Transport and Works Order

TrueBlue

TrueBlue

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Apr 2004
Messages
4,476
Location
Sussex
Visit site
Was anyone aware that EA have made a new application for an Order; following their disastrous 2006 order where they made the mistake of letting anyone know about a consultation. This time it mus have been hidden away.

If you don't like anything you have until 10th April to appeal. The original proposals have been watered down and although the Secretary of State is happy about it and is minded to approve it - after ticking off the EA over some proposals which were not in it's power to do - nice to have a government Quango slapped down....

Main point are:-
  • Third part insurance for all craft required.
  • All vessels - even if unused hulks (Byron) to be registered
  • OldGit- design standards for vessels on the Mudway.
  • Unknown powers for inspection
  • Unknown documentation required for registration.
  • Cumbersome appeals process if you don't like what they say.
  • Annual registration required, but can now be any month start.
  • A new boat numbering system ? so no names in future just "Hey 669488372774 - your boat is sinking"

I haven't seen the "new" order and the letter is not very enlightening.

Does anybody have any comment,

Does anyone really care???
 
I hope the EA get most of the proposals passed.At least this might help them in policing the river for all those boaters that don't have a licence, hence genuine legitimate cruisers paying through the nose to support those that use/live on the river without paying a bean...
 
I like the Annual Registration, presumably means we can get a rebate if we chuck it in midway through the year.

I've already got an SSR number and a Hull Identification Number, I don't need any more thanks.
 
I have no interest in what these people propose: If it all gets too much, No Regrets will be moved to another part of the country.

I like the insurance idea, and the annual reg.

I wonder how this will be implemented though. The drink-drive thing seems to be ignored! LOL
 
TrueBlue said:
[*]All vessels - even if unused hulks (Byron) to be registered
Click to expand...

Are you calling Byron an unused hulk? Thats a little harsh...

[*]A new boat numbering system ? so no names in future just "Hey 669488372774 - your boat is sinking"
Click to expand...

Surprised this hasn't happened before. Both BW and the broads authority use boat numbers. At least it would save having to moor up to "ICantThinkOfAGoodNameForABoat XI".

Like Brayman's idea of a refund on unused months from the anual license if you send it back. Never going to happen though - we'd all send them back come November and buy a new one in March, when the river opens again!
 
You should be so lucky -

BrayMan and Dogsbody -

It's an annual license; sorry registration, You buy a license for a full year with the usual conditions on cancellation, i.e no refunds.

All that has changed is that the start month doesn't have to be January. It's of no practical use to the majority of current registrants who are (in practice) locked in to the January regime.

It should help EA spread the load throughout the year, and in the remote possibility that someone at EA in Reading, Bristol or wherever reads this, I'd like to make the suggestion of a one-off scheme to allow a boater to move his renewal date with refund / extra payment carried forward?
 
It is said that "the Devil is in the detail" and in this case probably in the details of the "unknowns" in the original post.

Particularly right to board (Unknown powers for inspection), design specs on Medway boats, documentation required for registration, cumbersome appeals process etc, could all be the thin end of a very large wedge.

So - where do we get to read this "document" to see if we wish to protest it's content?
 
Last edited:
Come over as someone wanting authority and "meddle power" who has looked at some of the way things are done abroad and cherry picked the bits he wants (and probably rejjected any corresponding responsibilites)

Where do we object or ask for clarity? Personally I dont want to be a number either. Bet your backside the numberplate wont be free, will have to be of approved make, material and location and will look wrong on a Thames cruiser.
 
"OldGit- design standards for vessels on the Mudway."
Only if you are the "wrong" side of the lock.

They have wanted to do this for quite a while but needed some act of Parliament to allow them to do it.
We have heard it is basically what you have up in Ye Olde Thames already (ie no dumping turds into the river) and the BSS when required.

Our charges will still be based on length only.AFAIK.http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/boating/31615.aspx

Unable to find any further info online.
Cannot see any problems with most of it (esp turds)and no craft is allowed in any marina without insurance anyway.It would affect most seriously a number of semi abandoned sort of live aboard hulks which having been ejected from several local boatyards and are currently infesting(and clogging ) the moorings in Maidstone town centre.
 
Last edited:
t'aint going to happen

that quick. First EA have to get the enabling legislation in place. Doesn't involve Parliament, 'cos they're too busy having a go at each other so nasty bits of law that don't affect the whole country are sneaked in using devolved powers.

Once they've got permission to do what they like then the unmentionables can be put in place and it'll be too late to complain.

I suppose that's what bothers me to an extent:-

EA kept stuhm (?sp) about a consultation over the changes to the 2006 fiasco.
Some powers are vaguely described so that 'orrible things could happen later.

I've just done a quick Google, but nothing of any use came up.
 
Transport and works order

TrueBlue said:
Was anyone aware that EA have made a new application for an Order;

This is not a new application but the Secretary of State’s decision on the EA application dated 14th October 2004, as each year passes the date gets updated. The order will come into force (with amendments to the original) on the 6th April 2010. There will be 42 days to challenge after this date but challenges will only be accepted on points of law or failure to follow procedure.
The EA disguised some of their objectives and wrapped the proposals with the comforting title of harmonisation. Only 21 objections were received of which I think 8 were from individuals. There would have been a lot more objectors had the main objectives of the order been properly advertised. I doubt if this government quango would have been slapped down unless the objectors raised valid arguments.
The DEFRA lawyers decided that the proposed charging scheme and registration and charging of vessels on adjacent waters should be withdrawn from the order.
The new powers sought by the EA ie the charging of boats that are not actually navigating the Thames has to some extent therefore been denied them, they of course, never publicised this aspect of their proposals.
I think many new powers will be conveyed to the EA by the granting of this order and my guess is that many will come back to bite us in the not to distant future.
Click to expand...
 
>>>
I think many new powers will be conveyed to the EA by the granting of this order and my guess is that many will come back to bite us in the not to distant future.
>>>
That is what worries me. There seem to be senior and/or influential people within the EA for whom "environment" means "fluffy animals and obscure birds" and these are incompatible with "motor boating" and indeed "public enjoyment".
 
Andrew_Fanner said:
>>>
I think many new powers will be conveyed to the EA by the granting of this order and my guess is that many will come back to bite us in the not to distant future.
>>>
That is what worries me. There seem to be senior and/or influential people within the EA for whom "environment" means "fluffy animals and obscure birds" and these are incompatible with "motor boating" and indeed "public enjoyment".
Click to expand...

I think our parochial view of the non-tidal Thames tends to blind us to the reality of the EA which is an enormous organisation responsible for flood control and other issues nationwide.

The Thames is just one region and our specific interest in it as a navigation just a part of that.

Fact is, at least as I see it, that we are dependent on the folk at Reading to fight their corner in an arena that is facing extreme pressures from every direction to contain costs. Bear in mind, also, that the EA is, itself, a department within DEFRA, as, too, is BW.

i figure the biggest threat we face is from the BW lobby and it wouldn't surprise me to see the Thames become a BW responsibility in the not too distant future :-(
 
Transport and works order

"we are dependent on the folk at Reading to fight their corner in an arena that is facing extreme pressures from every direction to contain costs."

...........................................................................................................................

Anyone like to hazard a guess at the cost involved of pursueing thisTransport and works order for the last 6 years, lawyers dont come cheap and how many of the 12000 EA staff were busy with it?
 
...........................................................................................................................

Anyone like to hazard a guess at the cost involved of pursueing thisTransport and works order for the last 6 years, lawyers dont come cheap and how many of the 12000 EA staff were busy with it?[/QUOTE]
I would like to know why 12000 EA staff would be busy with it? The agency structure has a little bit more to deal with than just Navigation. The Waterways that it looks after actually cost millions to run but see little return and then the tax payer picks up the rest of the bill. So really a few are being subsidised by the many. I do work for the EA and am not ashamed to say it, as I think the EA on the ground do a good job.
 
12000 EA staff ............poss Nationwide but only about 1% of that total(if that) have anything to do with the boating Thames in any shape or form........
 
Transport and works order

Celica said:
...........................................................................................................................

“I would like to know why 12000 EA staff would be busy with it?”

You have misread what I said “How many of the 12000” was the question.

Just to clarify, 12000 (plus 1000 contract + external consultant companies) are employed by the EA nationally in all the aspects of the EA responsibilities and I am aware that Thames region navigation only employs a small percentage of this number.
I wish I had just said how many EA staff were busy with it? and avoided the distraction.

So back to the topic the Transport and works order (harmonisation), who asked for it? What were its real objectives? Were we properly consulted about it? Was it worth the money it cost to achieve? Were their objectives fair and reasonable in light of the fact that the Secretary of State required removal of significant parts before it was passed. If you are not sure what new powers were being sought then the EA could/should have done more to explain / justify why it was needed.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top