New Marinas - Regulated or "Unregulated"?

[pillingslock]

Dear Forum,

Here's something we just can't seem to get our head around and your expert opinions are appreciated.

 

Example Number 1 - Farmers wanting to diversify contact BW, obtain a Network Access Agreement and plan a new marina for 150 boats which will need them to pay 9% of all gross capacity mooring fees to BW and all boats kept there will have to be licensed 365 days per year.

 

Example Number 2 - Existing marina/caravan park on a river section not far away decides to build another pond for about 100 boats, needs no NAA, pays none of revenue to BW and boats moored there only have to be licensed if they are taken onto the navigation (which is never for some!)

 

All boats use the roughly same section of waterway but only the marina(s) who are on the sections of canal get stung for NAA fees and they obviously have to be passed on to their clients (on top of VAT). Only the boat owners at the regulated marinas have to pay licenses all year round too.

 

This isn't an issue when the whole navigation is a canal but on part-river sections it's looking like a free for all that BW has no control over.

 

However, if new NAA's are to be given for future new regulated marinas, the "Unregulated" berths have to be taken into account.

 

Many of you may know about all this and some government bill passed in 1962 stops BW having jurisdictions on the latter marina. Whilst is it nice that "Budget" berths are made available with less taxes on them, in most cases the "Unrestricted" marina operator prices themselves at just under the regulated businesses.

 

Over to you guys!

Edited March 26, 2009 by pillingslock

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Dear Forum,

Here's something we just can't seem to get our head around and your expert opinions are appreciated.

 

Example Number 1 - Farmers wanting to diversify contact BW, obtain a Network Access Agreement and plan a new marina for 150 boats which will need them to pay 9% of all gross capacity mooring fees to BW and all boats kept there will have to be licensed 365 days per year.

 

Example Number 2 - Existing marina/caravan park on a river section not far away decides to build another pond for about 100 boats, needs no NAA, pays none of revenue to BW and boats moored there only have to be licensed if they are taken onto the navigation (which is never for some!)

 

All boats use the roughly same section of waterway but only the marina(s) who are on the sections of canal get stung for NAA fees and they obviously have to be passed on to their clients (on top of VAT). Only the boat owners at the regulated marinas have to pay licenses all year round too.

 

This isn't an issue when the whole navigation is a canal but on part-river sections it's looking like a free for all that BW has no control over.

 

However, if new NAA's are to be given for future new regulated marinas, the "Unregulated" berths have to be taken into account.

 

Many of you may know about all this and some government bill passed in 1962 stops BW having jurisdictions on the latter marina. Whilst is it nice that "Budget" berths are made available with less taxes on them, in most cases the "Unrestricted" marina operator prices themselves at just under the regulated businesses.

 

Over to you guys!

 

I may be wrong but my understanding is that in the past access agreements were not standardised. As such established marinas may be paying a different amount or nothing based on different criteria. Why should established marinas change to a less advantageous agreement if one is already in place?

 

Whilst the current NAA insists that boats within marinas must be licenced that may not be the case for old agreements.

 

The NAA includes the wording

 

The purpose of the NAA is to authorise connection to our waterway network and to charge marina operators for BW services facilities including the impoundment, supply and re-supply of water to enable navigation between the marina and the waterway and within the marina.

Is it possible that on river navigations BW does not supply the water so a charge can not be made?

[pillingslock]

We're OK with that.

 

But on a Part-River/Part-Canal section of navigation, should a new marina on an non-flooding canal section get the full wrath of the NAA and it's charges when a marina only a few miles away gets off scot free because it's on a river section? Especially when the EA has spent millions on flood relief.

 

These NAA charges on the "Canal Based" marina do have to be passed on to it's customers and it's debatable whether the river-fed navigation requires much more than mother nature to keep it topped up - be it dug or natural?

 

The Navvies dug the canals years ago for companies that are no longer in existence...and they don't get any dosh for it all.

 

What we're getting at is that surely ALL boats on ANY navigation should be licensed all year round whilst in the water - regardless of it's origin or making?

 

The current NAA seems to be a very hefty cause of debate - talk to the BMF and they think it's not as it should be, possibly because of these examples. But also because historic agreements with older marinas puts some individuals in a favoured position.

 

Surely everyone should contribute in an equal way - boat owners and marinas alike?

[GUMPY]

What we're getting at is that surely ALL boats on ANY navigation should be licensed all year round whilst in the water - regardless of it's origin or making?

 

Doesnt work.

I can show you a few marinas and moorings where the land and water do not belong to BW even though they are connected.

You could put piles across the entrance, drain the marina and it would refil from its own source.

Why should BW get a licence from the boats on these waters?

Why should BW get a connection fee? It could easily be cancelled out by a water supply fee from the marina owner.

 

I dont know your marina but maybe it should have its own water supply and not use water from BW, if it has already try billing BW for that supply.

 

J

[Dominic M]

Parts of the Soar lie outside the jurisdiction of BW - the same is true of the Kennet. Where that is the case there is no requirement for the boats to be licensed, insured or have a BSC. As long as they don't venture forth on to the navigation which BW control.

 

I know of one small marina who argues that the connection fee is illegal - and claim that they won the argument after several years of to-ing and fro-ing - something to do with the waterways being a "national asset". I don't know, but they were pretty convincing.

[GUMPY]

I know of one small marina who argues that the connection fee is illegal - and claim that they won the argument after several years of to-ing and fro-ing - something to do with the waterways being a "national asset". I don't know, but they were pretty convincing.

 

I know of one LARGE marina on the canal not a river where BW threatend to pile across the entrance, the owner said go ahead he would use a crane to get the boats in and out.

BW then realised that the upstream lock was 7ft deep and the downstream lock was 11ft deep and without the marina the pound would empty in a matter of days.

 

The Marina is still there and still has full access to the cut and I believe still has unlicenced boats in it.

Edited March 29, 2009 by idleness

[sociable_hermit]

Dear Forum,

Here's something we just can't seem to get our head around and your expert opinions are appreciated.

 

Example Number 1 - Farmers wanting to diversify contact BW, obtain a Network Access Agreement and plan a new marina for 150 boats which will need them to pay 9% of all gross capacity mooring fees to BW and all boats kept there will have to be licensed 365 days per year.

 

Example Number 2 - Existing marina/caravan park on a river section not far away decides to build another pond for about 100 boats, needs no NAA, pays none of revenue to BW and boats moored there only have to be licensed if they are taken onto the navigation (which is never for some!)

 

All boats use the roughly same section of waterway but only the marina(s) who are on the sections of canal get stung for NAA fees and they obviously have to be passed on to their clients (on top of VAT). Only the boat owners at the regulated marinas have to pay licenses all year round too.

 

This isn't an issue when the whole navigation is a canal but on part-river sections it's looking like a free for all that BW has no control over.

 

However, if new NAA's are to be given for future new regulated marinas, the "Unregulated" berths have to be taken into account.

 

Many of you may know about all this and some government bill passed in 1962 stops BW having jurisdictions on the latter marina. Whilst is it nice that "Budget" berths are made available with less taxes on them, in most cases the "Unrestricted" marina operator prices themselves at just under the regulated businesses.

 

Over to you guys!

 

The rules do seem rather unfair, although having moorings with no flood risk is a definite selling point and should permit higher fees to be charged, all else being equal.

 

It sounds as though there are issues with these BW rules regarding transparency, fairness and value for money. If BW are willing to be a progressive and customer-focussed organisation they will listen to your views and may, in time, consider a change in policy. If they could make the rules fairer and more acceptable to their customers whilst still attracting the same revenue overall, and also possibly benefit from some cost savings by streamlining the process at the same time, this would be in everyone's best interests.

 

However, if BW are one of those organisations that tend to ride roughshod over criticism and take any comment as a personal attack, negotiating with them could be fraught with difficulties. Looking in the waterways magazines their first response to criticism is generally "In our experience, the majority of boaters are happy with the present situation" which is another way of saying "We know better than you do and we will ignore everything you say". This is an arrogant and foolish attitude - it doesn't matter what everybody else thinks: one customer is not happy, so listen to that one customer and try to sort things out with them. It's hard to imagine anyone running a private business like that, isn't it? Looking after customers is a bit like savings: look after the pennies, and the pounds look after themselves. The other factor which monolithic organisations tend to forget is that only a minority of people with a complaint ever air it - the British in particular get very embarrassed about complaining (at least directly, to those who have caused the problem) so it's fairly safe to say that for every one complaint there will be ten people who are unhappy. This instantly shoots down the whole "In our experience..." line of thinking.

 

If the BW manager you deal with is particularly paranoid, the worst case scenario is that they victimise you simply for flagging it up, and make your life as awkward as they can. There wasn't a problem before, but now there is, so obviously it's your fault. This "shoot the messenger" approach is particularly harmful. Again it's hard to imagine anyone running a private business like that, isn't it? They'd go bust, eventually, with an attitude like that. BW, however, have a monopoly.

Edited April 1, 2009 by sociable_hermit