winter moorings

[Joshua]

Personally, I would be very surprised indeed, if a scheme for CCers like this, had any impact at all on the life style or habits of current marina dwellers. The benefits of a marina (whether a liveaboard or not), have been well documented so don't need repeating, Sir Nibbles immediate capitulation to Chris Pinks offer was so predictable that I shouldn't wonder Chris didn't bet his house on it!

 

However, as has already been demonstrated by some on this thread, it would undoubtedly fuel the "its not fair, I pay more than him" envy.

 

I personally do not want to spend the winter in one place any more than I do in the summer but I can see this scheme helping a lot of other CCers.

 

It would also help me, although all I really want is the VM's and unsold winter moorings suspended for the winter so that I can use them as normal 14 day moorings.

 

Perhaps something midway between these positions would work, say increase the CC licence fee and allow CCers to stay 28 days on all and any of the VM's and untaken winter moorings but with a requirement that one moves to a different VM/vacant winter mooring place after 28 days?

[cotswoldsman]

OK I have waited before posting to see some of the reaction and I have to say it is not as bad as I thought it would be, but then the resident expert has not posted yet!!! Myself and Jenlyn have discussed this at length and I have also discussed it with CaRT. Myself and Jenlyn are both nearly on the same page but my suggestion is that the cost of a CCing licence should go up by £150 per year and this should then allow CCers to stay on any 14 day mooring for 4 weeks during the winter months. This would generate an income of aprox £600,000 for CaRT, Boaters that take winter moorings are not really CCers but anyway if they have a CCing licence and pay the extra £150 then quite simply the £150 would be deducted from the cost of a winter mooring. If the winter mooring is in a marina they simply send the receipt to CaRT when renewing licence and the £150 would be deducted from the cost of a CCing licence.

Now I do have some ideas how this extra £600,000 should be spent to help reduce the Non Moving Boat problem but as this at present still forms part of the discussions going on with CaRT I will not post them on here yet.

 

These ideas all form part of the discussions we (as in any boater that is interested) are having with CaRT to try and solve some of the problems, the idea being instead of going round in circles on here lets actually do something to try and find a solution.

[jenlyn]

Personally, I would be very surprised indeed, if a scheme for CCers like this, had any impact at all on the life style or habits of current marina dwellers. The benefits of a marina (whether a liveaboard or not), have been well documented so don't need repeating, Sir Nibbles immediate capitulation to Chris Pinks offer was so predictable that I shouldn't wonder Chris didn't bet his house on it!

 

However, as has already been demonstrated by some on this thread, it would undoubtedly fuel the "its not fair, I pay more than him" envy.

 

I personally do not want to spend the winter in one place any more than I do in the summer but I can see this scheme helping a lot of other CCers.

 

It would also help me, although all I really want is the VM's and unsold winter moorings suspended for the winter so that I can use them as normal 14 day moorings.

 

Perhaps something midway between these positions would work, say increase the CC licence fee and allow CCers to stay 28 days on all and any of the VM's and untaken winter moorings but with a requirement that one moves to a different VM/vacant winter mooring place after 28 days?

Cotswoldwoman made the same 28 day suggestion to me, might well be mileage in that then? (Oops, speak of the devil)

Edited December 11, 2012 by jenlyn

[cotswoldsman]

Perhaps something midway between these positions would work, say increase the CC licence fee and allow CCers to stay 28 days on all and any of the VM's and untaken winter moorings but with a requirement that one moves to a different VM/vacant winter mooring place after 28 days?

 

We cross posted only difference being not on Visitor Moorings!!!! I hope you are going to make the meeting on 11 January I have emailed you.

 

Cotswoldwoman made the same 28 day suggestion to me, might well be mileage in that then?

 

Cross posted again

 

Edited to say whats with the woman part?????????? You are off my Christmas present list

 

But it won't work like that - I would be able to leave my boat in a community of liveaboards. Or would they get cross at me bending the rules

 

Glad to see you are contributing nothing to the discussion other than continuing the on going missunderstandings about how things happen in the real world

Edited December 11, 2012 by cotswoldsman

[jenlyn]

We cross posted only difference being not on Visitor Moorings!!!! I hope you are going to make the meeting on 11 January I have emailed you.

 

 

 

Cross posted again

 

Edited to say whats with the woman part?????????? You are off my Christmas present list

 

 

 

Glad to see you are contributing nothing to the discussion other than continuing the on going missunderstandings about how things happen in the real world

Even bigger ooops, blasted pads upgraded itself, must have been a woman programmer, damned thing does not recognise m.a.n

[Sir Nibble]

Sir Nibbles immediate capitulation to Chris Pinks offer was so predictable that I shouldn't wonder Chris didn't bet his house on it!

 

Woa! Do look at my posts, I did not suggest that everyone would abandon the marina's, all I said was that not everyones motivation for being there is the services on offer. The only service I get is a tap which is usually turned off. It simply would not suit my use of my boat to be moving every 14 days, nor would it suit me to have someone else do it. An unserviced towpath mooring would suit my purposes just as well. My point is that it is inequitable to charge two different rates to two different groups for the same service. It is simply not something that natural justice allows. If there is a case of unavoidable need (I am unemployed with no income so the state pays my rent. I am disabled and so have a bus pass) then this is acceptable, but one could not for instance charge different rates for pump out according to how many people aboard, or cheaper beer for people who don't normally use this pub. It is a matter of having an equal stake in a shared resource.

 

OK I have waited before posting to see some of the reaction and I have to say it is not as bad as I thought it would be, but then the resident expert has not posted yet!!! Myself and Jenlyn have discussed this at length and I have also discussed it with CaRT. Myself and Jenlyn are both nearly on the same page but my suggestion is that the cost of a CCing licence should go up by £150 per year and this should then allow CCers to stay on any 14 day mooring for 4 weeks during the winter months. This would generate an income of aprox £600,000 for CaRT, Boaters that take winter moorings are not really CCers but anyway if they have a CCing licence and pay the extra £150 then quite simply the £150 would be deducted from the cost of a winter mooring. If the winter mooring is in a marina they simply send the receipt to CaRT when renewing licence and the £150 would be deducted from the cost of a CCing licence.

Now I do have some ideas how this extra £600,000 should be spent to help reduce the Non Moving Boat problem but as this at present still forms part of the discussions going on with CaRT I will not post them on here yet.

 

These ideas all form part of the discussions we (as in any boater that is interested) are having with CaRT to try and solve some of the problems, the idea being instead of going round in circles on here lets actually do something to try and find a solution.

That's not a million miles from the proposals CaRT have for the K and A mooring strategy I mentioned earlier and an idea which I personally think has wings. If the areas where this scheme was implimented was concentrated in certain areas away from major works (not the same locations every year) then that also allows for services to be concentrated in the event of icing.

I think it's an excellent idea, but then it doesn't actually affect me personally.

[churchward]

OK I have waited before posting to see some of the reaction and I have to say it is not as bad as I thought it would be, but then the resident expert has not posted yet!!! Myself and Jenlyn have discussed this at length and I have also discussed it with CaRT. Myself and Jenlyn are both nearly on the same page but my suggestion is that the cost of a CCing licence should go up by £150 per year and this should then allow CCers to stay on any 14 day mooring for 4 weeks during the winter months. This would generate an income of aprox £600,000 for CaRT, Boaters that take winter moorings are not really CCers but anyway if they have a CCing licence and pay the extra £150 then quite simply the £150 would be deducted from the cost of a winter mooring. If the winter mooring is in a marina they simply send the receipt to CaRT when renewing licence and the £150 would be deducted from the cost of a CCing licence.

Now I do have some ideas how this extra £600,000 should be spent to help reduce the Non Moving Boat problem but as this at present still forms part of the discussions going on with CaRT I will not post them on here yet.

 

These ideas all form part of the discussions we (as in any boater that is interested) are having with CaRT to try and solve some of the problems, the idea being instead of going round in circles on here lets actually do something to try and find a solution.

I think what you mean is that it would generate a gross revenue of £600,000. The refunds etc and administration of this would surely absorb some of this revenue. The revenue would also need to offset any winter moorings CRT do not sell as a consequence of this scheme.

 

your method would negate some of the reasoning of Jenlyn's OP ie it would cost less to admin and need less towpath patrols. I can't see that would be the case with your method.

 

I can understand the thought of if there is extra income what can we spend it on to help a particular group but I am not in favour of any money being ring fenced to be spent in only one area. I would rather CRT income be just that and be available to whatever is required. Otherwise any so called boating grouping may wish to claim part of the licence is spent on them alone.

[grey wolf]

You could always limit the 100 a month to the worst months weatherise/stoppage wise of the year .This would give the authorities the incentive to get the jobs done quickly.

[churchward]

 

These ideas all form part of the discussions we (as in any boater that is interested) are having with CaRT to try and solve some of the problems, the idea being instead of going round in circles on here lets actually do something to try and find a solution.

 

I am willing to think I may have completely misunderstood this statement (and if so I apologise) but my reaction when reading this was that it is starting to sound like "you are all wrong unless you are supporting us"

 

My solution for what it is worth is for the winter mooring rates to be reviewed and made sure they are in line with the "going rate" for the area and type of mooring.

[Joshua]

We cross posted only difference being not on Visitor Moorings!!!! I hope you are going to make the meeting on 11 January I have emailed you.

 

 

Yes John, meeting January, definitely, I will reply to your mail.

 

A venue not quite so far north would have helped but I'll get there somehow.

[Lesd]

I think these ideas have some merit too. It would be good to have the flexibility to spend a bit longer in one spot occasionally. Cotswoldmans 28 day version looks like a winter version of Carts 'roving/local permit' idea ?

If you want to lock current permanent mooring holders out of this new scheme then make it open to existing cc'ers only. Im not suggesting thats 'fair' as such but again Cart talked about that in the discussion about these roving or local area permits to stop a mass of new users coming to the area.

[cotswoldsman]

I think what you mean is that it would generate a gross revenue of £600,000. The refunds etc and administration of this would surely absorb some of this revenue. The revenue would also need to offset any winter moorings CRT do not sell as a consequence of this scheme.

 

your method would negate some of the reasoning of Jenlyn's OP ie it would cost less to admin and need less towpath patrols. I can't see that would be the case with your method.

 

I can understand the thought of if there is extra income what can we spend it on to help a particular group but I am not in favour of any money being ring fenced to be spent in only one area. I would rather CRT income be just that and be available to whatever is required. Otherwise any so called boating grouping may wish to claim part of the licence is spent on them alone.

 

You make some good points. IMO people would still take winter moorings as some boaters like to stay in one place all winter, and quite a number moor up for the winter and go home, not all CCers are full time liveaboards. and yes a slight bit of admin but not much. As for ring fencing some of the income again I can understand your point. The thing is if people want the problem of Non moving boats solved it will cost money. The other alternative is just to keep moaning and complaining about Non moving boats and things stay the same. As I said at this stage I can not discuss theideas but if they are taken up in part CaRT could well end up saving money on legal costs.

[KenK]

[

That's not a million miles from the proposals CaRT have for the K and A mooring strategy I mentioned earlier and an idea which I personally think has wings. If the areas where this scheme was implimented was concentrated in certain areas away from major works (not the same locations every year) then that also allows for services to be concentrated in the event of icing.

I think it's an excellent idea, but then it doesn't actually affect me personally.

 

Yes, but that is actually designed to resolve the issue of the NCCC group on the K&A. Unless your boat was there in July 2012 you can't be included in the scheme. You can't pass it on if you sell your boat. The thinking (hope) is that eventually all those boats will leave. Pamela Smith of the National Bargee Traveller Association (Oxymoron if ever there was one)is totally opposed to the scheme because it means they have to pay, the current issue of the Butty (K&A Trust mag)has her thoughts on the subject.

 

Why would C&RT agree to this idea, if you are allowed to stay on visitor moorings for 14 or 28 days for what is a small additional cost why would anyone who is a CC'er pay for a winter mooring? Some might because they do not want to cruise in the Winter months, we have a couple in our marina but they are paying what they would to CRT for far better facilities.

This is just, we want something which is available now but we want to pay less for it, that doesn't bother me but I do not see the attraction for CRT.

 

Ken

[Sir Nibble]

I think these ideas have some merit too. It would be good to have the flexibility to spend a bit longer in one spot occasionally. Cotswoldmans 28 day version looks like a winter version of Carts 'roving/local permit' idea ?

If you want to lock current permanent mooring holders out of this new scheme then make it open to existing cc'ers only. Im not suggesting thats 'fair' as such but again Cart talked about that in the discussion about these roving or local area permits to stop a mass of new users coming to the area.

But supposing a mooring holder after many years has now retired and is ready to cruise the system? Why lock them out? If someone likes the idea then so long as they understand what the CC declaration is and that the rest of the year is to be spent cruising and they cannot stay in the same area where's the problem? I understand that just the kind of double standard I warn about is inherent in as you say,

Cart talked about that in the discussion about these roving or local area permits to stop a mass of new users coming to the area.

but I think that is a case of CaRT/BW facing the fact that they share a degree of responsibility for the situation bu their lack of enforcement and bearing that responsibility rather than shrugging it off by making people either homeless or unemployed.

[cotswoldsman]

I am willing to think I may have completely misunderstood this statement (and if so I apologise) but my reaction when reading this was that it is starting to sound like "you are all wrong unless you are supporting us"

 

My solution for what it is worth is for the winter mooring rates to be reviewed and made sure they are in line with the "going rate" for the area and type of mooring.

 

OK no problem. These meetings are for all boaters to discuss the way forward and is trying to stop the "them and us" shouting. Lets all get together and talk to each other and CaRT. For the meeting I have made a point of ensuring that a Hire Boat Company owner is at the meeting so that we can all fully understand the problems they face. We are ALL boaters together. I do not represent any group except boaters. I guess I am fed up with going round in circles and feel that everyone should be part of a process to make our Canals something we can all enjoy without having to divide into groups.

[jenlyn]

The attraction for CRT ken, is year on year steady guaranteed income, less admin costs and savings on patrols during winter.

[GUMPY]

This may sound revoloutionary but winter moorings used to be 1/12 per month of a local towpath mooring.

I used to take one at Stoke Bruene just south of the tunnel on a regular basis. In the summer I was off weekending round the system.

If the fee was brought down to that level would there be a take up, I guess there might be from those that weekend round the system but dont live on board.

[Dave_P]

I started reading this thread with an open mind and was soon swayed by Alan's arguments, but reading on I find that Chris makes some very valid points too! Oh to be so sure of oneself!

 

For my part, I think cc'ers should pay a higher license fee anyway since they use 'free' visitor facilities more than those who pay for a home mooring (unless the boat with a home mooring does a lot of cruising, in which case they are paying through the nose for their mooring anyway!) But I can't see why we need to offer cc'ers a free winter mooring to sweeten the deal. People will be coming to blows over the 'best' mooring spots. Much simpler to lay off cc'ers from november to march. The cut is quiet, the stoppages are many, the holidaymakers are gone, the ice has formed, the visitor moorings are empty... what's the point of enforcing anything at that time of year? I'd be interested to see the income from winter moorings for those 5 months compared to cost of bankside enforcement over the same period.

 

Finally, I would ring-fence the addition money gathered from cc'ers licenses to reimburse councils and other local agencies for the services those cc'ers use, neatly sidestepping the council tax debate and meaning that people who cc can access services legitimately without having to use pretend land addresses etc.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Why would C&RT agree to this idea, if you are allowed to stay on visitor moorings for 14 or 28 days for what is a small additional cost why would anyone who is a CC'er pay for a winter mooring? Some might because they do not want to cruise in the Winter months, we have a couple in our marina but they are paying what they would to CRT for far better facilities.

This is just, we want something which is available now but we want to pay less for it, that doesn't bother me but I do not see the attraction for CRT.

 

Ken

 

I would exclude anything less than a 14 day mooring from the scheme. People take winter moorings for a lot of reasons and most would continue to do so. Winter Mooring income is not that great anyway!!! No it is not about wanting something for less as you seem to know it all can you tell me how many boats have taken winter moorings this year?

[jenlyn]

I would exclude anything less than a 14 day mooring from the scheme. People take winter moorings for a lot of reasons and most would continue to do so. Winter Mooring income is not that great anyway!!! No it is not about wanting something for less as you seem to know it all can you tell me how many boats have taken winter moorings this year?

I know, please sir, I know how many! Heh heh

[Dave_P]

This may sound revoloutionary but winter moorings used to be 1/12 per month of a local towpath mooring.

I used to take one at Stoke Bruene just south of the tunnel on a regular basis. In the summer I was off weekending round the system.

If the fee was brought down to that level would there be a take up, I guess there might be from those that weekend round the system but dont live on board.

 

I had a winter mooring, 2 years ago and it cost less than 1/12 of a local towpath mooring. The uptake from approx 10 berths was just me! Don't believe everything that you read. The real reason that winter moorings aren't taken is that there's little or no incentive for cc'er to take them. Even if they were £20 a month, that's still £20 more than nothing if you just moor up permanently for the coldest 3 months or so, since you're highly unlikely to see any enforcement during the winter around most of the country. This issue is just a big red herring.

 

I know, please sir, I know how many! Heh heh

Tell us then. How many?

Edited December 11, 2012 by Dave_P

[cotswoldsman]

I know, please sir, I know how many! Heh heh

 

Ah and so do I boooo hoooooo

[jenlyn]

I had a winter mooring, 2 years ago and it cost less that 1/12 of a local towpath mooring. The uptake from approx 10 berths was just me! Don't believe everything that you read. The real reason that winter moorings aren't taken is that there's little or no incentive for cc'er to take them. Even if they were £20 a month, that's still £20 more than nothing if you just moor up permanently for the coldest 3 months or so, since you're highly unlikely to see any enforcement during the winter around most of the country. This issue is just a big red herring.

Your wrong, £20 a month would have people snatching your hand off.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Tell us then. How many?

 

Nope not possible at present.........

 

I had a winter mooring, 2 years ago and it cost less than 1/12 of a local towpath mooring. The uptake from approx 10 berths was just me! Don't believe everything that you read. The real reason that winter moorings aren't taken is that there's little or no incentive for cc'er to take them. Even if they were £20 a month, that's still £20 more than nothing if you just moor up permanently for the coldest 3 months or so, since you're highly unlikely to see any enforcement during the winter around most of the country. This issue is just a big red herring.

 

 

 

 

I have seen 2 enforcement officers in the last 3 weeks.

[KenK]

The attraction for CRT ken, is year on year steady guaranteed income, less admin costs and savings on patrols during winter.

 

All credit for what you are trying to do, at least boater's are trying to engage with CRT. I just think that £100 - £150 would not make up for the amount they would lose, dropping the cost of winter mooring would improve take up. Our marina has every facility you could want or think of and the cost of a month's stay in winter is reasonable simply because on the T&M there are vacancies in all marinas, so any income is welcome.

 

Ken