CRT Not To Get EA Navigations, Yet

[OldGoat]

43 minutes ago, Marshian said:

Looks like I'll have to reconcile myself to wheel winding for the foreseeable...  Thing is, there's a paucity of moorings compared to other waterways, including the Gt Ouse.  Then there's the lack of other facilities.  My boat would cost c£600 pa to licence for EA Anglia region; c£700 for CaRT.  The difference in facilities suggests to me that a proportionate EA fee should be maybe £250?

You're paying a fee to use EA's water rights. Services are purely incidental...... (Quite naturally your view is different on a value to you basis). On a canal system with lots of roads and other infrastructure around facilities can be provided at reasonable cost. On a river which floods, few roads and electrical supplies, things are different!

[erivers]

38 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

You're paying a fee to use EA's water rights. Services are purely incidental...... 

 

Utter Rubbish.

The EA Anglian waters have a STATUTORY PUBLIC RIGHT OF NAVIGATION.  The fee is a Registration fee and although now prescribed under the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 was first introduced by the Water Resources Act 1963.  To quote the Authority at the time "The Boat Registration Byelaws were made with the support of local boating organisations who wished some control to be exercised in the interests of all concerned and who welcomed the payment of registration charges as being the only means available for providing a small revenue for the maintenance and improvement of the navigation facilities."

Edited January 27, 2018 by erivers

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, erivers said:

"The Boat Registration Byelaws were made with the support of local boating organisations who wished some control to be exercised in the interests of all concerned and who welcomed the payment of registration charges as being the only means available for providing a small revenue for the maintenance and improvement of the navigation facilities."

Your bold.

Surely the provision of moorings is in fact a hindrance to navigation rather than an improvement.

 

[erivers]

Read all of my bold! 

Moorings, particularly "visitor moorings" are an important recreational "navigation facility" and clearly would never be provided by an authority (or expected to be provided) where they could be a hindrance to navigation.

[Alan de Enfield]

49 minutes ago, erivers said:

Read all of my bold! 

Moorings, particularly "visitor moorings" are an important recreational "navigation facility" and clearly would never be provided by an authority (or expected to be provided) where they could be a hindrance to navigation.

 

Nope - cannot see any other words in bold, except these 5.

1 hour ago, erivers said:

..........improvement of the navigation facilities."

Surely something that encourages you to stop, is impinging on navigation which is (dictionary definition) "to sail on, over, or through an area of water. : to travel on, over, or through (an area or place)" 

 

[GUMPY]

6 hours ago, Marshian said:

Having moored on the Middle Levels for a couple of years, I had to use the Nene to move between mooring and canal network.  I found that, for a marginally lower licence fee, there was a marked shortage of EA facilities, compared to CaRT waterways.  Scarce moorings, infrequent water taps and pump-outs, and no elsan disposal.  I rather hoped a CaRT takeover would start to address that situation.  Oh well, looks like my next Nene trip will be much as before.

There are plenty of moorings on the Nene just that they are not marked as visitor moorings..... with the addition of the FotRN moorings its even easier to find a mooring and most are empty.

There is a full list on Thunderboat but you will have to go there to view as I'm not reposting it here

Edited January 27, 2018 by Loddon

[OldGoat]

1 hour ago, erivers said:

Utter Rubbish.

The EA Anglian waters have a STATUTORY PUBLIC RIGHT OF NAVIGATION.  The fee is a Registration fee and although now prescribed under the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 was first introduced by the Water Resources Act 1963.  To quote the Authority at the time "The Boat Registration Byelaws were made with the support of local boating organisations who wished some control to be exercised in the interests of all concerned and who welcomed the payment of registration charges as being the only means available for providing a small revenue for the maintenance and improvement of the navigation facilities."

Not so, you and I may have a right to navigate - but it doesn't mean a free right and thus the byelaws have a scheme of charging you for being on their water.

[Marshian]

25 minutes ago, Loddon said:

There are plenty of moorings on the Nene just that they are not marked as visitor moorings..... with the addition of the FotRN moorings its even easier to find a mooring and most are empty.

There is a full list on Thunderboat but you will have to go there to view as I'm not reposting it here

Cheers Loddon.  I'm aware of, and consult the Thunderboat list, but my original post to this thread was about the facilities provided by EA, in comparison to CaRT.  Most of the moorings on the Thunderboat list include informal moorings and private provision by marinas, pubs etc, not EA.  This rather proves the point I was making - if the majority of moorings listed aren't provided by EA, the facilities provided by EA in exchange for our licence fees represent poor value.

 

[GUMPY]

as a Nene boat owner I think that its value for money not to many boats very few towpath shufflers and its mostly very well maintained unlike the canals. Sadly I will be selling my river boat soon as my reason for having it was to get away from the canals and I can't face having two boats on waters mismanaged by cart.

[OldGoat]

11 minutes ago, Marshian said:

Cheers Loddon.  I'm aware of, and consult the Thunderboat list, but my original post to this thread was about the facilities provided by EA, in comparison to CaRT.  Most of the moorings on the Thunderboat list include informal moorings and private provision by marinas, pubs etc, not EA.  This rather proves the point I was making - if the majority of moorings listed aren't provided by EA, the facilities provided by EA in exchange for our licence fees represent poor value.

 

Rather than return the 'rubbish' rejoinder, you don't get the point. EA don't have to offer you facilities. The fee is just to be there on the water and waters adjoining in some cases.

Yes, it may represent poor value and you're at liberty to cruise elsewhere - your choice. EA's interest is primarily in water supply and flood control. Some in EA would likely prefer if there were no boats at all, but they can't, so they put up with their statutory obligations and do what they can with very limited funds by improving some basic facilities. AFAIR some of the income from the Thames is diverted to the  Anglian - so be nice to Thames boaters... 

[Marshian]

Hi Old Goat.  I deliberately avoided offensive terms, and can see none in my posts - certainly not any suggestion that a contrary view to mine was 'rubbish'.  I simply pointed-out that the post I replied to had not dissuaded me from my stated opinion.  Clearly we don't agree that navigation authorities should simply provide waterways (and presumably the associated essential infrastructure).  Some 2000 odd miles of inland navigations without a water tap, pump-out or elsan disposal?    Surely not?

I will continue to cruise the Nene - it's my favourite cruising river.  Whilst doing so, I will continue to hold the opinion that the facilities provided by EA are rather poor, in relation to the licence fee.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

20 hours ago, Tuscan said:

Perhaps Defra has realised that the promised additional revenue to be generated by the partnerships and ‘friends’ has not materialised to replace the existing government funding for the canals let alone EA waters. 

Certainly Defra has been taking an interest in C&RT's finances during 2017. 

 

8 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

It is far from clear to me that CaRT were making a power bid. It felt much more that they were 'invited' to bid as part of a political move. Most likely, some politician felt that it would save money/reduce taxation and therefore must be 'a good thing'. Since they would not listen to expert advice (the next worst thing to heresy) the bid had to proceed just in order to spell out the implications. Now that they are on the table, the politicians have turned tail and run scared. What's more, we seem not to be trusted to know the real reasons why they have turned it down. I don't for one minute believe that it is because local users complained about CaRT's performance. Unless, of course, someone discovered that their marginal seat was at risk . . .  (and no, I'm not a cynic!)

I think EA/C&RT would like to give the impression that that they were responding to an invitation from Waterways Minister, Therese Coffey. That's why they have suggested that they have been working on this proposal for about 18 months. The fact is the collaboration started about two years ago, some six months before she was appointed.

 

 

[Scholar Gypsy]

2 hours ago, Marshian said:

Hi Old Goat.  I deliberately avoided offensive terms, and can see none in my posts - certainly not any suggestion that a contrary view to mine was 'rubbish'.  I simply pointed-out that the post I replied to had not dissuaded me from my stated opinion.  Clearly we don't agree that navigation authorities should simply provide waterways (and presumably the associated essential infrastructure).  Some 2000 odd miles of inland navigations without a water tap, pump-out or elsan disposal?    Surely not?

I will continue to cruise the Nene - it's my favourite cruising river.  Whilst doing so, I will continue to hold the opinion that the facilities provided by EA are rather poor, in relation to the licence fee.

I think it is difficult to compare facilities on canals (Lots of land owned by the nav authority) and rivets (almost none). The CRT moorings on the Witham are fairly sparse,  for example. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

I think it is difficult to compare facilities on canals (Lots of land owned by the nav authority) and rivets (almost none). The CRT moorings on the Witham are fairly sparse,  for example. 

Yes, it really is disappointing how few C&RT moorings are on the Witham, in 32 miles of River there are only 11 C&RT Visitor Moorings (each having multiple moorings, not just moorings for a total of 11 boats !!) Most are Floating pontoons with room for 4-6 boats.

From Lincoln

Washingborough

Fiskerton Fen

Bardney (electricity & water) (x6+ moorings)

Dunstan Fen

Southrey (x10 moorings)

Kirkstead Bridge (x6+ moorings)

Sleaford Road Bridge (x4 moorings)

Dogsdyke

Langrick Bridge

Antons Gowt

Boston

 

There are also several 'private' visitors moorings by pubs, etc.

Basically the visitors moorings are at (roughly) 1 hour cruising spacing.

 

And to think with such a shortage of amenities we still have to pay 60% of the licence fee - terrible !!!!!!

Edited January 27, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[NigelMoore]

4 hours ago, OldGoat said:

Not so, you and I may have a right to navigate - but it doesn't mean a free right and thus the byelaws have a scheme of charging you for being on their water.

But it does. The introduced registration charges are, as erivers has quoted, a later imposed modification of the free right to navigate, in consideration for the proposed improvements. Even so, the charges are not for the right to be on the water [which does not belong to any person or authority], as the EA formally recognised in a skeleton argument dated 18 July 2016 –

“The payment of the licence [sic] fee is a legal requirement under the Environment Agency’s (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 and does not confer a right to be on the River Thames, such right being derived from the non-tidal public right of navigation pursuant to s.79 Thames Conservancy Act 1932.”  [my bold]

[nbfiresprite]

10 hours ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

 I don't find them too bad, certainly easier to operate than many gates on the Grand Union. It's hard to see that CRT, rather than EA, would attach a higher priority to installing an electricity supply to the remaining six locks. For locks and gates dating from the 1930s I think they are in remarkably good condition!

The problem here is the sheer cost of installing a electricity supply  to the remaining six locks, all of which are in remote locations some distance from the nearest 240 voltage local electricity network. Costs would  included the routing of the powerline either underground or on poles ,erecting a pole mounted transformer and providing a single phase supply. You would also have to get the agreement from the landowner to run the line across thier land, which would included a ongoing cost of yearly fees payed to the landowner. A few years ago there was on the beeb a program (2012) called 'Power to the Pococks' which was on the subject of connecting a croft in Glen Affric (Highlands) to the grid, The four mile powerline was costed at over £60,000 to install.

Lets not forget that the EA has invested a great deal of money on the Nene in the last 15 years. In 2003 there were no lower lock landings on any of the locks, Only six or seven locks had a powered gate compared with now, where it is the other way round.

 

[Scholar Gypsy]

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes, it really is disappointing how few C&RT moorings are on the Witham, in 32 miles of River there are only 11 C&RT Visitor Moorings (each having multiple moorings, not just moorings for a total of 11 boats !!) Most are Floating pontoons with room for 4-6 boats.

From Lincoln

Washingborough

Fiskerton Fen

Bardney (electricity & water) (x6+ moorings)

Dunstan Fen

Southrey (x10 moorings)

Kirkstead Bridge (x6+ moorings)

Sleaford Road Bridge (x4 moorings)

Dogsdyke

Langrick Bridge

Antons Gowt

Boston

 

There are also several 'private' visitors moorings by pubs, etc.

Basically the visitors moorings are at (roughly) 1 hour cruising spacing.

 

And to think with such a shortage of amenities we still have to pay 60% of the licence fee - terrible !!!!!!

Thanks, that is indeed a good list, and I have used most of them. I think the point I was trying to make was a comparison between rivers and canals, not between crt and ea. I prefer to stop at wild moorings & couldn't find any on the Witham ...

[1st ade]

19 hours ago, Tanglewood said:

resisting neighbourhood plans that seek to protect the greenness of the canal corridor, as happened in Woughton  (Milton Keynes) neighbourhood plan

Thanks - didn't know this - I'm a Parish Councillor in Milton Keynes (NOT Woughton) - I'll do some digging as the canal goes through my patch as well.

[OldGoat]

12 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

But it does. The introduced registration charges are, as erivers has quoted, a later imposed modification of the free right to navigate, in consideration for the proposed improvements. Even so, the charges are not for the right to be on the water [which does not belong to any person or authority], as the EA formally recognised in a skeleton argument dated 18 July 2016 –

“The payment of the licence [sic] fee is a legal requirement under the Environment Agency’s (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 and does not confer a right to be on the River Thames, such right being derived from the non-tidal public right of navigation pursuant to s.79 Thames Conservancy Act 1932.”  [my bold]

I'm obliged, Nigel

In a clumsy way I was trying to explain to the complainant that the licence fee did not oblige the EA to provide rubbish facilities et al

[Alway Swilby]

On 27/01/2018 at 11:30, Midnight said:

Has there ever been any thoughts on the EA taking over from CaRT when the 10 year term finishes? Having experienced EA Navigations both up here in Yorkshire and on the Thames it's pretty obvious their standards are quite a lot higher than CaRT's.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I can't think of any EA navigations in Yorkshire except maybe the Derwent. 

[Mike Todd]

19 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

19 hours ago, erivers said:

Utter Rubbish.

The EA Anglian waters have a STATUTORY PUBLIC RIGHT OF NAVIGATION.  The fee is a Registration fee and although now prescribed under the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 was first introduced by the Water Resources Act 1963.  To quote the Authority at the time "The Boat Registration Byelaws were made with the support of local boating organisations who wished some control to be exercised in the interests of all concerned and who welcomed the payment of registration charges as being the only means available for providing a small revenue for the maintenance and improvement of the navigation facilities."

Be careful to distinguish between powers and duties. As I read your extract, EA have the power (ie they may) to spend money on improving facilities but they do not have a duty to do so, certainly not to any defined standard. (Improvement, as such, is an open-ended matter)

[Mike Todd]

12 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes, it really is disappointing how few C&RT moorings are on the Witham, in 32 miles of River there are only 11 C&RT Visitor Moorings (each having multiple moorings, not just moorings for a total of 11 boats !!) Most are Floating pontoons with room for 4-6 boats.

From Lincoln

Washingborough

Fiskerton Fen

Bardney (electricity & water) (x6+ moorings)

Dunstan Fen

Southrey (x10 moorings)

Kirkstead Bridge (x6+ moorings)

Sleaford Road Bridge (x4 moorings)

Dogsdyke

Langrick Bridge

Antons Gowt

Boston

 

There are also several 'private' visitors moorings by pubs, etc.

Basically the visitors moorings are at (roughly) 1 hour cruising spacing.

 

And to think with such a shortage of amenities we still have to pay 60% of the licence fee - terrible !!!!!!

I wonder if anyone has done a comparison with the frequency of designated moorings on the rivers, such as Witham, and canals. On most canals, the demand for moorings is significantly met by the ability to moor almost anywhere along the towpath edge. On rivers, it is often the case that only the designated moorings can be used. As a result, a boater's attention is much more focused on them. I suspect that it is possible to find some lengths of canal with fewer designated visitor moorings, with pontoons, access and posts etc, than on the Witham. 

The 'problem' is that when one can only moor at the designated moorings, it can be a long time to the next one at the end of a day - so one can be a lot more nervous than if the consequence of a target mooring being full is that you have to moor away from a bank and deploy a plank.

Would be interesting to see a proper comparison.

 

13 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

But it does. The introduced registration charges are, as erivers has quoted, a later imposed modification of the free right to navigate, in consideration for the proposed improvements. Even so, the charges are not for the right to be on the water [which does not belong to any person or authority], as the EA formally recognised in a skeleton argument dated 18 July 2016 –

“The payment of the licence [sic] fee is a legal requirement under the Environment Agency’s (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 and does not confer a right to be on the River Thames, such right being derived from the non-tidal public right of navigation pursuant to s.79 Thames Conservancy Act 1932.”  [my bold]

For once I think you are being over-precise. Of course, the payment of a registration fee is not the source of the right to navigate, but, for all practical purposes, it does enable access to that right. No payment, no access. As it now stands, as distinct from what it once was, is that the right to navigate is subject to registration and payment, it is not - in effect - an unencumbered right.

[Scholar Gypsy]

6 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I wonder if anyone has done a comparison with the frequency of designated moorings on the rivers, such as Witham, and canals. On most canals, the demand for moorings is significantly met by the ability to moor almost anywhere along the towpath edge. On rivers, it is often the case that only the designated moorings can be used. As a result, a boater's attention is much more focused on them. I suspect that it is possible to find some lengths of canal with fewer designated visitor moorings, with pontoons, access and posts etc, than on the Witham. 

The 'problem' is that when one can only moor at the designated moorings, it can be a long time to the next one at the end of a day - so one can be a lot more nervous than if the consequence of a target mooring being full is that you have to moor away from a bank and deploy a plank.

Would be interesting to see a proper comparison.

 

Thank you  - that was the point I was, somewhat inelegantly, trying to make.

[Marshian]

Taking on-board (not literally!) previous points, I believe I was aware, in a general sense, that navigation authorities have a power, not a duty, to provide facilities, as Mike says above.  I'm also aware that canals and rivers have different issues when it comes to that provision, as Scholar Gypsy points-out.  As such, it's probably not appropriate to compare the Nene directly with the canals.

A more like-for-like comparison would be between the Nene and Gt Ouse rivers, which are both covered by the same licence.  I find that facilities beyond Denver Sluice are rather better than those on the Nene (there's even an elsan disposal at Ely!).  I think it's unfortunate that facilities on the Nene aren't more proportionate to those on the Gt Ouse.  Going back to the OP, I had hoped that a CaRT takeover might improve the situation.

As it is, as the year progresses, I can start to anticipate the coming cruising season, looking forward to exchanging the clear blue skies of Fuerteventura for those of a summer on the waterways.  Well, in my imagination, anyway.  I plan to cruise canals in the NW this year, so don't know when I'll be back on the Nene.  But I will be...

[Scholar Gypsy]

All good points.

Much of the debate on the Ouse - and I think  the main reason why GOBA, the main boating group, supported transfer to CRT  -   is over shoaling, dredging,  and people damaging outdrives by running aground.  The hundred foot is also getting quite shallow...

Whether transfer to CRT would improve the situation is not clear to me ....