Want to visit Cambridge? It will cost you extra in future.

[ditchcrawler]

Visitors are welcome it's Boater's (so called) with there boats that never move and are in a terrible condition that it makes you ashamed to say you have a narrow boat as people think that you're one of those on the cam at the moment, i say charge them £40.00 per day to stay in the area after the first 48 hours then we would see who does like the life on the river or are just using it as a cheap way to live and bringing down the real people who do live on narrow boats because they like the life style.

That's a strange comment, it would cost me about £140 to visit Cambridge, I could spend a month on the Thames for less than that. Sorry but if I can get to Cambridge before April I will visit, after that forget it.

[Sanddancer]

Not really visitors WELCOME but the others that just live onboard in the city limits just as a cheap way to stay in the City should like the rest of the population pay for it and keep a decent boat as well

That's a strange comment, it would cost me about £140 to visit Cambridge, I could spend a month on the Thames for less than that. Sorry but if I can get to Cambridge before April I will visit, after that forget it.

[Biggles]

Not really visitors WELCOME but the others that just live onboard in the city limits just as a cheap way to stay in the City should like the rest of the population pay for it and keep a decent boat as well

 

 

I quite agree about the keeping of a decent boat. Some of the boats moored there are a disgrace. It ought to be conditional of a mooring in Cambridge that the boat is maintained to an acceptable standard. And as for what passes as a decent boat on the railings seems to be one that stays afloat and nothing else for a lot of them.

[nbfiresprite]

Thanks for the info on that. So the only other one I can think of is the one in March by the playing field.

 

Built and payed for by Fenland Council over ten years (Work started in 2001when the bank was cut back

for the mooring, Had to wait until last year for the mooring to be put in.)

 

Firesprite

 

In the Fens

Edited January 13, 2012 by nbfiresprite

[ditchcrawler]

Built and payed for by Fenland Council over ten years (Work started in 2001when the bank was cut back

for the mooring, Had to wait until last year for the mooring to be put in.)

 

Firesprite

 

In the Fens

And it is already silting badly, I can't get in near the ends.

 

Not really visitors WELCOME but the others that just live onboard in the city limits just as a cheap way to stay in the City should like the rest of the population pay for it and keep a decent boat as well

I thought most of them paid for it with a licence and also a mooring permit. I understand that those on the railings dont pay but from what I can make out that is because no one wants to take ownership, but I could be wrong on that.

[Phil Ambrose]

I moor at Isleham and intended to take a few trips to Cambridge last year, unfortunately doing work on the boat kept me from doing that.

 

I would definitely have been doing a few trips this year, but if they make me pay I will almost certainly not bother. Shame...

 

Mark.

 

We too moor at Isleham (Mark is a neighbour) and visiting Cambridge was on our to do list for this year, but has now been scrubbed.

 

Phil

[FadeToScarlet]

I quite agree about the keeping of a decent boat. Some of the boats moored there are a disgrace. It ought to be conditional of a mooring in Cambridge that the boat is maintained to an acceptable standard. And as for what passes as a decent boat on the railings seems to be one that stays afloat and nothing else for a lot of them.

 

It is a condition of the official Council-administered mooring licence. The railings are exempt from this, but every single other boat is subject to the mooring licence contract, which specifies that boats have to be kept in good order.

 

I thought most of them paid for it with a licence and also a mooring permit. I understand that those on the railings dont pay but from what I can make out that is because no one wants to take ownership, but I could be wrong on that.

 

Correct on both counts.

[DHutch]

At least double that figure, surely? According to the EA website the annual fee for a full-length narrowboat is over £800, so 13% is over £100

Yes, your right.

 

I had used £700ish not 800, rounded it down to '500ish' and then taken 10% not 13.

 

Engineers like rounding. Up for structure requirement, and down for cost.

 

 

Daniel

 

I see that the increase in revenue from visiting craft is estimated at £5K per year.

So at £100ish a boat, there expecting 100/120 boats? While £100 a boat is not thing, £5000 for CamCon doesnt seem much.

 

 

Daniel

[Biggles]

It is a condition of the official Council-administered mooring licence. The railings are exempt from this, but every single other boat is subject to the mooring licence contract, which specifies that boats have to be kept in good order.

 

 

 

Well if the enforcement for a boat in good repair is as good as enforcing collection of fees, I feel we have nothing to worry about.

 

Seeing as how precious moorings are in Cambridge and the length of the waiting list those lucky enough to have one should be keen to keep it. Shame on the council for allowing so many crap condition boats to reside on their moorings!!

[Black Ibis]

Have just been told, by the Cambridge news, that they are going to publish my letter.

Thanks to the price increase for boaters to visit Cambridge by the 'conservators of the Cam', I will not be going to your town, and will take my pound to somewhere that would like visiters.

 

When did they say they would publish? No sign of your letter in either the weekend paper or Monday's edition. Could you post what you wrote here?

[Guest User]

It is a condition of the official Council-administered mooring licence. The railings are exempt from this, but every single other boat is subject to the mooring licence contract, which specifies that boats have to be kept in good order.

 

Seems like the railings moorings are coming under scrutiny, with the Council contemplating whether or not it owns the stretch .... Cambridge News article River Cam project could cost taxpayers £400,000

[Donald Gilchrist]

When did they say they would publish? No sign of your letter in either the weekend paper or Monday's edition. Could you post what you wrote here?

THat is what I wrote. sorry they have not told me when,only that they would and whats my address.

[Black Ibis]

Seems like the railings moorings are coming under scrutiny, with the Council contemplating whether or not it owns the stretch .... Cambridge News article River Cam project could cost taxpayers £400,000

 

Yes, we were a bit annoyed about that article. They didn't contact Camboaters to allow us to.comment. I hope they do resolve the railings issue because the rest of us are fed up with them getting for free what we have to pay for but its a scare story. There's no way they will put £400,000 pontoons in. The river is too narrow to take that additional width, the rowers will not allow it to happen. It's difficult because there's really no way to make those moorings safe without reducing the width of the river.

[Black Ibis]

THat is what I wrote. sorry they have not told me when,only that they would and whats my address.

Thanks, it was printed in today's paper.

[markb]

I'm really not one for any kind of "conspiracy stories" but this whole thing sounds to me like they don't really want the extra money, they would just prefer to not have big boats on the cam and reserve it for rowers and punts.

I suspect the council aren't really serious about paying vast sums of money to install official moorings and that after a full investigation, that figure will be one of the many reasons to prove it's not a viable location for moorings (which, let's be honest, it's not!)

[Black Ibis]

I'm really not one for any kind of "conspiracy stories" but this whole thing sounds to me like they don't really want the extra money, they would just prefer to not have big boats on the cam and reserve it for rowers and punts.

I suspect the council aren't really serious about paying vast sums of money to install official moorings and that after a full investigation, that figure will be one of the many reasons to prove it's not a viable location for moorings (which, let's be honest, it's not!)

 

 

I don't think so, that would imply that they had actually thought about implementing some kind of grand overarching plan. This fee increase is a knee-jerk, reactive move because they think they need more money. Simple as that.

[markb]

Lol, OK, maybe I gave them too much credit and they just didn't think it through!

 

I would still be very surprised if (long term) the boats moored at the railings will be allowed to remain...

[Sanddancer]

Hope they Clean all the river and the boater's (so called) off the cam but i doubt it very much, let's have the river back as it used to be without the "SO CALLED " boaters there.

[Proper Job]

Hope they Clean all the river and the boater's (so called) off the cam but i doubt it very much, let's have the river back as it used to be without the "SO CALLED " boaters there.

 

Why not go one stage further and knock down Cambridge.....

 

turn it back to the time before man settled there

[Mac of Cygnet]

Hope they Clean all the river and the boater's (so called) off the cam but i doubt it very much, let's have the river back as it used to be without the "SO CALLED " boaters there.

 

Totally and completely but you wouldn't be from South Shields, would you?

[Richard Famous]

This is a great shame. Someone has taken a very narrow view on this issue, probably driven by the lure of an additional but limited income. Clearly no account has been taken of the benefits of waterbourne tourism to the local economy. I suggest that 'someone' ought to take another, closer look at the business case within the wider economic context. A simple cost/benefit or SWOT analysis would surely conclude that the river needs boats just as much as the City needs students?

Personally, I am about to bring a new 60' nb onto the Ouse, near Ely, and have been planning to explore all the rivers in the Fens including the Cam. I may still visit Cambridge a couple of times during 2012 just to experience the delights of the city from the water but will probably not return. There are plenty of other places to go eg St Ives, Huntingdon, Peterborough, Northampton, Kings Lynn, March, and beyond so the Conservators will not be getting their hands on my hard earned cash.

[14skipper]

Having a chat with a friend who works for one of the colleges.Rumor mill has it that several members of three of the major colleges have been campaigning about the boats moored permanently there.They are not against boats in fact they would welcome them as visitors generate a large income for the colleges.but some of the resident boats have become such an eye sore they want action taken.Not sure how raising cruising fees will achieve that.

So it would appear that once again the few have spoilt it for the many.

 

14skipper

Edited January 29, 2012 by 14skipper

[Tony Brooks]

I am wondering if this could be classed as maladministration.

 

We intend to visit the Fens this summer and before buying the Gold License went into what it would cost to visit Cambridge by boat - answer, nothing because of the ERA license. BW gold licenses (and I assume EA licenses run from 31st December to 31st December so the checking had to take place in late November/early December to ensure the payment and license could be got to BW in time over Christmas.

 

So having diligently checked both the EA and Cam site I buy the Gold license secure in the knowledge no more will have to be paid.

 

Now, only weeks later, we find the Cam lot are intending to tear up their published fees and impose extra ones.

 

To me the Commissioners as experts in navigation in the legal sense should know about EA & Gold license dates and act accordingly. The fact they did not publish their intent on their website early enough seems negligent.

 

Still we are lucky in that I am sure a bus with out magic cards will get us there far cheaper than by river.

[cereal tiller]

Having a chat with a friend who works for one of the colleges.Rumor mill has it that several members of three of the major colleges have been campaigning about the boats moored permanently there.They are not against boats in fact they would welcome them as visitors generate a large income for the colleges.but some of the resident boats have become such an eye sore they want action taken.Not sure how raising cruising fees will achieve that.

So it would appear that once again the few have spoilt it for the many.

 

14skipper

Agreed.

TEN YEARS ago i spoke to some people that were taking a couple of narrowboats to MIDSUMMER COMMON? i dont really know the area,but i think that was the name of it.

 

they told me there was a FREE mooring situation,and they were going to moor there permanently.

 

as you say ,there always seems to be those who will not abide by the rules.

[ditchcrawler]

Agreed.

TEN YEARS ago i spoke to some people that were taking a couple of narrowboats to MIDSUMMER COMMON? i dont really know the area,but i think that was the name of it.

 

they told me there was a FREE mooring situation,and they were going to moor there permanently.

 

as you say ,there always seems to be those who will not abide by the rules.

I think you will find that the people at Midsummer pay for their moorings, But then I could be wrong again