CART connection charge

[b0atman]

I have followed the Pillings discussion and would like questions answered

Why have the connection charge ?

Does it vary with number of boats in marina?

Why is it not scrapped and put into equation of License fee ?

Is it different if marinas have more than one connection point ?

Seeing that it is CARTS water why are some Marina moorers not required to be licenced ?

Enough for now sensible answers only please.

[bottle]

I have followed the Pillings discussion and would like questions answered

Why have the connection charge ?Because a service is being supplied and that service costs

Does it vary with number of boats in marina? Yes, explanation it is the number of berths in the marina, not the number occupied

Why is it not scrapped and put into equation of License fee ? because that is how it is, does not mean it could not be changed though

Is it different if marinas have more than one connection point ? Do not know but you could always ask one that has more than one or ask C&RT

Seeing that it is CARTS water why are some Marina moorers not required to be licenced ? Historic rights and agreements signed when the marina was built.

Enough for now sensible answers only please.

[b0atman]

thank you well replied Keith/Bottle

[NigelMoore]

^{The ‘why’ is obvious, a “connection charge” is a means of raising more income, unjustifiable by statute, yet, as others have pointed out, incorporated into contractual agreements. As a description it has its origin in some of the later canal enabling Acts wherein new companies wished to connect to existing canals. As many such canals were a potential rival for business, and because in some instances the water supply of the original canal would be adversely affected by locking down through the new connection, the original company would invariably require [as a price for withdrawing opposition to the new Act] that the need for a connection fee [and possibly some annual recompense for lost trade etc] was incorporated into the new company’s enabling Act.}

^{The ‘connection charge’ in other words, was allowed by specific statutory terms.}

^{It appears that as a contractual term in the modern agreements, the level CaRT set for the ‘connection charge’ varies in accordance with the number of berths available, not “with number of boats in marina” occupying those berths.}

^{There is no plausible justification for charging all boaters extra to cover the agreements of a few businesses to the payment of this charge. If the argument for CaRT’s needing the income was carried to one logical conclusion respecting boater contribution, then the answer would be to triple the licence fees across the board.}

^{The question would remain – why place the financial burden on the few thousands of boaters when we are told that the numbers of other users are so much greater? It is projected in the draft new byelaws that licences will be required for every conceivable activity taking place alongside the canals – i.e. strollers, cyclists, dog-walkers, anglers, model aircraft and toy boat use, picnics and organised walks etc, etc.}

^{The nomenclature “CaRT water” is inaccurate and misleading. Private water space is outside of CaRT’s jurisdiction, the limits to which are clearly defined. Ownership of water is in the public; jurisdiction over use is controlled by common law in the case of private persons, and by virtue of relevant statutes in the case of statutory bodies. A body such as CaRT can be [and is, respecting hundreds of miles of waterway] granted a measure of jurisdiction regardless of ownership.}

^{No-one outside of the statutorily defined limits for statutorily defined purposes such a boat licensing, can be compelled to obtain such a licence. Once again, however, in new marinas possession of a boat licence may be made a condition of use by the owner [whether at CaRT’s instigation or for their own comfort as to condition etc]. The only way CaRT can require boats outside their jurisdiction to be licensed while in a marina, therefore, is if they have come to that agreement with the marina to make that a condition of use. It is the marina owner/operator who is in a position to require it.}

^{Because such agreements cannot be compelled in existing marinas, the tactic has been to deny short-term licences to their inhabitants, thus encouraging those who do wish to go on [say] annual fortnight holidays, to buy a licence for a year for the sake of that fortnight.}

[churchward]

I erm...

 

... no it's no good I can't be bothered.

[Graham Davis]

What a surprise.

Another NM diatribe against CaRT!!

[NigelMoore]

Just by way of illustrative comparison, respecting statutory limits, the Environment Agency's ability to demand boat licences on the Thames used to be restricted to those boats that used the river and locks, not to those who never moved from their moorings - the same restrictions as apply to CaRT's control of the public navigable rivers in their jurisdiction [because the BW Act lifted the Thames Conservancy Act clause verbatim].

 

Anglian waterways came under different statutes, and in those a boat licence was required for any boat on private water connected to the EA water. The situation has been homogenised for all waterways under EA jurisdiction following the 2010 Inland Waterways statute, so all those previously exempt from boat licences on the Thames, now have to obtain one regardless of whether in private marinas or not.

[Paul C]

What a surprise.

Another NM diatribe against CaRT!!

 

Actually if you took the time to read it properly, and try to be a bit more positive rather than simply having a pop at Nigel, you'd realise there is a lot of sense in his post.

 

Yes, a "service" is being provided, but after the initial works to create the opening (which is probably paid for by the marina developer), the initial water fill (which is a separate agreement/cost, I believe) the actual costs incurred as a result of the connection are minimal, and certainly not the 9% of total number berths x mooring fee. Yes there will be a little more water lost through evaporation and leakage, but the marina developer needs to satisfy CRT of the water-tightness of the marina before its allowed to be connected. The main extra 'service' is the potential greater number of boats a marina potentially brings to a particular area, eg an increase in boating traffic. But I doubt the actual differential cost in those extra boats incurs anywhere near the actual connection fee.

 

So I'd say it is a 'hidden' cost to the (marina-moored) boater, call it a tax, or 2nd portion of the licence, etc it amounts to the same thing.

 

Its similar with EOG mooring fees, possibly even more so given the much greater cost which is paid by the boater here.

 

Those boaters paying neither EOG mooring fee nor marina connection fee (indirectly, via their mooring fees) are getting very good value for money compared to others. Unfair? Possibly, but one has the choice to seek out a mooring without the extra fee, or CC.

[Stilllearning]

Paul C has made a fair point about the connection charge : how BW/C&RT justify the continuation of this cost year after year is difficult to understand.

However, making an alternative income stream for their business is a problem.

On Mr Moore's point about licences for every conceivable activity on the towpath, that is unenforceable as we all know. Years ago when involved in conservation in a professional capacity, the idea of charging people to use the country, via meters at stiles for instance, was debated fairly seriously. It was a non starter then and is for this too, as it is unenforceable. It may be in draft new bylaws, but I will happily wager that it will not happen.

[RLWP]

What demand would there be for a canal boat marina with no canal connection?

 

The marinas business relies on the canal, why shouldn't they pay

 

Richard

[NigelMoore]

Paul C has made a fair point about the connection charge : how BW/C&RT justify the continuation of this cost year after year is difficult to understand.

However, making an alternative income stream for their business is a problem.

On Mr Moore's point about licences for every conceivable activity on the towpath, that is unenforceable as we all know. Years ago when involved in conservation in a professional capacity, the idea of charging people to use the country, via meters at stiles for instance, was debated fairly seriously. It was a non starter then and is for this too, as it is unenforceable. It may be in draft new bylaws, but I will happily wager that it will not happen.

 

Certainly impractical, I agree. While I won't take your wager, I also would be surprised to see such byelaws passed. It illustrates the thinking though.

[Paul C]

What demand would there be for a canal boat marina with no canal connection?

 

The marinas business relies on the canal, why shouldn't they pay

 

Richard

 

What demand would there be for a canal boat marina with no canal connection?

 

The marinas business relies on the canal, why shouldn't they pay

 

Richard

 

I'll skip over the rhetorical question, and answer your question with another: okay accepting that they should pay something, what sets the amount they pay? Do CRT impose a flat-rate amount across the network, should this relate to anything other than a figure they think they can get away with, for example how about it actually relating to the cost of providing the service that is offered?

[Stilllearning]

 

Certainly impractical, I agree. While I won't take your wager, I also would be surprised to see such byelaws passed. It illustrates the thinking though.

To be honest, what it probably illustrates is the sort of conversations we used to have sitting in meetings back in the 80s, but written down into the minutes by some over enthusiastic person. The art of minute taking is a subtle one.

[NigelMoore]

Actually, I should perhaps amend my previous comment on the practicality. The situation is not wholly analogous to 'pay-as-you-use' turnstiles in the country, because any such byelaws if passed, would become law and subject to criminal sanction.

 

It would certainly be impossible to exercise total control as in preventing the relevant activities taking place without a licence, but the terms of the byelaws provide that any CaRT officer patrolling a section could demand sight of the licence on coming across any relevant activity. He could arrest any offenders on the spot, and a few such incidents would demonstrate that, e.g. walking a dog along the towpath without having your licence to do so in your pocket, would be to incur the risk of unpleasant consequences.

 

Nonetheless, I still agree that it would be surprising if the Secretary of State approved such, supposing they survived the necessary public consultation.

[Mike Todd]

The origin of the 9% lies in the undertaking by CaRT to decommission towpath moorings in the area - the loss of income from them balances out the NAA. Since the removal of linear moorings is something much requested by (passing) boaters, there is a net gain to the community a a whole even if the deal is cost neutral to CaRT.

 

Paul C has made a fair point about the connection charge : how BW/C&RT justify the continuation of this cost year after year is difficult to understand.

However, making an alternative income stream for their business is a problem.

On Mr Moore's point about licences for every conceivable activity on the towpath, that is unenforceable as we all know. Years ago when involved in conservation in a professional capacity, the idea of charging people to use the country, via meters at stiles for instance, was debated fairly seriously. It was a non starter then and is for this too, as it is unenforceable. It may be in draft new bylaws, but I will happily wager that it will not happen.

[NigelMoore]

To be honest, what it probably illustrates is the sort of conversations we used to have sitting in meetings back in the 80s, but written down into the minutes by some over enthusiastic person. The art of minute taking is a subtle one.

 

Point taken, but not the explanation in this case. The byelaws were the bonus-point child of Nigel Johnson, courtesy of the legal team he presided over.

[RLWP]

I'll skip over the rhetorical question, and answer your question with another: okay accepting that they should pay something, what sets the amount they pay? Do CRT impose a flat-rate amount across the network, should this relate to anything other than a figure they think they can get away with, for example how about it actually relating to the cost of providing the service that is offered?

How do they calculate the cost of my CRT on line mooring?

 

Richard

[Jerra]

how BW/C&RT justify the continuation of this cost year after year is difficult to understand.

I am perhaps being too simplistic but it seems clear and simple to me. CRT removes an on line mooring for every 10 berths in a new marina. This loses them income in order to allow a private business chance to trade and make a profit. In return they pay CRT a percentage of the fee they could collect on each berth.

 

CRT are unlikely to remove some moorings for nothing in return. They have done something to help the business it isn't unreasonable to expect a return for doing this. Is it?

[adam1uk]

Don't think of it as a connection fee, think of it as an access charge.

 

It's CRT saying to the marina owner that in return for the payment of the fee each year, CRT will make sure their customers, moorers, will have water to float on and access to the canal network.

 

Without that guarantee, the marina owner wouldn't have a business.

[RLWP]

Don't think of it as a connection fee, think of it as an access charge.

It's CRT saying to the marina owner that in return for the payment of the fee each year, CRT will make sure their customers, moorers, will have water to float on and access to the canal network.

Without that guarantee, the marina owner wouldn't have a business.

That's nicely explained.

 

Richard

[OldGoat]

Just by way of illustrative comparison, respecting statutory limits, the Environment Agency's ability to demand boat licences on the Thames used to be restricted to those boats that used the river and locks, not to those who never moved from their moorings - the same restrictions as apply to CaRT's control of the public navigable rivers in their jurisdiction [because the BW Act lifted the Thames Conservancy Act clause verbatim].

 

Anglian waterways came under different statutes, and in those a boat licence was required for any boat on private water connected to the EA water. The situation has been homogenised for all waterways under EA jurisdiction following the 2010 Inland Waterways statute, so all those previously exempt from boat licences on the Thames, now have to obtain one regardless of whether in private marinas or not.

 

 

For once, I'm going to disagree with you.

EA can't charge you for using the river as there is a Public Right of Navigation. So you pay to have the vessel registered.

Neat.

Grudgingly, I suppose you're partly correct in that a long time ago use of locks was charged but IMHO only for commercial vessels - as they still do today. Certainly the rules were clarified in the Thames Conservancy Acts.

 

Boats in marinas have always been liable for licences - such rules were not always enforced as most folks paid up without question. In recent year(s) EA have stepped up their fee collection effort.

 

Some folks object to this apparent change of stance and make a lot of noise, but nobody - as yet has had the cahones to actually obtain a judgement.

 

Gone are the days when boaters can expert a service for free and particularly now that EA is having its grant in aid drastically cut the only way out is to ensure as much money is raised as possible.

[john6767]

Don't think of it as a connection fee, think of it as an access charge.

 

It's CRT saying to the marina owner that in return for the payment of the fee each year, CRT will make sure their customers, moorers, will have water to float on and access to the canal network.

 

Without that guarantee, the marina owner wouldn't have a business.

Absolutely, and I struggle to see why people think that it is not the right and proper thing for CRT to do. As to setting the level of that change, that I think is much more subjective than if there should be one or not, which seems clear cut to me.

[Rich]

Don't think of it as a connection fee, think of it as an access charge.

 

It's CRT saying to the marina owner that in return for the payment of the fee each year, CRT will make sure their customers, moorers, will have water to float on and access to the canal network.

 

Without that guarantee, the marina owner wouldn't have a business.

Yes, I can see that. Take it a stage further. Without the marina owners having a business there would be no marinas and if no marinas no NAA so then there would be boats moored up everywhere (not literally) so after a short while fewer boats therefore fewer licences therefore less income for Canal and River Trust.

 

I do find it odd that boaters seem to be happy paying an extra 1.09% on top of the mooring fee for nothing.

 

Ah well, takes allsorts

[macc]

Actually, I should perhaps amend my previous comment on the practicality. The situation is not wholly analogous to 'pay-as-you-use' turnstiles in the country, because any such byelaws if passed, would become law and subject to criminal sanction.

 

It would certainly be impossible to exercise total control as in preventing the relevant activities taking place without a licence, but the terms of the byelaws provide that any CaRT officer patrolling a section could demand sight of the licence on coming across any relevant activity. He could arrest any offenders on the spot, and a few such incidents would demonstrate that, e.g. walking a dog along the towpath without having your licence to do so in your pocket, would be to incur the risk of unpleasant consequences.

 

Nonetheless, I still agree that it would be surprising if the Secretary of State approved such, supposing they survived the necessary public consultation.

there is something already on these lines its called a rod licence.

[Stilllearning]

Yes, I can see that. Take it a stage further. Without the marina owners having a business there would be no marinas and if no marinas no NAA so then there would be boats moored up everywhere (not literally) so after a short while fewer boats therefore fewer licences therefore less income for Canal and River Trust.

 

I do find it odd that boaters seem to be happy paying an extra 1.09% on top of the mooring fee for nothing.

 

Ah well, takes allsorts

Gosh, 1.09% ? Really? So up to about £20 pound a year?

And not for nothing of course, as has been pointed out several times.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Stilllearning