Moorings at 3 locks

[bigcol]

 

Back in May June time, stayed 5 days, thought the VM here were 14 days,

just see a sign saying now 2 Days.

 

Did I overstay back then?

 

Am I to be blacklisted , or fined?

 

Col

[alan_fincher]

No,

 

The 2 day moorings there are very recent.

 

I opposed introducing them without adequate data to establish the need through the South East Partnership, but found no support from anybody else in the Boating Subgroup.

 

I thought Richard Parry was supposed to have agreed with the joint boating associations that no new short stays would be introduced without proper analysis, so I am fairly disappointed (to put it mildly!), to read elsewhere that these 2 day moorings are a result of a deal he has done directly with the landlord at the pub at Three Locks.

 

I didn't know that when I challenged him face to face on their introduction, and will challenge him on it again at a suitable time. If what was published elsewhere is true, he is agreeing things in one forum, only to then ride roughshod over what he has agreed. A great pity, and I am hoping it is not quite as bad as has been suggested, as he seems to have operated by Sally Ash rules on this one.

[bigcol]

Hi Alan

 

Thanks for that,

 

Speaking to couple of the staff last night, the moorings down from the lock have been normally empty!!

Folks favouring south of the locks, and bridge.

 

CRT have been really busy lately, places, winter moorings, 24 hr mooring changes, permits, trials, amendments and changes

 

Don't really know how they got the time to do anything else?

 

Ps this new Chaplain they interviewing for, will he be office based, or will he be using the canal

 

 

Col

[jenlyn]

This Alan is exactly what is wrong with the sub group

 

I opposed introducing them without adequate data to establish the need through the South East Partnership, but found no support from anybody else in the Boating Subgroup.

[unquote]

 

This is absolutely cr*p. Why did you not make it public knowledge???

I find it unacceptable that you and a few others through your (sub tea and sandwiches group) discuss, and implement such changes whilst denying users-customers any such knowledge!

[alan_fincher]

This Alan is exactly what is wrong with the sub group

 

I opposed introducing them without adequate data to establish the need through the South East Partnership, but found no support from anybody else in the Boating Subgroup.

[unquote]

 

This is absolutely cr*p. Why did you not make it public knowledge???

I find it unacceptable that you and a few others through your (sub tea and sandwiches group) discuss, and implement such changes whilst denying users-customers any such knowledge!

Rubbish!

 

I have been very public that this was going on, and specifically asked for my disapproval to be minuted, and also made it public that i have done that.

 

Rather than take another poke at me, why don't you ask the person who sits in that sub-group with me, who is an association chairman, and who was in the meetings with you where you thought you had brokered something with Richard Parry, why he chose not to support me in opposing the creep of further restrictions without evidence.

 

If what the NABO rep at your joint meetings is posting elsewhere is true, this has come about because Richard Parry and Neil Owen have privately agreed something over a few drinks, outside of any forum where there is any chance of it being opposed, and Matthew Symmonds would appear to just be doing what he has been told to do.

 

I agree it is a "rum do", but that it was happening was known about, and your initiatives at trying to oppose this kind of thing have been no more successful than mine, have they?

 

If it is correct that Parry has agreed one thing, and done another, how would you recommend we can change things? It seems sometimes we can not, but it will not stop me trying.

[jenlyn]

Rubbish!

 

I have been very public that this was going on, and specifically asked for my disapproval to be minuted, and also made it public that i have done that.

 

Rather than take another poke at me, why don't you ask the person who sits in that sub-group with me, who is an association chairman, and who was in the meetings with you where you thought you had brokered something with Richard Parry, why he chose not to support me in opposing the creep of further restrictions without evidence.

 

If what the NABO rep at your joint meetings is posting elsewhere is true, this has come about because Richard Parry and Neil Owen have privately agreed something over a few drinks, outside of any forum where there is any chance of it being opposed, and Matthew Symmonds would appear to just be doing what he has been told to do.

 

I agree it is a "rum do", but that it was happening was known about, and your initiatives at trying to oppose this kind of thing have been no more successful than mine, have they?

 

If it is correct that Parry has agreed one thing, and done another, how would you recommend we can change things? It seems sometimes we can not, but it will not stop me trying.

The only time you mentioned this was when mark tizard asked you directly, on the nabo fb page.

Don't bother laying the blame elsewhere. You were specifically placed on that group to "represent" boaters, yet you have since chosen to discuss nothing. Instead you choose to play some silly mi5 game that benefits no one apart from your ego.

I don't want to hear your excuses or blame.

That group was supposed to be open, yet you and others have seen fit to keep it closed for the sake of what exactly?

Why did you not mention on this forum that they were looking to do this?

[cotswoldsman]

Alan could you explain to me how this process works?

1. Who wanted these moorings changed?

2.who do they apply to for the change

3. How does a important matter like this end up with a waterways partnership sub group?

4. Who do the sub group members consult with before enforcing the change

5. In your own case as a member of the group who did you discuss or consult with?

 

I just do not know who runs our canals

[bigcol]

It's a Saturday, and were the only boat here ! Billy no mates.

 

Might be worth joining the proper boaters on the other side of the locks.

 

Ps what is the definition or their determination of 2 days, or as seen before 48hrs

 

Ie 48 Hrs is Sat 10 am. Got to depart by Mon 10 am without occurring penalty charge

 

Also could Folks come back here in a 3 weeks ?

 

Col

Edited September 6, 2014 by bigcol

[cotswoldsman]

Sorry Alan meant to ask for a link to minutes of SE Boaters sub group where these changes were discussed and your opposition was noted

[alan_fincher]

Sorry Alan meant to ask for a link to minutes of SE Boaters sub group where these changes were discussed and your opposition was noted

I can point you at the meeting notes in the usual place here.

 

However I have already told them they are wrong, as they say.....

 

There will be a short trial period of monitoring at the Three Locks Pub in Stoke Hammond, with the aid of the publican. AF advised that he did not feel that this is necessary, but MS confirmed that it was only for a short trial period.

 

 

I would not have objected to monitoring - my objection was to putting in the 2 days without any data gathering, which is both what they said they would do at the meeting, and have since done.

 

Clearly a corrected version of the meeting notes has not yet been put up.

 

Although both the chair of the sub-group, and the partnership chair seem unhappy about too much personal opinion getting posted by group members, I can see no reason why I should not publish the mail I subsequently sent to the sub-group after the minutes were issued.

 

Here it is, (I have removed pre-amble explaining that I was on a boating trip, and hence having to use an alternate email account, but otherwise it is quoted complete).

 

Hello all.

I believe, (unless there is a subsequent correction I have missed), that the meeting notes are not correct in respect of "Three locks", as they say.....

<QUOTE>

There will be a short trial period of monitoring at the Three Locks Pub in Stoke Hammond, with the aid of the publican. AF advised that he did not feel that this is necessary, but MS confirmed that it was only for a short trial period.

<QUOTE>

I do not believe it was monitoring being discussed - I believe what was being discussed was actually putting in some short stay moorings with no monitoring having taken place to record the usual occupancy of these moorings first. I have no objection to monitoring - I have always pressed that this should happen before any changes are made. However, James, like me, has replied assuming that it is actually going ahead, so I will make that assumption as well, (but the meeting notes need correcting, then!).

I do not feel, as James suggests, that I have given no reason for my objection. My objection remains that all such changes should be evidence based. We were told by Jeff Whyatt that Berkhamsted was one of the sites most in need, with the original proposal to make the entire near mile of moorings just 2 day. However we were now told at our most recent meeting that the actual monitoring that has taken place has failed to establish the need. This alone to me justifies that such changes need to be evidence based, and not put in without gathering data first.

What one of the other participants at our meeting, Alan Wildman, should have known is that in a meeting the combined boating associations had with Richard Parry, the following is minuted.....

Summary of agreed actions:

• No further changes to VM (days of stay, no return rules or over stay charges) to be made until a data gathering exercise launched to be co-ordinated by CRT but promoted by all associations.

This is taken from the agreed meeting notes published on the RBOA website, and as Alan is RBOA Chairman, and represented RBOA at the meeting with Richard, I have to say I am surprised that he was happy not to voice his objection to the South East Partnership pressing ahead with further changes that break the above agreement.

It would also seem that both Matthew and Neil may be unaware of the meeting, where the CRT attendees seem to have been Richard Parry, Simon Salem and Sally Ash, but not Matthew. Having had a conversation with Richard Parry at the Audlem Festival of Transport on the way up here, it seems he is also not up to speed on where partnerships are still pressing ahead with new short stay moorings, (part of the Atherstone flight has recently been made 48 hours, despite boaters saying across the board that there has never been a shortage of moorings where it has been done).

I repeat, I have no objection to shorter stay being introduced where proper data gathering is done to establish the need. It seems in that that I am not out of line with the meeting that the combined associations had with Richard. As Richard has apparently agreed to a moratorium, if the meeting notes are correct, I believe that is what should be happening in the South East, until the position is clarified, and there is a firm agreement about how changes should be validated with proper data.

I hope that clarifies my position, which I reluctantly have to accept doesn't seem to be shared by many others in the group, but which I believe is highly supported within the actual boating community.

Alan

 

 

Like Steve you seem to want to hammer me, although I continue to work towards an objective of "no more restrictions without evidence", much the same I would have thought as the RBOA/NABO/IWA/ACC thought they had agreed with Richard Parry in the meeting the joint associations had with him on this topic.

 

If you are going to raise an issue with how it is being handled, I think it is far more pertinent to ask why Alan Wildman,( RBOA chairman), apparently supported this view in the meeting with Parry, but chose not to speak out with me against in in the SE Boaters Sub-Group.

 

My conscience is absolutely clear that I continue to fight for exactly what we were previously fighting for, before you and Steve have chosen to start seeing it otherwise. I will continue to do so, because I think what has happened at Three Locks simply should not have done.

[alan_fincher]

Ps what is the definition or their determination of 2 days, or as seen before 48hrs

 

Ie 48 Hrs is Sat 10 am. Got to depart by Mon 10 am without occurring penalty charge

If applied as at Stoke Bruern, Foxton and Thrupp (Oxford) it actually means "2 nights", and it has been repeatedly pointed out to them that "2 nights" is far easier to understand, monitor and enforce than "2 days". However they will not be moved on this point.

 

Unlike the three sites just mentioned, I don't believe they have (yet!) at Three Locks introduced any of the following....

 

1) No return rules, or max xx days in a month rules).

2) £25 charges for additional days

3) Monitoring by CRT volunteers, identified as such, and with equipment issued for the purpose

 

(Unless anybody knows otherwise!)

[cotswoldsman]

Alan not sure asking how things work and for a link is hammering!! I have not seen this discussed anywhere. I guess you can now get the data you require from the logging system

[cotswoldsman]

Oh this is nothing to do with you personally I have been consistent with my objection to Waterways Partnerships being involved with decisions effecting boaters and this is just another example of why I object

[jenlyn]

I can point you at the meeting notes in the usual place here.

 

However I have already told them they are wrong, as they say.....

 

 

 

I would not have objected to monitoring - my objection was to putting in the 2 days without any data gathering, which is both what they said they would do at the meeting, and have since done.

 

Clearly a corrected version of the meeting notes has not yet been put up.

 

Although both the chair of the sub-group, and the partnership chair seem unhappy about too much personal opinion getting posted by group members, I can see no reason why I should not publish the mail I subsequently sent to the sub-group after the minutes were issued.

 

Here it is, (I have removed pre-amble explaining that I was on a boating trip, and hence having to use an alternate email account, but otherwise it is quoted complete).

 

 

 

 

Like Steve you seem to want to hammer me, although I continue to work towards an objective of "no more restrictions without evidence", much the same I would have thought as the RBOA/NABO/IWA/ACC thought they had agreed with Richard Parry in the meeting the joint associations had with him on this topic.

 

If you are going to raise an issue with how it is being handled, I think it is far more pertinent to ask why Alan Wildman,( RBOA chairman), apparently supported this view in the meeting with Parry, but chose not to speak out with me against in in the SE Boaters Sub-Group.

 

My conscience is absolutely clear that I continue to fight for exactly what we were previously fighting for, before you and Steve have chosen to start seeing it otherwise. I will continue to do so, because I think what has happened at Three Locks simply should not have done.

This post more or less justifies my point. You now decide to release the stuff after the fact. I also note you have not answered John's question on where you get input from when making decisions. Who are you acting on behalf of, and who do you seek guidance-advice from when having to give an opinion at the sub group meetings?

[jenlyn]

The point is, (as far as I'm concerned anyway) that if we had known about this beforehand, a fight could have been put up to stop it. As it happens, you and the subgroup chose to keep it to yourselves. The fact that the chair and whoever else has decided that this should all be kept in house, does not stop you from being open. That's your choice.

[alan_fincher]

The point is, (as far as I'm concerned anyway) that if we had known about this beforehand, a fight could have been put up to stop it.

I agree that had it been known about in advance, we could have tried to fight it.

 

Whether we would have been sucessful, I'm less sure, as a deal seems to have already been struck elsewhere, andthen presented as going ahead.

 

I'm in the car at the moment, waiting for family,and need to go back through stuff to see exactly what happened, but my memory is currently this.....

 

1) It turned up out of the blue at the last subgroup meeting - never having been one of Jeff Whyatt's so called 22 priority sites.

 

2) It had not been proposed as going to happen in any previous meeting.

 

3) I registered my opposition, but nobody else supported me on this.

 

4) Hence it went ahead.

 

There was no possibility to seek outside views on it, because the proposal and the "going ahead" all happened at the same time.

 

As I say, that is all just from memory - if I check later, and find there was any advance notification, be assured I'll issue a full correction.

Edited September 6, 2014 by alan_fincher

[Tonka]

Can I say that I am in favour of the new rules. When I was last at the Three locks 2 years ago at the bottom of the locks I could not find a vacant mooring and some of the boats were the same boats that were there 2 years before. Now I know that a lot of you are going to suggest that they were like me going there every 2 years. I can assure you they were "linger longers". I bet knone of them used the pub and I expct the pib landlord has had complaints from passing boaters that they would of liked to stop but could not. So he has done something about it. I am looking forward to stopping there soon

[matty40s]

Back in May June time, stayed 5 days, thought the VM here were 14 days,

just see a sign saying now 2 Days.

 

Did I overstay back then?

 

Am I to be blacklisted , or fined?

 

Col

 

Yes Col, please send me your £75 OVERSTAY PENALTY EXTENDED STAY FEE, and I will make sure it is banked carefully for you in the pub till.

 

 

 

I have just removed 3 Locks from my list of overnight boat moving stops. Stuff the landlord.

Edited September 6, 2014 by matty40s

[bigcol]

I'm going in there later today, we had a meal in there last night daughter treated us!! ( many thanks Carly) 3 kids 3 adults £65. Nice meal though.

 

2 of us will pop in later for a drink, but also to let him know that we're not allowed to stay tomorrow for us all to have Sunday lunch !

 

Pity that as you know us grandparents, where we are, the kids and Grandkids turn up to be fed

 

At the above is true!

 

At least it save us money

[bigcol]

Can I say that I am in favour of the new rules. When I was last at the Three locks 2 years ago at the bottom of the locks I could not find a vacant mooring and some of the boats were the same boats that were there 2 years before. Now I know that a lot of you are going to suggest that they were like me going there every 2 years. I can assure you they were "linger longers". I bet knone of them used the pub and I expct the pib landlord has had complaints from passing boaters that they would of liked to stop but could not. So he has done something about it. I am looking forward to stopping there soon

I don't think that there has been overstayers, not for a while I don't think, speaking to the a couple of boater, without their boats

 

Outside the 2 day part, there's only one GRP boat moored.

 

Still on our own, and I haven't even been practicing with my new genny yet!!

 

Col

Edited September 6, 2014 by bigcol

[cotswoldsman]

Can I say that I am in favour of the new rules. When I was last at the Three locks 2 years ago at the bottom of the locks I could not find a vacant mooring and some of the boats were the same boats that were there 2 years before. Now I know that a lot of you are going to suggest that they were like me going there every 2 years. I can assure you they were "linger longers". I bet knone of them used the pub and I expct the pib landlord has had complaints from passing boaters that they would of liked to stop but could not. So he has done something about it. I am looking forward to stopping there soon

Interesting so you think the solution to overstaying is to turn all visitor moorings to 48 or 24 hours what makes you think that the same boaters won't continue to stay?

[matty40s]

I have been past there 3 times this year and on 2 of those ocasions no boats at all moored.

[jenlyn]

I've been passing those moorings several times a year since 2009. I've not noticed any hard overstaying.

I think some like tonka don't really grasp what overstaying is, they just find it easy to say.

 

I have no doubt this is down to James griffin at wyvern boats. It was on his list of changes from 14 day moorings earlier in the year.

I've noticed the increase in stag parties using wyvern this year. So i suspect he is looking at pub mooring for his customers.

[cotswoldsman]

Am I right in saying that the SE Boaters sub group that now seem to be the power that decide about visitor moorings has 2 hire boat company owners sitting on the group?

I am still curious how the system works on changing visitor moorings, it would seem now from what I have read that it is decided and then rubber stamped by SE Sub group.

[cotswoldsman]

I have been past there 3 times this year and on 2 of those ocasions no boats at all moored.

Maybe they were out cruising?

Must be an age thing but I certainly would never be able to remember specific boats on specific moorings for one month never mind 2 years