Orwellian

It isn't now as can be seen here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations

What an ironic typo!

As the the total income from boating covers only a small proportion of the costs of providing for it this is utterly pointless.

How about making it really difficult and spotting a CWF boater who is happy?

I would expect them to have entered into a mooring agreement with the purchaser as is common with offside 'freehold' mooring sites so a lower income would still be retained by CRT.

So by your argument my local Tesco store doesn't pay it's business rates until it has no customers. You do talk nonsense.

That is not strictly correct. The moorer doesn't pay a separate access fee they pay a mooring fee. Those mooring fees plus all other sources of income available to the marina operator provide the total revenue out if which the marina operators pays the NAA fee to CRT.

Yes but you responded by making a false comparison. The answer is because his mooring contract says he should which, as I keep saying, he voluntarily entered into. Anyway none of these esoteric discussions will solve the CRT funding problem. There is only one way to do that and that is continued taxpayer support. So can I suggest that we all lobby our MP to that effect instead of endless discussions about fanciful licencing regimes and pointless debates about the NAA. And before you ask I have already done that. But he is a red wall Tory so probably doesn't care a jot.

But it's not a boat licencing authority so there's no equivalence to two LAs. The moorer has freely accepted the contract the marina operator has offered which includes a condition that the moorer ensures their boat has a CRT licence. The marina operator has complied with his NAA, they know the boat is insured and has a BSS (if required) because CRT have checked that for them. The moorer has their mooring and can then use the connected waterway as many times as they like or not at all. If the latter then that's their choice, just like me choosing not to use the library/swimming pool I have made a contribution towards. Where's the unfairness?

What a strange argument. A boat in a marina connected to a CRT waterway is not in another waterway authority area is it? If it's on an EA or a Broads waterway CRT don't require it to have one if their licences. I see you've avoided the 'allow/require' point.

You're correct. It allows it but doesn't require it. So if you pay for it why wouldn't you use it? If you don't that's your free choice. I pay my Council Tax but I don't use the library nor the swimming pools but I don't moan about it being unfair.

But how is it unfair if landowners/developers/moorings operators freely build & connect marinas by entering into a NAA and attract moorers who accept the t&cs of the mooring provider? Nobody has coerced anyone.

In terms of the NAA the boat licence issue is a secondary one. The primary requirement for one is based on ownership of property and whether the canal enabling acts allow adjoining owners to connect their property to the adjacent canal. Most if not all enabling acts do not give that right so CRT are legally entitled to require anyone wishing to connect a mooring basin to their canal to have an agreement to do so subject to a fee and terms & conditions. One of those conditions requires that all boats in the mooring basin be licenced. Some may consider this to be unreasonable others not. The fact remains that the majority of mooring basins connected to CRT canals have a NAA or an earlier 'connection agreement'. Those without have, in the main, been there for sufficient time that gives them a 'prescriptive right' and therefore CRT are legally barred from requiring one. This situation is well settled and has not prevented scores of marinas being built since 2005 and most have filled to capacity and have thrived. Many operators have built several. Purists like Higgs & Alan (nb Albert) might not like it but they do seem to have an anti CRT bias which may colour their opinion on this. To undo those legitimate agreements would deprive CRT of significant revenue which is the one thing they and their users do not need right now.

Somebody sane ... on here?!

You're welcome! No stop it!!

For the sake of MtB I'm going to leave it there.

Yes I know but he might be persuaded by reason one day? It's an odd post in a topic about CRT not having sufficient money to look after the waterways. Let's get them even less!

But are floating on water provided by CRT and using a marina that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the adjacent canal. Is your figure an annual one?

I'm pretty sure CRT has made this very clear to DEFRA as part of the grant review discussions. The report if the Protector is worth reading and can be found here https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/search?q=Report+of+the+Protector

No I'm not but the Protected Assets are there to provide an income that helps to pay for the upkeep of the waterways. If large parts of these capital assets were sold to pay for revenue spend it will diminish future long term income.

They do own their property. Just check with the Land Registry.

By reserves do you mean the Protected Assets? If so I don't think the word 'reserves' correctly defines what they really are.

BW provided directly managed moorings way back in the 1970s and granted mooring permits entirely separate from a boat licence and not a statutory charge but one based on owning the waterway and sufficient bank/land to access them . They had 3 classes or price bands A, B and C. They were never a mooring 'licence'. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.

And when was this Arthur?

Even before they were constructed? Those bloody rivers eh?