Jump to content

Paying to use the canal?


Jenwil

Featured Posts

7 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Which actually makes your reply doubly irrelevant since a) you are a boater (a class excluded by the original question) and b ) you don't use the canals.

 

It wouldn't worry me if it was a super non sequitur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, artleknock said:

The way I read it is that Canal users pay, towpath is free to use, but is paid for with council tax etc;

I think the replies you've had to this question so far don't properly answer it, and it needs some clarification.

The short answer is that other than boaters the only people using the canals who do pay directly are groups of anglers who I think pay some fees for fishing rights. Making walkers, cyclists etc. pay to use towpaths would probably be unenforceable anyway.

Canal towpaths are mostly owned and maintained by CRT, i.e. where the canal is run by CRT which means most but not all canals in England and Wales. CRT get a good chunk of their income from an annual grant from DEFRA (i.e. part of central government), but little or nothing from local authorities who are the people you pay your council tax to. The funding from DEFRA is officially due to run out in about 2026 but it's quite plausible that whoever's in government then might decide to continue it. Or not. Arguably you could view that government funding as a way for all the other canal users to contribute to their upkeep, preserve an important part of the national heritage etc. Incidentally CRT get another decent chunk of their income from utilities paying for such things as communications cables running under towpaths.

Towpaths beside other canals will generally be maintained by the local navigation authority, and the same may apply alongside the rivers, but there will be lots of exceptions where paths are owned by private landowners or local authorities, so some council tax may be contributing there. Where you are in Peterborough, the river Nene is run by the EA, but not necessarily the land along its banks.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Peter Thornton said:

As to what boaters get for Council Tax (if they pay it) most of it goes into elderly Social Care. If you end up in a Council funded care home you will get through something North of £30,000 a year.

A little less than it costs to keep somebody in prison then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think anyone else does pay at the same rate but that then spreads into the same scenario as railway users, it opens the door for politicians to raise prices to an almost (but not quite) unacceptable level, i.e. to a level which the majority can no longer afford and start to leave. This is explained as being 'fair' but if your income is below average it means that yet more stuff becomes unaffordable. When Thatcher went down that path is was to redistribute wealth upwards, I think these days it is simply that the country cannot raise the taxes necessary so publicly funded stuff, defence, health, the lot, is falling apart. Sorry if that sounds political but I think that it is just plain fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Peter X said:

I think the replies you've had to this question so far don't properly answer it, and it needs some clarification.

The short answer is that other than boaters the only people using the canals who do pay directly are groups of anglers who I think pay some fees for fishing rights. Making walkers, cyclists etc. pay to use towpaths would probably be unenforceable anyway.

Canal towpaths are mostly owned and maintained by CRT, i.e. where the canal is run by CRT which means most but not all canals in England and Wales. CRT get a good chunk of their income from an annual grant from DEFRA (i.e. part of central government), but little or nothing from local authorities who are the people you pay your council tax to. The funding from DEFRA is officially due to run out in about 2026 but it's quite plausible that whoever's in government then might decide to continue it. Or not. Arguably you could view that government funding as a way for all the other canal users to contribute to their upkeep, preserve an important part of the national heritage etc. Incidentally CRT get another decent chunk of their income from utilities paying for such things as communications cables running under towpaths.

Towpaths beside other canals will generally be maintained by the local navigation authority, and the same may apply alongside the rivers, but there will be lots of exceptions where paths are owned by private landowners or local authorities, so some council tax may be contributing there. Where you are in Peterborough, the river Nene is run by the EA, but not necessarily the land along its banks.

As I have pointed out before: when the towpaths were maintained solely for navigation purposes they became all but impassable in many places - horses no longer pulled boats and so the towpath was a low priority. My memory starts over 50 years ago when it was a lottery whether you could walk along the towpath to find a phone call box to summon assistance when broken down! Even as recently as 10 years ago I recall stretches that could not be walked along.

What changed was when local authorities discovered that towpaths were a relatively low cost way of extending their provision for access and recreational exercise, along with other bodies such as Sustrans. The result is that impassable towpaths are very rare and I struggle to think of one that I have encountered in the past 5 years - OK some are a bit muddy underfoot but still a world away from  how they once became.

There is an issue in that the financial input is, I think, predominantly capital and, as is so often when capital is given, little is done about funding the on-going maintenance. What will happen when the nice new tarmac cycle motorway becomes full of potholes - will CaRT have to divert its funds to repair them? Would they be allowed to de-prioritise towpaths in the way that BWB once did?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some local authorities have given money to CRT for towpath improvement and some money has come from SUSTRANS (cycling) but has had strings ie. in the town that gives or to improve cycleways, unfortunately the latter encourages fast cycling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Peter X said:

I think the replies you've had to this question so far don't properly answer it, and it needs some clarification.

The short answer is that other than boaters the only people using the canals who do pay directly are groups of anglers who I think pay some fees for fishing rights. Making walkers, cyclists etc. pay to use towpaths would probably be unenforceable anyway.

Canal towpaths are mostly owned and maintained by CRT, i.e. where the canal is run by CRT which means most but not all canals in England and Wales. CRT get a good chunk of their income from an annual grant from DEFRA (i.e. part of central government), but little or nothing from local authorities who are the people you pay your council tax to. The funding from DEFRA is officially due to run out in about 2026 but it's quite plausible that whoever's in government then might decide to continue it. Or not. Arguably you could view that government funding as a way for all the other canal users to contribute to their upkeep, preserve an important part of the national heritage etc. Incidentally CRT get another decent chunk of their income from utilities paying for such things as communications cables running under towpaths.

Towpaths beside other canals will generally be maintained by the local navigation authority, and the same may apply alongside the rivers, but there will be lots of exceptions where paths are owned by private landowners or local authorities, so some council tax may be contributing there. Where you are in Peterborough, the river Nene is run by the EA, but not necessarily the land along its banks.

What you have forgotten is the land drainage provided by our canals, The money DEFRA pays should really be seen as a contribution towards trying to stop people's homes and businesses from being flooded. Government is not providing enough, as seen by the Rochdale and C&HN floods recently, so I feel uncertain about what will happen should government try to walk away from its responsibilities. Boat licence fees go towards keeping the system navigable, but the canals themselves cannot be done away with because of the drainage they provide. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boaters pay to use waterways through the licence fees whether it is CRT, Scottish Canals, MSC, etc  etc. Those who carry freight by water also pay to use the waterways. Those interested in waterways may donate sums to a canal trust or to a group interested in restoration of a waterway. Trip boats rely on people paying them to remain in business. Those who use the canal may buy items from canal side businesses including the public houses made on navigation land. It is a list that can be long, or even longer if cyclists pay for towpath use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't so much forget about the role of canals in land drainage as deliberately leave it out, because my post was getting fairly long already and it's something I don't know much about, at a bit of a tangent to a question about towpaths. However I was on the Rochdale canal near Hebden Bridge when it flooded, which was a very direct experience of the subject. Some of the water was being carried past the towns along the valley by the canal, flowing over the lock gates, but that flow looked small to me compared with the torrent I saw going down the river itself. Part of it flowed over the canal embankment, first into the canal from the much swollen river then a mile on down the valley from there out again down towards the road into Hebden Bridge. The amount of water held in a canal can't be varied much because there are consequences to having too much (flooding the towpath, eroding banks) or too little (not enough depth for boating, or in extreme cases grounded boats and dead fish). However I suppose canals do carry some flood water away, and the reservoirs would act as a buffer to take run off from heavy rain and protect some areas.

But I don't doubt that the canals are playing a part in land drainage; the fragments I've read on the subject suggest to me that some canals struggle to get enough water while others have plenty or even too much. So sometimes CRT pay to get water and sometimes they are paid to take it according to local circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

... and goes on to ask - "to use the canal". What about 'boaters' that don't 'boat', don't use the canal. I pay the same rate as other boaters, I just don't happen to have much to do with the canal, at the moment. Some people don't consider us marina dwellers to be boaters. Sort that one out.

Did the marina you have your boat moored in have to be flooded by a cut through from the canal? is the cut through still there ?  so should you so wish to take your boat from maria to explore the canal system? If yes to both you should pay a license as in theory you are no different to some one with a tow path mooring or farmers field mooring other than possibly the person/s to who you pay your mooring fee if you were in a private  lake/pond with no access to the system Yes then it would be wrong to have to have a license to be on or have no use or access to what you were being charged for, but it sounds as though you could if you wished take your boat from the private maria & cruise the system by starting the motor & engaging gear should you choose not to is down to you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter X said:

But I don't doubt that the canals are playing a part in land drainage; the fragments I've read on the subject suggest to me that some canals struggle to get enough water while others have plenty or even too much. So sometimes CRT pay to get water and sometimes they are paid to take it according to local circumstances.

It is more about ground water flows, rather than water used for navigation, and is becoming increasingly important as land alongside canals is built on. The Highways Agency are also allowed put in drains from new trunk roads without payment, with dirt washed off the roads increasing siltation. Have a look at where motorways cross a canal. Going back to the 1950s, they did estimate the cost of closing canals and then destroying them sufficiently for their land drainage use to become irrelevant. The costs were much higher than retention, which is one major reason we have canals today.

Historically, it is interesting to see how canal construction affected local ground water flows, and I did include some details when I published an extended edition of my L&LC history in 2016. For example, several wells in Foulridge dried up after the canal was built, causing problems for the local community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read in several places that one of the reasons the surviving outer bits of the BCN (eg the Wyrley and Essington) were not filled in is that they performed an important land drainage function.

Also, the proposed new waterway from Bedford to Milton Keynes (not a restoration) are investigating options for providing the necessary land drainage services for new housing developments  - ie the developer pays for a bit of new canal rather than a load of new drains and holding tanks.

On the subject of holding tanks, here are the Ouse washes yesterday (sorry dirty train windows). A lot of water ....dscf2115.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, X Alan W said:

Did the marina you have your boat moored in have to be flooded by a cut through from the canal? is the cut through still there ?  so should you so wish to take your boat from maria to explore the canal system? If yes to both you should pay a license as in theory you are no different to some one with a tow path mooring or farmers field mooring other than possibly the person/s to who you pay your mooring fee if you were in a private  lake/pond with no access to the system Yes then it would be wrong to have to have a license to be on or have no use or access to what you were being charged for, but it sounds as though you could if you wished take your boat from the private maria & cruise the system by starting the motor & engaging gear should you choose not to is down to you

 

Very different to someone on the towpath or canal mooring. To enter the marina, you have to pass into private property. That fact prevents CRT from using its statutory powers. The power that is used in the marina is the marina's terms and conditions. They have a contract with CRT, they implement CRT's condition that boats should be licensed, it is applied through the terms and conditions. It is not the direct statutory powers that CRT applies to its waterway. The marina does not have any statutory powers, but only terms and conditions. Whilst in the marina, there is no actual need for having a licence. To be blunt, it's a set up.

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

Very different to someone on the towpath or canal mooring. To enter the marina, you have to pass into private property. That fact prevents CRT from using its statutory powers. The power that is used in the marina is the marina's terms and conditions. They have a contract with CRT, they implement CRT's condition that boats should be licensed, it is applied through the terms and conditions. It is not the direct statutory powers that CRT applies to its waterway. The marina does not have any statutory powers, but only terms and conditions. Whilst in the marina, there is no actual need for having a licence. To be blunt, it's a set up.

 

Tough!

If you don't like the rules then don't license your boat and see what happens.
Hopefully you will get booted out as you have breached your contract with the marina.
Then CaRT can chase you and take your boat off you.

Or perhaps you don't think that rules apply to you!



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Tough!

If you don't like the rules then don't license your boat and see what happens.
Hopefully you will get booted out as you have breached your contract with the marina.
Then CaRT can chase you and take your boat off you.
 

Or, as most often gets suggested about now, he could simply move to one of the marinas that do not require a CRT licence for boats. 

They do exist, but that seems to be too simple a solution.

I have even suggested one a mile from a city centre if the rural ones do not appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Tough!

If you don't like the rules then don't license your boat and see what happens.
Hopefully you will get booted out as you have breached your contract with the marina.
Then CaRT can chase you and take your boat off you.

Or perhaps you don't think that rules apply to you!
 

 

I know I don't need a licence, in the marina. I have to buy one, but I don't need one. If the rules force me to buy one, when I don't need one, the rule is a bad one. The rule needs changing.

6 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Or, as most often gets suggested about now, he could simply move to one of the marinas that do not require a CRT licence for boats. 

They do exist, but that seems to be too simple a solution.

I have even suggested one a mile from a city centre if the rural ones do not appeal.

 

Thank you. Noted. As on all previous other occasions, but it doesn't really address the bad rule. Maybe you could do that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Very different to someone on the towpath or canal mooring. To enter the marina, you have to pass into private property. That fact prevents CRT from using its statutory powers. The power that is used in the marina is the marina's terms and conditions. They have a contract with CRT, they implement CRT's condition that boats should be licensed, it is applied through the terms and conditions. It is not the direct statutory powers that CRT applies to its waterway. The marina does not have any statutory powers, but only terms and conditions. Whilst in the marina, there is no actual need for having a licence. To be blunt, it's a set up.

 

Does the marina you moor in rely on C&RT for it 's water supply to float your boat? if yes you are doing no different to folk with end of garden moorings & can you by the simple action of untiring your mooring lines & starting your motor cruise out on to the system without checks? I yes why do you not require  a licence if you stay tied in the marina that's your choice if you don't wish to move have your boat put on hard standing & forgo the licence requirements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/01/2018 at 20:02, Jenwil said:

Does anyone else pay to use the canals at the same rate as a boater does?

That's an odd and somewhat divisive question. Also open to interpretation and particular circumstances.

As others have mentioned, plenty of people pay tax that goes towards the canals and they don't really use them at all. Very little value for money for them.

In terms of utility, someone like a continuous cruiser gets a lot of value. Say about £2.75/day for usage. Compare to for instance a campsite / motorhome combination where you'd be paying more than that per person per night.. for instance lea valley campsite is £7.50/person/night off season. Cheaper campsites may be available.... 

I'm not a boater but I do commute along the tow path. Nominally I get that for free :D

In terms of utility, for me it's actually quite low. I like the route but it's not the fastest, and definitely not the cleanest.

Then would you take into account that I donate £120/year to C&RT? I probably spend 200 hours asking the canal a year, so in terms of rate, that would be 60p/hour. Far more than say a continuous cruiser paying say 12p/hour. A cruiser on a river license would be paying about 6p/hour which is remarkable value.

Pushing it further, perhaps you might take into account that I also donate £120/year to sustrans as my route is a sustrans route, in which case I'm paying £1.20 an hour. An order of magnitude more than a continuous cruiser ;)

As we've started along this route, one could ask the related question, should cruisers be paying council tax, to which a reasonable answer is 'yes', they gain most of the utilities that councils provide without paying for them. Perhaps C&RT could charge an extra £1000/year and split it between councils based on boat distribution?

Sorry for picking on continuous cruisers so much, but the approximate sums are easier to calculate and end up looking a lot worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I know I don't need a licence, in the marina. I have to buy one, but I don't need one. If the rules force me to buy one, when I don't need one, the rule is a bad one. The rule needs changing.

 

Thank you. Noted. As on all previous other occasions, but it doesn't really address the bad rule. Maybe you could do that.  

You need the licence to be in this marina just as much as you (or anyone else) need a licence to be on the canal itself - these are valid arrangements  made by people who are entitled to do so. The only argument you could advance is one of fairness - ie it is not so much a matter that you don't need a licence to be in the marina as you don't want to have one. Very different. I don't want to have a licence for my car but I need one!

Changing the law (which not only includes the specific  statutes relating to the canals and CaRT but also more general contract law) when it is a matter of fairness, given that the underlying costs have to come from somewhere, is about changing public opinion. In a zero sum game, reducing the costs for you means increasing them for someone else to pay for your benefit - they might not like doing that! Given the reactions here to your complaints and also how it appears that people have responded to the various consultations about licencing, I suspect that you are on a losing wicket here. Would it not be better to learn to live with the facts of life just like everyone else? Or do you just get pleasure in needling the world . . . 

As it happens, I think that it is quite a good rule (not a bad one) even though I am currently paying it whilst our boat languishes in a marina whilst we live the rest of our lives. I just happen to take the view that it is worthwhile raising money this way to keep the attached system (without which the marina would not be there anyway) in working order.

Some people and some organisations obsess about minimising (often to the point of extinction) their tax liability - most of us accept that the two certainties are death and taxes and I am perhaps more concerned about putting off one rather than the other!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.