Argy-bargey: rowers claim canal boat moorings will block River Lea
The stretch of river where Hackney Boating Families want to set up moorings. Photograph: Eleonore de Bonneval
Boat-owners and rowers jostling for space on the River Lea are at loggerheads over a permanent moorings bid that has sent ripples of discontent along the waterway.
Hackney Boating Families, a group of boat owners, applied to Hackney Council for permission to set up a “community moorings” on a stretch of river by Daubeney Fields.
But their plan has been met with opposition by the Lea Valley Park Authority and the Lea Rowing Club, based just a short distance upriver.
Both organisations say that, at 18.6 metres wide, the river is too narrow for the proposed moorings to work.
The boating families want to establish seven residential moorings with infrastructure, including bollards, waste facilities, and pedestals with electrical, water and lighting services.
A spokesman for Hackney Boating Families said the group was formed because of the “now constant” threat of eviction from the Canal and River Trust, and the “gentrification of the waterways”.
However Bridget Snaith of Lea Rowing Club hit out over the moorings application, claiming the “floating houses” would block the river, preventing them from training and from providing rowing courses for the community.
Snaith told the Hackney Citizen: “There has been a huge growth in the number of canal boats and it has started to create a number of problems for the rowing club. If the moorings go ahead they will block the river terminally. It’s on our 2,000 metre stretch.
“We are a top-notch grassroots rowing programme. Canal boats are so romanticised – if this was a football pitch there is no way you would put caravans on it.”
Responding to the objections, the Hackney Boating Families spokesman said: “We thoroughly respect the rights of Lea Rowing Club to access the navigation, and we appreciate that the rowers have proud history of competing at regattas such as Henley and Cambridge.
“But I can understand that if you spent £700 per season to come down to Hackney to row at the weekend, you wouldn’t want the local low-income families getting in the way.”
“We are left with no choice but to pursue the creation of legally recognised moorings. Otherwise we could have to sell up, remove our children from their school places and become a burden to Hackney Council housing.”
Stephen Wilkinson, Head of Planning and Strategic Partnerships at Lee Valley Park Authority, said they objected to the moorings as it was “likely to result in conflict” with recreational users of the busy waterway.
“This narrow stretch is heavily used by canoeists and rowers as well as other recreational boaters, who are able to moor on the opposite bank at this point, further reducing the available water space.”
A spokesman for Hackney Council confirmed that the application by Hackney Boating Families had received 91 objections and 14 letters of support.
Update Monday 12 October: Lea Rowing Club captain and trustee Richard Ellis has clarified that the club’s fees range from from £25 for coxes to £420 per year (not per season). The club subsidises junior, over 75s, unwaged and student memberships.
The problem that the rowing club has is entirely due to the fact that the proposed development takes place on the only 2000m stretch of rowable river. Given that 2000m is the standard race distance, not to be able to train here would have a huge impact on all the rowers and of the ability for one of the very few East London, traditionally working class, rowing clubs to be competitive on the national stage.
The implication that the rowing club is any more unhappy to have this important stretch of river blocked by “low income families” than by anyone or anything else is extremely disingenuous.
On a similar note, it’s a little hard to say where the £700 figure came from. This is in fact far in excess of the annual subscription paid by rowing club members, which is further reduced for juniors, students and people on low incomes.
The Lea Rowing Club has happily and harmoniously coexisted on the river with residents and other river users for many decades, and hopes to continue to do so. The objection here is to the blocking of this particular stretch and not to the use of the river by responsible users.
The point is that river is too narrow at this specific point for barges to moor on both sides, and still allow two boats to pass. The Lea Rowing Club, which is an open, not for profit & true community organisation (unlike the ‘community moorings’ which is privatising a stretch of this public asset ) are very happy for barges to moor, to move on the water, and indeed for communities to set up permanent moorings where the river is wider,and there are several suitable places less than 500m from this point. This person has clearly no idea what the rowing club charges. I was a student member for several years for only £90 annually.
So can’t the boaters and the rowers talk to each other and try to identify a space that works for both? We are only talking seven boats according to the report?
We are talking with Canals & Rivers Trust, and other boaters groups, and working with them to resolve this, as we have no issue with cooperative barges and boaters who want to share this asset with other users. more generally and have coexisted on the canal for over 100 years. Recent exponential growth due to the unresolved housing crisis is making it increasingly difficult for us to share the water. This planning application was made outside the process of voluntary regulation, and so we were forced to make objections through planning.
Cart are not forthcoming with helping people set up
Community moorings, of the lower lea I know of many applications over the years which have been rejected by them, for bwml (a mooring contracting company owned by canal and river trust) to then implement mooring sites near but and charge 4x that of original proposal. I agree this site, with boats up to 14ft wide moored either side would make navigation too narrow. One reason why this site has been chosen though is because it’s the only stretch within several miles which isn’t owned by cart, it’s owned by hackney council. they have more chance of getting a approved aplication from a local council than than a charitable organisation. So moving the proposed location a few hindered meters in either direction isn’t an option. One option they could consider is only allowing narrow boats. Allowing less restriction of navigation. Also the presence of the families mooring there has helped crime drop on the towpath dramatically, so that’s a plus, and the local residents always seem to be engaging with them in a friendly manor and most welcoming. It’s apparent that the waterways custodians can’t and park custodians lvpa only seem to reject mooring approsals so they can privatise sections of the canal themselves, price the moorings in a bracket which is unachievable for families like those applying to run their own mooring. And with no other options avaliable, forcing them into a already very over saturated social housing problem. Maybe you wouldn’t allow a caravan on a football field no, but people living on the river is just as an important contribution to the varied culture of this river we know and love and continue to share. As is the rowing club with it’s community involvement. I have attended a lot of meetings with cart, lea rowing club, lvpa. It seems to me there isn’t enough communication between everyone as they all seem unaware of each other’s issues or an understanding of the difficulties they cause other parties.
Looks like another load of free-loading, middle-class boaters demanding cheap moorings by pretending to be the impoverished victims of capitalist indifference, and trying to infer that the Members of the Lee Rowing club are wealthy outsiders who look down on them. That club has been there for generations. Are Hackney stupid enough to grant them their wish….watch this space?
It seems to be entirely unhelpful to turn this into class war between “wealthy” rowers and low income families. The river is unfortunately not a sustainable solution to London’s housing needs. Will a permanent mooring for seven families even make a dent in Hackney’s housing need? It’s short sighted to give over the river entirely to house boats.
why should a self selected group of people who chose to Live Aboard without fixed moorings be granted the right to have thier own stretch of the towpath? im not unsympathetic to the plight of people who in many cases chose to live aboard due to housing market pressures however there are thousands of continuous cruisers. what process would be applied to stop this “community” from being a self selecting group i.e could other live aboard continuous cruisers have a guarantee of a fair and transparent process to apply for moorings and join the community?
Bridget, HBF are a bonafide community group who are working with the support of local residents towards creating a project that reflects the needs and wishes of everyone living around Daubeney Green. You should probably turn your attention to those operating extortionate private moorings elsewhere on the system.
Pasty Man, your comments are offensive, it’s not clever to make untrue assumptions about people’s social class or economic situation.
Matt, The Lea Navigation is now held in common, in public ownership for the benefit of everyone, managed by C&RT who are a charity , and LVRP who are a public body.The privatisation and enclosure of any part of public land or water for housing, simply for personal economic gain (saving money on housing is an economic gain ) surely needs to be carefully considered. This stretch is unfortunately the narrowest part of the navigation, and its partial closure to use by moving boats, or total closure for fishing, cannot really be represented as benefiting the community of Hackney (or the other Boroughs that also border the Lea Valley) in any real sense. The benefits do not go far beyond the small group who would take over its ownership, and who would then have total control of that part of the canal, denying use of it permanently to everyone else. If the local residents in houses nearby are supportive of homes on that edge of their small green space, why not apply to build on the park itself, thus affecting only the space they use?.. By privatising one side that stretch of water, where touring moorings are already in place on the other, at what is one of the narrowest parts of the navigation, and so making it impossible to pass another boat while still moving for a significant distance, the permanent private mooring proposed has a negative impact on all those others who have shared the water cooperatively for over 100 years. What’s more Lea Rowing Club’s ability to help normal, not elite, not wealthy, Hackney youngsters at local Hackney schools develop their sporting talents through our volunteers’ efforts up to national competition standards, putting them on an equal footing with far more privileged rivals from Eton or Westminster School, givng them the chance to compete for their country, is seriously compromised. Rowing is one of Britain’s most successful sports, and Lea RC are recognised as a bastion of open access for all and of diversity, within a sport that has historically been dominated by social elites. By stopping kids from using the water at the Lea, those who style themselves as ‘counter culture’ or ‘anti establishment’ are actually helping sustain privilige, and giving Hackney’s youngsters one more disadvantage. The housing crisis needs solving but not by taking away public park space.
Thinking strategically it is obvious that the Lea should be kept open for river traffic, whatever that may be. After all, that is its purpose.
Of course 91 opposition and 14 supports sounds unbalanced until you see its
91 rowers vs 2 local schools, 1 youth centre, local nursery, local parks users group, local residents (and association). All who say a family mooring makes it feel safer and welcoming.
It is somewhat confusing to be compared with travellers and the middle class at the same time when we just see ourselves as residents of the local estate.
I think a point is being missed here. If the council rejects the application then any boats will be free to moor on that stretch, as they do now, and possibly double or triple moor as the water ways continue to get more crowded. If HBF are granted permission there would be a consistant group of people there that could have a dialogue with the rowing club and other river users about double mooring or other issues.
There seems to be a false assumption that Hackney rejecting the application would solve the rower’s problem.
Exactly as Jane pointed out, there has always been boats in that stretch of water ( so many boats on river now for so many different reasons) that even moving as required just means it is a musical chairs game. So that means whether there is a mooring there or not the rowing club will still have boats there affecting them the same way. So their objection doesn’t make sense. It is nit suprising that CRT is managing to make two groupa fight instead of addressing the needs of diiferent users and expecting things to be sorted out magicly. It is a shame the rowers are not seeing that and attacking a group of families who are trying nit to get evicted from their homes.
And Bridget telling people who are just trying to keep their homes that they are doing that for an economic gain is simply disgarceful. When these families have the support of local residents, schools and health workers who can asses the need of these familes, telling them you are blaming them with making hackney’a youth more disadvantaged. So how leaving the children without homes, stopping them attending their schools and not having access to health care is going to support them as the youth of Hackney. This mooring is not privitizing anything, simply asking for the right to stay so the families are not affected negativly and enough is enough. Nor is stopping anyone using the river, no one is closing it for themselves. Have no desire to do so.
Bridget, HBF was established to protect the interest of children living on the river in the area and has nothing to do with economic gain. HBF has never styled itself as ‘counter-culture’ or a ‘anti-establishment’ and you’ll probably find that trying to find ways to continue to live in London despite the aggressive housing market is very much part of mainstream culture.
The presence of boaters on Daubeney Green has had a positive impact on the local community resulting in increased use of the park by all sectors of the community. I’m well aware of the important history of Lea Rowing Club, especially when it comes to widening participation and as someone who’s worked with disadvantaged young people in the borough for 20 years I know the positive impact sport can have. However the plans HBF have for use of the river are about sharing the use of the space not controlling it. CRT may be a charity but that doesn’t mean they are beyond reproach, they are conspicuous by their absence in this debate as they’ve deliberately kept two community groups apart from each other over this matter which has resulted in fractious social media exchanges such as this.
At the first opportunity, and against the actions of CRT, Hackney Boating Families approached and met with the rowing club to discuss their issues.I don’t understand how ‘voluntary registration works?’. Our early meetings with Hackney council made clear no discussion can be had without public consultation, also known as Planning Application.
Some families in this group have been a few months from eviction from CRT. CRT refused to meet with the family to discuss this, only serving solicitors letters.
CRT did not inform Hackney Boating Families of the rowers concerns, but met with the rowers to discuss the mooring. It was only by a chance incounter that Hackney Boating Families found out about this issue. At the first opportunity we met to discuss this.We have no problems discussing the mooring as the alternative is not positive one for our children.
We are not planning to solve the London housing crisis. We have homes. We are 7 families fighting eviction from CRT and this is our option to not join the housing crisis. There is no private gain, each boat losses it’s mooring when the child reaches 16. At that time the mooring passes to a new family at no financial gain to the previous boat.
If I started cycling backwards down the street whilst someone shouted at me with a megaphone at eight in the morning,. could I call it a sport and get the parked vehicles to move out of my way ?
then maybe if we can crane the famalies out onto the park and let them pay council tax in exchange for the right not to be threatened with eviction.!
These two groups have been dodging around each other for a few years now without communicating. CaRt is ignoring the rowers and bullying the boaters.
This isn’t crusty hippies against public schoolboys. It is overall mismanagement .
I’m pick up Laurie’s point on crime reduction. Where is the evidence for his assertion that there has been a dramatic reduction in crime since boaters populated the canal banks and the pace is safer? Where are the figures for this? As far as I can make out, there’s actually a big increase in crime – especially for boaters – with muggings, thefts and other serious crimes reported every week in this paper and online. Don’t make assertions without backing them up.
So why don’t the applicants apply to dig out the bank to make it wider?
Another simpler, cheaper soloution would be to keep the bank opposite the HBF mooring free of boats. To make up for loss of moorings space for cruising boats CART could place mooring rings on some of the many stretches of bank, that have been recently paved over making them unavailable to moor on. This way all river users needs are met.
if you move onto a boat with a continuous cruising licence you are accepting the terms ie that you will have to move every two weeks. no one will lose a home if HBF dont gain permanent mooring rights – they will simply have to continue to abide by the terms of the arrangement they voluntarily entered into at the outset. they can move their homes like the rest of the live aboard community and as per the terms of thier boat licence
You only have to look at the photo at the top of the article to see the problem. Seems to me that having boats moored on both banks at this point is just plain silly. There’s not enough room for boats to get through the middle and some of the houseboats now on the river are huge. A bit of common sense would suggest that this perhaps isn’t the best choice of location for permanent moorings.
not a very friendly bunch HBF
try mooring along “their” stretch of the towpath and they will soon tell you to haul anchor and sail on
Don, the “stock” picture the Citizen has published appears to be of a wide section of the Grand Union not the Lea. The £700 per season? figure also seems to be a result of lazy journalism or falsified information from the HBF group. Whoever wrote the piece only had to contact the Rowing Club to check, or ask any Rower going by. (if he or she was ever there in the first place).
It’s definitely a photo of the site Peter, taken from the footbridge at the end of Daubeney Rd.
As I understand it these Hackney boating families want to be able to stay …correct me if I am wrong but aren’t they already???some of those boats moored along Daubeney fields have been doing so for over two years now…they just swop places with one another…while one chugs down to top up with water and then they come straight back….I wish I could stay somewhere in Hackney,get my kid into a local school, use the local library and not have to pay any council tax. .good life I feel.
David Ryan, we are proposing residential moorings, which means having to pay council tax. We just want a mooring to give our children a more permanent home. Most of us were happy to cruise until our lives changed as our families expanded, hence we now feel the need for a mooring, and we are trying hard to get there. Cart have not been particularly helpful in proposing other sites for this. As you say in your comment, you wish you could provide this for your child, then I don’t understand why your comments towards us are so negative?
I suppose they’re negative as the experience of many couples in Hackney is that they have to move out when they have children. What you and the other families are experiencing is an all too familiar scenario of not being able to remain in inner London with kids. But you seem to think that this massive social problem can be fixed by handing over a patch of river bank to seven lucky families. There’s something quite…entitled about the boat families in thinking there’s is a simple problem that deserves a quick fix.
Re these family’s wishing to set up permanent moorings at day any fields. In the main story one of them stated that they were low income families well some of them have high paid jobs and as Dave said about them having children in local schools and use the library’s to get into a local school or to get a library card you have to have a registered address in the borough. I would like to know how legally they have done this as boat on towpath named what ever is enough legally right. As most of these boaters were not born or lived in borough before I wish to know how this was done. And yes he is right some of these boaters are like a boating Mafia. You can’t moor here as this is our spot. Keeping an ear out for more comments
Cecilia. my comments are not negative toward the “boat” people. Some of us land lubbers have owned boats as well. with a cruising permit..is it still 14 days mooring then move a certain distance??.How many of you “floaters” have used the following excuses for not moving…Bird nesting in a tyre? engine is broke?. Awaiting a part from Holland?. Come on be real,.an application for a permit to stay is not the same as having one. and when my family expanded, I sold my boat,. But I sold the perm permit for a lot more…you can fool some people but not all of us…And why is it that the inspector pins a move notice on some boats but not all of them that have extended their stay??Or is that being negative as well?? Your Move…..or not
This is hilarious. We’re now middle class travelling mafia in a high paid job who aren’t from around here and shouldn’t expect to stay in Hackney if we can’t afford it with kids.
Peter, it’s difficult accessing council services with no fixed abode. All services are available to those without permanent addresses. But you still need to be able to tick a box. As boaters we aren’t officially classed as Gypses, nor homeless so we are often in a limbo. It often takes a councillors help just to get a doctor for our kids. It can take many weeks to get the right forms to vote. Libraries are very accommodating.
Cat, a 2 year battle with CRT, countless late nights preparing a planning application, countless e-mails and meetings to keep CRT at bay from evicting us is neither a quick fix or an easy option. The alternative? Mortgage, no chance. Social housing, no chance. Renting, as you say, not in Hackney or London. An existing mooring? These go for £10,000 a year. The whole of London is in this situation, everyone is finding their own solution.
David, as mentioned earlier, the mooring can’t be sold by the person mooring there. It’s in our constitution. This more akin to social housing for boating families than your private mooring.
Cat, there’s still a spot available if you would like to be one of the ‘lucky’ families.
Rob, This is not about Class or not wanting a certain “type” in our midst. It is about an application by 7 families who wish to remain in a certain area (where some have been for nearly 3 years now). and have the local council provide various amenities for them. This is at a time when the local council are looking at cutting 60 million from its budget which means that some services in Hackney will be seriously at risk…As a resident of Hackney (and working class) That is my main concern. If this application is not granted, nobody is going to be evicted or forced out of their boats, they will simply be asked to move their boats to another location as per the terms and conditions of their current permits. .The C.A.R.T manage the waterways and yes they do uphold the rules and regulations . However if you keep to those rules and regulations where is the problem?? they are in place to protect you and others on the water. I welcome your views and hope you reply to this post as the debate on this matter is important for all concerned.
There are plenty of groups, families or not- that make applications for mooring in a particular spot or area. There are 2 groups that established themselves in Victoria park I the last couple of years. The lack of affordable moorings in London is what has taken HBF to apply for a mooring spot that belongs to the council. The lack of affordable moorings ( managed by cart) means that only people with higher income will be able to permanently moor in London. Is that what boaters want? I am surprised by the kind of comments that have been posted here,where it just seems to be accepted that boaters should be pushed out of an area they have lived and worked in for years.
£700 per season? Coming DOWN to Hackney? To row at WEEKENDS? Wanting LOW INCOME families out of the way?
Try just over half that number. For a whole year. Rowing throughout the week. Including the coldest winter nights, year in, year out. A true community club, traditionally shunned by upper class rowers for being working class. Members from early teens to 80. Most of us live around the area- we are not nobs who come DOWN to Hackney from posh places.’Hackney boating families’ ‘Community moorings ‘ ‘Eviction’ are all emotive language, used by a group of just 7 out of thousands of boats to secure for themselves preferential residential rights which they would insist as a legacy for their children.
Lol at Sean, I take it you live in a house with residential rights, oh look at me we support the down trodden working class kids of the community, we want our rights, but we dont want boaters to have any!.
It’s all part of the same problem, not enough houses, not enough moorings, divide & rule, & here you are screaming for them in no way to have any rights.
Glad I dont live down there, I’m on a river ‘oop north’ as far as you Londoners are concerned. The local rowing club regularly attempts to close the river to navigation even though they arent allowed, & they also regularly close the public moorings, & not even to moor on, which they also arent allowed to do… & how come they never stick to the speed limits?