CART connection charge

[Mick and Maggie]

 

Financially speaking, of course [at least in the short term], this makes sense. It is precisely what the original British Waterways Board spent their first few years [between their set up in 1962 and the Transport Act 1968], working on, with 4 private Bills being successfully promoted, which were primarily concerned with removing lengths of canal from navigable status.

 

The problem is [thankfully], it takes Parliamentary sanction to do this, and the waterways authority is enjoined to promote and improve access for boaters as well as for other users. It is part of the inherited core remit justifying their existence. Ethics may have no part to play, but neither is economics the sole driver [although one could be forgiven for thinking this, going on past and present performance]. Every time a section is “remaindered”, a signal goes up that the authority is failing to live up to their governmental raison d’être.

 

Then, also, one needs to factor in the hard fact that boaters are the most captive customer base, providing a third of the maintenance budget. The remaining two thirds is not being met by voluntary contributions from the non-boating sector, so if the boater contribution was removed [and boating itself helps keep the infrastructure navigable], where would the money come from, even to keep the remaindered canal as an attractive wildlife park?

 

From the guaranteed government income for the next 14 years, obviously, but then? I seriously doubt that existing angling, drainage and abstraction revenues could even cope with the current management salaries.

 

The Parliamentary/statutory position [the location of which I have been unable to recall/find] is that on demonstrable insolvency [which I suggest failure to maintain navigable waterways would indicate], the government are obligated to step in and replace CaRT with another responsible body.

 

Nigel, as someone who came late to the party so to speak. I also found that quite informative.

 

So there are even more parallels than I at first thought between CaRT and the marina owner/operator. It also goes to demonstrate that when looking at the bigger plan it would be a folly to assume that the trust would do the right thing. If as you say, CaRT has both a short and long term need for a close working relationship with boaters. It makes me wonder why they seem as keen as possible to hold boaters at arms length. Richard Parry seems to be doing the right thing in gathering the thoughts and aspirations of waterways users. At first I thought he was doing something of a publicity stunt. However after meeting with him a couple of times, I have changed my view and I think he now sees himself as more chief strategist and evangelist than chief executive officer.

 

Now a great deal of issues which bring bad publicity will have been put in place prior to Richard Parry taking office. However, more than anything else, I don't understand the need for CaRT's deliberate and premeditated confrontational actions. Actions that put what should be a small local issue that's to be resolved at a local level, rather than converted into tonight's story in the mainstream media. With the sound bite culture that we live in - the constant message is that as a charity - CaRT is very .... err..... uncharitable. When it comes to donations and gifts CaRT as one of the biggest charities is going to be hard pressed to run close to animal, disaster, children and cancer charities for donations. For a long time I did wonder what the trustees were doing to address the overly confrontational issues that are becoming more and more of a regular event. Then I realised that Hales is the chairman and so he will still have the old BW implant fitted. So for him it will be business as usual.

 

So I think we can expect more gunshot wounds in either foot for the foreseeable future, on both sides of the current issue. I have said it before and I say it again. Currently and for the foreseeable future our only hope for the long term viability for the canal infrastructure is CaRT. We still need to support CaRT warts and all. More than ever the chief strategist and evangelist is going to have his hands full managing all the flack and fallout. As for raising funds and creating a financial base for the future. The 'friends' seem to evaporate shortly after they join as does their donations. I wonder if the PR flack generated by the more and more frequent negative publicity is playing a part in the exodus.

[RLWP]

You have your figures back to front

 

The question is whether 9% of 10 marina mooring fees is more than 100% of one CRT online mooring

 

Keep reading, Dave

 

Richard

[pillingslock]

Really appreciate all your comments on this thread and in light of a few criticisms from the "Other" thread, I just wanted to let you know what our policies & views are/were;

 

1. We were the only marina on the River Soar that was subject to the NAA - 857 other berths weren't so it was a conscious decision, in times where Customers were concerned about pricing, that we didn't say "Here's your mooring fee cost and there's another 9% on top you need to pay to CRT..." as it would put some people off mooring in a marina with a 'surcharge'.

 

2. It is also difficult coping with full-time licensing requirements whilst again, local off-line marinas can have unlicensed boats moored in their marinas. We have lost many boats who have felt "the pinch" to local off-line marinas on this basis.

 

3. When the full 100% of 9% NAA fees kicked in at our site, Mercia Marina (585 berths) opened at the same time. We lost almost every customer with a Derbyshire/Yorkshire postcode in the space of 3 months. £60k disappeared from our annual turnover.

 

4. We started writing to BW in November 2009 saying the business could not afford the full fees. The BMF tried to intervene too but BW did not respond to our requests (specifically Phil Spencer) and his only response was to "Remove empty mooring and they can stop being charged on the NAA". WE said, that to remove them would cost more money, then it would cost money again to re-instate them. The BW Patrol Officer visits us every 6 months to do a Boat License Check - could he not, at that visit, count the empty berths and submit a reduction figure for the next 6 months? it would have taken 30 mins tops to do this each time. Again, BW refused to compromise with what was a logical, temporary solution.

 

5. We suggested that an interim period could be agreed where the fees were reduced - then reviewed again in 3 years or 5 years with a view to re-instating the full fees or a higher amount.. By now Yelvertoft Marina (160 berths) had also opened and that took £14k a year in moorings from us as soon as it opened.

 

5.a. £74k a year had been lost to just two new competitors in 2 years and we had to reduce our fees further to be more competitive.

 

6. it then became apparent in 2010 that the on-line moorings that BW were due to remove were still there - 3 years after they should have been removed. Specifically 7 moorings at Bishops Meadow in Loughborough formed part of the 31 that were planned to go.

 

7. The March 2012 OLMR Report from CRT did said that although BW/CRT had planned to take off on -line moorings(over 550 in total), in actual fact they couldn't do it as they had promised, because of many issues. No concession was made to any marina on any NAA fees. CRT still had most of it's on-line moorings in place and was also collecting NAA fees from the marina too. All the On-line moorings in our area remained, with the exception of 4 at Lime Kilns in Leicester (an area where you would never dare leave a boat in a million years).

 

8. By the end of 2012, 5,567 new marina berths had been built and the increase in boat licenses (obtained by C.Cororan from CRT accounts) over the same 5 years was 2,341 new boat licenses bought. Supply had outstripped demand by 3,200 berths.

 

9. September 2013 Towpath Reports (from CRT data) that 67 boats per month are going continually cruising and do not need a Marina.

 

As a new marina, I know it is our duty to contribute to the costs of maintaining the Canals. I do not expect to be on old agreements that pay nothing and never have. We have always made a regular part-payment to show our best intentions.

 

Other marinas have been much more fortunate that us as they have been more fastidious with their expenditure or have had much bigger development budgets. I know that Mercia got a £500k EMDA grant to help it start, whereas Pilling's Lock got just £10k from the same fund.

 

The NAA as a document does not allow for variance that Market Forces can impose, other than to take out unused berths. And there is no compensation for taking these berths out either - it is all at the expense of the marina operator.

 

The connection to the canal is all built at the expense of the operator.

 

100% of the Boat License goes to CRT despite the fact that a boat may be a Houseboat (no engine!) and never move from a Marina Basin onto a waterway.

 

I think there is a much better way of doing this and with past experience behind us, I hope that CRT can modify an agreement to match the needs of both CRT AND the Marina Operator.

 

In 2007, We looked to Nigel Sheppard & Phil Spencer at BW as "Experts" in the trade, who would give us good advice and not want us to get into any trouble.We talked through our business plans and figures. NIgel Sheppard even showed me a map of how they planned boat movements from each marina and worked out how much water would be used, therefore there would be a time at which many parts of the canals could not have more marinas built as there would not be enough water. I remember this plan very well - a map with lots of circles drawn on it from all the major marinas on the system.

 

Apparently Nigel Sheppards' map does not exist anymore - this was illustrated probably by the CRT Green Lighting the extra 550 berths & £15m development at Onley Park in 2012 which it is quite likely will decimate Braunston Pound at busy times of the year when everyone decides to go for a cruise. Thankfully this development hasn't been started yet and there is not point starting it until there are some of the issues above addressed. A fixed fee of 9% or 100% of the capacity of Onley could be in excess of £80k per year, so what happens if they open and only 200 customers decide to moor there in the first 5 years? Is that all the fault of the Marina? and if they could survive with 200 boats there instead of 550 then why should there be a "tax" on fresh air? Their VAT will be less, their staffing can be reduced, their Business Rates would be adjusted - but the NAA is a fixed £80k (ish) and would not be adjusted by CRT under the terms we have been inflicted with.

 

It's not just our site that I am thinking of in all these matters - what about the new guys that are as Green as I was? who is looking after them? I don't feel CRT are.

 

If there is an element of risk in building a Marina, what is quite apparent is that none of this risk lies with CRT.

 

Certainly there are hard facts that affect Marina berth occupancy that CRT has chosen not to address. New developers are being welcomed with open arms by CRT.

 

This is quite worrying & I hope that a solution is found as soon as possible.The Inland Marina Investment Guide attracted new developers by the dozen but now CRT claim no liability for any of the info contained in it.

 

Honesty and clarity is what is needed plus a lot more research on the how/what/where and whys of Narrowboat Ownership.

 

We need more customers for the future and all this bickering isn't helping any side at all. But once again I thank the contributors of this thread who are putting some reasonable questions into open.

 

Paul Lillie.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

New question (possibly!) - I haven't got the stamina to see if it has been covered already.

 

This question has come up elsewhere, and I wonder if anybody knows the answer.

 

We are told that NAA for recently built marinas is 9% of what it is judged can be charged for moorings in the marina at full occupancy, (I think).

 

The NAA is not just to do with charges but covers a range of matters.

 

However, the initial agreement provides three parameters that define how NAA fees are calculated.

 

- Gross mooring capacity in metres

 

- Mooring rate (per metre) charged at the marina

 

- 9%

 

So its 9% of "gross mooring capacity" x "mooring rate

 

 

 

 

So if a marina that was previously achieving good occupancy finds it no longer can, (maybe because of new marinas nearby, or even because CRT Winter Moorings have become an alternative option), decides to cut its standard berth prices to achieve better occupancy, what happens then with the NAA?

 

The NAA allows gross mooring capacity in metres to be altered by mutual consent. The NAA also contains a dispute resolution procedure should agreement not be reached.

 

There is evidence to suggest that some marinas have already agreed with BW/CaRT a lesser mooring capacity which reflects actual use rather than the gross capacity. If you read the BBC news report it tends to indicate that CaRT took this line with QMP.

 

Will CRT accept that that marina is now charging less for its berths, and hence accept 9% of a lower maximum possible amount, or does the agreement work in a way where the amount CRT takes never reduces, even if an operator can demonstrate they have had to cut prices to keep mooring numbers up?

 

As explained above, mooring rate is one of the parameters used to calculate the charge. Interestingly, the NAA says that this parameter will be reviewed annually to reflect any increase (i.e. the NAA does not take into account that charges may fall!).

 

Again it is thought that BW/CaRT has taken a pragmatic approach and some agreement is reached with marinas based on current local mooring rates.

 

Does anybody know, please?

 

 

Edited January 26, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[frangar]

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you aren't full and other marinas apparently are?

 

I'm in business too as are lots of others in my line of work....you have to do something extra to keep customers or they go elsewhere. That's just a fact of life that hits harder when money is tight.

 

I'm sorry if your business plan was a bit rose tinted.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

 

Edited to add

 

This was a reply to Mr Lillie but I don't seem to be able to quote it for some reason!!

Edited January 26, 2014 by frangar

[magictime]

if a marina ... decides to cut its standard berth prices to achieve better occupancy, what happens then with the NAA?

 

The NAA is based on what the marina actually charges, so if mooring fees go down CARTs income goes down.

 

A good question, and an interesting answer.

 

The NAA fee is not actually a fixed cost, then. Rather, it is designed to track the changing value of a marina's berths in changing market conditions (on the assumption that the marina operator always charges the 'going rate').

 

Arguably, then, it need not work so very differently, in practice, from a fee that varies according to the number of berths occupied in a marina. This is because, arguably, a marina operator has a straight choice, when times get tough, between charging more per berth than the market will support (and so seeing occupancy levels fall) or charging the real market value (and so maintaining occupancy levels). If he does the former, he would be better off if his NAA fee were reduced in proportion to the number of berths occupied; if he does the latter, he is better off with his NAA fee being reduced in proportion to the price he charges per berth.

 

Plausibly the net result is much the same in either case.

 

Scenario 1: marina operator charges £2,000 per berth, market conditions worsen, occupancy falls from 100 berths (100%) to 80 berths, income falls from £200,000 to £160,000, NAA fee falls from £18,000(ish) to £14,400(ish) - based on the NAA fee varying with the number of berths occupied.

 

Scenario 2: marina operator charges £2,000 per berth, market conditions worsen, price is cut to £1,600 to maintain 100% occupancy, income falls from £200,000 to £160,000, NAA fee falls from £18,000(ish) to £14,400(ish) - based on the NAA fee varying with the price charged per berth.

[junior]

The biggest thing that strikes me from Pillings Lock/Paul Lillie's post is his repetitive mentioning of moorers leaving his marina to go elsewhere.

From what I have read on here and heard in person from people, it is nothing to do with the reasons he states I.e., other marinas not having to pay NAA or license fees but has everything to do with his management of the marina.

 

I suspect it is his refusal to acknowledge this fact that has caused all his problems in the first place.

Edited January 26, 2014 by junior

[alan_fincher]

The NAA is based on what the marina actually charges, so if mooring fees go down CARTs income goes down. No doubt CART will need to be convinced that the marina has actually reduced its charges and not just come up with an introductory discount or similar..

 

Similarly, if the cost of moorings goes up CART's income goes up. I don't know what the mechanism for checking this, but I'm sure CART are keeping a careful watch.

 

N

 

Thank you,

 

A helpful answer.

[magnetman]

I wonder if the new winter towpath permits are shafting marinas, or is it a different customer 'group'

[nicknorman]

Paul, a sensible and rational post setting out your position, thanks. Clearly the NAA is a little one-sided, but on the other hand that is what you signed up to. If CRT have breached their side of the NAA I'm sure that would be good grounds for a bit of a "get-out". That you haven't managed to do this suggests to me that CRT haven't breached the agreement in any way. Whether the NAA is "fair" or not is not that relevant at this stage. It is what you agreed to.

 

In your post you mention a need to get more customers in the future. There is plenty of choice of marinas these days so you need to have something attractive to offer, since you probably can't afford to undercut nearby marinas on price. I can't speak for everyone but for us and many others, we are less interested in the glitzy restaurants etc and primarily interests in reasonable facilities, but most of all, in a pleasant atmosphere. I have never met you but it seems your reputation precedes you. In order to improve your customer numbers can I suggest that the most important thing you need to do is to keep "nasty Paul" under wraps and never let him out in public. Yes, folk can be irritating but you are there to just put up with it. Go and scream in an empty field where no-one can hear you! You have a potentially nice marina spoilt by tangible aggro, and really you should be most ashamed at your public rant at the two ex-moorers that has been quoted on here. To say that was most unprofessional would be an understatement.

 

So in your business plan for the future, add an anger management course. It will pay for itself many times over!

[alan_fincher]

To say that was most unprofessional would be an understatement.

 

So in your business plan for the future, add an anger management course. It will pay for itself many times over!

 

Greenie sir!

[b0atman]

on the oxford canal is a new marina with no restaurant or club but with excellent friendly management this marina is nearly at 100% capacity already .What boaters want is a peaceful life not a load of aggro from a responsible adult.

 

 

 

 

Ps I move from a marina where you do not need to be licenced have BSS or insurance and probably does not pay a connection charge so Paul your argument of blaming other marinas does not apply . I would say problem stems from a poor Business plan and bad attitude.

Edited January 26, 2014 by b0atman

[Ex- Member]

 

Greenie sir!

 

Ditto

[Timleech]

 

If there is an element of risk in building a Marina, what is quite apparent is that none of this risk lies with CRT.

 

Paul Lillie.

 

 

Why should it?

 

Tim

[chazzy]

 

4. We started writing to BW in November 2009 saying the business could not afford the full fees. The BMF tried to intervene too but BW did not respond to our requests (specifically Phil Spencer) and his only response was to "Remove empty mooring and they can stop being charged on the NAA". WE said, that to remove them would cost more money, then it would cost money again to re-instate them. The BW Patrol Officer visits us every 6 months to do a Boat License Check - could he not, at that visit, count the empty berths and submit a reduction figure for the next 6 months? it would have taken 30 mins tops to do this each time. Again, BW refused to compromise with what was a logical, temporary solution.

 

How would the patrol officer know which berths are vacant or just unocupied while the boat is out on the cut

[Tuscan]

I wonder why none of the other recently built marinas are complaining or why indeed they are still pushing ahead with the plans for a new marina at North Kilworth? Is there a problem with Pillings Lock financial model. I don't want the marina to close but these days all marinas have to work hard to attract boaters, Continous cruisers still make up a small percentage of the total boat owners

[DeanS]

I dont know the marina layout, but there must be a simple way of blocking off a certain set of pontoons, rendering them excluded from the NAA, without much cost. Chains across the entrance for example. or simply disconnecting the water and elec, and putting up "visitor berth" signs. I'm sure CRT would have allowed some means of dropping the NAA with some creative thinking like this, rather than insisting the entire pontoon be removed. Maybe I am just daft.

[RLWP]

If they are floating pontoons, pretty common these days, haul them out of the water

 

Richard

[Ark Right]

If they are floating pontoons, pretty common these days, haul them out of the water

 

Richard

Oh that's easy to say, have you thought it through, the soufles in the Bistro would probably collapse while they were messing around with boaty things

A

[twbm]

From Pillings own words, fees affordable when all berths full, but new marina opens and for the first time Pillngs has local competition and significant amount of customers leave very quickly. Hmm ..........

[raymondh]

Perhaps the management at PL should ask boat owners/prospective moorers what they want from a marina berth

Packed in like sardines, choking on each others smoke, not able to sleep due to neighbours snoring/farting etc

Why do folk like in line moorings - clue above

Give more space between boats and a little imagination on berth layout etc

Make marinas more a place boaters want to be NOT a very expensive boat park

Ray

[Mick and Maggie]

How would the patrol officer know which berths are vacant or just unoccupied while the boat is out on the cut

 

A home mooring would be declared on the boat licence licence that each boat moored in the marina would still be required to hold.

 

Continuous cruisers still make up a small percentage of the total boat owners

 

I'm not sure of the exact figures but it must by now be somewhere in the region of 10% which is a significant number.

[johnlillie]

without getting personal, there is a simple explanation for plm's plight. Ventnor farm ---full---no café/public access. Plm---café--no public restriction on mooring pontoons---very public---not full. End of.

[nicknorman]

without getting personal, there is a simple explanation for plm's plight. Ventnor farm ---full---no café/public access. Plm---café--no public restriction on mooring pontoons---very public---not full. End of.

Interesting - I certainly wouldn't want to moor in a marina where there was unrestricted access to the pontoons. There can't be many like that!

[haggis]

All this discussion of NAAs makes me wonder if places like Streethay pay it. Their marina is not off line but is a long wide bit of canal with pontoons coming out from the bank. I seem to remember that the basin was enlarged some years ago. There is no "entrance" from the cut as such although the water in the marina obviously comes from the canal. Does anyone know? Just idle curiosity.

 

haggis