IWA

[peterboat]

Reading my IWA magazine last night Paul Strudwick London Region says the IWA support an area based license fee for boats! Now all you widebeam owners like me should email the IWA asking where and when you were asked about it and also cancel your subs, because they wont change unless we force them to.

The IWA I thought was supposed to help us? but clearly they are the enemy and as such we should distance ourselves away from them to protect out boating interests, not theirs

[Alan de Enfield]

Reading my IWA magazine last night Paul Strudwick London Region says the IWA support an area based license fee for boats! Now all you widebeam owners like me should email the IWA asking where and when you were asked about it and also cancel your subs, because they wont change unless we force them to.

The IWA I thought was supposed to help us? but clearly they are the enemy and as such we should distance ourselves away from them to protect out boating interests, not theirs

 

I would have thought that the NBTA would 'be all over that' if it was feasible - the smaller your movement pattern, the less you pay.

Their members may even qualify as being 'licence free' by C&RT.

[ditchcrawler]

Reading my IWA magazine last night Paul Strudwick London Region says the IWA support an area based license fee for boats! Now all you widebeam owners like me should email the IWA asking where and when you were asked about it and also cancel your subs, because they wont change unless we force them to.

The IWA I thought was supposed to help us? but clearly they are the enemy and as such we should distance ourselves away from them to protect out boating interests, not theirs

Do you mean area of boat like EA or cruising area?

[MtB]

 

I would have thought that the NBTA would 'be all over that' if it was feasible - the smaller your movement pattern, the less you pay.

Their members may even qualify as being 'licence free' by C&RT.

 

 

I suspect the IWA mean licences to be charged according to deck area, not crusing area!

 

A far fairer system in my opinion, and one that will give CRT a hefty boost in funding.

[frangar]

I personally don't see the issue with paying by area. We already pay by length....I've never seen why fat boats should pay less than a motor & butty??

[Higgs]

 

 

I suspect the IWA mean licences to be charged according to deck area, not crusing area!

 

A far fairer system in my opinion, and one that will give CRT a hefty boost in funding.

 

Other fairer systems are available - from the boat owner's perspective. Don't ask, you know you don't want me to go there.

[Nightwatch]

I suspect the IWA mean licences to be charged according to deck area, not crusing area!

 

A far fairer system in my opinion, and one that will give CRT a hefty boost in funding.

Good mention Mike, I'm up for that. When surveyed Nightwatch was stated as having only a 6'8" beam.

 

Martyn

[MtB]

I personally don't see the issue with paying by area. We already pay by length....I've never seen why fat boats should pay less than a motor & butty??

 

 

The argument is invalid but fat boaters say they only have access to half the system, unlike a motor and a butty.

 

Invalid because the fat boat wears out the half system it is stuck in, twice as much.

[b0atman]

Why is there a River only licence ? should there not be Narrow canals licence and then a Broad canal licence too .Put all into the boiling pot and CRT will come out with a working solution when they do the licencing review which IWA are already party too.
My vote is a gold licence based on square footage covering all navigable inland waterways.

Edited February 13, 2017 by b0atman

[Mac of Cygnet]

TBH I assumed it meant none of the things suggested so far, but a licence fee based on what area you keep your boat., i.e. double for London, half for Yorkshire. If so, bring it on!

Edited February 13, 2017 by Mac of Cygnet

[nicknorman]

The argument is invalid but fat boaters say they only have access to half the system, unlike a motor and a butty.

 

Invalid because the fat boat wears out the half system it is stuck in, twice as much.

Yeabut they hardly ever move, so it balances out!

[Higgs]

TBH I assumed it meant none of the things suggested so far, but a licence fee based on what area you keep your boat., i.e. double for London, half for Yorkshire. If so, bring it on!

 

 

And non, if you moor in a marina.

[Mac of Cygnet]

 

 

And non, if you moor in a marina.

 

I don't see how you get to that. A licence is almost always required if you moor in a marina now. That wouldn't change.

[peterboat]

Its for the area of the boat of course But you are right on some points like I cant cruise as much as narrowboats, so we should double narrowboat licenses to make up for their greater cruising range.

Also a lot of fat boats are short so taking up less bank room so they should have a reduction in costs as well!

My point is this association is supposed to represent us the boaters and if it doesnt ask us, it is now a dictatorship so its past its sell by date clearly!

[dor]

I think it has been some time since the IWA represented the interests of the majority of boaters.

[MtB]

The thing is though, there is a proliferation of wide boats being launched these days filling up the canals and there needs to be some sort of moderating influence. Correcting the unreasonably low licence fee would be a start and help with CRT finances.

 

A higher price for a CC licence would also be fairer in my opinion.

(For any width boat I mean.)

[Higgs]

 

I don't see how you get to that. A licence is almost always required if you moor in a marina now. That wouldn't change.

 

 

No matter what the marina write in their terms and conditions, it is not waterways law. Those that can require you to have a licence cannot apply that law on private property. No legal right to a licence, no legal right to the money. If you wish to go over the usual arguments, I don't.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=78426&page=12 if you wish.

 

 

I don't have the time just now.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Higgs

[Scholar Gypsy]

On the question posed, I'd support a charge based on deck area - as already in use on EA waterways.

 

It's worth noting that the technology now exists to fit trackers to every boat, and to record when they pass charging/tolling points. This could be used to encourage some behaviours, and discourage others (cf the rather crude congestion charge in London, toll motorways), within an overall target for revenue [ie not as a way to increase overall revenue].

 

The economic case for doing this on roads is very strong, given the externalities road users cause (eg the environment and increasing congestion for other road users), but is obviously very difficult politically.

[peterboat]

The thing is though, there is a proliferation of wide boats being launched these days filling up the canals and there needs to be some sort of moderating influence. Correcting the unreasonably low licence fee would be a start and help with CRT finances.

 

A higher price for a CC licence would also be fairer in my opinion.

(For any width boat I mean.)

Up here Mike there is all the room in the world for wideboats it was designed that way and as for a cc license costing more why? we all have the choice to cruise its just that some take it up and some dont, the ones that do keep it in better condition by reporting problems.

My point of this post is not the rights and wrongs of the license but that an organisation that says it looks after boaters makes statements without contacting its membership to see if it agrees. Its a mess and people need to hold it to account

[magpie patrick]

I would expect the IWA to consult ALL members on a stance about licensing - IWA could also do to remember not only are there other navigation authorities but that they themselves, through Essex Waterways Ltd, are a navigation and licensing authority.

 

The licensing regime is, I think, largely laid down in statute, so any suggestion of doing away with river registration, or introducing a new teir such as "broad canals only" would need primary legislation. I'm not sure how far the statute dictates the licencing regime with regard to charging by length or by area

 

One thing that we all need to remember however, is that any overall change will be revenue neutral - CRT needs £x pounds from licence fees, so if a change results in one group paying less it will lead to another group paying more. I also suspect, but I don't know, that licence demand is fairly inelastic, in that reducing licence fees by 10% won't attract a corresponding increase in customers. In short, fixed number of boats (as in, licence fee doesn't influence how many), fixed amount of money needed, and only so many ways to slice the pie.

 

On boat size, I would share some concern about just how big some widebeams are getting: in principle there shouldn't be any concern about pushing the limits otherwise we start saying that ex GUCCC narrowboats can't cruise (although we do need to be wary when someone complains they won't fit certain locks well off the GU system), but I'm not sure the licence makes a lot of difference, these boats are expensive to buy and that's the biggest barrier to having one. I'm also not sure I trust CRT with maximum craft sizes either, some may recall BW refusing to allow a narrowboat passage of Tinsley locks because it was four inches too long, even though it would fit.

 

In short, I've no answers, other than be careful what you wish for

[dogless]

I strongly suspect that it's been very many years since the IWA supported any interests other than feeding the ego's of the committee based people involved.

 

I cancelled my subscription several years ago. An organisation lost in it's own structures in my view.

 

Rog

[Tonka]

Don't forget the narrow boats which are over 57 feet should pay less as they can't do the northern waters

[alan_fincher]

Don't forget the narrow boats which are over 57 feet should pay less as they can't do the northern waters

 

......and even less for those that can't get through pinch points like Hurleston locks, so can't access one of the most popular canals in the country.

 

And a further discount if you have to bounce through half the bridge holes because you have a proper working boat draught.......

 

..... At this rate CRT should be paying me, for at least one of my boats to be on their waters.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I cancelled my subscription several years ago. An organisation lost in it's own structures in my view.

 

Rog

 

Sorry - For a moment or two I thought I had strayed onto the Brexit thread

[matty40s]

Collingwood/Aintree have over 20 wide beams in build, Red Hill are launching several from Nottingham every month. Tyler and Piper are similar, even Cole craft are making more wide than narrow now.

Most of these are monoliths designed to give maximum living space inside.....good boat design and navigation hazards being a secondary thought.

The majority are slab sided, as wide at the gunnels as they are at the base plate, which protrudes with an inch of sacrificial edge both sides.

Some say lock gates are mainly damage by narrow boats opening only one gate, I have recently seen quite a few wide beams owners open the paddles to empty the lock, get on board and just push their way out when the water level drops enough.

These are not only damaging the gates at rubbing strake level, but also underwater.

Aintree also have a very high pointed prow which digs a hole on the gates.

I agree something needs to be done to limit the numbers of widebeams coming onto unsuitable parts of the system, what that is I don't know.

There were 67 wide boats of varying descriptions between Marsworth and Whilton last month, some moored in ridiculous places, the only narrowboat in a similarly ridiculous place was Onionbargees pair at Fenny Stratford on a blind bend opposite another offside moored boat.

 

The IWA idea however is ridiculous and ill thought out by a bunch of self serving very important people (self certified). A slightly higher licence fee isn't going to stop someone who has spent £150k plus on a floating flat using it as cheap accommodation near London, it will still be cheap.

Far more thought has to go into getting widebeam moorings made available, only 3 new ones in London later this year, with another couple of dozen boats plus expected in the area??? There are not many wide beams move around like Jenlyn does, so some kind of solution has to be found, raising licence fees is not that solution.