For or against?

Published: Tuesday, 14 May 2013

THE Canal & River Trust (CaRT) report on the South East Visitor Consultation suggests that they were taken aback by the hostility with which many boaters responded, writes Allan Richards.

However, having read through every one of the 357 responses provided it has to be said that very few fell into that category. It would appear that CaRT have simply branded those that wanted the consultation abandoned or delayed as 'hostile'.

56% against

Although CaRT had previously suggested that those for and against its proposals were split equally 50:50, some that had volunteered to analyse and collate responses thought those against were significantly higher than those supporting the proposals.

At the suggestion of the members of a forum, I undertook to obtain copies of all responses via the Freedom of Information Act such that boaters could undertake their own analysis (links are available at the end of the article).

'For or against' analysis must be somewhat subjective as a direct 'are you for or against our proposals?' question was not provided on the response form. In general the response form assumed that change to current mooring arrangements was necessary and asked for comment on those arrangements.

However, on my analysis 56% were generally against the proposals!

Two reasons

Whilst it has to be said that some did not give reasons as to why they were against CaRT's proposals, two common themes were apparent. One was that CaRT had failed to provide any data whatsoever to show the extent, if any, that boaters were having difficulty in mooring at the 22 sites where changes were proposed.

The other was that current moorings rules were sufficient but CaRT was not enforcing them!

Quality not quantity

The groundswell for CaRT to abandon or defer its proposals (amounting to thousands of boaters) included a petition, started by Uxbridge boater, Steve Jay and publication of two responses by two major boating organisations, National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) and the Residential Boat Owners Association (RBOA).

CaRT's rather peculiar response to the massive condemnation of its proposals was that it was quality rather than quantity of responses that mattered.

Petition

It has to be said that Steve Jay's petition, correctly identified the concerns being expressed by boaters explaining: 'These changes have no evidence to validate the need. Regular and consistent mooring patrols are and would be sufficient to tackle the problems CaRT suggest they have. I see the current mooring regulations not being enforced, if there is the ability to enforce these proposals, then why do CaRT not have the ability to enforce the existing ones?'

NABO's response was pure quality, not only outlining boaters' concerns but also questioning CaRT's legal powers in respect of its proposals. RBOA's response was more concise but also expressed significant concerns.

Bearing in mind that IWA considered the issue not to be of national importance and thus did not respond, one is left wondering why CaRT simply ploughed ahead with its proposals (albeit in a cut-down form and more relaxed timescale).

The request

It is perhaps worthwhile detailing the request and CaRT's response -

The request was for:

Copies of all responses to the consultation.
The number who have responded collectively saying 'Stop in the whole, the South East Visitor Mooring proposals' (i.e. via petition)
The numbers of members associated with any collective response on behalf of NABO and RBOA.

The reply

CaRT initially declined to provide the responses to the consultation saying that it would publish them at a later date. To date, it has failed to publish them!

With regard to the number that signed the petition, CaRT initially 'forgot' to provide a response. Similarly, CaRT omitted to respond by providing membership numbers for NABO and RBOA.

When pressed, CaRT eventually made responses to the consultation available but suggested they were completely unaware of Steve Jay's petition and did not know the numbers of members within NABO and RBOA.

Remembering

CaRT now own up to about 700 signatures on a petition to abandon the consultation process. The actual figure is nearer 1,000. It seems it has suddenly remembered although they have the number completely wrong.

It still will not admit to knowing membership of NABO or RBOA. Perhaps it forgot that it asked questions regarding membership in a boating survey or it could have asked the organisations when they considered responses. (The combined figure is believed to be at least 3,500.)

A very rough estimate suggests that CaRT is ignoring the wishes of nearly 5,000 boaters by implementing mooring restrictions without showing a need for those changes.

.... and then there are the concerns being expressed about CaRT's legal powers to impose fines and return limits by NABO and others.