Mooring at Llangollen to rise to £20 per night?

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, MartynG said:

But that  does mean the license is good value compared to paying for a visitor berth in a marina or harbour .

 

But as I'm sure we all know (having read the licence T&Cs) having a licence gives us no rights to a mooring, except, along the towpath they grant a permissive right to moor for up to 14 days (or other periods where so allowed)

 

Use of the Boat

 

3.1. The Licence allows You to use the Boat in any Waterway in accordance with these Conditions.

These apply to the Standard Licence, River Only Licence, Continuous Cruising Licence, Houseboat Certificate, Gold Licence and Short-Term Licence.

 

3.2. The Licence does not give a right to moor that is enough to meet the requirement in the British Waterways Act 1995 for the Boat to have a Home Mooring. You should be aware that:

    3.2.1. There are no public law provisions concerning moorings along the Trust’s canals. This is entirely managed by the Trust as property owner.

    3.2.2. Moorings along the towpath, other than those designated for use by long-term permit holders only, are available for boaters to use subject to conditions. As a       landowner, the Trust may impose further conditions over and above those within the Conditions.

    3.2.3. The maximum period that boaters can moor in one location (when not at the boater’s Home Mooring or when the Boat is not lawfully moored at another mooring site) is 14 days. Where notices indicate a shorter period, boaters must comply with these local restrictions.

    3.2.4. The Trust provides visitor moorings at popular destinations or access points. Time limits on these moorings will generally be less than 14 days, and may be as little as a few hours in particularly popular locations. Where notices indicate a shorter period, boaters must comply with these local restrictions.

    3.2.5.Visitor moorings are not provided for extended periods of use by boaters needing to stay in the same place for work or other domestic reasons. If You need to remain in an area, You should make arrangements with a local mooring provider.

    3.2.6. The use of moorings may be subject to additional terms and additional charges. It is Your responsibility to check and comply with local mooring site terms and signage.        3.2.7. A daily ‘extended stay charge’ may be payable if You stay for too long. In some cases We may use powers under s.8(5) of the British Waterways Act 1983 to move boats that are causing an obstruction. An overstaying boat is causing an obstruction at a mooring because other boats cannot use that mooring. If We do need to move the Boat, You agree to repay Our costs of this.

 

 

[davem399]

13 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Having paid a£1000 licence I don't expect to pay £20 a night to moor or even £6

Agreed.  As motorists we all pay a load of money to use the roads, but still have to pay tolls at places such as the Dartford Crossing.  In my town, in places you have to pay to park on the street.

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Having paid a£1000 licence I don't expect to pay £20 a night to moor or even £6

In general I would agree but in this case the moorings are  off line, in a similar position to most marinas. I would not expect to moor for free in a marina even just overnight, with or without leccy. The licence only covers cruising on the waterways themselves. 

 

Anyone who does not want gto pay in this instance only has to move elsewhere for overnight mooring. A wider question is whether CaRT could/should. charge for popular VMs. Tradition is on the side of not agreeing with that but it is also relevant if CaRT can find ways of increasing their income  in a manner that does not impact the  general ability to cruise the network. I suspect that it is not already more widespread because of the high cost of collection relative to the income in most places. Perhaps roving mooring permits might be introduced and places set apart for those displaying such a permit?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But as I'm sure we all know (having read the licence T&Cs) having a licence gives us no rights to a mooring, except, along the towpath they grant a permissive right to moor for up to 14 days (or other periods where so allowed)

 

Use of the Boat

 

3.1. The Licence allows You to use the Boat in any Waterway in accordance with these Conditions.

These apply to the Standard Licence, River Only Licence, Continuous Cruising Licence, Houseboat Certificate, Gold Licence and Short-Term Licence.

 

3.2. The Licence does not give a right to moor that is enough to meet the requirement in the British Waterways Act 1995 for the Boat to have a Home Mooring. You should be aware that:

    3.2.1. There are no public law provisions concerning moorings along the Trust’s canals. This is entirely managed by the Trust as property owner.

    3.2.2. Moorings along the towpath, other than those designated for use by long-term permit holders only, are available for boaters to use subject to conditions. As a       landowner, the Trust may impose further conditions over and above those within the Conditions.

    3.2.3. The maximum period that boaters can moor in one location (when not at the boater’s Home Mooring or when the Boat is not lawfully moored at another mooring site) is 14 days. Where notices indicate a shorter period, boaters must comply with these local restrictions.

    3.2.4. The Trust provides visitor moorings at popular destinations or access points. Time limits on these moorings will generally be less than 14 days, and may be as little as a few hours in particularly popular locations. Where notices indicate a shorter period, boaters must comply with these local restrictions.

    3.2.5.Visitor moorings are not provided for extended periods of use by boaters needing to stay in the same place for work or other domestic reasons. If You need to remain in an area, You should make arrangements with a local mooring provider.

    3.2.6. The use of moorings may be subject to additional terms and additional charges. It is Your responsibility to check and comply with local mooring site terms and signage.        3.2.7. A daily ‘extended stay charge’ may be payable if You stay for too long. In some cases We may use powers under s.8(5) of the British Waterways Act 1983 to move boats that are causing an obstruction. An overstaying boat is causing an obstruction at a mooring because other boats cannot use that mooring. If We do need to move the Boat, You agree to repay Our costs of this.

 

 

But haven’t CRT have been tweeking and altering this over time to please themselves?

And whether they are doing it legally has been a long debate. 
 

if you take the last bit about obstruction for instance, doesn’t the Waterways Act refer specifically to obstructions of the navigation ?

CRT here have introduced obstruction of a mooring?
 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

11 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

In general I would agree but in this case the moorings are  off line, in a similar position to most marinas. I would not expect to moor for free in a marina even just overnight, with or without leccy. The licence only covers cruising on the waterways themselves. 

 

Anyone who does not want gto pay in this instance only has to move elsewhere for overnight mooring. A wider question is whether CaRT could/should. charge for popular VMs. Tradition is on the side of not agreeing with that but it is also relevant if CaRT can find ways of increasing their income  in a manner that does not impact the  general ability to cruise the network. I suspect that it is not already more widespread because of the high cost of collection relative to the income in most places. Perhaps roving mooring permits might be introduced and places set apart for those displaying such a permit?

What will be interesting wil be if this extra charge applies also,  as I suspect,  to the online moorings as well. If it doesn't, then all the ripoff merchants doing their free electric pickup will just hog those moorings instead. I always thought installing free power along there was an error. There will be no "cheap" access to Llangollen at all.

I also suspect this would be a trial run for the same system in all popular city moorings...

[MtB]

1 hour ago, davem399 said:

Agreed.  As motorists we all pay a load of money to use the roads, but still have to pay tolls at places such as the Dartford Crossing.  In my town, in places you have to pay to park on the street.

 

Yes I had to pay 5p (I think it was) to cross the toll bridge over the Thames at Eynsham the other day. Outrageous profiteering. 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Goliath said:

But haven’t CRT have been tweeking and altering this over time to please themselves?

And whether they are doing it legally has been a long debate. 
 

if you take the last bit about obstruction for instance, doesn’t the Waterways Act refer specifically to obstructions of the navigation ?

CRT here have introduced obstruction of a mooring?
 

 

 

 

But there can be no doubt that the law does state they can charge for any services they provide.

 

In discussions with Nigel Moore (RIP) he agreed that if a mooring is improved (dredged, rings, bollards etc etc) compared to the standard towpath then that was 'a service' which could (legally) be charged for.

[Tony1]

14 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What will be interesting wil be if this extra charge applies also,  as I suspect,  to the online moorings as well. If it doesn't, then all the ripoff merchants doing their free electric pickup will just hog those moorings instead. I always thought installing free power along there was an error. There will be no "cheap" access to Llangollen at all.

I also suspect this would be a trial run for the same system in all popular city moorings...

 

I have a feeling those online moorings with hookup are offered as paid winter moorings, and its closer to the office- so it would probably be quite tricky for anyone to moor for free there in winter, although I'm sure some will try it.   

If the cost does go up and they enforce it more rigidly, it'll be like Ellesmere Port. Once word got round that it was £10 a night, and that they were actually enforcing/checking on boats (in fact they generally approached the boaters on their way into the first lock), the number of visitors dropped visibly, and there were many days in early 2022 when I was the only boat there apart from the few semi-permanent moorings- but there was no-one living on those boats. 

It was a mixed blessing because local anglers often climb the walls/gates and spend long evenings fishing down in the basin. Some of them came across as right scallies, and would set up right beside your boat- and with other boats around you always feel a bit safer. 

But if the charge goes up, I imagine Llangollen basin will likely see many fewer visitors over winter, and many who just stop briefly then move on. I was ok paying for 2 weeks at £6 a night, but if it went up to £20 I would only stay for 2 days even in winter. But value is an individual perception I guess. 

Like the license fee, its about finding the right price that doesnt put off so many people that you end up making less money. I reckon £15 would still pull in lots of visitors in winter who would stay for up to a week and net you an optimal income, whereas £20 might be that bit too much. 

If its the electricity costs thats driving an increase, you've got no option but to raise the price to cover that. If you try to charge separately for the leccy, many will opt to run engines and gennies instead, so you'd also have to ban loud gennies, or limit them to say 12-3pm. 

But its tricky- what happens if one genny start up at say 7pm, and the locals call the authorities to complain? No enforcement people will visit until the next day, and how will they know or prove where the genny was situated? Genny bans seem fraught with complications. 

In terms of introducing paid moorings near to places like Nantwich, what would happen is that all the boats who currently hog those spots semi-permanently during winter will simply move a mile or so to the south, and hog the armco there. Nantwich towpath would be left largely clear for most of the winter, but the moorings around it will be chock full.

I think there are a small number of boaters with medical issues who CRT allow to overstay in certain places for local hospital treatment etc, and that will probably continue. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

But there can be no doubt that the law does state they can charge for any services they provide.

 

In discussions with Nigel Moore (RIP) he agreed that if a mooring is improved (dredged, rings, bollards etc etc) compared to the standard towpath then that was 'a service' which could (legally) be charged for.

Arguments over legality were well exhausted many years ago, it's a well established fact by now and no court is going to rule against CRT. Though it would be quite an entertainment if one did and every CRT online mooring had to be scrapped. You can imagine the outcry.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Arguments over legality were well exhausted many years ago, it's a well established fact by now and no court is going to rule against CRT. Though it would be quite an entertainment if one did and every CRT online mooring had to be scrapped. You can imagine the outcry.

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to ?

 

There is no suggestion that 'every online mooring should be scrapped', the argument is based around the question can C&RT charge for a visitors mooring which has had "improvements" when compared to a canal side.

 

The law suggest they can, C&RT say they can and Nigel Moore (RIP) said he was minded to accept that argument.

[pearley]

Looking at the winter mooring list it is £20.50 per metre per month at Llangollen, so roughly £12 a night.

But why is it listed as in West Midlands region?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, pearley said:

Looking at the winter mooring list it is £20.50 per metre per month at Llangollen, so roughly £12 a night.

But why is it listed as in West Midlands region?

I think it’s been under CRT’s West Midlands region for awhile now. 

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, MartynG said:

I don't think anyone suggested you should in general.

But that  does mean the license is good value compared to paying for a visitor berth in a marina or harbour .

 

 

I don't care what CRT want to charge to moor in their Marina, If I wanted to moor in there I would pay what they wanted. What I object to is paying to moor on the towpath. There is nowhere in Llangollen you can moor without paying, where next London, Banbury, Oxford. or anywhere where people want to moor?

 

[Momac]

A cost per 24hrs for a mooring with facilities instead of a license fee could be a fair system.

 

The cost might vary depending on the facilities available . 

That way folks would have some control over what they pay depending on where they moor .

 

 

[Naughty Cal]

19 hours ago, MartynG said:

I have paid £20+ to  £30 per night and expect to see greater than that in 2023 . 

Campsites charge per pitch plus per person which can be greater . I have been considering an alternative of campervan but its not a cheap  hobby. In some respect makes boating look more exclusive / equal if not better value.

 

Don't believe that. 

 

We have found the motorhome to be substantially cheaper than the boat ever was. We keep it on the drive at home which instantly saves £1700 a year. Tax is far cheaper than the CRT license and insurance is dirt cheap, half the price of the boat for a much higher agreed value.

 

Oh and over the last two years despite doing more miles we are using far less fuel. Even at road prices it is much cheaper.

 

If you are self contained you don't need to be on campsites every night. There are loads of alternatives. 

 

On our New Year's trip up the East Coast we used council car parks with designated parking bays at £10 per night, an aire (motorhome parking facility) at £16 per night with full facilities and a free to park spot for a couple of nights.

 

Using sites every night would be expensive but you don't have to do that.

 

The cheapest place we have stayed is free, cheapest paid place £2  for 24 hours (Ripon) most expensive campsite £41 per night (Southwold on a bank holiday weekend) 

 

There are so many places to choose from for all budgets.

 

We tend to use free park ups where possible bit if we need or want to stay somewhere for a few nights will happily pay for a site. Depends on the location. Not all sites charge per person either by the way. That only tends to be club sites.

 

The cheaper smaller sites are much better value. We have paid £12 per night for the van, 2 people, the dog on a fully serviced pitch on a 5 van site.

 

Next week we are at a friend's house for a wine and cheese evening. They already have a houseful of staying guests. We are taking the van to save one of us not drinking and having to drive home. Comes in handy having your own mobile accommodation 😀

Edited January 8, 2023 by Naughty Cal

[Tony1]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

A cost per 24hrs for a mooring with facilities instead of a license fee could be a fair system.

 

The cost might vary depending on the facilities available . 

That way folks would have some control over what they pay depending on where they moor .

 

 

 

Obviously one can never predict with certainty how a population will respond to a costing change, but I strongly suspect that there would have to be a certain minimum license fee for CRT to gain a basic level of revenue from each boat.

The model could not work with a zero-fee basic rate, i.e. if the only charges levied from boaters were when the boats used a serviced mooring. 

Imagine if there was nothing to pay unless you used a serviced mooring with facilities- there are thousands of boaters who would almost never use those moorings, and CRT would lose their license fees. 

To recoup the lost license fees, the serviced mooring charge would have to be prohibitively high, and so very few people would ever use them.

Setting aside my time mooring in the Boat Museum (which was only done to be closer to family), I would have only used such serviced moorings on two or three nights during the last two years, which means CRT would have received less than £100 from me, instead of the two thousand or so that they have received. 

And if the charge had been more than £100 for those few nights, they would have gotten zero because I wouldn't have used them at all. 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Tony1

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Oh and over the last two years despite doing more miles we are using far less fuel. Even at road prices it is much cheaper.

No surprises there . Motor boats cant compete with a motorhome for mpg.

 

I guess not everyone has the space nor would necessarily want to keep a motorhome at their own house . 

I wouldn't rule out a motorhome instead of a boat . At the moment  trying to like the things but struggling. I think we  would want one with an island bed which is a bit large for keeping at home. So there would be some storage cost for me.

 

The thought of staying overnight in a council car park isn't selling it to me. While staying on the boat while its in a marina is a good experience even at  less than luxurious locations.

But I do understand prices to stay overnight in a motorhome vary and there must be some free to use  locations.

 

7 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

Obviously one can never predict with certainty how a population will respond to a costing change, but I strongly suspect that there would have to be a certain minimum license fee for CRT to gain s basic level of revenue from each boat.

The model could not work with a xero-fee basic rate, and if the only charges made were when the boats used a serviced mooring. 

Imagine if there was nothing to pay unless you used a serviced mooring with facilities- there are thousands of boaters who would almost never use those moorings, and CRT would lose their license fees. 

To recoup the losses, the serviced mooring charge would have to be prohibitively high, and so very few people would ever use them.

Setting aside my time mooring in the Boat Museum (which only done to be close for family reasons), I would have only used such moorings on two or three nights during the last two years, which means CRT would have received less than £100 from me, instead of the two thousand or so that they have received. 

And if the charge had been more than £100 for those few nights, they would have gotten zero because I wouldn't have used them at all. 

 

 

The price would have to be appropriate otherwise there would be no takers.

C&RT have made license fee costing changes in the recent past but clearly they need to do something differently as the current system obviously isn't working.  I don't expect  government to be giving any thought to increasing C&RT funding even before the present financial crisis .  C&RT have to find ways to increase their income by providing things that people will pay for  since voluntary donations have been proven to be ineffective. 

No doubt license fees will increase again in April . Look forward to paying more , one way or another.

 

 

 

[Naughty Cal]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

No surprises there . Motor boats cant compete with a motorhome for mpg.

 

I guess not everyone has the space nor would necessarily want to keep a motorhome at their own house . 

I wouldn't rule out a motorhome instead of a boat . At the moment  trying to like the things but struggling. I think we  would want one with an island bed which is a bit large for keeping at home. So there would be some storage cost for me.

 

The thought of staying overnight in a council car park isn't selling it to me. While staying on the boat while its in a marina is a good experience even at  less than luxurious locations.

But I do understand prices to stay overnight in a motorhome vary and there must be some free to use  locations.

 

The price would have to be appropriate otherwise there would be no takers.

C&RT have made license fee costing changes in the recent past but clearly they need to do something differently as the current system obviously isn't working.  I don't expect  government to be giving any thought to increasing C&RT funding even before the present financial crisis .  C&RT have to find ways to increase their income by providing things that people will pay for  since voluntary donations have been proven to be ineffective. 

No doubt license fees will increase again in April . Look forward to paying more , one way or another.

 

 

 

Yeah staying in council car parks

Is rubbish.

 

 

Same for free park ups. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony1]

23 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

The price would have to be appropriate otherwise there would be no takers.

 

 

The point I am making is this- your suggestion to replace the license fee with a mooring charge that is levied only from the use of selected moorings will not result in increased revenue for CRT, but much less. 

Replacing the license fee with a paid-mooring system will not work, as thousands of boaters will simply avoid using the paid moorings, and you will lose all of the license money you gain from them currently.

A paid mooring system has to be in addition to the license fee, not a replacement for it.  

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Tony1

[LadyG]

48 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

The point I am making is this- your suggestion to replace the license fee with a mooring charge that is levied only from the use of selected moorings will not result in increased revenue for CRT, but much less. 

Replacing the license fee with a paid-mooring system will not work, as thousands of boaters will simply avoid using the paid moorings, and you will lose all of the license money you gain from them currently.

A paid mooring system has to be in addition to the license fee, not a replacement for it.  

 

There would be costs involved collecting mooring fees, confrontations, and all sorts of complications. I don't see it working except in a few hotspots. 

[Momac]

11 hours ago, LadyG said:

There would be costs involved collecting mooring fees, confrontations, and all sorts of complications. I don't see it working except in a few hotspots. 

You mean a lot of  people would not pay voluntarily via an app or parking ticket like they have  in a car park..

12 hours ago, Tony1 said:

 

A paid mooring system has to be in addition to the license fee, not a replacement for it.  

 

Okay.  That seems better than a big increase in license fees. 

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

You mean a lot of  people would not pay voluntarily via an app or parking ticket like they have  in a car park..

 

If this is a serious suggestion, then only if they thought they wouldn't get caught. Have you seen the threads on paying for Thames moorings by App. not all boaters have a smart phone or a credit card.

[Tonka]

22 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

If this is a serious suggestion, then only if they thought they wouldn't get caught. Have you seen the threads on paying for Thames moorings by App. not all boaters have a smart phone or a credit card.

Is that an actual fact?

because i get fed up with the news reports where they show poor people who always seem to have the latest smartphone, designer trainers and fags.

[tree monkey]

6 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Is that an actual fact?

because i get fed up with the news reports where they show poor people who always seem to have the latest smartphone, designer trainers and fags.

Boaters, not specifically poor people, anyway try living your life without a smartphone nowadays, it's possible but it's a damn site harder than it should be

[Tony1]

 

I think CRTs objectives need to considered, if they were to increase the number of pay-to-moor locations, to include places like Nantwich and Chester etc. 

Are they trying to solve a problem of overstaying in popular spots, or do they want to gain more revenue- or perhaps both?

The level of enforcement doesn't seem overly strict at the moment, judging from the number of boats I've seen stay for more than a week on the 48 hour Nantwich moorings. 

And to make the enforcement effective it would probably require more staff patrolling those paid moorings- perhaps a third of a full-time person to enforce at Nantwich?

So there is a significant staff cost in implementing that, plus the up front cost of the IT system plus an app to manage it (this is assuming there will not be any hookup put in place).

And the mooring price would have to be set such that they would at least recoup the annual enforcement cost, but it would also have to be acceptable to the target customers.

CRT know that there are thousands of boaters who would hardly ever use the Nantwich moorings again if there was a daily charge, so they don't want to go too high and have the moorings deserted most of the time. 

I bet they've already done a quick estimate of how much revenue there might be form paid visitor moorings. 

If there were (very roughly) 50 paid moorings marked out at Nantwich, and if they had a bit under 30% occupancy over a year, then they'd see a total of maybe 5,000 uses per year? 

To recoup a staff/enforcement cost of say £20k per year, and to also encourage more use of the moorings, you'd want to set the charge at £4 or £5, right?

So it could probably pay for itself (not including the cost of the IT system and the app), but then you'd have lots of boats moored (for free) just to the south of Nantwich, more or less semi-permanently, so the congestion problem would just move south.  

I don't honestly see that much revenue in it for them, at first glance anyway.

Llangollen is a special case as it includes the electricity, which itself now has a significant cost.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Tony1