Visitor Moorings

[Ray]

Having collated a number of the responses to the recent consultation document on SE mooring restrictions for CRT I have become puzzled by what seems to be a view that people will only moor on VMs. To my mind there is plenty of space adjacent to a number of the VMs mentioned in the proposals so why the need to worry generally about VM moorings?

 

What is it specifically about visitor moorings that seems to give people the impression that they may be the only place to moor?

 

Is it that necessary for people to have to moor that close to a bridge or exit from the towpath onto a road? In fact how many people routinely moor overnight (or for slightly longer) and only use VMs? What is the difference between mooring to one side or the other of a notice welcoming boaters to a specific VM assuming the bank is in a similar condition in both places?

 

I recognise that there may be an issue for some deep drafted boats and that in the olden days where towpath condition wasn't generally as good as it tends to be currently VMs enabled you to get closer to the bank.

 

Have we really got to the point now where people won;t walk even a hundred yards to the nearest bridge/pub?

 

It isn't a criticism, just a puzzled general query and totally isolated from the consultation so please, no comments at that.

[Chris Pink]

Are you allowed to leak a (biased) view of the consultation before the results are fully collated?

 

From your post I am guessing that you are both ignorant of the areas involved and unaware of the comments of people who regularly cruise these waters.

[cotswoldsman]

Yes it is amazing. At the Skipton meeting it was suggested that VM signs should be put up in some areas to encourage boaters to stop in some towns as it was recognised that some boaters will only stop at VM's.

[ChimneyChain]

So there:

[alan_fincher]

Are you allowed to leak a (biased) view of the consultation before the results are fully collated?

A strange fact is that actually the collators have been passed stacks of responses, including names and contact details where they have been supplied, but no instruction has been given to the volunteer collators about confidentiality, or not disclosing either individual answers, or a general view of what the trend was in a particular batch.

 

I actually think CRT have been very lax on this point - surely the collators should have had to agree to some kind of confidentiality arrangement, before being handed a stack of responses?

 

There are even anecdotal stories of other collators actually showing third parties individual boater responses, although I have not heard the firm evidence of this.

 

So the answer to your question is probably any collator could leak what they choose to - and probably can't be touched for it. Whether they morally should, of course, is another matter.

 

(My reply is in the public domain, so for me personally I don't care.)

[nicknorman]

Having collated a number of the responses to the recent consultation document on SE mooring restrictions for CRT I have become puzzled by what seems to be a view that people will only moor on VMs. To my mind there is plenty of space adjacent to a number of the VMs mentioned in the proposals so why the need to worry generally about VM moorings?

 

What is it specifically about visitor moorings that seems to give people the impression that they may be the only place to moor?

 

Is it that necessary for people to have to moor that close to a bridge or exit from the towpath onto a road? In fact how many people routinely moor overnight (or for slightly longer) and only use VMs? What is the difference between mooring to one side or the other of a notice welcoming boaters to a specific VM assuming the bank is in a similar condition in both places?

 

I recognise that there may be an issue for some deep drafted boats and that in the olden days where towpath condition wasn't generally as good as it tends to be currently VMs enabled you to get closer to the bank.

 

Have we really got to the point now where people won;t walk even a hundred yards to the nearest bridge/pub?

 

It isn't a criticism, just a puzzled general query and totally isolated from the consultation so please, no comments at that.

 

The local VM we use most is Fradley. If they are full, there is little else. Down T&M past the locks there is no piling and its shallow, Up T&M past shade house lock there is a line of indeterminate moorings (always full) and then its pretty shallow. Down the Coventry, the piling extends beyond the VMs a it, but they are effectively VMs in all but name. Then it's shallow and unpiled. So if we fancy a pint in the Swan and the VMs are full, there is not much alternative within a mile or so.

 

By contrast there are loads of mooring opportunities at Fazeley Jn, some VM some not. So I think it's the "honeypot" sites such as Fradley, Braunston, Stoke Bruerne etc that have limited mooring options outside the VMs, and a shortage of moorings generally, that need to have the VM status with restricted stopping time.

[Chris Pink]

Buy yourself a gangplank Nick.

 

A strange fact is that actually the collators have been passed stacks of responses, including names and contact details where they have been supplied

 

Is this not an offence against the Data Protection Act?

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

 

Is this not an offence against the Data Protection Act?

I think on the consultation form it does say something about the fact that your personal details would go to the volunteers, but discussing these with other boaters seems very dodgy to me. This has been discussed via phone calls with The Trust

[alan_fincher]

Is this not an offence against the Data Protection Act?

I've no real knowledge, but it feels like it should be.

 

Does anybody know definitively?

 

To be clear the original consultation document said....

 

If you wish to remain anonymous, then leave your name off the feedback form, but do include it if you are happy for a response reviewer to contact you if they need clarification of any of your points.

And the response form said……..

 

If you are happy to be contacted for clarification by the person reviewing this response (who may be a volunteer), please add your name, email address and/or phone number

 

But the volunteer having you details, and emailing or phoning you if they felt they needed to, is hardly the same as disclosing your response anywhere else.

 

I feel uncomfortable with where we are, but it's a bit late now to sort it out.

 

I think on the consultation form it does say something about the fact that your personal details would go to the volunteers, but discussing these with other boaters seems very dodgy to me. This has been discussed via phone calls with The Trust

So are you able to say what "the Trust's" view on it was, please?

[matty40s]

Although not in this particular Consultation area, this is the sum total of VM in Sawbridgeworth - 48 hr mooring.

 

 

There are some more moorings above the lock, but not a great stretch.

 

There are also hundreds of yards of perfectly splendid bollarded moorings a bit further down with NO Mooring notices along the length.

to the right hand side here...

 

I reached this mooring at 6pm-ish.

 

But it was when the cruising season wasn't on.

 

 

 

]

[Pretty Funked Up]

So I think it's the "honeypot" sites such as Fradley, Braunston, Stoke Bruerne etc that have limited mooring options outside the VMs, and a shortage of moorings generally, that need to have the VM status with restricted stopping time.

 

Braunston and stoke bruerne are practically deserted from Nov-Mar oddly enough. I found I could moor almost anywhere I wanted both times through. Must be just a seasonal thing

 

Why people would want to 'hog' spots there is a mystery to me anyway. I prefer the quieter spots myself which include these so called problem areas for almost HALF THE YEAR.

[alan_fincher]

Although not in this particular Consultation area, this is the sum total of VM in Sawbridgeworth - 48 hr mooring.

 

 

There are some more moorings above the lock, but not a great stretch.

Selfish bugger!

 

There might have been room for two sensibly sized boats had you not filled it up with that monster!

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

So are you able to say what "the Trust's" view on it was, please?

No because the concern was highlighted in a way that they could look at the potential problem without expecting an answer Not trying to avoid an answer but it was part of a much longer conversation and thrown in as an observation.

[GUMPY]

 

There are some more moorings above the lock, but not a great stretch.

 

There are also hundreds of yards of perfectly splendid bollarded moorings a bit further down with NO Mooring notices along the length.

to the right hand side here...

 

I reached this mooring at 6pm-ish.

 

 

 

Is that towpath side or offside?

If its offside I wouldn't want boats on my garden

[alan_fincher]

Is that towpath side or offside?

If its offside I wouldn't want boats on my garden

Offside.

 

But it begs the question, why install bollards, and then have to erect "no mooring signs".

 

Similar useless bollards offside below "the Riser" of course.

[carlt]

If its offside I wouldn't want boats on my garden

It isn't their garden though, is it?

 

I might not want cars parked outside my house but it isn't "my road".

 

If it is offside, btw, then the towpath opposite is the worst I've seen in 30 odd years.

 

Offside.

 

That is the worst towpath I've seen...

[Pretty Funked Up]

If it is offside, btw, then the towpath opposite is the worst I've seen in 30 odd years.

 

 

That is the worst towpath I've seen...

 

Agreed and it comes back to... They should actually sort the canal out rather than ruin the entire vibe on the canal network chasing up all the CC'ers in the futile attempt of trying to please everyone in the peak season, in just a few places!

[bargemast]

What a terrible waste of money to have installed so many beautiful bollards, and then not allow boats to tie-up, in my language that's called madness.

 

Peter.

[nicknorman]

Buy yourself a gangplank Nick.

 

 

We have a gangplank, its fine if the bottom is solid, but I find that when the bottom is soft as it is around there, passing boats tend to "work"the boat against the bottom and after a while, the ropes are totally loose and the boat lurches around with passing traffic, and/or ends up at an uncomfortable angle. Don't forget that unlike where you are, we actually have moving boats around here.

[matty40s]

Selfish bugger!

 

There might have been room for two sensibly sized boats had you not filled it up with that monster!

You could have breasted up alongside, in fact, that would have been a good idea as you couldn't have climbed the bank from your patio deck.

[PiRSqwared]

It isn't their garden though, is it?

 

I might not want cars parked outside my house but it isn't "my road".

 

If it is offside, btw, then the towpath opposite is the worst I've seen in 30 odd years.

 

 

That is the worst towpath I've seen...

 

Well actually it isnt. The pic is taken looking from a dead end. In the left foreground is the offside of a lock entrance, so the river actually veers to the left as it comes towards where Matt was stood - you can't actually see the towpath as it is not even in the picture.

 

Here is picture from the towpath as the river leaves the lock...a bit snowy!

 

Untitled by articulator, on Flickr

[vicafloat]

The local VM we use most is Fradley. If they are full, there is little else. Down T&M past the locks there is no piling and its shallow, Up T&M past shade house lock there is a line of indeterminate moorings (always full) and then its pretty shallow. Down the Coventry, the piling extends beyond the VMs a it, but they are effectively VMs in all but name. Then it's shallow and unpiled. So if we fancy a pint in the Swan and the VMs are full, there is not much alternative within a mile or so.

 

By contrast there are loads of mooring opportunities at Fazeley Jn, some VM some not. So I think it's the "honeypot" sites such as Fradley, Braunston, Stoke Bruerne etc that have limited mooring options outside the VMs, and a shortage of moorings generally, that need to have the VM status with restricted stopping time.

We moor on the Shroppie and try to take advantage of the many visitor moorings provided by SUCS. Not only

do they choose sites where you can moor alongside Armco,but also provide rings so that the dreaded pins are not required!

[nicknorman]

We moor on the Shroppie and try to take advantage of the many visitor moorings provided by SUCS. Not only

do they choose sites where you can moor alongside Armco,but also provide rings so that the dreaded pins are not required!

Yes, and more power to SUCS - they're great! My only complaint was at the SUCS VMs overlooking Church Minshull on the Middlewich branch - the dreaded Shroppie shelf kept me awake half the night (we didn't have a wheel/tyre like the locals do). Not being able to stand it any longer, we motored for about 5 mins before coming to some steel piling with plenty of depth and had breakfast there - not a designated VM but much better!

[David Mack]

What is it specifically about visitor moorings that seems to give people the impression that they may be the only place to moor?

 

I recognise that there may be an issue for some deep drafted boats and that in the olden days where towpath condition wasn't generally as good as it tends to be currently VMs enabled you to get closer to the bank.

 

Have we really got to the point now where people won;t walk even a hundred yards to the nearest bridge/pub?

 

Well I've held off from commenting on this issue because I don't know many of the locations involved, so can't comment on how bad the 'problem' may be.

 

But I go boating on a ex working boat drawing 3 ft. We tend to boat long days, so usually arrive after other boats have tied up. Even so, its rare that we can't get fairly close to the pub/road/lock etc, whether on an official VM, or tied up to pins in the long grass. We sometimes have to use a plank, but that's why we carry one.

 

I can only recall one occasion in the last 2-3 years when we had a serious walk to the pub, and that was in Kinver where we decided not to moor before the start of the permanent(?) moorings below the lock, and ended up going quite a long way past a lot of boats moored above the lock. And not helped by the closure of the Vine which meant we had to walk into town to find an open pub.

[Ally]

On the confidentiality issue. Its all well & good not supplying your personal details, but they would still have your email address I suppose, from the returned response, if sent by email. I printed the form off after completing it, & posted it, as I wanted to protect my privacy in this case.

as for not just using VM's, I am currently moored in a spot where I need to walk over 2 fields, 2 sections of towpath, & a lock, to get to the nearest lane.