|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 29, 2018 8:59:27 GMT
Ah, that explains why hardly anyone moors up on the 48h just before Thames lock. It’s ‘semi-tidal’ (whatever that means). My plan was to go out of the lock and wait for the next flood but that would have been pointless due to the number of vessels hogging the Thames side moorings. . . . . . . . . . . . . BW illegally s.8’d the barges that used to moor along the Ferry Quays river wall, having arranged to lease half the riverbed [which they never owned in the first place] to the developer so that he could install those piles and pontoons for the residential boats now in place. Charging for the use of other's property was a BWB trait that C&RT are only too happy to embrace and perpetuate. The permanent moorings in Holme Lock Cut, Nottingham, which BW have rented out for at least the last 40(plus) years, and which C&RT continue to charge for, are in fact on/to land previously owned by Trent River Board and the National Rivers Authority, and which is now owned by the Environment Agency.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 29, 2018 14:22:01 GMT
Mr Walsh is apparently the enforcement officer – now re-designated as a ‘licence support officer’ - for West London. This boater said that he did point out the 2012 ruling to Leiam/Liam Walsh, who responded by saying that there’s been a lot of amendments made since the ruling; that public rights of navigation are only for people that wish to use the waterways above the Gauging Lock and for no other purposes; that he was not navigating in a bona fide manner, and that he DID need a licence to use this part of the River Brent. Apparently when the boater concerned got in touch with CaRT about this, he received an email back confirming that no licence is required unless boaters go above the Gauging Lock, but he claims that Mr Walsh “ informed me that the person who gave me this Information is just probably somebody that works for customer service and don’t know what they’re doing basically and still stands by what his saying and declaring that wrong.” So on that evidence it is not the official CaRT stance that is at fault here, it is their employee screening, training and oversight that is deficient [unless this is an extreme example of individual intransigence]. Even after all these years of experience with BW/CaRT enforcement officers, such ignorant arrogance still astonishes me. I came across his facebook page while searching for what his position was, and his choice of latest upgraded profile picture seems strangely apposite –
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 29, 2018 14:48:17 GMT
Mr Walsh is apparently the enforcement officer – now re-designated as a ‘licence support officer’ - for West London. This boater said that he did point out the 2012 ruling to Leiam/Liam Walsh, who responded by saying that there’s been a lot of amendments made since the ruling; that public rights of navigation are only for people that wish to use the waterways above the Gauging Lock and for no other purposes; that he was not navigating in a bona fide manner, and that he DID need a licence to use this part of the River Brent. Apparently when the boater concerned got in touch with CaRT about this, he received an email back confirming that no license is required unless boaters go above the Gauging Lock, but he claims that Mr Walsh “ informed me that the person who gave me this Information is just probably somebody that works for customer service and don’t know what they’re doing basically and still stands by what his saying and declaring that wrong.” So on that evidence it is not the official CaRT stance that is at fault here, it is their employee screening, training and oversight that is deficient [unless this is an extreme example of individual intransigence]. Even after all these years of experience with BW/CaRT enforcement officers, such ignorant arrogance still astonishes me. I came across his facebook page while searching for what his position was, and his choice of latest upgraded profile picture seems strangely apposite – Thoughts of banjos and deliverance come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 29, 2018 17:51:33 GMT
I have managed to confirm Mr Walsh’s official position. From the CaRT “ Licence Support Officer Map” canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/8515-licence-support-officer-map-and-contact-details.pdf I await details of the 40 plus sections other than s.8 that CaRT can [apparently] use on the tidal section of the Brent, according to this enforcement officer. I am also interested in details of the new legislative amendments that have allegedly been made since 2012. It must be slightly unusual for employees to flatly deny what their employers assert as the truth; at least it shows some spirit - and he is obviously a jolly chap unafraid to display his sense of humour.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 12:11:02 GMT
Update with good news – with CaRT keeping close tabs on what I write here, it would seem that they have done the right thing and had a discreet word in Mr Walsh’s ear. He has now, apparently, reversed his foolish assertions and acknowledged to the boater concerned that he does not need a licence if he goes no further than the tidal section [and hopefully apologised to customer services for his disparagement of them!]
We can only hope that the volunteer lock-keepers are likewise notified for the future; it is very unfair on them to pretend to powers that could land them in trouble. It is at least encouraging that CaRT are being careful to avoid having their enforcement officers overstep the mark – at least when that becomes publicly known.
They are, of course, entitled/obliged to ensure nobody stays longer on the moorings above Thames Locks than their signs indicate; as usual, however, this is applied inconsistently. We have one barge brought over from Holland who has been sitting there for many weeks with a “Broken down” sign in the wheelhouse window, while he fits out the interior! He is, in fact, occupying the space for which another barge owner pays mooring fees to CaRT, despite being currently overseas with his barge.
CaRT moved on a friend of his who had occupied the mooring with his consent, but seem content to let this chap occupy the same mooring for which somebody else is paying [whether that renting out of the towpath is legitimate or not does not affect the point], without, so far as I know, the payee being even aware of it.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 31, 2018 13:55:26 GMT
They are, of course, entitled/obliged to ensure nobody stays longer on the moorings above Thames Locks than their signs indicate; as usual, however, this is applied inconsistently. We have one barge brought over from Holland who has been sitting there for many weeks with a “Broken down” sign in the wheelhouse window, while he fits out the interior! He is, in fact, occupying the space for which another barge owner pays mooring fees to CaRT, despite being currently overseas with his barge. CaRT moved on a friend of his who had occupied the mooring with his consent, but seem content to let this chap occupy the same mooring for which somebody else is paying [whether that renting out of the towpath is legitimate or not does not affect the point], without, so far as I know, the payee being even aware of it. One could almost be forgiven for wondering if someone is getting a back-hander to look the other way.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 31, 2018 14:19:02 GMT
You shock me.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 3, 2018 13:35:54 GMT
. . . he claims that Mr Walsh “ informed me that the person who gave me this Information is just probably somebody that works for customer service and don’t know what they’re doing basically and still stands by what his saying and declaring that wrong.” Came across this letter while searching for something else – proof that in 2013 & 2014 CaRT were writing to Brent moorers confirming that they did not need pleasure boat licences or certificates – 5 years down the line and the local enforcement officer still did not know, and considered that customer services had it all wrong?! At least he has been belatedly put right. Note they they still tried to persuade the boat owners that they would have to buy a houseboat certificate instead! The few lines over the page generously offered this at the same price as the river registration certificate. It didn’t fly. How they were permitted to include that nonsense about a non-existent PLA pleasure boat licence is anybody’s guess.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 3, 2018 13:43:09 GMT
. . . he claims that Mr Walsh “ informed me that the person who gave me this Information is just probably somebody that works for customer service and don’t know what they’re doing basically and still stands by what his saying and declaring that wrong.” How they were permitted to include that nonsense about a non-existent PLA pleasure boat licence is anybody’s guess. I got to that bit of the letter and thought "what the hell are they on about"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2018 14:37:19 GMT
Nigel. The barge moored opposite you (dinghy with electric outboard ) did originally come from Holland but not particularly recently. It was a regular in east London for the last two or three years (quite probably subject to enforcement but obviously that isn't particular relevant). I personally was not surprised to see it moored there recently.
I suspect he assumed the ~85ft Luxe motor which was there before followed by the old tug were "squatting" and not paying so he's trying the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 3, 2018 14:38:20 GMT
I also love the bit about “ new information that came to light last year about the legal status of the river”. For a start, it had “come to light” the year before, in the 2012 judgment they had lauded so highly. For a finisher, BW had ALWAYS known the status of the river – witness this page from a Patrol Officer’s report dated 1994 – The highlighted boats were all moored alongside what has become the Ferry Quays development (complete with piled pontoon moorings under a BW lease). Once that development was proposed, BW of course had to get rid of the boats there, so, with a new patrol officer in place as from 1996, the boats were refused, in 2003, either pleasure boat licence or certificate and promptly s.8’d (ending up alongside the Watermans Park). Naturally, with those boats rid of, and the development free to go ahead, the stated unsuitability of the site for moorings became reversed. It cost them a bit though; they had expensively employed an ‘expert’ to report on the suitability of the site, asking for appraisals of several pontoon moorings of their design as well. The Report gave them the result desired as to it being unsuitable for the boats already there, but classified the pontoon moorings as worse! When I brought this damning evidence before the local area planning committee some years later [when Ferry Quays wanted to install the pontoon moorings and take advantage of the riverbed ‘lease’], BW employed the same ‘Captain’ to come and give a further report stating the opposite of what he had said earlier. Embarrassing. I did get a question raised in Parliament as to the legality of installing permanent apparatus into the bed of a public navigable river without sanction of a Transport & Works Order, but Lord Adonis was primed with the appropriate brush-off. In short, yes, they constituted a criminal obstruction of the PRN, but it would take an appropriate body to prosecute, and an Order’s only purpose – according to Lord Adonis – was to provide a defence against the otherwise criminal action! Well yes, but . . .
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 3, 2018 14:41:35 GMT
Nigel. The barge moored opposite you (dinghy with electric outboard ) did originally come from Holland but not particularly recently. It was a regular in east London for the last two or three years (quite probably subject to enforcement but obviously that isn't particular relevant). I personally was not surprised to see it moored there recently. He doesn't bother me, and it is possible (though highly unlikely) that Chick agreed to it, but it is the arbitrary nature of CaRT's dealings with such boats that offends - they got stroppy quickly enough with Chick's friend, who DID moor there with his OK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2018 14:55:48 GMT
Its interesting you mention that the absent occupier of the (towpath side) mooring is or was paying CRT to be allowed to moor there.
I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in what procedures are in place to allow this (renting towpath from crt) other than already allocated "LTM" sites and "winter moorings"
Or is this particular case an "EOG" site ?
If it was then surely CRT would not have the right to enforce time limits anyway.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 3, 2018 16:09:58 GMT
Its interesting you mention that the absent occupier of the (towpath side) mooring is or was paying CRT to be allowed to moor there. I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in what procedures are in place to allow this (renting towpath from crt) other than already allocated "LTM" sites and "winter moorings" Or is this particular case an "EOG" site ? If it was then surely CRT would not have the right to enforce time limits anyway. It is a 'special' case. CaRT legitimately own the whole of that towpath, and it is not EoG or or any other situation; no other boats could expect to get the same deal. Chick’s barge “Nieuwe Zorg” was originally one of the barges moored alongside what is now the Ferry Quays frontage – and he had planning consent for his residential mooring there (as did the other 2 large barges in the same vicinity). In the course of legal wrangles between present & former site owners and the other barges - who were claiming adverse possession of the river wall - Chick was caught up in the battle, being sued by the other boaters for trespass against ‘their’ land. BW wanting the boats cleared off from there, they approached Chick and volunteered to take over his case, while offering him the present mooring above the Thames Locks at a modest charge, with him acting as ‘Warden’ for that section. That status was revoked some years later, but he was allowed to continue with the mooring at advantageous cost, which he still maintains (I think he has paid for this year in advance). They might not view him with the same favour as previously, since he applied for and received repayment of the previous 6 years of licence fees, following my case, but the mooring income would doubtless be a hard thing for them to forego, so for all I know the relationship remains cordial. As to rights to set time limits there, as I have said previously, they could invoke the statutory ban on towpath mooring by pleasure boats altogether should they choose, so it would be a parlous exercise challenging them over a discretionary right to stay for 48 hours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2018 16:24:05 GMT
Thanks for that Nigel I won't ask you what the statutory ban on pleasure boats mooring to the towpath is as I'm sure you have explained it but my memory is getting more and more porous.
|
|