Cambridge Mooring Consultation

[pearley]

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/consultations/have-your-say-about-proposed-changes-to-our-boat-mooring-policy

[gazza]

That will get the crusties up in arms!

[NigelMoore]

I believe that it would be to the benefit of all boaters who wished to visit there, for there to be enforceable stay periods. At present, there are perceived legal difficulties relating to the creation of appropriate byelaws.

What everyone interested should be doing, is taking advantage of the consultation to suggest fair periods, while ensuring that the more draconian aspects of enforcement are modified; there is no more need to obtain powers of boat seizures as lien, than there is for CaRT to use such powers – anymore, in fact, than Councils need such powers to control car parking: they get on very well under current powers of prosecution.

The general argument that I have been promoting respecting CaRT’s powers to charge for ‘overstays’ does not, it would appear, apply to local Council authorities, although there is a slightly dubious and perhaps arguable element to that. Best perhaps, in the interests of fairness for all, would be making sure that the regulations are appropriate to the purpose, with appropriate enforcement ability, without challenging the underlying legality of any regulation at all.

That requires a substantial contribution to the consultation by as many as possible.

[pearley]

I didn't think it a well put together survey, seeming more directed to permanent moored rather than occasional visitors but I filled it in but used the boxes to add further comment.

 

I read in the current GOBA news that there is a chance of some extra moorings being provide below Baits Bite Lock but a bit of a walk to the city.

 

It's a pity that thge Conservators didn't take the opportunity to install a water tap when they upgraded their moorings at Clayhythe.

[gazza]

I believe that it would be to the benefit of all boaters who wished to visit there, for there to be enforceable stay periods. At present, there are perceived legal difficulties relating to the creation of appropriate byelaws.

What everyone interested should be doing, is taking advantage of the consultation to suggest fair periods, while ensuring that the more draconian aspects of enforcement are modified; there is no more need to obtain powers of boat seizures as lien, than there is for CaRT to use such powers anymore, in fact, than Councils need such powers to control car parking: they get on very well under current powers of prosecution.

The general argument that I have been promoting respecting CaRTs powers to charge for overstays does not, it would appear, apply to local Council authorities, although there is a slightly dubious and perhaps arguable element to that. Best perhaps, in the interests of fairness for all, would be making sure that the regulations are appropriate to the purpose, with appropriate enforcement ability, without challenging the underlying legality of any regulation at all.

That requires a substantial contribution to the consultation by as many as possible.
proposed



Nigel's bit above



Buggered up my quote, sorry!!!



Which is all very well and good, but ultimately falls down when the piss takers continue to take the piss in the absence of a strong deterrent.

We won't go to Cambridge by boat, its easier to go to St Ives and get the guided bus in.

For years a hardcore of piss takers hogged the riverside at Ely, similar measures are now in place as proposed for Cambridge. Small wonder they are using that model for enforcement.

We are back on the Ouse this summer so will be interested to see how things are going in Ely.

Edited February 17, 2016 by gazza

[Martin Megson]

Having visited Cambridge a couple of times it does seem to have very few visitor moorings in the city centre - i.e. below Jesus lock. The moorings further down stream are very pleasant but are a few miles from the city with no public transport nearby. On the whole I would support better enforcement to allow more people to visit the city and enjoy a beautiful stretch of river.

[ditchcrawler]

I filled it in, not sure of the cost of a visit now but there is always you could pay it and then find no where to moor at the bottom. Also you can only visit the town for a day or so as you can only stay 2 nights

[erivers]

I believe that it would be to the benefit of all boaters who wished to visit there, for there to be enforceable stay periods. At present, there are perceived legal difficulties relating to the creation of appropriate byelaws.

 

What everyone interested should be doing, is taking advantage of the consultation to suggest fair periods, while ensuring that the more draconian aspects of enforcement are modified; there is no more need to obtain powers of boat seizures as lien, than there is for CaRT to use such powers – anymore, in fact, than Councils need such powers to control car parking: they get on very well under current powers of prosecution.

 

The general argument that I have been promoting respecting CaRT’s powers to charge for ‘overstays’ does not, it would appear, apply to local Council authorities, although there is a slightly dubious and perhaps arguable element to that. Best perhaps, in the interests of fairness for all, would be making sure that the regulations are appropriate to the purpose, with appropriate enforcement ability, without challenging the underlying legality of any regulation at all.

 

That requires a substantial contribution to the consultation by as many as possible.

 

Wise words from Nigel.

 

Cambridge City Council has spent well over a decade playing at attempts to come up with a sensible, fair and enforceable moorings policy for both the residential boaters and short-term visitors. It’s last ‘serious’ attempt, in the Councillor Rosenstiel fiasco of 2006, all but destroyed the chance for visiting boaters to easily find a short-term mooring. The message was clear – visitors are not welcome to Cambridge. The council created a licensed mooring scheme which designated almost all spaces for residential use only. Some of the visitor spaces were subsequently restored only after the threat of legal action by the Great Ouse Boating Association and the resignation of the executive councillor responsible.

 

Fair enforcement of the 48-hour limit / no return within 7 days for the few visitor moorings has since been ineffective as it has no legal status other than the same right to address a trespass which is common to any riparian owner. (In effect, seeking a court injunction, with all the costs and complexities of such action). In practice, the few visitor moorings were often taken by residential boaters who had been unable to obtain one of the 70 residential licences. It is fair to assume that these boaters knew full well that whilst they may receive a daily ticking off from the Conservancy warden working on behalf of the council there was no real chance of either the conservators or the council pursing the matter effectively.

 

There is actually no shortage of mooring spaces in Cambridge at all but with vast areas designated as ‘licensed residential mooring only’ the space is not used to its best advantage to provide for the residents and to encourage boating visitors to the city. There are, even at the busiest of times, spaces available between the licensed residential boats, certainly for smaller vessels, and there is no evidence of any significant opposition from the residents to use of these vacant spaces by short-stay visitors. On the contrary, to their credit, they are most helpful at times in assisting visitors to find and use such a space in their ‘reserved’ area despite the council’s ban and “You can’t moor there” protestations from the conservancy bailiff.

 

It is pleasing to see that in its consultation the council is now suggesting a new six-hour maximum/no overnight stay on any of its moorings other than those few spaces already specifically designated as 48-hour visitor moorings. This could encourage sensible and effective use of all the spaces and afford new opportunities to visit Cambridge by boat without unduly impacting on the licensed residential boaters. But why just 6-hours? Why not overnight?

 

In respect of both the 48-hour moorings and the more temporary ‘ad hoc’ spaces the key to making it all work is effective enforcement and the civil contract approach does seem promising. However, the signs must be clear and unambiguous so that visiting boaters know the rules and the charges payable for exceeding the free period. A single successful court challenge to an overstay charge on the basis that the terms were not made clear or willingly consented to could soon leave the whole scheme in question and possible disarray.

 

Simple terms, clear signs, a reasonable and consistent enforcement policy encouraging the general goodwill of boaters could do so much to improve the situation at Cambridge.

 

But alas, I fear that as councils inevitably always seem to do, Cambridge City Council is intent on embroidering an admirable and workable scheme by attempting to add conditions which are inappropriate and possibly even unlawful in such a civil contract. In so doing, they undermine the simple terms of the contract and their reliance on a boater being deemed to have accepted those terms by glancing at a sign. There is no need to seek powers of removal of a vessel as part of this contract; it is simply ‘over the top’ as they can already seek an injunction to address the trespass. The council has no business whatever in making it a condition that all boats must be licensed; that is a matter entirely for the navigation authority – the Conservators - who have adequate statutory powers to enforce their byelaws.

 

It is a pity that the consultation response document is, frankly, such a garbled mess. Never the less, as a sign that Cambridge City Council may be genuinely trying to undo some of the damage of its previous inglorious efforts, it surely deserves your response.

[NigelMoore]

Parking fines seem to act as a sufficient deterrent for most car users, and providing an optional voluntary percentage payment alternative to court action means funds from offenders go into Council coffers.

Add the cost of the court fees etc, the penalties work adequately. The Councils do not need to have any power to seize overstaying cars in their car parks, only where they have been left obstructing the highway.

The general taste for maximum possible penalties is a rather sad reflection on the character of the populace; we get the government we deserve on the whole.

 

As to the 2 day maximum, that may be sufficient in some cases, but if longer stays in some areas would be more conducive to tourism, then people should say so. There is nothing preventing contributors from providing extra written material unconfined to box-ticking.

[pearley]

I filled it in, not sure of the cost of a visit now but there is always you could pay it and then find no where to moor at the bottom. Also you can only visit the town for a day or so as you can only stay 2 nights

We paid £27 last year for a 58 ft boat which gives you 90 days of visits, rather than a 90 day licence.

 

 

We were concerned that having paid and arrived there would be no space but having asked on Facebook we were assured that there was space but if there wasn't the permanent moorers would find us somewhere. On both occasions we moored last year the same narrowboat was moored, in the same spot, in front of us. And before anyone says, he could have gone and come back.

 

The comment about signage is very relevant as most of the signs saying where you can and can't moor are at water level and often obscured if levels are high.

Edited February 17, 2016 by pearley

[gazza]

Parking fines seem to act as a sufficient deterrent for most car users, and providing an optional voluntary percentage payment alternative to court action means funds from offenders go into Council coffers.

 

Add the cost of the court fees etc, the penalties work adequately. The Councils do not need to have any power to seize overstaying cars in their car parks, only where they have been left obstructing the highway.

 

The general taste for maximum possible penalties is a rather sad reflection on the character of the populace; we get the government we deserve on the whole.

 

As to the 2 day maximum, that may be sufficient in some cases, but if longer stays in some areas would be more conducive to tourism, then people should say so. There is nothing preventing contributors from providing extra written material unconfined to box-ticking.

 

People don't tend to live in cars though....

 

Boats are a wee bit more of a pain to clamp too.

 

Comparison to parking enforcement and long term flouting of mooring bylaws are totally different.

 

The only similarity is that civil action will now be taken rather than asking them nicely to move along.

[NigelMoore]

The only similarity is that civil action will now be taken rather than asking them nicely to move along.

 

I was not objecting to civil enforcement action per se – I agree with that; it is essential to make the system work. I was objecting to over the top bailee powers, which multiply the penalties exponentially and [in my view] disproportionately.

 

Others, including obviously yourself, hold a different view.

[system 4-50]

Questionnaires that have questions without a "don't know" answer available annoy me.

Edited February 17, 2016 by system 4-50

[FadeToScarlet]

Wise words from Nigel.

 

Cambridge City Council has spent well over a decade playing at attempts to come up with a sensible, fair and enforceable moorings policy for both the residential boaters and short-term visitors. Its last serious attempt, in the Councillor Rosenstiel fiasco of 2006, all but destroyed the chance for visiting boaters to easily find a short-term mooring. The message was clear visitors are not welcome to Cambridge. The council created a licensed mooring scheme which designated almost all spaces for residential use only. Some of the visitor spaces were subsequently restored only after the threat of legal action by the Great Ouse Boating Association and the resignation of the executive councillor responsible.

 

Fair enforcement of the 48-hour limit / no return within 7 days for the few visitor moorings has since been ineffective as it has no legal status other than the same right to address a trespass which is common to any riparian owner. (In effect, seeking a court injunction, with all the costs and complexities of such action). In practice, the few visitor moorings were often taken by residential boaters who had been unable to obtain one of the 70 residential licences. It is fair to assume that these boaters knew full well that whilst they may receive a daily ticking off from the Conservancy warden working on behalf of the council there was no real chance of either the conservators or the council pursing the matter effectively.

All pretty valid points, and a good view of the situation. There are a couple of residential boats- normally no more than 2 or 3 at one point- moving about between the moorongs, and about the same number of local "CCers" (not really a recognised term out here) but because the space is limited, and enforcement so poor, that's enough to fill up significant amounts or all of the visitor moorings.

 

There is actually no shortage of mooring spaces in Cambridge at all but with vast areas designated as licensed residential mooring only the space is not used to its best advantage to provide for the residents and to encourage boating visitors to the city. There are, even at the busiest of times, spaces available between the licensed residential boats, certainly for smaller vessels, and there is no evidence of any significant opposition from the residents to use of these vacant spaces by short-stay visitors. On the contrary, to their credit, they are most helpful at times in assisting visitors to find and use such a space in their reserved area despite the councils ban and You cant moor there protestations from the conservancy bailiff.

As one of the residential mooring licence holders, I'll take that compliment

 

It is true that, if boats moored stem-to-stern all the way along, there would be space for more visitor moorings. But the council have decided, and I think there is a point here, that this is unfair to other river users, like fishermen and families who want to feed the ducks. Although there is space for about 80 full length boats on the areas covered by the policy if they moored stem-to-stern, the council give out 70 licences (in theory, at the moment there's 65 given out until they sort a few people who are mooring there without a licence) to leave this space.

 

It also means that there's likely to be space if I go to the water point or for a trip and come back to find someone else where I was; which is possible, not having specific allocated spaces.

 

It is pleasing to see that in its consultation the council is now suggesting a new six-hour maximum/no overnight stay on any of its moorings other than those few spaces already specifically designated as 48-hour visitor moorings. This could encourage sensible and effective use of all the spaces and afford new opportunities to visit Cambridge by boat without unduly impacting on the licensed residential boaters. But why just 6-hours? Why not overnight?

This bit isn't aimed at visiting boats, but rather as a means of controlling who moors on the residential stretches under the same scheme. It may even be decreased entirely to 1 hour or so. Revoke someone's mooring licence, or have a boat moor on the residential areas without a licence, and the council can use these new powers to start fining and encourage them to move, rather than prosecuting for trespass as currently done- slowly and ineffectualy.

 

 

In respect of both the 48-hour moorings and the more temporary ad hoc spaces the key to making it all work is effective enforcement and the civil contract approach does seem promising. However, the signs must be clear and unambiguous so that visiting boaters know the rules and the charges payable for exceeding the free period. A single successful court challenge to an overstay charge on the basis that the terms were not made clear or willingly consented to could soon leave the whole scheme in question and possible disarray.

 

Simple terms, clear signs, a reasonable and consistent enforcement policy encouraging the general goodwill of boaters could do so much to improve the situation at Cambridge.

Yes, I agree. It's been a poor situation for the last 10 years I've been around here on boats (last 7 as a licence holder) and elements of this may sort it out.

 

But alas, I fear that as councils inevitably always seem to do, Cambridge City Council is intent on embroidering an admirable and workable scheme by attempting to add conditions which are inappropriate and possibly even unlawful in such a civil contract. In so doing, they undermine the simple terms of the contract and their reliance on a boater being deemed to have accepted those terms by glancing at a sign. There is no need to seek powers of removal of a vessel as part of this contract; it is simply over the top as they can already seek an injunction to address the trespass. The council has no business whatever in making it a condition that all boats must be licensed; that is a matter entirely for the navigation authority the Conservators - who have adequate statutory powers to enforce their byelaws.

 

It is a pity that the consultation response document is, frankly, such a garbled mess. Never the less, as a sign that Cambridge City Council may be genuinely trying to undo some of the damage of its previous inglorious efforts, it surely deserves your response.

It is seeking powers to remove boats that is a thorny issue with some; the only people who can legally move boats are the Cam Conservancy, the navigation authority, but they seem willing to overlook this breach.

 

The point of that provision is to address boats owned by people with no money, or a confrontational attitude; if someone has no assets apart from their boat, the fine could be £1 a day or £1000 a day, but it will not be a deterrent.

 

The consultation document is deeply, deeply flawed- but it's worth picking through and trying to respond. There is a will amongst the council and some of the residential boaters to sort out the garbled mess they currently have, so input into the process is helpful.

We paid £27 last year for a 58 ft boat which gives you 90 days of visits, rather than a 90 day licence.

 

 

We were concerned that having paid and arrived there would be no space but having asked on Facebook we were assured that there was space but if there wasn't the permanent moorers would find us somewhere. On both occasions we moored last year the same narrowboat was moored, in the same spot, in front of us. And before anyone says, he could have gone and come back.

 

The comment about signage is very relevant as most of the signs saying where you can and can't moor are at water level and often obscured if levels are high.

Pretty sure I know who you mean.

 

He didn't go and come back.

I filled it in, not sure of the cost of a visit now but there is always you could pay it and then find no where to moor at the bottom. Also you can only visit the town for a day or so as you can only stay 2 nights

You'll be pleased to hear that the council are receptive to the idea we proposed of making the visitor moorings 14 day in the off season- from, say, September to April or May- when there isn't quite so much demand for them.

Having visited Cambridge a couple of times it does seem to have very few visitor moorings in the city centre - i.e. below Jesus lock. The moorings further down stream are very pleasant but are a few miles from the city with no public transport nearby. On the whole I would support better enforcement to allow more people to visit the city and enjoy a beautiful stretch of river.

Which ones did you use? There's a railway station a 5 minute walk from the Clayhithe mooring, the same station is 10 minutes from the GOBA mooring at Bottisham.

[Black Ibis]

Having visited Cambridge a couple of times it does seem to have very few visitor moorings in the city centre - i.e. below Jesus lock. The moorings further down stream are very pleasant but are a few miles from the city with no public transport nearby. On the whole I would support better enforcement to allow more people to visit the city and enjoy a beautiful stretch of river.

Erm, the next set of moorings is at Waterbeach, five minutes walk from the railways station...!

[erivers]

As one of the residential mooring licence holders, I'll take that compliment

 

He, he! That's my space nicely sorted for the next visit to Cambridge then. Cheers James!! Amy.

Edited February 18, 2016 by erivers

[erivers]

It is true that, if boats moored stem-to-stern all the way along, there would be space for more visitor moorings. But the council have decided, and I think there is a point here, that this is unfair to other river users, like fishermen and families who want to feed the ducks. Although there is space for about 80 full length boats on the areas covered by the policy if they moored stem-to-stern, the council give out 70 licences (in theory, at the moment there's 65 given out until they sort a few people who are mooring there without a licence) to leave this space.

 

It also means that there's likely to be space if I go to the water point or for a trip and come back to find someone else where I was; which is possible, not having specific allocated spaces.

 

This bit isn't aimed at visiting boats, but rather as a means of controlling who moors on the residential stretches under the same scheme. It may even be decreased entirely to 1 hour or so. Revoke someone's mooring licence, or have a boat moor on the residential areas without a licence, and the council can use these new powers to start fining and encourage them to move, rather than prosecuting for trespass as currently done- slowly and ineffectualy.

 

 

Point taken about allowing space to feed the ducks! No reason surely why a few very short bits of bank could be clearly designated as NO MOORING at all to accommodate this.

 

I don't understand your next point at all. Under a civil contract scheme the council has no powers to FINE anyone. It might claim that a boater is deemed to have agreed to a contractual term which includes a charge for overstaying a set period but good luck to them trying to prove that to a judge if it was challenged. Without clear signage every few yards along the river they would struggle to convince a judge that (in the case of a visiting boater) a £100 charge for mooring up for an hour or two was a reasonable term to have been established without specific evidence of consent to the terms.

 

You say that "this bit isn't aimed at visiting boats" but the council's resolution of 8th October 2015 clearly states" To introduce a free 6 hour mooring period, with no overnight stay or return for 7 days on all moorings owned by Cambridge City Council except the 48-hour visitor moorings". Who is it aimed at then? The council already has individual mooring licence agreements with the residential boaters and can invoke any sanctions included that agreement but how can it seek to impose a limited stay when those boaters already have a licence to moor there at any time anyway? Is it just me that's confused?

 

I really do hope that some common sense will prevail at Cambridge City Council and we will not be left with the customary unworkable fudge. I hope they will realise that the civil contract scheme, admirable as it might be, can only work within its limitations and does not give them the powers to impose penalties as they might like or in the way that byelaws would. Neither does it give them powers to remove vessels.

 

The moorings consultation at Ely was thorough, comprehensive, clear and distributed widely to several thousand boaters who were given several months to respond. It had an admirable response rate with many good suggestions that were duly considered. There were then several stakeholder meetings to fine tune the details. The final scheme was kept clear and simple. This has resulted in what appears (at least in the early days) to be a very effective and widely regarded solution to make best use of scarce City moorings. By contrast, the Cambridge consultation document has not even been effectively circulated to many local boating organisations and even those that are aware of its existence have been given little over a week to respond. It is a mess. But sadly that is what boaters have come to expect from Cambridge City Council.

Edited February 18, 2016 by erivers

[Martin Megson]

Erm, the next set of moorings is at Waterbeach, five minutes walk from the railways station...!

Oops missed that one. My mistake

[FadeToScarlet]

Point taken about allowing space to feed the ducks! No reason surely why a few very short bits of bank could be clearly designated as NO MOORING at all to accommodate this.

 

I don't understand your next point at all. Under a civil contract scheme the council has no powers to FINE anyone. It might claim that a boater is deemed to have agreed to a contractual term which includes a charge for overstaying a set period but good luck to them trying to prove that to a judge if it was challenged. Without clear signage every few yards along the river they would struggle to convince a judge that (in the case of a visiting boater) a £100 charge for mooring up for an hour or two was a reasonable term to have been established without specific evidence of consent to the terms.

 

You say that "this bit isn't aimed at visiting boats" but the council's resolution of 8th October 2015 clearly states" To introduce a free 6 hour mooring period, with no overnight stay or return for 7 days on all moorings owned by Cambridge City Council except the 48-hour visitor moorings". Who is it aimed at then? The council already has individual mooring licence agreements with the residential boaters and can invoke any sanctions included that agreement but how can it seek to impose a limited stay when those boaters already have a licence to moor there at any time anyway? Is it just me that's confused?

The 6 hour bit Is designed to let the Council use the civil contract approach on anyone on the commons, I.e. The bit they designate as residential mooring, who does not have a residential mooring licence. There are 2 boats currently without mooring licences- one other has moved on for now- who're moored in the residential bit. This proposal is designed to shift them on, via the contract law approach.

 

It would also allow them to use the contract law sanctions on anyone whose mooring licence was revoked- the only sanction they have against licence holders under the contract- and move them on. There are a couple of boats in this situation at the moment too.

 

I really do hope that some common sense will prevail at Cambridge City Council and we will not be left with the customary unworkable fudge. I hope they will realise that the civil contract scheme, admirable as it might be, can only work within its limitations and does not give them the powers to impose penalties as they might like or in the way that byelaws would. Neither does it give them powers to remove vessels.

Hmm. They want to have the power to remove boats as an ultimate sanction; if someone has no ability to pay a overstay charge or any amount, it's no deterrent.

 

This is going further than the Ely scheme, and I believe the Oxford EA scheme, both of these being used as models.

 

The moorings consultation at Ely was thorough, comprehensive, clear and distributed widely to several thousand boaters who were given several months to respond. It had an admirable response rate with many good suggestions that were duly considered. There were then several stakeholder meetings to fine tune the details. The final scheme was kept clear and simple. This has resulted in what appears (at least in the early days) to be a very effective and widely regarded solution to make best use of scarce City moorings. By contrast, the Cambridge consultation document has not even been effectively circulated to many local boating organisations and even those that are aware of its existence have been given little over a week to respond. It is a mess. But sadly that is what boaters have come to expect from Cambridge City Council.

I thoroughly agree- I've just come from a meeting with other Cambridge boaters, and we spent a fair bit of time working out all that was wrong with it- because, of course, they have no real mandate for action from such a shoddy document.

[ditchcrawler]

Has any decision been made on the moorings against the wall, sorry can't remember the proper name for them, by the bridge

[FadeToScarlet]

Has any decision been made on the moorings against the wall, sorry can't remember the proper name for them, by the bridge

On the Railings, they imposed a cut off date of October 2014. If you registered with them that you lived on your boat before that date, you would be inserted onto the waiting list for one of the normal residential moorings. Never mind that most of those boaters are on widebeam boats, and that there are so few widebeam mooring spaces that ever come up.

 

They have started trying to evict boaters who hadn't registered by that point, or who arrived afterwards, but thoroughly mucked it up, giving letters to the wrong people so far.

[erivers]

The 6 hour bit Is designed to let the Council use the civil contract approach on anyone on the commons, I.e. The bit they designate as residential mooring, who does not have a residential mooring licence. There are 2 boats currently without mooring licences- one other has moved on for now- who're moored in the residential bit. This proposal is designed to shift them on, via the contract law approach.

 

It would also allow them to use the contract law sanctions on anyone whose mooring licence was revoked- the only sanction they have against licence holders under the contract- and move them on. There are a couple of boats in this situation at the moment too.

 

Hmm. They want to have the power to remove boats as an ultimate sanction; if someone has no ability to pay a overstay charge or any amount, it's no deterrent.

 

This is going further than the Ely scheme, and I believe the Oxford EA scheme, both of these being used as models.

 

I thoroughly agree- I've just come from a meeting with other Cambridge boaters, and we spent a fair bit of time working out all that was wrong with it- because, of course, they have no real mandate for action from such a shoddy document.

Thanks, James, for clarifying the six-hour bit. I read the proposal with some surprise but hoped that it was actually a positive one to allow better use of the space not occupied by licensed residential boats. In effect, I suppose, any boater without a residential licence could be considered a 'visitor' (although of course a few visits might be a bit longer than most!) A six-hour limit would enable some useful short-term visitor use of the spaces - a visit to the shops/pub etc. but a one hour limit seems really just stupid and, in any case, impossible to enforce. A one-hour limit almost suggests entrapment for the unwary visitor - we invite you to moor up just long enough for us to slap a £100 ticket on your boat! How would that look to a judge?

 

They may want to have the power to remove boats. They would probably like the power to sink a few boats as well just to prove a point. They might even wish to make some boats smaller or prettier! IMHO they won't get either from a civil contract approach and neither should they.

 

Please just keep up your best efforts with the others to improve the outcome for all boaters. As I intimated before, there is no discernible dispute or ill-feeling between the licensed residential boaters and visiting boaters and there is, or could be, room for all if the council was to get to grips with the real problem instead of inventing new ones and making life ever more complicated and unpleasant.

[Scholar Gypsy]

..

 

I thoroughly agree- I've just come from a meeting with other Cambridge boaters, and we spent a fair bit of time working out all that was wrong with it- because, of course, they have no real mandate for action from such a shoddy document.

 

Many thanks for all your thoughts on this. I've made a number of points in my response about how poor the condoc is, lack of effective communication to boaters, the fact that it has no map, silly timetable, lack of clarity over the Elizabeth Way wall section etc etc.

[OldPeculier]

Its not particularly good, I admit, but it looks like a step in the right direction. The lack of any real power behind an enforcement is always going to undermine its legitimacy but we shall see,

 

I have been on the waiting list for a mooring for three and a half years now and as I cycle along Midsummer common regularly, it does irk me to see boats that are clearly not meant to be there. I have nothing against the individuals who take advantage of the situation, its the current situation that annoys me. Incidentally, the waiting list has not been updated since March 2015 - I think that is a fair indication of the current mess.

 

I had an over night in Ely the other weekend. What a difference! Loads of free mooring space and no boats moored on the services. A massive improvement on previous years.

[gazza]

Its not particularly good, I admit, but it looks like a step in the right direction. The lack of any real power behind an enforcement is always going to undermine its legitimacy but we shall see,

 

I have been on the waiting list for a mooring for three and a half years now and as I cycle along Midsummer common regularly, it does irk me to see boats that are clearly not meant to be there. I have nothing against the individuals who take advantage of the situation, its the current situation that annoys me. Incidentally, the waiting list has not been updated since March 2015 - I think that is a fair indication of the current mess.

 

I had an over night in Ely the other weekend. What a difference! Loads of free mooring space and no boats moored on the services. A massive improvement on previous years.

 

Regarding Ely - That's good to hear, did you notice if Bamboo is still outside the Cutter?

Edited February 19, 2016 by gazza