Playground for the Rich

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Yes I  think it did in many cases.

A lot of people moderated their use of  their  boat to conserve the fuel they had bought before the price escalated in early 2022.

This year folks don't seem to be using their boats so much and that may be due to other economic factors. The C&RT license fee increases may also be an influence  - folks not licensing (and not going out) if they are in a marina that does not require a license. Or licensing for 3 months instead of 6 months.

 

Obviously there are those who carry on regardless.

 

Remember lots are able to go abroad for holidays again 

[magnetman]

The weather is not glorious. 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Length and width is already in and part of the current licensing fee structure. I can see licences increasing maybe something like this. An increase between 15-35% / 20-40% to current licences, the lower % for a narrow with home mooring, the higher for a non home mooring widebeam and between both for wide with home mooring and narrow without. No London surcharge as it can’t be policed. Historic boats to loose their discount and maybe electric too. All in all, no boats will have that  big a rise to take their licence to £10K. I would love to see these 60-70ft x 14ft monsters get a hefty licence rise, but I don’t see it happening. So let’s wait and see what Summer brings, apart from water shortages, stoppages and just maybe a new license pricing structure.
 It’s not just boaters that think having these monster widebeams on the canal is ridiculous, as this Instagramer highlights, the Narrow is 60ft and the white widebeam 70ft x 14ft.

 

 

One of the CART proposals was to vary the license fee by boat area (width*length), in the same way that many marinas and other boating authorities around the world do. This isn't being "anti-widebeam", its paying by area which is the norm both on land and at sea almost everywhere except on the UK canals... 😉

 

At the moment a 14' widebeam pays 20% more than a narrowboat of the same length, this would go up to 100% more which is a 67% increase (1.67x what they pay now).

 

If they also applied a "CC surcharge" (yes it's an HM discount really...) of +100% -- which is less than the +150% proposed many years ago -- then a 14' CC boat would see a +233% increase (x3.33 what they pay now).

 

Of course a London surcharge can be policed, license checkers currently record which boats are seen where don't they, supposedly every 2 weeks? If your boat is recorded in London 26/26 times per year you'd pay the full surcharge, whatever that is -- lets say +50% for the sake of argument -- but if it was recorded 13/26 times you'd pay half the surcharge -- let's say +25%. That's fair isn't it, the more time you spend in "honeypot" areas the more you pay?

 

Then a 14' CCer who never moves from London would pay 5x what they pay now. They're not going to be happy, but all these surcharges (or discounts, thank you Alan...) are perfectly justifiable... 😉

[Momac]

43 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Remember lots are able to go abroad for holidays again 

True.

We went to Corfu for a week . But it was a family gathering to celebrate our daughter's 10th wedding anniversary .

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

One of the CART proposals was to vary the license fee by boat area (width*length), in the same way that many marinas and other boating authorities around the world do. This isn't being "anti-widebeam", its paying by area which is the norm both on land and at sea almost everywhere except on the UK canals... 😉

 

At the moment a 14' widebeam pays 20% more than a narrowboat of the same length, this would go up to 100% more which is a 67% increase (1.67x what they pay now).

 

If they also applied a "CC surcharge" (yes it's an HM discount really...) of +100% -- which is less than the +150% proposed many years ago -- then a 14' CC boat would see a +233% increase (x3.33 what they pay now).

 

Of course a London surcharge can be policed, license checkers currently record which boats are seen where don't they, supposedly every 2 weeks? If your boat is recorded in London 26/26 times per year you'd pay the full surcharge, whatever that is -- lets say +50% for the sake of argument -- but if it was recorded 13/26 times you'd pay half the surcharge -- let's say +25%. That's fair isn't it, the more time you spend in "honeypot" areas the more you pay?

 

Then a 14' CCer who never moves from London would pay 5x what they pay now. They're not going to be happy, but all these surcharges (or discounts, thank you Alan...) are perfectly justifiable... 😉

Let’s just see what happens and I bet it’s not as complicated as what you’ve written and the license fee rise is no where near to your calculated %’s for widebeams.

Edited July 14, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[IanD]

Just now, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Let’s just see what happens and I bet it’s not as complicated as what you’ve written and the cost rise is no where near to your calculated %’s for widebeams.

 

Probably not, I doubt that CART have the balls to do it... 😞

 

However all those numbers are taken from proposals that have been put forward at one time or another, and none of them are complicated -- for example area-based fees are simpler than what we have today, just £x per square foot...

[Mad Harold]

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

One of the CART proposals was to vary the license fee by boat area (width*length), in the same way that many marinas and other boating authorities around the world do. This isn't being "anti-widebeam", its paying by area which is the norm both on land and at sea almost everywhere except on the UK canals... 😉

 

At the moment a 14' widebeam pays 20% more than a narrowboat of the same length, this would go up to 100% more which is a 67% increase (1.67x what they pay now).

 

If they also applied a "CC surcharge" (yes it's an HM discount really...) of +100% -- which is less than the +150% proposed many years ago -- then a 14' CC boat would see a +233% increase (x3.33 what they pay now).

 

Of course a London surcharge can be policed, license checkers currently record which boats are seen where don't they, supposedly every 2 weeks? If your boat is recorded in London 26/26 times per year you'd pay the full surcharge, whatever that is -- lets say +50% for the sake of argument -- but if it was recorded 13/26 times you'd pay half the surcharge -- let's say +25%. That's fair isn't it, the more time you spend in "honeypot" areas the more you pay?

 

Then a 14' CCer who never moves from London would pay 5x what they pay now. They're not going to be happy, but all these surcharges (or discounts, thank you Alan...) are perfectly justifiable... 😉

Sounds too complicated!

An across the board increase sounds more logical and simpler, with the % extra applied for width.

To have differential pricing for CCers and home moorers will I think will cause moorings to become more scarce and therefore more expensive.

[MtB]

Given the timid extent of the current widebeam 'surcharge' and the excessive delay with which it was tapered in, I can't imagine the next licence review being anything more than another damp squid. 

 

 

 

https://metro.co.uk/2015/04/09/a-damp-squid-for-all-intensive-purposes-14-eggcorns-to-make-you-laugh-5141384/

 

 

[Naughty Cal]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Equities yes but property, no. Not in my experience anyway.

 

In a falling market, the market just seizes up as people refuse to sell for less than what it was worth this time last year. 

 

 

In the past maybe but now there are a whole new sector of people who bought homes with help to buy who suddenly now find that they can't afford to remortgage and swallow up the government loan.

 

A lot of these people are having little choice but to sell up and find somewhere more affordable. 

 

That certainly seems to be the case here. Lots of properties coming up for sale for a lot less than they would have been last year!

[churchward]

On 11/07/2023 at 09:36, Goliath said:

Are the Inland Waterways a ‘playground for the rich’?

 

The phrase gets used every know and again and was recently repeated on another thread regarding funding. 
 

It is not as binary as that.

 

People who have a holiday/leisure boat are spending their disposable income and so they have to have sufficient to do so.  Does this make them "rich"? maybe, maybe not, it is a relative term.  Some who have no or little disposable income will consider people holidaying and owning their own boat rich but it is like small change for a millionaire/billionaire.

 

When out on the cut the myriad of boats you see also says there are many boating and living on a shoestring and their old narrowboat or GRP cruiser is their only home along with the new and shiny expensive narrowboats.

 

Then in a broad sense of inland waterway use it is not all about boating either.  Many do not have boats but use the waterways system as a leisure and exercise facility.  The waterways are open-access facilities too anyone can use them which is a good thing. It is an argument that some central taxation-sourced funds are appropriate as well as licensing for example.

[cuthound]

49 minutes ago, MtB said:

Given the timid extent of the current widebeam 'surcharge' and the excessive delay with which it was tapered in, I can't imagine the next licence review being anything more than another damp squid. 

 

 

 

https://metro.co.uk/2015/04/09/a-damp-squid-for-all-intensive-purposes-14-eggcorns-to-make-you-laugh-5141384/

 

 

 

Surely being aquatic creatures, all squids are damp, at least when first removed from their natural environment?

 

Or perhaps you meant a damp squib?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)#:~:text=Origin of the phrase "damp squib",-Look up damp&text=While most modern squibs used,perform because it got wet.

[Bargebuilder]

3 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Surely being aquatic creatures, all squids are damp, at least when first removed from their natural environment?

 

Or perhaps you meant a damp squib?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)#:~:text=Origin of the phrase "damp squib",-Look up damp&text=While most modern squibs used,perform because it got wet.

Perhaps you didn't read the link.

[MtB]

15 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Surely being aquatic creatures, all squids are damp, at least when first removed from their natural environment?

 

Or perhaps you meant a damp squib?

 

 

Ort perhaps you didn't read my link and realise the joke?!

 

 

[cuthound]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Ort perhaps you didn't read my link and realise the joke?!

 

 

 

Ferzackerly. I posted then read the link...Teach me to read the links before responding! 

[PeterF]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

Given the timid extent of the current widebeam 'surcharge' and the excessive delay with which it was tapered in, I can't imagine the next licence review being anything more than another damp squid. 

The difference this time is CRT can play the "not our fault" card and pass the blame elsewhere and push it through.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

16 hours ago, IanD said:

 Of course a London surcharge can be policed, license checkers currently record which boats are seen where don't they, supposedly every 2 weeks? If your boat is recorded in London 26/26 times per year you'd pay the full surcharge, whatever that is -- lets say +50% for the sake of argument -- but if it was recorded 13/26 times you'd pay half the surcharge -- let's say +25%. That's fair isn't it, the more time you spend in "honeypot" areas the more you pay?

 

 

 The canals aren’t being sufficiently policed  now with licence checkers and enforcement action, never mind when license fees increase, which may lead to more unlicensed boats on the system. Can you honestly say it’s being carried out efficiently in regards to CCmoorers and non payers in London at present?

  Extra payment for Honeypot areas may be a good idea in theory but the admin and time needed to make it work is just not practical and too time consuming. CaRT just haven’t got the resources or the IT technology in place to make it all work that easily. 
 Or do CaRT invest millions of pounds into a new National licence/tracking/enforcement computer/IT system? Fit every boat with a tracker or employ an extra thousand enforcement/licence checkers to make everything work?  Spending the millions that the license increase brings in on admin and wages and not the canal infrastructure. 
 What is the easiest solution to the license issue? As I say let’s see what the new license strategy brings and we can’t really complain as we all did the survey which hopefully they’ll act on.
  

Edited July 15, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[David Mack]

15 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

To have differential pricing for CCers and home moorers will I think will cause moorings to become more scarce and therefore more expensive.

Isn't that one of the purposes? Reducing the financial attraction of CCing. And increasing the demand for moorings will in turn (over time) support the development of more offline marinas, so there will be fewer boats moored online.

[David Schweizer]

45 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Isn't that one of the purposes? Reducing the financial attraction of CCing. And increasing the demand for moorings will in turn (over time) support the development of more offline marinas, so there will be fewer boats moored online.

 

Something like twenty years ago BW had a stated policy to reduce on line moorings in favour of marina moorings, and started to reduce their own on line moorings. Our on line mooring was one of the victims of this policy, but fortunately we were able to find a better private land off side mooring. Our original BW mooring reverted to standard default 14 day towpath mooring, and rapidly became full of moored boats which were not paying a mooring fee. I think BW soon realised that they had shot themselves in the foot, not reducing on line moorings in a popular location, and no longer raising any revenue from mooring fees. The policy seemed to die a quiet death.

[Tonka]

15 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

Something like twenty years ago BW had a stated policy to reduce on line moorings in favour of marina moorings, and started to reduce their own on line moorings. Our on line mooring was one of the victims of this policy, but fortunately we were able to find a better private land off side mooring. Our original BW mooring reverted to standard default 14 day towpath mooring, and rapidly became full of moored boats which were not paying a mooring fee. I think BW soon realised that they had shot themselves in the foot, not reducing on line moorings in a popular location, and no longer raising any revenue from mooring fees. The policy seemed to die a quiet death.

Some marina owners felt let down by BW because they did not reduce the online moorings. 

[David Mack]

36 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

Something like twenty years ago BW had a stated policy to reduce on line moorings in favour of marina moorings, and started to reduce their own on line moorings. Our on line mooring was one of the victims of this policy, but fortunately we were able to find a better private land off side mooring. Our original BW mooring reverted to standard default 14 day towpath mooring, and rapidly became full of moored boats which were not paying a mooring fee. I think BW soon realised that they had shot themselves in the foot, not reducing on line moorings in a popular location, and no longer raising any revenue from mooring fees. The policy seemed to die a quiet death.

Yes. It was one component of BW's New Marina policy which aimed to standardise the basis on which new offline marinas could connect to BW's waters, and offer some certainty to marina developers as to what the processes and costs would be, and so to enable them to make a business case for proceeding.

Another component was the Network Access Agreement which sets out the ongoing connection charges which a marina pays for the right of access to BW's canals.

Overall the policy was a success in that a number of new marinas were developed in the years that followed. 

The removal of online moorings (1 online mooring in the vicinity of the new marina removed for each 10 new moorings created I recall) was intended to encourage boaters to move to the new marina, but proved unpopular with online moorers, and in some cases there were too few local online moorings to be removed, so BW cast the net wider to boaters who complained that the new marina was not conveniently located (as well as more expensive). So, as you say, that element of the policy was quietly dropped.

But as far as I know the NAA and other processes of the policy are still being used by CRT. 

 

[Tonka]

12 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Yes. It was one component of BW's New Marina policy which aimed to standardise the basis on which new offline marinas could connect to BW's waters, and offer some certainty to marina developers as to what the processes and costs would be, and so to enable them to make a business case for proceeding.

Another component was the Network Access Agreement which sets out the ongoing connection charges which a marina pays for the right of access to BW's canals.

Overall the policy was a success in that a number of new marinas were developed in the years that followed. 

The removal of online moorings (1 online mooring in the vicinity of the new marina removed for each 10 new moorings created I recall) was intended to encourage boaters to move to the new marina, but proved unpopular with online moorers, and in some cases there were too few local online moorings to be removed, so BW cast the net wider to boaters who complained that the new marina was not conveniently located (as well as more expensive). So, as you say, that element of the policy was quietly dropped.

But as far as I know the NAA and other processes of the policy are still being used by CRT. 

 

Yes but some of those marina owners had to dig a marina so as they could get more hire boat licences. Then where potentially out of pocket because BW didn't reduce the online moorings.

[Peanut]

Parking meters in honypot locations, pay by card. Nice little earner.

[MtB]

29 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The removal of online moorings (1 online mooring in the vicinity of the new marina removed for each 10 new moorings created I recall) was intended to encourage boaters to move to the new marina, but proved unpopular with online moorers, and in some cases there were too few local online moorings to be removed, so BW cast the net wider to boaters who complained that the new marina was not conveniently located (as well as more expensive).

 

 

CRT have fixed that objection around here, by ramping up on-line mooring costs to match or exceed marina mooring charges. 

 

 

For example 68ft 11in CRT mooring at Devizes, £4675.05

 

https://www.watersidemooring.com/439-devizes-flight-l1-leisure/Vacancies

 

 

[Momac]

21 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Second hand boats under £50k will probably hold value very well for the foreseeable. 

 

Why the £50k limit?

I wonder if younger folks who own smaller or cheaper boats are more likely to be impacted by the cost of living crisis and increased mortgage interest rates.

Older people with grown up children bigger boat and  smaller mortgage or mortgage paid off less so.

 

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Why the £50k limit?

 

 

I'm anticipating a flight to living board by people who have given up trying to pay the mortgage. After being repossessed and the house sold, they'll get handed a pittance in loose change by the lender which will be used to buy a boat.