CART connection charge

[RLWP]

Since a marina mooring fee is potentially greater than an on-line mooring fee the 9% CART get is a potentially larger sum than the money forgone by reducing on-line moorings.

 

N

 

How is 9% of a marina fee more than 100% of ten CRT mooring fees?

 

Richard

[MtB]

 

How is 9% of a marina fee more than 100% of ten CRT mooring fees?

 

Richard

 

I was wondering this too. Doesn't stack up even back in the day when an online mooring was £500 and a marina berth was £2000. These days the differential has almost disappeared so must be hurting CRT all the more, getting rid of the online moorings.

 

On a related subject, if a marina grants a long term lease for a car parking space with a 'free' mooring attached, does it still attract the 9% NAA fee?

 

MtB

[Ray T]

Hypothetical senario.

 

I decide to build a 200 berth marina, assume I have all the relavent permissions for a non residental one.

In the first year I do not expect a rush of moorers so I provide 50 pontoons only.

 

The take up suprises me and by the end of year 1 I have a 100 moorers, but only 50 pontoons.

To overcome this initial problem I berth the boats 2 X 2 i.e. one on a pontoon one moored along side.

 

Year 2 I have to start paying the NAA dues because I have signed up for it.

 

Now what are my dues to CRT based upon?

200 berths

100 berths as I have 100 boats in my marina.

or 50 as I only have 50 pontoons.

 

Is the charge based on berthing slots available or total possible capacity?

 

I would appreciate sensible answers please, not ones telling me the moorers would desert the marina because they don't have a pontoon to moor against.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Ray T

[Paul C]

 

How is 9% of a marina fee more than 100% of ten CRT mooring fees?

 

Richard

 

Because 9% of a marina fee could possibly be more than 1/10 of the CRT mooring fees. The policy is to remove one online mooring per 10 created marina berths. So on the given figures, CRT mooring fee of £500 and marina berth £2000:

 

9% of (say) 100 marina berths at £2000 = £18000

10 online berths removed, at £500 = £5000

 

Obviously CRT's income is much more. Lets use some more realistic figures, £1500 for the online mooring and £1800 for the equivalent marina mooring

 

9% of (say) 100 marina berths at £1800 = £16200

10 online berths removed, at £1500 = £15000

 

Of course, one cannot simply compare it anyway, because the fact that a marina is there means CRT incurs a little more operating costs - because the boat traffic in the area is greatly increased. More lock usage, more water (to use those locks), greater wear and tear, a few more callouts when equipment fails and they need to fix it, etc

 

And the online berths which are reduced aren't run at £0 cost, there will be a little cost from periodic visits, wear/tear, maintenance. Of course, no where near £1500 but say £50-100 per year per berth.

 

So they're roughly equivalent.

Hypothetical senario.

 

I decide to build a 200 berth marina, assume I have all the relavent permissions for a non residental one.

In the fist year I do not expect a rush of moorers so I provide 50 pontoons only. The take up suprises me and by the end of year 1 I have a 100 moorers, but only 50 pontoons.

To overcome this initial problem I berth the boats 2 X 2 i.e. one on a pontoon one moored along side.

 

 

Did you provide a double width, to allow boats to breast up, in between the pontoons??? ie install the pontoons in every other eventual location for them?

[Ray T]

 

 

Did you provide a double width, to allow boats to breast up, in between the pontoons??? ie install the pontoons in every other eventual location for them?

 

In the marina we berth in there is space for 2 boats side by side between each finger pontoon, so, each boat owner can step off one side onto a pontoon.

 

Now in my hypothetical case I only provide alternate pontoons so there is space for 4 boats between the fingers. Therefore 2 boat owners cannot step onto a pontoon they have to walk across another boat first. So I have four boats but only two have an official mooring.

[Paul C]

 

In the marina we berth in there is space for 2 boats side by side between each finger pontoon, so, each boat owner can step off one side onto a pontoon.

 

Now in my hypothetical case I only provide alternate pontoons so there is space for 4 boats between the fingers. Therefore 2 boat owners cannot step onto a pontoon they have to walk across another boat first. So I have four boats but only two have an official mooring.

 

Thanks for the clarification, I see now! Going back to your question, I think CRT may have a rightful claim to more of the NAA, if you declared 50 mooring spaces but were accommodating 100. In essence, when agreeing the NAA, both sides would need to agree the number of berths figure. They may not agree to the 50 figure in a marina with the area (size) for 200 berths eventually, and not accept a phased approach to the creating of the berths. They would probably rightfully argue that's what the 0% year 1, 50% year 2, 100% year 3 and on is for.

PS a marina operator might only install 50 pontoons in a 200 berth (by area) marina, but CRT not agree the NAA on anything other than 200 berth size. I imagine the marina operator would have needed planning permission for 200 berths, not 50, too.

[George94]

 

Top quality cut and thrust debate from you too now. Your point by point rebuttal of each argument presented is most impressive.

 

Are you Rich in disguise?

 

 

MtB

 

I shall rebut when the will to live returns.

[magictime]

The company they leave behind has to cope with the financial situation that the former management agreed to, and they have no grounds to now go cap in hand to government and ask for a more workable agreement. Until CaRT go belly up and into liquidation, the government is under no obligation to revisit the terms of their contract and contribute more tax money to the enterprise, just because they are facing difficulties.

 

And, as so many are correctly suggesting re: the Pillings Marina debacle – why should they?

 

Well... since the CaRT hold the waterways in trust for the nation and therefore have a duty to look after them, the answer to 'why should [the government revisit the terms of the contract]?' is 'because they're worried that the CaRT is not able to discharge its duties as a charitable trust under the present terms of that contract'. (That is not the same as having obligation to revisit the terms of the contract, of course.)

 

[Edited for punctuation.]

Edited January 25, 2014 by magictime

[George94]

 

For example commercial waste charges, business rates, licence fees, TV licences, PRS and PPL for playing music, employee and public liability insurance, rent, PAYE and VAT? Customers or no customers, they all need paying.

 

in every case, each of these involves either a service being provided, or a tax that varies with activity. in some cases, like the PRS fees, they are optional. It's not necessary for a marina to assault the ears of its customers with muzak.

 

What ALL of you are forgetting is that the marina doesn't need access to the canal, the boaters do. And they are already paying a licence which allows them to use the canal.

 

The only argument here that carries any weight at all is that of Dave Mayall, but even then it's not conclusive in my view. Since CART wants to reduce the number of on-line moorings, perhaps THEY should pay the marina for enabling them to do so.

[MtB]

 

in every case, each of these involves either a service being provided, or a tax that varies with activity. in some cases, like the PRS fees, they are optional. It's not necessary for a marina to assault the ears of its customers with muzak.

 

What ALL of you are forgetting is that the marina doesn't need access to the canal, the boaters do. And they are already paying a licence which allows them to use the canal.

 

The only argument here that carries any weight at all is that of Dave Mayall, but even then it's not conclusive in my view. Since CART wants to reduce the number of on-line moorings, perhaps THEY should pay the marina for enabling them to do so.

 

 

The marinas do need access because without it, boaters won't rent moorings from them and they'll have no viable business.

 

 

 

And CRT don't want to reduce the number of on-line moorings. The boaters do.

 

 

 

MtB

[George94]

 

OK, point by point then:

 

CART is a monopoly.

 

No it isn't. There are navigations run by the Environment Agency, the Broads Authority, the Manchester Ship Canal Company, the National Trust and various other organisations. The CaRT certainly dominates the market, but so what? Sky TV dominates the market in enabling pubs to show live sporting events, but it doesn't follow that they should provide that service for free.

 

It was this point that made me lose the will to live. Of course it's a monopoly.

 

The marina owner has no choice but to pay

 

Not if he wants direct access to CaRT waters, no. He also has 'no choice but to pay' various other charges that make his business viable: gas and electricity bills, business rates, etc. So what?

 

He gets something in return for all the other services, and the taxes vary with activity; they are not fixed.

 

And he gets nothing for it.

 

This is the heart of matter, I think. You take the view that simply providing access to CaRT waters is not really providing anything of value in the way that providing satellite TV or electricity is. But it is providing something of value. It's that access to CaRT waters that puts the marina in a position to make money from boaters, just as a pitch in a football club's car park puts a burger van in a position to make money from football fans. Nothing is being 'supplied' by the club to that van other than the opportunity to sell things to its customers - but that is valuable in itself.

 

It's the boaters who get something for it, and they are already paying to use the canal. Why should they pay extra to CART, when nothing extra is being provided by CART?

 

And, worst of all, it's a fixed charge.

 

Why shouldn't the charge be fixed? Businesses pay all sorts of fixed charges based on their own assumptions about the amount of custom they can attract. Restaurants pay a fixed charge for their rent; it's not their landlord's problem if they can't fill their tables. The CaRT spell out the charge to provide access to a marina with 50 berths, or 100 berths, or 200 berths, and it's then for the marina developer to decide how many berths they think they can fill. Why should the CaRT lose out because a neighbouring business does a poor job of attracting customers?

 

Of course rent is a fixed charge. It's for the use of a fixed amount of land and or buildings. CART are not providing a right to occupy property. You might have noticed that taxes are not a fixed charge. They vary with the ability of the taxed person to pay.

 

Incidentally, rent, being a large fixed charge, is very often the thing that causes a struggling business to tip over into bankruptcy.

 

 

The marinas do need access because without it, boaters won't rent moorings from them and they'll have no viable business.

 

 

 

And CRT don't want to reduce the number of on-line moorings. The boaters do.

 

 

 

MtB

 

Sorry, but the marina doesn't need access. The boaters do, and they are already paying for it. If they all said to the marina owner that they were too old and tired of life to go boating any more, the marina would not need access. Please don't argue that this is hypothetical; of course it is, but sometimes a reductio ad absurdum argument is needed to make a point.

 

ETA: In addressing this point, I am not in any way supporting the lovely Lilley. He did indeed sign up to the agreement, and is legally obliged to to pay it. But if I were in charge of CART I would not continue with it.

Edited January 25, 2014 by George94

[Graham Davis]

 

What ALL of you are forgetting is that the marina doesn't need access to the canal, the boaters do. And they are already paying a licence which allows them to use the canal.

 

 

What?

Are you serious?

 

If the marina has no access to the canal (or river) it isn't a marina, it's a pond!!

 

And if CaRT is a monopoly, how come there are other \navigation authorities, a list of which has been provided?

Edited January 25, 2014 by Graham Davis

[MtB]

OK, point by point then:

 

CART is a monopoly.

 

No it isn't. There are navigations run by the Environment Agency, the Broads Authority, the Manchester Ship Canal Company, the National Trust and various other organisations. The CaRT certainly dominates the market, but so what? Sky TV dominates the market in enabling pubs to show live sporting events, but it doesn't follow that they should provide that service for free.

 

It was this point that made me lose the will to live. Of course it's a monopoly.

 

 

 

George94,

 

Magictime has demolished your assertions with logical and reasonable arguments. Just contradicting him and restating your original assertions does not constitute 'debate'.

 

MtB

[magictime]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond George94.

 

 

If they all said to the marina owner that they were too old and tired of life to go boating any more, the marina would not need access.

 

Quite. If its customers did not need access, the marina would not need access. But its customers do need access. So the marina needs access.

 

The idea that 'the marina doesn't need access. The boaters do' makes no more sense than the idea that 'Tesco doesn't need a car park. Its customers do'. You can't draw that sort of line between what a business needs and what its customers need.

 

And you're going to have to explain this point about CaRT being a monopoly to me. What does it have a monopoly on? (And please don't say 'CaRT waterways'.)

[Rich]

 

Excellent point Dave.

 

PLM don't pay as they are getting 'nothing', CRT close off the entrance as it is worth 'nothing'. Everyone's happy including George94, Rich, and Paul Lillie.

 

Sorted! Yes?

 

 

MtB

The access charge is for allowing boats access to the canal system. For the first three years we were CCers and had full access to the canal system but we paid no access charge, so the charge must be for allowing boats to pass through a gap in the canal bank.

 

I cannot see how it can be anything but a money raising scheme in which case some boaters are being charged more than others. That is not fair, and before there is another outburst of "life's not fair" and " business is not fair" and the assorted "that's how it is", being the norm does not make it right.

 

The general opinion is that I have got it wrong. Please explain to me where as I can't see it. And please, preferably without any burger vans or tea rooms.

This is an interesting debate.

 

Those that want to see the NAA abolished, or think it is unfair, seem to base their opinion on the premise that marinas would lower their rents if the NAA were abolished. Quite honestly, that belief seems quite naive.

 

 

One or two might just have the brains to see that a reduction in fees would help to fill empty mooring spaces. But, it occurs to me that the damn thing should have been strangled at birth, never to see the light of day (Two clichés in one sentence, excuse my venomous tongue). But, it is too late now.

[MtB]

The access charge is for allowing boats access to the canal system. For the first three years we were CCers and had full access to the canal system but we paid no access charge, so the charge must be for allowing boats to pass through a gap in the canal bank.

 

I cannot see how it can be anything but a money raising scheme in which case some boaters are being charged more than others. That is not fair, and before there is another outburst of "life's not fair" and " business is not fair" and the assorted "that's how it is", being the norm does not make it right.

 

The general opinion is that I have got it wrong. Please explain to me where as I can't see it. And please, preferably without any burger vans or tea rooms.

 

Yep, I agree with all of this. Almost. Agreement is bursting out all over!

 

I'd say the gap in the canal bank was needed by the marina actually because the marina needs boaters to be able to get from the cut into the marina to rent their moorings, buy their diesel, use their workshops etc etc.

 

Yes it's not fair and not 'right', but we are not discussing how things are not how they ought to be. The NAA is just one way of collecting money to maintain the system from someone/some businesses in no position to refuse to pay up. Yes.

 

MtB

[magictime]

The access charge is for allowing boats access to the canal system. For the first three years we were CCers and had full access to the canal system but we paid no access charge, so the charge must be for allowing boats to pass through a gap in the canal bank.

 

I cannot see how it can be anything but a money raising scheme in which case some boaters are being charged more than others. That is not fair, and before there is another outburst of "life's not fair" and " business is not fair" and the assorted "that's how it is", being the norm does not make it right.

 

The general opinion is that I have got it wrong. Please explain to me where as I can't see it. And please, preferably without any burger vans or tea rooms.

 

The point of the burger van and tea rooms analogies is just that there's nothing unusual or (IMHO - maybe I disagree with MtB on this one) unfair about a larger business charging a smaller business for the opportunity to 'piggyback' on it. Smaller businesses pay these fees because they recognise the commercial value of the opportunity to put their own goods and services under the noses (so to speak) of the larger businesses' customers. In some cases, their whole business model is based on providing goods and services to the customers of one larger business, in which case the commercial value of the opportunity is very substantial.

 

Yes, the smaller business will probably pass some or all of that fee on to its customers. And those customers will, of course, also be customers of the larger business. So in that sense, some customers of the larger business are (indirectly) 'paying more' to that larger business than others. But that's because they choose to give their custom to the smaller business. Nobody's forcing them.

 

I think the basic problem here - and the reason I keep trying to draw analogies with other types of business - is that you're seeing this 'extra charge on boaters' as something exceptional, and it just isn't. You're paying 'charges' like this all the time. If you buy a coffee on a train station, you're paying an 'extra charge' to Network Rail compared to other travellers (via the concession fee they charge the stall holder). If you buy a car from a local dealership, you're paying an 'extra charge' to the local authority compared to other Council Tax payers (via the dealership's business rates). And yes, if you rent a mooring in a marina with an NAA agreement, you're paying an 'extra charge' to the CaRT compared to other licence fee payers (via the NAA fee). What is it that makes this last case so uniquely objectionable, in your eyes? Or are they all equally objectionable?

[BEngo]

 

How is 9% of a marina fee more than 100% of ten CRT mooring fees?

 

Richard

It's the other way round is it not?- CART get rid of 1 on-line mooring for every 10 marina berths.

 

 

If the moorings were the same price CART would be 1% worse off. If the marina is 12% dearer CART are (just) winning.

 

 

N

[Tam & Di]

The access charge is for allowing boats access to the canal system. For the first three years we were CCers and had full access to the canal system but we paid no access charge, so the charge must be for allowing boats to pass through a gap in the canal bank.

 

Except that Pillings Marina is only part of the canal system because there is/was an agreement with BWB/C&RT that their piles or the original canal bank could be breached to allow it to be so. But Pillings did not dig the hole so it could be a part of the cruising area - they dug it so boaters could enter their pond and spend money, and I'm sure Pillings management would get quite annoyed if boaters did just keep coming in, swanning around and leaving again.

 

Assuming BWB's charge was legally made, an alternative is that they could have levied a one-off fee, but I'm sure it would have been an extremely large figure.

 

An on-going charge is not a new idea. We know a basin in London which pays £1.00 a year "in perpetuity". It does not sound much now, but this figure was set in 1760 when the basin was dug! What is different with the NAA is that it is related to the anticipated income made available to the basin owner by existence of the hole in the bank.

 

(Damn! I'd promised myself I'd keep out of this now as it is not going anywhere)

Edited January 25, 2014 by Tam & Di

[Rich]

 

What is it that makes this last case so uniquely objectionable, in your eyes? Or are they all equally objectionable?

Not at all objectionable when applied to all customers but if the supplier applied it only to people who sat on one side of the carriage it would be deemed unfair at the very least. It is called an N-ACCESS-A, the important bit being ACCESS. Why do boaters need to pay for ACCESS because they moor in a marine?

[MtB]

Not at all objectionable when applied to all customers but if the supplier applied it only to people who sat on one side of the carriage it would be deemed unfair at the very least. It is called an N-ACCESS-A, the important bit being ACCESS. Why do boaters need to pay for ACCESS because they moor in a marine?

 

We're going round in circles here. Boaters in the marina need to pay for access because there is a Network Access Agreement in place, with fees payable.

 

If the marina had not agreed to the pay the NAA fees, the boaters would not have access and would have to moor somewhere else.

 

 

MtB

[Rich]

 

Except that Pillings Marina is only part of the canal system because there is/was an agreement with BWB/C&RT that their piles or the original canal bank could be breached to allow it to be so. But Pillings did not dig the hole so it could be a part of the cruising area - they dug it so boaters could enter their pond and spend money, and I'm sure Pillings management would get quite annoyed if boaters did just keep coming in, swanning around and leaving again.

 

 

(Damn! I'd promised myself I'd keep out of this now as it is not going anywhere)

So Pilling pay for the bank/piling to be breached. Hence forth, boaters then have to pay a sum of money to enable them to pass through it.

 

Try looking at it another way. If there were no marinas there would be a lot of boats tied up to the banks and cruising would be pretty miserable and very likely there would be fewer boats and therefore fewer licences and therefore less income from licence fees.. Therefore I suggest that Canal and River Trust benefit from the marinas.

 

I too had given up as a waste of time but the temptation was a bit too much. Must try harder.

 

We're going round in circles here. Boaters in the marina need to pay for access because there is a Network Access Agreement in place, with fees payable.

 

If the marina had not agreed to the pay the NAA fees, the boaters would not have access and would have to moor somewhere else.

 

 

MtB

But, it is the NAA that I find iniquitous.

[George94]

 

The point of the burger van and tea rooms analogies is just that there's nothing unusual or (IMHO - maybe I disagree with MtB on this one) unfair about a larger business charging a smaller business for the opportunity to 'piggyback' on it. Smaller businesses pay these fees because they recognise the commercial value of the opportunity to put their own goods and services under the noses (so to speak) of the larger businesses' customers. In some cases, their whole business model is based on providing goods and services to the customers of one larger business, in which case the commercial value of the opportunity is very substantial.

 

Yes, the smaller business will probably pass some or all of that fee on to its customers. And those customers will, of course, also be customers of the larger business. So in that sense, some customers of the larger business are (indirectly) 'paying more' to that larger business than others. But that's because they choose to give their custom to the smaller business. Nobody's forcing them.

 

I think the basic problem here - and the reason I keep trying to draw analogies with other types of business - is that you're seeing this 'extra charge on boaters' as something exceptional, and it just isn't. You're paying 'charges' like this all the time. If you buy a coffee on a train station, you're paying an 'extra charge' to Network Rail compared to other travellers (via the concession fee they charge the stall holder). If you buy a car from a local dealership, you're paying an 'extra charge' to the local authority compared to other Council Tax payers (via the dealership's business rates). And yes, if you rent a mooring in a marina with an NAA agreement, you're paying an 'extra charge' to the CaRT compared to other licence fee payers (via the NAA fee). What is it that makes this last case so uniquely objectionable, in your eyes? Or are they all equally objectionable?

In all the cases you mention, the customer is getting something in return for his payment.

 

The NAA fee is passed on, like all the other costs of the marina, to the boater, who is already paying to use the canal. The cost is therefore an additional cost on the boater, for which he is getting nothing that he hasn't already paid for, but it's arbitrary because if some of the berths in the marina are empty, the boater has to pay more, or receive less in the way of service, or see the place go bust.

So Pilling pay for the bank/piling to be breached. Hence forth, boaters then have to pay a sum of money to enable them to pass through it.

 

Try looking at it another way. If there were no marinas there would be a lot of boats tied up to the banks and cruising would be pretty miserable and very likely there would be fewer boats and therefore fewer licences and therefore less income from licence fees.. Therefore I suggest that Canal and River Trust benefit from the marinas.

 

I too had given up as a waste of time but the temptation was a bit too much. Must try harder.

But, it is the NAA that I find iniquitous.

 

Rich, take comfort from the fact that the majority view is nearly always wrong!

 

[magictime]

Not at all objectionable when applied to all customers but if the supplier applied it only to people who sat on one side of the carriage it would be deemed unfair at the very least.

 

But these 'charges' are applied to all customers - of the coffee stall, of the car dealership, and of the marina.

 

You still seem to find the 'charge' on the marina's customers uniquely objectionable, though, because it's not applied to all boaters.

 

I don't see how that's any different from the 'charge' on the coffee stall's customers not being applied to all rail customers, or the 'charge' on the car dealership's customers not being applied to all local Council Tax payers.

 

But if I understand you correctly, you think there is a fundamental difference, because choosing to give your custom to a marina is not like choosing to give your custom to a coffee stall or a car dealership. Rather, it's like choosing to sit on one side of a train carriage rather than the other.

 

Why? I don't get it.

[George94]

 

But these 'charges' are applied to all customers - of the coffee stall, of the car dealership, and of the marina.

 

You still seem to find the 'charge' on the marina's customers uniquely objectionable, though, because it's not applied to all boaters.

 

I don't see how that's any different from the 'charge' on the coffee stall's customers not being applied to all rail customers, or the 'charge' on the car dealership's customers not being applied to all local Council Tax payers.

 

But if I understand you correctly, you think there is a fundamental difference, because choosing to give your custom to a marina is not like choosing to give your custom to a coffee stall or a car dealership. Rather, it's like choosing to sit on one side of a train carriage rather than the other.

 

Why? I don't get it.

 

Because, Magic, all boaters use the canal, whereas not all travellers buy coffee.