Jump to content

Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

I do regretfully think there is a need for boat registration, and as some others have noted it's quite hard to argue against it.

 

But I do hope the "improvements" mentioned above aren't too extensive, as one of the attractions of the ML is its somewhat wild and remote nature.

 

So yes, a few more taps might be handy, but please no improvements to this mooring (Bevill's Leam, nr Angle Corner).

 

dscf6352.jpg

I love the ML as well and spent some time there and like you I think I trespassed a few times as well, If more boats use it then the land owners may be keener to move you on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the ML as well and spent some time there and like you I think I trespassed a few times as well, If more boats use it then the land owners may be keener to move you on.

.Landowners are very limited to what they can do to move you on. Hence the problems with the overstaying Bargee Travellers on the Town moorings in March who have been there for months one of them a 70 footer. March needs the same By-laws that Ely has for its moorings

 

Over the years my family like other land owners. We had travellers invade our fields, You cannot remove them at the point of a shotgun (Tony Martin Method) or any other use of force, The Police will simple tell you get a Court Order which costs money and takes between seven and ten days to get. Then there is cost to enforce the court order and to prevent them from returning, You would need to get a court injunction. Even after that you have the cost of clearing up the mess they leave. So in the end your bank balance is much lighter, Recovering the costs from the travellers, not a hope. Even if someone breaks in to your house you are limited in how you deal with them, Many a home owner has found themselves before the bench for their acts in dealing with a intruder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To date, I have been told, 5 petitions against the Bill have been lodged with the Private Bills Office. I do not know who the 3 others will be from.

 

i am also told that the Bill will have to go the House of Lords before passing into statute, so if anyone sees room for improvement in what comes out of the Commons, then they will have the chance to participate at that stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as seems to be reported elsewhere, the EA are going to cease maintaining adjacent waterways to a navigable standard, is this bill going to be redundant as only those boats that home base there will be able to cruise the Middle Levels?

1 lock that has been out of action for several years and would only accommodate short boats if it was put back into use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed that under the terms of this Bill, the MLC's will be entitled to refuse registration of any boat that has come under enforcement in the past? Get chucked off once, and you are chucked off forever. Despite the misleading impression given by s.8 CCJ's, not even BW/CaRT can [not that they show any strong desire to] refuse to licence a boat against which such action has been taken in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed that under the terms of this Bill, the MLC's will be entitled to refuse registration of any boat that has come under enforcement in the past? Get chucked off once, and you are chucked off forever. Despite the misleading impression given by s.8 CCJ's, not even BW/CaRT can [not that they show any strong desire to] refuse to licence a boat against which such action has been taken in the past.

Yes, but isn't this a provision that can only come into force through a byelaw? There will be an opportunity to fully review and object if necessary during the later and separate byelaw making and approval process.

 

The Cam Conservators tried to slip something similar into their conditions for registration a couple of years ago but soon removed it when told it was not only spiteful but unreasonable to try to impose an extra penalty over and above a prescribed statutory one and also rather stupid to refuse a registration fee in respect of a vessel application that complied in every other respect.

Edited by erivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes – but the Bill provisions are specific about the parameters the byelaws are to be enabled to encompass. If one can modify the parameters prior to the byelaw making powers at this stage, it solves the problem of having to overcome the more difficult later task of explaining why, government having approved those parameters, those parameters should then be constricted when it comes to actually drafting the byelaws.

 

This is something that needs ‘nipping in the bud’. Why sit back and allow them to make it so much the more difficult for you to object to parameters that you didn't object to when you could have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes – but the Bill provisions are specific about the parameters the byelaws are to be enabled to encompass. If one can modify the parameters prior to the byelaw making powers at this stage, it solves the problem of having to overcome the more difficult later task of explaining why, government having approved those parameters, those parameters should then be constricted when it comes to actually drafting the byelaws.

 

This is something that needs ‘nipping in the bud’. Why sit back and allow them to make it so much the more difficult for you to object to parameters that you didn't object to when you could have?

Point taken and appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the end of this week it should be possible to go online and read the petitions [the signatures etc on the electronic versions have to be redacted first]. Meantime the total objectors are six – 4 individuals, the NBTA, and the March Cruising Club.

 

The petitions deposited are listed here:

 

http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmpribus/pb170131giv.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Middle Level Commission needs to dredge as part of their drainage duties. Silt comes off the land, not from the small number of boats that navigate the waterways. In fact it is a well accepted fact that boats help to spread the silt along the bottom away from the run off points.

 

If for arguments sake, a thousand tons of soil runs off the land into the drains, the Commissioners must remove the same amount each year else the drains will silt up completely. Dredging is necessary as a direct result of draining the fens.

 

As the Commission must maintain the waterways as a navigation under their statutory duties, it makes sense to dredge the drains to a depth that allows boats to navigate.

 

They also have boats themselves, which benefit from maintaining the waterways as a navigation.

 

They only have six locks to maintain, two of which require staff as part of the sluicing duties. Unless they want to invest in the automation of these locks, then they must pay staff to be there.

 

The other 4 locks are needed to control the height of the water on the different sections of the waterway. While they could replace these locks with weirs, but again, as they have a statutory obligation to provide a navigable waterway, locks make more sense.

 

As for all the water pumps they use, these are required as part of their drainage responsibilities.

 

While it is true that the Well Creek section of the waterway requires a pump to keep it topped up, the Commissioners are keeping one thing very quiet here. They need to top up the waterways because farmers use water for irrigation during the summer months, which they charge for. No water in the creek, no water for irrigation and no crops.

 

We have had a public right of access free of tolls along the Nene since the 4 century and we are unwilling to give up these rights without a fight.

 

Most of us have rights of access to our own homes. How would we feel if those rights were removed and we had to pay extra to use the pavements?

 

The MLC are really trying to hand over control of the Middle Level and this is why they want to amend the act.

Don't believe me, they have a meeting with CRT and EA in April 2017 to discuss the handing over of the Nene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They only have six locks to maintain, two of which require staff as part of the sluicing duties. Unless they want to invest in the automation of these locks, then they must pay staff to be there.

Salter's Lode is not used as a sluice. Stanground is, but certainly wouldn't require a full-time keeper plus relief if it were just used for water ingress from the Nene.

The MLC are really trying to hand over control of the Middle Level and this is why they want to amend the act.

Don't believe me, they have a meeting with CRT and EA in April 2017 to discuss the handing over of the Nene.

In conversation with Iain Smith, I've got the strong impression that the last thing they want to do is hand over the navigation to another authority. I hope they are talking to both the EA and CRT about extending the gold license to cover the ML.

 

MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salters Lode lets water out during high rainfall and low tide.

 

Stanground is primarily a sluicing operation with 80% of it's duties taking up with sluicing (According to the Lock Keeper that is) They are also there to control/limit the number of boats coming down and prevent overfilling ghe ML.

 

Marmont Priory is not technically manned, but the owners there have been asked on many occasion to let water down. Call that what you want, but I call that sluicing!

 

The MLC meeting minutes clearly discuss the forthcoming meeting with CRT in April and the nature of that meeting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest news on the Middle Level Bill 2016-17

House of Commons:

 

The second reading of the Bill was opposed on 2 February 2017 and this will next be on the Order Paper on 8 February 2017. However, a blocking motion has been tabled which, while it remains in place, will effectively prevent the bill receiving a second reading until a debate is held.

 

This Bill received a formal First Reading in the House of Commons on 24 January 2017. The petitioning period in the House of Commons began on 24 January and ended on 30 January 2017. Six petitions were deposited in this period.

 

The Bill successfully completed the examination of its compliance with Standing Orders on 19 December 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In view of the misinformation that is being spread by the Bargee Travellers Association who are against any form of registration. We had a one of them roaming around Foxes before Christmas, Before they were ordered to leave.

 

For the record, it was I that was in Foxes Marina before Christmas handing out leaflets and informing boaters of the impending Bill and what they can do to learn more.

 

Until the end of December and after I handed out the leaflets, I had never heard of the NBTA. I am not a member of the group now either.

 

Also for the record, I was not asked to leave by anyone and was actually invited back for various bbq's this coming summer!

 

I also spoke to the owners of Fox's to gauge their opinion on the matter and left on good terms swapping email details etc.

 

As for the NBTA. I found them to be a nice bunch. Very helpful and have allowed me to see things from their side.

 

We don't live on our boat as we live in our house near Peterborough and I have a job to fund my house, boat and moorings, but I have met bargee travelers who tend to be law abiding citizens, many of which also have jobs, but enjoy living on the water.

 

One or two I have recently met are working on very low incomes. One I know works voluntarily in a charity shop and during 2-days a week works as a driver for a local temping agency on minimum wages. This is a good person who is entitled to housing benefit and a house, but claims nothing from the state. If this person is forced to pay an extra £1000 a year for a licence, they will be forced to sell the boat and claim council benefits. Two sides to every story I find.

 

Furthermore these people are not freeloaders. They have a right to use the ML. Unlike land gypsies that often trespass, boaters have every right to navigate the ML and with permission of land owners, moor up and stay there as long as they like.

 

If they are not permitted to moor up in places, say for example the 36 hour moorings in March, the council should move them on, simple.

They are moorings provided by the council after all.

 

Also, as has already been said, these boaters spend what money they have in the area. They pay VAT and tax on their wages, so they have every right to live in the area and they are doing nothing wrong. They are completely legal. The ones I have met are also British citizens.

 

As an Ex-RAF engineer, I have served my country for many years, including during the first Gulf war, so I feel I have done my bit to preserve the rights and freedoms of these sacred isles and I am not prepared to see them given away easily.

 

Especially when you read the proposed Bill. The MLC are promising nothing positive in it. No extra moorings, no water taps, no disposal points, toilets or showers nothing. All these people that believe that with fees comes an expectation, an invisible contract if you will, you will be extremely disappointed. This is a Take, Take, Take Bill!!!!

 

Look at the River Cam Conservators. They overturned their act in the 19th century so that they could charge pleasure boaters. Guess what, they provide NO facilities whatsoever, nothing. They are also about to raise their licence fees to, wait for it....................... £2500 per boat, per year!!!!

 

I approached the March Cruising Club in January during their AGM. We discussed the proposed Bill. Afterwards, the Commodore asked the members if they were satisfied or whether they wanted to object to it. 1-person was happy with the bill and 30-people were very unhappy with it. These are boaters in the heart of the Middle Level, so think about them for a minute will you. Many will be forced to sell up and quit boating.

 

I produced an online petition and the leaflets I handed out to boaters, pointed them towards it. I produced 500 leaflets and handed them out in Foxes, Bill Fen and Floods Ferry. The petition received 485 signatures!

 

Also if you read the Bill, you will be shocked to hear that the MLC will be able to reject boats/ boaters if they wish. They could remove boats they consider offensive, abandoned, incorrectly moored, the wrong colour with only 14 days postal notice. What if you are on your package holiday somewhere when the letter arrives! Bye bye boat.

 

They offer no route of appeal so anyone evicted would need to take the MLC to a magistrates court if they are unhappy with a decision! Wow.

 

They want the ability to force boaters to display the boat name, boat registration and Owners Name on the boat. Really

 

They want to have the right to give out boaters personal details to third parties! Data Protection.

 

They want the right to enter and inspect a boat whenever they want, even if that is a persons home. How would you like that if the council wanted immediate access to your home?

 

If one of your boat guests threw some litter/ a crisp packet etc. overboard and this was reported to the MLC, they want the right to demand the boat owner gives the names and addresses of those guests or else! What ever happened to the right to remain silent!

 

They want boats in private marinas to comply with all their terms and conditions otherwise they want the right to remove those boats!

 

The list goes on and on and it will effect every boater to some degree.

 

One business owner (Who wishes to remain nameless) has said that they fear for their livelihood if the Bill is passed. This individual is terrified of any repercussions if they speak out against the Bill. Very Sad.

 

There is already a requirement to hold boat insurance and a safety certificate on the ML. These could be checked at any time by the MLC and as they also control the entry and exit locks with MLC staff, it would not be a difficult task to carry out.

 

In the same way we all have certain rights, (Freedom of speech, right to roam, public right of way, right to vote etc.) this is another long standing right that is currently at risk! One day our children may thank us for keeping it safe.

Edited by Steamerpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the River Cam Conservators. They overturned their act in the 19th century so that they could charge pleasure boaters. Guess what, they provide NO facilities whatsoever, nothing. They are also about to raise their licence fees to, wait for it....................... £2500 per boat, per year!!!!

 

Where on earth did you hear that from?

 

Not only are CamCon licences charged by length, so there is no single charge for a powered boat, but there's also no plans whatsoever to increase the licence fees beyond inflation.

 

Cambridge City Council want to double their residential mooring fees overnight, but this is a completely separate organisation. Perhaps this is what you've got confused with?

 

CamCon also do provide facilities for boaters- a set of 48 hour moorings in Clayhithe, together with a large amount of tree works, spot dredging, river rubbish removal, weed cutting, maintain the locks, bank piling- and regulation of the schedule of and running of events, which is important on a very heavily used river. It's quite well maintained compared to other waterways in the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also if you read the Bill, you will be shocked to hear that the MLC will be able to reject boats/ boaters if they wish. They could remove boats they consider offensive, abandoned, incorrectly moored, the wrong colour with only 14 days postal notice. What if you are on your package holiday somewhere when the letter arrives! Bye bye boat.

 

They offer no route of appeal so anyone evicted would need to take the MLC to a magistrates court if they are unhappy with a decision! Wow.

 

They want the ability to force boaters to display the boat name, boat registration and Owners Name on the boat. Really

 

They want to have the right to give out boaters personal details to third parties! Data Protection.

 

They want the right to enter and inspect a boat whenever they want, even if that is a persons home. How would you like that if the council wanted immediate access to your home?

 

 

 

 

So all pretty much in line with exactly what the 30,000+ C&RT licence holders agree too when they apply for their licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are marinas on the canal system where no licences are required. Take School Road marina in Wigan for example.

 

The MLC want to licence boats within the bounds of private property.

 

Is is important to understand the difference here. This area was a largely underwater. Much of the area is below sea level.

Boats were the only form of transport, so when the 4th Earl of Bedford and the other 12 entrepreneurs wanted to drain the area to provide them with land on which to make money, there was huge opposition to his plans. The way he managed to get his bill through Parliament was to promise boaters free access as long as they were not carrying goods.

 

The new drains drained the area making a lot of people very rich.

Since the railways were opened, trade has left the ML, but the MLC has managed to service it's 6-locks for over 100 years without the need to take back this right.

 

In fact, this is not about raising more money because if it was, why didn't they look at creating moorings and rent them out at a £1000 a pop. This is all about taking powers and aligning the navigation with other navigations, namely the CRT system so they can hand over control in the not too distant future.

 

Remember that these are merely open drains designed for drainage and irrigation. They are not built for boaters. Their principle use is for the land owners who must have this support.

Boaters can just leave and then the boating community is destroyed leaving it empty apart from those wealthy enough to stay.

 

Too many people in favour of this Bill are either jealous boaters from other systems or don't give a dam about anyone until new laws adversely effect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The MLC meeting minutes clearly discuss the forthcoming meeting with CRT in April and the nature of that meeting!

 

Is that available online? I scanned the last minutes I could find online, but it's a long document and I may have missed something.

 

MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are marinas on the canal system where no licences are required. Take School Road marina in Wigan for example.

 

The MLC want to licence boats within the bounds of private property.

A license system only works of all contribute. If a license is not required to keep a boat in a marina connected to the navigation, then most boats, which spend most time in a marina, need only buy a short-term visitor license, and the system degenerates into a pay-per-passage arrangement, which isn't practical on enforcement or equity grounds. Why do you think that other navigations have the same rules, and the EA have just introduced them on the Thames?

 

 

MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So all pretty much in line with exactly what the 30,000+ C&RT licence holders agree too when they apply for their licence.

 

As posted earlier, the ML Bill is currently held up with a motion to oppose. Perhaps someone in favour of the increased control should point out to the Commissioners that they could save all the time, trouble and expense of promoting this Bill, and take a leaf out of CaRT's book - simply impose the desired obligations on boaters by demanding they agree to a unilaterally drafted contract?

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.