Visitor mooring £25 charge flyer

[David Schweizer]

You seem to miss my point completely Alan, If the consultation was only undertaken with people local to the area being discussed, that actually excludes a huge number of people who could be affected by any decisions made, and unlike most of those who were invited to contribute comments I don't live or keep a boat near Berkamstead or Marsworth, but like many people who keep their boat in other parts of the country, I might want to cruise down there.Surely my views on temporary mooring facilities and arrangements are as important as the opinions of those who probably do not need visitor mooring in that area because they already have a permanent mooring nearby.

 

For what it is worth all the breast beating by yourself and others is actually of little consequence. I spent most of my working life consulting in various capacities, and as one former boss stated "consultation is not negotiation, we can listen but we do not have to take any notice", and he was correct,

Edited August 14, 2016 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

For what it is worth all the breast beating by yourself and others is actually of little consequence. I spent most of my working life consulting in various capacities, and as one former boss stated "consultation is not negotiation, we can listen but we do not have to take any notice", and he was correct,

 

Yes "you can consult, but you don't have to listen" - obviously this is true.

 

However on this particular topic, after a lot of doing largely that, they finally have listened a great deal, and the way they should now be doing things draws heavily on what many people have been telling them.

 

In the case of the specific consultation I refer to, they have listened, and have now done what the vast majority of respondents wanted.

 

Of course if they had actually followed their own newly developed Framework, they would have known that the proposals being put forward did not meet the requirements for making changes. So the proposal should never have been made formal, and the consultation should never have been triggered.

 

However when it was still proceeded with, but without the evidence, it was quickly demolished as a result. They did not proceed with what they had planned to do.

 

A better situation would have been no consultation, but when there was one, they listened and dropped the proposal almost in its entirety. (The one thing that was accepted - a very short length of "stop and shop" mooring has never so far actually been actioned, by the way).

[alan_fincher]

You seem to miss my point completely Alan, If the consultation was only undertaken with people local to the area being discussed, that actually excludes a huge number of people who could be affected by any decisions made, and unlike most of those who were invited to contribute comments I don't live or keep a boat near Berkamstead or Marsworth, but like many people who keep their boat in other parts of the country, I might want to cruise down there.Surely my views on temporary mooring facilities and arrangements are as important as the opinions of those who probably do not need visitor mooring in that area because they already have a permanent mooring nearby.

 

And you have missed mine, I think.

 

This consultation was very widely publicised, including on here, in CRT communications, and in many other places.

 

There was no restriction on who could respond. You were just as much at liberty to do so, as anybody else. (Perhaps you did?).

 

I am now, however, somewhat confused by your former comment about people "throwing toys of a pram" about mooring changes that are a long way away. Can you clarify whether you think it is reasonable to consider the input of people based a long way from a proposed set of moorings restrictions, or not?

[matty40s]

You seem to miss my point completely Alan, If the consultation was only undertaken with people local to the area being discussed, that actually excludes a huge number of people who could be affected by any decisions made, and unlike most of those who were invited to contribute comments I don't live or keep a boat near Berkamstead or Marsworth, but like many people who keep their boat in other parts of the country, I might want to cruise down there.Surely my views on temporary mooring facilities and arrangements are as important as the opinions of those who probably do not need visitor mooring in that area because they already have a permanent mooring nearby.

 

For what it is worth all the breast beating by yourself and others is actually of little consequence. I spent most of my working life consulting in various capacities, and as one former boss stated "consultation is not negotiation, we can listen but we do not have to take any notice", and he was correct,

you are belittling the efforts of those who are both contributing to the consultations and also trying to effect change in other ways.

The fact that you cant be bothered to try nowadays and denigrate a new generation trying its best in a different more social networked way is telling.

[David Schweizer]

I can assure that I have no intention to belittle anyone, and if my robust debate with Alan is interpreted as such, it is a misintrpretation. Alan is perfectly capable of matching anything I might choose to say, and i can reciproctae with equal vigour. We have known each other for a long time, and a bit of public disagreement has not changed our relationship in the past, and i doubt that this little storm will do so either,.

 

I wish to say that whilst I was fully aware of the consultations surrounding the mooring issues in the Berkamstead/Marsworth area, I was not aware that those consultations would lead to a National "agreement" . If there have been similar discussions elsewhere in the country which have collectively contributed to the Framework that Alan refers to, I have no recollection of being asked to make a contribution to those discussions. Hence my surprise that something discussed and agreed with people in Hertfordshire should apparently dictate practice in Birmingham.

Edited August 14, 2016 by David Schweizer

[magnetman]

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.

They'll work it out eventually.

 

Or fill the lot in !

 

Typo

Edited August 14, 2016 by magnetman

[alan_fincher]

I wish to say that whilst I was fully aware of the consultations surrounding the mooring issues in the Berkamstead/Marsworth area, I was not aware that those consultations would lead to a National "agreement" .

 

For clarity David, it is the other way about.

 

After a highly inconsistent approach to the subject in the past that went far beyond the South East to changes made at places like Atherstone, there was strong pressure from many corners that a framework should exist that set out guidelines for making such changes in an evidence based way, not simply because someone thought they were a good idea, (or because someone had gone to the pub with Richard Parry!....)

 

That framework was fully evolved and signed off well before CRT started to bring proposed changes to further South East sites to the table, with yet more consultations.

 

So the most recent South East consultation, (Berkhamsted, Marsworth, and, for a while until they removed it, Batchworth), did not lead to a nation-wide framework, as it already existed by then. The problem initially with the latest South East one is CRT failed to follow the "evidence based" part of the Framework in a way that stood scrutiny. When this was pointed out to them, (many times!), a very diligent volunteer on NAG did an exemplary job of doing what CRT ought to have done when first drawing up the proposal. When this work showed that the available data failed to support any real need for change, the proposals were shelved.

 

I hope this clarifies the chronology of what occurred, and that it is very important that facts are actually facts.

Edited August 14, 2016 by alan_fincher

[David Schweizer]

Thanks for the explanation Alan, most of that must have passed me by. I must admit i have probably payed less attention to the issue, particularly as I tend to stop taking much interest in threads when (some) people start complaining about C&ART enforcing mooring periods.

 

I know from experience how difficult it was becoming to get a mooring in some popular places after 3pm and that it has got a lot easier since the maximim mooring period has been reduced in those places. From my perspective it is a welcome improvement to be able to get a mooring at 6pm after a proper days cruising.

Edited August 15, 2016 by David Schweizer

[Tuscan]

Just as a postscript following on from the NAG discussions I suggested to CRT that it would be a good idea to review all existing visitor moorings using the framework process to see whether they still meet boaters needs ( length, depth, location, availability etc) I was told this was not a decision for central management but for individual waterway managers. This seems a little crazy to me however if you think they should be reviewed in your area you should contact the relevant waterways manager.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Tuscan

[PaulG]

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.

Happens loads of times on the Avon - often with 26ft -ish cruisers with 10ft or so of space between them.

I've been known to (very politely) to ask people to move up a bit. Most do it with good grace.

 

If someone was hogging 2 spaces and there was nowhere else to moor, I'd just breast up to them.

[spadefoot]

. From my perspective it is a welcome improvement to be able to get a mooring at 6pm after a proper days cruising.

Ooh, a proper day's cruising. Presumably not the same as a day cruising properly. Maybe visitor moorings should be 12hr max. "No mooring between 6AM & 6PM, only for people who've done a proper day's cruising. no half-hearted cruisers allowed". Or maybe just have polite little signs, "Please leave at least one space clear incase David turns up after a proper day's cruising."

Or you could just take some mooring pins with you.

[Jerra]

Or you could just take some mooring pins with you.

So could those people who grumble about moorings being reduced in length of stay allowed. Move a metre off the end of a 24 hour mooring and you can stay 14 days.

[spadefoot]

So could those people who grumble about moorings being reduced in length of stay allowed. Move a metre off the end of a 24 hour mooring and you can stay 14 days.

Quite.

[alan_fincher]

So could those people who grumble about moorings being reduced in length of stay allowed. Move a metre off the end of a 24 hour mooring and you can stay 14 days.

 

Unless you are at somewhere like Stoke Bruerne, where going Northwards one metre further on from all mooring restrictions puts you inside a 3000 yard long tunnel, and there are really no mooring options until you get to Blisworth village. (Going Southwards going beyond the restrictions puts you on a spot that is unmoorable unless you have machetes and very long planks.)

 

In some of the places CRT have sought to introduce very restricted mooring, the "go a few hundred yards further" simply suggestion doesn't work. This is one of the reasons why it is important that making moorings more restrictive is evidence based.

 

It is a great shame to put in place restrictions that are not supported by actual demand at locations where there simply may not be suitable alternative unrestricted moorings anywhere within reasonable walking distance.

 

I'm not against restrictions where demand clearly indicates they are required for genuine reasons, but it is the "for genuine reasons" that the Framework is intended to address. No proven need, should equate to no added restrictions, IMO.

[Dave_P]

You seem to miss my point completely Alan, If the consultation was only undertaken with people local to the area being discussed, that actually excludes a huge number of people who could be affected by any decisions made, and unlike most of those who were invited to contribute comments I don't live or keep a boat near Berkamstead or Marsworth, but like many people who keep their boat in other parts of the country, I might want to cruise down there.Surely my views on temporary mooring facilities and arrangements are as important as the opinions of those who probably do not need visitor mooring in that area because they already have a permanent mooring nearby.

 

For what it is worth all the breast beating by yourself and others is actually of little consequence. I spent most of my working life consulting in various capacities, and as one former boss stated "consultation is not negotiation, we can listen but we do not have to take any notice", and he was correct,

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/arnsteins_ladder.png

[Catnip King]

What next parking meters?

[Tuscan]

So could those people who grumble about moorings being reduced in length of stay allowed. Move a metre off the end of a 24 hour mooring and you can stay 14 days.

This is of course a good but often impractical idea due to depth and the state of the bank. Fully accept that where visitor moorings are very popular that there should be some time limits so as many as possible can access. In my view when CRT are aware of strong demand they should either seek to extend the existing visitor mooring reducing the need for time limits or ensure the area immediately around the visitor mooring is suitable for normal towpath mooring.

What next parking meters?

Very likely the current survey regarding visitor moorings in London is likely to lead to the introduction of chargeable visitor moorings.

[David Schweizer]

 

Unless you are at somewhere like Stoke Bruerne, where going Northwards one metre further on from all mooring restrictions puts you inside a 3000 yard long tunnel, and there are really no mooring options until you get to Blisworth village. (Going Southwards going beyond the restrictions puts you on a spot that is unmoorable unless you have machetes and very long planks.)

 

In some of the places CRT have sought to introduce very restricted mooring, the "go a few hundred yards further" simply suggestion doesn't work. This is one of the reasons why it is important that making moorings more restrictive is evidence based.

 

It is a great shame to put in place restrictions that are not supported by actual demand at locations where there simply may not be suitable alternative unrestricted moorings anywhere within reasonable walking distance.

 

I'm not against restrictions where demand clearly indicates they are required for genuine reasons, but it is the "for genuine reasons" that the Framework is intended to address. No proven need, should equate to no added restrictions, IMO.

 

Stoke Bruerne is one of the places i was thinking of, and in the past we have had to move on and moor at Blisworth when we were hoping to stop in Stoke. Since the new restrictions have been in place we have manged to get a spot at Stoke, but all the available spaces were filled by 7pm. with all boats moored close to each other. So that anecdotal observation would seem to go somewhere towards providing the framework evidence you suggest is required. I doubt that there is as much demand in the winter, so restrictions could be relaxed between October and March as they already are in Braunston.

Edited August 15, 2016 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

 

Stoke Bruerne is one of the places i was thinking of, and in the past we have had to move on and moor at Blisworth when we were hoping to stop in Stoke. Since the new restrictions have been in place we have manged to get a spot at Stoke, but all the available spaces were filled by 7pm. with all boats moored close to each other. So that anecdotal evidence would seem to provide the framework evidence you suggest is required. I doubt that there is as much demand in the winter, so restrictions couold be relaxed between October and March as they already are in Braunston.

 

All the available spaces where? Just in the top pound to the tunnel, or also including the long pound. For all spaces to be gone in both is usually fairly exceptional.

 

The restrictions in these pounds are actually now far less than they were before the SEVM changes. Long pound used to be 1 day only, but is now 7 days. Yet there is still usually space in it, even when arriving late with 72 feet, (as we do!).

 

You seem to be unaware that the mooring times at Stoke Bruerne (and at Foxton) are formally relaxed in the Winter months, (although not to a full 14 days in the top pound at SB, I think - I would check, but the relevant map seems to currently be missing from the relevant page of the CRT website, which is rather frustrating).

[David Schweizer]

 

All the available spaces where? Just in the top pound to the tunnel, or also including the long pound. For all spaces to be gone in both is usually fairly exceptional.

 

The restrictions in these pounds are actually now far less than they were before the SEVM changes. Long pound used to be 1 day only, but is now 7 days. Yet there is still usually space in it, even when arriving late with 72 feet, (as we do!).

 

You seem to be unaware that the mooring times at Stoke Bruerne (and at Foxton) are formally relaxed in the Winter months, (although not to a full 14 days in the top pound at SB, I think - I would check, but the relevant map seems to currently be missing from the relevant page of the CRT website, which is rather frustrating).

 

I am referring to the pound above the top lock, up to the tunnel entrance, although the pound below the top lock is often quite full as well. I do not know what you mean by the "long pound" unless you mean the pound between the two top locks and the remainder of the flight, I can't say we have ever considered mooring there, so i cannot give an informed answer.

 

I do not recall seeing any notices indicating that the restrictions at Stoke Bruerne are relaxed during the winter, but it seems sensible that they are.

[Plonk]

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.

I pay enough thanks! Marina fees, Licence, Pump outs. We arn't all as rich as some. I resent being called a cheepskate, I'm just carefull! Are vm's on other waterways privately owned (for profit) or managed by a trust?

Surprised you don't suggest a toll for cyclists (who pay nowt). That could raise a fortune and pay for improvements to all those miles of cycleway towpath! Whilst we are at it, lets start charging dog owners who use the towpath. How about a charge based on the length of dog? Shih tzu would be cheaper than Dachshund - Serves them right for having a luxury narrow-dog. Lets suggest that and see how many people are 'whingers' then! WHINGE OVER.

Sorry, couldn't help rising to the bait.

[Athy]

Happens loads of times on the Avon - often with 26ft -ish cruisers with 10ft or so of space between them.

I've been known to (very politely) to ask people to move up a bit. Most do it with good grace.

.

I think it's typically British diffidence at work - we don't like mooring too close to the neighbours so each boat ties up 25 feet away from the next one. This is fine if you're in the whopwhops but rather irksome at popular places.

 

What does the team think about moving such a boat, i.e. untying it, pulling it along 20 feet and then retying it, thereby creating a viable extra space? I saw this done at Cropredy last week. On one hand, one is interfering with someone else's property. On the other, they should have parked considerately in the first place.

 

The Moral Maze...

[Paul C]

I pay enough thanks! Marina fees, Licence, Pump outs. We arn't all as rich as some. I resent being called a cheepskate, I'm just carefull! Are vm's on other waterways privately owned (for profit) or managed by a trust?

Surprised you don't suggest a toll for cyclists (who pay nowt). That could raise a fortune and pay for improvements to all those miles of cycleway towpath! Whilst we are at it, lets start charging dog owners who use the towpath. How about a charge based on the length of dog? Shih tzu would be cheaper than Dachshund - Serves them right for having a luxury narrow-dog. Lets suggest that and see how many people are 'whingers' then! WHINGE OVER.

Sorry, couldn't help rising to the bait.

 

The question is whether CRT would use short term/visitor mooring fees as extra income (over & above other sources of revenue from boaters) or keep it cost neutral. If they kept it cost neutral then your usage pattern (and many others') may well mean you'd pay less.

 

It comes down to cost effective collection of small fees. I suspect the infrastructure is simply not there for 99% of visitor moorings. Whether technology could help or not is another debate. Also part of the committment to receiving certain funding streams which have paid for towpath improvements is that access to walkers/cyclists remains free.

[pearley]

I think it's typically British diffidence at work - we don't like mooring too close to the neighbours so each boat ties up 25 feet away from the next one. This is fine if you're in the whopwhops but rather irksome at popular places.

 

What does the team think about moving such a boat, i.e. untying it, pulling it along 20 feet and then retying it, thereby creating a viable extra space? I saw this done at Cropredy last week. On one hand, one is interfering with someone else's property. On the other, they should have parked considerately in the first place.

 

The Moral Maze...

I've often asked boaters to move up or back to make room for us but only once have I moved a boat. It was on the pontoon at Leicester where two short boats, both on 30 day visitor licences that had expired, were moored with large gaps between them. The owners never returned during the time we were there. Edited August 15, 2016 by pearley

[Plonk]

 

The question is whether CRT would use short term/visitor mooring fees as extra income (over & above other sources of revenue from boaters) or keep it cost neutral. If they kept it cost neutral then your usage pattern (and many others') may well mean you'd pay less.

 

It comes down to cost effective collection of small fees. I suspect the infrastructure is simply not there for 99% of visitor moorings. Whether technology could help or not is another debate. Also part of the committment to receiving certain funding streams which have paid for towpath improvements is that access to walkers/cyclists remains free.

I was mostly joking, however I do think vm's on crt controlled waters should stay free. Maybe a compromise woild be a small number of (extra) chargeable moorings with hookups and water? or maybe that's a daft idea.