The 'Wide' Narrow boat - Licencing

[Derek R.]

As has been alluded to in the Pegasus thread, the extract from the BWAF licencing

sub-group report pdf.

Full report here: http://tinyurl.com/595lav

 

(BWAF = British Waterways Advisory Forum):

----------

 

8. Wide beam boats

 

8.1. If size is to be the main determinant of fee levels, then many contributors argue that beam should be considered as well as length. There are about 5,500 boats over 2.1m beam.

8.2. We considered the counter-argument that broader boats have significant restriction of range. We noted that there are other boats whose cruising range is restricted by length, draft or air draft, and that in some areas wide beam boats cannot share locks and hence use more water.

8.3. We concluded that these principles should stand: that all boats should pay on a unified basis; and that the fee should relate to the size of the boat, including beam.

8.4. We considered two options:

 

(a) Option 1:

8.4.a.1. We considered the effect of adding 10% or a flat £50 to the fees of all such boats. A 10% increase would raise about £190k in a full year compared with £200k for the £50 flat fee. The supplement for wide boats on river-only licences would be 40% lower than for canal licences as required under the 1971 Act. We believe the percentage supplement to be slightly fairer.

 

( Option 2

8.4.b.1. We considered the effect of increasing the fees of wide boats according to the following formula:

2.1m - + 10%

2.6m - + 20%

3.1m - + 30%

3.6m - + 40%

4.1m - + 50%

4.6m - + 60%

 

8.4.b.2. This would raise about £396k in a full year, bearing in mind that the 40% river discount would carry across.

8.4.b.3. Because this would significantly increase the fees for the very largest boats, BWAF recommends that the formula be introduced over say, 3 years, starting with 10% or a £50 flat fee in 2009/10.

 

© BWAF believes that such charges would go some way towards redressing what many boaters see as unfairness, and recommends that a wide-beam supplement be introduced, following consultation on Options 1 and 2 above.

(d) It was reported to us that the governing body of DBA [Dutch Barge Association?] would oppose the introduction of supplementary charges for wide beam boats."

 

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

 

From the above it can be perceived that the "extensive consultation" undertaken in 2007 apparently did not include the HNBOC or other individuals with historic narrow boats of seven foot (and often a 'bit') in width. Did they want us not to know, or was it shrouded in some questionnaire?

 

Have the BWAF simply not been able to use a measuring device and chosen 2.1m (6'10") as a convenient figure believing all narrow boats are within such a measurement - or are they genuinely seeking to jeopardise their standing as 'guardians of our waterway heritage' (not that I personally have any belief in the latter) and through the pockets of those individuals who take on the upkeep and maintenance of historic craft when BW themselves fail so miserably. Grants for buildings, but not for boats. So they fade, peel, crumble away, are stripped of everything, then offered at auction. Guardians of the purse only. Of course that is necessary, but at what cost?

 

There are listed 27,968 registered boats. How many of these are Historic narrow boats of a nominal seven foot beam, and hereafter charged as "Wide" boats for the sake of maybe three inches and another fifty quid a throw?

 

WRITE - the deadline for comment is the 7th November 2008. You'll doubtless get an automated response but do it - and put pen to paper too.

consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk

Simon Salem: Marketing and Customer service Director.

 

WRITE as groups, WRITE as individuals - it must be made clear to all concerned that narrow boats can be as wide as 2.2m (7' 2.6", and that within such they are capable of using narrow locks, and as has pointed out elsewhere, the six foot ten inch standard chosen by most modern boat builders was due to certain locks causing pinch problems through maintenance inadequacies.

 

WRITE - because this is either ignorance - or another stealthy slice from our pockets.

 

Email or snail mail or both - but WRITE. It may be an oversight, but if it gets written into the book uncontested - we'll all be paying yet more.

 

And if you want an example:

 

Subject: Boat Licencing Paper 5th September 2008 - response

 

"Dear Sir,

 

I write with regard to the subject heading and note that the chosen limit for a 'narrow' boat has been 2.1m. (6'10")

 

Does the Board intend to categorise the hundreds of historic narrow boats that were built to a design width that varied from seven feet, to seven feet and one inch as 'Wide' boats? All these craft are capable of navigating narrow beam locks and canals and are not restricted to wide beam waterways, unless inadequate maintenance to locks and structures in a minority of cases has caused same to reduce the designed width, hence the 'new build' standard of 6'10".

 

To have the 'historic boat' reduction in licence fee rescinded at some future date is bad enough. To now have the ignominy of being classified as 'Wide' boats for the seeming catch of another fifty quid a throw, is insult to injury.

 

A great many of the historic narrow boats that are lovingly kept, restored and shown to the public at events around the system are done from the private purse, for which they receive at best a word of thanks, and at worst thrown stones and theft. In comparison to the condition of some craft at National museum sites, it is the private historic boat owner who should be receiving greater discounts for protecting a National heritage.

 

1. 
   * Can you please advise me that the 2.1m width limit is an error of judgement, and should read 2.2m?
   

 

1. 
   * Failing that, can you please explain why historic narrow boat owners are to be singled out for inclusion into a category that they do not fit?
   If ever there was another incentive to 'give up' - this is one. And who would take care of another 'heritage' boat - British Waterways?
   

 

R.S.V.P."

 

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

Of course, if we are to take the 'Report' word for word - it will only apply to boats 13m long - won't it!

[carlt]

All good points but the very notion of charging more for any boat incapable of using the whole system is wrong.

 

I was once told, by a BW patrol officer that I was one of the few people who owned a 71' 6" long boat who actually declared the extra foot and a half, putting my boats in the highest tax bracket.

 

He said most people at BW thought that 70' was the maximum length, anyway, so he'd never heard of anyone being questioned about it.

 

I would imagine that any narrow boat 7' and over (Usk was 7'4", with her chains off) will just declare narrow boat status and get away with it.

 

The real injustice, here, is not the complete ignorance of narrow boat dimensions but the notion that it is fair that wide beam owners should subsidise the waterways they have no access to, even more than they are already doing.

[David Schweizer]

All good points but the very notion of charging more for any boat incapable of using the whole system is wrong.

 

I was once told, by a BW patrol officer that I was one of the few people who owned a 71' 6" long boat who actually declared the extra foot and a half, putting my boats in the highest tax bracket.

 

He said most people at BW thought that 70' was the maximum length, anyway, so he'd never heard of anyone being questioned about it.

 

I would imagine that any narrow boat 7' and over (Usk was 7'4", with her chains off) will just declare narrow boat status and get away with it.

 

The real injustice, here, is not the complete ignorance of narrow boat dimensions but the notion that it is fair that wide beam owners should subsidise the waterways they have no access to, even more than they are already doing.

 

This subject is already under discussion in "General Boating" but the point we need to make is that if the arguements to drop the propsal is lost, and BW do decide to go ahead with charging a supplelemt for wide boats, the starting point shoud be more than 2.1 metres to accomodate historic narrowboats and many early recreational craft which were built to the same dimensions.

[carlt]

This subject is already under discussion in "General Boating" but the point we need to make is that if the arguements to drop the propsal is lost, and BW do decide to go ahead with charging a supplelemt for wide boats, the starting point shoud be more than 2.1 metres to accomodate historic narrowboats and many early recreational craft which were built to the same dimensions.

Why? I don't see the need for a fall back position to be established before the fight for the real injustice is lost.

 

It is just as devisive, if the historic/older boats start arguing their corner, at the expense of another group of boaters.

 

There's already enough carping about ccers without alienating wide beam boat owners too.

[WJM]

They wont be basing this on your average width throughout the year. I would have thought an empty former working narrowboat could easily have 6 inches pulled in with chains. So come the big visit to BW's new gauging facilities (!) you would have no problems - so stop worrying.

[alan_fincher]

I would have thought an empty former working narrowboat could easily have 6 inches pulled in with chains.

Six inches!

 

I've seen some spread ones, but not that spread usually!

 

Two or three might be more typical, I'd have thought.

 

You can't make them any narrower than is forced by the bulkhead at the front of the cabin, either, unless you want a corrugated bulkhead and roof!

[Liam]

How do you pull the sides in on an ex working boat with a full length cabin conversion, which is over 6ft 10 for whatever reason?

[carlt]

Six inches!

 

I've seen some spread ones, but not that spread usually!

 

Two or three might be more typical, I'd have thought.

 

You can't make them any narrower than is forced by the bulkhead at the front of the cabin, either, unless you want a corrugated bulkhead and roof!

I measured Gertrude at 7'9" (2.3622m), when I was contemplating towing her back to Braunston. She was truly egg-timer shaped and I didn't think I could chain her in enough to get up the oxford, without breaking her and there was no way she was going down the Thames and up the GU.

Edited September 17, 2008 by carlt

[Steilsteven]

Should restored Leeds and Liverpool short boats, Humber Keels or any other wide ''Historic'' boat have to pay this outrageous supplement then?

Stop pulling your chains in and start campaigning about the real issue here that charging based on beam is totally unfair and unjustifiable.

For that matter, charging based on craft dimensions is totally unfair and unjustifiable.

 

British Waterways seem to be succeeding with their divide and rule policy, I've never seen so much bickering as their has been recently, we should all be standing together rather than behaving like it's some form of disease that can be avoided with the right credentials.

 

Anyway, some wide beams are described as wide beam narrow boats

[blackrose]

© BWAF believes that such charges would go some way towards redressing what many boaters see as unfairness, and recommends that a wide-beam supplement be introduced, following consultation on Options 1 and 2 above.

 

And others see as jealousy

Edited September 17, 2008 by blackrose

[Derek R.]

And others see as jealousy

 

In your dreams - I've been that route.

[Roger Gunkel]

I'm not quite sure why anybody with a particular type of boat should see themselves as a special case. Those that restore historic boats may well be preserving part of our heritage, but it is their choice and they presumably get enjoyment from it. Perhaps I could plead a case for special treatment, because I bought a new boat, thus helping to preserve the boat building industry!

 

All boats take up a certain amount of water space and personally I think that the Broads Authority got it about right by charging a rate based on the plan size, length x width. My widebeam takes up more water space than a narrow boat and rather than being charged some sort of beam supplement, I would quite happily pay a standard rate based on the plan area. That would also mean that unusually narrow boats would also be treated equally; we would all then just be 'boats'.

(edited to change careless wording)

Roger

Edited September 18, 2008 by Roger Gunkel

[alan_fincher]

Roger,

 

That sounds very honest of you!

 

However, assuming you don't already, would you be happy to pay mooring charges on a similar basis, or should that be "by length" or "by berth"?

 

A hard one I know, as moored linearly a wide beam takes no more space than narrow, but on pontoons it can take the space of two narrow beams.

 

Or should charging depend on mooring type?

[Derek R.]

I'm not quite sure why anybody with a particular type of boat should see themselves as a special case. Those that restore historic boats may well be preserving part of our heritage, but it is their choice and they presumably get enjoyment from it. Perhaps I could plead a case for special treatment, because I bought a new boat, thus helping to preserve the boat building industry!

 

All boats take up a certain amount of water space and personally I think that the Broads Authority got it about right by charging a rate based on the plan size, beam x width. My widebeam takes up more water space than a narrow boat and rather than being charged some sort of beam supplement, I would quite happily pay a standard rate based on the plan area. That would also mean that unusually narrow boats would also be treated equally; we would all then just be 'boats'.

 

Roger

 

The boat building industry is alive and well - in Poland. That in this country is also busy not only building new, but repairing existing and historic craft (though who knows how the downturn in the economy will affect it). At some time in the future your 'new built' will require anodes and perhaps plating. Will you then patronise the boatyard for another new boat - or get the one you have repaired?

 

This is not a case of pleading for special treatment, it's a case of getting 'Waterways' to recognise a long standing dimension of what the standard gauge of narrow canals and their craft actually were - and should still be - rather than castigate those with boats a couple of inches or so over what has been taken as the new build beam standard of six feet ten inches.

 

Some time ago on Thames, boat licences were issued on length times breadth - the area covered. It might seem a more reasonable system, but most of the river was accessible to most of the boats. With the canals this is less so. It could be argued that as wide boats cannot access all the system, they should - length for length perhaps - pay less. But seeing so many places where wide boats cause problems for others when passing - one wonders. Not for no reason did 'Progress' and I assume 'Pioneer' also, get left to carry out maintenance duties only.

 

I like Dutch barges, our first boat was one. They are characterful and different. Cannot say the same about some modern tin boxes - I'm sure they fulfil a task, but they are uneasy on the eye. Modern wide beam boats - and by that refer to those ten feet or more in breadth - seem to be a product of the wallet and ego. Their place on the majority of our existing canal system is one of some debate, but that is not what this thread is about.

 

As stated - the issue needs to be complained about and clarification obtained - please write to BW and let them know.

 

PS The: 'Out of office automated reply from the Mooring consultation team' from the email address within the document - in addition, try enquiries.hq@britishwaterways.co.uk Or write snail mail:

 

British Waterways Head Office & Customer Service Centre

64 Clarendon Road

Watford, Herts.

WD17 1DA

 

Simon Salem whose name appears within the pdf document, is Director of Customer Services. Should be based at Watford but unsure.

[Roger Gunkel]

Roger,

 

That sounds very honest of you!

 

However, assuming you don't already, would you be happy to pay mooring charges on a similar basis, or should that be "by length" or "by berth"?

 

A hard one I know, as moored linearly a wide beam takes no more space than narrow, but on pontoons it can take the space of two narrow beams.

 

Or should charging depend on mooring type?

 

Hi Alan,

 

My post should have said length x beam. I must be losing my marbles, thats about 3 stupid typos recently

 

I think moorings are slightly different, on a linear mooring, as you say, it should be based on length, but if you are taking up the space of two boats on finger moorings, then I think the mooring owner would be right to charge for two spaces. Sea going boats in coastal marinas seem to pay by length with the marinas having wider berths for wider boats. Also with seagoing boats there is always the choice of finding swinging or drying out moorings for those that don't want to pay marina prices.

I suppose space is less available on inland waterways so people seem to charge whatever they can get away with.

 

Roger

[Roger Gunkel]

The boat building industry is alive and well - in Poland.

 

 

I like Dutch barges, our first boat was one. They are characterful and different. Cannot say the same about some modern tin boxes - I'm sure they fulfil a task, but they are uneasy on the eye. Modern wide beam boats - and by that refer to those ten feet or more in breadth - seem to be a product of the wallet and ego. Their place on the majority of our existing canal system is one of some debate, but that is not what this thread is about.

 

My comment about new boats was tongue in cheek to make the point that you can find reasons for all sorts of special cases. My boat was also built in the UK! When my boat needs repairing or new anodes (again) I will take it wherever I choose and won't expect a reduction in my licence fee for any reason.

 

Your comments regarding modern widebeams are purely your own opinion and many would disagree with you. Looks are a very personal point of view and I have seen a number Dutch barges that I would see as very ugly and totally impractical to live on. To state that modern widebeams are a product of "wallet and ego" sounds a little elitiste from an ex DB owner, particularly in view of the cost of Dutch barges in good condition. Even a fully fitted widebeam to live on is going to cost far less than the cheapest house, so perhaps wallet and ego would be more applicable to those who can afford both a house and a boat! I would consider widebeams to be the product of a market requiring a comfortable spacious home with room for the requirements of modern living, rather than a quirky narrow tube which is rather how I see narrowboats. (just my view) As regards widebeams not being able to access the whole of the canal system, so what! If it is the decision of the purchaser to put his wide beam on a narrow system, then that is their choice. If I bought a large motor caravan that couldn't get down narrow lanes, I wouldn't expect a reduction in my road tax. My own widebeam does not have a place on the canal system, it is on the Fens.

 

I also don't see why 6' 10" beam should be seen as the 'standard' width, as there are many thousands of boats registered on the inland waterways which are not narrowboats. There are also far more new boats being built which are not narrowboats. I go back to my earlier post, that plan area is a far fairer method of licencing.

 

Roger

[Steilsteven]

The boat building industry is alive and well - in Poland. That in this country is also busy not only building new, but repairing existing and historic craft (though who knows how the downturn in the economy will affect it). At some time in the future your 'new built' will require anodes and perhaps plating. Will you then patronise the boatyard for another new boat - or get the one you have repaired?

 

This is not a case of pleading for special treatment, it's a case of getting 'Waterways' to recognise a long standing dimension of what the standard gauge of narrow canals and their craft actually were - and should still be - rather than castigate those with boats a couple of inches or so over what has been taken as the new build beam standard of six feet ten inches.

 

Some time ago on Thames, boat licences were issued on length times breadth - the area covered. It might seem a more reasonable system, but most of the river was accessible to most of the boats. With the canals this is less so. It could be argued that as wide boats cannot access all the system, they should - length for length perhaps - pay less. But seeing so many places where wide boats cause problems for others when passing - one wonders. Not for no reason did 'Progress' and I assume 'Pioneer' also, get left to carry out maintenance duties only.

 

I like Dutch barges, our first boat was one. They are characterful and different. Cannot say the same about some modern tin boxes - I'm sure they fulfil a task, but they are uneasy on the eye. Modern wide beam boats - and by that refer to those ten feet or more in breadth - seem to be a product of the wallet and ego. Their place on the majority of our existing canal system is one of some debate, but that is not what this thread is about.

 

As stated - the issue needs to be complained about and clarification obtained - please write to BW and let them know.

 

PS The: 'Out of office automated reply from the Mooring consultation team' from the email address within the document - in addition, try enquiries.hq@britishwaterways.co.uk Or write snail mail:

 

British Waterways Head Office & Customer Service Centre

64 Clarendon Road

Watford, Herts.

WD17 1DA

 

Simon Salem whose name appears within the pdf document, is Director of Customer Services. Should be based at Watford but unsure.

 

 

Hi Derek, have responded to this one in General Boating.

[Steilsteven]

I'm not quite sure why anybody with a particular type of boat should see themselves as a special case. Those that restore historic boats may well be preserving part of our heritage, but it is their choice and they presumably get enjoyment from it. Perhaps I could plead a case for special treatment, because I bought a new boat, thus helping to preserve the boat building industry!

 

All boats take up a certain amount of water space and personally I think that the Broads Authority got it about right by charging a rate based on the plan size, length x width. My widebeam takes up more water space than a narrow boat and rather than being charged some sort of beam supplement, I would quite happily pay a standard rate based on the plan area. That would also mean that unusually narrow boats would also be treated equally; we would all then just be 'boats'.

(edited to change careless wording)

Roger

 

Sorry Roger, but can you explain to me why taking up more water space would be justification for being charged more? I'm having a lot of trouble getting my head around this one.

[Roger Gunkel]

Sorry Roger, but can you explain to me why taking up more water space would be justification for being charged more? I'm having a lot of trouble getting my head around this one.

 

It shouldn't be any different to getting your head round charging more according to length, which is what we do now. I didn't instigate charging by length, which to me, has as little or as much justification as charging by area. I am merely pointing out a possible alternative to a beam supplement/penalty.

 

We are probably in general agreement, because I don't actually see any real justification for charging by length, area or sexual preference. As far as I am concerned, anyone plonking a boat in the water, should be charged the same for a licence as anyone else whatever the size. After all one man in a canoe can quite easily use more of the waterways in a season than someone with a 70'x12' widebeam who never moves from their mooring. One licence for all is never going to happen, so if there is to be a differential I see a plan area charge a fairer alternative.

 

Roger

[AMModels]

Why? I don't see the need for a fall back position to be established before the fight for the real injustice is lost.

 

It is just as devisive, if the historic/older boats start arguing their corner, at the expense of another group of boaters.

 

There's already enough carping about ccers without alienating wide beam boat owners too.

I think everyone is missing carls point here or just ignoring it, wide beam boat owners are limited to where they can travel ergo they should get some sort of rebate for that, some people with boats longer than 60' cannot visit other areas so maybe they should get a rebate orrr being completely revolutionary now they could carry on as it is and charge everyone the same sort of price using the same calculator as they do now and scrap this poorly thought out and ill advised scheme.

[Derek R.]

I think everyone is missing carls point here or just ignoring it, wide beam boat owners are limited to where they can travel ergo they should get some sort of rebate for that, some people with boats longer than 60' cannot visit other areas so maybe they should get a rebate orrr being completely revolutionary now they could carry on as it is and charge everyone the same sort of price using the same calculator as they do now and scrap this poorly thought out and ill advised scheme.

 

If Alan means Carl's post No.2 - I agree, and I would also agree with Alan's suggestion to scrap the whole bucket of worms. But inwardly, I can see BW's desire to justify an increase in charging for width, with the growing number of wide boats on a waterway that cannot handle them in the numbers that are appearing, however screwed up it is becoming.

[Derek R.]

Word on the 2.1m limit is; That the IWA representative on the BWAF objected to the limit of 2.1m. He was advised that it was an error, and that 2.2m was intended, thereby incorporating all ex-working narrow boats up to 7'6" in width.

 

Not withstanding the argument about whether wide boats should pay more or not (which is not what this thread was about) this 'error' now needs to be addressed and corrected. Given Waterways record on moving to such ends, I would ask all who have an interest write as individuals or as part of a group.

 

I would suggest that not only are concerns directed to BW as members of any particular user group, but as individuals also, as the Review of Consultation on Boat Licence Fees 2007 published on 22 May 2008 <http://tinyurl.com/42cmy8> states (please note the last paragraph):

 

Page four (final)

"6. Positive lessons learned The fifteen licence fee road shows held in five locations around the country were very well received. Had longer been available, more locations could have been selected. Customers much appreciated the fact the BW's chief executive and marketing director had taken time to spend an hour with them.

 

These road shows had a clear effect on the outcome of the consultation. Directors understood customers perspective on this issue more clearly. The result is both a reduced increase for 2008/09 and further strategic thinking through British Waterways Advisory Forum.

 

It became clear that customers had little understanding of BW's overall financial position or plan. Hence the simple handout distributed at each of the road shows. BW will pay more attention to communicating this in future.

 

It became clear that BW must do more to communicate directly with individual customers, rather than over depend on the waterway user groups to communicate BW's message to their members."

 

That might sound like a one way communication line - lets make it two way.

[bag 'o' bones]

I know lets keep the system as it is!

 

Whatever 'new' system is dreamt up their will be winners and losers and the arguments, whilst changed will remain.

[Derek R.]

Do you have fenders?

Do you receive a discount for historic craft?

Do you have an unpowered butty towed by a designated motor that attracts a 50% licence fee discount?

 

If the suspected 'error' in width dimensions is indeed an error, the following needs most urgent clarification.

 

"Unpowered boats (other than portable) are licenced as powered boats."

 

From: 'Business Licences valid from 1 April 2007, Fees and Conditions.'

http://tinyurl.com/4r25kf

 

5) DISCOUNTS

5a) Leisure business and trading craft

 

1. Prompt payment

10% off providing that payment is made in full with correctly

completed application and enclosures before the start date of the

licence. Not applicable to payments by monthly Direct Debit instalments.

 

2. Historic boats

10% off, subject to the discretion of the Waterway Service Manager.

The Boat must have been built before 1948, have inland waterway

heritage relevance and be in good condition.

 

3. Unpowered Butty

50% off if the Boat is unpowered, more than 50 feet long and never

travels separately from its motor boat. The motor boat must be

licensed and licences for motor and butty must be concurrent with the

same start and end date. To claim this discount, you must declare the

name and index number of the motor boat."

----------

 

But in the 'August 2008 Licence terms and conditions'

http://tinyurl.com/4he3gj we have:

 

"1.7. `Powered' means that the boat has some form of mechanical

propulsion. `Unpowered Boats' are boats that are propelled by human,

wind or animal force. A boat that is normally towed by a powered

vessel is defined as powered."

----------

 

In the BW pdf 20586 'Long Term Licence fees 1 April 2008 - 31 March 2009'

http://tinyurl.com/3tjtdc

 

"Portable unpowered £37.22 (see below)[definition of 'portable']

Prompt payment £33.50

The price for all other unpowered craft is the same as for powered boats."

-----------

 

The former discounts for historic and unpowered butty are completely omitted in the latest set of documents -

or at least any that are publicly available through websites.

This either means the former discounts remain and are unaffected,

 

OR

 

They no longer remain either for historic boats or unpowered butties

towed by a designated motor boat.

 

As with the width, and fender issues, BW are doing well at fudging the

issues. Incompetent - or devious?

I suspect accountants at the tiller. Edit - and I think I can see who the winner will be . . .

Edited September 25, 2008 by Derek R.