Future cost of boat licence?

[Grace and Favour]

45'6" ?

[Alan de Enfield]

Yes - that last 6" makes all the difference

[GUMPY]

If I had been selfish I would have said 60ft. 33ft is just about to small for a livaboard hence setting it at that.

[Alan de Enfield]

If I had been selfish I would have said 60ft. 33ft is just about to small for a livaboard hence setting it at that.

 

Now we are introducing "Sizeism" for liveaboards

There are quite a few who do live on less than 33 feet (including one or two on this very forum)

 

Wherever you make the 'cut-off' someone will complain - its like two sides of the same street paying different council as as their street is the boundary between two authorities.

 

There is no simple answer

[GUMPY]

 

Now we are introducing "Sizeism" for liveaboards

There are quite a few who do live on less than 33 feet (including one or two on this very forum)

 

Wherever you make the 'cut-off' someone will complain - its like two sides of the same street paying different council as as their street is the boundary between two authorities.

 

There is no simple answer

There is

Just double licence costs irrespective of length

Add 50% for fat narrowboats.

Simple

[John Williamson 1955]

There is

Just double licence costs irrespective of length

Add 50% for fat narrowboats.

Simple

Charge the licence by the square foot, like?

[alan_fincher]

"Historic" boats only attract a 50% discount, they have to be built before 1948 and have to meet certain criteria before qualifying.

 

I see the error here has already been pointed out and acknowledged!

 

If only it were 50%! - the 10% you actually get really isn't that big a deal, versus total cost of ownership.

 

On a similar note though I don't see why the "historic" boat discount is reserved for ex-working boats and a 1948 cut-off date imposed.

 

Well they do qualify that with "In some circumstances boats built after this date can be considered for the discount."

 

I have no idea how many post nationalisation boats manage to claim it, but it seems that owning a River or an Admiral (or even Raymond!) doesn't necessarily rule it out.

 

Somewhat strangely the HNBC are working with CRT trying to iron out the "what qualifies and what doesn't" anomalies, with a suggestion that it would be linked to whether a boat is listed in the National Historic Ships Register, which seems odd, as many of the boats currently listed would appear to be outside the CRT guidelines for the discount. The discount requirements, for example, suggest a boat with a full length steel cabin conversion would not normally qualify, but maybe a third of narrow boats in the register are cabin conversions, and often motorisations of buttys and day boats as well.

[Quinafloat]

It would seem to me that the OP's analysis has some considerable merit. After all paying the extra on the license to cover the public funding would mean we could dispense with the public access that that payment affords and requires. So, no more cyclists, no more dog walkers, no more hikers, no more pandering to, or "massaging" visitor count.

[Peter X]

It would seem to me that the OP's analysis has some considerable merit. After all paying the extra on the license to cover the public funding would mean we could dispense with the public access that that payment affords and requires. So, no more cyclists, no more dog walkers, no more hikers, no more pandering to, or "massaging" visitor count.

 

The OP was only pointing out that, assuming the same numbers of boats, the licence would have to double in price to cover a withdrawal of the government subsidy. The post seemed to me to just put this notion out there without endorsing it, to ask what effect this would have and what could be done about the CRT's finances long term.

 

It's reasonable to suppose that if the cost of a licence soared in the coming years, say by 20% above inflation for each of the next 4 years, a majority would pay but some would abandon boating as too costly. The number of boats up for sale would rise and the prices they fetch would fall, although some would move off to non-CRT waters. At best the number of boats paying licence fees to CRT would be static, and it might fall. It's quite plausible that the result would be a downward spiral of fewer boats paying higher fees, leading to the least used parts of the system being closed as too expensive to maintain. That's a pretty bleak picture, which leads me to the conclusion that getting more people boating is at least part of the answer.

 

Public access to the towpath is a condition imposed by the government, and the CRT has no power to take it away. To abolish it would probably require an Act of Parliament, and simply won't happen and must not happen. Apart from depriving all those taxpayers of their enjoyment of a national asset, a ban would be very bad for boaters because the presence of the public on the towpath makes it safer. If Parliament were daft enough to ban the public, the criminals would ignore the ban and break into boats with impunity because the law-abiding people were not there to see them.

[costalot]

 

 

There do appear to be quite a lot of secondhand boats up for sale, but at least that'll keep down the entry cost! My brother didn't splash out on a shiny new boat, he bought secondhand then spent a few grand having it repaired.

Unfortunately buying a used boat doesn't increase the revenue for CRT because it's a change in ownership rather than an increase in the number of boats.

 

To replace the government grant with the current cost of boat licences would require a doubling of the number of boats. Whilst new boat numbers increased significantly prior to the GFC they have since collapsed. Even during the "boom years" the number of boats didn't double!

[Peter X]

Unfortunately buying a used boat doesn't increase the revenue for CRT because it's a change in ownership rather than an increase in the number of boats.

 

To replace the government grant with the current cost of boat licences would require a doubling of the number of boats. Whilst new boat numbers increased significantly prior to the GFC they have since collapsed. Even during the "boom years" the number of boats didn't double!

 

Fair enough in that his used boat was already on the water and licenced. However, indirectly if enough new boaters come along, those with more money or a preference for a new boat will buy new, and others will soak up the available used boats, ultimately generating revenue.

 

While I agree that It would be hopelessly optimistic of me to think that extra boaters can close the whole funding gap in the near future, I hope we can agree that CRT and other interested parties should be doing what they can to attract them, because it offers a way to reduce the gap and any harm to the canal network that a future cut in government funding would cause.

 

Being optimistic again, perhaps all those rich people buying up prime London property can be persuaded to enjoy weekends on a nice shiny new narrowboat, just short enough to fit in all the locks, based in a marina up north? Somehow London's wealth needs to be spread out to create real jobs in the rest of the country, and paying someone in Stoke or wherever to build a boat is as good a way as any. Extra boats would indirectly create other employment too.

 

The only figures I've seen for numbers of licenced boats were those I mentioned from the Pillings Lock topic, showing some increase for the period 2007-11, which included the crash (I'm guessing here that GFC=Global Financial Crash??). Does anyone know of other relevant statistics?

[b0atman]

What about all the legally unlicensed boats in marinas that do not pay NAA ?

What about gap between River licence and River & canal licences getting bigger because of percentage increases being used ?

That's one heck of a lot of lost income.

[Paul C]

Its not lost income though, because a marina where you don't need to pay a licence is considered non-CRT waters, just like the Bridgewater canal, River Avon (Warwickshire), EA waters, etc etc

 

I do agree that there's far too many types of licences and some simplification/consolidation is in order there though. Whether people who pay for only rivers use want to pay more, remains to be seen - many may simply not pay up a big increase, or move elsewhere, or give up boating.

[b0atman]

It may be considered non CaRT water? but they have direct access to the network.

Where are they going to move to ?

We all have to bite the bullet and accept that money is required to run this system or face longer closures whilst funds are raised in the foreseeable future .

[carlt]

What about all the legally unlicensed boats in marinas that do not pay NAA ?

What about them?

 

That is like suggesting that a car that never goes on the public highway should be liable for road tax.

[b0atman]

So why should a boat in a marina with a NAA that never goes out have a licence ?

[Paul C]

It may be considered non CaRT water? but they have direct access to the network.

Where are they going to move to ?

We all have to bite the bullet and accept that money is required to run this system or face longer closures whilst funds are raised in the foreseeable future .

 

Bridgewater canal has direct connection to CRT network too. Should boats remaining within the Bridgewater canal's waters pay CRT anything?

[b0atman]

So you are happy to see the network slowly die due to lack of funds or have you a better suggestion ?

[Paul C]

I admire your passion for the waterways but I don't think the answer is to suggest/rely on things that are pragmatically not possible to achieve, deeply unfair on a certain segment of boaters, or not legally achievable due to historic agreements.

[b0atman]

I do not understand as to how it can be unfair we all should pay our share at the moment the system is unfair to those who do

[Paul C]

I do not understand as to how it can be unfair we all should pay our share at the moment the system is unfair to those who do

 

I was going to suggest some kind of analogy to help you understand the situation, but I'll stick with the one I've suggested so far. Conceptually, the private marina is exactly the same as the Bridgewater canal - just smaller, by a factor of 1000 or so. The Bridgewater Canal is a private space of water which is connected to CRT waters, and has rules and regulations of its own. Just like a private marina with no NAA agreement.

 

Are you saying its fair for those who are on the Bridgewater (and pay for the privelage to be), to also have to pay CRT something merely because they are connected to it?

[b0atman]

No because Bridgewater boaters pay a licence to be on their canal,a canal which we use free of charge because of a reciprocal agreement.

I would like to see a breakdown of none NAA marinas and number of boats in them also how many of those boats are licensed as I know lots will be .

[Phoenix_V]

What about all the legally unlicensed boats in marinas that do not pay NAA ?

What about gap between River licence and River & canal licences getting bigger because of percentage increases being used ?

That's one heck of a lot of lost income.

River licences are cheaper because it is cheaper to run a River, the Avon and Wey are even self funding. In any event River licences are protected by statute.

 

We've been down the route before of finding spurious reasons why everyone apart from ourselves should pay more

 

How about 7' beam boats should pay more as they can access the narrow canals which soak up so much money, I assume thats what you own?

 

We might be more productively engaged by campaigning for the government to properly fund the National asset which is the waterways, like they do in Canada, the home of low budget government

Edited March 11, 2014 by Phoenix_V

[b0atman]

I think we have lost the battle of the Government funding like Canada as they have now set up CaRT and we are now in a situation where we either survive with input from Boaters and associated businesses or the canals decline.We are the ones who have to make the decisions as to which way the pendulum swings .

[alan_fincher]

I do not understand as to how it can be unfair we all should pay our share at the moment the system is unfair to those who do

I can't understand why you think it is fair to require someone to have to pay for something they are not using?

If they leave such a mooring for actual CRT waters, then they have to buy a licence. So in what way are they not paying for their use of the waterways?