Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 18:46:52 GMT
I read in one of the free papers today, that the EA are suggesting they may have to close the Nene to navigation because of lack of maintenance funds. I'm sure it's no coincidence that this is raised, just as the EA are looking to pass responsibilities to C&RT. There's a lot of political shenanigans going on I feel, with a view to getting increased funding. The licence review is perhaps just one prong of the strategy. Whatever happens........I bet we have to pay more Rog Ain't going to happen, there's too much on the river for that to happen, there's 11 commercial marina/ boatyards operating and one more in the final stages of being built. There are several smaller landowner operations for residential type moorings. There are 5 boat clubs with boats ranging from 50-150 in number. There's a busy canoe operation that is moving to swish new premises at the Rushden Lakes complex. The clandestine talks are to do with minor waterways such as the Welland, the Old Bedford etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 18:51:39 GMT
Thought there was a big marina being built at Rushden too with loads of shops
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 18:59:56 GMT
Thought there was a big marina being built at Rushden too No, the Rushden lakes complex has an SSSI on it, there was talk of a lock into the complex but that got quickly and quietly shelved. The next new marina going in is at Lilford Lodge lakes upstream of Upper Barnwell Lock near Oundle - on the site of an old fishery, gravel extraction was completed early last year. The pontoons were in at the end of September last, I would be surprised if it's not open this summer. Edited to add, it is indeed open. www.lilfordmarina.co.uk/blog-masonry/A Mecca for retail therapy and the terminally dull rushdenlakes.com/phone/index.html
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 21, 2017 19:11:21 GMT
Blimey !!! the prices !!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 19:14:37 GMT
Yes maybe I got it wrong as it was about year ago when was looking for a moorings. when I read they was building one at Rushden I must of been looking at old news 2012
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Feb 21, 2017 19:19:31 GMT
I can't see much about licencing that they can legally change without the consent of Parliament except the cost, as we found out before, they can create sub categories of licences but cannot charge more than a pleasure boat licence for any of them, wouldn't a more expensive wide beam licence category be illegal ? Whenever has that stopped them in the past?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 19:25:58 GMT
Blimey !!! the prices !!! They won't worry Oundle Marina with those prices!
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Feb 21, 2017 20:05:34 GMT
I just hope that, when they dug out that posh marina, they got rid of all those sodding spiders. And the reeds. I'm still finding bits stuck to my wellies.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Feb 22, 2017 9:35:18 GMT
Let me clear up misconceptions regarding AWCC and Richard Parry. Firstly, AWCC is an association of clubs, not individuals.Many (but not all) of these clubs operate moorings. Most clubs enter into a reciprocal agreement whereby they provide moorings and other facilities for visiting boaters (membership cards show that a boater is a member of an AWCC affiliated club).
Some years ago, my club was the venue for the AWCC 50th Anniversary rally (about 100 AWCC boats attended).C&RT invited themselves along with no less than three directors saying that they would give presentations. Richard Parry, who lives nearby,turned up with his whole family.
He was subsequently asked if he would become an honorary member of the Black Buoy Cruising Club (BBCC). He does not hold a membership card and and has no entitlement to vote. As far as I am aware he has had no further contact with the club other than receiving its monthly magazine.
For the record, AWCC's national chair, Ann Banks is a current member of BBCC and a past Commodore.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 22, 2017 11:56:03 GMT
I can't see much about licencing that they can legally change without the consent of Parliament except the cost, as we found out before, they can create sub categories of licences but cannot charge more than a pleasure boat licence for any of them, wouldn't a more expensive wide beam licence category be illegal ? There actually is little value to make out of that argument: they can sub-categorise pleasure boat licences as they please, and they can charge what they please for pleasure boat licences. What is to prevent them making the top level of standard PBL a certain figure based on a maximum length X breadth [maybe draught as well], then diminishing charges in a sliding scale for categories that embrace smaller vessels, according to whatever formula both provides extra income overall and satisfies a majority of smaller boat owners? All perfectly legal; you would just have a cheaper narrow beam licence category. The PBC will remain at 60% of whatever results from the new licence categories. What would, I believe, be illegal, would be those ideas bruited about regarding charging differently depending on areas or useage patterns; the statutory requirement is for a licence for any boat “ to be brought, kept, let for hire or used on any canal”. The licence, therefore, necessarily grants all that is so described, without more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 12:10:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Feb 22, 2017 12:28:24 GMT
I can't see much about licencing that they can legally change without the consent of Parliament except the cost, as we found out before, they can create sub categories of licences but cannot charge more than a pleasure boat licence for any of them, wouldn't a more expensive wide beam licence category be illegal ? Unless the wide beam was a pleasure boat ...
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 22, 2017 13:57:25 GMT
I can't see much about licencing that they can legally change without the consent of Parliament except the cost, as we found out before, they can create sub categories of licences but cannot charge more than a pleasure boat licence for any of them, wouldn't a more expensive wide beam licence category be illegal ? What is to prevent them making the top level of standard PBL a certain figure based on a maximum length X breadth [maybe draught as well], then diminishing charges in a sliding scale for categories that embrace smaller vessels, according to whatever formula both provides extra income overall and satisfies a majority of smaller boat owners? All perfectly legal; you would just have a cheaper narrow beam licence category. I would think that this is probably pretty close to what C&RT have in mind to do, and the result they'll be rigging the 'consultation' to produce, but I doubt that they will have given much thought to the consequences and repercussions likely to arise from doing so. If the top level of PBL or PBC does emerge as a charge directly proportional to the waterplane area, or the displacement [if draught is included in the reckoning] of the largest vessel that can, or could, use any of C&RT's navigations, then they will be obliged to ensure that the waterways are maintained to a standard which permits passage of those maximum size vessels. In effect, they will be going a long way towards reimposing upon themselves the pre-1968 maintenance standards that C&RT wriggled out from under, courtesy of the Transfer of Powers legislation that brought it into the world. Making the cost of a PBL dependent on waterplane area, or 'waterspace' as C&RT call it, and therefore a charge specifically for occupying a defined 'waterspace' would also make quite a mess of the specious argument used in attempting to justify the EoG Mooring charge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 14:09:56 GMT
I would have though including vessel draught would be rather daft but I can definitely see that charging by surface area makes sense.
Interested to see that nigelmoore believes regional licensing is a non-starter. I for one certainly hope it is not an option !
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 22, 2017 14:15:51 GMT
Which surface area though, waterline or deck + fenders etc., they could be very different.
|
|