Charges for End of Garden moorings

[Adam]

Its all getting really silly isnt it but the facts are plain to see. Yes Eugene boaters will try to avoid paying for something if they have to because all the rules and regulations are costing a fortune and jepordising our hobby for many of us who cant afford, and we're not happy.

 

Can anyone tell me why the canal system was restored in the first place? Seems in a modern age its now just a money making scheme and the original reasons have been lost. Milk it while you can BW it wont be here for ever YOU will see to that. No Boats = Silted and weeded canals. No income from boats means no money for dredging and maintainance. Stinky smelly weeded up canals means who the **** wants to go near them or live by them. Or am I being to simplistic ?

 

Agreed

[Captain Haddock]

Its all getting really silly isnt it but the facts are plain to see. Yes Eugene boaters will try to avoid paying for something if they have to because all the rules and regulations are costing a fortune and jepordising our hobby for many of us who cant afford, and we're not happy.

 

Can anyone tell me why the canal system was restored in the first place? Seems in a modern age its now just a money making scheme and the original reasons have been lost. Milk it while you can BW it wont be here for ever YOU will see to that. No Boats = Silted and weeded canals. No income from boats means no money for dredging and maintainance. Stinky smelly weeded up canals means who the **** wants to go near them or live by them. Or am I being to simplistic ?

 

Maverick

You're spot on thats exactly how the canals were in the 50's & 60's, totally neglected. Too much money required to maintain em, motorways were goin to be the modern form of transportation. If it weren't for the huge army of volunteers that started the restorations the government & BW would still be sittin on their backsides.

They only got off em in the last 25 years or so because theres money to be made. by hook or by crook.

 

Wonder how it would be if the restoration army can bill the BWB for the work they did, they certainly deserve a share in their profits.

 

thats my little rant off me chest, time fir rum & batten down.

[Tinker]

British Waterways has assessed “end of garden” moorings as equivalent to the lowest priced mooring in the vicinity. In recognition that boaters on such moorings are already making a payment for access or land ownership, a charge of 50% of BW's lowest mooring in the area is levied on all offside “end of garden” sites where British Waterways does not own the land and there is no commercial agreement with the landowner. This applies to agricultural land, residential plots and urban sites, including those previously used for transhipment.

 

Hope this helps, Eugene

 

 

What about canals such as the K&A where part of the navigation is formed by a river, are there riparian rights on these sections of canal?

[Big Steve]

I'm currently trying to get permission from BW to moor on a stretch of canal near my home. The local farmer owns the field right up to the water for about 100yds, BW own the rest of the bank. The farmer is happy to let me moor there, at no charge as there are no services. I'm paying for a licence to sit in the water, so why can't I sit in one spot at no extra charge?

 

The BW man says he's got no objection to me mooring there, but he has to consult third parties to see if they have any objections. Any idea who these third parties could be? The canal is about 70 feet wide at this point so I can't see me being a hazard to navigation, what else might cause me to be barred from mooring there?

 

If I simply moored there, with the farmers consent, could BW do anything about it? (other than demand a fee)

 

Another question, once BW successfully auction some moorings, how will they determine EOG fees?

 

Another thought, is the farmer opening himself up to any charges by letting me moor there? (Increased rates for example)

[carlt]

I'm currently trying to get permission from BW to moor on a stretch of canal near my home. The local farmer owns the field right up to the water for about 100yds, BW own the rest of the bank. The farmer is happy to let me moor there, at no charge as there are no services. I'm paying for a licence to sit in the water, so why can't I sit in one spot at no extra charge?

 

The BW man says he's got no objection to me mooring there, but he has to consult third parties to see if they have any objections. Any idea who these third parties could be? The canal is about 70 feet wide at this point so I can't see me being a hazard to navigation, what else might cause me to be barred from mooring there?

 

If I simply moored there, with the farmers consent, could BW do anything about it? (other than demand a fee)

 

Another question, once BW successfully auction some moorings, how will they determine EOG fees?

 

Another thought, is the farmer opening himself up to any charges by letting me moor there? (Increased rates for example)

If BW can get their pound of flesh out of you or the farmer they'll have a go. They could decide the farmer is operating a commercial mooring operation, decide what you ought to be paying, then ask for their wedge. Then they may ask you for a mooring fee. Apparently the fish are going to require licences next.

[Supermalc]

What about canals such as the K&A where part of the navigation is formed by a river, are there riparian rights on these sections of canal?

 

 

The river Witham is a navigation, joining the Fosse Dyke canal to the Wash. A house on the river with a mooring, and up to date riparian rights has been recently sold, and the new owner moored his boat there. Last year BW tried to get their 'pound of flesh' however he refused, explained he had riparian rights, and when he agree to go to court they backed down........because they knew they were wrong.

 

Btw, I'm just stating simple facts, not debating them or voicing an opinion. If I were I'd say he still has to pay an exorbitant licence fee.

[David Schweizer]

What about canals such as the K&A where part of the navigation is formed by a river, are there riparian rights on these sections of canal?

The simple answer is yes. In Newbury the properties on the river section guard their riparian rights very keenly, They have reached an agreement with BW that visiting boaters can moor overnight where the bank is not occupied. There are BW signs on this section indicating that the maximum stay is 24 hours, but if you ask nicely many of the residents will allow yiou to stay longer.

 

There are some peculiar provisions in the enabling Act on Parliament for the K&A giving farmers very specific Riparian Rights on the Canal sections, but you need to get a copy of the act and a Solicitor to sort it out. I know of one farmer who has offside Riparian Rights and does not pay BW any money to moor his boat against their own land.

 

At the end of the day, my advice to anyone with land adjoining the canal, and wishing to moor a boat agaist that land, is to require BW to demonstrate that they have a legal right to demand payment before parting with any cash. In most instances (but not all) the right to moor a boat against your own land will not be transferrable to a third party, however the examples quoted by Eugene, where BW has secured a favourable court ruling, are where a land owner has allowed third parties to moor against their land, which is an entirely differnt issue.

Edited May 30, 2007 by David Schweizer

[Keeping Up]

I'm currently trying to get permission from BW to moor on a stretch of canal near my home. The local farmer owns the field right up to the water for about 100yds, BW own the rest of the bank. The farmer is happy to let me moor there, at no charge as there are no services. I'm paying for a licence to sit in the water, so why can't I sit in one spot at no extra charge?

 

The BW man says he's got no objection to me mooring there, but he has to consult third parties to see if they have any objections. Any idea who these third parties could be? The canal is about 70 feet wide at this point so I can't see me being a hazard to navigation, what else might cause me to be barred from mooring there?

 

If I simply moored there, with the farmers consent, could BW do anything about it? (other than demand a fee)

 

Another question, once BW successfully auction some moorings, how will they determine EOG fees?

 

Another thought, is the farmer opening himself up to any charges by letting me moor there? (Increased rates for example)

If BW agree, and you aren't a hazard to navigation, and you don't intend to live on board, there is unlikely to be a problem although it is surprising who can pop up to object if ever planning permission becomes an issue. We had big problems from a local rambling group for example, who claimed (supposedly on behalf of all other boaters, would you believe) that having boats moored would spoil the look of the canal; and it was they who prompted the planning permission issue, because one of the boaters had mowed the grass near his boat and they claimed that was a "change of use"!

 

BW will almost certainly ask the farmer for an EOG mooring fee, equal to half the "going rate" for a nearby BW mooring. Whether or not he passes that fee on to you is of no interest to BW as long as they get their money from him. You have asked a very good quesion about how EOG fees would be determned, if the auctions come about. Would the value of my mooring suddenly have increased just because someone with too much money and a shinier boat than mine, decides that it is worth his bidding way over the top for a mooring 5 miles away from me for some reason (eg because it happens to be near his house)

[CanalWalker]

If he builds a marina on his own land, BW cannot make that claim so instead they make a different charge because the marina is "connected to the system"? Yes?

 

I would hope anyone digging a big hole in the canal bank would be charged and subject to restrictions and standards. people soon complain if there is a breach so I doubt willful damage would be popular!

[Gibbo]

I would hope anyone digging a big hole in the canal bank would be charged and subject to restrictions and standards. people soon complain if there is a breach so I doubt willful damage would be popular!

 

I'm really struggling trying to comprehend the relevance of that. Read the rest of the post.

 

Gibbo

[Dave-Shrop]

Want I think is wrong is BW asking you to pay for a whole year when a boat is only there for a couple of months during the winter. If it moored there at other times of less than 14 days they still state this is EOG mooring, even though other moorers are allowed to moor on the tow path opposite for 14 days free. We would be quite happy to pay for periods of over 14 days on a pro rota basis.

 

When they send a letter of 15% increase stating

"When calculating your new price, we take into consideration several factors such as the local moorings market, local private operators prices, level of facilities and how they compare to the closest private operator, demand for each site based on current waiting lists, site problems, investment. We also consider the cost reflective rises that are passed onto us via our suppliers and contractors who we use to maintain and supply services to the mooring sites and the price rise reflects this. "

 

I dont see why we should pay extra when not receiving any of this, none of this is done to my EOG mooring.

 

They pricing policy states

"Higher prices usually reflect local scarcity of moorings. Sacarcity will be reflected in pricing decisions for end of garden moorings"

 

I don't understand this, gardens are there what ever and cannot affect mooring sites.

 

Yes BW own the canal and bank, but they allow others to moor somtimes for many months on tow paths and not chase them for mooring fees but as soon as they see a boat moored on private land maybe for only one day they demand mooring fees for the year.

[KenK]

Travelling around the system there seem to be two versions of End of Garden moorings. Either the boat is on the non towpath side moored to some form of landing stage or the bank has been removed and the boat is moored off the line in a, for the wont of a better description, mini marina. In the second case the boat would then be moored on the landowners property.

I assume and am prepared to be shown to be wrong, that the former requires a yearly fee to BW and the latter, provided the boat is owned by the landowner, requires a one of connection fee.

 

If I'm right what's all the fuss about? The EOG mooring costs less than an equivalent on line towpath mooring and a lot less than mooring in a marina. The licence is the same as is the fuel tax. The connection fee is not unreasonable as again I assume it requires some work on the part of BW.

 

Retires puts on tin hat and waits to be shot at.

 

Ken

[carlt]

The licence is the same as is the fuel tax.

 

Ken

 

Good job they're not scrapping red diesel next november then. What? They are? They must be scrapping the licence then.

 

The licence is not the same as fuel tax. If you put your boat in the water and never move it you still need a licence.

The licence is the same as road tax.

[CanalWalker]

I'm really struggling trying to comprehend the relevance of that.

 

You seemed to be complaining about the charge for connecting a marina to the system. I hope that helps your struggle.

[KenK]

Good job they're not scrapping red diesel next november then. What? They are? They must be scrapping the licence then.

 

The licence is not the same as fuel tax. If you put your boat in the water and never move it you still need a licence.

The licence is the same as road tax.

 

Sorry badly written I meant the licence fee and the tax on fuel are paid by everyone however they moor.

 

Ken

[fab]

Want I think is wrong is BW asking you to pay for a whole year when a boat is only there for a couple of months during the winter. If it moored there at other times of less than 14 days they still state this is EOG mooring, even though other moorers are allowed to moor on the tow path opposite for 14 days free. We would be quite happy to pay for periods of over 14 days on a pro rota basis.

 

When they send a letter of 15% increase stating

"When calculating your new price, we take into consideration several factors such as the local moorings market, local private operators prices, level of facilities and how they compare to the closest private operator, demand for each site based on current waiting lists, site problems, investment. We also consider the cost reflective rises that are passed onto us via our suppliers and contractors who we use to maintain and supply services to the mooring sites and the price rise reflects this. "

 

I dont see why we should pay extra when not receiving any of this, none of this is done to my EOG mooring.

 

They pricing policy states

"Higher prices usually reflect local scarcity of moorings. Sacarcity will be reflected in pricing decisions for end of garden moorings"

 

I don't understand this, gardens are there what ever and cannot affect mooring sites.

 

Yes BW own the canal and bank, but they allow others to moor somtimes for many months on tow paths and not chase them for mooring fees but as soon as they see a boat moored on private land maybe for only one day they demand mooring fees for the year.

 

BW doesnt own the bank, or even the canal wall where I am moored in the West Midlands (They say). Yet they insist on charging Eof G rates; we were told if we complained that the site would be closed on health and safety grounds. So of course we complained. All our letters were ignored, and subsequently the case went to the ombudsman where it is still being considered. Not before BW recommended the closure of 2 of the moorings though!

 

The pricing policies you quote above have been totally ignored in the West Midlands; our factory moorings were compared with redeveloped Gas Street in Birmingham centre, despite being recommended for closure on health and safety grounds, and having far cheaper moorings much closer In fact, its not too surprising, as far from taking account of local moorings, private or tow path, or any of the other blurb, BW has basically compared every End of Garden mooring in the West Midlands with only two reference sites, with no real price difference between them.(the figures are available from BW web site ( http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/images/P...n_Moorings.pdf)

 

The boats here are licensed; no one else can moor here without permission; this is simply a double charge. The landlord knows better than to enter into an agreement with BW, so they pursue the individual boaters who already pay rent and license. The idea that our moorings benefit from access to the canal and ahould therefor pay beyond the license is absurd; BW is benefitting form these moorings whilst refusing to help in any meaningful way with the upkeep of the site, including dredging. Many potential Eof G sites are unusable because of silting up. BW is copntinuing to aggravate mooring scarcity on dubious grounds; this is artificially raising the market price, and the recently announced auction system is going to capitalise on this further.

Edited May 31, 2007 by fab

[grunders]

Like Ken, I would assume that the 'connection to network' fee is a one-off, is this correct or would it be a yearly charge on the basis that you are still 'connected to the network' and should still be paying for the privelage?

 

I suppose marinas pay a connection fee. Is the amount of that fee the same as for a land owner who only wants to moor one boat in his garden?

 

Clarification appreciated, thanks.

Edited May 31, 2007 by grunders

[Mr Baites]

If BW can get their pound of flesh out of you or the farmer they'll have a go. They could decide the farmer is operating a commercial mooring operation, decide what you ought to be paying, then ask for their wedge. Then they may ask you for a mooring fee. Apparently the fish are going to require licences next.

 

 

ana tax fer swimin to, warra good idia u shunta sed owt coz thil do it now

[fab]

Like Ken, I would assume that the 'connection to network' fee is a one-off, is this correct or would it be a yearly charge on the basis that you are still 'connected to the network' and should still be paying for the privelage?

 

I suppose marinas pay a connection fee. Is the amount of that fee the same as for a land owner who only wants to moor one boat in his garden?

 

Clarification appreciated, thanks.

 

For a new marina ( standard model with a minimuim of 250 berths) BW wants 9% of capacity, ie £38,000 a year for connection. And that excludes building, dredging etc. (and of course 250 license fees)

Edited May 31, 2007 by fab

[Adam]

So If i get a EOG mooring on a river/canal i have to pay but if i dig out my garden and park the boat on my land then i will only have to pay one off fee?

 

Do they chrge you for the water you take onto your land?

 

For a new marina ( standard model with a minimuim of 250 berths) BW wants 9% of capacity, ie £38,000 a year for connection. And that excludes building, dredging etc. (and of course 250 license fees)

 

But if they don't move off the marinas land why do they have to pay licence fees?

[Gibbo]

You seemed to be complaining about the charge for connecting a marina to the system. I hope that helps your struggle.

 

No. You *still* need to read the rest of it.

 

Gibbo

 

So If i get a EOG mooring on a river/canal i have to pay but if i dig out my garden and park the boat on my land then i will only have to pay one off fee?

 

No it's a yearly charge. Every year.

 

Gibbo

[Captain Haddock]

Pub called The Shady Oak at Beeston on the Shroppie

 

Highly poular with boaters especially the Nantwich Navy. Last year the landlord took it upon himself to dig out a parcel of land at the side of the pub to accommodate alf dozen boats for overnight stops & 1 or 2 permanent. BW cordoned it off while legalities were sorted out. As fast as it was dug out BW filled it in & billed the Landlord for 30 grand. The landlord packed his bags & scarpered. If anyone has an update like to hear it.