Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

[NigelMoore]

For those interested, there is very little time within which you can provide any views you may have on the the proposed new Act of Parliament that will make pleasure boat registrations mandatory for the very first time on the Middle Levels. This is the latest from the NBTA, which suggests you can either sign up to their petition, or enter your own objections as they show how: -

 

The navigation authority that runs the Middle Levels, a system of navigable drainage channels, is promoting a Bill in Parliament that would introduce charges and terms and conditions for the first time. At the moment, navigation by non-commercial boats is free of charge. The Middle Levels are funded by millions of pounds of drainage charges from land owners, whose land would otherwise be swamp.

The introduction of charges would extinguish the rights given to local people in the seventeenth century to use boats non-commercially without payment. The Bill also proposes draconian new byelaw powers and powers to seize boats. At present the Middle Levels are an option for boat dwellers to take refuge if they cannot, through no fault of their own, pay the licence fees or keep to the terms and conditions demanded by other navigation authorities such as CRT.

The NBTA will be a Petitioner against this Bill. As it's a Private Bill, anyone who will be affected by the proposals can petition directly to Parliament to have the Bill dropped or for amendment of certain clauses. This has to be done according to a specific Parliamentary procedure. The NBTA has been working with boaters in the Middle Levels who are affected by this Bill.

If you live or pass through the Middle Levels (which are the only inland route to Cambridge), or if you wish to in the future, please consider either adding your name to the NBTA's petition or using the attached template petition to submit your own petition against the Bill.

The NBTA will be handing its petition to Parliament this Tuesday January 24th so time is limited. Adding your name means the Middle Level Commissioners have to negotiate with you and there is a greater chance that we can stop the worst of these proposals becoming law in the first place - just like boaters did with the Bill that became the British Waterways Act 1995.

If you want to submit your own petition there is a procedure to follow, and the Petition should be handed in personally to Parliament between 24th January and 5pm on 30th January 2017. See the attached Commons Petitioning Kit.

I'm attaching the template petition written by the NBTA and the House of Commons guidance for how to submit a Petition against a Private Bill.

The Middle Level Bill can be found here

 

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/middlelevel.html

Edited January 21, 2017 by NigelMoore

[Tuscan]

The middle level commissioners ran a consultation on this last year

[frangar]

Ironic that it's the nbta organisation who suddenly seemed concerned about navigation when in reality their members seem to want to do anything apart from navigate.....

[Mike Todd]

I would have thought that the greater interest should be paid to the list of navigations, to ensure that nothing that should be on the list (which may perhaps be contentious) is omitted whilst no-one is looking. I have only been on most of this on one occasion, but another might happen ere long, but I do know that, apart from the 'through' route, other parts are on an uncertain basis with regard to navigation - use it if you can/dare. legislation like this will inevitably lead to arguments about whether certain stretches have been/ should be properly maintained and to what standard.

[Alan de Enfield]

Ironic that it's the nbta organisation who suddenly seemed concerned about navigation when in reality their members seem to want to do anything apart from navigate.....

 

Yes - But :

 

You will still need a licence to be a 'continuous moorer'

 

At present the Middle Levels are an option for boat dwellers to take refuge if they cannot, through no fault of their own, pay the licence fees or keep to the terms and conditions demanded by other navigation authorities such as CRT.

 

How can it not be 'your fault' if you do not comply with the T&Cs that you agreed to comply with ?

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[Athy]

legislation like this will inevitably lead to arguments about whether certain stretches have been/ should be properly maintained and to what standard.

I think you mean "Legislation like this will make more money available for proper maintenance to a good standard". I (as a former moorer and cruiser on the ML) would be sorry to see free movement affected. On the other hand, continuous mooring would be unlikely to be affected, as many of us have riparian rights.

[Alan de Enfield]

. On the other hand, continuous mooring would be unlikely to be affected, as many of us have riparian rights.

 

But as the NBTA are suggesting that "At present the Middle Levels are an option for boat dwellers to take refuge..."

 

This must surely suggest that they have no 'connection' with the area, do not own land adjacent to the ML, and do not have Riparian Rights.

 

Being a 'refuge' would imply that they have come from elsewhere to escape a 'problem' (normally in a boating sense, storm, engine breakdown etc), but in the NBTA sense, seemingly a refuge from having to meet certain 'conditions'.

 

If the ML is being used as a 'refuge' should the affected boaters be considered as 'refugees' ?

[MoominPapa]

 

At present the Middle Levels are an option for boat dwellers to take refuge if they cannot, through no fault of their own, pay the licence fees or keep to the terms and conditions demanded by other navigation authorities such as CRT.

 

Best argument so far for the new arrangement!

 

MP.

[Athy]

 

 

 

This must surely suggest that they have no 'connection' with the area, do not own land adjacent to the ML, and do not have Riparian Rights.

 

Being a 'refuge' would imply that they have come from elsewhere to escape a 'problem' (normally in a boating sense, storm, engine breakdown etc), but in the NBTA sense, seemingly a refuge from having to meet certain 'conditions'.

 

If the ML is being used as a 'refuge' should the affected boaters be considered as 'refugees' ?

No, they shouldn't.

Your suggestion that these boaters may not have riparian rights is not well thought out. Fairly obviously, they can moor beside the properties of people who DO have such rights - like the chap in his little Springer who's moored at the end of next door's garden even as I write.

 

Best argument so far for the new arrangement!

 

MP.

Er, shurely shome mishtake here? The "new arrangement" would not, as far as I can see, work in favour of these boaters, and would therefore be a Bad Thing.

[Alan de Enfield]

.

Your suggestion that these boaters may not have riparian rights is not well thought out.

 

 

Obviously when you said "many of us have riparian rights", which I read it as 'many of us boaters.....' I was reading too much into it, but, it was not clear to me that you meant that all of the 'refugees' had contacted the land owner and had an agreement in place to allow them to utilise the land-owners mooring rights.

[MoominPapa]

No, they shouldn't.

Your suggestion that these boaters may not have riparian rights is not well thought out. Fairly obviously, they can moor beside the properties of people who DO have such rights - like the chap in his little Springer who's moored at the end of next door's garden even as I write.

Er, shurely shome mishtake here? The "new arrangement" would not, as far as I can see, work in favour of these boaters, and would therefore be a Bad Thing.

No mistake here. You're right that it won't work in favour of such boaters, and it is therefore a Good Thing.

 

MP.

[Athy]

 

Obviously when you said "many of us have riparian rights", which I read it as 'many of us boaters.....' I was reading too much into it, but, it was not clear to me that you meant that all of the 'refugees' had contacted the land owner and had an agreement in place to allow them to utilise the land-owners mooring rights.

Sorry, I did not explain myself adequately. By "us" I meant people who live here and whose property adjoins a Middle Level waterway - our front garden goes down to the Old River Nene. Several of our neighbours have boats which don't belong to them attached to the edge of their properties.

Although I am indeed a boater, it's about five years since I had a boat of my own moored at our landing stage, but I have had someone else's there for a while since then.

No mistake here. You're right that it won't work in favour of such boaters, and it is therefore a Good Thing.

 

MP.

So, refusing help to boaters who have problems through no fault of their own (as your quotation makes clear) is good? We may have to agree to differ on that point.

 

Nigel has provided a link to the Bill but not to the Petition, which I would very much like to sign. Where can it be found, please?

Edited January 21, 2017 by Athy

[Alan de Enfield]

............ it's about five years since I had a boat of my own moored at our landing stage, but I have had someone else's there for a while since then.

 

That'll be why, when (I thought) we passed your house a few weeks ago I couldn't see a boat called 'Trojan'

[Athy]

 

That'll be why, when (I thought) we passed your house a few weeks ago I couldn't see a boat called 'Trojan'

Indeed - she is moored in Cropredy village on the Oxford Canal. Which was your boat? Very few have been past in the last few weeks - indeed to my knowledge only one, Judd, has passed us this year.

[Alan de Enfield]

Indeed - she is moored in Cropredy village on the Oxford Canal. Which was your boat? Very few have been past in the last few weeks - indeed to my knowledge only one, Judd, has passed us this year.

 

We were in the car - buying an 'enormous' horse trailer (3-Tonne with living accommodation) from just 'down the road' from you.

[Athy]

 

We were in the car - buying an 'enormous' horse trailer (3-Tonne with living accommodation) from just 'down the road' from you.

Good Heavens! Very few outsiders penetrate the lonely Fens. Ours is the house in my avatar, next door to Russell's the butchers and almost opposite a tumbledown but still active garage.

I hope the enormous horse is happy with its trailer.

[Alan de Enfield]

Good Heavens! Very few outsiders penetrate the lonely Fens. Ours is the house in my avatar, next door to Russell's the butchers and almost opposite a tumbledown but still active garage.

I hope the enormous horse is happy with its trailer.

 

Wife was out hunting and he has now gone lame - could be 6 months recovery (or never) Ungrateful beast !!!

[MoominPapa]

So, refusing help to boaters who have problems through no fault of their own (as your quotation makes clear) is good? We may have to agree to differ on that point.

 

 

I'm happy to agree to differ, but rather calling this "refusing help to boaters who have problems" I think I'd describe it as "closing a loophole for freeloaders which is being publicised by the NBTA"

 

Cheers,

 

MP.

[NigelMoore]

Nigel has provided a link to the Bill but not to the Petition, which I would very much like to sign. Where can it be found, please?

 

I think, Athy, that you would just send them an email to that effect, but I have asked for clarification on that. I can post up a copy of the draft if they OK that.

 

secretariat@bargee-traveller.org.uk

 

Obviously, not everyone would necessarily agree with everything the NBTA have put in their petition, and may have other views or amendments that the NBTA have not incorporated, and that is why the link to the Parliamentary website helps, because if you want to present your own petition focussed on your own particular issue, you can.

 

I am thinking of doing this myself, though I have sent agreement to the NBTA petition on the broad principle that I am against increasing regulation in any form, where there has not been any demonstrable need for it; I can see why advantages could be seen in the scheme, but I hate to see small pockets of relative freedom lost.

[Mike Todd]

I think you mean "Legislation like this will make more money available for proper maintenance to a good standard". I (as a former moorer and cruiser on the ML) would be sorry to see free movement affected. On the other hand, continuous mooring would be unlikely to be affected, as many of us have riparian rights.

What I was getting at is that when navigation, as now, is barely regulated for recreational purposes there is an expectation of using it 'as found' whereas if you have paid a fee then, whether or not this is strictly correct, there is an implicit contract and you expect it to be fulfilled. Hence there may be much greater pressure from some quarters that the navigation standards will be maintained. I wonder how those who are regulars on these waters feel that their character may be changed as a result of the fee charging?

[Mike Todd]

 

I think, Athy, that you would just send them an email to that effect, but I have asked for clarification on that. I can post up a copy of the draft if they OK that.

 

secretariat@bargee-traveller.org.uk

 

Obviously, not everyone would necessarily agree with everything the NBTA have put in their petition, and may have other views or amendments that the NBTA have not incorporated, and that is why the link to the Parliamentary website helps, because if you want to present your own petition focussed on your own particular issue, you can.

 

I am thinking of doing this myself, though I have sent agreement to the NBTA petition on the broad principle that I am against increasing regulation in any form, where there has not been any demonstrable need for it; I can see why advantages could be seen in the scheme, but I hate to see small pockets of relative freedom lost.

Whilst I some sympathy with your point of view, it does also have to balanced against the need to ensure funding so that navigation, which is currently permissive, is maintained. It is little value to retain a right to free navigation if the result of that is no navigation at all - if you see what I mean. It might - taking the longer view - be better to focus on getting the legislation 'right' rather than total opposition.

[Athy]

 

I'm happy to agree to differ, but rather calling this "refusing help to boaters who have problems" I think I'd describe it as "closing a loophole for freeloaders which is being publicised by the NBTA"

 

Cheers,

 

MP.

But you're missing the vital point: that these boaters are there because they're in straitened or otherwise difficult circumstances THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN - the news item makes that quite clear. To wish them gone does seem very unsympathetic. Where else are they going to go?

They also, of course, put money into the rural economy through buying groceries, coal etc., thus benefitting what is not an especially rich area.

[john6767]

I think, Athy, that you would just send them an email to that effect, but I have asked for clarification on that. I can post up a copy of the draft if they OK that.

 

secretariat@bargee-traveller.org.uk

 

Obviously, not everyone would necessarily agree with everything the NBTA have put in their petition, and may have other views or amendments that the NBTA have not incorporated, and that is why the link to the Parliamentary website helps, because if you want to present your own petition focussed on your own particular issue, you can.

 

I am thinking of doing this myself, though I have sent agreement to the NBTA petition on the broad principle that I am against increasing regulation in any form, where there has not been any demonstrable need for it; I can see why advantages could be seen in the scheme, but I hate to see small pockets of relative freedom lost.

We visited the ML last summer and I would have been very happy to have payed for a visitor licence as you would do when visit other waterways, it did not seen right not paying. Wouldn't having a proper licence scheme also make it easier to ensure that all boats have a BSC, how is that done today?

 

Hopefully the benefit of MLC being able to charge would be that there could be more boater facilities, in particular visitor moorings. If they could do that they could make the ML much more attractive to visitors, and presumably boats based there as well. With more cash and more of a priority on boating perhaps they could raise some of the low bridges as well.

[Athy]

What I was getting at is that when navigation, as now, is barely regulated for recreational purposes there is an expectation of using it 'as found' whereas if you have paid a fee then, whether or not this is strictly correct, there is an implicit contract and you expect it to be fulfilled. Hence there may be much greater pressure from some quarters that the navigation standards will be maintained. I wonder how those who are regulars on these waters feel that their character may be changed as a result of the fee charging?

Aye, there's the rub, and you've hit on a crucial point which is always - quite correctly - put forward when the subject of imposing licence fees comes up, which it does every few years.

At the moment, facilities on the Nene To Ouse Link - the ML Main Line through Whittlesey, March, Upwell, Outwell and Nordelph - are fairly limited. There are public mooring staithes in all those places, but mooring in between is not always easy, especially on stretches where there are high, sloping banks each side of the waterway - there are no towpaths on all or most of the route. Dredging does take place (they're in our village scraping away at the moment) but only fairly short sections at a time. There's the occasional water tap and rubbish bin, but the only sanny station is in March town centre.

Now, if a licence fee for boats was imposed, of course local boaters would demand more sanny stations, more water taps, more moorings, more dredging...all of which would cost lots of MONEY. I wonder if the extra income from boat licences would be sufficient to pay for these improvements

I vote remain!

[NigelMoore]

Whilst I some sympathy with your point of view, it does also have to balanced against the need to ensure funding so that navigation, which is currently permissive, is maintained. It is little value to retain a right to free navigation if the result of that is no navigation at all - if you see what I mean. It might - taking the longer view - be better to focus on getting the legislation 'right' rather than total opposition.

 

For so long as the public right of navigation persists, the use is NOT “permissive”, it is by right. The registration scheme would not change that, either. The middle levels were not designed as navigations, only as drains, and the public right to boating use was part of the original deal allowing their construction. The Bill does not seek to overturn that per se, but to introduce chargeable registration - much like the BW 1971 Act.

 

The costs of maintenance of the drains were to be met by the landowners who directly benefited from the drainage. The maintenance for drainage means they will be navigable. The funding of maintenance for navigation therefore, is not a factor.

 

 

If the Commissioners are to provide navigation-specific facilities and services, it is right they should be enabled to charge for those, but there is no current obligation so far as I know – I have not looked into their legislation. There is something slightly perverse in the self-imposition of extra obligations to provide facilities, that then are charged against those who were happy without them [if that is the case; maybe boaters there DO want to be looked after more, rather than be left alone].

 

There will doubtless be benefits that others will see where I do not, but I cannot see that the “balance” you describe applies to this case.