Jump to content

Hackney CMers want to have a "CC Licence" and to remain in one place.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

Perhaps you'd identify exactly where I have said that I don't like boats moored on the offside, it hasn't been an argument I have used anywhere it is just the usual case of you arguing a point that hasn't actually been made. Had you been following the discussion you would have seen that what I was saying to AR was that if your idiotic idea to encourage the widespread non-payment of of EOG fees were to come to fruition (which I hope that it never does) we would have hundreds of boats taken from expensive marinas and moored in a linear fashion across the farmers fields who are fortunate enough to have an asset like a canal across their land. You have also pointedly failed to answer the earlier question regarding whether you have really considered the consequences of your proposal, I can only assume by your non-reply that either a) you haven't or b ) you have but don't really care provided that some people can have cheap moorings.

 

You also keep referring to these enabling Acts but the purpose of the "...right to keep and use a boat on the canal..."within these Acts had nothing whatsoever to do with mooring rights. As I stated earlier when these Acts were passed the purpose of the canals were as a highway and the prospect of people wanting to remain moored in one place for any significant time was hardly thought of, the purpose of having a boat on the canal was to carry goods not fanny around drinking wine and admiring the countryside!

 

I would still maintain that the three judges made the correct judgement (and I would hope that any future judgements achieve the same outcome).

Greenie for you Sir you are so right the canal would be full of moored boats and you would all come north to cruise on our nice wide waterways where it you could still pass at 3 mph clapping.gif Seriously the judges are right and should continue to have the same outcome otherwise we would have the equivalent of squatting all over our lovely waterways which are for cruising boat.gif .

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenie for you Sir you are so right the canal would be full of moored boats and you would all come north to cruise on our nice wide waterways where it you could still pass at 3 mph clapping.gif Seriously the judges are right and should continue to have the same outcome otherwise we would have the equivalent of squatting all over our lovely waterways which are for cruising boat.gif .

 

Peter

Of course it wouldn't. As I pointed out above the landowners would hoover up the difference and the overall price and therefore the staus quo would remain unchanged. This is a lot of hot air over nothing, though I suppose it allows everyone to air their predjudices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'm swayed by Tony's logic on the boat occupying one boat-sized area of water wherever it is...

 

In my admittedly limited experience, the total of the EOG fee and the fee to the landowner approximately add up to the cost of a local onside mooring? That's logically the only way to arrive at the market rent.

 

If it was proved to be unlawful for CaRT to charge the EOG mooring fee, what do you guys really think would be the consequences?

 

Loads of cheap moorings?Not a chance. The landowner would put up their charges to the market rate and take the lot. A shot in the foot for boaters IMO.

 

Better leaving things are as they are with CaRT getting the income. Unless you're a landowner of course.

There's much sense in what you say, but nothing in there addresses the matter of BW and now C&RT dishonestly levying charges and obtaining payments to which they are not entitled.

It has never been my intention, or wish, that the end of EoG mooring charges should lead to 'cheap' moorings for many, but that those who really do moor their boat at the 'end of the garden' are no longer mugged by a dishonest navigation authority, and above all that the dishonesty comes to a much overdue end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's much sense in what you say, but nothing in there addresses the matter of BW and now C&RT dishonestly levying charges and obtaining payments to which they are not entitled.

It has never been my intention, or wish, that the end of EoG mooring charges should lead to 'cheap' moorings for many, but that those who really do moor their boat at the 'end of the garden' are no longer mugged by a dishonest navigation authority, and above all that the dishonesty comes to a much overdue end.

Agreed. Knowing nothing of the laws involved I wasn't atempting to address that Tony.

 

I just thought to point out that the predictions of cheap moorings and a linear housing estate being the inevitable result of your view on this was in fact baloney.

 

Certainly if I had a house with a mooring at the end of the garden it would grieve me to be paying a mooring fee as well as a licence. It does seem naturally wrong to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'm swayed by Tony's logic on the boat occupying one boat-sized area of water wherever it is...

 

In my admittedly limited experience, the total of the EOG fee and the fee to the landowner approximately add up to the cost of a local onside mooring? That's logically the only way to arrive at the market rent.

 

If it was proved to be unlawful for CaRT to charge the EOG mooring fee, what do you guys really think would be the consequences?

 

Loads of cheap moorings?Not a chance. The landowner would put up their charges to the market rate and take the lot. A shot in the foot for boaters IMO.

 

Better leaving things are as they are with CaRT getting the income. Unless you're a landowner of course.

I don't think I'm quite so confident of the result of dispensing with the EOG fee. The argument that has been made is that the landowner has total rights on who can moor against his land and, to quote, should tell CRT to 'get lost' if they try to interfere. With the current situation a fee has to be paid to CRT for the mooring rights which, coupled with the fee paid to the landowner adds up to about the average mooring fee for the area. So there is the possibility of an income for local farmers if they can be bothered with the administration but for a boat owner the costs will be comparable whether they go to the farmer or to the marina. If you remove the necessity for the fee to CRT then the landowner can massively undercut any local marinas who all have to pay for a Network Access Agreement. Yes they could well increase their charges but would still be well below the costs of a marina and this would inevitably result in people removing their boats from marinas to put them on the cheaper moorings. Ultimately this could make marinas financially unviable (some struggle anyway) which would result in even more boats looking for farmers moorings, particularly if we have the daft view that landowners should be unrestricted in allowing moorings.

 

It is not so much that they become linear housing moorings but, if you have a boat that you only use for a limited number of times a year (some hardly ever go out of their marinas) wouldn't you cut your standing charges if you could?

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massively undercut as in desperate for business? I don't think so myself. Nobody gives anything away in this day and age and anyway a marina provides a whole lot more than the edge of a field so should cost more. I very much doubt that someone in a marina with a hook-up, water, elsan disposal etc and much more in many cases wants to park up in a field away from all these comforts and if money was the main driver for your mooring choice you surely wouldn't be in a marina in the first place?

 

I don't have a boat, but I do have an EOG mooring, so I have an interest. I don't think I'd want to be in a marina at present, though I reserve the right to change my mind, however the EOG + the mooring fee makes it expensive as a mooring. It's only good because it is like a garden, all mine, secure, with room for parking, friends parking, a shed and most importantly no VERY near neighbours and no petty rules. biggrin.png

Edited by boathunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Style and "sophistication" of moorings vary dramatically. In our local area there were moorings in a marina with no water points or electricity; a,nd a couple of miles away, online moorings with far better facilities. Also, many people dislike being on a boat in a marina - the view is somewhat dull, either a piece of decking giving 3ft of clearance between another boat; or on the other side, another boat. Online moorings will predominantly mean a decent view out onto the canal, and more interest in the passing boats etc. Of course there's other issues too like car parking, access from car to boat, security etc and sometimes the marina mooring fares better, sometimes the online. So don't assume that a marina mooring is necessarily more desirable, or superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massively undercut as in desperate for business? I don't think so myself. Nobody gives anything away in this day and age and anyway a marina provides a whole lot more than the edge of a field so should cost more.

 

 

That is a massive assumption.

 

Certainly a Marina comes with certain tangible benefits (Water, electricity, parking, hard edge), that are the prime factors in some people's mooring choices.

 

An on-line mooring comes with intangible benefits (Better view)

 

As the number of on-line moorings decreases and the number of marina moorings increases, the prices are converging.

 

If the number of on-line moorings was halved, the price would shoot up to more than a marina mooring, because sufficient people actually prefer an on-line mooring to being in a marina and would pay more for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Paul, filled in a lot of blanks. With so little experience I have to address this from outside looking in.

 

Given what you say, do you think the landowners, having had the CaRT part of the cost of their moorings removed, would continue to rent out their moorings at effectively half price. Or would they raise their rents to the average local level and double their income? I know what I think.


 

That is a massive assumption.

 

Certainly a Marina comes with certain tangible benefits (Water, electricity, parking, hard edge), that are the prime factors in some people's mooring choices.

 

An on-line mooring comes with intangible benefits (Better view)

 

As the number of on-line moorings decreases and the number of marina moorings increases, the prices are converging.

 

If the number of on-line moorings was halved, the price would shoot up to more than a marina mooring, because sufficient people actually prefer an on-line mooring to being in a marina and would pay more for it.

OK, given what you say above, same question. If the CaRT part of the cost of mooring offside were removed, would that create miles of cheap moorings or would landowners make a few east ££'s? What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Paul, filled in a lot of blanks. With so little experience I have to address this from outside looking in.

 

Given what you say, do you think the landowners, having had the CaRT part of the cost of their moorings removed, would continue to rent out their moorings at effectively half price. Or would they raise their rents to the average local level and double their income? I know what I think.

OK, given what you say above, same question. If the CaRT part of the cost of mooring offside were removed, would that create miles of cheap moorings or would landowners make a few east ££'s? What do you think?

 

Landowner would trouser the money of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, given what you say above, same question. If the CaRT part of the cost of mooring offside were removed, would that create miles of cheap moorings or would landowners make a few east ££'s? What do you think?

Given that farmers (certainly in this area) are quite canny about money I suspect they would raise their fees but keep them below marina prices and line very field they could with boats.

 

A double harvest for them. More money per mooring and more boats against their land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Paul, filled in a lot of blanks. With so little experience I have to address this from outside looking in.

 

Given what you say, do you think the landowners, having had the CaRT part of the cost of their moorings removed, would continue to rent out their moorings at effectively half price. Or would they raise their rents to the average local level and double their income? I know what I think.

OK, given what you say above, same question. If the CaRT part of the cost of mooring offside were removed, would that create miles of cheap moorings or would landowners make a few east ££'s? What do you think?

I'm not quite sure why you see them as conflicting options of either increase your number of moorings or increase your prices (but still keep below marina charges) what is to stop landowners doing both? I'm willing to be corrected but as I understand it at the moment the landowner needs to get the agreement of CRT to set up moorings (to agree the EOG fee also). If we are saying that landowners should be allowed to set up moorings wherever they want without reference to CRT (by telling them to get lost!) without the EOG you could quite clearly double your moorings, maximise your price and make a tidy profit. There are many advantages for the landowner over the marina owner since they have no maintenance costs (CRT have to maintain the canal) so really are profiting from someone else's asset. How can a marina owner compete with someone who has no ongoing costs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure why you see them as conflicting options of either increase your number of moorings or increase your prices (but still keep below marina charges) what is to stop landowners doing both? I'm willing to be corrected but as I understand it at the moment the landowner needs to get the agreement of CRT to set up moorings (to agree the EOG fee also). If we are saying that landowners should be allowed to set up moorings wherever they want without reference to CRT (by telling them to get lost!) without the EOG you could quite clearly double your moorings, maximise your price and make a tidy profit. There are many advantages for the landowner over the marina owner since they have no maintenance costs (CRT have to maintain the canal) so really are profiting from someone else's asset. How can a marina owner compete with someone who has no ongoing costs?

Thanks, I was being a bit dim and overlooking the fact that free from CaRT payment = free from the need for CaRT permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.