BW advisory forum - blimey

[Steilsteven]

.

 

The DBA is there to support wide beams, they are hardly unbiased, and of course have a well known proponent and spokesperson who writes in WW and is known for his flat charging by size and also for his market pricing of all things philosphy. Again, the response in the meeting was polite. However this person does themselves no favours by banging on about not charing by length. BW know a flat charge regadrless of length would be controversial, and many of them (and us boaters) believe it to be wrong. Sadly I didn't get the chance to stand up and give my view that charging a twenty footer the same as my 62 footer would be criminal and counterproductive.

 

For the record I don't think wide beams should pay more, and I have said so on this forum and in my response to BW

 

 

Currently the fee for a 20ft boat is £399.05 and the fee for a 62ft boat is £734.11.If fees were the same for all boats regardless of size they would be around £570.

I fail to see anything remotely criminal or counter productive in this.

Had this system been in place from the begining when annual licences were introduced replacing cargo tolls I don't believe anyone would have thought it unfair.

As I've said before, the size of the boat has nothing to do with it's value,the owners ablility to pay or costs incured to BW.

The real question here is why should the owner of the smaller boat pay less when he is receiving all the services that BW provide the same as anyone else?

[magnetman]

Currently the fee for a 20ft boat is £399.05 and the fee for a 62ft boat is £734.11.If fees were the same for all boats regardless of size they would be around £570.

I fail to see anything remotely criminal or counter productive in this.

Had this system been in place from the begining when annual licences were introduced replacing cargo tolls I don't believe anyone would have thought it unfair.

As I've said before, the size of the boat has nothing to do with it's value,the owners ablility to pay or costs incured to BW.

The real question here is why should the owner of the smaller boat pay less when he is receiving all the services that BW provide the same as anyone else?

 

Interesting point to make. So where do I get a 62x12 barge for less money than a 20ft Dawncraft???

 

Charging a single price to all users will simply price certain people off the waterways.

 

there is a theory which says it is important to encourage entry level boaters because they, if they have a good time and are encouraged, will be the license payers of the future and will upgrade to larger boats which brings in more income. If you price them out of the system to start with the result will be less boaters and increased costs for everyone.

[Steilsteven]

Interesting point to make. So where do I get a 62x12 barge for less money than a 20ft Dawncraft???

>If they were the only two options you'd have a point, you know aswell as I do that it's possble to see a new 20ft boat at a greater price than an old 62ft boat.

Charging a single price to all users will simply price certain people off the waterways.

>Yes possibly true,although I can't see it,but then there are already those that can't afford to own a boat of any size,even if fees were reduced this wouldn't change

 

there is a theory which says it is important to encourage entry level boaters because they, if they have a good time and are encouraged, will be the license payers of the future and will upgrade to larger boats which brings in more income. If you price them out of the system to start with the result will be less boaters and increased costs for everyone.

>Yes, it is a theory and possibly this would be the outcome for a very small minority but, I would say, in the majority of cases people buy small boats because that is what they want.For instance, there are many small cruisers on the River Wey that people have owned for many years,these people get great pleasure from being able to explore the backwaters that larger craft can't access.

 

The costs of owning a small boat are small when compared with a large boat and still would be even if licence fees were the same so owners would be unlikely to be priced off the system just by that.More likely that wide beam owners would be priced off the system (especially if the proposals are taken to the ultimate and having to pay 60% over the odds)

and take their boats to Europe where the costs are considerably cheaper.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Currently the fee for a 20ft boat is £399.05 and the fee for a 62ft boat is £734.11.If fees were the same for all boats regardless of size they would be around £570.

I fail to see anything remotely criminal or counter productive in this.

Had this system been in place from the begining when annual licences were introduced replacing cargo tolls I don't believe anyone would have thought it unfair.

As I've said before, the size of the boat has nothing to do with it's value,the owners ablility to pay or costs incured to BW.

The real question here is why should the owner of the smaller boat pay less when he is receiving all the services that BW provide the same as anyone else?

 

This is what BWAF say on the matter:-

 

The present system crudely uses the length of the boat as a proxy for the owner’s ability to

pay, or for the number of persons the boat can carry. Recognising the deficiencies of this,

other approaches (e.g. insured value) were considered, but none was found preferable.

 

and

 

Charging all boats a flat fee. The flat fee would be £592 (at full 2008 prices). This

would mean a 58.5% increase for the smallest boat, with corresponding reductions for

bigger boats, which we considered unacceptable. A single fee is not, therefore,

recommended.

 

They go on to say that a case exists for skewing charging in favour of shorter craft (i.e. shorter boats will pay proportionally less and longer more) but now is not the time to introduce it.

 

Personally, I see little point in debating alternative charging mechanisms as we will be stuck with what we have for the foreseeable future ...... and what we have is:-

 

• Licencing by length.
  
• A slow erosion of the differential between private and business boats.
  
• Licence increases (in real terms) for private craft but not business.
  
• Attempts to reduce the increase for the many by penalising the few (in the name of fairness)
  
• Little or no consultation with boaters unrepresented by user groups.
  

Regards

 

Allan

 

 

 

 

[Chris Pink]

Just to set things straight the person concerned does not speak for the DBA and hasn't done for a while. All his views are his own and not that of any organisation.

 

Why was he on the CWAF?

 

Currently the fee for a 20ft boat is £399.05 and the fee for a 62ft boat is £734.11.If fees were the same for all boats regardless of size they would be around £570.

I fail to see anything remotely criminal or counter productive in this.

 

Do correct me if I'm wrong but my feeling here is that your boat is nearer 62ft than 20ft?

 

And that it's not a cheap old cruiser you've had for donkey's years and the kids go out for weekends in?

[Phoenix_V]

I've just found this link -

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...n_June_2005.pdf

 

-to a piece of propaganda put out by BW 3 years ago when they were trying to dump upon multi owner boats and ccers like they are doing now with widebeams and river cruisers.

 

First point, that one failed, not sure now how, but it does show they can be stopped. (Not clear though why they are having another punt at ccers having failed once before?) Does anyone remember more about the history of this saga/

 

Second point the document sets out the current system and says (multi users and ccers excepted) there is nothing wrong with it - so what has changed this year other than that they are trying to raise more from boaters than the market will bear and are desperately looking for minorities to hit upon.

 

There is nothing in it for us (boaters) in squabbling about which is the best alternative system, the one we've got is fine, even BW said so not 3 years ago

so lets all support the SOW campaign to get funding from the right sources and tell IWA and any organisations we belong to that is what they should be doing instead of splitting their memberships.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Phoenix_V

[sociable_hermit]

>Yes, it is a theory and possibly this would be the outcome for a very small minority but, I would say, in the majority of cases people buy small boats because that is what they want....

 

The costs of owning a small boat are small when compared with a large boat and still would be even if licence fees were the same so owners would be unlikely to be priced off the system just by that.

 

Ha ha ha! How wrong can you be? A smaller boat will cost less to buy, and (over time) considerably less to moor, assuming some sort of permanent mooring. Many people buy older and smaller boats because it's all they can afford.

 

Interestingly BWAF made a similar mistake in assuming that continuous cruisers would have more money to pay licence fees with, because they had no moorings to pay for. True in maybe 50% of cases but they totally overlooked the other 50% who live in a boat because they can't afford a house, and continually cruise because they can't afford moorings.

 

The bigger issue here is, do you admire the budget boaters for keeping their independence and self esteem, and living the canal life, or do you boot them off for being "cheapskate bloody water gippoes"? Much as semi-permanent hippy boats on visitor moorings get on my nerves, it's a minor issue and they're an interesting part of the scene IMHO. Often very helpful and good humoured people when you get to know 'em, too.

[carlt]

Interesting point to make. So where do I get a 62x12 barge for less money than a 20ft Dawncraft???

.

28', not 20' (and not quite a Dawncraft:

 

clicky

 

But this is a DB:

 

Clicky

 

And, according to you metal heads, the wooden one will cost more to maintain.

Edited October 10, 2008 by carlt

[US Marines]

The bigger issue here is, do you admire the budget boaters for keeping their independence and self esteem, and living the canal life, or do you boot them off for being "cheapskate bloody water gippoes"? Much as semi-permanent hippy boats on visitor moorings get on my nerves, it's a minor issue and they're an interesting part of the scene IMHO. Often very helpful and good humoured people when you get to know 'em, too.

Absolutely perfectly put !

 

You could add to the 'do you admire' question, with 'are you jealous ?'....

 

 

A slightly amended version of an earlier post on a similar thread:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Its easy - just follow the excellent example of what's happening on the roads:

 

1st portion of licence fee : based on how 'polluting' the boat is to the atmosphere of the canal, i.e. 'interesting' boats are cheap, 'boring' boats expensive.

 

2nd portion of licence fee : mileage toll (non-tamperable satnavs reqd in all boats)

 

In addition - BW lengthsmen working on commission to ensure that 'continuous cruising' really is just that - backed up by numerous 'Too Slow' cameras (hypothecated of course) that automatically pick up licence numbers of malingering boats.

 

Live-aboards will require transmitting satnav devices so that Council tax bills can be delivered to their GPS Co-ordinates.

 

 

Perfect !

Edited October 10, 2008 by US Marines

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Why was he on the CWAF?

 

I think you mean BWAF Chris. Sir Stott of the Stort went to the Inaugural Meeting in May 2005 but I don't think he has had any involvement since. The Barge Ass (if I may use the group title taken from some of the minutes!) seems to be Ian Ferguson and Edward Burrell.

 

Regards

 

Allan

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I've just found this link -

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...n_June_2005.pdf

 

-to a piece of propaganda put out by BW 3 years ago when they were trying to dump upon multi owner boats and ccers like they are doing now with widebeams and river cruisers.

 

First point, that one failed, not sure now how, but it does show they can be stopped. (Not clear though why they are having another punt at ccers having failed once before?) Does anyone remember more about the history of this saga/

 

Second point the document sets out the current system and says (multi users and ccers excepted) there is nothing wrong with it - so what has changed this year other than that they are trying to raise more from boaters than the market will bear and are desperately looking for minorities to hit upon.

 

There is nothing in it for us (boaters) in squabbling about which is the best alternative system, the one we've got is fine, even BW said so not 3 years ago

so lets all support the SOW campaign to get funding from the right sources and tell IWA and any organisations we belong to that is what they should be doing instead of splitting their memberships.

 

Re: First point, that one failed, not sure now how, but it does show they can be stopped.

 

Yes, BW's attempt to make multi-users (better known as shared owners) pay the business rate was stopped. Basically, a one man campaign succeeded where user groups failed. I know, I was that man!

 

However, I would say that if I had known the amount of time, effort and personal sacrifice involved I would not have spent 3 years fighting so that a minority of private boaters could continue to be treated as such.

 

 

Re: (Not clear though why they are having another punt at ccers having failed once before?)

 

ccers were rather in the way in the 2005 consultation. BW were trying to make a fundamental change to licencing with the introduction of "low rate" and "high rate" to replace "private" and "business". The first of two written consultations made "use of the system" the differentiator. The argument was that shared ownership boats made heavy use of the system as did hire boats. However, ccers make 365 day use of the system so had to be included. Unfortunately for BW, they had previously been making a lot of noise that ccers were not making sufficient use of the system being moored in one place for considerable periods of time! It was pointed out to BW that they could not have it both ways and a system based on useage would be unfair unless it could be measured. BW then abandoned this proposal and held a second written consultation making number of owners the high/low differentiator.

 

Re: Does anyone remember more about the history of this saga.

 

Yes, but its not something that can be easily explained in a couple of words. I would also point out that the saga is ongoing. Having reached the stage where all shared boats can again licence as private, I have notified BW of my intention to make a complaint and have asked for certain information under the FoI act. This seems to have rattled BW as they have requested a meeting with me to "assure me of BW's good intentions". In short, they have a few maladministration skeletons to hide.

 

The bottom line is that it is possible to take on BW and win. However, it is not for the faint hearted and you have to be prepared for the long game.

 

Regards

 

Allan

[Steilsteven]

28', not 20' (and not quite a Dawncraft:

 

clicky

 

But this is a DB:

 

Clicky

 

And, according to you metal heads, the wooden one will cost more to maintain.

 

Yes and there are many more examples if one is prepared to look, even more extreme than these.

And, with that m'lud I rest my case.

[magpie patrick]

Yes and there are many more examples if one is prepared to look, even more extreme than these.

And, with that m'lud I rest my case.

 

well don't: I'll give you my logic as the owner of a 62 foot narrow boat

 

when I visit popular vistor moorings, i take 62 foot, you could get three dinkies in where mine is: they use less of the congested facilities.

 

Anything under 30 foot stands some chance of sharing a narrow lock. I haven't got a hope. This matters not because of water (although back pumping and water supply cost money) but because of time. Busy locations would be less congested if there were more small boats.

 

Nothing to do with how much you can afford, more to do with efficient use of resources.

[NB Teila]

That assumes that CCs do actually comply with the detailed licensing requirements- the BW/ BWAF report shows that 10% of licensed boats are declared as CC's! And mentions that 500 are currently in the process of having enforcement action taken against them!

 

 

The spin continues..... BW calculates the CC`s by, the don`t know exact number theory, if the boat is`nt registered with a home mooring then it`s a CC`er. So any boat abandoned, not licenced becomes a CC`er. Ergo it`s putting the spin on, approx 28,500 private licensed boats registered, 10% of which are CC`s, 2,850, but how many of them are as above, I`d say about 500......

I would like to know how much BW spend on admin to how much is spend on the up keep of the waterways, I would hazard a guess at maybe 3 times the amount on the admin. Which in my opinon is where the questions should be asked in the first place. If BW stopped the waste, slimmed down the top heavy management, then if there is still a short fall, I for one would be ok with an increase in licence fee. But to keep asking for increases to cover their bad managment should get everyone angry. Stop the bickering between boaters and point the anger in the direction it needs to go.... BW.

 

off the soapbox, getting my coat.....

[Steilsteven]

well don't: I'll give you my logic as the owner of a 62 foot narrow boat

 

when I visit popular vistor moorings, i take 62 foot, you could get three dinkies in where mine is: they use less of the congested facilities.

 

Anything under 30 foot stands some chance of sharing a narrow lock. I haven't got a hope. This matters not because of water (although back pumping and water supply cost money) but because of time. Busy locations would be less congested if there were more small boats.

 

Nothing to do with how much you can afford, more to do with efficient use of resources.

 

Well, just goes to show that you can justify anything if you try hard enough even if they are the most unlikely scenarios imaginable.

[magpie patrick]

Well, just goes to show that you can justify anything if you try hard enough even if they are the most unlikely scenarios imaginable.

 

Are you suggesting sharing narrow locks in "unimagineable?"

 

You haven't been cruising very long have you?

 

I saw it half a dozen times last year, boating on a hired 30-40 footer 15-20 years ago it was the norm

[WillC]

Okay. The Rivers require less maintenance because the bankside is largely owned, and maintained, by someone other than BW.

 

British Waterways have no responsibility for flooding, or flood control. That rests with the EA.

 

True. However, during 2007, BW spent £8 million on flood control. SOW made the point - and still does - that this money should have been reimbursed either by EA, who as you point out have the responsibility for flood control, or a central Treasury contingency fund. This hasn't happened so what exists now is the ludicrous situation where BW - whose funding is already between £25 and £30 million pa short of being able to maintain its network properly, has another £8 million less to keep the waterways in order. This is one of the issues that everone could pursue by writing to their MPs. MPs are bound to reply when one of their constituents writes to them and if you also ask the MP to ask a government department a question, said department must also reply. This would be a good question for either (or both) Defra or the Treasury.

 

Cheers

 

Will Chapman

[WillC]

Ah, the park has several gates, only one of which has the BW padlock, and it's not the obvious (nearest) gate either, but the small one in the corner near to Castle Street. Guess it could do with a sign informing boaters which gate to use....

 

We only found which it was by elimination after we found ourselves locked out...

 

Thanks for that! I would really have liked to have tried out the eateries and taverns in Leicester and will make a point of finding out just where that gate is so that I use it next time I am there. If anyone knows precisely where it is, could they stick a marker on a Google map and post a link - we could then get it generally known around the waterways community (and perhaps even influence Leicester to put a sign up at the mooring).

 

Cheers

 

 

Will

[WillC]

The relative costs of looking after the canals and rivers could then be used to work out what these rates should be. Or are we saying that Rivers are so marginal that there's no difference between Canal and River or Canal Only? Is that why it is as it is?

 

I'm not sure about this assumption that rivers cost less to maintain than canals. One of the biggest chunks of BW's budget is the cost of dredging. There is a classic example of on the Weaver where shortage of funds led BW to delay dredging at Northwich and a yacht which had been assured there was plenty of room went aground and took several days for BW tugs to pull it off. I believe also that lack of funds for dredging is a prime reason for the arm that leads off the Weaver to Frodsham is closed.

 

A personal example with a funny twist is that when we were heading down the Severn this summer (summer! There I go exaggerating again), we were held up at a lock because the gates wouldn't open properly. Reason, the area had just been dredged and the dredger had moved the silt in such a way that it banked up against the lock gates!

 

By the way, someone suggested to me that if the Severn was properly dredged it would have a dramatic positive effect on flood levels - has anyone seen a reference to such a claim?

 

Cheers

 

Will

[sociable_hermit]

True. However, during 2007, BW spent £8 million on flood control. SOW made the point - and still does - that this money should have been reimbursed either by EA, who as you point out have the responsibility for flood control, or a central Treasury contingency fund. This hasn't happened so what exists now is the ludicrous situation where BW - whose funding is already between £25 and £30 million pa short of being able to maintain its network properly, has another £8 million less to keep the waterways in order. This is one of the issues that everone could pursue by writing to their MPs. MPs are bound to reply when one of their constituents writes to them and if you also ask the MP to ask a government department a question, said department must also reply. This would be a good question for either (or both) Defra or the Treasury.

 

Cheers

 

Will Chapman

 

The other way of looking at this is, are they obliged to carry out flood control work? If not, maybe they simply shouldn't bother. No money? No work. Tough.

 

It was really quite foolish of BW to spend the money and then ask for it afterwards. That's how people get into debt, you know.

 

It should only take a couple of narrowboats crashing through the conservatory of one's local MP to see the funding arrive in double quick time. I'd feel sorry for the boat owners, but I'm sure we'd help them out. In fact if it secured £8m worth of funding I'd consider letting mine loose in the next big flood

[WillC]

This thread was originally about the lack of representation of restoration societies on BWAF.

 

During the lunch session at the BW AGM I raised this with BWAF Chair, Nigel Stevens. I made the point that possibly a society had applied in the past but had been turned down because they didn't meet the 'national' rule. If that was the case, I suggested it could be resolved because there were already two near national organisations that whose memberships were largely based on restorations societies, namely, the Northern Canal Society and Southern Canal Society. If these two groups, I wondered hypothetically, were to form a paper amalgamation that requested 'membership' on BWAF, what would BWAF's position be?

 

Nigel said that there was a clause in the constitution that gave the chairman power to accept a group outside of the normal constitutional boundaries. As such he would be willing, if SCA and NCA applied, to consider them as representing a significant enough body of waterways interest give each them a seat on BWAF - in other words, no need for amalgamation.

 

I mentioned this to Brian Kingshott, Chair of the Lichfield & Hatherton Canal Restoration Society, at the SOW Strategy meeting on Saturday and I expect he will pass the news onto the appropriate people at the NCA and SCA.

 

This thread has contained a few implied negatives about BWAF. I'm not convinced they are deserved but now that SOW have a seat there I will keep a watching brief. As I have already said, the mess that has resulted from the BWAF paper on licensing was largely caused by BW jumping the gun and publishing what was essentially an internal discussion document. That discussion document is the subject of much debate amongst user groups that sit on BWAF, and I think that you can rest assured that the views of all those groups will be taken into account before the final recommendations are published. Just be sure to let your particular user group know what you feel - and if you don't have a current user group, could I suggest you check out Save Our Waterways?

 

Cheers

 

 

Will Chapman

Chairman

Save Our Waterways

[Phoenix_V]

I'm not sure about this assumption that rivers cost less to maintain than canals. One of the biggest chunks of BW's budget is the cost of dredging. There is a classic example of on the Weaver where shortage of funds led BW to delay dredging at Northwich and a yacht which had been assured there was plenty of room went aground and took several days for BW tugs to pull it off. I believe also that lack of funds for dredging is a prime reason for the arm that leads off the Weaver to Frodsham is closed.

 

A personal example with a funny twist is that when we were heading down the Severn this summer (summer! There I go exaggerating again), we were held up at a lock because the gates wouldn't open properly. Reason, the area had just been dredged and the dredger had moved the silt in such a way that it banked up against the lock gates!

 

By the way, someone suggested to me that if the Severn was properly dredged it would have a dramatic positive effect on flood levels - has anyone seen a reference to such a claim?

 

Cheers

 

Will

 

 

i'm only going on what independent waterways charge which is usually much less than BW and also this document where BW themselves say it is less

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...n_June_2005.pdf

They dont do any dredging on our waterway (Lea and Stort) the last time it was done (about 30 years ago) the EA or whoever they were then did it.

[Steilsteven]

Are you suggesting sharing narrow locks in "unimagineable?"

 

You haven't been cruising very long have you?

 

I saw it half a dozen times last year, boating on a hired 30-40 footer 15-20 years ago it was the norm

Are you suggesting sharing narrow locks in "unimagineable?"

>If you read what I said again you will see that's not what I said.

 

You haven't been cruising very long have you?

>No, but I have been boating for a very long time and travelled most of the system.

 

I saw it half a dozen times last year, boating on a hired 30-40 footer 15-20 years ago it was the norm

It doesn't count if you were on one of the boats and I can't say I agree with the last bit that would be more like 30-40 years ago.

 

Anyway, I can see this going on and on so perhaps we should agree to differ on this one?

 

In an attempt to bring us back to the original topic, BWAF etc. my own circumstances are; I own a 66ft x 12ft Dutch barge which I keep on a long term mooring on the K&A.

I chose this type of craft because I planned to live aboard and felt a narrow boat would have been too cramped for me.It also represented better value for money especially because I bought it in the Netherlands where they tend to be cheaper than here.

 

Ok, so far so good. Being on the K&A has one distinct disadvantage,it's separated from the rest of the BW system and the only way to access this is to purchase a 'Gold Licence'.

For this year the cost of this was £1034, don't get me wrong, I've never complained about this because I knew from the start that this would be the case but now they want to charge me an extra fifty quid and probably increase this over the next three years to 50% of the BW portion of my licence. This coupled with EAs increases would amount to something in the region of £1500 and what's the justification for this? They think I have a greater willingness to pay! Well I can tell you right here they are very wrong!

My barge is on a wide beam waterway that was built for craft of greater dimensions, so it's not somewhere it shouldn't be.This is also a 'remainder waterway',so it doesn't get all the maintainence that it should, it's also effectively an isolated waterway so why don't we get a 25% discount like others do?

 

Now, when I say we should all pay the same and that it would be a fair system of charging you might see what I mean.If this was the case I would still have to buy a gold licence to have a reasonabe cruising range (about 800 miles incl EA) the cost of this would be in the region of £850 at 2008 prices.On the other hand, the owner of a narrow boat of 57ft or less on the main system would pay £590 and be able to access about 2000 miles.

[Chris Pink]

It doesn't count if you were on one of the boats and I can't say I agree with the last bit that would be more like 30-40 years ago.

 

Anyway, I can see this going on and on so perhaps we should agree to differ on this one?

 

In an attempt to bring us back to the original topic, BWAF etc. my own circumstances are; I own a 66ft x 12ft Dutch barge which I keep on a long term mooring on the K&A.

I chose this type of craft because I planned to live aboard and felt a narrow boat would have been too cramped for me.It also represented better value for money especially because I bought it in the Netherlands where they tend to be cheaper than here.

 

Ok, so far so good. Being on the K&A has one distinct disadvantage,it's separated from the rest of the BW system and the only way to access this is to purchase a 'Gold Licence'.

For this year the cost of this was £1034, don't get me wrong, I've never complained about this because I knew from the start that this would be the case but now they want to charge me an extra fifty quid and probably increase this over the next three years to 50% of the BW portion of my licence. This coupled with EAs increases would amount to something in the region of £1500 and what's the justification for this? They think I have a greater willingness to pay! Well I can tell you right here they are very wrong!

My barge is on a wide beam waterway that was built for craft of greater dimensions, so it's not somewhere it shouldn't be.This is also a 'remainder waterway',so it doesn't get all the maintainence that it should, it's also effectively an isolated waterway so why don't we get a 25% discount like others do?

 

Now, when I say we should all pay the same and that it would be a fair system of charging you .might see what I mean.If this was the case I would still have to buy a gold licence to have a reasonabe cruising range (about 800 miles incl EA) the cost of this would be in the region of £850 at 2008 prices.On the other hand, the owner of a narrow boat of 57ft or less on the main system would pay £590 and be able to access about 2000 miles.

 

Well, come on, this is all a bit "it's all about me" isn't it.

 

you didn't have to buy a 60' x 12' barge. You could have bought a boat that was cheaper to licence

 

All these things are in your choice and to ask that your big boat should pay the same licence as a 20' cruiser is derisory.

 

£50 on £1034? diddums. that is going to hurt.

 

i agree with you that the anomaly of paying to get from the K and A to the rest of BW waters is a bit daft but you are not unique and the only reason it is so much is that the EA charges on footprint.

 

if you want to access the whole of the system then the answer is obvious; buy a 57' narrow boat.

 

Asking everybody else to subsidise your lifestyle choices is the grossest form of selfishness.

 

And there is another clue: "I chose this type of craft because I planned to live aboard and felt a narrow boat would have been too cramped for me."

 

so... even though you have a luxury residence for a price that in housing terms is one of the cheapest in the country you want more?

 

Why don't you just appreciate that you have got what is unobtainable to a whole lot of other people at a price that somewhere along the line is heavily subsidised.

 

Next time you pass a family on a day outing on a small fibreglass cruiser, have a think about your proposals and the complete unfairness of their impact on those people.

 

rant mode off.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Chris Pink

[wrigglefingers]

Well, come on, this is all a bit "it's all about me" isn't it.

 

you didn't have to buy a 60' x 12' barge. You could have bought a boat that was cheaper to licence

 

All these things are in your choice and to ask that your big boat should pay the same licence as a 20' cruiser is derisory.

 

£50 on £1034? diddums. that is going to hurt.

 

i agree with you that the anomaly of paying to get from the K and A to the rest of BW waters is a bit daft but you are not unique and the only reason it is so much is that the EA charges on footprint.

 

if you want to access the whole of the system then the answer is obvious; buy a 57' narrow boat.

 

Asking everybody else to subsidise your lifestyle choices is the grossest form of selfishness.

 

And there is another clue: "I chose this type of craft because I planned to live aboard and felt a narrow boat would have been too cramped for me."

 

so... even though you have a luxury residence for a price that in housing terms is one of the cheapest in the country you want more?

 

Why don't you just appreciate that you have got what is unobtainable to a whole lot of other people at a price that somewhere along the line is heavily subsidised.

 

Next time you pass a family on a day outing on a small fibreglass cruiser, have a think about your proposals and the complete unfairness of their impact on those people.

 

rant mode off.

 

Well said, Chris.