CRT to introduce mooring strategy for its entire waterway system

[GoodGurl]

Copied from FB.

CRT to introduce mooring strategy for its entire waterway system
June 30, 2016 NBTA
The Canal & River Trust (CRT) moorings strategy for London announced on 29th April 2016 will be used as a template for the rest of the waterway system. Despite CRT’s recent announcement, the London strategy has been under way since at least early 2015 and its use as a template or ‘pathfinder’ for the rest of the system was announced at the National Users Forum on 24th February 2016. According to Matthew Symonds of CRT, the development of a national mooring strategy is an opportunity to look at creating ‘premium’ moorings, which inevitably means there will be a mooring fee.

The national mooring strategy is being developed with CRT’s Navigation Advisory Group Licensing and Mooring Sub-Group, which now includes several boat dwellers without home moorings. CRT states that it is looking at six different mooring streams; data is or will be gathered and there will be ‘stakeholder engagement’. The mooring strategy will cover short-stay visitor moorings, short-stay ‘premium’ moorings, residential moorings, general towpath moorings and winter moorings.

This is bad news for boaters without home moorings as previous experience on the Lea and Stort Navigation in 2011 and the Kennet and Avon Canal between 2009 and 2015 demonstrates that ‘mooring strategies’ mean clearing Bargee Travellers out of an area in order to make more room for hire boats and leisure boaters. The NBTA believes that there is enough room for everyone on the waterways and that such mooring strategies are unnecessary and are a vehicle for the social cleansing of the waterways. Creating ‘premium’ short-term moorings for a fee effectively makes parts of the waterways a no go area for Bargee Travellers. The NBTA is opposed to any reduction in 14 day mooring space.

The pathfinder moorings strategy for London was discussed at the Navigation Advisory Group meeting in June 2015. The use of the word ‘pathfinder’ implies that it was always intended to be a template for the rest of CRT’s waterways.

Sadly we have been here before. In August 2009 former Head of Boating Sally Ash was present at a meeting in which a local Councillor said that the mooring strategy being developed for the western Kennet and Avon Canal would be “very much a ‘template’, that if successful, could be used elsewhere on the BW network”. The representative of the local Canal Trust said at the same meeting that he was aware of the need for action to regulate mooring and to reduce the number of ‘liveaboards’ in the area, and that the Trust’s objective in ‘reducing unauthorised long term mooring’ was to open up the canal to greater leisure cruising.

Shortly before, Ms Ash had stated in an email that “A properly researched and consulted long-term mooring strategy for the waterway that reflects the aspirations of all stakeholders – local communities and businesses, boaters, anglers and waterborne tourists – would provide a much stronger framework for enforcement activity. Such a strategy would set out where different types of mooring would be permitted, and for what duration. Its implementation would result in greater benefit to local communities along the waterway – boating holiday makers would be more likely to be able to find short-term moorings and increase patronage of local businesses for example”.

This led to the 2009-2010 British Waterways (BW) consultation on developing local mooring strategies, which ran alongside the consultation on moorings policy which had been in the pipeline since the drafting in February 2009 of Updating BW’S Online Mooring Policy (England & Wales) 2009 Briefing for User Groups April 2009: Pre-consultation draft by Sally Ash for discussion by the Waterway User and Special Interest Group (WUSIG) in April 2009. The consultation resulted in the publication of Policies for Moorings Along the Banks of BW Waterways in August 2009 and the subsequent consultation and implementation in 2014 of a mooring strategy on the western Kennet and Avon Canal and the attempt in 2011 to impose a mooring strategy on the Lea and Stort Navigation.

In a meeting with boating user groups in June 2010, Ms Ash stated that “the 1995 act does not contain a nice clear-cut ‘suite of rules’…. this is why we need to supplement it with local strategies and a re-think of mooring rules”.

It is a matter of great regret that the same divisive, biased and unfair proposals are being recycled yet again in a continuation of CRT’s ongoing attack on the right to use and live on its waterways without a home mooring and are effectively a proposal to exclude boaters without home moorings from large stretches of the waterways to make more room for the leisure and holiday trade.

This is an extract from the minutes of the Navigation Advisory Group meeting on 29th June 2015. Present were members Mike Annan, Paul le Blique, Tim Parker, Beryl McDowall and Clive Henderson, and CRT staff Ian Rogers, Denise Yelland, Jon Guest, Mike Grimes, Sean Williams, Sorwar Ahmed and Sian Ferry.

London & national strategies:

SA presented on the pathfinder moorings strategy that the London team is working on. TP asked if the Trust will create more moorings in London. SA confirmed that the moorings review (which includes an analysis of existing mooring capacity in London) will be used to look at where new other areas for moorings might emerge. We can’t create more space, and think there are probably as many mooring rings on the Regents now as is appropriate, but we are encouraging people to moor further out where they haven’t considered mooring before. JG added that there are new moorings at the Olympic Park and at Stonebridge, and that there are applications coming through boating business for new sites to be developed. Numbers on the Regents seem to have plateaued, whereas numbers on the River Lee have increased a lot so signs show that people are settling out of the central London area. Some cruising clubs are also going further afield because London can be so busy. TP asked if the problem has peaked and JG replied that while numbers are still increasing, they are starting to spread more, and the new enforcement process is encouraging this. JG added that water shortages could be an issue if boats start moving more. PLB asked if the Trust are still inviting groups to apply for community mooring sites. SA replied that we did this as part of the Towpath Mooring Management project, but that the application process heavily relies on the involvement of the local authority to carry out relevant planning work. This has been challenging so we’re using several pilot cases to investigate this and see how progress goes.

PLB said boat clubs have responded positively that they can generally be accommodated in London, JG agreed that we’re working closely together and there is a better understanding now. PLB asked whether, because there is lots of towpath improvement ongoing, that means some moorable lengths are being affected. JG replied that in London we’ve installed more rings, but it isn’t additional capacity, just the replacement of mooring with pins for rings. TP stated that nationally, we should be looking to create more places to moor, not just improving what we’ve got. CH noted that the Trust should also fully embed the share the towpath campaign alongside boating/mooring (safe mooring practice etc). London has a lot of important waterway events going on, but more would be even better. JG replied that we can’t run and manage all events, but we want to encourage relationships and joint working to help with this. IR commented that the last formal mooring strategy document was 2007 [it was not: as stated above, it was published in 2010]. We need to update this and must first look at data we’ve got. Hope that at next meeting we will know what data we have and will ask for feedback. Then take to next stages and must ensure consistency.

More information about CRT’s proposed mooring strategy for London was provided in a meeting on 26th May 2016 between CRT and NBTA London.

[Guest]

Bargee travellers??

[Martin Megson]

This is a party political broadcast on behalf of the NBTA.

[peterboat]

Cheers good girl at some point if we dont take notice this might come and bite all of us on the bum!! I for one dont want to pay for moorings when out for a cruise, as I feel that these are included in my license fee

[Nightwatch]

"Social Cleansing".

 

How come CRT haven't published this is this organisation believe it's happening system wide.

 

As a footnote. I wouldn't want to pay for a premium mooring, on the other hand I would if I could stay indefinitely.

 

Martyn

[nicknorman]

It might be a good post but I stopped reading when I got to "Bargee Travellers". Who on earth thought up that antonymic name for a group of CMers?

[Greylady2]

Scare tactics, I would like to Cc eventually if my dad allows it.

 

They only change protocol to make profit.

 

Reminds me : their's a circus on near me this weekend.

 

 

 

EDIT : the day they start calling c'cers travellers or bargees is the day to ask how much do you get in scrap value for 16 tonne of steel.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Greylady2

[Nightwatch]

I'm not a CCer. I'm a continual leisure boater.

 

Come on join the CLB.

[gazza]

I'm not a CCer. I'm a continual leisure boater.

 

Come on join the CLB.

Formerly the Boaters Continual Leisure party?

[Nightwatch]

BCL? Have they disbanded then?

 

(Not heard of them)

[Greylady2]

I am a CLB non residential'er it's nice.

 

But maybe one day I will be like the little'ist hobo.

 

Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down, Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on. ... Just grab your hat, we'll travel light, that's hobo style.

[alan_fincher]

I may be guessing wrongly, but much of that seems to have the writing style of Marcus Trower of the London NBTA.

 

When I recently pointed out to Marcus that claims he was making about mooring space in London were not based on the real facts, he actually came back with a reply along the lines of "Never let facts stand in the way of a good story".

 

This is a great shame, as there are credible people associated with NBTA, but when I discussed that with a bunch of them thy said "Don't be too hard on Marcus, he's only a youngster, but his heart is in the right place".

This is no way to lead such an organisation unfortunately, and it makes them lack credibility.

To me to suggest anything developed specifically for the London area, and which has a very unique set of issues, will act as a template outside of a major conurbation just sounds daft, and I am fairly sure that is not CRT's intent. There are also some good people on the Navigation Advisory Group, (NAG), and the record shows that already their intervention has helped stop plans for restricted moorings in more rural areas where there is no case for them, so I think this is scaremongering to try to support a wider argument that actually doesn't exist.

(I now think by discussing it as much as I have, I have given this NBTA communication more credence than it is worthy of!)

[bassplayer]

I may be guessing wrongly...

 

...."Never let facts stand in the way of a good story".

 

 

Hmm...

[Tuscan]

at the NAG meeting in February there was a workshop to discuss mooring options, the general consensus was that no existing visitor moorings should be lost to create premium moorings.

 

There was a more general concern that more mooring space should be made available. It was very much a general discussion around moorings although it was clear that CRT were keen on the concept of developing 'premium moorings' as a brand that could be sold. It would be wrong for boaters to thing that specific London proposals were discussed they were not.

 

NBTA are right I think in that CRT will take ideas they like in any proposals for Lndon and apply them elsewhere - premium moorings in Stoke Breune , Bath anyone ?

[HaulierP]

I may be guessing wrongly, but much of that seems to have the writing style of Marcus Trower of the London NBTA.

 

When I recently pointed out to Marcus that claims he was making about mooring space in London were not based on the real facts, he actually came back with a reply along the lines of "Never let facts stand in the way of a good story".

 

This is a great shame, as there are credible people associated with NBTA, but when I discussed that with a bunch of them thy said "Don't be too hard on Marcus, he's only a youngster, but his heart is in the right place".

 

This is no way to lead such an organisation unfortunately, and it makes them lack credibility.

 

To me to suggest anything developed specifically for the London area, and which has a very unique set of issues, will act as a template outside of a major conurbation just sounds daft, and I am fairly sure that is not CRT's intent. There are also some good people on the Navigation Advisory Group, (NAG), and the record shows that already their intervention has helped stop plans for restricted moorings in more rural areas where there is no case for them, so I think this is scaremongering to try to support a wider argument that actually doesn't exist.

 

(I now think by discussing it as much as I have, I have given this NBTA communication more credence than it is worthy of!)

Your certainly not the best at guessing,anyway will you be attending the NBTA events in Dorset or Birmingham next week ?

[Athy]

CART? NAG? Boy, these boaters sure have a way with abbreviations. I wonder if this press release came from the Waterways And Navigation Committee.

[Naughty Cal]

Cheers good girl at some point if we dont take notice this might come and bite all of us on the bum!! I for one dont want to pay for moorings when out for a cruise, as I feel that these are included in my license fee

Whilst I agree that should be the case for moorings with no facilities, I see no harm in making a charge for moorings that have additional facilities attached.

 

Everyone would still have the option of paying for their use or finding a free mooring elsewhere.

 

I don't see how charging for a mooring equates too:

 

"Creating ‘premium’ short-term moorings for a fee effectively makes parts of the waterways a no go area for Bargee Travellers."

 

after all, everyone has the option to pay to moor there.

[mayalld]

Whilst I agree that should be the case for moorings with no facilities, I see no harm in making a charge for moorings that have additional facilities attached.

 

Everyone would still have the option of paying for their use or finding a free mooring elsewhere.

 

I don't see how charging for a mooring equates too:

 

"Creating ‘premium’ short-term moorings for a fee effectively makes parts of the waterways a no go area for Bargee Travellers."

 

after all, everyone has the option to pay to moor there.

 

Tut, tut, tut, silly girl!

 

Did you miss the bit about them all leading low impact lifestyles (really?), which usually means a lifestyle predicated on earning very little, and expecting everything for free on the grounds that you have no money.

[Greylady2]

----

Edited July 1, 2016 by Greylady2

[nicknorman]

Anyway, we already have pay-for premium moorings in Llangollen and there doesn't seem to be much objection to that. The place is busy enough as it is, just think what it would be like if the basin were clogged full of "Bargee Travellers" all living their allegedly "low impact life" (low impact on themselves, never mind anyone else). The whole canal between Trevor and Llangollen would be one big gridlock. So I am quite happy to pay £6 for a reasonably good chance of getting a mooring at the end, with power thrown in as a bonus.

[mayalld]

Nothing wrong with a low impact lifestyle as long as the boater sticks to the rules and plays fare, like ive said before its the ones that take the pizz that give the press ammunition to type such damaging words on the daily rag.

 

This is damaging to life on the canal - liveaboard or leasure.

 

If the towpath turns into a very long caravan park with vernon scrips checking our £5 fiver a night then i will moor up in hare castle tunnel.

 

I would agree wholeheartedly.

 

Unfortunately, a fair proportion of those who espouse low impact lifestyles aren't actually prepared to walk the walk.

 

By all means cast aside materialism, and live a more minimalist life. However, that does mean accepting that some things aren't free, and that you have opted out of having them

[bassplayer]

 

Tut, tut, tut, silly girl!

 

Did you miss the bit about them all leading low impact lifestyles (really?), which usually means a lifestyle predicated on earning very little, and expecting everything for free on the grounds that you have no money.

I wonder Dave, is that your also attitide to all those on benefits who live in land based homes? Why is is it any different if they live in a boat?

 

If CRT started to provide special purpose moorings in London there is no reason why benefits can't be used in some cases to pay for them. In fact I understand some already do use benefits to pay for moorings.

 

On a slightly different point. Some boaters have been paying on top of their license fee for tow path moorings for years. Most of these have no facilities at all. For example long-term moorings and winter moorings. The legality of this practice is still in question as far as I am aware.

 

However, it does seem reasonable to charge extra if there is direct access to water, elecricity, pump outs...who knows even WiFi. After all these are the sort of things you would have easy access to in a council flat.

 

Edited typo.

Edited July 1, 2016 by bassplayer

[Tony Dunkley]

Cheers good girl at some point if we dont take notice this might come and bite all of us on the bum!! I for one dont want to pay for moorings when out for a cruise, as I feel that these are included in my license fee

 

When you buy a boat Licence, or a Pleasure Boat Certificate, you are paying for the right to moor to the towpath, or navigation authority owned bank, as an adjunct to using the boat.

 

The Licence T&C's that C&RT are so keen on imposing on everyone do state [at 3.2] that ~ "The Licence does not allow you to moor the Boat in any Waterway whilst cruising away from your Home Mooring except for short periods of up to 14 days . . . . . . "

 

In specifying what the Licence does NOT entitle the holder to do [ie. moor for longer than a 'short period'], it follows that it also specifies, by implication, that which it DOES entitle the holder to do.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Stilllearning]

CART? NAG? Boy, these boaters sure have a way with abbreviations. I wonder if this press release came from the Waterways And Navigation Committee.

So they truly have put the cart in front of the horse (nag)?

[spadefoot]

It might be a good post but I stopped reading when I got to "Bargee Travellers". Who on earth thought up that antonymic name for a group of CMers?

You have to apply to the Pseudonym Register Archive Trust. I thought you'd know that. I expect you also know that "Bargee Traveller" is not in itself antonymic , any more than the word "fast" is.

 

 

Unfortunately, a fair proportion of those who espouse low impact lifestyles aren't actually prepared to walk the walk.

 

How do you know this?