CANAL & RIVER TRUST OUTLINES POLICY FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

[John Williamson 1955]

OK, what follows is strictly "tongue in cheek" but "just saying, like".......

 

BW/CRT have repeatedly argued that the "reserve" price on auctioned moorings has to be as high as it is, (usually 90% of the "guide" price for the mooring), because it is the lowest price at which they can economically maintain and administer that mooring.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I have always thought that argument to be total nonsense, particularly if the CRT long term mooring in question is a length of tow-path where there are no facilities, (the case for probably 90% of all of them!).

 

However if you did accept the rather odd claim, 90% of what you pay goes towards servicing, maintaining and administering the mooring, so if bought at "guide" CRT presumably only "profit" from the remaining 10% of what you pay,

 

You can make numbers say anything, really, can't you!

Lies, damn lies, and the bottom line of the accounts....

 

I deliberately gave incomes, rather than claimed profit figures.

 

Boss to accountant at interview "What is 2 + 2?"

Accountant "What would you like it to be?"

[adam1uk]

There are non NAA marinas all over Where no licence is required.

Its not a loophole just poor BW management.

It's history rather than poor management. If a marina is not on CRT waters, then it stands to reason that they can't charge a fee.

 

Incidentally, marinas which were established before the NAA came in often still have to pay a fee -- and it's often more than 9 per cent. Braunston, for example, pays 20 per cent of mooring incomes -- but that was in return for no rent rises for 75 years. Which means it's very complicated to work out who pays what.

[cotswoldsman]

For clarity, do you mean "very few available in the first place", or that "lots got taken up, hence resulting in very few left"?

 

Matthew Symonds has reported on multiple occasions very low take up of the "old style" fixed locations ones, (London excluded) - I'd be interested if anybody has told you any different to that.

 

I'm struggling to remember, for example, if the total number reported sold at Stoke Bruerne was zero, or just one - it was certainly reported as no more than that.

I was told very few left and yes that is the feedback I got I know of 2 boaters who were unable to book preferred place in Midlands

[cotswoldsman]

Just to add I seem to remember Liverpool booked up very quickly

[Arthur Marshall]

However if you did accept the rather odd claim, 90% of what you pay goes towards servicing, maintaining and administering the mooring, so if bought at "guide" CRT presumably only "profit" from the remaining 10% of what you pay,

 

You can make numbers say anything, really, can't you!

Ah, but if you have an offside EOG mooring, everything you pay to CRT (which I think is half their managed rate) is for them free money as they don't do anything for it at all.

[alan_fincher]

Ah, but if you have an offside EOG mooring, everything you pay to CRT (which I think is half their managed rate) is for them free money as they don't do anything for it at all.

Presumably they would still claim there are admin costs involved in sending out reminders, collecting payments and issuing the new permits?

 

The fact that they do sweet FA to maintain the mooring doesn't mean they would accept they have no costs, I think.

 

 

I was told very few left and yes that is the feedback I got I know of 2 boaters who were unable to book preferred place in Midlands

 

Just to add I seem to remember Liverpool booked up very quickly

I can't immediately find the national answer I thought I has seen.

 

I do have this in respect of South East Waterways.

 

MS advised not many fixed location winter mooring permits have sold in the SE, except at Batchworth. No feedback yet received, but some members considered it a very expensive option.

 

(where MS is of course Matthew Symonds).

 

EDIT:

 

A bit more searching reveals these as total numbers for 2014.....

 

General Towpath Permit - 591 sold - 75% of the total permits sold.

Selected Visitor Moorings - 81 sold - 10% of the total permits sold

London towpath Permits - 115 sold - 15% of the total permits sold.

 

 

So if it were both true that only 81 were sold for "Selected Visitor Moorings", and that "there were very few left", then the only conclusion could reasonably be that they only offered a very small number of such moorings in the first place. However that doesn't sound consistent with the majority of such sites in the SE having a very low take up.

 

Some disconnect in what we have been told, I think.

Edited February 22, 2015 by alan_fincher

[alan_fincher]

The following may also be of interest in this debate?

 

Total contract value of all 2014 winter mooring permits sold.

 

General Towpath Permit - £135,813 - 52% of total

Selected Visitor Moorings - £56,140 - 21% of total

London Towpath Permits - £70,811 - 27% of total

 

I make that (my maths) £262,764 overall.

 

So that is a bit over an extra of a quarter of a million that those normally without home moorings (*) have contributed to CRT funds this winter.

 

(* OK some of the income might be from those who otherwise have a home mooring, but it seems highly unlikely that any very significant part of it actually is).

 

EDIT To make clear above quoted number exclude VAT.

Edited February 22, 2015 by alan_fincher

[cotswoldsman]

The following may also be of interest in this debate?

 

Total contract value of all 2014 winter mooring permits sold.

 

General Towpath Permit - £135,813 - 52% of total

Selected Visitor Moorings - £56,140 - 21% of total

London Towpath Permits - £70,811 - 27% of total

 

I make that (my maths) £262,764 overall.

 

So that is a bit over an extra of a quarter of a million that those normally without home moorings (*) have contributed to CRT funds this winter.

 

(* OK some of the income might be from those who otherwise have a home mooring, but it seems highly unlikely that any very significant part of it actually is).

 

EDIT To make clear above quoted number exclude VAT.

This is weird we seem to have different figures is that 2013/14

 

Edited to add just noticed your bit about vat will check my figures in morning but think mine include vat

Edited February 22, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[alan_fincher]

This is weird we seem to have different figures is that 2013/14

 

No I think these are numbers for this winter, not last winter.

 

I only have them in printed form, so I'm not sure if an electronic version exists on-line anywhere.

[cotswoldsman]

 

No I think these are numbers for this winter, not last winter.

 

I only have them in printed form, so I'm not sure if an electronic version exists on-line anywhere.

I edited my post as you were posting I think

[bassplayer]

So it's all come down to how much you pay has it ?

Regards kris

Looks like it!

[Wanderer Vagabond]

So it's all come down to how much you pay has it ?

Regards kris

 

 

Looks like it!

The question is what is this 'it' that it has all come down to? This all started from a fairly innocuous observation by a poster that those with home moorings pay more than CCer's. As a CC'er I agreed with him and it now seems to be self evidently true from the evidence presented.

 

Also fairly self evident is that those with longer boats pay more compared to shorter boats (or broadbeams) as well, shall we start a long debate about whether or not that is really the case or if you take the square footage of a longer boat whether they pay more or less per square foot that those with shorter boats (J for joke)

[George94]

 

The question is what is this 'it' that it has all come down to? This all started from a fairly innocuous observation by a poster that those with home moorings pay more than CCer's. As a CC'er I agreed with him and it now seems to be self evidently true from the evidence presented.

 

Also fairly self evident is that those with longer boats pay more compared to shorter boats (or broadbeams) as well, shall we start a long debate about whether or not that is really the case or if you take the square footage of a longer boat whether they pay more or less per square foot that those with shorter boats (J for joke)

 

And, of course, there is an argument that says a bigger boat should pay less than a smaller boat because it wastes less water when using a lock. Indeed, bigger boats displace more water whether in a lock or out of it, and thereby save CART some topping up.

 

 

Probably CART should be paying Blackrose (and other owners of enormous craft), instead of them paying a licence fee to CART, in recognition of their contribution to the water situation.

 

 

Next time there is a drought on the K&A, the obvious solution will be to commandeer all the long wide-beams and ship them down there. The water will soon be over the towpath. The resulting jam will provide a perfect excuse for the CMing fraternity to stay put for months, and that's another problem solved.

 

 

Thanks, Blackrose.

[PaulG]

 

Probably CART should be paying Blackrose (and other owners of enormous craft), instead of them paying a licence fee to CART, in recognition of their contribution to the water situation.

I'm sure Blackrose would be very happy about that.

Last time I heard, he was on the Avon...

[thunderbird]

The Canal & River Trust is today (13 February) outlining its plans to provide greater clarity to those boaters who have stated that they will continuously cruise, but then dont move their boat far enough or often enough to meet the Trusts published Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring our understanding of the requirements set out in the BW Act 1995.

 

The Trust will extend the approach it has been applying for the past year with new continuous cruisers to all boats without a home mooring. This means looking at how far boats have moved over the course of their previous licence to see if it satisfies the requirement for continuous cruising. When this is introduced from 1 May, regular reminders will be sent to all those boaters whose limited movement is causing a concern.

 

On the expiry of their licence, those that have consistently failed to move in accordance with the Trusts Guidance will be refused a new licence unless they take a home mooring.

 

Initially the Trust will focus on those who, having declared they will continuously cruise, move the least, including a number of boats that barely move at all.

 

For the first few months while boaters are becoming familiar with this policy, the Trust proposes to issue short duration licences to give those boaters concerned a further opportunity to establish an acceptable range of movement.

 

Richard Parry, chief executive of the Canal & River Trust, comments: The right for boaters to continuously cruise is enshrined in law, and I welcome this way of boating. Many such boaters make a fantastic contribution to the waterways, and its important that everyone who chooses this option understands and respects the rules. Our new approach does not change any rules, but it does seek to provide greater encouragement to everyone to comply with our Guidance, and spells out the consequences if they consistently dont.

 

Our message to boaters without a home mooring is that, if you are worried about your range of movement, or want to know more about what else you need to do to comply with our Guidance, please speak to your local enforcement officer (or contact your local Trust office). In many cases, making some small adjustments to a cruising pattern is enough to meet our Guidance, while in other cases taking up a home mooring may be more appropriate. Ultimately we are trying to help boaters understand our requirements and avoid running into trouble, for the benefit of all boaters.

 

This month the Trust will write to anyone with a boat registered as not having a home mooring to advise them of the process and will begin renewing licences on this basis from 1 May 2015.

 

Denise Yelland, head of enforcement at the Trust, adds: While the enforcement team will continue to provide advice and help for boaters, ultimately, when a boat persistently doesnt move in accordance with our Guidance, we may refuse the owner a new licence to continuously cruise when their existing licence expires.

 

Over the last twelve months the Trust has been operating in this way with boaters who are new to continuous cruising. The approach is now being expanded to all boaters who continuously cruise so that we are treating all boaters fairly and consistently.

 

We are continuing to monitor boat movement as we always have done. What is changing is that we are being more active in telling people when we are concerned about their limited movement pattern, and spelling out what they need to do to meet our requirements.

 

Mike Rodd, chairman of the National Association of Boat Owners, comments: NABO has many continuous cruisers among its members and recognises the significant contribution they make to the wellbeing of our waterways. For those who are living on their boats as a lifestyle choice, these requirements [to continuously cruise] will not present any problem NABOs own survey of continuous cruisers shows just this. Of course some folk who live on their boats may be affected: those who are genuine boaters will welcome the clarity, but a small number will find it difficult to conform. Here we welcome CRTs new Welfare Officer, Sean Williams, and applaud his work, especially in getting CRTs existing enforcement officers briefed on the resources available to help those who are in difficulty."

 

The Association of Continuous Cruisers comments: ACC are pleased to see that CRT are improving communications to make boaters aware at an early stage of any possible infringement.

 

The Residential Boat Owners Association comments: RBOA is broadly supportive of CRT, as it is putting considerable effort into resolving what many see as a problem with boats which do not have a home mooring and which fail to move sufficiently to satisfy CRTs guidelines.

 

Paul Le Blique, chairman Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs, comments: AWCC welcomes and supports this initiative. To encourage a pattern of cruising in line with the Continuous Cruising Licence, followed by firm enforcement action against those who fail to comply is entirely reasonable and appropriate. AWCC has always supported bona fide Continuous Cruising.

 

Les Etheridge, chairman of the Inland Waterways Association, comments: "IWA strongly supports genuine continuous cruisers and hopes that the new enforcement process will quickly address in a fair way the significant issues which have developed in recent years."

 

ENDS

Funny. Wasn't it the IWA that, in writing, informed a well known boater that it was not a boating organisation, as such was not for boaters and yet here it is sitting on CRT's council - WHY?!!! Time to shout OFF I think!

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Funny. Wasn't it the IWA that, in writing, informed a well known boater that it was not a boating organisation, as such was not for boaters and yet here it is sitting on CRT's council - WHY?!!! Time to shout OFF I think!

Since ACC. RBOA and AWCC all seem to be broadly supportive of the proposal, why did you pick on IWA specifically? And were'nt the IWA members elected to the council? So democracy is only OK if it puts the people you agree with into positions of power, is that how it works?There may be an argument against the nominated representatives since, other than Paul Owen nominated by the British Canoeing and Mike Palmer nominated by the Waterway Recovery Group, none of these have anything to do with boaters either. Personally I'm reasonably happy for the nominated representatives to remain since they all bring something to the council, but if you want to throw off elected members then how can you leave nominated members untouched?

[jenlyn]

Since ACC. RBOA and AWCC all seem to be broadly supportive of the proposal, why did you pick on IWA specifically? And were'nt the IWA members elected to the council? So democracy is only OK if it puts the people you agree with into positions of power, is that how it works?There may be an argument against the nominated representatives since, other than Paul Owen nominated by the British Canoeing and Mike Palmer nominated by the Waterway Recovery Group, none of these have anything to do with boaters either. Personally I'm reasonably happy for the nominated representatives to remain since they all bring something to the council, but if you want to throw off elected members then how can you leave nominated members untouched?

The latest IWA additive to the council was not elected. He pinched someone else's place.

Wasn't it the WRG guy?

Edited February 23, 2015 by jenlyn

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The latest IWA additive to the council was not elected. He pinched someone else's place.

Wasn't it the WRG guy?

Could we perhaps be a little more specific. Who exactly is the latest IWA that you refer to and who has gone. On the Council list there is Ivor Caplan and Vaughan Welch both elected and amongst the nominated members there is David Gibson who has a lot of connections to IWA but was actually nominated by Ramblers Association. So who are you referring to?

[jenlyn]

Could we perhaps be a little more specific. Who exactly is the latest IWA that you refer to and who has gone. On the Council list there is Ivor Caplan and Vaughan Welch both elected and amongst the nominated members there is David Gibson who has a lot of connections to IWA but was actually nominated by Ramblers Association. So who are you referring to?

What did your last servant die of? Do some research. Im having my dinner.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

What did your last servant die of? Do some research. Im having my dinner.

I have done some research which is why I am able to give you the list of members of the CRT council. I have named possible suspects for you but you have chosen to disregard them, not saying whether or not they are who you are talking about. Unfortunately it was you who came up with the ineffectual comment apparently based on absolutely nothing other that what you may or may not have heard. It makes any meaningful research by others difficult since you haven't given any clue as to whom you are referring, whether there is any factual basis to it or whether it is just what some bloke in a pub told you!

Edited February 23, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[jenlyn]

I have done some research which is why I am able to give you the list of members of the CRT council. I have named possible suspects for you but you have chosen to disregard them, not saying whether or not they are who you are talking about. Unfortunately it was you who came up with the ineffectual comment apparently based on absolutely nothing other that what you may or may not have heard. It makes any meaningful research by others difficult since you haven't given any clue as to whom you are referring, whether there is any factual basis to it or whether it is just what some bloke in a pub told you!

Try narrowboatworld.

I don't frequent pubs, I'm not much for drink..

I'm happy with where the information came from :-)

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Try narrowboatworld.

I don't frequent pubs, I'm not much for drink..

I'm happy with where the information came from :-)

What information? you haven't actually given us any, the best I can say is that you've passed on some titbit of hearsay which you now disown.

[jenlyn]

What information? you haven't actually given us any, the best I can say is that you've passed on some titbit of hearsay which you now disown.

Lol. If you say so.

I take ot you can't find anything then?

It's not hearsay, possibly you are just not as genned up?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Since ACC. RBOA and AWCC all seem to be broadly supportive of the proposal, why did you pick on IWA specifically? And were'nt the IWA members elected to the council? So democracy is only OK if it puts the people you agree with into positions of power, is that how it works?There may be an argument against the nominated representatives since, other than Paul Owen nominated by the British Canoeing and Mike Palmer nominated by the Waterway Recovery Group, none of these have anything to do with boaters either. Personally I'm reasonably happy for the nominated representatives to remain since they all bring something to the council, but if you want to throw off elected members then how can you leave nominated members untouched?

I believe that boating associations were broadly supportive on CaRT's proposal (as indeed I was) on the basis that CaRT committed to provide a clear response to the question ‘how far should I travel to comply?.

 

However, the Trust has failed to do this .....

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Lol. If you say so.

I take ot you can't find anything then?

It's not hearsay, possibly you are just not as genned up?

So I'm researching your assertion, is that how it works? I suppose for those too tired to make their own case it may work, but not on this occasion. You claim it is not hearsay, do you have any evidence of this?