Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

[NigelMoore]

duplicate

Edited January 21, 2017 by NigelMoore

[Martin Megson]

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.....

 

I do find it ironic this organisation has the word traveller in its title as that seems to be the last thing the members want to do.

[MoominPapa]

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.

 

I'm afraid that I'm deeply cynical about the motives of the NBTA.

 

MP.

[ditchcrawler]

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.

I spent two years on the ML and visited every bit my boat would fit and with the aid of a canoe some it wouldn't and the ML put both the EA and CRT to shame with the way they maintain a waterway. A trip down to Horseway Lock in clear water and look the other way from the lock to the EA you can't find any water.

[starman]

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.

As a matter of interest who does own the banks of the ML waterways? I know from personal experience that mooring's pretty tricky but what's the legality of banging pins in a bank side somewhere?

[Athy]

As a matter of interest who does own the banks of the ML waterways? I know from personal experience that mooring's pretty tricky but what's the legality of banging pins in a bank side somewhere?

Generally speaking (and I'm sure there are exceptions, where there's a road beside the waterway - as for example along the 16-Foot Drain - then it belongs to the council, though exactly where the Middle Level's property ends and the council's begins I don't know. Where there isn't a road alongside, then the bank - and the river bed up to half way across the water - belongs to the householder, as ours does, the factory owner (yes, there are occasional industrial premises along the ML) or the farmer. Certainly at least one farmer in our area lets out moorings at his property.

I understand, from local boaters, that it's O.K. to moor overnight alongside a road.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Athy

[NigelMoore]

Generally speaking (and I'm sure there are exceptions, where there's a road beside the waterway - as for example along the 16-Foot Drain - then it belongs to the council, though exactly where the Middle Level's property ends and the council's begins I don't know. Where there isn't a road alongside, then the bank - and the river bed up to half way across the water - belongs to the householder, as ours does, the factory owner (yes, there are occasional industrial premises along the ML) or the farmer. Certainly at least one farmer in our area lets out moorings at his property.

I understand, from local boaters, that it's O.K. to moor overnight alongside a road.

 

This situation is pertinent also, to fears of boats being permanently moored everywhere. The riparian owners have power to refuse mooring to their property as well as to approve it. It is much like the Thames, where most of the banks are in private hands. The responsibility therefore, for regulating mooring lies with the owners, rather than with a central authority. There is no prospect of the feared 'free-for-all' envisaged by some.

[NigelMoore]

 

I'm afraid that I'm deeply cynical about the motives of the NBTA.

 

It would be a great pity if people with an interest in waterways in general and the Middle Levels in particular, fixated on the petition of one group of people instead of reading through the proposals for themselves, and showing willing to contribute to making the legislation as good as it could be – if it must be at all. Forget about other people's motives, let us look to our own.

 

Some of us have a deep appreciation of all the effort over several years, that certain boaters and groups put in to making the best of the 1990 Bill; getting objectionable clauses removed, and amending others to prevent potential abuse. It showed a great spirit of engagement with the process of running the waterways that looks to be a fading characteristic.

 

For or against, this is a rare chance to show your colours in taking part in the legislative process that could well affect you and yours in the future. You have until the 30th of this month to stick your oar in as an individual or as a group.

 

You may or may not be supportive of the Commissioners being able to demand registration of boats in private waters connected with the network – if you think it unjust that boats kept in your private cutting or in a marina should be made to register as though on and using the network, then this is your chance to object to that.

 

Same with this Bill’s section 8 – they have adopted the same phraseology of the BW Act 1983, which has led to unwarranted extrapolation of assumed powers and years of fruitless litigation; if you think this is folly, now is the time to object, and to make your own recommendations for improvement.

 

If you feel that there is absolutely no rational demand for increase in legislation AT ALL, then you could either sign up to the NBTA petition or create your own. A ‘petition’, by the way, in this arena, is not signing up to a plea, but is a formal objection to all or part of a Bill; it has to be couched in the appropriate formal language of ‘praying’ for the honourable MP’s to hear your humble self etc.

[hounddog]

Well said Nigel, unfortunately you are assuming you can get independent and joined up thinking from the hounds of CWDF that, when given a whiff of NBTA, seem to go off on some kind of clichéd feeding frenzy.

 

For example:

 

"seem to want to do anything apart from navigate" Arf arf arf

 

"can we call them refugees? Arf arf arf

 

"closing a loophole for freeloaders" from a freeloader who has kept his boat on the Middle Levels for a long time.

[NigelMoore]

While taking your point hounddog, it does not need joined up thinking amongst CWDF members - as I say, any individual can file an objection on his/her own behalf, making such representations only as they wish. You do not need to get together a group.

[Athy]

Well said Nigel, unfortunately you are assuming you can get independent and joined up thinking from the hounds of CWDF that, when given a whiff of NBTA, seem to go off on some kind of clichéd feeding frenzy.

 

For example:

 

"seem to want to do anything apart from navigate" Arf arf arf

 

"can we call them refugees? Arf arf arf

 

"closing a loophole for freeloaders" from a freeloader who has kept his boat on the Middle Levels for a long time.

Well, I see your points, but I don't think it would be fair to refer to refer to the member in question as a "freeloader", as he moors in a local marina which, though by no means expensive, certainly isn't free. I have no reason to suspect that he doesn't pay his mooring fees (indeed, thinking of who runs the marina, I'm sure that he wouldn't dare not to.)

 

I thought that the question about refugees was seriously asked. If these people have such serious differences of opinion with CART or EA that they can no longer stay on their waters, then yes, I think that the ML does become a refuge for them and their boats. This does not imply any adverse criticism, by the way.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Athy

[hounddog]

Well, I see your points, but I don't think it would be fair to refer to refer to the member in question as a "freeloader", as he moors in a local marina which, though by no means expensive, certainly isn't free. I have no reason to suspect that he doesn't pay his mooring fees (indeed, thinking of who runs the marina, I'm sure that he wouldn't dare not to.)

 

 

Presumably any people moving to the middle levels from CRT waters would also have to enter into some kind of arrangement with riparian owners to moor, therefore I fail to see how exactly they are any more, or less, a freeloader than the 'honourable' member who pays for his mooring but enjoys navigating for free.

 

If it's an underused waterway that, as you point out, would benefit from more traffic then it seems a little churlish to denigrate those boaters who wish to use them for whatever motive.

[Athy]

 

Presumably any people moving to the middle levels from CRT waters would also have to enter into some kind of arrangement with riparian owners to moor, therefore I fail to see how exactly they are any more, or less, a freeloader than the 'honourable' member who pays for his mooring but enjoys navigating for free.

 

If it's an underused waterway that, as you point out, would benefit from more traffic then it seems a little churlish to denigrate those boaters who wish to use them for whatever motive.

Perhaps we are at variance on the definition of "freeloader". To me , it's someone who doesn't pay for anything if he can avoid doing so. Therefore, a person who chooses to pay marina mooring fees is not a freeloader at all. He could have attached his boat to a remote bank somewhere (there are some very remote bits of the ML) but does not do so.

[Mike Todd]

Nigel M is right to draw attention to this legislation as it is quite significant and in parts, especially the clause to which he draws attention regarding attached waters may well be a trial run for CaRT legislation sometime in the future.

 

That said (a) I am not sufficiently stirred up- to 'petition' even though though I am interested in the process and the outcome. I can hardly be described as a directly interested party!

 

( my one visit did highlight the lack of facilities to promote the waterways as a positive leisure opportunity. It did feel a bit as being there as a tolerated but uninvited guest!

 

© in the light of b above I'd tend towards being supportive provided that any dodgy bits are 'improved'. What I was hoping was that this forum would bring to light any matters that were of real concern going beyond the total opposition on somewhat tendentious grounds by NBTA. I am not sure that I can see an absolute case against and, for me anyway, it is a matter of seeing what the balance is between plus and minus.

[NigelMoore]

Mike, the East Anglian Waterways Association has been active over the past years in consultation with the Commissioners, and they are broadly supportive of the Bill, although a couple of aspects at least seem to have snuck in without their noticing.

 

One of the reasons for their support has been precisely the point you make respecting the increased responsibility for providing navigational facilities for boaters, and in particular the Commissioners' backing for the "Hereward" project which aims to open up more navigation possibilities.

 

I am hoping to lodge my own petition focussing on the two points I have highlighted here, in the interests of clarity and curbing the sort of CaRT and EA antics that bedevil us, and which have led to pointless and expensive litigation in the interests of asserting unilateral and uncontrolled powers at whim.

 

If we have to have more legislation, it is important to get it right, so that both boaters and authority know exactly what the parameters are, and to ensure that those are fair, and conducive to an improved experience. Unless affected boaters take the necessary interest, that will not happen with this Bill - for all that it improves on BW legislation in some important respects.

[nbfiresprite]

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.

 

One of the main bit's of misinformation that is being spread by Bargee Travellers Association is that the MLC is private company with greedy shareholders. The true fact is that the MLC is a statutory corporation (Separation Act (25 & 26 Vict. cap. 104) with a remit for drainage, flood control and water management The MLC has powers to set a levy (Rates) on land and property, Yet any increase in rates has to be approved by Government. The MLC income may be in the millions, But then so are it's costs. It's biggest item being the electric bill for over 200 pumping stations plus the big one at St German's. The bill just for the pump that keeps Well creek topped up is in the tens of thousands (If you turned off the pump Well creek would soon be empty. The section of the route between Marmont Priory and Salter Lode is only used for navigation and is not used as part of the drainage system. Keeping this section open costs the MLC fair amount. Dredging is not cheap.

 

Each year the MLC has to fund for navigation

 

Two fulltime Lock keepers plus seasonal part time lock keepers (Stanground and Salter Lode)

 

The care and upkeep of six locks

 

The upkeep of Mullicourt Aqueduct plus the non council funded bridges on Well Creek

 

Mullicourt Aqueduct pump (Pumps water from the Main Drain 30ft below up into Well Creek)

 

Weed cutting of Well Creek (Well Creek does not serve a drainage, flood or water management function)

 

This all adds up to a tided sum each year which has to be found from somewhere.

 

As for new moorings very limited where can put them. Shire Hall is dead against moorings along side the 16th, 20ft, 40ft drains plus Kings Dyke and Whittlesey Dyke where the road runs along side on H&S grounds. All these waterways had cars drive into them last year, mostly down to speeding often 100+ on the 16th Drain.

 

Anyway I contacted Iain Smith (Outgoing CEO) before Christmas with questions from the misinformation being spead by BTA

 

Thank you for your email of 21^st December.

 

The Commissioners are, by waterway length, the fourth largest navigation authority in the country but are, as you know, forced at present to operate under very old and outdated legislation. The Commissioners’ wish is to be a modern navigation authority and to operate under legislation broadly similar to that available to other inland navigation authorities. Charging is not therefore the only driver of the present proposals, since we would wish for example, to ensure that vessels on the Commissioners’ waters are safe, carry appropriate insurance and that we have appropriate powers to properly control navigation on our waters. We have of course consulted on the present provisions over a long period and, with limited exceptions, the provisions now proposed were contained in the draft Order and Byelaws that we attempted to bring in some 10 years ago and on which we worked with boating organisations. I can assure you and your fellow boat owners that we would wish to continue to take users with us when (hopefully) the new provisions come in.

 

The formal procedure is that we have submitted a Bill to Parliament, containing those provisions which are better contained in primary legislation and which will, if enacted, set out the framework for the new regime. The Parliamentary authorities have however, required us to keep the primary legislation as short as possible. The draft Bill will then be followed by byelaws, made under the Bill’s byelaw making powers, which will need to be confirmed by Defra and will be based on the provisions already consulted on and those provisions previously in the Order which had to be omitted from the Act. During the period after, hopefully, the Act has been passed, we will be finalising the detail and discussing the position further with users and others to give some firmer indication of timescales and charging.

 

I am therefore not really able to give you a firm indication of these at the moment since the passage of the legislation depends on the Parliamentary process and the Commissioners have not yet considered the potential charging regime in detail, which they are unlikely to do until the primary powers are obtained. Your fellow boat owners may be assured, however that we will not be “springing” anything on them and that there will be a ‘period of grace’ for compliance with the new regime. I comment on your specific points as far as I am able to do so at this stage below, with the caveat that I can therefore only give a broad indication at present.

 

As regards your specific points

 

1) Annual Registration: It is noted that in the bill that there is no requirement to provide details of home mooring. Has this been missed out? As most owners with legal Middle Level mooring expected it to be included. There removing the current problem of boats without moorings just drifting around, mooring where ever they like.for as long as they like. (i.e Four members of the supporters of Bargee Travellers Association who have been moored on the March moorings for months.)

 

Parliament as mentioned above, required us to keep the Bill as short as possible and to deal with other aspects through byelaws. At present there is no general mooring allowed on Commissioners’ owned channels and we have in the past considered this more of a landowner issue. We also note that this point was not mentioned in the consultation but we would consider this as a requirement if it was something that users generally really felt was necessary.

 

2)With regards to End of Garden moorings, Do you intend to follow C&RT practise of charging the owner an annual fee for them moor against their own land.?

 

This question depends on your precise meaning. Where mooring takes place on a riparian channel, ie where, unusually in relation to the Middle Level rivers, the adjoining owners are deemed to own to the midpoint of the channel eg on Well Creek or the Nene, then we would not envisage that a charge for mooring would be levied. Most of the Middle Level system is however owned by the Commissioners and any mooring on our owned channels, eg Forty Foot would only be permitted with the Commissioners’ consent and then on such terms as the Commissioners thought fit. This however, is already the present practice supported by court decisions and any change in relation to the Commissioners’ owned waters would be a matter for MLC policy and not for the proposed new powers.

 

3)Annual Registration expect size? This is of some concern to some readers on fixed incomes. There would like to know roughly how much to save each month over the next year to pay the first annual fee.

 

4)The expected start of registration?

 

I cannot as yet give a firm indication either as to the fee or the date on which it or the proposed new regime will become effective. This will to a very large extent depend on the Parliamentary timetable and also following the enactment of the Bill, the subsequent making of byelaws which will need to be advertised and confirmed by Defra. What I can say, however is that once the Bill is enacted and we have some certainty over our powers, we will be holding discussions with users on the details of what is proposed.

 

We will also be holding discussions with the EA concerning reciprocal arrangements. Your fellow boat owners will not therefore face the prospect of a change happening overnight since we will need to give a reasonable period of warning and grace for those affected to make the then required arrangements. If your fellow boat owners are at this stage looking for a general indication of charge levels, I can only suggest that the levels charged by the EA and the Cam Conservators are noted although I cannot stress enough that the Commissioners have not yet reached any decision in this respect, as the power to do so does not yet exist, and would consider the Middle Level position and our own costs and navigation works programme before assessing the appropriate level. It has also been suggested that there should be a phased introduction of any such charges and the Commissioners would give consideration to this request.

 

While I have been asked and shall continue to deal with this project please note that, from 1^st January 2017, I have retired as Clerk and Chief Executive to the Commissioners. Any general issues on the MLC navigations should therefore now be addressed to my successor, David Thomas.

 

Regards

Iain Smith

Consultant to the Middle Level Commissioners

 

 

www.middlelevel.gov.uk

 

Middle Level Commissioners

85 Whittlesey Road, March, Cambs. PE15 0AH

 

Tel: 01354 602003 Fax: 01354 659619 Email: admin@middlelevel.gov.uk

Edited January 23, 2017 by nbfiresprite

[NigelMoore]

Very good answers from Mr Smith.

 

I would note only that it is not merely "better contained in primary legislation", the aspirations can ONLY be obtained through primary legislation - and this was one of the points made during early byelaw consultations, by the EAWA.

[nbfiresprite]

I always concide the 'Bargee Travellers Association' to be a group that belived in total non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems. They remind me of a spoit child.with their constant bellowing of I Want, I Want, I Want. Many of them probably don't have insurance or a current BSSC why else would they paintout the name and index number other than to try and hide the fact they don't have either, We don't need ther uninsured deathtraps on our waterways.

[BWM]

Nbta = No Boats Traveling Anywhere

[Athy]

I always concide the 'Bargee Travellers Association' to be a group that belived in total non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems. They remind me of a spoit child.with their constant bellowing of I Want, I Want, I Want. Many of them probably don't have insurance or a current BSSC why else would they paintout the name and index number other than to try and hide the fact they don't have either,

But if they're cruising exclusively on ML waters, they don't need an index number, do they?

[MoominPapa]

"closing a loophole for freeloaders" from a freeloader who has kept his boat on the Middle Levels for a long time.

 

... and has just bought a Gold License.

 

MP.

[MoominPapa]

 

Presumably any people moving to the middle levels from CRT waters would also have to enter into some kind of arrangement with riparian owners to moor, therefore I fail to see how exactly they are any more, or less, a freeloader than the 'honourable' member who pays for his mooring but enjoys navigating for free.

 

If it's an underused waterway that, as you point out, would benefit from more traffic then it seems a little churlish to denigrate those boaters who wish to use them for whatever motive.

 

 

The Middle Level is an underused waterway, it also has very few public moorings and, in practise, an ecosystem which involves casual, short-term visitor mooring against owned banks. Since these are mostly remote, a policy of "don;' ask, don't tell" works. More boats coming on to the system with fixed mooring is fine. More boats permuting themselves over public and informal moorings is something that the ML is even more vulnerable to than the rest of the system.

 

MP.

[john6767]

 

 

The Middle Level is an underused waterway, it also has very few public moorings and, in practise, an ecosystem which involves casual, short-term visitor mooring against owned banks. Since these are mostly remote, a policy of "don;' ask, don't tell" works. More boats coming on to the system with fixed mooring is fine. More boats permuting themselves over public and informal moorings is something that the ML is even more vulnerable to than the rest of the system.

 

MP.

The lack of visitor mooring is an issue, so a licence fee whilst may possible discourage some from going there, would hopefully provide funds to develop more short term visitor moorings and make it more attractive to visit, particularly off the through route, which I enjoyed, but I can see that some would be put off.

[Scholar Gypsy]

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).

 

[mayalld]

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.

 

The problem is that "THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN" isn't news, it isn't fact, it is the spin that NBTA put on it.

 

This comes down to the inaccurately described "low impact lifestyles", which is just a euphemism for "do whatever you want, and it will be OK, that is your right".

 

We are talking about some kind of wool-minded thinking that says "if you don't actually fancy working hard at a useful job, don't bother. Just follow your dreams, and spend your days in activities that please you, but don't actually bring in any appreciable amount of money. Then demand that because you don't have money, the normal rules about paying for stuff shouldn't apply to you"

 

Their problems aren't "THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN". Their problems are an unwillingness to devote their lives to earning what they want.