British Waterways consultation on developing local mooring strategies 2009

RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE

Please use this form to submit your response before 11 January 2010. To do this electronically, please download the form which is available at www.britishwaterways.co.uk/mooringconsultation09 and email it to consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk. 

Paper copies should be posted  to:

The  Consultation Team, British Waterways, 64 Clarendon Road, Watford WD17 1DA

If you have any questions about the consultation, please contact us:

E:            consultationquestions@britishwaterways.co.uk           T: 01923 201120                 F: 01923 201300

 

Your name and contact details

Please provide email or postal address, depending on how you would prefer to be contacted.   Note, we will not be able to acknowledge individual contributions, but will contact you with a copy of the final report when available.   Exceptionally, we may contact you if we need to clarify any aspect of your feedback. Unless you specify otherwise, we may quote, but not attribute, your views

chairman@rboa.org.uk

In what capacity are you responding to this consultation? (please tick all that apply)

/ As a representative of a company, organisation or local authority (please state which and include your position within the organisation) ____Chairman RBOA__________________

 Residential boater

 

QUESTIONS

Mooring strategy steering group membership and chairing

1.     Is the scope of the consultation clear? Would you include anything else in its scope?

Scope is clear –  the mechanics of establishing an effective local strategy steering group.

 

2.     What qualifications and skills should members of the steering group have?

No requirement for formal academic qualifications. Skills need to include ability to express views coherently and objectively and to listen with understanding. Experience of working on/in a committee desirable but not essential.

 

3.     Is the principle of a locally-led steering group comprising all relevant and interested parties, preparing a mooring strategy agreeable? If not what other method would you use to do this?

Principal is fine but great care needs to be taken to establish a fair balance. If proposals put forward by the steering group are to be the result of a vote within that committee, as currently envisaged, the representation of boaters in general and residential boaters in particular will be very heavily outweighed by non boating representation. The perception, if not the reality, is/will be, that the objectives are fundamentally anti boater and pro the shore based community. And that no matter how passionate, eloquent or well reasoned the arguments of the boaters representatives they will always be out voted.

 

4.     Do you think the list potential group members is appropriate? If not, what changes would you suggest?

Yes, subject to 3 above.

 

5.     Are you comfortable with our proposal that where possible the group should be chaired by the local canal society/trust or a local representative from either the IWA or other national boating organisation?   If not, who would you suggest?

Yes but much depends on the abilities, personal prejudices  and experience of the individual. This role needs a diplomat who is prepared to listen and balance all views without imposing their own.

 

6.     Do you think that a national nomnations panel would be a sensible approach for ensuring chairing and membership of the groups is appropriate?

Yes, subject to the balance of interests represented by the panel

 

7.     How many members should the nominations panel have and which established national bodies should be included?

  6  IWAC, BWAF,  IWA, RBOA, APCO, Anglers Trust

 

8.     What would be an appropriate mechanism for appointing unaffiliated individuals to the group? Should there be a maximum number?

The Steering Group should decide if it has significant gaps in its representation/experience/knowledge and appoint as appropriate. There needs to be protection against “packing” to ensure a given viewpoint (prejudice) is not ensured a dominant presence.

9.     If you reject the options we have outlined, what alternative would you prefer?

Steering group tasks

10.   Are you content with the role outlined for BW in the proposals? (see e.g. paras 4.5, 4.10, 4.14)

Broadly, yes.

 

11.   Would you prefer it if the draft strategy was also reviewed by another party before public consultation? If so, who?

No

 

12.   Do you agree with the method of arbitration in para 4.15? If not how would you resolve disagreements between BW and the steering group?

Yes, which is why membership of the nominations panel has to be wider than proposed

 

Timescale

13.   Are any of the stages too short/too long? Which ones?

Local Public Consultation in July/ August is likely to be difficult due to holidays of group members and local consul tees, probably needs final two stages to be End October and November.

 

14.   Are any stages missing? If so, which ones?

No

Any other comment?

The RBOA consider this to be a worthwhile experiment and are therefore very happy to play a full and constructive part in the process and proceedings. However the Residential Boat Owners’ Association make it clear that whilst we will participate fully in this process and agree that this is not the forum to discuss BW’s interpretation of  the 1995 Waterways Act our participation does not mean and should not be interpreted as our acceptance of or agreement or disagreement to or with any or all of the various interpretations of the Act by the BW Board or any or all of it’s officers.

Rex Walden

Chairman

Residential Boat Owners’ Association January 2010