Licence fees for CRT non-network waterways

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Yes.

 

Correct answer, & the same as big boats should pay more than small boats as they 'limit the seating (mooring) capacity'

[TheBiscuits]

47 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

In the, admittedly unlikely, event that every boat measured 18 feet in length then every boat owner would pay the same amount and everyone would say that was fair

 

So if someone had two boats they'd pay twice the standard fee.  Fair enough.

 

What if they have one boat that's the size of two boats?  Twice as wide for example ...

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

What if they have one boat that's the size of two boats?  Twice as wide for example ...

 

As is ours (compared to a NB) we are a tad over 14 feet beam, and our licence would be subject to a 20% uplift if we were still on C&RT waters.

 

 

 

[1st ade]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If an obese person books an airline ticket (seat) and...

 

Check in on Cebu Airlines...

[magpie patrick]

On 24/09/2021 at 14:12, Steilsteven said:

The licence allows a person to place a vessel on the water, the person pays a fee for this privilege, the fee isn't rent for space it is merely permission for the person to place a vessel on the water and is to provide funds for the navigation authority. In the, admittedly  unlikely, event that every boat measured 18 feet in length then every boat owner would pay the same amount and everyone would say that was fair. If someone decided to have their 18 foot boat stretched to 19 feet would it be fair to charge them more and if so why? Location is irrelevant as I have already pointed out.

Where do you want me to start?

 

The licence system replaces the toll system, which charged by load and by use - there was very little justification for the load factor as all boats were the same size, so in terms of wear and tear and demands on the navigation there was little difference, yet not only were tolls charged per tonne, they varied depending on what was carried. 

 

Whilst there is a LOT of waterspace available with the licence it isn't infinite, and there are also a lot of boats competing for it, the difference between one twenty foot boat and one sixty foot boat is not much, the difference between 10,000 such vessels is 400,000 feet or 75 miles. Big boats take up more canal, with this comes they take up more space at moorings and are less likely to be able to share a lock. You can get 3 of "Juno" in a narrow lock, and I've shared Caen Hill with a 45 foot widebeam because at 23 feet I can fit in behind - that's one less lockfull of water used because two boats can fit in together. Water and lock maintenance costs money. 

 

With your example of one foot difference - 3 Juno's can share a narrow lock, make them all 24 feet long and they can't, so again one foot can make a difference.

In popular locations I can also moor where bigger boats can't because of the short length, that means the pub or the town gets an extra visitor. As I'm narrow beam I can also raft up in locations a wide beam can't. 

If we're going to look away from canals, where else is there a flat fee? Off handf I can only think of the TV licence. Car tax varies with vehicle emmisions, council tax on property value, business rates similarly. Even most car parks demand a charge for two spaces if your car won't fit in just one. A quick check on other navigation authorities suggests licence by size is the norm. 

My starting point wasn't (directly) that boats on isolated canals should be charged less, it was that the licence for a short isolated waterway should be determined locally, not set as a factor of the national network - these waterways are not part of the network so their licence shouldn't be linked to it.  

Edited to add - when I had a 62 foor narrow boat I didn't begrudge that the licence cost more, I accepted all the above logic 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by magpie patrick

[stagedamager]

On 22/09/2021 at 23:35, TheBiscuits said:

 

Wiki states Derbyshire County Council as the navigation authority, so it's not one of CRT's disconnected waterways as per the original question.

 

Isn't the dry dock at Langley Mill technically on the Cromford?

Yep, our dry dock is definitely on the Cromford, which had an end on junction with the Erewash below Langley Mill lock. The Erewash terminated in a basin where kfc and Lidl now stand, with the road bridge and lock, about 50Yds North of the "junction". Above the lock is the junction with the Nottingham, with all that remains is the Great Northern Basin. The Cromford extends about 1/4 mile through our moorings to the current head of navigation which is partially private waters.

 

Kind regards

 

Dan 

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, stagedamager said:

Yep, our dry dock is definitely on the Cromford, which had an end on junction with the Erewash below Langley Mill lock. The Erewash terminated in a basin where kfc and Lidl now stand, with the road bridge and lock, about 50Yds North of the "junction". Above the lock is the junction with the Nottingham, with all that remains is the Great Northern Basin. The Cromford extends about 1/4 mile through our moorings to the current head of navigation which is partially private waters.

 

Kind regards

 

Dan 

But as I understand it, Langley Mill Lock, Great Northern Basin and most of your moorings are CRT waters, although they are not part of the Erewash Canal. Derbyshire CC is navigation authority for the isolated navigable section a few miles to the north.

[stagedamager]

You are correct, with the exception of the left hand side of the top basin........the line of the Cromford north of us is under several different ownerships......

[magpie patrick]

9 hours ago, David Mack said:

But as I understand it, Langley Mill Lock, Great Northern Basin and most of your moorings are CRT waters, although they are not part of the Erewash Canal. Derbyshire CC is navigation authority for the isolated navigable section a few miles to the north.

The Cronford was nationalised with everything else I think, it belonged to a railway company and assets weren't divided on nationalisation. 

Derbyshire took over the Cromford to Ambergate section once it was restored, or possibly to allow it to be restored. 

 

Thus the Langley Mill end was in BTC ownership on nationalisation