Visitor mooring £25 charge flyer

[Tecka]

Hi all, just picked this up in Birmingam.

 

Thoughts?

[Alan de Enfield]

Its 'their bat & ball", they can take it home if they want to !

[nicknorman]

Seems entirely reasonable to me. Especially the bit about mooring considerately. Birmingham is a prime example, there are limited moorings outside the "badlands zone" and you you often see a boat arrive and plonk itself in the middle of a long space preventing anyone else from using it. A lesser degree of evil is to fail to use the same bollard as the next boat thus wasting a lot of space that somebody else could have used. My pet hate! Personally in places like B'ham I'd like to see mooring wardens getting people to moor considerately.

[alan_fincher]

Which moorings, please, and have those moorings been changed to have good signage that fully explains what the stay times are, what the "no return" or "maximum days in a calendar period" rules are and what charges CRT may apply if you overstay.

 

Interestingly, as explained to me, CRT are now committed t following a framework if they actually want to change stay times at a location, but this framework does not extend to situations where stay times are unaltered, but they then decide to introduce overstay charging.

[Tecka]

Sorry, to be clearer although I picked this up in Cambrian house it doesn't read as a Birmingham only leaflet but a generic 'all short term' leaflet.

 

I happen to agree on the consideration in mooring points.

[nicknorman]

Mooring times have recently been changed in central Brum. As far as I know there was no "framework" followed except for common sense. Some 14 day moorings were lost as a result of the move of Sherborne Wharf's service point to outside the fiddle and bone. A few folk moaned about it and so some of the 48 hr moorings are now 14 day. Which I think most would agree, is a good thing. Ian Lane is the regional manager and so far he seems to be an absolute top bloke. In strong contrast to my brief encounter with the SW reginal manager who is a <censored>.

[Tecka]

And no new signs in Birmingham btw

[pearley]

Signage in Birmingham City Centre is very clear. New signage was put up in March.

[Tecka]

Since the 14 days were changed from 2 days

[alan_fincher]

Mooring times have recently been changed in central Brum. As far as I know there was no "framework" followed except for common sense. Some 14 day moorings were lost as a result of the move of Sherborne Wharf's service point to outside the fiddle and bone. A few folk moaned about it and so some of the 48 hr moorings are now 14 day. Which I think most would agree, is a good thing. Ian Lane is the regional manager and so far he seems to be an absolute top bloke. In strong contrast to my brief encounter with the SW reginal manager who is a <censored>.

 

If you are saying that moorings got switched from 14 days to 48 hours then back again after complaints, without the agreed Framework having been followed, I can't see how that can be called "a good thing", unless wasting time and money to erect one set of signs only to revert them can be called "a good thing". (Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your point?).

 

CRT now has an agreed Framework for all such changes, evolved with the help of the Navigation advisory Group, (NAG), and signed off as an "approved process" by Richard Parry. In essence this require that changes to mooring stay times are evidence based, not just because someone sat in an office somewhere becomes persuaded that it is a good idea. To me "evidence based" is the key, and should help stop the nonsense of changes being made, only to quickly be altered again.

 

I would urge anybody unhappy with changes made anywhere, (not just in Birmingham), and who believes CRT have not followed their own agreed procedures, to register a complaint, rather than just accepting as fait accompli CRT saying one thing and doing another.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not commenting on whether changes made in Birmingham may be sensible or not, although of course if they are the should have anyway passed the tests required by the agreed Framework, with the advantage that an agreed method of working had actually been followed, rather than ignored, (if indeed it has bee ignored - has anybody any any evidence that the Framework was followed, please?)

Signage in Birmingham City Centre is very clear. New signage was put up in March.

 

Any chance anybody can provide photos please, (now or maybe in previous posts around this topic)?

[David Schweizer]

It seems to me that the only people who consistently complain about C&ART changing 14 day moorings in busy places to 24 or 48 hour moorings are those who selfishly want to leave their boat blocking popular places so that they can have easy access to public transport links home. There are plenty of places around the system where boats can be left for 14 days, and there are such things as taxis, or hire cars, which is what we have used on many occassions.

[junior]

I thought all signs were irrelevant as CRT only have the power to enforce the 14 day rule?

[alan_fincher]

It seems to me that the only people who consistently complain about C&ART changing 14 day moorings in busy places to 24 or 48 hour moorings are those who selfishly want to leave their boat blocking popular places so that they can have easy access to public transport links home.

 

I am complaining about CRT having invested some considerable effort, including the major input of a voluntary group. to draft a very sensible framework that requires changes to be evidence based, signing it off as an "approved process" and then not always following that framework and approved process.

 

You are however wrong in your suggestion above, because I am one who is objecting to them making changes where evidence has not been gathered, and I do not fall into the category of "those who selfishly want to leave their boat blocking popular places so that they can have easy access to public transport links home".

 

You can, incidentally, only "block a popular place" by enough people doing it to fill it up. If people are doing this, then following the agreed framework will establish that, and provide the evidence that shorter stay times would be beneficial. However if following he agreed framework establishes that in fact a popular place generally never does get fully filled up, (as happened when it was finally done for Berkhamsted ad Marsworth), then what can be the justification for restricting stay times?

[Tuscan]

If it's a charge how does one book and pay it, I can't see the details in the flier.? I agree with the comments that Alan has made above.

 

The recent survey on London moorings seems to be paving the way for charges for visitor moorings .

[Alan de Enfield]

I thought all signs were irrelevant as CRT only have the power to enforce the 14 day rule?

 

But - my understanding - is that where there is a provision of a "service" (ie something more than a bit of 'wild canal bank', where rings or bollards are installed, where the bank is reinforced, Armco etc) then C&RT can charge.

[nicknorman]

If you are saying that moorings got switched from 14 days to 48 hours then back again after complaints, without the agreed Framework having been followed, I can't see how that can be called "a good thing", unless wasting time and money to erect one set of signs only to revert them can be called "a good thing". (Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your point?).

 

CRT now has an agreed Framework for all such changes, evolved with the help of the Navigation advisory Group, (NAG), and signed off as an "approved process" by Richard Parry. In essence this require that changes to mooring stay times are evidence based, not just because someone sat in an office somewhere becomes persuaded that it is a good idea. To me "evidence based" is the key, and should help stop the nonsense of changes being made, only to quickly be altered again.

 

I would urge anybody unhappy with changes made anywhere, (not just in Birmingham), and who believes CRT have not followed their own agreed procedures, to register a complaint, rather than just accepting as fait accompli CRT saying one thing and doing another.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not commenting on whether changes made in Birmingham may be sensible or not, although of course if they are the should have anyway passed the tests required by the agreed Framework, with the advantage that an agreed method of working had actually been followed, rather than ignored, (if indeed it has bee ignored - has anybody any any evidence that the Framework was followed, please?)

 

Any chance anybody can provide photos please, (now or maybe in previous posts around this topic)?

No, most of Birmingham mainline moorings were 48hr with a short section outside the fiddle and bone being 14 day. Some of that 14 day was lost when Sherborne Wharf were allowed to relocate their services there. That particular decision I didn't like but it was before Ian's time.

 

In response to comments about loss of those 14 day moorings, some of the residual 48 hr moorings were changed to 14 day so the overall effect, in terms of 14 day moorings, was unchanged. Of course there is a slight loss of 48hr moorings but the whole fiddle and bone thing was closely entwined with Sherborne wharf so whilst undesirable, probably unavoidable being realistic about it.

[GUMPY]

Really ALL VMs should be charged for as they are on other navigations.

Problem is cheapskate whinging boaters not willing to put their hands in their pockets.

First night free

Second night £6

Third night and beyond £20 a night.

The charge has to be as high as £20 to make it uneconomical to use a VM as your "home base".

There are still many miles of towpath available for 14day stays.

 

As for is there a need, yes there is, CRT need cash to get on with repairs and dredging, the canals round here are in a worse state than they were 20+ years ago and getting worse.

[alan_fincher]

The tiny number of £25 overstay charges that CRT have actually invoiced and successfully got payment for is insignificant against the vast amount of money that has been spent on bringing in the schemes where these charges apply.

 

These charges are certainly no cash cow for CRT - quite the reverse in fact.

 

Anyone from CRT who is prepared to be candid with you on such matters will generally admit this was always the expectation, and they never imagined it was ever likely to be otherwise.

 

Such schemes, where not necessary, and not based on evidence of need, are wasting the licence money we pay, not saving it.

[GUMPY]

It shouldn't be odd schemes it should be blanket over the whole network. Its not the £20 that will being in money but the £6 second night that should. Thames landowners make money on their charges, A large part of SRB moorings business is coleecting fees for landowners round the Henley area, So it can be done.

Better might be £6 first night second night free........

I know you don't agree but having boated on the Thames for years I do feel its a missed oppotunity by CRT charging for VM.

Edited August 14, 2016 by Loddon

[john6767]

Whilst the leaflet was picked up in Birmingham I don't remember the £25 overstay charge signs beeing up then since the last set of mooring changes that Nick has described. Does Birmingham now have those signs?

 

I also do not like it when in Birmingham people will not share the bollard with the next boat, and hence waste 12ft (or whatever the bollard spacing actually is). It is often the case that on the main line there is space wasted for 2 boats each side.

 

Saw a similar thing in Braunston last night, we were moored at the Boat House having a drink outside and there was a space opposite that would easily take 2 boats, and a Napton hire boat rocked up and moored slap in the middle of it.

[nicknorman]

So really it would be better to dispense with the £25 signs and replace them with "share bollards, moor tight up to the next boat" signs.

[alan_fincher]

So really it would be better to dispense with the £25 signs and replace them with "share bollards, moor tight up to the next boat" signs.

 

And make sure any bollards/rings that have been ripped from the ground are concreted back in as soon as possible, to make all available.

 

"Detached" bollards are fortunately rather rare, but I know we have encountered it a couple of times on those moorings in the centre of Birmingham.

[David Schweizer]

 

I am complaining about CRT having invested some considerable effort, including the major input of a voluntary group. to draft a very sensible framework that requires changes to be evidence based, signing it off as an "approved process" and then not always following that framework and approved process.

 

You are however wrong in your suggestion above, because I am one who is objecting to them making changes where evidence has not been gathered, and I do not fall into the category of "those who selfishly want to leave their boat blocking popular places so that they can have easy access to public transport links home".

 

You can, incidentally, only "block a popular place" by enough people doing it to fill it up. If people are doing this, then following the agreed framework will establish that, and provide the evidence that shorter stay times would be beneficial. However if following he agreed framework establishes that in fact a popular place generally never does get fully filled up, (as happened when it was finally done for Berkhamsted ad Marsworth), then what can be the justification for restricting stay times?

 

Agreed with whom? I haven't been consulted, or is it just the chosen few who then throw their toys out of the parm when C&RT fails to ask for their opinion in a change which planned a hundred miles away?

[matty40s]

 

And make sure any bollards/rings that have been ripped from the ground are concreted back in as soon as possible, to make all available.

 

"Detached" bollards are fortunately rather rare, but I know we have encountered it a couple of times on those moorings in the centre of Birmingham.

They are just the ones taken with them by Mr Schweizers overstaying Plague boats when they go to the water point, they put them back when they return........

 

 

Agreed with whom? I haven't been consulted, or is it just the chosen few who then throw their toys out of the parm when C&RT fails to ask for their opinion in a change which planned a hundred miles away?

Agreed with some boaters who spend a lot of their valuable time trying to press for some sort of control in an ex-Government quango with inherited self-important senior management who know exactly what is best for the waterways - because - they just know it is.

[alan_fincher]

Agreed with whom? I haven't been consulted..........................

 

It might be rather difficult to do a full consultation of all boat owners that extracts every bit of detail necessary to draw up a full framework of how such things should be treated sensibly for each and every such scheme proposed. This is however what has been done, and if you actually take the trouble to read the Framework it is in my view a much needed and pragmatic document about something that has never been tackled in a rational and consistent way across the Waterways regions before.

 

Have you read the document? What in the Framework we now have would you have objected to, had you been given the opportunity to comment on it personally?

 

In my view, as much of what had driven the development of the Framework has come out of the several consultations that have run about short term mooring proposals across various parts of the country, it could be argued that all boaters have had a chance to have fair input on the issues involved, because all these surveys have been open to anybody who wishes to respond, and many hundreds have chosen to do so.

 

............................or is it just the chosen few who then throw their toys out of the parm when C&RT fails to ask for their opinion in a change which planned a hundred miles away?

Absolutely not.

 

The relatively recent consultation about Berkhamsted and Marsworth produced 807 responses, the majority of which came from people who might have been impacted by them. There were 634 (80.5%) of those 789 who responded for Berkhamsted who opposed the proposals. There were 519 (75.5%) of those 688 who responded for Marsworth who opposed the proposals.

 

You surely can't class nearly 800 objectors as being "the chosen few", can you?