Moorings closure

[carlt]

The canals were not created for leisure (and therefore arguably completely unnecessary) use, they were for commercial use. As leisure took over no doubt the working boatmen despised and complained the holidaymakers using the canals 'for fun'. The same thing is now happening with the holidaymakers complaining about the liveaboards who are using the canal as an arguably necessary resource, that being reasonably affordable 'housing'. Things change thats the way it goes.

Further to your point magman. Because the canals were created for commercial carrying and a large propotion of the people working the boats lived aboard, Tiller slave's argument is complete tosh anyway.

 

 

Navigation authorities need to make money by buisness activities or how can they fund improvements to the network- they are not and will not get enough funding form government.

 

They need to learn how to manage and maintain what they've got before starting any more grand schemes

 

Perhaps some of the posters believe in the tooth fairy and father christmas, as they also seem to imagine BW as some social housing provider; last time I looked this was outside their terms of reference.

 

Being a pawn to the private sector is outside their terms of reference also but they seem to embrace that role wholeheartedly.

[Tiller Slave]

Commercial activities are within their terms of reference!!!

 

You seem to confuse your political views on what you would like the structure, purpose and organisation of BW to be, and what it is actually permitted to do by the secretary of state at DEFRA.

 

Currently a very large percentage of BW income comes from commercial activities- a proportion that is rising as grant income from DEFRA falls.

 

Most new marina developments in recent years have been done by a BW owned company BWML.

 

Far form been a "pawn" of buisness BW has had very major disputes on how it operates the marina and mooring market!

 

Your also misunderstand the term "improvemments" I am refering to repairs and renewals on the existing network which has a backlog of repairs running into the £100 of Millions

[carlt]

Commercial activities are within their terms of reference!!!

 

You seem to confuse your political views on what you would like the structure, purpose and organisation of BW to be, and what it is actually permitted to do by the secretary of state at DEFRA.

 

Currently a very large percentage of BW income comes from commercial activities- a proportion that is rising as grant income from DEFRA falls.

 

Most new marina developments in recent years have been done by a BW owned company BWML.

 

Far form been a "pawn" of buisness BW has had very major disputes on how it operates the marina and mooring market!

 

Your also misunderstand the term "improvemments" I am refering to repairs and renewals on the existing network which has a backlog of repairs running into the £100 of Millions

The reality may be as you say. That doesn't make it the correct way of running a govt. dept. responsible for maintaining a major piece of our history.

 

Like I said in my response to your first lecture How terribly depressing.

[mayalld]

The canals were not created for leisure (and therefore arguably completely unnecessary) use, they were for commercial use. As leisure took over no doubt the working boatmen despised and complained the holidaymakers using the canals 'for fun'. The same thing is now happening with the holidaymakers complaining about the liveaboards who are using the canal as an arguably necessary resource, that being reasonably affordable 'housing'. Things change thats the way it goes.

The point is that BW is not in receipt of funding to enable it to provide cheap housing for society's waifs and strays.

 

It is in receipt of funding to maintain a navigable system of waterways.

 

If government wants BW to provide social housing space, it needs to fund it appropriately.

Edited April 30, 2007 by mayalld

[carlt]

If government wants BW to provide social housing space, it needs to fund it appropriately.

 

(From another thread)

I'm all for action against unlicensed boats but that action does not have to be justice and punishment.

Maybe if BW got together with the local authorities to see if the non-payer was entitled to housing benefits. The licence and mooring fees would be paid by the local authority instead of rehousing them in council or private accommodation. This would be the cheapest solution all round. And if the individual was looked at instead of the whole group lumped together as criminals, you may find that some of them would want to be rehoused ashore anyway, they were just never shown any options.

 

Hooray!! We agree on something! The infrastructure is in place. BW just needs to use it!

Edited April 30, 2007 by carlt

[Neil.A]

I've just had the Thurmaston moorings explained to me (I didn't know where they were before) they're tucked away from the main navigation, and don't ever get passed by boaters.

 

Does anyone have a contact no for someone at Thurmaston????

[mayalld]

Hooray!! We agree on something! The infrastructure is in place. BW just needs to use it!

 

No, that isn't BW's job (and I know how keen you are on not doing other people's jobs)

 

It is for the people who want their fees paid, and the agencies that pay out money to sort out.

[carlt]

It is for the people who want their fees paid, and the agencies that pay out money to sort out.

And a good landlord would try to resolve an issue by bringing the two parties together, not go down the far more expensive route of court eviction.

[Neil.A]

Well, we have had half a page in the Nottingham evening post!

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayN...e=sidebarsearch

 

How do you do a hyperlink on this forum?!!

Edited May 2, 2007 by Neil.A

[Neil.A]

I took a trip out to Thurmaston on Saturday in the hope of seeing someone that is in the same boat <groan>as us.

I dont see how BW's argument about passing boat traffic holds water as they are tucked away at the canal stop.

We have got a petition going, but its clear that there is a huge divide in opinion toward us. Some local residents have pledged their support while others are positivly anti boat.

Just goes to show the damage a few can cause.

[fender]

I took a trip out to Thurmaston on Saturday in the hope of seeing someone that is in the same boat <groan>as us.

I dont see how BW's argument about passing boat traffic holds water as they are tucked away at the canal stop.

We have got a petition going, but its clear that there is a huge divide in opinion toward us. Some local residents have pledged their support while others are positivly anti boat.

Just goes to show the damage a few can cause.

BW says (as reported in the Nottingham paper)

 

"Detailed surveys undertaken amongst boating customers in 2006 showed criticism of canalside moorings, with customers not wishing to see long lines of moored boats. They are also unpopular with the towpath visitors who enjoy canals and rivers each month for walking, cycling, fishing or simply to enjoy the waterway wildlife."

 

Many of BW's so called surveys follow an agenda - despite their 'consultation' process they go their own way and impose their own decisions. We've just seen several examples of this down in London.

 

This is just another case of BW siding with those who pamper to subversive agendas. It is good for BW because it propels BW's own subversive desires for captialising out of situations in order to develop its property portfolio willy-nilly without opposition.

 

As we've seen BW has already begun steps to auction out moorings, thats another example.

 

I for one would hate the canals if many of these canalside moorings were removed. EVENTUALLY people WILL think that canals are nature reserves and then SSSI's, and whatever will be slapped on canals and they'll only be good for walking and fishing. Boaters have got to fight BW's stupid aspirations. BW shoud be renamed British Slaughterways

Edited May 7, 2007 by fender

[GRPCruiserman]

This is YET another of BW's attempt to increase the cost of boating and make it a shiney boat linear park. I could never have afforded a marina when I had the boat, even the increase in costs as was forced me off the water.

 

Marina moorings are very expensive compared to my £100 a year farm mooring. This is very wrong.

 

Again, I am glad I sold my boat!!

[dorothy]

Here is a copy of the letter

Excuse any typo's I had to do it manually, but its still better english than the original......

 

For some time we have recognised that long term, online moorings can have a negative effect on the people’s enjoyment of cruising along a waterway. Feedback from boaters has included frustrations associated with crusing past long lines of moored boats, and the view that linear moorings have increased unacceptably in recent years

 

BW has for some time expressed a desire to reduce online moorings in order to encourage private provision of new offline moorings, and our new Inland Marina Investment Guide published in 2006 made specific reference to this. New investment is essential to improve choice and competitiveness in the moorings market if we are to satisfy demand in the future. As a means of encouraging this we have decided that we will reduce one online mooring berth for every ten new berths being created in the new offline developments. These reductions will take place within the same geographical area as the new marina. The enclosed policy briefing not explains our thinking in more detail.

 

As you may already know a new 280 berth marina is due to open at Pillings on the river soar this month, and this means that we have assess which 28 berths we should cut from our own directly managed moorings in the vicinity. This assessment to account of local densities of online moorings, operational factors, demand patterns and the profitability of those of our sites serving the same market area. As a result we have decided that we should close the moorings at Thurmaston, Beeston (roadside only) and Sawley cut (does not affect 12 month permit holders).

Mooring permits for this site will all expire on 30th April 2008 and will no longer be renewable beyond this date. Our moorings officer (name withheld) is on hand to give you advice about locating to an alternative mooring for your boat We would encourage you in the first instance to use the moorings search facility at www.waterscape.com/boating/moorings which includes details of both BW and privately operated mooring sites throughout our network in case you do not have access to the internet, I am enclosing a printed list of contact details for all mooring operators within about 30 miles of your current site.

Most BW sites are currently full, but we will aim to give you and other boaters in the same position priority if any vacancies arise on any of our other sites in the vicinity, providing that your boat fits any local site rules. Please let (name withheld) know if you would like us to try and allocate you to one of our other sites in this way. If we are able to offer you an alternative mooring you would be required to move onto it as soon as it is available and not wait until your present site closes

 

I realise that this may not be welcome news and apologise in advance for the inconvenience. I hope you can understand our reasons, and we will do all that we reasonably can to help you find an alternative mooring

 

Yours sincerely

 

Kim Dale

If I wasn't so cynical I'd say its on its way nationwide, trying to pick off pockets of 30 at a time so as not to cause a stink.

What do you think?.....

 

 

I am new to this, so forgive me if I have got this wrong. There are several of us at Sawley lock affected by this. We have written to BW who have put our letters on their Internal Complaints Proceedure. I think the agreement here is that we se that through and then if we do not get satifaction we will go for alegal challenge and/or Media etc. I have had contact with the folk at Thurmaston Nr Leicester, and they are on offline moorings, so what is goping on. Anybody wants to contact me over this so that we can share expereince by all means do.

Dorothy Hyde N/b Psalm

[fuzzyduck]

The offline moorings at Thurmaston do seem to be a bit alien to even BWs published motives.

 

I'm a bit suspicious that there are some new flats gone up overlooking the Thrummy moorings. the coincidence value is astounding.

 

I might pose as an interested buyer, and see what the estate agents say when I enquire "what about those scruffy boats"?

[Neil.A]

I am new to this, so forgive me if I have got this wrong. There are several of us at Sawley lock affected by this. We have written to BW who have put our letters on their Internal Complaints Proceedure. I think the agreement here is that we se that through and then if we do not get satifaction we will go for alegal challenge and/or Media etc. I have had contact with the folk at Thurmaston Nr Leicester, and they are on offline moorings, so what is goping on. Anybody wants to contact me over this so that we can share expereince by all means do.

Dorothy Hyde N/b Psalm

Hi dorothy

If you want to pm me your contact number or let me know when its convenient, I'll have a drive over.

Neil

 

The offline moorings at Thurmaston do seem to be a bit alien to even BWs published motives.

 

I'm a bit suspicious that there are some new flats gone up overlooking the Thrummy moorings. the coincidence value is astounding.

 

I might pose as an interested buyer, and see what the estate agents say when I enquire "what about those scruffy boats"?

 

Sneaky.....

[dorothy]

Hi dorothy

If you want to pm me your contact number or let me know when its convenient, I'll have a drive over.

Neil

Sneaky.....

 

would be glad to see you 07976854753

[Neil.A]

Have a bump to go with the other thread.

[carlt]

Have a bump to go with the other thread.

Have the IWA started organising blockades yet?

This is far more important than the DEFRA cuts (which BW were happy to let boaters protest against).

This is BW taking away people's homes!

[Neil.A]

Have the IWA started organising blockades yet?

This is far more important than the DEFRA cuts (which BW were happy to let boaters protest against).

This is BW taking away people's homes!

Exactly. When I first contacted BW about a long term mooring, I made it perfectly clear that I had sold my house and was intending to buy a boat to live on. If I could not obtain a mooring on the Beeston Cut, (I am born and bred in Beeston) I wouldn't buy a boat. So, house gone, boat built to order, moorings secured. A year later....this. Talk about playng games with peoples lives.

[denboy]

They are also unpopular with the towpath visitors who enjoy canals and rivers each month for walking, cycling, fishing or simply to enjoy the waterway wildlife."

 

 

Taken out of the evening post article quoted from the "Man"

how much revenue does BW recieve from the above not a lot me thinks

[Jason Wilson and Family]

They are also unpopular with the towpath visitors who enjoy canals and rivers each month for walking, cycling, fishing or simply to enjoy the waterway wildlife.

 

If that is who they are catering to perhaps the walkers, cyclists, fishers and enthusiasts should be paying licenses instead of you lot then.

[fender]

Have the IWA started organising blockades yet?

This is far more important than the DEFRA cuts (which BW were happy to let boaters protest against).

This is BW taking away people's homes!

 

Time we had mass protests on the waterways, against DEFRA, BW, etc etc

 

Dont matter where the moorings are, Sawley, Beeston Cut, the end game is the same. BW is papering to agendas that are NOT in keeping with the aspirations of why the canal swere restored/retained for the country. The entire issue of why, where, whom and what the waterways are for is being taken out of our hands completely and the fatutous asparations of people - who are nothing less than closet road hogs - is taking over.

[Neil.A]

Time we had mass protests on the waterways, against DEFRA, BW, etc etc

 

Dont matter where the moorings are, Sawley, Beeston Cut, the end game is the same. BW is papering to agendas that are NOT in keeping with the aspirations of why the canal swere restored/retained for the country. The entire issue of why, where, whom and what the waterways are for is being taken out of our hands completely and the fatutous asparations of people - who are nothing less than closet road hogs - is taking over.

Well said Sir.

I'm going to fight this to the bitter end, I have nothing to lose now.

[Neil.A]

If BW starts taking away online moorings this will only give the anti-mooring lobby (such as that council on the K&A) more ammo to the views that boats shouldnt be moored anywhere except in a marina.

If you moor on line, support this cause.

It will be you next

[Hekaterine]

If you moor on line, support this cause.

It will be you next

Time we had mass protests on the waterways, against DEFRA, BW, etc etc

 

Dont matter where the moorings are, Sawley, Beeston Cut, the end game is the same. BW is papering to agendas that are NOT in keeping with the aspirations of why the canal swere restored/retained for the country. The entire issue of why, where, whom and what the waterways are for is being taken out of our hands completely and the fatutous asparations of people - who are nothing less than closet road hogs - is taking over.

 

Hear, hear. A bit of poll-tax style civil disobedience wouldn't go amiss. I'm sick of seeing whole aspects of life coming second to "commercial interests". Damn those Greeks for inventing money.