CC Petition

[KenK]

These apparently are the questions asked in the CC petition, at least according to Narrowboatworld and the response obtained.

 

The questions asked in the petition were:

 

★ Yes I agree that Continous Cruisers should pay a higher license rate equal to the cost of combining the average linear mooring fee with a private boat license fee.

 

★Yes I agree that Wide Beam boats should pay a pro-rata license fee (Length by Breadth).

 

★No I don’t agree with the above.

 

Samantha Clarke tells us that 93% of respondents’ agreed that continuous cruisers should pay a higher licence rate equal to the cost of combining the average linear mooring fee with a private boat licence fee.

 

Also 90% of respondents’ agreed that wide beam boats should pay a pro-rata license fee (length by breadth).

 

Only 1.98% of respondents’ didn’t agree with the above.

 

The results have been submitted to British Waterways, that is at present undertaking a licence consultation process.

 

During 2006 narrowboatworld ran a similar petition, which showed a high percentage believing that continuous cruisers owners should pay more, though wide beam boats were not included.

 

The other thread on this subject went somewhat off topic IMHO. So ignoring all the what is a CC'r arguments etc. would the following make a higher licence fee fair.

 

In exchange for paying a higher licence fee a person CC ing would get a Winter mooring at a place of their choice, first come first served basis. In addition would have the right to overstay the current 14 days in the season for a genuine reason e.g. illness etc. subject to notifying BW. Yes, I know BW are normally ok with this sort of thing but this would be a right not a privlege.

 

I don't see why a widebeam should pay a higher fee as they can only use half the system but it's open to debate.

 

Ken

[Sir Nibble]

I heartily agree with your standpoint on this Ken.

[NB Alnwick]

The other thread on this subject went somewhat off topic IMHO. So ignoring all the what is a CC'r arguments etc. would the following make a higher licence fee fair.

 

Yes it did - so it would be helpful if we all (including me!) can work together to keep this thread on-topic!

 

In exchange for paying a higher licence fee a person CC ing would get a Winter mooring at a place of their choice, first come first served basis. In addition would have the right to overstay the current 14 days in the season for a genuine reason e.g. illness etc. subject to notifying BW. Yes, I know BW are normally ok with this sort of thing but this would be a right not a privlege.

 

That sounds eminently sensible - especially the free Winter mooring.

 

I don't see why a widebeam should pay a higher fee as they can only use half the system but it's open to debate.

 

It is difficult to agree on the widebeam situation because, although they only have access to half the system I am sure they can do as many route miles in a year as most narrowboat do - you could use the same argument for 70 footers on the basis that they cannot access the whole system . . .

 

Final edit to add: We also need to be aware that it is very likely that someone from BW will be reading this!

Edited January 15, 2008 by NB Alnwick

[tony collins]

I don't see why a widebeam should pay a higher fee as they can only use half the system but it's open to debate.

 

Ken

 

I was under the impression that Thames licences were worked out on the square metre already. Is this wrong?

Look, Before anyone shouts at me, I know that this EA water, but nonetheless the principle seems to already been established.

 

Tony

[grahoom]

I was under the impression that Thames licences were worked out on the square metre already. Is this wrong?

 

that's correct. I have a thames license and it is worked out in square metre

[Ernie]

These apparently are the questions asked in the CC petition, at least according to Narrowboatworld and the response obtained.

 

The questions asked in the petition were:

In exchange for paying a higher licence fee a person CC ing would get a Winter mooring at a place of their choice, first come first served basis. In addition would have the right to overstay the current 14 days in the season for a genuine reason e.g. illness etc. subject to notifying BW. Yes, I know BW are normally ok with this sort of thing but this would be a right not a privlege.

I am a CCer and would have no interest in these additional offerings. I actually prefer to be on the move in winter as it is a lovely peaceful time on the canals.

As much as I hate to admit it, I can see the argument that I should perhaps have to pay a higher license fee than a non CCer

[Sir Nibble]

I heartily agree with your standpoint on this Ken.

*sigh* I tried to edit my last post but the edit is still stuck in cyberspace somewhere saying "please wait".

Disregard my last post, quoted here. I disagree with any further charges upon CC'ers, it is simply unfair, therefore, for me at least the issue of winter moorings thrown in simply does not arise.

[barge sara]

I know this has been around before, but why do people persist in mixing the issues of licences and moorings? We pay for both and intend to continue to do so, even when we go 'extended cruising', so that we are sure we have a mooring to go back to.

But if people choose to accept the insecurity of no mooring why on earth should they pay for the privelege of not having one?

 

On the broad beam issue, I would be fine with length by breadth licencing, as long as they introduce a new 'Rivers and Broad Canals' licence which would be cheaper than a full 'Rivers and all canals' licence.

 

John.

MV Sara.

[grahoom]

These apparently are the questions asked in the CC petition, at least according to Narrowboatworld and the response obtained.

 

do you know how many people were involved in the petition? and who were asked to be included in the petition?

[Tomska]

It's neither fair nor reasonable. If they try to impose it I hope cc-ers will respond by witholding payment in protest.

 

93% of respondents’ agreed that continuous cruisers should pay a higher licence rate equal to the cost of combining the average linear mooring fee with a private boat licence fee

 

93%? Really?? How depressing.

[NB Alnwick]

I am a CCer and would have no interest in these additional offerings. I actually prefer to be on the move in winter as it is a lovely peaceful time on the canals.

 

We used to think on these lines but there comes a time when you may want to carry out maintenance (in our case it was on the engine) or re-painting and the option to stay in one place for a month or so has proved very helpful - and it hasn't prevented us from enjoying Winter cruising.

 

As much as I hate to admit it, I can see the argument that I should perhaps have to pay a higher license fee than a non CCer

 

As stated above we can also see the argument and it makes sense provided BW realise that when we tie-up for the night on a remote section of towpath, we do not enjoy the same facilities or security that is offered by an expensive marina. A better way of dealing with the issue would be to offer a discount to those boats that pay for 12 months mooring in an off-line marina but I somehow doubt if they will do that . . .

 

On the broad beam issue, I would be fine with length by breadth licencing, as long as they introduce a new 'Rivers and Broad Canals' licence which would be cheaper than a full 'Rivers and all canals' licence.

 

Now that has the basis of a good scheme . . .

 

Something similar could be extended to boats that are too long to navigate the Northern canals . . .

Edited January 15, 2008 by NB Alnwick

[magpie patrick]

I do get fed up with the politics of envy... Am I mistaken in thinking that NBW represent a sector of society that I would normally categorise as reactionary conservative. That is, they don't like anything that they regard as off beat or somehow someone getting more than they are.I pay BW £600 for an EOG mooring. For this I get to leave the boat at the end of someone's garden for as long as I want: can leave it there 52 weeks a year if I want. CC'ers don't get this, so why should they pay even a token towards it.I don't get to get my car particularly close to the boat: the owner of the house is generous in allowing me use of electricity etc but he doesn't have to, and if I want a pump out it's off to Lyme View 4 miles away. I don't get Marina facilities so why should I pay as much as people who do.Your licence gives you the right to cruise year round: your mooring gives you the option not to do so. I'll also venture that I covered more miles of canal than many CC'ers last year: why should they pay more than me for a licence. (this is not a dig at CC'ers, there is a difference bewtween CCing and having a crazed lust to cruise every inch of navigable waterway!).I'm one of the seven percent. No I don't agree with NBW premise as stated.

 

The variant of a broad canal and river licence is an interesting one though.Just thinking about the broad canal licence and the short canal licence: for whatever reason I quite like the former but not the latter. There is, of course, already a river registration and also some variants like an Anglian Rivers Licence which combines the EA and BW waters leading off the wash.First, would the broad canal licence be avaiable to narrow boats? I live in Bath a fair way from the nearest narrow lock, discount would be handy: if it is enforcement becomes an issue (it's self enforcing for broad beams): if not it seems a bit unfair. Same applies to adjusting for the lack of access to the northern waterways.second: what discount do you think you'd get? To be on the Monmouth and Brecon you get a whacking 25% discount, but you get 33 miles of canal rather than 2500 miles, or in other words you pay 75% of the fee for 1.3% of the waterways! On that scale, the discount for not being able to do the Calder and Hebble will be about ha'penny.

Edited January 15, 2008 by magpie patrick

[Dylan]

IMHO it is utter nonsense to expect somebody to pay for a mooring that they don't have. Licences are licences, mooring fees are mooring fees; never the twain shall meet. It is like being asked to chip in a few bob towards a pay and display car park near your home, even though you don't actually park your car on it.

Before a figure of 93% has any meaning, we need to know who got to vote, and how many voted. I do have a mooring BTW which I am happy to pay for.

 

Not so sure about wide beams;thought needed.

[bottle]

do you know how many people were involved in the petition? and who were asked to be included in the petition?

 

 

It's neither fair nor reasonable. If they try to impose it I hope cc-ers will respond by witholding payment in protest.

 

 

 

93%? Really?? How depressing.

 

Numbers for the petition unknown

 

Those asked, a select few???

 

93% of that select few could be 93 out of 100

 

Without knowing those asked, or how many, this petition is nonsense, I would hope that BW would be aware of the possibility of a rigged petition.

[Keeping Up]

I pay BW £600 for an EOG mooring. For this I get to leave the boat at the end of someone's garden for as long as I want: can leave it there 52 weeks a year if I want. CC'ers don't get this, so why should they pay even a token towards it.

Many people think it is unfair that BW demand a high payment for an EOG mooring. Similarly there are people who consider it wrong for BW to demand a high percentage of turnover from marina operators. Perhaps it would be fairer to scrap these charges; people on EOG moorings and in marinas would be happy because they'd see a decrease in their mooring costs. Naturally BW (who follow market prices, don't they?) would reduce the cost of their own moorings by the same amount.

 

Of course BW would need to recoup the revenue from somewhere. They could do that by increasing everybody's licence fee by the corresponding amount, so that those who were in marinas or on BW or EOG moorings didn't actually pay any different to what they paid before. Of course, this would also mean that anyone who wasn't on such a mooring would be paying more for their licence than they were before ... oh look it's the same proposal as before, but wearing different clothes.

 

You can guarantee that whatever changes may (or may not) be applied to our licencing system, the proposal (like the survey questions that prompted it) will be dressed up in so much "spin" that it will look like the answer to everybody's prayers. So don't believe anything until you've read the small print!

 

(Please note the above does NOT represent a statement of my personal position either for or against any proposal. I haven't finished reading the small print yet!)

[KenK]

I do get fed up with the politics of envy... Am I mistaken in thinking that NBW represent a sector of society that I would normally categorise as reactionary conservative. No I don't agree with NBW premise as stated.

 

The variant of a broad canal and river licence is an interesting one though.

 

To be fair to Narrowboatworld this was nothing to do with them, they, as I did, simply reported it. The petition was by the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators (Hire boat companies).

 

 

At the moment I assume nothing has been decided but if BW did decide to go ahead then having a sensible alternative for consideration is better than just complaining. The more ideas the better.

 

Ken

Edited January 15, 2008 by KenK

[NB Alnwick]

IMHO it is utter nonsense to expect somebody to pay for a mooring that they don't have.

 

It isn't as simple as that - we are frequently expected to pay for facilities that are not available to us all but if we expect BW to provide a well-maintained canal network for us all to enjoy, we should be happy to make a fair contribution towards it.

 

The present licensing system appears to be unsatisfactory to some sectors of the boating community and, on that basis, a proper review aimed at producing a fairer system should be welcome . . .

[WJM]

CCers are by definition making full year round 24x365 use of visitors moorings, while non-CCers will make only occasional intermittent use of them.

 

I agree that license and mooring should be kept separate - but I think if you elect to make year round constant use of visitors moorings then you should pay something for that service. A CCers Mooring License could be introduced and you cant apply for a boat license without showing you have some form of mooring, either permanent or CCing.

[Tomska]

CCers are by definition making full year round 24x365 use of visitors moorings, while non-CCers will make only occasional intermittent use of them.

 

And upkeep of these moorings is supposed to be covered by the licence.

 

This petition is pure sour grapes and it stinks.

[carlt]

Sorry, but what about people who choose to moor in a marina, not paying BW, but are free to continuously cruise throughout the system, using the visitors moorings/ facilities all year round?

[bottle]

CCers are by definition making full year round 24x365 use of visitors moorings, while non-CCers will make only occasional intermittent use of them.

 

I agree that license and mooring should be kept separate -(1) but I think if you elect to make year round constant use of visitors moorings then you should pay something for that service. (2)A CCers Mooring License could be introduced and you cant apply for a boat license without showing you have some form of mooring, either permanent or CCing.

 

Devils advocate:::

 

1. Never use visitor moorings.

 

2. That is how it is now, you declare your mooring or agree to CC.

[Dylan]

And upkeep of these moorings is supposed to be covered by the licence.

 

This petition is pure sour grapes and it stinks.

Agree with both points. Mooring fees are what they say. No mooring, no fee.

[magpie patrick]

CCers are by definition making full year round 24x365 use of visitors moorings, while non-CCers will make only occasional intermittent use of them.

 

This is where it gets complicated though: and bear in mind I'm not a CCer so this isn't vested self interest. Every licence holder has the right to make as much use of the facilities as they want subject to the rules, and the rules are no different once you leave your home mooring. What you are talking about is having a heavy user licence not a CC licence. Ripple spent around 5 months in total not at her home mooring this summer, and covered a around 800 miles and 700 locks. Should I pay extra? Perhaps. Is this heavy use because I don't have a mooring? No.

 

And yes, we do pay for facilities we don't have access to: but only because of the difficulty of seperating things out or because it has been decided that facilities should be supported through tax. Directory enquiries was free once upon a time but that went long ago. Bus services no longer get a general subsidy. Why should those who do not benefit from a PERMANENT mooring be expected to pay for one?

[NB Alnwick]

I agree that license and mooring should be kept separate - but I think if you elect to make year round constant use of visitors moorings then you should pay something for that service. A CCers Mooring License could be introduced and you cant apply for a boat license without showing you have some form of mooring, either permanent or CCing.

 

This suggestion makes a lot of sense - we all have to moor somewhere. Even when continuously cruising we need to tie-up every now and again. BW could alocate flexible on-line moorings to anyone who doesn't have a recognised home mooring for a modest fee and this would solve the issue for everybody - or would it?

[bottle]

Scenario:::

 

As a CCer I have a licence with the appropriate fee to allow me to moor, I travel the canal and would expect a mooring to be available (I have paid for it) but a boater with a marina mooring is there, (how I would know this, I have no idea) would I be within my rights to get him to move as he has not paid the fee to moor on the canal.