David: Visitor Mooring Consultation Feedback Workshop

I SPENT an interesting afternoon at the first of two of these events; this one was to cover mooring sites on the Oxford Canal.

In the introduction it was pointed out that this was the first time that a British Waterways or Canal & River Trust policy had been consulted in this way, although it was made clear that it was a consultation, not an election, and that changes would be going ahead; the consultation was really about the detail.

CaRT majority

The meeting was attended by about 25 people, at least half of whom were CaRT people, including John Dodwell and Sally Ash. Of the rest, I reckon only about half a dozen were 'ordinary' boaters (if there is such a thing)—the others seemed to belong to one or other of the societies.

It was explained that the reason that this issue was being addressed was that the existing mooring restriction system had been in place for over 20 years and in that time the number of boats had increased by 60% and patterns of usage had changed. It was admitted that up until now very little enforcement of the mooring restrictions had taken place, but it was now believed by the trustees that the time had come to do something about this. The lack of enforcement was largely because of limitations on staff, but now that licence evasion was below 2% staff could be used to enforce other things and £½m had been put into the 2013-14 budget to facilitate this.

Examine proposals

We were asked to examine the proposals for three sites on the Oxford plus Foxton in detail, since the intention was to introduce those as soon as was practical to act as a pilot, with the remainder being implemented in 2014. I was in the Banbury group and we suggested various tweakings of the proposals, but had no difficulty with the suggestions overall. This seems to have been the experience in the other groups. (The above photograph is of the Banbury moorings.)

What did cause more heated discussion (though everyone was very civilised) was the whole issue of 'returns'—i.e. how soon can you come back to a restricted mooring and have another 48 hours or whatever. CaRT are aware that this is a problem, and it was emphasised by several speakers that this is not just about hire boats, but shared ownership boats and people who have just lent their boat to a friend. I feel that the CaRT people took this on board and will come up with a solution that is acceptable.

Was it necessary

The other contentious issue was whether the whole process was actually necessary. It is clear from figures given at the meeting that a substantial minority of those responding to the consultation were of the view that it was not. CaRT were not prepared to accept this as they feel they have a duty to carry out a review for the reasons given above.

My own impression is that those who want nothing done are not opposed to the mainly slight changes in the actual restrictions, but are strongly opposed to the idea of having them enforced—and it was fairly clear that enforcement was not up for consultation. Since a consultation of this sort is not going to produce a random sample, it is likely that those responding will include a considerable number who have a personal axe to grind and feel threatened.

Should be enforced

Personally, I have always taken the view that if there are rules they should be enforced—otherwise why have them? Do people really want the alternative—a complete mooring free-for-all? That would be the short route to having every urban stretch of canal turned into a linear slum.

In the end I was glad I went and welcomed the opportunity given us to raise other matters. Sally Ash certainly took copious notes of the points we made and I shall look forward to some of them, at least, being implemented.

David Hymers