|
Post by dogless on Feb 22, 2023 11:14:39 GMT
Just completed it.
I think we all realise that fees will have to rise, so no surprise there.
My preference would be that we all pay any increase equally.
Any thoughts you want to share ?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by GUMPY on Feb 22, 2023 11:19:36 GMT
Not that I have a side in this but there should be a surcharge for widebeam boats. Also a double surcharge for those without a home mooring that don't move their boats 🥱😱
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 11:25:46 GMT
Are there any questions that might hint at regional charges being applied?
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 22, 2023 11:44:18 GMT
No ... although suggestions for raising funds are invited.
The choice appeared (to me) to be very much on options of charging 'some boaters' more than others (i.e. wide beams, continuous cruisers etc.) or every licence holder paying more.
My preference was a fair and equitable spread across all licence holders.
There were options regarding existing discounts too.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 22, 2023 12:32:58 GMT
Not that I have a side in this but there should be a surcharge for widebeam boats. Also a double surcharge for those without a home mooring that don't move their boats 🥱😱 Why do you think there should be a surcharge for wide beam boats ? (speaking as an owner of a very widebeam boat that is on the National Register of Historic Ships and was built for the wide waterways of the North where narrow boats are not the overwhelming majority)
|
|
|
Post by GUMPY on Feb 22, 2023 12:41:31 GMT
Not that I have a side in this but there should be a surcharge for widebeam boats. Also a double surcharge for those without a home mooring that don't move their boats 🥱😱 Why do you think there should be a surcharge for wide beam boats ? (speaking as an owner of a very widebeam boat that is on the National Register of Historic Ships and was built for the wide waterways of the North where narrow boats are not the overwhelming majority) Because they take up more room🥴 Seriously I have always supported charging by area even when I had Parglena as I believe it's a fairer way if doing it, Adding to that there should be a discount for tha amount of canals that are accessible so in effect a different licence for North, South and National.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 13:15:47 GMT
Just completed it. I think we all realise that fees will have to rise, so no surprise there. My preference would be that we all pay any increase equally. Any thoughts you want to share ? Rog Filled this in earlier. Like you, I indicated that all increases should be fairly equal. I also ticked the box that would end the 25% discount for electric boats. Interesting to see that when the chips are down, those in charge of our infrastructure cares not a jot for green issues.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 22, 2023 13:33:21 GMT
I too voted to end the discount for electric boats, for historic boats and for unconnected waterways.
If we accept that licensing has to increase, and additional funds be found, then why reduce contributions from those three groups ... after all that's just their choice.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 22, 2023 14:55:46 GMT
Why do you think there should be a surcharge for wide beam boats ? (speaking as an owner of a very widebeam boat that is on the National Register of Historic Ships and was built for the wide waterways of the North where narrow boats are not the overwhelming majority) Because they take up more room🥴 Seriously I have always supported charging by area even when I had Parglena as I believe it's a fairer way if doing it, Adding to that there should be a discount for tha amount of canals that are accessible so in effect a different licence for North, South and National. that added sentance makes one hell of a difference to your original post !!! The problem with the way CRT approach it is just manifestly unfair Canals such as the A&C are just so huge that the "space" being used NB/WB is really of no consequence (in fact one could probably make a good case for insisting that Freycinct locks should only be used by multiple smaller boats and not individuals to save water) but I agree that a system such as the old Thames Tonnage one has merit (but yotties with shapely hulls would probably moan) Somewhere I have a photo of Shapfell (24'6" x 6'5") in Sykehouse lock (215' X 22'6") ...... talk about looking lost !!!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 22, 2023 15:14:24 GMT
I too voted to end the discount for electric boats, for historic boats and for unconnected waterways. If we accept that licensing has to increase, and additional funds be found, then why reduce contributions from those three groups ... after all that's just their choice. Rog except I suspect that if they clobber people too hard then people will just either leave boating or leave CRT and that could end up by reducing the income. reducing the discount for electric boats will just mean that less people will changeover, after all the cost of doing so is considerable and the discount does not offset that cost a great deal. De-insentivising people to move away from fossil fuel is probably not a good idea. A smarter move would be for CRT to make representations to central government to try and get some funding from them to cover a grant to cover rebates to electric boat owners (Department for business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) possibly via the transition from red diesel assistance to industry
|
|
|
Post by telemachus on Feb 22, 2023 15:23:47 GMT
Not that I have a side in this but there should be a surcharge for widebeam boats. Also a double surcharge for those without a home mooring that don't move their boats 🥱😱 Why do you think there should be a surcharge for wide beam boats ? (speaking as an owner of a very widebeam boat that is on the National Register of Historic Ships and was built for the wide waterways of the North where narrow boats are not the overwhelming majority) On the big northern waterways, there probably isn't a justification. But on the rest, a widebeam takes up a lock and its water that could be used by 2 narrowboats. And they are a bit of a pest on narrower southern/midland waterways cluttering the place up when moored and going very slowly when cruising. Plus, in the case of the fat narrowboat type, they should have to pay extra simply because they are so ugly!
|
|
|
Post by telemachus on Feb 22, 2023 16:15:48 GMT
Just completed the survey. Quite easy really, anyone who has a different type of boat to me, or uses their boat differently, should pay much, much more. People like me should get a reduction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 16:45:46 GMT
Just completed the survey. Quite easy really, anyone who has a different type of boat to me, or uses their boat differently, should pay much, much more. People like me should get a reduction. I some how thought the 'consultation' might be worded that way...
|
|
quaysider
Gobby
The Basil Fawlty of 'Hotel Boats'...
Posts: 89
|
Post by quaysider on Feb 22, 2023 17:16:43 GMT
My "invitation" to do it came assuming it was in reference to my kayak which I've just declared out of the the water... I've only used the ruddy thing twice so seems pointless having it onboard and paying a license for the pleasure.
I've completed it anyways suggesting Everyone pays more not just ccrs but commented that there needs to be clearer guidelines as to what IS a CCr and/or better enforcement to keep folks moving instead of squatting where it suits for months on end.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 22, 2023 17:51:10 GMT
The point of the consultation (if indeed it has one) is to confirm that funding has to be increased.
With that in mind, surely the first step is to maximise current income, and discounts make no sense in this regard.
Rog
|
|