C&RT License Survey

[Barneyp]

7 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

Yes... I'm not sure we should get into the pros and cons of PR here

 

So as I've said above: 

 

At best that survey shows 60% voting against the ccer surcharge (despite its obvious personal advantage it would give them) because they found it unfair. Which is quite heartwarming!

 

At worst the survey is so useless it is void - in which case why do CRT cite it as justification for the ccer surcharge in their opening statement about this?

 

 

So where have CRT fiddled the figures????

 

You have, because 60% of people did not vote against the CCer surcharge. It wasn't a vote for a start, and they said they preferred something else which is not the same as saying they were against it.

 

CRT are correct in saying that the CCer surcharge was the option that got the most support.

 

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Colin Brendan said:

If you Google Canal and Rivers Trust license survey, or possibly recent consultations, I'm sure it will pop up. It's the survey they used to justify the surcharge by really fiddling the results.

 

The survey shows 60% are against it. Everyone has come out against it. NABO ate against it. IWA are against it. NBTA are against it. AWA are against it. K AND A boaters are against it. In fact it's hard to find a boating org that like it

 

You still haven't anwered my question -- given that the CC surcharge (option B ) was the most popular option (40% for / 60% against) and equal rises for all (option A) was the least popular option (14% for / 86% against), why should CART do what *you* want?

 

Same argument you keep putting up against the CC surcharge (60% against!!!) except with an even bigger margin (86% against!!!)... 😉

 

1 hour ago, Colin Brendan said:

The widebeamer debate isn't contested as much because it so broadly crosses so many demographics, where as the ccer is quite obviously targeting in more financially disadvantaged.

 

Tbh I think the wide beam surcharge is a massive issue for many who live in 5k tuperware that is only just 'wide' - many of whom are a step away from homelessness. I hope these people will be able to access the DWP mentioned above - and how sad that an opportunity for them to find their feet in other ways is being stripped away for such a spurious reason

 

So you're in favour of area-based charging then, so they'd only pay a very small surcharge?

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/48477-appendix-b-boat-licence-consultation-summary-report-board.pdf

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by IanD

[Peanut]

I don't think the media helps with articles which state how easy and cheap it is to be a cc on the canals, and often wrong like the "Birmingham Live,"

05:30, 26 NOV 2023: quote:

 

"The pair are known as 'continuous cruisers' - meaning they have no fixed abode. Instead, they must move to a new mooring every two weeks. The rules state boaters must move a minimum of 20 miles every year - with Canal and River Trust spotters on hand to ensure these requirements are met."

 

Just as one example of many poorly researched articles produced to sell papers, but encouraging continuous mooring rather than cruising.

 

 

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

And no council tax, free unmetered water supply, nice locks to play with, free sewage and rubbish disposal, thousand miles of canal scenery to look at. And they moan !! 

 

I note, you can, of course, avail yourself of these benefits should you wish to, instead chose to pay for the convenience of not having to move your boat at least every two weeks, or being hassled by C&RT to do so. Not to mention the difficulties of living while travelling around the system. Surely, it is right that you should pay for the benefits you get from having a home mooring?

Edited December 16, 2023 by Peanut
duplicate post - should have been two separate posts

[agg221]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe because widebeamers are not trying to 'game the system' and realise that their additional contribution to C&RT is needed and justifiable.

I have been paying a wide-beam surcharge in a C&RT Marina (BWML) for about 10 years before the idea came (2017 consultation if IRC)  to increase the widebeam licence fee., and of course I had little choice but to pay it - it was simply pay-up or get off the water.

 

I chose the boat I wanted and therefore had to pay what it cost to keep it.

 

As it happened I did leave C&RTs water 3 years ago but due to being unable to cruise when and where I wanted due to

a) the 'bottom being to near to the top', and

b ) lack of maintenance of the infrastructure.

 

No big 'woe is me', I just cancelled my licence and mooring and departed for 'better', more friendly, boating waters.

I do not have a widebeam and cannot think of any circumstances under which I would ever do so, so my thoughts are not based on personal gain.

 

On the one hand, widebeams occupy more space on the water. That means they use more water per lock cycle than a pair of narrow beam boats, they occupy more space in a marina mooring and they prevent double-mooring online. They also cause a level of inconvenience to other users in less well dredged channels (exacerbated in slab sided boats which are not really designed to move) and in passing certain parts of the system such as Braunston tunnel.

BUT

On the other hand, they do not put more pressure on services such as water, rubbish and elsan points, there are not that many locations outside London and parts of the K&A where breasting up is a necessity and occupying more space in a marina is only relevant to the marina operator, not CRT. How many times do narrowboats actually encounter another boat to share locks with? We sometimes do but often don't. Additionally, there are large parts of the network where they cannot go and many of these are the older canals with higher cost for infrastructure for heritage reasons and because, unlike rivers, almost all of which are widebeam, they do not have a natural water supply. It clearly wouldn't put anything like the pressure on the system for a widebeam to cc around the Trent, Calder and Hebble, Aire and Calder and the Ouse as it does for a narrowboat to do the same around the Oxford and Coventry.

 

I am not putting forward any particular suggestion for change here, just noting that there are some points which could be made. Actually, they sit rather in favour of regional charging but not assuming the same rate for all regions?

 

Alec

Edited December 16, 2023 by agg221

[magnetman]

33 minutes ago, Peanut said:

 

I note, you can, of course, avail yourself of these benefits should you wish to, instead chose to pay for the convenience of not having to move your boat at least every two weeks, or being hassled by C&RT to do so. Not to mention the difficulties of living while travelling around the system. Surely, it is right that you should pay for the benefits you get from having a home mooring?

I don't think anyone is saying they should not pay for a mooring. I'm just pointing out that as mooring is the main demand on canals the CRT need to find a way of getting money from this. People don't declare cc because they intend to cruise about. They declare cc because they can circumvent the need to pay for a mooring. Its really not complicated. 

 

The licence only obliges you to move every two weeks = this is a demand for moorings. 

 

If the licence obliged you to move every day if you had no prepaid mooring nobody would want one of these licences. 

 

There is a high demand for towpath moorings...CRT need cash...charge for all moorings. 

 

 

[Peanut]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There is a high demand for towpath moorings...CRT need cash...charge for all moorings. 

 

To that end, CRT could, work out how much a day's mooring is worth, and increase the Licence Fee for everybody by a year worth of mooring fees. That way, everybody would pay to CRT the same annual fee, for whatever moorings they use, adjusted for boat length and width. I wonder what is not to like?

 

 

 

[Colin Brendan]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

You still haven't anwered my question -- given that the CC surcharge (option B ) was the most popular option (40% for / 60% against) and equal rises for all (option A) was the least popular option (14% for / 86% against), why should CART do what *you* want?

 

Same argument you keep putting up against the CC surcharge (60% against!!!) except with an even bigger margin (86% against!!!)... 😉

 

 

So you're in favour of area-based charging then, so they'd only pay a very small surcharge?

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/refresh/media/thumbnail/48477-appendix-b-boat-licence-consultation-summary-report-board.pdf

 

 

The 40% is the largest percentage because the anti ccer surcharge vote is split, whereas the pro ccer surcharge vote is not split.

 

This is reflected in tha fact that all the boating orgs - NABO, IWA, NBTA, AWA, K and A boaters- all came out against the surcharge

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't think anyone is saying they should not pay for a mooring. I'm just pointing out that as mooring is the main demand on canals the CRT need to find a way of getting money from this. People don't declare cc because they intend to cruise about. They declare cc because they can circumvent the need to pay for a mooring. Its really not complicated. 

 

The licence only obliges you to move every two weeks = this is a demand for moorings. 

 

If the licence obliged you to move every day if you had no prepaid mooring nobody would want one of these licences. 

 

There is a high demand for towpath moorings...CRT need cash...charge for all moorings. 

 

 

Is mooring their main expenditure? I suspect its other things. 

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

The 40% is the largest percentage because the anti ccer surcharge vote is split, whereas the pro ccer surcharge vote is not split.

 

This is reflected in tha fact that all the boating orgs - NABO, IWA, NBTA, AWA, K and A boaters- all came out against the surcharge

Is mooring their main expenditure? I suspect its other things. 

 

The main expense is probably the infrastructure maintenance and repairs. 

 

I'm merely pointing out a logical reason why someone who is not already paying a mooring fee could be viewed as someone who perhaps ought to be given that is the reason for them being there. People with cc licences are not there because they intend to cruise every day around the canal system. They are there because of the free mooring. Its obvious. 

 

 

 

 

 

If the CRT add a surcharge of £365 to a licence fee just think of it as being a £1 a day mooring fee. Very very cheap mooring. 

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

The 40% is the largest percentage because the anti ccer surcharge vote is split, whereas the pro ccer surcharge vote is not split.

 

Weird thinking.

 

So, the Conservative party got 47%    43% of the vote at the last GE, because all of the 'tories' voted for them, but didn't vote for the other parties, and the other parties 'members' voted for their 'party' and not for the Conservatives, strange that.

 

When there are four alternatives obviously the vote will be split 4 ways as not everyone will agree with just 1 of the alternatives.

 

Maybe you think C&RT should have offered a simple choice :

 

"Do you agree that a surcharge on widebeam and CC boats will generate more money that can be used on maintenance"

 

Yes

or

No

 

Maybe that would have given the 80% for, 20% against that you seem to want.

 

Far more important things than saving 5000 boaters 'a fiver a week' have been settled on a far slimmer majority than that (49:51 for example)

Edited December 16, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[peterboat]

35 minutes ago, agg221 said:

I do not have a widebeam and cannot think of any circumstances under which I would ever do so, so my thoughts are not based on personal gain.

 

On the one hand, widebeams occupy more space on the water. That means they use more water per lock cycle than a pair of narrow beam boats, they occupy more space in a marina mooring and they prevent double-mooring online. They also cause a level of inconvenience to other users in less well dredged channels (exacerbated in slab sided boats which are not really designed to move) and in passing certain parts of the system such as Braunston tunnel.

BUT

On the other hand, they do not put more pressure on services such as water, rubbish and elsan points, there are not that many locations outside London and parts of the K&A where breasting up is a necessity and occupying more space in a marina is only relevant to the marina operator, not CRT. How many times do narrowboats actually encounter another boat to share locks with? We sometimes do but often don't. Additionally, there are large parts of the network where they cannot go and many of these are the older canals with higher cost for infrastructure for heritage reasons and because, unlike rivers, almost all of which are widebeam, they do not have a natural water supply. It clearly wouldn't put anything like the pressure on the system for a widebeam to cc around the Trent, Calder and Hebble, Aire and Calder and the Ouse as it does for a narrowboat to do the same around the Oxford and Coventry.

 

I am not putting forward any particular suggestion for change here, just noting that there are some points which could be made. Actually, they sit rather in favour of regional charging but not assuming the same rate for all regions?

 

Alec

Less water per lock cycle I am afraid, they displace more water so less water must be used, I say this because I cant remember the last time I saw 2 narrowboats sharing a lock! Iproduced the evidence the last time this came up and can again. So in reality maybe they should pay less?

Edited December 16, 2023 by peterboat

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

The 40% is the largest percentage because the anti ccer surcharge vote is split, whereas the pro ccer surcharge vote is not split.

 

This is reflected in tha fact that all the boating orgs - NABO, IWA, NBTA, AWA, K and A boaters- all came out against the surcharge

... and CRT is currently refusing to provide copies of the representations made by these organisations, again claiming that Chairman, David Orr, states that to do so would be "Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs again claiming Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs".

One is left wondering what it is they are trying to hide.
 

[agg221]

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Less water per lock cycle I am afraid, they displace more water so less water must be used, I produced the evidence the last time this came up and can again. So in reality maybe they should pay less?

I presume that would be somewhat dependent on the particular widebeam and particular pair of narrowboats though - a 57ft x 12ft widebeam ballasted to normal residential levels would displace say 30 tons so 30cu.m of water. A pair of lightly ballasted, fairly short narrowboats might only displace 20 tons between them whereas a fully loaded working pair would be more like 60 tons (except they would probably have grounded out well before they reached the lock!)

 

Whether they 'should' pay more or less probably depends on the balance of real costs of the wide range of factors I commented on (and probably some more besides) but whether they 'will' pay more probably depends on how much CRT thinks the market can withstand.

 

Alec

[Colin Brendan]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Weird thinking.

 

So, the Conservative party got 47%    43% of the vote at the last GE, because all of the 'tories' voted for them, but didn't vote for the other parties, and the other parties 'members' voted for their 'party' and not for the Conservatives, strange that.

 

When there are four alternatives obviously the vote will be split 4 ways as not everyone will agree with just 1 of the alternatives.

 

Maybe you think C&RT should have offered a simple choice :

 

"Do you agree that a surcharge on widebeam and CC boats will generate more money that can be used on maintenance"

 

Yes

or

No

 

Maybe that would have given the 80% for, 20% against that you seem to want.

Maybe but their statistics suggest otherwise 60% against the surcharge. 

 

Also I think first past the post is a bad system for everything but particularly for public surveys - so comparing it with the government voting system carries very little meaning

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

The main expense is probably the infrastructure maintenance and repairs. 

 

I'm merely pointing out a logical reason why someone who is not already paying a mooring fee could be viewed as someone who perhaps ought to be given that is the reason for them being there. People with cc licences are not there because they intend to cruise every day around the canal system. They are there because of the free mooring. Its obvious. 

 

 

 

 

 

If the CRT add a surcharge of £365 to a licence fee just think of it as being a £1 a day mooring fee. Very very cheap mooring. 

It's just the thin end of the wedge though, a way of pricing out the current ccer community

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

 

It's just the thin end of the wedge though, a way of pricing out the current ccer community

You definitely think this is all about cc ers. 

 

How do you explain the fact that a boat over 7ft2 wide with a home mooring is getting a higher surcharge on the licence than a cc ing narrow boat? 

 

Are the CRT also pricing out wide bean owners? 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by magnetman

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

 

It's just the thin end of the wedge though, a way of pricing out the current ccer community

 

Agreed it is just the start -  and there will be many more increases introduced to bring the CC boats into line with the total costs that a HMer has to pay.

WB boats will continue to see additional increases until a 14 foot boat licences costs 2x that of a 7 foot boat licence.

The current published tapered increases show (from memory) that in 4 years a group 3 WB boat will be paying 75% more than NB.

[Colin Brendan]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Agreed it is just the start -  and there will be many more increases introduced to bring the CC boats into line with the total costs that a HMer has to pay.

WB boats will continue to see additional increases until a 14 foot boat licences costs 2x that of a 7 foot boat licence.

The current published tapered increases show (from memory) that in 4 years a group 3 WB boat will be paying 75% more than NB.

And then when the prices are in line we'll all be after your moorings and your mooring prices will go up! You dont honestly think crt will stop hiking mooring fees because of this? Let's all look forward to a future where we are all unhappy!

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

And then when the prices are in line we'll all be after your moorings and your mooring prices will go up! You dont honestly think crt will stop hiking mooring fees because of this? Let's all look forward to a future where we are all unhappy!

 

Which I think will be a really good thing. CRT needs a massive increase in income or boating will become unviable due to lack of maintenance, and this would go some way to fixing the funding problem.

[magnetman]

I bet some people would be happy to see the end of the towpath squatter colonies but of course thats a different kettle of fish. 

 

There are people who think the best role for canals to play is one of an amenity. Think of it like a park. 

 

If you try living in a park in a vehicle you won't get away with it for long even pie quays don't get away with it for long. 

 

Perhaps it is in fact a Good Thing to discourage people who only come to canals because of the cheap accomodation. This might not be the ideal motive and could put the canals at risk long term considering how expensive it is to deal with some of the towpath squatter colonies. 

[Colin Brendan]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Which I think will be a really good thing. CRT needs a massive increase in income or boating will become unviable due to lack of maintenance, and this would go some way to fixing the funding problem.

In that case rather than forcing other people to be philanthropic on your behalf - donate them some money!

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

And then when the prices are in line we'll all be after your moorings and your mooring prices will go up! You dont honestly think crt will stop hiking mooring fees because of this? Let's all look forward to a future where we are all unhappy!

You seem to be under the strange impression that all moorings are run by CRT. I've never been on a CRT mooring. And of course mooring costs go up. My landlord hasn't put his up for ten years, but CRT have raised the surcharge I pay (CRT call it EOG) every year.

You obviously don't know that originally, CCers and moorers paid exactly the same amount, which appears to be what you want to go back to. If BW and CRT had had any sense, that's what they'd be doing now - doubling the licence cost for everyone and scrapping EOG and what marinas pay them for their moorings.

And can you imagine the screams from the CCers if they did ?

Edited December 16, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[magnetman]

 

Whats going to happen is you'll get problems like on the K&A where a bunch of irritating, ageing and entitled idiots spread their crap around canals and towpaths. This is an undesirable outcome and very very expensive to deal with.

 

Needs knocking on the head and if there is collateral damage thats how it works. Nobody holding a gun to your head forcing you to have a Boat. The vast majority of people don't have Boats. 

 

 

From a business point of view the CRT would do better to have 100 Boats paying 5 grand each than 500 Boats paying a grand each. Same income fewer problems. 

 

Its demand and supply economics. I don't understand why people think canals should be exempt. 

Edited December 16, 2023 by magnetman

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Colin Brendan said:

In that case rather than forcing other people to be philanthropic on your behalf - donate them some money!

 

Ah, so you want ME to pay more so YOU get cheap boating. 

 

But I think most people in this thread could see that already.

[magnetman]

 Its sort of ironic to wish canals were not subject to market forces. Very ironic actually given how they initially came into existence. It wasn't all a jolly good bit of fun it was shareholders and the lure of large dividends. 

[Arthur Marshall]

P S for heavens sake stop whinging about the survey. Everybody knew it was nonsense and irrelevant from the start. If you really think any of these "consultations" have any validity apart from a PR exercise, you're daft.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[Colin Brendan]

20 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Ah, so you want ME to pay more so YOU get cheap boating. 

 

But I think most people in this thread could see that already.

No - like most people - sustaining the place I live is pretty important to me. The problem I have is the organisation who run it don't want me or the CCer community to exist. Not dissimilar from this forum I think. In fact, maybe I took a wrong turn coming here! The cabal seems fairly fixed! And they do say no useful debate happens on social media. I guess they are right. If crt tried to work with ccers for once this would be a whole different story. Like many ccer and hmers alike - I will do everything I can to support the canals, but cannot support CRT with their current discriminatory agenda.

 

And the thing no-one seems to be addressing - how come IWA, NABO, K&A Boaters, nbta, and AWA all came out against the surcharge? These orgs represent hmers too?

Edited December 16, 2023 by Colin Brendan