Winter moorings update

[TheBiscuits]

Winter moorings final sites & prices 2015/2016 have been released

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/mooring/winter-moorings

 

Prices £6.50 / £10.00 / £13.50 per metre per month

 

location maps to follow, but list and prices is at

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/11587-winter-mooring-price-list-2015-16.pdf

[cotswoldsman]

Well out of 900 plus members on cc Facebook page all those that have posted so far are not going to bother at these increased prices and many had them last year

[TheBiscuits]

It does seem rather a lot for a bit of bare towpath.

 

Our club moorings work out at around £5 per metre per month, which is half the price of the offered winter mooring just round the corner.

[Bettie Boo]

We were one of the boats that was considering taking a winter mooring this year for Dec - Feb, but with the changes they have made and the price we will do the same as we did last winter and just do a long leisurely cruise of the GU.

 

The money they would have made from us will be staying in our pockets...we'll be sharing some of it with the hard working fuel boats

[Dovetail]

Just received an email regarding winter moorings and am I right in thinking the general towpath moorings introduced over the past two winters are pretty much dead and buried and they seem to be merged into the old type winter moorings with the inevitable huge price increases.

[Martin Megson]

At those prices you could get a marina berth

[cotswoldsman]

Just received an email regarding winter moorings and am I right in thinking the general towpath moorings introduced over the past two winters are pretty much dead and buried and they seem to be merged into the old type winter moorings with the inevitable huge price increases.

Yes you are correct. CRT after many meetings and much tinkering have decided to go back to the system that 3 years ago they stated was not cost effective to administer. The new Customer Service Manager and Richard Parry decided it was best to get rid of a system that their customers liked. Even after stating they would consult users they decided that the last thing they wanted was positive feedback so they consulted no one.

At those prices you could get a marina berth

The pricing has simply no reasoning. For example for £13.50 in Llangollen you get facilities such as electric in Wheaton Aston for £13,50 you get nothing. Some of the moorings will be cut off from water etc. due to winter closures for months and mean a 2/3 hour cruise to fill up with water.

[kris88]

At those prices you could get a marina berth

It's probably lobbying from marina owners that has brought about this change in winter moorings.

 

Regards kris

[AndrewIC]

The pricing has simply no reasoning. For example for £13.50 in Llangollen you get facilities such as electric.

Thought they turned the electricity off in the winter?

[cotswoldsman]

Thought they turned the electricity off in the winter?

Only in the basin but that is not available for winter moorings it is the towpath that is used for winter mooring

Liverpool with electric is also available for #13.50

[boathunter]

It's probably lobbying from marina owners that has brought about this change in winter moorings.

 

Regards kris

Bang on the button I'd guess. I can't see any other reason and of course CRT can't come out and openly say this.

[jenlyn]

Richard Parry and Mathew symmonds have both stated that they were getting communication from council planners. These communications indicated that CRT did not have the relevant permission needed, allowing boats with liveaboards to stay in a place for more than 28 days.

This was more to do with London borough's, and a couple of council's outside of London.

From what I understand, the planners association got hold of it, and laid the law down to CRT.

I don't think the marinas federation has had much to say on winter moorings at all.

Having had some dealings with the federation a while back, I was actually quite surprised at how many inland marinas are not members.

[Dovetail]

Yes you are correct. CRT after many meetings and much tinkering have decided to go back to the system that 3 years ago they stated was not cost effective to administer. The new Customer Service Manager and Richard Parry decided it was best to get rid of a system that their customers liked. Even after stating they would consult users they decided that the last thing they wanted was positive feedback so they consulted no one.

 

That’s such a shame and in time may work out more expensive to CART. It does make you think they have used the general towpath mooring success and thought all the boats that took it up will definitely want to pay three four or even more times to do the exact same thing. I can only see this creating more work and trouble for CART.

 

Over the past several years only one boat has taken up the standard winter mooring at Brentford and I think he gets a discount as he patrols the visitor moorings every day as a volunteer and over the past two years a good few boats have taken up the general towpath winter mooring close to Brentford and this year CART are allocating three locations for winter moorings one on the visitor moorings and two presumably outside on the general towpath thinking all these boats will happily pay £13.50 per meter per month. I predict there will only be one boat as per usual sitting on a winter mooring.

[kris88]

Richard Parry and Mathew symmonds have both stated that they were getting communication from council planners. These communications indicated that CRT did not have the relevant permission needed, allowing boats with liveaboards to stay in a place for more than 28 days.

This was more to do with London borough's, and a couple of council's outside of London.

From what I understand, the planners association got hold of it, and laid the law down to CRT.

I don't think the marinas federation has had much to say on winter moorings at all.

Having had some dealings with the federation a while back, I was actually quite surprised at how many inland marinas are not members.

Surely if a boater takes a winter mooring for 4 months, then CRT are giving them permission to stay in one place for more than 28 days. Or are you allowed to only take a month in any one place? Which would mean effectively paying all that money for 14days. I can't see the take up being great, if that is the case.

 

Regards kris

Edited August 16, 2015 by kris88

[jenlyn]

Richard Parry was well aware of the planning regs that could effect the winter moorings, as when he got rid of the plans for roving mooring permits, the question was asked about legality of winter moorings. He stated at the time, the legality was borderline.

NABO have also been against these winter moorings from the start, and often mentioned the legality of them, at one point even bringing along a retired "legal expert" to one of the association-CRT meetings.

 

In my view, the whole thing turned into a fiasco. Especially when NABO started throwing their toys from the pram.

[David Mack]

If CRT thouhht winter moorings were illegal, they wouldn't offer them at any price. So the planning status has nothing to do with the price.

[kris88]

Why would NABO be against the winter moorings? I thought the winter moorings are for the benefit of boat owners.

Regards kris

[jenlyn]

If CRT thouhht winter moorings were illegal, they wouldn't offer them at any price. So the planning status has nothing to do with the price.

So in your view, Mr Parry and Mathew symmonds are telling lies?

[alan_fincher]

Are there published minutes or meeting notes the "associations" meetings where this was discussed, please?

 

Different participants in these meetings seem to have very different recollections of who exactly said what, so it would be useful for those of us not present to see any formal record of the meeting.

 

(I did previously try to find any such notes without success.....)

[jenlyn]

Why would NABO be against the winter moorings? I thought the winter moorings are for the benefit of boat owners.

Regards kris

In my view, because the idea did not come from them. Ego''s?

I don't know if that is the case, just my opinion.

[cotswoldsman]

Are there published minutes or meeting notes the "associations" meetings where this was discussed, please?

 

Different participants in these meetings seem to have very different recollections of who exactly said what, so it would be useful for those of us not present to see any formal record of the meeting.

 

(I did previously try to find any such notes without success.....)

My understanding is it was not up for discussion at association meeting but was discussed at one of those NABO 121 meetings with Ian Rogers

[David Mack]

So in your view, Mr Parry and Mathew symmonds are telling lies?

According to your earlier post they have had advice/pressure from planners that winter mooring is illegal. However their view is that it is not (and there seems to be general agreement this is a legal grey area) and so they have agan offered them. But maybe the high pricing is a clumsy effort to show there is no demand, so they can drop them for the future.

[cotswoldsman]

According to your earlier post they have had advice/pressure from planners that winter mooring is illegal. However their view is that it is not (and there seems to be general agreement this is a legal grey area) and so they have agan offered them. But maybe the high pricing is a clumsy effort to show there is no demand, so they can drop them for the future.

Yes I agree CRT would like to make things as difficult as possible for ccers

[alan_fincher]

If CRT thouhht winter moorings were illegal, they wouldn't offer them at any price. So the planning status has nothing to do with the price.

 

Presumably the suggestion is that those that did not specify a fixed place were not "legal" but those that do are OK? I don't think the price comes into it, more what is being offered. NABO have suggested to me that they did put a proposal to CRT that would have overcome the legality issue, but required additional admin, and which CRT was not interested in considering.

 

However with various parties to the conversations each claiming different things about what happened in the meetings, I find it hard to come to a conclusion about who has in fact had any impact (if at all) on CRT's decision. Of course an equally plausible suggestion could be that CRT have had discussions with the associations, but ignored that input, and done what they want to anyway. As this seems to happen repeatedly about other things, perhaps the simplest explanation could be a correct one, and once again the discussions have just been window dressing.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Presumably the suggestion is that those that did not specify a fixed place were not "legal" but those that do are OK? I don't think the price comes into it, more what is being offered. NABO have suggested to me that they did put a proposal to CRT that would have overcome the legality issue, but required additional admin, and which CRT was not interested in considering.

 

However with various parties to the conversations each claiming different things about what happened in the meetings, I find it hard to come to a conclusion about who has in fact had any impact (if at all) on CRT's decision. Of course an equally plausible suggestion could be that CRT have had discussions with the associations, but ignored that input, and done what they want to anyway. As this seems to happen repeatedly about other things, perhaps the simplest explanation could be a correct one, and once again the discussions have just been window dressing.

I seem to have missed anyone claiming they were discussed in a meeting in the form of a consultation. When did that happen?