Public consultation on mooring policy 2009

RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE

Balancing demand with capacity (page 5-6

1.     Do you share our view that developing better policies and management of moorings along the line of the waterway is a pressing challenge resulting from continued growth in boating on BW waters? 

We believe consistent application and enforcement of the existing suite of rules with regard to mooring would be a sensible starting point. These rules have never been consistently applied across the network and so have been disregarded by many boaters.  A 24 month trial, applying the existing rules, nationally  would prove, or disprove , whether a new regime needs to be developed. As it stands there is no evidence because there has been virtually no enforcement.

 

Legal framework (Page 6 and Appendix 2)

2.     How familiar were you with BW’s legal framework before reading this document?    Did you find the explanations helpful? 

We were familiar with the legal framework. The explanations are fine. It is a pity, however, that you do not acknowledge  that you have not had a policy of enforcing these rules across the network. When challenged about this the answer from your head office and regional managers has always been “there is no revenue in enforcing mooring rules it represents cost with no return”

 

3.     Do you have any suggestions for an objectively measurable threshold for congestion which could form part of our assessments of new marina applications?

Your own figures show that just over a half of one percent of boats in a typical marina move on to the cut during a peak holiday weekend. This is exactly our experience. Congestion tends to be at locks and “pinch points”  within 24  to 36 hours cruising time of  hire fleet bases, primarily caused by returning boats. The outward congestion tends to be much closer to the hire fleet base. Otherwise cruising clubs travelling in convoy, who take their own traffic jam with them, can cause congestion!

It is not the number of moorings in any one area that is the primary issue, it is the nature of the vessels moored there. Your concern should be the percentage of the total at any location that are  boats for hire and shared ownership as these are the most intensively used and typically leave and return on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

How to measure congestion? I assume this means “how long is an acceptable wait”   It should be perfectly acceptable to wait an hour before locking – which would probably equate on single locks to a queue of 4 boats ie yours is the 5^th.

 

Supplementary routes to achieving fairness in use of scarce mooring space (page 7)

4.     Do you support our aspiration that all boaters should share the job of protecting the amenity of the waterways? 

Meaningless question. Every citizen has joint and several responsibilities for all public open space and nationally owned assets and should respect and protect them to the best of their ability in all circumstances.

 

5.     Do you agree that offsetting permit fees for overstaying at popular short term moorings, subject to reasonable arrangements and detail, is a fair way of rationing scarce space? 

As a general principal; no. Only in very specific circumstances as in, for example, Llangollen. In very many cases simply  ensuring boats can  navigate to the side of the canal and moor would have a significant impact on “honey pot” congestion. Llangollen marks the end of a canal, as well as being a popular destination in it’s own right which brings a particular problem. However there are many instances where neglect of the canal bank and lack of dredging mean that there is virtually no possibility of mooring for many miles between sites. For example between Alrewas and Fradley on the Trent and Mersey and much of the Kennet and Avon.

 

Statement of principles underlying BW’s boating policies (page 7)

6.     Do you disagree with any of these principles?  Why?   What principles would you add?

No and none.

 

Local moorings strategies (page 8-9)

7.     Do you agree that this is (a) the most sensible and (b) a feasible approach to achieving a fair balance between competing demands on scarce mooring space?  If not what approach would you propose?

As stated in  5 ensuring there is a reasonable percentage of towpath/canal bank available for casual mooring will alleviate many of the problems. This does not mean the provision of rings, bollards or upgrading towpaths. Merely making it possible to get a vessel to the bank so the boater can step ashore and put in mooring pins.

 

8.     Do you have suggestions for improving the proposed approach to creating local strategies?

It is essential to ensure that there is local boater involvement. It is very easy to make very wrong assumptions based on the view just passing through, from a boat or the towpath, detailed experience of mooring and transiting the location at varying time of the year is essential.

 

9.     What criteria would you suggest for determining whether a particular area of the waterways should have a local mooring strategy?

Very difficult to answer because “problems” are very subjective. The local user group forums could be asked to identify  sites that  should have a local mooring strategy.

 

10.   Do you have any comments on BW’s standard for moorings suitable for boaters with mobility difficulties?

 

 

Zoning short term moorings in areas of high demand (pages 10-11)

11.   First, leaving aside the detail in this section, do you accept this in general as a valid approach to managing use of scarce mooring space?  

Zoning yes, charging no.  In many places ensuring, as previously stated, a larger percentage of towpath is suitable for mooring – i.e. the boater can get their vessel alongside and can put pins in would have a dramatic impact on this problem.

 

12.   What comments do you have on the principles listed?

Save repeating that in most, not all, locations if this level of effort were applied to the existing rules and more towpath was accessible for casual mooring  the “problem” would be dealt with.

 

13.   How would you improve on the proposed compliance arrangements?

 

Controlling expansion and reducing online moorings (page 12)

14.   Are you comfortable with this policy?  If not, why not?

In general yes, the difficulty is the way in which it  (3.27) is applied. To date this has not always been carried out sensitively in particular where the moorings have been used by residential craft.

 

15.   What is your view of the suggested level of daily charge?

The typical charge for casual mooring on farmers’ fields on rivers is £5 per night.  £10 is too high.

 

16.   How important do you think it is that permits should be displayable (even if it costs more)?

This policy is going to be divisive and create argument and tensions. It is essential that visible permits are displayed.

 

 

 

General comments on moorings along the line of the waterway

17.   If you do not agree with much of the thrust of our proposals, but you accept that there are problems to be solved, what alternative approach would you recommend?  Please try to confine your suggestions to policies that are practical and legal!

BW have never, never, enforced the existing rules in a consistent uniform way. Endless user group meetings have heard endless enforcement officers and regional managers say “there is no money in moorings enforcement” Others have said, in addition, “enforcement causes to much conflict”.  As repeated throughout this response in many, many locations the mere fact of increasing the percentage of towpath available for casual mooring between the honey pot sites would have a significant impact on this situation. This does not mean rings, bollards hard edge. It does mean sufficient depth to navigate to the bank and sufficient substance to hold pins.

 

Residential Moorings Policy

Context (page 13)   

18.   Do you support our position about boating on our network (paras R1.1 to R1.3)?

 

Yes

 

19.   Do you agree with the context that we describe in paras R1.4 to R1.10 and R1.11 to R1.17?  If not, give your own observations of the issues.

Yes

20.   What are your views on unauthorised residency i.e. people living on their boat at a long-term leisure mooring without planning permission.  Refer to R1.17.  Please explain your views rather than simply answer ‘support / object’.

The RBOA believes this is in the main a “non” issue. As your notes say for most LPA’s the “illegal” use of a mooring for residential use is of no concern to them. Indeed we know of many instances where boaters on moorings being used residentially have asked the LA if they can pay community charge; some have accepted some declined, but have taken no action against the “illegal” use. The issue in 95% of cases is where householders have complained because of some transgression, smoky fires, washing lines, noisy engines or generators, parked cars and or vans. In the vast majority of cases once the problem is dealt with the LA, and the local community are happy with the status quo.

Great care needs to be taken as we, the RBOA and BW, are aware of complaints whose basis is not some transgression or nuisance but the fact of people “living in boats”.  This is the basis of a number of complaints and is becoming, the RBOA believe, more common.

 

 

Policy (page 15)   

21.   Do you support our general position in R2.1? 

Yes

22.   Do you agree with the four factors for assessing residential mooring proposals in R2.2?  Should we consider other factors? 

Yes, save that we believe if the site is suitable for a leisure mooring as in R2.2.6  it should  be equally suitable for residential use given the imposition of  specific site conditions/rules.

23.   Do you agree with points R2.4 to R2.7 and have other comments?

Fully agree with no additional comments.

24.   Given the statement in para R2.8, do you agree with our position in relation to unauthorised residential use of long-term leisure moorings in paras R2.8 to R2.10? 

Yes, but the RBOA do not agree that there are any circumstances where BW would be justified in initiating this process other than in response to a specific  request from the LPA.

 

25.   Do you have any comments or suggestions on communicating to customers in para R2.10?

 Very great care needs to be taken. We know of numerous instances where letters/written communications have been misunderstood by boaters (not specifically communication from BW) and have been read as threats of iminant homlesness when they were merely formal requests for information. Many, possibly the majority, of residential boaters are aware that there are questions about the legality of their status. They feel very vulnerable, some are undoubtedly exploited by their moorings operators (emphatically not BW) because there is no protection in law for residential boaters in the way in which it exists for tenants in bricks and mortar under the Landlord and tenant Act.

 

Implementation (page 16) 

26.   This section sets out how we will turn the policy (the previous section) into action.  Please comment on any point and add further comments about what you think we should be do

The RBOA are grateful for the level of involvement we have been allowed in the development of the residential boating policy. Our only suggestion and request is that this level of involvement is allowed to continue and develop, we are particularly keen to be involved where there are specific cases. We recognise the limitations because of data protection laws but suggest we can develop a strategy which would allow the RBOA to be a party and thus able to have direct involvement.

 

Rex Walden

For an on behalf of the RBOA