GOODBYE CRT........

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

To be honest, its all finger in the air stuff, obviously- and I could well be way wide of the mark, but I do think an increase of 300% in one year would have a huge impact on boat numbers, and it could send the CRT into a spiral of falling customer numbers and falling licence income, at least in the longer term. 

 

I disagree.

 

Yes it would lead to a collapse in boat prices but I really don't see the gas axe being used to chop up thousands of perfectly useable boats. They will just fall in value to something reasonable given the cost of a licence which reflects the cost of maintaining the track they run on. 

 

And a side effect will be the dozens of new fatties being launched every week would be stemmed, once the cost of licensing them rises to a commercially viable sum. 

 

 

 

[Tony1]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I disagree.

 

Yes it would lead to a collapse in boat prices but I really don't see the gas axe being used to chop up thousands of perfectly useable boats. They will just fall in value to something reasonable given the cost of a licence which reflects the cost of maintaining the track they run on. 

 

And a side effect will be the dozens of new fatties being launched every week would be stemmed, once the cost of licensing them rises to a commercially viable sum. 

 

 

 

 

As I said, none of us know how the boating 'community' will react to a tripling of the licence, so your take might well be totally correct. 

But looking ahead a few years and with the current price increases, its easy to see a 57ft boat paying almost 2k for a licence.

If that amount was tripled they'd be looking at an annual fee of 6k, on top of marina fees and the other costs that have to be met (blacking, BSS, etc). 

 

As an example- a prospective new buyer (with a 10 year boating career in mind) might be looking at an outlay of 40k extra in license fee costs compare to today, when taken over the ownership period of the boat.

 

So a boat that might sell for 60k within the current licence system, might have to fall to 30k, before a potential buyer thinks it makes financial sense, or is even affordable. Times are very hard for lots of people, and I doubt they'll get much better any time soon. 

 

But who knows? Who can really predict the outcome of say 10,000 boats flooding onto the used market within a year or two, and very few new buyers prepared to pay the current prices, and an older and ever-shrinking customer base? 

All the businesses connected with boat building, maintenance, repair, and other general boating businesses and professionals  would also take a major hit if boat numbers fell even by 30%.

With a smaller market size, the equipment suppliers might have to increase their prices, and perhaps a reduced range of equipment types might become available. Some chandlers and other boat-related businesses might close altogether, and who knows whether the fuel boats might struggle to make a decent profit?

With so many fewer boats, maybe some marinas would struggle to meet their costs, so maybe some of them might have to close, or put their prices up for the remaining boaters who continue to pay for moorings.   

 

It's all guesswork of course, and I'm certainly not claiming otherwise- and a lot depends on how many boats would be priced off the system by a tripling of the licence fee. My wild stab in the dark would be that maybe 30% of the current boats would be lost. 

But a great reduction in boat numbers and in boat traffic could have other effects that we cant even guess at until they impact. And those effects could result in significantly increased costs and inconveniences for those remaining boaters who can afford to carry on with their boat ownership.

If boat traffic falls by enough, some facilities might be closed, and even some of the CRT volunteers might be lost. Some of them enjoy the fresh air and exercise, and they wont be interested in sitting around all day to get half a dozen boats through a lock flight (if numbers fall by that much). 

I would say be careful what you wish for, before shaking up the current ecosystem too vigorously. 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Tony1

[Mike Todd]

11 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Nor have I, but I don't read them. I only buy insurance because it is mandatory to get a licence. I would self-insure otherwise. 

Yiu would have to be very wealthy to be able, genuinely, to cover yourself for third party.

[Momac]

8 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Never had more than 3rd party insurance. No point in comprehensive for mine.

Considering the clause quoted that 3rd party cover could also be invalidated if the boat was found to be non compliant with BSS.

18 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

You would have to be very wealthy to be able, genuinely, to cover yourself for third party.

That's correct.

But thankfully a minimum of £2Million 3rd party  insurance cover  is required in order to obtain a license. 

[magnetman]

9 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

Surely the biggest difference between the Thames and canals is the mooring cost. Probably twice the cost on the Thames compared to canals outside London. As a long term boater on the Thames, both recreational and commercial I am fed up with these huge wide beam boats and barges. They take up most of the moorings meant for cruising and hire  boats on the 24hour moorings and just seem to move around the same moorings or stay there until they get pushed off. They spend ages at water points and are a general pain. If you want to live on a boat find a residential mooring or go into a marina which is going to cost you a lot more than the license fee.

The TC provided these 24 hour moorings for cruising boats not houseboats.

 

Its a tricky one for the EA to deal with. 

 

No patrols any more. Quite a lot of sinking and unregistered craft around which should be no.1 priority. The wide bean canal Boats are taking over its been happening for a while and if people are sensitive to pricing on CRT water there will be more of these. 

 

It won't change. 

 

Private land owners are onto it so places like Medmenham, which used to be more of a leisure type mooring. are filling up I think Steve has about 10 there now at least in the non flood season permanent non moving residential craft.

 

Same goes for Cookham. You can understand the land owners being happy with the money. Especially in the winter. 

 

EA owned sites are tricky. Lock sites are dealt with by the keepers. That makes sense. They are in charge. Good because someone needs to be.

 

Remote EA mooring sites and land parcels which they own are in theory managed by the patrol Boats but in reality they very rarely come out. EA did have a contractor (District Enforcement) but this was a failure. 

 

Its an inevitable outcome that there will be more and more floating apartments turning up. Its one of those things that can't not happen. 

 

It does cause some issues for pleasure boaters and people have trouble finding moorings. Even worse they may find a mooring only to be listening to the drone of someone else's stationary diesel engine when moored somewhere peaceful in the evening. 

 

Things have changed now. From the EA perspective a registered wide bean is a Good Thing because of the pay by are fee structure. 

 

To be honest the EA have a lot more important things to be doing than dealing with registered Boats even if they are cluttering up all the moorings. 

 

 

[Mike Adams]

9 hours ago, The Grey Goose said:

Thats officially documented is it or just the way that you would like things to be?

That is exactly the response I would have expected. It's all about entitlement and not conforming to rules and conventions. I suggest you read the Thames Launch bylaws. Further down river abuse of mooring sites and non private banks has led to draconian council rules to prevent abuse of temporary mooring rules and conventions and this will inevitably lead to further restrictions. The truth is that if you want to keep and live legitimately on a large boat on the Thames you need very deep pockets. 

[DShK]

Happy boxing day!

[Momac]

10 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 

Or people aren’t that bothered about another widebeam owner going on about the cost of his licence and moving  onto somewhere cheaper. Thread drift? Or something more interesting than the OP going on about saving £200 a year?💷💷

Its not really about one person saving £200 per year 

The OP is now paying the EA while previously he presumably had a Gold  license where the license fee would have been split between  the EA and C&RT (please correct me if I am wrong)

So the C&RT are losing out in his case by part of the annual license fee . 

 

If lots of wide beam owners do the same by moving to EA waters  then C&RT will not see the increase in income that they might have expected.

Surely widebeams will become less popular on C&RT water due to the license fee increases (which will suit some folks). So, with time,and due to the reduced  numbers of widebeams the narrowboats that remain on C&RT waters will have to see corresponding license fee increases .

 

.

 

[magnetman]

8 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

9 hours ago, The Grey Goose said:

 

"Further down river abuse of mooring sites and non private banks has led to draconian council rules to prevent abuse of temporary mooring rules and conventions and this will inevitably lead to further restrictions. "

 

(difficult quote boxes to handle) 

 

It is getting interesting further down the River. Elmbridge is doing a PSPO. Some people calling for more of these. Windsor and Maidenhead may look at similar or request a byelaw. Mainly to deal with Maidenhead. 

 

We will see I guess but yes the restrictions down the bottom end are quite severe. Richmond got a byelaw a number of yars ago which states one hour on their land after which it is an offence. Thats serious and the Elmbridge PSPO is the next one. 

 

Runnymede and Windsor/Maidenhead both seem to be doing some firm collection of mooring fees by bailiffs which is of course one approach.

 

Maidenhead even asked the bin men to do it at one point... 

 

 

 

 

 

In this mix of competing interests one must never forget the locals. They may want to sit on a bench and look at the River or a changing scene rather than the same thing all the time. 

[Tonka]

Just to think that it was not that long ago that the Thames user groups were actively pushing for CRT to take over the Thames as they could see CRT investing more money into the Thames then EA were 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 hours ago, Tony1 said:

I would imagine that if they tripled the cost of the license next year (and with an even higher increase for CCers), that would drive thousands of boaters away from the canals. I would probably be one of them, to be honest. 

So how many boaters would they lose by tripling the licence fee? None of us really know, but my guess is it could easily be in the order of 20-30%.

 

 

The trust is required to undertake an Equalities Impact Assesment and they have produced a 10 page document assessing the impact of the new licence fees on each category of the licence holders.

 

Eg : widebeam surcharges can be waived -

Our equality adjustment process allows for the widebeam surcharge to be waived for any boater that requires a wider boat due to a disability, for example to allow them to move more freely in a wheelchair or to have additional space to store equipment required due to a disability. In other words, disabled boaters who require a larger boat due to their additional needs will have the additional costs associated with a licence for larger vessels waived

 

Report summary :

The Trust, alongside organisations such as the Waterway Chaplains, can provide welfare support including signposting to financial support and help with benefits applications. We can also offer boaters the option to spread payments for licence fees across the year by direct debit, and for those facing extreme financial difficulties, can offer support with payment plans. Housing benefit/universal credit support is available for those who are on very low income. An increase in boat licence fees would be covered by housing benefit/universal credit. Assistance to claim benefits can be provided (as above)

 

Purpose of EIA

This EIA is intended to help us understand the possible impact of the proposed changes on our customers with additional needs (primarily those from equalities groups) and to ensure that any future decision about boat licence pricing is based on equalities evidence and is taken having due regard to any equalities impacts of that decision. This assessment helps us to identify any potential measures that might mitigate the negative impacts on equalities groups from the proposals and ensure that we do not discriminate against any protected group.

 

The Trust has identified the following specific potential impacts and how they can be mitigated.

 

A) Increased licence fees will impact on the ability of certain boaters to afford to continue to boat. In extreme cases, an increase in the licence fee could impact some boaters ability to continue to live on the waterway and render them homeless.

 

Impact

 

We have considered average income information from the most recent UK census to see if any groups are more likely to have lower incomes and therefore may find the impact of any increase to boat licence fees greater than other groups.

 

43% of all those who responded to the boat licence consultation stated that their household income was below £30,000 per annum. The Office for National Statistics estimates that from the most recent data available, the median household income was £30,500. 1 Although this suggests that the household income for a significant minority a boaters is below the median, the current average licence fee is also well below comparable costs for land-based accommodation.

 

27% of boaters responding to the BLP review consultation indicated their household income was below £20,000. The average annual boat licence fee as of October 2022 was £856.63, this would be equivalent to approximately 4.3% of a £20,000 annual household income. This is considerably lower than what households on median income on accommodation costs.

 

The 2021 UK Census states that private renters on a median household income could expect to spend 26% of their income on a median-priced rented home in England compared with 23% in Wales in the financial year ending March 2021. London was the least affordable region with a median rent of £1430 being equivalent to 40% of median income.

 

2 It is important to note that the cost of a boat licence is only part of the cost of owning and/or living on a boat. Maintenance costs, and mooring fees (for those with a home mooring) would all be additional costs. The cost of maintaining and running a boat will depend on different factors. For example, how a boat has been maintained, or the age of boat (older boats are likely to require more maintenance). Even taking these additional costs into account, accommodation costs for living on a boat are regarded as a much more affordable than land-based housing costs.

 

A rise in the costs of the boat licence would increase the proportion of income liveaboard boaters spend on accommodation, this would impact most on those on lower or fixed income (see below). However, the boat licence increase would have to be very high before it impacted significantly on the affordability to live on a boat. Even if the average boat licence price were to double, therefore increasing the accommodation costs for living on a boat, the cost of living on a boat would still be well below that spent on accommodation costs by households on a median income in England and Wales, and less than a quarter of that spent by households on a median income in London. Boaters who continuously cruise do not pay a mooring fee, or for accessing water, Elsan, or refuse facilities provided by the Trust, so the cost of living on a boat would remain comparatively more affordable than median-priced rented homes on land.

 

Although there is no income data available for all equality groups, the ONS state that income inequality for retired households remains consistently lower than that of nonretired households. The UK government also report that there is a disability pay gap with disabled persons earning 13.8% less than non-disabled persons3 . The UK government also report that there is a gender pay gap of 8.3%. The ONS state that the ethnicity pay gap differs across regions and is largest in London (23.8%) and smallest in Wales (1.4%) 4 . Older people, those who are pregnant or disabled, can also be subject to reduced or fixed income due to personal circumstances or inability to work. Even where benefits are available to support certain groups, such as disabled people, these are to help cover the additional costs they experience as a disabled person, and not as additional unallocated income. Increases in the licence fee could be felt more acutely by these groups. The added cost of an increase in the boat licence could be a contributing factor in their ability to continue to boat or to continue to live aboard their boat. The increase would have a greater impact on those boaters living aboard their boat; for those who could no longer afford to live aboard their boat, this could lead to homelessness and the need to seek housing provision from their local counci

[magpie patrick]

56 minutes ago, MartynG said:

If lots of wide beam owners do the same by moving to EA waters  then C&RT will not see the increase in income that they might have expected.

 

Surely widebeams will become less popular on C&RT water due to the license fee increases 

 

.

 

 

Pricing in any market is used for two purposes, to raise revenue and to reduce demand - to some extent the point of the wide beam surcharge is for the purpose of reducing demand as well as raising revenue. 

 

There may have been no surcharge if there hadn't been a sudden influx of the things, especially on waterways that aren't really suitable. 

 

The constant pushing of boundaries over the last two decades was going to get a reaction somewhere down the line - large boats and more boats without a home mooring, both with some people seeking to find the absolute limit in terms of size or of minimum movement, and sometimes both - no, they can't stop you doing it, but they can use charges to discourage you from doing so.

[peterboat]

43 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Pricing in any market is used for two purposes, to raise revenue and to reduce demand - to some extent the point of the wide beam surcharge is for the purpose of reducing demand as well as raising revenue. 

 

There may have been no surcharge if there hadn't been a sudden influx of the things, especially on waterways that aren't really suitable. 

 

The constant pushing of boundaries over the last two decades was going to get a reaction somewhere down the line - large boats and more boats without a home mooring, both with some people seeking to find the absolute limit in terms of size or of minimum movement, and sometimes both - no, they can't stop you doing it, but they can use charges to discourage you from doing so.

I agree with you, far to many narrowboats on unsuitable waterways, they waste space for widebeams which are the right boat for that waterway. 

[The Grey Goose]

25 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I agree with you, far to many narrowboats on unsuitable waterways, they waste space for widebeams which are the right boat for that waterway. 

Lol , take that haters.  Not to mention all the damage they do to lock gates by being lazy and squeezing through just one open gate and shaving wood off the other gate causing it to leak in the middle.

Edited December 26, 2023 by The Grey Goose

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

3 hours ago, MartynG said:

Its not really about one person saving £200 per year 

The OP is now paying the EA while previously he presumably had a Gold  license where the license fee would have been split between  the EA and C&RT (please correct me if I am wrong)

So the C&RT are losing out in his case by part of the annual license fee . 

 

If lots of wide beam owners do the same by moving to EA waters  then C&RT will not see the increase in income that they might have expected.

Surely widebeams will become less popular on C&RT water due to the license fee increases (which will suit some folks). So, with time,and due to the reduced  numbers of widebeams the narrowboats that remain on C&RT waters will have to see corresponding license fee increases .

 

.

 

 Do you think the EA will tolerate the mass migration of continuous mooring Widebeams and Narrowboats from CaRT waters onto their waters, their leisure moorings/water points/Sanitary Stations or do you think they will do what CaRT has done and increase licence fees to pay for the extra hassle? 
 When it becomes a problem I think they will follow CaRTs direction.

1 hour ago, The Grey Goose said:

Lol , take that haters.  Not to mention all the damage they do to lock gates by being lazy and squeezing through just one open gate and shaving wood off the other gate causing it to leak in the middle.

Just like widebeams smashing into gates with 30 ton+ boats they can’t handle. Why do you think everyone hates widebeams? Most of the time its the owner's that are the problem, just like the problem Narrowboat owners.

[magnetman]

The Thames registration is already charged by area so in some ways bigger wider Boats are a benefit to the navigation authority. More money in (assuming they are registered and paying). The more interesting thing I think may be how locals will react to areas of the riverbank being annexed by residential Boats. It could become a talking point. 

 

There will be comments I believe. 

 

Land owners need to be a little bit careful not to draw attention in this regard. Someone will be watching. 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, The Grey Goose said:

Not to mention all the damage they do to lock gates by being lazy and squeezing through just one open gate

 

How does a 10 foot, an 11 foot, a 12 foot or, god forbid, my 14 foot beam fit thru a single gate ?

[magnetman]

Make the lock bigger ? 

 

 

Out of interest a little more detail on the PSPO proposed for Elmbridge (Basically around the Hampton Caught (ouch) area of the Thames). 

 

Interesting how they arrr taking Boat dwellers quite seriously. 

 

https://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/environment/unauthorised-moorings/proposed-pspo-against-unauthorised-mooring#:~:text=Consultation was undertaken from February,to Hampton Court bridge (Parrs

Edited December 26, 2023 by magnetman
edit for environmental reasons

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

How does a 10 foot, an 11 foot, a 12 foot or, god forbid, my 14 foot beam fit thru a single gate ?

 Maybe he’s a continuous moorer and has never done a lock? Or hasn’t moved it yet since he bought it?

Edited December 26, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[magnetman]

The reference was concerning narrow Boats using broad locks with gates which open individually. 

 

It was a 'wide v narrow' conflict comment. Assumption being that owners of narrows hate the wide ones. 

 

In terms of the Thames this is actually erroneous because the majority of pleasure craft which use the River are not narrow. They are plastic. 

 

 

 

Everybody hates wide beam canal Boats especially those with pram hoods. 

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

The reference was concerning narrow Boats using broad locks with gates which open individually. 

 You don’t say 👍😂

[magnetman]

This seems to be the ideal opportunity going forwards to do a spot of light scapegoating. 

 

Everyone needs scapegoats. 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

This seems to be the ideal opportunity going forwards to do a spot of light scapegoating. 

 

Everyone needs scapegoats. 

 

Or "Escape goats", to quote the eggcorn originated by Jade Goody.

 

[magnetman]

Drive them orf the cliff I say ! 

[The Grey Goose]

42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

How does a 10 foot, an 11 foot, a 12 foot or, god forbid, my 14 foot beam fit thru a single gate ?

Well it doesnt , Im talking about NB's only opening 1 gate.

32 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The reference was concerning narrow Boats using broad locks with gates which open individually. 

 

It was a 'wide v narrow' conflict comment. Assumption being that owners of narrows hate the wide ones. 

 

In terms of the Thames this is actually erroneous because the majority of pleasure craft which use the River are not narrow. They are plastic. 

 

 

 

Everybody hates wide beam canal Boats especially those with pram hoods. 

What is the beef with WB's from NB's other than jealousy?

I have a small car , I don"t hate everybody with a large car or caravan or motorhome or artic lorry we all share the same roadspace.

Its only a few canals that NB's have to share with bigger boats anyway.

Edited December 26, 2023 by The Grey Goose