Here are the draft minutes of the Local Mooring Strategy meeting held on 1st April
7th Local Mooring Strategy Steering Group Meeting
10:00 – 13:00 Friday April 1st 2011
Damian Kemp (Chair)
K&A Trust: John Webb
VPA: Keith Rossiter and Dave Batho
IWA: Tim Wheeldon
Unaffiliated Boaters: Pamela Smith and Kevin Humphries
RBOA: Richard Burchill
NABO: Geoffrey Rogerson
AWCC: Pauline King
NBTA: Nick Brown
WCC: Kenneth Oliver
welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked them for turning up
again. He said he did not feel that introductions were necessary
Brooks from WCC will be coming in at 11:30 to explain the forthcoming
changes in legislation and to describe how they deal with equality
impact assessments at WCC.
explained that BW does not currently have an equalities officer. He
has contacted DEFRA to ask if they have anyone, but has not had a
(UB) gave apologies for Andy, who was not in attendance, but did
bring his map.
said that the agenda is very ambitious, so he isn’t sure that will
get through everything. He asked if we should just go through the
towpath work that has been done, or do the attendees think that we
can talk about enforcement as well.
says that we should keep Sharon Brooks’ visit on the agenda.
thinks that it depends if the towpath stuff is a general
review/sharing of info or ratification.
would like to see the work already done ratified today to make it
(VPA) says that he thought that Damian was going to take the reports
and consolidate into a mooring zone map, and then we could compare
these with the existing map. You can comment on individual reports
but someone – Damian – needs to incorporate the mooring zone
recommendations into a map that can be compared with the existing
situation. Perhaps some of the other, environmental issues need to
be considered too?
says that he wants to make sure that the map isn’t still being
(VPA) asks isn’t this inevitable? Damian says he thinks maybe he is
says that we will just go through the maps now, comment on them, and
he will draw them up into a formalised map and we will look to debate
and rubber stamp it at the next meeting.
(WCC) wants to look at it carefully as a consolidated map and to have
the relevant parish council’s comment on the resulting document.
(VPA) points out that the local council elections are in May.
(UB) says she’s just seen the piece by John Webb about the towpath
walk from Dundas to Bradford on Avon, and he says there are a number
of errors in it. She says this is the first time she’s seen it.
John says that he emailed Damian and thought he copied her in on it
yesterday. His document says everyone in the group agreed, but
Pamela says she didn’t agree. John Webb (KAT) says that he knows he
wasn’t on the whole walk, but Tim distributed the information from
Tim and Pamela, and the final version that was circulated by Damian
was almost the same except for a couple of small changes that he
thought had been agreed on.
says she didn’t agree to everything and hasn’t had anything emailed
to her. She’s upset that she’s not received any of the
(VPA) interrupted to say that he’s not comfortable if there is a
problem with disjointed conversation in a particular group. It is
very difficult to understand one particular report without the
context of the others, and there seem to only be two to look at and
this is one of them.
(RBOA) says he’s not had a chance to look at the one circulated by
Dave’s (VPA) group yet, even though it was sent out a few days ago.
consensus is that it should be left for now as it clearly isn’t in a
state where these maps and reports can be reviewed.
(VPA) is concerned that he had understood that the idea was to have
the 4 reports ready for this meeting, but they aren’t.
was a discussion over some of the points over which Tim (IWA) and
Pamela (UB) disagreed that were in the report sent by John Webb
(IWA) says that thinks his poor computer skills are to blame for not
having sent the right attachments to Pamela (UB).
rest of the group had a quick look through the report that Tim (IWA)
proposes that we step away from these reviews now, and then he has so
far one digital copy that has been confirmed by all group members.
Damian can digitise Andrew’s, Rich (RBOA) has just forwarded his
group’s report to Damian. Damian will over the next few days
consolidate them into one map. On 15th April he’ll
distribute it and then this can be circulated and discussed by this
group and also the parish councils and BW.
(VPA) asked for clarification. Is Damian proposing to circulate the
map around BW before it has been ratified? Damian says yes.
doesn’t think that there are any big drastic ideas that will come
from this. He knows that Mark Stephens has some comments to make
about particular areas, but he’s not sure which areas.
(VPA) thinks that it is dangerous to circulate anything before this
group has signed off on it and decided that yes, we’ll recommend it
for these reasons. Otherwise it’s an incomplete piece of work that
we may not be happy with.
(RBOA) comments that he’s read Dave (VPA)’s group’s report and he’s
happy with that one as it is a good report. He’s read Tim, John and
Pam’s report, but that one is clearly not so finished or polished.
The issue that he can perceive is that to a degree in the area
towards to Bath from Bradford on Avon is that there is a likely
reduction in 14 day mooring space but more visitor mooring. He’s
concerned about where those boats will go. The available mooring
space up around and east of Hilperton is really far, far less than
you might imagine as the banks are in such a poor state and the canal
needs dredging. No one will move if this situation is not improved.
We need to sort this out before we can expect anyone to move.
(VPA) disputes that overall mooring space will be reduced. He says
things are being moved around.
(RBOA) does not want to have an argument, but clearly the report says
that there are more boats in that area than people would like. Let’s
just leave it for now and look at enforcement today.
Webb (KAT) thinks that we shouldn’t forget that we should be
reviewing mooring strategy after a year.
(VPA) says what Rich is saying is really just what we said earlier:
You have to see the big picture. If the map says there are moorings
on the map with this duration, but actually we all know that they
aren’t there, then that needs to be flagged as that is a constraint
on what we are trying to do and it has to be identified. We need to
understand the big picture between Bath and Devizes. Our strategy
has to knit together and make sense.
(IWA) asks where Mark Stephens comes into this? Is he not going to
look at the banks?
(RBOA) thinks we are fighting a lost cause here unless the damaged
banks are sorted out. The boats just won’t move.
Webb (KAT) thinks that if on the bit of path that has been worked on
recently between Clevedon house and Bathwick Hill, if the bank is
going to remain as a natural bank with hazel wattles and things, then
there is an issue in that for example they had a boat tied to it when
they came back, which didn’t work at all.
(UB) says that part of the issue is the boats from Bath Narrowboats
turning around and damaging the bank with prop wash. We need Mark
Stephens here to sort it out.
(RBOA) asks how often Mark has actually walked the canal. Okay he
has guys who walk along the canal but how familiar he actually is
(IWA) says that he thought he was familiar with the canal but of
course hadn’t looked at it with such a critical eye before and that
isn’t something that he had appreciated before the process was begun.
(VPA) says that the stretch that John (KAT) was mentioning is covered
in their report as an area unsuitable for mooring.
(KAT) says that there are other areas that they have done that are
similar that should not have boats there but that aren’t marked as no
(BW) jumped in here and says that is he to understand then that we
need Mark, once everything has been ratified, we need Mark to come in
to discuss his maintenance responsibilities?
was some clarification then about whether or not we will have his
comments first. Yes, says Damian, we’ll show him the document first.
(UB) says we need to be certain that we are happy with it and that we
have confidently ratified the new map.
murmurs of agreement.
(NBTA) asks if the groups could please agree before they ask the rest
of the group to agree. This met with general agreement.
(NBTA) then suggested that we ask Mark to overview the maps, as
originally we were told that a BW rep would be on each group and
there have not been any. He would like to see Mark Stephens’ input
on the reports.
(RBOA) says that he thinks it will be time for the strategic people
to look at it and make comments after it has been consolidated.
(NBTA) wants BW’s input before the maps are in formal circulation.
We need to be in agreement as a group and that includes BW.
says that that is why he would circulate the draft map to strategic
people (Russell Bennett, Mark Stephens, etc) in BW.
(UB) asks if Damian can do that for the next meeting in 4 weeks time?
(VPA) thinks that we need all the groups to agree first. Then Damian
has to translate that onto the map, and as Damian is only human and
may not quite manage to do it accurately we should then before the
next meeting look at the map that Damian has constructed. The group
should by email, etc make sure that they are all happy with it.
(UB) thinks that the BW input, because it is so vital to the whole
process, he wouldn’t have any objection to Russell or Mark seeing the
initial draft map, as long as they understand that it is a draft.
They are so integral to the whole process that we really need their
input. He wouldn’t circulate it to the parish councils at that
and Dave (VPA) agreed.
(IWA) asks about how things are agreed?
says Mark can’t change mooring zones without the boating group within
BW agreeing. Essentially that is Sally’s team. What he can do is
look at how the canal is maintained, deciding where to dredge, where
to let reeds grow to create no-mooring zones, etc. This group is an
advisory group, and he doesn’t see any reason why anything we
suggest, so long as it is sensible and pragmatic, with clear,
well-thought out proposals, then we don’t need to fear that they will
off-handedly throw out our work in favour of their own ideas.
(VPA) thinks that when we review the map next meeting, having had it
circulated in the interim around this group, we should invite Mark
Stephens at the meeting (who should also have seen the initial draft)
and we should get his feedback and comments.
(NBTA) says that his understanding of these walks along the towpath
were also to audit what is there, not just decide on mooring or
no-mooring zones. This means also pointing out and flagging up areas
that are unsuitable for mooring. The maps at the moment are too
small, but he would like to have the GIS file so that we can do some
crunching on it and so on. Then later he can look at it and review
the before and after effects. He wants to look at the number of
boats that can actually fit in. The figures from BW give the average
length of a boat as being about 42 feet long.
(RBOA) says that he plagiarised the Nicholson’s guide, as the OS maps
that Damian circulated were not good enough to actually get the
required level of detail on.
(NBTA) wants to know what the capacity is for each mooring.
(RBOA) thinks this is a fair point. He says that there is a stretch
of canal at Seend that is very popular, but we need to know how much
space there is for boats if we are going to adjust the visitor
moorings and so ensure there is enough 14 day space elsewhere. He
thinks that Damian should bear it in mind when he does his map, so
that he knows that the comments and things are not as accurate as the
BW maps that are usually used that use GPS to give exact
(NBTA) wants to get to the core of this, which is about how many
boats will fit in on the canal and for what purpose.
Webb (KAT) says he tried to do this when they went out.
(UB) says that her group didn’t have the GIS data though so it won’t
be as accurate as she’d like.
(RBOA) says this will put stress on the existing systems on the
canal, the locks etc, the water levels, all sorts of things. We need
to bear this in mind.
Damian to consolidate the map by 15th April.
Everyone to get the information to Damian by 8th April.
MEETING: 1st week of May. Date to be agreed.
is going to ask the GIS team to get us what we need.
(VPA) says that the scale is a problem too. The map is going to be
(NBTA) explains about the software he is using that will let him know
down to the metre with the GIS file.
(VPA) asks, won’t it actually be a series of maps, won’t it? Damian
agrees. Dave is concerned that the scale on each A3 map is the same
as well as accurate.
(IWA) points out that his map is a different size to the one that
Dave (VPA) got for his group. Dave agrees – his map didn’t have a
(UB) was concerned about the parish council representative on the
towpath walk that she did, as he accused all boaters of emptying
their toilets down the side of the embankment. She took part in the
towpath clean up and there was no evidence of any of this going on.
There was no evidence of holes having been dug or anything at all
like that either. She is concerned that this is just an example of
the sorts of prejudice that is being deliberately used to attack
categorically denies that BW is intentionally or unintentionally
harnessing this prejudice within parish councils. He says that this
group and the meetings are here to promote communication between the
main stakeholders. He can see a lot of the perceived predujices that
the different groups had being eroded in this forum.
(UB) says that the parish council member was also questioning the
right of the boater who had a mooring there to use other moorings
elsewhere and also to have his bicycle nearby. She felt that he was
questioning the rights of boaters to live on their boats, and to do
the things that they have a right to do and anyone in a house has a
right to do.
thinks that in situations like this, although it is hard, it is often
best to swallow your opinions and do your best to get on.
(IWA) and Dave (VPA) says that the individual is not a parish
councillor, he was just representing the parish council and is
someone who knows the canal and lives nearby.
(RBOA) says this is a shame but it shouldn’t affect our opinions as
we in this group know it is wrong.
Webb (KAT) was not of the opinion that the chap was as bad as is
being made out, and it is unfair to criticise the individual while
he’s not here to defend himself.
(UB) explains that this is just an example of the attitudes that have
to be dealt with.
(IWA) says those attitudes aren’t around this table.
(RBOA) agrees that these aren’t opinions held by anyone here, and he
agrees that it is very unpleasant and not something that should be
encouraged, but this is why he and Pam and everyone are here.
(NBTA) thinks it is an important perspective. He wasn’t in a group
and he’s had the comments reported to him. From what he’s heard the
comments are extremely inappropriate and very offensive. If the
person is an individual, then okay you can’t do anything, but if he
is representing the VPA then serious questions need to be raised as
his behaviour has been highly inappropriate.
(VPA) says it is hard to do anything when he’s really only got the
opinions of people here and they are all saying different things.
There is nothing we can do about it without having been there.
(RBOA) says that he thinks it would be a good time to take a break.
(VPA) and Keith (VPA) disagree that parish councils are having their
prejudices manipulated by BW and say that the councils are not
anti-liveaboard, or anti-boaters. They are for the KA canal and are
trying to play their part. They are not interested in what is going
(UB) asked if they are aware of what being done in the Midlands by BW
when they are contacting parish councils up there.
(VPA) says that he thinks it isn’t relevant to this discussion here.
We as a group have made a lot of progress and a lot of prejudices on
all sides have been shown to be incorrect. He says that the arguments
that Pam is bringing in are corrosive but don’t reflect what he and
Keith actually think.
(UB) thinks that they should be aware of what BW is trying to do
nationally. It seems that they are trying to remove particular types
of boaters from the systems.
(VPA) says that this isn’t what we are suggesting here. He would
have a lot to say about it if BW rejects the proposals that we make
and just kick everyone off.
(VPA) thinks that these meetings have been really helpful in making
sure that people are better informed on all sides.
group took a break at this point.
introduced Sharon Brookes, Equality and Policy Inclusion officer.
thanked the group for having her here today. She explained what she
is going to talk to everyone about. She invited everyone to ask
questions as she went.
asked how familiar everyone is with the phrase “equality impact
assessment”. There were some uncertain comments. Most people had
heard it but weren’t entirely sure what it was.
(VPA) asks about the legislative back-up?
Prior to the new equalities act that came in last October, it was a
very prescriptive process and everyone went down the route of really
investing in the process which sort of misses the point as it forgets
the end product and is very process heavy.
used the equalities and human rights’ commission’s template thinking
it would be very clever. It was actually huge. Pages and pages, and
it totally disengaged people and put them off. On the 5th,
the new general equality duty comes in. This is general. Also about
fostering communications and so on.
council like to try to go way beyond what is actually the base
felt that the last one was very much too hands off, too much of a
light touch. Don’t know if the new duty will do what it should. New
one just been put out. Government is being less and less
prescriptive. Reducing the onus on WCC to publish their information.
Could be a range of things, user service profiles, who they employ,
Dem’s are very supportive of equalities work but in the coalition it
seems to be running the other way.
WCC are doing is attempting to develop an easier approach to EIAs
(equalities impact assessment) in advance of the duty.
ends around the end of April. Should know by June/July what it will
template had only very broad human rights questions. People often
don’t really know how that relates to them and so don’t know how to
respond to it. They are attempting to get mini case studies and
things so that they can help people to fill these in properly.
with IDA now local gov improvement and development, and they are
helping WCC to “be smarter” particularly at strategic level, as
that tends to get missed. Need to be able to check communicative
impact. In current climate with tough financial decisions being made
it is really important to look at these things.
showed the group a Z card, with a summary of the approach on it. It
is like a tiny booklet folded up in a zig-zag shape. This is to be
put on the table and used to stimulate debate. The first question to
ask yourself if your piece of work is going to affect different
members of the community in different ways. If the answer is yes
then you do need to look at equality issues. You need to know where
your data gaps might be, to look at how you are communicating
decisions that are made, how you will review it, etc.
(NABO) asks if she is there because WCC has an equalities officer.
isn’t sure about where the team came from as she’s only been there
for 18 months. The agenda is everyone in the council’s
(NABO) says that BW as a gov dept not a quango should also have an
equalities officer or dept or whatever. He asks if we can find out
if BW has anyone responsible for equalities issues.
says at the moment he thinks it is done on a case by case basis and
that there is no one person. It is just done when it is needed.
asks if there is anyone looking at national mooring strategy, at
these groups for instance?
says no, the group of stakeholders are taking on that responsibility.
(VPA) asks what happens if a group doesn’t carry out a EIA?
says you could be subject to challenge from anyone in the community.
There are case studies for example in London, where people have been
accused of not doing a EIA. They couldn’t show they had done one and
they lost in court. You could be challenged; you may have to reverse
(RBOA) says then we are asking who is responsible then, is it the
group or BW who is coordinating the groups.
says BW can’t do this without the group’s input. Sharon has said she
will assist in this group generating an EIA.
says that she is doing something similar with another group (not a
mooring strategy group), and the information is being fed back in.
(RBOA) says we can’t leave this to BW, we have to be actively
involved. It would be useful to have some bullet points and key
things to keep in mind as we are discussing the issues. He thinks it
would make the process simpler.
asks if BaNES would be happy with WCC doing the EIA?
(VPA) says that BaNES have shown no interest and anyway it is this
group not WCC doing the EIA.
(RBOA): It is kind of the group’s responsibility, and we have been
bogged down a bit because we had assumed that Mayur, who had been
with us, was going to help or do it for us and that clearly isn’t the
case. We need to keep the spirit of it in the framework of
everything we do so that we are using it as a tool. Then when we
draw up the conclusions at the end of this we can say that we have
done it all in the spirit of this.
(UB) asks if Rich is trying to say we have one less job to do?
(RBOA) says well, sort of. Maybe we don’t need to do the paperwork,
but we do need to bear it all in mind.
(WCC) says we need to have evidence that an EIA has been done. We
need to make sure that the entire affected area is included, not just
the boats, not just the local house-holder communities, etc. At the
end of it we have to come back and review it and say “we considered
this, this and this as part of the equality impact”. We need to be
covered for equality law.
says that really, we must consider it all the way through. You can’t
get to the end of the process and then look at equality impact.
(RBOA) thinks that so far it’s been included because most people are
represented here, and the nature of the group is like that, but some
guidelines and key points would be really useful.
says yes, she can try to produce something for us. Kev (UB) asks for
a side of A4? Don’t want too much.
Webb (KAT) asks if the conduct of the group is affected, in terms of
things like numbers of people represented and the system used to
reach a consensus. He thinks that it should extend to the process
adopted to make decisions.
says yes, good practice includes making fair decisions and having the
right representation is part of it.
Webb (KAT) asks if that means we (well, Damian) need then to come up
with a document about how we will do that?
says that you need to do it so you can see if there are any gaps in
who is represented here and who is communicated with. If they are
looking at staff issues at work they have to be careful who is
involved to make it meaningful and to ensure that all issues are
Webb (KAT) just wants to make sure that we have proportionate
representation of all groups.
(VPA) is really concerned that BaNES have not shown any interest in
the whole process. He and Keith are here representing the VPA, who
span both Wiltshire and Bath, and none of the people in Bath are
being represented around this table. This is a real issue here.
They’ve been invited, but they’ve not shown any interest. Could
Sharon talk to her opposite number in BaNES and help to do something
says she has spoken to Samantha Jones about this and they agreed that
only one of them needed to go, but she will feed back the group’s
comments. She is sure that Sam would be happy to follow that up.
(VPA) says that they have tried to shake up BaNES and to have some
(WCC) says that the public report that they are writing up will also
go to BaNES too. If they suddenly decide having seen it that they
don’t agree with it then we’ll all have a lot of trouble.
(RBOA) suggests that Damian needs to write a strong letter?
(WCC) says if they haven’t got the people, they haven’t got the
people. A decision maker in BaNES needs to be involved somehow and
to be kept informed. We are noting now that we have done our very
best to be inclusive and they have chosen not to take part.
the John Rennie in Sidney Wharf, there is the first meeting of the
Pilot Kennet and Avon Waterway Partnership Board on 6th April, and
there will be a BaNES representative there.
asks if anyone has any other questions?
(UB) asks what the situation would be if an EIA was carried out, and
the proposals were found to have a significant adverse impact on one
particular group, what would happen then?
says it would be difficult for her to answer but it would be
something for the group to revisit. The assessment is to determine
if there will be an adverse impact. You can say yes there will be an
impact, and we had hoped to do X to avoid it, but because of funding
cuts we can’t.
(RBOA) so the important task is to identify the problem?
says yes. This helps to focus your ongoing work. The review bit is
also key. You need to know where you started from. The duty is to
do the analysis work. It does not currently specify what if anything
is done. The onus is on the group to decide whether or not anything
should be done.
(RBOA) says, well, as we are the advisory group giving advice to BW,
doesn’t that mean that they need to make their own assessments too,
as they will be implementing it.
(VPA) is concerned about how we will know if our EIA is done well
(UB) asks if Sharon can QA our EIA?
says yes, that is what she sees as her role.
(VPA) says this whole thing goes out into the wider world and anyone
can question the integrity, so we need a professional to underwrite
it. Is Sharon going to do that formally?
says informally it isn’t a problem but she will have to check whether
she could do it formally.
(WCC) doesn’t think that Wiltshire Council will be able to underwrite
(NBTA) is concerned that the group is not necessarily competent to do
the EIA acceptably.
(WCC) disagrees. Sharon is here to advise the group. No one is
going to take any individual in the group to court. They might go to
BW and say that this advisory group has given you faulty advice, but
BW has to sign off on it.
(RBOA) emphasises that BW are ultimately accountable.
agrees. He feels that once BW have endorsed it, they are ultimately
says that the group members here are the experts. She appreciates
what is being said. She thinks that everyone should see how they
feel when they’ve started.
(VPA) says that those who come up with core strategy for BW, the
individual groups don’t sit and do EIA’s individually. The authority
at the top does it. He’s looking for that extra layer of authority.
(WCC) says it is really the other way around. You can’t get to the
end of the process and then realise that some things are unsuitable.
(VPA) says that isn’t what he means, he wants to see a team of EIA
people looking at it as it is going along.
says maybe Dave is outlining what she was saying earlier? At
strategic level people often struggle because there isn’t enough
information to go on. You need to be thinking at this high,
strategic level to avoid missing anything.
(NABO) asks if we should then be drawing attention to particular
equality issues that we’ve identified, possibly with advice, so that
BW can decide what to do about them?
(RBOA) says that we as a group may not come to a decision on
everything, but we should be advising BW on the decisions that we
have made and how it affects the different groups. We’re just
covering the bases.
(VPA) wants to know where the pilot partnership board fits into this
all as it isn’t just BW.
is going to try to find out on Wednesday how far their remit is going
to extend. He thinks there will be a fair amount of fumbling in the
dark initially. He can’t answer the question at the moment.
(VPA) asks if we as a group want the pilot partnership board to look
(UB) is proud of what has been done so far, and the amount of work
that has gone into it. He doesn’t want to send it off to some board
who will just go “yeah, that’s not really what we were thinking of”
and throw it out the window. There are so many different parties
represented here. We’ve got to believe that this is the way forward
and that everyone is going to take heed and look at it and act on it.
(KAT) says that if the partnership board is going to be involved in
the management of the canal, etc, he isn’t sure how they could not be
(UB) sees this as being the foundations to be given to the future BW
to use as their starting block for what they do from now on. This
has got to be given the amount of respect that it deserves.
says he has the same concerns as Dave, as it is going to be
inevitable that we will have to interact with the pilot KA
partnership board. A lot of the members of the board have
representation around this table. He thinks the expertise around
this table will be appreciated. He doesn’t think that it is going to
be something that is off-handedly dismissed.
(VPA) says that the VPA has some issues with the partnership board.
(NBTA) says that he is concerned that there is no obvious intention
to conduct an EIA on this process. When Sharon says that it comes
into force on the 5th, some of it is already in force.
Which bits come in on the 5th?
says the section on the Public Sector Equality Duty.
(NBTA) asks Sharon to interact with Damian on this, who can then
forward the details onto the group. ACTION. Nick is concerned about
the fact that we’ve not been looking at an EIA up to this point means
that there are problems as we’ve not been considering it for the
entire lifetime of the group. Sally Ash said originally that we
would look at it at the end.
disagrees as the issues have been debated, sometimes very
passionately, even though it wasn’t a formal or prescriptive EIA. We
also had Mayur in from the start. He was tearing his hair out but he
was comfortable that the group was paying due regard to the impact.
Damian feels he can comfortably put at the end that we have been
considering equality from the outset.
says that even though it wasn’t done so formally before, when it
changes and it happens that bit is the part that is more hands-off.
Now we are looking at getting it right from the new duty’s point of
view. The part that has come in from October is about protected
characteristics. Discrimination by association is new (eg parent of
a disabled child may be discriminated against, even though he/she is
not disabled). The specific duties are out for review again.
(NBTA) asks if the general duties didn’t apply before then?
says disability, race and gender is addressed by the single duty.
One or two of the protected characteristics won’t be in the duty,
e.g. marriage and civil partnership. In this case it has a very
specific role in a different piece of legislation. That will be more
helpful than the segregated approach. People often have multiple
says that particular philosophies are covered by beliefs.
(UB) asked what remedies are available to a group who have been
highlighted as being disproportionately impacted by a decision which
has been carried out despite it being shown as having a
disproportionate adverse impact in a EIA.
says that you have to be careful with this and balance impact on one
group with impact on another that would result from making allowances
for the first group. Legally speaking you are back to the challenge.
confirmed in closing that she needed to bring Z-cards for people and
also a summary.
asked about that particular query that Nick (NBTA) has about section
1479 (?). Could that be sent to her so she can follow it up? Nick
says that the group should let her know if it would be helpful for
her to come back and discuss anything at any point.
were many murmurs of thanks and agreement that her coming back would
(VPA) asks about how this will now move on. Will the draft document
go to the partnership or not?
(KAT) says that he thinks there was some sort of plan and he thinks
that it isn’t until October that the final thing would come up?
says it will definitely go to the partnership board. We need to
decide whether or not we are asking them to ratify it or to take it
as this is what is happening. That depends to quite an extent on
what they see their remit as. Obviously BW can veto anything decided
by a voluntary group. When we go to the board there will be very
little room for the partnership to say no to if the navigation
authority (BW) have said they are happy and have signed off on it.
(VPA) asks about the navigation authority status of BW?
says that even with everything changing with regard to BW’s
structure, etc, the new BW will still have all the same powers and
duties in essence. Will just be in the third sector.
(KAT) emphasises that Mike Rodd and Mark Stephens are the two main
players, who are hopefully going to support what we have put forward.
He takes Kev’s (UB) bullish approach that we’ve worked really hard
on this and are the domain experts, and so what we’ve produced should
not be thrown out.
agrees that we are all doing this on the expectation that it will be
implemented (at least in the large part), so he’s expecting them to
take it up.
(UB) thinks that they really will have to come up with a really,
really good reason if they decide to reject anything.
(NABO) asks about Sally Ash’s role in this?
says that Sally will be involved and will have the sign off on any
changes to moorings. Any over-riding environmental obligations will
(RBOA) reiterated the actions so far. So now with only half an hour
left, we need to look at enforcement, even if only to discuss it very
briefly so we have an idea of what we are going to be talking about
(KAT) says, learning by the mistakes with some groups not having
managed to agree quite yet on their reports. For us to have a
meaningful conversation and discussion of enforcement and
neighbourhoods next meeting, would it be useful if we submitted ideas
from our breakaway groups in advance to Damian before the next
meeting? Maybe we should have written submissions a fortnight before
the meeting in May. He’s thinking one or two pages on each subject.
is struggling to think how we are going to march through designing a
new enforcement function for the western end of the KA. That is
certainly one way it could be done.
(UB) thinks it is a good idea as it should help speed things up and
won’t take up so much valuable talking time.
(RBOA) asks, to clarify, are we coming up with an operational system
to run the enforcement?
(KAT) says yes. He thinks that perhaps Damian could clarify on
enforcement as his present understanding is that we don’t have any
remit or knowledge to do a costed business plan for it. We can come
up with ideas on how best it could operate.
(RBOA) is concerned that we’ve not worked out the system that we
would enforce yet.
(UB) says that we’re just asking for ideas on enforcement for next
(VPA) wants to ensure that they are short, concise bullet points, not
long verbose documents.
(NBTA) would like to see what the headings are.
(RBOA) suggests that we start with what we agree on and work from
(NBTA) thinks it is easier to write words under headings.
(KAT) wants flexibility so doesn’t think setting headings is a good
(UB) says his suggestion for places would involve mile markers, and
that is it.
(UB) says there used to be mile markers.
(IWA) says they were quarter mile markers, and some are still there.
(VPA) says maybe you can look at that with the group that walked the
(KAT) thinks you need to look at the whole section and maybe the
(VPA) meant to just use those groups.
(UB) thinks that some of the groups that walked those sections will
have trouble coming up with cohesive ideas.
(RBOA) says leave it open, work with someone else if you want to.
was met with murmurs of agreement.
would like these as early as possible. Absolute latest would be 13th
(KAT) says on the agenda, there is John Froggatt’s having to leave
part way through the last meeting. Now Denise isn’t coming in his
place as had originally been stated. What is going on as we need to
make sure there is no imbalance?
says he is in touch with the chair of APCO, Nigel, who will try to
find a name by the end of next week. If that doesn’t work he’ll ask
Susie in BW, who deals with commercial boating matters, who can then
(KAT) asks about slipping time-scales?
says he is keen to start implementing things in 3 months’ time. If
we can look at the zoning at the next meeting then that is a big
chunk of the work done. All that remains is how quickly we can get
people pointed out that it is coming up to holiday season.
says there is one final agenda item. This is the recent legal case,
and the adjudication was given yesterday. BW are very happy that the
judge said that he favoured BW’s interpretation of Section 17, but he
does, and BW concede, that there will be boaters who will be
continuous cruisers who will fulfil the 1995 act but not conform
with the guidelines. So the guidelines will be changed. So
‘progressive’ and ‘significant’ will most likely be dropped. The
really difficult thing is the bit that is still ambiguous: How wide
a range of cruising is sufficient? The full judgement will be on the
BW website by close of play Wednesday. The judge has said that you
can’t for the purposes of maintaining a job or social circle cruise
only a short stretch of canal.
(RBOA) says that what Sally said at the beginning is that we would
choose or decide what these lengths are locally.
(NABO) says it would be difficult. You would need to know what you
are conforming to when you come to the KA. It’s going to be
different on the Mersey and on the Lea and here. You can’t have
people deciding locally on something national.
(NBTA) says it depends on whether or not mooring is an adjunct to
navigation or the other way around.
says, he thinks, the judge’s point is that if the primary use is as a
home not for navigation, then it isn’t bona fide navigation.
was some discussion on how it should be interpreted.
lead onto a discussion about what is being decided here, about
whether it should be viewed with the national situation in mind or
kept local. There seems to have been some confusion about this.
(NABO) says that Sally Ash’s presentation to the Trent & Mersey
equivalent of this group says they are doing the same as we are
doing. Making the same decisions, coming up with different
interpretations and ignoring national law and national issues.
says that their BW lawyers will make sure there is nothing illegal.
He says that coming up with a local strategy is the point. It is
(UB) highlights that this is going to be a huge problem if you move
from one waterway to another.
says this is the issue already because “place” is different in
(UB) says this is a violation of article 6 of the human rights act as
the law has to be in a state such that you know whether you are on
the right side or not.
(IWA) says isn’t this the same as needing a different windlass? How
do you find that out?
(UB) says that this is different. You can tell when a windlass
doesn’t fit. You can’t tell if you aren’t’ complying with the local
mooring strategy until the enforcement officers step in.
meeting ended there.
next meeting will be Monday 9th May starting at 13:00, in
the KA Trust building as it was today.