mooring stoppages on Gloucester Sharpness

[rnb canal art]

Have just heard that BW are bringing in new restrictions to moorings at Saul Junction from 1st May. The junction service area will be mooring for only 6 hours. Visitor mooring at Sandfield and in the juntion basin 48hrs. All other visitor mooring from Frethern to way beyond the welcome to Saul juntion sign, which is a good 15min walk will be 7 days. We have to ask the question why???? The offical reason is that there are too many over stayers but when you keep asking the question you find out that the main problem is south of Frethern. Is this legal? Apparently all boaters were suppose to have received a consulatation letter and only 12 replied, well we have only met one person so far who has even seen a letter and he is with CCT. We didnt see anything in the Towpath or WW. So if this was only sent to moorers on the Glos Sharpness then the discussion is imaterial. This canal is a ship canal can anyone help with the legal position of restriction on such a long stretch of towpath mooring when the legal postion is and has been anyone is free to moor on the towpath for 14 days in any parish. They must then move to the next parish and no return for 21 days. BW tried to change this but were legally challanged and set the following in place. 14 days then move 2 bridges and not to return for 21 days. This could not be changed last time so why is this time different? does anyone know?

[mayalld]

Have just heard that BW are bringing in new restrictions to moorings at Saul Junction from 1st May. The junction service area will be mooring for only 6 hours. Visitor mooring at Sandfield and in the juntion basin 48hrs. All other visitor mooring from Frethern to way beyond the welcome to Saul juntion sign, which is a good 15min walk will be 7 days. We have to ask the question why???? The offical reason is that there are too many over stayers but when you keep asking the question you find out that the main problem is south of Frethern. Is this legal? Apparently all boaters were suppose to have received a consulatation letter and only 12 replied, well we have only met one person so far who has even seen a letter and he is with CCT. We didnt see anything in the Towpath or WW. So if this was only sent to moorers on the Glos Sharpness then the discussion is imaterial. This canal is a ship canal can anyone help with the legal position of restriction on such a long stretch of towpath mooring when the legal postion is and has been anyone is free to moor on the towpath for 14 days in any parish. They must then move to the next parish and no return for 21 days. BW tried to change this but were legally challanged and set the following in place. 14 days then move 2 bridges and not to return for 21 days. This could not be changed last time so why is this time different? does anyone know?

 

Yes it is legal.

 

All restrictions on mooring are implemented using powers under s43 Transport Act.

[Chris Pink]

No there are no legal powers to restrict mooring except where it's a hazard to navigation or a service is provided.

[Dorlan]

<snip>This canal is a ship canal can anyone help with the legal position of restriction on such a long stretch of towpath mooring when the legal postion is and has been anyone is free to moor on the towpath for 14 days in any parish.

This hasn't always been the case on the G&S!

When we first boated on the canal in about 1980, mooring was only allowed at a small number of recognised sites because of the commercial traffic.

The arm leading to the old entrance at Sharpness, by Patch Bridge, a small layby near Splatt Bridge, Saul Junction and the towpath from Sellars Bridge to opposite the oil wharf are the sites where I remember we moored.

[Chris Pink]

It is also possible to challenge the consultation if it wasn't carried out within the government guidelines for accessibilty and time limits. BW are pulled up time after time for abusing this system.

 

PM me for more information and access to resources.

[mayalld]

No there are no legal powers to restrict mooring except where it's a hazard to navigation or a service is provided.

 

And the section that allows them to restrict mooring where a service is provided goes on to say the use of an inland waterway is a service.

 

In consequence, they can impose restrictions as they see fit.

[Chris Pink]

The lime green boat argument has long since shown your assertion to be spurious.

 

Even Sally Ash in her more fanciful moments hasn't followed you down your paths of fantasy.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Chris Pink

[rnb canal art]

And the section that allows them to restrict mooring where a service is provided goes on to say the use of an inland waterway is a service.

 

In consequence, they can impose restrictions as they see fit.

 

 

yes but surely we pay for that service with our licence and mooring fees, not to have that service restricted at every turn which is what seems to coninuosly happen on the G & S

[Chris Pink]

And the section that allows them to restrict mooring where a service is provided goes on to say the use of an inland waterway is a service.

 

 

There is no such statement in any of the acts to enable BW "to restrict mooring where a service is provided"

 

yes but surely we pay for that service with our licence and mooring fees, not to have that service restricted at every turn which is what seems to coninuosly happen on the G & S

 

Exactly so

[matty40s]

Have just heard that BW are bringing in new restrictions to moorings at Saul Junction from 1st May. The junction service area will be mooring for only 6 hours. Visitor mooring at Sandfield and in the juntion basin 48hrs. All other visitor mooring from Frethern to way beyond the welcome to Saul juntion sign, which is a good 15min walk will be 7 days. We have to ask the question why???? The offical reason is that there are too many over stayers but when you keep asking the question you find out that the main problem is south of Frethern. Is this legal? Apparently all boaters were suppose to have received a consulatation letter and only 12 replied, well we have only met one person so far who has even seen a letter and he is with CCT. We didnt see anything in the Towpath or WW. So if this was only sent to moorers on the Glos Sharpness then the discussion is imaterial. This canal is a ship canal can anyone help with the legal position of restriction on such a long stretch of towpath mooring when the legal postion is and has been anyone is free to moor on the towpath for 14 days in any parish. They must then move to the next parish and no return for 21 days. BW tried to change this but were legally challanged and set the following in place. 14 days then move 2 bridges and not to return for 21 days. This could not be changed last time so why is this time different? does anyone know?

 

BW tried to sneak a very similar thing to this through in London on the Lee&Stort Navigations last year.

It failed as the consultation period was not correct, no research had been done to back up the new policy guidelines, and NO users (bar a couple of shinyboat50 weeks a year in a marinaIWA members) actually wanted these proposals to be put in place.

It took a lot of groundwork and many different organisations and users were canvassed and indeed informed (as BW hadn't bothered) and eventually the proposals were withdrawn.

Oh, and they were not legal either as they were deemed to be permanent, the Transport Act can only be used on a short term basis to cover short term issues, and then the normal 14 day stipulation returns.

[mayalld]

There is no such statement in any of the acts to enable BW "to restrict mooring where a service is provided"

 

Allow me to remind you;

 

 

Transport Act 1962

 

43 (3) Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority shall have power to demand, take and recover or waive such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

 

 

43 (8) The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat.

 

Oh, and they were not legal either as they were deemed to be permanent, the Transport Act can only be used on a short term basis to cover short term issues, and then the normal 14 day stipulation returns.

 

That argument doesn't hold water.

 

By what authority is the "normal 14 day stipulation" imposed?

 

By the self same section of the 1962 Act that you contend can only impose temporary limits.

 

yes but surely we pay for that service with our licence and mooring fees, not to have that service restricted at every turn which is what seems to coninuosly happen on the G & S

 

Yes, you pay for it through your licence.

 

That doesn't mean that they can't regulate it.

[Rick-n-Jo]

We have Never had a problem mooring, either between Sandfield and Fretherne, or north of Junction Bridge, or even in the basin itself. We can always find a space (for a 70 footer to boot). So what is the problem that this is supposed to be solving? I don't know, as I wasn't consulted either, despite having a permanent mooring at the Junction.

 

The G+S is very highly "supervised" in that bridge keepers note who is moored where on a daily basis, record every boat movement through the bridges, and enforcement bods patrol by boat and on foot. They even do a monthly check on every boat, not just visitors but those on their home mooring as well, even walking around Saul Marina. With all this Big Brother surveillance they should be easily able to deal with any over stayers or CMers without imposing these restrictions on the rest of us law abiding users.

 

Rick

Edited April 24, 2012 by Rick-n-Jo

[matty40s]

1st up, you need to challenge BW on its consultation process. It is not a charity yet so should allow the full 12 weeks, and make sure that all parties and user groups are informed.

In london, they tried to sneak it at 6 weeks, then reverted to 12, then added another 4 weeks as they had not managed to get any support for their side and tried to wangle some.

 

Do your own research, speak to anglers (difficult in the off season - was the same in London), cruising clubs, rowers, canoeists, walkers, enviromental groups etc. None of these will want to see excessive boat movements - something that will occur if the new proposals are put into place.

Come up with something that does not just refute the new proposals, but something that states you will work with BW/CaRT to lessen any boaters impact, and improve the situation/facilities as a partnership.

..and yes, look at what is happening in London, perhaps this Big Society can work with the right mindset. (just takes BW a while to get there).

[rnb canal art]

Allow me to remind you;

 

the 14 day stipulation on the G & S comes from the refusal of parishes to allow residential mooring long before the transport act. Boaters were allowe to stay in any parish for 14 days then move. In the case of the G & S this could be to the other side of the canal as in some places, according to any ordance survey map the parish line is along the centre of the canal. This happens at Saul Junction where you have Saul on one side and Frethern/Frampton on the other.

 

back to the reasoning why, we have never had a problem either with mooring and do wish we were not all put in the same bucket as overstayers. The answer we were given was this proposal will be easier to police but how can it all boater will do is move to the pherpials. Its just like putting double yellow lines to stop parking. It does not stop it just moves the probem

 

 

 

That argument doesn't hold water.

 

By what authority is the "normal 14 day stipulation" imposed?

 

By the self same section of the 1962 Act that you contend can only impose temporary limits.

 

 

 

Yes, you pay for it through your licence.

 

That doesn't mean that they can't regulate it.

[matty40s]

you are quite right, he drives most people to a speechless state....

[Grace and Favour]

you are quite right, he drives most people to a speechless state....

 

Doc Martin may not win this week's light entertainment prize - - - but it's good to have a sensible and reliable opinion sometimes, not just some of the 'gung-ho' puff that sometimes appears from posters

 

 

 

[The.boat.man]

I've just been forwarded this link. I live on the g+s and haven't heard of this before. I have even spoken to Mr England this week and he hasn't said anything about it. Where has this information come from so that I can chalange Bw on it tomorow.

 

Thanks. J

[rnb canal art]

I've just been forwarded this link. I live on the g+s and haven't heard of this before. I have even spoken to Mr England this week and he hasn't said anything about it. Where has this information come from so that I can chalange Bw on it tomorow.

 

Thanks. J

 

 

We were given the info from another boater and it was confirmed by Clive Field at the Hertiage Centre who is going to ignore the new ruling because he stays at the centre over a weekend which is longer than 48hrs. While on our boat later Steve England walk by and we asked him to confirm the restrictions would be put in place on 1st May and he confirmed they would be putting up the notices. If enough people have complained and you have seen Steve England since we did around Easter then maybe they have had to back track again as this is outside of the parish 14day rule.

[bottle]

There's more.

 

The Sainsburys (Gloucester) mooring is 4 hours (nothing new there) but the concrete wall just south of there is also now 4 hours.

 

According to the patrol officer signs were put up but disappeared, at the moment enforcement is not being carried out until new concrete posts and signs are in.