CaRT. Recent changes to mooring Rules and Regs.

[oldgit]

......................causing a bit of stir , anybody know what is going on ?
Have the view of a member of CaRT, whats the boaters view or is it yet other storm in a (canal) teacup.

 

[TrueBlue]

Unlike (some) rivers there's no PRN thus the owner - CRT - can decide where you moor. There used to be a small number of boaters who moved around the system much like travelling folk on the roads. To accommodate them, BW said OK, you can move around, but you must have a 'home' mooring to which you return after your 'cruise' The length of cruise was not defined, nor was the frequency or length of the journey.

As with any rule or law there are always some who will manipulate it - to such an extent that 'a larrge number' of boats have declared a home mooring which then never visit (but which is cheap...) and move around - slightly (mebe a few hundred yards) in order to comply.

Now CRT want to regulaise (sorrry) thei rules so that genuine itinerants can move around, but not those who just shuffle a few hundred of lards. Hence, they're seeking 'help' from real leisure boaters so that they can say ' we've changed the rules by popular demand' in the hope that they don't have to go for any governing legislation whhic other wise would take ages to get approval and cost a lot in fees.

For most boaters on here the canals are a dark and evil place where real boaters fear to tread. but are becoming overcrowded because it's a cheap place to live and 'you don't really have to move around much' - so why not avoid the expense of a marina, moor on the towpath near a road and save some money while continue to work as usual...

That's my take on the situation - but it's not definitave - thus don't nit pick on my lax interpretation.

 

[ianc1200]

Surely, it's almost impossible to cruise the canal system in some areas because there's no room to moor overnight (London and Bath/Bristol) and this puts off genuine leisure boaters cruising the system. Liveaboards simply moor along the towpath and never move. So all power to CART to try and resolve the issue. Wish the EA had similar powers and resolve.

 

[oldgit]

Many/most/all / a vocal few** Thames users were not in favour of being taken over by CaRT, simply due to the certainty that CaRT would take all the money "belonging" to the Thames and squander it on the undeserving poor in the canal system ?
The fact that the bribe offered to CaRT was nowhere near enough for them to take on that particular "chalice" is neither here nor there. !

** Delete as required.

 

[Chris_d]

Many/most/all / a vocal few** Thames users were not in favour of being taken over by CaRT, simply due to the certainty that CaRT would take all the money "belonging" to the Thames and squander it on the undeserving poor in the canal system ?
The fact that the bribe offered to CaRT was nowhere near enough for them to take on that particular "chalice" is neither here nor there. !

** Delete as required.

I thought it was a good idea.

 

[Old Crusty]

I worked at the EA in the waterways department for six years, I am in my third year of volunteering for the CRT. IMO the management at both organisations benefits from the same level of competency. Both organisations demonstrate daily that the Peter Principle is alive and well.

 

[Wavey]

CRT began a review of licensing etc a couple of years ago. This review took some time to complete and consisted of three stages. Firstly to get the opinion of canal user groups, consulting the equivalent of the Thames ATYC etc . I think there was more than a dozen organisations involved in total. Secondly they sent 30,000+ questionnaires to license holders, of which about a third responded. Thirdly they arranged regional meetings for open discussions with licence holders, all of which unfortunately were poorly attended. The feedback I’ve seen from the few canal users I know seems to indicate the CRT have tried to implement changes based on the views of licence holders.

Trueblue is incorrect in that the CRT does permit, and has licensing, for “continuous cruisers” who have no home mooring. I follow some of them on YouTube. Like in everything else there are those who follow the rules and those who take liberties. The problem the CRT has had is in defining exactly what constitutes a continuous cruiser and then trying to police it.

Liveaboards are as much of a problem on the canals as on the Thames. Fortunately the canal network is vast and the liveaboand problem tends to be concentrated in certain areas. Outside of those few areas mooring doesn’t seem to be a problem.

 

[Outinthedinghy]

Even if CRT did take over management of the Thames it would make no difference to moorings because the majority of Riverside land is privately owned and it is up to the land owner or their agents to decide what to do about moorings.

Yes in theory the existing EA owned sites could be better managed but it's not at all similar to the cut because on the cut the towpath is under the control of the waterways authority. This is due to the original enabling acts which allowed the canals to be dug out in the first place.

As for the CRT t&c thing it is an interesting way for them to attempt to circumvent the law in the form of the 1995 BW act and previous acts which govern what you can and can't do.

In reality CRT need to get new primary legislation sorted out but I have been told they are not allowed to request this. Not sure quite what that's all about but there we are.

Result is tinkering with t&c which is ultimately not enforceable but most people will probable adhere to it or lose their boats.