Jump to content

CRT Council Boaters Reps Meeting


StarUKKiwi

Featured Posts

7 minutes ago, StarUKKiwi said:

Peter Birch came in to talk about offside vegetation - reiterated the need for our help in reporting areas - there is a backlog of offside vegetation cutback, but they are committed to doing 200km per annum to catch up.

Am I misunderstanding ?

 

C&RT are committing to achieving 200Km per annum - the network for which they are responsible is 2000 miles (3200Km) so they are working on a 16 year cycle of cutting.

 

The offside can get pretty 'wild' in 16 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

200 km extra of the backlog, apologies, I was a bit tired writing it. It's extra to normal if that makes sense. I have sent these notes round to the other reps who were there, hopefully they will clarify it for me. Tbh, I was a bit tired and note taking was sketchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, StarUKKiwi said:

200 km extra of the backlog, apologies, I was a bit tired writing it. It's extra to normal if that makes sense. I have sent these notes round to the other reps who were there, hopefully they will clarify it for me. Tbh, I was a bit tired and note taking was sketchy.

Many thanks - your efforts are appreciated.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, StarUKKiwi said:


Limehouse Basin - proposal from BWML to put extra pontoons to charge bookable spaces in at the Tidal Lock landings, this is where boats moor awaiting to go onto the Thames - not before the Planning Committee yet - sill keep you updated - asked CRT to look at this as the Landowner.

 

Thanks for the information

I thought the council had rejected the Limehouse basin proposal, is it being resurrected, slightly modified for a second go?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Detling said:

Thanks for the information

I thought the council had rejected the Limehouse basin proposal, is it being resurrected, slightly modified for a second go?

 

Unfortunately bit, the planning officer in charge recommended rejection but was overruled by superiors. Because of the volume of objections it will now be going to the full planning committee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur with the above posts. Someone with their own dilemmas to deal with, should know that their effort in keeping us informed is appreciated, even by those who you don't know, and probably never will. So thanks for the update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tim Lewis said:

Unfortunately bit, the planning officer in charge recommended rejection but was overruled by superiors. Because of the volume of objections it will now be going to the full planning committee

Thanks Tim, hopefully, we can help nearer the time with objections.

Thanks everyone, I really want everyone to know that I do try  to keep.you all informed.unfortunately Andy couldnt be there, so this was more important. 

I.hope it at least helps you understand that CRT really do get that bpaters are central.and that they really need us to help them. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your detailed report, especially under the circumstances of your health.

 

I imagine you must get quite frustrated listening to weasel'ly words that in one breath say that they are striding on with the backlog of vegetation cutback to the point that some of that budget has been allocated to the dredging team so they can do some while they're busy at their core duties.  Only to then hear that the dredging schedule may be severely cut back.

 

If those two contradictory comments came from the same person then everybody's intelligence is being insulted.  

If they came from two different people then it's concrete proof of internal communication being nonsense.

Whichever applies, The Chairperson of that meeting should have picked up on it before its release or at the very latest at the time of discussion and placed an action for the situation to be clarified.

 

Bunch of muppets!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, StarUKKiwi said:

I.hope it at least helps you understand that CRT really do get that bpaters are central.and that they really need us to help them. 

I realise it was a typo on your part but O' so apt

 

Bpaters is a trip review site (Trip Advisor) and obviously with C&RT wanting so many visitors and the feeling of well being it is understandable that they are central to C&RTs thinking.

 

Boaters on the other hand, seem to be way down C&RTs list.

 

https://en.tripadvisor.com.hk/members/BPATERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Wonder how that will be policed ?

Maybe they will install a chicane 8 feet wide on 'narrow-canals' ?

I dont see a problem in issuing licences that cover certain areas. At present we have rivers only licences which is easy enough. When a licence comes up for renewal and the beam of the boat is known and listed as over 7 feet wide its simple enough to have a list of waterways published applicable to those size boats. So for instance not to be used on small canals like the GU and K and  A but licenced for the large northern network where they fit in no problem. It would be easy enough to compile a list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I dont see a problem in issuing licences that cover certain areas. At present we have rivers only licences which is easy enough. When a licence comes up for renewal and the beam of the boat is known and listed as over 7 feet wide its simple enough to have a list of waterways published applicable to those size boats. So for instance not to be used on small canals like the GU and K and  A but licenced for the large northern network where they fit in no problem. It would be easy enough to compile a list.

But the barrack-room lawyers (NBTA in particular) will jump on the fact there is no legal backing for such a restricted licence - but there is for a Rivers Only registration.

 

Back to the question - how will it be enforced / monitored ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But the barrack-room lawyers (NBTA in particular) will jump on the fact there is no legal backing for such a restricted licence - but there is for a Rivers Only registration.

 

Back to the question - how will it be enforced / monitored ?

If they just put it in their Ts and Cs maybe? They seem to manipulate those on occasion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But the barrack-room lawyers (NBTA in particular) will jump on the fact there is no legal backing for such a restricted licence - but there is for a Rivers Only registration.

 

Back to the question - how will it be enforced / monitored ?

Assuming this is to stop widebeams using narrow canals, then I don’t think it will be too hard to enforce.  There can not be too many places that go from a wide canal to a narrow canal where there is not already a width restriction, like a lock or gauging narrows, already there.  The North Oxford at Braunston is the obvious one with no restrictions where you can get a good distance in a widebeam with no physical restriction.   Puttinga post on the offside into the canal bed at the first bridge to restrict width at those places would do it.

Edited by john6767
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, john6767 said:

Assuming this is to stop widebeams using narrow canals, then I don’t think it will be too hard to enforce.

I am wondering about the criteria they will be using - it is of course possible that a canal with 'wide' locks' may not in itself be suitable for widebeam boats.

 

The criteria could be any permutation :

 

Must a 'wide beam' canal allow :

2x 12 foot beam boats must be able to pass,

1x 12 foot and 1x 10 foot, 1x 12 foot and 1x 7foot …………………….

 

Will the definition of a 'narrow canal' be based on the legal definition of a NB (ie “narrow canal boat” means a vessel having a beam of less than seven feet six inches" )

In which case will it be defined as 2x NB must be able to pass, 1x NB and 1x 9 foot  or   ………………….

 

A minefield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, john6767 said:

Assuming this is to stop widebeams using narrow canals, then I don’t think it will be too hard to enforce.  There can not be too many places that go from a wide canal to a narrow canal where there is not already a width restriction, like a lock or gauging narrows, already there.  The North Oxford at Braunston is the obvious one with no restrictions where you can get a good distance in a widebeam with no physical restriction.   Puttinga post on the offside into the canal bed at the first bridge to restrict width at those places would do it.

As CRT have accepted the presence of wide-beams in some marinas on the Northern Oxford, I really can't see them now taking measures that stop them leaving it.

I think it has already gone to far for a quick fix like putting in a constriction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alan_fincher said:

As CRT have accepted the presence of wide-beams in some marinas on the Northern Oxford, I really can't see them now taking measures that stop them leaving it.

I think it has already gone to far for a quick fix like putting in a constriction.

That could be the case, so they would therefore need to change the designation of that section to be a wide canal, whatever that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, matty40s said:

Wide Beam Boats - canal width designation will be available in September 

 

Sounds interesting......

 

 

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Wonder how that will be policed ?

Maybe they will install a chicane 8 feet wide on 'narrow-canals' ?

 

Width restricter posts embedded in the canal bed on the North Oxford at Braunston? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.