Jump to content

Licences


haggis

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

It adds up when you calculate the tonnage used. 

 

Google says average 2 person household in UK uses 276 liters per day. 276*365 = 100 tonnes of water per annum. 

 

I bet there are some large canal boats which get reasonably close to the average consumption yet they have no water bill. 

 

Fun and games moving from a canal system adapted for leisure use to a canal system adapted for cheap housing. 

 

 

I would dispute that figure, when recently (a few years ago) sizing a (private) sewage treatment plant for a campsite, EA insisted we size on 75 litres/per person/per day. as being a 'typical household' figure.   I used our actual water meter readings to prove that our use was less than a typical household and therefore our proposed system was more than adequate and they should grant the required licences which they did.  (and its still massively over spec'd) 

 

I suspect in most cases CRT have a long standing arrangements going back hundreds of years and just pay a fixed sum for their 'standpipes' to the local water thiefs. There was even the case at gargrave ( I think)  where the tap was found to be connected to a local householders water supply, who were suitably miffed when they had a meter fitted and found they were paying for all the visiting boats water.... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

 

I would dispute that figure, when recently (a few years ago) sizing a (private) sewage treatment plant for a campsite, EA insisted we size on 75 litres/per person/per day. as being a 'typical household' figure.   I used our actual water meter readings to prove that our use was less than a typical household and therefore our proposed system was more than adequate and they should grant the required licences which they did.  (and its still massively over spec'd) 

 

In my calculations above I halved it to take account of the fact it is a boat and it came out at around 75 litres per person per day. 

 

The 276 suggested by Google is presumably a two person house or apartment with flushing lavatory and a big washing machine.

 

IF the CRT were paying £2 a tonne that would still mean 27 tonnes per person which is £54 and it is worth noting that boat licences do not take account of the number of people. 

 

£54 is about 5% of a £1,000 licence fee. 

 

 

 

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

But in C&RT's case the water points are not connected to drainage but drain back into the navigation  (or at lest they are not in our area ) so it should be hoped C&RT don't pay the waste rate for that .

 

I was refering to 'every flush of the toilet, showers, el;sans etc where the water will be directed into either the mains sewer (and charged at £1.42/m3) or into a septic tank where there will be a cost of emptying.

 

'Surface water' would normally be fed into surface water drains and (as you say)  directed into streams, rivers, canals etc

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

.............would dispute that figure, when recently (a few years ago) sizing a (private) sewage treatment plant for a campsite,

 

Having gone thru a simiar exercise for our caravan park I can confirm that the formula for estimating water treatment plant size is very complex.

 

It is based on the average number of people at any one time (not the total park capacity), and includes the water 'drunk' and the number of flushes of the toilets, it is based on the number and type of meals likely to be consumed a meal has a value of a 'fraction' of a person, a burger has a smaller 'fraction of a person', drinks (beer, tea etc) all have a 'fraction of a person' rating, use of basins and showers all have 'fractional' values

 

All of the fractions are added together to come up with a minimum treatment plant size - we ended up needing a 55 person plant.

 

Here it is being installed :

 

 

22-5-06b.JPG

22-5-06d.JPG

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I was refering to 'every flush of the toilet, showers, el;sans etc where the water will be directed into either the mains sewer (and charged at £1.42/m3) or into a septic tank where there will be a cost of emptying.

 

'Surface water' would normally be fed into surface water drains and (as you say)  directed into streams, rivers, canals etc

 

Strictly speaking mains water (drainage from a water point)  is not surface water and should not be discharged to a watercourse but its an academic point.

 

I would guess a good proportion of C&RT toilets locally to me are on septic tanks due to the relatively rural locations of the locks with toilet facilities.

Emptying those septic tanks almost certainly costs more than sewage rates charged by water authorities.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also a significant cost for rectifying blocked elsan points caused by idiots. 

 

The whole RSW situation needs a big overhaul really. Either close them or charge money for them. 

 

People don't go for a weekend camping trip in their converted lifeboat these days. I've even seen boats with washing machines in them !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/09/2023 at 10:54, Tonka said:

has that now been extended with the car extension announced this week ?

Not necessarily as some of the motor manufacturers have already indicated that their investment plans span much longer and they have already charted their course towards electric vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I was refering to 'every flush of the toilet, showers, el;sans etc where the water will be directed into either the mains sewer (and charged at £1.42/m3) or into a septic tank where there will be a cost of emptying.

 

Waste water entering the public sewers is not metered.  An assumption is made as to the proportion (80% is typical for dwellings) of the fresh water that is returned.  One would hope CRT negotiate a small proportion as little of its fresh water finds its way into the main drains

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/09/2023 at 12:37, Rambling Boater said:

You might be losing sight of the fact that licence fees only make up a small contribution to C&RT's budget in the first place.

 

As I keep saying, those who enjoy the canals and rivers (walking, fishing, cycling etc) SHOULD be contributing through taxes. The problem has come about because the government have chosen to stop our taxes being directed to the upkeep of the rivers and canals. They seem to be happy to spend our taxes on HS2 which very few of us will enjoy!

 

 A few people here seem to be taking delight  at the prospect of CC'ers having to pay a lot more for their licence in the future but don't seem to recognise the value of 'genuine' CC'ers 'keeping the canals alive' to coin a phrase from C&RT.

If you see my previous posts you will know that I am not losing such sight - and in any case I deliberately said it was marginal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if any proper research has been conducted about the public attitude to moored boats on towpaths. 

 

Its easy to say 'people like seeing boats - that is what the canal is for' but if it is just lines of boats blocking the view of the ducks do people actually like this? 

 

I would hazard a guess that being able to see and engage with the water is probably more important to most people than having a load of floating steel boxes of various different colours around. 

 

Its all about the water. Boats do make an important contribution to the scene but at the end of the day what would be better for the tax payers? Boats on canals or they themselves having access and engagement with the water? 

 

I think I know the answer to this one !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I wonder if any proper research has been conducted about the public attitude to moored boats on towpaths. 

 

Its easy to say 'people like seeing boats - that is what the canal is for' but if it is just lines of boats blocking the view of the ducks do people actually like this? 

 

I would hazard a guess that being able to see and engage with the water is probably more important to most people than having a load of floating steel boxes of various different colours around. 

 

Its all about the water. Boats do make an important contribution to the scene but at the end of the day what would be better for the tax payers? Boats on canals or they themselves having access and engagement with the water? 

 

I think I know the answer to this one !

 

Especially if you ask a member of the other big group of canal users, the fishermen. 

 

Boats of any description are a PITA to anglers, in multiple ways.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I wonder if any proper research has been conducted about the public attitude to moored boats on towpaths. 

 

Its easy to say 'people like seeing boats - that is what the canal is for' but if it is just lines of boats blocking the view of the ducks do people actually like this? 

 

I would hazard a guess that being able to see and engage with the water is probably more important to most people than having a load of floating steel boxes of various different colours around. 

 

Its all about the water. Boats do make an important contribution to the scene but at the end of the day what would be better for the tax payers? Boats on canals or they themselves having access and engagement with the water? 

 

I think I know the answer to this one !

 

The answer in terms of benefits is some boats but not too many - boats attract land based visitors but you don't need many, one every now and then is good, certainly better than none but also better than wall to wall moorings.

 

There are two locks on the isolated section of the Chesterfield Canal that visitors swarm to, both have a cafe and a trip boat, the trip boat makes five trips a day going through the lock twice on each trip, the waterside is crowded on a nice summers day, tea and cake consumed aplenty - all from just one boat at each lock....

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Especially if you ask a member of the other big group of canal users, the fishermen. 

 

Boats of any description are a PITA to anglers, in multiple ways.

 

 

 

Anglers seem to be a dying breed on canals. Why are they going to spend money to come and walk to a point to sit and fish and maybe catch a fish when they can drive to a spot on a well stocked fishing lake and catch a fish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. When I first saw the magazine Total Carp in a newsagents I misread it. 

 

They like the big ones and you're only really going to get these at the lakes. Couple this with no public footpath or cyclists and no boats and it is a no brainer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

If you see my previous posts you will know that I am not losing such sight - and in any case I deliberately said it was marginal.

And I said 'might'

43 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Especially if you ask a member of the other big group of canal users, the fishermen. 

 

Boats of any description are a PITA to anglers, in multiple ways.

 

 

 

Not quite true, I understand that some anglers like the challenge of catching fish just in front of the bow wave.

 

Either that, or they are just leaving the line out to piss me off. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they wave cheerily with gay abandon as you pass? 

 

This can be a clue as to their mental state. 

 

If they grin inanely and wave like small kids they are probably having a Good Time. 

 

I do this far too often !! 

 

I was often told orf by our maths teacher 'stop grinning inanely' as he was so hilarious I couldn't help it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with gay abandon

 
 
 

EnglishEdit

Prepositional phraseEdit

with gay abandon

  1. (dated) In a happy and carefree way.

 

 

---- 

 

No sexual connotations in the phrase if used properly. But yes it is dated. 

 

Still a good one !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the general public like to see

 Boats moving, doing locks and swing bridges and stuff but are more neutral on moored boats unless they are 'interesting' or they can stop and chat with the boaters. On that note, the occasional moorer is generally much more excited to engage.

 

Other boaters definitely prefer meeting another boat which is moving instead of moored, since it means you don't need to slow or get around it but briefly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

I think the general public like to see

 Boats moving, doing locks and swing bridges and stuff but are more neutral on moored boats unless they are 'interesting' or they can stop and chat with the boaters. On that note, the occasional moorer is generally much more excited to engage.

 

Other boaters definitely prefer meeting another boat which is moving instead of moored, since it means you don't need to slow or get around it but briefly.

 

 

Unless it's coming straight towards you, with so much crap piled on the roof or plants that the steerer can't see you, and is sitting over a noisy engine and/or playing loud music so they can't hear your horn. Even worse if they're a wideboat on a narrow canal... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the real or alleged disparity in use or benefit might be, I don't see how you can make the licence for those without a Home Mooring more than that for those who have one.

 

I understand that there is no requirement for you to keep the boat on the mooring you paid for, and you may explore the system as you like, for as long as you like, within the rules that apply to cruising.  There would be no point in paying extra for a "Cruising Licence" when you could do so with a cheaper Mooring Licence.

 

The increased demand for Moorings would lead to a shortage, and an increase in price. This would cause a rise in cost for all boaters, and due to the shortage, and difficulty in finding one where you would like it. Some boaters would be priced out completely, and the CRT would have to find new mooring sites to satisfy the increased demand.

 

If intent on cruising continuously, then there would be no need for a serviced mooring, and an offside Farmer's Mooring at a lower cost would seem to become an attractive proposition.

 

It would seem inequitable to charge someone more, who is unable to find a mooring due to a shortage, when those with a mooring can use the system in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why inequitable is relevant. The CRT need more money. They have a captive audience and way of getting more money.

 

Its basic business sense to do this. 

 

It isn't about being fair or equitable it is about getting more money.

 

If the result is even more money from moorings and EOG arrangements then all the better. 

 

Equitable Schmequitable. 

 

 

 

 

 

The CRT need to take advantage of their assets. 

 

One of these is towpath moorings. 

 

What do you do? Charge for towpath moorings and put private contractor mooring wardens in place ;) or identify those who use towpath moorings more and increase the amount of money they have to pay? 

 

I can see which one most people with canal boats would prefer. 

typo edit

Edited by magnetman
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.