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

[jenlyn]

As I said, another issue for another day.

If your 10% figure relates to people without a home mooring, you can safely double that.

[b0atman]

The lowest income for CRT surely is the boat in a marina with no NAA agreement

1 no 9%

2 no licence fees from boats unless they decide to go out for more than a overnight trip (in my experience)

[kris88]

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

Regards kris

[Arthur Marshall]

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

Regards kris

I don't think it has, I think it just came up as part of the discussion and no-one had ever really analysed who pays what, just asumptions got chucked around. It's been accepted that people who have only ever CC'd don't really know how HMers work and vice versa and it's quite interesting finding out. I don't think it's anyone's attitude that people who aren't paying as much as others should get kicked off the cut...

[kris88]

It's seems to be a prevalent attitude of people with home moorings. I don't just mean on this forum. I've heard a few boaters saying cc'ers are getting away with something because they pay less. I agree it's interesting to see that this assumption is wrong.

Regards kris

[GoodGurl]

I think if it wasn't for CC'rs in the winter there would be a few boaters not going very far in the spring, due to unplanned stoppages that were picked up during their travels over the winter period that CRT had either missed or not known about.

[tree monkey]

It's seems to be a prevalent attitude of people with home moorings. I don't just mean on this forum. I've heard a few boaters saying cc'ers are getting away with something because they pay less. I agree it's interesting to see that this assumption is wrong.

Regards kris

It not my attitude at all, never has been never will be in fact I don't know anyone who thinks this

[Hawthorn]

The lowest income for CRT surely is the boat in a marina with no NAA agreement1 no 9%2 no licence fees from boats unless they decide to go out for more than a overnight trip (in my experience)

Thought you'd found a loophole here that boaters with HMs could jump on, but not so generally. I'd love to only pay a licence only for the time I'm cruising and only pay a mooring for when I'm not. Can't though.

[MtB]

It's seems to be a prevalent attitude of people with home moorings. I don't just mean on this forum. I've heard a few boaters saying cc'ers are getting away with something because they pay less. I agree it's interesting to see that this assumption is wrong.

Regards kris

 

 

Strange. My perception is that this thread has proved HMers paid more, although not by much of a margin.

 

Ccers are useful to have on the cut and contribute indirectly by using and keeping canalside businesses open that might otherwise not be viable, but in terms of direct contribution to CRT coffers HMers pay more. All boaters pay a licence fee but a proportion of the mooring fees from HMers also goes straight to CRT, in some cases all of it, so HMers contribute more. What have I missed if this is wrong?

[kris88]

It not my attitude at all, never has been never will be in fact I don't know anyone who thinks this

We'll that's good, I didn't say all boaters with home moorings. But it is definitely an attitude that I have encounted

Regards kris

[Hawthorn]

Thought you'd found a loophole here that boaters with HMs could jump on, but not so generally. I'd love to only pay a licence only for the time I'm cruising and only pay a mooring for when I'm not. Can't though.

Forgot to add quote from CRT

 

The definition of ‘waterway’ includes the great majority of long term mooring sites and marinas, so your boat needs a licence whether or not you actually take it out for a cruise.

[John Williamson 1955]

 

 

Do these marinas, because they're tied to CRT, still pay, as such, the 9% levied on moorers of privately owned marinas. The actual mooring fee factor will be the same expense for any mooring, though; online CRT moorings, as an example.

From the BWML website:= "We are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canal & River Trust, CRT (formally British Waterways), a national charity formed in 2012, whose primary role is the custodian and navigation authority for around 2,000 miles of canals and rivers across England and Wales.

BWML, along with all other commercial interests of CRT, has a responsibility to generate commercial income to support the running of the waterways within CRT’s care.

In addition to remitting profits back to Canal & River Trust, BWML operates 14 marinas on leases from CRT for which it pays open market rents."

So, as I said, via a slightly indirect route, all money paid to BWML eventually goes into the coffers of C&RT.

[kris88]

I suggest mike that you go back and read the thread

Regards kris

[GoodGurl]

Thought you'd found a loophole here that boaters with HMs could jump on, but not so generally. I'd love to only pay a licence only for the time I'm cruising and only pay a mooring for when I'm not. Can't though.

Yes you can if you moor on a backwater.

[jenlyn]

It not my attitude at all, never has been never will be in fact I don't know anyone who thinks this

Gren Messham (one of the IWA vice chairs) said it at a recent associations -CRT meeting. Also it has been stated by several at Richard Parry's boater meetings. The last one being Milton Keynes at the end of last summer.

[MtB]

I suggest mike that you go back and read the thread

Regards kris

 

 

I've read it already, and as I said, HMers have been demonstrated to pay more to CRT that CCers.

 

 

MtB

[kris88]

I think you will find that a cc' er who takes a winter mooring permit contributes more than a boat with a home mooring in a private marina. So it's not as clear cut as you'd like to make it.

Anyway if the amount of contribution argument is valid my boat is 62 feet so I contribute more than all the people with smaller boats.

As I stated before I think the amount of contribution argument is facile.

Regards kris

[Texasboater]

I wonder how the Gold License fee is shared % wise? Surely C&RT receive less proportionately from such a license holder and yet that boater has greater access to the waterways. The boater obviously pays more for that access.

[b0atman]

Thought you'd found a loophole here that boaters with HMs could jump on, but not so generally. I'd love to only pay a licence only for the time I'm cruising and only pay a mooring for when I'm not. Can't though.

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

Its not a loophole just poor BW management.

[MtB]

I wonder how the Gold License fee is shared % wise? Surely C&RT receive less proportionately from such a license holder and yet that boater has greater access to the waterways. The boater obviously pays more for that access.

 

 

Ah but they can only use one waterway at a time, so Gold holders will use the canals less. Assuming they will be on EA waters sometimes.

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

Its not a loophole just poor BW management.

 

Do we have any stats on this?

 

ISTR the number of marinas not paying NAA is small, being those in existence before BW thought of the idea. All recently built marinas pay it, but that's quite a small number too!

[Texasboater]

 

 

Ah but they can only use one waterway at a time, so Gold holders will use the canals less. Assuming they will be on EA waters sometimes.

Possibly no less usage of the canals than a Marina based Leisure boat and C&RT cop all the lolly!

[alan_fincher]

From the feedback I have had from CRT there were very few of the old style (visitor moorings) available do you have different feedback from CRT?

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.

[John Williamson 1955]

 

 

I've read it already, and as I said, HMers have been demonstrated to pay more to CRT that CCers.

 

It seems we have quite a few categories of boaters. Continuous cruisers who spend the whole year cruising, CC'ers who take a Winter mooring from CRT, Boaters who stay in a privately owned marina, boaters who take an online mooring from CRT, and boaters in BWML marinas. Not forgetting EOG moorings, but include those in the private marina block as far as income goes, as they normally cost less than a marina, but pay a greater percentage of that to CRT.

 

The back of this envelope <Waves it to dry the ink> says that the owner of a 12 metre boat will pay the same licence fee to CRT no matter what their mooring status is. So, in order of income generated from the boat for CRT across the whole system on average, CC'ers are lowest, then privately owned marina berth holders paying an average cost to the boat owner of about £3000 per year of which about £250 goes to CRT in most cases. A continuous cruiser taking a full term Winter mooring will pay an extra £400 or mpre direct to CRT, Boaters with a CRT online mooring pay CRT on average about £2000 per year, of which all goes to CRT. Boats moored in BWML marinas generate about £3000 per year of income for the marina, the vast majority of which goes to CRT via one route or another (Rent of land, profit sharing and so on. BWML is wholly owned by CRT). All figures are approximate, so please don't nitpick that I'm a few dozen quid out. BWML claim to generate about £1.7 million pounds per year for CRT in terms of commercial rent paid for the marinas and operating profits, which are paid to CRT as owners.

 

My point? Just trying to put some figures to who pays CRT most, as there are conflicting claims in this thread. There's room for us all on the water, and the important thing isn't who pays how much, but who enjoys the boating life.

[alan_fincher]

Boaters with a CRT online mooring pay CRT on average about £2000 per year, of which all goes to CRT.

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!

[kris88]

I think that was posted already in the thread, mike had blatantly not read the thread. Or selectively read the thread ignoring the facts that don't fit in with his own agenda.

Regards kris

Should have quoted john

Edited February 22, 2015 by kris88