Orwellian
-
Posts
378 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Orwellian
-
-
What an ironic typo!
-
26 minutes ago, Rob-M said:
it would soften the blow if I knew income from boaters was ring fenced for things like dredging and lock maintenance rather than blue signs and volunteers.
As the the total income from boating covers only a small proportion of the costs of providing for it this is utterly pointless.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
How about making it really difficult and spotting a CWF boater who is happy?
-
1
-
5
-
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Higgs said:
The access fee in incorporated into the mooring fee. The access fee would only be paid by the marina, part or whole, if the marina was empty of boats or partially filled.
So by your argument my local Tesco store doesn't pay it's business rates until it has no customers. You do talk nonsense.
-
5 minutes ago, Higgs said:
The moorer already pays a mooring fee, and an access fee.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.
-
5 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
I think you will find that it was you that introduced the LA analogy. The fact is that a boat in a marina is paying the marina owner to be in the marina. Why should he pay CRT to use its waterways if they are not being used?
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.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
Not strange at all. In the case of a marina, the "authority" is the marina owner.
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?
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
You are required to pay council tax to a LA because you have a house within its area.
You are required to have a licence because you use a boat in CRT's "area".
Would it be fair to pay council tax to a LA if your house was in another LA's area?
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.
-
44 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
I do not agree in this instance that "fair" and "unfair" are impossible to define in this instance.
A leisure boat licence allows a boat to use CRT waterways. If a boat does not use CRT waterways then it is unfair to require it to have a licence.
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.
-
44 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
At the risk of repeating myself -
It is unfair that anyone who does not bring a boat onto CRT waterways should have to pay licence fee.
I have never suggested that this unfairness can or should be corrected.
... and yet, again, it seems that defence of this unfairness is based on CRT losing revenue should the unfairness be removed.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, IanD said:
I was hoping somebody sane might respond, Higgs is on ignore so I don't give a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut what he thinks... 😉
If CART need to raise more money, surely increasing the NAA fee as well as the CART license fee is an obvious way to do it? Spread the pain as widely as possible... 🙂
Somebody sane ... on here?!
-
1
-
-
Just now, MtB said:
Phew!
You're welcome!
Just now, IanD said:Since the NAA fee is 9% of marina fees, this would imply a marina with an annual income of £2.8M, which means something like 1000 boats. Are there really any marinas on the canals this big?
No stop it!!
-
For the sake of MtB I'm going to leave it there.
-
Just now, MtB said:
Don't get 'im started, you'll never win.
Higgs has a major blind spot where marina NAA charges are concerned!
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!
-
3 hours ago, Higgs said:
I roughly calculated that from one marina, CRT extract something in the region of £250, 000, from people who never leave private ground and never use the canal.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, MartynG said:
C&RT are guardians.
I don't think they own the canals or property.
It does appear property under C&RT guardianship can be sold but what happens to the money raised from the sale I wouldn't know.
They do own their property. Just check with the Land Registry.
-
12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
CRT are not being forced to "kill the goose that lays the golden egg". As explained in another thread they have massive reserves - more than £1.1 billion. A plan to deploy some of these reserves over the next four years would signal to government CRT's long term funding needs.
By reserves do you mean the Protected Assets? If so I don't think the word 'reserves' correctly defines what they really are.
-
4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
The invention of the mooring "licence", which is how we thought of it. I can't remember when it came in, 1995 was it? It was what started one of Tony Dunkleys's hobby horses, as he maintained it was illegal and none of us should pay it, and got (as usual) quite abusive about it. Arguments were many and heated - they are probably in the archive on here if you look hard enough. Many things were tried to avoid it - arguing we were moored over farmland not the canal bed was one.
Someone will I'm sure remember the year. Before then I'd just paid rent to the farmer.
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.
-
51 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
when BW invented the mooring charge.
And when was this Arthur?
-
3 minutes ago, MtB said:
People have been saying that since the dawn of time.
Even before they were constructed? Those bloody rivers eh?
C&RT License Survey
in General Boating
Posted
It isn't now as can be seen here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations