Pushing up costs

BEFORE commenting on the most recent narrowboatworld article by Pete Early (Monday 24th December) I feel that it is sensible to declare my position so that people will be able to assess any bias that may be thought to exist, writes Orph Mable.

My family and I are owners/operators of a very small canalside business on the Staffs & Worcs Canal near Wolverhampton. We have a single day boat, a single 70ft trip boat (at the moment), a couple of our own private narrowboats, provide canalside services to passing boaters, repair and maintain boats, occasionally build boats, have a fully licenced bar and approximately 100m of linear moorings, two of which are residential moorings paying full council tax.

Taxes

We pay business tax (non-domestic rates) on the moorings and yard plus a separate business tax on the bar. For historical reasons we are not required to pay CaRT any fees other than licence fees for individual boats and two trade plate Licenses. We also operate an angling club, which rents a section of canal fishing rights paying CaRT annually.

In the course of my day-to-day business I am privileged to speak to all classes of boater and hear their point of view first hand. I speak with the affluent and not so affluent boater, the marina berthed, the continuous cruiser and the ‘bridge-shuffler'. I also witness over-stayers on the 48 hours visitor moorings opposite our yard.

Common factor

As one would expect, I have my own private opinions of each and every one of them. There is a common factor amongst them all, and that is the effect of the continual boat licence fee increase, which affects them all annually. Many, on fixed and often dwindling incomes, are really struggling to keep their boats on CaRT waters.

Moving on then to the recent articles, I would like to pass some comment and detail from my perspective. John rightly quotes the all-inclusive costs of using Anderton Lift, Standedge Tunnel and the Ribble Link. Each of these is a navigation ‘service' that ensures boaters the ability to transit and reach parts of the network that are included within their licence. Quite rightly these ‘services' should be within the scope of the boat licence in my opinion. It can be complicated enough with a booking regime in most cases without the added price of separate fees for each.

Water, sanitary and refuse disposal facilities are also included for all boat licence fee payers. It is worth commenting that many marinas offer much improved facilities for their moorers but that comes at a price, reflected in the berthing charges.

Increased annually

It is worth remarking at this point that although BW/CaRT boat licence and mooring permits have increased annually, at some points above inflation (not all mooring permits, but most) it is a fact that most marinas and mooring owners have not increased their charges at this rate. Apart from incorporating a rise in VAT, ours have remained fixed for four years. Some marinas, whilst even incorporating an ‘access charge' have reduced their charges due to ‘market forces' over this period. The mooring boaters have felt the benefit of this price stability.

I would challenge the article over the ‘wishy-washy' statement that 'if the increased licence fee also included an allocated towpath mooring spot, away from visitor moorings'. This is a nonsense in my opinion, as it would require the complete system to be mapped out with moorings for all licence payers in addition to those with already paid for moorings; be they inside marinas or not!

Boating population

The boating ‘population' is made up of many sub-groups not least of which is the ‘continuous cruiser' which seems to attract the ire of many who consider that what they are able to do as ‘unfair'. Why, I do not fully understand but I'll never be that clever. In this sub-group, the greatest number are those that, throughout the year, move around the network fully complying with the ‘small print' of their licences, in addition to correctly mooring and availing themselves of the ‘included' CaRT facilities.

Likewise is the sub-group of those visitors from other waterways, who already pay for and occupy moorings off CaRT waterways for part of the year, but continuously cruise when licenced to be on CaRT waters. They don't want, or need, another fixed mooring or one 'allocated' by CaRT away from visitor moorings.

Enforced sympathetically

Winter is a difficult time for continuous cruisers if the canal becomes frozen. If caught out by a freeze most people attempt to be close to facilities for obvious reasons but by far the majority moor sensibly and move on when it is possible. Of course, events occur in ones life that are outside your control and at these times rules should be enforced sympathetically and on occasion allowances made.

'Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools' comes to mind. These continuous cruisers are very often the ‘eyes and ears' of CaRT for the out of season months, and help the maintainers by reporting the state of the network, especially in rural areas. It is my opinion that they should be allowed to ‘live the dream' and be encouraged not penalised in the name of 'fairness'.

For visitors

I feel that it is worth pointing out that ‘visitor moorings' are exactly what it says on the post—for visitors! These visitors can include continuous cruisers, hire boats, marina based boats and any other sub-group of ‘visitors' you would care to name. All should conform to the limits set by CaRT (or any other waterway operator for that matter) at each particular mooring. The cost of using these moorings must be born within the boat licence fee.

Another sub-group that gets little mention in this argument is the hire boat operators who already pay a much higher price for their boat licences. Are they to have this suggested increase? I can honestly say that it would devastate the industry and not only put up the already high cost of hire but drive many operators, especially the smaller companies, from the waterways if this were to be the case.

Number of berths

I close with a final thought on ‘fairness' that was brought up in our bar the other day and I thought I'd mention it (tongue in cheek). If we are all to be charged what some consider fair, and those that travel the system most ‘should' pay more; what about considering the number of berths each particular boat has? Obviously as a six berth boat has more people requiring more facilities than a two berth boat, shouldn't they pay more?