PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON DEVELOPING LOCAL MOORING STRATEGIES 2009

This is what NABO sent in to BW

Please provide email or postal address, depending on how you would prefer to be contacted. Note, we will not be able to acknowledge individual contributions, but will contact you with a copy of the final report when available. Exceptionally, we may contact you if we need to clarify any aspect of your feedback. Unless you specify otherwise, we may quote, but not attribute, your views

Howard Anguish e-mail removed for security reasons

1. Is the scope of the consultation clear? Would you include anything else in its scope? The scope outlined seems clear. The mix of different groups, however, is at the same time comprehensive and widely varying in their interests and aspirations, which may lead to conflict unless very carefully controlled by impartial chairmanship. It will be necessary to monitor the effectiveness of the local groups and bring in such changes as are deemed appropriate by the members of the group.
2. What qualifications and skills should members of the steering group have? Individual members should have a very good understanding of that part of the waterway under consideration, with specific deeper background knowledge of their own specific interest – i.e. boating, angling, boating related business, etc. They should be capable of demonstrating a willingness to give time and commitment to the project over a reasonable timescale and they should be tolerant of the needs of other waterway users whose views may conflict.

3. Is the principle of a locally-led steering group comprising all relevant and interested parties, preparing a mooring strategy agreeable? If not what other method would you use to do this? The proposal is preferential to the use of consultants who may not have the deep knowledge and interest in the subject and would certainly be less expensive to manage. The willingness to co-operate with each other during the process will be a key element in the success or failure of the group and the members should be appreciative of the fact that the waterways are there to be enjoyed by a wide range of users.
4. Do you think the list potential group member is appropriate? If not, what changes would you suggest? The proposals as outlined are acceptable. However, consideration should also be given to the opinions of cruising boatowners and other casual visitors to the area who may be unable to sit on such a steering groups. Because this group of users are in transit through a particular area may mean that they are unable to take part in local strategy groups and yet their views are very important. It may be possible for National organisations to represent their views but consideration must be given to the means in which their views are sought.

5. Are you comfortable with our proposal that where possible the group should be chaired by the local canal society/trust or a local representative from either the IWA or other national boating organisation? If not, who would you suggest? The chair should be someone who can demonstrate a deep knowledge of the waterway involved, and should be impartial in his/her role as chair. The group should not be chaired by a BW official but rather the chair should be one of the users of the moorings in question.

6. Do you think that a national nominations panel would be a sensible approach for ensuring chairing and membership of the groups is appropriate? This would be acceptable as long as the nominations for the positions are initiated by the local group. We also feel that it would be inappropriate for a BW representative to be appointed as chair of this panel. The appointment of any individual to a group should be approved by the group, possibly by a secret ballot.

7. How many members should the nominations panel have and which established national bodies should be included? NABO feel strongly that boat owners should be represented on this panel and would suggest that as the leading organisation dedicated solely to the interests of boat owners that one member of the group should come from NABO. In total this panel should compromise no more than 6 members .

8. What would be an appropriate mechanism for appointing unaffiliated individuals to the group? Should there be a maximum number?This should be a decision for each group when set up but as a first suggestion, no more than 3. The actual mechanism may vary from site to site but this group must be represented whenever possible.

9. If you reject the options we have outlined, what alternative would you prefer?

10. Are you content with the role outlined for BW in the proposals? (see e.g. paras 4.5, 4.10, 4.14) See the answer to question 5 regarding the chair of the nominations panel, and question 6 6 regarding the chairmanship of the local groups.

11. Would you prefer it if the draft strategy was also reviewed by another party before public consultation? If so, who? No, the proposal as outlined in 4.15 seems satisfactory in the first instance. Subject to monitoring and review after an initial period. The imposition of another layer of bureaucracy would inevitably lead to delays in policy implementation.

12. Do you agree with the method of arbitration in para 4.15? If not how would you resolve disagreements between BW and the steering group? As a first proposal this seem to be a satisfactory proposal but will it will need to be carefully monitored and amended as required.

13. Are any of the stages too short/too long? Which ones? It may take longer than early March to process the applications for the first appointment. The end of March may be more appropriate. It would then be necessary to delay each stage by two or three weeks but the final start date of October could still be achievable, but a more realistic start date may be mid to end October 2010.

14. Are any stages missing? If so, which ones? Advertising for candidates for the steering group and allotting time for the interviewing process to take place.

15. Any other comments? NABO would welcome the opportunity to be involved in the local mooring strategy andthe steering group as proposed. As the leading National body which represents the private boat owner we feel that we would be able to make a valuable contribution to the local groups in representing the views of our members who use the moorings in question.