It seems my suspicions regarding Berkhamsted were correct. A comment received from another boater confirms that the area concerned is currently has no designated visitor moorings and what is worse will soon, if the C&RT proposals succeed have areas of 'No Mooring'!! His comment is copied below:
Currently it has no true designated visitor moorings whatsoever, I would say. There is a small "no mooring" area near the Winding Hole at Berkhamsted Station, (a winding hole that BW never recognise as existing in their boater guides, but do bother to mark as "no mooring" provided someone has not nicked the signs!).
All mooring is just normal tow-path with usual 14 day limit, except when a stretch is taken out of action to provide paid for Winter moorings.
The proposal goes further than to just make the whole of Berkhamsted 2 day mooring, (with £25 charge for each day overstayed). It also wants to make the section South from the popular Rising Sun pub, towards the next footbridge "no mooring" which will remove around 6 or 7 "typical" boat lengths from an area they claim there is already great pressure to be able to find visitor moorings in.
The initial answer I have is this is for "navigational reasons", because of a slight bend in the canal approaching the lock, and overhanging Willow trees. This suggestion seems completely unjustified to me, and I have replied to this effect, offering to meet anyone on site that CRT is prepared to send along to discuss it with me.
I hope this gives a bit more background from a "local".
Other areas I am looking at are showing similarity's to Berkhamsted where currently non designated towpath moorings will be included within the 'zone' where marked visitor moorings are situated. So it really does look like C&RT are trying to introduce zones/time limits and return restrictions AGAIN!!!!
Also, I am not the only one who believes the thinking behind the current proposals is for the benefit of Hire and Leisure Boaters. (Which isn't a bad thing, C&RT are just going about resolving it the wrong way). This is one of many comments in various forums, the authors are all different but the sentiment is the same each time:
It seems to me that the "2 days in any one visit and 8 days in any one month" has been formulated to suit hire boats and people who park their boats in marinas and take them out for the odd weekend to a local honey pot. Liveaboards who are genuinely continuously cruising need time to explore the area and attend to things like getting supplies in, housework and boat maintenance. If you arrive at a mooring late afternoon and you have to leave early on the second day in order to get to your next destination in time to find a mooring, then it leaves very little time for these things.
Confirmation of the pressure on C&RT is again mentioned in one of their documents:
http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2153.pdf
The following text is a quote from it and I have highlighted the relevant text: (aint I nice lol)
In February 2011, in an endeavour to fast track progress in London, we presented for public consultation atentative mooring plan which defined movement requirements for continuous cruisers in the Lee Valley. This triggered vociferous opposition by unaffiliated residential boaters living along the towpath and an effective PR campaign against our proposals. We shelved the proposals in August 2011 in favour of a strategy of engagement with boaters concerned with the aim of establishing a more effective social enterprise model for
creating a happier en
vironment for all on London’s waterways.This is a long standing issue, but the leisure boating community, the boating trade and some land based communities are increasingly concerned about the impact on their enjoyment of boating of increasing number of residential boats tying up for long periods along the towpath in the same place in some areas of our network. There is an increasing polarisation of views and the creation of the Trust has raised expectations that policy will be developed to progress this issue.
I have never had an issue with visitor/facility moorings having time limits, or even fines for overstaying for that matter, (save the whole argument on if the practise is even legal or not for another time eh).
What I do have an issue with is effectively creating 'NO GO' areas of towpath along the waterways.
Until I have received clarification from C&RT that my concerns about this document and the suggestions therein are unfounded. I completely reject these proposals and it would be for fear of losing my towpath.
With regard to 'clarification',
C&RT have asked the creator of a Freedom Of Information request to withdraw it!! This alone is bringing rise to all kinds of conspiricy theories and isnt helping C&RT's case at all.
Rumours have also arisen that C&RT will be publishing a document which does clear up some points that have been raised, but at this stage it is still just a rumour.
This is all I have to tell at this stage, but will keep you posted though and if I managed to persuade you to sign the petition against these proposals please take the time to do it now. You can find a link to it here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/canal-and-river-trust-stop-in-the-whole-the-south-east-vm-proposals
I am waiting to see if C&RT issue explanitary notes to clarify the situation before I complete my feedback, but if you would like to fill your feedback form out now you can find a link to it here:
http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/consultations/current-consultations
No comments:
Post a Comment