Notes: 6th Local Mooring Strategy Steering Group Meeting
February 25th 2011

Attendees:
BW: Damian Kemp (Chair)
KAT: John Webb
VPA: Keith Rossiter and Dave Batho
IWA: Tim Wheeldon
Unaffiliated Boaters (UB): Pamela Smith and Kevin Humphries
RBOA: Rich Burchill
NABO: Andrew Colyer
AWCC: Pauline King
WCC: Ken Oliver
APCO: John Froggatt
NBTA: Nick Brown

Action points in bold.

Introduction:
● Damian welcomed everyone to the meeting, and the attendees introduced themselves.
● John (APCO) explained that Danese will be coming in his place in future. Several attendees said that they saw no problems with this.
● Damian explained that Sally felt it was not necessary for her to be at all future meetings, so she was not in attendance. He went over some of the points that she made in her email, about the group becoming more independent, and that BW is facilitating and contributing not driving or steering the group. This is how they see their role at least for the next few months.
● Today is about how to organise the working groups and who will be doing what.
● Andrew (NABO) said that they would be submitting a similar statement. They felt that this is such a primary project that it should have someone with seniority from BW in attendance and some consistency is expected or they would feel that BW is not giving their full support.
● Damian said that he didn't want people to feel that the meetings are not supported. There is a genuine strong commitment to this group in BW, as well as to local mooring strategies in general. He sees this as a key policy format in the future. Sally's non-attendance is not a reflection on how BW sees these meetings.
● Keith (VPA) says that he feels that Sally's reasons for withdrawing from the group are inadequate. It does not seem that she is about to re-join us. Some of the constraints mentioned in her email are quite worrying. It will be interesting to see if when we get to the end of the strategy whether BW will turn around and refuse to do this or that or not agree with it or say we can't afford it, you should not be saying this, or anything like that. We don't want to find that we've wasted 9 months and the recommendations that we've made have fallen by the wayside.
● Pamela (UB) wants to raise a few points formally:
● A number of boaters have said to her that they are not prepared to conform to any of the recommendations made by this group.
● Tim (IWA) asked how they could say that when they don't know what is being proposed yet? How can you object without knowing what you are objecting to?
● Pamela (UB) explained that they felt that the current legislation is fine and they don't see why anything over and above the 1995 waterways act is required. She doubts whether they feel that they have any genuine influence on this process.
● Kev (UB) says that we need a lot of PR to let people know that anything we decide is fair and inclusive.
● The second point that Pamela (UB) wants to raise is a letter from Sally Ash to a boater in response to a complaint (dated 17th Jan). She says the legal validity of the national policy document has been confirmed. Pamela (UB) wants to know who confirmed this and for what reasons?
● Damian says that he suspects it would have been confirmed internally by BW's legal team. They would have compared the constraints of the policy against the acts under which BW is governed. He will get a more formal response.
● Keith (VPA) asked how it could be an undemocratic process? Pamela (UB) says that this is their perception, that it is being imposed from above by BW and that it is over and above what the law requires from them. Kev (UB) says that this sounds like just a few. This isn't a democratic process, although it tries to be as many interested parties are being represented as possible and some grass-roots diplomacy is needed. Pamela (UB) says we are making progress on deciding what is acceptable. A lot of that is based on using the 14 day rule and implementing it fairly and consistently. She thinks that would be accepted but anything else that is over and above what is defined by the law would not be complied with.
● Rich (RBOA) says that we always knew some people would be unhappy regardless. Kev (UB) agrees. Rich asks if we can move on.
● Nick (NBTA) says from the very beginning we've been objecting that the process appears to be non-legal. He has been asking about the Equality Impact Assessment since the beginning, and Damian has just circulated documents about the EIA.
● Damian says that we can't make any progress debating law here unless we have a lawyer scrutinising everything that is said around this table. The EIA was discussed with Mayur (ex-Wilts CC Head of Equality) and he was comfortable with how it was progressing.
● Nick (NBTA) asks if an EIA is going to be conducted, and if it will be done immediately?
● Damian says that Sam Jones from BaNES and Sharon from Wiltshire CC have both agreed to advise as and when necessary. Sam would attend these meetings but sadly can't today. He says we will look to draw them in as soon as possible when the issues arise.
● Damian distributed some printed copies of the documents he sent out by email a few days ago, and apologised for the lateness of sending them out.
● John (KAT) said that they have in excess of 3k members. He wants assurance that how the process is eventually going to be sorted out in terms of bringing together the views of everyone around this table. He does think that we have an unbalanced representation here. He wants to be assured that, given the numbers being represented; he would like to know how that is going to be dealt with. He's worried about unbalanced working groups.
● Andrew (NABO) said their local branch has 600 or so members.
● Damian said it's not about a pro-rata representation in each group, but more a symbolic representation. When the working parties are out there they need to know that they have all the information at hand to assess their proposals against their needs.
● John (KAT) asks about the people out there and how many voices they have? There does appear to be an imbalance as there are several organisations singing from the same hymn sheet about an issue.
● Pamela (UB) says this relates to the EIA because it isn't just about how many people are represented; it is about what the impact is on each group. Some may have a lot of members but won't be greatly affected by the mooring strategy. Damian says he would almost wholly agree with that. In certain circumstances he doesn't think that they will need RBOA and NABO in every group.
● John (KAT) is just concerned that it is not a fair process, and that this isn't necessarily the best way of dealing with it. He just feels that it is wrong to have too many voices representing what is yes, an important sector, but all basically the same.
● Kev (UB) says that what has always struck him about this process is that where it will affect people's leisure activity, some of it has a bigger impact on people's lives because they are living on their boats. This is where the pro-rata or the involvement comes. If any changes to this make it impossible or very difficult to continue your lifestyle full stop, then it is a very big change. Yet these same changes may just affect someone else's life by a few hours or weeks. We're talking about major issues that impact on people's lives.
● Nick (NBTA) says that we are talking about a philosophy.
● Damian says that at the last meeting we discussed who all the groups are and who should be in them.
● John (KAT) proposes that before we go out on the zoning groups, would it be useful if we sorted out round the table the all-important issue of 'places' under the 1995 waterways act?
● Andrew (NABO) says that before anything goes into any other groups, we really need to agree on what the terms that are used around this table mean. That includes 'breathing space', 'zone' and 'place'. Otherwise we are all just guessing at what each other mean.
● Rich (RBOA) says that it would be good to have a hypothetical place between two place markers and look at what the terms mean within that context.
● Damian asks how everyone feels about that? It may make this process quicker if we agree on it.
● Rich (RBOA) says he's having difficulty with some of the terms and that there is some confusion at the moment. 
● Kev (UB) says that he's kind of seeing that any zoning group's proposals will come back to the table for ratification? Everyone agrees.
● Andrew (NABO) says that the other issue is voting as an entire group? John (KAT) agrees. Andrew says this was discussed and defined in the beginning at the first meeting. He highlighted that NABO and the unaffiliated boaters have two reps present.
●  John (KAT) says that at the end of the day Sally or Damian has the onerous task of sifting through all that we've done and reaching a democratic decision.
● Andrew (NABO) says that he has always assumed that there would be a heavier boater representation as most of the policies are about boats and boating.
● Ken (WCC) disagrees, as it is about boating, but also the canal and its effects on the community through which it runs.
● Pamela (UB) says this needs to be looked at within the context of the EIA.
● Damian is concerned that this meeting is starting to look like the earlier ones. He doesn't think that voting is such a key issue right now. What we should be doing today is agreeing on the construction of the groups and how they are going to go out and do their thing. He has added some extra points to the groups that weren't really discussed at the previous meeting, for example Kev's (UB) proposal. So could we please have a discussion about the terminology that we would use?
● Kev (UB) says that he feels that a mooring zone is an area with a restriction, e.g. 48 hours. Place refers to movement of a boat through an area. This is where mile markers came up. Rich (RBOA) says that it was the local mooring strategy meeting that brought up the term 'zoning', so what does Damian say?
● Damian says he agrees with Kev (UB).
● Rich (RBOA) says so zone just means an area of occasional mooring or restricted mooring?
● Damian says it's a mooring element. Something that exists at any point when the mooring duration changes - that's a different zone. E.g. outside The George is a 24 hour zone. Then it becomes a 48 hour zone, and then it changes again to a 14 day zone.
● Kev (UB) says the confusion is coming in with 'place' and 'zone' and the enforcement of the 14 day rule.
● Pamela (UB) says is 14 day mooring space being referred to as a zone? Kev (UB) says only because that is what it defaults to. Pamela (UB) says in the original policy documents published in September, there is a different explanation of zones that is different to her explanation of zones.
● Kev (UB) explained that 'zoning group' is a group that defines the zones on a section of canal. Dave (VPA) agrees. He wouldn't use the word restriction; he would refer to 'mooring conditions'. Andrew (NABO) says that everything is a restriction on the 14 day default if it isn't in that category. Keith (VPA) asks if you have stayed for the duration of the zone, does that mean that you have to move on to another area? Most people agree.
● Andrew (NABO) and Nick (NBTA) agree that if you have stayed 14 days in say Bathampton, then go and stop on the 24 hour moorings, and then you are fine to do that. You would then have to move to somewhere else.
● In general, people agree that there should be no restriction on staying on designated short-stay moorings so long as you obey their time limits. It is then asked if, if you have stayed for 14 days in total should you then move to the next place? People agree with this decision.
● Place is a geographic location.
● Mooring zone is an administrative classification.
● The general term used for a length of canal is a length, says Rich (RBOA). Why not use that term as it has been used for 100s of years.
● Damian says it doesn't matter what the groups are called, so don't get hung up on that.
● Pamela (UB) says that the reasoning of the House of Lords committee that drafted the 1995 act was that there was no need to define 'Place' any more closely or finely as that would make it unnecessarily complicated, and that there is no way to define it in a way that would apply to every geographic location.
● Damian says this is why we have people from the local area who know the canal here in this group to decide on what place means here. How does anyone who should be continuously cruising know where to move on to?
● Andrew (NABO) says that we're trying to come up with a pragmatic and practical solution here. BW's definition of place in their mooring guidance for continuous cruisers (and NABO do not endorse or accept the document), is in itself acceptable as a definition. Between Bath and Bradford on Avon, for example, there are 8 distinct and recognisable places.
● If you are trying to define place, they are places that people recognise. That is what we came up with. The boundaries are perhaps a little fuzzy, but it is visible. Dave Batho (VPA) asked about the parish boundaries? Andrew (NABO) says that maybe, he hasn't seen them and they didn't have the map to hand.
● Rich (RBOA) says that with it in place, it would help enforcement too.
● John (KAT) complains that you will just get the same old boats bouncing between two locations again.
● Andrew (NABO) asks if people feel that the parish boundaries are sensible to use as definition of place?
● Pamela (UB) and Kev (UB) point out that there can be more than one place in one parish.
● Dave (VPA) points out that the canal doesn't go through Limpley Stoke. You have the city of Bath, then you have Bathampton, Claverton, Monkton Combe (Dundas), Winsley, Avoncliff and then Bradford on Avon parishes.
● Damian says that one of the issues for the enforcement teams has been that they have had to issue crap guidance (because there was no alternative) - you cannot tell a boat how far to move as place has not been defined.
● Rich (RBOA) says you can't reduce the number of boats, but we agree that movement is better than no movement, so we have to encourage a culture of movement.
● John (KAT) says that the 1995 act is basically the same as the guidance for continuous cruisers. He feels that the lifestyle of living on a boat should fit into the mooring strategy, not the other way round. Kev (UB) says that they are trying to ensure that people are still able to live on their boat and to move it about as they see fit within the law. He says it doesn't matter how you define place, if you show where the boundary is, maybe stick in a mile marker or something. You will always get one person who moves from one side of the post to the other. He felt that you could define that you must move two mile markers to ensure that those individuals who would just move to the other side of the post would have to move at least one mile.
● John (KAT) asks are we legally allowed to redefine place? Group says no.
● Nick (NBTA) says it is not our remit to define place but on the other hand everyone else has and does.
● Rich (RBOA) these are the tools we've got to work with. We need to encourage a culture of movement and ease BW's enforcement and help them to continue encouraging this culture.
● Ken (WCC) wants the definition of place to be made now so that we can move the whole process on and just get this over with. He feels that when we get to the courts, if the definition is reasonable and has been got to reasonably, then the courts will take into account this view of what is reasonable. This forum is ideal with all groups represented. This pragmatic solution of defining place will move this process on dramatically.
● Keith (VPA) asks about the 'progressive journey' term? Is that now out of this conversation? Rich says that his view was, having spoken to Sally and Damian, that if there is a local strategy in an area that the concept of a progressive journey will be dropped. Kev (UB) says that one of the reasons we are sat around the table is that the whole mooring strategy before we got here was preventing people from educating their children, getting a job, etc.
● Rich (RBOA) says that by doing the place thing we are encouraging people to move. The continuous journey thing was because BW has no points of reference to judge whether people are moving it was just something that they put out there.
● Keith (VPA) asks about BW's view on this?
● Damian says that the court case that started last year needs to finish really as it may impact on it.  But the mooring strategy, Bath to Devizes, will not be looking at the progressive journey or looking at the movement rules for boats (at least today). He just wants a definition of place so that the zoning groups can go out and define what the places in their zones are. This needs to be consistent for all groups. How do people feel that place is a geographic zone that is different from its neighbours?
● John (KAT) says that he doesn't feel it will move on anything because there are so many people who want to live in the Bath valley and educate their children in the Bath valley.
● Rich (RBOA) and Andrew (NABO) say this is a separate problem. They don't think that even with the things that have been said by BW, the likelihood of residential moorings appearing is so low.
● Kev (UB) explains how he moves about up and down quite a bit and juggles this with making sure his children get to school. He is within the law here. Is this not something that is going to be allowed?
● John (KAT) says there are too many boats. The place is overcrowded and he doesn't see how we will deal with this.
● Kev (UB) says what do you mean by overcrowding? He cruised a mile, mile and a half, and there was not a single boat there.
● John (KAT) says his perception is that people say they won't come to the Western end of the K&A because there are too many boats, and hire boat people are cutting back on things. It is sad that this area has this reputation and he thought that this was what we were going to solve in this group? This is the problem isn't it, so shouldn't we be solving it?
● Those representing boaters reacted strongly to this, and Damian interrupted saying that we won't get anywhere with that.
● Damian asks if everyone is happy with the definition of place that we currently have? The sector groups are going to go out and define zones and perhaps places too. Keith (VPA) doesn't think that the zoning groups can really do that. We are just going to look at the maps that have been supplied.
● Pamela (UB) says that surely we already said that the definition of place in the mooring guidance for continuous cruisers was acceptable.
● Kev (UB) asks that we just do these walks in the groups and work out what zones are what, and then have a big discussion about that afterwards.
● Keith (VPA) thinks we need an agreed definition of place, or how else are we going to enforce movement from one place to another? He is happy to leave it for a bit but he feels we will all come back to it. He senses that so far John (KAT) is not happy with the current definition. John (KAT) says that a sensible day's cruising (4 or 5 hours of travel) should be each place that you must move between. Personally he feels that the parish boundaries won't in any way solve the problem.
● Pamela (UB) and Rich (RBOA) then disputed how far that might be. There was some discussion about whether it would be 3 miles or 25 lock miles.
● Ken (WCC) says that there is an issue where the city of Bath is going to be a place. This may cause problems.
● Pamela (UB) says that the mooring guidance says that a suburb of a town is a distinct place. It is smaller in certain areas. Nick (NBTA) agrees – urban areas the place is small. Rural areas are big. Andrew (NABO) says that he isn't sure how he would demarcate Bath, so suburbs makes a lot more sense. Keith (VPA) says that Bath as a place would go from Widcome to Folly Foot Bridge.
● Ken (WCC) says that this is just the one sticking point for him in his head about the definition of place.
● Pamela (UB) says that what she thinks of as Bath is to the East of Folly Foot Bridge. Within Bath there are separate suburbs, such as Widcombe, which is a distinct place within Bath. Rich thinks it should go to the groups. Nick (NBTA) says that he would like to congratulate the group on airing this important issue. He also says that the advantage of having place markers is that people can tell where they are within the context of places. He says yes, you may get place hoppers as opposed to bridge hoppers.
● Ken (WCC). says that he is happy to have a situation that is understandable by everyone, not even just boaters. Keith (VPA) is not happy with place yet as if Widcome is one place, what about Bathwick? Is that another place?
● Rich (RBOA) says that it is a shame not to have full agreement with John (KAT) but that he feels that we now have a more cohesive understanding of what is meant by place.
● Nick (NBTA) asks about how the groups will work.
● Damian says within the groups, what you have is what everyone agreed on at the last meeting from the summaries of the break out session. The last term that there was some uncertainty about was 'breathing space'. For him, it is a defined length of canal that does not have any boats. It's a no-mooring zone in essence. Is everyone happy with that?
● Rich says, yeah, however, although he always imagined that to be the interpretation, understanding that this is what is meant he has a fundamental objection to it as he feels that we are wasting time on discussing something that should not be discussed.
● Kev (UB) feels that there is no real need for breathing spaces. You get areas with no boats anyway, with areas that are no-mooring for navigational safety or technical reasons or because they are miles from any facilities. He doesn't think that having zones that are no mooring zones in a very specific sense seems extra and extraneous to what we are doing.
● Ken (WCC) says that he felt it was suggested for ecological reasons here. He thinks that what is being said from an ecological point of view is that this needs protection from BW. Otherwise they might as well come along and take all the reeds out and dredge it all. He works mainly on restoration projects and he feels that the ecological impact on biodiversity for the whole canal system needs looking at.
● Rich (RBOA) asks about the entire off-side bank? Nick (NBTA) says people don't enjoy the offside bank so much as the towpath side.
● Andrew (NABO) says in terms of general cruising you do not moor on the off-side bank and you're not meant to. From an ecological point of view, if it was reinforced that you don't moor on the off side bank, would that not support it?
● Ken (WCC) says that he understands the principal is that you can moor in any place along any towpath for 14 days. He thinks that not accepting the principal of having some breathing spaces is really not [politically astute?] on.
● Keith (VPA) asks about which areas of ecological interest there are on the K&A? Damian isn't aware of any other than the ones at Devizes and then he is not aware of any restrictions on mooring there.
● John (KAT) says that when it was restored, there were specific areas on the towpath side between Dundas and Avoncliff that were set up for wildlife to flourish. Likewise there are things that have been done by volunteers at Seend and so forth more recently. He feels that we should have breathing spaces for this reason, even though as Rich (RBOA) has said that it is self-regulating as people don't moor there anyway.
● Ken (WCC) says that not everyone, particularly novice boaters on hire boats, will decide not to moor in the middle of reed beds.
● Pamela (UB) says that hire boats don't tend to drop anchor anywhere. They will avoid mooring anywhere that is really difficult to moor unless caught short really late at night. Ken (WCC) doesn't want to get bogged down now in this amount of detail. He just wants to know what the feeling is on breathing spaces.
● Keith (VPA) says that what Kev (UB) is saying makes sense, that there are stretches which ought to be protected and it makes sense to do that. He thinks that the community at large would also say that. They would want to defend the right of local boaters to live on their boats and send their kids to school. From a community point of view that makes sense.
● Rich (RBOA) says that when we are out looking at the areas we are assessing, could we take into account the navigational issues of the canal, look at the sections where it is impossible to moor and difficult to moor, and make a note of them as potential no-mooring zones. He just doesn't want to see them added for the sake of it. Kev (UB) also points out that there are places like 'crash corner' in Bathampton, where people moor on really tight corners. He would like to avoid areas of no mooring all over the place just for the sake of it.
● Andrew (NABO) does not like the term. He feels that two boat lengths are ample in terms of boating. Mile and a half that is not popular. He also doesn't like the idea that he as a boater will be clumped with other boaters. He would like to look at limitations on mooring for practical reasons.
● Kev (UB) says lets have them, but call them no-mooring zones, and say that they are there for navigational reasons. Ken (WCC) says that to sell this to the outside world you have to look at the ecological reasons too. The outside world doesn't understand boating issues.
● Pamela (UB) says that if there are no-mooring zones, imposing those zones will automatically make boats bunch up in other places, so it may cause congestion and difficulty finding moorings elsewhere.
● Kev (UB) and Ken (WCC) say let's just be pragmatic here. Kev (UB) says there are sections where you can't moor for technical reasons, e.g. where the Claverton pumping station outlets are. Ken (WCC) says that the concept that there are end to end moored boats from Bradford to Bath, we will be able to turn around and say, 'no' and show where people don't moor for whatever reason.
● Damian says we will take into account no mooring zones when the groups go out.
● Dave (VPA) says that anything we recommend, any ideas that we bring up, they are all going to come back to enforcement. It is all hopeless to put it all down on paper or to put posts up on the canal unless it is enforced and the enforcement system is in place and can cope with it and really works in the way that it doesn't work at the moment. For example, at the no mooring zone by Ferry Lane people ignore it. The posts get ripped out, etc.
● Andrew (NABO) says that you need to explain to people why there is no mooring allowed. Just saying that you can't do that, for a lot of people if they can't see the reasonableness of it then they will just ignore it.
● Dave (VPA) feels that if people say that there is no rationale for me, then they will just do what they want. It makes no difference.
● Tim (IWA) says that the majority will be fine if they know what the reasons are. There will always be one or two.
● Andrew (NABO) says that when the signs were put up originally by Limpley Stoke bridge, the signs didn't last very long.
● Rich (RBOA) says that the enforcement teams need to know why no mooring sites are there so they can explain when they are out there.
● Pamela (UB) says that we also need to take into consideration that the primary use of the canal in planning terms is for the movement of boats, and canal side land for operational purposes including unloading, loading and mooring, so imposing mooring restrictions for non-navigational reasons would be contrary to the primary planning use of the canal.
● Rich (RBOA), Kev (UB) and Damian agree that this is why no-mooring zones should also have sound navigational reasons for being there.
● Many times people compare no mooring zones with double yellow lines. If there were no traffic wardens many people would ignore them.
● General agreement is that unless no-mooring zones are enforced there is no point having them.
● Kev (UB) feels that we are going to come up with a plan and then discuss how it should be enforced.
● Rich (RBOA) says that we are trying to keep it simple, aren't we?
● Rich (RBOA) says that last meeting we discussed a 7 day mooring, where you could pay thereafter to stay longer. The general consensus was that it was not needed, and would be a pain to enforce?
	Damian says yes, that was what was felt and we will discuss it later to get a finite answer on what we all feel.
-- Break for coffee and tea –
● Damian explained that he now wanted to go into the paper he sent out yesterday. It is basically a summary of the feedback that he got back at the last meeting. Where there wasn't consensus, he's made it a point for discussion.
● One group wanted 5 sector groups rather than 4 for the zoning exercises.
● Kev (UB) says it was he thinks suggested for reasons of distance and local knowledge.
● Nick (NBTA) says that Bath is such a big and busy place. And also it needs to extend right down to the end of the canal.
● Dave (VPA) says that the membership formula that Damian has is hard to understand. For example, the VPA does not extend into Bath. He is tempted to say why don't we use just the four groups, as whoever is looking at Dundas will be looking at Bath.
● Keith (VPA) would like to sit down with someone from BaNES as he would like someone from BaNES to say that they are happy at least with the zoning being done in Bath up to Folly Footbridge.
● John (KAT) says he thinks that expecting anyone from BaNES to take an interest and get involved is a wishful thought.
● Rich (RBOA) says that the more groups we have the more people we'll need. We just need to make sure that every group has enough expertise.
● Kev (UB) agrees that if we have 5 groups we'll end up with overlaps and people working on two groups, so we might as well stick with 4.
● Keith (VPA) says he thinks that Dave (VPA) and himself, as parish council reps can cover Widcombe to Dundas and that it would be reasonable to have the two of them to do that. They don't know the detail to really say anything about Dundas to Bradford on Avon, but they could through the VPA co-opt someone to work on that stretch, if that is acceptable?
● Pamela (UB) asks how the members of Wilts council will be considered? Will they/he be fulfilling the same role as the VPA members?
● Dave/Keith (VPA) say they only cover up to Bradford on Avon.
● Ken (WCC). says that he would be able to invite someone from the relevant parish councils via Wilts Area Boards he thinks. 
● Just leaves the BaNES bits.
● Damian says the generic make-up of the groups then:
● BW
● A boater
● A commercial operator
● A local parish councillor.
● Kev (UB) says that commercial operators should maybe be changed to an interested party.
● Tim (IWA) says that that really the commercial operator is an APCO thing. RBOA or NABO can supply the boater representative.
● Pamela (UB) mentioned also the proposal by BW for trading boat moorings – these are very relevant to trading boats, but others won't know about them and some traders may feel that their businesses are being disadvantaged. It is important for the travelling canal traders to be included in this.
● Tim (IWA) suggests that it might be worth inviting a representative from them to join in.
● Damian asks if we need both water and non-water based traders represented?
● Rich (RBOA) says that during the zoning exercise we can think about who needs to be consulted. Take the issues to the table and then decide who we should consult. We can bring in these experts then. We want to keep the zoning exercise itself as simple as possible.
● Keith (VPA) asks if Damian is going to take part in all of the group walks with his map in hand so he can record them? He isn't sure what the intentions are of the groups. Damian asks if he is the best placed person to do this?
● Several people suggest that members of the enforcement team need to be involved. They know the issues and the area more than anyone else in BW. Each group needs someone who knows what they are doing.
● Kev (UB) thinks that the initial walk and discussion could be done with three or four people and then we can go and talk to Russ later and call him out like that rather than making him do four different long walks.
● Keith (VPA) is worried about the mechanics of transcribing all of the notes onto maps to bring up to the meeting.
● Damian says he's happy to come and spend time with each group to translate their scribbling’s into a workable map.
● John (KAT) says that one of the things that has been a problem is winter moorings as there was a lack of consultation at least in Bath.
● Damian is happy that the zones one and two will have the two VPA reps that are here. Zoning group three will have another VPA representative who knows the area.
● Damian asked about boater representation? The 4 boaters there should be able to supply enough input. Pauline would also like to be involved and of course Tim has his commercial operator’s hat on as well as his IWA hat on.
● Damian says he thinks we need the leisure angle covered too. Is Tim happy to just be consulted when the groups come back?
● Pauline would like to be out there walking along the route too.
● Damian asks how far west from here Pauline would like to go? She asks for Semington to Devizes. Rich (RBOA) is happy with that. Tim (IWA) says he can do Dundas to Bradford or Dundas to Bath, or both. Keith (VPA) thinks that Tim doing Dundas to Bradford is a good idea as they don't know the parish council representative.
● John (KAT) might need to co-opt other people from the trust as representatives too.
● Pauline says she can be there with her KAT hat on.
● John (KAT) says he can do the Bath flight and the Dundas to Bath section. Everyone is happy for John to find other KAT members to do the rest.
● Kev (UB) says that then when we get to the table we should find that there is some uniformity and there most people have met the same problems.
● Rich (RBOA) jokingly asks if we have to walk it, or could it be done by boat?
● Pamela (UB) volunteers her boat, if people would like to go by boat. Pauline likes the idea that you could try out mooring in various places. Pamela (UB) says a contribution to the diesel would be appreciated! Damian acknowledged this.
● Kev (UB) says he's going to walk whatever.
● Damian says it is for the groups to decide.
● Tim (IWA) says they really need APCO to be in all of the groups.
● Rich (RBOA) says we won't be able to solve it in a single walk along the canal.
● Pamela (UB) says it is worth doing again in the hire boat season so we can see where hire boats like to moor.
● Damian says we need boaters for 2 and 3 – is this going to be Pamela (UB)? She says yes. Rich (RBOA) will do Bradford to Semington.
● Pauline asks who will invite APCO? Damian says he will speak to Danese, who is John's replacement.
● Andrew (NABO) says he wants to invite Russ and the enforcement team so that they have an opportunity to get involved now if they want to.
● Ken (WCC) says it will be useful to publish what we've decided when we've decided re groups going out for zoning so that other officers can join in if they want to.
● Damian says are we happy that we've covered the groups now in terms of membership and representation?
Sector group 1 (Bath to Dundas):
Dave and Keith (VPA)
John (KAT)
Kev (boaters)
Sector group 2 (Dundas to Bradford on Avon)
Tim (IWA)
A VPA rep
Pamela (boaters)
John will find a KAT rep.
Sector group 3 (Bradford to Semington):
Andrew (NABO)
Nick (NBTA)
Ken (WCC) will source someone from the local parish council.
John (KAT) will find another trust rep
Sector group 4 (Semington to Devizes):
Pauline (KAT and AWCC/commercial)
Rich (RBOA and commercial operator)
Someone from Wiltshire CC
● All of these groups will have a BW representative too. An invite is yet to be sent to Russ Bennett and the rest of the enforcement team.
● Pauline (AWCC) asks how long it will take to invite people and find a date?
● Rich (RBOA) suggests we pick a date or a couple of alternative dates now, and then publicise it.
● Kev (UB) points out that an APCO representative is still needed.
● Damian says that until he talks to John or his replacement Danese, then he won't know.
● Damian read out the list of tasks for the groups to perform/things to consider, as decided at the previous meeting.
● He also read out the menu of mooring zone time limits and types, including no-mooring zones.
● He also mentioned the 7 day moorings, but most people around the table seemed to not see the point of them. This was dropped.
● Long-term leisure moorings. At least one group didn't think they should be part of the menu of mooring options available.
● Rich (RBOA) thinks that maybe there are some areas in the more rural places where you could put something like that.
● Kev (UB) says that rather than choking up sections of hard standing that could be visitor moorings, would it be worth thinking about having a long term leisure mooring sticker that is used in areas that are normally 14 day moorings. It is more a no-moving permit. John (KAT) is concerned that people would have those churned out and boats would clump up and it would get out of hand. Kev (UB) agrees that it is an enforcement issue.
● Rich (RBOA) asks about the permit holder moorings being sub-let if you are out cruising. Is there some way to formalise it? He thinks it should be possible and it would be really positive.
● Kev (UB) thinks that it would be nice to be able to have some way to use the permit holder moorings in a designated area for a period of time like maybe 6 weeks.
● Rich (RBOA) says we should just assess the validity of the long term permit holder moorings, not just look at using the permit holder moorings for other things.
● Ken (WCC) says that you don't want to go cruising and come back and find someone in your mooring.
● Kev (UB) says that usually you put something out to show that a mooring is in use.
● Ken (WCC) says that the group is at liberty to say whether it is appropriate for the moorings to be where they are, and we should leave it at that.
● Andrew (NABO) suggests periods of no-mooring in the middle of the long term moorings where the groups think it is applicable.
● Damian asks about trading moorings?
● Pamela (UB) says that moorings for trading boats that move around, some of them will benefit hugely from having a designated trading boat mooring in specific places but others will be disadvantaged, depending on the nature of their business. Some trading boats need particular places, e.g. one that sells ropes and fenders needs to be where other boats can moor up to them. One that sells ice cream to walkers on the tow-path has very different needs. Some trading boats attract trade from other boaters, some particularly live-aboard boaters (e.g. coal and diesel boat).
● Pamela (UB) is saying that it makes no sense to have designated mooring places for trading boats as you can't make that decision when the boats all have such different needs.
● Rich (RBOA) says that their being able to stay on a 24 hour mooring for 24 hours is fine. They shouldn't be taking top spots all the time.
● Kev (UB) wants to know about e.g. the trading boat that is permanently moored up at Bathampton?
● Any fixed trading boat needs planning permission.
● John (KAT) suggests that maybe the trading boats should not be allowed to stay on visitor moorings? The ice cream boat for example stayed on the 48 hour moorings at Dundas for weeks [NB this may have been agreed with BW]. The rest of the group agrees that this is not on and should not be allowed. It is an unfair advantage over local businesses.
● Long term residential moorings?
● Kev (UB) thinks it should be struck off as it is a planning issue and we can't do that here. It's just a non-starter.
● Pamela (UB) says that the planning use class for residential moorings needs to be changed and that is for BW to discuss with local planning authorities.
● Andrew (NABO) is in favour of them but doesn't think there is any point trying to discuss them. It isn't that we don't want them; we just can't start dictating planning for something that doesn't exist.
● Rich (RBOA) says that the RBOA is much the same.
● John (KAT) suggests that we put down in general terms that it would be a recommendation to have more, for example.
● Nick (NBTA) says that we should be making recommendations. Everyone agrees.
● Pamela (UB) says that the demand for residential boating is the fastest growing demand on the waterways and this should be addressed.
● Dave (VPA) says that that is the one policy that isn't pre-existing at present. It's in the local plan for the local council.(?)
● Enforcement group:
● Same four people: John (KAT) suggested that this group wasn't needed until the sector groups have finished. He thinks everyone would want to contribute this.
● Keith (VPA) agrees with John. We have a lot to do here and everyone will want to contribute.
● Kev (UB) says they have so much to do, they should start now. The groups will go off and come back with a recommendation, and the enforcement group should start almost immediately and comes up with a framework that can then come back and be discussed.
● Andrew (NABO) suggests a show of hands of those who want to be on the enforcement group. Everyone put their hands up.
● Kev (UB) thinks that work should start straight away. It is possible to use the sector groups as the enforcement groups for the same areas. There are principals that need to be looked at and the costing is an issue too. How is it all going to be funded? We need to make careful decisions about where we will make money from and where we will save money.
● Damian says that he is open to suggestion and that if that is the most efficient way to do it then so be it.
● John (KAT) says that if everyone wants to be on it and we are running it in parallel it might be a bit of a strain.
● Andrew (NABO) says his group doesn't involve anyone else who is in this room! For enforcement maybe it should be 3 groups rather than 4. Generally aside from the BW enforcement team, there is no one else who needs to be on the enforcement group.
● Rich (RBOA) says that all we need to do is to bear in mind enforcement and environmental issues while doing the zoning thing.
● Dave (VPA) likes this as we'll get four takes on everything rather than one. We will get more value out of it this way.
● Keith (VPA) says the key issue for enforcement is how it is funded, what the zones are, etc.
● Kev (UB) emphasised keeping it simple. Getting a voice heard in a large group can be difficult, so doing it in small groups, discussing things in small groups, would work better.
● Damian says he has some questions about the remit of the enforcement group and the answers to some of these need to be taken into account by the sector groups:
● One group did not want any constraint put on the suggestions that could be made for enforcement.
● Should there be a financial constraint put on that? There is already 47k being spent on enforcement on the KA – that's an enforcement officer and 1½ data collectors – in this stretch that we are considering. Nationally ¾ of a million is used for enforcement.
● Kev (UB) would like specifics on how that works?
● Damian says that this is just about man power. There are also the associated admin processes and things that need to be taken into account. Any new processes that we suggest may incur higher admin costs, for example.
● The enforcement officer also goes to the end of BW's jurisdiction on the Avon as well.
● Damian explained that the equipment comes from the same central budget (responding to Nick's question).
● Keith (VPA) says that the salaries for these guys must be phenomenally low. He would like to know how much money is available for enforcement between Bath and Devizes. Damian says he will do his best.
● Ken (WCC) says that he will have to leave very shortly, but he would like to know if this is going to be relevant to future KA management, given the changes coming to BW as it moves to the third sector. Will it all be done nationally and so all this work disregarded? Damian doesn't think decisions, even at Sally level, have been made yet.
● Kev (UB) says any plan that we come up with and suggest and decide before it becomes a charity is then for the charity to decide if it will use it or practice it.
● Rich (RBOA) says we don't know at this point what the national navigation authority will be doing and looking after.
● Dave (VPA) says that how BW decides to organise enforcement is very relevant to what we are deciding. What about the Taunton and Bridgewater canal and what is happening there? How will that impact on us here?
● Rich (RBOA) points out that BW as the navigation authority and BW and the partnership are two sectors and as yet we don't know what responsibilities they have and what impact they will have on what we are doing here.
● Kev (UB) related the story of why a space ship's thrusters are a particular size. He is suggesting that the framework that is changing will be built around what is happening here.
● Dave (VPA) doesn't think that we should be financially constrained in our recommendations. Once you have made those, you can say what the consequences of not implementing these things are. Then we can allocate a cost indication for that and start taking finance into account.
● John (KAT) is concerned about going over the top if not thinking about things that are practically achievable.
● Everyone laughed at the idea of helicopters patrolling the canal.
● Keith (VPA) repeated that he would like to know the figures for this section of canal, Bath to Devizes, for enforcement. He knows that Wiltshire council already contribute to the canal. It would be good to be able to tell them what they get for that. He thinks that the money is there to organise a very effective enforcement team or lengthsmen or whatever you want to call that.
● Damian asks if it is useful to know what else is spent on that stretch?
● Andrew (NABO) agrees that this would be good. Rich (RBOA) says he's been trying to find this out for ages! Rich (RBOA) and John (KAT) have heard different figures at different points.
● Andrew (NABO) thinks that this information really must be there as it is needed to help us think of balanced and fair things. Damian reassured him that the information is there in BW.
● Should BW be the only agents considered to carry out enforcement?
● Unanimous Yes.
● For enforcement, should funding be considered? Should others contribute to enforcement?
● Yes, but it must be ring fenced. Keith (VPA) points out that it is already the case that people are contributing.
● Should the enforcement group be considering the management structure of the enforcement team?
● Should we be thinking about how to effectively implement Kev (UB)'s lengthsmen proposal?
● Yes, it is a nice thought.
● Most people don't think it is likely to happen.
● Agreement is that it should be recommended if we think it is necessary.
● Pamela (UB) says we should look at the costs.
● Should the group have the ability to say where extended overstay charges should be introduced?
● Consensus is no.
● Tim (IWA) says that there must be penalties of some sort?
● Kev (UB) says that that's section 8.
● Pamela (UB) says that some people have an in principal objection to overstay charges of any kind because in effect they are fines when you look at the level of charge in relation to the cost of a permanent mooring, and BW does not have the power to impose fines.
● Damian says it is an interesting concept that they can't be fined, but can they bill them for the administration required to enforce section 8?
● Pamela (UB) says that whether an overstaying charge is punitive and thus a fine or not doesn't relate to that.
● Kev (UB) highlighted that people who thought they could afford the charges would just keep paying them. Any charges made would therefore have to be punitive and so illegal.
● John (KAT) says that is not the case. They discussed this [in previous meeting] and thought of the three strikes and you're out policy and then refuse a license.
● Pamela (UB) says it isn't lawful to refuse a license under these circumstances.
● Nick (NBTA) says this is why law needs to be brought into the discussion. We can't suggest things that are unlawful.
● Damian says that three strikes, you're out and then you only get a 6 month license was proposed by one group at the last meeting. You would then get a 12 month license if you have behaved during the 6 months.
● John (KAT) suggests that we should not just be changing now what we decided in the groups. We are wasting our time. We came back with the idea that it was a good idea and we went along with it; let's not just decide to discard it now.
● Damian says he doesn't think that was the intention. The idea was floated at the last meeting. He will find out if BW's legal team will let us have it in our armoury when the zoning groups go out.
● Pamela (UB) says that as NABO already brought up, charges let people pay for the ability to overstay and therefore prevent other boaters using the mooring space.
● Keith (VPA) thinks that overstay charges are going to be administratively prohibitive and will cost more than they will bring in. He does also think that there needs to be some kind of sanction, like the withdrawal of a license.
● Kev (UB) says that this conversation has got confused with overstay charges – almost impossible to administer. If they are overstay charges they have to be low level so that you aren't going to get money out of them, and they will just encourage overstaying. So they aren't any good. What we need to look at is if there is an interim sanction that we can look at that doesn't involve trying to fine people that should come in before the seizing of the boat is arrived at. We need to know if reduction of the license length is legal, etc.
● Tim (IWA) says that at the moment we need an interim sanction, as section 8 takes too long. It can be years and years before anything happens.
● Kev (UB) and Pamela (UB) say that overstay charges are counter-productive and won't help.
● John (KAT) says that a lot hinges on the common sense approach of whether or not it is administratively prohibitive. He does not like the principled objections to it. As long as you can collect it sensibly and it is not punitive, then it is worth pursuing as a sanction.
● A group suggested bringing in someone from another waterway? Russ will already be coming/involved.
● General consensus is that it would be too complicated then and it isn't needed.
● One group suggested information dissemination as an additional role for enforcement officers. He thinks this will get shaken out later on when we are doing the zoning exercise.
● General agreement.
● Car parking provision? Should it be considered?
● Pamela (UB) says only on BW land, e.g. as at Fradley Junction (Trent and Mersey) and Brighouse in Yorkshire. Planning permission and cost she isn't sure about.
● Kev (UB) thinks that this group could make a big difference if they considered parking for dog walkers, anglers etc. etc. as well as boaters, so it could be suggested. We could then maybe find out how much it would cost and factor it in if we think it will make a big difference to an area.
● Tim (IWA) thinks this is beyond the remit of this group.
● Damian says that he will look to see what land BW owns that has the potential for this use.
● Should waterway maintenance, towpaths, dredging etc., be included?
● Yes.
● Damian will write up everything that has been discussed today. In terms of actually organising the walks and the visits to the towpath, is everyone comfortable that it can be down between the group members?
● Pauline (AWCC) is concerned about how people will communicate.
● Damian says we will wait for Ken (WCC) to come back with his Wiltshire contact.
● Most of this needs to be done prior to the next meeting.
● Maps will be available – the maps will be emailed to a member of each group. The PDFs are available online: BW corporate site under BW local sites. Should be up by middle of next week.
● Kev (UB) requests paper copies as he has limited access to printers.
● Next meeting? Friday April 1st seems to be fine for everyone. It will be in Devizes again at 10:00am as it was today.