BW trying to hide this-respond by 7th Nov!

[Pretty Funked Up]

Well spotted cont. cruis. Keep up the good work.

 

nicely found and let us know when the petition is ready to be signed.

 

 

Widebeams............ Sod towpath space what about canal space and sharing locks?

 

 

(oops quoted the wrong guy)

Edited November 17, 2008 by Pretty Funked Up

[Gibbo]

Think about it for a minute.

 

A 30ft boat uses 30 foot of tow-path regardless of beam.

 

Granted.

 

An average 30 foot boat with three people on board uses facilities for three people regardless of beam.

 

So does a 70 foot boat. A 70 foot boat with 2 people on board uses less facilties than a 30 foot boat with 3 people on board.

 

A 30 foot boat uses the same amount of water per lock regardless of beam.

 

So does a 70 foot boat. (actually a lock uses the same amount of water whether a 10 foot boat, a 30 foot boat, a 70 foot boat or no boat is in it but that's a different discussion).

 

You can see just i those three examples that a wide boat should pay no more than a narrow-boat of the same length.

 

I actually see 1. The other 2 are incorrect.

 

Gibbo

[Pretty Funked Up]

I got an out of office reply...

 

"Thank you for your e-mail.

Your comments on the Supplementary faze of the license fee Consultation have been gratefully received.

Kind regards

The Consultation Team, British Waterways "

 

that is cut and pasted from an email. Is that how you spell faze? am i missing something or should it be phase?

[fuzzyduck]

Idle speculation mind, but I suspect an average 70 foot boat will use more facilities than an average 30 foot boat purely based on the usage profile.

 

And any boat that doesn't, the willingness / ability to pay test would probably apply.

 

But to be honest, in my opinion, this is argueing amongst ourselves, IIRC we've just come out of 3 years of above inflationary increases, maybe it's time we all caught a break.

[Gibbo]

Idle speculation mind, but I suspect an average 70 foot boat will use more facilities than an average 30 foot boat purely based on the usage profile.

 

Then by the same argument a widebeam will use even more.

 

And any boat that doesn't, the willingness / ability to pay test would probably apply.

 

Ditto widebeam. Though I don't see the relevance to be honest.

 

Gibbo

[fuzzyduck]

Then by the same argument a widebeam will use even more.

 

 

Ditto widebeam. Though I don't see the relevance to be honest.

 

Gibbo

 

Not true

 

A Shetland cruiser 23 feet long and 7foot 6 wide can be bought for a few grand.

 

facilities wise it will use very little, even with 3 people on board, and I suspect there are Shetland owners who are just as poor as Norman 23 Owners.

[Gibbo]

Not true

 

A Shetland cruiser 23 feet long and 7foot 6 wide can be bought for a few grand.

 

facilities wise it will use very little, even with 3 people on board, and I suspect there are Shetland owners who are just as poor as Norman 23 Owners.

 

Thankyou. You confirm what I say. Which is that the size of the boat has no relationship to how many people are on board.

 

Gibbo

[Phoenix_V]

Here we go again.

 

There is not a lot of logic in boats paying by length, but it does bear some relationship to willingness to pay, clearly the guy who has just bought a 20' river cruiser for £20,000 has in mind that maintenance mooring and by extrapolation license costs should be less than a longer boat whereas the owner of a £500 wooden 70' narrowboat will no doubt have anticipated higher costs in the mooring maintenance and licensing areas even though the value of his boat is less, and as has been said will occupy more towpath.

 

I fail to see how this can be extrapolated to say that wide beams should or are more likely to be willing to pay more.

No one purchases a boat without some consideration of the running costs and changing the rules after the event is not fair.

Not all wide boats are enormous barges - most are small river cruisers maybe 20' x 8' why should the owner of such a boat pay more than the owner of a 20' x 7'6" boat?

If widebeam boats should pay more because they are bigger they should also get a discount because they can only only access a tiny part of the system. T

In fact owners of 57' narrowboats should pay the most as they have access to more waterway.

 

With the hidden hand of self interest we can all think of arguments why our particular form of boating should pay less, but it is self defeating, BW are laughing their heads off whilst the boaters bicker amongst themselves as to who should pay more. The only possible option is no change any increase across the board and keep criticising the governments lack of funding and BW mismanagement. IWA have seen the light.

[Jason Wilson and Family]

Granted.

 

 

 

So does a 70 foot boat. A 70 foot boat with 2 people on board uses less facilties than a 30 foot boat with 3 people on board.

 

 

 

So does a 70 foot boat. (actually a lock uses the same amount of water whether a 10 foot boat, a 30 foot boat, a 70 foot boat or no boat is in it but that's a different discussion).

 

 

 

I actually see 1. The other 2 are incorrect.

 

Gibbo

 

You're missing my intention on the second two. The ONLY way a boat uses anything more, that makes a difference to cost, is in the mooring space. Number of people and amount of water used were both examples to show that a wide beam is no different than any other boat of similar length.

 

In short, length is the only difference that should matter, cost-wise. Longer boats reduce the mooring space available and thus the number of moorings BW could sell. I don't agree that that is the basis they should be charged on, I'm just commenting on the beam/length difference.

[fuzzyduck]

Thankyou. You confirm what I say. Which is that the size of the boat has no relationship to how many people are on board.

 

Gibbo

 

No, you said

 

So does a 70 foot boat. A 70 foot boat with 2 people on board uses less facilties than a 30 foot boat with 3 people on board.

 

And I said

 

I thought that might not be the case, due to useage profile.

 

For example a 70 foot boat will use more towpath as Jason pointed out, but I'll go one step further, I think a 70 foot boat will generally consume other facilities to a greater extent too.

 

For instance, water, a lot of modern 70 foot boats have washing machines / dishwashers etc on board, and will consume more water, and thus more of the finite time avaliable at water points. They're also more likely to be used as liveaboards, thus additional water point time.

 

But I don't really care that much, I just thought I'd throw it into the mix, as you bought the point up

 

Sue

 

Your point about buttys is valid, but don't they already get a reduction if paired with a motor?

 

With the hidden hand of self interest we can all think of arguments why our particular form of boating should pay less, but it is self defeating, BW are laughing their heads off whilst the boaters bicker amongst themselves as to who should pay more. The only possible option is no change any increase across the board and keep criticising the governments lack of funding and BW mismanagement. IWA have seen the light.

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

[OptedOut]

Stir things up a bit.

 

They should pay us for making the system picturesque, pro-rata based on size.

[fuzzyduck]

That's my nice, pretty, and not too common cruiser sorted, where do I send the bill?

 

[Pretty Funked Up]

what about continuous cruisers who use winter moorings? where do they fit in?

[Rick-n-Jo]

Sue

 

Your point about buttys is valid, but don't they already get a reduction if paired with a motor?

 

 

ONLY if both motor and butty qualify for the historic boat license discount, and are owned by the same person and licensed at the same time.

 

That means that the owner of a newly built motor and butty pair will pay twice the mooring fee that the owner of an historic pair pays. Their use of BW's space and facilities, I think you'll agree, is the same. So...

 

In what way is that fair, reasonable or sensible?

[Jason Wilson and Family]

ONLY if both motor and butty qualify for the historic boat license discount, and are owned by the same person and licensed at the same time.

 

That means that the owner of a newly built motor and butty pair will pay twice the mooring fee that the owner of an historic pair pays. Their use of BW's space and facilities, I think you'll agree, is the same. So...

 

In what way is that fair, reasonable or sensible?

It's fair, reasonable and sensible to BW's number one concern... BW. I haven't seen any indication that BW is set up for the benefit of the waterways or those who use them.

[fuzzyduck]

It's not, they should qualify for a butty discount just like the owners of heritage pairs.

 

Remove one, or give the other, they are all hobby boats.

[Rick-n-Jo]

It's fair, reasonable and sensible to BW's number one concern... BW. I haven't seen any indication that BW is set up for the benefit of the waterways or those who use them.

 

 

Which begs the question, what's the point in these "consultations" when they just go ahead and do whatever the hell they wanted to do in the first place.

 

So they can tick the box on the directors bonus form? "have consulted with users on policy decisions".

 

It's not, they should qualify for a butty discount just like the owners of heritage pairs.

 

Remove one, or give the other, they are all hobby boats.

 

 

Obvious to thee and me.

 

Not to BW's bright boys and girls. This astonishing piece of nonsense from their published policy on breasted up boats.

 

BW’s costs are the same for the breasted boat as for other boats moored at the site.

Cost of servicing is primarily related to the number of people using the mooring, not

to size of boat. The number of boats is our proxy measure for number of people.

For this reason, two narrow boats will attract two fees, while a single wide beam

craft will pay the normal single boat fee.

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Which begs the question, what's the point in these "consultations" when they just go ahead and do whatever the hell they wanted to do in the first place.

 

So they can tick the box on the directors bonus form? "have consulted with users on policy decisions".

 

 

Keep your eye on Narrowboatworld over the next few days to see how one BW director is rewarded based on predetermined consultation outcomes.

 

******** Edited to say a preview of the article is now available on this thread

Edited November 18, 2008 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Jason Wilson and Family]

Which begs the question, what's the point in these "consultations" when they just go ahead and do whatever the hell they wanted to do in the first place.

 

So they can tick the box on the directors bonus form? "have consulted with users on policy decisions".

 

Absolutely correct it would seem. You'll also notice they're very selective in who they consult with.

[cotswoldsman]

what about continuous cruisers who use winter moorings? where do they fit in?

 

Silly me don't understand the question!!!!

[Pretty Funked Up]

I just wondered would they have to pay the full penalty for being a continuous cruiser or would they be entitled to some relief? after all the winter mooring payments are made direct to BW.

I am suprised they dont ask for cheques crossed simon salem or robin evans

[cotswoldsman]

I just wondered would they have to pay the full penalty for being a continuous cruiser or would they be entitled to some relief? after all the winter mooring payments are made direct to BW.

I am suprised they dont ask for cheques crossed simon salem or robin evans

 

Ah understand now. Well I guess if you take winter moorings you are not a CCer in the strict sense as you are no longer on a continuous journey, anyway that is what I would argue if it was me!!

 

I still want to know if I get single person discount!!!

[Pretty Funked Up]

single occupancy reduction .... definitely.

I 100% agree is should be in place if they follow through with this rediculous penalty.

[Boatgypsy]

Only 2 more days left to object - "consultation" closes this Friday, 7 November.

I've complained about the consultation period being shorter than the Code of Practice says...

I found a petition on this issue on the Number 10 website -

 

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Boat-licence-fee/

 

I take it this was put up by Continuous Cruiser, but maybe not.

 

In any event, so far there are only 2 signatories - well 3 when I've signed it. That is truly apathetic. This issue and the petition needs to be publicised. Maybe we need a new thread?

[Steilsteven]

I found a petition on this issue on the Number 10 website -

 

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Boat-licence-fee/

 

I take it this was put up by Continuous Cruiser, but maybe not.

 

In any event, so far there are only 2 signatories - well 3 when I've signed it. That is truly apathetic. This issue and the petition needs to be publicised. Maybe we need a new thread?

 

 

It'll be seven now although I note the deadline to be 18th Nov.

The best way to publisize this would be to forward the link to everyone you know and ask them to do the same.

 

Keith.