The National Bargee Travellers Association has slammed plans to raise licence fees on canals like the Kennet and Avon

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Peanut said:

It seems to me, that if the cost of having a Home Mooring were less than the Licence for a Continuous Cruiser, then the demand for Home Moorings would increase. 

Only if the Home mooring cost plus the Home mooring license fee are in total less than the Continuous cruisers license fee.

[Orwellian]

17 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

You are probably correct in the case of existing marinas with boats already in situ being compelled to sign a NAA when they were introduced,

No existing marina was compelled to have a NAA. Don't forget that most marinas prior to the introduction of the NAA in 2005 had ' connection agreements'. The NAA was introduced following consultation with the trade body and was aimed at consistency and to be attractive to investors. The Yardley Gobion case already referred to was prior to NAA. 

[Arthur Marshall]

53 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Only if the Home mooring cost plus the Home mooring license fee are in total less than the Continuous cruisers license fee.

That's been my point all along. CRT add (for a 40ft boat) £800 to my mooring costs, obviously more  on a longer boat, which most CCers are. So they could happily add this amount to a new  CC licence without risking ghost moorings. That amount is not that different from my  actual licence fee which implies they could double the CC licence without the same risk.

It would also encourage CMers to find a mooring as it would remove most of the advantage of not having one. If CRT had any se nse (admittedly doubtful) they would expand moorings to accommodate them, probably in negotiations with councils, who would also gain from the tax take.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[IanD]

22 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There is also a £1000 (?) advantage to the boater, as in a Non-NAA marina as they do not need a licence. So, for those who just want a floating flat the Non-NAA marinas are the ones to go to.

 

Nobody's said where these non-NAA marinas on the canals are, but I'd wager that none of them are anywhere near the honeypot areas being overrun (yes, I use this term correctly, not like the Tories...) with CMers -- and if they were, they'd be 100% full being £1000 cheaper...

 

Does anyone have a list of which marinas on the canals are non-NAA?

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Nobody's said where these non-NAA marinas on the canals are, but I'd wager that none of them are anywhere near the honeypot areas being overrun (yes, I use this term correctly, not like the Tories...) with CMers -- and if they were, they'd be 100% full being £1000 cheaper...

 

Does anyone have a list of which marinas on the canals are non-NAA?

 

 

Several of the marinas on the list (posted earlier) are on the canals.

[MtB]

34 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Nobody's said where these non-NAA marinas on the canals are, but I'd wager that none of them are anywhere near the honeypot areas being overrun (yes, I use this term correctly, not like the Tories...) with CMers -- and if they were, they'd be 100% full being £1000 cheaper...

 

Does anyone have a list of which marinas on the canals are non-NAA?

 

Yes. here it is:

 

1) That one on the Shroppie I can never remember the name of

 

Any others, can anyone think of?

[IanD]

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Several of the marinas on the list (posted earlier) are on the canals.

 

Was that the list which you said was out of date since several more had been added since, and included marinas on rivers and estuaries?

 

So it includes marinas not on the canals, and not even all the ones which are on the canals -- a bit like offering an out-of-date Encyclopaedia Britannica and saying "here you are" to anyone asking a question that you don't actually know the answer to... 😉

 

It would be interesting to know whether any are in or near the "honeypot areas" where CMers gather like -- well, flies round a honeypot... 🙂

Edited March 20, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Shobnall marina (on the T&M nr Burton on Trent) is built in the arm that came off the T&M (the Bond End canal) and has direct access onto the T&M

 

Shobnall marina does not require a C&RT licence, unless you leave the marina, and they sell short-term licences at the shop.

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes. here it is:

 

1) That one on the Shroppie I can never remember the name of

 

Any others, can anyone think of?

 

Actually it was Ashwood Marina I was thinking of. On the S&W. No licences needed in there. 

 

 

[Momac]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

........and they sell short-term licences at the shop.

Short term licenses are no longer available  where I am. 

 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Shobnall marina (on the T&M nr Burton on Trent) is built in the arm that came off the T&M (the Bond End canal) and has direct access onto the T&M

 

Shobnall marina does not require a C&RT licence, unless you leave the marina, and they sell short-term licences at the shop.

 

And the rest of the "couple of dozen"? 😉

[Alan de Enfield]

40 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And the rest of the "couple of dozen"? 😉

 

So, are you saying that you are unable to look at the list and identify which are canal marinas / moorings and which are river marinas / moorings ?

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's been my point all along. CRT add (for a 40ft boat) £800 to my mooring costs, obviously more  on a longer boat, which most CCers are. So they could happily add this amount to a new  CC licence without risking ghost moorings. That amount is not that different from my  actual licence fee which implies they could double the CC licence without the same risk.

It would also encourage CMers to find a mooring as it would remove most of the advantage of not having one. If CRT had any se nse (admittedly doubtful) they would expand moorings to accommodate them, probably in negotiations with councils, who would also gain from the tax take.

This is clearly what should happen but it won't will it. 

 

 

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 If CRT had any se nse (admittedly doubtful) they would expand moorings to accommodate them, probably in negotiations with councils, who would also gain from the tax take.

It’s been mentioned many times before, they can’t do that due to planning laws.

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

It’s been mentioned many times before, they can’t do that due to planning laws.

What laws are there which prevent the CRT from constructing new residential mooring schemes? 

 

It is interesting as they have constructed some quite recently. Are these illegal?

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

It’s been mentioned many times before, they can’t do that due to planning laws.

Planning laws appear to be remarkably flexible when anyone wants to build an inappropriate housing estate or turn an old pub into flats. I would think councils would bite the hand off CRT if they were offered a load more places liable to CT. Factor in the number of people who simply ignore planning restrictions,  build anywhere  and get retro permission as councils can't afford to challenge in court and I can't see why planning would be a problem. Most planning restrictions have been deregulated over the last few years, for some reason.

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

So, are you saying that you are unable to look at the list and identify which are canal marinas / moorings and which are river marinas / moorings ?

 

"Thankyou for finding that - but there are a few additions later in the thread wich have not been consolidated into the list."

 

Yes I'm as capable as anyone else of trawling through a 5-year-old multipage thread and trying to put them all together, then finding out which ones have closed since then and which new marinas have opened, and whether all of these are non-NAA, and then which ones are not on canals.

 

Which was why I asked if anyone had such a list -- if the answer is no, that's fine. As the person who said there were at least a couple of dozen I thought Alan might know and be able to helpfully give us the benefit of his wisdom... 😉

 

It doesn't bother me anyway, but I thought it might be useful information for boaters who feel the pinch after the license fee rises -- you know, the actual subject of this thread... 😉

[Chewbacka]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

What laws are there which prevent the CRT from constructing new residential mooring schemes? 

 

It is interesting as they have constructed some quite recently. Are these illegal?

The planning objections from all the posh houses that don’t want residential moorings by their front door.

[magnetman]

There is that yes but "...can’t do that due to planning laws." made it sound like there was a law against it. 

 

What would be to stop the CRT converting existing towpath moorings, provided they can supply services, to residential use? 

 

 

There are some residential towpath side moorings already. Has something changed since these were given the pp to be allowed for residential use? 

 

It seems to me that converting lots of towpath moorings to residential and upping the prices could be quite a nice earner. 

Edited March 20, 2023 by magnetman
typo

[Arthur Marshall]

22 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There is that yes but "...can’t do that due to planning laws." made it sound like there was a law against it. 

 

What would be to stop the CRT converting existing towpath moorings, provided they can supply services, to residential use? 

 

 

There are some residential towpath side moorings already. Has something changed since these were given the pp to be allowed for residential use? 

 

It seems to me that converting lots of towpath moorings to residential and upping the prices could be quite a nice earner. 

Of course  a lot of these towpath moorings are de facto residential anyway. If CRT applied to regularise them they'd make more money and everyone would be happy, except the CMers currently ripping off the ststem.

The original reason for them not being residential was that facilities wiuld have to be supplied, but as it's obvious people can live there happily without external power and water that's been well debunked.

[Paul C]

What’s CRT’s incentive to make residential moorings?

[Lady M]

Income?  Reduce (or manage) congestion in busy areas?  Of course, charging CCers more could offset any financial gain from them taking a CRT mooring.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Of course  a lot of these towpath moorings are de facto residential anyway.

 

If the same 'place' is used for more than 28 days per annum then it requires Full PP for a residential mooring.

 

I very much doubt that the Local Authorities would give a carte blanch residential planning permission without a whole host of conditions, otherwise the moorings would just become a squatter camp, in the green-belt, in the 'middle of rural England'

[Graham Davis]

23 hours ago, kris88 said:

This is exactly what happened at shardlow marina. They have tried to expand it recently using the same trick. Apparently it was the council that stopped the expansion happening not crt. What I don’t understand is how all the people living in static caravans there get away with not paying council tax?

How do you know they don't?
I know of a couple of sites around here where they do pay Council Tax, at band A.

 

7 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

The NAA contract will need to be challenged. Marinas and moorers need to be given a choice. But while under contract, a marina is obliged. 

 

 

So why don't you challenge it? 
"Mouth and Trousers" comes to mind!

[enigmatic]

38 minutes ago, Paul C said:

What’s CRT’s incentive to make residential moorings?

Money from them

 

Plus if they're tasked with maintaining the canals to benefit their users, so if people asking about finding moorings on here are generally being advised "you'll never find a residential mooring in that area of the country. Maybe try bending rules instead"  they're clearly failing in that respect 

 

I realise that local authorities have the final say too, and the CRT can't just pay them off with planning gain like housing developers, but they'd also generally be proposing something which doesn't involve permanent structures, is related to previous use of the land/water, is in out-of-the-way places and doesn't set any precedents for other developments.