Elmbridge Council on the Thames want to bring in a Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) to fine boaters up to £400 for staying for more than 24hrs.
The council was made to re-consult after NBTA amongst others pointed out that boaters weren’t able to fill in the consultation due to not being notified about the consultation.
EA enforcement boat moored at Elmbridge on the Thames
We as NBTA met with the council to discuss solutions to the issues they raised in the PSPO. At one point in the meeting the council reps admitted the issues they have weren’t the ones mentioned in the PSPO but the fact that boats moor there longer than 24hrs. We asked if there was a more reasonable time that the council would be happy with boats staying. They weren’t interested in engaging with this question.
The council has now concluded the consultation and has decided to go forward with PSPO. A boater is taking legal action against the PSPO.
NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here
In 2016, prior to launching the London Mooring Strategy, which was published in 2018, CRT and NBTA-London had round-the-table discussions about CRT’s thoughts on “pre-bookable” moorings. NBTA made it explicitly clear that if there were any “pre-bookable” moorings to be created, then they should be on the offside, and that tow-path moorings should never be chargeable.
Instead, CRT proceeded to make use of any vacant offside space not yet used for mooring for “long term”, or “residential” moorings, rather than increasing mooring space for visitors who were willing to book ahead, often making deals with third parties who owned the offside land. Two such set of moorings is at Broadway Market on the Regent, which in particular impedes navigation in what was already a very busy part of the London network, whilst overlooking the opportunity to create “pre-bookable” moorings; the other being Matchmakers on the River Lea, where the installation of those moorings meant CRT with their ‘safety’ zones are trying to enforce a ‘no mooring’ site on the towpath.
Yet, this is taken from CRT’s website:
“It’s really important that navigation is maintained and that it’s not impeded by moored boats. The inner London waterways are very busy with many different types of boater: liveaboard, leisure, freight, and business craft as well as increasing numbers of unpowered craft. This measure is intended to ensure that there is clear navigation for everyone in these busy areas.”
Their policy for safe navigation goes into the ether, however when it comes to the possibility of monetising new moorings, such as those on the offside at Broadway Market on the Regent.
Broadway Market, Regents Canal. Pic by Flickr/@scratch_n_sniff
Seven years following CRT’s first discussions with NBTA, CRT have now taken away several “casual”, “visitor” or towpath moorings, making them “pre-bookable”, and furthermore, have started charging extra. Usually, a CRT licence includes the right to moor on any towpath without extra charge, but CRT are turning 1.1km of London’s regular towpath into new ‘Chargeable’ Moorings that would cost an additional £25 extra a day. CRT’s argument for doing so is to make it ‘fairer’ for past-time and full-time liveaboard boaters alike to have a chance of mooring up in popular parts of the canal network. When we checked the facts behind the manipulated CRT survey on how successful the Paddington Basin chargeable moorings are, a Freedom Of Information Request reveals that these moorings have only been used 25% of the time – the rest of the time they remained empty and unused.
The latest moorings to be eradicated from public, free-for-all use are in Little Venice and Paddington Basin, but this is just the beginning .
On reading the T&Cs for what CRT call “pre-bookable”, but are actually chargeable moorings, included in these T&Cs are “planned” eco moorings on the Regent at Kings Cross and on Sweetwater in the Olympic Park on the Lee Navigation, strongly implying that these eco moorings may also become chargeable. NBTA also infer from this that the existing eco moorings on the Regent at Angel may become chargeable too, not just “pre-bookable”.
Aside from being financially exclusive and therefore fundamentally unfair in the first place, the quantity of chargeable moorings is not proportionate to the needs of boat owners. Lots of these bookable, chargeable mooring spaces will either be paid for by boaters who can’t find public towpath mooring since CRT have reduced those spaces, or they will remain empty because people a) can’t afford them, and b) don’t want them. If they remain largely empty, this may then be a great excuse for CRT to turn them into private moorings – as was the case at Here East moorings on the River Lee.
CRT announce itinerant boat dwellers will pay higher licence fees than others
Just before this newsletter went to press, the Canal and River Trust (CRT) announced that it plans to charge boats without home moorings more than boats with home moorings.
The implications of this are devastating. CRT will now be able to use boat licence fees as a way of removing the travelling boat dweller community from the waterways. It is more important than ever that we join together as a united community to stop CRT in their tracks. We will be sending round a ballot to all members of the NBTA to ask for your input on what action we take next. If you are not already a member, please sign up now to contribute to this vital decision. We have also organised an online meeting to coordinate our fight back. Please join us on Monday 9th October at 7pm. The access details for the meeting can be found on page 3. We hope to see you all there.
NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here
CRT admits to spending up to £250k on trying to stop boaters from mooring in the ‘Water Safety Zones’ on the River Lea. A Freedom of Information request shows that as of 31 May 2023, the Trust has spent anything up to £249,680.09 in the two WSZs on the Lower Lea at Hackney/Tottenham and at Broxbourne. All the while, trying to up licence fees and divide the boating community. CRT should stop wasting money on preventing people mooring in these so-called ‘Safety Zones’.
NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here
After CRT ignored repeated requests to provide evidence that boats moored in the ’Safety Zones’ were a danger to navigation, NBTA-L commissioned its own independent assessment. The report, carried out by a qualified and experienced Risk Assessment professional, concluded: ‘Boats moored in this area cannot be considered an additional risk as they comply with national standard practice(…) Mooring restrictions at these sites are not necessary’.
It goes on to suggest that it’s more important for craft – including row boats – to manage their speed effectively to avoid any potential incidents. This upholds NBTA’s long held view that CRT’s ’Safety Zone’ policy has never been about safety, but aims instead to make life difficult for boaters, which could ultimately drive many off the water and out of their homes.
NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here
Elmbridge Council is seeking consultation over a proposed Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). The PSPO would, among other things, give the Council powers to issue fixed penalty notice (FPN) fines of up to £400 for mooring on the Thames for longer than 24 hours. The affected sections of river maintained by the Council would include Albany Reach, Cowey Sale Open Space, Ditton Reach and City Wharf, Hurst Park Open Space, and Cigarette Island. Also proposed are restrictions on fishing, camping, and lighting of open fires such as BBQs.
This is not the first time that Elmbridge Council has proposed restrictions on boat moorings. In 2019, the NBTA responded to proposals by the Council for an extended PSPO that would cover areas moored on by itinerant liveaboard boaters. There is an existing PSPO in Walton-on-Thames town centre, in effect since March 2021.
Up to £400 fine for mooring on Albany Reach and Cigarette Island
According to guidance from the Local Government Authority, a PSPO gives councils the authority to “prohibit specified activities, and/or require certain things to be done by people engaged in particular activities, within a defined public area”. They are intended to target behaviour considered anti-social in particular, such as drinking in or littering of public areas. PSPOs can be in place for up to three years after which they are reviewed. There is no limit on the number of renewals of a PSPO.
PSPOs are intended to address specific behaviours which are having or are likely to have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. Elmbridge Council’s order proposes restrictions on “unauthorised” mooring, which the Council and Environment Agency define as mooring for longer than 24 hours in a location. This is not of itself damaging to quality of life for people in the locality. As the NBTA to the Council’s 2019 PSPO consultation, “there is nothing inherently anti-social in mooring a boat that is your home on a river bank… the simple act of mooring a boat on a river bank does not of its nature have a detrimental effect on quality of life.”
The Council’s proposal claims that “boats moored without permission” has led to “increased littering and noise pollution”. Restricting the mooring of boats on the Thames does not, however, address the question of “unregistered” boats as all boats, regardless of their permission on the waterways, will be penalised by such an order. The Council should instead address littering and noise pollution directly, rather than liveaboard boaters as a proxy. As Surrey Live reported in 2020, some liveaboard boaters with licences have been confronted along the canal, in an “atmosphere of enforcement” where any distinction between “legitimate” and “unauthorised” moorings is eroded.
Indeed, organisations such as civil and human rights group Liberty have criticised the powers behind PSPOs for the “vague definition of what can be criminalised [that is] ripe for abuse”, with many councils issuing fines for homelessness and rough sleeping. According to BBC and the Manifesto Club, Councils have issued fines under PSPOs for unauthorised cycling, spitting, school drop-offs, begging, and putting up an A-frame, as well as instituting curfews for under 16s. The existing PSPO in force in Walton-on-Thames town centre prohibits riding “cycle, skateboard, scooter or hoverboard in a dangerous or anti-social way”, which seems gives Councils the scope to choose what is considered “anti-social”. There is a danger that Council’s wield the power of PSPOs to criminalise any behaviour of their choosing, in this case the mooring of boats.
Above all, such mooring restrictions will have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable in the boating community, displacing individuals and potentially criminalising them for attempting to live on a boat. Avoidance of negative impact on vulnerable communities is explicitly called for in the LGA guidance. The consultation webpage states that an Equality Impact Assessment has been conducted, but the assessment has not been provided and there is no guarantee that at-risk boaters have been taken into consideration.
If Elmbridge Council is concerned about anti-social behaviour in its borough, we suggest that the Council address those precise behaviours. Restrictions on mooring specifically target liveaboard boaters, and especially the most vulnerable in our community. The consultation is closing on 11th June 2023. The Council has not yet implemented the proposed PSPO.
NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here
At the time of publication, itinerant boaters have still not received an energy grant from the Government, or been offered a user-friendly way in which to attain this grant. Most households across the UK are now into their sixth month of receiving help towards extortionate energy bills, yet the Government are still dragging their heels when it comes to itinerant boaters and other off grid communities.
All households in the UK were promised the £400 grant back in March last year, and an article published on the 1st April 2022 on the gov.uk website clearly states:
“If you live in a park home, houseboat or off the grid…The government has confirmed that further funding will be available to provide equivalent support of £400 for energy bills for the 1% of households who are not eligible for the discount. This includes households without a domestic electricity meter and a direct relationship with an electricity supplier, for example if you live in a park home, houseboat or you live off the grid.”
Depending on how the above is interpreted, itinerant boaters could be included under either the “houseboat” or living off grid examples. Either way, it seemed like we were included as we obviously do not have a domestic electricity meter or a direct relationship with an electricity supplier and therefore meet the criteria.
Since then, the Government have released several announcements regarding the EBSS, including an additional £200 Alternative Fuel Payment for those not using mains gas. However, none of their literature has directly referred to itinerant boaters, leaving us with a vague assumption that we will receive it at some stage in the future, via some unknown means.
In an attempt to find a good solution on how and when itinerant boaters will receive the EBSS, the National Bargee Travellers Association have been in talks with the relevant Government bodies for some time, and thanks to their efforts, a work around solution is now being trialled.
Unfortunately, the best solution the Government could offer was a perplexing arrangement whereby the applicant applied for the energy grant, knowing it would be rejected as it would not meet the criteria needed, then uses this rejection to apply for another grant from their Local Authority. This convoluted approach failed however, as Local Councils were neither informed nor consulted, with many simply replying as such, adding they had no budget for it
Therefore, we still do not have a definitive answer on how or when the majority of itinerant boaters will receive the energy grant. With many boaters spending upwards of £200 a month on heating this winter, the EBSS could relieve the difficult choice between heat or food that numerous folk may be facing.
As the winter months dwindle off into Spring, we are left wondering, will we ever get help to heat our homes?
NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here
Westminster council have just held a consultation period for a new eco mooring zone in Paddington. If plans go ahead this will be the third eco zone in London. The other eco zones are either side of the Islington Tunnel and in Kings Cross in the borough of Camden.
In the Paddington eco mooring plans they contextualise the need for eco moorings and how it can benefit boaters and residents. They also mention pollution has caused the hospital ward near the canal to close on occasions. The council said they could not share any details about the cause of the pollution due to GDPR reasons. NBTA London is in the process of finding out more about the hospital ward closures and the reasons for them by means of a Freedom of Information request.
Paddington Basin, picture by Marc Barrot/Flickr
One particular aspect of the plan is appealing. They have presented the idea of giving grants to boaters to cover the costs of converting boats so they are able to use the electric points (total of £1445 per boat for wiring, fixtures, consumer unit, electrical appliance). However, this mock costing does not consider labour costs and is vague so we can’t be sure whether it’s suitable for all boats. How they would decide which boaters receive the funding is also not clear. As stated in the pamphlet, these conversion grants are not guaranteed. The council will have to apply for funding but there is a worry that the conversion grants idea is tokenistic.
NBTA London met with Westminster council to ask for more details about the eco zone plans. Present at the meeting were 2 members of K&A consultants, a member of Westminster council and a member of CRT. The Westminster council member played the politician and gave no real answers to our questions stating that the plan is dependent on the results of the consultation and available funding. It was clear the council didn’t want to commit to anything. However, we did propose some ideas on how they could make the eco moorings suitable for more boaters which were received positively:
Provide electrical heaters that can be borrowed by boaters.
This would mean boats with off-shore power hook-up wouldn’t need to adapt their boats and they could plug the heaters into their existing plugs.
Integrate a battery charger into the electrical point.
This would mean boats wouldn’t need to run their engines or diesel generators and they wouldn’t need to buy any extra appliances to fulfil their electrical needs. Especially as not all boats will be suitable for conversion.
King’s Cross, Regents Canal, picture by Diamond Geezer/Flickr
All London boroughs have clean air plans to meet clean air targets because illegal levels of air pollution are still being recorded in London, including in the city of Westminster (levels of nitrogen dioxide have been recorded up to 50% higher than legal levels in various areas across London). Despite the pollution from boats being negligible in comparison to the pollution caused by road transport and domestic/commercial heating systems, where we can, it’s good to reduce our emissions. However, in order to transition, boaters need time and support. Stoves and diesel engines are crucial to heat boats and to supply enough power during the Winter months, and are necessary for the majority of the waterways that are without electrical charging points. Then there is the issue of space and money to make boats suitable to use the electric points.
NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here
Have you ever wondered what the ‘no mooring’ sites in the ‘safety’ zones” are all about?
What are CRT trying to say to justify them, and which sites are NBTA London challenging and why?
In this document we answer these questions *and more*.
As well as hashing out the main arguments, we have throughly, concisely and clearly laid out each area which CRT are trying to ban boats from in the ‘safety’ zones.
The document states CRT’s position and shows NBTA London’s counter argument to each of the sites which we are challenging.
It’s very useful to help understand the ‘safety’ zones better. It’s not only very pretty, but also a must read!’ —> view pdf
NBTA Boats are homes protest outside CRT’s London offices
NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here
CRT would like to start charging ‘extra’ for Towpath Moorings. Normally your licence includes the right to moor on any towpath without extra charge. CRT would like to turn 1.1km of London’s regular towpath into new ‘Chargeable’ Moorings that would cost an additional £84 extra a week. Why? Because CRT believes financially excluding people from these moorings will somehow make them ‘fairer’. Boaters who can afford it will be able to reserve themselves a guaranteed mooring space, at the expense of less wealthy Boaters who will find their mooring opportunities significantly reduced.
Proposed chargeable mooring sites along the London Canal Network
In reality this would financially exclude many residential boaters without a home mooring from 1.1km of the mooring space they rely on for their livelihood. Much like every other CRT Policy, this prioritises Leisure Boating over Residential Boating – CRT have no actual adjustments in any of their strategies that actively support itinerant, residential boating. Perhaps there is a question here – do CRT believe that holidays are more important than homes? Most worrying of all, evidence suggests that these new chargeable moorings will often remain empty and unused.
Paddington Basin, one of the chargeable mooring locations. Pic by Nick Sarebi, Flickr
CRT have conducted an online survey about their ‘Chargeable Mooring’ plans – unfortunately their survey is invalid for the following reasons:
CRT’s survey is invalid because it claims a Pilot Chargeable Mooring Scheme they ran was a great success. In fact, it was only used 25% of the time – the rest of the time it remained empty and unused.
CRT’s survey is invalid because it is based on CRT creating new regular towpath moorings – to replace the ones being annexed off for wealthier boaters. A Freedom Of Information Request revealed that CRT does not know where these ‘replacement’ regular moorings will be. Historically CRT have promised many new mooring spaces that have not materialised – so if CRT do not know where these ‘replacement’ moorings will be, effectively they do not exist.
Boaters in 2017 tried to stop the Gasworks offside mooring in Bethnal Green from becoming private ‘paid’ moorings
CRT’s survey is invalid because it initially misinformed participants that only 40 regular towpath moorings would be lost to this ‘Chargeable’ mooring scheme. Due to another Freedom Of Information request they later had to amend these false figures mid-survey to 1.1km. This could amount to 120 regular mooring spaces being lost, so this survey was initially based on a false premise.*
CRT’s survey is invalid because it is filled with coercive questions that force participants to suggestively agree to things they do not. The question ‘How many times a year should you be allowed to moor on a Chargeable Mooring?’ does not allow me to disagree with the whole concept in the first place – one can only hope that CRT does not ‘cherry-pick’ their data.
CRT’s survey is invalid because when it suggests introducing a ‘no widebeam double mooring’ policy it misrepresents the facts. London’s canals are some of the widest in the country. There are many places throughout London’s canals where you can double moor onto a widebeam and leave an enormous amount of space for navigation. The impact of removing this double mooring capacity will be vast. Yet again – the survey is based on a false premise.
Angel is another proposed site for chargeable moorings. Pic by Alan Firkser
So where does that leave us? A poorly constructed, invalid survey about a poorly conceived scheme, based on falsehoods and prejudice. No Equality Impact Assessment to demonstrate how this will affect family/residential/disabled/older/financially disadvantaged boaters (CRT have promised to conduct one – but only once the scheme is effectively a done deal). Then there is the strange assertion that making something financially prohibitive will somehow make it fairer (- for whom?).
It feels like history is repeating itself. Yet another policy aimed at debilitating the Itinerant Boating Community, founded on a swamp of misinformation, without any form of proper consultation – in particular, no consultation with those it will impact the most. Surely in any proposal worth its salt you would conduct an Equality Impact Assessment before presenting it to the general public – otherwise you risk promoting discrimination… unless, of course, that is exactly what you intend to do.
Regents Canal through Central London.
And let’s not lose sight of the door that is being opened – one where CRT can charge whatever it likes, for any towpath mooring, anywhere. This new CRT Policy could in fact be a step-by-step guide on how to make a public asset financially exclusive.
* This was calculation assumes boats are 60ft each. The number is higher if you assume boat smaller.
NBTA London needs your support to carry on our work. Please get in touch here if you would like to volunteer with us. Alternatively your donations are vital to us supporting boaters with their legal case work, campaign banners and other printed material as well as events. You can help us with your donations online here
Join us at our Community Summer event at the end of this month. We are having a picnic at the Walthamstow Marshes on Sunday 26th June 2022 – 12pm start. Click here for more details
Oh look, an (allegedly senior) member of Lea Rowing Club (LRC) taking an angle grinder to the grab bars which can help people who have fallen into the river get out safely.
LRC has been unapologetic in pushing for CRT’s implementation of the “safety zones” – in fact they were the ones who came up with the deranged scheme in the first place.
But actually useful pieces of safety infrastructure there to help everyone don’t seem to matter to these overly entitled hypocrites. Could it be that their interest in “safety” has more to do with their desire to not share the river with other users?
A volunteer organisation formed in 2009 campaigning and providing advice for itinerant boat dwellers on Britain’s inland and coastal waterways
National Bargee Travellers Association - London Branch 