Jump to content

On-line mooring consultation


Tanglewood

Featured Posts

Apologies if this is a thread elsewhere, but does everyone know about the currently live consultation about on-line moorings?  The key issue seems to be that CRT are dropping their policy to close on-line moorings at the current rate. i.e. close one on-line mooring whenever 10 off line moorings are created.  

This is a matter that concerns us. We live opposite a long term mooring site, managed by CRT due to be closed in June next year.  Our view as boaters, and neighbours (we don't use the site) is that this linear site for 4 boats adds to the colour of the Waterways, and should not be sacrificed. Some may remember a notice asking for support from boaters to keep this small place alive and vibrant.  There are complicating factors, but even so the boating community were SO supportive, and in a couple of months 500 signatures had been added.  Sadly, the Chief Exec. although celebrating and valuing the camaraderie of the Boating community indicated that he supported the decision made by Waterside Moorings.  It is not appropriate to share further details on a public forum. What is important is that whatever your views regarding the new policy, you express it.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/national-consultations The consultation closes on December 21st 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, john6767 said:

Hasn't the principle of removing 1 on-line mooring for every 10 new off-line moorings in the same area been policy for many years?

I certainly thought so. Ever since BW decided to encourage others to develop offline marinas.

Whilet I  enjoy cruising past a few moored boato and looking at them, some linear moorings, such as those on the northern Shroppie go on for miles. It is these that should be targeted for reduction as it makes quite an impact on a days cruising having to pass over a mile of moored boats on tickover.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But is is suggested that this is dropped.

Yes I got that, and having read the referenced documents, it not 100% clear to me what it is saying is the proposal.  In general it seems to be saying no new online long term moorings, but it does not seem to say anything about the reduction of existing ones..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes - and is part of the National Access Agreement, but, it does not have to be in the same (immediate) area

With in a 30 mile radius according to this snippet from the consultation:

"The Canal & River Trust will reduce the number of online, long-term moorings as new offline capacity comes onto the market. This will be done in a ratio of 1:10: one on-line berth will be given up for every ten new berths created off line. Reductions will be made within the geographical market supplied by the new offline marina within 12 months of the opening date of the new site. For the purpose of clarity, we will make the reductions within a 30 mile radius of the new marina berths."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

With in a 30 mile radius according to this snippet from the consultation:

"The Canal & River Trust will reduce the number of online, long-term moorings as new offline capacity comes onto the market. This will be done in a ratio of 1:10: one on-line berth will be given up for every ten new berths created off line. Reductions will be made within the geographical market supplied by the new offline marina within 12 months of the opening date of the new site. For the purpose of clarity, we will make the reductions within a 30 mile radius of the new marina berths."

So fairly insignificant - a new 100 berth marina opens & C&RT closes 10 moorings across 60 miles of canal (or 90 miles if near a junction)

To bring that into perspective :

The River Soar (Leicester to the River Trent) is 25 miles

The total Trent & Mersey Canal (Preston Brook to Derwent Mouth) is 93 miles

The Aire & Calder Canal (Leeds to Goole) is 34 miles

The total Navigable River Trent (Meadow Lane to Trent Falls / The Humber) is 93 miles.

 

C&RT lose the income of 10 moorings at (say) £2500 per annum = £25,000

The marina must pay the NAA at 9% of mooring income at (say) 9% of 100 x £3000 = £27,000

C&RT recover their lost income -  a net 90 new moorings become available driving the market price down - where is the problem ?

If the boater doesn't want to pay for a marina berth there is always the option to CC.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from the consultation

"The old Policy was to close linear moorings at a rate of 1:10, the new Policy removes that 

Change to online mooring reduction approach

The current policy includes an online mooring reduction element as follows:

The Canal & River Trust will reduce the number of online, long-term moorings as new offline capacity comes onto the market. This will be done in a ratio of 1:10: one on-line berth will be given up for every ten new berths created off line. Reductions will be made within the geographical market supplied by the new offline marina within 12 months of the opening date of the new site. For the purpose of clarity, we will make the reductions within a 30 mile radius of the new marina berths.

In March 2017 the Trust published an update on how it has reduced online mooring in line with the current policy. Between 2007 and 2017, 587 online long-term moorings have been removed as new offline moorings have been created.

The revised online mooring policy will remove the automatic reduction of online mooring when new offline mooring provision is created. The removal of the online mooring reduction approach is to ensure there remains a fair choice of both online and offline moorings for boating customers. 

The revised online mooring policy does not support large scale development of new online moorings and sets out clear criteria against which all new online mooring proposals must be considered to ensure they are only created in appropriate places."
 

 

 

The OP is right it doesn't say anything about removing moorings - it has simply removed any reference to removing them.

Edited by Tanglewood
To add final sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one-in-ten thing was put in place to help keep the marinas happy and as a sort of compensation for the Network Access Agreement.  This was when BW/CRT's lack of understanding meant they assumed everyone would be happy to go into a marina if an online mooring wasn't available.

I think they now realise that most people on online moorings are there because they are significantly cheaper, or like us where the mooring (ours is offside with a bit of ground with it) is a much more pleasant place to stay and not somewhere where you can't even open your side doors without hitting the neighbouring boat.

As a result, people pushed off their online mooring will just join the throngs of bridge-hoppers rather than take up a marina slot.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offside moorings should be kept by CRT.

Towpath moorings should be restricted to say 10 boats max.

Closing 10% of any new marinas total is outdated due to the amount of new licence increases per year. 

Take into account that most new marinas will only accept "shiny" boats and have no residential moorings also they seem to be unaware of the Live aboard rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

"The old Policy was to close linear moorings at a rate of 1:10, the new Policy removes that 

 

19 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

The current policy includes an online mooring reduction element as follows:

The Canal & River Trust will reduce the number of online, long-term moorings as new offline capacity comes onto the market. This will be done in a ratio of 1:10:

Confused - Assuming the 'current policy' is the one under discussion I fail to see the difference if not, what is the actual proposal ?

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this only refers to closing towpath moorings (and that's what they suggest is to be relaxed).  Most offside on-line ones are private, mostly farm owned.  Certainly the much-cursed Golden Nook Shroppie ones are.

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Confused - Assuming the 'current policy' is the one under discussion I fail to see the difference if not, what is the actual proposal ?

The current policy is what is policy at the moment, the proposed policy is the one subject to the consultation.  The difference is that until the new policy has been finally agreed, it is still CRT policy to close on-line moorings at the !:10 ratio.  If the new policy becomes 'the policy' then (as I read it)  they will no longer be closing on-line moorings as new off-line moorings become available.  In fact they will consider proposals for new on-line moorings , which may be acceptable under certain circumstances.   I particularly like this one

4.8 Boats at new online moorings should possess the recognisable attributesof a boat typical to the Trust’s network and be capable of navigation, but exceptions may be made in the context of a local mooring strategy.
The ‘recognisable attributes of a boat i.e. recognisable bow and stern, gunwales and rudder and the Boat must be kept clean and in good repair at all times. 

Presumably this criterion does not necessarily apply to other licensed craft that are unrecognisable as boats, its only if you want a new on-line mooring ........  

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

The current policy is what is policy at the moment, the proposed policy is the one subject to the consultation.  The difference is that until the new policy has been finally agreed, it is still CRT policy to close on-line moorings at the !:10 ratio.  If the new policy becomes 'the policy' then (as I read it)  they will no longer be closing on-line moorings as new off-line moorings become available.  In fact they will consider proposals for new on-line moorings , which may be acceptable under certain circumstances.   I particularly like this one

4.8 Boats at new online moorings should possess the recognisable attributesof a boat typical to the Trust’s network and be capable of navigation, but exceptions may be made in the context of a local mooring strategy.
The ‘recognisable attributes of a boat i.e. recognisable bow and stern, gunwales and rudder and the Boat must be kept clean and in good repair at all times. 

Presumably this criterion does not necessarily apply to other licensed craft that are unrecognisable as boats, its only if you want a new on-line mooring ........  

 

 

At last - a recognition that fatty boats should not be on narrow canals, this looks like a consultation I can support!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine this change of heart was partly as a result of the London Boats survey conducted in November 2016 when a combined 45% replied that they would show some interest/definite interest in a permanent mooring but a majority of those who expressed interest  would only consider paying from £39 to £91 per foot per year.

The unintended consequence of the existing on line mooring restriction policy was to reduce the number of cheaper online moorings available ,while there was a large increase in marina moorings which are ,as far as i am aware, far more expensive.

The depopulation of existing online towpath mooring sites is the consequence ,so maybe this will change over time ,with demand from some CCers who cant afford marina pricing,or dont wish to moor in a marina.

Edited by Quaffer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dor said:

As a result, people pushed off their online mooring will just join the throngs of bridge-hoppers rather than take up a marina slot.

That may depend on what they use the mooring for, if somewhere local to store their boat when at home / work, or they are liveaboard.  If just storing then cost and convenience will be the decider, if it is their home the view matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

At last - a recognition that fatty boats should not be on narrow canals, this looks like a consultation I can support!!!

I read that as "tatty", then realised that those were covered as well. It does read as "nice shiny bland boats only" though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Quaffer said:

I would imagine this change of heart was partly as a result of the London Boats survey conducted in November 2016 when a combined 45% replied that they would show some interest/definite interest in a permanent mooring but a majority of those who expressed interest  would only consider paying from £39 to £91 per foot per year.

The unintended consequence of the existing on line mooring restriction policy was to reduce the number of cheaper online moorings available ,while there was a large increase in marina moorings which are ,as far as i am aware, far more expensive.

The depopulation of existing online towpath mooring sites is the consequence ,so maybe this will change over time ,with demand from some CCers who cant afford marina pricing,or dont wish to moor in a marina.

My perception is that the current situation is more complex than you suggest:

Both online and offline moorings have significant vacancies in some places whilst others have waiting lists longer than a lifetime. Not all online moorings, judging by the CaRT site, are cheaper although some EOG ones might well be if they are not really run on a commercial basis - especially if they had to meet any new minimum standards for services and access.

The reality is that the London market is barely served by off line moorings, those that exist are expensive but then so is other housing and land. New marinas would have to meet the level of return on the capital that is offered by the alternative uses, especially little housing boxes.

There is clearly some desire for online moorings that goes well beyond a simple rental consideration. I know of at least one marina in London where the small number of on line moorings are more highly desired than those inside the marina just a few metres away. Whilst for many, especially in the London area where housing costs are beyond reason, the cost of the mooring may be a deciding factor, elsewhere it appears to be less so. Marinas are only located where their investors choose to put them and are patchy. Towpaths, however, go (almost) everywhere and so comparisons are again difficult. If you live 30 miles from a marina then it is likely that you will be prepared to pay more for a comparable towpath mooring with limited facilities than for one outside a competitively priced full service marina.

My main comment on the proposed policy is that it is a too simplistic response to  a complex situation and, as a result, will have as many - but different - problems as the existing one. This is not uncommon in policy reviews (and a lot else as well) where someone comes along and says, "You know that problem you have with xxx - here is a solution" and indeed it does appear to solve the presenting issue. However, what is often overlooked but vital to do, it to look at the existing policy or whatever and see how many of the things that it does cover very well are carried over into the new proposal. All too often you find that in the effort to chase a solution to a specific problem an idea that overall is much worse is presented and, sometimes foolishly, adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like my EOG mooring is safe for the time being. But somewhat academic because, with sadness due to age and frailty, we are faced with the fact that we shall have to give up our boat - but it fits in OK when we move house in the New Year - to be nearer our children. But even if EOG moorings were banned, and we were fit, I wouldn't want to travel 15 miles to the nearest marina - and bear the cost of it. It's bad enough having to walk all the way down the garden to my 'half-price' mooring.

The obvious way to solve the problem is for CRT to really bump the prices up of on-line moorings (They must be given it serious attention - because there is no mention of it in their licensing review). That would please the marina operators.

And to spend the extra money from raised 'home' moorings on a lot more 14 day moorings for CC's to use free of charge - at the same time avoiding the need to slow down because the long lines of on-line moorings will have disappeared.    

It is not something I propose. I mention it for what it is worth.

Problem sorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always moored on offside farm moorings, both when I was living on the boat and now when I'm a leisure boater.  There's no way I could ever have afforded marina prices, so I (and plenty others I have known) would not have spent the last thirty years pottering about on the boat if there were no relatively cheap on-line moorings, bearing in mind I've never paid more than £500 a year (plus CRT's cut, obviously) for my mooring. There again, I've never actually moored on a CRT run one, but they seem to be mostly on the towpath and occasionally in not well thought out places. As long as they're managed OK, I don't see why they should be reduced because of marinas - marina moorers have more security which I presume is what they pay for - the lack of security in mooring on the towpath is what would worry me.

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.