Jump to content

South East Visitor Mooring Proposals


alan_fincher

Featured Posts

You are putting words in my mouth Allan, and indeed into John Dodwell's. I don't agree with your position on this.

 

The actual proposals are from Jeff Whyatt's team, as far as I can see unaltered from at long ago as at least October, (other than the two or three small corrections introduced after publication - not an issue to me, other than they should have explained they were correcting errors that had crept in).

 

The wording wrapped around it to make the consultation document is probably all, or nearly all Sally, but by her own admission she had not studied the detail of what she was actually adding her several pages to the front of, (which I think exactly demonstrates why we have such a problem about how they apparently approach things).

 

Where he has kept any involvement Jeff Whyatt seems to have made no secret of the fact this is a personal goal he set himself for the South East, which he still thinks is a good idea and necessary, and I'm sure he still wants to see something in place for the summer.

 

I don't think that John Dodwell is attempting to deflect anything in one direction or another, in fact he is just "telling it like it is", a concept you should be familiar with. :lol:

 

I'm slightly frustrated that my words get re-used, out of context, to support a position I do not feel to be a true representation of the facts, and particularly so when this is done on other sites where I have zero right of reply.

 

You have been very supportive over much of this, and we are most grateful, but where I have a one to one conversation with a trustee, I think you have to have some faith that I can see if an attempt is being made to deliberately mislead. I don't think it is - I think both Sally Ash and Jeff Whyatt still think this needs to go ahead, for reasons I can only guess at, because they have never told us reasons that can stand up against any reasonable scrutiny.

 

I have to mostly disagree. Here is what the consultation document actually says

 

This paper takes as a starting point the proposals on which the SE team has already consulted with

those represented at user group meetings. To these, it adds the new dimensions introduced in the

policy briefing endorsed by Council and Trustees in September 2012 (this is downloadable from

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publication-scheme/legal-and-governance/council-papers).

 

It was Sally Ash that produced the policy briefing document mentioned and it was John Dodwell that introduced it to council.

 

To what extent the Sally Ash proposal is similar to the Jeff Whyatt one is not really the issue here. It's a case of those responsible for the new proposal accepting responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you need to take the trouble to read it up, if you are genuinely interested.

 

A very strong argument from a very large number of those of us against the proposals is that CRT already have clear legal powers to deal with people who overstay, but for some reason, (at least to those who can't see what goes on behind the scenes), seem to apply them is completely inconsistent ways.

 

In particular in areas where much enforcement does occur, they appear to leave alone some serial overstayers on popular moorings in towns, (and we are talking many years in the worst cases).

 

Because they have never enforced properly, (which they admit), they cannot possibly have data on what the situation would be at these 22 sites if they thoroughly enforced existing rules, before introducing fairly extreme measures that are likely to have genuine impacts on those who (say) genuinely wish to stay more than 2 days at somewhere where 14 is currently permitted.

 

If you make no other argument at all, then "go and enforce what you currently have, and see if you still think you have a problem" seems to me to be an entirely reasonable one, particularly as it is likely to cost far less on an ongoing basis than the heavy policing that would be necessary all year around for the new proposals.

 

CRT could then put the half a million quid we are told is already earmarked for this and similar proposals to good use like repairing leaking locks, infilling holes where people fracture ankles, or dealing with mud-bath VMs where tying up is often not a pleasure anyway.

 

Not the full answer, but do you get the drift? This has the possibly for CRT to squander large amounts of the cash it never has enough of, when the actual need in many cases seems deeply suspect.

 

 

I wonder just how many additional visitor moorings could be created with £500k , as it is the extra three towpath managers will take up @£150k then theres the new signage, training of new staff/volunteers, additional electronic readers required (I imagine courts will require camera proof as well), daily travel expenses, ooopps the £500k is all gone before we start on any enforcement action.

 

Given that CRT marinas charge approx £10-14/night and provide services such as security and boater facilities I wonder what a judge would think of the "reasonableness" of introducing a service charge of £25 given that I understand the 1962 Act gives CRT to raise charges but not to raise fines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to mostly disagree. Here is what the consultation document actually says

 

 

 

It was Sally Ash that produced the policy briefing document mentioned and it was John Dodwell that introduced it to council.

 

To what extent the Sally Ash proposal is similar to the Jeff Whyatt one is not really the issue here. It's a case of those responsible for the new proposal accepting responsibility.

It is of course perfectly your right to disagree, Allan!

 

I come back to the point I have made elsewhere though, which is that we have to work with currently just those who are actually involved, or have chosen to become involved. Whether you take the stance that they are all completely honest brokers, or are all out to do nothing more than deceive and mislead, they are still the people involved. In my view we either try and work with what we have, or we just sit on various social media sites shouting "foul!", which I don't think is actually in itself going to make them either heavily rein back on, or totally drop these proposals.

 

It ain't over until the fat lady sings, so at the moment I'll continue to try and work with anybody who will still have a sensible dialogue with me. If you think John Dodwell is more keen in trying to defend the indefensible, than he is in producing a good outcome, (and I know those are my words not yours!), then that is your prerogative. I found the last conversation I had with him far more positive than the stuff he sent to Tom Crossley, (which I made clear to him I was not happy with).

 

Only time will tell if we are backing winners or losers, but, as you know there is far more going down than just this consultation, so I'm very much hoping that my view that John is keen to see things improve proves to be more than just me being very naive.

 

Time will tell, of course, but I'd love to move away from the non-stop pessimism that all outcomes must always be bad ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot believe there are less than 700 signatories to this.

 

The trouble is that this proposal will affect all boaters not just the bridge hoppers.

 

When people realise it will be too late.

I'm with you on this - nothing good can come out of this for anyone - except the sign makers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed,I'm hopping mad about this and the IWA part in it. I refuse to support the IWA because of their blinkered and prejudiced attitude. We will all suffer because of this scheme,remember the law of unintended consequences.

I hope HNBC are opposing this too,where is Chertsey when we need her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you need to take the trouble to read it up, if you are genuinely interested.

 

A very strong argument from a very large number of those of us against the proposals is that CRT already have clear legal powers to deal with people who overstay, but for some reason, (at least to those who can't see what goes on behind the scenes), seem to apply them is completely inconsistent ways.

 

In particular in areas where much enforcement does occur, they appear to leave alone some serial overstayers on popular moorings in towns, (and we are talking many years in the worst cases).

 

Because they have never enforced properly, (which they admit), they cannot possibly have data on what the situation would be at these 22 sites if they thoroughly enforced existing rules, before introducing fairly extreme measures that are likely to have genuine impacts on those who (say) genuinely wish to stay more than 2 days at somewhere where 14 is currently permitted.

 

If you make no other argument at all, then "go and enforce what you currently have, and see if you still think you have a problem" seems to me to be an entirely reasonable one, particularly as it is likely to cost far less on an ongoing basis than the heavy policing that would be necessary all year around for the new proposals.

 

CRT could then put the half a million quid we are told is already earmarked for this and similar proposals to good use like repairing leaking locks, infilling holes where people fracture ankles, or dealing with mud-bath VMs where tying up is often not a pleasure anyway.

 

Not the full answer, but do you get the drift? This has the possibly for CRT to squander large amounts of the cash it never has enough of, when the actual need in many cases seems deeply suspect.

Thanks ,perfect answer , I'll look into this further . My limited expieriance with CRT is that they do not enforce in a consistant way , and that seems to me not to be a good template for further rules and restrictions .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is of course perfectly your right to disagree, Allan!

 

I come back to the point I have made elsewhere though, which is that we have to work with currently just those who are actually involved, or have chosen to become involved. Whether you take the stance that they are all completely honest brokers, or are all out to do nothing more than deceive and mislead, they are still the people involved. In my view we either try and work with what we have, or we just sit on various social media sites shouting "foul!", which I don't think is actually in itself going to make them either heavily rein back on, or totally drop these proposals.

 

It ain't over until the fat lady sings, so at the moment I'll continue to try and work with anybody who will still have a sensible dialogue with me. If you think John Dodwell is more keen in trying to defend the indefensible, than he is in producing a good outcome, (and I know those are my words not yours!), then that is your prerogative. I found the last conversation I had with him far more positive than the stuff he sent to Tom Crossley, (which I made clear to him I was not happy with).

 

Only time will tell if we are backing winners or losers, but, as you know there is far more going down than just this consultation, so I'm very much hoping that my view that John is keen to see things improve proves to be more than just me being very naive.

 

Time will tell, of course, but I'd love to move away from the non-stop pessimism that all outcomes must always be bad ones.

 

I am sorry if I gave the impression of being a pessimist with regard to this consultation. That is not the case.

 

Rather, I am an optimist and a realist. I am optimistic because over 700 have now signed a petition to have this consultation scrapped. I am also an optimist because two boating organisations have said that the proposals should be deferred until such time as they can be justified. I am even an optimist as IWA who appeared to support these proposals earlier now suggest that they have not replied to the consultation at a national level.

 

However, I am also a realist. The very fact that the consultation has not already been withdrawn despite the complete lack of justification for its proposals suggests that CaRT will try and implement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunatly Allan the Trust have not yet learned that withdrawing the present consultation and relooking at the issues is not a U turn. It would actually show they are listening to reasoned arguments as apposed to only listening to "grumbles" and "mumbelings" I hope the Trust now brings in a system for "official grumbles" so that a FoI request in future for "grumbles" will bring results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry if I gave the impression of being a pessimist with regard to this consultation. That is not the case.

 

Rather, I am an optimist and a realist. I am optimistic because over 700 have now signed a petition to have this consultation scrapped. I am also an optimist because two boating organisations have said that the proposals should be deferred until such time as they can be justified. I am even an optimist as IWA who appeared to support these proposals earlier now suggest that they have not replied to the consultation at a national level.

 

However, I am also a realist. The very fact that the consultation has not already been withdrawn despite the complete lack of justification for its proposals suggests that CaRT will try and implement.

 

 

I would agree with you, NABO has published its response but I am unsure of IWA's position from a National perspective beyond its holding statement made on 18 February so perhaps thats it? I wonder whether CRT are even aware of the petition I suspect they are although there is no acknowledgement of that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with you, NABO has published its response but I am unsure of IWA's position from a National perspective beyond its holding statement made on 18 February so perhaps thats it? I wonder whether CRT are even aware of the petition I suspect they are although there is no acknowledgement of that fact.

CRT are aware of it, I posted it on their FB page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with you, NABO has published its response but I am unsure of IWA's position from a National perspective beyond its holding statement made on 18 February so perhaps thats it? I wonder whether CRT are even aware of the petition I suspect they are although there is no acknowledgement of that fact.

 

They are aware of the petition and the fact that both NABO and RBOA have responded to the consultation. I asked on facebook if IWA would publish its response to the consultation and had this from John Pomfret, deputy national chair -

 

Allan Richards - when dealing with local matters on specific waterways, IWA prefers to let its local members and branches with local expertise respond, with guidance provided from the centre on principles. The local branches, quite rightly, do not appreciate it if the centre dictates to them about purely local matters.
Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allan Richards - when dealing with local matters on specific waterways, IWA prefers to let its local members and branches with local expertise respond, with guidance provided from the centre on principles. The local branches, quite rightly, do not appreciate it if the centre dictates to them about purely local matters.

 

 

They havent quite twigged that this has national implications then, once the precedent is established etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SE VISITOR MOORINGS – PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEB.2013 – PREMILIMARY REPORT PREPARED FOR FEEDBACK WORSHOPS, 19th & 21st MARCH 2013

 

It would seem that CaRT wish to ignore the 700 that think the proposals should be scrapped and the two boating organisations who think they should at least be defered.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SE VISITOR MOORINGS – PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEB.2013 – PREMILIMARY REPORT PREPARED FOR FEEDBACK WORSHOPS, 19th & 21st MARCH 2013

 

It would seem that CaRT wish to ignore the 700 that think the proposals should be scrapped and the two boating organisations who think they should at least be defered.

Why should they take heed of the petition its not part of the consultation.

Edited by Loddon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SE VISITOR MOORINGS – PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEB.2013 – PREMILIMARY REPORT PREPARED FOR FEEDBACK WORSHOPS, 19th & 21st MARCH 2013

 

It would seem that CaRT wish to ignore the 700 that think the proposals should be scrapped and the two boating organisations who think they should at least be defered.

 

Well Allan, you've only yourself to blame, you "have not clearly articulated the fundamental reasons for their opposition, other than to assert that change is not necessary and to cast unwarranted aspersions on the Trust’s capacity to implement change."

 

 

Of all the absurdity in this document, the manoeuvring and posturing that phrase stood out as an exemplar of how out of control CRT really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

(Posted elsewhere)

 

I am deeply suspicious of the claimed "half and half" split on the answers to the main first question. I went though 50 of the replies, and have been in email discussions with someone doing a further 50, so our combined 100 was nearly 30% of all received responses. That 100 seem to have come out as about 20% largely or totally in favour of the proposals, 65% largely or totally against, with about 15% tending to neutral, or unclassifiable for other reasons.

 

So with three and a half times more "against" than "in favour" in 30% of the replies, it rather stretches imagination to believe that the remaining 257 replies were so heavily slewed the other way to give an overall "evens" result.

 

(Unless they actually chose to send me a stack deliberately based towards those opposing, just to confuse matters!)

 

Allan Richards: Any tips on the correct wording of an FOI request that makes sure we get to see all the 357 responses submitted? If you don't I most certainly will! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Allan, you've only yourself to blame, you "have not clearly articulated the fundamental reasons for their opposition, other than to assert that change is not necessary and to cast unwarranted aspersions on the Trust’s capacity to implement change."

 

 

Of all the absurdity in this document, the manoeuvring and posturing that phrase stood out as an exemplar of how out of control CRT really are.

 

My comments, again from elsewhere....

 

Apparently if I say "You want to spend shed loads of CRT money, (not just now, but on an ongoing basis), on something you have not proved any requirement for," then I have not "clearly articulated the fundamental reasons for my opposition". Unbelievable! The only thing I did not know when I prepared my response was the figure of £0.5million per year (countrywide) for the next three years, or I could have said "you want to spend 1.5 MILLION pounds of CRT money over the next three years on something you have not proved any requirement for", and still been dismissed as not having a valid argument!

 

To counter that the best argument they can come up with seems to be (in my words) "we are aware we have largely not touched any of this for the last two decades, therefore there must undeniably be a requirement to do something fairly dramatic now, mustn't there? - Oh and look we have 1.5 million quid to spend!"

 

You really couldn't make it up, could you..... (Oh hang on, they just have, I think!.....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Posted elsewhere)

 

I am deeply suspicious of the claimed "half and half" split on the answers to the main first question. I went though 50 of the replies, and have been in email discussions with someone doing a further 50, so our combined 100 was nearly 30% of all received responses. That 100 seem to have come out as about 20% largely or totally in favour of the proposals, 65% largely or totally against, with about 15% tending to neutral, or unclassifiable for other reasons.

 

So with three and a half times more "against" than "in favour" in 30% of the replies, it rather stretches imagination to believe that the remaining 257 replies were so heavily slewed the other way to give an overall "evens" result.

 

(Unless they actually chose to send me a stack deliberately based towards those opposing, just to confuse matters!)

 

Allan Richards: Any tips on the correct wording of an FOI request that makes sure we get to see all the 357 responses submitted? If you don't I most certainly will! :rolleyes:

 

I will do it this evening and post a link here.

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.