Not looking good for us

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

Your attitude stifles ideas and debate

I would say the more suggestions the better . Details might come later.

But do remember this is an internet forum with no powers to influence C&RT.

We need Stotty back, pay to use locks. Pay more and move towards the front of the queue at locks, pay enough and you always go through first. The more popular the lock the more you have to pay to use it

[peterboat]

It's all getting serious really, my 20 years of boating is going to get spoiled because CRT are even more incompetent than BW! Beggars belief that its possible 

[LadyG]

37 minutes ago, peterboat said:

It's all getting serious really, my 20 years of boating is going to get spoiled because CRT are even more incompetent than BW! Beggars belief that its possible 

I can't be sure what has prompted your outburst, what is the solution?

Edited February 10, 2023 by LadyG

[PD1964]

10 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I can't be sure what has prompted your outburst, what is the solution?

  Maybe because he has seen a decline in the Northern waterways over his 20 years of using them more then you have seen in your 4 years of hanging around them?

Edited February 10, 2023 by PD1964

[peterboat]

13 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I can't be sure what has prompted your outburst, what is the solution?

I probably in 6 weeks last year cruised more than you did In the year! And the waterways are in a mess, getting to Sheffield in a widebeam last year was dangerous as the trees on each bank had joined in the middle of the navigation! Whe6i got to Sheffield I was stuck there because the permanent lock keepers went on holiday at the same time leaving an idiot in charge which allowed all the water out of the top pound to flow out! Boats were on the bottom in a fairly deep section for the week, shall I continue?

 

 

[Midnight]

5 hours ago, MartynG said:

A couple of thoughts

1. C&RT should perhaps become part of the National Trust. Bigger organisation  duplicated job roles would go. National trust good at looking after property. 

2. How much do the fishest pay for dangling their tackle in C&RT water ? If none then why is that ?

 

 

Perhaps become part of the E A they already have the workforce, administration and experience maybe even more access to money.

[Momac]

6 hours ago, Midnight said:

Perhaps become part of the E A they already have the workforce, administration and experience maybe even more access to money.

The EA already do boat registrations of course . The charge for the Thames, for example, is a s follows

 

[Arthur Marshall]

10 hours ago, peterboat said:

It's all getting serious really, my 20 years of boating is going to get spoiled because CRT are even more incompetent than BW! Beggars belief that its possible 

BW was a waterways & navigation business, so while they were certainly incompetent, they still only had one focus. CRT aren't, they're running a leisure facility, the navigation being a very small part of their remit. So from our point of view they are bound to be worse.

[peterboat]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

BW was a waterways & navigation business, so while they were certainly incompetent, they still only had one focus. CRT aren't, they're running a leisure facility, the navigation being a very small part of their remit. So from our point of view they are bound to be worse.

Totally agree Arthur, the CRT guys on the cut are deeply unhappy as well which doesnt bode well as there are plenty of job vacancies out there currently

[Momac]

Just now, peterboat said:

the CRT guys on the cut are deeply unhappy as well which doesnt bode well as there are plenty of job vacancies out there currently

I have had the impression of worker dissatisfaction for a few years now.  

Volunteers  seem happy as pay doesn't come into it  but not the full time lock keepers.

 

[LadyG]

10 hours ago, peterboat said:

I probably in 6 weeks last year cruised more than you did In the year! And the waterways are in a mess, getting to Sheffield in a widebeam last year was dangerous as the trees on each bank had joined in the middle of the navigation! Whe6i got to Sheffield I was stuck there because the permanent lock keepers went on holiday at the same time leaving an idiot in charge which allowed all the water out of the top pound to flow out! Boats were on the bottom in a fairly deep section for the week, shall I continue?

 

 

Fortunately I don't have these problems, as I only potter along with minimal ambition. Good job I swerved the Sheffield chaos, serendipity.

I trust you complained to CRT, and reminded them of their responsibilities.

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by LadyG

[IanD]

12 hours ago, David Mack said:

Fine. But first you have to define the objectives you are trying to achieve.

There seem to be various objectives floating about including increasing the total amount of money paid by boaters to CRT to ease their funding issues, and changing the balance of the charging structure so those who make greater 'use' of the system pay more than those who use it less. Or those who use busy areas pay more than those who use quieter areas. And wrapped up in this is whether the change applies just to licence/use charges or whether mooring costs (and avoidance of them by CCers) are also part of the mix.

And having decided on what objectives you want to achieve, it is probably worth looking at how far you could get by tweaking the current system, rather than introducing something fundamentally new (which will almost certainly give rise to other unforseen problems).

 

On the taxation principle that the weight should fall more heavily on those with broader shoulders, there's also the suggestion to make the license fee have a bigger variation with things like boat width/age/value, to avoid fee rises pricing less well-off people in older narrowboats off the canals by extracting more money from better-off people in expensive new boats, especially wide ones... 😉

 

Like any other change ever proposed, this would meet with vociferous objections from those who would end up paying more... 😞

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

I trust you complained to CRT, and reminded them of their responsibilities.

 

What responsibilities ? 

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, LadyG said:

Fortunately I don't have these problems, as I only potter along with minimal ambition. Good job I swerved the Sheffield chaos, serendipity.

I trust you complained to CRT, and reminded them of their responsibilities.

 

Yes I did, apparently the foliage contract hadnt been awarded and they managed to get enough water back into the top pound because one of the full time lockies came back, I had to put my going down the flight back a day though

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

On the taxation principle that the weight should fall more heavily on those with broader shoulders, there's also the suggestion to make the license fee have a bigger variation with things like boat width/age/value, to avoid fee rises pricing less well-off people in older narrowboats off the canals by extracting more money from better-off people in expensive new boats, especially wide ones... 😉

 

Like any other change ever proposed, this would meet with vociferous objections from those who would end up paying more... 😞

Honestly Ian the balancing act is very fine, a lot of people would leave the canals very quickly if the licence goes up to much, as for the wide argument the canal I am on is a wide canal we use no more resources than a narrowboat so it doesnt fathom why they should pay more. Honestly if my boat was allowed on the broads I would move there as the Broads authority is at least competent at running a waterway

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Honestly Ian the balancing act is very fine, a lot of people would leave the canals very quickly if the licence goes up to much, as for the wide argument the canal I am on is a wide canal we use no more resources than a narrowboat so it doesnt fathom why they should pay more. Honestly if my boat was allowed on the broads I would move there as the Broads authority is at least competent at running a waterway

 

To be fair though there isn't the same level of infrastructure on the Broads as there is on the canals. I'm guessing most of the bridges will also be the responsibility of (variously) local authorities, Highways agency and Network Rail.

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Honestly Ian the balancing act is very fine, a lot of people would leave the canals very quickly if the licence goes up to much, as for the wide argument the canal I am on is a wide canal we use no more resources than a narrowboat so it doesnt fathom why they should pay more. Honestly if my boat was allowed on the broads I would move there as the Broads authority is at least competent at running a waterway

Like I said, those asked to pay more will object... 😉

 

Graduation means that some people will be asked to pay considerably more, and some of them may well leave -- though the other point of view is that the majority won't, especially all this who don't see such big rises.

 

Boat width -- or floor area, to be more precise -- is a very common way of setting taxes or fees all over the world, is generally accepted as fair, and doesn't seem to stop better-off people buying bigger properties. It's nothing to do with use of resources.

 

[peterboat]

21 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

To be fair though there isn't the same level of infrastructure on the Broads as there is on the canals. I'm guessing most of the bridges will also be the responsibility of (variously) local authorities, Highways agency and Network Rail.

Probably CRT has the 3rd largest amount of listed buildings/structures of agencies in the UK it must slaughtering their funds

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Like I said, those asked to pay more will object... 😉

 

Graduation means that some people will be asked to pay considerably more, and some of them may well leave -- though the other point of view is that the majority won't, especially all this who don't see such big rises.

 

Boat width -- or floor area, to be more precise -- is a very common way of setting taxes or fees all over the world, is generally accepted as fair, and doesn't seem to stop better-off people buying bigger properties. It's nothing to do with use of resources.

 

We will see Ian, when you and a few others are the only boaters on CRT waters for a week before they close them

[IanD]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Probably CRT has the 3rd largest amount of listed buildings/structures of agencies in the UK it must slaughtering their funds

We will see Ian, when you and a few others are the only boaters on CRT waters for a week before they close them

Well unless CART raise more funding -- from higher license fees, for example -- this is more likely to happen.

 

I absolutely don't want to drive less well-off boaters off the canals, as should be obvious from what I've said, I want the extra cost to be borne by those who can afford it. If you don't like my idea, what's *your* solution?

 

Why don't you stop hiding behind false concern for others and admit that *you* don't want to pay more?

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

56 minutes ago, IanD said:

Well unless CART raise more funding -- from higher license fees, for example -- this is more likely to happen.

 

I absolutely don't want to drive less well-off boaters off the canals, as should be obvious from what I've said, I want the extra cost to be borne by those who can afford it. If you don't like my idea, what's *your* solution?

 

Why don't you stop hiding behind false concern for others and admit that *you* don't want to pay more?

 

 

There simply aren't enough hobby boaters to makes any great difference to CRTs income, however much they whack the fees up - the numbers giving up will cancel out a lot of the projected profit.

The canals are already being used as a housing solution, except it's being done rent free. Monetise that and enforce it properly and there might be some canal left in fifty years.

[IanD]

34 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

There simply aren't enough hobby boaters to makes any great difference to CRTs income, however much they whack the fees up - the numbers giving up will cancel out a lot of the projected profit.

The canals are already being used as a housing solution, except it's being done rent free. Monetise that and enforce it properly and there might be some canal left in fifty years.

 

Which is exactly what would happen with (for example) a license surcharge for CCing (or discount for home mooring, which amounts to the same thing).

 

The current situation where a CCer pays something like £1000 a year to CART and a boater with a home mooring pays this plus maybe £3000 a year to a marina makes no sense for CART, it massively encourages "fake" CCers/CMers because this is so much cheaper (about a quarter the cost) than having a home mooring -- which I agree are difficult to find, there simply aren't enough to meet the demand.

 

What would make more sense is for CART to raise the fee for CCers and possibly drop it for boats with a home mooring, depending on whether they want to raise overall revenue, to close the price gap between the two and encourage more people who are really CMers to find and pay for a home mooring -- which would of course mean that CART would have to make more of them available.

 

This is acknowledging the change in use of the canals for a lot of boaters (from boating to cheap living) and monetising it, as you said.

 

Of course the losers would then be the genuine CCers who do roam round the system instead of essentially staying in one place, in other words what this was intended for. Unfortunately it seems they have become outnumbered in recent years by the CMers who basically want to stay in one place but without paying for it.

 

Maybe the genuine CCers could be given a discount if they can prove that they did travel a distance over the year which fits with the spirit of the rules, meaning more than a few miles -- though this is then effectively just changing the definition of what CCing is...

 

What's obvious is that the license system as it stands is not fit for purpose; it might have been given the use of the canals in the last century when it was devised, but not today given how they're used now. Something needs to change, both to reduce abuse of the license fee system and make it "fairer" (whatever that means...) and to get more income for CART to maintain the canals with -- as opposed to putting up more blue signs, obviously... 😉

Edited February 10, 2023 by IanD

[Momac]

50 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

There simply aren't enough hobby boaters to makes any great difference to CRTs income

 

Does anyone know how many C&RT licenses are on a CC basis and how many are on a home moorings basis ?

Is that data available?

Edited February 10, 2023 by MartynG

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, IanD said:

What would make more sense is for CART to raise the fee for CCers and possibly drop it for boats with a home mooring, depending on whether they want to raise overall revenue, to close the price gap between the two and encourage more people who are really CMers to find and pay for a home mooring -- which would of course mean that CART would have to make more of them available.

 

There was a thread in this vein a few years ago where I suggested that the 'standard leisure licence' could be (say) £5000 and C&RT could offer discounts of this to achieve what it was they wanted.

 

This was soundly attacked as being outside C&RTs legal remit which I argued it wasn't.

 

Nigel Moore (RIP) then suggested that ................................

 

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

How would you value people's boats? Maybe get the BS inspector to put a ball park figure on it? 

 

I feel that the big deal, which has changed over time, is residential use of boats without moorings. This is a very attractive option. It's worth charging people for the privilege. Living somewhere does come with costs in almost every other lifestyle except van living. Does anyone want canals to turn into housing slums? I think not. 

 

I suppose the basic problem is boats, in particular narrow boats, are "too small" and will never be something people would choose to live in were it not so cheap. 

 

I wonder how many people would live in a small boat and pay £1000 a month to do so? Very few I would suggest. It might be only me in my 10 square metre living space who does this !! 

People would simply rent a property or get a mortgage. The boat is a compromise due to the financial advantages. Very few people fundamentally want to live on a small boat. 

 

So what will actually happen if the CRT do decide to take more money off people? Will there be a big crash in the second hand values? 

 

I think people will pay to an extent but after a certain point they would probably stop. 

 

 

The argument that you are 'pricing people off the water' is a red herring. Why would that be relevant? 

 

Everything else is market driven. Housing is market driven if you can't afford one you don't have one and costs of housing have gone up enormously over the last couple of decades. 

 

Why shouldn't the price of using a boat go up similarly ? 

 

I don't get it. The waterways need funding, the boats need waterways. Even for £3k a year it would still be a ridiculous bargain. Less than £10 a day to access what is in fact quite a large network. 

 

 

Get the money in ! 

 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Which is exactly what would happen with (for example) a license surcharge for CCing (or discount for home mooring, which amounts to the same thing).

 

The current situation where a CCer pays something like £1000 a year to CART and a boater with a home mooring pays this plus maybe £3000 a year to a marina makes no sense for CART, it massively encourages "fake" CCers/CMers because this is so much cheaper (about a quarter the cost) than having a home mooring -- which I agree are difficult to find, there simply aren't enough to meet the demand.

 

What would make more sense is for CART to raise the fee for CCers and possibly drop it for boats with a home mooring, depending on whether they want to raise overall revenue, to close the price gap between the two and encourage more people who are really CMers to find and pay for a home mooring -- which would of course mean that CART would have to make more of them available.

 

This is acknowledging the change in use of the canals for a lot of boaters (from boating to cheap living) and monetising it, as you said.

 

Of course the losers would then be the genuine CCers who do roam round the system instead of essentially staying in one place, in other words what this was intended for. Unfortunately it seems they have become outnumbered in recent years by the CMers who basically want to stay in one place but without paying for it.

 

Maybe the genuine CCers could be given a discount if they can prove that they did travel a distance over the year which fits with the spirit of the rules, meaning more than a few miles -- though this is then effectively just changing the definition of what CCing is...

 

What's obvious is that the license system as it stands is not fit for purpose; it might have been given the use of the canals in the last century when it was devised, but not today given how they're used now. Something needs to change, both to reduce abuse of the license fee system and make it "fairer" (whatever that means...) and to get more income for CART to maintain the canals with -- as opposed to putting up more blue signs, obviously... 😉

I don't see why CaRT legally should have to provide additional moorings although there might be a moral argument and also a practical one but potential marina operators might complain about unfair competition. AFAIK CaRT really only have obligations with regard to enabling navigation, not non-navigation. In any event, winter moorings show that CaRT does not have to do very much to provide a mooring except for a little bit of signage. It has no duties wrt water, refuse and sewage, although, again. practical aspects may come into play but it should be no wore than at present.

 

I suspect your proposal would also have problems with the use of so-called ghost moorings, both in terms of framing new rules as well as enforcement.