays beyond a legal time limit; the overstay only arises, in other words, AFTER the imposition of a time limit, it does not create or justify that limit.

 

There can be no argument over the 14 days, the debatable part comes when shorter stays are imposed. The County Court judgment I have cited sets no precedent on the score of the legality of the shorter stay along the towpath.

 

As I have said, the legal position over shorter limits is somewhat tenuous. If CaRT were only to loosen up on their adamant opposition to the use of Parliamentary material, they would have an opportunity to refer to those as indicative of the need to shorten stays at water points and popular visitor moorings etc, but that would open the door to the acceptability of other patterns of use that they wish kept shut.

 

It seems reasonable to me that, to take an extreme example, staying at a water point longer than is needed to fill up your tank is unarguably an obstruction of the use of that water point by others, so that it would inevitably fall under s.18. Visitor moorings are less obvious breaches of the Statute, although sensible restrictions seem fair enough in the interests of everyone.

 

What those fair restrictions might be in any one location, are matters that all concerned should put to CaRT within the context of the consultation exercise. It is one of those areas where reliance on the strict legalities is inappropriate for either side. The value of the existing legislation is that although financial penalties might be found to be inapplicable in certain instances, there could be little or no comeback for CaRT if they simply moved a boat off visitor moorings to allow newcomers a chance at them.

 

The current enforcement budget seem more than adequate to provide the means of doing this at the selected 'honey-pot' sites. Way more appropriate than keeping law firms in luxurious employment.

 

Thanks Nigel. I was more interested in the legal implications of overstaying CRT's made up time limits but staying within the 14 day law. (not that I do).

 

So do you think CRT would win in court if someone was taken to court for staying 14 days on a 2 day limit or failed to pay the £25 fine...err...sorry...charge?

[Mike Todd]

 

I'm not getting anything like that - maybe My download is an old version (who knows)

My 'key' only has

 

Green dots = 2 day mooring

Pink dots = 7 day mooring

Red dots = long term moorings

Dark grey = No Mooring

Light Grey = Zone changes

 

There is no text at all.

 

Bottom RH side of the page is this :

 

* Recorded stay time: is measured by the number of daily sightings between the first and latest sighting. A boat recorded on two consecutive days will be treated as having stayed for 24 hours. A boat recorded on three consecutive days will be treated as having stayed for 2 days.

 

Thanks for trying tho'.

It's in the box top left as I look at it now.

 

To my understanding it is a charge being levied for doing something that they do not want done. Thus it is a threat, do this and it will cost you money. Now to me that is a fine for being naughty.

 

As I posted earlier I cannot find anything in statue that permits or gives CRT authority to fine for misconduct. If I understand correctly they could bring over stayers before the Magistrates court where they can be fined on summary conviction.

Pricing is widely used as a demand control mechanism. Look at varying travel costs, as one example. Waiting time (another form of pricing) is used to control demand in health care treatment.

[jenlyn]

Oh and just to mention that we went down to Oxford in 2015. We did manage to stop at Thrupp but only right at the very north end, beyond Thrupp wide (Jeff went running ahead to check for spaces, there weren't any) which was too far away for his elderly mum to walk up to have a look at the pretty houses or visit the pub. On the way back we did get a space to stop for lunch near the pub (middle of the day) but even then there were only a few spaces. So to say that these rules have "stopped people from visiting full stop." is clearly untrue, unless you mean that it has stopped one or two grumpies who are happy to cut off their nose to spite their face just to make a point.

That was largely due to the annual festival at crowpredy I suspect.

[nicknorman]

Wrong thrupp ??

Don't think so, it's the one with the £25 overstay charge signs. Is there another one?

That was largely due to the annual festival at crowpredy I suspect.

By the time we came back it was at least 2 weeks after the festival had finished. Anyway, what would you know about it? you can't get a fat boat down there so according to you, you aren't qualified to have an opinion. Edited January 6, 2016 by nicknorman

[Mike Todd]

On the Berko map it says "Recorded stay time: is measured by the number of daily sightings between the first and latest sighting. A boat recorded on two consecutive days will be treated as having stayed for 24 hours. A boat recorded on three consecutive days will be treated as having stayed for 2 days." Since the relevant stretch is a limit of 2 days (ie 2 days are permitted) this must mean that a boat will have to be recorded on four consecutive days before it can be claimed that it has over-stayed. Seems quite a bit of leeway.

Not sure I understand why the section between 130 and 131 is 14 day (ie no specific limit). Given that the 2 day length opposite the junction is very short I would have thought that a 7 day limit at most would have been worth exploring.

[jenlyn]

Don't think so, it's the one with the £25 overstay charge signs. Is there another one?

By the time we came back it was at least 2 weeks after the festival had finished. Anyway, what would you know about it? you can't get a fat boat down there so according to you, you aren't qualified to have an opinion.

Your full of tosh Nick. It's always rammed on the Oxford for weeks after the festival. You sound like CRT at times. All the noises, but nothing to declare.

[john6767]

Oh and just to mention that we went down to Oxford in 2015. We did manage to stop at Thrupp but only right at the very north end, beyond Thrupp wide (Jeff went running ahead to check for spaces, there weren't any) which was too far away for his elderly mum to walk up to have a look at the pretty houses or visit the pub. On the way back we did get a space to stop for lunch near the pub (middle of the day) but even then there were only a few spaces. So to say that these rules have "stopped people from visiting full stop." is clearly untrue, unless you mean that it has stopped one or two grumpies who are happy to cut off their nose to spite their face just to make a point.

Nick, if you remember we were just ahead of you going down the South Oxford in the summer. We moored in Thrupp outside the Boat Inn on the 48hr moorings, shortly after another boat arrived and took the last space. All the boats were facing north so nothing to do with festival traffic.

 

Off topic, I was chatting with Tesla who moors there, and the cruising club guy who does the boat logging for CRT, and they were going to find you a spot on the long term moorings if you turned up. I should have PM'ed you, sorry.

 

There was no space at all when we can back up 2 weeks later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, I made the bit up about the boats facing north

[nicknorman]

Your full of tosh Nick. It's always rammed on the Oxford for weeks after the festival.

So that's a good chunk of the summer cruising season then, thank heavens for the short stay moorings.

[Sir Nibble]

I was under the impression that the area round Cropredy is jammed for weeks before the festival with boats arriving earlier and earlier and overstaying longer and longer every year to be sure of a space. Maybe that couple of weeks of mass "screw you" selfishness is a rationale for restrictions. Though I can't help thinking that solid seasonal enforcement would be a better tool.