|
Post by MetalWoman on Feb 22, 2023 18:39:14 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 Sadly, I believe this "consultation" is probably a farce along the same lines as the HS2 "consultation". Decisions have already been made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 18:42:55 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 I’m not keen on paying more to subsidise those that choose electric boats.
|
|
|
Post by MetalWoman on Feb 22, 2023 18:44:29 GMT
I have always maintained that CCers should pay more. We use more. It's quite simple, really.
I'd feel quite aggrieved if I was paying £3,000 to moor my boat yet paid the same licence fee as a CCer but could only cruise for a few weeks.
Not looking forward to the price rise though!!
|
|
|
Post by telemachus on Feb 22, 2023 19:05:10 GMT
I have always maintained that CCers should pay more. We use more. It's quite simple, really. I'd feel quite aggrieved if I was paying £3,000 to moor my boat yet paid the same licence fee as a CCer but could only cruise for a few weeks. Not looking forward to the price rise though!! CCers use more of things like rubbish disposal and water so it would be interesting to know what % of CRT expenditure goes on that. Probably not a lot though. It would also be interesting to know how much more CRT spends on support and enforcement of CCers vs permanent moorers. Only with all that info can one reasonably say whether CCers should pay significantly more. In terms of wear and tear on the system, I suspect we (as leisure boaters) traverse more locks etc than many CCers.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 22, 2023 19:16:11 GMT
A license holder is free to cruise or take a mooring ... their choice.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 19:20:58 GMT
I have always maintained that CCers should pay more. We use more. It's quite simple, really. I'd feel quite aggrieved if I was paying £3,000 to moor my boat yet paid the same licence fee as a CCer but could only cruise for a few weeks. Not looking forward to the price rise though!! CCers use more of things like rubbish disposal and water so it would be interesting to know what % of CRT expenditure goes on that. Probably not a lot though. It would also be interesting to know how much more CRT spends on support and enforcement of CCers vs permanent moorers. Only with all that info can one reasonably say whether CCers should pay significantly more. In terms of wear and tear on the system, I suspect we (as leisure boaters) traverse more locks etc than many CCers. I've got a mooring but still use the CRT rubbish and water points as much as I did when CCing, however there is only one of me onboard so surely I should get a 25% discount like the councils give!
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 22, 2023 19:24:53 GMT
Surely if the point is to raise more funds, discounts should be the first casualties ?
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 19:33:24 GMT
Surely if the point is to raise more funds, discounts should be the first casualties ? Rog Fine with me. Just add an extra weighting for having two or more people onboard (or for that matter - being wide/long/using locks/being deep drafted due to extra weight of the second person etc). Would be the same as TDs days!
|
|
|
Post by telemachus on Feb 22, 2023 19:45:12 GMT
CCers use more of things like rubbish disposal and water so it would be interesting to know what % of CRT expenditure goes on that. Probably not a lot though. It would also be interesting to know how much more CRT spends on support and enforcement of CCers vs permanent moorers. Only with all that info can one reasonably say whether CCers should pay significantly more. In terms of wear and tear on the system, I suspect we (as leisure boaters) traverse more locks etc than many CCers. I've got a mooring but still use the CRT rubbish and water points as much as I did when CCing, however there is only one of me onboard so surely I should get a 25% discount like the councils give! If you pay CRT for your mooring then you are effectively paying part of that for rubbish and water. But anyway, whilst a few will be paying privately for a mooring and still using general rubbish and water, most permanent moorers don’t. You can’t really have a system that fits everyone’s circumstances perfectly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 19:53:02 GMT
I've got a mooring but still use the CRT rubbish and water points as much as I did when CCing, however there is only one of me onboard so surely I should get a 25% discount like the councils give! If you pay CRT for your mooring then you are effectively paying part of that for rubbish and water. But anyway, whilst a few will be paying privately for a mooring and still using general rubbish and water, most permanent moorers don’t. You can’t really have a system that fits everyone’s circumstances perfectly. But, but, but....
You said this earlier, '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'm just following your example...
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 23, 2023 8:19:53 GMT
Surely if the point is to raise more funds, discounts should be the first casualties ? Rog If there is a percentage increase then licences for electric boats will increase at exactly the same proportion as everybody else. CRT has made a direct move to encourage the development of electric boating ... it was a move they directly fostered. Going back on that decision is at odds with general trends, after all doesn't that mean that they would, in effect, be encouraging people NOT to stop using diesel ? (Although changing your mind all the time does seem to be par for the course for CRT)
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 23, 2023 8:31:46 GMT
But the 25% discount (if it encourages more electric boats) also carries a responsibility for charging point infrastructure at additional cost to CRT which appears a double blow.
CRT's raison d'etre is to preserve and maintain the waterways, not to promote use of electric.
The need to increase funding must surely over ride other desires until achieved?
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2023 8:35:21 GMT
Surely if the point is to raise more funds, discounts should be the first casualties ? Rog If there is a percentage increase then licences for electric boats will increase at exactly the same proportion as everybody else. CRT has made a direct move to encourage the development of electric boating ... it was a move they directly fostered. Going back on that decision is at odds with general trends, after all doesn't that mean that they would, in effect, be encouraging people NOT to stop using diesel ? (Although changing your mind all the time does seem to be par for the course for CRT) It would only mirror the changes in EV cars, with them being taxable from 2025. Did anyone really believe that owning EVs would really mean cheaper running costs?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 23, 2023 8:47:42 GMT
But the 25% discount (if it encourages more electric boats) also carries a responsibility for charging point infrastructure at additional cost to CRT which appears a double blow. CRT's raison d'etre is to preserve and maintain the waterways, not to promote use of electric. The need to increase funding must surely over ride other desires until achieved? Rog There is apparently a lot of government money around for installing charging points I have no idea if it could be tapped into by CRT for boats (although I have a funny feeling they would be placed where it would be easy for executives to charge their cars )
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 23, 2023 9:07:38 GMT
Government funding for electric infrastructure would have to be spent on that infrastructure, and would not therefore solve the problem in any way.
Electric boating is a personal choice.
Funding the maintenance of our waterways is something all boaters should be equally responsible for.
Rog
ETA having said that, it seems the fact is that licensing fees will increase by above inflation for the next 10 years
|
|