Should marina moorers need licences?

[George94]

Push it too far and CRT will meet with the none NAA marinas and tell them the benefits of all boats in water being Licenced (BSS & Insurance). This at no cost to the Marina owners. Result extra income for CRT. Boats monitored by CRT for compliance so less admin for Marina.

Hornets nest and stirring come to mind.

 

Of course there is a cost to the marina.

 

Push up the cost of mooring significantly, and some people will leave. If the marina thought it could raise prices without damaging its business, you can bet that it would already have done so.

[MtB]

It might seem unfair to have to pay for a license when you're not actually 'on' the canal but your boat is only where it is because there is a canal, whether you use it or not.

 

Keith

 

 

I think this sums it up neatly.

 

Anyone claiming they'd still choose to live in a metal tube in a pond had the canals been filled in and built over back in the sixties, is kidding themselves, in my opinion.

 

 

(Edit to remove a tautology.)

Edited February 2, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Sabcat]

You've hit the nail squarely on the head there John but people will still continue to argue the toss.

 

When a ( say ) 100 berth marina is proposed, it potentially means a loss of 100 mooring fees and 100 license fees to CaRT.

 

To counter this, CaRT charge a connection fee to the marina and insist ( as part of the contract ) that all boats in the marina must be licensed.

If one takes the time to work it out, it actually results in a loss to CaRT over what they would have received had the boats remained on line.

The connection fee is pretty small potatoes for the marina owner when you consider the millions invested in developing the marina, and it's all tax deductible!

 

It might seem unfair to have to pay for a license when you're not actually 'on' the canal but your boat is only where it is because there is a canal, whether you use it or not.

 

Keith

 

I don't have to pay a licence if I am off CRT waters, for example, I can move 500 yards from where I am right now and be off CRT waters in an arm owned by someone else where no licence is required - it's existence pre-dates the NAA . You and John who you quoted with this reply are both quite right, it is purely a business case for adding the NAA clause to marinas subject to it making licences compulsory for boats that don't need them - and make no mistake, they don't. They're being forced as a condition of a mooring off CRT waters to have consent to be on CRT waters.

 

It is though in my view both an underhanded practice and a short sighted one that does nothing but put up the price of boat ownership and represents a barrier to more boats on the cut and so more marinas, more money for CRT and more money in associated businesses.

[Sabcat]

 

 

I think this sums it up neatly.

 

Anyone claiming they'd still choose to live in a metal tube in a pond had the canals been filled in and built over back in the sixties, is kidding themselves, in my opinion.

 

 

(Edit to remove a tautology.)

 

I think it misses the point entirely. What CRT stand to lose and gain with this policy has little to do with live aboards. The lumbering of a boat owner with price of a decent holiday for two people in years when they are not using the boat or the price of a cheap package deal to Alicante in years they only cruise in the summer is not a good way to get people onto the cut and retain them as boaters. It's a short sighted policy in the extreme being cheered on by the blind.

[Jerra]

 

I don't understand what you're struggling with here. Any boat off CRT waters - in a marina for example - does not require a licence or "relevant consent" to be on CRT waters because it's not on CRT waters. What CRT have done is created a situation where boats not on their waters are paying to be on their waters.

I am struggling with nothing but you seem to be, going by this para, under a misapprehension. Boaters in many marinas do need a license as the marina owner has chosen to enter into an NAA and the boaters have chosen to accept the owners terms and conditions.

 

Having got that out of the way then I am considering ways your utopia can be achieved. CRT aren't going to go for anything which reduces their income or costs them money. The marina owners aren't going to go for anything which costs them money or increases work. Both parties are happy with the NAA or they wouldn't have chosen to accept it/offer it.

 

Anything else is mere wishful thinking and OK to pass a wet and windy day or two.

[Sabcat]

I am struggling with nothing but you seem to be, going by this para, under a misapprehension. Boaters in many marinas do need a license as the marina owner has chosen to enter into an NAA and the boaters have chosen to accept the owners terms and conditions.

 

Having got that out of the way then I am considering ways your utopia can be achieved. CRT aren't going to go for anything which reduces their income or costs them money. The marina owners aren't going to go for anything which costs them money or increases work. Both parties are happy with the NAA or they wouldn't have chosen to accept it/offer it.

 

Anything else is mere wishful thinking and OK to pass a wet and windy day or two.

 

For a start there's not much "choice", marinas accept the NAA or there's no marina, boaters accept the T&Cs or don't get a mooring. There is one choice though that people can and do take and it's why, contra to your contention that "CRT aren't going to go for anything which reduces their income" that this policy and others adds up to them doing exactly that. The number of boats is falling. Far from describing a "utopia" I'm firmly planted in reality, you should perhaps consider joining me here, that rosy garden you're occupying is nice but it's a delusion. The system is in the shit.

[Steilsteven]

 

For a start there's not much "choice", marinas accept the NAA or there's no marina, boaters accept the T&Cs or don't get a mooring. There is one choice though that people can and do take and it's why, contra to your contention that "CRT aren't going to go for anything which reduces their income" that this policy and others adds up to them doing exactly that. The number of boats is falling. Far from describing a "utopia" I'm firmly planted in reality, you should perhaps consider joining me here, that rosy garden you're occupying is nice but it's a delusion. The system is in the shit.

Emotive stuff, but what is the evidence that the ''number of boats is falling'' and what exactly do you mean by '' The system is in the shit''?

Can't speak for the rest of the system but the River Kennet seems to improve year on year.

 

Keith

[jenlyn]

Emotive stuff, but what is the evidence that the ''number of boats is falling'' and what exactly do you mean by '' The system is in the shit''?

Can't speak for the rest of the system but the River Kennet seems to improve year on year.

 

Keith

The figures that suggest a fall in the number of boats on the canals is available on the internet (don't ask me for a link, find it yourself).

As for your comment on the river Kennet, well, speaks for itself lol.

[Tony Dunkley]

Someone may have asked this earlier, but I'm not inclined to go back through 450 plus posts to check.

 

Does anyone know if C&RT impose the NAA and the accompanying charges/fees on Marinas connected to scheduled rivers where there is a statutory public right of navigation and therefore no requirement in law for boats to be licensed, but only to be registered with them as the Navigation Authority ?

[Jerra]

 

For a start there's not much "choice", marinas accept the NAA or there's no marina, boaters accept the T&Cs or don't get a mooring. There is one choice though that people can and do take and it's why, contra to your contention that "CRT aren't going to go for anything which reduces their income" that this policy and others adds up to them doing exactly that. The number of boats is falling. Far from describing a "utopia" I'm firmly planted in reality, you should perhaps consider joining me here, that rosy garden you're occupying is nice but it's a delusion. The system is in the shit.

Of course there is choice. As has been pointed out in this thread there are waters not controlled by CRT so the owner chooses where they want to build their marina and if on CRT waters they have factored in a NAA to their business plan.

 

The same is true of the boaters they choose where they want to boat if they choose they can be on waters not controlled by CRT. If they choose to be on CRT waters they htn have achoice about which marina does it have a NAA or not. Again in this thread it has been pointed out there are a good number with no NAA.

 

You would appear to want your cake and eat it. You want to choose a marina and then have the choice of not accepting the T & Cs the owner is happy with. You are in your words looking at it back to front. If not being a marina with an NAA you start your choosing with either which waters don't have NAAs or which marinas don't. Instead you seem to be choosing the marina and then wanting things changed to fit your ideas.

[jenlyn]

Of course there is choice. As has been pointed out in this thread there are waters not controlled by CRT so the owner chooses where they want to build their marina and if on CRT waters they have factored in a NAA to their business plan.

 

The same is true of the boaters they choose where they want to boat if they choose they can be on waters not controlled by CRT. If they choose to be on CRT waters they htn have achoice about which marina does it have a NAA or not. Again in this thread it has been pointed out there are a good number with no NAA.

 

You would appear to want your cake and eat it. You want to choose a marina and then have the choice of not accepting the T & Cs the owner is happy with. You are in your words looking at it back to front. If not being a marina with an NAA you start your choosing with either which waters don't have NAAs or which marinas don't. Instead you seem to be choosing the marina and then wanting things changed to fit your ideas.

No. Its actually CRT who want to have their cake and eat it. You seem to be happy with feeding them.

[Steilsteven]

The figures that suggest a fall in the number of boats on the canals is available on the internet (don't ask me for a link, find it yourself).

As for your comment on the river Kennet, well, speaks for itself lol.

You've obviously not been here for a while.

Can't be arsed to look it up.

 

Keith

[jenlyn]

You've obviously not been here for a while.

Can't be arsed to look it up.

 

Keith

No. Didn't think you would be lol

[Steilsteven]

http://www.canaljunction.com/news/1361-unlicensed-boats-spotted-march-crt/2097

 

This rather refutes what Sabcat says.

 

Keith

[jenlyn]

http://www.canaljunction.com/news/1361-unlicensed-boats-spotted-march-crt/2097

 

This rather refutes what Sabcat says.

 

Keith

I take it you never saw the fallout from that years resulting boat count? Where Mr Parry attempted to assure us that several thousand boats had not been abducted by aliens, but had been "overcounted" in previous years.

I know, it's a bit like a comedy sketch isn't it.

The facts are clear from previous years counts, several thousand boats left the waterway.

[Steilsteven]

I take it you never saw the fallout from that years resulting boat count? Where Mr Parry attempted to assure us that several thousand boats had not been abducted by aliens, but had been "overcounted" in previous years.

I know, it's a bit like a comedy sketch isn't it.

The facts are clear from previous years counts, several thousand boats left the waterway.

Well apparently they're back, on CaRT's website there are 35,000 boats on their waterways!

 

Keith

[b0atman]

Redhill marina on the Soar Debdale marina loads of boats out of the water and on the hard standings.

There must be lots of others around the country adding up to a lot of boats in CRT limbo land

[jenlyn]

Well apparently they're back, on CaRT's website there are 35,000 boats on their waterways!

 

Keith

Comical really innit?

[kris88]

Comical really innit?

It would be comical, if the clowns weren't in charge of protecting the nations heritage.

 

Regards kris

[valrene9600]

Comical really innit?

Are you saying there are less than 35k. What other source other than crt can be used to give an accurate figure. If no other how can anyone be sure of the correct figures

Edited February 2, 2016 by valrene9600

[George94]

CART's best bet is to keep costs down and entice lots more people to buy boats. The fact is that the marginal cost to CART of one more boat is almost zero, so the licence fee is almost pure profit.

 

By the same token, losing a boat is almost pure loss.

 

The NAA fee should be reduced annually and phased out completely after 5 years, subject to a proviso that affected marinas reduce their mooring fees in line with the lower NAA fee. At the same time, marina boaters should be given a significant discount off the licence fee, which should be raised by about 10%. This would be fair because on average marina boats make less use of facilities.

 

The effect would be to shift boats off the cut and into marinas, and to encourage people to take up boating because marinas would be markedly cheaper than they are now. It would also encourage new marinas to open and existing ones to increase capacity. Currently they don't want to risk this as the NAA lands them with a hefty financial penalty for doing so.

[Sabcat]

CART's best bet is to keep costs down and entice lots more people to buy boats. The fact is that the marginal cost to CART of one more boat is almost zero, so the licence fee is almost pure profit.

 

By the same token, losing a boat is almost pure loss.

 

The NAA fee should be reduced annually and phased out completely after 5 years, subject to a proviso that affected marinas reduce their mooring fees in line with the lower NAA fee. At the same time, marina boaters should be given a significant discount off the licence fee, which should be raised by about 10%. This would be fair because on average marina boats make less use of facilities.

 

The effect would be to shift boats off the cut and into marinas, and to encourage people to take up boating because marinas would be markedly cheaper than they are now. It would also encourage new marinas to open and existing ones to increase capacity. Currently they don't want to risk this as the NAA lands them with a hefty financial penalty for doing so.

 

I pretty much agree with all of this and entirely with the ethos that underpins it.

 

The current approach of CRT (who apparently can't or won't count boats) is insane, no business would survive being run like this is there was genuine choice - there's not, talk of "non CRT water ways" is ridiculous we have a canal system and CRT currently (mis)manage it.

 

It's not just policies that squeeze cash out of marina owners. Look at the Tony Dunkley and Andy Wingfield cases where CRT are engaging in outright extortion. This is not the right approach to building a sustainable, accessible and enjoyable network for the benefit of all. It's a down hill trajectory of layered management disconnected from the material reality of the asset in their care.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Sabcat

[Higgs]

So the marina owner is going to pay for installing this system?

 

I suspect they might prefer a system which costs them nothing in outlay or effort sayan NAA.

 

 

There's no pleasing some people. But the suggestion I made was something along the lines of tax deductible costs.

[Machpoint005]

I pay for all sorts of things I don't use -- schools, social services, libraries. We all do. And most people accept that things are better because of it. If everyone only paid for what they used it would be pretty tough on the people who then had to pay full whack for what they were using.

 

Spot on, I'd say. It is neither necessary or compulsory to own a boat, and if you do, you abide by the rules. That is all.

Hence my comment umpteen pages back about the righteous indignation of folks who have nothing more important to think about.

[Sabcat]

 

Spot on, I'd say. It is neither necessary or compulsory to own a boat, and if you do, you abide by the rules. That is all.

Hence my comment umpteen pages back about the righteous indignation of folks who have nothing more important to think about.

 

You've hit the nail on the head with the bit in red. The rest of your post suggests you don't actually understand why though.