Dispute at Pillings

[matty40s]

 

Marinas continue to open and submit planning requests across the system George, even in these times of austerity. It doesn't seem to be discouraging some, unless you want a tesco metro style opening programme with hundreds of new ones opening each year.

 

Edited to answer George, bloomim predictive text

Edited May 18, 2014 by matty40s

[George94]

rance

Marinas continue to open and submit planning requests across the system George, even in these times of austerity. It doesn't seem to be discouraging some, unless you want a teach metro style opening programme with hundreds of new ones opening each year.

 

I am delighted to hear that, Matty. I just hope that the new ones are going to be in places where there is a demand for them.

 

BTW, excuse my ignorance (I'm a complete ignoramus about some things) but what is a "teach metro style opening programme"?

[adam1uk]

But I am less concerned with fairness in itself (though that is important) than by the effect in has in discouraging the building of new marinas.

What is your evidence that the NAA discourages the building of marinas? It seems to me that there are plenty of marinas being built at the moment, and there are also planning applications that have been turned down. Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true.

[furnessvale]

That's easy. Charging on-line moorers the same amount. And charging all marinas the same amount.

At last we agree! I look forward to my End of Garden permit falling from its current 50% to 9% or even zero if you win the day.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[George94]

At last we agree! I look forward to my End of Garden permit falling from its current 50% to 9% or even zero if you win the day.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Great to have you on board. We Georges should stick together.

What is your evidence that the NAA discourages the building of marinas? It seems to me that there are plenty of marinas being built at the moment, and there are also planning applications that have been turned down. Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true.

 

No evidence required.

 

It's pretty bloomin obvious that higher costs mean lower returns, and lower returns mean that alternative investments will be more attractive.

[Jerra]

charging all marinas the same amount..

That as I am sure you well understand is not possible as you can't change previous agreements.

 

To use (a perhaps not ideal) analogy: its like you having your patio laid at an agreed price and a couple of years later the firm turning up and saying oh by the way we have decided to charge you more. Or toreverse it five years later while the patio is still doing what you want it to do with no faults you going to the firm and saying I have decided to pay you less give me half my money back.

 

It just doesn't work.

[adam1uk]

No evidence required.

 

It's pretty bloomin obvious that higher costs mean lower returns, and lower returns mean that alternative investments will be more attractive.

In fact, the evidence suggests you're wrong -- so you've decided that no evidence is required.

[George94]

You really have lost the plot now George, time for your medicine.

 

Thank you for your concern, Matty.

[George94]

In fact, the evidence suggests you're wrong -- so you've decided that no evidence is required.

 

What evidence, pray?

 

In it's Inland Marina Investment Guide, recently linked to in this thread, BW stated that there was a need for up to 11,700 new marina berths by 2015. Are you suggesting that we are close to achieving that figure?

 

It seems to me that there are still an awful lot of on-line moorers, especially in and around London and on the K&A, and that in those areas especially there have been far too few new marinas. Of course, both are places where land is expensive and nimbyism rife, and prospective marina-developers need all the help they can get.

[adam1uk]

What evidence, pray?

 

In it's Inland Marina Investment Guide, recently linked to in this thread, BW stated that there was a need for up to 11,700 new marina berths by 2015. Are you suggesting that we are close to achieving that figure?

 

It seems to me that there are still an awful lot of on-line moorers, especially in and around London and on the K&A, and that in those areas especially there have been far too few new marinas. Of course, both are places where land is expensive and nimbyism rife, and prospective marina-developers need all the help they can get.

The evidence of the new marinas opening, and applied for, suggests that the NAA doesn't put people off. As you yourself suggest, the price of land is likely to be a much bigger stumbling block than the NAA in places like London.

[furnessvale]

Great to have you on board. We Georges should stick together.

Is there an irony icon, I don't know. While I am on the subject. When posting, I seem to have lost the ability to post icons or change text colour etc. I appear to be in some sort of HTML mode. Am I on my own or are others suffering?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[RLWP]

Is there an irony icon, I don't know. While I am on the subject. When posting, I seem to have lost the ability to post icons or change text colour etc. I appear to be in some sort of HTML mode. Am I on my own or are others suffering?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

On the icon bar, the left hand one looks like a switch. This switches between posting formats

 

You are in the html one

 

Richard

[furnessvale]

On the icon bar, the left hand one looks like a switch. This switches between posting formats

 

You are in the html one

 

Richard

Thanks for that. I must have accidentally caught that switch. This post is proving your suggestion works.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[matty40s]

Thank you for your concern, Matty.

Proof that care in the community is with us on the waterways.

[NigelMoore]

Reference the Riparian rights musings of some centuries past [in page terms], I have extracted some of the most pertinent sections of the 1990 Bill sessions that dealt with marina control, in light of the conferred rights under the enabling Acts which BW were seeking to abolish. Marinas come into it, because these were the primary examples BW gave to the committee – the anticipated control problems of which, they used to justify the notorious Clause 27 abolishing all riparian and other confirmed rights.

 

This time, it was the Board’s solicitor Mr Duffy [the Nigel Johnson of his day] who was giving evidence, examined by BW’s QC, Mr Lockhart-Mummery, and later by Lindy Foster. The first example given was a projected marina on the K&A [which the Japanese investors pulled out of, but which still left BW worried over any replacement developers]. The big problem was, they claimed, potential leakage of their water - given that with riparian rights intact, they would have had no control over construction quality of facilities they had no power to withhold consent for. [They later acknowledged, under the committee’s questioning, that representations could be made to the Planning Authority which had the power to grant or deny consent, but noted that – of course – the LPA need not take their advice.]

 

[with apologies for poor reproduction, but it’s just readable]

 

 

The lack of control was reiterated in cross-examination by Ms Foster –

 

 

The House of Lords eventually accepted BW’s arguments that abolition of private rights were desirable in order [amongst other considerations] for marinas to be built only with BW’s consent and under their control. Due to massive continued opposition, however, the clause was dropped on the first day the matter returned to the Commons.

 

Mr Richard Drabble QC on 23 June 1993 -

 

 

As with other clauses that failed the passage through Parliament, BW and now CaRT have not let it bother them; they ignore the cautionary note sounded by their QC, and carry on under the premise he proffered that they didn't need the legislation anyway.

 

Apropos of nothing in the above - it has to be said that the NAA's must surely be a relatively trivial percentage of the financial advantage reaped by increased numbers of boat licences. It is interesting to note that in 1993, BW claimed that there were some 19,000 boats on their system, all of which could [according to them] be provided with canalside moorings, but which they preferred [rightly in my opinion] to be located off track.

 

We now have a number more than half as much again, and yet considerably more could be accommodated with more off-line marinas, without clogging up the routes. It may be because 2/3rds of my cruising has been in winter months, but I have had the canals to myself most of the time, despite passing seemingly endless acres of offline moored boats.

 

If a marina such as Pillings paid [or was supposed to] nearly £40g per annum on 300 berths, the boat licence fees alone would have to be around £180,000 per annum, if not more. If those numbers were enabled only by reason of the marinas, then NAA or not, every extra marina will result in considerably increased income for so long as boat numbers are thus encouraged to increase.

 

Another point I forgot to make: although CaRT cannot compel offline boats to be licensed, the marina's agreement with such a requirement is only beneficial from their viewpoint, because of the ancillary benefits of assuring them that the boats will be kept to minimum standards and be covered by 3rd party insurance. Without the boat licence, they would have to monitor that for themselves or be at risk.

[Peter X]

 

What evidence, pray?

 

In it's Inland Marina Investment Guide, recently linked to in this thread, BW stated that there was a need for up to 11,700 new marina berths by 2015. Are you suggesting that we are close to achieving that figure?

 

It seems to me that there are still an awful lot of on-line moorers, especially in and around London and on the K&A, and that in those areas especially there have been far too few new marinas. Of course, both are places where land is expensive and nimbyism rife, and prospective marina-developers need all the help they can get.

 

I get the impression that while places around London e.g. the GU from Brentford to Uxbridge, or the Lee, are quite crowded compared to the rest of the canals, the real problem of congestion in London is the central area Paddington/Camden/Islington? There land is going to be very expensive indeed, but anyway I'd imagine that this and nimbyism are largely irrelevant because land alongside the canal where it could be plausible to build a marina is virtually non-existent? All sorts of big buildings and other stuff in the way.

 

Maybe there are places out in West London or up the Lee where a new marina is more possible and the figures might stack up for a developer, but London economics dictate that there will always be people eager to snap up a cheap mooring in or near zone 1 if CRT let them.

 

Before someone says I'm London-centric (horrible word), I'm writing about London here because I know more about that than I do about Wiltshire.

[George94]

The evidence of the new marinas opening, and applied for, suggests that the NAA doesn't put people off. As you yourself suggest, the price of land is likely to be a much bigger stumbling block than the NAA in places like London.

 

Adam, of course the price of land is a major stumbling block. And this is all the more reason, surely, not to add other hurdles.

 

I get the impression that while places around London e.g. the GU from Brentford to Uxbridge, or the Lee, are quite crowded compared to the rest of the canals, the real problem of congestion in London is the central area Paddington/Camden/Islington? There land is going to be very expensive indeed, but anyway I'd imagine that this and nimbyism are largely irrelevant because land alongside the canal where it could be plausible to build a marina is virtually non-existent? All sorts of big buildings and other stuff in the way.

 

Maybe there are places out in West London or up the Lee where a new marina is more possible and the figures might stack up for a developer, but London economics dictate that there will always be people eager to snap up a cheap mooring in or near zone 1 if CRT let them.

 

Before someone says I'm London-centric (horrible word), I'm writing about London here because I know more about that than I do about Wiltshire.

 

You're quite right that the prospect of anybody opening a new marina near central London is small, but places like Uxbridge still suffer from a serious shortage of residential marina moorings, and this has been the case for many years.

 

Possibly this owes more to the policies of the local authority, than to a lack of new marinas. I don't blame the NAA for everything.

Edited May 18, 2014 by George94

[matty40s]

Engineers wharf(68%) closed one set of online moorings completely, and reduced others.

Packet boat marina continues at 73% occupancy, there is something wrong with the pricing/reserves/auctions at engineers which has meant it has never been more than 80% full since year dot.

[George94]

That as I am sure you well understand is not possible as you can't change previous agreements.

 

To use (a perhaps not ideal) analogy: its like you having your patio laid at an agreed price and a couple of years later the firm turning up and saying oh by the way we have decided to charge you more. Or toreverse it five years later while the patio is still doing what you want it to do with no faults you going to the firm and saying I have decided to pay you less give me half my money back.

 

It just doesn't work.

 

I never said it would work, old chap. I just said it would be fairer.

 

And i do know that you can't unilaterally overturn a binding agreement. There would be no point in contracts at all if that could happen.

 

But no doubt you were trying to be helpful, so thank you for that.

Engineers wharf(68%) closed one set of online moorings completely, and reduced others.

Packet boat marina continues at 73% occupancy, there is something wrong with the pricing/reserves/auctions at engineers which has meant it has never been more than 80% full since year dot.

 

I suspect that a lack of residential moorings is why they aren't full. Not many people want to moor a boat in London unless they can live on it. You've got to go a long way to find a nice cruising ground, so it's better to do it quickly in the car.

[Jerra]

 

I never said it would work, old chap. I just said it would be fairer.

If you know it is an impossibility what ion earth is the point of still putting it forward?

[Phantasm]

Wow......been away for 3 weeks, logged on to the forum tonight to find this thread still on the first index page, but very little to do with PLM/PLT etc, just George94 regurgitating same arguments

[MtB]

If you know it is an impossibility what ion earth is the point of still putting it forward?

 

Because he is just tweaking your tails and winding you up. How can you not see this?!

 

MtB

[junior]

 

I never said it would work, old chap. I just said it would be fairer.

 

And i do know that you can't unilaterally overturn a binding agreement. There would be no point in contracts at all if that could happen.

 

But no doubt you were trying to be helpful, so thank you for that.

 

 

I suspect that a lack of residential moorings is why they aren't full. Not many people want to moor a boat in London unless they can live on it. You've got to go a long way to find a nice cruising ground, so it's better to do it quickly in the car.

Engineers Wharf is 100% residential as far as I'm aware, and there is always vacancies. Packet Boat has a sign up outside stating it has residential vacancies. I'm not sure of the state of play at Willow Wren Wharf but for the 12 months I was looking at moorings prior to buying my boat they were advertising residential vacancies. it is a myth that there is a lack of Residential moorings in London, the problem seems to be that people are reluctant to pay for them!

[mayalld]

 

I don't think I have ever suggested that the NAA is higher than previous arrangements. But thanks for pointing that out. It explains why the trade body supports the NAA, which did seem to me rather like turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

ETA: Except, that is, in my previous post, which was made in jest.

 

The point being, that whilst charges on marinas may raise more money in the short term, in the long term they will have the opposite effect, by discouraging the building of marinas, and by pricing people off the canal.

 

When demand is inelastic, as it is for water, people will just pay more when there is a price rise. They won't stop using water, though of course for a while they will endeavour to use less. This is why we have to have a system to regulate the water companies and the prices they charge. If we didn't, we'd be paying more for water than we are for petrol.

 

When demand is elastic, as it is for boating, higher prices will tend to reduce demand. BW recognised this, it would seem, by lowering the price of access. In my view they need to lower it further. To zero. That's if they still want to encourage more people to use marinas. And more people to build them.

 

With every passing post, I become more convinced than ever that by some chance you have stumbled upon an old economics textbook, and are regurgitating without understanding a word of it.

 

But, in the interests of fairness, let us explore your suggestion of promoting demand.

 

We will, for the sake of simplicity assume;

1. That the number of CCers remains constant
2. That the supply of on-line moorings is constant and already fully occupied
3. That you are not seeking to abolish EOG fees as well.

As such, we are considering only a community of (say) 20,000 marina dwellers. We will also make no allowances for different boat sizes, and we will assume that as of now in a world of NAA, these boats are paying £900 licence and £2,000 mooring.

 

Marina Operators have (wisely) planned for 75% occupancy, and on average achieve 85%

 

Those operators that achieve better than 75% are clearly winning, because the element of the fees that is to pay NAA is going straight to them on the extra 10%

 

So, their cost model assumes that £240 of the £2,000 goes to CRT.

 

CRT actually gain an income of £210 per boat, a total income of £1,110 per boat or £22m.

 

Then, comes G-day, the day upon which NAA payments are abolished.

 

At a stroke, CRT lose £4.2 million in income.

 

Marinas may cut their prices a little, but as they were making a bit on the over 75% element, they aren't actually going to cut prices as much as all that (in fact, with the fixed NAA cost removed, their cost pressures are reduced, and full occupancy is less important than it was. The boater will see a reduction of perhaps £100 in the cost of the marina. If we are really lucky they might see £200 reduction.

 

So the annual cost of licence an mooring drops from £2,900 to £2,700. How much demand will that generate?

 

In order to recoup the lost revenue, CRT need it to bring over 4,500 extra boats onto the system.

 

It just doesn't work.

[Jerra]

 

Because he is just tweaking your tails and winding you up. How can you not see this?!

 

MtB

I can see it but I take perverse enjoyment in poking back!